This presentation will focus on the Islamic scholar Maulana Wahiduddin Khan. While over 90 years old, he continues to be a voice for nonviolence and peace in his homeland India and beyond. Dedicated to this purpose, Khan founded the Delhi-based Centre for Peace and Spirituality in 2001. An important public religious leader in India, Khan’s rejection of violence in the name of Islam and clear stand against the extremely violent state-building project of ISIS is aimed at influencing public opinion in a country which may host the largest Muslim population during the 21st century. In this presentation I will introduce the life and works of Khan, focussing mainly on how Khan argues normatively for peace and nonviolence from the Quran and the Sunna. The importance of studying Khan is twofold, first his systematic nonviolent interpretation of Islam leaves an important intellectual legacy and represents a challenge to not only radical Islamist thought, but also Islamic orthodoxy in general. Secondly, as a major non-violent religious leader he represents a unique voice channelling the antipathy towards ISIS throughout the Sub-Continent. Based in my research on the many writings of Khan as well as over 10 hours of personal interviews, I argue that Khan’s refutation of ISIS represents a special case of Khan’s general refutation of violence and Muslim state-centrism. These arguments can be briefly introduced as, for Khan, the most paradigmatic goal of Islam is that everyone will be told about the word of God. Warfare hinders this main goal since it slices social relations and destroys the sociability necessary for the spread of Islam. Furthermore, there can be no model “Islamic state” since, in Khan’s view, those who create political theory out of the example of the Medina state and the ensuing caliphate, confuse a perfect model of state with the perfect individuals who made up that society. It is the model of those perfect individuals which should be emulated and not any idealized version of a state. By contrast, according to Khan, proclaiming a state has no sanction whatsoever in Islam. Although Muslim intellectuals across the planet have routinely criticised ISIS for their excesses, Khan’s critique goes further than most by aiming directly at where ISIS doctrine intersects with mainstream Sunni thought. I conclude by arguing that Khan’s stature despite his un-orthodox views suggest that more radical critiques of ISIS might be warmly received if offered.