Quranic Affirmation of The Torah And Zabur As an Interreligious Tool for Jewish-Muslim Dialogue
By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof, New Age Islam
27 January 2026
The contemporary landscape of Jewish-Muslim relations is often characterized as a clash of irreconcilable narratives, yet this friction frequently ignores the profound subterranean connections between the two traditions. The imperative for meaningful dialogue has never been more urgent, yet it remains fraught with historical grievance and theological dissonance. At the heart of this tension lies a seemingly intractable Quranic paradox: the simultaneous veneration of prior revelations—specifically the Torah (Tawrat) and the Psalms (Zabur)—and the accusation that their custodians altered or concealed their messages. For centuries, the popular understanding of tahrif (corruption) has functioned as a conversational stopper, a theological barrier that prevents any genuine exchange of wisdom between the two faiths.
This paper seeks to dismantle the simplified doctrine of tahrif—the corruption of earlier scriptures—which has for centuries served as a formidable theological barrier. By deploying principles of contemporary Quranic hermeneutics—historical contextualization, intra-textual analysis, and ethical purposiveness—this work argues that the Quran itself presupposes the preservation of the core ethical and monotheistic message (al-risalah al-asasiyyah) of these prior revelations. Drawing on the insights of scholars like Mahmoud M. Ayoub, Farid Esack, and Fazlur Rahman, we move toward a nuanced reinterpretation that shifts the focus from textual corruption to interpretive failure. This reclamation allows for a deep, theologically grounded connection based on a shared prophetic heritage and a common foundational creed. The goal is to move from a "dialogue of debate" to a "dialogue of mutual discovery," transforming tahrif from a historical claim about a lost text into an ethical warning about the human capacity for manipulating religion for power.
The Crisis of Literalism and the Necessity of Hermeneutics
To begin the journey "beyond tahrif," one must first acknowledge the crisis of literalism that has paralyzed interfaith discourse. For many centuries, the concept of tahrif (distortion) has been used as a polemical cudgel to invalidate the Jewish and Christian scriptural corpora. However, as Muhammad Arkoun has noted, this is often a result of what he terms the "unthought"—areas of inquiry that have been closed off by historical dogma and political necessity (Arkoun, The Unthought in Contemporary Islamic Thought, p. 35). This "unthought" refers to the theological assumptions that have become so calcified they are no longer questioned. In the context of Jewish-Muslim relations, the "unthought" is the assumption that the Quran's polemics against the People of the Book are ontological statements about the validity of their scriptures.
Traditionalist exegesis often proceeds from the assumption that if the Quran is the final revelation, previous revelations must have been physically altered to the point of total unreliability. Yet, this stance contradicts the Quran's own self-definition as a musaddiq (a confirmer or verifier) of what preceded it. As Abdullah Saeed argues, if the Quran confirms the Torah, the Torah must be present and authentic enough to be confirmed (Saeed, Interpreting the Quran, p.145). The crisis, therefore, is not in the text of the Torah or the Quran, but in the hermeneutical framework applied to them. We require a "hermeneutical toolkit" that can navigate the Quran's complex discourse on earlier scriptures, moving beyond decontextualized readings to uncover deeper layers of intent.
Fazlur Rahman and the Double Movement
The first and perhaps most indispensable tool in our kit is the historical-contextual method, most famously championed by Fazlur Rahman. Rahman's scholarly legacy centres on the "double movement": a process of moving from the contemporary moment back to the Quran's original context, and then forward again with its universal principles (Rahman, p.5). This method allows scholars to separate the timeless moral-social objectives of the Quran from the specific historical situations it addressed.
Rahman insisted that we must understand the occasions of revelation not as mere footnotes, but as the very key to understanding the Quran's moral-social objectives. He argued that the Quran's criticisms are often directed at the practical life and specific political behaviours of the religious communities Muhammad (PBUH) encountered in seventh-century Arabia, rather than an abstract, ahistorical judgment on their entire scriptural canon (Rahman, p.134-35). For example, when the Quran states, "So woe to those who write the 'scripture' with their own hands, then say, 'This is from God'" (Q.2:79), Rahman suggests this must be read as a targeted critique. It refers to specific acts of bad faith and political-theological manoeuvring by certain Jewish groups in Medina who were attempting to use scripture to settle local disputes or deny Muhammad's prophetic legitimacy. To generalize this into a claim that the entire Hebrew Bible is a fabrication is to ignore the specific historical target of the verse. This contextualization opens the door to separating the ideal of revelation from the flawed human reception that any prophetic community—including the Muslim ummah—can exhibit.
Mustansir Mir and the Coherence of the Nazm
Complementing Rahman's contextualism is the principle of intra-textuality, or reading the Quran holistically as a unified discourse. In the history of exegesis, verses have often been "atomized"—plucked from their context to support a particular legal or polemical point. Mustansir Mir, building on the work of Farahi and Islahi, demonstrates that the Quran possesses an inherent nazm (coherence or order). This coherence suggests that the Quran is not a collection of disparate aphorisms but a carefully structured literary work where each part informs the whole.
