From Islam’s Apostasy Law to COVID-19: The Sacrifice of Liberties

In the modern world, we are constantly being bombarded with objections that aim to undermine the very foundations of Islam. The absence of a traditional Muslim society which adheres to and rules by the divine law compounds the challenges, making it somewhat difficult to effectively combat such doubts.

Human beings are practical creatures that often need to see something in order to believe it. For many Muslims living in the West, the prospect of an ideal Islamic society remains an abstract and distant dream, making it hard for them to truly appreciate the wisdom and beauty of shari’ah law.

One of the most persistent objections of liberals and ex-Muslims alike is regarding the issue of the death penalty for apostates. They argue that this hadd punishment is a “restriction on religious freedom” and, thus, supposedly a sign of Islam’s weakness because it allegedly “compels its faithful to remain Muslims by force.” But such criticisms reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the true nature of our faith.

Despite there being a lack of concrete examples of a society applying the laws of the Shari’ah in their entirety within the contemporary world, I remain ever optimistic in my conviction that we can in fact find similar examples, even in Western societies, to help our brothers and sisters better appreciate the true value of Islam.

In the contemporary tumultuous age of Covid, the handling of the pandemic revealed a stark truth: if people truly understood it, they would undoubtedly accept the wisdom of Islam’s punishment for apostasy.

It is important to recognize that secular societies are essentially atheistic systems of governance. Despite their claims of neutrality on metaphysical issues, their rejection of traditional religions such as Islam, Christianity and Judaism betrays a bias toward materialism. And materialism, in turn, is the hallmark of atheism.

Under secularism, the highest value is human life in its physical form. The soul is dismissed as a mere abstraction, and questions of salvation are deemed irrelevant. As a result, the role of government is reduced to safeguarding the physical well-being of its citizens, with no concern whatsoever for their spiritual welfare.

RELATED: [WATCH] DEBATE: Is Hijab Good or Evil? Muslim vs. Feminist

In contrast, traditional religions demand that the rulers prioritize the ultimate salvation of their subjects over their physical bodies. For the Church, a good Christian king is one who facilitates entry into heaven and deters entry into hell. Similarly, Islam ordains imams to enjoin good and to both forbid and prevent evil.

Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) said: I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say:

Whoever witnesses a munkar (something forbidden in Islam being perpetrated), he should change it with his hand; and if he is not able [to do so], then [he should change it] with his tongue; and if he is not able [to do so], then [he should hate it] with his heart — and that is the weakest [level] of faith.” (Sunan al-Nasa’i)

But this materialistic bias blinds secularists to the rationality of the Islamic law regarding apostasy. Shari’ah mandates severe punishment for apostates in order to prevent the spread of their doubts and to safeguard the souls of the faithful. This logic is intrinsic to a theocratic system, where the most precious thing is the soul, which must be protected at all costs.

To protect the health of the people, modern states have made a Faustian bargain, sacrificing precious freedoms and equalities. They deemed it to be better to live in a state of diminished liberty, rather than allegedly risking the lives of millions of people. This necessary evil has resulted in the implementation of inequalities in laws, where the vaccinated are separated from the unvaccinated and the freedom of movement and expression of citizens is restricted.

RELATED: The New Terror Threat: ‘Radicalized’ Americans Who Believe ‘False Narratives’

The argument for the preservation of people’s health persuaded many into accepting that limiting these fundamental liberties is a small price to pay in exchange for the greater good. Shockingly, recent polls reveal that the majority of managers in the United Kingdom support mandatory vaccination. In France, 58% of French people wanted to make vaccination mandatory according to a poll commissioned by Odoxa-Backbone. Likewise, a Covid States Project poll showed that 64% of Americans were in favor of making the vaccine mandatory for everyone.

In the midst of this crisis, the mainstream media has resorted to censoring any information that is deemed to be anti-vax, with numerous YouTube channels being shut down simply for sharing scientific facts regarding Covid. For secular liberals, if this severe restriction on free speech saves lives, then it is completely justified.

