Post Gaza Plan Part VI – “Interfaith Mark II” and the “Religion of Abraham” in the West

This is the sixth article in a special series which began the blessed month of Ramadan. The series aims to uncover the ideological component to the post-Gaza plan based on UAE’s approach to deforming Islam and forcing an Israel-friendly secularism through the patriarchal figure of Abraham.

• Read Part I – “Denazification” and the UAE Blueprint
• Read Part II – The CVE-driven, Pro-Israeli, “Abrahamic Family House”
• Read Part III – The Christian-Zionist Beneficiaries of the “Abrahamic Family House” Project
• Read Part IV – The Secular Anti-Islam Foundations of the “Abrahamic Family House”
• Read Part V – Defending the Anti-Palestinians “Abrahamic Family House” Supra-Religion

---

In the first part of this series of articles, we highlighted how extreme the trauma that is being inflicted against Palestinians is also being dispersed to the Ummah. It is a necessary part of a strategy to terrorise the population into submission before brainwashing them into de-Islamised, Israel-compliant “Abrahamic” drones.

The Ummah is also a subject of this trauma since it is being forced to watch the Zionist barbarity unfold. It follows that Zionist elements will be looking to implement this de-Islamisation agenda among the Muslim diaspora here in the West too.

We can already detect this in the rhetoric of some missionaries for the project in the West.

The key vehicle, much like the entire Abrahamic Family House (AFH) project, is interfaith. Just as the AFH interfaith dialoguing presumes an acceptance of Israel through the Abraham Accords, the interfaith initiatives being pushed in the UK hinge upon the same precondition.

Interfaith Mark II

UK Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis’s pronouncements, who recently blessed and praised the Zionist genocide of Palestinians, are relevant. In 2022, Mirvis, along with Shaykh Abdullah Bin Bayyah trumpeted the Abraham Accords as a “new era of interfaith relations” in UK Parliament. In the same year, Mirvis travelled to UAE to attend the Abu Dhabi Peace Forum, met with Minister of Foreign Affairs Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, and had lunch at the home of Minister of Tolerance Nahyan bin Mubarak Al Nahyan. In his introductory speech, Mirvis focused on the Prophet Abraham for several minutes stating that the descendants of Abraham would “achieve the unachievable” and “attain great goals” before pointing to the Abraham Accords. He added this was not “good enough” and that this normalisation agenda of “fraternity and peace” had to “filter down to grassroots level”.

A year later, Mirvis personally inaugurated the synagogue at the AFH complex in Abu Dhabi.

In January this year, Mirvis was in Davos, Switzerland at the World Economic Forum. In a clip he shared on ‘X’ (formerly Twitter), Mirvis complained that interfaith relations did not respond appropriately to the October 7 resistance operation rendering them unsustainable. He added that “there was a necessity to develop Interfaith Mark II”.

An interview with the Jewish Chronicle sheds light on this Interfaith Mark II. In the conversation, Mirvis called for a “seismic shift” in the approach to interfaith. According to Mirvis, Jewish-Muslim engagement had to occur on “fresh terms”, whereby Israel was no longer the “elephant in the room”. The rabbi further targeted the “outspoken criticism” against the Zionist entity as “disappointing” before asserting that the dialoguing should challenge these criticisms and lead to change. Where such conversation did not lead to change, Mirvis said, “at least then we will know” where people stand on Israel.

In other words, Interfaith Mark II is where criticism-free acceptance of the “Jewish state” in Palestine will be the prerequisite for engagement. Given the policy developments currently taking place at the UK government level, it will be unsurprising if this stipulation is incorporated into counter-extremism policies to determine “good” and “bad” Muslims. We will discuss this in more detail in the next part.

Hamza Yusuf Hanson

In recent months, we have received early glimpses of what this latest iteration of interfaith dialogue looks like.

The most overt example is Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, who is organisationally integral to the formation of the Abrahamic Family House ideology. As we established in Part II of this series, Yusuf is the vice president (and trustee, see here, p.13) of the Abu Dhabi-based Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies (FPPMS) CVE project. He has also been a member of the UAE Council of Fatwa since 2018. Bin Bayyah heads both of these institutions.

In 2020, FPPMS issued a statement endorsing the Abraham Accords. At the time, Yusuf was included in the endorsement. Shaykh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali, a professor at Yusuf’s Zaytuna College, even defended Yusuf’s stance arguing he was not “intentionally” undermining Palestinian rights.

Only effectively, perhaps.

Yusuf distanced himself from the statement, affirming he was allied to the Palestinians. However, unlike another FPPMS member, he did not resign from Bin Bayyah’s CVE organisation and remains involved in its activities.

There is much to be said about Yusuf’s positions on both Islam and politics. However, limiting the discussion to Palestine, his subsequent actions do not accord with his purported allegiance to Palestinians.

Blaming Palestinians

On November 2023, while Netanyahu was making genocidal statements and his band of psychotic Zionist thugs were massacring Palestinians, Yusuf tried to explain the root of Netanyahu’s violent response. In doing so, he appeared to pin the blame on Palestinians:

“The prime minister, many people forget that his brother Yoni Netanyahu, who was a national hero, was killed by a Palestinian in the (Israeli) raid on Entebbe (Uganda). Netanyahu said it was like the heart was ripped out of his chest when he lost his older brother and so fighting that hatred of the other and being able to forgive being able to get beyond that…”

(Link)

In short, we should understand that the root of Netanyahu’s crazed violence is a Palestinian killing his brother. Such an attempt at humanising a man engaged in mass exterminating Palestinians would be absurd if it were true. It is almost as though Yusuf is blaming Palestinians for Netanyahu killing them en masse.

As it turns out, Yusuf’s account is not true. Netanyahu’s brother was killed in Uganda by a cousin of Idi Amin’s family, making Yusuf and his statement grossly irresponsible.

“I’m not a normaliser”

A month later, Yusuf was heckled in Canada at Reviving the Islamic Spirit (RIS) Convention by pro-Palestine activists, who called him a “normaliser”. He responded by claiming he was “not a normaliser”, that he had “never normalised anything”, and that he had been “misrepresented”.

Undoubtedly, we cannot know Yusuf’s intentions. However, as ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه) said, “We only judge by the apparent”. What is apparent is that his position remains indefensible. He continues to be associated with – and therefore lends credibility to – organisations and a country that are actively working to de-Islamise Muslims and bolster Israel.

This “I’m not a normaliser” dance on the tightrope of contradiction above an abyss of hypocrisy becomes all the more dubiously precarious given his transgressive, outright treacherous statements concerning Masjid Al-Aqsa.

In an interview with Kim Iversen, Yusuf is asked whether it is possible to share Masjid Al-Aqsa and let Jews build a temple in its vicinity. He responds:

“There’s quite a bit of space on the actual Temple Mount and the two mosques are there, but I don’t think those extremists do not want to share. That would be something where the Muslim Scholars of that area would have to see what arrangements could be made.”

(Link)

Yusuf’s statement is outrageous on several levels.

First, Yusuf refers to Al-Aqsa using the language of those who seek its destruction, labelling it as the Temple Mount. Second, this linguistic acquiescence to the enemy is not accidental; he consistently employs this startling terminology throughout the interview.

Third, his claim that “there’s quite a bit of space on the actual Temple Mount” is highly problematic. Ibn ʿĀbidīn quotes Ibn Amīr Hājj stating that it would be impermissible to plant a tree in Masjid Al-Aqsa because “it would occupy the space designated for prayer and other related activities.”[1] What then of suggestion to share a portion of the Masjid with those who wish to destroy it?

Fourth, he invokes the language of CVE to claim that “extremists” do not wish to share the Al-Aqsa compound. It is possible Yusuf is referring to Zionists here and not Palestinians. However, even if this is granted, Yusuf has implicitly acceded, or at the very least introduced ambiguity concerning the possibility of the Al-Aqsa being spatially shared with Jews.

Fifth, this possibility is reaffirmed when he states “Muslim scholars of that area would have to see what arrangements could be made”. He does not defer to Palestinian scholars whether such an outrage would be permissible, but what “arrangements could be made”. The Qurʾān has prohibited such an “arrangement” in the verse, “It is not for the polytheists to maintain the masājid of Allah.”[2] Classical scholars apply such verses to prohibit non-Muslim administration and oversight of masājid.[3]

Furthermore, we do know what Palestinian scholars, and every other scholar without a deformist bent not beholden to the UAE has to say on the matter.

A few days before the October 7 attack, the Palestine Scholars Association issued a fatwā concerning Zionist transgressions against Masjid al-Aqsa. In it, they stated,

“It is necessarily known from religion that Masjid al-Aqsa is a masjid of God Almighty, sanctified by Him, Glory be to Him, who blessed it and its surroundings, and made it a purely Islamic mosque for Muslims. No right to it belongs to others, no sovereignty over it except theirs, and it does not accept division in time or place, and there is no partnership in it with any sect or religion other than Islam. It is everything that the walls surround and everything that is brought into its space from outside it, with its prayer areas, domes, courtyards, terraces, porticos, wells, doors, and everything below it and above it. There is no difference in it between prayer in its miḥrāb or its chapels or courtyards except by virtue of the rows that preceded it.[4]

“Any acknowledgement or declaration of any right for Jews or non-Muslims in Masjid Al-Aqsa is a betrayal of God, His Messenger, and the Muslims, and it is clear disbelief because it is a denial of a necessarily known part of the religion.”[5]

The fatwa further clarifies that those who normalise relations with the Zionist entity “are partners with it in its aggression against the sanctities of Muslims, their land and their rights”.

Based on this fatwa, Yusuf’s reference to the Al-Aqsa sanctuary as “Temple Mount” and the introduction of the possibility of shared ownership would amount to a betrayal against Allah and His Messenger ﷺ. Furthermore, the CVE-interfaith organisations and country to whom he lends his name are “partners” in the crimes against Al-Aqsa, Muslims, and their lands.

Mohammed Nizami

Some of the Abrahamic Family House’s theological agenda has developed a more subtle approach. Instead of outrightly claiming the equality of religions using Prophet Ibrahīm (عليه السلام), there is a concerted effort to elevate the significance of the patriarchal figure while downplaying the term “Islam” as associated with the Prophet ﷺ and the word “Muslim” as an identity. As shown in Part III, this emphasis/de-emphasis plays an essential role in the Zionist plan to destroy Masjid Al-Aqsa.

While not mainstream, these messages are being disseminated to Muslim circles via missionaries.

One example is Mohammed Nizami, “consulting scholar and khateeb” at Kingston Mosque, London. In recent months, he gave a lecture to young Muslim students at Oxford University. 

