The Burden of Perceived Chosenness: A Critique of Muslim Exclusivism

By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof, New Age Islam 13 September 2025 The human tendency toward group-centric identity and the attendant claim of unique, privileged access to divine truth is a recurring and powerful theme across the history of religious traditions. This impulse, while instrumental in forging communal bonds and providing existential meaning, often ossifies into a rigid theology of exclusion, positing an unbridgeable divide between a divinely favoured “us” and a peripheral, less-favoured “them.” Within the vast and diverse intellectual history of Islam, this phenomenon manifests as a potent form of exclusivism, a theological edifice built upon two powerful, yet frequently misinterpreted, conceptual pillars: the perceived sanctity of the Arabic language as the ultimate and superior vehicle of revelation, and the honorific title of Khair Umma (“the best community”) bestowed upon Muslims in the Quran. For many believers, these concepts serve as the bedrock of communal pride, identity, and a sense of divine purpose. However, a careful and holistic hermeneutical analysis—one that privileges textual coherence, historical context, and the Quran’s own stated ethical priorities—reveals the profound hollowness of these pillars as foundations for theological superiority and salvific monopoly. By systematically decontextualizing specific verses and concurrently ignoring the Quran’s overarching universalist and ethical ethos, proponents of this exclusivist worldview construct a theological fortress that stands in stark contradiction to the very text from which it purports to draw its authority. This paper will argue that Muslim exclusivism, when grounded in claims of linguistic supremacy and unconditional communal privilege, is hermeneutically unsustainable. Such a position fundamentally neglects the pragmatic and pedagogical context of the Arabic revelation, which aimed for clarity rather than sacralisation, and critically misinterprets the conditional, responsibility-laden, and mission-oriented nature of the Khair Umma designation. Through a rigorous hermeneutical critique, this paper will deconstruct these exclusivist claims, demonstrating that the Quran itself provides the most compelling tools for their dismantling. It will show that the sacred text, when read holistically, champions not a parochial ideology of privilege but a challenging and universal call for moral action, epistemic humility, and a recognition of the divine wisdom embedded in human diversity—a call extended to all who would listen, in whatever tongue they may speak. The true “burden of chosenness,” this paper contends, is not a badge of honour but a profound weight of ethical responsibility. The Myth of Linguistic Supremacy: Deconstructing the "Arabic Quran" The first and perhaps most elemental pillar supporting the edifice of Muslim exclusivism is the claim of the Arabic language's inherent sanctity and superiority. This argument is rooted in the Quran’s self-referential description as a Quranan ‘Arabiyyan (“an Arabic Quran”), a phrase that appears numerous times throughout the text (12:2, 13:37, 20:113, 26:195, 39:28, 41:3, 42:7, 43:3). For the exclusivist interpreter, the divine choice of Arabic is no mere historical contingency; it is an ontological declaration. It signifies that Arabic possesses an intrinsic, divine quality that elevates it above all other human languages, making it the supreme and uniquely suited vessel for God’s final and perfect word. This perspective of linguistic chauvinism suggests that true, unadulterated understanding of the divine will is only fully accessible through the original Arabic, thereby granting native speakers a privileged hermeneutical position and rendering all translations inherently deficient, flawed, and secondary. The Exclusivist Claim and its Foundations in I'jaz The traditionalist and exclusivist interpretation posits that the selection of Arabic was a metaphysical act, a divine stamp of approval on the language itself. This belief became systematized in classical Islamic theology, where scholars like Al-Tabari and Al-Qurtubi argued that Arabic's unique properties—its eloquence, precision, and vast vocabulary—were signs of its inherent superiority (Rippin, p.89). This view is inextricably linked to the core theological doctrine of Ijaz al-Quran, the inimitability of the Quran. The Quran itself issues a profound challenge, or Tahaddi, to its detractors, daring them to produce a text of comparable merit: “And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like of it” (2:23; see also 10:38, 11:13, 17:88). For the exclusivist, this inimitability is not merely conceptual or theological but is fundamentally tied to the linguistic medium. The miracle is the Arabic text itself. This leads to a conclusion that the divine essence of the message is inseparable from its Arabic form. This sacralisation of the language has had profound social and cultural