Does the Quran Allow Salvation for Those Christians Who Believe in Jesus As the Literal Son of God?

 

By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof, New Age Islam

10 January 2026

The tension between Islamic and Christian understandings of Jesus Christ represents one of the most profound interfaith fault lines in religious history. Mainstream Christianity, rooted in the Nicene Creed of 325 CE, affirms Jesus as the literal, eternally begotten Son of God—consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the doctrine of the Trinity (Kelly, p.223). This literal sonship is not metaphorical but ontological, implying divine incarnation and co-equality with God, as articulated in texts like John 1:1-14 and Colossians 1:15-20. Yet, the Quran unequivocally rejects this as an extreme distortion of monotheism (shirk), labelling it a form of associating partners with God and a dangerous "excess" in religion (Quran 4:171; 5:72-73).

However, beneath this doctrinal wall lies a "brute fact" of Quranic hermeneutics: the text appears to extend the possibility of salvation to those Christians who hold such beliefs. This is most evident in Quran 5:116-120, an eschatological dialogue where God questions Jesus about claims of divinity attributed to him and Mary, only to conclude with divine mercy overriding apparent condemnation. This monograph argues that while the Quran corrects the "literalization" of Jesus’s sonship, it simultaneously creates a hermeneutical space where "sincere error" is held in the hands of Divine Mercy. By prioritizing ethical monotheism and sincere devotion over creedal precision, the Quranic framework suggests that the path to salvation is wider than the dogmatic boundaries established by later religious bureaucracies.

The Nature of the “Error”—From Jewish Prophet to Ontological Son

To understand how the Quran can offer salvation to those in doctrinal error, one must first define the nature of that error through the lens of history and revelation. The Quran characterizes the belief in Jesus as a literal Son of God as ghuluw—extremism or "exceeding the bounds" (Akyol, p.142). To grasp the Quranic critique, one must delineate the historical reality of Jesus’s Jewish milieu, which the Quran seeks to restore.

Geza Vermes, in his seminal work Jesus the Jew (1973), argues that the titles later used to prove Jesus’s divinity—such as "Son of God"—were originally rooted in Jewish charismatic piety rather than Hellenistic metaphysics. For the first-century Jew, a "son of God" was not a biological or ontological claim but a title for a righteous man, a king, or a prophet who stood in a position of intimacy with the Almighty (Vermes, p.210). Vermes draws a parallel between Jesus and other Galilean charismatics, such as Honi the Circle-Drawer and Hanina ben Dosa, who were referred to as "sons" of the household of God because of their effective prayer and miraculous powers. In this Hasidic context, "Abba" (Father) was the language of intimate prayer, not a claim to shared essence (Vermes, p.215).

The Quranic portrayal of Jesus as a miracle-working prophet (nabi) who acts only by God’s permission (bi-idhnillah) aligns precisely with this historical Jewish model. The "literalization" of this sonship, therefore, represents a shift from the Semitic idiomatic world to the Greek philosophical world. Maurice Casey’s From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God (1991) traces the linguistic factors that facilitated this transition. Casey argues that as the Jesus movement moved from Aramaic-speaking Galilee to Greek-speaking cities, Semitic metaphors were lost in translation. The Aramaic bar enasha (son of man) and bar elohim (son of God) were understood as "human being" and "godly person." In Greek, however, they were interpreted through the lens of Hellenistic mythology, where gods frequently fathered literal sons (Casey, p.156). This Hellenization process is what the Quran critiques as "following the vain desires of folk who erred of old" (Quran 5:77).

While the Quran identifies this linguistic shift as an error, it also recognizes the "devotional intensity" behind it. Larry W. Hurtado’s research in Lord Jesus Christ (2003) highlights a "binitarian mutation" within early Jewish monotheism. Early Christians began to include Jesus in their devotional practices—prayers, hymns, and baptismal formulas—in a way that was previously reserved for Yahweh alone (Hurtado, p.134). Hurtado contends that this was not a slow evolution but an "explosive" development triggered by visions of the resurrected Jesus. For Hurtado, the early Christian conviction of Jesus’s exalted status "bespoke a conviction of his divine identity" (Hurtado, Honouring, p.45).

From the Quranic perspective, this devotional mutation is the point of departure where the human messenger was subsumed by the "cult of the person." Yet, the Quranic response is diagnostic rather than purely condemnatory. It identifies the "excess" of love that led to deification. The Quranic intervention is thus a humanistic effort to liberate the memory of Jesus from mythologizing tendencies and return him to his role as a prophet for all humanity.

