Presented by Zia H Shah MD
Audio summary
Abstract
In an era characterized by geopolitical fragmentation and the resurgence of identity politics, the relationship between the three major Abrahamic faiths—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—remains a critical pivot for global stability. While contemporary discourse often focuses on conflictual narratives, a rigorous textual and hermeneutical analysis of the Quran reveals a profound, structural framework for interfaith tolerance, spiritual unity, and social integration. This research report presents an exhaustive examination of three pivotal Quranic verses—Surah Al-Anbiya (21:92), Surah Al Imran (3:64), and Surah Al-Ma’idah (5:5)—arguing that together they constitute a divine mandate for peaceful coexistence.
Verse 21:92 establishes the ontological and spiritual unity of the Ummah (community) of prophets, positing that the source of all monotheistic guidance is singular, thereby rendering sectarianism an artificial human construct. Verse 3:64 offers a theological methodology for dialogue, the Kalimat Sawa (Common Word), which prioritizes shared ethical and theological commitments over dogmatic disputation, specifically dismantling the structures of ecclesiastical tyranny. Finally, Verse 5:5 provides the sociological apparatus for living together, permitting deep social bonds through the sharing of food and the intimacy of marriage with the “People of the Book” (Ahl al-Kitab). Through a synthesis of classical exegesis (tafsir), historical context (asbab al-nuzul), and modern sociopolitical analysis, this report demonstrates that the Quranic paradigm is not merely one of passive tolerance but of active, integrated engagement. The report navigates through the theological nuance of Tawhid (monotheism) as a unifying principle, the diplomatic precedents of the Prophet Muhammad’s interactions with the Christians of Najran, and the legal structures that facilitate pluralistic societies, concluding that exclusionism contradicts the core Quranic objective of universal human acquaintance (ta’aruf).
1. Introduction: The Hermeneutics of Coexistence
The 21st century has witnessed a paradoxical rise in both global connectivity and sectarian fragmentation. The “Global Village” predicted by media theorists has, in many regions, devolved into a landscape of tribalized identities, where religion is frequently weaponized as a marker of irreducible difference. Within this volatile context, the relationship between Islam and its Abrahamic predecessors, Judaism and Christianity, is often scrutinized through the lens of conflict. However, this reductive view ignores the sophisticated theological and legal mechanisms within the Quran that are designed specifically to manage religious plurality.
This report posits that the Quran provides a tripartite framework for interfaith tolerance that is structural rather than incidental. This framework is anchored in three specific revelations that function as pillars of a pluralistic worldview:
- The Ontological Pillar (21:92): Defines the spiritual unity of the believer’s community across history, dissolving the barriers of time and sect.
- The Intellectual Pillar (3:64): Establishes the terms of engagement, creating a “safe harbor” of shared theology.
- The Sociological Pillar (5:5): Legislates the social mechanics of trust, hospitality, and intimacy, weaving the “Other” into the fabric of the Muslim family.
To understand the full weight of these verses, one must move beyond surface-level reading to a deep engagement with Tafsir (exegesis), linguistics, and history. The Quran does not merely suggest tolerance as a pragmatic concession; it commands it as a reflection of the Divine Will. The diversity of religious law (Shari’ah) is presented not as a mistake to be corrected by force, but as a deliberate test of virtue (Quran 5:48).
This report serves as a comprehensive resource for theologians, policy-makers, and interfaith practitioners. It meticulously reconstructs the Quranic argument for tolerance, supported by classical jurisprudence and modern scholarship. By analyzing the “One Ummah” of the Prophets, the “Common Word” of theology, and the “Lawful Food and Marriage” of social life, we uncover a divine blueprint for a Civilization of Acquaintance (Ta’aruf).
2. The Metaphysics of Unity: The Singular Ummah (Surah Al-Anbiya 21:92)
2.1 Textual Analysis and Linguistic Depth
The verse in question serves as the climax to a long narrative recounting the struggles and triumphs of previous prophets. The Quran states:
“Indeed, this Ummah of yours is one Ummah, and I am your Lord, so worship Me.” (Quran 21:92)
To understand the weight of this declaration, one must analyze the linguistic and structural components of the verse within the broader context of Surah Al-Anbiya (The Prophets). The term Ummah in Quranic vocabulary is complex and multifaceted. Unlike Qaum (people/tribe) or Sha’b (nation), which denote ethnic or geographic groupings, Ummah refers to a community bound by a shared moral purpose, law, or spiritual orientation. It is derived from the root Amm, meaning “to intend” or “to aim at,” implying that an Ummah is defined by its shared trajectory towards a goal.
