Dīn, Islām, and Sharīʿah in the Qur’an

Introduction

This article retains dīn, islām, and sharīʿah where their meanings are under examination, explaining each in context. Lowercase islām and muslim refer to the Qur’anic terms; Islam and Muslim refer to the historical tradition or communal identity. This writing convention helps distinguish the questions being asked; it does not establish their answers.

Three words—dīn, islām, and sharīʿah—are now so closely associated that they are often treated as interchangeable. Islam is understood as the name of a religion, Sharia as that religion’s body of law, and religion itself as a combination of beliefs, worship, rules, rituals, institutions, and communal identity.

These familiar meanings can accompany us into the Qur’an without our noticing. We encounter dīn and immediately think of one of the religions recognized today. We see islām and assume it is the proper name of the historical tradition associated with Muhammad’s mission: a tradition that has developed denominations, legal schools, institutions, and multiple identities over time. Instead of learning how the Qur’an uses its words, we read it through definitions already settled in our minds.

A fundamental misunderstanding can begin here. The statement “إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِندَ اللَّهِ الْإِسْلَامُ”—“Indeed, the dīn with The God is islām” (Al-Imran 3:19 (Not yet published))—is read as selecting one historical religion called Islam from among the world’s religions and excluding the others. That reading has already assumed that dīn means an organized religious system and that islām is the proper name of one such system. Both assumptions are then read back into the verse. What needed to be established is presented as the Qur’an’s plain meaning.

Does the Qur’an support those assumptions? What does dīn mean in its language? Is it identical to what we now call religion? Does islām describe a person’s surrender, or name a religious community? Where does sharīʿah fit? Are dīn and sharīʿah two names for the same thing, or has their conflation hidden an essential distinction? These questions concern more than terminology. Their answers determine whether the Qur’an is speaking about a person’s relationship with The God or their membership in a group; about what they do or what they call themselves.

The Qur’an itself makes these questions unavoidable. Abraham says, “أَسْلَمْتُ لِرَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ”—“I have surrendered to the Lord of all worlds” (Al-Baqarah 2:131 (Not yet published)). Jesus’s disciples say, “وَاشْهَدْ بِأَنَّا مُسْلِمُونَ”—“Bear witness that we are those who surrender” (Al-Imran 3:52 (Not yet published)). The queen of Sheba declares, “وَأَسْلَمْتُ مَعَ سُلَيْمَانَ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ”—“With Solomon, I have surrendered to The God, the Lord of all worlds” (An-Naml 27:44 (Not yet published)). These uses cannot be confined to membership in the historical community of Muhammad’s followers. We must ask what these people have done that the Qur’an describes with aslama and muslim.

The Qur’an also says of the ways appointed for different communities, “لِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا مِنْكُمْ شِرْعَةً وَمِنْهَاجًا”—“For each of you We appointed a prescribed way and a path” (Al-Ma’idah 5:48 (Not yet published)). If it recognizes different prescribed ways while describing Abraham, the disciples, and others through the language of surrender, we cannot simply merge dīn, islām, and sharīʿah into a single concept. What remains shared may differ from what varies. A name now attached to one prescribed way may also obscure a word’s broader Qur’anic meaning.

This study begins with religion as a category in academic inquiry. It does not rely exclusively on definitions supplied by Islamic or other religious institutions. Defining a tradition from within is different from studying religion as a human phenomenon. A definition that begins from the truth of one creed and measures other traditions against it cannot, by itself, account for every form of religion. It has made the object of inquiry its standard of judgment before the inquiry begins. Anthropology and sociology must be able to examine every tradition, including the researcher’s own. One denomination cannot define religion and expect that definition to govern the study of the entire world.

We will consider several influential definitions and their limitations, asking why no single uncontested definition encompasses every tradition commonly called a religion without difficulty. We will also consider how the assumptions of particular traditions shape definitions. The purpose is to prevent a familiar modern definition from passing as a self-evident truth beyond examination. Familiarity with a word does not guarantee clarity about its meaning; widespread acceptance does not establish a definition’s validity.

