Was Syaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah a Salafi, Jihadi, and Sufi? A Scholarly Examination

Few scholars in Islamic history have generated as much discussion, admiration, and controversy as Taqi al-Din Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah (661–728 AH / 1263–1328 CE). Celebrated by many as Shaykh al-Islam, he was a prolific theologian, jurist, exegete, reformer, and activist who left a vast intellectual legacy. Over the centuries, various groups have claimed him, while others have criticized him, making him a unique prism through which debates about Islamic creed, law, and spirituality are refracted.

In modern discourse, Ibn Taymiyyah is sometimes described simultaneously as a Salafi, Jihadi, and Sufi—labels that carry heavy historical and ideological implications. Yet such terms did not necessarily exist in his time in the same way they are used today. To understand how these descriptors relate to him, each must be defined according to its historical context.

---

1. Ibn Taymiyyah and “Salafism”

1.1 The Meaning of “Salafi” in His Time

In contemporary usage, Salafism often refers to a modern reform movement that emphasizes a literalist reading of scripture, rejection of innovation (bid‘ah), emphasis on early Islamic generations (salaf al-ṣāliḥ), and a puritan style of worship and doctrine.

In Ibn Taymiyyah’s lifetime, however, salafī had a different nuance. It was not an organized ideology or movement. Rather, it was a broad methodological claim: the belief that authentic Islam is best understood by following the practices and interpretations of the early Muslim community—the Prophet ﷺ, his Companions, and the Successors.

1.2 Ibn Taymiyyah’s Self-Identification as a Follower of the Salaf

Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly affirmed that his theological positions adhered to the creed of the salaf. In his Majmū‘ al-Fatāwā, he repeatedly states that when scholars differ, one must return to the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the way of the earliest generations.

He vigorously opposed speculative theology (kalām) and philosophical interpretations of divine attributes—criticisms he leveled especially against the Ash‘arīs, Mu‘tazilīs, and falāsifah. He argued that the safest path was to accept God’s attributes without likening them to creation (tashbīh) or stripping them of meaning (ta‘tīl).

1.3 Pre-Modern Salafism

Thus, to say that Ibn Taymiyyah was “Salafi” is accurate only in the historical sense:

• He advocated direct textualism.

• He saw the salaf as the normative model.

• He rejected later theological innovations.

But he was not part of the modern Salafi movement, which developed centuries later, although that movement draws heavily upon his ideas.

In summary: Ibn Taymiyyah was a salaf-oriented scholar, not a Salafi in the modern political or ideological sense.

---

2. Ibn Taymiyyah and “Jihadism”

2.1 Clarifying the Term “Jihadi”

The modern term jihadi is associated with contemporary militant movements and political ideologies, often emphasizing armed struggle against states or perceived enemies of Islam. This meaning did not exist during Ibn Taymiyyah’s time.

To assess whether the term can be applied to him, one must distinguish between:

• Classical jihad doctrine accepted by all major scholars.

• Modern jihadism, which is ideological and often revolutionary.

2.2 Ibn Taymiyyah and Classical Jihad

Ibn Taymiyyah lived during a period of immense upheaval:

• The Mongol invasions threatened the Muslim world.

• Muslim rulers were sometimes accused of failing to implement Islamic law.

• Sectarian groups caused instability.

In response, he issued several famous legal opinions (fatāwā al-Mardīniyyah) declaring that the Mongols—despite nominally embracing Islam—were legitimate targets of jihad because they continued to rule by the Yassa (Mongol law) rather than full Sharia.

For Ibn Taymiyyah, jihad was:

• Defensive (protecting Muslims from invasion).

• Based on legal criteria, not zealotry.

• Conducted under legitimate authority when possible.

• Regulated by ethics, including the prohibition of killing non-combatants.

These positions were consistent with mainstream medieval Sunni jurisprudence.

2.3 Did Ibn Taymiyyah Promote a “Jihadi Ideology”?

Modern jihadist groups selectively quote Ibn Taymiyyah to justify rebellion or violence, especially his fatwas against the Mongols. Yet they often omit key conditions he emphasized, such as:

• the requirement for just authority,

• the prohibition of indiscriminate violence,

• the insistence on Sharia-based due process,

• and a strict distinction between combatants and civilians.

In classical jurisprudence, Ibn Taymiyyah was firm, not extremist. His views were shaped by exceptional historical circumstances.

Thus, while he was a major contributor to classical jihad doctrine, it is misleading to label him a “jihadi” in the modern sense, which carries ideological and political connotations he never endorsed.

---

3. Ibn Taymiyyah and Sufism

3.1 Sufism in the 7th/8th Islamic Century

Contrary to popular stereotypes, Sufism in Ibn Taymiyyah’s time was not a single monolithic system. It encompassed multiple orders, practices, and degrees of adherence. Many Sufi scholars were also jurists, theologians, and traditionalists. Hanbali scholars in particular had a long history of asceticism (zuhd) and spirituality.

3.2 Ibn Taymiyyah’s Affirmation of Authentic Sufism

Ibn Taymiyyah distinguished between:

• True Sufism (tasawwuf ṣaḥīḥ) rooted in Qur’an and Sunnah, and

• Innovated or deviant practices he associated with some mystical sects.

He praised early Sufi figures such as:

• Al-Junayd

• Sahl al-Tustari

• Fudayl ibn ‘Iyad

• Ibrahim ibn Adham

He wrote respectfully about the spiritual path (sulūk), purification of the soul (tazkiyah), remembrance of God (dhikr), and sincerity (ikhlāṣ).

3.3 His Critique of Certain Sufi Practices

At the same time, he was sharply critical of:

• pantheistic doctrines associated with Ibn ‘Arabi (e.g., wahdat al-wujūd),

• saint-veneration that involved supplication to the dead,

• antinomian excesses of certain groups,

• innovations in ritual practice.

Yet his critique was internal: he wanted to reform Sufism, not abolish it.

3.4 Was Ibn Taymiyyah a Sufi?

In modern terms, “Sufi” implies membership in a ṭarīqah (order), initiation under a shaykh, and adherence to specific rituals. There is no evidence that Ibn Taymiyyah formally joined a Sufi order.

