Friday, June 20, 2025
Is there Anti-Semitism in the Quran?
By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof, New Age Islam
20 June 2025
Abstract:
This paper undertakes a hermeneutical examination of verses within the Quran that have been interpreted as anti-Judaic or anti-Semitic. It explores the complexities of applying modern terms like "anti-Semitism" to a 7th-century text, distinguishing between theological critique and racial animosity. The paper will analyse specific verses frequently cited in this context, considering their historical and literary settings, classical and modern exegesis, and the Quran's broader narrative concerning the "Family of the Book" (Ahl al-Kitab). It argues that while the Quran contains strong condemnations of certain actions and beliefs attributed to specific Jewish groups at particular historical junctures, a holistic and context-sensitive hermeneutical approach reveals a more complex picture than a blanket charge of inherent, essentialist anti-Semitism allows. The paper also acknowledges the unfortunate reality that certain interpretations have been employed to fuel anti-Jewish sentiment, underscoring the critical role of responsible hermeneutics. The question of "definite" anti-Judaic content depends heavily on the lens of interpretation; however, a holistic reading guided by classical and thoughtful modern hermeneutics does not support the notion of the Quran as an inherently or systematically anti-Semitic text in the modern sense of racial animus. The charge that the Quran promotes anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism has been a contentious issue in theological, academic, and political discourse. This paper offers a hermeneutical examination of Quranic verses that critics often label as anti-Semitic, contextualizing them within the socio-historical and ethical framework of the Quran. It argues that many of these verses are either polemical responses to specific historical behaviours or misinterpreted through decontextualized, literalist, or politicized lenses. The Quran, when read holistically and ethically, affirms the dignity of the Children of Israel, acknowledges their prophetic legacy, and criticizes only particular actions, not Jewish identity or belief per se. Hence, the charge of inherent Quranic anti-Semitism fails under multifaceted hermeneutical scrutiny.
------
Defining Terms and Setting the Stage
The question of whether the Quran, the sacred scripture of Islam, contains "definite anti-Semitic and anti-Judaic verses" is fraught with historical, theological, and emotional complexities. This inquiry has generated significant debate among scholars, theologians, and historians, often shaped by political currents and interfaith relations. To approach this question with intellectual honesty and academic rigor requires a careful hermeneutical examination, one that navigates the nuances of language, historical context, and the vast interpretive traditions that have developed over fourteen centuries. My aim is to undertake such an examination, exploring verses often cited as problematic while considering the broader Quranic narrative and established principles of Islamic exegesis.
Firstly, it is crucial to define our terms with precision, as their application to different historical epochs can lead to significant misunderstanding. "Anti-Judaism" typically refers to theological opposition to Judaism as a religion—its tenets, practices, or the perceived failures of its adherents to uphold their covenant with God. This form of critique, often polemical, has been a common feature in inter-religious discourse throughout history, existing, for example, between various Christian denominations, and notably between Christianity and Judaism, long before the advent of Islam. The Quran, emerging in a religiously pluralistic environment, engages in theological debates and critiques concerning existing faith communities, including Judaism and Christianity.
"Anti-Semitism," conversely, is a distinctly modern term, coined in 19th-century Europe by Wilhelm Marr. It frames hostility towards Jews primarily in racial or ethnic terms, often attributing to them inherent, immutable negative characteristics, biological or cultural, that define them as a collective. This ideology fuelled discriminatory laws, pogroms, and ultimately, the Holocaust. Applying such a racially charged term anachronistically to a 7th-century religious text like the Quran is inherently problematic. The intellectual and social landscape of 7th-century Arabia did not operate on modern racial theories. The Quranic discourse, when critical of certain groups of Jews, focuses on their actions, beliefs, covenantal relationships with God, and their response to prophetic messages, not on a perceived racial essence or immutable ethnic defect. Therefore, while one might discuss "anti-Judaic" elements in a theological or polemical sense, applying "anti-Semitism" in its modern, racialized connotation requires careful qualification and considerable contextual awareness. The Quran employs distinct terms to refer to Jews: Banu Israʾil (Children of Israel), used 44 times, often in narratives about biblical Israelites, generally acknowledging the covenant between God and the Israelites (e.g., Quran 2:40, 2:47) but also critiquing their failures (e.g., Quran 2:61, 5:70); and Yahud (Jews), which appears 11 times, primarily in critiques of specific Jewish communities’ contemporary to the Prophet Muhammad, particularly in Medina. Scholars like Khalid Duran have noted that negative critiques are often concentrated in passages using Yahud, while Banu Israʾil frequently reflects a shared Abrahamic heritage and a history of divine favour.
Hermeneutics, the theory and methodology of interpretation, is indispensable when dealing with sacred texts. The meaning of a verse is not always self-evident from a literal reading and can be profoundly shaped by the interpreter's presuppositions, historical understanding, theological commitments, and methodological approach. The Quran, like any complex religious text, has been subject to a wide spectrum of interpretations throughout its history, reflecting diverse intellectual currents and socio-political contexts. This study applies a hermeneutical framework that emphasizes historical-contextual analysis (understanding the occasions of revelation), textual coherence (nazm, interpreting verses in light of the overall Quranic message), an ethical-theological approach (using the Quran's overarching moral vision as a guide), and interreligious hermeneutics (comparing Quranic views of Jews with its treatment of other faith groups). Numerical verse references will be used to focus on interpretive principles rather than lengthy verbatim quotations.