consequences, fostering an environment where non-Arabs may be seen as peripheral to the faith’s core, and where proficiency in Arabic becomes a marker of authentic piety (Yahya, p.473). This attitude can manifest as a form of “linguistic exclusivism,” where the use of Arabic by non-Muslims is sometimes viewed with suspicion, transforming a language of universal guidance into a jealously guarded cultural property (Yahya, p.474). However, this entire line of reasoning conflates the medium with the message and relies on a logical circularity that cannot withstand critical scrutiny: Arabic is superior because the inimitable Quran is in it, and the Quran’s inimitability is proven by its unparalleled Arabic eloquence, which in turn proves Arabic’s superiority (Arkoun, p.156). It is a closed interpretive loop that seals itself off from the Quran’s own explanations. The Quran's Self-Explanation for its "Arab-ness" A more textually grounded and intellectually coherent hermeneutic understands the choice of Arabic not as a mark of intrinsic metaphysical superiority but as a matter of divine pragmatism and pedagogical wisdom. The Quran does not leave its reader to speculate on the reason for its linguistic form; it repeatedly and explicitly states its own rationale. The very verses that declare the Quran to be in Arabic immediately provide the reason: so that its immediate audience “may understand” (La’allakum Ta’qilun) and that the message would be clear (Mubin). Verse 12:2 states, “Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Quran that you might understand.” Verse 43:3 echoes this directly: “Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Quran that you might understand.” The emphasis is consistently on comprehension, accessibility, and clarity for the people to whom it was first revealed. The brilliant and often controversial scholar Nasr Abu Zayd powerfully argued that the Quran must be understood as a "discourse" that was deeply engaged with a specific 7th-century Arabian culture, speaking to its people in its own language, using its own idioms and addressing its specific societal concerns (Abu Zayd, p.89). To Abu Zayd, the Quran is a “cultural production” in the sense that God’s eternal word entered human history and culture at a specific time and place, and therefore its linguistic and conceptual form was necessarily shaped by that milieu (El-Refaee, p.165). The language, therefore, was a functional necessity for effective communication, a bridge to understanding, not a declaration of its eternal supremacy. As Muhammad Shahrur notes, the choice of Arabic was “contextual and functional,” chosen because it was the native tongue of the Prophet and his immediate community (Shahrur, p.97). This principle of pragmatic divine communication is not presented in the Quran as a unique exception for the Arabs but is articulated as a universal divine law, a sunnat Allah. The most decisive verse in dismantling any notion of linguistic hierarchy is 14:4: “We never sent a messenger except in the language of his own people (bi-lisani qawmihi), so that he might make things clear for them.” This single verse is a theological sledgehammer to the edifice of linguistic exclusivism. It establishes that divine guidance is democratized through local vernaculars—be it the Aramaic of Jesus, the Hebrew of Moses, or the Arabic of Muhammad. The unwavering divine purpose is always clarity (bayan) and accessibility, not the sacralisation of one specific tongue over all others. The verse implies a deep divine respect for human cultures and their native forms of expression. To insist on Arabic’s unique divine status is to ignore a universal principle explicitly stated within the text itself. The Quran even suggests that a non-Arabic revelation to the Arabs would have been a barrier to communication, not a testament to the truth’s transcendence. Q.41:44 posits a rhetorical scenario: “And if We had made it a non-Arabic Quran, they would have said, ‘Why are its verses not explained in detail [in our language]?’ Is it a foreign [recitation] and an Arab [messenger]?” The verse’s logic hinges entirely on the necessity of matching the language of revelation to the language of the audience for the sake of intelligibility. Linguistic Diversity as a Divine Sign and Historical Reality Beyond this pragmatic principle, the Quran goes further, presenting linguistic diversity not as a problem to be overcome by a single holy tongue, but as a positive sign of God’s creative power and majesty, akin to the diversity of human skin colours. This is articulated most beautifully in verse 30:22, which declares, “And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your languages and your colours. Indeed, in that are signs for those of knowledge (li-l-‘alimin).” This verse reframes the entire debate. Linguistic pluralism is not a post-Babel curse or a challenge to unity; it is a divine sign (ayah), a source of wonder and a subject for intellectual reflection for “those of knowledge.” It is part of the beautiful tapestry