Inna al-dīna ʿinda Allāhi al-ḥanīfiyya
“Truly, the religion with God is the Hanifism.”
~ Variant reading attributed to Ibn Masʿūd
“This Abrahamic faith is built on the recognition of one God, prayer, charity, and justice…”
Among the textual variants preserved from the early centuries of Islam, the reading attributed to ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd (c. 594–653) of verse [3:19] stands out for its theological significance: where the canonical version uses the term islām, Ibn Masʿūd reportedly read al-ḥanīfiyya. While seemingly minor, this variation opens the door to deeper reflection on the status of Abrahamic monotheism in the Qur’an and on the way Islam aligns with—or diverges from—earlier prophetic traditions.
Ḥanīfiyya: A Faith Preceding Sectarian Boundaries
In the Qur’an, the term ḥanīf derives from the root ḥ-n-f, meaning “to incline” or “to turn away”—in this case, away from polytheism and toward divine oneness. Abraham (Ibrāhīm) is described as ḥanīfan musliman (3:67)—a sincere monotheist, fully submitted to God, yet unaffiliated with any established religious community: “He was neither a Jew nor a Christian.” The ḥanīfiyya thus designates the primordial form of monotheism, prior to codified scriptures, ritual systems, or legal distinctions.
This Abrahamic faith is built on the recognition of one God, prayer, charity, and justice—a shared spiritual foundation the Qur’an also attributes to Jews, Christians, and Sabians:
“Indeed, those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians—whoever believes in God and the Last Day and performs righteous deeds—shall have their reward with their Lord; they will have no fear, nor shall they grieve.” (2:62)
This verse stands as a clear refutation of any exclusive monopoly on salvation, affirming that divine acceptance transcends religious labels and rests on ethical sincerity and faith in God.
Islām: From Inner Disposition to Constituted Religion
The word islām, often inaccurately rendered as “submission,” initially refers to an inner disposition—entrusting oneself to God with sincerity. This disposition characterizes Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and the apostles—all of whom are described in the Qur’an as muslimūn, meaning “those who submit to God.” However, as the revelation progressed and the Muslim community became more structured, islām took on an identitarian dimension. It no longer referred only to a universal spiritual attitude but to a distinct religion—Muhammad’s community, with its own norms and rites.
The imposition of the ʿUthmānic recension (c. 650 CE) played a critical role in this evolution. It aimed to unify the Qur’anic text amid growing regional variations, but it also consolidated a theological stance: that islām constitutes the exclusive path to salvation. This is the doctrinal implication encoded in the canonical wording of verse [3:19].
A Theology of Continuity: Ibn Masʿūd and Prophetic Memory
By reading ḥanīfiyya instead of islām, Ibn Masʿūd preserves a more inclusive vision of faith. Far from denying Muhammad’s prophetic mission, this reading highlights the spiritual unity of all divine messengers. As the Qur’an states:
“He has ordained for you, in matters of religion, what He enjoined upon Noah—and what We have revealed to you—and what We enjoined upon Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: establish the religion and do not divide regarding it. That which you call them to is burdensome for the idolaters. God chooses for Himself whom He wills, and guides to Himself those who turn to Him.” (42:13)
Revealed guidance, in this light, is fundamentally the same across different linguistic, cultural, and legal contexts.
This view resonates with a theology of continuity, in which scriptural religions are not abrogated but reoriented. The Qur’an itself affirms that Jews and Christians ‘recite the Torah and the Gospel wherein lies guidance’ (5:46), while also inviting them to return to the spirit of their original faith—that which ḥanīfiyya symbolizes.
Massignon, Shahrur, and Contemporary Readings of Ḥanīfiyya
In the 20th century, several thinkers revived the significance of ḥanīfiyya. Louis Massignon envisioned it as a model of spiritual hospitality among the ‘People of the Book.’ Muhammad Shahrur, for his part, proposed a distinction between islām as universal submission and dīn Muḥammadī as the historically-specific religion of the Prophet of Islam. Within this framework, ḥanīfiyya becomes a theological criterion of truth: what deviates from it—regardless of religious label—falls into shirk, not necessarily in formal theology, but in ethical and ontological terms.
The Ibn Masʿūd variant raises a central question: should Islam be understood as an exclusive fulfillment of revelation, or as a universal remembrance of primordial truth? The first perspective emphasizes the seal (khatm) of prophecy and the particularity of the sharīʿa; the second affirms the fiṭra—the innate human disposition toward the divine—as a common spiritual legacy, as noted in Qur’an [30:30]. In this view, Muhammad’s mission is not to invent a new religion, but to restore a memory that had been forgotten or fragmented.
This theology of remembrance, rooted in ḥanīfiyya, allows for recognition of religious diversity not as deviation, but as plurality within a shared divine call. It does not erase doctrinal differences, but reframes them within a broader horizon of common fidelity to the Absolute.
“At a time when religious identities tend toward defensiveness and separation, the variant of Ibn Masʿūd acts as a revelatory moment. It reminds us that the Qur’an was not always read through an exclusivist lens, and that it originally carried a deeply Abrahamic vocation…”
A Forgotten Variant, a Living Challenge
At a time when religious identities tend toward defensiveness and separation, the variant of Ibn Masʿūd acts as a revelatory moment. It reminds us that the Qur’an was not always read through an exclusivist lens, and that it originally carried a deeply Abrahamic vocation—directed toward the ‘One’ God (wāḥid in Arabic, eḥad in Hebrew), beyond confessional boundaries.
To rediscover this reading is, perhaps, to reconnect with what the Qur’an itself calls al-mīthāq—the primordial covenant between God and humanity, anterior to any Church, Law, or Umma. This reading also invites a rethinking of interfaith engagement: rather than starting from difference, it calls us to recover the shared ethical and spiritual ground rooted in the Abrahamic legacy.
The ḥanīfiyya becomes not only a theological category, but a horizon of mutual recognition—where prayer, justice, and humility before God are seen as common commitments. In this sense, the Qur’anic memory of Abraham serves less as a boundary than as a bridge.