Nizami has a history of pushing counter-extremism work through his organisation Averroes and reinforcing the problematic “British Muslim” narratives that such work often entails. The link to Averroes’s website is dead, but the social media account appears active. Recently (2^nd March), in providing a taster on some of his ideas on his “Abrahamic system of thought”, the Averroes social media account responded to a question alluding to Nizami’s linguistic gymnastics concerning “Islam” and how it does not denote a “religion”. It remains to be seen whether Averroes or some other variation of the same counter-extremism gobbledygook will be used to advocate his “Abrahamic” ideas.

According to Nizami’s website, he has made it his mission to “realign Muslims and non-Muslims on the religion of Abraham (millat Ibrahīm).”

We will examine this “realignment” process through his lecture to Muslim students at Oxford University. As we shall see, Nizami’s systematic de-emphasis of the markers of Islam through selective meanings and distortions operate as subtle stepping stones to the more brazen Abrahamic Family House agenda.

Furthermore, readers will observe that his reconstitution of the Muslim identity to focus on prior revelatory scriptures and the Prophet Ibrahīm (عليه السلام) closely tracks counter-extremism concerns about identity. According to precrime-based counter-extremism frameworks, group identity can promote an “us versus them” narrative and is therefore problematic. As we shall see in the next part, this bogus theory has been recently revived in Michael Gove’s “Khan Review”.  

Summary of Nizami’s argument

Nizami’s core “realignment” argument goes something like this:

Islam as understood by Muslims today is merely a façade, an imitation through an inconsistent methodology of translation and transliteration. We transliterate some words, like Qurʾān, Islam, and Muslim and have used these to construct a Eurocentric secular notion of religion and identity that does not represent the true religion, which is the religion of Abraham. As such, we view the world wrongly and are hence a failed society. The solution is to understand the Final Revelation not as a religion but as a chapter in a bigger book made up of previous scriptures and a code that is the religion of Abraham. This will enable us to apply the Sharīʿa better and appeal to Jews and Christians.

The insinuation subtly woven into this narrative is that the majority of Muslim scholars in the UK have got Islam wrong, while Nizami stands as the beacon of enlightenment, promulgating the elusive solution.

Al-Qurʾān is not a noun

The de-emphasis of the signifiers of Islam starts with the foundation of Islam: the Qurʾān. Nizami states,

“Al-Suyūṭī mentions that the Ṣaḥāba didn’t have a name for it. They all agreed to call it Muṣḥaf because the Abyssinians called it that. The Qurʾān is just a noun, not a name.”

He further adds that when the Jinn heard verses of the Qurʾān (72:1), they described it as an “amazing Recital” (“Qurʾānan ʿajaban”). In other words, the word “Qurʾān” in this verse is used as an indefinite noun.

This is, of course, a completely nonsensical argument. The Qurʾān does use the word “Qurʾān” in an indefinite way to refer to different things such as “reading”.[6] However, several verses use the word as a definite noun (i.e., al-Qurʾān or “the Qurʾān”) to refer to Revelation, such as, “Do they not reflect on al-Qurʾān”,[7] “We send down al-Qurʾān”,[8] “These are verses of al-Qurʾān”,[9] and “Had We sent down al-Qurʾān upon a mountain”.[10] We can find similar examples in ḥadīth, such as “The mother of the Qurʾān, is the oft-repeated verses and the Great Qurʾān.”[11]

Second, al-Suyūṭī’s own view follows the views of Imam al-Shāfiʿī and Imam of qirāʾah Ibn Kathīr, who precedes Imam al-Shāfiʿī and according to whom Imam al-Shāfiʿī read. Their view is that “it is a non-derived proper noun, applied specifically to Allah’s Speech,”[12] and that it is a name just like “Torah” and “Injīl”.[13] In fact, al-Suyūṭī opens the section on the names of the Qurʾān and Sūrahs with the following statement:[14]

“Al-Jāḥiẓ said that Allah named His Book in a manner different from that by which the Arabs named their speech as a whole or in parts. Its entirety is called ‘Qurʾān’.”

This makes sense given the full name of the book Nizami is ironically referencing is called Al-Itqān fī ʾUlum al-Qurʾān, or The Mastery of the Sciences of the Qurʾān.

Third, Nizami’s statement that the Ṣaḥāba (رضی اللہ عنھم) did not know what to name the Qurʾān is misleading. The narrations refer to the collected instance of the Qurʾān:

“In his Taʾrīkh (history), al-Muẓaffarī said that when Abū Bakr collected the Qurʾān, he said: “Give it a name.” Some people answered; “Call it ‘Good News (‘Injīl’)’, but others were not pleased with this. Others suggested: “Call it (the Hebrew word for ‘book’) ‘sifr’,” but they rejected this because came from the Jews. Ibn Masʾūd interjected: “In Ethiopia, I saw a book (kitāb) which they call ‘mashaf’ so they called the (collected Qurʾān) Mashaf (an old Ethiopic term).”

Al-Suyūṭī cites a similar narration which makes it clear that the incident refers to “when they collected the Qurʾān, they wrote it on paper”.[15]

The process of assigning a name relates to the collected physical copy, not Allah’s Revelation. Nizami’s wording conflates the incident of the Muṣḥaf with the Qurʾān to introduce doubt and diminish the term as an indefinite noun.

The Qurʾān is just a “chapter”

The focus on the Qurʾān continues as Nizami repeatedly tells his listeners that they should pay attention to the context of the Revelation. He asserts that when we say the Qurʾān is a book of Revelation, there is a false assumption that it was revealed to Muslims 1400 years ago. “The book wasn’t for Muslims”. Instead, he explains, Allah spoke to the Children of Israel first, then the Christians, and then the “pagan Ishmaelites” in the Qurʾān.

He then states,

“God starts off the conversation, picking it up from 600 years ago, just carries on. So, what is the Qurʾān? The Qurʾān people is just chapter five. Imagine you got a book. Chapter one, two, three four… chapter five, that’s all the Qurʾān is.”

He repeats this claim throughout the talk.[16]

Nizami then asserts that this is “literally said in a ḥadīth” before outlining it in the following way:

“The first nine are Sūrahs he literally said they were given in the place of the Torah… The Prophet said its a summary of the Torah. Then you have the next section. Then he said you have… the hundred verses. That is a summary of Psalms, the Zabūr. Then you have the next section [which is a] summary of the Injīl, the Gospel. And then you have the last section, [which is called] the Mufaṣṣal and that, he said, was given to me. And that is what happens in chapter five. Summary of everything that came before with a conclusion.”  

Nizami’s explanation is a distortion of the ḥadīth, which is as follows:[17]

“I was given the “long seven” in place of the Torah, and I was given “the hundreds” in place of the Psalms, and I was given the “oft-repeated” in place of the Gospel, and I was distinguished with the Mufaṣṣal.”

It becomes evident from the actual ḥadīth that the referenced portions of the Qurʾān do not merely summarise previous Revelations but supplant them. Al-Munāwī explains that “in place of” means, “it replaces what is in it”.[18]

Far from reducing the Qurʾān to a summary of previous books, the ḥadīth describes the Qurʾān’s superiority over the previous Revelations.

Furthermore, the characterisation of the Qurʾān as merely another chapter in a larger book is also dangerously misleading, even as an analogy. Elsewhere during the talk, Nizami lessens the status of the Qurʾān by comparing it to the American constitution which has evolved and amended over a period of time (30:50) before declaring that the Qurʾān is just the “Abrahamic law with amendments” (31:15). 

It is true and uncontroversial that the foundational message concerning the principles of belief and law of the past Revelations as revealed to the Prophets are the same[19] (we discuss this further below in relation to the “religion of Ibrahīm”). But it is something else entirely to conclude that the Qurʾān is merely a concluding summary chapter in a bigger book.

The Qurʾān is a miraculous distinct, complete book of guidance. Allah says,[20]

“And (think of) the day We shall send to every people a witness from among them (to testify) against them, and We shall bring you (O prophet) as witness against these. And We have revealed to you the Book, an exposition of everything, and guidance, and mercy, and glad tidings for the Muslim.”

Ibn Masʾūd explained the verse as meaning “all knowledge and everything has been made clear to us in this Qurʾān.”[21]

Commenting on a similar verse, “[Say, O Prophet,] ‘Should I seek a judge other than Allah while He is the One Who has revealed for you the Book [with the truth] perfectly explained?’”, al-Alūsī stated:[22]

“The meaning of the verse is… ‘then say: God Almighty has ruled on the validity of my prophethood, as He has singled me out with such a detailed, complete, and miraculous book.’”

In another verse, Allah says,[23]

“The Word of your Lord is perfect in truth and justice. None is there to change His words, and He is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.”

Al-Alūsī stated,

“‘The word of your Lord is perfect’ expresses the perfection of the Qurʾān on its own terms… As al-Rāghib [al-Asfahānī] said, the perfection of something is its reaching a point where it needs nothing external to it. What is meant by ‘the word’ is ‘speech’ and as Qatādah and others have said, the referent here is the Qurʾān…

“‘None is there to change His words’ is a new sentence expressing the excellence of ‘the word’ over other words, following the elucidation of its inherent excellence. Some scholars have said that since Allah has informed of the perfection of His word and perfection is normally followed by deficiency, as is said: ‘When a matter is complete its deficiency manifests, when it is said, it is complete, anticipate its diminishment,’ He mentioned this to exclude (this outcome) and to clarify – because the perfection of His word is not like the perfection of other things.”

He then stated,[24]

“It has been said, the meaning is no one can alter it in a manner that becomes widespread, as was done with the Torah. Hence, this is a guarantee from Allah about the protection (of the Qurʾān from corruption), akin to His statement: ‘Indeed We revealed the Remembrance and indeed We are its guardians.’ (15:9) Or, it means there is no prophet or scripture after it that alters it and abrogates its laws. Jesus, upon him peace, will implement it after his descent and not abrogate any part of it.”

The mention of the Prophet ʿĪsa (عليه السلام) in the above quote refers to ḥadīth which informs the Muslims that Prophet ʿĪsa (عليه السلام) will descend among Muslims as a just ruler. [25] In explaining this ḥadīth al-Irāqī stated, “[Allah] will send down a ruler with this law (i.e., the Sharīʿa of the Prophet ﷺ ), not a prophet with an independent message and an abrogating law, for this law will remain until the Day of Resurrection and will not be abrogated”.[26]

In a related ḥadīth, the Prophet ﷺ said,[27]

“By the One in whose Hand is my soul, if Mūsā was alive, he would have no choice but to follow me.”

The Qurʾān is a complete revelation, unlike others to the extent that past prophets would be required to follow it. It not only affirms the truth of previous scriptures and corrects the distortions of the People of the Book. As we have seen above, it also supplants those Books with its verses and abrogates them through its unique systems of legislation, types of worship, and methods of transactions that befit the interests of humanity in its final stage. Indeed, certain portions, such as Sūrah al-Fātiḥa and the concluding verses of the Sūrah al-Baqarah, have not been given to any prophet before the Prophet ﷺ.[28]

In summary, while the fundamental message of the revelations is unchanged, one cannot state that the Qurʾān is a chapter in a bigger book. Rather it is a complete book of guidance.