Mir demonstrates that the Quran's coherence requires that verses on any topic be interpreted in light of others (Mir, Coherence in the Quran, p.87). When we isolate verses on tahrif, we create a distorted picture of Islamic theology. These critical verses must be read alongside the Quran's powerful and recurring affirmations of the Torah and Psalms. For instance, the Quran states, "Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light" (Q.5:44) and "And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah..." (Q.5:46). The dominant meta-narrative of the Quran is one of confirmation (taṣdiq) and succession, not cancellation or annihilation. Mir's work suggests that the Quran acts as a muhaymin (guardian or overseer), a term that implies protecting the essential truths of previous scriptures from being lost or forgotten (Mir, Coherence in the Quran, p.21). From this perspective, the Quran does not replace the Torah; it functions as a literary and theological safeguard for the Torah's most vital monotheistic and ethical claims.
Khaled Abou El Fadl and the Ethics of Reading
The "ethics of reading," as articulated by Khaled Abou El Fadl, demands a charitable and beauty-centric engagement with the text. Abou El Fadl warns against "authoritarian" readings that close off the text's potential for mercy and justice (Abou El Fadl, Speaking in God’s Name, p.89). For him, the Quran is an invitation to a "covenant of beauty," where the believer is tasked with finding the most moral and compassionate interpretation possible. This ethic of reading is particularly vital in interreligious dialogue, where a "hermeneutic of suspicion" often reigns supreme.
When the Quran commands Muslims to debate with the People of the Book "in the best manner" (Q.29:46), it establishes an ethical imperative for dialogue that a hermeneutic of suspicion fundamentally violates (Abou El Fadl, The Search for Beauty in Islam, p.112). To approach Jewish scripture with the pre-ordained assumption that it is a "corrupted artefact" is to fail the Quranic command of "best mannered" engagement. Abou El Fadl argues that a God-centred reading embraces the diversity of revelation as a source of divine beauty. He suggests that Muslims are tasked with finding the "divine signature" in the Jewish tradition (Abou El Fadl, The Search for Beauty in Islam, p.117). This requires a hermeneutic that views the preservation of the Torah not as a threat to Islam, but as a testament to God's enduring mercy toward the Children of Israel. If God promised to guide the People of Israel, to suggest that He allowed His guidance to be utterly erased is to question the sovereignty and faithfulness of God Himself.
Farid Esack and the Hermeneutic of Liberation
A purposive hermeneutic centred on the Quran's higher objectives (maqaṣid) shifts the focus from forensic textual criticism to shared ethical outcomes. Farid Esack's hermeneutic of liberative pluralism is pivotal here. Esack, writing from the context of the struggle against Apartheid in South Africa, argues that the Quran's primary concern is praxis—solidarity with the oppressed and the pursuit of justice ('adl). In this framework, religious identity is defined not by doctrinal purity but by ethical commitment to the marginalized.
For Esack, an exclusivist theology that denies any validity to neighbouring faiths contradicts the Quran's observable pluralistic reality and its call for "common terms" of virtue and monotheism (Q.3:64). Esack reclaims the term "Muslim" not as a sectarian label, but as a universal state of "submission to God" that can be found in any community pursuing justice (Esack, p.167). In this framework, the question of whether every vowel of the Hebrew Bible is pristine becomes secondary to the question of whether its core message of ethical monotheism remains discernible and can serve as a basis for collaborative action. Esack's work allows for a "solidarity against oppression" grounded in a "recognition of the religious Other as a legitimate recipient of divine grace" (Esack, p.192). The "preserved core" of the Torah and Zabur is thus found in their liberative potential—their ability to inspire justice, care for the orphan, and resistance to tyranny—all of which are themes the Quran seeks to amplify, not silence.
The Synthesis of Tools
By synthesizing the historical-contextualism of Rahman, the intra-textual coherence of Mir, the ethical beauty of Abou El Fadl, and the liberative pluralism of Esack, we emerge with a powerful new lens for Jewish-Muslim dialogue. This toolkit allows the modern Muslim scholar to de-escalate polemics by recognizing that critical verses were historically specific interventions rather than universal condemnations. It allows for the affirmation of continuity by seeing the Quran as a guardian that confirms the enduring "light and guidance" in the Torah. Finally, it prioritizes ethics by focusing on the shared struggle for justice as the ultimate proof of a scripture's "preservation." This hermeneutical reorientation provides a robust theological framework, rooted in the Islamic interpretive tradition itself, to approach Jewish scripture as a venerable source of divine wisdom.
Deconstructing Tahrif
To understand the Quranic discourse on earlier scriptures, one must first engage in a rigorous philological deconstruction of the term tahrif. In popular contemporary Muslim discourse, tahrif is almost universally understood as the physical alteration, deletion, or forgery of the biblical text. However, a linguistic analysis of the root ḥ-r-f reveals a more nuanced set of meanings. The primary sense of the verb ḥarrafa is to turn something from its proper way, to slant, or to tilt. As Abdullah Saeed points out, in the context of speech, this implies a "displacement" of words from their intended context rather than a physical rewriting of the parchment (Saeed, Interpreting the Quran, p.88).