of creation. To champion Arabic as the only language of authentic faith is to fly in the face of a verse that explicitly celebrates linguistic pluralism. It is to take a divine sign and attempt to erase it, to take a source of wonder and turn it into a source of division. If God willed, He could have made humanity a single community with a single language (11:118), but He did not. His will, as expressed in the created order and affirmed in the Quran, was for diversity. This theological principle is borne out in the historical reality of Islam’s global spread. The faith flourished not through the universal imposition of Arabic, but through the monumental work of translation and cultural adaptation. The rich exegetical traditions in Persian, the profound theological works in Turkish and Urdu, and the vibrant Islamic cultures of West Africa and Southeast Asia all testify to the fact that the core message of Islam transcends its original linguistic container (Bulliet, p.201). The great Persian tafsir traditions, for instance, were not seen as betraying the Quran, but as making its wisdom accessible, demonstrating that exegesis and meaning-making, not linguistic purity, were the ultimate goals (Sands, p.47; Cambridge, p.56). The historical success of Islam's propagation stands as a living testament to the principle of 14:4, proving that the divine message resonates in a multitude of tongues. The Hermeneutical Hollowness of the I'jaz Argument Finally, the exclusivist argument from i'jaz becomes hermeneutically hollow when subjected to comparative and critical analysis. While the linguistic and rhetorical power of the Quran is undeniable and a source of profound aesthetic and spiritual experience for Muslims, the claim that this quality proves the inherent superiority of the Arabic language is a non sequitur. Other religious traditions hold their sacred texts in similar reverence for their linguistic beauty; the poetic majesty of the Hebrew Psalms or the intricate resonance of the Sanskrit Vedas are central to the devotional life of their respective adherents. Literary inimitability is a claim of faith regarding a text's unique standing, not an objective, empirical proof of its language's supremacy over all others (Stewart, p.192). Furthermore, the very concept of a static, perfect, and divinely predestined Arabic language is an ahistorical construct. As linguists like Kees Versteegh have demonstrated, the Arabic language, like all languages, has a complex history of evolution and development. Pre-Islamic Arabic was not a monolith but a collection of diverse tribal dialects, and Quranic Arabic itself represents a specific, elevated literary register that synthesized various influences (Versteegh, p.78). To claim it was chosen for its pre-existing, inherent perfection ignores its dynamic history. The Quranic revelation did not just use Arabic; it profoundly shaped and standardized it. To ignore this historical reality in favour of a myth of static perfection is to abandon critical hermeneutics for hagiography. The choice of Arabic was a divinely guided historical event, not a timeless metaphysical decree of linguistic superiority. Its purpose was to make a universal message intelligible in a particular context, not to render that context universally supreme. Re-reading Khair Umma The second, and arguably more potent, pillar of Muslim exclusivism is the concept of Khair Umma, the “best community.” This claim is derived almost exclusively from a single, powerful verse, Quran 3:110: “You are the best community ever raised for humanity (Kuntum Khayra Ummatin Ukhrijat Li-N-Nas).” This verse is frequently brandished as a divine certificate of unconditional superiority, a permanent and irrevocable status that sets the Muslim community apart from and above all other nations, past, present, and future. It is interpreted as an ontological statement about the very being of the Muslim Ummah. This reading, however, performs a critical and pervasive hermeneutical error: it detaches the title from the explicit ethical responsibilities upon which it is conditioned, and it isolates the verse from its immediate textual context and the wider pluralistic vision of the Quran. In its most common exclusivist interpretation, 3:110 is read as a blanket declaration of Muslim exceptionalism. Classical commentators like Ibn Kathir and Al-Zamakhshari, while offering nuanced views, contributed to a theological framework where this verse was seen as proof of the Muslim community’s inherent spiritual superiority (McAuliffe, p.223). In the popular imagination, this has often been simplified into a straightforward claim of privilege. This interpretation has had far-reaching and often detrimental consequences, fuelling a sense of triumphalism that can lead to interfaith intolerance, social hostility, and a justification for political dominance (Hassan 156; Moussalli, p.234). It transforms the Ummah from a community with a mission into a divinely-sanctioned elite. This reading turns a verse intended to inspire