Rebutting the “Pluralist Hermeneutics” School: A Quran-Centric Defence of the Universal Message of 2:62

By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam 7 July 2025 Introduction A growing trend in modern Quranic studies—represented by scholars such as Adis Duderija, Abdullah Saeed, and Farid Esack—advocates what is often described as pluralist hermeneutics. These scholars attempt to navigate between the poles of exclusivism and inclusivism by claiming that the Quran contains multiple, sometimes competing theological tendencies, including both universalist and exclusivist voices. They argue that the Quran must be interpreted not for its literal content, but through a methodological lens that recognizes the complexity, contextuality, and “evolution” of its theological claims. While this approach may sound sophisticated, it rests on a deeply flawed premise: that the Quran is theologically inconsistent and must be “harmonized” not by internal logic but by external interpretive grids. This school ultimately denies the Quran its own claim to coherence, internal consistency, and divine authorship. In this rebuttal, I offer a Quran-centric response that: • Refutes the idea of theological pluralism within the Quran, • Defends the plain and inclusive meaning of verse 2:62, • Clarifies the true Quranic meaning of Islam, • And exposes the methodological weaknesses in the pluralist hermeneutics approach. 1. The False Claim of Competing Theological Tendencies Adis Duderija and others argue that verses like 2:62 (which is inclusive) and 3:85 (which appears exclusivist) reflect different theological currents within the Quran. This idea is not only speculative but alien to the Quran’s own epistemology. The Quran explicitly declares: "Had it been from other than Allah, they would have found in it much contradiction." (4:82) The very foundation of Quranic authority is its internal coherence. To posit "competing tendencies" within the Quran is to negate this claim—and by extension, the divine authorship of the Book itself. Verses like 2:62 are not theological fragments—they are clear, categorical, and universal. If one verse states unequivocally that “whoever believes in Allah and the Hereafter and does righteous deeds shall have their reward with their Lord,” and no qualification is attached to it, then it must be read as is—not undermined by a later interpretive construct. Moreover, 2:62 explicitly names communities—Jews, Christians, and Sabians—as examples of those eligible for salvation. This was revealed with full awareness of their theological deviations, including the Trinity, which is mentioned critically in 5:72, and later in 9:30–31. These verses critique doctrinal error but do not cancel or override 2:62. If they did, they would say clearly that these communities will be in Hell. They do not. Thus, the rule of inclusion remains intact. Note on Translation: The phrase "Wal-Yawmi L-Ākhiri" is traditionally translated as "the Last Day." However, this is a misleadingly narrow rendering. The Arabic word yawm often signifies a phase or extended period, as in "the Day of Judgment" or "the six Days of creation." The Quranic concept of the Ākhirah refers not to a single day but to the Hereafter as an ongoing realm and stage of existence. Thus, translating "Wal-Yawmi L-Ākhiri" as "the Hereafter" is more faithful to the Quranic worldview and avoids theological distortion. It also implies that even the Hereafter is time-bound and may be succeeded by another phase of creation, perhaps in which we may serve different roles. 2. The Quranic Definition of Islam: A Universal Submission Pluralist hermeneuticists often assume, without justification, that Islam in 3:85 refers exclusively to the historical Muslim community—those who recite the Shahada. This is demonstrably false. Throughout the Quran, Islam is never treated as a sectarian brand. Rather, it is the name for submission to Allah, a timeless disposition of surrender and righteousness. All previous prophets are called Muslims (e.g., Abraham in 2:131, 3:67; Moses in 10:84; the disciples of Jesus in 3:52). The Quran states: "Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam (submission)." (3:19) But this “Islam” is not limited to one historical community. Rather, it is defined in moral and spiritual terms—faith in God, the Hereafter, and righteous conduct—as also seen in 2:62. Moreover, the Quran never names any religion—Judaism, Christianity, etc.—as competing religions. Rather, it refers to Yahud (Jews), Nasara (Christians), and Bani Israel (the Israelites) by ethnicity or community, not as separate divine religions. All previous true revelations are seen as sects within the same universal religion—Deen Allah. 3. 2:62 Cannot Be Overridden or Abrogated The pluralist school tends to dismiss 2:62 as a “partial view” or “early position” that is superseded or complicated by later revelations. Some even suggest that it was context-specific and therefore non-normative. This is false on two counts: • First, 2:62 is not ambiguous. It is a clear, categorical statement with universal moral logic. To ignore its plain meaning is to violate the Quran’s principle of interpreting Muhkamat (clear verses) as the foundation of the Book (3:7). • Second, the Quran never contradicts itself. No verse qualifies or cancels 2:62. Other verses may add detail or expose errors (e.g., verses that critique the Trinity), but they do not restrict the salvific offer extended in 2:62 to all those who fulfil its conditions. To treat 3:85 as overriding 2:62 is also a methodological error. 