The Ontological Divergence

The final step in this mutation was the shift from a functional sonship (Jesus doing God’s work) to an ontological sonship (Jesus being God’s substance). Bart D. Ehrman, in How Jesus Became God (2014), notes that by the fourth century, the "orthodox" view was that Jesus was "consubstantial" with the Father (Ehrman, p.125). This transition is the "brute fact" of Christian history that the Quran addresses.

From an Islamic feminist and humanistic perspective, this process can be viewed as the "patriarchalization" of the divine. By literalizing the "Father-Son" relationship, the early Church established a metaphysical hierarchy that mirrored the social hierarchies of the Roman Empire. The Quranic rejection of this "begetting" (Quran 112:1-4) is an egalitarian act. If Jesus is a literal "God-Man," his life becomes a divine drama unattainable for humans. But if Jesus is a human prophet—empowered by the Spirit yet bound by human limitations—his life becomes a model of radical ethics and social justice that every human can aspire to. This "humanistic Jesus" is the figure who stands at the heart of the Quranic narrative, and his humanity is the ground upon which the Quran builds its bridge of salvation for those who, through ghuluw, have misunderstood his nature.

The Celestial Trial

The Quranic response to the historical deification of Jesus is not merely a counter-history; it is a dramatic, eschatological dialogue—a celestial trial—that serves to deconstruct the "literal" and re-establish the "prophetic." Central to this deconstruction is Q.5:116-120, a passage that simultaneously rejects Trinitarian dogma and expands the boundaries of divine mercy. This scene represents the theological climax of the Quranic narrative, where the "brute fact" of Christian Christology is brought before the bar of Divine Justice.

The Quranic narrative stages a moment on the Day of Judgment where God questions Jesus: "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as gods besides God?'" (Quran 5:116). As Seyyed Hossein Nasr notes in The Study Quran, this interrogation is not intended to extract information from Jesus, as God is All-Knowing; rather, it is a pedagogical unveilment for the benefit of the gathered witnesses—humanity and the angels (Nasr, p.345).

Jesus’s response is immediate and profoundly monotheistic: "Glory be to Thee! It was not for me to say what I have no right to say" (Quran 5:116). By using the term Subhanaka (Glory be to Thee), Jesus invokes God’s absolute transcendence. This serves as a rhetorical shield against the anthropomorphism that literal sonship implies. In this moment, Jesus is not only denying his own divinity but is also exonerating himself from the later theological developments of his followers. From a humanistic perspective, this dialogue is liberatory. It strips away the heavy, metaphysical robes of "God-Manhood" and returns Jesus to his humanity. By affirming his status as a "servant" (’abd), Jesus is not diminished; rather, he is elevated as the ultimate model of human submission to the Absolute.

Mary and the Islamic Feminist Reclamation

A striking and often debated feature of Quran 5:116 is the mention of Mary: "Take me and my mother as gods." Traditional scholarship has frequently puzzled over this, as Mary is not a person of the Trinity in mainstream Nicene theology. However, an in-depth reading offers a more nuanced interpretation. Historically, the deification of Mary occurred among certain sects, such as the Collyridians, who offered cakes to her as a "Queen of Heaven" (Casey, p.156). But more broadly, the Quranic critique targets the concept of Theotokos (God-bearer), which elevated Mary to a level that threatened her independent humanity.

By grouping Jesus and Mary together, the Quran is critiquing any system that removes human beings from their earthly context and turns them into ontological mediators (Nasr, p.346). The Quranic Mary is one of the most powerful, autonomous female figures in scripture. She is "chosen above the women of the worlds" (Quran 3:42) and receives the Spirit directly. By rejecting her deification, the Quran actually preserves her human agency. As Mustafa Akyol argues in The Islamic Jesus, the Quranic Mary is a "sign" (ayah), not a goddess. She is a woman who talks to angels, undergoes the physical pain of childbirth, and stands as a pillar of truth (siddiqah) (Akyol, p.189). In this light, the rejection of literal sonship is also a rejection of the patriarchal biological-logic that required God to have a "Son" through a "Mother." The Quranic God is beyond gender and beyond progeny. By stripping away, the "Literal Son" and the "Mother of God," the Quran liberates both Jesus and Mary from the biological metaphors of Hellenistic mythology and re-establishes them as supreme human examples of spiritual attainment.

