This text has been edited from an episode of journalist and writer Ibrahim Eissa’s program on Alhurra’s digital platforms, with the aim of preserving as closely as possible the wording and argument as presented on screen.
There are horrifying and, of course, highly organized campaigns—persistent, relentless, and energetic campaigns—during which you hear one phrase repeated incessantly: “the Abrahamic religion, the Abrahamic religion.”
Those behind these campaigns promote the idea that a war is being waged against Islam, and that there is an effort to replace Islam itself as a religion with what they describe as a “grand conspiracy” and a “Zionist-Crusader fabrication” called “the Abrahamic religion.”
The simple truth is that no one knows anything about this alleged “religion.” What is actually happening is deliberate confusion and smearing. The ultimate goal is to undermine the very idea of civilizational coexistence among followers of different religions.
They attack the very concept of dialogue—dialogue that stems from a genuine belief in diversity, pluralism, and shared humanity. For them, such dialogue must not continue, and its advocates must not raise their voices or defend it. They seek a permanent state of discord, hostility, and religious conflict, so that in the end victory belongs to the fanatic extremist—the one whose primary mission is to condemn other religions, demean them, declare them heretical, fight them, dismantle them, and even eliminate them if possible.
Today we are confronted with the term “the Abrahamic religion” and an effort to promote it—a term repeated in particular, and almost exclusively, by the political Islamist current, at whose apex and core stands the Muslim Brotherhood. Why? Because their entire project is built on the claim that they alone are the backbone of Islam—indeed, that they are Islam itself. From there flows their attempt to monopolize religion and its meaning for their own exclusive benefit. Any idea or opinion that falls outside the circle of their supporters, backers, or funders is immediately transformed into a condemned and rejected notion.
Sadat’s Dream in Sinai
Let us return to the not-very-distant history of only fifty years ago. President Mohamed Anwar Sadat, may he rest in peace, was among those blessed with imagination. And imagination in a ruler or president is of paramount importance, because it means possessing a vision and an idea for the future.
When Sadat launched the peace process, followed by the Camp David Accords and the peace treaty with Israel, he spoke repeatedly—sometimes in hope, sometimes in planning—about spending the rest of his life in Sinai. Sinai, of course, is a profoundly significant symbol for the three religions. He dreamed of worshiping there, and of establishing a “complex for religions” that would bring together the three faiths—a mosque, a Jewish synagogue, and a Christian church. Followers of the different religions would meet there, each worshiping God under the sky of Sinai.
This was the man’s beautiful aspiration: a symbolic place for encounter and dialogue. All religions, after all, are nothing but multiple versions of a single faith—the religion of God—expressed in different forms: a Jewish version, a Christian version, and an Islamic version.
Even the well-known expression repeated by some clerics—“religion is one, but the laws are different”—allows us to speak of one religion of God, alongside Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religious laws. In Islamic understanding itself, Islam encompasses all religions: the Prophet Abraham was a Muslim, Moses was a Muslim, Jesus was a Muslim, and Muhammad was a Muslim—everyone is Muslim in the sense of submission to God.
This was President Sadat’s dream. But it ended with his assassination—and with it, the assassination of that idealistic dream, which may have been too ambitious, or perhaps conflicted with part of Sadat’s own history. At one stage, he was a maker of the phenomenon of political Islam, allied with it, unleashing the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist groups upon the rest of society until they spread and corrupted it.
He was also a participant in creating the Afghan mujahideen phenomenon, in coordination with the United States and Saudi Arabia, supporting the departure of Egyptian youth to Afghanistan to confront atheism and communism. The paradox is that he was also a proponent of peace—and in the end, he realized that he had committed a grave and catastrophic error by allying with the Muslim Brotherhood and political Islam. He acknowledged this and apologized for it in his final speech, delivered five days before his death.
The Abrahamic Family House
With time, and with the agreements known as the “Abraham Accords” between Arab states and Israel, discussion of interfaith dialogue and coexistence returned once again.
The United Arab Emirates took the lead in proposing the idea of the “Abrahamic Family House,” bringing together the Pope of the Vatican and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar. The scene appeared to represent an interfaith dialogue marked by a high degree of civility, spirituality, and a sincere desire for peace to prevail in the region, away from religious conflict. Political conflicts will always exist as long as humanity exists, but the aim is to build a world characterized by coexistence and civility in relations among the three religions.
The UAE established the Abrahamic Family House, which includes a mosque, a church, and a Jewish synagogue. The striking detail is that the mosque bears the name of Imam Ahmed al-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar; the church is named after Pope Francis; and the synagogue is named after Moses Maimonides, regarded as the most famous Arab Jew and one of the most prominent Jewish philosophers and scholars in Arab history.
Sadat’s old dream thus turned into a project adopted by the UAE. But suddenly, the Abrahamic Family House, interfaith dialogue, and the meeting between the Pope and the Imam of Al-Azhar were all transformed into what they now call “the Abrahamic religion”—a religion no one knows anything about. It is nothing more than nonsense and delusion, created solely for political propaganda.
The Brotherhood’s “Fankoush”
The goal behind inventing the term “the Abrahamic religion” is, first and foremost, to mobilize political Islamist factions and inflame their fanaticism and extremism against other religions. What is astonishing is this frenzied enthusiasm for inventing an imaginary enemy—as if Islam were such a fragile and weak religion that it could collapse merely because a new name is introduced.
Do they really imagine that Muslims will suddenly abandon Islam simply because people start talking about a “new religion”? Is this truly how they view people’s faith—and a religion that has endured for more than 1,500 years? They are not defending Islam so much as they are exposing their distorted perception of it, and their own intellectual fragility.
What is happening is no different from the famous story of the “Fankoush” in Adel Imam’s film One by One, in which Adel Imam announces a new product called “Fankoush.” Massive publicity and advertising are created for it, until it suddenly becomes the talk of everyone—despite the fact that no one knows what this “Fankoush” actually is, not even Adel Imam himself, who is promoting it.
“Watch out for the Fankoush!”
“See the Fankoush!”
A huge media frenzy—actors, advertisements everywhere—as if we are dealing with a product that will change the face of the world.
Then the paradox escalates: companies seek deals to buy the “Fankoush,” customers line up waiting for it, queues of interested and enthusiastic people form—while the simple truth is that the “Fankoush” does not exist at all, and no one knows what it is.
Imagine that the idea of the “Abrahamic religion” is no different whatsoever. It is merely a “Fankoush”—but this time, a Brotherhood “Fankoush,” with all due courtesies to Mr. Adel Imam.
The article is a translation of the original Arabic.