We then turn to dīn in Arabic and its Qur’anic uses. Studying religion as a human phenomenon and understanding what the Qur’an says about dīn are distinct tasks. Anthropological and sociological definitions will not be imposed on the verses; theological and confessional definitions will not serve as their final authority either. The method here is to read the Qur’an through the Qur’an: examine a word across its uses, a verse within its context, and a subject alongside related passages. Knowledge of language makes reading possible, but judgments about the Qur’an’s meaning must arise from the text itself. Neither the age of an interpretation nor its author’s academic or religious standing can substitute for Qur’anic evidence.

Sharīʿah will be examined in its own right before we consider its relationship to dīn. Which concept most closely concerns the rules, rituals, permissions, prohibitions, and practical course of a community? Have familiar definitions substituted features of sharīʿah for the meaning of dīn? Do differences in prescribed ways and rulings necessarily imply a difference in the underlying dīn? No school’s definition will settle these questions in advance. The Qur’an’s uses of dīn, sharaʿa, shirʿah, and sharīʿah must guide the inquiry.

We can then examine islām. Grammatically, it is the verbal noun of aslama: it names the act or condition of surrendering. What that surrender means, to whom it is directed, and how it relates to faith and doing good must also be understood through the Qur’an’s uses. We will compare this with Islam as the historical name of a religious tradition and community within which denominations and legal schools developed. The central distinction is between the name of an act and the proper name of an identity. Surrender is something a person must do; a religious title can be possessed without its meaning being realized in that person’s life.

This brings us back to “إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِندَ اللَّهِ الْإِسْلَامُ.” Does the verse make the historical name of the religious tradition associated with Muhammad its criterion, or does it speak of surrender to The God? Al-Baqarah 2:112 (Not yet published) is central to the inquiry. The Qur’an answers an exclusive claim to Paradise by giving a criterion, rather than replacing one group’s name with another: “مَنْ أَسْلَمَ وَجْهَهُ لِلَّهِ وَهُوَ مُحْسِنٌ”—“Whoever surrenders himself to The God and does good.” The emphasis falls on surrender and good conduct, not merely a name or affiliation.

This study returns those obscured questions to the Qur’an. Words must not become idols whose names we defend without understanding their meaning. Dīn must not be equated with sharīʿah without justification, and Abraham’s surrender must not be confined to a religious identity without evidence. What has become established in the Qur’an’s name remains answerable to the Qur’an—especially when a name has displaced action and an inherited definition has obstructed understanding.

Defining Religion in Academic Study

It is easy to name religions: Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam. The difficulty begins when we ask what makes these very different traditions instances of religion. Is religion belief in a god? Does it require a prophet and scripture? Is it a system of worship and law, a spiritual experience, or a way of making sense of the world and our place within it?

Academic study consequently has no single agreed definition of religion. A definition that makes one feature essential encounters traditions that lack that feature but are nevertheless commonly classified as religions.

Consider a definition familiar in many Islamic religious settings: religion consists of divinely revealed beliefs, a prophet, a scripture, acts of worship, permissions and prohibitions, and the rules of a prescribed way. Much of that definition reflects Muslims’ own historical experience. Hinduism has no single founding prophet, central scripture, uniform creed, or unified body of religious law. Its traditions differ even in their understandings of divinity and modes of worship.

A conventional Christian model presents a similar difficulty. A definition organized around faith in a personal God, revelation, salvation, and the human relationship with God struggles to accommodate some forms of Buddhism, in which belief in a creator God is not central. Yet Buddhism has teachings, ethics, rituals, meditation, monastic communities, and a path of liberation from suffering. The structure of one tradition cannot simply become a mold for every other.

For a general definition of religion, then, we cannot rely exclusively on Islamic or other confessional institutions. Their definitions usually arise within a tradition and carry its theological, legal, and practical assumptions. Such definitions may serve instruction within that tradition, but they cannot become a standard for studying all human traditions without scrutiny.

