THE ABRAHAMIC ACCORDS

Hidden Realities and Consequences 

All praise is for Allah who bestowed existence on this universe, and blessings and peace be upon His final messenger who made the word of Truth prevail in the world.

These days, American President, Donald Trump, is vigorously promoting an agreement by the name of the “Abrahamic Accords”. The original meaning of this was that since Muslims, Jews, and Christians all consider Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him) as their guide, there should be mutual cooperation between them. Presently, however, this term is focused only on one point: that Muslim and Arab governments should recognize Israel, establish normal relations with it, and strengthen the American bloc against the rising political power of China in the East, thereby positioning Muslim and Arab governments in opposition to America’s rival. Accordingly, under this agreement, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain were the first to, not only recognize Israel, but also establish friendly relations with it in various fields, including the exchange of intelligence information.

This is the end result of the “Abrahamic Accords” and its political perspective, but in order to reach this outcome, groundwork has been transpiring for a long time. Accordingly, at the intellectual level, efforts have been made to bring Muslims, Jews, and Christians closer to one another. If this effort had been for the purpose that when followers of these three religions exist in any society, they should live in peace and harmony, and not attack each other’s life and property on the basis of religion, then to this extent it would not have been objectionable.

However, during this effort, the impression was gradually given that since these three religions consider Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him) as their guide, they are members of the same family. For this, first an attempt was made to adopt the principle that if people of multiple religions reside in a state, then by virtue of being citizens of that state, they are “one ummah” (one community).

Secondly, the term “Abrahamic family” was invented for these three religions, meaning that Muslims, Jews, and Christians are all members of the same family, and are all followers of Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him). The ultimate conclusion of this was to be that there is no dispute of truth and falsehood among these religions. All three of them, by virtue of being followers of Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him), belong to one family. There is no need for any of them to consider others separate from themselves on the basis of religion. The end result of this would be that all religions are true, and no particular one is necessary for salvation in the Hereafter – the very idea proclaimed by those who hold the belief of “unity of religions”. And now “Abrahamic Accords” and “recognizing Israel as a legitimate state and normalizing relations with it” have become synonymous terms.

———————————

At times, a matter may appear minor or insignificant, but its implications and results reach very far. A highly respectable and venerable personality of the Islamic world, Shaykh Abdullah bin Mahfuz bin Bayyah (may Allah grant him a long life), is originally from Mauritania, where he acquired vast and deep knowledge from the scholars there, and in terms of his jurisprudential (fiqhi) insight and scholarly breadth, is counted among the select few scholars of the world. My good relationship with him goes back to the time when he used to attend the Islamic Fiqh Academy as a member, and I would also benefit from his scholarly depth, and for certain jurisprudential issues, we would also have mutual discussions and correspondence. At that time, he was known as a purely scholarly personality who had no noteworthy connection with practical politics.

After some time, he established an academic organization on a global scale under the name “Taʿziz al-Silm,” meaning “Promotion of Peace.” At that time, in various Muslim countries, armed rebellions were being carried out under the slogan of “Implementation of Shari’ah”. Because of this, many innocent Muslims were being unjustly killed. Therefore, in such an atmosphere, the call for “Promotion of Peace” was, in general, a commendable initiative. For this purpose, Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah (may Allah preserve him) organized several international conferences in which this writer and my respected brother Hadhrat Mawlana Mufti Muhammad Rafi’ Usmani (may Allah have mercy on him) also participated. In one such conference, I sought to draw attention in my speech to the fact that those carrying out armed actions against Muslim governments, resulting in widespread unrest, cannot be countered effectively by merely organizing conferences. Rather, it is necessary, on the one hand, to put an end to the open violations of Shari’ah taking place in Muslim countries, so that these armed rebels cannot use such conditions as justification for their actions. On the other hand, efforts must be made to convey the true teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah to those who, out of sincerity and naivety, have joined these movements.

In any case, multiple conferences were held on this subject. Then a conference was convened in the city of Marrakesh, Morocco, with the theme that Muslims should form an alliance with non-Muslim citizens similar to the one the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made with the Jews in Madinah al-Munawwarah, which is known as the “Covenant of Madinah” (“Mithaq al-Madinah”).