The Quranic usage of the term—found in verses such as Q.2:75, 4:46, 5:13, and 5:41—frequently associates tahrif with the act of "tongue-twisting" or "shifting words from their places." If the words were physically non-existent or forged, the charge of shifting them would be logically incoherent. One cannot tilt or slant a void. Thus, the very vocabulary the Quran employs suggests a struggle over the meaning and application of a text that remains extant and recognizable. By reclaiming this philological root, we move away from a forensic debate over manuscript variants and toward an ethical critique of how religious authority can "slant" divine guidance to serve communal or political ends.
Mahmoud M. Ayoub and the Classical Distinction
The foundational scholarship of Mahmoud M. Ayoub is essential for recovering the diversity of classical Islamic thought on this issue. Ayoub demonstrated that the dominant "popular" position—tahrif al-naṣṣ (corruption of the scriptural text)—was by no means the only orthodox interpretation in the formative and classical periods. In his analysis of the history of tafsir (exegesis), Ayoub notes that several influential commentators understood the charge primarily as tahrif al-maʿna—corruption in meaning or interpretive distortion.
Ayoub draws particular attention to the work of the great polymath Fakhr al-Din al-Razi. In his monumental commentary Mafatiḥ al-Ghayb, Al-Razi addresses Q.5:13, which speaks of the Children of Israel "displacing words from their right places." Al-Razi argues that this does not necessarily mean they changed the words in the physical scrolls. He posits that it is impossible for a widely transmitted community scripture to be physically forged without detection. Instead, he suggests that they "distorted its meaning through false interpretations" (Ayoub 2:248-249). Al-Razi's logic is devastatingly simple yet profound: "one cannot distort what is non-existent." If the Torah were a complete fabrication, the Quranic call to judge by it would be a call to judge by a lie. By highlighting this classical strand of thought, Ayoub provides modern Muslims with a pedigree of "high orthodoxy" that affirms the textual integrity of the Torah while critiquing the human failure to live up to its meanings.
The Doctrine of Kitman—The Theology of Concealment
Building on the distinction between text and meaning, Abdulaziz Sachedina explores what he calls the Quranic "theology of religious pluralism." Sachedina emphasizes that the primary Quranic grievance against the Ahl al-Kitab (Family of the Book) is often not fabrication, but kitman—the act of concealing or suppressing truths that are already present in their scriptures (Sachedina, p.75). This shift from "writing" to "hiding" changes the nature of the theological critique.
The charge of "concealing the truth while you know it" (Q.2:42) presupposes that the truth is still there, within the scrolls, but is being strategically ignored or hidden from the public eye. Sachedina argues that this "concealment" was often related to specific ethical imperatives or prophecies that would have challenged the entrenched authority of the religious elites in Medina. This shift in focus—from forgery to omission—has profound implications for Jewish-Muslim dialogue. It suggests that the uncorrupted truth remains within the Jewish scriptural corpus, awaiting recognition. It transforms the Quran from a replacement of the Torah into a "revealed of the hidden" within the Torah. For Sachedina, this means that the dialogue between the two faiths should not be about which book is "true," but about a collaborative effort to "un-conceal" the shared monotheistic and ethical truths that both communities are prone to hiding when they become too politically or socially inconvenient (Sachedina, p.78).
The Polemical Shift—From Ibn Abbas to Ibn Hazm
To understand how the more restrictive view of tahrif al-naṣṣ became dominant, we must examine the historical shift from the early period to the medieval era. Asma Afsaruddin's scholarship illustrates that the earliest generations of Muslims (al-salaf al-ṣaliḥ) often held a much more open and pragmatic stance toward Jewish scriptures. She points out that early authorities like Ibn Abbas—the "interpreter of the Quran"—are recorded as stating that "no one could ever change the words of God's books," and that the distortion mentioned in the Quran referred to people "misinterpreting the words" (Afsaruddin, p.103).
However, as the Islamic empire expanded and encountered the sophisticated polemics of the Byzantine and Sasanian worlds, the theological atmosphere hardened. The turning point is often associated with the 11th-century Andalusian Scholar Ibn Hazm. Facing intense Christian-Muslim debates and seeking to defend Islamic finality against biblical contradictions pointed out by critics, Ibn Hazm pioneered the argument that the biblical text was a tissue of contradictions and historical errors, and therefore must have been physically forged (Saeed, Interpreting the Quran, p. 92). This "Ibn Hazmian paradigm" eventually trickled down into popular Muslim consciousness, serving a defensive, apologetic function. Yet, as Afsaruddin demonstrates, this was a departure from the earlier, more inclusive hermeneutic. Reclaiming the earlier stance allows us to return to a Quranic spirit that views the Torah as a subsisting source of "guidance and light" (Afsaruddin, p.105).
