Muslims, Jews and Christians: friends, frenemies or enemies?

The bartender asks, “Is this a joke?”

“Not yet,” they reply. “We’re still agreeing on the introduction.”

“Friends, frenemies or enemies?” makes a lively headline. As a description of entire religious communities, it is much less useful. A neighbour is not a government. A colleague is not a religious institution. Someone’s belief about God does not tell us everything about how they will treat us.

Our starting proposition is therefore modest: religious disagreement deserves honest discussion, while individual people deserve to be encountered as people. Neither principle requires us to pretend that disagreement, prejudice or real danger does not exist.

Shared ground is not identical ground

Islam’s relationship with Judaism and Christianity is not simply a relationship with unfamiliar religions. The Qur’an addresses the People of the Book and invites them to common terms centred on worshipping God alone. That invitation is also a theological claim, not a declaration that every existing belief is interchangeable. Qur’an 3:64

An honest discussion should let the other traditions describe themselves. On ReformJudaism.org, Rabbi James Scott Glazier explains Judaism through the covenant between God and Abraham and the Hebrew Bible. He distinguishes Jewish theology from Christian acceptance of Jesus as messiah and saviour, and states that Judaism does not regard Jesus as divine. This is a Jewish account, not a Muslim description imposed on Jewish readers. Reform Judaism: differences between Judaism and Christianity

Catholic teaching, meanwhile, confesses one God in the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Describing that belief as Christians believing in three separate gods would misrepresent how this major Christian tradition understands itself. Muslims need not accept the doctrine to explain it accurately. Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 232–233

The Qur’an honours Jesus, son of Mary, as God’s messenger while rejecting the formulation “Three” and divine sonship. That is a substantive difference, not a minor disagreement over terminology. Qur’an 4:171

These brief descriptions are not complete portraits of three internally diverse traditions. Their purpose is to establish a better habit: ask what someone actually believes before deciding what you disagree with.

We can recognise related questions about God, revelation and moral responsibility without claiming that all three religions give the same answers. Respect does not require agreement about scripture, nor does it require Muslims to surrender their own convictions. It is the discipline of discussing differences without caricature.

Begin with conduct, not a label

For a Muslim discussion of relationships across religious boundaries, Qur’an 60:8–9 is essential. Verse 8 says God does not forbid kindness and justice towards those who have not fought Muslims because of religion or expelled them from their homes. Verse 9 prohibits the relevant allegiance towards those who fought them because of religion, expelled them, or helped with that expulsion. Qur’an 60:8; 60:9

The conditions matter. Removing the references to religious persecution and expulsion distorts the passage. So does converting its distinction into the claim that kindness and allegiance are precisely the same thing, or that a neighbour’s religious identity alone establishes participation in hostility.

Ibn Kathir’s commentary on 60:8 explains the passage in terms of doing good and acting justly towards non-Muslims who are not fighting Muslims on account of religion. He also brings in the report concerning Asma’s relationship with her non-Muslim mother. Ibn Kathir on 60:8, Arabic text

In that report, Asma bint Abi Bakr asks the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ whether she should maintain relations with her mother, who was a polytheist. He ﷺ answers affirmatively. The report concerns a particular family relationship; it is not a standalone answer to every question about interfaith intimacy. Nevertheless, it makes a sweeping claim that religious difference requires cutting all personal ties very difficult to sustain. Sahih al-Bukhari 2620

There is a further safeguard: the Qur’an tells believers not to let hatred of a people lead them into injustice. Justice is therefore not a reward reserved for people we like. Qur’an 5:8

Our editorial conclusion is that identifying real wrongdoing and rejecting collective blame belong together. We need not deny an injury to refuse to charge an unrelated person with committing it.

But what about the verse on taking Jews and Christians as awliya?

A serious discussion cannot avoid Qur’an 5:51. It warns believers against taking Jews and Christians as awliya, saying that whoever does so is “one of them” and that God does not guide the wrongdoing people. Which relationships this severe warning encompasses is precisely the interpretive question. English renderings include words associated with guardianship, alliance and friendship. The issue is not resolved by finding whichever English word best supports the conclusion we already prefer. Qur’an 5:51

In an explanation published by SeekersGuidance, Abdullah Anik Misra argues that the term involves a stronger protective or loyal relationship than an ordinary modern acquaintance. His discussion situates the warning within questions of communal loyalty and threats to the Muslim community. He permits cordial friendships where there is no hostility, oppression or wrongful influence, and stresses the religious influence of one’s closest companions. This is an attributed interpretation, not a claim that the verse has never been read differently. SeekersGuidance: explaining 5:51

Indeed, Ibn Kathir’s commentary uses strong language against muwalat with Jews and Christians and includes a report about Umar objecting to a Christian secretary. It would be misleading to present this classical commentary as merely saying that casual friendship is fine and only battlefield collaboration is excluded. Ibn Kathir on 5:51, Arabic text