When I arrived to participate in this conference, a representative from the institution “Taʿziz al-Silm” (Promotion of Peace) came to receive me. He remarked that in the “Covenant of Medina” there is a statement suggesting that both Muslims and Jews residing in Madinah al-Munawwarah constituted a single “ummah” (community). Therefore, the purpose of this conference was to promote the idea that in every Muslim country, Muslims and non-Muslims should be considered one “ummah” by virtue of being citizens of the same country.

Hearing this, a doubt arose in my heart, so I carefully studied the “Covenant of Madinah” and reached the conclusion that its wording does not support the inference that Muslims and non-Muslims are regarded as a single ummah.

Accordingly, before the conference began, I met Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah (may Allah preserve him) in private and informed him that so-and-so person said this to me, whereas in the “Covenant of Madinah” there is no mention that Muslims and Jews together are “one ummah.” I showed him the relevant passage of the “Covenant of Madinah” and submitted that this meaning cannot be inferred from it. The respected Shaykh (may Allah preserve him) agreed with me and said that indeed this point is correct.

After this, when the conference sessions commenced, some speeches included the point that the citizens of one country — whether Muslim or non-Muslim — together constitute one “ummah,” and that this is what the Covenant of Madinah requires. In my critique, I stood up and, citing the verse ہٰذِہٖۤ  اُمَّتُکُمۡ اُمَّۃً  وَّاحِدَۃً along with other Qur’anic verses, clarified that this Qur’anic terminology refers specifically to the followers of one religion. To apply it to a national state would inevitably create confusion in many matters, and therefore it should be avoided.

However, when the concluding session of the conference took place in which the “Marrakesh Declaration” was to be announced, Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah (may Allah preserve him), while passing by my seat, paused briefly and said to me that upon reflecting further on the passage of the “Covenant of Madinah” we had discussed, it seems that the idea of a national state being considered “one ummah” could be inferred from it, and that this is not something major. At that moment, he was in such a hurry that there was no opportunity to pursue the matter further. The “Marrakesh Declaration” was then read out, and afterwards there was no chance for additional speeches. Later, when the declaration came to me for my signature, I signed it with a condition referencing my speeches, thereby indicating a note of dissent.

After this, the Shaykh convened another conference in which a new term was introduced: the “Abrahamic Family.” I have already stated that if Muslims, Christians, and Jews live together in a country under an agreement of peace and security, there is nothing objectionable in that. However, to describe them as an “Abrahamic Family” would mean that they are all true followers of Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him), and that the connection of Jews and Christians to Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him) is the same as that of Muslims. Whereas according to the Holy Quran, the Jews and Christians abandoned the upright faith (Din Ḥanif) of Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him), and thus they no longer have any true relationship with him. The Qur’anic verses on this matter are explicit. Despite this, the leaders of these three religions were brought together in that conference, collectively referred to as the “Abrahamic Family,” and separate places of worship were set up for each.

On this occasion, I considered it necessary to try and alert Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah (may Allah preserve him) to the hidden objectives behind this terminology. I had no doubt about his good intentions, but I felt that some imprudent individuals associated with him were entangling him in a web of terminologies, from which they would then pursue some other objectives. Therefore, on that occasion, I wrote him a respectful letter. Until now, I had not published it because it was a private letter. However, now that — as a result of the term ‘Abrahamic Family’ — under American auspices in 2020, President Donald Trump included several Muslim governments in the “Abraham Accords”, foremost among them the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, and the principal component of this agreement was that, whether or not Palestine was recognized, Israel should be recognized, and agreements for cooperation and collaboration with it in various sectors be undertaken. At that point, it became clear that the political work being carried out on this issue was receiving intellectual support from those conferences where terminologies such as “one ummah” and “Abrahamic Family” were promoted to shape people’s thinking and prepare the ground for this outcome.

For this reason, I now find it appropriate to publish the letter that I had sent to Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah (may Allah preserve him) in view of this danger — though I did not receive a reply. The letter[1] is presented below:

………………………………………………………………………

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

All praise is for Allah, the Lord of the worlds, and blessings and peace be upon His noble Messenger and upon his family and his companions, and upon all who follow them with excellence until the Day of Judgment.