Tahrif as a Perennial Human Warning
A central argument of this reconstructive reading is that the charge of tahrif is not an ethnic or communal slur against Jews, but an ethical warning against a perennial human capacity. Mahmoud M. Ayoub argues that the Quranic charge is actually a prophetic critique of the clerical and priestly classes—the "keepers of the word"—who manipulate divine law for power (Ayoub, p. 134). This universalizes the critique, making it a mirror for the Muslim community as well.
This interpretation aligns the Quranic charge with the biblical prophetic tradition itself. Just as the prophets Isaiah, Amos, and Jeremiah critiqued the priestly establishment of their time for neglecting the weightier matters of the law—justice and mercy—the Quran critiques the religious leaders of seventh-century Arabia for the same failure. In this light, tahrif is a warning to all religious communities, including Muslims. Muslims, too, are capable of "slanting" the Quran to justify oppression, exclude the stranger, or maintain patriarchal control. As Khaled Abou El Fadl warns, when Muslims read the Quran in an authoritarian way, they are committing their own form of interpretive tahrif (Abou El Fadl, Speaking in God’s Name, p. 115). By universalizing the concept, we transform a point of inter-religious contention into a shared ethical project where Jews and Muslims can then stand together against the "slanters of the word" in both their traditions.
The Shared Core
If the charge of tahrif is understood as interpretive concealment (kitman) rather than textual annihilation, the substantive question remains: what is the essence that has been preserved? This section explores Al-Risalah al-Asasiyyah—the essential prophetic message that the Quran claims to confirm and guard. This core is not merely a set of dogmas but a shared "thought-world" or imaginaire, as Muhammad Arkoun terms it. Beyond the legal minutiae that may differ between the Sharia of Moses and the Sharia of Muhammad, there exists a shared spiritual and mental universe structured by revelation, prophecy, and ethical accountability (Arkoun, Rethinking Islam, p. 56).
For the dialogue to be transformative, Muslims must recognize that the "light and guidance" attributed to the Torah (Q 5:44) is not a historical relic but a living presence within Jewish tradition. This recognition allows for a "hermeneutics of continuity," where the differences between the faiths are seen as branches of the same monotheistic tree. The inextricable strands of this shared core include radical monotheism, the prophetic lineage, and the shared ethic of justice.
The most profound commonality is the uncompromising theology of monotheism. The Jewish Shema—"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One" (Deuteronomy 6:4)—is the liturgical heartbeat of Judaism. This declaration finds its perfect Quranic resonance in the opening of Surat al-Ikhlaṣ: "Say, 'He is God, the One'" (Q 112:1). As Mahmoud M. Ayoub notes, this shared conception of a sovereign, merciful, and utterly unique deity forms the non-negotiable bedrock of both faiths (Ayoub 2: 134).
However, the commonality goes deeper than the mere numerical oneness of God. Both traditions emphasize the transcendence and immanence of God—a God who is beyond human comprehension yet "closer than the jugular vein" (Q 50:16). This shared Tawḥid (monotheism) demands a shared rejection of idolatry, whether in the form of physical icons or the modern idols of ego, nationalism, and materialism. Abdulaziz Sachedina argues that this shared monotheism creates a "circle of faith" that encompasses all who submit to the ultimate sovereignty of the One, providing a theological justification for pluralism that precedes any political treaty (Sachedina, p. 34).
Abraham as the Bridge—The Hanif Paradigm
The figure of Abraham (Ibrahim) serves as the quintessential bridge in this shared heritage. The Quran explicitly claims Abraham as a hanif—a pure monotheist who submitted to God—and notably declares that he was neither a Jew nor a Christian in the later sectarian sense (Q 3:67). This is not a denial of Abraham's Jewish lineage in the biological or historical sense, but a theological assertion that his essence was universal submission (islam in the primordial sense).
Asma Afsaruddin highlights that in early Islamic discourse, Abraham was the model of "faith beyond borders." He is the common patriarch whose legacy is the rejection of ancestral idolatry in favor of the Living God (Afsaruddin, p.112). For Jewish-Muslim dialogue, Abraham represents the "common term" (Q 3:64). By focusing on the "Religion of Abraham," both communities can move past the medieval polemics that sought to weaponize the patriarch's identity. Instead, they can see Abraham as the model for a faith that is experiential, questioning, and ultimately characterized by radical trust in the Divine—a trust that both the Torah and the Quran seek to cultivate in their readers.
Moses and the Exodus—A Shared Liberatory Narrative
Nowhere is the intertextual link between the Torah and the Quran more visible than in the narrative of Moses (Musa). Moses is the most mentioned prophet in the Quran, his life serving as the primary archetype for Muhammad's own struggles. Farid Esack's liberationist hermeneutic emphasizes that the Exodus narrative is not just a Jewish national story, but a universal paradigm of liberation from tyranny (Esack, p.143).