However, in the classical sense of a person who practices spiritual discipline, asceticism, dhikr, and moral refinement, Ibn Taymiyyah’s writings and personal conduct consistently reflect Sufi dimensions.

He embraced:

• purification of the heart,

• intensive worship,

• ascetic living,

• spiritual states (e.g., trust in God, detachment from the world),

• and an emphasis on experience of closeness to God.

Thus, he can be described as Sufi-inspired but not a Sufi-order adherent.

---

4. Integrating the Labels: How Do They Fit Together?

4.1 Historical Fluidity of Categories

Part of the difficulty in labeling Ibn Taymiyyah comes from the fact that the categories “Salafi,” “Jihadi,” and “Sufi” evolved long after his death and belong to different intellectual worlds:

• “Salafi” = a modern theological orientation (19th–20th centuries).

• “Jihadi” = a political-militant movement (late 20th century).

• “Sufi” = a spiritual tradition originating in early Islam but institutionalized later.

Applying these terms retroactively can distort historical realities.

4.2 Ibn Taymiyyah as a Multi-Dimensional Scholar

If forced to place him within these frameworks, the most accurate description is:

He was salaf-oriented in creed, traditionally juristic in his approach to jihad, and spiritually inclined in a way consistent with early Sufism.

He was not an extremist. He was not anti-spiritual. Nor was he an ideologue in the modern sense.

4.3 Why Different Groups Claim Him

• Modern Salafis admire his textualism and theological rigor.

• Islamic reform movements admire his courage in confronting political and intellectual challenges.

• Certain militant groups selectively appropriate his jihad fatwas while ignoring context.

• Some Sufi scholars appreciate his praise of early ascetics and his engagement with spiritual psychology.

This diversity of interpretations demonstrates the richness of his legacy.

---

5. Conclusion: A Nuanced Portrait of Ibn Taymiyyah

To call Syaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah a “Salafi, Jihadi, and Sufi” is simultaneously true, false, and misleading—depending on how one defines each term.

He was “Salafi”

in the sense that he championed the understanding of the earliest Muslim generations and rejected later theological innovations.

He was involved in “jihad”

in the classical, legal sense, primarily as a response to Mongol invasions and political instability. But he was not a modern jihadi and opposed unlawful rebellion and indiscriminate violence.

He engaged deeply with Sufi thought

and affirmed aspects of early, orthodox Sufism, while criticizing what he saw as innovations and excesses. He was spiritually ascetic but not a member of Sufi orders.

Ultimately, Ibn Taymiyyah was a complex, multidimensional scholar whose work defies reduction to modern ideological labels. His legacy belongs not to one group, but to the entire spectrum of Islamic intellectual history.

Syaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah was not just a Salafi, he was also a Sufi

Few figures in Islamic intellectual history evoke as much admiration and debate as Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH), commonly honored with the title Syaikh al-Islam. Over the past two centuries—especially with the rise of reformist movements—he has often been portrayed almost exclusively as the master architect of Salafism. In public discourse, he is frequently imagined as a fierce opponent of all forms of Sufism, an uncompromising critic of spiritual orders, and a scholar whose legacy serves as the ideological backbone of contemporary Salafi doctrines.

Yet, serious engagement with his writings and intellectual heritage reveals a more layered, textured, and often misunderstood picture. Historical Ibn Taymiyyah was not the monolithic figure modern polemics make him out to be. Indeed, he was deeply shaped by the spiritual traditions of his time. Not only did he affirm the legitimacy of Sufism, but he also participated in Sufi practice, praised its early teachers, and even aligned himself with specific Sufi orders. His critiques were not aimed at Sufism as a whole, but at what he perceived as abuses or innovations that compromised the Qur’anic and Prophetic message.

Understanding this reality is crucial for appreciating his true intellectual legacy. To define him solely as a “Salafi” is to flatten his identity; to ignore his profound relationship with Sufism is to misread the richness and complexity of Islamic history.

---

A Scholar Formed by a Living Sufi Environment

Born in Harran and later relocating to Damascus, Ibn Taymiyyah grew up in an environment where Sufism was a mainstream, normative dimension of Muslim scholarly life. Many of the greatest jurists, Hadith masters, and theologians of his age were also Sufi initiates. The binaries often drawn today between “Salafi” and “Sufi” simply did not exist in the same way during the 7th–8th Islamic centuries.

He and his family were associated with the Qādirī Sufi order, founded by the celebrated saint ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī. Ibn Taymiyyah frequently cited al-Jīlānī with reverence, identifying him as a paragon of spiritual purification and moral excellence. In fact, he openly stated:

“Our shaykh, ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī, said…”
—Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū‘ al-Fatāwā

His respectful references are not those of an outsider peering in critically, but of a participant within a spiritual lineage.

This is supported by records from early biographers such as Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, Ibn ‘Abd al-Hādī, and al-Dhahabī, who frequently mention Ibn Taymiyyah’s appreciation for, and involvement in, Sufi circles. He lived among Sufis, debated them, advised them, and learned from them. He also wrote commentaries on early Sufi classics, including works by al-Harawī, one of the pillars of the Hanbali-Sufi tradition.

---

Affirmation of True Sufism

Ibn Taymiyyah’s writings contain detailed discussions of Sufism—its origins, its virtues, its classifications, and its diverse traditions. Far from dismissing it, he described it as a legitimate and beneficial avenue of spiritual growth, provided it remained rooted in Qur’an and Sunnah. He wrote:

“The term ‘Sufism’ refers to a reality that was already recognized among the elite of spiritual people. They were known for their striving in worship and devotion.”
—Majmū‘ al-Fatāwā, 11/17

Ibn Taymiyyah argued for a distinction between:

1. Authentic Sufism (al-taṣawwuf al-ṣaḥīḥ):
   A path of zuhd (asceticism), sincerity, remembrance (dhikr), and moral purification.

