Generally speaking, there is no harm in responding to their greeting with the same phrase or even with an addition to it. Mercy has a broad meaning, and here’s the explanation:

Firstly, there is a difference between seeking forgiveness and seeking mercy. Seeking forgiveness for sins, including associating partners with Allāh, is solely Allāh’s right and His previous decree. Allāh says, “And it was already revealed to you and to those before you that if you associate [anything with Allāh], your work will surely become worthless, and you would surely be among the losers.” [Az-Zumar: 65].

We are forbidden from seeking forgiveness from Allāh for those who have not accepted His word and monotheism. Allāh says, “It is not for the Prophet and those who have believed to ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they were relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are companions of Hellfire.” [At-Tawbah: 113]. The ruling on forgiveness is left solely to Allāh.

However, seeking mercy is vast and encompasses both the worldly life and the hereafter. Mercy is a tenderness that necessitates kindness to the one receiving mercy, and in this sense, it includes all creatures, both animals and humans.

Mercy can be requested from the one who shows mercy, and it can also be through acts of mercy. For example, a man entered paradise because of his mercy towards a dog, as recorded in an authentic ḥadīth: A man saw a dog eating mud from thirst, so he took off his shoe and gave the dog water until it quenched its thirst. Allāh appreciated his action and admitted him to paradise.

Conversely, a woman entered hell because of a lack of mercy. The two Shaykhs (Al-Bukhārī and Muslim) narrated from Ibn ῾Umar (may Allāh be pleased with them) that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “A woman was punished in Hell because of a cat which she had confined until it died. She did not give it to eat or drink when it was confined, nor did she free it so that it might eat the insects of the earth.”

So, seeking mercy and performing acts of mercy are recommended for everyone, regardless of religion or other distinctions.

Secondly, the Prophet (peace be upon him) made mercy towards all his servants one of the acts of charity. In the ḥadīth, “They said, ‘O Messenger of Allāh, is there a reward for us in serving the animals?’ He said, ‘Yes, there is a reward for serving any animate (living being).'” [Agreed upon].

Thus, seeking mercy and performing acts of mercy for every living being is recommended and preferred.

Thirdly, Allāh affirmed a general principle in His Book, “Indeed, We will not allow to be lost the reward of any who did well in deeds.” [Al-Kahf: 30]. The Prophet (peace be upon him) added to this when he said, “Whoever does good to you, repay him; if you cannot find anything to repay him, then pray for him until you think you have repaid him.” [Narrated by ᾽Aḥmad and others].

The text did not restrict this to Muslims alone but was stated in a general sense. However, we should pray for him in a manner that Allāh has not forbidden us, and there is no prohibition on praying for mercy for a non-Muslim.

Fourthly, mercy has broad aspects, such as alleviating suffering, bringing benefit, and lessening punishment. Mercy was granted to Abī Ṭālib for his support of the Prophet (peace be upon him), so he was not punished as severely as Abū Jahl or Al-῾Aāṣ ibn Wā᾽il, even though all died as disbelievers. It is also reported that punishment is lightened for Abī Lahab every Monday because he rejoiced at the birth of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

The exception to this are hostile disbelievers; for them, there is no mercy in words or actions. Our relationship with them is one of defensive and offensive jihād, with rules that begin with renouncing them. Surah At-Tawbah does not begin with “Bismillah” because it starts with a prelude to jihād, which includes renouncing the hostile disbelievers, making it unsuitable to mention mercy.

Therefore, for non-hostile disbelievers, there is no harm in initiating peace or responding to their greeting with the complete phrase.

The matter requires clarifying the point of contention, so the discourse matches the specific case asked about: whether to respond with the full greeting to a non-believer who greets us.

It seems everyone agrees on the exception of hostile disbelievers, so the inquiry remains about the ruling on responding to non-hostile disbelievers, whether they are Dhimmīs in Islamic lands or we are under their protection in their lands. This necessarily requires detailed differentiation between the terms of peace and other similar phrases such as forgiveness.

