Building a Curriculum for a Culture of Peace - IV: Why Jewish Sectarian History Matters for a Culture of Peace

By Rebecca Abrahamson

Building a Curriculum for a Culture of Peace that can be used in school systems worldwide requires more than good intentions. It demands historical honesty, especially about how the Abrahamic faiths developed in concrete political, legal, and communal settings.

For religious readers, this can be uncomfortable. We may worry that viewing religion through a historical lens somehow undermines divine truth. In fact, the opposite is often the case. Contextualizing scripture and tradition can deepen faith, not weaken it, by helping us understand what issues our writings were responding to, and whom they were addressing.

Building a curriculum is also about trust. The strongest foundation for trust is learning to see the Other not as a rival or outsider, but as a co-religionist and co-citizen. In practical terms, that means spaces of shared legal reasoning—joint Muslim-Jewish courts, where fuqahāʾ and rabbis collaborate.

But to reach that point, we must first contextualize verses and traditions that seem to invalidate the Other. Examining the variety of Jewish sects in the ancient Hebrew Commonwealth, and six centuries later in Himyar at the dawn of Islam, provides an essential starting point.

Jewish Diversity in the Ancient Commonwealth

At the turn of the millennium BCE–CE, Judaism was far from monolithic. The Jewish commonwealth included multiple sects: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians, Zealots, Sicarii, Samaritans, Notzrim, and Sabeans. Understanding this diversity is crucial for interpreting later Jewish-Christian-Muslim encounters.

These sects trace back to the Persian period, when four Jewish governors administered territories that had once been part of Solomon’s kingdom before the Babylonian exile: Zerubavel, Gashmu, Sanballat, and Tobiah.

Zerubavel governed Judea, enforced strict opposition to idolatry. His followers eventually divided into the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Gashmu oversaw Arabian trade routes, followed a form of Abrahamic monotheism and supported the Jerusalem Temple. His followers were known as Sabeans, a group later mentioned in the Qur’an.

Sanballat ruled the coastal and northern regions, represented the remnants of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. His followers, the Samaritans, established their own center of worship at Mount Gerizim.

Tobiah administered Transjordan and tax collection for Persia, influenced groups that later became Sadducees, Notzrim, and Essenes, a subgroup of the Notzrim.They adopted monastic, desert-based spiritual practices; Sadducees gained influence in the Temple.

The Sadducean sect drew from both Zerubavel’s and Tobiah’s legacies. It was shaped by Hellenistic influence, rejected the Oral Law, denied belief in an afterlife, and ultimately dominated the Second Temple priesthood.

Variety Recognized in the Qur’an

This historical diversity helps illuminate Qur’anic verses that acknowledge multiple believing communities:

“Those who believe, those who are Jews, the Christians, and the Sabeans—whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and acts righteously—shall have their reward with their Lord; no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve.”
(Qur’an 2:62)

The verse recognizes variety within monotheism, not uniformity. Faithfulness is measured by belief, accountability, and ethical action not by belonging to a single legal system. Note that an acceptable believer is in part defined by belief in the afterlife, which the Sadducean sect rejected.

Expansionism: A Sadducean, Not Pharisaic, Model

This distinction becomes critical when addressing the question of religious expansion. All contemporary Jewish movements – Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist – descend from Pharisaic-Rabbinic Judaism, which is notably non-proselytizing. Would-be converts are traditionally discouraged at first.

By contrast, Sadducean-aligned Hasmonean rulers, with Roman backing, pursued expansionist policies. Alexander Yannai forcibly incorporated Edomites and other neighboring peoples through coerced conversions. These practices were strongly opposed by the Pharisees.

Seen in this light, later scriptural language about “relieving burdens” and “removing shackles” may reflect a response not to Judaism as such, but to forced religious obligations imposed by expansionist Sadducean elites – who no longer exist as a Jewish community This sheds light on verses such as: “Those who follow the Messenger… who relieves them of their burden and the shackles that were upon them…”
(Qur’an 7:157)

Perhaps release from the forced conversion was meant by the Gospel verse: “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24).

if we hold that there are no extra words in scripture, why add “lost sheep” as a qualifier? may point to communities burdened by imposed identities rather than rejecting Jewish law itself.

After the Temple: Diverging Paths

After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, the Pharisees relocated to northern Israel and Babylonia, founded academies, and emphasized Torah study and legal continuity. From these centers emerged the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds. Their approach was largely pacifist regarding Temple restoration.

The Sadducees, whose authority had been tied to the Temple, dispersed southward—to Egypt and then Himyar in Arabia. It is in this context that early Islam encountered Jewish communities shaped by Sadducean influence, not Rabbinic Judaism.

This helps explain why some Qur’anic critiques of “the Jews”—such as references to ritual practices outside the Temple, venerating Ezra, and altering scripture—align more closely with what medieval scholars like Ibn Ḥazm identified as Zadukaya (Sadducees), a group that no longer exists today as a Jewish community.

Why Context Matters for Peace

Without historical context, such passages can appear to promote replacement theology. With context, they emerge as targeted critiques of specific historical practices, not blanket condemnations.

This matters profoundly today. If Muslims can recognize that many Qur’anic critiques addressed now-extinct sectarian practices, they may feel freer to recognize Jews as co-religionists in a shared Abrahamic framework—opening the door to joint jurisprudence and cooperative civic life.

Toward a Curriculum for Peace

We cannot build a shared future if we imagine the Other as a non-entity. Historiography – the study of how communities viewed one another, – helps us understand not only our texts, but each other. This approach grounds scripture, dissolves unnecessary antagonism, and restores the possibility of partnership.

In future articles, we will explore why the Qur’an uses different terms when referring to Jews, and how each term reflects a specific historical context. For now, one lesson is clear: peace begins not by erasing difference, but by understanding it correctly.

More to come, God willing.