“Islam” is not a “religion”

Nizami then moves on to deconstruct the terms “Islam” and “Muslim” as he believes are contemporarily understood, since these terms are problematic when they become an identity that informs behaviour.

He begins by claiming that we view Islam as a religion but the term “religion” cannot be found in the Qurʾān, and that it is anachronistic to search for religion in the Qurʾān since it is rooted in secularism. For Nizami, religion is a concept that emerged over the past couple of hundred years through the catholic-protestant wars and the secular response. Thus, according to Nizami, to view Islam as the name of a religion distorts the lens through which Revelation is read.

This postmodern notion of religion as a modernist invention stands at odds with the term’s etymology. The term can be traced through history to the Latin religio, which conveys a meaning of binding, moral obligation, “placing of obligation on” and the relationship between God and humans. Even the common dictionary meaning conveys this meaning, without requiring a secularist component. The Arabic “dīn” has a similar meaning, originating from “dayn”, which refers to debt and the contractual binding this gives rise to between the debtor and the creditor. It also carries the meaning of recompense and obedience.[29] The meanings of dīn and religion are therefore similar. On the use of religion as a corresponding word for dīn, Oxford Professor Nicolai Sinai in his recent work, Key Terms in the Qurʾān states,[30]

“As regards specifically the meaning of Qurʾānic dīn, I would readily concede that it does not signify religion in the privatised sense, a sense that requires drawing hard boundaries around an opposing domain of the secular; but I would dispute that this invalidates translating the word as “religion,” since the latter term, understood in a fairly unsophisticated everyday manner, surely includes communal ritual practice addressed to a deity or a plurality of deities, and in this sense can function as a reasonable approximation of Arabic dīn.

Religion as understood in common usage can be found in the pre-Qurʾānic poetry, where it is used to refer to Arab paganism, the “dīn of the Jews”, and in relation to Ghassanid Christians,[31] as well as the Qurʾān.  

According to al-Rāghib al-Asfahānī, dīn, or religion, refers to Islam. He cites several verses of the Qurʾān, including 3:83, 3:85, and 61:9.[32] In the commentary of 5:3, al-Ṭabarānī also outlined a definition of religion that carries the meaning of worshipping Allah and following his law:[33]

“His statement, Almighty, ‘And I have chosen Islam for you as your religion,’ means I have chosen Islam for you from all religions as a religion. So, whoever adheres to Islam has deserved my reward and satisfaction. And ‘religion’ is a noun for all that Allah’s creation worship Him with, commanding them with steadfastness upon it, and it is what they were commanded to make their practice and by which they will be rewarded.”

“Islam” and “Muslim” are not nouns

Nizami stresses that the word “Islam” as used in the Qurʾān, such as “Indeed the dīn with Allah is Islam (3:19)” and those highlighted in al-Asfahānī’s passage, is a verbal noun (maṣdar) and not the name of a religion. It is “bizarre”, says Nizami, that we do not translate “Islam” and indicative of an “inconsistent methodology”.

Having dismissed the notion that Islam is a noun referring to a religion, he proceeds to translate the meaning of Islam. He cites 49:14 and its usage of the word “aslamnā” (أَسْلَمْنَا) or “we have submitted” to show Islam refers to submission. He uses other verses to establish submission as being one that is “complete” (2:112) to Allah (2:128) on the religion (millat) of Abraham (2:130).

Nizami then explains the verse “Indeed the dīn with Allah is Islam” (3:19). He rejects the meaning of “dīn” as religion, calling it “anachronistic”. For Nizami, dīn means “a code”, adding that these verses must be read in the context of the previous revelations. He concludes that “Islam” means complete submission on “millat Ibrahīm”:

“The true code that God will accept is not Judaism or Christianity. It is complete submission to God. The actual message of the Torah, the actual message of the Psalms, [unintelligible], and the Final Criterion the Furqan. But you got to bring that together. Chapters one to five. You cannot just pick five [i.e., the Qurʾān]. You have to bring the whole thing together. What is the whole thing? It is fundamentally the millah, the tradition of Abraham.”

The idea that one cannot exclusively rely on the Qurʾān (“chapter five”) to understand Allah’s message is grossly problematic and we have addressed this already. One could argue that Nizami here is referring to the Qurʾānic understanding of prior revelations. However, to state you “cannot just pick five”, i.e., the Qurʾānic message, introduces an unacceptable level of ambiguity that is suggestive of weakening the sufficiency of the Qurʾān.

To explain 3:19 and support his claim, Nizami states that there is a ḥadīth in Tirmidhī which can be found in the tafsīrs of al-Qurṭubī and al-Ṭabarī. In his words:

 إن الدين عند الله الحنيفية لا اليهودية ولا النصرانية ولا المجوسية

“Indeed, the true code with God is Ḥanīfīyyah [the religion of Abraham], not Judaism and not Christianity, not Magian.”

We could not find such a ḥadīth in the commentaries of al-Qurṭubī and al-Ṭabarī under 3:19. The following appears to be the ḥadīth he is citing:[34]

حدثنا محمود بن غيلان حدثنا أبو داود أخبرنا شعبة عن عاصم قال سمعت زر بن حبيش يحدث عن أبي بن كعب أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال له إن الله أمرني أن أقرأ عليك القرآن فقرأ عليه لم يكن الذين كفروا وقرأ فيها إن ذات الدين عند الله الحنيفية المسلمة لا اليهودية ولا النصرانية ولا المجوسية

“On the authority of Ubayy ibn Kaʾb that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings upon him said to him, ‘Allah commanded me that I read you the Qurʾān’. He then read to me the [Sūrah Bayyinah]. He then stated, ‘The essence of religion with Allah is the Muslim Ḥanīfīyyah, not Judaism, not Christian, and not Magian.’”.

Nizami’s sloppiness is apparent here. Not only is his citation incorrect, but the ḥadīth is also commenting on a different Sūrah. Furthermore, Nizami omits “Muslim” and “essence” from his articulation of the narration. “Essence” is significant since this indicates that the Prophet ﷺ was referring to the principles of religion, which are bestowed upon all the Prophets.[35] As we established earlier, there is nothing controversial in this claim. However, Nizami’s omission downplays this fact.

Indeed, al-Ṭabarī seems to allude to this “essence” when he explains 3:19 as “submission with humility” to Allah in “obedience to Him” without associating any partners.[36]

Meanwhile, other exegetes focus their attention on the Prophet ﷺ. For example, Ibn Kathīr has stated:[37]

“Islam is following the messengers in what Allah sent them with at all times until they were sealed with Muhammad, peace be upon him, who closed all paths to Him except through Muhammad, peace be upon him. Therefore, whoever meets Allah after the sending of Muhammad with a religion other than His legislation, it will not be accepted from him, as Allah said, ‘And whoever desires other than Islam as religion – never will it be accepted from him.’”

Furthermore, they also refer to Islam in the definite sense (“al-Islam”) indicating a noun. We will expand on this point further below.

Explaining the verses, “Whoever seeks a faith other than Islam” (3:85) and “He (Allah) named you as Muslims (al-Muslimūn) earlier and also in this (Qur’ān)” (22:78), Nizami takes the same approach and declares that they all refer to submission. Thus, al-Muslimūn “is not a noun” and “not a name you can walk around with”.

This is not true. The Qurʾān uses “muslim” in an indefinite and definite sense.

For example, in explaining 3:85, Nizami highlights the preceding verse (3:84). This verse ends with “we are fully submitted to Him”. The word “muslim” here is indefinite, and so the linguistic meaning follows. However, 22:78 is difficult to explain away given the verse explicitly states that Allah named the believers “Muslims”, with the word “Muslim” in a definite form (“al-Muslim”).

Commentators such as Zamakhsharī,[38] and Abū Ḥayyān[39] explicitly refer to “Muslim” as a “name”.

Al-Suyūṭī has recorded the following ḥadīth in his commentary of this verse:[40]

“Allah is named with two names, by which my nation is named: He is As-Salām (the Peace), and He named my nation the Muslims, and He is Al-Mu’min (the Believer), and He named my nation the Believers.”

In an epistle which he wrote to demonstrate Islam and Muslims as terms specific to the Ummah of the Prophet ﷺ, Al-Suyūṭī commented on the above ḥadīth, stating,[41]

“This ḥadīth is explicit in the exclusivity of his [Prophet’s] nation to the description of Islam, as all its characteristics are specific to them.”

The above references establish that “Islam” and “Muslim” are used as names.

When discussing the aforementioned verses, Nizami is keen to highlight the context of the verses as linked to Jews, Christians, or the Prophet Ibrahīm (عليه السلام). The following verse addresses the followers of the Prophet ﷺ:[42]

“Today, I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My blessing upon you, and chosen Islam as Dīn (religion and a way of life) for you.”

Al-Baghawī interprets this verse as a reference to the Islam of the Prophet ﷺ in the following way:[43]

“It means: On the day this verse was revealed, I perfected your religion for you. It means the obligations, the Sunnahs, the ḥudūd, the jihād, the rulings, and the permissible and the prohibited.”

This is also the view of Ibn ʿAbbās (رضي الله عنه).[44]

Ibn ʿAṭiyyah said,[45]

“Islam in this verse is what is in the Almighty’s saying: ‘Indeed, the religion with Allah is Islam’ (3:19) and it is what was explained (تَفَسَّر) in Jibraīl’s question to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and it is faith, deeds, and people.”

Like al-Qurṭubī’s explanation of 3:19,[46] Ibn ʿAṭiyyah is using the ḥadīth of Jibraīl as an explanation of Islam. The ḥadīth is significant because it is an example of the Prophet ﷺ affirming a definition of Islam. The Prophet said, “Islam is to testify there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, to establish prayer, to give charity, to fast the month of Ramadan, and to perform pilgrimage to the House if a way is possible.” He thereafter stated, “Verily, he was Jibraīl who came to teach you your religion.”[47]

Al-Nawawī’s commentary on the ḥadīth quotes al-Baghawī:[48]

“The Prophet designated Islam as a name for the apparent actions and designated Īmān as a name for beliefs. This does not mean that actions are not part of Īmān or that beliefs are not part of Islam. This is merely giving details of a complete whole, which is a single totality that makes up religion. That is why the Prophet, peace be upon him, said, “That was Jibraīl who came to teach you your religion.” Both belief and action are encompassed by the name of ‘Īmān’ and ‘Islam’. This is indicated by the statement of Allah, “Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam, and I am pleased with Islam as a religion for you” and “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him”. Thus, Allah Almighty informed that the religion that He is pleased with and accepts from His servants is Islam.”