moral action into a license for communal arrogance, a spiritual tranquilizer that assures salvation and superiority by mere affiliation, regardless of the community’s actual moral state. A Conditional Mandate, Not an Inherent Status The most fundamental hermeneutical corrective to this exclusivist reading lies within the verse itself. The declaration is not a standalone statement. The verse does not end with the honorific title; it immediately qualifies and defines it with its basis: “…you enjoin what is right (Ta’muruna Bi-L-Ma’ruf), forbid what is wrong (Wa-Tanhawna ‘An-Il-Munkar), and believe in God (Wa-Tu’minuna Bi-Llah).” The status of Khair Umma is therefore not an ontological state but a functional, ethical, and deeply conditional mandate. It is a mission, not a privilege. It is a prescriptive call to action, not a descriptive statement of inherent being. The community is “best” only insofar as it actively and collectively works to establish justice, goodness, and faith in the world. As the scholar Farid Esack argues, this verse outlines a "moral-active vocation," and when the community fails to fulfil these conditions, it logically and textually forfeits the title (Esack, p.215). This conditionality means the honorific is not guaranteed by creedal affiliation alone but must be continuously earned through righteous collective action. The great early exegete al-Tabari, in his commentary, emphasized that the verse pertains to the Muslim community's profound moral obligations rather than confirming an unearned, inherent superiority (al-Tabari, p.215). To claim the title while ignoring the duty is to embrace an empty honour, a hollowed-out identity. The long and complex history of Muslim societies, with their own undeniable share of tyranny, corruption, and social injustice, stands as a stark and constant reminder that the title is not an automatic or permanent inheritance. It is a standard against which the community must measure itself, and by which it will be judged. The designation is thus a profound burden of responsibility, a call to a higher ethical standard, not a comfortable cushion of privilege. An exclusivist reading of 3:110 requires not only ignoring the conditional clause within the verse but also ignoring the verses that immediately follow it. The Quran’s structure is not random; the juxtaposition of verses is a crucial hermeneutical key to unlocking their intended meaning. The verses that directly follow, 3:113-115, serve as a powerful and immediate temper to any notion of absolute Muslim superiority that one might erroneously derive from 3:110. These verses turn their attention to a righteous segment of the “People of the Book” (a term for Jews and Christians). The Quran describes them in glowing terms: they are not all alike; among them is a “community that is steadfast (Ummatun Qa’imah),” who “recite the verses of God during periods of the night while they prostrate in prayer.” The description of their virtues continues: they “believe in God and the Last Day,” they “enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong” (using the exact same ethical formula as in 3:110), and they “hasten to good deeds.” The Quran concludes with the unambiguous and powerful assurance that these righteous non-Muslims are “among the righteous (min-as-salihin),” and that “whatever good they do—never will it be denied them.” The placement of this powerful endorsement of piety and salvation for non-Muslims directly after the Khair Umma verse is a deliberate and brilliant rhetorical move. It prevents the reader from concluding that 3:110 implies a monopoly on righteousness or divine favour. It demonstrates that the ethical criteria for divine approval—enjoining good, forbidding evil, and sincere faith—are universal principles, not the exclusive property of the Muslim community. The Quran, when read holistically as a coherent whole, presents a vision where moral virtue and sincere faith, not communal labels, are the ultimate criteria for divine favour. The "Middle Nation" as Witness, Not Judge The concept of the Muslim community’s special role is further illuminated by another key verse, 2:143, which describes the Ummah as an Ummatan Wasatan—a “middle” or “justly balanced” nation. The purpose of this designation is also explicitly stated: “…so that you may be witnesses over mankind (shuhada’a ‘ala-n-nas), and the Messenger may be a witness over you.” This concept of “witnessing” profoundly reframes the community’s role. A witness testifies to a truth; they do not possess it as their exclusive property. The role is one of moral exemplarity, of living out the principles of justice, balance, and moderation in a way that serves as a model for all of humanity. It is a role of service and responsibility, not one of self-glorification or judgment over others. As the esteemed scholar Fazlur Rahman clarifies, both the Khair Umma and Ummatan Wasatan clauses refer not to an ontological privilege but to a functional one: the community is expected to serve humanity through ethical