One may argue that the comparison between the law of apostasy and the global management of the COVID-19 pandemic is unwarranted since no state has actually threatened to kill non-vaccinated individuals but have merely isolated them from society by depriving them of their rights.

However, let us take a moment to imagine a scenario where a virus far more deadly than COVID-19 ravages the world. Picture a virus that cannot be cured and has a mortality rate of 50% among those who contract it. This hypothetical virus is highly contagious, infecting 20% of those who come into contact with an infected person. Now, imagine scientists develop a vaccine which drastically reduces the risk of contagion and death from this virus.

Under such catastrophic circumstances, would people hesitate to go to any lengths necessary to protect themselves and their loved ones, even if this means taking extreme measures⁠—like say, the death penalty⁠—against those who refuse to take the vaccine?

The answer, I’m afraid, is all too clear.

RELATED: Yeah, There Is No Free Speech in Islam, But Secularism Needs Brutal Censorship to Survive


Polygyny: The Hypocrisy of Criticizing Islam for “Legalized Cheating”

By Hud Lesprit -March 3, 2023

As a steadfast advocate of Islam, I must speak out against the rampant criticisms hurled against our noble faith. In a recent debate, the apostate Nuriyah dared to accuse Islam of “legalizing cheating” due to its allowance for men to practice polygyny. This is far from the first time that liberal minds have launched attacks such as this against a time-honored practice.

Many of us Muslims are quick to point out the hypocrisy of these criticisms, especially in light of the fact that Western countries have recorded a staggering rate of adultery. According to the LA Intelligence Detective Agency, the statistics on this deplorable behavior are extremely alarming:

• 30 to 60 percent of married couples will cheat at least once in the marriage

• 74 percent of men and 68 percent of women admit they’d cheat if it was guaranteed they’d never get caught

• 60 percent of affairs start with close friends or coworkers

• An average affair lasts 2 years

• 69 percent of marriages break up as a result of an affair being discovered

The numbers speak for themselves: anywhere between 30 and 60 percent of married couples will cheat on their spouse at least once during their marriage, while 74 percent of men and 68 percent of women admit they would cheat if it was absolutely certain that they would never be caught. Moreover, 60 percent of affairs are with close friends or coworkers, and on average, an affair lasts two years. Worst of all, 69 percent of marriages collapse due to the discovery of an affair.

But there is an even more egregious irony at play here, and this is that almost all liberal countries have effectively legalized adultery, especially for women. When a wife is caught cheating on her husband and is taken to court, what does she risk? No Western country will exercise punishment against such a woman. In fact, she may win a great deal in divorce proceedings! And yet, these murtadds (apostates), infatuated with Western liberalism, have the audacity to allege that Islam somehow “legalizes cheating.”

As a conservative orthodox Muslim, I am absolutely appalled by the ignorance and hypocrisy of these accusations. It is high time that the Western world confronts its own moral decay before going around pointing fingers at Islam. Let us protect our families, uphold the sanctity of marriage and preserve our cherished traditions.

RELATED: Time to Normalize Adultery 

Let us now consider Catholicism, which, like Islam, condemns adultery. However, it also prohibits polygyny, a practice that is permitted by Islam under certain conditions. But before Catholics and other detractors of Islam accuse us of condoning adultery, let us examine their own history and practices.

Let me bring to your attention that the saints of the Roman Church actually defended the legalization of prostitution houses as a necessary evil.

Thomas Aquinas, echoing Augustine of Hippo, famously said:

Prostitution in the towns is like the cesspool in the palace: take away the cesspool and the palace will become an unclean and evil-smelling place.

Moreover, Thomas Aquinas, three times in his theological sum, defended the tolerance for prostitution within a Christian kingdom. Given that a significant portion of the clientele of these houses is married men, is this thus not a form of legalized adultery, since it essentially permits adultery?

