Islam v isms

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ 

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

A common misconception is that Islam as a religion stands in opposition only to the other major and minor religions of the world; that Islam is concerned merely with repudiating the doctrines of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and the like, but is unconcerned with ideas outside the realm of religion or theology.

But the truth is that Islam, in its precious gift to mankind, the Holy Quran, launches a devastating intellectual assault on a multitude of manmade ideas and philosophies—both religious and secular.

Take the economic system known as capitalism, the Holy Quran preemptively critiques it by pointing to its tendency to concentrate wealth into the hands of an ever smaller circle of elitists:

کَیۡ لَا یَکُوۡنَ دُوۡلَۃًۢ بَیۡنَ الۡاَغۡنِیَآءِ مِنۡکُمۡ

That it may not be a perpetual distribution only among those of you who are rich

(Surah 59, Ayah 7)

Far from restricting its falsification to the competing religions, Islam has a problem with a range of secular ideas too including secularism itself, and liberalism, hedonism, feminism, materialism, socialism, anarchism, humanism, nihilism, scientism, racism, nationalism, etc. In short, the overwhelming number of isms are antithetical to Islam.

If Muslims understood this correctly the internal conflicts and tensions within the Ummah would be considerably reduced. For while the absurdity of an individual being simultaneously Muslim and Christian, or Muslim and Hindu, or Muslim and atheist is taken for granted, there is a glaring lack of a similar sentiment with regard to an individual who identifies as both Muslim and a communist, or Muslim and a neoplatonist, or Muslim and an ethnonationalist.

Then the tendency of many of our Muslim youth to explore ideas foreign to Islam, not with the intent of adequately understanding them to refute them, but out of curiosity and genuine yearning for something beyond the Faith, is surely dangerous. This is resulting in a chilling effect on zeal for the Faith, and worse, a crisis of inner doubt and even outright apostasy.

A supposed Muslim who subscribes to some form of Marxism, or some other secular philosophy, either political or metaphysical, will naturally gravitate to a reformist or revisionist understanding of Islam that is entirely at odds with the orthodox Sunni conception of the Faith.

When Allah says:

مِنَ الَّذِیۡنَ فَرَّقُوۡا دِیۡنَہُمۡ وَکَانُوۡا شِیَعًا ؕ کُلُّ حِزۡبٍۭ بِمَا لَدَیۡہِمۡ فَرِحُوۡنَ

Of those who split their religion and become partisans, each faction rejoicing in what they have

(Surah 30, Ayah 32)

It is not merely a condemnation of factionalism in the religious or theological realm, but any sort of factionalism based on ideas that are antithetical to the teachings of the Religion that ultimately produces division within the Muslim community.

Then here the “parties rejoicing in what is with them” should not be understood as merely referring to the Shia and all their various subsects, or the like of the Kharijites, Mutazila, Batinis, Wahhabis, Qadianis, etc., but should also include the liberals, secularists, socialists, communists, anarchists, nationalists, humanists, democrats, republicans, modernists, progressives, materialists, naturalists, dualists, neoplatonists, feminists, pacifists, libertarians, zionists, postmodernists, etc.

Indeed, the fragmentation of this Ummah in the realm of these secular, foreign ideas (which predominantly originate in Europe after the so-called Enlightenment) is significantly worse than its fragmentation in the sphere of theology.

Still, we can happily say that the majority or at least a plurality within the Muslim Ummah have avoided falling into the trap of heresy in religion and likewise falling for the misguidance of the foreign, secular ideologies and philosophies. 

But catastrophically, the current trajectory is toward greater ideological fragmentation rather than a revival of Sunni orthodoxy among the Muslims. 

Of particular concern is the rise of a new identity among a section of this Ummah which blends together a number of these secular ideologies with heterodox trends in religion. This is the invention of the secularist, socialist, and ethnonatioanlist Muslim who is deeply attracted to the tendency of skepticism toward Hadith, and other traditions, practices and ideas derived from the Sunnah.

