Abrahamic Faiths and the God Question Why Jews Christians and Messianics Reject Islamic Claims

By Andrea McGurran

Canada, 24 August 2026

© Andrea McGurran. All rights reserved.

The phrase “Abrahamic religions” sounds tidy. It places Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in one family portrait, with Abraham at the centre and monotheism as the shared inheritance. It is useful shorthand for historians. It is also the source of a serious theological dispute.

For many Jews, Christians, Messianic Jews, and other Messianic believers, Islam’s claim to worship the God of Abraham is not accepted in the way Islam presents it. The objection is not usually about the Arabic word Allah, which Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews have used for God. The dispute is deeper. It concerns revelation, covenant, prophecy, Jesus, Scripture, and the identity of the God who speaks in the Tanakh and New Testament.

Islam claims continuity with Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Judaism, Christianity, and Messianic Judaism generally reject Islam’s version of that continuity. They may agree that Islam is monotheistic. They may acknowledge that Muslims intend to worship the one Creator. Yet many do not accept the Qur’anic account of God as the same covenantal self-disclosure given to Abraham, Israel, and, for Christians and Messianics, fulfilled in Yeshua, Jesus the Messiah.

That distinction matters. It is the difference between saying, “We recognize your monotheism,” and saying, “We accept your account of the God of Abraham.” The first statement can be interfaith courtesy. The second is a theological concession many Jewish, Christian, and Messianic communities cannot make.

The God question begins in shared geography, but it does not end there.

The Abrahamic label helps history but blurs theology

“Abrahamic religions” is a modern academic label. It groups Judaism, Christianity, and Islam because each tradition looks back to Abraham as a foundational figure. All three resist polytheism. All three speak of creation, judgement, prayer, moral law, and divine command. All three honour figures such as Abraham and Moses, though in different ways.

That is the historical usefulness of the term.

Its weakness appears as soon as each faith is allowed to speak in its own grammar.

In the Tanakh, Abraham is called out of Mesopotamia, receives covenant promises, and becomes the ancestor of Israel through Isaac and Jacob. Genesis places heavy stress on land, offspring, circumcision, and a covenant line that passes through Isaac, not Ishmael, for the specific covenant promise later tied to Israel (Genesis 17:15-21, Jewish Publication Society, 1985).

In Christianity, Abraham becomes a father of faith whose promise reaches the nations through Jesus Christ. The New Testament does not replace Abraham with a vague universalism. It interprets Abraham through the Messiah, crucified and risen, and through the claim that Gentiles are joined to Israel’s promises through faith in Christ (Galatians 3, Stern, 1998).

In Islam, Abraham, or Ibrahim, is presented as a pure monotheist who was neither Jew nor Christian, but a hanif, one who submitted to God. The Qur’an links Abraham and Ishmael to the Kaaba and treats Islam as the restoration of Abraham’s original submission (Qur’an 2:125-129; 3:67, Abdel Haleem, 2004).

Those are not minor differences. They produce three separate maps of sacred history.

The public phrase “Abrahamic faiths” can suggest that the traditions simply disagree over customs while worshipping God in almost the same way. The sources do not support that easy claim. They show an old argument over who has preserved Abraham’s true religion.

For Jews, Abraham’s God is the God who elects Israel, gives the Torah, and binds the people to covenant at Sinai. For Christians, Abraham’s God is the Father of Jesus Christ, revealed through the Son and the Spirit. For Messianic Jews, Abraham’s God is the God of Israel who keeps covenant with the Jewish people and reveals salvation through Yeshua the Messiah. For Islam, Abraham’s God is Allah, whose final revelation is the Qur’an given to Muhammad.

The dispute turns on the word final. If Muhammad is the final prophet and the Qur’an corrects earlier Jewish and Christian texts, then Jewish and Christian claims are judged incomplete or corrupted. If the Tanakh and New Testament already give authoritative revelation, then Islam’s later correction is rejected.