RELATED: The Pope Says Adultery Not a Serious Sin While Christian Apologist Mocks Hadith

On the other hand, Islam is the last holdout as the only religion that still condemns cheating, a crime which is punished with the death penalty, highlighting its great severity.

It is also crucial to distinguish between fidelity and loyalty, which Islam strongly emphasizes.

Islam does not propagate the idea that a man should remain exclusive to his wife. Instead, Islam enjoins men to be loyal to their wives, which can be achieved by helping them worship their Lord as they ought to; taking care of their physical and emotional needs; spending on them generously; protecting them; and remembering the favors done unto them by their wives.

Allah says in the Qur’an:

But if you divorce them before you have touched them [in intimacy], and you have already determined for them an obligatory dowry, then [give them] half of what you have already determined, unless they grant remission [of it], or the one in whose hand is the marriage contract grants remission [of it]. Yet if you [believers] grant remission [of the full amount], it is, indeed, nearer to [the virtue of] fearing Allah. Thus do not forget benevolence among yourselves. Indeed, Allah is all-seeing of all that you do. (Qur’an, 2:237)

It is truly disappointing that the enemies of Islam continuously sink so low as to try and use criticisms that apply more aptly to themselves. When they tire of accruing failures, they should take some time to introspect and acknowledge their biases against Islam.

Their problem with Islam is not one of any actual substance but merely an emotional disorder.

They should know that it’s never too late for them to go and seek help.

RELATED: Modernity and the Demise of Love


Accountability and Standards for Women: Straightforward Answers Become Controversial

Some examples of questions that used to be pretty straightforward but now, for some reason, have become controversial:

1. “Is it better for children to be raised in a home with both their mother and father; or for them to be raised in a single-parent household?”

2. “Is it better for a baby to be breastfed; or for it to be given baby formula?”

3. “Is it better for a mother to stay at home and raise her own children; or for the children to be raised by strangers outside of the home?”

Modern “answers” to these questions that are actually non-answers:

1. “It depends.”

2. “Everything is different for everyone. There is no right or wrong.”

3. “Everything you are doing is good and right! All choices are equally valid!”

The answers to these kinds of questions used to be a simple yes-or-no binary. Despite the existence of some gray areas, some things used to be plain black and white. This was before the modern obsession with rendering everything into a gray issue; the incessant fixation on feelings; fragile hyper-sensitivity; and the “feels before reals,” “don’t judge” culture.

It used to be understood that there are two levels: the level of the principle or rule that applies to the general public or to most cases; and the level of the various lived realities on the ground pertaining to each individual’s own particular, unique situation.

The ideal versus the real. The rule versus the exception. The general versus the specific.

People used to understand that the rule is the rule, even if I myself cannot adhere to and follow it due to my own personal situation. It used to be common knowledge that the standards of good and bad continue to exist and apply, even if I can’t uphold them due to my own personal circumstances.

But now, as modern people, we’ve reached a state where we can no longer provide simple answers to simple questions, for fear of offending someone.

We hesitate to state, very clearly, that any one thing is the ideal or the best course of action, when we know it to be the case. We refrain from asserting, in a simple and straightforward manner, that something is objectively better than the alternative, when it most certainly is.


To spare people’s feelings.

So, now, we find ourselves in a situation where nobody ever feels bad about anything they do or don’t do. The modern demand is:

“I need to feel good regardless of what I do!”

If there is no clear distinction between right and wrong, then nothing you do (or don’t do) can ever be wrong, immoral or unethical.

If there is no definitive and clear line, distinguishing what is good from what is bad, then nothing you do can ever be deemed bad!

RELATED: Masculinity in Islam: Masculine Assertiveness and Authority

People are, of course, different from one another. Everyone, of course, has a different set of circumstances and life situations. Everyone, of course, has things transpire in their lives that are unforeseen and which are not within their control. Of course. These are realities. And in these cases, we do what we have to in order to make things work.

