Continuation of my Contentions Series.

Link to Shaykh Abd al Hakim Murad’s Contentions part 1.

42. Juda-yi Ism: the absolutizing of a people.
Edom: the absolutizing of a person.
Islam: the absolutizing of God.

First it is important to realize what the Shaykh mean by “absolutizing”. Something “absolute” is defined in certain terms, it is not changing in its nature. To apply it to verb such as ‘absolutizing’, we can take ‘absolutizing’ to mean to ‘make absolute, to define certainly’.

Next we have to look at the terms used:

Juda-yi Ism: the absolutizing of a people
Juda-yi Ism - This is a play on the word of Judaism. But what is the Shaykh hinting at here by changing its spelling/organization? What the Shaykh has done here is emphasize the fact that Judaism is a religion of a people, as Juda references an ancient kingdom in which Jerusalem was its center. In this way the Shaykh is drawing a connection between Judaism as a religion of a people of the kingdom of Juda.

This part of the contention is telling us that Judaism has an emphasis on a people and an identity, and is centered around that fact.

Edom: the absolutizing of a person.
Edom - What the Shaykh swiftly does here is bring Jesus (AS) to the realm of manhood, in a two ways.

1) In the Old Testament Edom was another name for Esau (Similar sounding to Isa(AS)), the brother of Jacob.

2) According to some forms of Christianity and modern scholars, another Jacob was the brother of Jesus (AS)

So [Torah] Edom -> [Torah] Esau -> brother of [Torah] Jacob
and [New Testament] Jacob brother of -> Isa(AS) -> pronounce as Esau -> Edom

All this fancy connection does is firmly establish that Isa (AS) was certainly a man who even had a brother.

This second part is saying that Christianity’s focus is that of a man.

Islam: the absolutizing of God

I think this one speaks for itself!