The Universal Covenant: Deconstructing Exclusivist Hermeneutics through Rigorous Quranic Analysis
By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof, New Age Islam
29 November 2025
The Quran, revealed within the fractured tribal milieu of 7th-century Arabia, articulates a metaphysical grammar of Tawḥid (Oneness) that transcends specific temporal and geographic boundaries. However, the history of Quranic hermeneutics (tafsir) has frequently been characterized by a tension between the expansive and the constrictive—between reading the text as a universal invitation to the Divine or as a charter for sectarian monopoly. This paper posits that exclusivist hermeneutics—defined as the assertion that salvation and truth are restricted solely to the socio-political community defined by the post-610 CE Shariah—collapse when subjected to rigorous philological and intra-textual analysis. By synthesizing the intellectual labour of contemporary scholars such as the renowned diplomat and translator Muhammad Asad, University Professor of Islamic Studies at George Washington University Seyyed Hossein Nasr, the British-Pakistani polymath and Muslim futurist Ziauddin Sardar, and others, we demonstrate that the Quran’s structural reality is one of radical ethical monotheism, pluralism, and liberatory mercy.
The Hermeneutical Battlefield
The central crisis of contemporary Islamic thought is not merely political but interpretative. It is a crisis rooted in how the believer defines the "Self" and the "Other" through the lens of scripture. The exclusivist reading, which has gained significant traction in modern fundamentalist discourse, treats the Quran as a document of displacement: a revelation that arrived to nullify all previous wisdom, abrogate all prior covenants, and establish a monolithic empire of the saved. In this worldview, the Divine Mercy is rationed, and the boundaries of salvation are coterminous with the boundaries of the historical Muslim empire.
However, a deeper excavation of the text—employing the tools of philology, occasions of revelation, and thematic structural analysis—reveals that this exclusivist architecture is built upon anachronisms and de-contextualization. This paper argues that the Quran does not call for a world flattened into a single religious identity, but rather for a "poly-versal" world where diverse communities compete in virtue. By engaging the work of scholars such as Khaled Abou El Fadl, Distinguished Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law, Asma Afsaruddin, Professor of Middle Eastern Languages and Cultures at Indiana University, and Joseph Lumbard, a specialist in Quranic Studies and editor of The Study Quran, we will deconstruct the four pillars of exclusivism: the theological monopoly on salvation, the social doctrine of segregation (Al-Wala’ wal-Bara’), the political ambition of global conquest, and the justification of perpetual offensive war.
Re-reading “Islam” as Ontological Submission
The citadel of theological exclusivism is constructed upon a specific linguistic assumption: that the word Islam in the Quran functions as a proper noun, a brand name for the institutional religion born in the 7th century, and that all prior dispensations (Judaism, Christianity, Sabianism) were abrogated by the arrival of Muhammad. This assumption allows exclusivists to weaponise verses to declare all non-Muslims as spiritually void. However, a philological analysis reveals that Islam in the Quranic context is not a static identity but a dynamic state of being—a "self-surrender" that predates the historical Muslim community.
The primary proof-text for exclusivism is Q.3:19: “Inna al-dina ‘inda Allahi al-islam” (“Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam”). The historicized reading interprets this as the validation of a specific institutional system. However, Muhammad Asad, in his seminal The Message of the Quran, argues that this translation betrays the linguistic root of the text. Asad renders the verse as: “Behold, the only [true] religion in the sight of God is [man's] self-surrender unto Him.” grounded in the Arabic lexicon, where islam is a verbal noun derived from the root s-l-m, implying peace, safety, and submission. Asad contends that capitalizing "Islam" here restricts a universal spiritual truth to a historical timeframe. Islam in this context denotes an "attitude of mind and heart" available to humanity since Adam.
Seyyed Hossein Nasr supports this by engaging the concept of the Din al-Fiṭrah (the Religion of Primordial Nature). He argues that the Quran views religion not as an evolving set of contradictory truths, but as a single, perennial vertical axis. When the Quran speaks of Islam, it refers to the timeless imperative to acknowledge the Absolute. To read 3:19 as excluding Noah, Abraham, or Jesus—none of whom followed the 7th-century Hijazi Shariah—is to render the Quran historically incoherent.