2. Corrupted forms of Sufism:
   Practices involving extremism, antinomianism, superstition, or un-Islamic metaphysics.

This distinction is critical: his criticisms targeted what he saw as theological or methodological deviations—not the science of Sufism nor its legitimate practitioners. In this regard, his method resembles the approach of major Sunni jurists and theologians who praised early Sufi masters while rejecting innovations that crept into later practice.

---

Praising the Early Sufi Masters

A review of Ibn Taymiyyah’s works reveals extensive admiration for Sufi champions such as:

• Junayd al-Baghdādī

• Sahl al-Tustarī

• Abū Yazīd al-Bisṭāmī (Bāyazīd)

• Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (though he critiqued some aspects of Iḥyā’ ‘Ulūm al-Dīn)

• ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī

He consistently identified Junayd as the model of sound Sufism, describing him as the leader of the people of spiritual truth and self-purification. Junayd’s emphasis on sobriety (ṣuḥb) and unshakeable adherence to Shari‘ah became, for Ibn Taymiyyah, the gold standard for authentic Sufi method.

This is significant: if Ibn Taymiyyah were categorically anti-Sufi, he would not repeatedly elevate Sufi saints as exemplars of the Islamic spiritual path.

---

His Own Spiritual Practice

Several historical accounts describe Ibn Taymiyyah’s personal devotion and ascetic lifestyle. He was known for:

• Constant dhikr, often to the point where he said,
  “Dhikr is to me like water to a fish; how could a fish survive without water?”

• Long periods of fasting.

• Extended night prayers.

• A life of simplicity, humility, and abstention from worldly comforts.

• Engaging in states of intense spiritual reflection, especially during imprisonment.

His student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya described witnessing his teacher’s spiritual states, recounting how Ibn Taymiyyah experienced deep serenity and joy through remembrance of God. Ibn al-Qayyim remarked:

“I never saw anyone whose heart was more attached to Allah than Ibn Taymiyyah.”

These are descriptions of a man deeply immersed in the spiritual practices that constitute the core of Sufi discipline.

---

Why Is He Portrayed Today Only as a Salafi?

The modern image of Ibn Taymiyyah as an anti-Sufi symbol owes more to contemporary ideological battles than to historical reality.

1. Selective appropriation

Modern Salafi reformers often cite Ibn Taymiyyah’s criticisms of certain Sufi ideas or orders while ignoring his affirmations of classical Sufism. Over time, this led to the construction of a simplified figure useful for modern polemics.

2. Reaction against popular Sufism

In many regions, Sufi practices had developed into elaborate, sometimes excessive forms by the 18th–19th centuries. Reformists looked to Ibn Taymiyyah as a reference point for challenging these practices, emphasizing only the corrective parts of his legacy.

3. Modern Sufi responses

Conversely, some Sufi groups reacted defensively, portraying him as a hostile critic. In doing so, they reinforced the binary image of “Salafi vs. Sufi,” which would have been alien to Ibn Taymiyyah himself.

4. Loss of historical nuance

Popular religious discourse thrives on clear categories. A figure who affirms Sufism and critiques it is more difficult to fit into modern narratives than a purely polemical champion of one side.

---

The Intellectual Unity of Law, Theology, and Spirituality

Ibn Taymiyyah did not see jurisprudence, theology, and spirituality as competing domains. Instead, he viewed Islam holistically; purification of the soul (tazkiyah) was inseparable from correct belief and righteous action.

This synthesis is one of the most important—yet often neglected—features of his thought. He repeatedly emphasized:

• The need for tahdhīb al-nafs (refinement of the self).

• The importance of remembering God frequently.

• The centrality of sincerity (ikhlāṣ) and truthfulness (ṣidq).

• The virtues of muraqabah (spiritual vigilance), muḥāsabah (self-examination), and tawbah (repentance).

• The spiritual benefits of khalwah (retreat) when practiced in accordance with the Sunnah.

These are not the ideas of a scholar hostile to spirituality; they are the pillars of a refined Sufi ethic integrated within an orthodox Sunni framework.

---

His Critiques: A Call to Reform, Not Rejection

Ibn Taymiyyah’s critiques of Sufism—often quoted selectively—were not aimed at the foundations of the discipline, but at developments that he believed had diverged from the Qur’anic worldview. Among the issues he addressed:

• Pantheistic interpretations influenced by Ibn ‘Arabī’s doctrine of waḥdat al-wujūd.

• Excessive veneration of saints or tombs.

• Practices not traceable to the early generations.

• Certain ecstatic expressions that might violate theological boundaries.

Yet, even here, he often approached the matter with nuance. He distinguished between:

• The intention behind a Sufi’s statement,

• The linguistic form the statement took, and

• The degree of excusability depending on spiritual state.

His approach echoes Junayd’s principle: “Our path is built on the Qur’an and Sunnah.”

It is thus inaccurate to imagine his critiques as sweeping condemnations. They were internal critiques offered by someone who belonged to the tradition he sought to reform.

---

The Harmony of Salafi Principles and Sufi Spirituality

To say that Ibn Taymiyyah was a “Salafi” and “Sufi” is not contradictory. In his view:

• The Salafi method provides the pure textual and doctrinal foundation.

• Sufism provides the method of transforming the soul according to that foundation.

He saw the two not as opposing camps, but as complementary dimensions of an integrated Sunni identity.

In fact, he argued that true Sufis were the inheritors of the Salaf in their emphasis on purification, devotion, and asceticism. He viewed early Sufism as a direct continuation of the spiritual path of the Prophet’s companions.

This is why he famously said:

“The true Sufis are among the best of the people.”
—Majmū‘ al-Fatāwā

---

Why Recovering This Balanced View Matters Today

Understanding Ibn Taymiyyah as both Salafi and Sufi has important implications for contemporary Muslim discourse.

1. Healing sectarian divides

The sharp dichotomy between Salafi and Sufi identities is a modern phenomenon. Ibn Taymiyyah’s example shows that deep spirituality and textual rigor can coexist.

2. Restoring authentic Sufism

His affirmation of early Sufi masters highlights a path of spiritual discipline rooted in Qur’an and Sunnah—one that avoids both excess and neglect.