The descriptor Wahidah (one/single) emphasizes an indivisible unity. The grammatical structure suggests a declarative fact rather than a mere command; it states a reality that exists ontologically even if it is fractured sociologically. The “Ummah” referred to here is the trans-historical community of believers who adhere to the core message of monotheism delivered by all prophets. By stating “This community of yours,” the Quran addresses the contemporaries of Prophet Muhammad not as a new, isolated sect, but as the latest inheritors of a continuous spiritual lineage that includes Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.
Classical exegetes like Ibn Kathir and Al-Tabari interpret “Ummah” here primarily as Din (religion) or Shari’ah (way of life/creed). They argue that the verse means “Your religion is one religion.” This interpretation is pivotal for interfaith tolerance because it delegitimizes the sectarianism that views Islam as a total rupture from Judaism and Christianity. Instead, it frames Islam as a restoration of the original Din which was shared by the recipients of the Torah and the Gospel.
2.2 The Prophetic Procession: A Hall of Fame of Unity
The placement of verse 21:92 is crucial for its interpretation. It follows a detailed listing of sixteen prophets, a rapid succession of narratives that blurs the lines between the “Jewish,” “Christian,” and “Islamic” traditions. The Surah effectively creates a “Prophetic Hall of Fame,” emphasizing the shared humanity, struggles, and divine deliverance of these figures.
Table 1: The Prophetic Narrative Arc in Surah Al-Anbiya Preceding Verse 92
| Prophet(s) | Key Themes & Trials | Connection to the “One Ummah” |
| Moses (Musa) & Aaron (Harun) | Given the Furqan (Criterion) and a Light (21:48). | Establishes the foundation of the Law (Shari’ah) and divine guidance, linking the Torah to the Quran. |
| Abraham (Ibrahim) | Confrontation with idols; the coolness of the fire (21:51-70). | The Patriarch of Monotheism (Hanif). His struggle against idolatry is the archetype for all subsequent prophets. |
| Lot (Lut) | Delivered from a corrupt city (21:71-75). | Emphasizes moral rectitude and divine rescue, shared with Abrahamic tradition. |
| Noah (Nuh) | Delivered from the Great Distress (21:76-77). | The second father of humanity; represents the universal reset and the survival of faith. |
| David (Dawud) & Solomon (Sulayman) | Justice, knowledge, and mastery over nature (21:78-82). | Represents the integration of worldly power and divine wisdom; political governance within the Ummah. |
| Job (Ayyub) | Extreme suffering and patience; divine mercy (21:83-84). | The archetype of patience (Sabr), a virtue central to the believer’s character across all faiths. |
| Ishmael, Idris, Dhul-Kifl | “All were of the patient” (21:85-86). | Lesser-known figures integrated into the same rank, emphasizing inclusivity of the prophetic fraternity. |
| Jonah (Yunus) | The distress in the whale; the prayer of repentance (21:87-88). | Demonstrates human frailty and the power of repentance (Tawbah), a universal spiritual mechanism. |
| Zechariah (Zakariya) & Yahya (John) | Prayer for an heir; healing of barrenness (21:89-90). | Continuity of lineage and the miraculous intervention of God in family life. |
| Mary (Maryam) & Jesus (Isa) | Chastity and the “Spirit from Us” (21:91). | Bridges the gap with Christianity; explicitly honors the miraculous nature of Jesus without deifying him. |
By presenting these figures in a continuous narrative flow, the Quran dissolves the boundaries of time and geography. There is no “Jewish Prophet” or “Christian Messenger” in this text; there is only the singular fraternity of the Prophets. They are presented as links in a single chain. The narrative strategy forces the reader to acknowledge that to accept Muhammad is to accept Moses and Jesus, and to reject one is to break the unity of the “One Ummah.”
2.3 The Breaking of Unity: Human Agency vs. Divine Will
Immediately following the declaration of unity, the Quran notes in verse 21:93: “But they [the people] cut off their affair between them; all of them to Us shall return”. This juxtaposition creates a theodicy of religious pluralism. The unity is the divine imperative (“I am your Lord”), while the division is the human reality (“they cut off their affair”).