He is at once opposed to American imperialism and Zionism, while also advocating for greater cultural liberalization of his society. A society that has a reduced role for the Mosque and the clergy, while allowing for greater sexual freedom and the liberation of women from “domestic servitude”. This curious new brand of Muslim is eager to revive the supposed richness of his particular ethnic group’s heritage in music, dance, poetry and literature while thumbing his nose at the strictures of the Sharia which he considers a manifestation of desert Arab imperialism that vaporized the cultural vibrancy of his nation.

His instinct is to lean toward red—meaning some form of leftism mixed with the redness of blood and soil. Knowing the power of religion, it is not necessary he is totally committed to godlessness, though in his heart of hearts he is an atheist, but is interested in utilizing an expression of folk religion that is skeptical of the clergy and critical of the Scripture to counter the influence of Sunni orthodoxy. This antinomian folk religion is primarily expressed through music, dance and poetry.

But for the more sophisticated and urban section of this new brand of supposed Muslims, for whom folk religion is not really suitable, another radical approach to Islam, one that is skeptical of Hadith and critical of too much emphasis on worship to the detriment of material progress, is more appealing.

Yet both trends in religion, the rural folk spirituality and the intellectual skepticism of Hadith, share a common disdain for the orthodox Sunni clergy and are therefore expressions of anticlericalism. Historically, anticlericalism was an undeniable component of both Marxism and the antinomian folk spirituality prevalent in parts of the rural Subcontinent which is largely a legacy of the Bhakti movement. 

Let me now move on from this theoretical discussion to one that addresses the practical reality on the ground. The average Muslim youth who is affected by anticlericalism combined with foreign political and social ideas contrary to Sunni orthodoxy may not be able to articulate his ideology coherently or precisely, but nevertheless exhibits signs that his heart and mind have been corrupted.

Among those signs is an eagerness to interact openly and frequently with the opposite sex. Another is his inability to comprehend the older and more conservative generation’s attitude of disgust toward lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders, etc., and their anxiety about the normalization of tolerance of homosexuality. Another is his total abandonment of what was once the stereotypical appearance of the Muslim—the skullcap, beard, flowing white garment, and so on. This appearance is now totally alien to him, rather it is totally repulsive to him at least on a subconscious level.

This curious new brand of supposed Muslims can be heard expressing heterodox notions in the sphere of religion such as it is only necessary to follow the Quran, or it is only necessary to follow the Quran plus Bukhari and Muslim, or it is not necessary to strictly adhere to the laws of Islam and that one can be right with God as long as one’s heart is clean, or that women should be free to dress as they wish, that polygyny is antiquated and oppressive toward women, or that God does not judge people for their sexual preferences including homosexuality, or that all the various sects in Islam are equally valid, that there should be full unity between Sunnis and Shia, or that armed Jihad has no place in the Faith, or that women should be free to marry non-Muslim men, that marriage under the age of eighteen or nineteen must be abolished and criminalized, that the government of a Muslim country has no right to implement laws of the Sharia, that the genocide of Uyghurs in China is a myth of American propaganda, and so on.

This last item I have mentioned is not exactly a view in religion strictly speaking. But it is a symptom of the secularization of the Muslim mind, that not only caused it to lose all sense of pain for the persecution of Islam but to view China as a model of progress, development and essentially the perfect society.

During the Arab Spring in the early 2010s, the radical feminist Mona Eltahawy, an Egyptian-American freelance journalist and social commentator, initially backed the call for a political revolution to overthrow the various Arab regimes seen as corrupt vassals of the American empire. But apparently her personal experience and trauma protesting at Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, immediately switched her entire focus from calling for a political uprising to demanding a “sexual revolution” in the broader Arab and Muslim world.

I say apparently because I believe powerful lobby groups and perhaps other agencies covertly persuaded her to have this sudden transformation in her activity and discourse during that era. Figures like Mona Eltahawy and those other supposed Muslims who have since followed in her footsteps are more lethal for the Ummah since they attempt to boost their credentials by having an uncompromising stance against Islamophobia, Zionism, and America’s imperialistic wars in the Middle East, though in many cases those stances are more performative than substantive.

Her call for a sexual revolution in the Arab world has largely materialized there. The youth of our time are increasingly engaging in behavior that was hitherto scandalous, such as dating, partying and dancing at nightclubs. Since the spread of sexual immorality in the Ummah is especially hateful in the sight of Allah, we can be sure that it will result in further destruction and humiliation for the Ummah in terms of war, poverty and general suffering on an unprecedented scale.

Since the inception of Islam in the 7th century until at least the 20th century, despite its many other flaws, the Ummah had been generally free from the mischief of sexual immorality and impropriety. Yet this was the cause, after idolatry, slaying of the Prophets, and social injustice, for the destruction of the Ummah that preceded us—the Children of Israel. 

Returning to the subject of fragmentation of the Muslim community on the basis of secular ideologies and philosophies, sternly condemned in the Holy Quran as I have demonstrated, the poisoned fruit of that evil tree has been violence; Muslims killing each other through massive wars, armed insurrections and terrorism.

It is ironic that these days the lion’s share of religious discourse and discussion among the youth revolve around conflicts that occurred in the early days of Islam, particularly the tribulations among the Sahaba—may Allah be pleased with them—that led to the wars of Jamal and Siffin. It is now fashionable to have deep knowledge of these matters, and to harshly criticize certain companions of the Prophet, peace be upon him, such as Muawiya. 

This narrative that has become the obsession of those whose approach to Islam is extremely superficial has undoubtedly been propagated through funding from the current regime in Iran. It is an attempt to create sympathy and thereafter partiality toward Shiism to the detriment of Sunni orthodoxy.

This increasingly popular narrative that produces skepticism toward the Sahaba and the early Muslims—a generation that is otherwise praised in the Holy Quran and upon the tongue of the Prophet, peace be upon him—rhetorically asks how could such presumably pious and God-fearing men have come into conflict with each other, did not the Prophet, peace be upon him, say:

لاَ تَرْتَدُّوا بَعْدِي كُفَّارًا يَضْرِبُ بَعْضُكُمْ رِقَابَ بَعْضٍ

“Do not revert to unbelievers after me by striking each others’ necks.”

But if these people were sincere in their sudden condemnation of the very old historical conflict among the early Muslims, we would see from them a similar energy in expressing shock and dismay at the the modern conflicts and internecine killings among the Muslims. These modern internecine conflicts and slaughter are exponentially worse than anything that was witnessed in the early days of Islam.

Why do they not speak of the Arab revolt against the Ottomans with the same condemnatory enthusiasm? What about Bangladesh’s bloody secession from Pakistan in 1971, or the devastating Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, or the multiple civil wars in Arab countries like Yemen, Lebanon, Algeria, Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Sudan which all occurred relatively recently? Then there are the various ethnic separatist movements that launched armed insurrections, resulting in Muslims killing each other, such as the Kurdish and Baluch insurgencies. Does not the aforementioned Hadith from the Prophet, peace be upon him, warning the Ummah not to commit apostasy after him by striking each others’ necks not apply to these modern internecine conflicts too?

Nor believe that these armed conflicts among the Muslims will ever be a thing of the past. Presently, Iran is going ballistic against its neighbors in the Gulf. The civil wars in countries like Libya and Yemen are threatening to restart. Violence may be dormant in some places, but the peace is fragile and uneasy, and may erupt into full fledged bloodletting at any moment. Hence, the Prophet, peace be upon him, said:

إِذَا وُضِعَ السَّيْفُ فِي أُمَّتِي لَمْ يُرْفَعْ عَنْهَا إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ

“Once the sword is unsheathed in my Ummah it shall not be lifted from it until the Day of Resurrection.”

It is no use debating the nitty gritty of the ancient conflicts that occurred among the early Muslims when today there is much more devastating violence within the Ummah. Let the foolish youth angry about the long dead Umayyads worry more about the present situation of discord and killing within the Muslim world.