The Quran's retelling of the Exodus—the plagues, the parting of the sea, the receiving of the Law—serves to validate the Jewish experience of divine deliverance. Esack argues that when the Quran commands the Children of Israel to "remember My favour which I have bestowed upon you" (Q 2:40), it is inviting them to be faithful to their own liberatory core. For Muslims, the preservation of this narrative in Jewish scripture is essential, for it provides the "historical DNA" of the struggle against Pharaohism—a struggle that remains central to the Islamic mission. By recognizing the Exodus as a shared sacred history, Muslims and Jews can form a "solidarity of the oppressed" (Esack, p.114), working together against modern forms of systemic injustice.
The Al-Risalah al-Asasiyyah manifests in the profound ethical commonalities between the two traditions. The moral core of the Decalogue (Ten Commandments)—prohibitions against murder, theft, false witness, and adultery, and the injunction to honour parents—is unequivocally affirmed and expanded upon in the Quran (e.g., Q.17:22-39). The relentless Biblical call to justice (tzedek) finds its precise echo in the Quranic command to "be maintainers of justice" (qawwamina bil-qisṭ) (Q.4:135).
Abdullah Saeed emphasizes that while specific legal rulings (mutaghayyirat) may differ according to historical context, the universal moral principles (thawabit) remain identical (Saeed, Interpreting the Quran, p. 89). Both scriptures emphasize the protection of the vulnerable—the orphan, the widow, and the stranger. This shared ethic is not a coincidental overlap but a result of the same divine source. Khaled Abou El Fadl argues that the "spirit of the law" in both traditions is directed toward the preservation of human dignity (karamah) and the pursuit of mercy (raḥmah) (Abou El Fadl, The Search for Beauty in Islam, p. 208). Recognizing this shared ethical foundation allows Jews and Muslims to see themselves as "co-travelers" toward a shared moral end, fulfilling the Quranic mandate to "race to goodness" (Q. 5:48).
The Unique Theological Status of the Zabur
While the Torah (Tawrat) has often been the primary site of legal and polemical contention, the Zabur (Psalms) occupies a markedly different space in the Quranic imaginaire. The Quran explicitly acknowledges the revelation given to David: "And to David We gave the Psalms" (Q. 17:55; 4:163). Crucially, in the history of Islamic exegesis, the Zabur has seldom been subjected to the same rigorous accusations of tahrif al-naṣṣ (textual corruption).
Mahmoud M. Ayoub notes that because the Zabur is perceived as a book of wisdom, hymns, and prayers rather than a code of law, it escaped the medieval "clash of legalities" (Ayoub 2: 134). For Ayoub, the Zabur represents a "protected spiritual core" that remains largely undisputed. This unique status allows the Zabur to function as a "neutral zone" for dialogue—a space where Muslims and Jews can meet through the language of devotion before navigating the complexities of law. The Zabur confirms that the prophetic experience is not merely about command and prohibition, but about the intimate, emotional dialogue between the soul and its Creator.
Mustansir Mir's work on the literary structure of the Quran provides the intellectual bedrock for understanding the "scriptural symbiosis" between the Psalms and the Quran. Mir argues that the Quranic style—its rhythmic cadences, its invocations of nature, and its hymns of divine majesty—shares a profound "literary DNA" with Hebrew poetry, particularly the Davidic Psalms (Mir, "The Quran as Literature," p.52).
Mir points to the explicit "intertextual validation" found in Q 21:105: "And We have already written in the book [the Zabur] after the [previous] mention that the land is inherited by My righteous servants." This is a direct, nearly verbatim quotation of Psalm 37:29: "The righteous shall inherit the land and dwell upon it forever." For Mir, this is not a coincidental overlap but a deliberate Quranic signal. By quoting the Zabur, the Quran performs an act of "sacred citation," affirming that the spiritual promises made to David remain active and authoritative. This literary connection proves that the Quranic author viewed the Zabur not as a corrupted relic of the past, but as a living sub-text that informs Islamic piety (Mir, "The Quran as Literature," p.56).
The figure of David (Dawud) in the Quran serves as a bridge between temporal power and spiritual humility. Unlike some biblical critiques that focus on David's human failings, the Quranic David is the quintessence of the 'abid (worshipper). He is the one who "softens iron" and to whom the mountains and birds join in songs of praise (tasbiḥ) (Q.34:10).
Asma Afsaruddin highlights that this Davidic archetype is central to the Islamic conception of "engaged spirituality." David is both a sovereign ruler and a weeping penitent, a model that challenges the dichotomy between the "secular" and the "sacred" (Afsaruddin, p.112). For Jewish-Muslim dialogue, this shared reverence for David allows for a discussion on the nature of leadership and accountability. By reclaiming the David of the Zabur, both communities can explore a "theology of the heart" that balances the exercise of power with the necessity of constant spiritual return (tawbah). The Zabur thus provides a shared blueprint for the "Prophet-King," a figure who remains relevant to modern efforts in ethical governance and social justice.