Farid Esack, a South African scholar of liberation theology and Professor at the University of Johannesburg, reinforces this by noting that the Quran explicitly applies the term muslim to figures who lived centuries before Muhammad. The disciples of Jesus declare, "Bear witness that we are muslimun" (3:52); and Abraham is described not as a Jew or Christian, but as a Ḥanif Muslim (3:67). Esack argues that if "Islam" were merely the name of the post-610 CE community, these verses would be anachronistic absurdities. Instead, they prove that "Islam" is the trans-historical function of submitting to God.
Perhaps the most weaponized verse in the exclusivist arsenal is 3:85: “And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.” Abdullah Saeed, the Sultan of Oman Professor of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Melbourne, challenges the de-contextualized reading of this verse, arguing that we must distinguish between the linguistic and historical meanings of Islam. If we accept Asad’s translation of Islam as "self-surrender," the verse reads: "Whoever seeks a path other than self-surrender to God... will be among the losers." This becomes a universal theological axiom: arrogance and idolatry—the opposites of submission—lead to spiritual ruin.
Reza Aslan, a prominent public intellectual and scholar of the sociology of religion, reinforces this by pointing to the Quran’s polemics against the Jews and Christians of Medina. The "losers" in 3:85 are those who, having recognized the Truth, reject it out of tribal pride. It is a condemnation of Kufr (active ungratefulness), not a condemnation of Christianity or Judaism per se. Furthermore, Safi Kaskas, a contemporary translator focusing on interfaith reconciliation, cross-references this with Q.2:62, which explicitly promises reward to Jews, Christians, and Sabeans who believe and do righteous deeds. While exclusivists claim 3:85 abrogated 2:62, Joseph Lumbard argues that abrogation (Naskh) applies to legal rulings, not theological promises. For God to promise salvation in 2:62 and retract it in 3:85 would imply Divine deceit, a theological impossibility.
The verse 5:3, “This day I have perfected for you your religion...” is often interpreted as the closing of the divine door, rendering previous paths obsolete. However, Abdulaziz Sachedina, Professor of Islamic Studies at George Mason University, offers a counter-argument based on the Quranic concept of Wilayah. The "perfection" of the Muhammadan revelation implies its comprehensive nature, but this does not necessitate the falsification of the Torah or Gospel. The Quran views itself as a Muhaymin (guardian/confirmer) of previous scriptures (5:48), not their destroyer.
Jerusha Lamptey, a scholar of Muslima theology at Union Theological Seminary, advances this by analyzing the theology of pluralism in 5:48: “To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation...” Lamptey argues that the exclusivist insistence on a homogenized religious identity defies the explicit Divine Will. If God willed difference as a mechanism for a "competition in virtue," then the exclusivist project of invalidating the "Other" is an act of rebellion against God’s design.
Contextualizing Al-Wala’ wal-Bara’: From Tribal Betrayal to Universal Ethics
Having established that the theological category of "Islam" is expansive, we address the sociological corollary: the doctrine of Al-Wala’ wal-Bara’ (Loyalty and Disavowal). Radical interpretations assert that a Muslim must show absolute loyalty to the Muslim community and hatred toward non-Muslims, citing verses that prohibit "alliance" (Wilāyah). However, rigorous historical-critical exegesis reveals that these prohibitions are contingent legal rulings regarding treason, while the permanent ethical command is one of kindness (birr) and justice (Qist).
The cornerstone of segregationist arguments is Q.5:51: “O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies (Awliya’) ...” Khaled Abou El Fadl argues that the exclusivist reading hinges on the mistranslation of Awliya’. In the context of governance, Wilayah refers to "political patronage" or "military allegiance," not friendship. Thus, 5:51 is a prohibition against transferring political allegiance to hostile tribes during a state of war.
Asma Afsaruddin notes the historical context: the verse was revealed when the Muslim community in Medina was under existential threat. Specific Jewish tribes had violated the Constitution of Medina, conspiring with the Quraysh. In this context, 5:51 was a decree against high treason, warning believers not to rely on the military patronage of those actively plotting their destruction. To extrapolate a universal ban on friendship from a specific decree against treason is a hermeneutical fallacy.