Scholars have approached the subject from different directions. In Primitive Culture, Edward B. Tylor proposed belief in spiritual beings as a minimal definition of religion. Émile Durkheim’s The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life emphasized the sacred, ritual practices, and social bonds. William James’s The Varieties of Religious Experience focused more closely on individual experience. In Religion as a Cultural System, Clifford Geertz examined religion through symbols and meanings that shape people’s understanding of the world and their conduct. [1, 2, 3, 4]

These differences expose the limits of a single definition. Tylor foregrounds something Durkheim gives less emphasis; James brings forward what recedes in Durkheim’s social account. Geertz’s approach leaves a further question: what makes a system of meaning religious, and distinguishes it from other systems of meaning?

To say that religion has no single definition is not to say that it has none. Definitions abound. Each illuminates part of the phenomenon and encounters limits elsewhere. Too narrow a definition excludes some traditions; too broad a definition blurs the boundary between religion and philosophy, culture, ethics, or a way of life.

That is enough to establish the point needed here: the Qur’anic word dīn cannot be equated, without investigation, with whatever we happen to mean by religion today.

Dīn in the Qur’an: Devotion, Authority, and Accountability

The Arabic word family d-y-n extends beyond the name of a religious denomination. Its semantic range includes reckoning, recompense, judgment, obligation, submission, and accountability. The study of the Qur’anic root d-y-n examines this range more fully. No single English equivalent fits all its Qur’anic uses.

“مَالِكِ يَوْمِ الدِّينِ”—“Master of the Day of Recompense” (Al-Fatihah 1:4)—is a clear example. Yawm al-dīn is not the day of a religion. It is the day of reckoning and recompense. Here dīn concerns the consequences of conduct and a person’s accountability.

In Joseph’s story, we read:

«مَا كَانَ لِيَأْخُذَ أَخَاهُ فِي دِينِ الْمَلِكِ»

Yusuf 12:76 (Not yet published)

He could not have taken his brother under the king’s law. (Yusuf 12:76 (Not yet published))

The context concerns the rule governing the detention of an accused person and the penalty to be imposed. Dīn al-malik here means the king’s governing order or law, rather than the name of his religion. Dīn can thus concern the authority that rules and the order to which a person is subject.

When dīn concerns a person’s relationship with The God, devotion enters the picture:

«فَاعْبُدِ اللَّهَ مُخْلِصًا لَهُ الدِّينَ ۝ أَلَا لِلَّهِ الدِّينُ الْخَالِصُ»

Az-Zumar 39:2 (Not yet published) Az-Zumar 39:3 (Not yet published)

Worship The God, devoting your allegiance wholly to Him. Truly, undivided devotion belongs to The God. (Az-Zumar 39:2–3 (Not yet published))

What must be devoted exclusively to Him is not a social label. It is the direction of a person’s worship and obedience.

Surah Al-Kafirun brings out the same issue. “لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ”—“You have your dīn, and I have mine”—follows the repeated statements “I do not worship what you worship” and “you do not worship what I worship” (Al-Kafirun 109:2–6 (Not yet published)). In this setting, “your dīn” and “my dīn” concern different ways of worship and devotion. They are not simply two religious names that the Qur’an endorses equally.

The statement “لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ” brings another dimension into view:

«لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَدْ تَبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ»

Al-Baqarah 2:256 (Not yet published)

There is no compulsion in dīn; sound guidance has become distinct from error. (Al-Baqarah 2:256 (Not yet published))

An external rule can compel behavior. Force cannot create faith, sincerity, or conscious surrender. If dīn concerns a person’s responsible relationship with The God and truth, outward coercion alone cannot produce it. This verse also shows why a legal system or a body of social regulations does not exhaust its meaning.

These uses reveal a connected field of meaning: dīn concerns commanding authority, the direction of devotion, the order to which a person submits, and accountability. Rules and rituals can belong within that relationship, but dīn is more than a community’s list of rules.