The Quran's engagement with Jews is multifaceted, referencing the Children of Israel (Banu Israʾil) and al-Yahud. It acknowledges their history, scripture, and prophets while also critiquing their actions and beliefs. Some chapters of the Quran highlight shared narratives, laws, and moral guidance, while others address conflicts and theological disagreements with Jewish communities during the Prophet Muhammad's time. It includes verses of high praise for their prophets and earlier divine revelations, alongside verses of stern critique and condemnation for specific actions or beliefs attributed to certain groups among them at particular historical moments. The Quran's depiction of Jews and Judaism, therefore, reflects the diverse experiences and interactions between the nascent Muslim community and Jewish communities, particularly during the Prophet Muhammad's time in Medina. Therefore, to label the Quran as inherently or "definitely" anti-Semitic, in the modern racial sense, risks oversimplifying a complex textual and historical reality and often neglects the rich tradition of Islamic hermeneutics that contextualizes such verses. I will explore these contexts and interpretations to offer a more nuanced understanding, arguing that the Quran's engagement with Jews involves critique, admonition, recognition of their prophetic heritage, and persistent calls to monotheism, making a simple label of "anti-Semitic" problematic without deep hermeneutical engagement. This examination underscores the necessity of contextual hermeneutics to disentangle theological critique from ethnic hostility, recognizing the Quran’s dual role as a spiritual guide and a product of its milieu.
Family of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab)
Before delving into specific verses deemed controversial, it is essential to understand the Quran's general framework concerning previous monotheistic communities, collectively termed Ahl al-Kitab (Family of the Book). This term primarily refers to Jews and Christians, whose scriptures and prophetic traditions the Quran acknowledges as divinely inspired. The Quran positions Islam not as a radical rupture from these Abrahamic traditions, but as a continuation, confirmation, and culmination of the same primordial monotheistic message revealed to earlier prophets.
The Quran explicitly affirms the divine origin of the scriptures revealed to Jews and Christians, most notably the Torah (Tawrat) and the Gospel (Injil). For instance, Quran 3:3 states, "He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel." Similar affirmations are found in Quran 5:44, which describes the Torah as containing "guidance and light" by which prophets who submitted to God judged for the Jews, and calls upon the "People of the Gospel" to judge by what God revealed therein (Quran 5:47). This recognition extends to the prophets revered in Judaism; Moses (Musa) is one of the most frequently mentioned prophets in the Quran (over 130 times), consistently portrayed with great honour and as a pivotal figure in salvation history. Abraham (Ibrahim), David (Dawud), Solomon (Sulayman), and other Israelite prophets are also held in high esteem, forming part of this continuous chain of prophecy that culminates, in Islamic belief, with Prophet Muhammad. The Quran repeatedly emphasizes this shared Abrahamic heritage, presenting Muhammad’s message as a restoration of the pure monotheism of Abraham (Quran 2:135, 3:67).
Furthermore, the Quran acknowledges the spiritual merits and righteousness of individuals among the Family of the Book. Quran 2:62 (and reiterated in similar terms in Quran 5:69) is a cornerstone in this regard: "Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans [before Prophet Muhammad] - 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." This verse is often cited by Muslim scholars as evidence of the Quran's inclusive vision of salvation for righteous monotheists who adhere to their respective divine laws.
Verses such as Quran 3:113-115 also speak positively of a segment of the People of the Book: "They are not [all] the same; among the People of the Scripture is a community standing [in obedience], reciting the verses of God during periods of the night and prostrating [in prayer]. They believe in God and the Last Day, and they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and hasten to good deeds. And those are among the righteous." Quran 7:159 similarly recognizes that "And among the people of Moses is a community which guides by truth and by it establishes justice." These verses clearly indicate that the Quran does not issue a blanket condemnation of all Jews or Christians but distinguishes between those who uphold righteousness and faith and those who deviate or act with hostility.
The Quranic narrative often addresses the Children of Israel directly, reminding them of God's past favours (e.g., Quran 2:40, 2:47, "O Children of Israel, remember My favour which I have bestowed upon you and that I preferred you over the worlds"). It also affirms that God favoured the Children of Israel above others in their time (Quran 45:16). The Quran acknowledges Jewish prophets and divine revelations such as the Torah (Quran 5:12, 32:23, 2:136, 6:84). These affirmative verses directly challenge any reading that generalizes condemnation of Jews; the Quranic narrative is nuanced, differentiating between ethical conduct and inherited identity.
This recognition of a shared Abrahamic heritage, the divine origin of previous scriptures, and the righteousness of some among the People of the Book creates a complex tapestry where critique and affirmation can coexist. The Quran’s critiques, when they appear, are often directed at specific actions, interpretations, or failures to uphold covenants, rather than at the inherent nature of the People of the Book themselves. This framework is crucial for understanding the verses that are sometimes perceived as problematic, as they exist within this broader, often positive, engagement.
Analysing "Problematic" Verses
Several categories of Quranic verses are frequently cited by critics as evidence of anti-Judaism or, more contentiously and anachronistically, anti-Semitism. A responsible hermeneutical examination requires looking at these verses not in isolation but within their literary, historical, and theological contexts, as understood through classical and thoughtful modern tafsir.