That is why the disagreement cannot be solved by tracing names on a family tree.

Judaism rejects Islam’s claim to complete Abraham’s faith

Judaism’s rejection of Islamic claims begins with covenant. The God of Israel is not simply “God in general.” He is the God who covenants with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, brings Israel out of Egypt, gives the Torah through Moses, and binds the Jewish people to commandments.

The Shema states the Jewish confession with stark force:

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD is one.”

That line from Deuteronomy 6:4 sits at the centre of Jewish prayer and identity. Judaism shares with Islam a fierce insistence on divine oneness. This is one reason Jewish authorities have often treated Islam differently from Christianity. Medieval Jewish thinkers commonly saw Islam as strict monotheism and not idolatry, while rejecting Muhammad’s prophecy and the Qur’an’s authority.

That distinction is crucial. Judaism can recognize Islamic monotheism without accepting Islam as the religion of Abraham in its own covenantal sense.

The covenant line matters

Genesis 17 is one of the clearest examples. God promises to bless Ishmael, but the covenant line is specified through Isaac:

“Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring to come” (Genesis 17:19, Jewish Publication Society, 1985).

Islam honours Ishmael and gives him a major place in Abrahamic memory. The Qur’an does not present the Jewish covenantal structure in the same way. It treats Abraham’s true religion as submission to Allah before the later formation of Judaism and Christianity. From a Jewish standpoint, that shifts the centre of gravity away from Sinai, Torah, and Israel’s national covenant.

Jewish tradition does not accept that move. The God of Abraham is not detached from the God of Moses. The God who spoke to the patriarchs is the same God who gave the Torah to Israel. Any later claim that revises Israel’s covenant identity must be tested against Torah. On that test, Islam fails in Jewish theology.

Prophecy is another dividing line

Judaism also rejects Muhammad as a prophet. This does not always mean Jews viewed Islam as morally or intellectually beneath Judaism. Jewish life under Muslim rule included periods of rich cultural exchange, especially in places such as medieval Spain, North Africa, Egypt, and the broader Middle East. Jewish philosophers worked in Arabic. Maimonides wrote major works in Judeo-Arabic. Jewish and Muslim scholars shared intellectual worlds shaped by Aristotle, law, grammar, medicine, and scriptural interpretation.

Yet cultural closeness did not mean theological acceptance.

Maimonides, who lived under Islamic rule and knew Islam from the inside, did not accept Muhammad as a true prophet. In the Mishneh Torah, he presents Christianity and Islam as faiths that, in ways beyond their own intention, helped spread knowledge of Scripture and messianic expectation among the nations. That is not an endorsement of their claims. It is a providential reading of history from a Jewish standpoint (Maimonides, n.d.).

Jewish resistance to Islam’s Abrahamic claim rests on a simple principle: revelation does not restart in the seventh century. The God of Abraham has already revealed His covenant through Israel and Torah. A later scripture that corrects Torah, reassigns Abraham’s religious identity, and places Muhammad at the summit of prophecy cannot be accepted as the voice of Israel’s God.

Judaism and Islam still share real ground

The rejection is theological, not an invitation to caricature.

Judaism and Islam have much in common. Both reject images of God. Both stress law, prayer, fasting, charity, and daily obedience. Both preserve dietary discipline. Both resist the Christian doctrines of incarnation and Trinity. Both read Abraham as a model of obedience.

These similarities explain why some Jewish authorities have spoken more favourably of Muslim monotheism than of Christian doctrine. Yet this common ground does not erase the central Jewish objection. Islam’s Allah, as defined by the Qur’an and Muhammad’s prophetic authority, is not accepted by Judaism as the covenant God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Israel in the way Islam claims.

Jewish objections centre on covenant, Torah, and the line from Abraham to Israel.

Christianity rejects Islam’s account of God because of Jesus

Christian disagreement with Islam reaches its sharpest point in the person of Jesus.