Scholars interpret this as a critique of sectarianism where groups rejoice in their fragmented identities rather than their shared spiritual origin. The phrase taqatta’u amrahum (they cut apart their affair) implies a violent or unnatural severing of something that was meant to be whole. However, the verse does not negate the validity of the righteous among these groups, as the subsequent verse (21:94) promises that whoever does righteous deeds while believing will not have their efforts denied.
This distinction allows for a tolerant worldview where a Muslim acknowledges that the theological DNA of the “Other” (the Jew or the Christian) is essentially the same as their own. The differences in ritual or dogma are recognized as historical accumulations or divergent interpretations of the same Ummah Wahidah. This perspective fosters a sense of “spiritual kinship” rather than “existential enmity.”
2.4 Tawhid as the Great Equalizer
The phrase “I am your Lord, so worship Me” grounds the unity of the community in the unity of the Divine (Tawhid). If there is only one Creator, then humanity effectively constitutes a single family under that Creator’s care. This theological monism acts as a barrier against dehumanization. One cannot claim a monopoly on the Divine if the Divine explicitly declares lordship over the entire procession of prophets and their followers.
Modern commentators, such as Sayyid Qutb (in his earlier, more moderate writings) and Maududi, have noted that this verse serves as a reminder against religious arrogance. If the “Ummah” is defined by the worship of the One God, then any group that maintains this core tenet remains within the orbit of this spiritual family. This is further supported by the Quranic concept that Islam (submission) is not merely a historical label for the followers of Muhammad but the generic description of the faith of all prophets. Thus, Abraham was a “Muslim” (3:67), and the disciples of Jesus declared themselves “Muslims” (3:52). This inclusive terminology serves to bridge the identity gap, suggesting that “Muslim,” “Christian,” and “Jew” are historical designations overlaying a shared primal identity of “Submitter to the One God.”
3. The Theological Bridge: A Common Word (Surah Al Imran 3:64)
3.1 The Historical Context: The Delegation of Najran
If 21:92 establishes the static reality of unity, Quran 3:64 offers the dynamic method for achieving it in a fractured world. The verse reads:
“Say, ‘O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you – that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah.’ But if they turn away, then say, ‘Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Him].’” (Quran 3:64)
The Asbab al-Nuzul (occasions of revelation) for this verse are critically important. It is widely agreed by scholars, including Ibn Ishaq and Al-Tabari, that this verse was revealed in relation to the Delegation of Najran. In the 9th year of the Hijrah (631 CE), a delegation of approximately 60 Christian scholars and leaders from Najran (present-day Yemen) visited the Prophet Muhammad in Madinah.
The interaction was marked by profound hospitality. The Prophet allowed them to pray in his mosque, facing East (towards Jerusalem), a gesture of immense theological tolerance that shocked some of his companions but set a permanent precedent for interfaith courtesy. The discussions centered on the nature of Christ (Christology). While the Quran firmly rejected the divinity of Jesus (3:59), the outcome was not war or expulsion, but a treaty. The verse 3:64 was an invitation to agree on the essentials if the particulars could not be reconciled.
Some sources also suggest this verse was included in the Prophet’s diplomatic letters to Heraclius (Emperor of Byzantium) and other rulers, indicating its function as a universal foreign policy doctrine. This elevates the verse from a local theological dispute to a global charter for inter-civilizational relations.
3.2 Deconstructing Kalimat Sawa: The Terms of Engagement
The phrase Kalimat Sawa is the intellectual pivot of the verse. Sawa means equitable, fair, level, or common. It implies a meeting point that is equidistant from both parties, requiring neither to abandon their core identity but asking both to focus on their shared foundation.
The verse outlines three specific clauses for this commonality:
- Exclusive Worship of God (Tawhid): A reaffirmation of the First Commandment found in the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:4) and the Gospel (Mark 12:29). This establishes the vertical axis of the relationship.
- Rejection of Associating Partners (Shirk): This is a call to purify the monotheistic intent, avoiding idolatry in all its forms, whether physical idols or conceptual ones.
- Rejection of Human Lordship: “And that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allah.”
The Sociological Revolution of Clause 3: This third clause is sociologically revolutionary. It interprets “worship” not just as ritual prayer but as political and intellectual servitude. It calls for the liberation of human beings from the tyranny of clergy, kings, or totalitarian systems. In the context of the 7th century, where religious leaders often held legislative power that superseded divine law (a concept criticized in Quran 9:31 regarding Rabbis and Monks), this was a declaration of spiritual independence.