stewardship and by bearing witness to God's truth through its collective actions, not to gloat in supremacist pride (Rahman, p.117). This perspective shifts the focus from an identity of being “the best” to the active duty of doing good for the sake of all people (Ukhrijat Li-N-Nas, “raised for humanity”). The modern Amman Message, a 2004 consensus statement by over 200 prominent Muslim scholars from around the world, reflects this more inclusive understanding, reinterpreting the concept of the ummah as a call for internal unity and mutual recognition, not as a license for supremacy over other faith communities (Amman, p.12). The Quran's Universalist Counter-Narrative The hermeneutical hollowness of Muslim exclusivism becomes most apparent when the claims of linguistic and communal superiority are juxtaposed with the Quran’s powerful, pervasive, and consistent counter-narrative of universalism, ethical egalitarianism, and divine pluralism. To maintain an exclusivist stance requires not just the de-contextualization of a few verses but the wilful neglect of some of the Quran's most profound theological statements about God, humanity, and salvation. If there is a single verse that serves as the Quran's definitive refutation of all forms of supremacy based on group identity, it is 49:13. This verse addresses not just Muslims, but all of humanity: “O mankind (Ya Ayyuha-N-Nas), indeed We have created you from a single male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another (li-ta’arafu). Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you (Inna Akramakum ‘Inda-Llahi Atqakum).” This verse is revolutionary in its implications. It directly confronts and dismantles the very foundations of tribal, ethnic, racial, and, by clear extension, communal-religious chauvinism. It establishes several key principles: 1. A Common Origin: All of humanity shares a single origin, creating a fundamental basis for unity. 2. Diversity with a Purpose: The division of humanity into nations and tribes is not for hierarchy or conflict, but for the noble purpose of mutual recognition and understanding. Diversity is divinely willed and has a positive social goal. 3. A Single Criterion for Nobility: The verse explicitly rejects all worldly metrics of superiority—lineage, wealth, power, race, or communal label—and replaces them with a single, God-centred criterion: Taqwa. Taqwa is a complex term encompassing piety, God-consciousness, moral rectitude, and righteousness. This makes Taqwa the ultimate measure of human worth in the sight of God. Crucially, Taqwa is an internal state, a quality of the heart and of one's actions, which is known truly only to God. It is accessible to any human being, regardless of their background. Verse 49:13 thus provides a framework of profound moral egalitarianism that stands in direct opposition to any claim of inherent communal favouritism. It forces the believer to look beyond external labels and focus on the universal substance of ethical and spiritual excellence. Theological Pluralism and Multiple Paths to Salvation The anti-universalism of exclusivism, which posits that only Muslims who adhere to a specific formulation of the faith can achieve salvation, directly undermines the Quran’s surprisingly pluralistic ethos. The Quran repeatedly affirms that divine guidance is a universal phenomenon, sent to all peoples throughout history through their own messengers (10:47; 16:36; 35:24). Muhammad’s message is presented as a confirmation of the timeless, universal truths in previous revelations, not a complete negation of them. Perhaps the most devastating verses to any claim of a Muslim monopoly on salvation are 2:62 and its near-identical reiteration in 5:69: “Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabians—those [among them] who believed in God and the Last Day and did righteousness—will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.” These verses are unambiguous. They lay out a clear and simple formula for salvation that is not contingent on professing Islam. The criteria are threefold: (1) sincere belief in the one God, (2) belief in a final day of judgment and accountability, and (3) righteous action. Any individual from these named communities (and the ambiguous term "Sabians" has allowed for broader interpretations) who fulfils these conditions is promised salvation. As Farid Esack argues, verses like 2:62 represent a form of “theological pluralism” within the Quranic worldview that fundamentally challenges and subverts later, more rigid claims of exclusive salvation (Esack, p. 112-115). While other verses, such as 3:85 (“And whoever desires other than Islam as religion—never will it be accepted from him”), are cited by exclusivists, a holistic hermeneutic requires holding these verses in tension. Progressive scholars argue that "Islam" in 3:85 can be interpreted not as the specific religio-political identity of "Islam," but in its literal linguistic sense as "submission" to God's will, a state accessible to any righteous monotheist, thus