The above explication shows that Islam is understood in at least two ways. The first is a general linguistic sense, referring to submission to Allah, which admits of the Ḥanīfīyyah. The second is as a noun specific to the Prophet ﷺ and his Sharīʿa.

Nizami trades on this duality to extinguish the second meaning. He goes as far as to suggest that “modern Islam”, i.e. Islam as a noun referring to a religion, is made up in the manner of Judaism and Christianity:

“Did we just make up a religion? God says to the Jews and Christians ‘Do not say Abraham is a Jew or Christian’ because these religions came after Abraham. So, you can’t ascribe back to him that which you made up after him. Its anachronistic. ‘O Abraham was a Muslim’ in the modern sense of what Islam is now. Aren’t you doing the very same in that the Qurʾān criticises the Jews and Christians for doing? How bizarre?”

Based on what we established, what is “bizarre” is to erase the use of “Islam” and “Muslims” as nouns denoting a religion and its followers and to untenably compare the religion of Islam to the distorted false religions of Christianity and Judaism. Whatever the Qurʾān, as the custodian of all Revelations, establishes most certainly can be ascribed backwards in time. What we cannot do is take constructions from the past and displace what Allah and His Messenger ﷺ have defined for us.

We suffice with Allah and His Messenger’s definition of Islam as our religion and Muslim as our identity.

Transliteration and “foreignizing words”

Nizami’s major contention against the use of words like Qurʾān, Islam, and Muslim is that they are transliterated, not translated. His problem is “foreignizing” words. “Why do you have to foreignize it [the label Muslim]”, he asks his audience. Nizami himself claims to translate his preferred term, Ḥanīf, as “Abrahamic Godliness”. He states that Allah translated words into Arabic, “so why don’t we follow the Sunnah of Allah and translate it in this language?”. He further adds that “when you walk around telling Jews and Christians that you’re Muzlim, they don’t know what you’re talking about”.

Other than cross-cultural contact, a reason why loan words are absorbed is that they fill a gap in the language better than existing words. When we consider that language can influence how we think about reality, the word used to represent Allah’s Final Message to humanity becomes crucial. And there is no better term to use than that which Allah and His Messenger ﷺ have specified for us.

The allergy to “foreign” words appears simplistic and somewhat misplaced, given that the absorption of words from different languages is an established cultural phenomenon. There are many words in the English language that either originate in or enter via the Arabic language. In fact, English has over 300 languages as direct sources of its present-day vocabulary. As for the term Islam, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, its earliest known usage dates back to 1613 and stems from Turkish and Arabic. “Islam” and “Muslim” are part and parcel of the English lexicon and conventional linguistic usage.

The avoidance of foreign words appears all the more irrelevant when we consider that the Qurʾān contains Arabized (muʾarrab) words that originate from other languages. Al-Suyūṭī has compiled a treatise on the topic, tracing many words used in the Qurʾān to a diverse range of languages including Persian, Hindi, Ethiopian/Abyssinian, Nabti (Nabataean), Berber, and Hebrew.[49]

Perhaps we should follow the “Sunnah of Allah” and not perpetuate linguistic xenophobia.

Finally, that Jews and Christians do not know the conventional meaning of Muslim is not an argument for us to defenestrate an identity already in vogue, but to explain it. If anything, Nizami’s line of reasoning works against his proposal. It is unlikely people will understand “complete submission” to “Abrahamic monotheism” in a society in which less than half of the population identify as Christian and “millions are still confused about why we celebrate Christmas”. Nizami’s designation or explanation would fall on many deaf ears and therefore should not be used.

If anything, introducing a new construction of terms while deconstructing and denigrating the use of Islam as a word (“simplistic”, “modernist”, “produces suboptimal results”) perpetuates confusion. Is Abraham’s message different? Have the Muslims got it wrong all this time? Is Muhammad ﷺ not that important? Was Muhammad just copying Abraham (عليه السلام)? Did he bring something else?

It is hard to see how Nizami’s linguistic chicanery will help the cause of Islam or Muslims.

Following Millat Ibrahīm

Nizami claims that the purpose of the Qurʾān is to go back to millat (religion) of Ibrahīm and that “that’s why when the Prophet was asked ‘what did you bring?’, he would say, ‘I have brought the religion of Abraham’. In fact, what did Allah tell the Prophet Muhammad? ‘Ittabiʿ‘ you follow Millat Ibrahīm Hanīfa”. According to Nizami, merely stating that you are following the religion of Muhammad ﷺ is a “simplistic” message that ignores the context and history of the message.

As we will now show, this formulation inverts the reality of the matter.

Allah says,[50]

“For each of you We have made a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made a single community of people, but (He did not), so that He may test you in what He has given to you.”

Commenting on this verse Qatādah stated, “The religion is one, but the Sharīʿa differs”.[51] Mujāhid said, “The Sharīʿa and the methodology are the religion of Muhammad, peace be upon him, and everything else has been abrogated by it.”[52] Elaborating on the meaning of the verse further, Al-Ṭabarī said,[53]

“Allah Almighty says: If your Lord had willed, He would have made your laws one, and He would not have given every nation a law and a method other than the laws and method of other nations. So you would have been one nation, and your laws and method would not differ. But Allah Almighty knows that, so He differed between your laws to test you and distinguish the obedient among you from the disobedient.”

Imam Abū Hanīfa has stated,[54]

“Every messenger called to his own law (Sharīʿa) and forbade the law of the messenger that preceded him (when it differed from his own). (This is) because their laws are numerous and variant. Hence, Allah said: ‘For each of you We have made a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made a single community of people.’ (5:48)

“He instructed them all to establish ‘the dīn’, which is monotheism, and to not be divided. (This is) because He determined their dīn as being one (and the same). Hence, the dīn was not replaced or transformed or changed, while the laws were changed and replaced. (This is) because something is at times lawful for a group of people which Allah made unlawful for others. And, sometimes, Allah commanded something to a group of people which He forbade others from.”

Thus, the details of the laws vary.

Though the Sharīʿa of the Prophet ﷺ is the Sharīʿa of the Ibrahīm (عليه السلام), there are variations. The Prophet ﷺ said, “Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation exclusively but I have been sent to all mankind.”[55] It follows then that laws will be changed and replaced to cater for the final stage of humanity. On this point Ibn Ḥazm has stated,[56]

“Whoever makes us adhere to the laws of the previous prophets has nullified the virtue of the Prophet, may peace be upon him, and has rejected his statement that no prophet was sent except to his specific people.”

On the nature of the relationship between the Sharīʿa of the Prophet ﷺ and the Sharīʿa of Ibrahīm ﷺ, Ibn Ḥazm then explained, “Allah has abrogated from us some of the Sharīʿa of Ibrahīm, just as He has also abrogated from us some of what was obligatory upon us from the Sharīʿa of Muhammad, peace be upon him”.[57] For example, in the early stage of Islam, drinking wine was ḥalāl, but was later abrogated and rendered haram. In other words, a ruling from the Sharīʿa of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was abrogated and is now in its final form, binding on all mankind until the last day.

This point becomes more forceful when we consider the dominant view of the exegetes concerning the verse Nizami invokes:[58]

“Then, We revealed to you [O Prophet], “Follow the way of Ibrāhīm, the upright, and he was not among the polytheists”.

Al-Ṭabarī, al-Ṭabarānī,[59] and others held that “following” concerned “disassociating from idols and adorning oneself with Islam”.[60]

Al-Rāzī refuted the notion that the Prophet ﷺ only revived the Sharīʿa of Ibrahīm (عليه السلام), that this was his mission, and that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ had no Sharīʿa:[61]

“This statement is weak because Allah Almighty described Ibrahīm, peace be upon him, in this verse as not being of the polytheists. So, when He said, ‘Follow the religion of Abraham,’ that was the intended meaning.”

Referencing this quote, al-Alūsī further clarified that “most of the interpreters agree that it refers to the fundamental principles of Sharīʿa”. However, he also accepted the interpretation that includes following those laws that have not been abrogated.[62]

Also rejecting the view that the Prophet ﷺ was commanded to follow all aspects of the religion of Ibrahīm (عليه السلام), al-Qurṭubī said,[63]

“The correct view is to follow in matters of the creed of the Sharīʿa, as opposed to the branches, due to the saying of Allah, exalted is He: “To each of you We prescribed a law and a method” [Qurʾān, 5:48].”

These statements correspond to the Prophetic narration we discussed earlier, that “the essence of religion with Allah is the Muslim Ḥanīfīyyah”.[64]

Irrespective of the distinction between fundamentals and branches, the point is that the Sharīʿa of the Prophet ﷺ encompasses the religion of Ibrahīm (عليه السلام). The Prophet ﷺ was, in the words of al-Alūsī, “not a follower of Ibrahīm, peace be upon him, rather, he is independent, taking from the same source from which Ibrahīm, peace be upon him, took.”[65]

Moreover, Allah has taken a pledge from all the prophets that should they appear in the era of the Prophet ﷺ, they would have to believe in him and support him. Allah says,[66]

“And [remember] when We took a covenant from the prophets, as well as from you [O Prophet], and from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, son of Mary.”

This verse is significant as the position of the Prophet ﷺ within the verse denotes his eminent status among all the prophets (عليه السلام). Commenting on this verse Qatādah stated:[67]

“And it has been narrated to us that the Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him, used to say: ‘I was the first of the prophets in creation, and the last of them in resurrection.'”

The covenant is expounded in another verse:[68]

[Remember] when Allah made a covenant with the prophets, [saying,] “Now that I have given you the Book and wisdom, if there comes to you a messenger confirming what you have, you must believe in him and support him.” He added, “Do you affirm this covenant and accept this commitment?” They said, “Yes, we do.” Allah said, “Then bear witness, and I too am a Witness.”

Ibn Kathīr’s commentary is most pertinent. After quoting the ḥadīth about Mūsā (عليه السلام) and ʿĪsa (عليه السلام) having to follow the Prophet ﷺ if they were alive in his time, he said:[69]

“So, the Messenger Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets, may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him forever until the Day of Judgment is the greatest Imam. If he were to exist in any era, he would be the one whose obedience is obligatory, having precedence over all the prophets. Hence, he led them in prayer on the night of the Isra when they gathered at Masjid al-Aqsa. Likewise, he is the one who intercedes on the Plains of Resurrection for the Lord, Glorified and Exalted be He, to come to judge among His servants. This is the praised station that is befitting only for him, which the resolute among the prophets and messengers avoided until the turn came to him. Hence, he is the one exclusively associated with it. May Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him.”

A further point to note is the sheer number of verses that call on people to follow the Prophet ﷺ:

“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet whom they find written with them in the Torah and the Injīl.

“So, those who believe in him and support him, and help him and follow the light sent down with him, – those are the ones who are successful.”