A significant number of Quranic verses address the perceived rejection of prophets and divine messages by segments of the Children of Israel. Verses such as Quran 2:87-91, 4:155-157, and 5:70 are prominent examples in this category.
Quran 2:87 begins by recalling God's covenant with the Children of Israel and the sending of messengers, stating, "And We did certainly give Moses the Scripture and followed up after him with messengers. And We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear proofs and supported him with the Pure Spirit. But is it [not] that every time a messenger came to you, [O Children of Israel], with what your souls did not desire, you were arrogant? And a party [of messengers] you denied and another party you kill." This verse sets a tone of rebuke for rejecting divine guidance and even violence against messengers.
Quran 2:89-91 continues this theme, specifically in relation to the Prophet Muhammad. Verse 2:89 speaks of some Jews rejecting him despite allegedly recognizing the truth he brought: "And when there came to them a Book from God confirming that which was with them - although before they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieved - but [now] when there came to them that which they recognized, they disbelieved in it; so the curse of God is upon the disbelievers." Verse 2:91 further states, "And when it is said to them, 'Believe in what God has revealed,' they say, 'We believe [only] in what was revealed to us.' And they disbelieve in what came after it, while it is the truth confirming that which is with them. Say, 'Then why did you kill the prophets of God before, if you are [indeed] believers?'"
Quran 4:155-157 details a list of transgressions: "[And [We cursed them] for] their breaking of the covenant and their disbelief in the signs of God and their killing of the prophets without right and their saying, 'Our hearts are wrapped' [i.e., sealed against accepting guidance]. Rather, God has sealed them because of their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few. And [We cursed them] for their disbelief and their saying against Mary a great slander, and [for] their saying, 'Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of God.' And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them." Quran 5:70 echoes this: "We had already taken the covenant of the Children of Israel and had sent to them messengers. Whenever there came to them a messenger with what their souls did not desire, a party of them they denied, and a party they killed."
Classical commentators largely connect these verses to specific historical encounters and disputes between the nascent Muslim community in Medina and certain Jewish tribes or individuals. The occasions of revelation literature often link these verses to debates surrounding Muhammad's claim to prophethood, which some Jewish groups contested, sometimes vehemently, leading to polemical exchanges. The critiques are framed as responses to specific rejections of divine messages (including that of Muhammad), perceived betrayals of covenants (such as political treaties in Medina, e.g., with Banu Qurayza), or theological disagreements.
The charge of "killing prophets" (e.g., Quran 2:91, 3:21, 4:155, 5:70) is a severe one. Islamic exegetes generally understand this not as a collective, trans-historical guilt of all Jews for all time, but as a reference to historical events of certain Israelites killing or persecuting their prophets, events that are sometimes alluded to within Jewish tradition itself (e.g., the fates of prophets like Zechariah or Jeremiah, though specific identifications vary among commentators). This historical precedent is then used polemically in the Quran to highlight a pattern of rejecting divine messengers when their message challenged established norms, power structures, or vested interests. For instance, Ibn Kathir, in his tafsir of 2:91, refers to their historical killing of prophets like Zechariah and John the Baptist (Yahya). The accusation in the Quranic context serves to question the sincerity of those contemporary Medinan Jews who claimed to believe only in what was revealed to them while allegedly having a history of rejecting even their own prophets.
Crucially, the Quran's internal logic frequently castigates various communities (not just Israelites) that reject their prophets – this is a recurrent theme and a standard feature of divine judgment in the Quranic narrative. The people of Noah, Hud, Salih, Lot, Shu'ayb are all depicted as rejecting their respective prophets and facing consequences. The condemnation is thus typically understood by mainstream exegetes as being directed at those specific actions of rejection and disbelief committed by particular groups at particular times, rather than an ontological condemnation of all Jews throughout history based on an inherent "Jewish essence." The focus is on the behaviour of rejecting divine guidance, a behaviour to which any group could be susceptible. The verses about killing prophets often serve as a rhetorical device to challenge the claims of exclusive adherence to past revelations by those who rejected the current one.
Perhaps the most frequently cited verse in this category, and one that has been particularly prone to misuse, is Quran 5:82: "You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with God; and you will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, 'We are Christians.' That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant."
The historical context of Medina is indispensable for understanding this verse. This period was marked by complex political alliances, shifting loyalties, economic rivalries, and sometimes open conflict between the Prophet Muhammad's growing community and some of the influential Jewish tribes of the oasis (e.g., Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza). The verse was revealed during a time of significant tension and hostility from certain Jewish factions who actively opposed the Prophet, sometimes aligning with his Meccan enemies.
Many classical exegetes, such as al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir, interpret this verse as a description of the political and social realities of that specific time and place. It reflected the intense opposition that some Jewish groups mounted against the early Muslims. For example, al-Wahidi in his Asbab al-Nuzul links the praise for Christians in the latter part of the verse to the delegation from Najran or to Negus, the Christian king of Abyssinia, who offered refuge to early Muslim emigrants. The contrast within the same verse—praising certain Christians for their humility and closeness to believers—suggests a differentiation based on observed attitudes and behaviours of specific groups at that time, rather than a fixed, inherent nature attributed to entire religious communities for all time.