harmonizing it with the pluralism of 2:62 (Ellethy, p.69). Furthermore, the Quran acknowledges the diversity of religious laws as part of the divine plan. Verse 5:48 states, “To each of you We prescribed a law and a method (Shir’atan Wa-Minhaja). Had God willed, He would have made you one community, but [He willed otherwise] that He may test you in what He has given you. So race to [all that is] good (Fa-Stabiq-Ul-Khayrat).” This verse does not call for the obliteration of other communities, but for a universal competition in virtue and good deeds. It reframes inter-religious relations as a race towards righteousness, not a battle for supremacy. Prophetic Humility versus Communal Arrogance The spiritual arrogance inherent in exclusivist claims stands in stark contrast to the model of humility presented by the Prophet Muhammad in the Quran. The Prophet is never portrayed as a divine being or a man who claimed superiority beyond his role as a humble messenger. He is repeatedly commanded to emphasize his own humanity: “Say, ‘I am only a man like you (Innama Ana Basharun Mithlukum), to whom it has been revealed that your god is one God’” (18:110, 41:6). This prophetic humility serves as a model for the community. Yet, many who claim to follow him arrogate to themselves a status of superiority he never claimed for himself, setting themselves up as arbiters of salvation based on arbitrary markers like language and communal affiliation. This very attitude is one the Quran vehemently critiques in previous religious communities. The text frequently warns against the exclusivist claims made by segments of the Children of Israel and Christians, who claimed to be God’s chosen children and beloved, and that salvation was their exclusive birth-right (5:18). Verse 2:111 records their claim, “None will enter Paradise except one who is a Jew or a Christian.” The Quran’s response is a timeless critique of all such claims: “That is [merely] their wishful thinking.” The Quranic narrative thus positions Muslim exclusivism as a dangerous replication of the exact spiritual disease it sought to cure in previous communities. It is a cautionary tale against the vanity of believing that God’s infinite mercy can be confined within the boundaries of a single community (7:156). Epistemic Humility and the Limits of Divine Knowledge Finally, the claim to possess the exclusive and exhaustive truth about God and salvation represents a form of epistemic arrogance that is profoundly at odds with the Quran’s emphasis on the limits of human knowledge. The Quran insists that ultimate knowledge belongs to God alone. Exclusivist claims to know with certainty who is and who is not saved is to claim access to divine judgment, a clear violation of theological boundaries. Verses like 4:123-124 deliver a sharp rebuke to such certainty: “Paradise is not [obtained] by your wishful thinking nor by that of the People of the Book. Whoever does evil will be recompensed for it… And whoever does righteous deeds, whether male or female, while being a believer—those will enter Paradise.” The emphasis is, once again, on individual action and faith, not on communal guarantees. A robust hermeneutic of the Quran must lead to a state of epistemic humility (Ellethy, p.73). It requires recognizing that human interpretation is always partial and fallible, and that divine mercy is vast and uncontainable. To turn the Quran, a text that describes itself as a guidance for all worlds (Rahmatun Lil- ‘Alameen, 21:107), into a parochial tribal charter is the ultimate hermeneutical betrayal. The True Burden of Chosenness The foundations of Muslim exclusivism, when constructed upon the supposed supremacy of the Arabic language and the unconditional superiority of the Khair Umma, crumble under careful and holistic hermeneutical scrutiny. These claims are not only theologically hollow but stand in direct contradiction to the Quran’s most cherished and consistently articulated principles. The choice of Arabic for the Quranic revelation was a pragmatic and pedagogical act of divine communication aimed at clarity for its initial audience, not a metaphysical declaration of its supremacy over all other languages. This point is underscored by the Quran’s own universal law of sending prophets in the language of their people and its profound celebration of linguistic diversity as a divine sign for those with knowledge. To sacralise the medium at the expense of the universal message is to miss the forest for the trees. Similarly, the designation of Khair Umma is not a blanket statement of inherent, ontological superiority but a deeply conditional, ethical charge. It is not a badge of honour to be worn with pride, but a heavy burden of responsibility to be shouldered with humility. The title is contingent upon the active, collective struggle to enjoin good and forbid evil, a mission undertaken for the benefit of all humanity. The Quran itself immediately checks any arrogant interpretation of this verse by praising righteous non-Muslims who fulfil