“Say [O Prophet Muhammad], ‘O people, I am a messenger of Allah (sent) to you from the One to whom belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. There is no god but He. He gives life and brings death. So, believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, who believes in Allah and in His words, and follow him, so that you may find the right path.’”[70]

Say [O Prophet], “This is my way. I invite to Allah with insight—I and those who follow me. Glory be to Allah, and I am not one of the polytheists.”[71]

And We did not prescribe the Qiblah which you used to observe except to know the one who follows the Messenger as distinct from the one who turns on his heels.[72]

“Indeed, in the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent example for whoever has hope in Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah often.”[73]

All these verses show that the Prophet’s mission was for humanity to follow him. If the Prophet ﷺ was merely following the religion of Prophet Ibrahīm (عليه السلام) why call people to follow him and his example?

Far from “simplistic”, asserting that one follows the Prophet ﷺ accords with several verses of the Qurʾān and grants a more complete explanation that entails “millat Ibrahīm”. Ironically, Nizami’s obsessive focus on the religion of Ibrahīm glosses over this “context”.

“The Sharāʾiʿ (laws) of the Prophets are the same”

The above discussion deals with a related claim Nizami makes concerning the Sharīʿa of the Prophets. When asked whether the Prophet ʿĪsa (عليه السلام) would follow the Sharīʿa of the Prophet ﷺ or his own were he to descend, Nizami asserts that “they all have the same Sharāʾiʿ (laws), its just amendments”. He then posits that the prayer in the Tanakh is the same since it has qiyām, rukūʿ, and sujūd, but the Jews have abandoned prayer as mentioned in Qurʾān.

Given the express ḥadīth concerning the descent of ʿĪsa (عليه السلام), it is bizarre that Nizami chose to engage in ambiguous rhetoric. There are a few more points worth noting.

First, the claim conflicts with the explicit verse of the Qurʾān, “For each of you We have made a law and a method.”[74] As noted above, the commentaries clarify that the laws of the prophets are diverse.

Second, the Prophet ﷺ said, “The prophets are paternal brothers; their mothers are different, but their religion is one.”[75] Commenting on this ḥadīth, Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī said, “The meaning of the ḥadīth is that the essence of their religion is one, which is monotheism, even though the branches of their laws may differ.”[76]

Third, we recognise that some of the principles of the law are common between the prophets. For example, salah, zakat,[77] sawm,[78] and the encouragement of good deeds[79] and behaviour can be found across the laws. However, we cannot conclude that all the “Sharāʾiʿ” are the “same”. There is diversity in the laws in terms of prerequisites, time, space, and restrictions in actualising the abovementioned commands.

And this is before we consider broader ritual and social injunctions.

Ibn Ḥazm provides several examples, some of which we reproduce below:

1. The law of Zakariyya (عليه السلام) of staying silent for three nights;[80]
2. The laws of Mūsā (عليه السلام) concerning the taking off shoes in the sacred land and “The righteous shall inherit the land” (Psalm 37:29);
3. The Jewish laws of Sabbath[81] and prohibiting the consumption of fat;[82]
4. Prophet Yūsuf (عليه السلام) and the manner of disproving the claim of adultery;[83]
5. The law of Khiḍr (عليه السلام) concerning the killing of a child for fear that they may oppress and disbelieve;[84]
6. According to the children of Israel Mūsā (عليه السلام) killed the boys of the people of Midian, and Yūsha (Joshua) (عليه السلام) killed the boys of the people of Jericho;[85]
7. The law of Yūnus (عليه السلام) permitting the casting of lots to throw a person overboard into the sea;
8. The laws of Ādam (عليه السلام) concerning sacrifice;[86]
9. Ibrahīm’s request for forgiveness for his father.[87]

These examples are not mere amendments but major changes to the laws.

Furthermore, there are certain actions exclusive to the prophets that were granted to the Ummah of the Prophet ﷺ.

Al-Suyūṭī cites a narration from Bayhaqī stating that Allah informed Prophet Dāwūd (عليه السلام) that the nation of the Prophet ﷺ would be granted supererogatory acts, obligations such as Hajj and Jihad, and practices like wudhu and ghusl that were previously limited to the prophets.[88]

In his work, al-Muwāhib al-Ladunniyya, al-Qasṭallānī outlined thirty-nine special distinctions of the Muhammadan community. Among them is that “their law (Sharīʿa) is more perfect than all the laws of preceding nations”:[89]

“As for our Prophet, peace be upon him, he was the manifestation of perfection, combining the same strength, justice, and firmness in (obeying) Allah, with gentleness, compassion, and mercy. His law is thus the most perfect of all laws, and his nation is the most perfect of all nations. Their conditions and stations are the most complete of all conditions and stations.”

Fourth, references to a distorted text are not proof concerning matters of Sharīʿa unless they are confirmed by the Qurʾān. While the Tanakh may mention certain movements, Nizami’s reference to 19:59 does not establish the precise motions. Again, even if such movements could be authenticated, the conclusion that the Sharāʾiʿ of the prophets are the same does not follow.

Sharīʿa understood better through Millat Ibrahīm

Nizami contends that by adopting Islam as a word to denote a religion “in the likeness of the religion of Abraham”, Muslims have got things wrong, and meaning and purpose have been lost. Nizami calls this a “narrow view” with Muslims having missed things out. He argues that knowing this religion is the religion of Abraham changes our perspective of the Sharīʿa and helps us understand Sharīʿa better.

The trouble is that Nizami is unable to substantiate his claim.

During the talk, an audience member pushes him to explain what has been missed. Nizami points to “how we look at the Sharīʿa” and provides an example of Muslims believing that the more restrictive one is the greater the piety. For Nizami, this approach destroyed the Children of Israel, and the Qurʾān condemns it in 7:32.

Nizami’s argument remains unconvincing for many reasons.

First, we have already established that Nizami’s base premise that “Islam” and “Muslim” are not nouns is incorrect.

Second, using “Islam” and “Muslim” as terms denoting the constituent elements of the Shahādah gives us a holistic perspective of Allah’s Final Message. It encompasses the religion of Ibrahīm (عليه السلام), which can only be known through the Prophet ﷺ. Therefore, it is not clear how the partial (Abrahamic religion) can grant greater meaning or a more contextual and holistic view than what the Prophet ﷺ established.

Third, and consequently, it is difficult to see how viewing Islam as a noun referring to a religion that centralises the Prophet ﷺ and not as the “religion of Abraham”, has caused scholars to misapply Sharīʿa or where this misapplication has taken place.

Nizami is effectively saying that scholars in the UK have failed to grasp the true understanding of the Sharīʿa and he, after undergoing some short Islamic studies courses in the UK, Egypt, and Saudi and engaging in self-study has somehow understood what has eluded hundreds of simpleton scholars. The onus is on Nizami to demonstrate that,

1. scholars in the UK are unaware of the meanings of “Islam” and “Muslim”,
2. that this lack of awareness and the “Abrahamic context” impaired their ability to apply the Sharīʿa and Uṣūl al-Fiqh, and
3. this has been the cause of the Muslim problems.

Fourth, Nizami fails to explain how his vague “Abrahamic” perspective of the Sharīʿa adds to the existing approach of scholars concerning restrictiveness and prohibiting permissible things. Again, he appears to be accusing “many many Muslims” of failing to understand Uṣūl al-Fiqh and the legal thresholds of declaring something impermissible without any substantive explanation or examples. But, even if he were to provide examples, Nizami would need to show that the particular application of Sharīʿa is “narrow” and that this misapplication is due to the person’s lack of Nizami’s Abrahamic context, rather than merely an oversight.

Such interrogations are necessary as it is possible that Nizami’s understanding of the approach of these “many many Muslims” is improper.

After all, behind his grandiose claims lies a questionable approach to Sharia. For someone who bemoans the issue of Muslims being caught up in the problem of “translation”, Nizami has a history of mistranslating and distorting the works of scholars to push a dubiously deformist approach to the Sharīʿa.

For more on this, readers can refer to detailed critiques here and here.

Nizami’s interfaith focus

Aside from his mission to promote a deformist approach to Sharīʿa, Nizami is motivated by interfaith concerns.

For example, he suggests that it is “simplistic” to say that one follows the Prophet ﷺ since we are living in “one of the most cosmopolitan places in the world” and that when Jews and Christians would ask questions, the Prophet ﷺ would not word it in that way.

Expanding on this point, he states:

“If you say [to Christians and Jews] ‘you have your religion, this is our religion, follow my religion’, its never going to work. The same way if they come to you. Because you see it as two different things playing against each other.  But when the conversation is, there is one religion, the millat Ibrahīm, let us follow this and be truly subservient.”

For Nizami, the problem is that “we are so caught up in our identity”.

The overall impression we get is that terms such as “Qurʾān”, “Islam”, and “Muslim” and the Prophet ﷺ should be left out or de-emphasised from discussions with Jews and Christians and the focus should be on the Prophet Ibrahīm (عليه السلام).

However, the Qurʾān differentiates between the True religion and the Christians and Jews. As we saw in Part IV, both the Qurʾān and the Prophet’s approach to “interfaith dialogue” was to critique and oppose the falsity of the dominant orders.

For sure, the Qurʾān references millat Ibrahīm to refute the Jewish and Christian claims to the Prophet Ibrahīm (عليه السلام). However, when the Prophet ﷺ would call people to Islam, he would invite them to follow him. For example, after introducing himself as the “apostle of God” and affirming the status of Prophet ʿĪsa (عليه السلام), the Prophet ﷺ wrote in his letter to the Negus, “I call you to God the Unique without a partner and to His obedience, and to follow me and to believe in that which came to me, for I am the apostle of God.”[90]

In his correspondence with Hudhayfah ibn ʿAlī, the Prophet ﷺ wrote,

“From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to Hudhayfah ibn ʿAlī: Peace be upon those who follow guidance. Know that my religion (ديني) will prevail to the farthest reaches, so submit and you shall be safe, and I grant you whatever is under my authority.”

Kisra tore up the correspondence of Prophet ﷺ precisely because it began with his blessed name.[91]

There are many other such examples. Most if not all of them introduce the call to Islam with the assertion that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

A deformist stepping-stone

The issue is not that strategies may vary depending on the recipient. After all, Nizami’s general idea that all the prophets have a shared message is not new in the UK. Dr Zakir Naik’s first lecture here in 2002 was titled “Moses, Jesus, Muhammad: 3 Men, 1 Mission”.

The issue lies in Nizami’s persistent minimisation of “Islam” as a religion, “Muslim” as our identity, and the place of the Prophet ﷺ while prioritising Prophet Abraham (عليه السلام). As Nizami says while acknowledging his views are “shock” to our “identity politics”:

“I ask Allah to give us guidance, to bring us back to the Book of God, the Decrees of God, and to the ways of the righteous that spans thousands upon thousands of years, and that we are the ones that understand and raise that flag of the tradition of Abraham to be the believers that God intended.”