A contemporary restrictive answer at Islam Question & Answer also prohibits close friendship while distinguishing it from permissible kindness, generosity, gifts, visiting a sick person and ordinary dealings, under its stated conditions. This demonstrates a real disagreement about the scope of closeness, not a simple division between people who endorse kindness and people who reject it. Islam Question & Answer, answer 220741

Egypt’s Dar al-Ifta, answering a question about friendship with non-Muslims, affirms maintaining ties, exchanging visits and gifts, offering condolences and good wishes. It grounds those practices in kindness and religious sources. Dar al-Ifta, fatwa 4791

The responsible conclusion is not “all scholars agree that every kind of friendship is allowed,” nor “Islam requires hostility towards every Jew and Christian.” The sources require distinctions between ordinary social ties, deeper attachment, religious allegiance and assistance in wrongdoing. Scholars differ over the boundaries and application.

If the practical question involves marriage, religious ceremonies or a particular obligation, a general article should not quietly turn itself into a personalised ruling. Ask a qualified scholar who can address the actual circumstances and the tradition you follow.

Let the conversation travel both ways

A Muslim publication should not make Jews and Christians silent objects of discussion. Their communities have their own resources for approaching religious difference.

The Catholic declaration Nostra aetate expresses esteem for Muslims and urges mutual understanding and cooperation for justice, peace and freedom. In its discussion of Judaism, it rejects attributing responsibility for Christ’s passion indiscriminately to all Jews then living or to Jews today, and deplores antisemitism. These are Catholic institutional commitments, not statements made on behalf of every Christian. Nostra aetate, sections 3–4

In 2016, the Rabbinical Assembly issued a resolution against anti-Muslim bigotry. Drawing on Jewish values, it called for protecting Muslim neighbours and opposed disparagement of other religious communities. That is a concrete voice from Conservative/Masorti Judaism, not a claim that every Jewish institution or individual holds identical positions. Rabbinical Assembly resolution, 7 April 2016

These documents do not prove that prejudice has disappeared. Nor does an institutional declaration tell us how every congregation behaves. They do show that religious commitment and an expressed responsibility towards people of another faith need not be treated as opposites.

A human being is more than a category

Another report in Sahih al-Bukhari describes the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ standing when a funeral procession passed. When told that the deceased was Jewish, he ﷺ responded with a question referring to the deceased as a soul. Sahih al-Bukhari 1312–1313

We should not make this one report settle every legal debate about funerals or interfaith relations. As a point for reflection, however, it challenges the habit of allowing a group label to obscure the person before us.

Imagine a Jewish colleague covering a shift so a Muslim can attend Friday prayer. Imagine a Muslim neighbour helping a Christian family after a bereavement. Imagine all three disagreeing seriously about theology while organising meals for people who need them. These are illustrative possibilities, not evidence offered as historical events. Their value is that they separate cooperation from the demand for identical belief.

Friendship, where understood and practised within someone’s religious commitments, does not require agreement on every subject. It does require honesty about boundaries. A friend should be able to say, “I cannot participate in that,” without being accused of rejecting the other person’s humanity.

When conflict enters the room

Interfaith discussion becomes much harder when people arrive carrying grief, fear or anger. An appeal to friendship must not become a way of silencing someone who has suffered. Listening may involve hearing things that are uncomfortable and acknowledging harms without immediately turning the conversation into a competition.

At the same time, we should distinguish a specific act, organisation or government from every person who shares a religious identity with someone involved. That is a proposed standard for fair discussion, not a claim that political disputes are easy or religious communities never participate in them.

“Frenemies” is especially unhelpful when it means assuming that friendliness must conceal betrayal. Suspicion may sometimes respond to evidence about a particular person. It should not become a permanent verdict attached to a name, a head covering, a cross or a synagogue membership.

Nor should we romanticise the opposite picture. This article does not offer a history of uninterrupted harmony, or a history of inevitable conflict. Either would need evidence about particular places, periods, institutions and people. A slogan cannot do that work.

A better question to take away

Here is our suggested starting point for an ordinary conversation:

• Describe your own beliefs without pretending to speak for everyone.
• Let the other person correct your account of theirs.
• Name concrete disagreements and harms without assigning inherited guilt.
• Respect boundaries around worship, food and participation rather than treating them as insults.
• Look for something worthwhile you can do together without pretending you agree on everything.

These are editorial suggestions, not a new religious code.

So: friends, frenemies or enemies?

There is no honest single label for millions of different relationships. Friendship is a relationship to build, enmity describes something that must be established rather than presumed, and “frenemy” is usually too imprecise to help.

Perhaps the more useful question is: “How can we remain truthful about our differences and just towards one another?”

Our three fictional people may never agree on every sentence of the introduction. They can still listen long enough to find out what the others actually meant.

Discussion and editorial reflection. This article describes religious texts and attributed interpretations; it is not a fatwa or a substitute for qualified religious guidance.