Muhammad Arkoun's concept of the "shared imaginaire" is particularly potent when applied to the Davidic and Quranic descriptions of the cosmos. Both the Zabur and the Quran present a "theocentric ecology." In Psalm 19, "The heavens declare the glory of God," a sentiment echoed in the Quranic assertion that "Whatever is in the heavens and the earth glorifies God" (Q.62:1).
Arkoun argues that this shared mental universe—where every element of creation is a "sign" (ayah) of the Divine—creates a common spiritual language that transcends linguistic and dogmatic barriers (Arkoun, Rethinking Islam, p. 56). When Jews and Muslims recite their respective scriptures, they are entering the same "thought-world" of cosmic praise. This shared aesthetic provides a foundation for "Green Hermeneutics," where the Zabur and the Quran are used together to address the modern environmental crisis. The "preservation" of the Zabur's message in the hearts of Jewish worshippers is thus a preservation of a mode of being in the world—one of stewardship and awe—that the Quran seeks to amplify for all humanity (Arkoun, Rethinking Islam, p.72).
The practical culmination of this Davidic hermeneutic is the creation of "Bridges of Prayer." This refers to interfaith gatherings where the Zabur and the Quran are recited in tandem, highlighting their thematic and phonetic resonances. Abdullah Saeed notes that such liturgical engagement bypasses the "dialogue of the intellect" and enters the "dialogue of the spirit" (Saeed, Reading the Quran in the Twenty-first Century, p.106).
When a Muslim hears the Zabur's call for mercy (raḥamim) and recognizes its root in the Quranic raḥmah, the distance between the two faiths collapses. This is not syncretism, but a "mutual witnessing" to the One God. Saeed argues that the Zabur serves as the ultimate proof that the "divine outpouring" did not cease or become corrupted, but flowed through different channels to reach the same ocean of monotheism. By reclaiming the Zabur as a shared heritage, Muslims and Jews can build a connection rooted in the "beauty of holiness," fulfilling the Quranic vision of a humanity that finds peace through the "remembrance of God" (dhikr Allah) (Saeed, Reading the Quran in the Twenty-first Century, p.112).
The Challenge of the "Hard Verses"
Any honest attempt to reclaim a shared scriptural heritage must confront the "hard verses" of the Quran—those passages that appear to characterize the Jewish community in highly critical, even polemical terms. Verses describing the "enmity" of the Jews (Q.5:82) or the prohibition of taking them as awliya' (allies or protectors) (Q.5:51) have frequently been decontextualized by modern extremists and medieval polemicists alike to justify perpetual hostility.
However, contemporary hermeneutics, as championed by Fazlur Rahman and Abdullah Saeed, insists that these verses cannot be understood as ontological statements about the Jewish "nature" or "faith." Instead, they must be read through the lens of Asbab al-Nuzul—the specific historical circumstances of seventh-century Medina. Rahman argues that the Quran is a "divine response" to human situations; thus, its polemics are often tactical responses to specific political betrayals, broken treaties, or the existential threats faced by the nascent Muslim community (Rahman, p. 134). By returning these verses to their original "occasions," we transform them from eternal racial or religious indictments into historical accounts of a particular socio-political conflict.
Perhaps no verse has been more weaponized in modern Jewish-Muslim conflict than Q. 5:82: "You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers to be the Jews..." Abdullah Saeed provides a masterclass in contextualist reading to deconstruct this passage. He notes that the verse is descriptive of a specific political realignment in Medina, where certain Jewish tribes had formed strategic alliances with the Meccan pagans against Muhammad (Saeed, Reading the Quran in the Twenty-first Century, p.106).
Saeed argues that the verse is not a theological decree but a "status report" on a particular seventh-century war. To apply it to all Jews across all time is a gross hermeneutical error that violates the Quran's own principles of justice. Furthermore, Saeed points out that the verse immediately follows a passage praising the Christians for their humility, highlighting that the Quran's descriptions of "the Other" are always contingent on their ethical and political behaviour at a given moment. When Jews and Muslims are not in a state of war, the verse ceases to be an applicable description, and the universal commands of "kindness and justice" toward those who do not fight the Muslims (Q. 60:8) become the operative theological baseline (Saeed, Reading the Quran in the Twenty-first Century, p.132).
Another frequent source of dissonance is the command: "O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as awliya'" (Q.5:51). Abdulaziz Sachedina deconstructs the term awliya', often translated as "friends," and demonstrates that in seventh-century Arabian tribal politics, it specifically referred to "military and political protectors" or "patrons" (Sachedina, p.207).
In the precarious environment of early Medina, where the Muslim community was under constant threat of annihilation, forming a wilayah (patronage) with groups that were actively conspiring with the Meccan enemy was a matter of survival. Sachedina argues that this verse was never intended to forbid personal friendship, social cooperation, or inter-religious marriage (which the Quran explicitly permits). By clarifying the political-military nature of wilayah, Sachedina removes the verse from the realm of inter-faith relations and places it back in the realm of 7th-century national security. This allows Muslims today to pursue deep, multi-faceted alliances with Jewish communities (Sachedina, p.210).
