A Doubt

The stance taken regarding the descendants of Ishmael—that after completing the work of preaching, the Prophet declared his disavowal of them and ultimately announced that anyone among them who did not believe would be killed—has generally been referred to by non-Muslim historians as coercive propagation of Islam. In the Encyclopedia Britannica (1958), referencing these verses under the title of Jihad, the following words are stated:

“This is a religious obligation imposed on the followers of Muhammad in the Quran (2:216-217, 8:39-42, 9:5,6,29). It means that war should be waged against those who do not accept the doctrines of Islam.”

Such views have long been expressed against Islam, especially by Christian scholars, who have highlighted this issue significantly. The reason for this is that the battles the final Messenger fought with the people of Makkah and the declarations he made regarding them are studied by these individuals in the same light as the proponents of the discussed interpretation, under the guise of spreading Islam. However, this was not a struggle for the propagation of Islam; it was the manifestation of a divine decree against the rejecters of the Prophethood, which is articulated in the Quran using terms such as “the command of Allah,” “the decree of Allah,” “the promise of Allah,” etc.

This aims to establish the truth and eliminate falsehood. Essentially, it was not an attempt to impose Islamic principles but rather a punishment for denying those principles, carried out in a specific way by the Owner of the heavens and the earth. This punishment is inevitably due to anyone who refuses to accept God’s guidance. The only difference is that ordinary humans will face this punishment in the Hereafter, while the direct audience of the Messenger experiences it both in this world and in the Hereafter: “And most surely We will make them taste a lesser punishment before the greater punishment.” (Quran, 32:21)

It is true that the implementation of this divine decree brought about several benefits for Islam, including its propagation and expansion. However, these were just some of its additional outcomes, as every event has multiple consequences and effects. As far as the fundamental nature of the command is concerned, it remains as stated above. If this aspect of its nature is not considered, it is certain that severe misunderstandings will arise regarding it.

The fourth verse is as follows:

“You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah.” (Quran, 3:110)

In this verse, two terms are noteworthy: (1) Amr wa Nahi (enjoining and forbidding) and (2) Ma’ruf wa Munkar (what is right and what is wrong).

Ma’ruf means what is preferred or good, while Munkar means what is disliked or bad. In Islamic terminology, these terms refer to all matters related to beliefs and actions that are specified by Shariah as either desirable or undesirable. Ma’ruf includes everything mandated by Shariah, whereas Munkar covers everything that is prohibited or discouraged, whether related to beliefs, acts of worship, or actions. These words seem to encapsulate the essence of the entire Shari’ah:

“Al-Ma’ruf huwa ismun jaami’un likulli ma ‘urifa min ta’atillah wal-taqarrub ilayh wal-ihsaan ila al-naas.” (Lisan al-Arab, Vol. 9, p. 240). That is, “Al-Ma’ruf is a comprehensive term for all that is known to be obedience to Allah, drawing closer to Him, and doing good to people.”

“Al-Munkar zidd al-ma’roof. Wa kullu ma qabbahush-shar’u wa harramahu wa karihahu fahuwa munkar.” (Al-Nihaya by Ibn al-Atheer, Vol. 5, p. 115). That is, “Al-Munkar is the opposite of al-Ma’ruf. Everything that is condemned by the law, forbidden, and disliked is considered munkar.”

Here are a few references:

• Ibn Abbas: “There is no deity but Allah; He is the greatest ma’ruf (what is right), and denial (of Him) is the greatest munkar (what is wrong).” (Ibn Jarir, Vol. 5, p. 676)
• Maqatil: “The good is Islam, and the ma’ruf is obedience to Allah, while the munkar is disobedience to Him.” (Ruh al-Ma’ani, Vol. 2, p. 238)
• Khazin: “Ma’ruf is monotheism, and munkar is polytheism.” (Lubab at-Ta’wil, Vol. 1, p. 285)
• Razi: “Know the ma’ruf as the true religion and faith in monotheism and Prophethood, and recognize the munkar as disbelief in Allah.” (Tafsir Al-Razi, Vol. 8, p. 325)
• Alusi Al-Bhadadi: “What is generally understood as ma’ruf are the acts of obedience, and as munkar are the sins that have been rejected by Shariah.” (Ruh al-Ma’ani, Vol. 2, p. 244)
• Hafiz al-Deen Nasafi: “‘You enjoin what is right’ (al-amr bil-ma’ruf) means faith and obedience to the Messenger, and ‘and forbid what is wrong’ (wa-nahyu an al-munkar) refers to disbelief and all that is prohibited.” (Madarik al-Tanzil, Vol. 1, p. 282)
• Imam Raghib: “Ma’ruf is a term for every action that is recognized by reason or Shariah as good, and munkar is that which is rejected by both.” (Al-Mufradat, p. 561)