3. Broadening the Salafi tradition

A more historically grounded understanding shows that the Salafi heritage includes attention to the heart, soul, and spiritual excellence.

4. Enriching Islamic scholarship

Recognizing Ibn Taymiyyah’s multi-dimensional legacy invites Muslims to cultivate a form of religiosity that is both intellectually rigorous and spiritually profound.

---

Conclusion: A Scholar Beyond Modern Labels

Syaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah was not merely a “Salafi” in the modern ideological sense. Nor was he an opponent of spirituality or a critic of Sufism in totality. He was:

• A jurist of extraordinary depth,

• A theologian with penetrating insight,

• A spiritual master grounded in remembrance, sincerity, and asceticism,

• A reformer who honored the Sufi tradition while calling it back to its original purity.

To reduce him to a single label is to misunderstand the man and his era. He stands as a reminder that Islamic scholarship at its highest level transcends the simplifications of modern debates. His life and works teach that the path of knowledge and the path of the heart are not separate roads, but two halves of a single journey toward God.

The Lifetime Contributions of Anwar Ibrahim: A Legacy Within the Islamic Movement

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia’s tenth Prime Minister, has long been one of Southeast Asia’s most influential political figures. But beyond the sphere of governance, his greatest—and most enduring—impact lies in shaping Islamic discourse and reform, both within Malaysia and across the Muslim world. His life story intertwines activism, intellectual leadership, political ascent, persecution, and an unwavering commitment to the principles of justice, pluralism, and moral governance grounded in Islamic values.

Across five decades, Anwar’s contributions have traversed the domains of youth activism, Islamic education, global Muslim intellectual exchange, democratic reform, and inter-civilizational dialogue. Collectively, these efforts have positioned him not only as a statesman, but as a bridge-builder between Islamic tradition and modern aspirations.

---

1. The Formative Years: Leadership in the Islamic Youth Movement

Anwar Ibrahim first emerged as a national figure through his leadership of Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM), or the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia, founded in 1971. His presidency of ABIM marked a pivotal moment in Malaysia’s Islamic resurgence.

1.1 ABIM as a Platform for Reformist Islam

Under Anwar’s stewardship, ABIM championed a vision of Islam that was simultaneously rooted in tradition and responsive to contemporary challenges. The movement emphasized:

• Education and intellectualism as pathways to empowerment

• Social justice as a religious imperative

• Moral renewal at both personal and societal levels

• Human rights and dignity, not as “Western imports,” but as principles embedded within the Islamic worldview

This reformist Islamic approach diverged from purely political Islam and instead sought a holistic transformation of society.

1.2 Educational and Social Development Initiatives

Anwar spearheaded ABIM’s involvement in developing key institutions that later became pillars of Malaysia’s Islamic education infrastructure, including:

• Yayasan Anda, a foundation that provided educational opportunities for disadvantaged youth

• Advocacy for the establishment of an Islamic university, which culminated in the founding of the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) in 1983

ABIM under Anwar played a role in nurturing a generation of Muslim intellectuals who later occupied influential positions within academia, politics, and civil society. His early career is often viewed as the foundation for the broader Islamic revival that swept Malaysia during the late 1970s and 1980s.

---

2. Entry Into Government: Institutionalizing Islamic Values

In 1982, Anwar made the controversial decision to join the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) and the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition. His transition from an oppositional Islamic youth leader to a government figure shocked many—but ultimately enabled him to influence the mainstream institutional development of Islam in Malaysia.

2.1 Championing Islamic Education and Cultural Institutions

As Minister of Youth and Sports, later Minister of Education, and eventually Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Anwar played a significant role in integrating Islamic values into national policy in ways that did not compromise Malaysia’s multicultural social fabric. His contributions included:

• Strengthening Islamic curricular frameworks in public schooling

• Expanding religious education and Islamic studies programs

• Supporting the growth of IIUM, which he helped develop into a globally recognized institution of Islamic scholarship

IIUM in particular became an embodiment of Anwar’s vision: a university producing graduates who were intellectually capable, spiritually anchored, and globally engaged.

2.2 Islamization of the Government Bureaucracy

Anwar was associated with initiatives aimed at fostering an ethical administrative culture inspired by Islamic moral teachings. His approach emphasized:

• Integrity in governance

• Anti-corruption measures

• Public service as a form of amanah (trust)

Crucially, Anwar’s approach to Islamization remained inclusive. He consistently stressed that Malaysia’s Islamic identity should never marginalize non-Muslims, but instead inspire ethical governance and social justice for all citizens.

---

3. Islamic Reform and the Philosophy of “Masyarakat Madani”

Among Anwar’s most lasting intellectual contributions is the concept of “Masyarakat Madani” (Civil Society), which he popularized in Malaysian sociopolitical discourse in the 1990s. Drawing from Islamic tradition, classical scholarship, and modern democratic thought, Anwar articulated a vision of society grounded in:

• Justice (al-‘adl)

• Freedom and human dignity

• Pluralism and coexistence

• Consultative governance (shura)

• Accountability (hisbah)

3.1 Islam and Democracy

For Anwar, Islam and democracy were not at odds. He argued that democratic governance is consistent with Islamic ethics, provided it is built on:

• Rule of law

• Protection of minority rights

• Equitable distribution of wealth

• Freedom of expression and religion

This stance distinguished him from both secular authoritarian leaders and Islamist groups advocating for theocratic rule. His philosophy positioned him as a global advocate for a middle path: a moral, democratic, and inclusive Islamic polity.

---

4. Trials, Imprisonment, and the Global Human Rights Platform

Anwar’s dismissal from government in 1998 and subsequent imprisonment galvanized the Reformasi movement in Malaysia, which demanded an end to corruption, abuse of power, and political persecution.

4.1 Islamic Ethics as the Basis for Reformasi

Even in the face of imprisonment, Anwar framed Reformasi not merely as a political struggle, but as a moral one. His message resonated with widespread Islamic values of justice and truth:

• Standing against injustice (zulm)

• Defending the oppressed (mustad‘afin)

• Upholding truth even against powerful elites

Reformasi subsequently evolved into one of Malaysia’s most significant social movements, shaping political consciousness for decades.