Modern Muslim scholars like Reuven Firestone argue that such verses often reflect the "tribal context" of 7th-century Arabia, where group solidarity and enmity were common features of social and political life. They suggest the verse is a contingent observation of a particular historical situation and the disposition of certain groups within that specific context, not a timeless ontological statement about the essential nature of all Jews. The phrasing "ashadd al-nas 'adawatan" (most intense of the people in animosity) is seen by many as descriptive of the stance of those particular Jewish factions in Medina who were actively hostile during that period of conflict.
Furthermore, some scholars point to the use of "min" (from/among) in many other Quranic verses that discuss the Family of the Book, implying "some of" rather than "all." While "min" is not explicit before "al-Yahud" in 5:82, the principle of contextual interpretation and harmonization with other verses (like 3:113-115, which praises some Family of the Book) leads many to understand this as referring to those Jews who exhibited such intense animosity, not every Jew universally and eternally. Islamic legal and theological tradition generally did not translate this verse into a universal, ahistorical mandate for Muslims to view all Jews with perpetual enmity. The development of dhimmi laws, provisions for peaceful coexistence, commercial interactions, and even intermarriage (Quran 5:5 allowing Muslim men to marry chaste women from the Family of the Book) strongly suggests a more complex and often pragmatic relationship than a single, decontextualized reading of 5:82 would imply. The question of whether this is a timeless ontological statement or a historically contingent observation is central, with most classical and many modern scholars leaning towards the latter, or specifying it to those who actively manifest such enmity.
The "Apes and Swine" Verses
Verses such as Quran 2:65-66, 5:60, and 7:166 mention a divine punishment where a group of Israelites who violated the Sabbath were transformed, or told to be, "apes, despised." Quran 2:65-66 states: "And you had already known about those who transgressed among you concerning the sabbath, and We said to them, 'Be apes, despised.' And We made it a deterrent punishment for those who were present and those who succeeded them and a lesson for those who fear God."
Quran 7:163-166 provides a more detailed narrative about "the town that was by the sea - when they transgressed concerning the sabbath - when their fish came to them openly on their sabbath day, and on the day they had no sabbath they did not come to them. Thus did We give them trial because they were defiantly disobedient... And when they insolently persisted in what they were forbidden, We said to them, 'Be apes, despised.'"
Quran 5:60 is particularly harsh and often cited: "Say, 'Shall I inform you of [what is] worse than that as recompense from God? [It is that of] those whom God has cursed and with whom He became angry and made of them apes and swine and worshippers of Taghut [false deities]. Those are worse in position and further astray from the sound way.'"
These are arguably among the most misused and misunderstood sets of verses, often decontextualized in anti-Jewish rhetoric. Classical Islamic exegesis, however, almost universally interprets these verses as referring to a specific historical incident involving a specific group of Israelites who deliberately and persistently violated the Sabbath despite clear warnings. This is not presented in classical tafsir as a description of the inherent nature of all Jews, nor as a trans historical curse affecting all Jews.
For example, al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, al-Qurtubi, and other prominent classical commentators clearly link these verses to the story of the "people of the town by the sea" (often identified by commentators as Eilat or Tiberias during a specific historical period) who devised tricks to circumvent the Sabbath prohibition on fishing. The punishment of transformation was for that particular group and for that specific sin of flagrant and defiant disobedience.
The nature of the transformation itself has been a subject of debate among exegetes:
Literal Transformation: Some classical commentators held that a physical metamorphosis occurred.
Metaphorical Transformation: Many others, including some classical and many modern scholars, interpret the transformation metaphorically, signifying a spiritual or moral degradation, a loss of humanity, or a state of abject humiliation and beast-like behaviour. They became like apes in their base desires or their mimicry without understanding. The purpose was to make them "despised" (khasi'in).
Regardless of whether the transformation was literal or metaphorical, classical exegetes overwhelmingly agree that it was a specific punishment for a particular historical transgression by a defined group. The primary intent of narrating this story in the Quran, according to these exegetes, is to serve as an 'ibra (a lesson, a warning, an example to learn from) for all people, including the Muslim community, against flagrant disobedience to God's commands and against trying to deceive God. Quran 2:66 explicitly states its purpose: "And We made it a deterrent punishment for those who were present and those who succeeded them and a lesson for those who fear God."
The decontextualized and literalist application of "apes and swine" as a general, enduring slur against all Jews is a modern distortion, often found in extremist political rhetoric. This stands in stark contrast to mainstream classical interpretations which emphasized its specificity as a divine retribution for a particular past event and its function as a universal moral lesson. The danger of such decontextualized readings fuelling hatred is immense, and responsible hermeneutics requires restoring the specific historical and didactic context of these verses.
Accusations of Arrogance, Greed, and Corruption
Various Quranic verses accuse certain Jews of specific moral and spiritual failings, including arrogance, greed, distorting scripture, and making blasphemous claims about God.
Quran 3:181 refers to those among them who allegedly said, "'Indeed, God is poor, while we are rich.' We will record what they said and their killing of the prophets without right and will say, 'Taste the punishment of the Burning Fire.'" This is presented as a blasphemous utterance mocking God's omnipotence and sufficiency.
