The Illegitimate Alliance: A Quranic Analysis of Quran 5:51

By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof, New Age Islam 5 September 2025 The Quranic verse 5:51, which admonishes believers not to "take the Jews and Christians as Awliya," stands as one of the most frequently cited and profoundly misunderstood passages in the Muslim holy book. Often stripped of its rich historical context and subjected to rigid, literalist interpretations, this verse has for centuries been weaponized to justify religious separatism, political alienation, and even outright hostility towards non-Muslim communities. Such readings have not only fuelled interfaith tensions but have also created an irreconcilable theological contradiction within the Quran itself, ignoring its numerous other injunctions that champion unity, affection, and respect for the People of the Book. This monograph argues for a progressive, humanistic, and Islamic feminist hermeneutical approach, demonstrating that 5:51 is not a blanket prohibition against friendship or coexistence with ordinary Jews and Christians. Instead, it is a pointed and conditional warning against a specific, recurring archetype: a political alliance between certain factions of Jews and Christians for ulterior, hostile motives against the Muslim community. This archetypal warning finds a chillingly relevant modern parallel in the Judeo-Christian Zionist alliance, which is often founded not on genuine theological harmony but on shared geopolitical ambitions and a confrontational agenda that marginalizes Muslim voices and interests. The objective of this work is to meticulously deconstruct the prevailing literalist interpretations of 5:51 and, through a robust engagement with classical Islamic scholarship, historical context, and modern critical thought, unveil its intended meaning as a directive for principled discernment rather than indiscriminate exclusion. By embracing an ecumenical, liberative, and reformatory spirit, this analysis seeks to harmonize 5:51 with the Quran’s broader ethical and spiritual vision, fostering an inclusive Islamic identity capable of constructive global engagement rooted in justice and mutual respect. The Hermeneutical Discrepancy: Reconciling the Quran’s Own Testimony A literal, universalist reading of 5:51 creates an irreconcilable contradiction within the Quran itself. To accept the verse as a general prohibition against befriending Jews and Christians is to ignore the many other passages that promote unity, affection, and respect for the People of the Book. This internal Quranic tension necessitates a nuanced hermeneutical approach, one that prioritizes Tafsir al-Quran bi al-Quran (interpreting the Quran by the Quran) and recognizes the multifaceted nature of divine revelation. The Quran, in the very same chapter as 5:51, makes a powerful statement about the possibility of close relationships with Christians. Verse 5:82 explicitly states, "And you will surely find the nearest of them in affection to the believers to be those who say, 'We are Christians.' That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant." This verse directly undermines the idea of a universal enmity. It establishes a hierarchy of relationships, with Christians being designated as "the nearest in affection." Such a description is utterly incompatible with a sweeping injunction against all forms of alliance or friendship. Furthermore, the Quran grants a profound social license to Muslims by permitting them to marry women from the People of the Book (5:5). This act implies the deepest possible form of trust and intimate connection, extending to the formation of a family, a foundational unit of society. To allow marriage with Christian and Jewish women, while simultaneously prohibiting all forms of "friendship" or "alliance" with their communities, would create an unresolvable theological paradox (Asad, p.165). These verses cannot be reconciled with a literalist interpretation of 5:51 that mandates political and social alienation. Instead, they demand an understanding of the word Awliya in 5:51 that is far more specific and politically charged than mere "friends." Beyond these specific examples, the Quran consistently encourages positive engagement with the People of the Book. Q.29:46 instructs Muslims to engage in dialogue with them "in the best of manners," highlighting a commitment to respectful and constructive interaction. Similarly, 2:62 promises divine reward for righteous believers from various faiths, stating, "Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans—those who believed in God and the Last Day and did righteousness—will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will be upon them, nor will they grieve." These verses collectively demonstrate the Quran's inherent inclusivity and its recognition of moral and spiritual goodness across religious