Sharīʿah in the Qur’an: A Prescribed Way and Its Relationship to Dīn

The root sh-r-ʿ is associated with opening or making a way clear. The Qur’an says of Muhammad:

«ثُمَّ جَعَلْنَاكَ عَلَىٰ شَرِيعَةٍ مِنَ الْأَمْرِ فَاتَّبِعْهَا»

Al-Jathiyah 45:18 (Not yet published)

Then We placed you upon a prescribed way concerning the matter; follow it. (Al-Jathiyah 45:18 (Not yet published))

Sharīʿah is the way upon which the Prophet is placed and which he is commanded to follow. Much of what inherited religious definitions place under religion—worship, rituals, permissions and prohibitions, marriage, food, inheritance, and other practical rules—is therefore closer to the concept of a prescribed way.

Sharīʿah and dīn are not synonyms, but neither are they disconnected. Sharīʿah describes the prescribed form of following and acting, while dīn, in the context of devotion, concerns a person’s broader relationship to commanding authority and accountability. The Qur’an itself connects them:

«شَرَعَ لَكُمْ مِنَ الدِّينِ مَا وَصَّىٰ بِهِ نُوحًا وَالَّذِي أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ وَمَا وَصَّيْنَا بِهِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَمُوسَىٰ وَعِيسَىٰ أَنْ أَقِيمُوا الدِّينَ وَلَا تَتَفَرَّقُوا فِيهِ»

Ash-Shura 42:13 (Not yet published)

He prescribed for you, of the dīn, what He enjoined upon Noah, what We have revealed to you, and what We enjoined upon Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: uphold the dīn and do not divide within it. (Ash-Shura 42:13 (Not yet published))

Sharaʿa, “He prescribed,” and dīn occur within the same sentence. What is presented as common to Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad is upholding the dīn. The verse does not say that every detail of their practical ways was identical.

Al-Ma’idah makes the distinction clearer. After discussing the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an, it says:

«لِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا مِنْكُمْ شِرْعَةً وَمِنْهَاجًا وَلَوْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ لَجَعَلَكُمْ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَلَٰكِنْ لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ فِي مَا آتَاكُمْ فَاسْتَبِقُوا الْخَيْرَاتِ»

Al-Ma’idah 5:48 (Not yet published)

For each of you We appointed a prescribed way and a path. Had The God willed, He would have made you one community; but He tests you through what He has given you. So compete in good works. (Al-Ma’idah 5:48 (Not yet published))

The verse does not attribute these different prescribed ways to error. The God says that He appointed ways for the different addressees, then calls them to compete in doing good.

Actual rulings also illustrate the difference. Jesus confirms the Torah while making lawful some things previously forbidden to the Children of Israel (Al-Imran 3:50 (Not yet published)). The Sabbath concerns a particular group (An-Nahl 16:124 (Not yet published)). The direction of worship changes even for the Qur’an’s own audience (Al-Baqarah 2:142–144 (Not yet published)). A change in a ruling does not, by itself, mean a change of deity or the creation of another dīn.

This is where the inherited theory that all earlier prescribed ways were abrogated needs careful examination. In Al-Ma’idah 5:48 (Not yet published), the Qur’an describes itself as confirming earlier scripture and as muhaymin, exercising oversight over it, while the same verse speaks of different prescribed ways. Some rulings have changed across the history of revelation. But changing a ruling is different from declaring the underlying dīn invalid or treating the latest prescribed way as the entire meaning of dīn. The separate study Naskh in the Qur’an examines abrogation in greater detail.

Al-Hajj puts the matter still more directly:

«لِكُلِّ أُمَّةٍ جَعَلْنَا مَنْسَكًا هُمْ نَاسِكُوهُ فَلَا يُنَازِعُنَّكَ فِي الْأَمْرِ وَادْعُ إِلَىٰ رَبِّكَ»

Al-Hajj 22:67 (Not yet published)

For every community We appointed a rite that they perform. So let them not dispute with you over the matter, and call to your Lord. (Al-Hajj 22:67 (Not yet published))

Different rites need not turn the invitation itself into a quarrel over forms. The focus remains “ادع إلى ربك”: call to your Lord.