3:85 simply affirms that no path other than submission to God (Islam) will be accepted. But since 2:62 already defines what true submission entails, there is no contradiction—only consistency. The condition of non-contradiction in verse 4:82 would be rendered meaningless if any verse were abrogated due to contradiction. This affirms that no verse of the Quran is abrogated, and indeed, no contradiction is found. Both traditionalists and modernists err when they invoke abrogation to resolve perceived tensions. This is just further proof of the defective interpretative methodologies they follow. By contrast, I follow the clear meaning of the Quran faithfully and have not encountered any contradiction, which itself is proof of the soundness of my method. Pluralist hermeneutics obscures this unity by inserting a methodological fog that renders the text opaque unless decoded through academic scaffolding. This undermines the Quran’s own claim to clarity, accessibility, and internal sufficiency. 4. Every Objection Has a Clear Quranic Response—None Override 2:62 Those who attempt to limit the salvific inclusivity of verse 2:62 typically cite verses that critique theological error—such as 5:72, 4:48, 4:116, 9:29, or 98:6. But none of these verses, properly understood, contradict or curtail the scope of salvation established in 2:62. For instance, while 5:72 critiques the belief in the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity, it is balanced by 5:118, where Jesus himself intercedes for his followers who erred in this belief—and Allah does not reject the intercession. This implies forgiveness is possible for sincere but mistaken believers. Similarly, 4:48 and 4:116, which declare shirk (association of partners with God) as an unforgivable sin, are addressed specifically to the People of the Book and to Muslims, and to Muslims, respectively—not to all of mankind. By contrast, 7:33, addressed to the entire progeny of Adam, treats shirk not as an unforgivable sin but as a rational violation and a moral prohibition, making it reprehensible but not necessarily damning when committed out of ignorance or sincere confusion. Even verse 9:29, often cited in support of punitive exclusivism, only speaks about punishing those who fail to observe their own obligations—not about denying salvation. The first clause covers the polytheists exempted from the command in 9:5, as detailed in 9:4 and 9:6—i.e., those who honoured treaties or sought guidance. The rest of 9:29 addresses the People of the Book, but only for failing to uphold their own scriptures, not for belonging to another religion. Again, the concern is legal-political compliance, not eschatological exclusion. Verse 98:6, declaring the disbelievers among the People of the Book and polytheists as the "worst of creatures," is also historically and contextually specific. It refers to a small subset of the Prophet’s audience: those among the People of the Book who recognized the Prophet in their own scriptures but still rejected him, and those influential Meccan polytheists who had long hoped for a revelation among themselves but rejected it for material and political reasons. It does not, and cannot, serve as a blanket condemnation of all non-Muslims. In every case, the verse cited as a limitation on 2:62 turns out to be contextual, conditional, or historically bounded—never theological in a way that alters the clear, inclusive rule laid down in 2:62. Thus, the principle holds: no verse in the Quran overrides or restricts what 2:62 declares plainly—that salvation is open to all who believe in God, the Hereafter, and live righteously, regardless of religious label. 5. Ethical Implications: Inclusivity Is Not an Interpretation—It’s the Quranic Starting Point Pluralist scholars often present inclusivism as a result of sophisticated hermeneutics. In reality, it is the starting point of the Quran. Ethical universality, divine justice, and mercy are built into the foundational verses of the Book. It is not hermeneutics that ensures these principles—it is the plain speech of God. To suggest otherwise is to adopt a Protestant-like crisis of interpretation, wherein Scripture is never enough unless mediated by intellectual elite. This is not how the Quran positions itself. It declares: "This is a clear Book." (5:15) "We have indeed made the Quran easy to understand. Is there anyone who will take heed?" (54:17) Conclusion: The Quran Speaks for Itself In sum, the pluralist hermeneutics school makes three critical errors: 1. They deny the coherence of the Quran, projecting contradictions that do not exist when the Quran defines its own terms. 2. They misdefine Islam, reducing it to a sectarian label rather than a moral-spiritual disposition that unites all prophets and righteous people. 3. They displace the Quran’s internal authority, making salvation contingent on modern interpretive frameworks rather than God’s own words. My methodology is Quran-centric. I take clear verses like 2:62 at face value, uphold their logical implications, and respond to objections from other verses with internal Quranic reasoning. I do not subordinate God’s words to academic fashion or imported hermeneutic constructs. The Quran is coherent, complete, and internally explanatory. It does not need to be “rescued” by pluralist interpretation. It only needs to be read as it asks to be read—carefully, honestly, and on its own terms. ----- Naseer Ahmed, a frequent contributor to NewAgeIslam.com, is an independent researcher and Quran-centric thinker whose work seeks to bridge faith, reason, and contemporary knowledge systems. Rooted in a method of intra-Quranic analysis and scientific coherence, his interpretations remain firmly grounded in the Quran’s framework—faithful to the clear, literal meaning of every verse. Challenging both traditional dogma and modernist abstraction, his scholarship represents a bold, rational, and deeply reverent effort to recover the Quran’s original voice in a language the modern world can test, trust, and understand. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/rebutting-pluralist-hermeneutics-quran-centric-2-62/d/136103 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