boundaries. This comprehensive Quranic vision establishes a hermeneutical horizon that actively constrains any absolutist reading of 5:51 (Leaman, p.221). The Quran repeatedly commands believers to respect all prophets and scriptures, making no distinction between them (2:136). It also acknowledges the commonality of faith and the shared heritage of the Abrahamic tradition. Verse 3:64 calls on all People of the Book to come together on a "common word," a powerful ecumenical mandate for dialogue and cooperation. This invitation to unity on fundamental monotheistic principles contradicts any reading of 5:51 that would erect impregnable barriers between communities. Furthermore, the Quran recognizes the existence of righteous individuals and communities within the People of the Book. Verses 3:113-115 state: "Not all of them are alike; among the People of the Scripture is an upright community who recite the verses of God during the hours of the night and prostrate. They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and hasten to good deeds. And those are among the righteous. And whatever good they do – never will it be removed from them. And God is Knowing of the righteous." This passage clearly differentiates between various segments of Jewish and Christian communities, affirming the moral worth and spiritual validity of those who adhere to ethical principles and devotion. To interpret 5:51 as a universal prohibition against all Jews and Christians would render these inclusive verses meaningless and create a theological incoherence that is alien to the Quran’s consistent and just message (Esack, p.110). The only way to resolve this apparent discrepancy is to understand the word Awliya in 5:51 not as "friends" in a general social sense (Sadaqa) but as something far more specific and politically charged: an allegiance (Wilaya) that implies exclusive loyalty, political support, or military patronage in a context of hostility. This nuanced understanding allows 5:51 to stand as a particular warning, harmonized within the broader Quranic framework that encourages interfaith dialogue, mutual respect, and ethical cooperation (Abou El Fadl, p. 45). A Textual and Historical Analysis of Awliya The key to unlocking the true meaning of 5:51 lies in a precise analysis of the word Awliya and the historical context of the verse’s revelation. The term does not simply mean "friends" in a general sense; it carries a deeper, more politically loaded connotation. In the context of the Medinan period, the word Awliya took on a specific and weighty political meaning. It referred to formal political alliances, pacts of protection, or military patronages. The verse was revealed during a time of intense political and military intrigue, where the nascent Muslim community faced existential threats and some Muslims were tempted to enter into alliances with rival tribes and factions, including some Jewish and Christian communities, against the nascent Muslim state (Watt, p.195). The warning in 5:51 was, therefore, not about interpersonal relationships or social interactions but about political loyalty and strategic alignment. Classical Quranic commentators consistently contextualize this verse within specific Medinan circumstances. Ibn Kathir, for instance, links the verse to instances where certain Jewish tribes conspired with Arab tribes against the Prophet and the Muslim community (Ibn Kathir, p.284). The verse, therefore, was a command to the believers to maintain their political independence and not to ally themselves with those who were actively hostile to the Muslim community. It was a directive to safeguard the Ummah’s unity and security from external subversion or internal betrayal. The verse's phrasing, "Some of them are allies of others," is critical, as it points to a specific internal alliance between factions of Jews and Christians, not a universal alliance of all Jews and Christians with each other against all Muslims. This highlights the opportunistic and strategic nature of the alliance being warned against. It is a conditional warning against a politically motivated pact—a "confrontational front"—rather than a theological one that universally prohibits engagement. As such, Awliya here specifically refers to instances where Jewish and Christian groups are united for an ulterior purpose, one that actively opposes or undermines Muslim interests (Coruh, p.507). This interpretation distinguishes between alliances based on genuine shared values and those formed out of political expediency or hostility. The Quran’s Depiction of Animosity: An Illegitimate Connection A further clue to the specificity of the warning in 5:51 is the Quran’s own depiction of the historical and theological animosity between Jews and Christians. The Quran states in 5:14 that God caused a deep-seated enmity to arise among Christians due to their neglect of