Similarly, Quran 5:64 mentions some saying, "'The hand of God is chained' [i.e., He is miserly or powerless]. Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are widely outstretched; He spends however He wills." This verse again refutes a perceived blasphemous claim attributing stinginess or lack of power to God. Quran 2:61, in recounting the Israelites' discontent in the wilderness, mentions their demand for earthly provisions over manna and quails, leading to the statement, "And they were covered with humiliation and poverty and returned with anger from God. That was because they [repeatedly] disbelieved in the signs of God and killed the prophets without right. That was because they disobeyed and were habitual transgressors."
The claims about God being "poor" (Quran 3:181) or His "hand being chained" (Quran 5:64) are presented as specific blasphemous utterances by certain individuals. The Quran vehemently refutes these statements to uphold God's absolute omnipotence, sovereignty, generosity, and self-sufficiency. These are not framed as universal Jewish beliefs held by all Jews, but as errant and arrogant statements made by some, which the Quran uses as an occasion for theological instruction about God's attributes.
Accusations of greed (e.g., Quran 2:79, exchanging scripture for a "small price"; Quran 2:96, describing some as "most greedy of people for life") or being "stamped with humiliation and wretchedness" (Quran 2:61) are linked to specific behaviours: disobedience, disbelief in God's signs, and killing prophets. These are ethical and spiritual failings. It is crucial to note that the Quran also critiques negative behaviours and attitudes among other groups, including hypocrites within the Muslim community itself (e.g., Quran 9:73-80), polytheists, and sometimes Christians. For instance, the Quran condemns ostentation in charity (Quran 2:264) and hypocrisy generally. The critiques levelled against certain Jewish individuals or groups for arrogance, materialism, or breach of faith are thus part of a broader Quranic ethical framework that condemns such vices wherever they are found, not as characteristics unique to one religious group. The focus is on the act, not the ethnic or religious identity of the actor as an immutable cause of the act.
The Accusation of Manipulation of Sacred Texts
The Quran in 2:75 asks prophetically: “Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of God and then distort it (yuharrifunahu) after they had understood it while they were knowing?” This is followed by a stern condemnation in 2:79: “So woe to those who write the ‘scripture’ with their own hands, then say, ‘This is from God,’ in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.” These verses introduce the concept of tahrif — distortion or alteration of scripture.
The deliberate manipulation of sacred texts to serve vested interests represents a fundamental human flaw in engaging with divine guidance — a flaw that transcends any single religious tradition. The Quranic warning (2:75 and 2:79) articulates a universal principle rather than a narrow critique. It highlights a recurrent pattern in human behaviour: the exploitation of the sacred for worldly gain.
At its core, the Quran accuses some among the People of the Book of tahrif — knowingly distorting scripture, often in pursuit of material benefit or authority. Verse 2:79 reveals the motives behind such manipulation: material gain (“a small price”) and the consolidation of religious or social power (“say, ‘This is from God’”). This reflects a universal human temptation, transcending seventh-century Arabia or any particular group.
Wherever sacred texts hold authority, individuals or institutions may engage in practices such as:
• Selective interpretation: Emphasizing certain verses that support their agenda while ignoring others;
• Fabrication or alteration: Creating spurious texts or subtly changing wording and meanings;
• Monopolization of interpretation: Excluding dissenting voices to control religious discourse;
• Weaponisation of scripture: Using religious texts to justify violence, oppression, or social control;
• Commercialization of faith: Exploiting distorted interpretations to amass wealth or political influence.
This phenomenon is evident across religious traditions. In Christianity, historical debates over canon formation, deliberate forgeries, and interpretations used to justify crusades, slavery, or colonialism reflect this pattern. In Judaism, prophetic critiques within the Hebrew Bible challenge legalistic distortions and manipulation of the law. In Hinduism, selective emphasis on certain texts has sometimes been used to uphold social hierarchies. In Buddhism, distortions in the transmission of oral traditions or sectarian interpretations have occasionally served the interests of specific schools.
Even secular ideologies are not immune — constitutions, manifestos, and legal codes can be subject to reinterpretation, selective reading, and manipulation to serve contemporary power structures.
The Quran’s warning thus functions as a universal mirror, cautioning against the dangers of relying on corrupted sources. The timeless condemnation in 2:79 — “Woe to them…” — applies to anyone who engages in such practices, irrespective of religious identity. It addresses the persistent human failing of prioritizing self-interest over divine truth.
The underlying human frailties — greed, ambition, the lust for control, tribalism, and compromised integrity — are universal temptations. The corruption of sacred guidance (tahrif)—through deliberate misinterpretation, selective emphasis, textual fabrication, or monopolized interpretation for power, wealth, or social control—is a recurring failure of religious institutions and individuals across all traditions and historical periods.
Recognizing this universality is essential for fostering honest interfaith dialogue, encouraging critical self-reflection within religious communities, and guarding against the misuse of religious authority wherever scripture is invoked. The Quranic verses serve as a diagnosis of a universal spiritual malady — the tendency to manipulate the sacred for profane ends — and offer a profound and timeless warning.
It is important to note that these verses are primarily polemical, responding to specific claims, attitudes, and actions encountered by the early Muslim community in its interactions with some Jewish individuals or groups in Medina.
The accusation of tahrif is a major theme in Quranic polemics. Classical Muslim scholars debated its precise nature:
• Tahrif al-ma‘nawi (distortion of meaning): The majority opinion held that tahrif referred to misinterpretation — taking verses out of context, concealing parts of scripture, or twisting meanings to deny prophecies about Prophet Muhammad.