His Eminence, the erudite scholar, the accomplished researcher, the great caller to Islam, Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah, may Allah the Exalted, preserve him and keep him as a treasure for Islam and the Muslims.

Assalamu alaykum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh

I thank Allah the Exalted for granting me the blessing of your gracious companionship and generous honour which I have received from you over the years — from the time I first met you in the sessions of the International Islamic Fiqh Academy, and then in various meetings and forums, including the conferences on “Ta’ziz al-Silm” (Promoting Peace), to which you honoured me by inviting me to participate.

I appreciate the efforts that you expend in establishing peace and strengthening it in a world that is filled with oppression and injustice, and with war and terrorism, and I appreciate the hardships that you bear for its sake at this age in which one seeks rest and peace of mind. May Allah, the Exalted, reward you with the best reward.

There is no doubt that the establishment of peace, which you are aiming at through these efforts, is a great pursuit and a noble goal. However, there are some observations that have been troubling my heart for a long time, which I have wished to present to Your Eminence many times, but I held back — fearing that I might commit the audacity of teaching wisdom to Luqman, or bringing dates to Hajr[2]. Now, however, it seems appropriate to present them to you, with sincere intention, trusting the kindness and grace that I have always experienced from you.

First Point:

It is a fact that the wars and terrorist movements raging across the world today are not swayed by the resolutions of conferences and seminars — especially while Muslims continue to face brutal persecution in Palestine, Kashmir, India, Iraq, Syria, Burma, Yemen, and many other regions of the world. If the vast sums being spent on such conferences today were instead spent in reconciling divided Muslims, supporting the oppressed, and aiding the distressed — irrespective of their religion — and toward addressing the root causes that gave rise to violent movements in the world, the outcome would be far more beneficial and effective.

Second Point:

Undoubtedly, these conferences and seminars are beneficial, at least on the theoretical and academic level. Yet, if we examine their pattern since their inception, they have adopted a narrative of defence on behalf of Islam and Muslims against those who accuse them of terrorism and intolerance towards non-Muslims — as though Muslims alone are the ones sowing seeds of discord and violence within humankind and as though wars and terrorist movements arose solely because of them. Consequently, we find ourselves apologizing before other religions, proving our innocence from such injustices. But the reality is that in our time, Muslims are the ones most subjected to violence, persecution, and intolerance — more than any other community. Despite this, the topics of our conferences so far have focused primarily on non-Muslim minorities, on tolerance towards them, and on affirming their rights. The question is: is there any non-Muslim minority in the Muslim world facing the kind of collective oppression and violence that Muslim minorities suffer daily in Palestine, Kashmir, Burma, and India? Should not the establishment of peace for these oppressed Muslims be a far greater priority?

Third Point:

There is no doubt that peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims is a matter we need to emphasize and give due attention. But for this, is it necessary to employ terminologies that give the impression that the differences of creed between Muslims and non-Muslims do not matter at all? In the “Marrakesh Declaration,” we described all citizens, Muslim and non-Muslim, as “one ummah”. This could be justified in terms of its linguistic meaning, but its well-known technical meaning is “a group of people bound together by creed.” And this meaning is the one used by the Noble Qur’an in several verses, as is not hidden from your noble knowledge.

اِنَّ ہٰذِہٖۤ  اُمَّتُکُمۡ اُمَّۃً  وَّاحِدَۃً ۫ۖ وَّ اَنَا رَبُّکُمۡ  فَاعۡبُدُوۡنِ (1)

Surely, this is the fraternity of your Faith, a single Faith, and I am your Lord; so worship Me. (Al-Anbiya: 92)

وَ  اِنَّ ہٰذِہٖۤ  اُمَّتُکُمۡ  اُمَّۃً وَّاحِدَۃً  وَّ اَنَا رَبُّکُمۡ  فَاتَّقُوۡنِ (2)

Surely, this is your creed, a single creed, and I am your Lord. So fear Me. (Al- Mu’minun: 52)