certain covenants: "And from those who say, 'We are Christians' We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We aroused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection." Similarly, 5:64 highlights Jewish internal conflicts and theological disagreements: "And the Jews say, 'The hand of God is chained.' May their hands be chained and they be cursed for what they said... And We cast among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection." This internal conflict and theological rivalry, which was often violent and a hallmark of their early histories, makes the idea of a universal, harmonious, and united "Judeo-Christian" front against Islam a historical anomaly. The Quran, in effect, warns against an alliance that is "illegitimate" by its very nature, a coalition of two groups that were themselves often in conflict, united only for a specific and sinister purpose—a "confrontational front" against Muslims. Such an alliance would be driven by external factors or shared political opportunism rather than genuine theological accord. This insight further reinforces the argument that 5:51 is not a blanket condemnation of all Jews and Christians but a precise caution against particular, strategically motivated alliances formed for ulterior motives (Ruether, p.120). The verse is a directive for Muslims to be discerning about the nature and intent of any proposed alliance, prioritizing justice and communal integrity above all else. A Judeo-Christian Zionist Alliance A progressive and enlightened hermeneutics must apply the Quran’s timeless messages to the contemporary world. The enduring relevance of the Quran lies in its capacity to offer moral and ethical guidance across diverse historical contexts. From this perspective, the Jewish and Christian Zionist alliance presents a poignant, modern-day manifestation of the archetypal "illegitimate connection" described in 5:51. This alliance, far from being a model of genuine interfaith harmony, is characterized by a complex interplay of shared political and geopolitical objectives that often supersede, or even contradict, authentic theological values and humanistic principles. It serves as a compelling contemporary example of how religious identity can be instrumentalised for ulterior motives, creating a confrontational front that raises profound ethical questions from an Islamic feminist and humanistic standpoint. The alliance between Christian Zionists and certain Jewish Zionist factions, rather than being a testament to interfaith solidarity, is often rooted in a deeply problematic eschatology that harbours anti-Semitic undertones. As scholars have meticulously argued, many Christian Zionists support the establishment and expansion of Israel primarily because they believe it will hasten the Second Coming of Christ (Sizer, p.47). This belief is not born of a genuine concern for Jewish flourishing or justice but is intrinsically linked to a theological narrative that, in its ultimate conclusion, envisions either the mass conversion of the Jewish people to Christianity or their eternal damnation. This eschatological framework reveals a fundamental instrumentalisation of the Jewish people, viewing them not as a sacred community with inherent dignity and agency, but as mere props in a Christian end-of-days scenario (Halsell, p.156). This perspective is fundamentally anti-Semitic because it denies the independent spiritual validity of Judaism and reduces Jewish existence to a means for Christian salvific ends. The support offered by Christian Zionists, therefore, can be seen as a form of "conditional philosemitism" that masks a deeper theological hostility. This is a clear example of an "illegitimate" alliance, one based on a mutual utilization for ulterior, and ultimately, destructive motives that contradict the Quranic emphasis on justice (‘Adl) and human dignity (Karamah) (Abou El Fadl, p.89). The paradoxical nature of Christian Zionism, where professed support for the state of Israel coexists with theological anti-Semitism, resonates profoundly with the Quranic warning in 5:51 against alliances of bad faith. It highlights how religious labels can be manipulated to justify political agendas that are ultimately harmful and unjust, particularly for marginalized communities. The Quran’s caution against forming Awliya with those who are Zalimin (wrongdoers) or whose loyalties are compromised (5:51), finds a modern echo in a coalition where the proclaimed religious basis is, upon closer inspection, deeply flawed and ethically problematic. This compels a progressive Islamic critique to discern between genuine interfaith cooperation rooted in shared humanistic values and cynical political alliances that exploit religious sentiment for geopolitical dominance. The Judeo-Christian Zionist alliance is unified not by shared theological values or genuine spiritual