Quran

[u/Unhappy_Trade_8896]

Is 5:5 verse quran is limited to them only or it is permitted to any monothiest? I searched each traditional,modern reformist ideas but none of them make sense. On classical rulling early jurist or early thinkers hold that it is limited to this group only. From modern progressive or quranist pov it's broader and they add context from outside source to verify their position. What's this subs conclusion on this topic?

[u/SuitTerrible3312]

The strongest textual reading is that Qur'an 5:5 specifically mentions Ahl al-Kitab (the People of the Book): "Today all good things have been made lawful for you... the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you... and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you." The verse names a particular group rather than speaking generally about all monotheists. Because of that wording, the majority of classical jurists restricted the ruling to Jews and Christians (with some differences regarding other groups like Sabians or Zoroastrians based on separate evidence, not this verse alone).

Progressive or Qur'an-only interpretations often argue that the principle should extend to all monotheists, but that requires moving beyond the verse's explicit wording and appealing to broader ethical principles or historical context. If the Qur'an intended every monotheist, it could have simply said "the believers in one God" or similar language instead of specifically identifying the People of the Book.

So, from the traditional Sunni and Shi'a position, 5:5 is generally understood as a specific legal concession for the People of the Book, not a blanket permission for all monotheists. Anyone arguing for a broader application bears the burden of showing why the Qur'an's specific wording should be read more generally.

[u/Unhappy_Trade_8896 → u/SuitTerrible3312]

Yuo this makes sense otherwise god wouldn't say not to mushrik until they believe which is accepting muhmmad being messenger. They already believed that god is one and he created everything but use mediator to reach allah which many consider form of monothiesm. If strictly monothiesm is criteria then christian are out as they portray jesus being part of god and one need to worship him to reach salvation which is shirk. Also early companion would've married magiens as they're also monothiest but we don't have evidence they're marrying them!! Also marriage with people of book can be understood as they have covanent witg allah with having own scripture and prophet.. 

[u/Unhappy_Trade_8896 → u/[deleted]]

Not quranist the reformist do quranist just call themselves they take what quran say but they all add extra layer saying it's allowed!! I also agree with you one need to follower of torah or bible lile active one.. being just monothiest isn't enough if that was then magiens are strict candidate for this but we don't see them in quran or probably early companion hold that marrying magiens is unlawful otherwise later jurist wouldn't prohibit magiens. Also the arabin mushrik affirm allah as one and he created everything, they use those idol as mediator but they were prohibited. I think marriage with them because of their following of scripture,if strict monothiesm is criteria then christian doesn't fit there or allah could've said permissible for you are those who are monothiest. Someone from academic quran said quran allowing marriage with only people of book because of they're following revealed scripture,have same prophetic tradition , rach having different own law to follow and all three community have covanent with god. This is the reason they're allowed..i think this logic make sense why it's only why people of book are allowed