Some marriages fall apart and end in divorce, out of necessity.

Some mothers must leave the home to work at a paid job, out of necessity.

Some mothers have problems producing breastmilk or have supply issues, so they are forced to give formula milk to their baby, out of necessity.

Yes, all of these things can and do happen. This is life.

BUT this does not mean that there is no archetype, no ideal scenario and no standard.

The general rule is not negated by exceptions to the rule.

For various reasons, some people cannot meet the standard of the ideal.

In the past, people would most certainly sympathize with such individuals, yet the bar still remained in its place, even if some people were unable to meet it.

Now, however, we’ve moved the bar so unbelievably low or we’ve chosen to discard it altogether, just so that nobody has to even worry about ever trying to meet any kind of standard.

Now, what people want everyone to say is:

“Since you can’t personally follow the rule, for whatever personal circumstance you happen to have, there IS no longer any need for the rule!”

In our modern times, where the feelings of some are prioritized over objective reality, we find ourselves using exceptions to eradicate the rule entirely. We pretend that all things are equally good, equally right and equally valid.

If all choices are equally valid, then it’s not possible for you to make a bad choice!

The right thing to do is now a mere “choice” that has been placed on an equal footing with all other choices.

This is a childish, immature way to frame things—an inability to handle any sort of pressure and to have no accountability. It is a juvenile rejection of any responsibility that rests on our delicate, fragile little shoulders just so there’s no need for us to feel bad if we make poor or selfish decisions.

RELATED: Feminism Is Female Narcissism

As mature, sane adults, it is entirely possible for us to simultaneously acknowledge the existence of the objective archetype AND also admit that we have diverged from it due to circumstance outside our control.

So we can say things such as:

“The ideal would be for the mother to stay home to raise her children, but unfortunately I cannot personally do so myself due to X, Y or Z necessity.”


“The ideal would be for children to live with both parents, but unfortunately, in my personal case, my children are being raised in a single-parent household due to A, B or C necessity.”

Instead though, we simply disregard and withhold all the data, research and statistics pertaining to the outcomes faced by children hailing from single-mother households; the benefits of breastmilk versus formula milk for babies; and the effects on children raised at home by their mothers versus those raised elsewhere by paid strangers. Instead, we go to great and exaggerated lengths to create ridiculous loopholes; to render all options as somehow being equally valid; to praise and celebrate any and all possible choices as wonderful; and to ultimately erase the rule:

“But what if the mother is a psychopath who should not be around children?? Should she stay at home in order to raise her children then? No! See, there is NO defined answer to this question!”

“But what if the mother is a drunk, a pothead or an addict of crack, cocaine, heroine, meth and other drugs? Should she breastfeed her baby then? Ha! So breastfeeding is NOT always the better option!”

“But what if both parents are violent criminals who try to maim each other when they’re together in a marriage? Or what if the father is an abusive murderer? You see? The children would be better off after divorce and living in a single-parent household! See, living with the mother and the father ISN’T always better!”

RELATED: Kick Feminism to the Curb! Contentment in Marriage and Motherhood

It’s time we collectively matured; abandoned these elaborate verbal gymnastics; and simply accepted the reality of things. Not everyone gets to live out their dream life. We all experience different tests and trials in this dunya (worldly life).

But this does not, in any way, mean that we get to do away with all the rules based on our own exceptional circumstances. This doesn’t at all mean that we can go around pretending that there is no objective good or bad.

I mean, if enough of us keep doing this for long enough, there will be people who grow up not knowing the difference between the ideal goal which we ought to aim for and the less-than-ideal scenarios that life sometimes reveals. And these people will be confused in their very aspirations, not even knowing what they should be aiming for.

Due to a lack of awareness, they will not be able to make the correct decisions even when it is fully within their capacity to actually do so.