• Tahrif al-lafzi (textual alteration): A minority view asserted that actual textual changes had been introduced into the written scriptures of Jews and Christians.
The Quran’s critique of alleged scriptural distortion forms part of its broader argument for its own authenticity as a preserved and final revelation — one sent to clarify and restore the original divine message.
Specificity vs. Generality (Khas vs. 'Amm)
The concepts of naskh (abrogation, where a later revealed Quranic verse is understood by some scholars to supersede or modify the ruling of an earlier one) and the distinction between khas (specific in its application) and 'amm (general in its application) rulings are vital in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) and theology (kalam). These principles significantly impact the interpretation of verses concerning Jews and other People of the Book.
The theory of naskh itself is complex and has been a subject of considerable debate among Islamic scholars throughout history. While some classical scholars posited numerous instances of abrogation, many others, including prominent modern scholars, tend to limit its scope significantly, preferring harmonization (jam') or specification (takhsis) wherever possible. The idea is that different verses might apply to different contexts and circumstances rather than one simply cancelling out another.
In the context of verses concerning Jews, some interpretations, particularly more adversarial ones, have suggested that verses promoting peace, accommodation, or acknowledging the righteousness of some People of the Book (e.g., Quran 2:62, "Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans... will have their reward"; Quran 5:69, similar content; Quran 60:8-9, permitting kindness and justice to non-hostile non-Muslims) are abrogated by later verses revealed during times of conflict or political tension (e.g., Quran 9:5, the "verse of the sword," though primarily about polytheists; or Quran 9:29, the "jizya verse" concerning People of the Book who fight against Muslims or refuse peaceful terms).
However, a strong counter-argument from many classical and modern scholars is that these verses are not necessarily abrogated but apply to different situations. Verses of conciliation and recognition of righteousness would apply to peaceful, law-abiding People of the Book, while verses of confrontation or requiring tribute would apply to those who are actively hostile, break treaties, or are subdued in conflict within the context of the political realities of an Islamic state. This is where the principle of takhsis (specification or particularization) becomes crucial.
Most classical scholars argue for the specificity of condemnatory verses. They maintain that verses which critique or condemn certain actions or groups among the Jews (or Christians) are khas – they apply to those specific individuals or groups who committed particular offenses (like treachery, active political hostility, blasphemy, or persistent rejection of clear divine signs) at a specific historical juncture. They do not constitute an 'amm (general) condemnation of all Jews (or all People of the Book) for all time. For example, if a Jewish tribe in Medina, such as Banu Qurayza, was deemed to have broken a treaty and acted with hostility, Quranic verses condemning that action (e.g., related to Quran 33:26) would be specific to that group and that event, not a blanket condemnation of all Jews in perpetuity.
This principle of specificity is critical for a nuanced understanding. It prevents the universalization of polemical or conflict-specific verses into timeless statements of essential enmity. The verses affirming the People of the Book, their prophets, their scriptures (in their original form), and the righteousness of some among them (like Quran 2:62, 3:113-115, 5:69) would remain operative and applicable to those Jews and Christians who are peaceful, righteous, and uphold monotheistic values. This mainstream approach, which prioritizes harmonization and specification over widespread abrogation, is essential to avoid misinterpreting the Quran as monolithically hostile. The choice of hermeneutical principle—abrogation versus specification/harmonization—profoundly affects the resulting interpretation and its implications for interfaith relations.
Distinguishing Theological Polemic from Racial Anti-Semitism
A fundamental distinction must be made between the nature of inter-religious discourse in the 7th century and the modern phenomenon of racial anti-Semitism. The Quran's engagement with Jewish (and Christian) communities, even when critical or condemnatory, operates within the realm of theological polemic, which was a common feature of religious discourse in the pre-modern era.
This theological polemic centres on core issues of:
Covenant Fidelity: The Quran frequently reminds the Children of Israel of their covenant with God and critiques instances where, from the Quranic perspective, they failed to uphold it (e.g., Quran 2:40, 5:13).
Acceptance or Rejection of Prophets: A central theme is the call to accept Prophet Muhammad as the continuation of the line of prophets sent to them. Rejection of this claim becomes a point of strong contention (e.g., Quran 2:89-91).
Adherence to Divine Law: Critiques are levelled against perceived deviations from, or misinterpretations of, divine law, including the Sabbath (e.g., Quran 2:65) or dietary laws.
Theological Conceptions of God: The Quran staunchly defends radical monotheism (tawhid) and refutes any claims or actions perceived as compromising it, such as alleged statements about God's attributes (e.g., Quran 3:181, 5:64) or the claim in Quran 9:30 that "Ezra is the son of God" (a claim whose historical basis among mainstream Jewish groups is debated by scholars, possibly referring to a fringe sect or a misunderstanding).
These are critiques based on beliefs, actions, interpretations of scripture, and responses to divine messages. The Quran's categorization of humanity is primarily based on faith and conduct: believers (mu'minun), disbelievers (kafirun), Family of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab), hypocrites (munafiqun), polytheists (mushrikun), and the righteous (salihun). There is an absence of racial categories in this discourse in the modern sense. The Banu Isra'il are addressed as a community with a specific covenantal history with God, recognized for their lineage from Prophet Jacob (Israel), but the Quran's primary concern is their spiritual and moral response to divine guidance, not their ethnicity as an immutable biological or racial characteristic.
