What do contemporary Muslim theologians and human rights scholars say about Quranic passages on interfaith relations?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Contemporary Muslim theologians overwhelmingly read Qur'anic material on interfaith relations as an ethical and legal framework that invites respectful dialogue and peaceful coexistence—often invoking verses like “invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom” and “no compulsion in religion” to justify engagement [1] [2]. Human-rights–oriented scholars and historians, while acknowledging those texts, highlight persistent tensions between doctrinal exclusivity and historical practices of coercion or legal inequality, and call for reappraisal of classical interpretations to meet modern pluralist standards [3] [2].
1. Quranic norms theologians foreground: invitation, wisdom and common ground
Modern theologians routinely point to verses that frame interfaith engagement as invitation (daʿwa) conducted with “wisdom and beautiful preaching” and as a search for common understanding with the People of the Book, using Quranic citations to support active, courteous dialogue across creeds [1] [4]; academic thematic analyses find this emphasis recurring in contemporary tafsir work that extracts principles of tolerance, deliberation and justice from clusters of verses [2].
2. Doctrinal exclusivity remains a live theological constraint
At the same time many scholars insist the Qur’an maintains doctrinal exclusivity (aqīdah): it encourages peaceful coexistence and ethical engagement with non-Muslims while not relativizing Islamic claims about God and salvation, a posture that contemporary studies describe as promoting coexistence without doctrinal syncretism [2] [5].
3. History and prophetic practice as precedents for pragmatic accommodation
Theologians and historians point to the Prophet’s treaties and episodes such as the Najashi asylum or the Hudaybiyya agreement as scripturally and historically legible models for territorial accommodation and protection of non‑Muslim communities, and those episodes are often deployed to argue for practical arrangements of coexistence in plural societies [1] [6].
4. Critical scholarship: when texts meet power — tolerance, coercion and legal legacies
Human-rights–inflected scholarship stresses that textual injunctions do not automatically translate to tolerant norms in practice; canonical jurists and medieval commentators at times allowed coercive measures despite verses like “there is no compulsion in religion,” and modern critics use those historical rulings to argue for reinterpreting or constraining classical legal formulations [3]; contemporary papers therefore call for contextualized readings that prioritize social harmony and the protection of minorities [7] [8].
5. Contestation inside Muslim modernity: moderation, literalism and civic participation
A recurring contemporary debate among theologians—documented in recent Islamic studies literature—is whether literalist or legalistic readings impede positive interfaith engagement; several recent reviews and policy papers argue that misunderstood or literalist interpretations of Qur’an and ḥadīth reduce Muslim participation in interfaith work and that a hermeneutic of moderation better serves plural democratic societies [9] [7].
6. Human-rights scholars’ practical concerns and prescriptions
Human-rights scholars and those working at interfaith institutes emphasize applying Quranic insights to reduce prejudice and protect religious freedoms in law and policy, urging revisitation of classical exegesis to harmonize Islamic teachings about dignity, evidence and justice with contemporary human-rights norms while recognizing limits where the sources or traditions resist direct harmonization [5] [2]; some policy commentators also point to the need for institutional safeguards because scriptural injunctions alone have not guaranteed equitable treatment historically [3].
7. Takeaway: overlap, frictions and a contested middle ground
Across the literature the consensus is partial: theologians and interfaith advocates draw from clear Quranic prompts for courteous engagement and cooperation with monotheistic neighbors, while historians and human-rights critics map the frictions produced by exclusive doctrines and legal histories—together these voices call for informed, context-sensitive tafsīr and institutional reforms to realize Quranic ideals in plural democratic contexts [1] [2] [3].