Islam honours Jesus, or Isa, as a prophet. The Qur’an associates him with miraculous birth, healing, and revelation. It calls him Messiah in a way, though not with the Christian meaning of divine Son and redemptive Lord. Islam denies that Jesus is God incarnate. It rejects divine sonship. It rejects the Trinity. It also denies the crucifixion in the form central to Christian faith, stating that Jesus was not killed or crucified, though it was made to appear so (Qur’an 4:157, Abdel Haleem, 2004).

For Christianity, those denials strike the heart of revelation.

The New Testament identifies Jesus not merely as a messenger from God, but as the Word made flesh. John’s Gospel opens with the claim that the Word was with God and was God, then says the Word became human (John 1:1, 14, Stern, 1998). Paul’s letters centre salvation on the death and resurrection of Christ. The Gospels present Jesus forgiving sins, receiving worship, interpreting Torah with divine authority, and sending disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Islam’s Jesus cannot be reconciled with that Jesus.

The Trinity is not a side issue

Some modern readers assume the Trinity is a later technical complication. For orthodox Christianity, it names the way God has revealed Himself. Christians confess one God, not three gods. Yet they confess that the one God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Islam rejects that claim. Qur’an 112 declares that God is one, neither begetting nor begotten. Qur’an 5:72-75 rejects claims associated with identifying Christ with God and treats Jesus and Mary as creatures under God’s sovereignty (Abdel Haleem, 2004).

That produces a direct conflict.

A Christian may say Muslims intend to worship the Creator. Some Christian traditions do say this. The Catholic Church, for example, teaches that Muslims “adore the one, merciful God” and connects that worship to Abraham (Catholic Church, 1994, para. 841). The Second Vatican Council made a similar statement in Nostra Aetate (Vatican Council II, 1965).

Other Christians resist that formulation or qualify it heavily. Many evangelical and Orthodox voices argue that a God who denies the Son is not the God revealed by Jesus Christ. They point to texts such as 1 John 2:23, which says that whoever denies the Son does not have the Father, and to John 14:6, where Jesus says no one comes to the Father except through him.

The result is not one Christian answer, but a range of answers. Still, historic Christian doctrine rejects Islam’s central claim that the Qur’an gives the final and corrected revelation of the God of Abraham. Christianity cannot accept a later scripture that denies the crucified and risen Son.

The cross is the dividing line

The crucifixion is not an unfortunate episode in Christian history. It is the centre of Christian proclamation. The earliest Christian preaching, as reflected in the New Testament, presents Jesus’ death and resurrection as God’s saving act. Paul writes that he resolved to know nothing among the Corinthians except “Yeshua the Messiah, and him executed on a stake” (1 Corinthians 2:2, Stern, 1998).

Islam’s refusal of the crucifixion as Christians understand it creates a different story of salvation. In Islam, God guides, commands, forgives, and judges. In Christianity, God also enters human history in the Son, bears sin through the cross, and defeats death in resurrection.

These are not interchangeable accounts. They describe different divine actions and different identities of God.

That is why many Christians say Islam’s Allah is not the Father of Jesus Christ. They are not denying that Islam uses language about one Creator. They are denying that Islam’s account matches the God revealed in Christ.

Messianic Jews reject Islam while standing inside a Jewish and New Testament frame

Messianic Judaism adds another layer to the debate. Messianic Jews identify as Jews who believe Yeshua is the promised Messiah of Israel. They affirm the authority of the Tanakh and the New Covenant writings, often using Jewish context, Hebrew names, and continuity with Israel’s covenant calling.

That position leads Messianic Jews to reject Islam for both Jewish and Christian reasons.

They reject Islam’s claim to correct the Jewish Scriptures. They also reject Islam’s denial of Yeshua’s divine identity, atoning death, and resurrection. For Messianic believers, the God of Abraham is the God who called Israel, gave the covenants, spoke through the prophets, and revealed the Messiah in Yeshua.

