“Muslim” in the Qur’an: Continuity or Redefinition?
The claim is simple:
Islam means submission to God.
Therefore Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were Muslims.
Therefore Islam is not new — it is continuity.
That argument only works if the Qur’an uses “Islam” in one stable, unchanging sense.
It does not.
1. The Qur’an Announces a Historical Completion
“This day I have perfected for you your religion… and approved for you Islam as religion.” (5:3)
If Islam simply means generic submission, then it was already present before this declaration.
Submission did not begin at that moment.
A religion cannot be “perfected” if it already existed in the exact same form across previous covenants.
5:3 only makes sense if Islam refers to a finalized, structured religious system — not just abstract theism.
That immediately moves Islam from timeless posture to defined covenant identity.
2. The Term Carries Two Different Meanings
In one sense:
Islam = submission to God.
In another sense:
Islam = the divinely completed religion that supersedes prior communities.
Those are not identical definitions.
A timeless disposition is not the same thing as a finalized historical system.
If a term shifts from generic submission to exclusive covenant identity, continuity becomes semantic — not structural.
3. The Qur’an Draws Real Boundaries
“Indeed, those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians…” (2:62)
The Qur’an distinguishes between its present community and Jews and Christians.
If all three are equally “Muslim” in the same sense, this separation collapses.
The text treats identity as differentiated.
That means “Muslim” functions as a specific communal designation in the present tense — not merely a description of monotheism.
4. Exclusivity Is Introduced
“Whoever desires other than Islam as religion — it will never be accepted from him.” (3:85)
After the Qur’anic revelation, Islam becomes exclusive.
That exclusivity includes rejection of other frameworks.
If Islam always meant generic submission, this verse is redundant.
If Islam now means adherence to the finalized covenant, then projecting that label backward onto earlier prophets is retrospective reclassification.
Both cannot be true in the same sense.
5. Abraham Is Reassigned
“Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was a ḥanīf Muslim.” (3:67)
This is not neutral continuity language.
It explicitly removes Abraham from Jewish and Christian identity categories and places him under Islamic terminology.
That is polemical correction.
It is theological relocation.
Calling that “continuity” does not remove the fact that identity is being redefined from within a later framework.
6. Law Defines Covenant
“For each [community] We prescribed a law and a way.” (5:48)
Law is not incidental.
Law defines community.
If Islam simply means submission, then Torah observance was Islam.
If Islam means the finalized structure brought in the final revelation, then Torah observance is no longer Islam.
You cannot maintain both meanings simultaneously without changing what the word means.
7. The Logical Fork
There are only two coherent positions:
Position 1:
Islam always means generic submission.
→ Then nothing fundamentally new occurred in the final revelation.
→ Then 5:3 and 3:85 lose structural force.
Position 2:
Islam means the perfected, final religious system.
→ Then earlier prophets were not “Muslim” in that covenantal sense.
→ Therefore the label is retroactive application.
You must choose.
You cannot claim timeless identity and finalized exclusivity without redefining terms mid-argument.
Final Conclusion
The “submission equals Muslim” defense works rhetorically because it blurs categories.
But the Qur’an itself does not consistently use Islam in a purely abstract sense.
It uses it as:
-
A universal posture of submission.
-
A historically defined, exclusive religious system.
Those are different categories.
If Islam is timeless submission, it is not uniquely defined by a final covenant.
If Islam is the finalized covenant, it cannot be projected backward unchanged.
Calling this tension “perspective” does not resolve it.
It merely softens it.
The issue is not reverence for earlier prophets.
The issue is definitional coherence.
And definitional coherence cannot flex depending on the era being discussed.
No comments:
Post a Comment