By agreeing that only God is Lord, Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree to a system of essential human equality. No human has the divine right to dictate the conscience of another. This creates a theological basis for human rights and protection against authoritarianism. It suggests that interfaith tolerance is not just about getting along, but about uniting against tyranny.
3.3 The “A Common Word” Initiative and Modern Dialogue
In October 2007, 138 prominent Muslim scholars released an open letter to Christian leaders titled “A Common Word Between Us and You”. This historic document was explicitly based on Quran 3:64. It argued that the dual command to “Love God” and “Love Neighbor” constitutes the essence of both Islam and Christianity.
The initiative highlighted that 3:64 is not a polemic attempt to convert Christians, but an irenic invitation to cooperate on the basis of already-held beliefs. By citing biblical passages that mirror the Quranic injunctions (e.g., the Shema Yisrael), the document demonstrated that the “Common Word” is objectively present in the scriptures of the People of the Book.
Critics of the initiative, and some rigorous exegetes, argue that the verse is a call to Tawhid (Islamic monotheism) and thus a subtle form of Da’wa (proselytism), effectively a “bait and switch” tactic. However, the phrasing “come to a word” (ta’alaw) suggests a voluntary convergence. It is an invitation to alignment, not a demand for capitulation. The “Common Word” initiative represents the maturation of Quranic exegesis in the modern era, moving from medieval defensive apologetics to proactive bridge-building.
Table 2: Comparative Analysis of the “Common Word” in Abrahamic Texts
| Quranic Clause (3:64) | Biblical Parallel | Shared Theological Principle |
| “Worship none but Allah” | Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” | Absolute Monotheism; the Centrality of the Divine. |
| “Associate no partners with Him” | Mark 12:29-30: “…love the Lord your God with all your heart…” | Purity of Worship; Rejection of Idolatry. |
| “Take not one another as lords” | Matthew 23:9: “And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.” | Rejection of Clerical/Human Tyranny; Spiritual Equality. |
3.4 The Theology of Refusal: “If They Turn Away”
The conclusion of verse 3:64—“But if they turn away, then say, ‘Bear witness that we are Muslims’”—is as important as the invitation. It establishes the protocol for disagreement. If the dialogue fails or if the other party rejects the premise of the “Common Word,” the response is not violence, coercion, or insult. It is a simple, dignified affirmation of one’s own path: “Bear witness that we are Muslims”.
This provides a clear limit to interfaith disputes. There is no mandate to force the “Common Word” upon others. This aligns with Quran 2:256 (“No compulsion in religion”). The Najran delegation eventually “turned away” from the theological invitation, refusing to accept Islam, but they agreed to a socio-political treaty (paying Jizya in exchange for protection and exemption from military service). The Prophet accepted this “turning away” and guaranteed their safety, property, and freedom of worship. This historical precedent confirms that 3:64 allows for a pluralistic society where theological differences remain unresolved, yet civil peace is maintained.
4. The Sociology of Intimacy: Integration and Affection (Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:5)
4.1 The Shift to Madinan Law
Surah Al-Ma’idah is among the last revelations of the Quran (chronologically late Madinan). This timing is significant. It means that the regulations found within it, specifically Verse 5:5, represent the final, settled law (Muhkam) regarding relations with People of the Book, abrogating any earlier provisional restrictions that may have been due to active warfare. The verse states:
“This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you…” (Quran 5:5)
This verse moves the argument from the abstract theology of 21:92 and the intellectual dialogue of 3:64 to the concrete realities of daily life: dinner tables and bedrooms. It is the sociological glue of the Ummah interacting with the People of the Book.
4.2 The Sharing of Food: A Liturgy of Trust
In anthropological terms, commensality (eating together) is one of the highest signs of social trust and acceptance. By declaring the Ta’am (food/slaughtered meat) of the Jews and Christians lawful, the Quran breaks down the ritual purity barriers that often segregate religious communities.
Deconstructing Ta’am: Scholars like Ibn Abbas and modern jurists agree that Ta’am refers specifically to slaughtered meat (Zabiha), as grains and vegetables were never restricted. This implies an acknowledgment that the ritual slaughter of the People of the Book is dedicated to God (the same God as Islam), rendering it spiritually pure (Halal). This is a profound theological concession: it validates the prayer/invocation of the Jew or Christian butcher as sufficient for the Muslim consumer.