وَ مَا کَانَ النَّاسُ اِلَّاۤ  اُمَّۃً  وَّاحِدَۃً فَاخۡتَلَفُوۡا ؕ وَ لَوۡ  لَا کَلِمَۃٌ سَبَقَتۡ مِنۡ رَّبِّکَ لَقُضِیَ بَیۡنَہُمۡ فِیۡمَا فِیۡہِ  یَخۡتَلِفُوۡنَ (3)

All the people were no more than a single community; later, they differed. But for a word from your Lord that had already come to pass, a decisive judgment would have been made about their mutual differences. (Yunus: 19)

وَ لَوۡ  شَآءَ  اللّٰہُ  لَجَعَلَکُمۡ اُمَّۃً  وَّاحِدَۃً وَّ لٰکِنۡ یُّضِلُّ مَنۡ یَّشَآءُ  وَ یَہۡدِیۡ مَنۡ یَّشَآءُ ؕ وَ لَتُسۡـَٔلُنَّ عَمَّا کُنۡتُمۡ  تَعۡمَلُوۡنَ (4)

If Allah so willed, He would have made all of you a single community, but He lets whom He wills go astray and takes whom He wills to the right path; and surely you will be questioned about what you used to do. (An-Nahl: 93)

وَ لَوۡ شَآءَ رَبُّکَ لَجَعَلَ النَّاسَ اُمَّۃً وَّاحِدَۃً  وَّ لَا  یَزَالُوۡنَ  مُخۡتَلِفِیۡنَ ﴿۱۱۸﴾ۙ اِلَّا مَنۡ رَّحِمَ رَبُّکَ ؕ وَ لِذٰلِکَ خَلَقَہُمۡ ؕ وَ تَمَّتۡ کَلِمَۃُ رَبِّکَ لَاَمۡلَـَٔنَّ  جَہَنَّمَ  مِنَ الۡجِنَّۃِ  وَ النَّاسِ  اَجۡمَعِیۡنَ (5)

Had your Lord willed, He would have made all the people a single community. But, they will continue in their differences, except those whom Allah has blessed with mercy, and for that He has created them. And perfect is the word of your Lord: “I will surely fill the Hell with Jinns and the human beings, all together.” (Hud: 118-119)

کَانَ النَّاسُ اُمَّۃً  وَّاحِدَۃً ۟ فَبَعَثَ اللّٰہُ النَّبِیّٖنَ مُبَشِّرِیۡنَ وَ مُنۡذِرِیۡنَ  ۪ وَ اَنۡزَلَ مَعَہُمُ  الۡکِتٰبَ بِالۡحَقِّ لِیَحۡکُمَ بَیۡنَ النَّاسِ فِیۡمَا اخۡتَلَفُوۡا فِیۡہِ ؕ وَ مَا اخۡتَلَفَ فِیۡہِ اِلَّا الَّذِیۡنَ اُوۡتُوۡہُ مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِ مَا جَآءَتۡہُمُ الۡبَیِّنٰتُ بَغۡیًۢا بَیۡنَہُمۡ ۚ فَہَدَی اللّٰہُ الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا لِمَا اخۡتَلَفُوۡا فِیۡہِ مِنَ الۡحَقِّ بِاِذۡنِہٖ ؕ وَ اللّٰہُ  یَہۡدِیۡ مَنۡ یَّشَآءُ  اِلٰی صِرَاطٍ مُّسۡتَقِیۡمٍ (6)

All men used to be a single ’Ummah (i.e. on a single faith). Then (after they differed in matters of faith), Allah sent prophets carrying good news and warning, and sent down with them the Book with Truth to judge between people in matters of their dispute. But it was no other than those to whom it (the Book) was given who, led by envy against each other, disputed it after the clear signs had come to them. Then Allah, by His will, guided those who believed to the truth over which they disputed; and Allah guides whom He wills to the straight path. (Al-Baqarah: 213)

وَ لَوۡ  شَآءَ اللّٰہُ لَجَعَلَکُمۡ اُمَّۃً وَّاحِدَۃً  وَّ لٰکِنۡ  لِّیَبۡلُوَکُمۡ فِیۡ مَاۤ اٰتٰىکُمۡ فَاسۡتَبِقُوا الۡخَیۡرٰتِ ؕ اِلَی اللّٰہِ مَرۡجِعُکُمۡ جَمِیۡعًا فَیُنَبِّئُکُمۡ بِمَا کُنۡتُمۡ  فِیۡہِ  تَخۡتَلِفُوۡنَ (7)

