This is the fourth article in a special Ramadan series. The series is aimed at uncovering the ideological component to the post-Gaza plan based on the UAE’s approach to deforming Islam and forcing an Israel-friendly secularism through the patriarchal figure of Abraham. Previous instalments in the series can be accessed here:

Part 1: Israel’s Post-Gaza Plan: “Denazification” as a Code for De-Islamisation

Part 2: Israel’s Post-Gaza Plan: The CVE-Driven, Pro-Israeli “Abrahamic Family House”

Part 3: Israel’s Post-Gaza Plan: The Christian-Zionist Beneficiaries of the “Abrahamic Family House” Project

The previous parts have set the context for the tripartite Vatican-UAE-Israel abuse of the figure of Abraham and the framework of deradicalization to regulate Islam, mind control Muslims, and destroy Masjid Al-Aqsa.

This piece will cast our critical gaze upon the UAE’s manifestation of this agenda, the interfaith project known as the Abrahamic Family House. Specifically, we will examine its direct foundations: the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together signed by Pope Francis and Grand Mufti of Al-Azhar Ahmed Tayyeb.

“Interfaith Complex”

The Abrahamic Family House is an interfaith complex consisting of a mosque, a church, and a synagogue. According to the official website, the “three houses of worship are designed of equal stature, size and materiality to eliminate any sense of hierarchy.”

 

The architect of the complex, British-Ghanian Christian David Adjaye, sheds further light on the symbolism of the design. His website describes the complex as “a collection of three religious spaces: a mosque, a synagogue and a church, all of which sit upon a secular visitor pavilion.”

In other words, the Abrahamic Family House represents the equalisation of three faiths without a “sense of hierarchy” all atop a secular foundation.

The Document on Human Fraternity

The Document on Human Fraternity is a significant document that helps shed light on this understructure.

It founded the superlatively named “Higher Committee for Human Fraternity.” This Committee has supervised the Abrahamic Family House project, with Mohammed bin Zayed unveiling its design in 2020 and inaugurating the site in February 2023. Consequently, the Abrahamic Family House constitutes a “physical manifestation” of the document—the secular foundation that manifests itself physically in the form of the “secular pavilion” upon which the three places of worship rest equally.

The document calls for dialogue, cooperation, and unity to promote peace and love based on three higher-order principles: “human fraternity” or, as it states in the Arabic version, “al-ukhuwwat al-insāniyyah”; freedom; and equality.

 

However, a closer examination of its precepts reveals an elaborate ruse that contradicts the fundamentals of Islamic belief, eviscerates the Sharīʿah and its sanctified status in Islamic society, and proposes mechanisms to maintain this quiescency.

The document achieves this through a pseudo-philosophic but systematic process enacted through several stages:

1. Asserting freedom of belief.
2. Establishing a “human fraternity” or brotherhood based on “peace and love.”
3. Collapsing the creedal distinction between believers and nonbelievers.
4. Establishing “full citizenship” in Islamic lands and concretising point 3.
5. Curtailing daʿwah.
6. Erasing the possibility of military resistance.
7. Regulating all of the above through the discourse of “extremism” and “terrorism.”

We elaborate on each of these stages.

Stage 1: “Freedom” of Belief

The document begins with the following declaration:

“In the name of freedom, that God has given to all human beings creating them free and distinguishing them by this gift.”

This opening statement is strikingly odd. Aside from re-writing the basmalah, the belief that all human beings are created free while also acknowledging the various social ills and events that impose restrictions upon man is incoherent. This point also surfaces an inconsistency in that implementing policies to ensure the equality of human beings necessitates coercion.

Nevertheless, beyond such confusion, the affirmation of freedom finds its secular liberal form when the document asserts that “each individual enjoys the freedom of belief” and that “divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief” derives.

The Qurʾān prohibits coercing people into accepting Islam[1] since embracing Islam should be based on free inquiry and conviction. However, read in light of its agenda to equalise the three faiths on a secular plane, at a theological level, the declaration flatly contradicts Islam. The Qurʾān obligates mankind and jinn to worship and obey Him.[2] Allah says:[3]

“Sovereignty belongs to none but Allah. He has ordained that you shall not worship anyone but Him. This is the only right path.”

