Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How do major Islamic scholars interpret Quranic verses about Christians like Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:72-75?
Executive Summary
Major Islamic scholars consistently read Surah al‑Ma'idah 5:72–75 as a rejection of Jesus’ divinity and the Trinity, while also treating Christians as “People of the Book” with specific legal permissions and limits — notably on food and marriage — producing a mix of theological censure and juridical accommodation. Classical tafsir and modern scholarship map two parallel threads: strong polemical refutation of Christian doctrines and pragmatic rulings for interfaith living, a tension visible across sources from Ibn Kathir and Ibn Abbas to contemporary academic studies [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. A Theological Red Line: Why Scholars Say the Quran Denies Jesus’ Divinity
Major classical commentators make an explicit theological claim: the verses in 5:72–75 constitute a clear Quranic denunciation of Christians who ascribe divinity to Jesus, identifying such claims as shirk (associating partners with God). Commentaries attributed to Ibn Abbas, the Tafsir al‑Jalalayn, and Ibn Kathir present Jesus and Mary as human servants of God who ate and lived like other humans, using their human needs as evidence against divinity and framing any insistence on Jesus’ godhead as disbelief [1]. Modern academic surveys confirm this longstanding interpretive consensus, noting that anti‑Trinitarian argumentation is central to early and medieval Muslim polemics and remains influential in contemporary exegesis [5] [4]. These sources show that the Quranic critique is both theological and rhetorical, aimed at preserving uncompromising monotheism.
2. Legal Accommodation: Food, Marriage and the “People of the Book” Exception
Tafsir traditions pair theological critique with legal pragmatism: Muslims may eat food slaughtered by Christians and Jews and may marry chaste women among them under specified conditions, per readings of surah 5:5 and related verses. Classical exegetes such as Ibn Abbas and Mujahid read 5:72–75 in tandem with permissive rulings on food and marriage, balancing doctrinal rejection of certain Christian beliefs with social and legal permissions toward People of the Book [2] [3]. This juridical strand is prominent in Sunni fiqh and shows how scriptural condemnation of theological error does not automatically translate into social exclusion; instead, a bounded coexistence is established with caveats about belief, chastity, and ritual propriety [2] [3].
3. Diversity Within the Tradition: Companions, Mujtahids, and Modern Voices
Interpretive consensus is not uniform: early Companions and later jurists differ on practical implications such as marriage. Ibn Umar reportedly warned against marrying Christian women due to concerns about shirk, while Ibn Abbas allowed marriage under the textual exception, showing intra‑Islamic debate on implementing Quranic principles [2]. Modern scholarly collections and dialogues document a wider range: some contemporary Muslim scholars emphasize interfaith rapprochement and shared monotheism, as seen in ecumenical projects and academic surveys that find both polemical and conciliatory readings across centuries [6] [4]. This plurality reflects competing priorities — theological purity versus social engagement — shaping how communities apply the verse.
4. Christian Responses and the Long Conversation: Context from Both Sides
Christian theologians and Muslim interlocutors have long engaged these Quranic claims; early Muslim critiques prompted apologetic responses like those of St. John of Damascus, while recent Christian studies seek to contextualize Quranic language about Christians for interfaith dialogue [5] [7]. Scholarship on Christian‑Muslim dialogue (publication 2024) argues there is considerable ecumenical ground even as doctrinal impasses remain, suggesting that the Quran’s denunciatory passages coexist with verses and traditions used to foster cooperation [6]. Contemporary works by both Muslim and Christian scholars thus treat 5:72–75 as part of a broader scriptural conversation rather than an isolated polemic.
5. What Is Left Unsaid: Historical, Philological, and Practical Gaps
Exegetical traditions tend to treat 5:72–75 doctrinally, but several important contexts are often omitted: the historical circumstances of Quran‑Christian encounters in late antique Arabia, the diversity of early Christian Christologies, and the philological nuances of Arabic terms for “associate” and “lord.” Recent academic studies emphasize these omitted considerations to show how polemical readings sometimes simplify complex historical realities [4] [7]. At the same time, legal rulings in tafsir and fiqh respond to lived needs — food, marriage, and community relations — demonstrating that the verse functions both as theological boundary and as a practical legal touchstone in Muslim jurisprudence [2] [3].