The ultimate goal of this deconstructive work is the "healing of memory." Khaled Abou El Fadl argues that an "ethics of reading" requires Muslims to take responsibility for how their interpretations affect the lives and dignity of others. He asserts that a reading of the Quran that produces hate or justifies the dehumanization of the "Other" is a failure of the intellect and the heart (Abou El Fadl, The Search for Beauty in Islam, p.156).
By contextualizing the polemical verses, Muslims can engage in a "Theology of Recognition." This is the move from tasamuḥ (mere tolerance) to i'tiraf (deep recognition). It recognizes that the Jewish tradition has its own integrity, its own "law and method" (Q. 5:48), and its own preserved light. When historical grievances are understood as historical, they lose their power to poison the present. This allows for a partnership where Jews and Muslims can say to one another: "Our ancestors fought in the streets of Medina, but our scriptures call us to a race to goodness in the world of today" (Abou El Fadl, The Search for Beauty in Islam, p.215).
The End of Supersessionism—A Post-Polemical Theology
The reclamation of shared heritage necessitates the end of theological supersessionism—the belief that Islam has completely cancelled the religious validity of Judaism. Abdulaziz Sachedina and Fazlur Rahman have provided the intellectual tools to move toward a "Post-Supersessionist" Islamic theology. Sachedina's exploration of the "universal covenant" (mithaq) suggests that God's relationship with the Jewish people is a permanent feature of the divine plan, not a temporary stage (Sachedina, p.75).
Rahman's "double movement" further clarifies that the Quran's arrival was meant to correct the historical deviations of religious communities, not to invalidate the revelations themselves. By distinguishing between the "Religion of God" (Din Allah)—which is one and eternal—and the specific "laws and methods" (shir'ah wa minhaj) given to different communities (Q. 5:48), Muslims can affirm the ongoing validity of the Jewish path. This shift allows for a "Pluralism of Paths" where Jews and Muslims are seen as distinct yet equal participants in a "race to goodness." The "preservation" of the Torah is thus not a threat to the Quran's finality, but a proof of the Quran's claim that God's guidance is accessible to all who seek Him (Rahman, p.164).
Khaled Abou El Fadl's concept of the "Covenant of Beauty" provides the aesthetic and ethical framework for the future of Jewish-Muslim dialogue. Abou El Fadl argues that the diversity of religious revelations is a source of "divine beauty" and a manifestation of God's infinite mercy (Abou El Fadl, The Search for Beauty in Islam, p.112). To attempt to flatten this diversity through claims of scriptural corruption is to attempt to "limit the speech of God."
For the future, this means that dialogue should be characterized by i'tiraf (deep recognition) rather than mere tasamuḥ (tolerance). Recognition involves the proactive search for the "divine signature" in the Jewish tradition—its liturgy, its ethical struggles, and its profound commitment to the covenant. Abou El Fadl posits that when Muslims recognize the preserved beauty within the Torah, they are performing an act of worship. This "Ethics of Recognition" ensures that the dialogue is not a zero-sum game of dogmatic points, but a shared journey toward the "Majesty" and "Beauty" of the Divine (Abou El Fadl, The Search for Beauty in Islam, p.117).
Farid Esack's liberation theology provides the ultimate practical application: moving dialogue from the "parlour" to the "streets." Esack argues that if the "core message" of the Torah and Quran is justice for the oppressed, then the most authentic form of dialogue is collaborative action (Esack, p.192).
This "Solidarity in Praxis" means that Jews and Muslims should be natural allies in combating systemic injustices—poverty, racism, and environmental degradation. When Jews and Muslims work together to protect the environment, they are fulfilling the shared Abrahamic mandate of stewardship (khilafah in the Quran; tikkun olam in Jewish tradition). Esack posits that the "preserved core" of the scriptures is found in their "liberative potential." By focusing on shared societal challenges, the theological nuances of tahrif are resolved not through academic debate, but through the experience of shared virtue (Esack, p.203).
A Roadmap for a Shared Prophetic Future
To translate these hermeneutical shifts into reality, we propose a practical roadmap for future Jewish-Muslim partnerships. First, there must be educational reform within madrasas to move away from the "Ibn Hazmian paradigm" and toward the more inclusive "Ayoub-Razi paradigm" of interpretive distortion. Second, regular "shared study" circles (Scriptural Reasoning) should be established to focus on thematic synergies like justice and mercy.
Third, collaborative ethics must be prioritized. As Farid Esack advocates, building coalitions around shared societal challenges—combating poverty and systemic racism—must be grounded in the "liberative core" of preserved scriptures (Esack, p.192). Finally, there must be a communal "duty of care" where Muslims view the protection of the Jewish community's religious autonomy as a Quranic mandate based on Q. 5:48. This roadmap ensures that the dialogue is not merely an academic exercise but a lived reality that transforms the socio-political landscape (Saeed, Reading the Quran in the Twenty-first Century, p.167).