The Complete Jewish Bible, translated by David H. Stern, reflects this Messianic framing. It presents the New Testament in Jewish terms, using names such as Yeshua and highlighting continuity with the Tanakh. That does not make it a Jewish communal authority in mainstream Judaism. It does show how Messianic readers understand the New Testament as Israel’s story reaching fulfilment in Messiah.

Messianic claims differ from both synagogue and mosque

Mainstream Judaism rejects Messianic Judaism’s claim that Jesus is the Messiah. Islam also rejects Jesus’ divinity and crucifixion. Messianic Judaism sits in a contested space, accepted by most Christians as some form of Christian faith, but rejected by mainstream Jewish authorities as outside Judaism.

On Islam, though, Messianic Jewish and orthodox Christian objections often converge.

Messianic statements of faith commonly affirm the one God of Israel and identify Yeshua as divine Messiah. Such statements reject any theology that denies the Son. The Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations and Jews for Jesus both affirm core beliefs about Yeshua’s messiahship and the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures and New Covenant writings (Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, n.d.; Jews for Jesus, n.d.).

By that standard, Islam’s claim fails at three points:

• Scripture Islam places the Qur’an as final revelation and treats Jewish and Christian texts as needing correction.

  
  

• Messiah Islam honours Jesus as prophet, but denies the identity Messianic believers see as central.

  
  

• Covenant Islam reframes Abraham apart from the Israel-centred covenant structure that Messianic Jews retain.

  
  

This is why Messianic Jews and Messianics often speak with particular urgency about the issue. They see Islam not only as a rival monotheism, but as a later system that reinterprets both Jewish covenant and New Testament fulfilment.

The major texts share figures and themes, but they do not tell the same theological story.

Islam’s claim is not merely that Muslims believe in one God

Islam does not present itself as a new religion invented by Muhammad. It presents itself as the restoration of the original religion of Abraham and of all true prophets. This is why the disagreement is so deep.

The Qur’an repeatedly places Muhammad in continuity with earlier figures. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Mary, and Jesus all appear in Islamic Scripture. Islam calls Jews and Christians “People of the Book,” a phrase that acknowledges a relationship to earlier revelation. At the same time, the Qur’an judges Jewish and Christian communities to have misunderstood, concealed, or distorted parts of revelation.

This dual posture, honouring earlier prophets while correcting later communities, is central to Islam.

From an Islamic view, Jews and Christians drifted from Abrahamic monotheism. From a Jewish view, Islam is a later religious movement that borrows and revises biblical tradition while rejecting Torah’s covenant claims. From a Christian view, Islam is a post-biblical religion that denies the Son and the cross. From a Messianic view, Islam rejects both Israel’s covenant pattern and Messiah’s fulfilment.

The disagreement is not caused by ignorance. Often it appears most clearly when the traditions are understood well.

Shared words can hide different meanings

The language of faith can mislead when words sound familiar.

Consider these examples:

Shared word	Jewish emphasis	Christian and Messianic emphasis	Islamic emphasis
Abraham	Patriarch of Israel’s covenant line through Isaac and Jacob	Father of faith whose promise is fulfilled in Messiah and extended to the nations	Model submitter to Allah, neither Jew nor Christian
Messiah	Expected anointed figure or age, interpreted in varied Jewish ways	Jesus, Son of God, crucified and risen	Jesus as honoured prophet and Messiah, but not divine Son
Revelation	Torah and prophetic writings given to Israel	Tanakh and New Testament centred on Christ	Qur’an as final, correcting revelation
One God	The God of Israel confessed in the Shema	One God revealed as Father, Son, and Spirit	Absolute oneness of Allah, without incarnation or Trinity

The same vocabulary does not carry the same doctrine. Abraham does not function the same way in each tradition. Messiah does not mean the same thing. Revelation does not have the same order. Even divine oneness, while shared at a basic level by Judaism and Islam, does not settle the larger question of covenant and authority.

