Islam and the Jews: When Disagreement Becomes Defiance

When you spend any real time with Islamic theology, fitra keeps showing up. It’s often introduced gently, even attractively: the idea that human beings are born oriented toward God, inclined toward truth, not morally neutral or depraved. Everyone, in this view, starts out facing the right direction.

That’s not wrong. But it’s also not the whole story. Fitra doesn’t just describe human beginnings; it does work. And once you trace how it functions—especially in relation to Jews—it becomes harder to treat it as a harmless bit of theological optimism.

At its most basic, fitra is the claim that recognizing one God and submitting to Him is not something humans need to learn from scratch. It’s already there, prior to culture and instruction. Islam, then, is often described not as a new religious choice, but as a return to what God has created humans to be. This means that becoming Muslim is understood not as adopting something foreign, but as coming back to what one already is at the deepest level. Embracing Islam is less about “switching to a different religion” and more about returning to an original human state. This is pointing to an idea in Islam that the faith isn’t presenting a brand-new invention. Instead, it’s described as restoring (or reaffirming) the same basic truth that, in Islamic belief, God has always taught through earlier prophets. So “Islam” is portrayed as a return to the core message: worship one God, live ethically, and submit to God.

This logic isn’t reserved for outsiders. It shapes Muslim self-because a faithful Muslim is someone who has preserved their fitra or repaired it after it has been damaged. Moral awareness, monotheism, obedience are treated as defaults. When people go wrong, the problem is rarely framed as innocent ignorance. More often it’s interference manifetsed by things such as pride, bad habits, inherited traditions, or simple stubbornness. Thus, when people go wrong, the problem is rarely framed as innocent ignorance.
This means: instead of saying “people sin or disbelieve because they simply don’t know better,” the framework often treats moral/religious failure as less about lack of information and more about something else.

That’s where the concept starts to narrow. If Islam represents alignment with one’s natural state, then rejecting Islam isn’t just choosing a different answer. It’s resisting the right one. Disagreement becomes deviation.

This narrowing intensifies when fitra is paired with taqwa. Taqwa is usually translated as “God-consciousness,” but that’s a little too soft. It’s closer to vigilance, resulting from an ongoing attentiveness to God that governs conduct, not just belief. Fazlur Rahman describes it as the quality that shapes everyday moral life. For instance, what you do when no one is watching, how you restrain yourself, how you decide between convenience and obedience.

Within this framework, taqwa is how fitra survives contact with the world and provides the reisiatnce needed to not become tainted. Therefore, believers are those who live in a way that protects their original orientation. Trials, such as suffering, loss, even persecution, are not disruptions of that alignment. They are tests of it. So, enduring them rightly is taken as confirmation that one’s inner compass still points where it should.

The question and want to move to is how does this concept applky to the unbeliever, because unbelief, by contrast, is rarely treated as neutral error. Qur’anic descriptions of unbelievers lean heavily on moral language: blindness, arrogance, rebellion. The assumption is not that people simply reasoned their way to a different conclusion, but that they turned away from something they should already be inclined to recognize, which creates a tension. If everyone is born oriented toward truth, how can entire communities reject it? The usual answer is distortion—by culture, tradition, ego, or willful resistance.

The result is a strong moral divide. Some people are understood to be living in harmony with their nature. Others are not.

That divide matters a great deal for how Jews are understood in Islamic theology. Jews are not treated as religious strangers encountering monotheism for the first time. They are seen as heirs to revelation, people already addressed by God, already familiar with His demands. Which means that when they reject Muhammad’s prophethood, the rejection is read as especially deliberate.

From within this framework, Jewish adherence to Judaism is not simply a competing covenantal claim. It is often framed as refusal—sometimes obstinate refusal—of a truth they are assumed to recognize. Within the logic of fitra, that refusal carries extra weight. Consequently, Jews are imagined as people who should know better.

The Qur’an reflects this ambivalence. Some passages praise the prophets of Israel and affirm the covenant. Others accuse Jewish communities of disobedience, distortion, or betrayal. The point is not to tally positive and negative verses, but to notice the narrative pattern that emerges. Jews appear as a people repeatedly addressed by God and repeatedly resistant.

Once fitra sits in the background, that resistance takes on a moral charge. It is no longer just disagreement with Islam. It becomes a turning away from one’s own nature.

Adam Dobbs’s analysis of Qur’anic punishment stories helps clarify how this works. These stories follow a consistent structure: (1) a prophet delivers a message; a community rejects it; (2) the rejection is framed as knowing defiance; (3) punishment follows. The aim is not historical reconstruction but moral instruction. So, rejecting the messenger is rejecting God, and the outcome is presented as inevitable.

Jews are frequently folded into this pattern. Their rejection of Muhammad is placed alongside earlier rejections of earlier prophets. The lesson is less “this happened once” than “this always happens.” Muhammad’s opponents are warned by being positioned in a long line of doomed resisters.

Anthropologically, this works because the Qur’an holds both a high and a low view of humanity. Humans are capable of honor and guidance, yet also weak and prone to corruption. When that corruption takes the form of rejecting revelation—especially by those presumed closest to it—punishment is framed as just.

Over time, this produces more than doctrine. It produces a moral worldview in which believers are aligned with reality itself, while unbelievers are not merely mistaken but misaligned. Jews, in particular, are often cast as adversaries of divine truth because their refusal is imagined as betrayal rather than ignorance.

This has not been nessacrly been true in every time or place, as Benard Lewis has pointed out. Yet in our contemporary age—particularly in the period after 1948—the structure of these ideas has often functioned causally. When disagreement is framed as deviation from human nature itself, hostility becomes intelligible, even justifiable. Opposition can be presented not as prejudice, but as resistance to rebellion.

At that point, the conflict is no longer about interpretation or covenant. It becomes a struggle between order and corruption, alignment and distortion. And once things are framed that way, enmity doesn’t need to be invented from scratch. The logic is already there, waiting to be activated.

Taken together, this framework helps explain how theological concepts that appear universal and humane on the surface can generate exclusionary and hostile outcomes without explicit animus. When religious disagreement is recast as a betrayal of one’s own nature, moral judgment hardens quickly. In that setting, Jews are not merely theological dissenters but emblematic figures of resistance itself. The result is not inevitable violence or constant hatred, but a structure of thought in which antisemitism does not need to be argued for—it only needs to be activated.

—