concord but predominantly by a shared political and geopolitical agenda: the unwavering support of a specific political ideology, Zionism, and its associated policies, including the colonization of Palestinian lands. It is a political alliance of convenience, driven by strategic interests rather than a profound religious one of faith and mutual respect (Mearsheimer, p.134). From a progressive Islamic perspective, recognizing this distinction is paramount. The Quran does not call for an endless "war of civilizations" or a blanket rejection of religious "others." Instead, its true mandate is an uncompromising stance against injustice and oppression (Dhulm). Therefore, the critique launched by 5:51, when applied to the modern context, is not against the Jewish people or the Christian faith per se, but against a specific political movement—Zionism—and its allies who are perceived to be committing acts of injustice and oppression. This distinction is crucial for fostering a humanistic path forward that differentiates between an entire people or faith and a particular political ideology and its adherents. The alliance's focus on a specific ethno-nationalist project, often at the expense of indigenous populations, mirrors the historical circumstances that likely prompted the revelation of 5:51. In the Medinan period, the warning was against factions whose political manoeuvres threatened the nascent Muslim community’s survival. In the contemporary context, the Judeo-Christian Zionist alliance, through its robust lobbying efforts and financial support, significantly influences international policy, often exacerbating the suffering of the Palestinian people and contributing to regional instability. This demonstrates how a political alliance, ostensibly justified by religious narratives, can become a vehicle for injustice and a confrontational force (Al-Shabaka policy brief). A progressive Islamic critique must therefore identify and challenge such alliances based on their actions and consequences, rather than on the religious identity of their members. The Quran’s warning against an "illegitimate connection" serves as a timeless ethical compass, urging believers to be vigilant against power structures that exploit religious sentiment for divisive and oppressive ends. This reinterpretation liberates Muslims to forge genuine alliances of conscience with all people of goodwill, regardless of their faith, in a shared struggle for a more just and humane world, while discerning and resisting those alliances that inherently promote injustice. Creative Suggestions for a Humanistic Path Forward The true legacy of 5:51 is not one of exclusion but of principled engagement and discerning action. Reclaiming its true meaning requires bold and creative steps to foster new kinds of relationships—ones built on justice, compassion, and shared humanity, rather than on historical grievances or political opportunism. An Islamic feminist and egalitarian approach is crucial here, challenging traditional power dynamics and promoting inclusive, liberative practices. The Quran commands believers to compete in righteousness with others, regardless of their faith (5:48). This verse, "To each of you We have appointed a law and a way. And had God willed, He would have made you one nation; but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you. So compete in [all] good deeds. To God is your [final] return all together, and He will inform you about that over which you used to differ," provides a profound mandate for positive interfaith engagement and a focus on shared ethical action. The true Quranic mandate is not to build walls but to build bridges of justice and compassion. Therefore, the struggle against the injustices perpetrated or supported by alliances like the Judeo-Christian Zionist movement must be framed not as a religious war against "the other" but as a humanistic struggle against injustice and oppression, which are unequivocally condemned in the Quran (4:135). This humanistic imperative calls for Muslims to extend solidarity to all who are oppressed, irrespective of their religious or ethnic background. An Islamic feminist reading of this imperative emphasizes the need to prioritize the voices and experiences of marginalized communities, particularly women and children, who often bear the brunt of geopolitical conflicts and oppressive alliances (Wadud, p. 97). Framing the struggle in humanistic terms allows for broader alliances of conscience, bringing together Muslims, Jews, Christians, and people of no faith who are committed to universal human rights and social justice. This approach aligns with the Quran’s consistent advocacy for the Mustadafin (the oppressed) and its unwavering call for standing firm in justice, even if it is against oneself or one's kin (4:135). Alliances of Conscience A new model of dialogue and solidarity between