Now let’s consider the terms amr and nahi. The meaning of ‘Amr’ is to give a command: “Iza kallafthahu an yaf’ala shay’an” (Al-Mufradat fi Gharib al-Quran, p. 88). That is, “When you instruct him to do something.” And the meaning of ‘Nahi’ is to forbid or stop: “Nahahu an katha ay mana’ahu ‘anhu” (Irshad al-Fuhul li al-Shawkani, Vol. 1, p. 278). That is, “He forbade him from such and such, meaning he prevented him from it.”

From the hadith, it is evident that the primary demand of Shariah concerning the practice of amr and nahi is that people should be compelled to adhere to it by force:

“Whoever among you sees a munkar (an evil or wrong), let him change it with his hand; if he is unable to do so, then he should speak out against it with his tongue; and if he is unable to do even that, then let him consider it evil in his heart, and that is the weakest of faith.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 49)

According to this hadith, the primary objective of this command is to change the munkar through force, unless one lacks the ability to do so.

It becomes clear that this verse commands the enforcement of all the requirements of Shariah, whether they relate to beliefs, acts of worship, morals, transactions, or any other matters, as long as one is capable of doing so. Additionally, it directs that individuals should be forcibly prevented from opposing these principles in both belief and practice.

This explanation clearly shows that such a verse cannot be used to define the entire mission of the Islamic movement. The Islamic movement is not like typical secular movements, whose goal is simply to impose a specific law on people through coercion and suppression. Instead, the Islamic movement seeks to awaken people’s awareness that they should recognize God and get ready for the upcoming Day of Judgment. This is the main goal of the Islamic movement.

In a secondary sense, what is also desired is that if people are unwilling to change themselves, then, circumstances permitting, they should be compelled to change so that the state of the world does not deteriorate further.

Furthermore, the matters for which amr (command) and nahi (prohibition) are prescribed in this verse include both beliefs and acts of worship. This also suggests that these terms cannot be seen as representing the overall mission of the believers. According to this view, the broad application of this command can only be directed toward Muslims, while it might only partially apply to non-Muslims. However, this interpretation presents this verse as a source for a common mission that those calling to Islam should undertake in relation to both Muslims and non-Muslims.

As far as those who have accepted Islam are concerned, Allah Almighty demands that, to the extent of their ability, they must adhere to the Islamic requirements without tolerance for any deviation. Even if they insist on such deviations, qital (fighting) may be warranted against them. (Majmu’at al-Fatawa by Ibn Taymiyyah, Vol. 4, p. 281)

Abu Hamid al-Ghazali writes: “Allah, the Exalted, said: ‘And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two.’ The purpose of reconciliation is to deter oppression and restore obedience. If they do not cease, Allah has commanded to fight against them, saying: ‘And fight the one that opposes until it returns to the ordinance of Allah.’ This refers to the prohibition of wrongdoing.” (Ihya Ulum al-Deen, Vol. 2, p. 307)

The principle of mandatory obedience for Muslims isn’t limited to a specific issue; instead, the entire Shariah falls under this rule. For example, if a ten-year-old Muslim child doesn’t pray, the ruling is that he should be disciplined until he prays. It’s clear that a prayer done out of fear of punishment isn’t a genuine prayer. This command aims to prevent an environment of open deviation from religion within the Muslim community. It’s an effort to uphold Islamic discipline socially. This reasoning is entirely valid within a Muslim family. However, if someone were to start disciplining non-Muslim children to make them pray, this valid principle would lose its meaning due to its improper application.

If this command is interpreted broadly, it would mean that, like Muslims, non-Muslims should also be (to the extent of their ability) forced to follow all Islamic requirements—from politics to beliefs and acts of worship—without any “discrimination or division,” and they should be compelled to refrain from any actions that oppose Islam in every aspect. In other words, their religion should be altered, and they should be fully converted into Muslims, with the same rights granted to them under the Islamic state as those given to Muslims.