After Jesus disavows the claims of divinity, he provides a summary of his actual mission: "I said to them nothing except what You commanded me—to worship God, my Lord and your Lord" (Quran 5:117). This "My Lord and your Lord" is a direct echo of the historical Jesus found in the Synoptic Gospels, a figure James D. G. Dunn identifies as being firmly rooted in Jewish monotheism (Dunn, p.115).

The climax of the passage, however, is verse 118, where Jesus addresses the fate of those who deified him: "If You punish them, they are Your servants; and if You forgive them, You are the Mighty, the Wise." This is the "brute fact" of Quranic magnanimity. Jesus does not call for the destruction of the Christians. He does not brand them as "infidels" beyond hope. Instead, he appeals to God’s sovereign prerogative. Nasr observes that by calling the erring Christians "Your servants" (’ibaduka), Jesus is reminding God (and the reader) that despite their dogmatic "extremism," these people still belong to God’s creation and mercy (Nasr, p.348). This is a radical shift from the rigid exclusivism often found in later religious polemics. It suggests that while the doctrine of literal sonship is rejected as a "disastrous thing" (Quran 19:88), the believer who holds that doctrine may still be an object of divine forgiveness.

The Christology of the Spirit and the Linguistic Mutation

If the "error" of the Christians is categorized as ghuluw (excess), we must examine the specific mechanics of how this mutation occurred and how the Quran attempts to correct it while honouring the "spiritual" intent of the Christian heart. This requires bridging the gap between the historical findings of New Testament scholars and the Quranic concept of Ruh Allah (Spirit of God).

Maurice Casey’s From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God (1991) provides the linguistic evidence for the Quranic corrective. Casey demonstrates that the Aramaic term bar enasha (son of man) was a generic term for a human being, which was literalized in Greek as a unique, divine title (Casey 156). Similarly, the title "Son of God" was a Semitic idiom for a righteous person. When the Quran refers to Jesus as "Jesus, Son of Mary" (‘Isa ibn Maryam), it is performing a radical act of linguistic restoration.

By insisting on the matronymic—Son of Mary—the Quran systematically replaces the biological-metaphysical "Son of God" with a biological-historical "Son of Mary." This is not an insult to Jesus; rather, it is a humanistic affirmation of his earthly reality. Casey argues that the "Hellenization" of Jesus was a form of cultural displacement (Casey, p.202). The Quran, appearing in a Semitic context six centuries later, functions as a return to the Aramaic worldview where sonship is metaphorical and prophethood is the highest human station. This restoration is inherently liberatory, as it removes the "Gentile God" and brings back the "Jewish Prophet" who stands in solidarity with the marginalized.

Ruh Allah: The Spirit vs. the Literal Son

A central pillar of progressive Islamic Christology is the title Ruh Allah (Spirit of God) given to Jesus in Quran 4:171 and 21:91. While the Quran rejects "Literal Sonship," it affirms a "Pneumatologically Sonship"—a relationship based on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. James D. G. Dunn, in Christology in the Making (1980), explores early "Spirit Christology," where Jesus was seen as a man uniquely filled with the Spirit of God, rather than a pre-existent deity (Dunn, p.115).

Dunn notes that Spirit Christology was a dominant view in the earliest Palestinian communities but was eventually overshadowed by "Logos Christology" (Dunn, p.162). The Quran effectively "picks up the thread" of this early Spirit Christology. By calling Jesus a "Spirit from Him," the Quran acknowledges Jesus’s divine origin and unique sanctity without ascribing to him a shared essence (ousia) with God. From an Islamic feminist and humanistic perspective, Ruh Allah is a more inclusive and less patriarchal title than "Literal Son." It suggests that Jesus’s significance lies in his total transparency to the Divine Spirit. As Seyyed Hossein Nasr points out, this Spirit is the same one breathed into Adam, making Jesus the "New Adam" who manifests the full potential of the human state (Nasr, p.346). This allows the Quran to bridge the gap with Christians: it agrees that Jesus is "from God," but insists that being "from God" is the ultimate human destiny, not a proof of divine biology.

The "Binitarian" Devotion as Sincere Error

Larry W. Hurtado’s research into early Christian devotion provides a link to the Quranic critique of ghuluw. Hurtado argues that the elevation of Jesus was not merely a set of intellectual ideas but a set of religious practices. Within the first two decades after the crucifixion, Jewish Christians began to pray to Jesus and worship him alongside God (Hurtado 134). Hurtado terms this a "mutation" because it occurred within a monotheistic framework that theoretically should have forbidden it.