Muslims, Jews, and Christians must be built, moving beyond historical antagonisms and superficial engagements. This model must be based on a shared commitment to human rights, social justice, and the explicit rejection of all forms of political Zionism that perpetuate oppression, as well as all forms of religious anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. It must be an ecumenical effort that rigorously distinguishes between a people and a political ideology, allowing for robust critique of policies without condemning entire faith communities. To achieve this, several bold and creative suggestions can be implemented: • Establish Abrahamic Feminist Coalitions: These coalitions would bring together Muslim, Jewish, and Christian women to jointly advocate on issues of gender equality, human rights, and peacebuilding, drawing from shared ethical principles found in their respective scriptures. Women, often at the forefront of grassroots peace initiatives, can provide crucial leadership in shaping these new models of engagement (Barlas, p. 203). • Develop AI-Assisted Interfaith Dialogue Platforms: Leveraging technology, AI-powered applications could facilitate collaborative Quranic-Biblical studies, offering comparative textual analyses that highlight shared values and foster egalitarian interpretations. Such platforms could also help users discern between genuine religious texts and politicized interpretations, acting as a "Quranic Alliance Index" to evaluate the ethical basis of proposed interfaith initiatives against benchmarks like transparency, non-coercion, and equality (Abou El Fadl, p.132). • Community-Led "No-Ulterior-Motives" Charters: Local interfaith councils could draft and sign charters explicitly rejecting the instrumentalisation of religion for political or divisive ends. These charters, monitored by independent civil society auditors, would institutionalize ethical engagement and foster environments of trust and accountability. This directly addresses the "illegitimate connection" warned against in 5:51, creating frameworks for legitimate and principled cooperation. • Grassroots Ecumenical Movements: Promote and fund initiatives that focus on practical cooperation on shared societal challenges like poverty, environmental degradation, and refugee support. By working together on tangible projects, communities can build genuine bonds of solidarity that transcend theological differences and political divides (Esack, p.45). These grassroots efforts, often driven by a humanistic imperative, embody the Quranic call to "compete in good deeds" (5:48). Intellectual and Theological Honesty: Unmasking Bigotry Reclaiming the true meaning of 5:51 requires a courageous act of intellectual and theological honesty. It demands exposing the intellectual and theological flaws of all forms of religious bigotry, including the anti-Semitic core within certain strands of Christian Zionism and the misinterpretation of Quran 5:51 itself. This necessitates rigorous scholarship, public education campaigns, and open dialogue that challenges entrenched prejudices and promotes critical thinking. Islamic scholars must boldly engage with sensitive texts and interpretations, demonstrating how exclusivist readings contradict the Quran’s broader, just, and compassionate message. This involves a willingness to re-examine traditional Tafsir through contemporary ethical lenses, particularly those informed by humanistic and feminist principles. It also requires calling out the weaponisation of religious texts by demagogues, whether they are Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, or driven by other forms of bigotry (Ramadan, p.189). By fostering intellectual and theological honesty, Muslims can contribute to a global discourse that values truth, justice, and human dignity above narrow sectarian interests. This proactive approach not only counters harmful misinterpretations of the Quran but also positions Muslim communities as ethical leaders in the pursuit of a more just and pluralistic world. The challenge is to move beyond inherited enmities and build alliances of conscience based on shared ethical and humanistic values, in profound alignment with the Quran’s universal, emancipatory message. Reclaiming the Ethical Compass of 5:51 The journey through the hermeneutical layers of Quran 5:51 reveals not a mandate for perpetual interfaith hostility, but a discerning ethical compass for the Muslim community. Stripped of literalist anachronisms and re-embedded in its Medinan context, the verse emerges as a powerful warning against specific, politically motivated alliances that undermine justice, foster oppression, or instrumentalise religious identity for ulterior motives. The term Awliya, far from signifying mere "friendship," denotes a deeper, more consequential political allegiance or patronage. This nuanced understanding