At one point in the session, the Oxford University Islamic Society students pointed out to him that his ideas and arguments bore an uncanny resemblance to the UAE’s Abrahamic projects. In response, Nizami quickly distanced himself from the projects, stating they were “falsehood”.

However, he leaves the door open for those who say they believe the project is for drawing on “shared Abrahamic roots” to stop “beefing”. This approach is precisely the countering-violent extremism (CVE) agenda from which the Abrahamic Family House was born. In fact, the targeting of the use of “Islam” as a religion of the Prophet ﷺ has been a preoccupation of Egyptian deformists for years. They frame such usage as leading to “fanaticism, terrorism, and slaughter”. Moreover, as we will explore in the next part of this series, group identity is a neoconservative fixation in the UK through the renewed focus on the counter-extremism discourse of “social cohesion”.

Viewed together, the themes emerging from the likes of Nizami’s lecture soften the attitude towards a reconstituted identity that focuses on the figure of Abraham (عليه السلام). In this sense, it is a deformist stepping stone towards the UAE’s Abrahamic Family House de-Islamisation project.

Concluding Remarks

Following on from the extreme brutalisation and trauma of Palestinians, Muslims in the West are entering into the post-Gaza, UAE-based de-Islamisation plan.

From the explicit Muslim “scholars” targeting Masjid Al-Aqsa (e.g., Hamza Yusuf) to taking an indirect route of promoting confusion, we are beginning to witness the sour fruits of the new Interfaith Mark II. This reformulation of interfaith is promulgating various mind control tricks to accept the Zionist entity and ignore its schemes.

Hamza Yusuf may have jumped the gun, but others, like Mohammed Nizami, inadvertently or otherwise, are implementing a more covert approach to fulfil broader UAE-Zionist designs. This approach takes a deconstructionist knife using the usual combination of truisms, partial meanings, and distorted references to cut up well-established meanings of words that are foundational to Muslims, before repackaging them with an air of faux ultra-intellectualism: only “simplistic”, dim-witted Muslims use “Islam” and “Muslim” to denote a religion and the accompanying identity. The tactic has echoes of the older deformist, Tariq Ramadan, who avoided using the term “Muslim countries” in favour of “Muslim-majority countries”, presumably because that could mean they are “Islamic” and imply the non-existence of minorities, which is a Western concern.  

Given the criticality of the situation in al-Quds, now is not the time to be getting distracted by such pseudo-academic linguistic gymnastics to undermine both our understanding of Islam and the positions taken by ʿulamā who have guarded the religion thus far.

More than twenty years of the War on Terror and its concerted plots to deconstruct and deform Islam have shown that the Ummah is resilient. It will not surrender its most prized possessions: the complete book of guidance that is the Qurʾān, and the religion of Islam as revealed to the Final Messenger ﷺ. These precious gifts ground our sense of being as Muslims. The Sharīʿa of the Prophet ﷺ guides us during dark, turbulent times, enabling us to resist and expose the ploys of the enemy, regardless of their complexity and shrewdness.

All of this is now required as we confront new iterations of old tactics to not only divert our attention from al-Quds al-Sharif and Masjid al-Aqsa but also, akin to those of the UAE, politically repress and regulate our support for these sacred sites.

Allah says: Glorious is He Who made his servant travel by night from al-Masjid al-Harām to al-Masjid al-Aqsā whose environs We have blessed, so that We let him see some of Our signs. Surely, He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing. (17:1)

Allah says: And We did not prescribe the Qiblah which you used to observe except to know the one who follows the Messenger as distinct from the one who turns on his heels. (2:143.)

Allah says: “Then We placed you on an ordained way (Sharīʿa) concerning the matter [of religion]; so, follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who do not know.” (45:18)

Ibn Kathīr said: “So, the Messenger Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets, may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him forever until the Day of Judgment, is the greatest Imam. If he were to exist in any era, he would be the one whose obedience is obligatory, having precedence over all the prophets.

Al-Qasṭallānī said: “As for our Prophet, peace be upon him, he was the manifestation of perfection, combining the same strength, justice, and firmness in (obeying) Allah, with gentleness, compassion, and mercy. His law is thus the most perfect of all laws, and his nation is the most perfect of all nations. Their conditions and stations are the most complete of all conditions and stations.

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said: “Whoever innovates or accommodates an innovator then upon him is the curse of Allah, His Angels and the whole of mankind.” (Bukhārī and Muslim).

May Allah have mercy on all the righteous scholars. Amīn.

---

References

[1] هَذَا، وَقَدْ رَأَيْت رِسَالَةً لِلْعَلَّامَةِ ابْنِ أَمِيرِ حَاجٍّ بِخَطِّهِ مُتَعَلِّقَةً بِغِرَاسِ الْمَسْجِدِ الْأَقْصَى رَدَّ فِيهَا عَلَى مَنْ أَفْتَى بِجَوَازِهِ فِيهِ، أَخْذًا مِنْ قَوْلِهِمْ: لَوْ غَرَسَ شَجَرَةً لِلْمَسْجِدِ فَثَمَرَتُهَا لِلْمَسْجِدِ، فَرَدَّ عَلَيْهِ بِأَنَّهُ لَا يَلْزَمُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ حِلُّ الْغَرْسِ إلَّا لِلْعُذْرِ الْمَذْكُورِ لِأَنَّ فِيهِ شَغْلَ مَا أُعِدَّ لِلصَّلَاةِ وَنَحْوِهَا، وَإِنْ كَانَ الْمَسْجِدُ وَاسِعًا أَوْ كَانَ فِي الْغَرْسِ نَفْعٌ بِثَمَرَتِهِ، وَإِلَّا لَزِمَ إيجَارُ قِطْعَةٍ مِنْهُ، وَلَا يَجُوزُ إبْقَاؤُهُ أَيْضًا، لِقَوْلِهِ – عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ – «لَيْسَ لِعِرْقِ ظَالِمٍ حَقٌّ» لِأَنَّ الظُّلْمَ وَضْعُ الشَّيْءِ فِي غَيْرِ مَحَلِّهِ، وَهَذَا كَذَلِكَ إلَخْ مَا أَطَالَ بِهِ

Ibn ʿĀbidīn. (1966). Ḥāshiyah Radd al-Muḥtār ʿalā ‘l-Durr al-Mukhtār. Beirut: Dār Al-Fikr, vol.1, p.661.

[2] Al-Qurʾān, 9:17.

[3] For example, Hanafīs interpret 9:28 as “the disbelievers may not approach the Masjid Haram in terms of administrating it and taking charge of its maintenance”. The principle would extend other masājid including Masjid al-Aqsa.

Al-Sarakhsī. (1971). Al-Siyar al-Kabīr. Al-Sharikat al-Sharqiyyah li ‘l-Iʿlānāt, p.135.

[4]   إن من المعلوم من الدين بالضرورة أن المسجد الأقصى مسجد لله سبحانه وتعالى قدسه سبحانه وبارك فيه وحَوْله وجعله مسجدا إسلاميا خالصا للمسلمين، لا حق فيه لغيرهم ولا سيادة عليه إلا لهم، ولا يقبل القسمة الزمانية ولا المكانية ولا شركة فيه لأي ملة أو دين غير الإسلام، وهو كل ما دارت عليه الأسوار وكل ما أدخل في حيزه من خارجها، بمصلياته وقبابه وساحاته ومصاطبه وبوائكه وآباره وأبوابه، وكل ما تحته وما فوقه، لا فرق فيه بين صلاة في محرابه أو مصلياته أو ساحاته إلا بفضل ما تقدم من الصفوف

[5] اعتراف أو إقرار بأي حق لليهود أو لغير المسلمين في المسجد الأقصى فهو خيانة لله ولرسوله وللمسلمين، وكفر بواح لأنه فيه إنكارًا لقطعي معلوم من الدين بالضرورة

[6] Al-Qurʾān, 75:17.

[7] Ibid., 4:82.

[8] Ibid., 17:82.

[9] Ibid., 27:1.

[10] Ibid., 59:21.

[11] Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 4704.

[12] هُوَ اسْمُ عَلَمٍ غَيْرُ مُشْتَقٍّ خَاصٌّ بِكَلَامِ اللَّهِ

Al-Suyūṭī. (1974). Al-Itqān fī ʾUlum al-Qurʾān, al-Hay’at al-Misriyyat al-ʾĀma l’l-Kitāb, vol.1, p.181, p.182.

[13] Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī. (2002). Tārīkh Baghdād. Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, vol.2, pp.400–401. Chain is authentic as stated by Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī.

[14] Al-Suyūṭī. (1974). Al-Itqān fī ʾUlum al-Qurʾān, al-Hay’a al-Misriyya al-ʾĀma l’l-Kitāb, vol.1, p.178.

[15] Ibid., pp.184-185.

[16] For example, he states elsewhere in the lecture: “The Qurʾān is merely chapter five that picks up from chapter four. And it’s the last chapter of the book, so what does the last chapter of a book do. It summarises chapter one, two, three, four, and then gives you its conclusion.”

[17] Among others, Musnad Aḥmad, 16982.

أُعطِيتُ مكانَ التَّوراةِ السَّبعَ الطِّوالَ ، وأُعطِيتُ مكانَ الزَّبورِ المئين ، وأُعطِيتُ مكانَ الإنجيلِ المثانيَ ، وفُضِّلتُ بالمُفصَّلِ

[18] Al-Munāwī. Fayḍ al-Qadīr. Al-Maktabat al-Tijāriyyat al-Kubrā,vol.1 p.565.

[19] See Al-Qurʾān, 42:13.

[20] Al-Qurʾān, 16:89.

[21] Ibn Kathīr: “Ibn Masʾūd’s statement is more comprehensive, for indeed, the Qurʾān encompasses all beneficial knowledge from what has passed and what is to come, and every lawful and unlawful matter, which people need regarding their worldly affairs, religion, sustenance, and Hereafter.” Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr.

[22] Al-Ālūsī. Rūh al-Maʿānī, in the exegesis of 6:114.

[23] Al-Qurʾān, 6:115.

[24] { وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ } شروع في بيان كمال القرآن من حيث ذاته… قال الراغب ـ انتهاؤه إلى حد لا يحتاج إلى شيء خارج عنه». والمراد بالكلمة الكلام وأريد به ـ كما قال قتادة وغيره ـ القرآن

{ لاَ مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَـٰتِهِ } استئناف مبين لفضلها على غيرها إثر بيان فضلها في نفسها. وقال بعض المحققين: إنه سبحانه لما أخبر بتمام كلمته وكان التمام يعقبه النقص غالباً كما قيل: إذا تم أمر بدا نقصه توقع زوالاً إذا قيل تم ذكر هذا احتراساً وبياناً لأن تمامها ليس كتمام غيرها

وقيل: المعنى لا يقدر أحد أن يحرفها شائعاً كما فعل بالتوراة فيكون هذا ضماناً منه سبحانه بالحفظ كقوله جل وعلا:{ إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا ٱلذّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَـٰفِظُونَ } [الحجر: 9] أو لا نبـي / ولا كتاب بعدها يبدلها وينسخ أحكامها وعيسى عليه السلام يعمل بعد النزول بها لا ينسخ شيئاً كما حقق في محله

Rūh al-Maʿānī,, in the exegesis of 6:115.

[25] The Prophet ﷺ said, “By the One in whose Hand is my soul, it is likely that the son of Mary will descend among you as a just ruler, breaking the cross, killing the swine, and abolish the jizyah. Wealth will flow so abundantly that no one will accept it.” Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 2222.

[26] «حَكَمًا» بِفَتْحِ الْكَافِ أَيْ حَاكِمًا، وَالْمُرَادُ أَنَّهُ يَنْزِلُ حَاكِمًا بِهَذِهِ الشَّرِيعَةِ لَا نَبِيًّا بِرِسَالَةٍ مُسْتَقِلَّةٍ وَشَرِيعَةٍ نَاسِخَةٍ فَإِنَّ هَذِهِ الشَّرِيعَةَ بَاقِيَةٌ إلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ لَا تُنْسَخُ، وَلَا نَبِيَّ بَعْدَ نَبِيِّنَا كَمَا نَطَقَ بِذَلِكَ، وَهُوَ الصَّادِقُ الْمَصْدُوقُ بَلْ هُوَ حَاكِمٌ مِنْ حُكَّامِ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ،

Al-Irāqī, Ṭarḥ al-Tathrīb fī Sharh al-Taqrīb, vol.7, p.265.

[27] Mishkāt al-Maṣābīḥ, 177. Also, Musnad Aḥmad and Shuʾab al-Īmān.

[28] Ibn ʿAbbās (may Allah be pleased with him) reported: While the Angel Jibrāʾīl was sitting with the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, he heard a creaking noise above him. Jibrāʾīl raised his head and he said, “This is a door of heaven that has been opened today and it has never been opened before today.” Then an angel descended from it, and Jibrāʾīl said, “This angel descended to the earth today and he has never descended until today.” The angel greeted him with peace and he said, “Rejoice in two lights you have been given, which were not given to any prophet before you: the opening of the Book, Sūrat al-Fātiḥah, and the last verses of Sūrat al-Baqarah. You will not recite a phrase of them without being given the blessing it contains.” Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 806.

[29] Ibn Manẓur. (1993). Lisān al-ʾArab. Beirut: Dār Ṣāder, vol.13, p.169.

[30] Sinai, N. (2023). Key Terms of the Qurʾān: A Critical Dictionary. Oxford: Princeton University Press, p.294, footnote 2.

[31] Ibid, p.292, p.296.

[32]  . وقوله: أَفَغَيْرَ دِينِ اللَّهِ يَبْغُونَ [آل عمران/ ٨٣] ، يعني: الإسلام، لقوله: وَمَنْ يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الْإِسْلامِ دِيناً فَلَنْ يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ [آل عمران/ ٨٥] ، وعلى هذا قوله تعالى: هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدى وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ [الصف/ ٩

“And his saying, ‘Do they seek other than the religion of Allah’ [Aal-E-Imran/ 3:83],’ means the religion of Islam, as indicated by His saying, ‘And whoever desires other than Islam as religion – never will it be accepted from him’ [Aal-E-Imran/ 3:85]. And upon His saying, exalted is He: ‘He it is who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth’ [As-Saff/ 61:9].”

Al-Asfahānī. (1991). Al-Mufradāt, Beirut: Dār al-Qalam, p.323.

[33] قَوْلُهُ تَعَالَى: { وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ ٱلإِسْلٰمَ دِيناً } أي اخْتَرْتُ لكمُ الإسلامَ من الأديانِ كلِّها دِيناً، فمن دَانَ بالإسلام، فقد اسْتَحَقَّ ثَوَابي ورضَاي.
والدِّينُ: اسْمٌ لِجَمِيْعِ مَا يَعْبُدُ اللهَ بهِ خَلْقُهُ، وأمرَهم بالإقامةِ عليه، وهو الذي أمِرُوا أن يكونَ ذلك عادتُهم والذي به يجزونَ، فإن الدِّينَ في اللغة: الْعَادَةُ، والدِّين الْجَزَاءُ.

Al-Tafsīr Al-Kabīr in the commentary of 5:3.

[34] Al-Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī, 3793.

[35] See commentary of the ḥadīth here: https://dorar.net/ḥadīth/sharh/35393.

[36] Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī in the commentary of 3:19.

[37] Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr in the commentary of 3:19.

وفي قوله تعالى: (إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الْإِسْلَامُ) قال ابنُ كَثير: إخْبَارٌ مِنه تَعالى بأنّه لا دِين عِنده يَقْبَله مِنْ أحَدٍ سِوى الإسْلام، وهو اتِّبَاع الرُّسُل فِيمَا بَعَثَهم الله بِه في كُلّ حِين حَتى خُتِمُوا بمحمد صلى الله عليه وسلم الذي سَدّ جَمِيع الطُّرُق إليه إلَّا مِنْ جِهَة محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم، فمن لَقِيَ الله بَعْد بِعْثَة محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم بِدِين على غَير شَرِيعَتِه فَلَيس بِمُتَقَبَّل، كَمَا قَال تَعالى: (وَمَنْ يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الْإِسْلَامِ دِينًا فَلَنْ يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ) الآية. وقَال في هَذه الآية مُخْبِرًا بانْحِصَار الدِّين الْمُتَقَبّل مِنه عِنده في الإسْلام: (إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الْإِسْلَامُ) (٢).

[38] ويشهد للقول الأوّل قراءة أبيّ بن كعب «الله سماكم» { مِن قَبْلُ وَفِى هَـٰذَا } أي من قبل القرآن في سائر الكتب وفي القرآن، أي فضلكم على الأمم وسماكم بهذا الاسم الأكرم –

“‘From before and in this’: meaning from before the Qurʾān in all the scriptures and in the Qurʾān, meaning your virtue over other nations and He named you with this most noble name.” Al-Kashshāf in the commentary of 3:19.

[39] وسميتم في هذا القرآن المسلمين، والمعنى أنه فضلكم على الأمم وسماكم بهذا الاسم.

“The meaning of ‘You have been named Muslims in this Quran’ is that He [Allah] has favoured you over other nations and bestowed upon you this name.” Al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ in the commentary of 3:19.

[40] Al-Durr al-Manthūr (also reported in Muṣannaf ibn Abī Shaybah) in the commentary of 3:19.

 وأخرج ابن أبي شيبة في المصنف وإسحق بن راهويه في مسنده، عن مكحول: أن النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – قال: ” تسمى الله باسمين، سمى بها أمتي: هو السلام، وسمى أمتي المسلمين، وهو المؤمن، وسمى أمتي المؤمنين، والله تعالى أعلم “.

[41] Al-Suyūṭī. (2004). “Itmām al-Niʿmat fī Ikhtiṣāṣ al-Islām bi hādhā al-Ummat”. Al-Ḥawī al-Fatāwā, Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, vol.2, p.142.

، هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ صَرِيحٌ فِي اخْتِصَاصِ أُمَّتِهِ بِوَصْفِ الْإِسْلَامِ كَمَا أَنَّ جَمِيعَ مَا فِيهِ خَصَائِصُ لَهَا، وَلَوْ كَانَتِ الْأُمَمُ مُشَارِكَةً لَهَا فِي ذَلِكَ لَمْ يَحْسُنْ إِيرَادُهُ فِي مَعْرِضِ التَّفْضِيلِ إِذَا كَانَ الْيَهُودِيُّ يَقُولُ: وَنَحْنُ أَيْضًا كَذَلِكَ وَسَائِرُ الْأُمَمِ.

[42] Al-Qurʾān, 5:3.

[43] Tafsīr al-Baghawī in the commentary of 5:3.

 قوله عزّ وجلّ: { ٱلْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ } ، يعني: يوم نزول هذه الآية أكملت لكم دينكم، يعني الفرائض والسُّنن والحُدود والجهاد والأحكام والحلال والحرام

[44] Tafsīr Ibn al-Jawzī in the commentary of 5:3.

[45] Tafsīr Ibn ʿAttiyyah in the commentary of 5:3.

والإسلام في هذه الآية هو الذي في قوله تعالى:{ إن الدين عند الله الإسلام } [آل عمران: 19] وهو الذي تفسر في سؤال جبريل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو الإيمان والأعمال والشعب.

[46] “The religion (al-dīn) in this verse means obedience and religion (millah), and ‘al-Islām’ means faith and obedience. This was said by Abū Al-ʿĀliyah, and the majority of theologians are upon [this position]. The origin of the two names ‘faith’ (al-Īmān) and ‘Islām’ (al-Islām) is a variation on the ḥadīth of Jibraīl.

قوله تعالى: { إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ ٱلإِسْلاَمُ } الدَّين في هذه الآية الطاعة والمِلّة، والإسلام بمعنى الإيمان والطاعات قاله أبو العالية، وعليه جمهور المتكلمين. والأصل في مسمى الإيمان والإسلام التَّغَايُر لحديث جبريل. وقد يكون بمعنى المَرادَفَة. فيسمى كل واحد منهما باسم الآخر كم

Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī in the commentary 3:19.

[47] Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 8.

[48]

الْبَغَوِيُّ الشَّافِعِيُّ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ فِي حَدِيثِ سُؤَالِ جِبْرِيلَ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَنِ الْإِيمَانِ وَالْإِسْلَامِ وَجَوَابِهِ قَالَ جَعَلَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ الْإِسْلَامَ اسْمًا لِمَا ظَهَرَ مِنَ الْأَعْمَالِ وَجَعَلَ الْإِيمَانَ اسْمًا لِمَا بَطَنَ مِنَ الِاعْتِقَادِ وَلَيْسَ ذَلِكَ لِأَنَّ الْأَعْمَالَ لَيْسَتْ مِنَ الْإِيمَانِ وَالتَّصْدِيقَ بِالْقَلْبِ لَيْسَ مِنَ الْإِسْلَامِ بَلْ ذَلِكَ تَفْصِيلٌ لِجُمْلَةٍ هِيَ كُلُّهَا شَيْءٌ وَاحِدٌ وَجِمَاعُهَا الدِّينُ وَلِذَلِكَ قَالَ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ذَاكَ جِبْرِيلُ أَتَاكُمْ يُعَلِّمُكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَالتَّصْدِيقُ وَالْعَمَلُ يَتَنَاوَلُهُمَا اسْمُ الْإِيمَانِ وَالْإِسْلَامِ جَمِيعًا يَدُلُّ عَلَيْهِ قَوْلُهُ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الْإِسْلَامُ وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دينا وَمَنْ يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الْإِسْلَامِ دِينًا فَلَنْ يُقْبَلَ منه فَأَخْبَرَ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى أَنَّ الدِّينَ الَّذِي رَضِيَهُ وَيَقْبَلُهُ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ هُوَ الْإِسْلَامُ

Al-Nawawī. Sharḥ al-Nawawī ʿalā Muslim. Beirut: Dār al-Ihya’ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, vol.1 p.145.