The Power of Reciprocity: Crucially, the verse adds: “and your food is lawful for them.” This reciprocity invites Muslims to host Jews and Christians, fostering a culture of hospitality. It envisions a society where a Muslim can eat at a Christian’s home and vice versa, without fear of ritual contamination. This dismantles the “ghettoization” of communities. The permission is conditioned on the food being “good/pure” (Tayyibat), which excludes pork or alcohol, but the general principle is inclusion.
Dr. Shabir Ally, a contemporary scholar, notes that this permission is contingent on the monotheistic tradition of the People of the Book. It is an intersection of Islamic dietary law with Jewish/Christian practice, creating a shared space of consumption that builds community.
4.3 Interfaith Marriage: The Ultimate Social Bond
The permission for Muslim men to marry “chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture” is perhaps the most profound indicator of tolerance in the Quran. Marriage involves love, intimacy, procreation, and kinship.
The Concept of Muhsanat: The verse specifies Muhsanat—chaste, virtuous women. This protects the sanctity of the Muslim family structure but acknowledges that virtue is not the exclusive property of Muslims. A Jewish or Christian woman can possess the moral integrity required to be a matriarch in a Muslim household. It refutes the idea that non-Muslims are inherently immoral or corrupt.
The Implications of Mawaddah (Affection): Quran 30:21 describes the purpose of marriage as finding tranquility (Sakinah) and establishing love (Mawaddah) and mercy (Rahmah) between spouses. If the Quran permits marriage to a Christian or Jew, it implicitly sanctions love and affection between a believer and a non-believer.
How can a Muslim be commanded to have absolute “animosity” toward a people while being permitted to love his wife, who is one of them? This creates a theological paradox for extremists who preach total enmity (Al-Wara wal-Bara). Classical scholars and modern thinkers like Yusuf al-Qaradawi (despite his conservatism elsewhere) argue that the permission to marry necessitates the permission to love, respect, and maintain family ties. A Muslim man with a Christian wife must respect her right to worship, and their children will have Christian grandparents, cousins, and aunts whom they are religiously obligated to honor under the rubric of Silat al-Rahim (maintaining ties of kin).
Historical Precedents: Companions of the Prophet, including Uthman ibn Affan (the third Caliph) and Talhah ibn Ubayd-Allah, married Christian and Jewish women. These marriages were not scandals but accepted social practices. They integrated the communities, weaving the bloodlines of the Ummah with those of the People of the Book.
4.4 Gender Disparity and Modern Discourse
While 5:5 permits Muslim men to marry women of the Book, traditional Islamic law (Fiqh) has not extended this permission to Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men. The rationale traditionally offered is the preservation of the woman’s religious freedom, assuming a patriarchal structure where the husband might restrict the wife’s practice, whereas a Muslim husband is theoretically bound by Quranic law to respect his wife’s Christian/Jewish faith.
However, contemporary discourse and some modern scholars (though a minority) argue that the Illah (legal reason) for the prohibition was protection, not inherent impurity. In modern legal systems where women’s rights are state-protected, some argue this ruling should be revisited. Regardless of this debate, the explicit text of 5:5 regarding Muslim men stands as a monument to social integration. It proves that religious difference is not a barrier to the most intimate of human relationships.
5. Synthesis: A Quranic Theory of Pluralism and Diversity
5.1 The Divine Purpose of Diversity (5:48 and 49:13)
To fully contextualize 21:92, 3:64, and 5:5, one must look at the Quran’s philosophy of diversity. Quran 5:48 states:
“To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation, but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good.”
Here, the Quran acknowledges that while the spiritual Ummah (21:92) is one in origin, the legislative Ummah (legal communities) are intentionally diverse. God could have enforced a single totalitarian uniformity, but chose pluralism as a test. The test is not to convert everyone by force, but to “vie with one another in good deeds” (Fastabiqu al-Khayrat).
This transforms religious competition from a destructive war into a constructive race for virtue. It validates the existence of the “Other” as a necessary partner in this cosmic competition. Without the “Other,” the test of tolerance and competing in goodness cannot exist.
Furthermore, Quran 49:13 declares: “We made you into nations and tribes that you may know one another.” The purpose of difference is Ta’aruf (acquaintance), not conflict. This “Civilization of Acquaintance” requires the mechanisms provided by 3:64 (dialogue) and 5:5 (social mixing) to function.