The following verse rejects the equalisation or relativisation of religions and lends support to a supersessionist theology:[4]

“It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion. And sufficient is Allah as Witness.”

In another verse, Allah says:[5]

“Whoever seeks a faith other than Islam, it will never be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.”

It would be unconscionable to posit that individuals have a right to commit adultery or kill a soul unjustly. The crime of associating partners with Allah or worshipping other than Allah is not only greater but the greatest. Theologically, it would be absurd to claim a right to follow other than what Allah has obligated.

The document rides roughshod over this creedal subtlety to reconstitute a fundamental Islamic tenet and claim that the opposite is “divine wisdom.”

RELATED: Does Islam Support Freedom in Religion?

Stage 2: The Foundation of Brotherhood

This construction of freedom of belief is necessary to enable a new basis for bonding the community and restructuring social relations in the Islamic community.

In the vision of the document, the foundation of the fraternity of all human beings is peace, which necessitates the values of coexistence and love:

“[This document upholds] the firm conviction that authentic teachings of religions invite us to remain rooted in the values of peace; to defend the values of mutual understanding, human fraternity and harmonious coexistence; to re-establish wisdom, justice and love.”

The document establishes a fraternity “among believers and non-believers” and frames all this as a divine call:

“[God] has called them to live together as brothers and sisters, to fill the earth and make known the values of goodness, love and peace.”

One would think that, given all the references to God, the document would outline the most fundamental call He makes: to worship and obey Him. However, as we shall now see, grounding the document in this basic purpose would unravel its secular humanist mission, since worshipping Allah means knowing him. To know Allah necessitates the essential distinction of Truth from falsehood, which can only be realised through the message of the final Prophet ﷺ.

Islam acknowledges the Adamic connection[6] between all human beings and the variation of peoples for knowing one another.[7] It also honours and encourages the maintenance of the ties of the womb.[8]

However, the bond of Islam and the resultant love for believers supersedes all other connections.

The Qurʾān states:[9]

“You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day having affection for those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even if they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred.”

The chapter, Sūrat al-Lahab, is dedicated to the condemnation of the uncle of the Prophet ﷺ, who was an enemy of Islam. In Sūrah Hud, Allah provides the example of Nūḥ, whose son, Can’aan, had joined the disbelievers and was subjected to Divine punishment. Nūḥ implored Allah, saying that his son was part of his family. Allah corrected him by saying, “O Nūḥ! He is certainly not of your family — he was entirely of unrighteous conduct.”[10]

The Qurʾān establishes the basis for affection and alliance in Islam in the following way:[11]

“Your only friend is Allah, then His Messenger and those who believe, who establish Ṣalāh and pay Zakāh and bow before Allah.” 

In other words, “The believers are but a single brotherhood.”[12] The Prophet ﷺ likened the Muslims to a building, stating, “A believer to another believer is like a building whose different parts enforce each other.” Then he clasped his hands with his fingers interlaced.[13] Hence, all believers are brothers, whether they are Arab or non-Arab, whichever land they are from, and with whichever language they speak.

It is worth pointing out that this emphasis on creedal unity and differentiation does not mean maltreatment of non-Muslims. On the contrary, Muslims must engage with non-Muslims who are not enemies with fairness and justice.[14]

Stage 3: “Equality”

Having dispensed with the Islamic basis for a community, the document fills in the vacuum with a secular liberal conception of equality for Muslims.

The document asserts that God has “created all human beings equal in rights, duties and dignity” and that “human fraternity” embraces “all human beings, unites them and renders them equal”.

While human beings are created equal spiritually, the variations in ability, capacity, and wealth all demonstrate that we are not created equally. As the Qurʾān acknowledges, “Allah has given some of you preference over others in provision.”[15] Furthermore, anyone with even the faintest familiarity with the corpus of Islamic jurisprudence will know that rights and duties vary based on belief, sex,[16] age, and mental capacity.

The demand for a secularised notion of equality is a prerequisite for the targeting of the Islamic safeguards that protect the Islamic public interest; and which flow from the necessary creedal differentiation outlined earlier.

This targeting is attained through the document’s advocacy for “full citizenship.”

RELATED: The Misinterpretation of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah

Stage 4: “Full Citizenship”

According to the document, “full citizenship” means rejecting the term “minorities” and enforcing an “equality of rights and duties”.