The Qur’an nevertheless draws a clear boundary between different prescribed ways and breaking the dīn into factions:

«إِنَّ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا دِينَهُمْ وَكَانُوا شِيَعًا لَسْتَ مِنْهُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ»

Al-An‘am 6:159 (Not yet published)

Those who divided their dīn and became factions—you have no part with them. (Al-An‘am 6:159 (Not yet published))

And:

«مِنَ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا دِينَهُمْ وَكَانُوا شِيَعًا كُلُّ حِزْبٍ بِمَا لَدَيْهِمْ فَرِحُونَ»

Ar-Rum 30:32 (Not yet published)

Among those who divided their dīn and became factions, each party rejoicing in what it has. (Ar-Rum 30:32 (Not yet published))

Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, and Ja‘fari are legal schools; Sunni and Shi‘i designate broader religious traditions and communal identities. The Qur’an identifies none of them as a separate divinely prescribed way. The Arabic shiyaʿ in these verses is a general word for factions, not the proper name of the later Shi‘a tradition. If a historical school treats its own interpretation as the whole dīn, making its group’s name the criterion of truth, it reproduces the pattern of factions in which “each party rejoices in what it has.”

Different prescribed ways do not require the severing of relations between communities. The Qur’an permits the food of the People of the Book for its audience, and their food for the People of the Book; it also permits marriage to chaste women of the People of the Book (Al-Ma’idah 5:5 (Not yet published)). It mentions monasteries, churches, Jewish places of worship, and mosques together, speaking of places in which The God’s name is remembered abundantly (Al-Hajj 22:40 (Not yet published)).

In addressing the People of the Book, it says:

«وَإِلَٰهُنَا وَإِلَٰهُكُمْ وَاحِدٌ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ»

Al-Ankabut 29:46 (Not yet published)

Our deity and your deity is one, and to Him we surrender. (Al-Ankabut 29:46 (Not yet published))

Nor is a community’s name the sole criterion of faith:

«إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَالَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالنَّصَارَىٰ وَالصَّابِئِينَ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا فَلَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ عِنْدَ رَبِّهِمْ»

Al-Baqarah 2:62

Those who believe, those who are Jews, the Christians, and the Sabians—whoever believes in The God and the Last Day and acts righteously will have their reward with their Lord. (Al-Baqarah 2:62)

The same criterion appears in Al-Ma’idah 5:69 (Not yet published). For a fuller examination, see Īmān in the Qur’an.

These promises confer immunity on no group. The Qur’an speaks of both faith and rejection among the People of the Book. A different prescribed way is not, by itself, kufr; possession of scripture does not, by itself, guarantee faith.

Sharīʿah is a prescribed way of acting. Dīn cannot be reduced to one prescribed way, still less to one of its historical schools.

Islām in the Qur’an: Surrender and Communal Identity

The root s-l-m ranges across soundness, freedom from harm, peace, and the relinquishing of resistance. In the form aslama, it takes the sense of giving oneself over or submitting. Islām is the verbal noun of that verb; a muslim is one who surrenders. See the study of the Qur’anic root s-l-m for a fuller account of this word family.

The grammatical form establishes that islām is the verbal noun of aslama and names the act of surrendering. The Qur’anic contexts establish what that surrender means and to whom it is directed. Its use as the proper name of a historical community and tradition is a separate historical question, to be assessed through historical evidence.

Of Abraham, the Qur’an says:

«إِذْ قَالَ لَهُ رَبُّهُ أَسْلِمْ قَالَ أَسْلَمْتُ لِرَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ»

Al-Baqarah 2:131 (Not yet published)

When his Lord said to him, “Surrender,” he said, “I have surrendered to the Lord of all worlds.” (Al-Baqarah 2:131 (Not yet published))

Abraham and Ishmael also pray:

«رَبَّنَا وَاجْعَلْنَا مُسْلِمَيْنِ لَكَ وَمِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِنَا أُمَّةً مُسْلِمَةً لَكَ»

Al-Baqarah 2:128 (Not yet published)

Our Lord, make us both surrendered to You, and from our descendants a community surrendered to You. (Al-Baqarah 2:128 (Not yet published))

Even where the phrase is ummah muslimah, a surrendered community, laka—“to You”—makes its meaning clear: the community is surrendered to The God. The collective name has not become detached from the reality it expresses.