4.2 International Recognition as a Muslim Democrat

During his years of imprisonment and subsequent academic engagements abroad, Anwar became an influential voice in global debates on:

• Islamic political thought

• Democracy in Muslim-majority societies

• Human rights within an Islamic framework

He lectured at leading institutions such as Oxford University, Georgetown University, and the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. His close association with scholars like John Esposito further amplified his scholarly reputation and impact.

---

5. Inter-Civilizational Dialogue and Global Muslim Thought

Anwar Ibrahim has long advocated for understanding between civilizations.

5.1 Dialogue as a Qur'anic Imperative

For Anwar, interfaith and intercultural engagement is not an optional political strategy, but a religious duty inspired by Qur’anic principles of:

• Mutual respect

• Seeking common values

• Dialogue over confrontation

5.2 Contributions to Global Discourse

Anwar’s writings and speeches have been influential in international discussions on:

• The role of Islam in a globalized world

• The compatibility of Islamic ethics with modern governance

• Islam’s potential to contribute to human rights, gender equity, and scientific progress

His work aligns with reformist Muslim thinkers such as Fazlur Rahman, Ismail al-Faruqi, and Malik Bennabi, though his contributions are unique in their grounding in Southeast Asian sociopolitical realities.

---

6. Return to Leadership and the Vision for a Just Malaysia

Anwar’s appointment as Malaysia’s Prime Minister in 2022 marked one of the most dramatic political comebacks in modern history. It also signaled the entry of a lifelong Islamic reformist into the highest office of the nation.

6.1 Islam as a Foundation for Good Governance

Anwar’s governance philosophy continues to reflect Islamic values such as:

• Anti-corruption (al-amanah)

• Social justice (al-‘adalah al-ijtimaiyyah)

• Protection of the poor and marginalized

His administration places strong emphasis on integrity and transparency, echoing decades of his advocacy for moral governance.

6.2 A Moderate Islamic Voice in a Polarized World

As Prime Minister, Anwar champions a moderate and compassionate Islamic approach in both domestic and international settings. This includes:

• Supporting interfaith harmony in Malaysia’s multireligious society

• Rejecting extremism and sectarianism

• Advocating for Palestine and global justice, consistent with Islamic humanitarian values

Anwar continues to articulate that Islamic ethics should lead not to exclusion, but to righteousness, fairness, and unity.

---

7. Intellectual Legacy: Writings, Speeches, and Ideas

Anwar Ibrahim’s contributions are not confined to politics or activism. He has authored and inspired extensive academic work that explores:

• Islamic civilizational thought

• Democracy in Muslim societies

• Multiculturalism and pluralism

• Ethical governance

• Philosophy of education

His notable writings include discussions on freedom, governance, and the role of religion in public life. Scholars often highlight his ability to synthesize classical Islamic teachings with contemporary political theory—a combination rare among political leaders.

---

Conclusion: A Lifetime of Islamic Reform, Justice, and Vision

Anwar Ibrahim’s lifetime contributions to the Islamic movement cannot be confined to a single category. They encompass intellectual reform, institutional development, political struggle, inter-civilizational engagement, and global advocacy for justice and human dignity. His legacy is defined not merely by his political achievements, but by his consistent moral compass—and his belief that Islam, at its core, is a faith of justice, compassion, and enlightenment.

From the early days of ABIM to his global recognition as a Muslim democrat, and eventually as Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim has remained committed to a vision of Islam that is inclusive, principled, and dynamic. His life’s work continues to inspire future generations to embrace Islam not as a political tool or cultural identity alone, but as a comprehensive moral philosophy capable of guiding societies toward peace, dignity, and holistic development.

Both Jesus and Muhammad Are Muslims: A Comparative Reflection

The claim that both Jesus and Muhammad are Muslims might strike some readers—particularly those from Christian backgrounds—as provocative or even paradoxical. After all, in the Western imagination, “Muslim” refers specifically to followers of the Prophet Muhammad, while “Christian” refers to followers of Jesus Christ. Yet within Islam’s own worldview, this distinction looks very different. The Qur’an and Islamic theology present a far broader, older meaning of the term Muslim: not a member of a later religion, but anyone who consciously submits to the one true God. From that perspective, all prophets—including Jesus—were Muslims long before the birth of Muhammad. Exploring this idea opens an illuminating window into how Islam conceives religious truth, continuity, and universality.

The Meaning of “Muslim”

In Arabic, Muslim comes from the root s-l-m, meaning peace, purity, and submission. To be a Muslim is to be one who submits (aslama) to the divine will. The Qur’an repeatedly defines this submission—not ethnicity, historical period, or affiliation—as the essence of true faith. For instance, it says: “Whoever submits his whole self to God and is a doer of good—he will get his reward with his Lord” (Qur’an 2:112).

In this light, Islam does not view itself as a novel faith invented by Muhammad in the 7th century. Rather, it sees itself as the final articulation of an ancient, universal religion revealed through a series of prophets from Adam onward. The Qur’an names many of them: Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad among others. Each, it says, brought the same message of monotheism and moral surrender to God. Therefore, every prophet and every genuine believer of those earlier revelations was a Muslim in spirit.

Jesus in the Islamic Vision

Jesus (ʿĪsā ibn Maryam) occupies an exalted place in Islam. He is mentioned in the Qur’an by name more than 20 times, described as a prophet, a messenger, a word from God, and a spirit from Him. Muslims revere him as one of the greatest prophets but not as divine. The Qur’an rejects the notion of Jesus as the literal Son of God or a member of a divine trinity, emphasizing instead his servitude to the Creator: “He [Jesus] said: Indeed, I am the servant of God; He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet” (Qur’an 19:30).

In several passages, the Qur’an portrays Jesus as affirming Islam’s essential creed—the oneness of God—and calling his followers to that same submission. “Indeed, God is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is the straight path.” (3:51). From this standpoint, Jesus’ message was not a departure from earlier monotheism, but its renewal. He, like Abraham and Moses, invited people to surrender their lives to God.