Modern anti-Semitism, as it emerged particularly from the 19th century onwards in Europe, is fundamentally different. It is characterized by racial theories that impute inherent, immutable, and negative biological, cultural, or characterological traits to all Jewish people, regardless of their individual beliefs, actions, or level of religious observance. This racialized hatred, which attributes collective guilt and demonic qualities to "the Jew" as an abstract entity, is foreign to the Quranic worldview and the intellectual framework of 7th-century Arabia. The Quran does not speak of Jews in terms of race or bloodline as the primary determinant of their character or destiny.
Therefore, retroactively imposing the label of "racial anti-Semitism" onto Quranic verses without acknowledging this fundamental distinction in the nature of the critique is anachronistic and misleading. While theological polemics can be harsh, and can, unfortunately, be decontextualized and misused by later generations to fuel animosity or justify prejudice (as discussed in the next section), they are different in their origin, nature, and intent from racially motivated hatred. The danger lies in retroactively imposing modern racial frameworks onto pre-modern texts, thereby distorting their original meaning and context.
From Classical Tafsir to Modern Extremism
The interpretation of Quranic verses, especially those concerning other religious communities, has never been monolithic. Throughout Islamic history, classical tafsir (exegesis) has, for the most part, contextualized the "problematic" verses, often linking them to specific historical events, theological arguments, or particular groups whose behaviour was being critiqued. While the language could be stern, reflecting the polemical environment, these interpretations generally did not call for a perpetual, indiscriminate hatred or persecution of all Jews simply for being Jewish.
Classical commentators like al-Tabari (d. 923), al-Zamakhshari (d. 1144), Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 1210), al-Qurtubi (d. 1273), and Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), despite their individual theological leanings and the socio-political contexts in which they wrote, generally approached these verses by:
Providing asbab al-nuzul (occasions of revelation) where known, linking verses to specific incidents or queries.
Explaining linguistic nuances of the Arabic terms.
Relating them to other Quranic verses or Hadith (prophetic traditions).
Debating whether a verse had a general ('amm) or specific (khas) application.
For example, when discussing verses like Quran 5:82 ("You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews..."), commentators like al-Tabari would often specify that this referred to those Jews contemporary to the Prophet who actively opposed him. Similarly, the "apes and swine" verses (e.g., Quran 2:65, 5:60) were almost universally understood by classical exegetes as punishment for a specific historical group for a particular transgression (Sabbath-breaking), not as a general descriptor of all Jews. Ibn Kathir, for instance, while sometimes employing harsh polemical language reflecting medieval inter-religious tensions, still typically contextualized such verses historically. There was a diversity of opinions within classical tafsir regarding the scope and implications of such verses, but the predominant trend was towards specificity for condemnatory passages.
Islamic law (Shariah), derived from the Quran and Sunnah (Prophet's practice), developed frameworks for the Family of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab) to live within Muslim societies under the status of dhimmi. This status granted them protection of life, property, and freedom of religious practice, along with internal autonomy in managing their communal affairs, albeit with certain restrictions and the payment of a special poll tax (jizya, as mentioned in Quran 9:29). While the application of dhimmi status varied across different historical periods and regions, and was not always ideal or consistently applied without discrimination, this historical reality of coexistence, often peaceful and even mutually beneficial (as seen in the "Golden Age" in Muslim Spain for Jews), is far removed from the genocidal intent and racial ideology of modern anti-Semitism. Scholars like Norman Stillman, in "The Jews of Arab Lands," distinguish between the theological critiques found in the Quran and the more "demonic" stereotypes that developed in Christian Europe, noting the general absence of the latter in classical Islamic societies.
However, it is an undeniable and tragic reality that in the modern era, particularly with the rise of political Islamism, the intensification of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the spread of global extremist ideologies, certain Quranic verses have been decontextualized, selectively quoted, and weaponized by extremist groups and ideologues to promote virulent anti-Jewish sentiment. This modern anti-Jewish rhetoric often mirrors the tropes and conspiracy theories of 19th and 20th-century European anti-Semitism (e.g., "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" being translated and disseminated in some Muslim contexts), which are then anachronistically projected back onto Quranic verses.
Groups like Hamas, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and various radical preachers may selectively quote verses like Quran 5:82 (enmity of Jews), Quran 5:64 ("hand of God is chained" or "they strive to spread corruption"), or the "apes and swine" passages (Quran 2:65, 5:60), stripping them of their historical, linguistic, and classical interpretive contexts. In these extremist interpretations, specific historical condemnations are transformed into timeless, essentialist traits of all Jews, justifying hatred, violence, and the denial of Jewish history and connection to the land. For example, Mahmoud Abbas, in a 2018 speech, controversially cited European Jewish historical involvement in finance as the cause of European animosity, echoing tropes that some attempt to link to Quranic verses like 5:64 about "spreading corruption," illustrating how Quranic rhetoric can be weaponized in modern conflicts. Critics of Islam often highlight these extremist interpretations or the verses themselves (e.g., citing 2:65, 5:60, 5:82, 9:30) as definitive proof of inherent Quranic anti-Semitism, frequently overlooking or dismissing the complex hermeneutics provided by mainstream Islamic scholarship.