The Qur’an then says of Abraham:

«مَا كَانَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ يَهُودِيًّا وَلَا نَصْرَانِيًّا وَلَٰكِنْ كَانَ حَنِيفًا مُسْلِمًا»

Al-Imran 3:67 (Not yet published)

Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but one devoted to The God alone, one who surrendered. (Al-Imran 3:67 (Not yet published))

An important linguistic distinction is at work. Jew and Christian name historical communities that arose after Abraham. The word muslim, however, is the active participle of aslama: one who surrenders. Just as muʾmin, a believer, and muḥsin, one who does good, can describe someone in any age, muslim here describes a disposition and an act.

Al-Baqarah brings the contrast into sharper focus:

«وَقَالُوا كُونُوا هُودًا أَوْ نَصَارَىٰ تَهْتَدُوا قُلْ بَلْ مِلَّةَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ حَنِيفًا»

Al-Baqarah 2:135 (Not yet published)

They said, “Become Jews or Christians and you will be guided.” Say, “Rather, the way of Abraham, devoted to The God alone.” (Al-Baqarah 2:135 (Not yet published))

The next verse brings together faith in the revelations given to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus, and the other prophets, then says:

«وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ»

Al-Baqarah 2:136 (Not yet published)

And to Him we surrender. (Al-Baqarah 2:136 (Not yet published))

The response to “Become Jews or Christians” is not the construction of a rival name. The Qur’an returns to Abraham’s way, to faith, and to surrender directed to Him.

Other passages retain this meaning. The prophets who judged by the Torah are “النَّبِيُّونَ الَّذِينَ أَسْلَمُوا”—“the prophets who surrendered” (Al-Ma’idah 5:44 (Not yet published)). Jesus’s disciples say, “وَاشْهَدْ بِأَنَّا مُسْلِمُونَ”—“Bear witness that we are those who surrender” (Al-Imran 3:52 (Not yet published)). Some of the People of the Book, on hearing the Qur’an, also say:

«إِنَّا كُنَّا مِنْ قَبْلِهِ مُسْلِمِينَ»

Al-Qasas 28:53 (Not yet published)

We were already surrendered before it. (Al-Qasas 28:53 (Not yet published))

Their surrender did not begin with the revelation of the Qur’an.

The Qur’an itself also makes the relationship between the verb and verbal noun explicit:

«يَمُنُّونَ عَلَيْكَ أَنْ أَسْلَمُوا قُلْ لَا تَمُنُّوا عَلَيَّ إِسْلَامَكُمْ»

Al-Hujurat 49:17 (Not yet published)

They count it as a favor to you that they have surrendered. Say, “Do not count your surrender as a favor to me.” (Al-Hujurat 49:17 (Not yet published))

What is first expressed as aslamū, “they surrendered,” is named a few words later as islāmakum, “your surrender.”

Not every use of this root, however, describes the same moral condition. The desert Arabs who said, “We believe,” received this answer:

«لَمْ تُؤْمِنُوا وَلَٰكِنْ قُولُوا أَسْلَمْنَا وَلَمَّا يَدْخُلِ الْإِيمَانُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ»

Al-Hujurat 49:14 (Not yet published)

You have not believed. Say instead, “We have submitted,” for faith has not yet entered your hearts. (Al-Hujurat 49:14 (Not yet published))

Outward submission is not the same as deeply rooted faith. Īmān in the Qur’an examines that distinction separately.

Another verse says, “وَلَهُ أَسْلَمَ مَنْ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ طَوْعًا وَكَرْهًا”—“To Him has submitted whoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly” (Al-Imran 3:83 (Not yet published)). This concerns the universal submission of creatures to The God’s sovereignty. Such submission, particularly where it is unwilling, is different from Abraham’s voluntary surrender in faith. In discussing the dīn accepted by The God, the relevant surrender is a person’s conscious response to truth and guidance.