Had Allah willed, He would have made a single community of people, but (He did not), so that He may test you in what He has given to you. Strive, then, to excel each other in good deeds. To Allah is the return for all of you. Then Allah shall tell you about that in which you disputed. (Al-Ma’idah: 48)

وَ لَوۡ شَآءَ  اللّٰہُ  لَجَعَلَہُمۡ  اُمَّۃً  وَّاحِدَۃً وَّ لٰکِنۡ  یُّدۡخِلُ مَنۡ یَّشَآءُ  فِیۡ  رَحۡمَتِہٖ ؕ وَ الظّٰلِمُوۡنَ مَا لَہُمۡ مِّنۡ وَّلِیٍّ وَّ لَا  نَصِیۡرٍ (8)

Had Allah willed, He would have made all of them a single group; but He admits whomsoever He wills into His mercy. As for the wrongdoers, they have neither a patron nor a helper. (Ash-Shura: 8)

وَ لَوۡ لَاۤ  اَنۡ یَّکُوۡنَ النَّاسُ اُمَّۃً  وَّاحِدَۃً لَّجَعَلۡنَا  لِمَنۡ یَّکۡفُرُ بِالرَّحۡمٰنِ لِبُیُوۡتِہِمۡ سُقُفًا مِّنۡ فِضَّۃٍ  وَّ مَعَارِجَ عَلَیۡہَا یَظۡہَرُوۡنَ  (9)

Were it not that all people would become of a single creed (i.e. disbelief), We would have caused, for those who disbelieve in Rahmān, roofs of their houses to be made of silver, and the stairs as well, on which they would climb. (Az-Zukhruf: 33)

فَکَیۡفَ اِذَا جِئۡنَا مِنۡ کُلِّ اُمَّۃٍۭ بِشَہِیۡدٍ وَّ جِئۡنَا بِکَ عَلٰی ہٰۤؤُلَآءِ شَہِیۡدًا (10)

Then, how (awful a spectacle) would it be when We shall bring a witness from every community, and shall bring you over them as a witness. (An-Nisa: 41)

Therefore, the word “ummah” is used as a term referring exclusively to Muslims, irrespective of their geographical differences. As for the “Covenant of Madinah”, which the “Marrakesh Declaration” adopted as its foundation, its wording allows for more than one interpretation, as I mentioned to you in person.

Likewise, the expression “Abrahamic Family” (al-ʿĀ’ilah al-Ibrāhīmiyyah) — for Muslims, Christians, and Jews—has been used on several occasions, especially in the “New Ḥilf al-Fudūl” (Alliance of the Virtuous) recently issued from the Abu Dhabi conference. This terminology gives the impression that all these religions follow Sayyiduna Ibrahim (peace be upon him). However, it is clear that this contradicts the teachings of the Noble Qur’an. Allah, the Exalted, said:

وَ قَالُوۡا کُوۡنُوۡا ہُوۡدًا اَوۡ نَصٰرٰی تَہۡتَدُوۡا ؕ قُلۡ بَلۡ مِلَّۃَ  اِبۡرٰہٖمَ  حَنِیۡفًا ؕ وَ مَا کَانَ مِنَ الۡمُشۡرِکِیۡنَ (1)

They said, “Become Jews or Christians, and you will find the right path.” Say: “Instead, (we follow) the faith of Ibrāhīm, the upright, – and he was not one of those who associate partners with Allah.” (Al-Baqarah: 135)

اَمۡ  تَقُوۡلُوۡنَ  اِنَّ  اِبۡرٰہِیۡمَ وَ اِسۡمٰعِیۡلَ وَ اِسۡحٰقَ وَ یَعۡقُوۡبَ وَ الۡاَسۡبَاطَ کَانُوۡا ہُوۡدًا اَوۡ نَصٰرٰی ؕ قُلۡ ءَاَنۡتُمۡ  اَعۡلَمُ اَمِ اللّٰہُ ؕ وَ مَنۡ اَظۡلَمُ مِمَّنۡ کَتَمَ شَہَادَۃً عِنۡدَہٗ مِنَ اللّٰہِ ؕ وَ مَا اللّٰہُ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا تَعۡمَلُوۡن