As stated earlier, the notion of human fraternity overrides Islam’s concern that distinguishes Truth and falsehood, belief, and disbelief.[17] Thus, this demand actualises this creedal collapse. It is a call to abandon the mission of all the Prophets (peace be upon them) and ignore the distinction that Allah has made:[18]

“Mankind used to be a single Ummah (i.e., on a single faith). Then (after they differed in matters of faith), Allah sent prophets carrying good news and warning, and He sent down with them the Book with Truth to judge between people in matters of their dispute. But it was no other than those to whom it (the Book) was given, who, led by envy against each other, disputed it after the clear signs had come to them. Then Allah, by His will, guided those who believed to the truth over which they disputed; and Allah guides whom He wills to the straight path.”

In the verse, Allah says, “They [the hypocrites] wish that you should disbelieve, as they have disbelieved, and thus you become all alike.”[19] The last portion “you become all alike” nullifies the unifying “full citizenship” agenda.

Just as the document seeks to shift the ontological foundations of the Islamic society, the reference to minorities disguises an erosion of the primacy of Sharīʿah in an Islamically grounded polity. In doing so, the document sets up Muslims for a “discriminatory” modernist catastrophe.[20]

In the Islamic paradigm, the rights and duties of Jews and Christians integrated into a Muslim polity are governed by the jurisprudence of ahl al-dhimmah, meaning “people of protection” or dhimmis: those granted amnesty by the Islamic authority. In exchange for a nominal tax (jizyah) paid by adult males (with exemptions for women, children, freedmen, the insane, ill, or poor), the Islamic authority ensures various rights including self-management and adjudication, their protection, and exemption from military service. These terms were enforced in a legal culture which took the following warning of the Prophet ﷺ seriously:[21]

“Whoever killed a person having a treaty with the Muslims, shall not smell the smell of Paradise — although its smell is perceived from a distance of forty years.”

As such, historically, “Jews and Christians often prevailed in court not only over Muslim business partners and neighbors but also against no less powerful figures than the provincial governor himself.”[22]

Significantly, these rules are mechanisms to protect the Islamic foundations.

Thus, where rights conflicted with Shariʿah-grounded public good, jurists sought to balance them against the interests of the Sharīʿah and the dhimmi’s religion in a manner that is not too dissimilar to present-day Western rights discourse.[23]

By stripping out these rulings, the meticulous balance between the rights of religious minorities and the Islamic public good is disrupted, with the latter completely removed from consideration. As such, Islamic values, which such rules protect, are left vulnerable, accelerating the moral decline of Islam—an outcome which, as we have seen in detail in Part 3, fits perfectly with the agendas of the Vatican and the Zionist entity.

The document’s stipulation for “full citizenship” is nothing more than a trojan horse for the erosion and minimisation of the primacy of Sharīʿah and its influence on governing social life.

Moreover, it signals a nationalist dismemberment of the ummah and disconnection with the broader ummah. This works favourably for despots like Mohammed bin Zayed, who has initiated a global attack on the ummah while enabling the genocide of Palestinians.

RELATED: The Real Meaning of Ḥilf-ul-Fuḍūl and the “Abrahamic” Religion’s Distortion

Stage 5: Interfaith Dialogue Curtailing Daʿwah

The document declares the “adoption of a culture of dialogue as the path” to actualising its goals. This interfaith dialogue seeks to “transmit the highest moral virtues that religions aim for” whilst avoiding “unproductive discussions.”

We have covered the underlying agenda behind the Vatican’s push for interfaith dialogue in Part 3, which is to undermine Islam and Muslims.

This provision extends the Vatican’s objective to ensure that the call to Islam is also curtailed. As such, members of the human fraternity should only discuss what is commonly agreed between various religions at a high level and abandon all else.

Aside from the fact Islam rejects what the document posits as universal, the Qurʾānic paradigm of “interfaith dialogue” is far from this. In Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, Allah tells the Prophet ﷺ to invite the People of the Book to a proposition that is common between Muslims, Christians, and Jews. However, the detail of the verse is pertinent:[24]

Say, [O Prophet], “O People of the Book! Let us come to common terms: that we will worship none but Allah, associate none with Him, nor take one another as lords instead of Allah.” But if they turn away, then say, “Bear witness that we are Muslims.”