harmonizes 5:51 with the Quran’s broader ethical vision, which champions inclusivity, respect for the People of the Book, and an unwavering commitment to justice (Quran 5:82, 5:5, 29:46, 2:62, 3:64, 4:135). The modern manifestation of this "illegitimate alliance" finds a compelling parallel in the Judeo-Christian Zionist coalition. As this analysis has demonstrated, this alliance is frequently driven by shared geopolitical agendas and problematic eschatologies, rather than genuine theological accord or humanistic principles. Christian Zionism, in particular, often harbours an anti-Semitic core, instrumentalising the Jewish people as props in a Christian end-of-days narrative, thereby denying their inherent dignity and spiritual autonomy. This dynamic directly contravenes the Quranic emphasis on Karamah (human dignity) and ‘Adl (justice), serving as a contemporary echo of the strategic, opportunistic alliances cautioned against in the time of revelation (Sizer, p.47; Halsell, p.156). Reclaiming the ethical compass of 5:51 necessitates a humanistic path forward, one that moves beyond inherited antagonisms and builds alliances of conscience based on shared values. The Quranic imperative to "compete in good deeds" (5:48) and to stand firmly for justice, even against oneself, provides the framework for this engagement. This involves: 1. Discerning Engagement: Muslims are called to be discerning, distinguishing between sincere interfaith dialogue rooted in mutual respect and political alliances that exploit religious sentiment for oppressive ends. The critique is not against an entire people or faith, but against specific political ideologies and actions that perpetuate injustice. 2. Humanistic Solidarity: Fostering broad alliances with all people of goodwill – Muslims, Jews, Christians, and those of no faith – who are committed to universal human rights, social justice, and the rejection of all forms of bigotry, including Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, and political Zionism that promotes oppression (Esack, p. 45). This is a struggle for justice, not a religious war. 3. Intellectual and Theological Honesty: A courageous commitment to exposing the intellectual and theological flaws of all forms of religious bigotry. This requires rigorous scholarship, public education, and a willingness to re-examine traditional interpretations through contemporary ethical and feminist lenses, ensuring that religious texts are not weaponized for divisive purposes (Ramadan, p. 189). Ultimately, 5:51 is a call for principled discernment and ethical courage. It challenges Muslims to critically examine the nature and intent of their alliances, prioritizing justice and communal well-being above political expediency. By embracing an inclusive, liberative, and reformatory spirit, this verse empowers Muslims to be agents of justice and peace in a complex world, forging genuine connections based on shared humanity while steadfastly resisting any "illegitimate alliance" that undermines the universal, emancipatory message of the Quran. Bibliography Abou El Fadl, Khaled M. The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2005. Asad, Muhammad. The Message of the Quran. Gibraltar: Dar al-Andalus, 1980. Barlas, Asma. “Believing Women” in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qurʼan. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. Coruh, Hakan. “Friendship between Muslims and the People of the Book in the Qurʼan with Special Reference to Q 5.51.” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, vol. 23, no. 4, Oct. 2012, pp. 505–513. Esack, Farid. Quran, Liberation and Pluralism: An Islamic Perspective of Interreligious Solidarity Against Oppression. Oxford: Oneworld, 1997. Halsell, Grace. Prophecy and Politics: Militant Evangelists on the Road to Nuclear War. Westport, CT: Lawrence Hill Books, 1986. Ibn Kathir. Tafsir Ibn Kathir. Riyadh: Darussalam, 2000. Leaman, Oliver. The Qurʼan: An Encyclopedia. London: Routledge, 2006. Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007. Ramadan, Tariq. Western Muslims and the Future of Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Ruether, Rosemary Radford. The Wrath of Jonah: The Crisis of Religious Nationalism in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989. Sizer, Stephen. Christian Zionism: Road-Map to Armageddon? Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2004. Wadud, Amina. Qurʼan and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad at Medina. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956. Al-Shabaka. Policy Brief: Palestinian Christians and Christian Zionism. https://al-shabaka.org/briefs/the-dangerous-exceptionalism-of-christian-zionism/ ----- V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/illegitimate-alliance-quranic-analysis-5-51/d/136731 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