Or, would you say that Ibrāhīm, Isma‘il, Ishaq, Ya‘qub and their children were Jews or Christians?” Say: “Do you know better or does Allah?” Who can be more unjust than the one who conceals the testimony he has from Allah? Allah is not unaware of what you do. (Al-Baqarah: 140)

یٰۤاَہۡلَ الۡکِتٰبِ لِمَ تُحَآجُّوۡنَ فِیۡۤ اِبۡرٰہِیۡمَ وَ مَاۤ اُنۡزِلَتِ التَّوۡرٰىۃُ وَ الۡاِنۡجِیۡلُ  اِلَّا مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِہٖ ؕ اَفَلَا  تَعۡقِلُوۡنَ(3)

O people of the Book, why do you argue about Ibrahim, while the Torah and the Injil were not revealed until after him? Have you, then, no sense? (Aal-e- Imran: 65)

ہٰۤاَنۡتُمۡ  ہٰۤؤُلَآءِ  حَاجَجۡتُمۡ فِیۡمَا لَکُمۡ بِہٖ عِلۡمٌ فَلِمَ تُحَآجُّوۡنَ فِیۡمَا لَیۡسَ لَکُمۡ بِہٖ عِلۡمٌ ؕ وَ اللّٰہُ یَعۡلَمُ وَ اَنۡتُمۡ لَا تَعۡلَمُوۡنَ (4)

Look, this is what you are – you have already argued about matters concerning which you have knowledge; why then do you argue about matters of which you have no knowledge? Allah knows and you do not know. (Aal-e-Imran: 66)

مَا کَانَ  اِبۡرٰہِیۡمُ یَہُوۡدِیًّا وَّ لَا نَصۡرَانِیًّا وَّ لٰکِنۡ کَانَ حَنِیۡفًا مُّسۡلِمًا ؕ وَ مَا کَانَ مِنَ الۡمُشۡرِکِیۡنَ (5)

Ibrāhīm was neither a Jew nor a Christian. But he was upright, a Muslim, and was not one of those who associate partners with Allah. (Aal-e-Imran: 67)

قَدۡ کَانَتۡ لَکُمۡ  اُسۡوَۃٌ  حَسَنَۃٌ  فِیۡۤ اِبۡرٰہِیۡمَ وَ الَّذِیۡنَ مَعَہٗ ۚ اِذۡ  قَالُوۡا لِقَوۡمِہِمۡ  اِنَّا بُرَءٰٓؤُا مِنۡکُمۡ وَ مِمَّا تَعۡبُدُوۡنَ مِنۡ دُوۡنِ اللّٰہِ ۫  کَفَرۡنَا بِکُمۡ  وَ بَدَا بَیۡنَنَا وَ بَیۡنَکُمُ  الۡعَدَاوَۃُ وَ الۡبَغۡضَآءُ  اَبَدًا حَتّٰی تُؤۡمِنُوۡا بِاللّٰہِ وَحۡدَہٗۤ  (6)

Indeed, there is an excellent example for you in Ibrāhīm and those with him, when they said to their people, “We disown you and what you worship instead of Allah. We disbelieve in you. Enmity and hatred has arisen between us and you forever, unless you believe in Allah alone” (Al-Mumtahanah: 4)

This is not merely a debate about words and terminologies. Using terms like “one ummah” or “the Abrahamic family” in a sense that it includes both Muslims and non-Muslims, can lend support—or at the very least be exploited—by the advocates of the theory of “unity of religions”, which claims that all religions are true, that there is no difference of truth and falsehood between them, and that salvation is not confined to Islam alone.

Similarly, the use of such terminologies also lends support to the concept of the “national state,” which asserts that the state is to be established on the basis of nationality, not religion. Within this framework, there is no place for a state founded purely upon religion, nor for an exclusively Islamic state; rather, secularism is regarded as the foundation of the national state.