The terms expressed are those that Islam affirms. Imam Qurṭubī clarifies:[25]

“‘If they turn away from what they are being called to, ‘say, “Bear witness that we are Muslims,”’ meaning, ‘we are ascribed to the dīn of Islam, obeying its judgments and acknowledging that Allah has given us favours and blessings in respect of that without taking anyone else as a Lord, not ʿĪsā, ʿUzayr, or the angels, because they are temporal beings just as we are. We do not accept any of the prohibitions made by the monks prohibiting things which Allah has not prohibited to us. If we did that, we would be accepting them as lords.’”

In other words, the verse calls upon the People of the Book to abandon polytheism and the laws of their rabbis and monks and come to the religion of Islam and its Sharīʿah.

The Qurʾān then engages the People of the Book, questioning and disproving their claims, interrogating their rejection of signs and mixing of truth and falsehood, and exposing their strategy to encourage Muslims to abandon the Prophet ﷺ and his teachings.[26]

The life of the Prophet ﷺ is similarly a testament to this approach. Ibn Isḥāq said:[27]

“Then, when the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) openly declared Islam to his people and proclaimed it as Allah commanded him to (15:94), his people did not disown him and they did not reject him according to what has reached me, until he mentioned their gods and criticised them; and when he did this they deemed him a great [threat] and denounced him and resolved to oppose him and show hostility to him, except those that Allah protected by [making them] accept Islam, and they were few.”

The Makkan polytheists went as far as offering the Prophet ﷺ leadership to halt his critique of the dominant order. However, he declined, opting out of such pseudo-fraternity and “nodding-dogs” interfaith dialogue.

Stage 6: Disarming Muslims

The foundations of “peace” and “human fraternity” effectively disarm military resistance by Islamic liberatory movements. The document boldly declares that religions “must never incite war.”

The document’s irony becomes all the more acute given that the UAE has “normalised” relations with the psychotically genocidal, Bible-driven state of Israel. Screaming “peace” and “coexistence” is not working for Palestinian Muslims, and it is clearly not the modus operandi of the Zionist atheist and religious Jews in Palestine.

Furthermore, whilst the UAE-backed initiative removes the possibility of Muslims resisting militarily in pursuit of justice, the UAE itself has fostered and engaged in mass killings and terroristic assassinations (see below).

The situation in Gaza, the genocidal behaviour of Israel and its Western state accomplices, and the belligerent activities of UAE all demonstrate the abject failure of state and supra-state laws, which are emptied of a sufficient basis to ground a moral duty to obey them.

In a world of extreme brutalisation and belligerence, only fools would accept the prohibition on the possibility of armed resistance—something ironically recognised by the same UN to which the document appeals.

The document’s pacifist implication is clear. Muslims must discard yet another defensive mechanism for them to satisfy the new secular “Abrahamic” supra-religion.

Stage 7: Enforcement

The document on Human Fraternity attempts to efface the foundations of Islam to propound a unitary neo-religion that establishes human relations premised on secular humanism.

Like most state-backed ideologies, such a grand project can only be sustained through the threat of force and coercion.

So, the document suppresses opposition by framing it as “policies of extremism and division” and declaring that religions must “never incite extremism.” It further adds that it is necessary to stop supporting terrorist movements “by financing, the provision of weapons and strategy, and by attempts to justify these movements even using the media.”

A few points are worth noting.

First, since true Islam (or indeed any other religion that prioritises its own “fraternity”) prioritises a brotherhood based on Truth and Islam in opposition to the document, it would be considered “extremist.” This makes sense given the intended target of this measure appears to be the Muslim Brotherhood (see point three, below).

Secondly, the term “terrorism” is highly politicised and is often used by a party that is more militarily powerful to delegitimise a weaker party. Western states enabling Israel’s genocide frame Hamas as a terrorist organisation, although much of the non-Western world and the UN do not consider the movement in such a way. However, Western states do not consider Israel to be a terrorist entity, even though, from an international legal perspective, there is a stronger case for the label to apply to Israel, given its genocidal calls and justifications for mass-civilian slaughter.

Thirdly, the UAE’s use of terms like terrorism and extremism must be understood against MbZ’s desire to preserve his autocracy. They are deployed to intimidate and suppress any opposition. The Emirati leadership continues to use counterterror legislation and sham courts to imprison rights activists and lawyers, teachers, students and government critics with historic affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood (see also here). It has even frozen the bank accounts and assets of detainees and family members after their arrest.

Using the Muslim Brotherhood bogeyman, the UAE has targeted Muslims in Europe with smear campaigns, criticised Western governments for not proscribing Hamas and blackmailed them to crack down on the Brotherhood.

As far as “extremism” is concerned, the UAE’s fingerprints are all over the rejuvenation of Marine LePenn’s far-right party in France.

But perhaps the most hypocritical use of the counterterrorism framework was exposed in a recent BBC Arabic investigation. It found that the UAE had funded and directed an assassination programme targeting political opponents in Yemen. The programme was responsible for murdering people with no association with terrorist groups, including politicians, imams, and members of civil society. It even recruited former members of Al-Qaeda to serve in “counter-terrorism” operations.

In other words, the purveyor of “peace,” “coexistence,” “fraternity,” and CVE was using “terrorists” to commit “terrorist” atrocities against its opposition in another country.

Concluding Remarks

Resting on the foundation of secularism, the Abrahamic Family House has been built with the bricks of misguidance and doublespeak. The document on Human Fraternity that underpins this interfaith complex is a blueprint to systematically strip Islam from Muslim societies and prevent it from ever rising again.

In its place, the document erects a secular supra-religion that arbitrarily attempts to unify Islam with Judaism and Christianity in a kumbaya-style “symphony of three.” However, beneath this peace-and-love guise lies a murky, repressive framework of control. In this sense, the Abrahamic Family House project is the practical manifestation of Yousef Al Otaiba’s declaration of war against Islam and those who wish to live by it.

From the Zionist view, the Abrahamic Family House serves as a useful prototype for mainstream Israeli plans to partition the Al-Aqsa sanctuary, ultimately aiming to completely destroy the Masjid.

It is no wonder that psychotic Zionists like Benjamin Netanyahu are adopting the UAE’s de-Islamisation model to implement their post-Gaza plan.

With Islam out of the way, the project to colonise Palestine and destroy Masjid Al-Aqsa is made infinitely easier.

RELATED: Gaza: The Imams Condemn… What Now?

References

[1] Al-Qurʾān, 2:256, 10:99.

[2] Al-Qurʾān, 51:56.

[3] Al-Qurʾān, 11:40. See also 4:36, 7:28.

[4] Al-Qurʾān, 48:28.

[5] Al-Qurʾān, 3:85.

[6] Al-Qurʾān, 17:70.

[7] Ibid., 49:13.

[8] Ibn ʾAbbās reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Verily, the womb is a branch derived from the name of the Most Merciful. He will maintain whoever maintains its relations, and He will cut off whoever cuts off its relations.” Musnad Aḥmad, 2953.

[9] Al-Qurʾān, 58:22.

[10] Al-Qurʾān, 11:43-46.

[11] Al-Qurʾān, 5:57.

[12] Al-Qurʾān, 49:10.

[13] Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.

[14] Al-Qurʾān, 60:8.

[15] Al-Qurʾān, 16:71.

[16] Al-Qurʾān, 4:34.

[17] Al-Qurʾān, 17:81, 32:18.

[18] Al-Qurʾān, 2:213.

[19] Al-Qurʾān, 4:89.

[20] Western liberal states do discriminate; however, the plane of discrimination is different. Based on ethereal, mythical notions of nationality, the nation state, and its “security,” we can see “discrimination” exemplified by the treatment of like-coloured Ukrainian refugees in comparison non-European ones (see here, here, here, here, and here), second-class “citizenship” of people from former colonies, “foreign-born” Muslim “citizens” who are “excommunicated” by the state before killing them in drone strike, those who express support for Palestinian armed resistance, or “undermining British values” and criticise Zionists and Israel.

[21] Saḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.

[22] Hallaq, W.B. Sharīʻa: Theory, Practice, Transformations. 2012, p.167.

[23] For example, Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights restricts freedom of expression on the grounds of “national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals,” and so on. The difference is that these restrictions protect a secular liberal foundation and its values.

[24] Al-Qurʾān, 3:64.

[25] Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī.

[26] Al-Qurʾān, 3:65-72, Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī.

[27] Sīrah Ibn Hishām, 1:138.