Does Religious Zealotry Lead to Hostility toward Faith? From Moses to Gaza

Introduction: Why This Generalization?

﴿لَتَجِدَنَّ أَشَدَّ النَّاسِ عَدَاوَةً لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُوا﴾ (You will surely find the Jews and those who associate partners with God to be the most hostile of people toward those who believe.) [المائدة: ٨٢]

This verse raises a fundamental question: why does the Qur’an employ this general description? And why do we not find in the Qur’an an expression of comparable force concerning another community in the context of its relationship with the believers?

This study proceeds from the premise that the verse does not concern a passing incident or a temporary political dispute, but points to a recurring historical pattern that emerged in the relationship between Jews and a number of prophets and messengers throughout history.

Tracing the course from Moses to Jesus and then to Muhammad, upon them be the finest blessings, we find that the Qur’an presents a series of recurring confrontations: opposition to the prophet, rejection of the message, clashes with reformers, and then conflict with their followers. Hence the question arises: was the verse describing the outcome of a long history of confrontation with faith and the divine message as portrayed in the Qur’an?

This inquiry does not proceed from notions of race or ancestry, but from a study of the religious and historical texts that have addressed this relationship over the centuries.

First: Moses and the Clash between the Message and Vested Interests

The Qur’an and the Torah present a long series of confrontations between Moses and his people. After the exodus from Egypt and the manifestation of the great miracles, the conflict did not end; rather, another kind of confrontation began: worship of the calf days after deliverance, persistent grumbling about the prophet’s commands, refusal to enter the Holy Land, and repeated objections to prophetic leadership.

The Qur’an encapsulates this course in a particularly telling verse:

﴿أَفَكُلَّمَا جَاءَكُمْ رَسُولٌ بِمَا لَا تَهْوَىٰ أَنفُسُكُمُ اسْتَكْبَرْتُمْ فَفَرِيقًا كَذَّبْتُمْ وَفَرِيقًا تَقْتُلُونَ﴾ (Is it that whenever a messenger came to you with what your souls did not desire, you grew arrogant—some you denied, and some you kill?) [البقرة: ٨٧]

Here, the Qur’an links the problem not to ignorance, but to the clash of truth with desire and vested interests.

Second: Jesus and the Rejection of the Reformer

Jesus came calling people to God and to the reform of deviations that had accumulated within the religious establishment. The Gospels portray an escalating clash between him and certain religious leaders who saw him as a threat to their influence and standing; the greater his influence among the people became, the greater their anxiety about his call.

In later Jewish tradition, the matter was not confined to rejecting him. Polemical texts emerged describing him as a deceiver, a sorcerer, and a claimant to prophecy, impugning his mother Mary and denying the miracles of his birth. The Qur’an, for its part, describes the accusation leveled against Mary as ﴿بُهْتَانًا عَظِيمًا﴾ (a tremendous slander), and presents the attempt to kill Jesus as the culmination of the clash between the message and those who reject it.

Third: Muhammad and the Recurrence of the Scene

The Qur’an presents a new confrontation between the message and Jewish groups in Medina, in which certain themes recur: concealment of the truth, distortion of words, envy, breach of covenants, and hostility toward believers. The decisive verse, ﴿لَتَجِدَنَّ أَشَدَّ النَّاسِ عَدَاوَةً لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا﴾ (You will surely find the most hostile of people toward those who believe), presents this conflict as a phenomenon extending beyond a passing political dispute.

Fourth: The Talmud and Jewish Polemical Literature

Following the rejection of Jesus, peace be upon him, within traditional Judaism, the matter was not confined to withholding recognition of him as the awaited Messiah. Over the centuries, polemical texts emerged that expressed a harsher position.

Talmudic literature does not recognize Jesus as a prophet or Messiah, and it contains passages that a number of scholars have associated with him, although disagreement persists over the identity of some of the figures mentioned in them. Yet the general portrayal in traditional rabbinic tradition remained grounded in the rejection of his claim and his religious standing.

In later polemical literature, particularly in the book “Toledot Yeshu,” a more confrontational portrayal emerges: Jesus is presented as a claimant to prophecy, a deceiver of the people, a practitioner of sorcery and deception, and someone undeserving of the status his followers accord him. Some narratives also impugn Mary and deny the account of the miraculous birth, which explains the Qur’an’s description of these accusations as “a tremendous slander.”

From the perspective of this study, the significance of these texts lies not only in their rejection of Jesus, but also in their reflection of an enduring intellectual conflict with one of the most prominent symbols of faith in Christianity and Islam. This makes them an important link in understanding the nature of the religious hostility addressed by the Qur’anic texts.

Fifth: From the Clash between the Message and Vested Interests to the Project of Supremacy

If a thread unites the episodes of Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, it is that the clash was not, at its core, between faith and unbelief in the abstract sense, but between the message on the one hand and entrenched interests on the other. The message calls upon human beings to submit to truth even when it conflicts with their desires or interests, while vested interests drive their holders to protect their influence and gains, even at the cost of resisting truth itself.

In the context of the verses in Surat al-Baqarah, the address is directed to the Children of Israel, as God reminds them of His blessings upon them and of the prophets He sent to them. The preceding verses speak of Moses, the Book, and the messengers, followed by this reproachful question.

The meaning of the verse, in brief, is that the problem was neither a lack of clear proofs nor ambiguity in the message. Rather, some messengers brought commands or truths that conflicted with desires and interests, and the response was arrogance: some denied the messengers, while others assaulted them, even to the point of killing them.

﴿ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ كَانُوا يَكْفُرُونَ بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ وَيَقْتُلُونَ النَّبِيِّينَ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ﴾ (That was because they disbelieved in God’s signs and killed the prophets without right.) [البقرة: ٦١]

The Qur’anic emphasis here is not on ancestry or lineage, but on a recurring stance toward the message when it clashes with desire and arrogance.

Over time, this clash may develop from the mere rejection of a message or a prophet into the construction of an entire intellectual system that regards itself as the center and measure of truth. At this point, the question is no longer: what is true? Rather, it becomes: what preserves influence? And what serves the community?

When the community becomes an authority higher than principles, it becomes possible to reject prophets and reformers if their call conflicts with established interests. Here, religion loses its ethical function and gradually becomes an instrument of power and conflict.

From the perspective of this hypothesis, the project of supremacy begins when identity takes precedence over truth, belonging over justice, and power over ethics.

The effects of this transformation are not confined to the religious or political sphere, but extend into culture and everyday life. Instead of being a seeker of meaning and purpose, the human being has their consciousness reshaped to become more preoccupied with interest, utility, power, and material success.

At this stage, the real conflict is no longer simply between peoples or groups, but between two opposing logics: one that places truth above the community, and another that places the community above truth. Many conflicts in ancient and modern history can be read in terms of these two logics, from confrontations with the prophets to the crises of the contemporary world.

Sixth: From Ancient Texts to Gaza

If the verse describes a recurring historical pattern rather than merely a passing incident, then events in Palestine and Gaza present themselves as one of the most important testing grounds for this hypothesis in the modern age.

While believers regard religion as a source of mercy, justice, and the preservation of human dignity, critics of Israeli policies see what is taking place in Palestine as occupation, settlement, blockade, displacement, and the use of military force against a people living under occupation.

This criticism has not been confined to Arabs and Muslims. Jewish thinkers and historians have also voiced it, warning that turning historical victimhood into a permanent justification for wronging others does not lead to overcoming tragedy, but to reproducing it.

From the perspective of this argument, Gaza is not merely a theater of war, but reflects a conflict between two logics: one that holds that power confers right, and another that holds that right must constrain power.

The question Gaza poses today is therefore not merely political, but ethical as well: what happens when the end becomes a justification for every means? And what happens when an entire people is viewed as an obstacle to be subdued rather than as human beings with rights, dignity, and hopes?

Proponents of this reading believe that what is happening in Gaza has revealed, in an unprecedented manner, what they regard as the continuation of a historical pattern of conflict with the divine message and its ethical values. For them, Gaza is not merely a question of land and borders, but a point of convergence between text, history, and reality.

They posit that certain hardline nationalist and religious currents have come to feel that they possess a degree of political, media, and economic influence that makes them less inclined to conceal their positions or embellish their rhetoric, and that what is taking place reflects a vision that places the community’s security and interests above other ethical and humanitarian considerations.

What Does Religious Zealotry Produce?

When belonging becomes more important than truth, the result is the justification of injustice in the name of religion, the dehumanization of opponents, the recasting of criticism as betrayal, the sanctification of the community instead of truth, and the production of continuing cycles of violence and hatred.

From the perspective of this study, the most dangerous forms of conflict do not always unfold on battlefields, but in the realm of consciousness and values. Societies may be defeated when their preoccupation with interests distracts them from truth, with consumption from meaning, and with power from justice.

Thus, the common thread connecting Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad with many present-day conflicts is the recurrence of the same pattern: the emergence of a call that returns human beings to God, followed by the emergence of forces that see this call as a threat to their interests or influence.

Seventh: The Logic of Arrogant Superiority… From Iblis to the Conflict between the Message and Vested Interests

The essence of the problem lies not in religious or national affiliation as such, but in a mode of thought founded on placing will, interest, and domination above truth and justice. Some scholars of religion regard this pattern as the closest to the model embodied by Iblis in religious texts: his objection did not arise from ignorance of God, but from an arrogant sense of superiority that drove him to prefer himself and his own vision to the divine command.

According to this reading, the danger of this thinking lies not in its being an avowed idea adopted by a particular school, but in its ability to infiltrate different ideas, movements, and societies under a variety of slogans. It may appear in nationalist, religious, political, or economic guise, yet retain the same essence: justifying supremacy, placing interest above truth, and subordinating ethical principles to the imperatives of power and influence.

The problem, therefore, lies not in the identity of the community that adopts it, but in the effect it has on human beings when it persuades them that possessing power grants them the right to redefine justice, or that securing an interest justifies overriding principles. At this point, the real conflict is no longer between religions or peoples, but between two conceptions of the human being: one that places right above power, and another that makes power the source of right.

A Message of Awareness for Muslims and Christians

If this study is correct in its diagnosis of the problem, then the essence of the conflict is not between Muslims and Christians, but between two opposing logics: one that calls human beings to God, truth, and justice, and another that places interest, domination, and supremacy above ethical values.

Despite their profound doctrinal differences, Islam and Christianity share belief in God, reverence for the prophets, and a call to mercy, justice, holding oppressors accountable, and supporting the oppressed. Turning the followers of the two religions into permanent enemies may therefore be, according to this reading, one of the most successful forms of deception: it diverts attention from the essence of the problem and directs the conflict toward those who believe in God rather than toward ideas that combat the very values of faith.

Awareness thus requires that Muslims and Christians not fall into the trap of mutual hatred or inherited conflicts, and that they not allow historical differences to become an enmity that blinds them to the ethical and human commonalities that unite them. Difference does not necessitate injustice, and disagreement does not justify hostility.

If history teaches us anything, it is that the most dangerous victories are not those achieved on battlefields, but those that succeed in sowing division among people who might otherwise have cooperated in the cause of truth and justice.

From the Clash of Interests to Control over Consciousness

If we assume that a mode of thought founded on arrogant superiority and the precedence of interest over truth has, in the modern age, acquired immense instruments of influence—such as major financial institutions, political lobbying groups, global media, educational systems, scientific institutions, and various intellectual and organizational networks, alongside digital technologies and artificial intelligence—what effect would this have on the consciousness of peoples and the course of societies?

Its influence would not be confined to the political or economic sphere, but would extend to shaping the perceptions, values, and priorities through which people view the world. The ability to direct information, construct narratives, and redefine concepts would then become more influential than military power itself, because the battle would shift from control over territory to influence over minds.

In this context, instruments such as media, education, technology, and artificial intelligence could become means capable of entrenching particular worldviews, marginalizing others, and gradually reshaping collective consciousness so that many people adopt ideas or positions without realizing the extent of the influence exerted upon them. At this stage, the conflict would no longer be merely a struggle for influence, but a struggle over the definition of truth itself, and over determining what is acceptable and unacceptable, just and unjust.

Conclusion

If this study’s hypothesis is correct, the common thread between the accounts of Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad and many present-day conflicts is not merely religious difference, but a recurring clash between the message and vested interests, and between truth and influence.

When the community becomes more important than truth, power more important than justice, and interest more important than principles, religion is transformed from a message of guidance into an instrument of domination, and conflict is transformed from a search for truth into a struggle for influence.

From this perspective, the events in Gaza are understood not merely as a political issue, but as a contemporary example of the same question that has recurred throughout history: is right measured by power, or is power measured by right?

The most important lesson remains that nations do not necessarily fall when they are defeated from without, but when they lose their moral compass from within. Power unconstrained by justice becomes tyranny, and victory ungoverned by ethics becomes, over time, a burden on its possessors before it becomes one on their opponents.

Thus, the question confronting every nation and every civilization remains: does it make right the measure of power, or power the measure of right?