Thus, in Islamic theology, Jesus was a Muslim not because he followed the rituals later revealed to Muhammad, but because he embodied the same principle of surrender that defines all prophets. His miracles, compassion, and spiritual purity were signs of divine favor, but his mission’s core—calling people to worship the one God—was identical to Muhammad’s.

Muhammad’s Role as the Seal of the Prophets

Muhammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh, born in Mecca in 570 CE, is seen by Muslims not as the founder of a new faith but as the Seal of the Prophets—the final messenger completing the chain of revelation. He received the Qur’an as the ultimate clarification and preservation of the divine message that earlier prophets had delivered but which, in Islamic belief, had been partially lost or altered over time.

While Jesus’ mission focused on a particular community (the “Children of Israel”), Muhammad’s was universal: to all humanity. Yet the Qur’an insists that this universality does not negate continuity. It tells Muhammad to declare: “I am not something original among the messengers… I only follow what is revealed to me” (46:9). Muhammad, then, is a Muslim in the same sense as his predecessors—one who submits fully to God’s will and invites others to do the same.

Both prophets exemplify surrender in their lives. Jesus prayed earnestly to God, accepted suffering as divine decree, and forgave his enemies. Muhammad endured persecution, exile, and hardship but responded with patience, forgiveness, and trust in God. Their lives, as Muslims see them, mirror one another’s in moral essence.

Divergent Interpretations, Shared Devotion

The key difference between Christian and Muslim perspectives lies in what each faith sees as Jesus’ ultimate identity and mission. Christianity developed a theology of incarnation and atonement: Jesus as God incarnate who dies to redeem humanity’s sins. Islam, on the other hand, regards such beliefs as human additions to Jesus’ authentic monotheism. For Muslims, salvation does not require divine sacrifice but sincere faith, good deeds, and God’s mercy.

This divergence is not merely doctrinal—it shapes each religion’s view of history. To Christians, Muhammad cannot be a prophet because his message appears to deny Christ’s divinity. To Muslims, Jesus must be a prophet precisely because his true message, once stripped of later accretions, aligns with the eternal religion of submission. From the Islamic vantage point, then, Muhammad and Jesus do not represent competing faiths but successive links in one unbroken chain of divine guidance.

The Broader Implication: Unity of Revelation

Calling both Jesus and Muhammad “Muslims” expresses a profound theological optimism about the unity of truth. It asserts that God’s guidance has never been limited to one people or time. This inclusivity is embedded in the Qur’an’s insistence that “We make no distinction between any of His messengers” (2:285).

In practice, this worldview encourages Muslims to honor all genuine prophets and respect their followers. While Islam critiques theological distortions, it affirms the sincerity of those who seek God through previous revelations. The Qur’an even refers to Christians as “people of the Book,” acknowledging their shared spiritual heritage.

Such a perspective can serve as a bridge in interfaith dialogue. Rather than seeing Islam as denying Jesus, one can understand it as reclaiming him from dogmatic excesses and restoring him to the prophetic continuum. For Muslims, honoring Jesus as a Muslim prophet is a form of reverence, not rejection.

A Shared Spiritual Legacy

The moral and spiritual lessons embodied by both prophets remain strikingly similar: compassion, humility, prayer, charity, forgiveness, and devotion to God. Jesus preached, “Blessed are the merciful,” while Muhammad taught, “The merciful are shown mercy by the Most Merciful.” Both emphasized inner purity over ritual formalism, and both confronted social injustice and hypocrisy in their societies.

Recognizing this shared legacy does not require erasing differences, but appreciating their convergence on essential human values. From an Islamic standpoint, the world’s great prophets form a single community of faith—a fraternity of submission. To call both Jesus and Muhammad “Muslims” is to affirm that they lived for the same divine purpose.

Conclusion

In the end, whether one accepts or rejects the statement “Jesus and Muhammad are Muslims” depends on how one defines the word Muslim. If it means a follower of the historical religion of Islam as practiced today, then of course only Muhammad and his followers fit that category. But if it means one who submits fully to the will of God—the meaning the Qur’an gives—then Jesus, Muhammad, and all true prophets share that identity.

For Muslims, this is not a rhetorical claim but a theological truth affirming the oneness of God’s message throughout history. For Christians and others, it can serve as an invitation to reflect on what genuine faith and surrender mean in their own traditions. Beyond the boundaries of labels, both prophets stand as exemplars of devotion, moral courage, and trust in the Divine—a reminder that the path to God has always been one of submission, peace, and love.

Zionism: The World's Greatest Power at Present

Introduction

Zionism, originating in the late nineteenth century as a Jewish nationalist movement seeking self-determination and refuge from European antisemitism, has evolved into a powerful and complex force within modern international politics. Today, Zionism is inseparable from the existence of the State of Israel, whose political, economic, and military influence reverberates far beyond its small geographic size. While its early goals centered on the establishment of a Jewish homeland, Zionism in the twenty-first century functions as both a national ethos and a geopolitical reality. The movement’s influence now extends into global diplomacy, regional security frameworks, and ideological debates about nationalism, human rights, and decolonization.

The Historical Roots of Political Zionism

Theodor Herzl’s 1896 pamphlet Der Judenstaat envisioned a political solution to Jewish persecution: the creation of a sovereign Jewish state. The Zionist movement that followed was diverse, encompassing socialist, religious, and revisionist strains, but united around the idea that Jewish safety and cultural renewal required a homeland in Palestine. With the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which Britain endorsed a “national home for the Jewish people,” Zionism entered international diplomacy. Following the Holocaust, global sympathy for Jewish survival lent strong moral legitimacy to the creation of Israel in 1948.

However, this establishment also coincided with the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs, an event Palestinians refer to as the Nakba (“catastrophe”). From the beginning, therefore, Zionism’s realization was tied to an unresolved moral and political conflict — one that continues to define Israel’s relations with the Arab world and the broader international community.

Zionism as State Ideology and Foreign Policy Doctrine

Within Israel, Zionism functions not merely as historical heritage but as the ideological foundation of the state. The Law of Return (1950) grants automatic citizenship to Jews from anywhere in the world, reflecting the Zionist vision of Israel as the global center of Jewish life. Yet this principle simultaneously raises questions about equality and inclusion for Israel’s non-Jewish citizens, primarily its Arab minority.