The Quranic diagnosis of ghuluw in Q.4:171—"Do not exceed the bounds (la taghlu) in your religion"—directly addresses this devotional mutation. From the Quranic perspective, the "mutation" was a result of an overwhelming experiential encounter with the "Spirit" of Jesus, which led followers to mistake the conduit of divine grace for the Source of divine grace. Hurtado’s 2018 work, Honouring the Son, suggests that this devotion was "experientially driven" (Hurtado, p.56). The Quran recognizes this experiential power but insists on a strict ontological boundary. As Mustafa Akyol argues, the Quran’s role is to act as a "monotheistic therapist," acknowledging the love Christians have for Jesus while gently recalibrating it toward the Creator (Akyol, p.192). This calibration is vital for our question of salvation: if the "error" is one of misplaced love rather than malicious rebellion, it falls within the scope of the "servants" mentioned in 5:118 who may yet find mercy.

Magnanimous Bridge—Righteousness, Intent

As we have established through the historical-critical findings of Bart D. Ehrman, James D. G. Dunn, and Maurice Casey, the development of "Literal Sonship" was a tectonic shift from the Semitic, prophetic milieu of Galilee to the ontological categories of the Hellenistic world (Ehrman, p.125; Casey, p.156). While this shift resulted in a doctrine that the Quran explicitly rejects, the text simultaneously preserves a path to salvation for those caught within this theological "excess." This chapter interrogation the mechanism of this salvation, asking how the Quranic framework accommodates a Christian believer who affirms the Nicene Creed. We can see that Quran subordinate doctrinal precision to ethical sincerity and "Truthfulness of Heart."

The Council of Nicaea (325 CE) was not merely a theological debate but a political and patriarchal moment. When the bishops declared Jesus homoousios (of one substance) with the Father, they literalized a patriarchal biological metaphor—a "Father" who produces a "Son." As Maurice Casey notes, this literalism effectively erased the "Jewishness" of Jesus, replacing a human prophet with a divine king who justified the imperial hierarchies of Rome (Casey, p.202).

The Quran’s rejection of this "begetting" is therefore a liberatory act of "Decolonization." By stating "He begets not, nor is He begotten" (Quran 112:3), the Quran dismantles the biological-patriarchal paradigm of the divine. The Quranic God is "Trans-Gendered" and "Trans-Generational," existing beyond the reach of human kinship metaphors (Mohamad Ashrof, 2025). This humanistic intervention seeks to free the Christian believer from the "Nicene Burden"—the requirement to believe in a metaphysical impossibility—and return them to the "Ethical Core" of Jesus’s message. The Quranic path suggests that one is not saved by the complexity of their metaphysics, but by the simplicity of their submission to the One.

Niyyah (Intent) over Form: The Humanistic Prerogative

The Quranic possibility of salvation for those who hold to the literal sonship rests largely on the Islamic principle of niyyah (intent). In a 2024 comparative analysis, Siavash Asadi explores how the Quran treats the "People of the Book" not as a monolithic group of heretics, but as individuals with varying levels of sincerity (Asadi, p.12). If a mainstream Christian believes in Jesus as the "Son of God" because they were raised in a tradition that uses this language to express their love for God, the question becomes: is their intent to associate partners with God (shirk), or is their intent to honour the Spirit of God they see in Jesus?

James D. G. Dunn’s research suggests that many early Christians used high Christological language precisely as a way to safeguard monotheism, viewing Jesus as the "visible face" of the invisible God (Dunn, p.240). The Quranic "Magnanimity" recognizes this complexity. As Seyyed Hossein Nasr notes in The Study Quran, the dialogue in 5:116 suggests that God looks past the "innovated" terminology (bid’ah) to see if the believer remains "truthful" (sadiq) in their devotion (Nasr, p.352). This is a humanistic prerogative: it prizes the existential state of the human soul over the formal accuracy of the human tongue. If the heart is oriented toward the One, the linguistic errors of the head are held in a state of "Probabilistic Grace."

Lina Siregar argues that the Quranic definition of islam (submission) is broader than the historical-political religion of Islam. Siregar posits that "the Christians" mentioned in Quran 5:69 as those who "shall have no fear" are not necessarily non-Trinitarians, but any Christians who strive to fulfil the ethical imperatives of the Gospel (Siregar, p.8).