The Qur’an also speaks of islām as something to which a person is called (As-Saff 61:7 (Not yet published)), and for which a person’s breast is opened (Az-Zumar 39:22 (Not yet published)). Here again, the word is more than a name for institutional membership. It concerns a state to which people are invited and which must become real within them.

At the same time, the Qur’an itself uses al-muslimīn collectively and connects this designation with Abraham:

«مِلَّةَ أَبِيكُمْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ هُوَ سَمَّاكُمُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ مِنْ قَبْلُ وَفِي هَٰذَا»

Al-Hajj 22:78 (Not yet published)

The way of your father Abraham; He named you al-muslimīn before and in this. (Al-Hajj 22:78 (Not yet published))

A collective name is not the problem. The problem begins when the name is severed from its meaning and a Muslim is understood simply as a member of a community, without asking how that person stands before The God and responds to truth.

What follows is supplementary historical evidence. This article’s principal argument about the meaning of islām rests on the Qur’an’s own usage. In Muhammad and the Believers, Fred M. Donner argues that the early community around Muhammad understood itself primarily as a community of Believers, and that a more distinctly Muslim identity acquired clearer boundaries over time. Ilkka Lindstedt, in Who Is in, Who Is out? Early Muslim Identity through Epigraphy and Theory, reads the inscriptions he examines as evidence of a gradual articulation of communal identity and the increasing use of Islam and Muslims as group designations. This supports a historical discussion of identity boundaries, not a claim that the words originated at the dates of their surviving inscriptions. The Qur’anic argument does not depend on accepting this historical account. [5, 6]

The word muslim was not invented during that period; it is already present in the Qur’an, including as a collective designation. The historical question concerns the development of its social function and the boundaries of the identity associated with it, not the creation of the word itself.

With this distinction in view, we can return to the Qur’an’s foundational statement:

«إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الْإِسْلَامُ»

Al-Imran 3:19 (Not yet published)

Indeed, the dīn with The God is islām. (Al-Imran 3:19 (Not yet published))

The Qur’an’s Criterion: Surrender to The God, Not Exclusive Possession of a Name

The next verse prevents islām in 3:19 (Not yet published) from being understood without reference to its verb:

«أَسْلَمْتُ وَجْهِيَ لِلَّهِ وَمَنِ اتَّبَعَنِ ... أَأَسْلَمْتُمْ فَإِنْ أَسْلَمُوا فَقَدِ اهْتَدَوْا»

Al-Imran 3:20 (Not yet published)

I have surrendered myself to The God, and so have those who follow me … Have you surrendered? If they surrender, they have found guidance. (Al-Imran 3:20 (Not yet published))

The islām of verse 19 is directly connected with aslamtu, “I have surrendered,” a-aslamtum, “have you surrendered?”, and fa-in aslamū, “if they surrender,” in the following verse. The subject is surrender.

The same pattern recurs in Al-Imran 3:84–85 (Not yet published). After recalling Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets, the passage says:

«وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ»

Al-Imran 3:84 (Not yet published)

And to Him we surrender. (Al-Imran 3:84 (Not yet published))

It then continues:

«وَمَنْ يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الْإِسْلَامِ دِينًا فَلَنْ يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ»

Al-Imran 3:85 (Not yet published)

Whoever seeks a dīn other than islām will not have it accepted from him. (Al-Imran 3:85 (Not yet published))

In this connection, “other than islām” means a way outside surrender to the same God and the guidance that comes from Him.

Al-Ma’idah 5:3 (Not yet published) should be read within the same framework:

«الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا»

Al-Ma’idah 5:3 (Not yet published)

Today I have completed your dīn for you, fulfilled My favor upon you, and approved islām as your dīn.

The verse does not say that the underlying dīn became complete for the first time that day. Its addressees are specified: “for you,” “your dīn,” “upon you.” The same Qur’an describes Abraham, the disciples, and the prophets who judged by the Torah in the language of surrender. What has been completed for this community is the way and responsibility pertaining to it. The reality of surrender did not come into existence on that day.

