Understanding ‘Deen’

The fourth and final term in this context is “Deen” (religion). The book identifies four different meanings of this word from classical Arabic usage. Then, under the heading “The Use of the Word Deen in the Quran,” the following lines are provided:

“These details clarify that the foundation of the word Deen consists of four concepts, or in other words, this word represents four core ideas in the Arabic mind.”

1.  Dominance and control exercised by one who possesses authority.

2.  Obedience, servitude, and submission from those who yield to authority.

3.  Rules, regulations, and methods that are followed.

4.  Accountability, judgment, and the awarding of rewards or punishments.

The Arabs sometimes used this word to refer to different ideas. However, because their understanding of these four aspects was neither fully clear nor very advanced, the use of this term lacked precision, and it did not evolve into a technical term representing a unified system of thought. When the Quran came, it recognized this word as suitable for its purpose and used it for very specific and clear meanings, establishing it as a distinct term. In the Quranic language, the word “Deen” signifies an entire system made up of four components.

1.        Sovereignty and supreme authority.

2.        Submission and obedience in response to this authority.

3.        The intellectual and practical system established under this authority.

4.        Reward and punishment given by the supreme authority as recompense for loyalty and obedience to or rebellion against this system.

In the Quran, sometimes the word Deen is applied to the first and second meanings, sometimes to the third, sometimes to the fourth, and at times, when referring to ad-Deen, it implies this entire system with all four of its elements. (pp. 87-88)

After presenting separate Quranic verses for each of these four meanings, the author under review writes under the heading “Deen as a Comprehensive Term”:

“Up to this point, the Quran uses this word in nearly the same meanings in which it was commonly used in Arab language. But then we see that the Quran employs the word Deen as a comprehensive term, and by it, it means a complete system of life in which a person accepts the supreme authority of someone, pledges obedience and submission to them, and lives under the rules, boundaries, and laws established by them.

Such a person seeks honor, progress, and reward through obedience and fears humiliation, disgrace, and punishment for disobedience. It seems that no term in any language worldwide fully captures this entire concept. The modern term ‘State’ comes close, but it still needs further expansion to encompass the full scope of Deen.” (pp. 92-93)

This passage explains that the ultimate understanding of Deen is as a complete way of life or in terms of a state. In one sense, Deen can be seen as a State or a system. However, if you try to describe the full and holistic idea of Deen using only the words “state” or “system,” it becomes very limited and incomplete. This is because, no matter how broad or comprehensive a state or system is, it remains just a legal framework or set of rules with no real connection to human emotions and feelings. It does not come from within a person but is imposed from outside. In contrast, Deen is about forming a connection with God. It suggests that the bond between the servant and God is natural and real. The actions that appear in life are external signs of this connection, which the servant integrates into their life based on God’s guidance. A state or system is merely an external structure, while Deen is the outward expression of an inner reality. That is why true and lasting benefits in life can only come through Deen. The concepts of ‘system’ and ‘state’ provide only an initial surge of enthusiasm; afterward, life and the system drift apart, leaving no genuine connection between them.

It is true that Deen can also manifest in forms that resemble what is called a state or system. However, the essence of God’s Deen is the highest quality that appears as supplication and sincerity (Quran, 40:65) and in worship and devotion (Quran, 39:17). The greatest blessing a person receives in this world upon becoming religious is this relationship with their Lord. For a believer, the highest reality of Deen in a personal sense is that the servant calls upon their Lord with intense longing, full of fear and hope, dedicating all emotions and feelings to Him alone. They become completely devoted and a true worshiper of God, directing their entire attention toward Him. This is the highest personal reality of Deen, the greatest attainment of a devout person, which they carry with them to their Lord. Whoever receives this gift of connection with Allah through their Deen has truly found Deen, while anyone who lacks such a relationship remains deprived of Deen, despite all else they may possess.

Moreover, political religiosity can only truly develop in someone who has genuine religious devotion. A person lacking real religious devotion will be equally lacking in political religiosity.

When we realize that the greatest reality of religion—indeed, its very essence and core—is absent from this so-called “comprehensive” picture of faith, we are compelled to acknowledge that the “incomplete” image of religion cherished by the Ummah for centuries was, in fact, the correct one. This new portrayal of religion, despite its claim to comprehensiveness, is not its true image. In this portrayal of religion, attaining a worldly outcome is treated as the primary objective, whereas attaining a personal outcome, in the sense of individual responsibility, is the true purpose of religion. Here, I am reminded of the words of a respected senior figure, spoken in response to a similar objection of mine.

He said that, in our view, what the Muslim Ummah, as a collective, seeks to attain is certainly the establishment of a life in which no other Deen or system of thought and action prevails besides Allah’s. However, this is the objective of the community, not of the individual. As for the individual’s true goal, it is solely to attain Allah’s pleasure and success in the Hereafter. This pleasure and success can only be achieved if the individual fully fulfills their personal responsibilities. If they have fulfilled their individual responsibilities, then they die having completed their religious duty. However, the goal of the community or Ummah is different. In this regard, there is no final time limit for the struggle, nor is it the community’s responsibility to fully achieve it. As long as the Muslim Ummah exists on this earth, the struggle for this objective—the establishment of a complete Islamic system—will continue. In the elder’s words, the first aspect is the individual goal, and the second aspect is the “collective goal of the community.”

Despite this dual focus of objectives, the core issue remains the same. In both cases, the goal is clear: to establish a complete Islamic system worldwide. The only difference is that an individual does their duty to the best of their ability, while the community is responsible for continuing this effort from generation to generation until the complete Islamic system is achieved globally.

However, this division does not impact the main issue. It only shows that an individual is responsible as long as they are alive, and the community is responsible as long as it exists. But where does it show that the establishment of a “complete Islamic system” is the main mission given by the prophets and entrusted to us?

To support the specific idea of a collective goal, the author under review presents a historical example, which he explains as follows:

“Prophet Jesus came to seek the lost sheep of the Children of Israel. His mission was to help the Children of Israel fully embrace Islamic life again. However, regarding his own direct efforts, only twelve individuals became his companions. Yet, even after him, the call to goodness continued. After a long period, a time came when the followers of Jesus prevailed, and the deniers were defeated. The reality he aimed to bring into existence came into being; in other words, the mission he started was fulfilled. The Quran, in the last part of Chapter Al-Saff, describes this long and multi-stage story in a way that clearly shows it is, in fact, the history of a single movement and a single mission. However, the founder of this movement and the original bearer of the mission had long departed from this world.”

I want to clarify that this reference is not accurate. The history of Christians does not support the idea that after the death of Jesus (peace be upon him), his followers continued the efforts mentioned above and ultimately established a complete and comprehensive Islamic system. The verse from Chapter Al-Saff that is cited uses the term “ظاہرين” (those who prevail, Quran, 61:14), which simply means “dominance” rather than establishing any full or complete system. According to the wording of the verse, this dominance was not of one religion over another but rather of the followers of Jesus over his enemies.

In interpreting this verse, three opinions from ancient commentators are cited. The first suggests that dominance is achieved through proof and evidence. The second states that at the time of Jesus’ “ascension,” his twelve companions became divided; some believed he was God, others said he was the Son of God, and some insisted he was merely a servant and messenger of God. This led to disputes among them, resulting in conflicts where those who spoke the truth ultimately prevailed. The third opinion holds that the dominance mentioned in this verse refers to the one that occurred during the time of the final messenger. However, Allama Alusi has written regarding this that “وهو خلاف الظاہر,” meaning this interpretation does not conform to the apparent meaning of the words. (Ruh al-Ma’ani, Vol. 14, p. 286)

Personally, I tend to agree more with some later scholars who interpret the verse in Chapter Al-Saff as referring to the dominance of Christians over Jews (as a nation). According to this interpretation, the phrase “الذين آمنوا” does not refer to believers in the full sense, but rather to those who acknowledge the prophethood of Jesus (Christians). The dominance of Christians over Jews is not about establishing any kind of “system,” but rather it is simply a general dominance imposed as a worldly punishment for rejecting the prophethood of Jesus and attempting to kill him, based on their intentions.

The word “Deen” in Arabic has multiple meanings, but the core meaning for which Islam is called Deen is humility and submission:

Ad-dinu: adh-dhull (Lisan al-‘Arab by Ibn Manzur, Vol. 13, p. 170), that is, Al-Din means humility or submissiveness. This signifies humility and lowliness.

Danahu dinan, ay adhallahu wa-ista‘badahu (al-Sihah by al-Jawhari, Vol. 5, p. 2118) means he subdued him, which means he humbled and enslaved him.

In a hadith, it is stated: Al-kayyisu man dana nafsahu wa-‘amila lima ba‘da al-mawt (Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Hadith No. 2459), which means, “The wise person is the one who controls his soul and works for what comes after death.”

Becoming religious is fundamentally not a political or civil event but is instead a deeply personal experience. It means that an individual submits themselves before God, overcomes their own desires for Him, and fully dedicates all their feelings and emotions to Him. In this sense, Prophet Ibrahim (u) was a complete Muslim, even though he never established a comprehensive system during his life. Similarly, the declaration of the last Messenger’s Deen as religious in Makkah occurred even though, at that time, neither a state was established nor communal laws were revealed:

“Say, ‘I worship Allah alone, dedicating my religion to Him. So worship whatever you will besides Him.’” (Quran, 39:14-15)

In this context, the establishment of prayer and the giving of zakat are referred to as the Al-Deen Al-Qayyim (upright religion). However, it is evident that this is not the entirety of Deen. (Quran, 98: 5)

When this state of religious devotion develops within a person, it naturally influences their practical life. In the situations they face, they abandon other methods and adopt those preferred by God. Their external life becomes a reflection of their internal submission. It becomes unthinkable for them to act in ways that go against God’s preferences. In this sense, politics and civilization are all part of Deen.

The first aspect is the fundamental reality of Deen, and the second is the demand of this reality placed on the faithful in relation to their circumstances. The first aspect is required from everyone at all times; without it, no one’s religiosity can be considered valid. In this regard, all prophets and righteous individuals were truly devoted in the complete sense, but the social and communal demands of Deen are not universally applicable; rather, they vary according to circumstances. This is why there have been differences among believers in different eras regarding these demands. Some were able to fulfill them, while others were not, and some received such commands while others did not.

For this reason, while Deen is a term that includes various components listed in the Shari’ah, there is no verse that universally requires obedience to the entire list. The discussions on Ilah, Rabb, and Ibadah provided earlier have highlighted the core of a “comprehensive concept.” Now, let’s also review the verses cited in the book to support the comprehensive understanding of Deen.

The first verse is:

“Among the People of the Book are those who neither believe in Allah (that is, they do not acknowledge Him as the sole Supreme Authority), nor in the Last Day (that is, the Day of Reckoning and the Day of Recompense), nor regard as forbidden what Allah and His Messenger have declared forbidden, nor adopt the true religion as their way. Fight against them until they pay the jizyah by their own hand and live in submission.” (Quran, 9:29)

The translation I provided above is the one from the book’s author. Following this, the author states:

In this verse, ‘Deen al-Haqq’ (the religion of truth) is a technical term, and its meaning is clarified in the first three phrases by Allah Himself. We have numbered the translation to show that all four meanings of the word Deen are explained in these phrases, and then their collective understanding is called Deen al-Haqq.” (p. 93)

The interpretations derived from this verse, to the best of my knowledge, have not been mentioned by any commentator, nor do the words of the verse support such explanations. The attempt to derive the “first” and “second” meanings of Deen from the phrase “لا يومنون بالله ” (they do not believe in Allah)—specifically, that they do not recognize God’s “sovereignty and supreme authority” and do not accept and obey that sovereignty—is a weak argument, similar to how some people interpret belief in the “state” as faith in Allah. Similarly, trying to establish the “third meaning” of Deen from “ولا يحرمون ما حرم الله ورسوله” (they do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful)—which refers to “the system of thought and action established under this sovereignty”—is simply a distortion of the words rather than a valid scholarly argument. Furthermore, claiming that “دين الحق” includes all four meanings of Deen is an unsupported assertion. There is no linguistic indicator in the verse to suggest that Deen al-Haqq is used here to represent a collection of these four meanings.

The specific meaning that this verse is intended to establish in the book under discussion certainly does not emerge from it, and no commentator supports it. However, setting that aside, there is a difference of opinion among scholars regarding the correct interpretation of the verse. One group interprets “يدينون دين الحق” as referring to the acceptance of Islam (Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Vol. 8, p. 110). However, this interpretation creates a contradiction within the verse. According to this view, the reason for waging war against the People of the Book is that they do not adopt the religion brought by Muhammad () as their own. If the reason for the war is this, then logically, the war should end on the same basis. In other words, the war should cease when the People of the Book accept the religion of truth or are defeated in battle. If the initial basis for the war is this, the final basis should naturally be the same. However, the verse states that if they pay the jizyah and accept political authority, the war will be halted. In other words, the war will commence due to the crime of the People of the Book in not accepting the religion of Islam, but afterward, it will cease solely on the basis that they have agreed to pay the jizyah.

Therefore, the correct interpretation of the verse is that the phrase “يدينون دين الحق” refers to accepting the political authority of the Prophet. The phrases “لا يومنون بالله ولا باليوم الاخر ولا يحرمون ما حرم الله ورسوله” address their lack of faith, while the subsequent phrase “ولا يدينون دين الحق” refers to their failure to accept political authority. For the People of the Book, the correct stance would have been to believe in the final Prophet, who had long been prophesied to them. However, since they did not do this, the alternative was that they should agree to the political authority of the Prophet (as stated in the discussion on the obligation to fight the polytheists and the obligation regarding the People of the Book: to fight them until they accept Islam or pay the jizyah (Tafsir al-Razi, Vol. 16, p. 25). Yet, they were not open to this second option either. Now, since they only have the choice regarding the first option, and the second option is mandatory, it was commanded that they be fought until they are compelled to accept it.

In the first sentence, the mention of faith and the prohibition of what Allah has forbidden has been interpreted by some to refer to the absence of their belief and adherence to the Mosaic Law, while others see it as their lack of belief in the final Prophet’s law. However, these two interpretations are not contradictory. This is because, if they truly had faith in their own religion, then that faith would necessarily lead them to believe in Muhammad (), as all previous prophets gave the glad tidings of his coming and commanded their communities to follow him. As Ibn Kathir states: “If they truly believed in what was with them in a sound manner, it would lead them to believe in Muhammad because all prophets gave glad tidings about him and commanded following him” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 4, p. 132).

Another opinion has been narrated regarding interpretations of “يدينون دين الحق” (adhere to the religion of truth):

Abu ‘Ubaydah explained that it means they do not obey the obedience of the Muslims, and anyone who is under a king’s authority is considered to be under his religion, and it is said that he has ‘submitted’ to him (Al-Bahr al-Muheet, Vol. 5, p. 400).

Ibn Jarir al-Tabari also adopted this interpretation. He writes:

“(ولا يَدِينُونَ دِين الحق)” means “they do not obey Allah with true obedience.” This refers to the Jews and Christians, and anyone who obeys a king or someone in authority is considered to be following his rule. In Arabic, the expression “دان فلان لفلان فهو يدين له دينا” is used in this sense (Tafsir Ibn Jarir, Vol. 11, pp. 406).

According to this explanation, the verse suggests that after refusing to believe in the final Prophet and abandoning the teachings of the divine religion, their means of salvation would be to accept the political authority of the true religion. However, they were unwilling even for this. As for the first matter (faith), they cannot be forced into it, but for the latter (political obedience), they must be compelled. Fighting will continue until they agree to accept the political authority of the Islamic state.

After this, in the book, five verses are quoted in a particular sequence, and from them a structured conclusion is drawn. I reproduce the whole portion here:

1.        Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam. (3:19)

2.        And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted from him, and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter. (3:85)

3.        It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, so that He may make it prevail over all religion, even though those who associated partners with God dislike it. (9:33)

4.        And fight them until there is no more fitnah, and [until] the religion is entirely for Allah. (8:39)

5.        When the help of Allah comes and victory is achieved, and you see people entering into the religion of Allah in large numbers, then glorify your Lord and seek His forgiveness. Indeed, He is always accepting repentance. (110:1-3)

In all these verses, Deen indicates the complete system of life, including its doctrinal, intellectual, moral, and practical aspects.

In the first two verses, it is stated that the only correct way of life for humanity in the sight of Allah is the one based on obedience and servitude to Allah alone (Islam). Any other system that relies on obedience to any other assumed authority can never be acceptable to the Creator and Sovereign of the universe. This is because the One who created, owns, and nurtures human beings, and in whose dominion, they reside as subjects, cannot permit humanity to live a life of obedience and servitude to anyone else, nor does humanity have the right to follow the guidance of anyone else.

In the third verse, it is stated that Allah sent His Messenger with this true and upright way of life—Islam—and the ultimate goal of his mission is to establish the dominance of this system over all other systems.

The fourth verse commands the followers of Islam to fight in this world and not to rest until fitnah—the existence of systems founded on rebellion against Allah—is eliminated and the entire system of obedience and servitude is rendered solely to Allah.

“In the fifth verse, Allah addresses the Prophet () at a moment when, after 23 years of continuous effort, the revolution in Arabia has been completed. Islam, in its full and detailed form, has become established as a system of belief, thought, morality, education, civilization, social life, and also an economic and political order. Delegation after delegation from various parts of Arabia now enters this system. At this point, when the mission assigned to Prophet Muhammad () has reached its fulfillment, he is instructed not to view this achievement as a personal accomplishment or source of pride. Only the flawless, perfect essence belongs to your Lord. Therefore, in recognition of this monumental achievement, glorify and praise Him, and seek His forgiveness for any shortcomings or mistakes that may have occurred while fulfilling your duties over these 23 years of service.” (page 94-95)

In the excerpt above, if it had simply been stated that deen (religion), in terms of its list of directives, includes everything the Prophet conveyed throughout his Prophetic mission regarding individual and collective aspects of life, we would have no objection to that. In this sense, the term deen could indeed be seen as encompassing all Islamic injunctions. This is an accepted fact, and there is no question of disagreement with it (for reference, see Tafsir Khazin, Vol. 1, p. 278).

However, what is stated here is different. It claims that deen is a complete system of governance (state) and that it is required of us in that role. The Prophet, it is asserted, came for this very purpose, and the ultimate goal of his mission was to establish this entire system above all others. This is said to be the revolutionary task the Prophet Muhammad carried out during his period of prophethood, and this is the same revolutionary mission that we, the followers of the Prophet, are expected to carry out across the entire world.

We disagree with precisely this concept of religion as a political or state-centered mission. In other words, presenting the establishment of a state or a system as the primary mission of prophethood, and claiming that the prophets began their work from the very first day with this objective, is incorrect. The entire substance of our criticism of the book under discussion can be summed up as follows: matters that enter religion from different angles after faith has been accepted have been presented in this book as the core mission of prophethood itself. Regarding this, our position is that such a claim is not established by any verse of the Quran.

The first two verses are from chapter 3 and are meant to show that, until the Day of Judgment, the only religion acceptable to Allah and a way to salvation is “Islam.” Right after this, it is immediately stated:

“And the People of the Book only disagreed after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves.” (Quran, 3:19).

This means that the objections of the People of the Book to the final, accepted, and authentic status of Islam are simply due to their defiance. Otherwise, based on the knowledge they have received from previous prophets, they are well aware of Islam’s authentic status. This is the interpretation adopted by commentaries on the Quran. I will cite two references.

“Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam” (3:19) means that the only religion approved by Allah is Islam. As stated elsewhere, “I have chosen Islam as your religion” (5:3). This statement serves as a rebuttal to the claims of the Jews and Christians: the Jews asserted that Judaism is the superior religion, and the Christians claimed that Christianity is the superior religion. Allah refuted them, stating that only Islam is the religion in the sight of Allah (Tafsir Khazin, Vol. 1, p. 234).

“Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam” (3:19) means that no other religion besides Islam is approved by Allah. (Ruh ul Ma’ani, Vol. 2, p. 103)

Similarly, the second verse’s main topic also concerns which religion is accepted by Allah. Immediately following this, several verses stress that anyone who follows a religion other than Islam will be considered a “disbeliever” in Allah’s eyes and will deserve punishment in the Hereafter (Quran, 3:85-91).

This is also the understanding held by tafsir scholars. I will cite two references:

“And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted from him,” meaning that the only religion accepted by Allah is Islam, and all other religions are not accepted by Him.” (Tafsir Khazin, Vol. 1, p. 266)

In the words of the verse “وَمَن يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الْإِسْلَامِ دِينًا فَلَن يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ” God has clearly declared that after the coming of the final Messenger, whoever follows a religion other than the one he brought will not be accepted by God. (Ruh al-Ma’ani, Vol. 2, p. 207).

The point made in these two verses is not that the only correct way of life for humanity in different areas is the one established under Allah’s authority. Instead, it challenges the claims of other religions that they serve as means of salvation in Allah’s eyes. It states that from now on, the only path to salvation is the religion sent through the final Messenger.

Regarding the third verse, we have covered it in detail elsewhere. Here, we will briefly discuss one aspect that shows the specific concept of deen in question cannot be derived from it.

The author under review’s detailed interpretation of this verse, as cited in another section, shows that he interprets لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ (to make it prevail over all religion) to mean the dominance of all forms of obedience. According to him, this includes replacing personal desires, customs, laws, and government with divine obedience. However, if we reflect, it becomes clear that such comprehensive obedience cannot be enforced on others through external dominance. For example, can a person’s obedience to his own desires be removed by the army or the police? Clearly, it cannot. The truth is that only a few forms of outward conduct can be controlled or enforced through power. Inner obedience—such as submission to one’s desires—lies beyond the reach of coercion. Therefore, most kinds of obedience cannot be made a subject of enforcement.

Furthermore, the actual historical events related to the emergence of deen do not support this interpretation. The verse addressed two groups: the Arab polytheists, with the choices being “either the sword or Islam,” and the People of the Book, who were permitted to practice their religion after paying the jizya. Thus, one group was religiously subdued and the other politically subdued. Clearly, we cannot say that Islam was established over either group in a way that every demand and requirement of Islam was enforced on them, both internally and externally.

Therefore, the scholars of tafsir understood this verse to imply a general dominance, either over other religions or their followers. For example, in Kashshaf, it is stated: “to make it prevail” means to make the Prophet prevail “over people of all religions”, or “to make the true religion prevail over every religion” (Tafsir Kashshaf, Vol. 2, p. 265).

In Madarik al-Tanzil, it is stated: “to make it prevail” means “to make it dominant over all religions, over all people of various religions, or to make the religion of truth prevail over every other religion” (Tafsir Madarik al-Tanzil by al-Nasfi, Vol. 1, p. 676).

A detailed discussion on the fourth verse will follow, demonstrating that the concept in question cannot accurately be applied to this verse. This discrepancy led the author under review to express contradictory views on two different occasions. Since the author needed to establish a broad and comprehensive meaning of deen in the book under discussion, he claimed in one place that the term “deen” in this verse refers to a complete system of life, encompassing all aspects—doctrinal, intellectual, moral, and practical (p. 94). However, when extracting a revolutionary mission from this verse elsewhere, he realized that deen was linked to the command of fighting to establish it, meaning to bring people to deen through combat. Thus, to make this verse the source of the Revolutionary Therefore, taking this verse as the basis of a political revolutionary mission would imply that matters of faith and ideology are to be imposed through fighting and coercion. However, it is clear that the doctrinal and intellectual aspects of religion cannot be imposed by force but require persuasion and advice.

In a later interpretation, the meaning of deen becomes more specific. In Tafheem al-Quran, he changes his stance while explaining this verse and interprets وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ لِلَّهِ as meaning that, regardless of whether people believe or not, the earthly legal system should remain under God’s authority, and for this reason, fighting is justified (Tafheem al Quran, Ch. 2, V. 193, Footnote 205).

Similarly, the lengthy interpretation given for the last reference (Chapter Al-Nasr) has no connection to the actual words of the Chapter. The phrase “إِذَا جَاءَ نَصْرُ اللَّهِ وَالْفَتْحُ” refers to the victory granted by Allah, where the Prophet (e) prevailed over the enemies of Islam. The verse “يَدْخُلُونَ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ أَفْوَاجًا” speaks of the occurrence that, after this victory, people began accepting Islam in large numbers.

According to Ibn Abbas, before this victory, when the final Prophet and the Quraysh were in fierce conflict, the Arabs believed that the side which won was in the right. So, when the Prophet (e) defeated his enemies and gained control, many people started converting to Islam. As a result, Islam became more powerful both politically and in numbers, allowing the ongoing mission of spreading the religion after the Prophet’s time, as Allah intended. This is why, when the Prophet (e) and his close companions heard this Chapter, they saw it as a sign that his time was nearing.

Here, I will quote some excerpts from classical tafsir texts to clarify this interpretation.

“(إِذَا جَاءَ نَصْرُ اللَّهِ وَالْفَتْحُ)”—‘nusr’ means assistance and prevailing over the enemy, and ‘fath’ refers to the conquest of lands. The meaning is the victory of the Prophet (e) over the Arabs, specifically the Quraysh, and the conquest of Makkah. “وَرَأَيْتَ النَّاسَ يَدْخُلُونَ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ أَفْوَاجًا”—when you see the people entering Allah’s religion in multitudes, referring to the people of Yemen embracing Islam in large groups, whereas earlier they entered one or two at a time. (Madarik al-Tanzil, Vol. 3, p. 688)

In Tafsir Abi al-Su’ud, it is explained: “They enter Allah’s religion”—that is, the religion of Islam—“in large groups,” such as the people of Makkah, Ta’if, Yemen, Hawazin, and other tribes of Arabia, who previously entered Islam one or two at a time (Tafsir Abi al-Su’ud, Vol. 9, p. 208).

In Ruh al-Ma’ani (Vol. 15, p. 492), it is stated that the meaning of people entering Allah’s religion in groups is that large numbers began to accept Islam without fighting. This event took place between the conquest of Makkah and the Prophet’s death. Before this, people accepted Islam individually or in pairs.

This chapter of the Quran clearly indicates the arrival of victory and the widespread acceptance of Islam—specifically, victory through Allah’s help and a large number of people embracing Islam. There is no mention of the background or circumstances surrounding this victory and assistance. Therefore, interpreting these verses as suggesting that the previous efforts of the Prophetic mission in Arabia were aimed at establishing a particular political system, and that this victory and support marked the end of that revolutionary fight, is an external interpretation that has been added and connected here. These verses do not describe the nature of the Prophetic mission, nor is there any explicit evidence elsewhere to support such an interpretation. As a result, this argument is similar to someone hypothesizing that the Prophetic mission was primarily a struggle to free the Arab nation from the control of religious leaders and landowners. Such a person might connect this view to these verses and claim that the message is that the Arab national struggle led by Muhammad (ﷺ) succeeded on the day of the conquest of Makkah, after which the oppressed people under the old system gathered in large numbers under his banner. If this latter interpretation is incorrect, then the first interpretation cannot be correct either.