By Amhar Rasyid
During my attendance to a Muhammadiyah’s mosque in Jambi recently where Qur’anic interpretation was being delivered by a religious authority (ulama) concerning the two entities: Jew and Christian, two sociological terminologies suddenly came to my mind namely Stereotype and Stigma. Stereotype is preconceived ideas about individuals, groups or objects, when these preconceptions are shared by members of particular groups or societies. While Stigma, a labelling theory by Goffman, refers to a relationship of devaluation in which one individual is ‘disqualified from full social acceptance’ either it is physical or contextual (Student Encyclopaedia of Sociology, Michael Mann, ed., (London: Macmillan Press, 1983). Thank to such Qur’anic interpretation and its relation to the sociological terms, I assumed that the interpreter has had preconceived ideas. Such ideas by the time lapses consequently culminated in the attitude in daily life of Muslims. In fact, what the Qur’an criticizes to the two entities (Jew and Christian), I argue, is not for the subjects but instead for their bad manners and belief which are blasphemous for Muslims: Jew for their dishonesty, and the Christians for the Trinity. The problem is many Muslims today seemingly do not differentiate between the entities as subjects and bad manners as expressed in stereotype and stigma, consequently such preconceptions transgress the Islamic universal value of humanism. The following discussion, not a plea for the entities, but it will try to illuminate such preconceived ideas and stigma by the Muslims. Unfortunately, I have not read the important book related, among others, by Toshihiko Izutsu which I think containing useful insights on such entities. However, my study is intended to clarify the longstanding preconceived ideas by the majority of Muslims as to why and on what factors do they maintain such stereotype and stigma and what is the significance of my study especially for the young Muslim intellectuals. The discussion is divided into three sub topics before coming to conclusion: the dishonest Jew and the Trinity in the Qur’an. Next the present stereotype and stigma in daily life of Muslims and finally the conclusion and the significance.
a. The Dishonest Jew and The Trinity
The Jew is accused of dishonesty, concealing truth and breaking covenants, and the Trinity is blamed for as sit is the greatest sin in the Qur’an, al-Maidah verses 17, 72, and 75. In spite of being stigmatized several Jews in the contemporary of the Prophet, however, were also credited to be generous, for example Abdullah bin Salam (a Jewish Rabbi in Medinah), Ka’ab bin Ahbar (Rabbi in Yemen) who also contributed to Israiliyat (narratives and stories derived from Jewish or Christian sources to provide details of the Prophet) as well as Rayhana binti Zayd (Prophet’s wife). More over after the Prophet died, some Jews like Harun bin Musa were also deserved to be credited as an authority of Hadits and qura’ at 8th century, and Sabbatai Zevi (17th century). Among the Christians was Hunain bin Ishaq (Interpreter and Head of Baitul Hikmah/House of Wisdom in Bagdad) during the Abbasid Caliph. It can be said that their stigma mentioned in the Qur’an implies that it has been intended to strengthen the Muslims credo since it is the very central idea of the Qur’an. The stigma stands diametrically oppose to the true Muslim belief in its optima forma and as yet it has not been fully realized to the present day.
b. The Presentday Stereotype and Stigma by the Muslims
Unfortunately, nor do many Muslims today realize the inherent stigma in translating the Qur’an. In fact several Jewish individuals in modern time such as Youssef Khattab (Cohen), Michael, Roger Garaudy, Muhammad Asad (Leopold Weiss) as well as Maryam Jameelah (Pakistani citizen) have proved themselves as true Muslim believers and they have been contributing significantly to modern Islam. It is common, however, in preachings and sermons at congregations to reiterate such stigma grossly. The question is why? I think it is because of the method of translating the verses of the Qur’an is still ‘bayani’. Bayani method is an Islamic epistemological approach, says Google, that prioritizes text as the primary source of knowledge and truth. Thus prioritizing text is one of the weaknesses of bayani method compared to hermeneutics.
Let me give you a comparison. Gadamer’s hermeneutical philosophy, to begin with, introduces the way of understanding the Qur’anic texts not by subduing the text to reveal truth objectively as bayani method does but by practicing mutual and endless dialogues by the interpreter and the text. The process of dialogue suggested is not on individual verses but instead on specified issue (die Sache) mentioned in the Qur’an, i.e, the dishonesty of the Jews etc. By doing so, the interplay dialogue of both meanings of interpreter’s horizon and of the texts are truly directing towards a new emerging ‘productive’ meaning which may be unpredicted before. Thus to comprehend the stigma of the three entities in the Qur’an will be judged not by translating text literally but by developing both horizons of the interpreter and of the text. It is here one of the differences between hermeneutics and bayani method in interpreting the Qur’anic verses, especially, when it is applied, as suggested, to the entities of Satan, Jew and Christian. Hopefully the very tenets of the Qur’an will be rediscovered as they had been practiced by the Prophet Muhammed in which stereotype and stigma found in the Qur’an can be understood, not phenomenologically but ontologically to the benefits of modern life. Phenomenologically means both stereotype and stigma in the Qur’an reveal themselves as they are, while ontologically means such stereotype and stigma can be understood in their true senses by understanding the other entities around them, for example, the markets, commodities, local regulations and the social life of the Jews during the Prophet’s time. In short, to understand something ontologically is to involve other entities around it.
It can be inferred now that the application of bayani method may have misled the very message of the Qur’anic humanism and universal values. This is because the Qur’an asks the Muslims to believe at any cost in the teaching of the Qur’an and there are no rooms for hesitation. Consequently no difference is made by the Muslims between the stigma and the stigmatized subjects. Even today many ordinary Muslims, maybe as a repercussion, limit their invocations after prayings exclusively intended for the Muslims but not for human welfare in general. As a matter of fact, world economic resilience is interdependencies. There are a lot of non-Muslims owned companies abroad, perhaps some of them belong to the Jews and Christians in Europe and America, which continuously import Crude Palm Oil (CPO) from different Muslim countries and thereby sustain economic interdependencies. Why do not certain Muslims intone prayer for them either? It is even more ridiculous to witness sometimes the anti-campaign of the Israelite in streets by the young Muslims today since they seemingly consider American foods such as KFC, McDonald, Coca Cola, etc also belong to the Jewish corporations. Ironically they do not realize that both WhatsApp and Face Book that they are using daily also belong to the Jewish Mark Zuckerberg. Thus stereotype and stigma of the Jews and Christian in the Qur’an, to conclude, have led to Muslim misunderstanding of the universal and humanistic values of this religion. Consequently by applying bayani method in interpreting the Qur’an, the true spirit of the Sacred Book is unable to foster the well-being of social relationships.
c. Conclusion and Significance
Both the stereotype and stigma are ascribed pejoratively to the entities of Jew and the Christians in al-Qur’an have been misled. The Qur’an, either literally or implicitly, does not reproach the Jews and Christians in persons but indeed their dishonesty and Trinity. It is here the problem arises. In fact many ordinary Muslims, thank for believing the encompassing unquestionable tenets of the Qur’an, verses by verses are finally taken for granted, consequently the long standing stereotype and stigma of the two entities in the Qur’an have been preserved without any consideration. One may say then that it is the burden of historical Islam to rehabilitate the bayani method in interpreting the Qur’an and now it is the time to rethink it otherwise as it had been ‘lamented’, among others, by Arkoun and al-Jabiri.
Last but least, the significance of this study for the contemporary young Muslim students may inspire them primarily to do further research on the issue. Thank you for reading my article. Wassalam.
Jambi, February 6th, 2026.