the very same ethical mandate, proving that moral worth, not a communal label, is the currency of divine favour. When read as a coherent whole, the Quran provides all the necessary tools for the deconstruction of these exclusivist fantasies. It offers a consistent and powerful message of ethical universalism, divine justice, and a pluralistic view of righteousness that transcends all communal boundaries. The bedrock principles of its worldview—the ultimate moral egalitarianism of all humanity declared in 49:13, the explicit possibility of salvation for righteous non-Muslims in 2:62, the celebration of diversity as a divine sign in 30:22, and the consistent demand for prophetic and epistemic humility—all combine to dismantle the theological fortress of exclusivism. To cling to an exclusivist interpretation is to favour communal vanity and tribal comfort over the Quran's profound and challenging call for a universal human morality. It is to reduce a message intended as a "mercy to all the worlds" into a charter for a self-congratulatory club. The true burden of any perceived "chosenness" within the Quranic paradigm is not the privilege of being better, but the awesome responsibility to be better—to serve as witnesses to justice, to race towards goodness, and to recognize the face of God in the magnificent diversity of His creation. It is a call extended to all who would listen, in whatever tongue they may speak, and judged not by the name of their community, but by the content of their character and the righteousness of their deeds. Bibliography Abu Zayd, Nasr. Voice of an Exile: Reflections on Islam. Praeger Publishers, 2004. Abu Zayd, Nasr Hamid. Reformation of Islamic Thought: A Critical Historical Analysis. Amsterdam University Press, 2006. Aijaz, Imran. "Traditional Islamic Exclusivism – A Critique." PhilArchive, 2014. al-Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir. The Commentary on the Quran. Translated by J. Cooper, Oxford University Press, 1987. Ali, Kecia. Sexual Ethics and Islam. Oneworld Publications, 2016. Amman Message. The Amman Message: The Official Site, 2006, www.ammanmessage.com. An-Na’im, Abdullahi Ahmed. Toward an Islamic Reformation. Syracuse UP, 1990. Arkoun, Mohammed. Rethinking Islam: Common Questions, Uncommon Answers. Translated by R. D. Lee, Westview Press, 1994. Arkoun, Mohammed. Islam: To Reform or to Subvert? Saqi Books, 2006. Bulliet, Richard W. Islam: The View from the Edge. Columbia University Press, 1994. Cambridge University Press. “Hyper-exegesis in Persian translations of the Quran.” International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 56, no. 1, 2024, pp. 1-20. El-Refaee, Engy. “Islam and Women’s Rights: Abu Zayd’s Hermeneutical Reading of the Quran.” Rowaq Arabi, vol. 29, no. 1, 2024, pp. 163-182. Ellethy, Yaser. "Coping with a Quranic Truth Claim: Muslim Hermeneutics of Knowledge and Pluralism." Interreligious Studies and Intercultural Theology, vol. 6, no. 1, 2022, pp. 66–84. Esack, Farid. Quran, Liberation and Pluralism: An Islamic Perspective of Interreligious Solidarity Against Oppression. Oneworld Publications, 1997. Hassan, Riffat. Women's Rights and Islamic Law: A Study of the Classical and Contemporary Muslim Thought. Pharos Media, 1995. Izutsu, Toshihiko. God and Man in the Quran. Islamic Book Trust, 1964. Izutsu, Toshihiko. Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Quran. McGill-Queen's University Press, 2002. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. "Language as Power: Literary Interpretations of the Quran in Early Islam." Vol. 28, Issue 2, April 2018, pp. 207–230. McAuliffe, Jane Dammen. Quranic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis. Cambridge University Press, 1991. Moussalli, Ahmad S. Moderate and Radical Islamic Fundamentalism: The Quest for Modernity, Legitimacy, and the Islamic State. University Press of Florida, 1999. Rahman, Fazlur. Major Themes of the Quran. University of Chicago Press, 1980. Rahman, Fazlur. Islam and Modernity: Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition. University of Chicago Press, 1982. Rippin, Andrew. Muslims: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. Routledge, 2001. Sands, Kristin Zahra. Sufi Commentaries on the Quran in Classical Islam. Routledge, 2006. Shahrur, Muhammad. The Quran, Morality and Critical Reason: The Essential Muhammad Shahrur. Translated by Adnan A. Zulfiqar, Brill, 2009. Stewart, Devin J. "Poetic License in the Quranic 'Challenge.'" Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 124, no. 2, 2004, pp. 183-196. Versteegh, C. H. M. The Arabic Language. Edinburgh University Press, 1997. Watt, W. Montgomery. Islamic Philosophy and Theology. Edinburgh University Press, 1962. Yahya, YK. "Arabic Language as Representation of Muslim Identity in Indonesia." Lakhomi Journal, 2021, pp. 473–486. ------ V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/islam-pluralism/perceived-chosenness-critique-muslim-exclusivism/d/136827 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism