What is “Islam”? Facts Lost in Translation

So did God intend a religion called “Islam”?

If we examine the premodern world, the concept of religion as an institutionalised system didn’t exist, so it is logical that the formalised religion of Islam was not what God was talking about. The message’s focus was on guiding people to uphold certain principles and codes rather than prescribing a defined “religion” in the modern sense.

But does this mean revelation and prophetic teachings are just as nebulous as the ‘Religion of Islam’? Not at all.

God has consistently called the Semites to the tradition (مِلّةَ) of the Patriarchs – Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob. That tradition is the civilisational manifestation of the primordial pre-Abrahamic ways, such as those of Noah and his offspring. When the Israelites abandoned the pledge to uphold the Abrahamic covenant and establish God’s code, it was offered and taken up by the Ishmaelites, led by their divinely-appointed clansman Muhammad. In this final iteration, God universalised the code for all humans (and not just one group like the Israelites), thereby encompassing and unifying all other legitimate monotheistic traditions under the Ishmaelite banner.

In the language of the Ishmaelite legacy, God refers to this primordial tradition as Hanīfiyyah – الحَنِيفِيَّة (from the trilateral root h-n-f) and its people as the Hunafā – those who lean or incline towards God (حنفاء لله). The word isn’t just found in Arabic but predates it and can be found in the Egyptian hieroglyphs. Aside from this key reference, God uses varying descriptive terms in Arabic for humans associated with this primordial tradition based on context. For example: 

• In the context of describing those who affirm God’s sovereignty as opposed to those who deny it, God refers to them as the faithful to God (مُؤْمِنون بالله). 
• In the context of those who uphold the Abrahamic tradition by acknowledgement and compliance to the entire code as opposed to merely adopting aspects of it and inventing breakaway variants like the Jews and Christians (who claim the tradition of Abraham) are described as the fully subservient to God (مُسْلِمون لله).
• In the context of describing those who adamantly and persistently strive in the King’s cause, God references them as the persevering (الصابِرون)
• In the context of describing those who stand by their pledges, and who act in accordance to what they claim, God references them as the integrious (الصادِقون)

In grammar, all of these agent nouns denote the performer of the action. In English, the “- er” suffix is used to create nouns that describe someone or something that does the action indicated by the base verb.

Therefore, when we translate the word مُؤْمِن to believer, in the context of the final message we are referring to faithful/loyal subjects of the supreme King – those who have confidence in their Lord. When we translate the word مُسْلِم to submitter, in the context of the final message we are intentionally referring to those who allege adherence to the entire code like the Patriarchs, rather than Jews and Christians who have broken away from the Patriarchs’ tradition. Why does it go back to the Patriarchs? Well because God explicitly tells us that this is the backstory to His reference to ‘submission’:

Who but a fool would forsake the tradition of Abraham? We have chosen him in this world and he will rank among the righteous in the Hereafter. His Lord said to him, ‘Devote yourself (أسْلِم) to Me.’ Abraham replied, ‘I devote myself (ُأسْلِمْت) to the Lord of the Universe’ whilst commanding his sons to do the same – as did Jacob: ‘My sons, God has appointed the code for you, so make sure you devote yourselves to Him (مُسْلِمون), to your dying moment.’ Were you there to see when death came upon Jacob? When he said to his sons, ‘What will you serve after I am gone?’ They replied, ‘We shall serve your God and the God of your fathers, Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac, the only one to be served, it is to Him that we submit (له مُسْلِمون).’ That community passed away. What they earned belongs to them, and what you earn belongs to you: you will not be accounted on the basis of their (good) deeds. They say, ‘Become Jews or Christians, and you will be rightly guided.’ Say: ‘No, (we are committed to) the tradition of Abraham, the godly primordial monotheist (حَنِيفًا), who did not claim sovereignty for another.’ [Quran 2:130-135]

In the ancient world there was no proper noun (name) for this tradition, but the tradition itself was simply referred to as what it is: The tradition of the patriarch Abraham (مِلّةَ إبراهيم) and his righteous descendants (وذُرّيّته). It means:

1. To affirm the sovereignty of God, the Lord of Abraham, with loyalty and allegiance.
2. To acknowledge the tradition of the Patriarchs, Hanīfiyyah, with a sense of fraternal belonging to it, a cognisance of its history, and strong solidarity with its cohort.
3. To openly and humbly receive God’s royal decrees and comply with the entirety of the code with its final amendments, a Law (شِرْعَة) and a Way (مِنْهاج), universalised for all via the Ishmaelite legacy.
4. To take a pledge to establish the code, support it, and uphold it – across all realms of life.
5. To study the mission of the righteous before us as case studies in how to establish the entire code and serve the King, and walk their path in supporting and upholding the code.

But doesn’t God label people “Muslims”?

No, not as a proper noun. As explained above, the final message was sent via the Arabic language, but words ought to be translated in translations, not transliterated (unless a relative equivalent does not exist). There has been an inconsistent practice of transliterating certain Arabic words instead of translating them, in what is obviously an ideological endeavour – otherwise there would be no logic in doing so. Further, semantic translations rather than pragmatic translations entirely confuse English readers. An example frequently cited to substantiate “Muslim” as a proper noun (name) is: “He has named you Muslims” [Quran 22:78]. Firstly, translating ‘sammākum’ here as ‘named’ is inaccurate. Secondly, transliterating “Muslim” is misplaced. In context, this is actually what God says:

Strive hard for God as is His due: He has chosen you and placed no hardship in the code¹, the tradition of your forefather Abraham². He has referred to those like you as the completely submissive (هُوَ سَمَّىٰكُمُ ٱلۡمُسۡلِمِینَ) both in the past and in this [message]³, so that the Messenger can bear witness about you and so that you can bear witness about other people⁴. (Quran 22:78)

Now here is a brief breakdown:

¹ The code is relaxed, in that regulations have been relaxed after the punitive legislations introduced to it because of the disobedient Hebrews, about whom God said: “This is how We penalised them for their disobedience.” [Quran 6:146] However, now that the Law is for all people, those punitive laws have been removed as amendments to the Law. Hence the final messenger of God said, “I was sent with primordial monotheistic godliness (الحَنِيفِيَّة) that is relaxed (السَمْحَة).” [Ahmad]

² God was speaking to the Ishmaelites, the descendants of Abraham, inciting his tradition (مِلَّة).

³ God is motivating Ishmaelite subservience by referring to the loyal as those who have truly submitted to the King by adherence to the entire code – unlike the Jews and Christians – throughout time. Here, God alludes to the reference made by Abraham and Ishmael about their descendants: “Our Lord make us both subservient to You (مُسۡلِمَیۡنِ لَكَ) and make our descendants a community subservient to You (أُمَّةࣰ مُّسۡلِمَةࣰ لَّكَ).” (Quran 2:228). He also alludes to the Hebrew Prophets: “We revealed the Torah with guidance and light, and the Prophets who had submitted to God (ٱلنَّبِیُّونَ ٱلَّذِینَ أَسۡلَمُوا۟), judged according to it for the Jews. So did the rabbis and the scholars in accordance with that part of God’s Scripture which they were entrusted to preserve, and to which they were witnesses.” (Quran 5:44) This appeal to the tradition of Hanīfiyyah is also emphasised where God speaks of the final Prophet’s apostles as being the same as those of old: “Muhammad is the messenger of God. Those who are with him…You see them kneeling and prostrating, seeking God’s bounty and His good pleasure: on their faces they bear the marks of their prostrations. This is how they are pictured in the Torah and the Gospel.” [Quran 48:29]

⁴ Muhammad will bear witness about the Ishmaelites in whether they upheld the pledge to adhere to the entire code unlike their Israelite cousins who broke off to create a faction (Judaism, and later Christianity). Jesus too will do so with regards to the Israelites and Christians: “I told them only what You commanded me to: “Serve God, my Lord and your Lord.” I was a witness over them during my time among them.” [Quran 5:117] Ironically, the pledge to adhere to the entire code and not create a “religion” is made absolutely clear in God’s dictate:

From the code, He has laid down for you all the same exhortation that He gave Noah, which We have also revealed to you (Muhammad) and which We enjoined on Abraham and Moses and Jesus: ‘Uphold the code and do not divide into factions within it’. What you call the Ishmaelite pagans to (i.e. the unified tradition) is hard for them; God chooses whoever He pleases for Himself and guides towards Himself those who turn to Him. They all divided, out of rivalry, only after knowledge had come to them…Those after them, who inherited the Scripture, are in disquieting doubt about it. So call people to that commandment and follow the straight path as you have been commanded. Do not go by what they desire, but say, ‘I have faith in whatever scripture God has sent down. I am commanded to bring justice between you. God is our Lord and your Lord – to us our deeds and to you yours, so let there be no argument between us and you. God will gather us together, and to Him we shall return.’ [Quran 42:15]

So is the tradition of the Patriarchs and the “religion of Islam” synonymous?

Islam might be closer to the primordial ideal than any other variant, but in the West it has become a variant nonetheless – driven by a postcolonial reaction, immigrant interests, and ethnocultural norms. Pointing out this obvious fact should not be spurned (which is in fact the behaviour of the Israelites that God disparages: see 5:70), but welcomed because it exposes the devil’s plans whilst also helping us to understand why things have been going wrong for a while. It invites a deeper reflection on how to return to the original call of serving God with the same vigour, fervour, and clarity as the righteous Ishmaelites and Israelites.

The tradition of the Patriarchs is far grander and sophisticated than modern Islam – whilst simpler in matters of the Law. It is civilisational. It is rational and sensible. It is a life mission. It is to serve the King, at His pleasure, in what He wants. This civilisational mission, rooted in serving the King and upholding His true and holistic code, is the foundation that can unite the Children of Adam on what empowers them to flourish, and strengthens them to be stalwarts in service to the supreme King. It transcends the modern religion of Islam and calls humanity back to the path of Abraham, where the true objective is not the establishment of “religion” but God’s sovereignty on Earth through the code He ordains – in the interests of all of His subjects.