Another ad nauseaum fallacy. The Quran says to not consider Christians and Jews as allies. It also doesn't help that Christians and Jews are technically non-believers, so the Quran contradicts itself. Ironic how you're accusing me for seeing the scripts as a whole when you're committing that fatal error yourself.

No. It does not see Christians and Jews as non believers, it seems them as folowers of a deviation of the same fate, there is no contradiction here.

But they do not follow the Islamic faith and hence, don't believe in Islam. Just because they share certain traits doesn't mean they share all.

It doesn't matter to the Qu'ran. It's not because your vision and definition of faith is so strict that the muslims of the 8th century had the same vision. Did you think about that?

Aaaand it has come to the point where I have no idea what you're trying to say, anymore. That's quite a non sequitor you got there. I didn't profess my personal definition. Non-believers = People not believing in the religion.

But according to the Qu'ran, they DID believe in the same religion, just a different flavor.

But the definition of a Muslim is one that follows and believes in Islam. Christians and Jews are not Muslims, so they do not believe in Islam and therefore, are non-believers. If they believe in the same religion, how come Christians and Jews were considered as Dhimmis in Islamic states? If they believed in the same religion, shouldn't they be exempted from paying the 'protection' tax?

They were considered to be variants of the same religion. Deviating, yes, but they weren't considered "non-believers". Differences weren't treated as something binary.

But they were treated as binary. Otherwise, there wouldn't be the concept of Dhimmis. Variants of the same religion =/= Religions are the same.

Edit: Come to think of it, "variants of the same religion" is a rather oxymoronic phrase.

Hey, I didn't write the holy scriptures. The current way of looking at religions as clear cut things is quite modern.