The comprehensive analysis conducted in this study has been dedicated to one singular Quranic command: "So race to all that is good" (fastabiqu al-khayrat) (Q.5:48). This "race" is only possible if we recognize that our competitors are our siblings in faith, running on parallel tracks laid down by the same Divine Architect. By reclaiming the shared scriptural heritage of the Torah, the Zabur, and the Quran, we have dismantled the formidable wall of tahrif and built in its place a bridge of understanding.
We have shown that the Quran's criticisms are prophetic warnings against interpretive failure, applicable to all, rather than a negation of the Jewish canon. The philological analysis of tahrif revealed that the Quranic charge refers to the "slanting" of meaning rather than physical forgery. Classical scholarship, particularly the work of Al-Razi and the insights of Mahmoud M. Ayoub, demonstrated that the textual integrity of the Torah was affirmed by many early authorities. The concept of kitman (concealment) rather than fabrication shifts the focus to the human tendency to hide inconvenient truths within preserved scriptures.
The hermeneutical toolkit—combining Rahman's historical contextualism, Mir's intratextual coherence, Abou El Fadl's ethics of beauty, and Esack's liberative pluralism—has provided a robust framework for reading the Quran in ways that affirm Jewish scripture. We identified the Al-Risalah al-Asasiyyah (the essential message) as comprising radical monotheism, the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic liberation narrative, and shared ethical imperatives of justice and mercy. These commonalities are not superficial overlaps but derive from the same divine source.
The Zabur emerged as a particularly powerful bridge, a "neutral zone" where liturgical and devotional language transcends legal disputes. The literary DNA shared between the Psalms and the Quran, particularly evident in direct quotations like Q.21:105, proves that the Quranic author viewed the Davidic revelation as authoritative and living. The Zabur's emphasis on praise, lament, and cosmic worship provides a shared spiritual vocabulary that can heal historical wounds.
Confronting the "hard verses" required rigorous contextualization. Verses like Q. 5:82 and Q. 5:51 were shown to be historically specific responses to political betrayals in seventh-century Medina, not eternal theological judgments. By returning these verses to their Asbab al-Nuzul, we transformed them from weapons of division into historical artifacts that no longer apply to contemporary Jewish-Muslim relations.
The path forward involves moving from supersessionism to pluralism, from tolerance to recognition, and from abstract theology to concrete solidarity. The "Covenant of Beauty" calls Muslims to see the Jewish tradition as a valid and beautiful path to the One God. The "Solidarity in Praxis" demands that theological dialogue be accompanied by collaborative action for justice.
Recognizing this shared heritage transforms history from a source of grievance into a foundation for partnership. It fulfils the Quranic command to "come to a common term" (Q 3:64) and ensures that our future is not one of conflict, but of a shared prophetic witness to the world. The "Covenant of Beauty" remains open, inviting Jews and Muslims to stand together in the "light and guidance" of their preserved scriptures, witnessing to the One God through a life of shared justice and mutual mercy. In this way, the Torah and the Quran cease to be opposing testimonies and become complementary voices in a single, eternal song of divine praise.
Bibliography
Abou El Fadl, Khaled. The Search for Beauty in Islam: A Conference of the Books. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.
Abou El Fadl, Khaled. Speaking in God's Name: Islamic Law, Authority and Women. Oxford: Oneworld, 2001.
Afsaruddin, Asma. “The Hermeneutics of Inter-Faith Relations: Retrieving Moderation and Pluralism as Universal Principles in Qur'anic Exegeses.” Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 37, no. 2, 2009, pp. 331–54.
Arkoun, Muhammad. Rethinking Islam: Common Questions, Uncommon Answers. Translated by Robert D. Lee, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994.
Arkoun, Muhammad. The Unthought in Contemporary Islamic Thought. London: Saqi Books, 2002.
Ayoub, Mahmoud M. The Quran and Its Interpreters. Vol. 2, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1992.
Esack, Farid. Quran, Liberation and Pluralism: An Islamic Perspective of Interreligious Solidarity Against Oppression. Oxford: Oneworld, 1997.
Mir, Mustansir. Coherence in the Quran: A Study of Islahi's Concept of Nazm. Indianapolis, IN: American Trust Publications, 1986.
Mir, Mustansir. “The Quran as Literature.” Religion & Literature, vol. 20, no. 1, 1988, pp. 49–63.
Rahman, Fazlur. Major Themes of the Quran. 2nd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
Sachedina, Abdulaziz. The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Saeed, Abdullah. Interpreting the Quran: Towards a Contemporary Approach. London: Routledge, 2006.
Saeed, Abdullah. Reading the Quran in the Twenty-first Century: A Contextualist Approach. London: Routledge, 2014.
The Quran. Translated by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
…
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.
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