I would say:

First: The basic principle in linguistic and semantic conventions is that a difference in form leads to a difference in meaning. This is fundamental, otherwise, language would be redundant and meaningless. This applies not only to words with different roots but also to words with the same root. For instance, “nazzal” (نزّل) with tashdīd is different from “nazal” (نزل) without it, despite sharing the same root. This distinction becomes clearer when the root differs; “raḥima” (to show mercy) is inherently different from “ghafara” (to forgive).

Thus, we find a great scholar like Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allāh have mercy on him, distinguishing between the words “Lord” (رب) and “God” (إله) and introducing his division of monotheism into three categories: the oneness of divinity, lordship, and names and attributes. Although some of our scholars reject this understanding, he based it on the fundamental linguistic conventions and the legal usage in the Qur᾽ān and Sunnah.

Scholars of ḥadīth, who are closest to the literal interpretation, differentiate between terms like “report” (خبر), “tradition” (أثر), “ḥadīth” (حديث), and “narration” (رواية), even though they all mean transmission.

Second: Mercy is a broad concept that encompasses both worldly matters and the reckoning in the hereafter. Praying for a sick person’s recovery is a request for mercy, not forgiveness, and it is permissible for both Muslims and non-Muslims. Seeking increased provision or the righteousness of a child are worldly matters that are commendable for both Muslims and non-Muslims who are not combatants. This intention is implied in responding to or initiating greetings of peace.

Third: The claim that non-Muslims do not benefit from their good and righteous deeds simply because of their disbelief is a hasty generalization, both theoretically and practically. Do the millions who protested alongside us against the Zionists and their governments, risking imprisonment, violence, and hatred, not benefit from their actions? Is this our belief and attitude towards them? If so, we are hypocrites: seeking their support and cursing them at the same time!

Is a Muslim who allies with the enemies of the ᾽ummah and betrays it, supporting the enemies against some Muslims, more deserving of peace and mercy merely because he professes the Shahādah? If so, we are Murji᾽ah (those who delay judgment) in theory and practice.

Fourth: Some have cited the verse from Surah Fāṭir: “Nor will it be lightened for them from its punishment” [Fāṭir: 36], which Ibn ῾Umar described as the harshest verse revealed about the disbelievers.

However, this text has been misunderstood and misapplied. Some have inferred from it that disbelievers in Hell do not differ in severity and that they do not benefit from their righteous deeds.

This is not the intended meaning; punishment certainly varies among the disbelievers. The punishment of Pharaoh and Haman is not like that of the individual soldiers who drowned, even though they all shared in the error and crime. The punishment of Qārūn is not like that of the Israelites who were misled by him, otherwise, the texts would not have specified them, and Allāh would not have made them the epitome of punishment.

The division of Hell into levels indicates significant variation, just as the people of Paradise are ranked according to their deeds, so are the people of Hell. Thus, seeking mercy for a disbeliever even on the Day of Judgment is not prohibited and does not contradict the verse, as it speaks of the punishment after the reckoning, not before it. Before the reckoning, asking for relief is permissible; if the punishment is lessened or intensified, it falls under the meaning of the verse.

For example, in his ᾽I῾rāb al-Qur᾽ān, Al-᾽Akhfash says: “Nor will it be lightened for them from the established punishment,” meaning after the judgment has been made. Before the judgement, the door is open for forgiveness to some people or everyone.

Makkī in Al-Hidāyah says: “It does not lessen from the type of punishment they are in,” not in an absolute sense.

Ibn ῾Aṭiyyah also says: “The phrase ‘Nor will it be lightened for them from its punishment’ does not contradict ‘Every time it subsides, We increase them in blazing fire’ [Al-᾽Isrā᾽: 97], because the meaning is that their type of punishment is not lessened, and the type itself can include fluctuation.”

Fifth: The claim of exclusivity in the story of Abī Ṭālib lacks evidence. The narration “Perhaps my intercession will benefit him on the Day of Judgment” [Agreed upon] explains the reason but is not proof of exclusivity. The intercession of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was not due to Abī Ṭālib’s kinship, which is specific, but he deserved it because of his support and defense of Islam and its Prophet. This applies to Abī Ṭālib and others alike. The cause of intercession is [his] action, not kinship! Therefore, there is no exclusivity in this regard. Fatwā issued by Dr. Khālid Naṣr