A potent logical argument against the exclusivist reading is found in Q.5:5, which explicitly permits Muslim men to marry chaste women from the People of the Book. Sachedina posits a devastating question: How can the Quran permit marriage to a Christian woman in 5:5, yet forbid taking her as a Wali (friend) in 5:51? The Quran defines marriage as a bond of Mawaddah (intense love) and Rahma (mercy). If 5:51 prohibited all intimacy, 5:5 would command Muslims to marry women they are obligated to hate. The only reconciliation is that 5:51 refers to political treachery, while 5:5 validates deep personal bonds.
Ziauddin Sardar directs us to Q.60:8-9, which clarifies the limits of hostility. God states He “does not forbid you from those who do not fight you... from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them.” Sardar notes the use of birr (kindness) and qisṭ (justice), establishing that peaceful coexistence is the baseline. Verse 60:9 clarifies that God only forbids alliance with those who fight regarding religion and expel believers from their homes. Safi Kaskas emphasizes that exclusivists reverse the Quranic order, making hostility the rule and kindness the exception, whereas the text establishes peace as the norm and hostility as a specific response to aggression.
Finally, the exclusivist interpretation collapses when measured against the Sunnah. Afsaruddin and Aslan document the Prophet’s pluralistic engagement, such as allowing the Christians of Najran to pray in his Mosque, maintaining trade with Jews, and his devotion to his polytheist uncle Abu Talib. The exclusivist projection creates a caricature of the Prophet that contradicts the historical record of engagement and neighbourliness.
“Manifesting the Truth”: Spiritual Triumph, Not Political Domination
The third pillar of the exclusivist worldview is political supremacism—the belief that the Quran mandates a relentless expansionist project until the world is under Islamic political dominion. This relies on a militaristic reading of verses promising the "manifestation" (Iẓhar) of Islam and describing Muslims as the "Best Community" (Khayr Ummah).
The verse 9:33 states God sent His Messenger “to manifest it over all religion.” Exclusivists interpret Iẓhar as political conquest. However, Muhammad Asad argues that ẓuhur implies visibility and distinctness. The "prevalence" of the Religion of Truth is its intellectual and moral ascendancy—the power of the monotheistic idea to liberate human consciousness. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, citing Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, supports this, interpreting the verse as the establishment of undeniable Ḥujjah (proof). If "prevalence" were achieved by the sword, it would violate the "no compulsion" clause (2:256).
Verse 3:110 describes Muslims as the "best nation" (Khayr Umma). Kaskas and Sachedina argue that this status is syntactically linked to the actions that follow: enjoining right and forbidding wrong. "Bestness" is functional and conditional. The phrase uḵhrijat li-n-nas ("brought forth for mankind") indicates service. If the community fails to enjoin justice, it forfeits the title. Far from a license for domination, 3:110 is a burden of ethical responsibility.
Jerusha Lamptey argues that the exclusivist ambition to create a homogenized "Islamic" world is structurally opposed to the Quranic worldview. Surah 5:48 explicitly states that religious diversity is the Divine Will intended to facilitate a "race to good." Ziauddin Sardar expands on this, envisioning a "poly-versal" world where different Ummahs coexist. To attempt to force the world into "one nation" is to try to correct God’s design.
Exclusivists claim Muslims must fight until "religion is entirely for Allah" (8:39). Reza Aslan contextualizes Fitnah as "persecution" (specifically that orchestrated by the Quraysh). Therefore, the command is to fight for religious freedom, not imposition. Aslan argues that the moment persecution ceases, the mandate for fighting dissolves (8:61). Khaled Abou El Fadl adds that the dichotomy of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb is a human-made juridical category, not a Quranic one. The Quran’s concern is with justice (‘adl) and human dignity, not territorial borders.
Deconstructing the So-Called Sword Verses
The final frontier of the conflict is the theology of violence. Exclusivists maintain that the "Sword Verses" (primarily 9:5 and 9:29) abrogated all previous verses calling for peace, mandating perpetual offensive warfare. However, a synthesized analysis demonstrates that this "abrogationist" reading is methodologically flawed.
Verse 9:5 (“kill the polytheists wherever you find them”) is frequently cited as a command for genocide. However, Asad and Esack point out that the opening verses of Surah At-Tawbah frame the context: the command was issued regarding specific pagan tribes who had violated the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. It is a battlefield instruction against treaty-breakers, not a foreign policy.