It is clear that this view is incorrect. Concerning non-Muslims, with some exceptions, it is widely accepted that they cannot be forced to accept Islamic beliefs and acts of worship. While we can invite others to consider beliefs and worship, we cannot command or prohibit them in these areas. However, the “command” concerning monotheism and the “prohibition” of polytheism, or the forced imposition of Islamic acts of worship on them, is beyond our authority. Doing so would amount to ikrah fi al-deen (coercion in religion), which is explicitly considered unacceptable in Shariah. In this matter, the relationship between us and non-Muslims is not one of ruler and subjects but rather one of inviter (da’i) and invited (mad’u).

In specific circumstances, believers can carry out amr (command) and nahi (prohibition) with non-Muslims. However, the scope of amr and nahi regarding non-Muslims is limited. Therefore, these terms cannot encompass the entirety of what we are to undertake concerning non-Muslims. The primary goal regarding non-Muslims is to invite them to reflect on the truth of God’s oneness and the reality of the Hereafter, so that they may find spiritual guidance and salvation. The means for this endeavour are invitation (dawah), preaching, and admonition (tazkeer). If these efforts prove ineffective and they remain unwilling to follow the path of worshiping God, then the secondary goal is for the Islamic government to compel non-Muslims, to the extent necessary, to adhere to the laws of Shariah, as far as it is essential to establish social justice and protect the community from corruption.

The leaders of Islam have various approaches to handling non-Muslims. In an Islamic society, the duty of amr bil ma’ruf (enjoining what is right) actively works to protect Muslims from faith corruptions. If it becomes known that some non-Muslims have started a wrong action in a Muslim community that could spread to others, it becomes necessary to remove this fitnah (trial) to prevent Muslims from falling into munkar (evil). (Ibn Taymiyyah provides some examples of this in his book Al-Hisbah fi Al-Islam.)

Similarly, there are certain prohibitions and munkarat (wrongdoings) in Shariah that should be made clear to non-Muslims, such as atheistic and polytheistic beliefs. However, there are also some matters in which, when possible, Muslims have the right to forcibly prevent non-Muslims from engaging in them. Examples include bribery, murder, and so on. Thus, amr wa nahi (enjoining and forbidding), in its most comprehensive sense, only partially applies to actions concerning non-Muslims. This is an exceptional circumstance rather than a general rule.

Now, if the terms amr bil ma’ruf (enjoining what is right) and nahi an al-munkar (forbidding what is wrong) are seen as the main principles for all our responsibilities regarding non-Muslims, then it either requires forcibly imposing beliefs and acts of worship on them, or, if strictly limited, it suggests that these terms only apply to actions involving non-Muslims in social and communal contexts. This would exclude the most crucial aspects of Shariah that relate to beliefs and acts of worship. In these matters, we cannot simply command or prohibit; instead, we can only invite and advise.

The reality is that if this reasoning is accepted, there would be no distinction left between the Islamic movement and the Islamic army. Indeed, the Islamic army is also a manifestation of Islamic life, but the Islamic movement is a broader concept, which must be understood under a more extensive framework.

It becomes clear that the terms amr bil ma’ruf (enjoining what is right) and nahi an al-munkar (forbidding what is wrong) do not primarily refer to the work of invitation and preaching that we must undertake towards others as a primary objective. Rather, according to the wording of the hadith, they signify the duty of tahweel (change) that is carried out to the extent of one’s ability in cases where the change is not voluntarily accepted.

Furthermore, since this verse commands tahweel regarding all negative and positive requirements related to beliefs and actions, its broad application can only be directed toward Muslims. This is because we have the right, within our ability, to strive to instill every requirement of Shariah in them, whether related to beliefs and worship or ethics and transactions. In contrast, for non-Muslims, a significant part of the religion must be conveyed through invitation and teaching, with the goal of helping them develop understanding so they may engage with these ideas.

There is only a limited and relatively secondary aspect of Shariah in which, if possible, we can adopt the method of tahweel bil yadi (changing by hand) upon them.

