What I find ironic (and this is my own reading of the post), is that the supposed grace, flexibility and encouragement that is supposed to be extended to marginalised groups is not extended to religious narcissists and dogmatists.
"Homophobia is natural and applauded, rather than welcoming nuance and compassion. People who identify as LGBT+ are ostracized and excommunicated, rather than encouraged to maintain a rope with Allah."
You could like swap it out with "dogmatists", tidy up the English and still end up with a plausible position. I didn't see a clear understanding of why this actually happens - narcissism is defined, dogmatism is defined and the people who are put into this category are painted as a monolithic, angry, abusive and violent manipulators of faith and people.
My own experience with these people are varied. Put it this way - in the corporate world, the dogmatists are satisfied with a prayer room and wudhu facilities. LGBT+ generally insist on changing the corporate logo for Pride Month, demand their representation at the senior management level and on the corporate agenda and build a network of allies that will openly criticise and punish their own employers if they don't feel they get their way.
To me, that's irony.
If you're not old enough to have lived through the post 9/11 War on Terror, especially what it was like on university campuses, it's really difficult to understand how all this started, especially in the West. It was the Cambrian Explosion for the Salafi movement, especially online.
So if there's no effort to understand beyond this (and a LOT of literature has been inked on the topic) then you miss a big piece of the puzzle.
Not giving that some due consideration, understanding how and why Muslims (men and women) get sucked into this and wagging the finger behind a lot of 10 dollar words and smug intellectualisation is a bit.....ironic.
It is unfortunate that rainbow capitalism has convinced us that the LGBT+ community itself insists on “changing the corporate logo” etc. Most of the time, these tactics are employed by corporations themselves, in order to appeal to a misguided audience• one that believes a rainbow logo means social progress. However, I am more sympathetic to members of the community that intend to be represented in managerial levels• it is a just request to have, if we are aiming for fairness in the workplace. This pressure you speak of, the “punishing of employers”, has not, to my knowledge, been tangible or apparent. But if it has occurred, I view it as a mere consequence to the workplace’s refusal to promote social justice-therefore I don’t think it’s unreasonable.
I totally get your point here. There is bias in this article and actually, now that you point it out, this reminds me that it is present in a lot of Raz’s videos too. (So good observation). I love her content, but it is worth noting that a lot of times she is self-assured in her arguments and sometimes not willing to fully hear out the other side. I guess it’s a security in knowing that there’s sensibility in her points, feeling that most of the time she is right. So I figure it is ironic that in some way, she exhibits rigidity in her thinking. But don’t we all, to some degree?
As an ex-hijabi & ex-Muslim, I agree with every word you have written. The wild thing is that it’s near impossible to see these truths while you are in the grips of the religion and the traditions.
I have lost my entire family because I left the religion. Most of them don’t actually know that I have left, but having removed my hijab and living with my bf out of wedlock is haram enough to caste me out.
There is also a whole subreddit (r/exmuslims) that can validate your points on religious narcissism and dogmatism.
Looking from the outside in, I can’t help but feel sorry for them all. They are so incredibly brainwashed with fear that they fear even questioning what the truth is. I mean, the creation of the concept of God, Hell and heaven was diabolical! It has the majority of the world in a chokehold (not just Muslims, of course) and it’s heartbreaking to see.
Thank you for writing this, I know it is about to put you in the firing line, but someone needed to say it 🙏🏽
I appreciate you sharing your experiences, but my post was not coming from a place of me pointing the finger from the outside. I am still Muslim, just merely acknowledging the faults of our community. Respectfully, I do not find atheists to be any different, as referenced by the article I cited. They too exhibit dogmatic belief systems without logic. As quoted by Averroes, the world is divided into men with wit and no religion, and men with religion and no wit. Both are two sides of the same coin, expressed differently. Nonetheless, I am sorry for your poor experiences, and I hope your family reaches back out to you with open arms one day.
"Imam Al-Ghazali exhibited methodology that paralleled skepticism, doubting everything he had learned and breaking down his dogma before affirming Islam with certainty. In spite of his integrity, people abandon and even disparage such methods"
This is a very funny thing to say in this article. Al-Ghazali was a skeptic when he engaged in rationalism in his youth, and it is his acceptance of dogma that "cured" him of skepticism. Praising Ibn Rushd and one of his biggest intellectual opponents at the same time is a contradiction in this case. I encourage you to read more about the decline of Islamic rationalism and the role Al-Ghazali played in that. Al-Ghazali might be the chief reason (along with Ibn Taymiyyah) why we see this dogmatic mindset in the Muslim world today.
Here is an excerpt from Theology and Creed in Sunni Islam by Jeffry R. Halverson:
"This development had already been foreseen in the person of the Ash‘arite theologian Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, who, after accepting the Sufi path (albeit without a shaykh), wrote of his views on kalam:
'As to [the benefits of theology, some] think that it is useful in revealing realities and knowing them as they really are. But how far from the truth this is, because the fulfillment of noble desire is not found in disputation. In fact the perplexity and confusion consequent on disputation surpasses anything which it may reveal or unfold . . . Take it from one who has familiarized himself with disputation and, after careful study and a thorough investigation of it in which he surpassed the extreme limits of his masters and went even further . . . has come to dislike it, and has ascertained that the road to the realities of knowledge is closed from this direction.'
Al-Ghazali’s conclusion was certainly a devastating blow to theology, and his Ihya (in which this passage appears) has since been studied for centuries throughout the Muslim world. But kalam was not entirely useless for al-Ghazali either. As Richard M. Frank, Oliver Leaman, and others have argued, al-Ghazali did remain an Ash‘arite for the rest of his life, despite his intellectual idiosyncrasies. For al-Ghazali, theology was still useful as a means to preserve the creed of the orthodox and to 'safeguard it against the confusion of innovators by different kinds of argumentation.' But it should be restricted exclusively to the scholars who 'should be like the physician who is adept in the use of dangerous drugs, which he does not apply except to the right place and only at the time of need.'"
"Theology" in this context refers to kalam, or essentially the role of reason in understanding religion and the world. Al-Ghazali's only use for reason and disputation was to wrap pre-determined religious dogma in a rationalist veneer. The only difference between Al-Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyyah and the Salafis is that the latter doesn't even see the value in this veneer.
If you are genuinely interested in what led to the decline of Islamic Golden Age rationalism and the rise of religious dogma, fundamentalism, legalism, literalism, and an aversion to all secular knowledge here are 2 useful papers:
Sources of the Sunni Revival: Nizam u-Mulk & the Nizamiyya: An 11th Century response to Sectarianism. by Abdel Rahman Azzam (for a history of the Sunni Revival and the rejection of falsafa and rational theology)
Religion and the Rise and Fall of Islamic Science by Eric Chaney (for the importance of the aforementioned rejection and its role in the demise of the Islamic Golden Age).
This is a well-crafted and thoughtfully structured composition. Like honestly I've been really blown away. I wanted to ask if its possible if you can give me tips I've gotten into this whole things cus of you my tiktok's acetheslave I would really appreciate it. Especially because I've been watching your content since your original account. Thx
There are inconsistencies with calling on Islamic thinkers here. While thinkers such as Ibn Rushd and Imam al-Ghazali illustrate a rich tradition in Islamic learning with intellectual diversity and critical inquiry, calling on Ibn Taymiyyah introduces an unpalatable dissonance into this. Ibn Taymiyyah's literature, as impactful as it has been, is typically characterised by theological exclusivism and literalism, which is opposed to the critical, dialogical spirit illustrated by these two thinkers. More insidiously still, his literature has been utilised as theological scaffolding by contemporary Salafist movements, whose puritanical, ascetic vision for Islam is all-too-frequently a corollary to this exclusivism. These same movements have contributed substantially to institutionalising the very forms of epistemic authoritarianism, control over bodies by gender, and sectarian rigidity that this article will lament. To call on Ibn Taymiyyah without fully understanding his works thus risks undermining the larger argument with a tacit authorisation of the intellectual foundations of these powers in opposition.
PS: Imam Ghazali wasn't supportive to the role of philosophy in Islam where he wrote the "The Incoherence of the Philosophers".
Personally, after looking at what Divine Command Theory has wrought with Zionism, I think all of the Abrahamic faiths need to go or more innocents will continue to die. The largest victims of the Abrahamic faiths are its own followers.
I do not think anything can be fixed by putting the blame on those who are considered extremist, because then, they would claim that this is what they were taught. This reminds me of the verse that says “وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ تَعَالَوْا إِلَىٰ مَا أَنزَلَ “ٱللَّهُ وَإِلَى ٱلرَّسُولِ قَالُوا۟ حَسْبُنَا مَا وَجَدْنَا عَلَيْهِ ءَابَآءَنَا -Al Maidah verse 104 (5:104), which criticizes those who follow tradition rather than listening to other ideologies and believes. This is basically the closest explanation to what is going on in the Muslim society. They are afraid of change because they were taught that change is bad. Solving this problem should start from teaching young adults everything, all over again, from scratch. Which in my opinion, is a terrifying idea for both parents, who already have these false believes, and the individuals who are willing to start this change. A lot has to be done “to change”, yet we can still see younger people getting influenced by the eyeopening narrative of getting to know Islam from Quran and Sunnah and not based of what the misogynist egoistic, as mentioned in the article, scholars’ sayings.
Also, I do believe that there is no “right” and “wrong” in religion, as I read -very little- Buddhism texts, right and wrong is what your human heart tells you that is “right” and “wrong”. To make it clear, depending on the situation and how the outcome of it will affect the society, if it harms others then it is definitely wrong and you will have to pay back for the damage you have made.
One thing that made me take a step back, not in a bad way, but in a way that I felt not quite satisfied, is using Ibn Taymiyya to prove a point. As he believes that the woman’s body must be covered from head to toe, and that she is only allowed to show her hands and eyes, which I extremely disagree with. But overall, this article is perfect for putting the light on this side of the Islamic community and finding the relevance between Narcissism and the false dogmas in Islam.
I’ve been wondering as to what your favorite books and sources, etc are; and if you’d recommend them (I’m not an English native speaker, sometimes it takes me longer to grasp information that is only available in English). I admire your knowledge as it’s my goal to become that educated
Yes this system view people's actions as black or white . U aren't religious and don't know God because u don't wear hijab .They need to understand that categorising people isn't that simple and u shouldn't categories people even .People are grey not black or white most of the time .
Also I'm a skeptical person and when I question a fatwas or something people assume I'm mocking Islam or trying to play God they dont think with me or discuss even it's tiring .
Thank you for that fascinating article you worded it very well
In my opinion it’s honestly because of the western impact; a few centuries ago if someone was questioned or was corrected because they said something wrong they had enough humility and tawakkul in accepting their mistakes and moving on with the correction. It’s honestly dire to see the impact western society has in corroding even strong Muslims.
In order to refute somebody in their area of expertise, you need to have knowledge within that field. For example, if a doctor says something that may be factually wrong, I cannot confidently refute him as I am not on the doctor's level and do not hold the same qualifications as the doctor. The reason I bring this up is because I know you do not have anywhere near the amount of knowledge that classical scholars or any other islamic scholars hold nor have you studied the deen as extensively as them. Hence, the only ones who can refute classical scholars are other scholars who have studied the deen extensively and have the qualifications required. Individuals like me and you by no means have any qualifications to refute any scholar.
First of all, this is not a refutation of classical scholars. Second of all, I don’t need to have the knowledge of classical scholars to highlight moral failings amongst them which are objectively inconsistent with Islam, nor do I need it to check the soundness and completeness of conclusions. Credentials are not required for commentary or inquiry within academia, they are only required for publication and professional success. This is how I know you know nothing about academic discourse. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with someone even refuting evolution, so long as they have done sufficient and thorough research, and have an alternative hypothesis they want to posit via inductive reasoning. This is how we prevent authoritarianism or appeal to powers, by not gatekeeping commentary to those of the clerical elite. Unless you can disprove the arguments—or even mine, if I was actually attempting to refute a particular classical scholar—then the argument is valid. I fear you missed the whole section of this article discussing how it is necessary for us to all be skeptics, assess all opinions fairly, and for truth. Hope that helps.
There is a fundamental difference between secular academic discourse and traditional islamic scholarship. There are conditions for speaking about the deen, especially when discussing rulings, texts, or the credibility of scholars. Allah says in the Qur’an:
'So ask the people of knowledge if you do not know.' (Surah An-Nahl 16:43)
This verse alone shows that authority in Islam is not open to everyone equally—there’s a process of study, isnad (chain of transmission), and ijtihad that determines who is qualified to interpret, critique, or refute. Even when scholars made errors, the tradition teaches us to correct with adab, knowledge, and proper grounding—not through public moral indictment without scholarly depth. Regarding you example of evolution- in islam, refutation isn't just about research and logic—it also involves a chain of scholarship, trustworthiness, and qualifications. Islam is not anti-intellectual, but it has a structure to preserve truth and avoid chaos. Just because something feels immoral to us personally does not make it objectively immoral in Islam. Our moral compass must be shaped by divine revelation, not subjective feelings. In Islam, morality is rooted in the Qur’an and Sunnah, not in personal or modern moral intuitions. Allah says:
‘It is not for a believing man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, to have any choice in the matter.’ (Surah Al-Ahzab 33:36) There is a difference between saying:
‘This scholar’s opinion is weak according to the evidences,’
and saying:
‘This scholar was immoral or wrong because it doesn't align with what I believe is fair.’ We don’t reform the deen to match modern values. We reform ourselves to better understand and live the deen. Respectfully, just because you grew up in a western society with western ideologies and hence you cannot comprehend some rulings or interpretations by scholars, does not make them wrong or immoral and they don't need a "reform" unless there is objective evidence that proves that those rulings or interpretations go against the teachings of the Quan and Sunnah. I would suggest your study the Quran and Sunnah and try to change your beliefs to align with islamic values rather than changing Islam so that it can fit you beliefs. Hope that helps!!!
Again, nothing in here was challenging a particular classical scholar. I did not bother reading any of that as it’s clear you missed that. Nothing in my article was academically incorrect as I ran it by other individuals before publishing it. Nor is haram because I’m not passing a fatwa. I do not need Ibrahim from SubStack telling me whether it’s permissible to highlight shortcomings in the community. 😜
Again, it's not just about directly challenging a classical scholar. what I said was, if your commentary touches on matters of the deen, its rulings, moral judgments, or implications about the integrity of scholarship, it requires caution, humility, and grounding. That has nothing to do with your article’s supposed academic correctness or who ‘approved’ it before you published it. I never said what you said was haram but rather that your article is subjected in a modern moral lens that dimisses islamic epistemology. You accused me of missing the point, yet ironically, you didn’t address a single argument I made. Instead, you deflected by saying ‘I didn’t read it" lmao, that is not intellectual discourse, that is intellectual arrogance. If you completely lack the ability to take criticism or see the other side of the argument, then I would suggest that you don't post public articles or at least disable the comment section in order to avoid friction. Thanks
Your entire original comment was about refuting classical scholars, now you’re saying your contention had nothing to do with that. Maybe don’t move the goal post instead of trying to point the finger at me and call me “intellectually dishonest” because you’re butthurt. I do not find your comments to be of substance and thus, I don’t want to read them lmao.
It’s ironic that you’re accusing me of “moving the goalpost” when I clarified in my second reply that even if you’re not directly challenging a classical scholar, the moment your commentary touches on rulings, moral judgments, or implications about the scholarly tradition, it enters the realm of the deen—and that comes with responsibilities. As I said before:
“Just because something feels immoral to us personally does not make it objectively immoral in Islam. Our moral compass must be shaped by divine revelation, not subjective feelings. In Islam, morality is rooted in the Qur’an and Sunnah, not in personal or modern moral intuitions.” You never responded it to it because it is just easier to ignore and default to immature insults so that you could somehow get the edge lmao. The "butthurt" comment shows a complete inability to respond to criticism without resorting to mockery and deflection. You made your article public, yet the moment someone disagrees, suddenly you’re too “above it” to read their reply? In your article, you talk about narcissism in the community, yet you turn around and say “I don’t want to read it lol” when someone challenges your views. That’s not open discourse. That’s the exact self-righteousness and ego-centered mindset you claim to be critiquing. Hold yourself to the same standards! Thank you.
had to stop reading every few minutes to give a standing ovation
This is a well written and structured piece and raises some interesting points but I do see some irony in it that maybe wasn't intentional.
Look forward to reading the next one.
This is intriguing. Can you explain what irony you noticed?
Sure.
What I find ironic (and this is my own reading of the post), is that the supposed grace, flexibility and encouragement that is supposed to be extended to marginalised groups is not extended to religious narcissists and dogmatists.
"Homophobia is natural and applauded, rather than welcoming nuance and compassion. People who identify as LGBT+ are ostracized and excommunicated, rather than encouraged to maintain a rope with Allah."
You could like swap it out with "dogmatists", tidy up the English and still end up with a plausible position. I didn't see a clear understanding of why this actually happens - narcissism is defined, dogmatism is defined and the people who are put into this category are painted as a monolithic, angry, abusive and violent manipulators of faith and people.
My own experience with these people are varied. Put it this way - in the corporate world, the dogmatists are satisfied with a prayer room and wudhu facilities. LGBT+ generally insist on changing the corporate logo for Pride Month, demand their representation at the senior management level and on the corporate agenda and build a network of allies that will openly criticise and punish their own employers if they don't feel they get their way.
To me, that's irony.
If you're not old enough to have lived through the post 9/11 War on Terror, especially what it was like on university campuses, it's really difficult to understand how all this started, especially in the West. It was the Cambrian Explosion for the Salafi movement, especially online.
So if there's no effort to understand beyond this (and a LOT of literature has been inked on the topic) then you miss a big piece of the puzzle.
Not giving that some due consideration, understanding how and why Muslims (men and women) get sucked into this and wagging the finger behind a lot of 10 dollar words and smug intellectualisation is a bit.....ironic.
Just my two tuppence worth.
It is unfortunate that rainbow capitalism has convinced us that the LGBT+ community itself insists on “changing the corporate logo” etc. Most of the time, these tactics are employed by corporations themselves, in order to appeal to a misguided audience• one that believes a rainbow logo means social progress. However, I am more sympathetic to members of the community that intend to be represented in managerial levels• it is a just request to have, if we are aiming for fairness in the workplace. This pressure you speak of, the “punishing of employers”, has not, to my knowledge, been tangible or apparent. But if it has occurred, I view it as a mere consequence to the workplace’s refusal to promote social justice-therefore I don’t think it’s unreasonable.
I totally get your point here. There is bias in this article and actually, now that you point it out, this reminds me that it is present in a lot of Raz’s videos too. (So good observation). I love her content, but it is worth noting that a lot of times she is self-assured in her arguments and sometimes not willing to fully hear out the other side. I guess it’s a security in knowing that there’s sensibility in her points, feeling that most of the time she is right. So I figure it is ironic that in some way, she exhibits rigidity in her thinking. But don’t we all, to some degree?
I'm not familiar with the videos but to your point - yeah, we all have some rigidity in our thinking.
Sometimes it's good and sometimes not, it's just about finding that middle ground when writing, especially if you intend to share it online.
The only judge of that is time, so will wait to read the next piece.
As an ex-hijabi & ex-Muslim, I agree with every word you have written. The wild thing is that it’s near impossible to see these truths while you are in the grips of the religion and the traditions.
I have lost my entire family because I left the religion. Most of them don’t actually know that I have left, but having removed my hijab and living with my bf out of wedlock is haram enough to caste me out.
There is also a whole subreddit (r/exmuslims) that can validate your points on religious narcissism and dogmatism.
Looking from the outside in, I can’t help but feel sorry for them all. They are so incredibly brainwashed with fear that they fear even questioning what the truth is. I mean, the creation of the concept of God, Hell and heaven was diabolical! It has the majority of the world in a chokehold (not just Muslims, of course) and it’s heartbreaking to see.
Thank you for writing this, I know it is about to put you in the firing line, but someone needed to say it 🙏🏽
I appreciate you sharing your experiences, but my post was not coming from a place of me pointing the finger from the outside. I am still Muslim, just merely acknowledging the faults of our community. Respectfully, I do not find atheists to be any different, as referenced by the article I cited. They too exhibit dogmatic belief systems without logic. As quoted by Averroes, the world is divided into men with wit and no religion, and men with religion and no wit. Both are two sides of the same coin, expressed differently. Nonetheless, I am sorry for your poor experiences, and I hope your family reaches back out to you with open arms one day.
Not to be the annoying nerd but I think the quote is from Al Ma'arri 😅
"Imam Al-Ghazali exhibited methodology that paralleled skepticism, doubting everything he had learned and breaking down his dogma before affirming Islam with certainty. In spite of his integrity, people abandon and even disparage such methods"
This is a very funny thing to say in this article. Al-Ghazali was a skeptic when he engaged in rationalism in his youth, and it is his acceptance of dogma that "cured" him of skepticism. Praising Ibn Rushd and one of his biggest intellectual opponents at the same time is a contradiction in this case. I encourage you to read more about the decline of Islamic rationalism and the role Al-Ghazali played in that. Al-Ghazali might be the chief reason (along with Ibn Taymiyyah) why we see this dogmatic mindset in the Muslim world today.
Here is an excerpt from Theology and Creed in Sunni Islam by Jeffry R. Halverson:
"This development had already been foreseen in the person of the Ash‘arite theologian Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, who, after accepting the Sufi path (albeit without a shaykh), wrote of his views on kalam:
'As to [the benefits of theology, some] think that it is useful in revealing realities and knowing them as they really are. But how far from the truth this is, because the fulfillment of noble desire is not found in disputation. In fact the perplexity and confusion consequent on disputation surpasses anything which it may reveal or unfold . . . Take it from one who has familiarized himself with disputation and, after careful study and a thorough investigation of it in which he surpassed the extreme limits of his masters and went even further . . . has come to dislike it, and has ascertained that the road to the realities of knowledge is closed from this direction.'
Al-Ghazali’s conclusion was certainly a devastating blow to theology, and his Ihya (in which this passage appears) has since been studied for centuries throughout the Muslim world. But kalam was not entirely useless for al-Ghazali either. As Richard M. Frank, Oliver Leaman, and others have argued, al-Ghazali did remain an Ash‘arite for the rest of his life, despite his intellectual idiosyncrasies. For al-Ghazali, theology was still useful as a means to preserve the creed of the orthodox and to 'safeguard it against the confusion of innovators by different kinds of argumentation.' But it should be restricted exclusively to the scholars who 'should be like the physician who is adept in the use of dangerous drugs, which he does not apply except to the right place and only at the time of need.'"
"Theology" in this context refers to kalam, or essentially the role of reason in understanding religion and the world. Al-Ghazali's only use for reason and disputation was to wrap pre-determined religious dogma in a rationalist veneer. The only difference between Al-Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyyah and the Salafis is that the latter doesn't even see the value in this veneer.
If you are genuinely interested in what led to the decline of Islamic Golden Age rationalism and the rise of religious dogma, fundamentalism, legalism, literalism, and an aversion to all secular knowledge here are 2 useful papers:
Sources of the Sunni Revival: Nizam u-Mulk & the Nizamiyya: An 11th Century response to Sectarianism. by Abdel Rahman Azzam (for a history of the Sunni Revival and the rejection of falsafa and rational theology)
Religion and the Rise and Fall of Islamic Science by Eric Chaney (for the importance of the aforementioned rejection and its role in the demise of the Islamic Golden Age).
This is a well-crafted and thoughtfully structured composition. Like honestly I've been really blown away. I wanted to ask if its possible if you can give me tips I've gotten into this whole things cus of you my tiktok's acetheslave I would really appreciate it. Especially because I've been watching your content since your original account. Thx
That was an excellent read. Thank you very much😇
There are inconsistencies with calling on Islamic thinkers here. While thinkers such as Ibn Rushd and Imam al-Ghazali illustrate a rich tradition in Islamic learning with intellectual diversity and critical inquiry, calling on Ibn Taymiyyah introduces an unpalatable dissonance into this. Ibn Taymiyyah's literature, as impactful as it has been, is typically characterised by theological exclusivism and literalism, which is opposed to the critical, dialogical spirit illustrated by these two thinkers. More insidiously still, his literature has been utilised as theological scaffolding by contemporary Salafist movements, whose puritanical, ascetic vision for Islam is all-too-frequently a corollary to this exclusivism. These same movements have contributed substantially to institutionalising the very forms of epistemic authoritarianism, control over bodies by gender, and sectarian rigidity that this article will lament. To call on Ibn Taymiyyah without fully understanding his works thus risks undermining the larger argument with a tacit authorisation of the intellectual foundations of these powers in opposition.
PS: Imam Ghazali wasn't supportive to the role of philosophy in Islam where he wrote the "The Incoherence of the Philosophers".
My counterclaim to that last part you added: https://jarinjove.com/2025/03/13/hindu1islam/
Personally, after looking at what Divine Command Theory has wrought with Zionism, I think all of the Abrahamic faiths need to go or more innocents will continue to die. The largest victims of the Abrahamic faiths are its own followers.
I do not think anything can be fixed by putting the blame on those who are considered extremist, because then, they would claim that this is what they were taught. This reminds me of the verse that says “وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ تَعَالَوْا إِلَىٰ مَا أَنزَلَ “ٱللَّهُ وَإِلَى ٱلرَّسُولِ قَالُوا۟ حَسْبُنَا مَا وَجَدْنَا عَلَيْهِ ءَابَآءَنَا -Al Maidah verse 104 (5:104), which criticizes those who follow tradition rather than listening to other ideologies and believes. This is basically the closest explanation to what is going on in the Muslim society. They are afraid of change because they were taught that change is bad. Solving this problem should start from teaching young adults everything, all over again, from scratch. Which in my opinion, is a terrifying idea for both parents, who already have these false believes, and the individuals who are willing to start this change. A lot has to be done “to change”, yet we can still see younger people getting influenced by the eyeopening narrative of getting to know Islam from Quran and Sunnah and not based of what the misogynist egoistic, as mentioned in the article, scholars’ sayings.
Also, I do believe that there is no “right” and “wrong” in religion, as I read -very little- Buddhism texts, right and wrong is what your human heart tells you that is “right” and “wrong”. To make it clear, depending on the situation and how the outcome of it will affect the society, if it harms others then it is definitely wrong and you will have to pay back for the damage you have made.
One thing that made me take a step back, not in a bad way, but in a way that I felt not quite satisfied, is using Ibn Taymiyya to prove a point. As he believes that the woman’s body must be covered from head to toe, and that she is only allowed to show her hands and eyes, which I extremely disagree with. But overall, this article is perfect for putting the light on this side of the Islamic community and finding the relevance between Narcissism and the false dogmas in Islam.
I’ve been wondering as to what your favorite books and sources, etc are; and if you’d recommend them (I’m not an English native speaker, sometimes it takes me longer to grasp information that is only available in English). I admire your knowledge as it’s my goal to become that educated
من د
Yes this system view people's actions as black or white . U aren't religious and don't know God because u don't wear hijab .They need to understand that categorising people isn't that simple and u shouldn't categories people even .People are grey not black or white most of the time .
Also I'm a skeptical person and when I question a fatwas or something people assume I'm mocking Islam or trying to play God they dont think with me or discuss even it's tiring .
Thank you for that fascinating article you worded it very well
In my opinion it’s honestly because of the western impact; a few centuries ago if someone was questioned or was corrected because they said something wrong they had enough humility and tawakkul in accepting their mistakes and moving on with the correction. It’s honestly dire to see the impact western society has in corroding even strong Muslims.
In order to refute somebody in their area of expertise, you need to have knowledge within that field. For example, if a doctor says something that may be factually wrong, I cannot confidently refute him as I am not on the doctor's level and do not hold the same qualifications as the doctor. The reason I bring this up is because I know you do not have anywhere near the amount of knowledge that classical scholars or any other islamic scholars hold nor have you studied the deen as extensively as them. Hence, the only ones who can refute classical scholars are other scholars who have studied the deen extensively and have the qualifications required. Individuals like me and you by no means have any qualifications to refute any scholar.
First of all, this is not a refutation of classical scholars. Second of all, I don’t need to have the knowledge of classical scholars to highlight moral failings amongst them which are objectively inconsistent with Islam, nor do I need it to check the soundness and completeness of conclusions. Credentials are not required for commentary or inquiry within academia, they are only required for publication and professional success. This is how I know you know nothing about academic discourse. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with someone even refuting evolution, so long as they have done sufficient and thorough research, and have an alternative hypothesis they want to posit via inductive reasoning. This is how we prevent authoritarianism or appeal to powers, by not gatekeeping commentary to those of the clerical elite. Unless you can disprove the arguments—or even mine, if I was actually attempting to refute a particular classical scholar—then the argument is valid. I fear you missed the whole section of this article discussing how it is necessary for us to all be skeptics, assess all opinions fairly, and for truth. Hope that helps.
There is a fundamental difference between secular academic discourse and traditional islamic scholarship. There are conditions for speaking about the deen, especially when discussing rulings, texts, or the credibility of scholars. Allah says in the Qur’an:
'So ask the people of knowledge if you do not know.' (Surah An-Nahl 16:43)
This verse alone shows that authority in Islam is not open to everyone equally—there’s a process of study, isnad (chain of transmission), and ijtihad that determines who is qualified to interpret, critique, or refute. Even when scholars made errors, the tradition teaches us to correct with adab, knowledge, and proper grounding—not through public moral indictment without scholarly depth. Regarding you example of evolution- in islam, refutation isn't just about research and logic—it also involves a chain of scholarship, trustworthiness, and qualifications. Islam is not anti-intellectual, but it has a structure to preserve truth and avoid chaos. Just because something feels immoral to us personally does not make it objectively immoral in Islam. Our moral compass must be shaped by divine revelation, not subjective feelings. In Islam, morality is rooted in the Qur’an and Sunnah, not in personal or modern moral intuitions. Allah says:
‘It is not for a believing man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, to have any choice in the matter.’ (Surah Al-Ahzab 33:36) There is a difference between saying:
‘This scholar’s opinion is weak according to the evidences,’
and saying:
‘This scholar was immoral or wrong because it doesn't align with what I believe is fair.’ We don’t reform the deen to match modern values. We reform ourselves to better understand and live the deen. Respectfully, just because you grew up in a western society with western ideologies and hence you cannot comprehend some rulings or interpretations by scholars, does not make them wrong or immoral and they don't need a "reform" unless there is objective evidence that proves that those rulings or interpretations go against the teachings of the Quan and Sunnah. I would suggest your study the Quran and Sunnah and try to change your beliefs to align with islamic values rather than changing Islam so that it can fit you beliefs. Hope that helps!!!
Again, nothing in here was challenging a particular classical scholar. I did not bother reading any of that as it’s clear you missed that. Nothing in my article was academically incorrect as I ran it by other individuals before publishing it. Nor is haram because I’m not passing a fatwa. I do not need Ibrahim from SubStack telling me whether it’s permissible to highlight shortcomings in the community. 😜
Again, it's not just about directly challenging a classical scholar. what I said was, if your commentary touches on matters of the deen, its rulings, moral judgments, or implications about the integrity of scholarship, it requires caution, humility, and grounding. That has nothing to do with your article’s supposed academic correctness or who ‘approved’ it before you published it. I never said what you said was haram but rather that your article is subjected in a modern moral lens that dimisses islamic epistemology. You accused me of missing the point, yet ironically, you didn’t address a single argument I made. Instead, you deflected by saying ‘I didn’t read it" lmao, that is not intellectual discourse, that is intellectual arrogance. If you completely lack the ability to take criticism or see the other side of the argument, then I would suggest that you don't post public articles or at least disable the comment section in order to avoid friction. Thanks
Your entire original comment was about refuting classical scholars, now you’re saying your contention had nothing to do with that. Maybe don’t move the goal post instead of trying to point the finger at me and call me “intellectually dishonest” because you’re butthurt. I do not find your comments to be of substance and thus, I don’t want to read them lmao.
It’s ironic that you’re accusing me of “moving the goalpost” when I clarified in my second reply that even if you’re not directly challenging a classical scholar, the moment your commentary touches on rulings, moral judgments, or implications about the scholarly tradition, it enters the realm of the deen—and that comes with responsibilities. As I said before:
“Just because something feels immoral to us personally does not make it objectively immoral in Islam. Our moral compass must be shaped by divine revelation, not subjective feelings. In Islam, morality is rooted in the Qur’an and Sunnah, not in personal or modern moral intuitions.” You never responded it to it because it is just easier to ignore and default to immature insults so that you could somehow get the edge lmao. The "butthurt" comment shows a complete inability to respond to criticism without resorting to mockery and deflection. You made your article public, yet the moment someone disagrees, suddenly you’re too “above it” to read their reply? In your article, you talk about narcissism in the community, yet you turn around and say “I don’t want to read it lol” when someone challenges your views. That’s not open discourse. That’s the exact self-righteousness and ego-centered mindset you claim to be critiquing. Hold yourself to the same standards! Thank you.