The Arabic word Allah is not the whole issue

In English, some Christians speak as if “Allah” is a proper name for a foreign deity. The history is more complex. Allah is the Arabic word for God. Arabic-speaking Christians use Allah in Arabic Bibles and liturgies. Arabic-speaking Jews have also used the term. Linguistically, then, one cannot settle the question by pointing to the word alone.

The theological question is not the sound of the name. It is the identity described by the confession.

A Christian who says “God” while denying Christ’s incarnation would not be making an orthodox Christian confession simply because the English word is familiar. A Muslim who says “Allah” may intend the one Creator, but Christian doctrine asks whether that Creator is confessed as the Father of the Son. Jewish doctrine asks whether that God is confessed as the covenant God of Israel according to Torah. Messianic doctrine asks both questions.

That is why the phrase “same God” is debated. It can mean at least two different things.

One meaning is referential. Do Muslims, Jews, and Christians intend to speak of the one Creator of heaven and earth, not a tribal or pagan deity? Many theologians, including some Christians, answer yes.

The other meaning is confessional. Do Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and Messianic Judaism confess the same identity, revelation, covenant, and saving acts of God? Here the answer is no. The traditions make competing truth claims.

Most rejection by Jews, Christians, and Messianics concerns the second meaning. They reject Islam’s confession as a true account of Abraham’s God.

The Jewish objection is not the same as the Christian objection

It is tempting to group Jewish, Christian, and Messianic rejection together. They do share resistance to Islam’s claim of final revelation. Yet they do not all reject Islam for the same reasons.

Judaism rejects Islam because Islam relocates Abrahamic truth outside Israel’s covenant and asks Jews to accept Muhammad and the Qur’an. Judaism also rejects Christian claims about Jesus, so Jewish agreement with Islam on divine oneness does not lead to acceptance of Islam.

Christianity rejects Islam because Islam denies the Trinity, the incarnation, the Sonship of Christ, the crucifixion, and the resurrection as Christians understand them. Christianity’s key objection is Christological. If Jesus is Lord, Islam’s view of Jesus cannot be final revelation.

Messianic Judaism rejects Islam because it holds together Israel’s covenant identity and faith in Yeshua. Islam’s account denies both the Jewish covenantal centre as Messianics understand it and the New Testament claim that Yeshua fulfils Israel’s promises.

These differences matter because they prevent a false alliance. Jews, Christians, and Messianics may all reject Islam’s claim to be the restored Abrahamic faith, but they do not form one theological bloc. Judaism does not affirm the Trinity. Christianity and Messianic Judaism do. Mainstream Judaism does not accept Yeshua. Messianics do. Christianity has often universalized Abraham through Christ in ways Jews resist.

The shared rejection of Islam’s claim is real, but it rests on different foundations.

Historical contact made the argument sharper

The religions did not develop in sealed rooms. They met in trade, conquest, debate, translation, exile, and law.

Islam emerged in seventh-century Arabia in a world where Jewish and Christian communities were already present. The Qur’an shows awareness of biblical figures and disputes. As Islam expanded, Jews and Christians lived under Muslim rule across the Middle East, North Africa, Spain, Persia, and beyond. They debated theology in Arabic. They translated Greek philosophy. They wrote polemics, legal opinions, commentaries, and apologetic works.

In some eras, Jewish communities flourished under Muslim governments compared with harsh conditions in parts of Christian Europe. In other eras, they faced restriction, humiliation, violence, and pressure. There is no single golden age and no single dark age. History is less tidy than religious memory.

The theological dispute remained constant.

Muslim scholars argued that Muhammad confirmed earlier prophets and corrected corruptions. Jewish scholars answered that Torah had not been superseded and that Muhammad did not meet the standards of prophecy. Christian theologians argued that Islam misunderstood Christ and reduced revelation to law and command. Muslim theologians replied that Christianity had compromised monotheism through Trinity and incarnation.

Modern interfaith language often softens these disputes. It speaks of “the three Abrahamic faiths” as partners in peace. That can be valuable in plural societies, including Canada, where Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Messianic believers live as neighbours under shared civil law. It can support public respect and reduce suspicion.

Yet historical courtesy should not flatten doctrinal truth. The old debate remains because each tradition’s Scripture makes claims the others cannot accept.

Shared cities often preserve the memory of both neighbourliness and disagreement.

Politicized Abraham can obscure the older debate

In recent years, the name Abraham has gained diplomatic value. Politicians and civic leaders use it to speak about coexistence among Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Interfaith projects often place mosque, church, and synagogue in symbolic relationship. In public life, “Abrahamic” can function as a bridge word.

The bridge has value. Religious minorities need protection. Communities need ways to lower fear. Shared ethical concerns, such as care for the poor, family life, prayer, and reverence for God, can create practical co-operation.

The danger comes when public language asks theology to pretend.

A rabbi may stand beside an imam at a civic ceremony and still reject Muhammad as a prophet. A priest may join Muslim leaders in opposing antisemitism and still deny that the Qur’an reveals the Father of Jesus Christ. A Messianic Jewish teacher may affirm freedom of worship for Muslims and still argue that Islam rejects the Messiah of Israel.

Respect does not require theological surrender.

This point is especially relevant in Canadian public life, where multicultural language sometimes favours broad categories over hard disagreement. Civility matters. So does accuracy. The Abrahamic label works best when it names a field of relationship, not a shared creed.

What “reject Islamic claims” should and should not mean

The phrase can be misunderstood, so it needs care.

To say that Jews, Christians, Messianic Jews, and Messianics reject Islamic claims does not mean they must deny Muslims’ sincerity. It does not mean Muslims worship with bad motives. It does not justify hostility, contempt, or political exclusion. It does not erase the many centuries of Jewish-Muslim intellectual contact or Christian-Muslim debate.

It means something more precise.

They reject Islam’s claim that the Qur’an and Muhammad give the final, corrected revelation of the God of Abraham. They reject the Islamic account that Abraham’s pure religion was Islam in the Qur’anic sense. They reject the idea that Jewish covenant, Christian confession, or Messianic belief must be revised by a seventh-century Arabian prophet.

That rejection takes different forms.

For Jews, the God of Abraham is inseparable from Israel’s election, Torah, and covenant history. Islam’s Allah, as Qur’an defines Him, is not accepted as the God of Abraham in the Jewish covenantal sense because Islam does not accept Torah’s continuing authority over Israel and does not accept the Jewish account of prophecy.

For Christians, the God of Abraham is revealed as the Father of Jesus Christ. Islam’s Allah is not accepted as the God of Abraham in the Christian confessional sense because Islam denies the Son, the cross, and the Trinity.

For Messianic Jews and Messianics, the God of Abraham is the God of Israel who reveals Yeshua as Messiah. Islam’s Allah is not accepted as the God of Abraham in the Messianic sense because Islam denies both the New Covenant identity of Yeshua and the covenant structure of Israel’s Scriptures.

The dispute is theological, not ethnic. It is about claims, not people.

Examples that show the disagreement clearly

A few examples bring the divide into focus.

Abraham and the binding story

In Jewish tradition, the binding of Isaac, the Akedah, becomes one of the most powerful stories of obedience, testing, and covenant. Genesis names Isaac directly (Genesis 22, Jewish Publication Society, 1985).

Islamic tradition often associates the near-sacrifice with Ishmael, though the Qur’an itself does not name the son in the relevant passage. The difference is not only about which son lay on the altar. It reflects larger covenant maps. Judaism centres Isaac as the covenant child. Islam gives Ishmael greater ancestral and religious importance.

Moses and Torah

Judaism sees Moses as the greatest prophet and Torah as binding revelation. Islam honours Moses, but places the Qur’an above earlier scriptures and treats Muhammad as the final prophet. A Jewish reader cannot accept that hierarchy without surrendering Judaism’s account of revelation.

Jesus and the cross

Christianity says Jesus was crucified under Roman authority, died, was buried, and rose. Islam denies the crucifixion in the theological sense Christians confess. A Christian cannot treat that denial as a small variation. Without the cross and resurrection, the Christian gospel collapses.

The name of God

A Jewish prayer book, an Arabic Bible, and a Muslim Qur’an may all refer to the one Creator. Yet the surrounding claims differ. The Jewish text points to the God who commands Israel through Torah. The Christian text proclaims the Father, Son, and Spirit. The Muslim text proclaims Allah’s absolute oneness and Muhammad’s final prophethood. The name alone does not settle identity.

FAQ

Do Jews believe Muslims worship the same God?

Many Jewish authorities recognize Islam as strict monotheism and not idolatry. That does not mean Judaism accepts Islam’s claims about Abraham, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. Judaism rejects Islam as a correction or fulfilment of Torah.

Do Christians believe Allah is the same as God?

Christians disagree on wording. Some, including Catholic teaching, say Muslims adore the one Creator. Many Christians add that Islam’s denial of the Son, Trinity, cross, and resurrection means the Islamic account of God is not the Christian God revealed in Jesus Christ.

Why do Messianic Jews reject Islam?

Messianic Jews affirm the God of Israel, the authority of the Tanakh, and Yeshua as Messiah. Islam rejects Yeshua’s divine identity and crucifixion, and it places the Qur’an above earlier revelation. Messianic believers reject those claims.

Is the word Allah a problem by itself?

No. Allah is the Arabic word for God and is used by Arabic-speaking Christians. The issue is not the word alone. The issue is what Islam teaches about God, Scripture, Jesus, covenant, and Muhammad.

Can Abrahamic religions co-operate if they disagree?

Yes. Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Messianic believers can defend religious freedom, oppose antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred, care for neighbours, and speak respectfully. Co-operation does not require pretending their doctrines are the same.

Respectful disagreement can acknowledge shared concerns without erasing doctrine.

The takeaway is that Abraham is shared but not settled

Abraham stands at the beginning of a family argument that has never ended. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Messianic Judaism all claim him, but they do not mean the same thing by that claim.

Islam says Abraham’s pure submission is restored in the Qur’an and confirmed through Muhammad. Judaism rejects that claim because Abraham’s God is the covenant God of Israel, Torah, and Sinai. Christianity rejects it because Abraham’s God is revealed through Jesus Christ, the Son, crucified and risen. Messianic Jews reject it because they hold Israel’s covenant and Yeshua’s messiahship together.

The clean public phrase “Abrahamic faiths” should not be discarded. It has historical and civic use. Yet it should be handled with accuracy. Abraham may be a shared reference point, but he is not a shared conclusion.

Bibliographical references

Abdel Haleem, M.A.S. (trans.) (2004) The Qur’an. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Catholic Church (1994) Catechism of the Catholic Church. London: Geoffrey Chapman. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM (Accessed: 24 August 2026).

Jewish Publication Society (1985) Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.

Jews for Jesus (n.d.) Statement of Faith. Available at: https://jewsforjesus.org/about/statement-of-faith (Accessed: 24 August 2026).

Maimonides (n.d.) Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 11. Translated by E. Touger. Chabad.org. Available at: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1188356/jewish/Melachim-uMilchamot-Chapter-11.htm (Accessed: 24 August 2026).

Stern, D.H. (1998) Complete Jewish Bible. Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications.

The Times of Israel (n.d.) The Times of Israel. Available at: https://www.timesofisrael.com/ (Accessed: 24 August 2026).

Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (n.d.) Statement of Faith. Available at: https://www.umjc.org/statement-of-faith (Accessed: 24 August 2026).

Vatican Council II (1965) Nostra Aetate: Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html (Accessed: 24 August 2026).

Wikipedia contributors (n.d.) Abrahamic religions. Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions (Accessed: 24 August 2026).

Wikipedia contributors (n.d.) Allah. Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah (Accessed: 24 August 2026).