This is bolstered by a 2026 MDPI study conducted by Aylin Kaya, which surveyed interreligious readiness among 500 Muslim participants. The study found that 68% of respondents believed that a Christian who affirms the Trinity could still be saved, citing the "mercy clause" of Quran 5:118 (Kaya 2026). This reflects a growing "Hermeneutic of Generosity" in the contemporary era, where the "Literal Sonship" is viewed as a cultural and linguistic "envelope" containing a valid spiritual "message."

Deconstructing Shirk: The Case for Implicit Monotheism

Larry W. Hurtado’s work on "devotion to Jesus" (2003) and Bart Ehrman’s study of how "Jesus became God" (2014) reveal that Trinitarianism was an attempt to maintain monotheism under the pressure of intense spiritual experiences (Hurtado, p.134; Ehrman, p.72). This allows for a progressive Quranic reading of "Implicit Monotheism." If, as Geza Vermes argues, the title "Son of God" was originally a Hasidic idiom for intimacy (Vermes, p.210), then the Christian who holds to it literally is essentially "mistaking the finger for the moon."

The Quranic response is to correct the pointer while acknowledging the moon being pointed at. Omar Abdul-Rahman suggests that because the Quran identifies Jesus as "the Word" and "the Spirit," there is an "ontological overlap" that allows for a shared salvific ground (Abdul-Rahman, p.15). The Christian who worships Jesus as the "Son" may be technically in error regarding the essence (zat), but they are functionally correct in their worship of the light (nur) of God that they perceive in him. This distinction between "intentional shirk" (rejecting God for idols) and "interpretive shirk" (misunderstanding the nature of God’s Word) is the key to the Quran's magnanimous silence.

Magnanimity and the Sovereignty of Mercy

The Quranic "Trial of Jesus," indicates an indication of Universal Mercy” and also suggests that the Quran is not merely an anti-Christian polemic, but a "Prophetic Corrective" that respects the "Human Struggle for Faith."

The historical evidence compiled by Vermes, Casey, Ehrman, and Dunn reveals that "Literal Sonship" was a developmental mutation—a metaphysical colonization of a human life. By turning Jesus into a literal deity, the early Church established a hierarchy that often-served imperial interests. The Quranic intervention was a radical act of "Decolonization." By insisting on Jesus’s humanity (‘abdullah), the Quran sought to liberate both Jesus and humanity from the shackles of a patriarchal divinity.

As Fatima Rahman argued in 2025, the Quranic title Ibn Maryam (Son of Mary) is the ultimate egalitarian corrective (Rahman 2025). It prioritizes the female line of descent, grounding Jesus in a human, maternal reality rather than a celestial, paternal one. This humanism elevates the status of every human being. If the "Word of God" can be fully manifest in a human prophet without that prophet becoming a god, then the "Spirit of God" (Ruh) is accessible to all. The Quranic Jesus is the "Model Human," not the "Inaccessible Deity." This realization allows the Christian believer to see the Quran not as a denial of Jesus’s greatness, but as a restoration of his human dignity.

The Sovereignty of Grace (Al-Rahman)

The final verdict on salvation rests on the attribute of al-Rahman (The All-Merciful). In the Islamic humanistic tradition, God’s mercy precedes His wrath. As Mustafa Akyol emphasizes, the Quranic God is "The Wise" (al-Hakim), who understands the cultural and linguistic contingencies of human faith (Akyol, p.212). Divine Wisdom recognizes that for billions of Christians, the language of "Sonship" was the only vehicle available to express their love for the Divine.

The Quranic Jesus, as a "Witness of Truth," understands this as well. His refusal to condemn his followers in 5:118 is the ultimate act of "Prophetic Magnanimity." By handing their fate to a God whose mercy "encompasses all things" (Quran 7:156), Jesus establishes a precedent for interfaith humility. The 2025 SSU Report on the "Jesus/Eisa and the Quran Conference" highlighted that 85% of participants—both Muslim and Christian—affirmed that Quran 5:118 provides a scriptural "safety net" for those who held the doctrine of literal sonship out of sincere devotion (SSU Report 2025).

The findings of this monograph invite a new era of "Humanistic Humility" in interfaith dialogue. If the Quran—a text that claims to be the final, corrective revelation—can allow for the salvation of those whose core doctrine it rejects, then religious exclusivism is a violation of the Quranic spirit. The historical research of Hurtado has shown us that our creeds are historical constructions (Hurtado, p.134). The exegesis of Nasr and Akyol has shown us that our scriptures are documents of mercy (Nasr, p.352).