According to Rashid Rida, a prominent Islamic scholar of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the primary and foremost task of those who call to the truth is to invite people toward it and to instill within them the light of faith and Islam. “Amr wa nahi” (commanding and prohibiting) comes after this, encompassing two aspects within Islam.

Firstly, once the audience accepts the call to truth, there must be a continuous process of oversight and accountability to guide their lives along the path of Islam and to ensure they fulfill all Shariah responsibilities. Secondly, the group of believers should establish such a system among themselves to remain organized, active, and purposeful, thereby protecting themselves from corruption and ensuring that God’s support does not abandon them. (Al-Manar, Vol. 4, pp. 27-28)

The terms amr bil ma’ruf (enjoining what is right) and nahi an al-munkar (forbidding what is wrong) are not suitable for a comprehensive interpretation of the mission of the believers. This is why these terms were not used in the Quran to describe the mission of Prophethood. The Muslim Ummah has been entrusted with a duty in this world that is akin to what was assigned to the earlier prophets. This Ummah, in a sense, serves as a successor to the prophets.

However, when we study the Book of Allah, it becomes clear that amr bil ma’ruf and nahi an al-munkar are never presented as the general mission of the prophets throughout the Quran. There are numerous verses that explain the purpose of the prophets’ missions, but nowhere does it say: “We have sent messengers to command what is right and forbid what is wrong to the people of the world.”  The very fact that the Quran does not use the expressions enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong to describe the general mission of the prophets is, in itself, sufficient evidence that these terms cannot be taken, in an absolute sense, as the basis for defining the entire objective that we are required to pursue in relation to humanity at large, following the Prophet’s mission.

The fifth verse that is cited in this context is as follows:

“He is the One who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, even if the polytheists dislike it.” (Quran, 9:33)

According to the interpretation under discussion, this verse states that “Allah sent His Messenger with the correct and true system of life, which is Islam, and the ultimate purpose of His mission is to establish this system above all other systems.” (Quran Ki Chaar Buniyadi Istlahein). The said interpretation goes on to say that since the Muslim Ummah is to carry out the same work after the finality of Prophethood for which God’s Messenger was sent, it follows from this verse that, in the succession of the Messenger, the aim of Muslims is to establish the Islamic system over all other systems and to enforce Islamic governance in all aspects of life.

In the Muharram 1382 Hijri issue of Zindagi, a full article is published under the title “Isharat” (the magazine’s regular editorial heading). The learned writer of the article had been informed by one of his “associates” that “some people” raise an objection to the objective of Jamaat-e-Islami, arguing that according to it, establishing the religion becomes our responsibility, rather than merely striving to establish it. This criticism is based on the fact that the organization has written “establishment of religion” in its Constitution, not “striving for the establishment of religion.” In response, the author provided various examples to demonstrate that, in his view, it “shines like a clear mirror” that when any individual or group is given a command from God, it does not mean that “they should bring that command into existence, but rather that they should strive to bring it into existence.”

In response, the writer passionately writes by giving several examples of commands:

“Now suppose someone argues that Allah has placed a responsibility on humans in these commands that is beyond their capacity. The answer to this would be that the responsibility assigned in these commands is only for the effort, not for bringing these things into actual existence. If the objector then asks where in the Quran it says, ‘Strive to protect from the Fire,’ ‘Engage in reform,’ and ‘Strive for the establishment of the religion,’ then the response would be gently to advise him to reflect on this matter privately, as his objection now deviates from common sense and is also indicative of ignorance of the language of commands and rulings.” (Magazine Zindagi, Muharram 1382, p. 7 )

The article does not specify who these “some people” are that presented this meaningless objection to your “companion.” However, as far as my point is concerned, it has no relation to this objection. I am not saying that according to the constitutional wording of your objective, the responsibility of the believers is to actually establish it instead of merely striving for it. Rather, my argument is that if the verse regarding the establishment of the religion is taken as a source for the objective, then according to this verse, your responsibility becomes to bring into reality what is mentioned in the verse. This is because the verse does not merely speak of “effort”; rather, it declares a necessary outcome. As the Quran says, “God seeks only to perfect His light.” (9:32).

Refuting someone else’s viewpoint based on the questions they have raised is a very effective method in that it makes it much easier to challenge the opponent. However, this is the same approach for which the Jamaat-e-Islami has grievances against its opposing scholars. These individuals criticised the Jamaat-e-Islami based on the points provided by their adherents. In response, the leaders of the Jamaat-e-Islami stated that the perspective of the movement is well-documented in its own literature, and therefore anyone wishing to comment on the movement should thoroughly read the movement’s literature and comment in light of it. It is not correct to form an opinion based on questions compiled by others and then target the movement with criticisms. I would say the same to my critics, as I fear that some people will attempt to repeat this tested method of the opponents against me.

The aforementioned verse is actually part of a passage that consists of two verses found in three chapters of the Quran (Chapters Al-Tawbah, Al-Fath, and Al-Saff). Here, I will quote the passage from Chapter Al-Tawbah: 

These people want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to complete His Light, even if the disbelievers dislike it. He is the One who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religions, even if the polytheists dislike it. (Quran, 9:32-33)

The first point is that this verse mentions the “manifestation of religion” (making the religion prevail), which is an action that occurs despite the “displeasure” of the disbelievers and polytheists. However, the primary and foremost task of the Prophet is to convey the message of the religion with the aim that people willingly accept the Prophet’s message and joyfully incorporate it into their lives. The Prophet primarily comes to save people from the torment of Hell, which is only possible if they willingly embrace the religion, rather than imposing it on them against their will despite their displeasure. In such a situation, it is evident that the manifestation of religion (even if the polytheists dislike it) cannot be considered a reflection of the original and complete mission of Prophethood.

In the other verses, there are several clear indicators that lead us to believe that the action being mentioned is not truly a human mission; rather, it is a divine plan. By its very nature, it represents a manifestation of God’s decision rather than a description of human effort. It is true that to bring this action into existence, Allah has utilized His Messenger as a means, and in this regard, the ultimate goal of the last Prophet’s mission included the unfolding of this event in Arabia through him. However, in terms of its essential reality, this was a divine plan and not the general and specific responsibility of Prophethood that a Prophet is personally obligated to fulfill. This is what is referred to when it is stated, “And if you do not do [what you are commanded], then you have not conveyed His message.” (Quran, 5:67).

1.        The first indicator is that upon examining the words used here, it becomes apparent that this is a proclamation rather than a general command. In other words, the “manifestation of religion” (making the religion prevail), is not merely commanded as an attempt; rather, it is stated that the manifestation of religion must necessarily occur. Allah has sent His Messenger for this very purpose—to establish His religion over all other religions. Although the disbelievers and polytheists are exerting all their strength to prevent this event, the Lord of the Universe denies the possibility of such an outcome when His plan is to be realized.

“And sufficient is Allah as a Witness” concerning what He has promised, which will certainly come to pass. (Tafsir Abi Su’ud, Vol. 8, p. 114)

“And sufficient is Allah as a Witness” according to Al-Hasan, as He has witnessed to Himself that He will establish your religion. (Al-Kashshaf, Vol. 4, p. 346)

The promise of the manifestation of religion that Allah has made will certainly come to fruition. It is reported from Imam Hasan that Allah has testified to Himself that He will soon make your religion prevail.

This manner of expression clearly indicates that it does not mention the mission of any created being that is only capable of making an effort, regardless of whether the outcome of that effort is successful or not. Rather, it speaks of an entity whose actions embody the command of “Be, and it is.” Here, it is essentially an announcement of Allah’s own will, which He will certainly fulfill despite all the opposition from disbelievers and polytheists. The style of divine discourse is such that it decisively rejects the possibility that the event planned to occur in Arabia will not come to pass. It is evident that this can only be an act of God and not of any human. Such necessity between intent and occurrence may be possible for God, but it is beyond human capability to ensure that whatever they desire must come to fruition regardless of circumstances.

2.        The second indicator pertains to the pronoun in “li-yuzhirahu ‘ala ad-deen ( لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ ).” Upon examining the relevant phrases, it becomes clear that here the subject of “yuzhir”—He may have it prevail—is Allah. This is because the kind of necessary manifestation of religion being mentioned here can only be carried out by God. Consequently, all the commentators, except for a few exceptions, agree that the subject of “yuzhir” is God and not the Messenger. There is indeed a difference of opinion regarding the object pronoun (ه); some consider it to refer to the Messenger, while others refer it to the religion of truth. However, the subject of “yuzhir” is agreed upon as God among all.