Internationally, Zionism informs Israel’s foreign policy in two principal ways. First, it sustains a doctrine of self-defense and deterrence rooted in historical insecurity. Israel’s extensive military preparedness, nuclear ambiguity, and preemptive doctrines are justified within a Zionist framework of existential vigilance. Second, Zionism shapes Israel’s diplomatic posture as a state seeking legitimacy and recognition in a region where many still contest its right to exist. These dual imperatives — security and legitimacy — drive much of Israel’s engagement with global powers, particularly the United States.

The U.S.–Israel Relationship and Global Power Structures

The United States’ alignment with Israel remains one of the most consequential results of Zionism’s entanglement with global politics. Since 1967, when Israel demonstrated overwhelming military success in the Six-Day War, Washington has viewed it as a strategic ally in the Middle East. This alliance is underpinned by shared democratic ideals, overlapping security interests, and a strong pro-Israel lobby within American politics.

Organizations such as AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) have been instrumental in maintaining bipartisan support for Israel in Congress. Critics argue that this influence constrains U.S. foreign policy options and contributes to American entanglement in regional conflicts, including the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian struggle. Supporters, however, see it as a natural outcome of shared values and mutual security interests.

Zionism’s influence on U.S. politics thus operates at both ideological and institutional levels: ideologically through the appeal of a democratic ally in a turbulent region, and institutionally through lobbying networks, defense cooperation, and shared technological development.

The Globalization of the Zionism Debate

In the twenty-first century, Zionism has become a global ideological touchstone — praised as a model of national revival and resilience, and condemned as a form of settler colonialism. The digital age has internationalized the debate, with social media amplifying both pro-Israel advocacy and criticism of Israeli policies toward Palestinians. Movements such as Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) frame their campaigns as anti-occupation efforts, though Israeli officials and many Jewish organizations interpret them as attacks on Zionism itself and, by extension, Israel’s legitimacy.

At the same time, many governments — including those in Europe, the United States, and parts of Asia — have strengthened political, military, and technological ties with Israel. This reflects not only Israel’s growing innovation economy but also its role as a key player in intelligence sharing, cybersecurity, and counterterrorism. The paradox is that while criticism of Zionism grows in global civil society, state-to-state relations with Israel often deepen.

Zionism, Regional Power, and the Arab World

The normalization agreements known as the Abraham Accords (2020) between Israel and several Arab states — including the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco — marked a dramatic reconfiguration of Middle Eastern politics. These accords indicate that pragmatic national interests are beginning to supersede older pan-Arab opposition to Zionism. For many Arab governments, cooperation with Israel promises economic modernization, security partnerships, and alignment with U.S. strategic goals.

Yet at the popular level, sympathy for the Palestinian cause remains widespread across the Arab and Muslim worlds. This divergence between governments and publics highlights how Zionism continues to function as a moral and political fault line across the region. Israel’s military operations in Gaza and the West Bank regularly reignite global debates over occupation, sovereignty, and human rights, forcing governments to balance realpolitik with public opinion.

The Ideological Challenge: Nationalism and Universalism

Zionism also occupies a central place in broader debates about nationalism and universal human rights. Supporters argue that it represents a legitimate expression of Jewish self-determination, no different from other postcolonial nationalist movements. Critics counter that its realization in a land already inhabited by another people has produced enduring inequalities and displacement.

This tension mirrors a wider crisis in global politics: the clash between ethnonationalist movements asserting cultural sovereignty and liberal internationalist values emphasizing equality and human rights. In this sense, Zionism’s dilemmas are not unique — they are part of a broader global reckoning over how nations define belonging and justice in a multicultural, interconnected world.

Conclusion

Zionism’s influence on international politics today is profound and multifaceted. As the ideological foundation of Israel, it shapes the policies of a state that wields disproportionate strategic and technological influence. Through its alliance with the United States, it affects global power dynamics and the conduct of diplomacy across the Middle East. At the same time, Zionism remains a symbol of contested meanings — a liberation movement for some, a colonial project for others, and a test case for the moral boundaries of nationalism in the modern era.

Ultimately, understanding Zionism’s power in global affairs requires separating myth from reality. It is not a shadowy global force, but a concrete political ideology embodied in a sovereign state whose actions and alliances have far-reaching consequences. To engage critically with Zionism today is to grapple with the enduring tensions between identity, security, and justice that define the international system itself.

The Name of the Religion that was sent to Moses and Jesus was called 'Dina Shlama' in Hebrew or 'Din Al-Islam' in Arabic

The claim that the religion sent to Moses and Jesus was called “Dīna Shlama” in Hebrew or “Dīn al-Islām” in Arabic is interesting, but upon closer inspection it appears to rest on an amalgam of theological interpretation, linguistic connections, and religious tradition — rather than being historically attested in primary sources under exactly those names. In what follows I will explore (1) the meaning and usage of the terms involved, (2) how religious tradition views the continuity of the message of the prophets, (3) the question of naming and whether “Dīna Shlama” and “Dīn al-Islām” correspond to an earlier name for the religion of Moses and Jesus, and (4) some reflections on how this fits (or doesn’t) with mainstream scholarship.

---

1. Meaning of the terms

Dīn (دِين / דִּין) in Arabic (and related Semitic languages) is often translated as “religion,” “way,” “judgment,” or “law.” Scholars note that in the Qurʾān, dīn appears frequently, and its semantic range includes “obedience,” “submission,” “faith,” “judgment.” Islam Religion+3Wikipedia+3Almuslih+3
In Hebrew the root ד-י-ן (din) carries meanings of “law,” “judgment,” “justice.” Wikipedia

Islām (إِسْلَام) is the noun derived from the Arabic verb aslama (أسْلَمَ) meaning “to submit,” “to surrender” (to God). Thus, Islām commonly is understood to mean “submission (to God),” or “the religion of submission.” Wikipedia+2Islamic Foundation Ireland+2
There is also the Semitic root Š-L-M (ש-ל-ם) meaning “peace, wholeness, completeness,” which appears in Hebrew as shalom, in Aramaic/Syriac as shlama (ܫܠܡܐ), and in Arabic as salām (سلام). Wikipedia+1

Now the phrase “Dīna Shlama” appears to be a combination of “dīn/סְּלָם” (religion/way) and “shlama” (peace/completeness). In Aramaic or Syriac, shlama means “peace” (ܫܠܡܐ) and is used in Christian liturgical contexts (“peace be with you”). The Meaning of Names+1
So on the linguistic face of it: dīna shlama might be taken to mean “religion of peace/wholeness” or “way of completeness.” And dīn al-islām would mean “religion of submission” or “religion of Islam” in the Arabic sense.