This abusive hermeneutic is a significant departure from mainstream classical scholarship and the ethical teachings of Islam. It highlights the critical responsibility of contemporary Muslim scholars, thinkers, and educators to actively promote context-sensitive, ethically responsible, and historically informed interpretations of the Quran. Scholars like Tariq Ramadan, Khaled Abou El Fadl, Asma Barlas, Farid Esack, and Abdulaziz Sachedina emphasize ethical readings that oppose all forms of bigotry. They argue that Quranic criticism is ethical, not ethnic, and that true Islamic ethics demand pluralism, solidarity, and dialogue (cf. Quran 3:64, 29:46). They stress the importance of understanding the Quran's calls for justice (e.g., Quran 4:135, "O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for God, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives"), its recognition of righteous People of the Book, and its overarching message of mercy (rahmah), while contextualizing polemical passages within their original settings.
Avoiding Oversimplification
The Quran's portrayal of Jews, encompassing both Banu Israʾil (Children of Israel) and al-Yahud (the Jews), is undeniably complex and multifaceted. It cannot be reduced to a simplistic charge of inherent anti-Semitism or, conversely, to an unblemished record of interfaith harmony. The text itself contains a spectrum of attitudes and statements, reflecting different historical moments, theological arguments, and polemical contexts.
A careful, hermeneutically informed examination reveals that the Quran holds Israelite prophets like Moses, David, and Solomon in the highest esteem, repeatedly acknowledging the divine origin of the Torah and praising righteous individuals among the People of the Book who remained true to their covenant and monotheistic faith (e.g., Quran 2:47, 3:113-115, 5:44, 2:62, 5:69). This positive appraisal forms a significant part of the Quranic narrative.
Simultaneously, the Quran contains strong condemnations and stern critiques. However, these are consistently directed at specific actions, beliefs, and attitudes of particular Jewish groups encountered during the Prophet Muhammad's ministry in Medina or in the historical accounts of the Children of Israel. These critiques typically relate to the rejection of prophets (including Muhammad), alleged distortions of scripture (tahrif), breaches of covenants and treaties, theological claims deemed unacceptable (e.g., about God's attributes), or moral failings like greed and arrogance.
The crucial distinction, often overlooked in polemical discussions, is between condemning specific actions or beliefs of particular groups in history and condemning an entire people (Jews) for all time based on an inherent, immutable racial or ethnic flaw. Classical Islamic exegesis, by and large, understood these critical verses as responses to particular historical circumstances and behaviours. Principles like occasions of revelation and takhsis (specification – applying condemnations to specific offending parties rather than universally) were employed to contextualize these verses. The Quranic narrative itself often distinguishes, for example, by saying "a party of them" (fariqun minhum) or "some of them," implicitly differentiating from others.
Therefore, to assert that there are "definitely anti-Semitic" verses in the Quran, using the term "anti-Semitic" in its modern, racialized meaning (i.e., hatred of Jews as a race), is to commit an anachronism. It involves retroactively imposing a 19th-century European racial ideology onto a 7th-century Arabian religious text whose framework was theological and moral, not racial. While some verses are undeniably harsh in their critique and express strong disapproval of certain Jewish groups for specific historical and theological reasons (constituting what might be termed theological "anti-Judaism" or polemic), interpreting them as inherently and irredeemably "anti-Semitic" in the modern sense requires overlooking crucial hermeneutical principles: historical context, linguistic nuance, the principle of specificity, the theological (rather than racial) nature of the critique, and the Quran's own internal distinctions and affirmations concerning the People of the Book.
The challenge for contemporary readers, both Muslim and non-Muslim, is to engage with these verses responsibly. This involves a commitment to understanding their original context and resisting interpretations that decontextualize them to fuel hatred, prejudice, or violence. The misuse of Quranic verses by extremist groups to promote modern anti-Semitism is a serious and deplorable phenomenon. This underscores the urgent and ongoing need for sound, ethical hermeneutics that align with the Quran's broader messages of justice, compassion, the sanctity of life, and the recognition of religious plurality within a monotheistic framework (Quran 49:13, "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you.").
Ultimately, while the Quranic text contains passages that are critical, and sometimes harshly so, of certain Jewish actions and beliefs in specific historical contexts, a nuanced, context-sensitive, and holistic hermeneutical approach does not support the conclusion that the Quran is an inherently anti-Semitic document in the modern racial sense. The ongoing need for critical engagement with the text is paramount to foster interfaith understanding, combat misinterpretations that fuel animosity, and reclaim the ethical core of religious traditions.
Bibliography
Abdel Haleem, M.A.S. Understanding the Qur’an: Themes and Style. London: I.B. Tauris, 1999.
Barlas, Asma. “Believing Women” in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur’an. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002.
Esack, Farid. Qur’an, Liberation and Pluralism. Oxford: Oneworld, 1997.
Firestone, Reuven. Is the Qur’an “Antisemitic”? In Confronting Antisemitism from the Perspectives of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, edited by Armin Lange, Kerstin Mayerhofer, Dina Porat, and Lawrence H. Schiffman, 87–108. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020.
Firestone, Reuven. Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam. New York: Oxford: University Press, 1999.
Sachedina, Abdulaziz. The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Said, Edward. Covering Islam. New York: Vintage, 1997.
Stillman, Norman A. The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1979.
--------
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/debating-islam/anti-semitism-quran/d/135931
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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment