Understanding dīn and islām in Q 5:3

Understanding dīn and islām in Q 5:3

by Rachid Benzine*

It seems that the section of Q 5:3 that reads “al-yawm akmaltu la-kum dīnakum…al-islām dīnan” is an interpolation inserted between two parts of the verse that should be read continuously, as they pertain to dietary restrictions and to exemptions in life-threatening situations or in case of force majeure (cf. Q 2:175 and 16:115). The key words in the interpolated section are dīn and islām, with islām possibly meaning “being in the act of islām,” referring to various modalities of joining a protection contract with God.

Arabic text of Qur'an 5:3; image from quran.com.

Arabic text of Qur’an 5:3; image from quran.com.

In order to better understand this section of Q 5:3, it is helpful to compare various translations:

Yusuf Ali: “This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.” 

Pickthal: “This day are those who disbelieve in despair of (ever harming) your religion; so fear them not, fear Me! This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion al-Islam.”

Jacques Berque: “Aujourd’hui les dénégateurs désespèrent (de venir à bout) de votre religion. Ne les craignez pas; craignez-moi. Aujourd’hui j’ai parachevé pour vous votre religion, parfait pour vous mon bienfait en agréant pour vous l’islam comme religion.”

Hamza Boubakeur: “Aujourd’hui les mécréants désespèrent (de vous détourner) de votre religion. Ne les redoutez pas; redoutez moi. Aujourd’hui j’ai parachevé pour vous votre religion, vous ai comblé de mon bienfait et ai agréé l’islam comme doctrine religieuse pour vous.”

It is also instructive to compare the use of islām and dīn in other Qur’anic verses. The word islām appears in Q 61:7: “Who does greater wrong than the one who forges a lie against Allah, even if he is being invited to islām? And Allah does not guide those who do wrong” (trans. Yusuf Ali). The meaning of the verbal noun islām is complicated, and best understood in light of its foundational meaning as a verb (aslama), as in Q 2:112: “man aslama wajhahu lillāh.” This phrase should not be translated as “whosoever surrendereth his purpose to Allah” (Pickthall) or “whoever submits his whole self to Allah” (Yusuf Ali), but more accurately as “he who turns his face towards God” in an act of salām. This would mean that the person approaches God peaceably, without any hostility, which enables him to receive God’s protection and guidance (as Q 61:7 indicates with the word hudā). Thus islām is actually a contractual relationship between man and God.

As for the word dīn, it cannot be adequately translated as “religion.” It rather expresses the idea of a way or path, as in Q 109:6: “lakum dīnukum wa-lī dīn (to you your way [conduite] and to me mine),” and in Q 30:43: “aqim wajhaka lil-dīn al-qayyim min qabl an ya’tiya yawm lā maradd lahu min Allāh (follow [turn your face towards] the right path before there comes the day when there is no chance to escape from God).” The phrase aqim wajhaka can be considered similar to “making an act of islām,” by turning one’s face to God as a gesture of commitment to Him in request of His approval and protection. The phrase “al-dīn al-qayyim” refers to the content of the contract into which man enters, namely the behavior adopted on the right path.

Returning to the interpolated section of Q 5:3, it announces God’s will to take care of those who seek His protection. Concerning the interpretation of the two factitive verbs, akmala and atmama, they designate effects not of time but of quality. The verb akmala, which signals the signing of the contract between man and God and accepting of all its terms, should be understood not as “to complete” but “to make kāmil (perfect).” Likewise, the verb atmama should be understood not as “to finish” but “to make tamām (entire).” Thus I propose the following translations, in French and English:

“Aujourd’hui ceux qui récusent désespèrent [de vous détourner] de la conduite que vous avez adoptée, dīn: ne les craignez pas; c’est moi que vous devez craindre [en raison du Jugement eschatologique annoncé et de ses conséquences]. Aujourd’hui j’ai validé entièrement la conduite que vous devez tenir [eu égard au contrat qui a été conclu]; [en vertu de ce contrat] je vous ai fait bénéficier de ma totale bienfaisance; [et en retour] j’ai agréé le fait que vous vous soyez engagés à vous mettre sous ma protection en adoptant la conduite convenue.”

“Today those who disbelieve are desperate of [leading you away from] the conduct you have adopted (dīnikum). Do not fear them, but fear Me [because of the eschatological Judgment that has been announced and its consequences]. Today I have perfected the behavior by which you are to live [in fulfillment of the contract]. [Following the content of this contract] I made you benefit from My entire good will; [in return] I have agreed to the fact that you have committed yourself to My protection in adopting the right conduct.”

Alternatively, “akmaltu lakum dīnakum wa-atmamtu ʿalaykum niʿmatī” may be rendered: “Today I gave you the best rule of conduct and I fully dispense to you My good will, and I accept the fact that you are committed to adopt this way.”

* Rachid Benzine is a lecturer at the Institut d’Etudes Politiques in Aix en Provence and the Institut Protestant de Theology in Paris, and a research associate at the Observatoire du religieux (Aix en Provence). He is the author of Les nouveaux penseurs de l’islam (Albin Michel, 2008) and Le Coran expliqué aux jeunes (Le Seuil, 2013).

© International Qur’anic Studies Association, 2014. All rights reserved.

Rethinking Late Antiquity—A Review of Garth Fowden, Before and After Muḥammad: The First Millennium Refocused

By Michael Pregill

Beginning in the 1970s, the work of Peter Brown revolutionized the way scholars approach the “fall of Rome,” the decline of Roman and Sasanian power in the Middle East, and the rise of Islam in Late Antiquity. In his classic The World of Late Antiquity, AD 150-750 and other works, Brown argued that the emergence of Islam and the establishment of the caliphal empire was not a radical disruption of the course of history, but rather represented the continuity of older cultural, political, social, and religious patterns. Despite the wide influence of Brown’s work and the general recognition of Islam’s importance in the overall trajectory of Mediterranean and even European history, substantial obstacles to a full integration of ancient, early Christian, Jewish, and Islamic phenomena into a general history of the civilization of Western Asia remain.

Although an outdated, isolationist approach to Late Antiquity primarily focusing on late Roman culture and society still dominates some quarters of the academy, many scholars have worked towards a more integrated and comparative approach to the period. The shifts have been gradual and partial. Today there are numerous scholars of rabbinics who explore the wider context of the Babylonian Talmud in Sasanian society; there has lately been a resurgence of interest in the history of the Red Sea region, including Ethiopia and the Yemen, in the centuries leading up to the rise of Islam; and over the last ten years or so, we have seen significant interest in the literary and religious parallels to the Qur’an found in Syriac Christian literature in particular. (Many of the scholars who have been responsible for the last development have generously assisted in the foundation and growth of IQSA, so this is really nothing new to readers of this blog, though developments in late ancient or Jewish historiography may be less familiar.)

Before and After Muhammad: The First Millennium Refocused

Before and After Muhammad: The First Millennium Refocused

All of these developments point to a recognition that the various cultures and literatures of Late Antiquity cannot be viewed in isolation, but rather must be approached in the wider context of the dynamic exchanges between various communities in the period, the imperial competition between the Romans and the Sasanians, and the spread and consolidation of the monotheistic or “Abrahamic” traditions.

Among the scholars who sought to adopt, refine, and develop Brown’s approach to the period, it was Garth Fowden—currently Sultan Qaboos Professor of Abrahamic Faiths at Cambridge—who produced what was perhaps the most important work in this area in the 1990s: From Empire to Commonwealth: Consequences of Monotheism in Late Antiquity. When I was a graduate student, Fowden’s work impacted me profoundly. The book is ambitious in scope, wildly imaginative, willing to explore the period in terrifyingly broad terms, but in pursuit of a single cogent thesis: that the entire history of the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean from the second through the ninth century CE can be understood in terms of a sequence of imperial projects aiming to establish God’s rule on earth. That is, the unifying theme of the era, one that distinguishes it from the civilization of the ancient world and sets the stage for the medieval cultures of Byzantium, Western Christendom, and the Dār al-Islām, is the use of monotheism as the primary justification for statebuilding, for literally global dominion (as far as that was possible in the pre-modern world). In Fowden’s work, the use of religion to justify imperial authority becomes the thread that links Christian Rome, Sasanian Iran, and the caliphates and that allows us to see the significant continuities between them with clarity.

(Perhaps not coincidentally, the only other books I read during my Ph.D. training that exerted a similarly enduring influence on my imagination were Wansbrough’s The Sectarian Milieu (1978)—no doubt familiar to every reader of this blog—and Bulliet’s The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization (2004), which, like Fowden’s Empire to Commonwealth, is another eloquent call for historical thinking on the global scale, for transcending the narrow and artificial boundaries between the culture of “the West” and Islam.)

After a number of years dedicated to other projects, including a fascinating study on the iconography of the late Umayyad palace of Quṣayr ʿAmra, Fowden has now returned to history on the grand scale with Before and After Muḥammad: The First Millennium Refocused. Stunningly, this work is even more ambitious in scope than Empire to Commonwealth. Here Fowden once again seeks to explore the overarching continuities between Christian Rome, Sasanian Iran, and Islam but with even more attention paid to the intertwining discourses that link Greco-Roman, Syrian Christian, Jewish, Arab, Iranian, and European cultures over the course of a thousand years, centering on what he now calls the “Eurasian hinge” of southwest Asia linking the civilizations of the region. Fowden anchors his work in a rigorous interrogation of older conceptions of Late Antiquity, criticizing older scholars’ poor integration of Islam into the period, as well as the common approach of only including the Umayyad caliphate as a late antique empire. This serves to truncate the early medieval period from older trajectories of development that arguably only reached their full fruition around the year 1000. It also artificially severs the Abbasids and Iranian Islam from the prevailing cultural patterns of the Arab-Islamic world, though they are equally rooted in the legacies of biblical monotheism and Hellenism.



Fowden also locates his work in the context of contemporary debates over the relationship between Islam and the West, stating quite bluntly that “My purpose here is not to join this debate directly, but to overhaul its foundations” (2). His approach in Before and After Muḥammad builds on his earlier work, in that the cultures of the Islamic Middle East and Christian Europe are seen as halves of a larger whole. (Here I was a bit disappointed that Fowden does not engage with Bulliet’s aforementioned work The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization, which eloquently argues for an approach to Islam and the West as two halves or wings of a unified civilizational complex that only decisively split in the later medieval period. This is a perspective that is obviously quite compatible with and complementary to Fowden’s.)

Periodization, methods, and labels occupy much of Fowden’s attention here, and he spends significant time critiquing other contemporary attempts to advance beyond traditional frameworks and paradigms (82-91), adopting the new periodization of a unified “First Millennium” as his preferred heuristic lens on the period. This approach has the distinct benefit of locating Augustus at one end of the period and the emergence of the mature scriptural communities of Europe and Western Asia at the other, without privileging Europe over the Islamic world as the “true” heir to Greco-Roman antiquity or reifying anachronistic communalist boundaries between “pagans,” Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

Several aspects of Fowden’s approach here depart from that of From Empire to Commonwealth. There is a particular emphasis here on various textual lineages as the foundation of cross-cultural continuity. Thus, he sees the transmission of specific canons of material as one of the primary drivers of cultural development, each moving through an initial phase of revelation to subsequent phases marked by canonization and then interpretation, with the resultant exegetical cultures dominating the cultural landscape from western Europe to eastern Iran by the year 1000. As a student of comparative exegesis (in my case, midrash and tafsir) I found the emphasis on the exegetical here particularly fascinating, though notably, Fowden is not concerned solely with scriptural canons (Tanakh, Bible, and Qur’an) but also philosophical and legal canons, placing particular emphasis on Aristotelianism as a major current of cultural continuity in the First Millennium.

Fowden’s two chapters on “Exegetical Cultures” are thus exhilarating and dizzying—charting Aristotelianism’s movement from Greek to Syriac to Arabic educational institutions, the evolution of law from the Justinianic Code to the Babylonian Talmud to the emergence of Islamic fiqh, and touching on patristic, Karaite, and Muʿtazilite scriptural exegesis for good measure. The final chapter is likewise a tour de force, surveying the culmination of the First Millennium by showing us “Viewpoints Around 1000: Ṭūs, Baṣra, Baghdād, Pisa.” The cities visited in this grand perspective symbolize, respectively, the resurgence of Iranian national consciousness with the Shāh-Nāmeh of Firdowsī; the maturation of gnostic-philosophical-spiritual currents in early medieval Islam with the Ikhwān al-Ṣafāʾ; the emergence not just of the mature Sunni and Shii traditions but of sophisticated and distinctively Islamic modes of apprehending and engaging different faiths; and the reemergence of Europe as a meaningful center of cultural production.

Astonishingly, this work is not the culmination of Fowden’s work in rethinking Late Antiquity. Rather, he advertises this book as a prolegomenon to a new, more comprehensive project on the First Millennium. It is also the companion piece to a forthcoming work charting the evolution of philosophy from Aristotle to Avicenna. Specialists will inevitably find much to quibble with here, especially given Fowden’s propensity to working in broad swathes rather than drilling down to wrestle with thorny details. Moreover, one can imagine assigning this only to the most intrepid undergraduates, despite the major pedagogical implications of Fowden’s reflections on periodization in particular. But overall, this is synthetic historiographic work of great sophistication and lasting value, and Before and After Muḥammad deserves to provoke discussion throughout many scholarly quarters.

© International Qur’anic Studies Association, 2014. All rights reserved

New Book: The Qur’an and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions

A new book by Emran El-Badawi on The Qur’an and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions has been published this month. This book is the thirteenth of the Routledge Studies in the Qur’an series, edited by Andrew Rippin.




This book is a study of related passages found in the Arabic Qur’an and the Aramaic Gospels, i.e. the Gospels preserved in the Syriac and Christian Palestinian Aramaic dialects. It builds upon the work of traditional Muslim scholars, including al-Biqa‘i (d. ca. 808/1460) and al-Suyuti (d. 911/1505), who wrote books examining connections between the Qur’an on the one hand, and Biblical passages and Aramaic terminology on the other, as well as modern western scholars, including Sidney Griffith who argue that pre-Islamic Arabs accessed the Bible in Aramaic.

The Qur’an and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions examines the history of religious movements in the Middle East from 180-632 CE, explaining Islam as a response to the disunity of the Aramaic speaking churches. It then compares the Arabic text of the Qur’an and the Aramaic text of the Gospels under four main themes: the prophets; the clergy; the divine; and the apocalypse. Among the findings of this book are that the articulator as well as audience of the Qur’an were monotheistic in origin, probably bilingual, culturally sophisticated and accustomed to the theological debates that raged between the Aramaic speaking churches.

Arguing that the Qur’an’s teachings and ethics echo Jewish-Christian conservatism, this book will be of interest to students and scholars of Religion, History, and Literature.

Table of Contents

  1. Sources and Method
  2. Prophetic Tradition in the Late Antique Near East
  3. Prophets and their Righteous Entourage
  4. The Evils of the Clergy
  5. The Divine Realm
  6. Divine Judgement and the Apocalypse
  7. Data Analysis and Conclusion

Author Bio

Emran El-Badawi is Director and Assistant Professor of Arab Studies at the University of Houston. His articles include “From ‘clergy’ to ‘celibacy’: The development of rahbaniyyah between Qur’an, Hadith and Church Canon” and “A humanistic reception of the Qur’an.” His work has been featured on the New York Times, Houston Chronicle and Christian Science Monitor.


  1. Islam
  2. Scriptures of Islam
  3. Biblical Studies

For complete product information on El-Badawi’s book please go here.

* Accessed from the publisher’s product page.

© International Qur’anic Studies Association, 2013. All rights reserved.

The Inapplicability of Non-Muslim Rule, a Qur’anic Perspective | عدم جواز ولاية غير المسلمين….التوجيه القرائي للقرآن

By Ali Mabrouk

Professor Mabrouk examines the broad, semantic use of the terms islām/muslim in the Qur’an (eg. 3:19; 31:22) and argues that they apply to followers of all prophets and no one particular prophet. He also distinguishes it from the narrower, popular use of those terms in subsequent history to include only followers of Muhammad alone. Favoring the latter over the former, as is the case today, abandons the Qur’an’s original intent behind the terms, and it has created serious political problems. (EE)



إذا كان المقال السابق قد كشف عن الحضور الطاغي لفعل القراءة، حتى في حال إكتفاء المرء بمجرد ترديد آياتالقرآن، فإنه يلزم التأكيد على أن القرآن يصبح، عبر هذا الفعل، موضوعاً لضروبٍ من التوجيه (الناعمة والغليظة) التي لا تكونفي غالب الأحوالموضوعاً لوعي الممارسين لها. ويتحقق هذا التوجيه ليس فقط عبر إنطاق وإسكات دلالات بعينها ينطوي عليها القرآن، بل وعبر ما يبدو وكأنه إبدال الدلالات التي فرضها التاريخبتلك التي يتضمنها القرآن“. ولعل مثالاً على هذا الضرب الأخير من التوجيه، الذي يجري فيه إستبدال دلالة التاريخ بدلالة القرآن، يأتي من قراءة آية قرآنية تنشغل بتعيين معنى المسلم والإسلام، وبما لذلك من تعلُّقٍ مباشر بمسألة عدم جواز ولاية غير المسلمين؛ وأعني بها قوله تعالى: “إن الدين عند الله الإسلام“. فالدلالة المستقرة، في وعي الجمهور، للآية تنبني على أن معنى الإسلامينصرف إلى ذلك الدين الذي إبتُعِثَ به النبي الكريم (محمد عليه السلام)؛ وبما لابد أن يترتب على ذلك من أن المسلمين هموفقطأتباع هذا النبي الكريم. ولسوء الحظ، فإن هذه الدلالة التي إستقرت، في وعي الجمهور، للفظتي إسلام/مسلمين، تمثل تضييقاً أو حتى نكوصاً عن الدلالة التي يقصد إليها القرآن خلال إستخدامه لكلتا اللفظتين. بل إن إختباراً لهذا الإستخدام القرآني يكشف عن أن هذه الدلالة المستقرة للفظتي إسلام/مسلمينتكاد أن تكون قد تبلورتوتطورتخارج القرآن، على نحو شبه كامل. وإذن، فإنها تبدو أقرب ما تكون إلى الدلالة الإصطلاحية، التي تمتزج فيها المقاصد الواعية وغير الواعية لمن إصطلحوا عليها؛ وعلى النحو الذي تعكس فيه عناصر تجربتهم التاريخية، ولو كان ذلك على حساب القرآن ذاته. وضمن هذا السياق بالذات، فإن التمييز يبدو ملحوظاً، لا تخطئه عين القارئ المدقق، بين هذه الدلالة الإصطلاحية، وبين الدلالة السيمانطقية التي تغلب على التداول القرآني لكلتا اللفظتين.

فإذ تنبني الدلالة الإصطلاحية على صرف معنى لفظة مسلمين، مثلاً، إلى أتباع النبي محمد (صلعم) فحسب، فإن الدلالة السيمانطقية، الغالبة على الإستخدام القرآني لتلك اللفظة ذاتها، لا تقصر المعنى على هؤلاء فقط، بل تتسع به ليشمل غيرهم من أتباع الأنبياء السابقين أيضاً. وهكذا، فإن اللفظة مسلمون/مسلمينقد وردت، في القرآن، حوالي ستٍ وثلاثين مرة، إنطوت فيها، في الأغلب، على دلالة تسليم المرء وجهه لله، من دون أن يكون ذلك مقروناً بإتباع نبيٍ من الأنبياء بعينه. بل إن بعض الآيات يستخدم لفظة مسلمون/مسلمين، صراحة، للإشارة إلى من هم من غير أتباع النبي محمد (صلعم). ومن ذلك، مثلاً، إشارته إلى بني يعقوب بإعتبارهم من المسلمين؛ وذلك في قوله تعالى: “أم كنتم شهداء إذ حضر يعقوب الموت، إذ قال لبنيه: ما تعبدون من بعدي، قالوا نعبد إلهك وإله آبائك إبراهيم وإسماعيل وإسحق إلهاً واحداً ونحن له مسلمونالبقرة: 133. والحق أن المرء يكاد يلحظ أن القرآن يكاد، على العموم، أن يصرف دلالة اللفظة إلى فعل التسليم لله، وذلك فيما تلح الدلالة الإصطلاحية على صرف الدلالة إلى فعل الإتباع لنبيٍمن أنبياء الله بالذات. وتبعاً لذلك، فإنه إذا كان غير المسلم هوبحسب دلالة الإصطلاح المستقرة، في وعي الجمهوركل من لا يتبع دين النبي محمد (صلعم)، فإنه، وبحسب الدلالة المتداولة في القرآن، هو كل من لا يُسلِم وجهه لله؛ وبما لابد أن يترتب على ذلك من أن كل من يُسلِم وجهه لله حقاً، هو من المسلمين، حتى ولو لم يكن متبعاً لدين النبي الخاتم. وإذ يفتح ذلك الباب أمام إدخال البعض ممن يُقال أنهم من غير المسلمين إلى دين الإسلام، إبتداءاً من تسليمهم الوجه لله، فإنه سوف يفتحه بالمثل أمام إخراج الكثيرين ممن يُقال أنهم من المسلمين، من دين الإسلام، لأنهم لا يعرفون الإسلام بما تسليم الوجه لله، بل بما هو قناعٌ لتسليم الناسأو حتى إستسلامهملهم، بدلاً من الله. فإنه إذا كان القصد من تسليم الناس وجوههم لله وحده، هو تحريرهم من الخضوع لكل آلهة الأرض الزائفة، فإن ما يجري من تحويل الدين إلى قناعٍ لإستعباد الناس وتيسير السيطرة عليهم لا يمكن أن يكون من قبيل الإسلام أبداً. إن ذلك يعني أن التحول من الدلالة القرآنية للفظة مسلمين، التي يعني فيها الإسلام تسليم الوجه لله، إلى الدلالة التاريخية التي تقصر المعنى على أتباع النبي محمد عليه السلام، فحسب، يؤشر على تزايد التعامل مع الإسلام كآداة للسيطرة على العباد، وذلك على حساب ما أراده الله له من أن يكون طريقاً لتحريرهم جميعاً من كل ضروب الطغيان والإستعباد. ولعل ذلك يكشف عن عدم إنضباط مفهوم غير المسلم؛ وأعني من حيث تبقى المسافة قائمة بين المعنى الذي يصرفه إليه القرآنمن أنه من لا يُسلِم وجهه لله، وبين المعنى الذي فرضه عليه التاريخمن أنه من لا يتبع نبوة محمد عليه السلام“. وبالطبع فإنه لا مجال للإحتجاج بأن معنى الإسلام، بما هو تسليم الوجه لله، قد تحقق على الوجه الأكمل مع نبوة النبي الخاتم (محمد عليه السلام)، فإن القرآن يتضمن بين جنباته ما يزحزح هذا الإعتقاد؛ وذلك حين يمضي إلى أن ثمة من اليهود والنصارى والصابئة من يتشارك مع المؤمنين بنبوة محمد عليه السلام في تسليم الوجه لله حقاً، وأنهملذلك– “لهم أجرهم عند ربهمولا خوفٌ عليهم ولا هم يحزنون“. إذ يقول تعالى: “إن الذين آمنوا (يعني بمحمد) والذين هادوا والنصارى والصابئين من آمن بالله واليوم الآخر وعمل صالحاً فلهم أجرهم عند ربهمالبقرة: 62″. وهكذا فإن القرآن لا يقصر معنى الإسلام بما هو تسليم الوجه لله“- حتى بعد إبتعاث النبي محمد عليه السلامعلى المؤمنين بنبوته فحسب، بل إنه يتسع به ليشمل غيرهم أيضاً. وغنيٌّ عن البيان أن ذلك يرتبط بحقيقة أن مدار تركيز القرآن هو على فعل تسليم الوجه لله وحده، وليس على الباب الذي يتحقق من خلاله هذا الفعل، وحتى على فرض أن القرآن يمضي إلى أن الباب الأكمل لتحقق هذا الفعل هو باب النبي محمد عليه السلام، فإنه لم يدحض إمكان تحققه من غير هذا الباب أيضاً.

يبدو، إذن، أن التاريخ، وليس القرآن، هو ما يقف وراء تثبيت الدلالة المستقرة للآية القرآنية إن الدين عند الله الإسلام، وهو ما يدرك من يستدعي هذه الآية أنه سيلعب دوراً حاسماً في توجيه المُتلقين لها إلى إنتاج ذات الدلالة المستقرة. وهو يدرك أيضاً أن إثارة المعنى السيمانطيقي المتداول في القرآن للفظة إسلامسيؤدي، لا محالة، إلى زحزحة الدلالة التي قام التاريخ بترسيخها، ومن هنا أنه يسكت عنه تماماً، رغم ما يبدو من ظهوره الجلي في القرآن. فهل يدرك المتلاعبون سياسياً بالإسلام أنهم ينحازون للتاريخ على حساب القرآن؟

* This blog post was first published in Al-Ahram, September 20, 2012. It can also be found on Professor Mabrouk’s website here.

© International Qur’anic Studies Association, 2013. All rights reserved.