5.2 Reconciling “One Ummah” with Pluralism
The apparent contradiction between “This Ummah of yours is one” (21:92) and “For every one of you We have appointed a law” (5:48) is resolved through the distinction between Din (the universal faith of submission to God) and Shari’ah (the specific laws given to Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad).
- 21:92 speaks to the Din: The shared vertical relationship with the Creator.
- 5:48 speaks to the Shari’ah: The diverse horizontal expressions of that relationship.
Interfaith tolerance is achieved when we recognize the unity of the Din while respecting the diversity of the Shari’ah. 3:64 provides the language to affirm the Din, while 5:5 provides the legal framework to live alongside the different Shari’ah of the People of the Book.
5.3 From Dhimma to Muwatanah (Citizenship)
Historically, the rights of Non-Muslims were managed under the Dhimma system (protected status). While progressive for the medieval era, modern Islamic scholars like Fathi Osman and Tariq Ramadan argue that the Quranic principles in these verses support the modern concept of Muwatanah (equal citizenship).
The “Common Word” (3:64) and the social integration of 5:5 presuppose a level of equality and mutual dignity that transcends the “protected subject” status. If a Muslim can marry a Christian woman, she is his equal partner in life, not his subject. Applying this macrocosmically, Jews and Christians in a Muslim-majority society (and Muslims in non-Muslim societies) are partners in the “race for good deeds,” integrated through the “Common Word” and bound by the spiritual kinship of the “One Ummah”.
5.4 Refuting Extremism: The Hermeneutical Key
Extremist interpretations often rely on the doctrine of Naskh (abrogation) to claim that the “Verse of the Sword” (9:5) canceled all verses of tolerance. However, classical scholarship limits the scope of 9:5 to the specific pagan Arab tribes who violated treaties. It does not abrogate 5:5 (which is Madinan and revealed after or around the same time as repentance verses) nor does it negate the theological statements of 21:92 and 3:64.
The permission to marry People of the Book (5:5) would be incoherent if the command was to kill them. One cannot be commanded to kill a people and simultaneously permitted to marry them. Thus, 5:5 serves as a hermeneutical key, locking in the validity of peaceful coexistence and nullifying the universal application of the verses of war.
6. Historical Application: The Prophet’s Blueprint
The Prophet Muhammad’s life offers the practical exegesis of these verses.
- The Constitution of Medina (Mithaq al-Madinah): This document established the Jews of Medina as “an Ummah alongside the Believers” (Ummah ma’a al-Mu’minin), echoing the inclusive language of 21:92. It granted them religious autonomy and mutual defense rights.
- The Treaty of Najran: As discussed with 3:64, this treaty protected Christian churches and clergy.
- The Ashtiname of St. Catherine: A covenant granting monks eternal protection, explicitly forbidding the damaging of churches or the hindrance of Christian worship.
These documents demonstrate that the Quranic verses were not theoretical platitudes but the basis of a functioning, pluralistic statecraft.
Thematic Epilogue: Towards a Civilization of Acquaintance
In the final analysis, the Quranic discourse on the relationship between Muslims, Christians, and Jews transcends the binary of “friend” or “enemy.” It introduces a more profound category: the spiritual cousin.
The triplet of verses analyzed—21:92, 3:64, and 5:5—constructs a ladder of engagement.
- The Rung of Spirit (21:92): Acknowledging that the light in the lantern of Moses and Jesus is the same light that shines in the Quran. It removes the arrogance of “ownership” over God.
- The Rung of Intellect (3:64): Acknowledging that while our rituals differ, our orientation is the same—towards the One, away from idols, and against tyranny. It creates a “Republic of Monotheism.”
- The Rung of Life (5:5): Acknowledging that our humanity is shared. We hunger, we love, and we build families. It grounds tolerance in the visceral reality of human existence.
To reject tolerance is to dismantle this ladder. It is to deny the spiritual unity asserted in 21:92, to silence the dialogue commanded in 3:64, and to forbid the intimacy permitted in 5:5. The Quranic message is clear: The diversity of the human family is a test, not a flaw. The “One Ummah” is not achieved by the sword, but by the recognition that underneath the divergent streams of law and custom, the ocean of Divine Mercy is one. The challenge for the contemporary believer is not to conquer the “Other,” but to recognize in them the reflection of the same Lord who said, “I am your Lord, so worship Me.”
“To God is your return all together, and He will inform you concerning that wherein you differ.” (Quran 5:48)
If you would rather read in Microsoft Word file:
The Glorious Quran and Science 
Leave a comment