This concern is further reinforced by what is stated in the concept paper prepared for the Marrakesh Declaration:

“In the modern civilizational context, the Charter of Madinah is put forward as the authentic model of citizenship for Muslims. It is the appropriate framework for the condition of minorities in Islamic lands. This covenant is historically new, yet it is rooted in Islamic experience: it respects individuality, grants minorities the freedom to practice their religion, and brings all people together in managing their worldly affairs on the basis of rights and responsibilities defined by a rational constitution—one that guarantees balance, harmonious coexistence, the rule of law, and the resolution of political disputes with justice and fairness.”

Here, the term ‘rational constitution’ is mentioned, and that too in the context of Islamic countries. I do not know whether this is intended as a synonym for a “secular constitution”. And the question is: when all people can unite in managing their worldly affairs, why should this not be on the basis of rights and responsibilities defined by an “Islamic constitution”, rather than by a “rational” or “secular” one?

I wish to reiterate once again that the idea of peaceful coexistence among the followers of different religions is a great pursuit and a noble goal, which none but the stubborn would deny. However, it must remain within its appropriate limits, and not lead to erasing the distinctions between religions and overlooking the fundamental differences in their beliefs, thereby blurring the line between truth and falsehood.

What I fear is that such emphasis on these expressions and ambiguous terminologies may ultimately pave the way to the acceptance of theories such as “the unity of religions”, the “national state”, or “secularism”. In such a case, we would be like those who flee from the rain only to end up under the drainpipe.

These are a few humble observations which I wished to present before your eminence, in the hope that they may receive your gracious attention. I fear that I may have ventured beyond my station, but the compassion I have always known from you makes me hope of your pardon if I have said anything that may have disturbed your gracious heart.

May Allah the Exalted preserve your blessed presence with full health and well-being, and grant both you and us success in what earns His pleasure.

Wassalamu alaykum warahmatullahi ta’ala wabarakatuh

Yours gratefully,

Muhammad Taqi Usmani

………………………………………………………………………

You noted that first, by introducing new terms in these conferences, an attempt was made at the academic and intellectual level to pave the way for the “Abraham Accords”. Then, in 2020, under the leadership of American President Donald Trump, the “Abraham Accords” came into existence, which comprised multiple agreements, including provisions for commercial and strategic cooperation with the participating states (including Israel). Today, if you search the term “Abraham Accords” on Google or look it up on Wikipedia, its sole definition will be that all signatory states are to recognize Israel and normalize relations with it. The outcome is that within the so-called “Abrahamic family,” only one country — Israel — is deemed entitled to have its status recognized, a status founded upon deception, treachery, and the massacre of innocents. As for those people from this same “Abrahamic family” who are the original inhabitants of Palestine, their matter is to remain indefinitely suspended, at least until Israel itself decides otherwise.

Several Arab countries — the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan — have signed this accord. Saudi Arabia, however, did not sign, and took the fair position that it will not enter into this accord until a Palestinian state is established with Jerusalem (Bayt al-Maqdis) as its capital.

Just imagine how the term “Abrahamic family” is being employed to protect only one illegitimate state — a state that slaughters the inhabitants of Palestine like a savage beast, at times fearlessly attacking Iran, at times Lebanon, and at times Syria, all while disregarding international law, ignoring moral traditions, and treating adherence to agreements as meaningless.

Meanwhile, American President Donald Trump is extending the deceptive slogan of “peace” to invite Muslim countries into this agreement, so as to enslave all Muslims to Israel’s ambitions and set them up against America’s rival, “China”.

“The reach of your lancet extends only to the artery of the frail Qais.”[3]

Muhammad Taqi Usmani 26/1/1447

[1] Please see the original letter in the upcoming issue of the quarterly Al-Balagh Arabic magazine.

[2] Translator: “Bringing dates to Hajr” is an Arabic proverb. Hajr (in present-day eastern Arabia) was renowned for its abundance of dates, so bringing dates there would be redundant. The expression is used to describe offering something superfluous to someone who already possesses it, like taking sand to the desert or carrying water to the sea.

[3] Translator: This line of poetry conveys the meaning that your power goes only so far as to harm the weak. It does not extend to the strong.

Muhammad Taqi Usmani 26/1/1447