Tafsir of Al Imran 3:67

Then He explicitly stated what the established proof pronounced, saying: {Abraham was not a Jew} (as the Jews claimed), {nor a Christian} (as the Christians claimed), {but he was a Hanif} (meaning: turning away from deviant creeds), {a Muslim} (meaning: submissive to the obedience of the Truth, or a monotheist, for Islam also carries the meaning of monotheism). It is said: His saying, {And he was not of the polytheists}, supports this.

{Meaning: the worshippers of idols, like the Arabs who used to claim they were upon his religion, or all other polytheists, so as to include the worshippers of fire like the Magians, and the worshippers of the stars like the Sabians.} It is also said: He meant by them the Jews and the Christians, because the Jews said, "Ezra is the son of God," and the Christians said, "The Messiah is the son of God"—exalted is God far above that. The origin of the expression is "And he was not one of you," except that the manifest noun was placed in the position of the pronoun to imply that they are the polytheists, and the sentence in that case is an emphasis on what preceded it.

Defining "Islam" as mentioned is what a group of investigators chose, arguing that it is not correct to interpret it here as the Muhammadan religion, because it would be objected that it came much later; so how could he be a Muslim [in that sense]? This would make it like their claim of his Judaism and Christianity, which is refuted by His saying: {And the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed until after him}. Thus, the same objection raised against them would apply to this interpretation, and the necessity of the argument would be shared between both.

Some interpreted it as such and answered the shared necessity by saying that the Quran informed that Abraham was "a Muslim," whereas it is not in the Torah or the Gospel that he (peace be upon him) was a Jew or a Christian; thus, the difference is evident. The scholar Al-Nisaburi said: "If it is said: Your statement that Abraham (peace be upon him) was upon the religion of Islam—if you mean by it agreement in the fundamentals, this is not specific to the religion of Islam. And if you mean in the branches, it necessitates that our Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) is not the owner of a law, but rather a confirmer of the law before him."

It is said: The first is chosen, and the specificity is established because the Jews and Christians in our time contradict the fundamentals due to their belief in the Trinity, the association of Ezra (peace be upon him) with God, and so on. Or the second is chosen, and what was mentioned does not necessarily follow, for it is permissible that God abrogated those branches with the law of Moses (peace be upon him), then our Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) abrogated the law of Moses with his own law, which is in agreement with the law of Abraham (peace be upon him). Thus, he (peace be upon him) is the owner of a law, while his law agrees with the law of Abraham in most of the branches. End quote.

It is not hidden that the response regarding the second choice is highly far-fetched, or rather, invalid, because the abrogation of the law of Abraham by the law of Moses, and then the abrogation of the law of Moses by the law of our Prophet (peace be upon them all), does not make our Prophet the owner of a new law. Rather, it would also be said of him: He is a confirmer of the law that preceded him, which is Abraham (peace be upon him). Furthermore, the agreement of all the branches of our law with all the branches of Abraham's law is something impossible to direct in any way, for among our branches is the obligation of reciting the Quran in prayer, which—self-evidently—was not revealed to anyone other than our Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace), and there are many such examples.

Agreement in the majority is subject to denial, and firm mountains cannot prove it. His saying, {Follow the creed of Abraham}, is not evidence for agreement in the branches, as the "creed" (Millah) therein refers to monotheism, or to it and morals, like the "guidance" in His saying: {Those are the ones whom God has guided, so follow their guidance}.

Al-Shihab objected to the answer regarding the first choice just as he objected to the answer regarding the second choice by itself. He mentioned that this is the reason some investigators departed from what the words of that scholar necessitate—namely, that the meaning of Abraham being a "Muslim" is that he was upon the religion of Islam—to the meaning that he was "submissive," interpreting "Islam" according to its linguistic meaning. He claimed this is safe from reproach, but it has been examined that taking "Islam" linguistically does not suit the discussion of religions, so this view is not free from being far-fetched. Perhaps it is no less far-fetched than the first answer, as is not hidden to a person of sound taste.

This is so, and there is another aspect in the verse, which perhaps emerges from between filth and blood: When the People of the Book disputed, and the Jews said, "Abraham is of us," and the Christians said, "He is of us," each group intended that he (peace be upon him) was, at that time, in the state he is currently in—which is a state that is objectively contrary to what their prophet is upon, yet they claim it is in agreement—meaning agreement of fundamentals with fundamentals, or agreement in what is considered agreement by convention, even if it is not in the majority. This claim is not so invalid as to be hidden from anyone. Thus, God Almighty refuted them by His saying: {And the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed until after him}, meaning: they do not contain that [claim], and it is worthy of mention if there were [such a claim]. Then He pointed to their foolishness in a more perfect manner, then explicitly stated what He had alluded to first, saying: {Abraham was not a Jew}—that is, from the Jewish group that contradicts what Moses (peace be upon him) brought in reality—{nor a Christian}—that is, from the Christian group that contradicts what Jesus (peace be upon him) brought, likewise—{but he was a Hanif, a Muslim}—that is, upon the religion of Islam, which is the only religion acceptable to God, and it is the religion of all the prophets (peace be upon them). In this is an indication that those Jews and Christians are not of the religion at all, due to their objective contradiction of what the two prophets—nay, all the prophets—were upon. Then He pointed to the reason for that through what He implied in His saying: {And he was not of the polytheists}.

According to this, the "Muslim" is—as Al-Jassas said, and we have indicated this multiple times—the believer, even if from other than this nation, contrary to Al-Suyuti in his claim that Islam is specific to this nation. This is what I have in this station, so contemplate, for the path of the intellect is vast.