[49] See Al-Suyūṭī. Al-Muhadhdhab fīmā waqaʿa fi ‘l-Qurʾān min al-Muʿarrab. Matbaʿah Faḍālah.

[50] Al-Qurʾān, 5:48.

[51] Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī in the commentary of 5:48.

[52] وقال مجاهد: الشِّرْعة والمِنهاج دين محمد عليه السلام وقد نسخ به كل ما سواه

Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī in the commentary of 5:48.

[53] يقول تعالـى ذكره: ولو شاء ربكم لـجعل شرائعكم واحدة، ولـم يجعل لكلّ أمة شريعة ومنهاجاً غير شرائع الأمـم الأخر ومنهاجهم، فكنتـم تكونون أمة واحدة، لا تـختلف شرائعكم ومنهاجكم. ولكنه تعالـى ذكره يعلـم ذلك، فخالف بـين شرائعكم لـيختبركم فـيعرف الـمطيع منكم من العاصي

Ibid.

[54] Abū Hanīfa. (2022). “Al-ʾĀlim wa ’l-Mutaʾallim”, Majmūʾ Kutub wa Rasā’il wa Waṣāya al-Imām al-Aʾẓam. Maktabat al-Ghānim, pp.360-361.

[55] Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 438.

[56] Ibn Ḥazm, al-Ahkām fī Uṣūl al-Ahkām, Beirut: Dār al-Āfāk al-Jadīdah, vol.5, p.181.

ومن ألزمنا شرائع الأنبياء قبلنا فقد أبطل فضيلة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وأكذبه في إخباره أنه لم يبعث نبي إلا إلى قومه خاصة

[57] Ibid., p.182.

ونسخ الله تعالى عنا بعض شريعة إبراهيم كما نسخ أيضا عنا بعض ما كان يلزمنا من شريعة محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم

[58] Al-Qurʾān 16:123.

[59] قَوْلُهُ تَعَالَى: { ثُمَّ أَوْحَيْنَآ إِلَيْكَ أَنِ ٱتَّبِعْ مِلَّةَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ حَنِيفاً وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ }؛ أي أمَرنَاكَ يا مُحَمَّدُ باتِّباعِ مِلَّةِ إبراهيمَ في مُجانَبةِ الكفَّار، كما كان إبراهيمُ يَتَجَنَّبُهم.

“We commanded you, O Muhammad, to follow the religion of Abraham in avoiding association with the disbelievers, just as Abraham used to avoid them.” Al-Tafsīr Al-Kabīr in the commentary of 16:123.

[60] وقال الطبري: أمِر بٱتباعه في التبرؤ من الأوثان والتزين بالإسلام. وقيل: أمِر باتباعه في جميع ملته إلا ما أمر بتركه قاله بعض أصحاب الشافعي على ما حكاه الماوردي. والصحيح الاتباع في عقائد الشرع دون الفروع لقوله تعالى:{ لِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا مِنكُمْ شِرْعَةً وَمِنْهَاجاً } [المائدة: 48].

Ibid.

[61] قال قوم: إن النبـي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان على شريعة إبراهيم عليه السلام، وليس له شرع هو به منفرد، بل المقصود من بعثته عليه السلام إحياء شرع إبراهيم عليه السلام وعول في إثبات مذهبه على هذه الآية وهذا القول ضعيف، لأنه تعالى وصف إبراهيم عليه السلام في هذه الآية بأنه ما كان من المشركين، فلما قال: { ٱتَّبِعْ مِلَّةَ إِبْرٰهِيمَ } كان المراد ذلك.

Tafsīr al-Rāzī in the commentary of 16:123.

[62]

وقال الإمام: قال قوم إن النبـي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان على ملة إبراهيم وشريعته وليس له شرع متفرد به بل بعث عليه الصلاة والسلام لإحياء شريعة إبراهيم لهذه الآية، فحملوا الملة على الشريعة أصولاً وفروعاً وهو قول ضعيف، والمراد من { مِلَّةِ إِبْرٰهِيمَ } التوحيد ونفي الشرك المفهوم من قوله تعالى: { وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ }

Rūh al-Maʿānī in the commentary of 16:123.

[63] وقيل: أمِر باتباعه في جميع ملته إلا ما أمر بتركه قاله بعض أصحاب الشافعي على ما حكاه الماوردي. والصحيح الاتباع في عقائد الشرع دون الفروع لقوله تعالى:{ لِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا مِنكُمْ شِرْعَةً وَمِنْهَاجاً } [المائدة: 48]

Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī in the commentary of 16:123.

[64] Al-Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī, 3793.

[65] وأما الثاني فمن حيث إن الخليل مع جلالة محله عند الله تعالى أجل رتبته أن أوحى إلى الحبيب اتباع ملته، وفي لفظ { أَوْحَيْنَا } ثم الأمر باتباع الملة لا اتباع إبراهيم عليه السلام ما يدل كما في «الكشف» على أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم ليس بتابع له بل هو مستقل بالأخذ عمن أخذ إبراهيم عليه السلام عنه.

Rūh al-Maʿānī in the commentary of 16:123.

[66] Al-Qurʾān, 33:7.

[67] قال: وذُكر لنا أن نبـيّ الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يقول: ” كُنْتُ أوَّلَ الأَنْبِـياءِ فِـي الـخَـلْقِ، وآخِرَهُمْ فِـي البَعْثِ “

Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī in the commentary of 33:7.

[68] Al-Qurʾān, 3:81.

[69] فالرسول محمد خاتم الأنبياء، صلوات الله وسلامه عليه دائماً إلى يوم الدين، هو الإمام الأعظم الذي لو وجد في أي عصر وجد، لكان هو الواجب طاعته، المقدم على الأنبياء كلهم، ولهذا كان إمامهم ليلة الإسراء لما اجتمعوا ببيت المقدس، وكذلك هو الشفيع في المحشر في إتيان الرب جل جلاله لفصل القضاء بين عباده، وهو المقام المحمود الذي لا يليق إلا له، والذي يحيد عنه أولو العزم من الأنبياء والمرسلين حتى تنتهي النوبة إليه، فيكون هو المخصوص به، صلوات الله وسلامه عليه.

Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr in the commentary of 3:82.

[70] Al-Qurʾān, 7:157-158.

[71] Al-Qurʾān, 12:108.

[72] Al-Qurʾān, 2:143.

[73] Al-Qurʾān, 33:21.

[74] Al-Qurʾān, 5:48.

[75] Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 3443.

[76] وَمَعْنَى الْحَدِيثِ أَنَّ أَصْلَ دِينِهِمْ وَاحِدٌ وَهُوَ التَّوْحِيدُ وَإِنِ اخْتَلَفَتْ فُرُوعُ الشَّرَائِعِ

Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī. (1970). Fatḥ al-Bārī. Dār al-Maʿrifah, vol.6, p.489.

[77] Al-Qurʾān, 2:83.

[78] Al-Qurʾān, 2:183.

[79] Al-Qurʾān, 21:73.

[80] Ibn Ḥazm, al-Ahkām fī Uṣūl al-Ahkām, Beirut: Dār al-Āfāk al-Jadīdah, vol.5, p.167.

[81] Ibid., p.175.

[82] Ibid., p.168.

[83] Ibid., p.169.

[84] Ibid., p.171.

[85] Ibid., p.172.

[86] Ibid., p.173.

[87] Ibid., p.182.

[88] Al-Bayhaqī narrated in “Dalāil al-Nubuwwah” from Wahb ibn Munabbih who said: “Indeed, Allah revealed to David in the Psalms, ‘O David, verily there will come after you a Prophet, his name is Aḥmad.’ He continued until he said: ‘His nation is a merciful nation. I have granted them supererogatory acts of worship like that which I have granted to the prophets, and I have obligated them with obligations that I enjoined upon the prophets and messengers until they come to me on the Day of Resurrection, and their light is like the light of the prophets. That is because I obligated them to purify themselves for every prayer as I enjoined upon the prophets before them, and I commanded them to perform ritual bathing from major impurity as I commanded the prophets before them, and I commanded them to perform the pilgrimage as I commanded the prophets before them, and I commanded them to perform jihad as I commanded the messengers before them’.”

Al-Suyūṭī. (2004). “Itmām al-Niʿmat fī Ikhtiṣāṣ al-Islām bi hādhā al-Ummah”. Al-Ḥawī al-Fatāwā, Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, vol.2, p.140.

[89]   أن شريعتهم أكمل من جميع شرائع الأمم المتقدمة

وأما نبينا- صلى الله عليه وسلم- فكان مظهر الكمال، الجامع لتلك القوة والعدل والشدة فى الله، واللين والرأفة والرحمة فشريعته أكمل الشرائع، وأمته أكمل الأمم، وأحوالهم ومقاماتهم أكمل الأحوال والمقامات، ولذلك تأتى شريعته- صلى الله عليه وسلم- بالعدل إيجابا له وفرضا، وبالفضل ندبا إليه واستحبابا، وبالشدة فى موضع الشدة، وباللين فى موضع اللين، ووضع السيف موضعه، ووضع الندى موضعه، فيذكر الظلم ويحرمه، والعدل ويأمره به، والفضل ويندب

Al-Qasṭallānī, al-Muwāhib al-Ladunniyya. Cairo: Maktabat al-Tawfīqīyyah, vol.2, p.412.

[90] Ibn Ishāq, Guillaume, A. (trans.) (2004). Sīrat Rasūl Allāh, Karachi: Oxford University Press, p.657.

[91] ثُمَّ دَعَا كَاتِبًا لَهُ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْحِيرَةِ فَقَرَأَهُ فإذا فيه، من محمد بن عَبْدِ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ إِلَى كِسْرَى عَظِيمِ فَارِسَ. قَالَ فَأَغْضَبَهُ حِينَ بَدَأَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِنَفْسِهِ وَصَاحَ وَغَضِبَ وَمَزَّقَ الْكِتَابَ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَعْلَمَ مَا فِيهِ

Ibn Kathīr. Al-Bidāyah wa ‘l-Nihāyah. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Saʿādah, vol.4, p.269.