This paper takes as its point of departure Hannah Arendt’s simple but profound assertion that the “human condition” is defined by our “plurality”; by the “fact that men and not Man live on the earth and inhabit the world” (The Human Condition, 1958). In Eichmann in Jerusalem, Arendt states that “Human diversity is a characteristic of the human status without which the very words mankind or humanity would be devoid of meaning.” The paper contends that, without having read Arendt or the works that influenced her, two contemporary Islamists – Sheikhs Mohammad Abu Zahra and Wahbah al-Zuhaili – arrive at similar conclusions regarding the human condition. While Arendt draws on European political and social thought, Abu Zahra and Zuhaili anchor their views in the Islamic tradition. The literature has tended to treat these two centuries-old mega-traditions of theorizing – the largely secular and liberal western tradition and the Islamic tradition – as being at odds. The contribution of this paper lies in demonstrating that scholars who belong to these two traditions can often make similar assertions regarding fundamental issues, such as the centrality of plurality (or diversity) to the human condition. Based on a close reading of the discourses of Abu Zahra and Zuhaili, particularly international relations, the paper demonstrates how the two draw on the Islamic tradition— especially Q 22:13 “Mankind was one community”; and Q 49:13 “O mankind, we created you male and female and made you into nations and tribes that you may come to know one another” – to argue that the grouping of humanity into separate ethnicities, nations and religions is natural and divinely ordained. Not only do the two scholarly sheikhs underscore the divine origin of this human diversity, but they also view dialoguing with and understanding the different other as pivotal for self-understanding. Abu Zahra and Zuhaili, like Arendt, underscore that political dialogue is central for resolving differences amongst groups. The construct of politics as an alternative to violence underpins the discourses of these three scholars. Part of the legacy of Abu Zahra and Zuhaili lies in their advancement of the thesis that peace is the norm in the relationship between Muslim and non-Muslim states, since religious differences per se do not constitute valid grounds for fighting. While Abu Zahra and Zuhaili anchor this assertion in the Islamic tradition, it also reflects their unequivocal embrace of Arendt’s liberal notion that as humans we are defined by our diversity.