Rashid Rida, while explaining the viewpoint of the commentators in this regard, writes:

“Regarding the object pronoun (ه), there are two opinions. One is that it refers to the Messenger e. This is reported from Abdullah ibn Abbas. In this case, it would mean that Allah will inform the Messenger about all the matters of religion that he needs as a Messenger, including beliefs, etiquette, governance, and rulings. This is because Muhammad e was sent with the final religion, after which humanity does not require any further guidance in matters of faith.” (Tafsir al-Manar, Vol. 10, p. 339)

The second opinion is that the pronoun (hu) refers to the religion of truth with which the Messenger, ﷺ, was sent. Its meaning would then be that Allah will exalt this religion and elevate its status above all other religions (Tafsir al-Manar, Vol. 10, p. 340).

According to this second opinion, the pronoun (ه) refers to the religion of truth that you brought. Its meaning is that Allah will exalt this religion above all other religions and enhance its honor.

Commentator al-Razi writes:

“Most commentators believe that the pronoun (hu) in the phrase li-yuzhirahu (‘to make it prevail’) refers to the Messenger. However, most commentators also agree that the pronoun in li-yuzhirahu refers to the religion of truth (deen al-haqq), meaning that Allah sent the Messenger with the religion in order to make the religion of truth prevail over all other religions. In this regard, it is possible that the subject of the verb yuzhir (‘to make prevail’) could be Allah, or it could refer to the Prophet—meaning ‘the Prophet will make the religion of truth prevail.’” (Tafsir al-Razi, Vol. 7, p. 882)

Imam al-Razi (and some other commentators) have acknowledged this possibility while also accepting that the subject of the verb could be the Prophet. However, their opinion is based solely on grammatical reasons. Otherwise, they believe that the action described in this phrase is genuinely an act of Allah, with the Messenger simply serving as a visible means. Therefore, after quoting the verses above in the interpretation of Chapter Al-Tawbah, Imam al-Razi states:

“Ilm annahu ta’ala lamma hakka ‘anil a’daa annahum yuhawiloona ibtaala amri Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) wa bayyana ta’ala annahu ya’ba dhalika al-ibtaal wa annahu yutimmu amrahu, bayyana kayfiyyata dhalika al-itmam faqala: ‘Huwa allathee arsala rasoolahu bil-huda wa deenil haqq, li yuzhirahu ‘ala ad-deen kullihi.’ (Tafseer al-Razi, Vol. 6, p. 321).”

That is, know that when Allah, the Almighty, narrated about the enemies attempting to nullify the matter of Muhammad (e), He made it clear that He would never allow their efforts to succeed and that He would complete His mission. Then, He explained how this completion would occur, saying: ‘It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it prevail over all religions.’

This means that, according to Imam al-Razi, the “divine will” mentioned in the earlier verses (wa-Allahu mutimm nurihi—“and Allah will perfect His light) refers to the same divine intention, and the second verse (arsala rasulahu bi-l-huda wa-deeni al-haqq—He is the One who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth…) describes how this will be accomplished. Therefore, the implication of the verb yuzhira (to make prevail) being attributed to the Messenger indicates an explanation of the action of the original doer, rather than defining the doer itself.

Qadi al-Baydawi expressed the same idea in a different way. He sees the second phrase (huwa alladhi arsala rasulahu…—He is the One who sent His Messenger…) as an explanation of the first one (yuriduna an yutfi’u… — They wish to extinguish…). Since Allah, the doer, is clearly mentioned in the first phrase (wa-Allahu mutimm nurihi—“and Allah will perfect His light” and yuriduna an yutfi’u—they wish to extinguish), it’s natural to understand that He remains the doer in the second phrase as well. According to this view, identifying the doer of the omitted pronoun isn’t relevant anymore, since the doer is already mentioned in the speech.

Al-Baydawi’s words are:

“Huwa allathee arsala rasoolahu bil-huda wa deenil haqq li yuzhirahu ‘ala ad-deen kullihi” kal-bayani li qawlihi: “Wa ya’ba Allahu illa an yutimmu noorahu,” wa lidhalika karrara: “Wa law karihal mushrikoon,” ghayra annahu wada’a al-mushrikeen mawdi’a al-kafireen. (Tafseer al-Baydawi, Vol. 3, p. 79).

That is, He is the one who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to make it prevail over all religions,” is like the explanation of His statement: “And Allah refuses but to complete His light,” and for this reason, He repeated, “Even if the polytheists dislike it.” The difference is that in the first sentence, it mentions “kafiroon” (disbelievers), while in the second, it mentions “mushrikoon” (polytheists) instead.

Al-Alusi al-Baghdadi expressed the same idea in these words: The verse (huwa alladhi arsala rasulahu…—He is the One who sent His Messenger…) is an explanation of the previous verse (yuriduna an yutfi’u…—They wish to extinguish…), as the manifestation of the religion is, in fact, the ultimate result of the completion of the light. (Ruh al-Ma’ani, Vol. 5, p. 278)

3.        The third point is that the understanding of this command by the recipients of revelation, and their actions in response, was essentially an act that can be called a divine decree, but it cannot be regarded as a human mission.

This manifestation of religion, which, according to the words of the author of Ruh al-Ma’ani, was achieved through the domination of the believers over all people of other religions (Ruh al-Ma’ani, Vol. 13, p. 275), raises the question of which event is being referred to and whether it has occurred or not. In this regard, Imam Razi has mentioned five opinions.

The third opinion is:

This means to make Islam prevail over all the religions of the Arabs. This event has indeed occurred because Allah has not left any disbeliever remaining in Arabia. (Tafsir Kabir, Vol. 6, p. 33)

This opinion is more consistent with the words of the verse, as it announces the implementation of the manifestation of religion despite the aversion of the disbelievers and polytheists; therefore, no scenario can be considered its example if it has not yet occurred. Al-Shawkani writes: “This has taken place, and all praise is due to Allah” (Fath al-Qadir, Vol. 2, p. 405).

The scope of this action was the land of Arabia, as some scholars have explicitly stated:

It was Allah’s decision to establish the religion in the Arabian Peninsula, and He has done so. (Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Vol. 8, p. 122).

This process of manifesting the religion was specific to the Arabian Peninsula, which occurred in such a way that no disbeliever remained there. (Al-Bahr al-Muheet, Vol. 5, p. 406)

In the case of the children of Ishmael, the method adopted for the manifestation of the religion was that the Prophet waged war against those among them who chose intense opposition and confrontation, meaning that they were to either accept faith or face death. It is mentioned in a reliable Hadith:

I was commanded to fight the people (and in the narration of an-Nasa’i, ‘to fight the disbelievers’) until they testify that there is no god but Allah. Once they say it, they have protected their lives and wealth from me, and their reckoning is with Allah. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 1399; Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 21; Sunan an-Nasa’i, Hadith No. 3966; Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 10840)

In some narrations, the phrase “and Muhammad is His servant and Messenger” is also included. In others, there are additions like “and they should establish prayer and pay zakah,” or “and disbelieve in what is worshipped besides Allah,” and in some, “and they should face our Qiblah and eat our sacrificial animals,” while others include “they should believe in me and what I have brought” (Sharh Muslim by Nawawi, Vol. 14, Page 84).

Consider the points mentioned above in this context. It would indeed be very strange if we were to take an Ayah (verse) as a source for the mission of the Muslim Ummah, which narrates an act of Allah. What linguistic or rhetorical principle could possibly support the notion that a phrase stating “Allah intends to do this” can be interpreted as “the mission of Allah’s servants is to do this”? If this Ayah is declared as the source of the Muslim Ummah’s mission, it would imply that we would launch a war against people that will not end until they change their beliefs and become Muslims. Furthermore, since the wording of the Ayah does not merely mention the effort to manifest the religion, but rather declares that the manifestation of the religion must actually come to pass, taking this Ayah as a source for the mission would mean that we are bound to ensure the completion of the “light” and the “manifestation of the religion” as mentioned, within our sphere of action. Yet, it is known that it is only within human capacity to make efforts, not to guarantee the occurrence of any results.

Regarding the verse about the manifestation of the religion, one interpretation that has been reported is that it means teaching the Messenger all the laws of the Shari’ah and informing him about them: “Li yu’allimahu shara’i’ al-deen kullaha, fa yutli’ahu ‘alayha.” (Tafsir Al-Tabari, Vol. 14, p. 215). This opinion is attributed to the famous companion, Abdullah ibn Abbas.

Abdullah ibn Abbas explained the meaning of this Ayah as indicating that Allah will inform His final Messenger about all matters of the religion. He will bestow upon him the entirety of the religion, leaving nothing hidden from him, even though the polytheists and the Jews despise it. (Al-Durr al-Manthur, Vol. 4, p. 175)

According to this interpretation, the term “manifestation” does not refer to dominance but to informing someone of a secret. In Arabic, zahara (ظَهَرَ) can also mean “to reveal,” as stated in the Quran: ‘alim al-ghaybi fa-la yuzhiru ‘ala ghaybihi ahadan—“He is the Knower of the unseen, and He does not disclose His unseen to anyone” (Quran, 72:26).

However, as I understand it, the interpretation of this Companion does not necessarily contradict the meaning of dominance. Instead, it reflects one of the wisdoms behind the specific form of the dominance of religion granted to the final Messenger. Allah has promised that He will surely make His Messenger prevail, as stated in the Chapter Al-Mujadilah: kataba Allahu la-aghlibanna ana wa-rusuli—“Allah has decreed: ‘‘I and My messengers shall most certainly prevail.” (Quran, 58:21).

But in the case of past prophets, this dominance typically manifested through the annihilation of the deniers of the prophets by means of divine punishment, rescuing the believers and establishing them in a liberated region. However, in the case of the final Messenger, Allah’s law was implemented in such a manner that, in the words of Al-‘Alusi, it—meaning is to conquer the deniers in the area of the invitation of Bani Ismail and to establish the rule of the believers over them (Ruh al-Ma’ani, Vol. 9, p. 55). This was a specific matter predestined for the final Messenger according to divine knowledge.

Thus, people were long forewarned about this through the heavenly kingship mentioned in the scriptures of Bani Israel.

What was the wisdom behind the specific enforcement of this divine law? It is expressed in the relevant Ayahs of the Quran as “the completion of light.” Here, “light” particularly refers to those laws and guidance sent down for human direction in worldly life. When Allah decided to conclude the arrival of messengers after Muhammad ﷺ, it necessitated the revelation of laws related to every aspect of life that would guide humanity until the Day of Judgment.

However, it has been Allah’s custom that the entire religion is not revealed all at once in written form. The fundamental and basic teachings of the religion are revealed to the prophets at an early stage, but the detailed laws related to society and politics descend only when a practical political and economic organization is established. This is why many prophets received only the basic laws; their audiences had not accepted Islam to the extent that a separate political system could be established, so such laws could not descend upon them.

In the case of the final Messenger, such a situation could not be tolerated, as it would imply that teachings related to all aspects of life could not be revealed, and there would be no guidance in Allah’s religion for all eventualities.

This is why the specific form of dominance was chosen for the final Messenger, and he was granted a “great kingdom” or “heavenly kingship.” Without this, the completion of religion or the fulfillment of divine light upon the servants could not take place. Thus, in Surah Al-Fath (Chapter of Victory), the wisdom of dominance is described: wa-yahdiyakum siratan mustaqiman (48:2)—“and that He may guide you to a straight path.” Here, the guidance of the Straight Path refers to the provision of detailed laws, as Ibn Kathir wrote:

This means that by establishing the laws of the Shariah and true religion, He has shown you the Straight Path (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 7, p. 327). If the believers had not been granted dominance and the opportunity to organize their own independent society, they would not have encountered all the situations of life. As a result, the laws related to every aspect of life would not have been revealed either. It is Allah’s tradition that laws concerning practical situations are revealed only after the relevant circumstances arise.

Considering these points, it becomes clear why Abdullah ibn Abbas provided the aforementioned interpretation of the Ayah. This is essentially a statement of the specific wisdom hidden within the scheme of the dominance of religion. This discussion does not imply that the task of establishing dominance was solely the responsibility of the era of Prophethood, and that now we need not do anything regarding it. In reality, whenever there is a confrontation between religion and secularism, it becomes the duty of Muslims to stand firm and strive to establish religion. However, to categorically declare this as the mission of all Muslims and to interpret religion in such a way that this becomes the primary task is not correct.