The synthesis provided here suggests that the "tension" between the "Literal Son" and the "Human Prophet" is a tension resolved in the heart of the "Truthful Believer." The Quran does indeed allow for the salvation of Christians who believe in Jesus as the literal Son of God, provided their belief is rooted in a sincere orientation toward the Absolute and a life of righteous deeds. This salvation is not a reward for their Christology, but a gift of Divine Mercy that looks past the "Hellenistic Envelope" to the "Semitic Heart."

As we conclude this academic study, we are left with the silence of the Quran following Jesus’s final appeal in the fifth chapter of the Quran: Surah al-Ma'idah. It is a silence that invites reflection, empathy, and hope. It is a silence that says: "God is greater than your theology." In an age of rising extremism, this "Magnanimous Silence" is our greatest liberatory tool. It allows us to hold our truths firmly while holding our neighbours gently. It tells us that while we may differ on the nature of the "Word," we are all traveling together on the "Way" back to the "Source." The final verdict of the Quran is not one of dogmatic closure, but of "unaccountable provision" (5:120) for all those who seek the Divine with a sincere heart.

Bibliography

Abdul-Rahman, Omar. “Jesus: A Foundation for Dialogue Between Muslims and Christians.” Plano, TX, Yaqeen Institute, 2023, yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/jesus-a-foundation-for-dialogue-between-muslims-and-christians.

Akyol, Mustafa. “Muslim Writer Explores Current Relevance of Jesus' Message for Islam.” National Catholic Reporter, 22 Feb. 2017, www.ncronline.org/books/2022/10/muslim-writer-explores-current-relevance-jesus-message-islam.

Akyol, Mustafa. “The Ethics of Jesus in the Quranic Context.” Journal of Islamic Pluralism, vol. 12, no. 4, 2024, pp. 45–62.

Akyol, Mustafa. “Will Non-Muslims Go To Heaven, Too?” Mustafa Akyol Blog, 12 Oct. 2008, mustafaakyol.org/index.php/blog/posts-in-english/984-will-non-muslims-go-to-heaven-too-130.

Akyol, Mustafa. The Islamic Jesus: How the King of the Jews Became a Prophet of the Muslims. New York, St. Martin's Press, 2017.

Asadi, Siavash. “Christianity and Islam on Salvation: A Comparative Analysis of Sacred Texts on Atonement in Christianity and Intercession in Islam.” Tehran, Sryahwa Publications, 2024, sryahwapublications.com/article/download/2637-5907.0304003.

Casey, Maurice. From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and Development of New Testament Christology. Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 1991.

Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 1989.

Ehrman, Bart D. “Jesus as God in the Synoptics: A Blast From the Past.” The Bart Ehrman Blog, 10 Sept. 2025, ehrmanblog.org/jesus-as-god-in-the-synoptics-a-blast-from-the-past/.

Ehrman, Bart D. Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife. New York, Simon & Schuster, 2020.

Ehrman, Bart D. How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. New York, HarperOne, 2014.

Hurtado, Larry W. Honoring the Son: Jesus in Earliest Christian Devotional Practice. Bellingham, WA, Lexham Press, 2018.

Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2003.

Kaya, Aylin, et al. "Readiness to Engage in Interreligious Dialogue: A Study on Islam and Christianity." Religions, vol. 17, no. 1, 2026, www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/17/1

Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. 5th ed., London, Continuum, 1977.

Mohamad Ashrof, VA. “The Jesus Connection: Bridging Christianity and Islam.” Countercurrents, 20 Apr. 2025, https://countercurrents.org/2025/04/the-jesus-connection-bridging-christianity-and-islam/.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, editor. The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary. New York, HarperOne, 2015.

Siregar, Lina. “Comparative Analysis of the Concept of Salvation in Islam and Christianity in the Contemporary Era.” Journal of Islamic Studies, vol. 10, no. 2, 2025, pp. 1–20.

SSU Report. “Jesus/Eisa and the Qur'an Conference Summary.” Guelph, St. Stephen's University, 2025, www.ssu.ca/jesus-quran-conference.

Vermes, Geza. Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels. Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1973.

Vermes, Geza. The Changing Faces of Jesus. New York, Viking, 2000.

…

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://newageislam.com/interfaith-dialogue/quran-allow-salvation-for-christians-/d/138385

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