Perhaps the clearest test is the Qur’an’s response to an exclusive claim to salvation:

«وَقَالُوا لَنْ يَدْخُلَ الْجَنَّةَ إِلَّا مَنْ كَانَ هُودًا أَوْ نَصَارَىٰ»

Al-Baqarah 2:111 (Not yet published)

They said, “No one will enter Paradise unless they are a Jew or a Christian.” (Al-Baqarah 2:111 (Not yet published))

Something significant is absent from the answer: another group’s name does not take the place of Jew or Christian.

«بَلَىٰ مَنْ أَسْلَمَ وَجْهَهُ لِلَّهِ وَهُوَ مُحْسِنٌ فَلَهُ أَجْرُهُ عِنْدَ رَبِّهِ»

Al-Baqarah 2:112 (Not yet published)

Yes indeed: whoever surrenders himself to The God and does good will have his reward with his Lord. (Al-Baqarah 2:112 (Not yet published))

Surrender and doing good take the place of a name.

Surrender does not mean indifference to truth. This is where kufr becomes important. The root k-f-r is connected with covering, and the Qur’an uses it in different contexts concerning the concealment or rejection of truth, signs, or blessings. Kufr cannot simply be equated with being non-Muslim, just as the name Muslim does not automatically establish faith. Who Is a Kāfir, and What Is Kufr? examines the subject more fully.

The Qur’an does not even assign all the People of the Book a single judgment on the basis of their name:

«إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ فِي نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ»

Al-Bayyinah 98:6 (Not yet published)

Those who rejected, among the People of the Book and those who associate partners with The God, are in the fire of Hell. (Al-Bayyinah 98:6 (Not yet published))

The verse does not say “all the People of the Book.” It specifies “those who rejected among the People of the Book,” distinguishing within that group. The same construction names the People of the Book and the associators separately; the rejection of some People of the Book does not change their designation in the verse to associators.

Possessing scripture, on the other hand, protects no one from kufr. The Qur’an asks the People of the Book why they reject The God’s signs while bearing witness (Al-Imran 3:70 (Not yet published)). It also speaks of mixing truth with falsehood and knowingly concealing truth (Al-Imran 3:71 (Not yet published)). That criterion continues to apply to the Qur’an’s audience: possessing the Qur’an and bearing the name Muslim cannot replace surrender to truth.

Al-Baqarah 2:62 and Al-Ma’idah 5:69 (Not yet published) therefore need not conflict with Al-Bayyinah 98:6 (Not yet published). The former passages concern those among Jews, Christians, and Sabians who believe in The God and the Last Day and act righteously. The latter concerns those among the People of the Book who reject. A community’s name does not replace a person’s response to The God and truth as the Qur’an’s criterion.

Faith, too, is more than an inherited label. The separate study Īmān in the Qur’an explores this further.

“إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الْإِسْلَامُ” can thus be understood plainly: the dīn with The God is surrender to Him. Prescribed ways can differ in their rules and forms of practice, and communities can bear different names. Those names are assessed by the reality of faith, surrender, good conduct, and a person’s response to guidance.

Conclusion: Dīn, Islām, and Sharīʿah

Dīn in the Qur’an is not confined to the name of a historical religion. In the context of devotion, it concerns commanding authority, the direction of a person’s allegiance, and accountability.

Sharīʿah is a prescribed way of acting, and its forms can differ among communities. The Qur’an recognizes different prescribed ways while condemning the fragmentation of dīn into factions and parties, each treating what it possesses as the whole truth.

In the Qur’anic argument, islām concerns surrender to The God before it concerns a communal label. It describes Abraham, earlier prophets, and their followers. The use of Islam as the name of a historical community and tradition must not obscure that meaning.

“The dīn with The God is islām” does not confer privilege on a social name. Muslim, Jew, Christian, or any other designation cannot, by itself, replace faith, surrender, doing good, and action. Nor can kufr be determined simply from a communal label.

The relationship can be stated in three parts: where the Qur’an speaks of a person’s relationship with The God, dīn concerns the direction of devotion, commanding authority, and accountability; sharīʿah is the prescribed way of putting that devotion into practice; and islām is surrender to The God. A name must be tested against the reality it claims. Reality is not to be judged by the name.