---

2. The theological tradition of one religion of all prophets

Many Muslim scholars hold the view that all prophets from Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus through to Muhammad preached essentially the same religion: submission to the one God, obedience to God’s commands, and monotheism. For instance an article titled “The Religion’s Name” states: “Jesus … called upon the people to surrender their will to the will of God (which is what Islam stands for).” Islam Religion+1
Thus in this view, Moses’ religion (the Torah’s religion) and Jesus’ religion (the Gospel’s religion) are not entirely distinct religions but successive revelations of the same core message. According to one source:

“The Arabic word ‘Islam’ means the submission or surrender of one’s will to the only true God… the religion of Islam is not named after a person or a people … It was the religion of all the prophets sent by Allah to mankind.” Islamic Foundation Ireland

This theological stance sets the stage for speaking of the “religion of Moses and Jesus” as perhaps being what later came to be called “Islam” in Arabic, or an equivalent term in earlier languages.

---

3. The question: were Moses’ and Jesus’ religion called Dīna Shlama / Dīn al-Islām?

a) Historical attestation
I could not locate a credible historic source (Jewish, Christian, or early Islamic) that uses exactly the phrase “Dīna Shlama” in Hebrew (or Aramaic) to designate the religion of Moses or Jesus prior to Islam. The Aramaic term shlama appears as “peace,” but not as part of a formal address “religion of peace.”
Similarly, while Arabic sources speak of dīn al-islām or dīn Allah (the religion of God) and consider that the earlier prophets followed “Islam” in the sense of submission (not necessarily the institutionalised religion post-Muhammad), the idea that Moses or Jesus explicitly used the phrase “dīn al-islām” is more theological than strictly historical.

b) Interpretive usage
Some modern Muslim writers assert that when the Qurʾān says of the religion of God:

“Indeed, the religion with Allah is Islam.” (Qurʾān 3:19)

they interpret this to mean: the religion God accepts (from all prophets) is submission (islām). Thus they claim Moses and Jesus followed dīn al-islām. For example:

“What, then, was Jesus’ religion…? In Islam, Jesus is a prophet … he called upon people to surrender their will to the will of God (which is what Islam stands for).” Islam Religion+1

In that theological framework, one might say that Jesus’ religion was dīn al-islām — not in the sense that he called it by that Arabic phrase, but insofar as he taught submission to the same one God.

c) Hebrew/Aramaic variant “Dīna Shlama”
The phrase dīna shlama (or dīna shlāmā in Aramaic) is less frequently referenced in academic literature. The root š-l-m (š-l-m) is well attested as meaning “peace” or “wholeness.” Wikipedia+1
Thus some might propose that prior to the Arabic term islām, a Semitic language (Hebrew/Aramaic) version of “religion of peace/wholeness” was used, e.g., דִּינָא שְׁלָמָא. However, I found no mainstream historical text confirming that Moses or Jesus used exactly that phrase to name the religion.

d) Summary of the argument

• In theological Muslim discourse: yes, Moses and Jesus are regarded as following “the religion of God” which is essentially submission to God’s will.

• The Arabic term dīn al-islām is used to refer to this universal religion of submission.

• The Hebrew/Aramaic phrase dīna shlama (or similar) is proposed by some to reflect that same religion in an earlier language, meaning “religion of peace/wholeness.”

• But historically, the claim that Moses or Jesus’s community used those exact names is speculative, and the phrase “Dīna Shlama” is not attested in canonical Jewish or Christian texts.

---

4. Considerations and scholarly reflections

Terminology evolves: The names of religions are historically layered. For example, “Judaism” (Yahadut) became common much later, “Christianity” (Christendom) later still. Many ancient prophets would not have described their faith in terms that later tradition uses to categorise them.
Language and translation: The root dīn and the root š-l-m are Semitic and shared across Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic. So the idea of a “religion of submission/peace/wholeness” is conceptually coherent across languages, but that doesn’t mean the exact phrases were used identically in each context.
The theological claim vs. historical naming: The theological claim that all prophets preached “Islam” in the sense of submission is different from saying they used the institutionalised, proper name “Islam” (or “Dīna Shlama”). Scholars caution against projecting later terminologies back anachronistically.
Purpose and audience: In Muslim apologetic literature, it's common to emphasise continuity of the prophetic message by saying that earlier prophets followed “Islam” (submission). For example: “The religion of Jesus was the religion of submission to God.” Islam Religion
Critical sources: Academic studies of Hebrew/Aramaic Christian texts do not widely record dīna shlama as a self-designation of the early Christian or Jewish community. Without strong manuscript evidence, the phrase remains more interpretative than historical.

---

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, while the idea that the religion of Moses and Jesus is essentially what Muslims call “dīn al-islām” (the religion of submission) is well-established in Islamic theological discourse, the specific Hebrew/Aramaic phrase “dīna shlama” (“religion of peace/wholeness”) as their self-designation is not firmly grounded in the historic record — it appears more as a theological interpretative device. One can therefore say:

• Yes, across the Abrahamic traditions there is the strong conviction that all prophets preached one way to God, and in Islamic thought that way is labelled “Islam.”

• But, you should be cautious about treating “Dīna Shlama” as an assured historical name used by Moses or Jesus for their religion.

• From a scholarly perspective, more work (especially text-critical and linguistic) would be needed to verify the phrase in ancient sources.