The most devastating rebuttal lies in the very next verse, 9:6, which commands granting asylum to polytheists who seek protection. Joseph Lumbard argues that if God commanded unconditional killing, He would not immediately command the granting of safe passage. The existence of 9:6 renders the genocidal interpretation of 9:5 logically impossible; the verse is actually a "Treaty Enforcement Verse."
Abdullah Saeed subjects the theory that the Sword Verse abrogated peaceful verses to rigorous critique. He notes that classical Naskh often meant "specification," not cancellation. Abrogation applies to legal technicalities, not fundamental moral principles like justice and mercy. For the command to kill to abrogate "no compulsion in religion" would imply God changed His mind about the morality of coercion. Saeed asserts that peace is the normative state, while fighting is the exception.
Verse 9:29 commands fighting the People of the Book until they pay jizyah. Afsaruddin provides the historical corrective: this was revealed prior to the Expedition of Tabuk, a defensive mobilization against the Byzantine Empire. Jizyah was not a punishment for disbelief but a tax in exchange for exemption from military service and state protection (Dhimmah). The phrase Wa Hum Ṣaghirun ("while humbled") refers to submission to the rule of law and the cessation of hostilities, not social degradation. Thus, 9:29 is a command to fight a hostile empire until they agree to a peace treaty, not a timeless command to subjugate peaceful nations.
Finally, the exclusivist argument for perpetual war is checked by 8:61: “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also]...” Ziauddin Sardar argues that this verse acts as a "circuit breaker." The moment the enemy stops fighting, the Muslim must stop. If the exclusivist reading of 9:5 were true, 8:61 would be nonsense. The presence of the command to accept peace proves that the goal of Jihad is security, not annihilation.
Restoring the Horizon of Universal Mercy
The architecture of exclusivist interpretation—characterized by theological monopoly, social apartheid, political supremacy, and perpetual war—stands on a foundation of hermeneutical sand. It requires the reader to ignore the linguistic depth of the Quran, strip verses of their historical causes, and violate the overarching ethical objectives (Maqaṣid) of the revelation.
Through the synthesized analysis of the twelve scholars examined in this work, a different Quranic horizon emerges. Theologically, Islam is reclaimed as the universal path of Submission, validating the spiritual strivings of all who orient themselves to the Real. Socially, the distinction is drawn not between "Muslim" and "Non-Muslim," but between the Peaceful (Musalim) and the Aggressor (Muḥarib), with the default ethic being kindness. Politically, the "Triumph" of the faith is the triumph of Ethical Monotheism and service to humanity. Militarily, violence is restricted to the defence of the community and the protection of religious freedom.
The exclusivist reading is not merely harsh; it is unsustainable. It collapses under the weight of the text’s own demand for justice and mercy. The Quran, when allowed to speak in its full voice, remains what it declared itself to be at the very beginning: Hudan li-n-nas—a Guidance for all mankind—and Raḥmatan li-l-‘alamin—a Mercy to all the worlds.
Bibliography
Abou El Fadl, Khaled. The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2005.
Abou El Fadl, Khaled. The Place of Tolerance in Islam. Boston: Beacon Press, 2002.
Afsaruddin, Asma. Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Asad, Muhammad. The Message of the Quran. Gibraltar: Dar Al-Andalus, 1980.
Aslan, Reza. No God but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam. New York: Random House, 2005.
Esack, Farid. The Quran: A User’s Guide. London: Oneworld Publications, 2005.
Esack, Farid. Quran, Liberation and Pluralism. London: Oneworld Publications, 1997.
Kaskas, Safi, and David Hungerford. The Quran: A Contemporary Understanding. Virginia Beach: Bridges to Common Ground, 2016.
Lamptey, Jerusha Tanner. Never Wholly Other: A Muslima Theology of Religious Pluralism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Lumbard, Joseph E. B. “The Quranic View of Sacred History and Other Religions.” In The Study Quran, edited by Seyyed Hossein Nasr et al., San Francisco: HarperOne, 2015.
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, et al., editors. The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2015.
Sachedina, Abdulaziz. The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Saeed, Abdullah. The Quran: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 2008.
Saeed, Abdullah. Reading the Quran in the Twenty-First Century: A Contextualist Approach. London: Routledge, 2013.
Sardar, Ziauddin. Reading the Quran: The Contemporary Relevance of the Sacred Text of Islam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
-----
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