I understand wanting to encourage and support individual moms about their own unfortunate situations, but it’s also important for us not to delude ourselves or others regarding what is best for children, families and society as a whole.

Nobody is blaming individuals for things that are outside their control. But people most certainly SHOULD be accountable for the things that they CAN control.

Final point:

“We relativize everything so that there is no pressure on women and so that there’s no set standard for women to meet as wives or mothers.”

But we don’t seem to do this for men though.

Questions like, “Is it better for a man to be a provider?” still have a straightforward answer which isn’t relative. It’s a resounding “Yes!”

We still know how to have set standards, baseline expectations and objective archetypes. It’s just that these are reserved only for men and not for women.

Women’s feelings are the new standard, the current bar, the modern goal. The objective must become subjective, the truth must be relativized, and we as a society must pretend that all the choices women make are good ones, just to safeguard their feelings. Babies and children will just have to put up with getting worse care, but grown women cannot handle or endure feeling the burden of the slightest amount of pressure.

And I, as a woman, am simply tired of it.

RELATED: Why Muslim Women Tend to Fall for the “All Men Are Evil” Myth


Javed Ghamidi‘s Rejection of Dajjāl, Ya‘jūj, Ma‘jūj and the Rising of the Sun From the West

Rasūlullāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) had prophesized many things that would transpire before Qiyāmah. The scholars of ḥadīth have gathered these reports in their works under the title of ‘Ashrāṭ-us-Sā’ah’ (signs of the hour). One of these important prophesies deals with the arrival of Dajjāl. Rasūlullāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) described Dajjāl as an extremely severe fitnah. The severity of the fitnah of Dajjāl can be gauged from the fact that Rasūlullāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) would regularly seek protection with Allāh Ta’ālā from Dajjāl, and he taught the Ummah to do likewise.

It is the unanimous view and belief of the Muslim Ummah that Dajjāl is a specific person, as detailed in the aḥādīth.

In opposition to the entire scholarly tradition of Islam—and in support of the heretical false beliefs of the deviant Khawārij, Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah—Javed Ghamidi brazenly states the following in his monthly journal, Ishrāq:

According to us, the emergence of Dajjāl is an explanation of the emergence of Ya’jūj and Ma’jūj. Dajjāl is a noun that denotes a quality (ism ṣifat). The meaning of this word is ‘great plotter and deceiver.’[1]

RELATED: Misguided Ideology: Javed Ghamidi’s Rejection of Ḥadīth, the Mahdī and Ijmā’

Moreover, Javed Ghamidi states:

Our view is that close to Qiyāmah, Rasūlullāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) had referred to the emergence of Ya’jūj and Ma’jūj as Dajjāl. There is no doubt that the children of Ya’jūj and Ma’jūj are these Western nations, they are a society founded upon thought and philosophy of great deceit. Based on this, Rasūlullāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) had declared them ‘Dajjāl,’ i.e., great deceivers. One quality of Dajjāl has been explained in the reports, which is that one of his eyes is spoilt. This also, in reality, is the Western nations turning away from the spiritual sphere of man. It is an indication to turning in the direction of the material sphere only. In the same way, the rising of the sun in the West is also most likely an indication towards the political rise of the Western nations.[2]

The summary of this excerpt is that he believes that Dajjāl is not an actual specific person but rather that it refers to the emergence of Ya’jūj and Ma’jūj; and that Ya’jūj and Ma’jūj refers to the Western nations. This is essentially a rejection of the true Muslim beliefs regarding Dajjāl, Ya’jūj and Ma’jūj. His views are nothing but a modernist distortion of Muslim beliefs. Pertaining to these issues, Javed Ghamidi has adopted a view that contradicts and conflicts with the beliefs of the rest of the Muslim Ummah. None of the early or latter day scholars have made such manifestly false and heretical, rationalist, materialist, modernist/deformist interpretations.

Perhaps Javed Ghamidi can inform us about his reasoning behind adopting these stray views and then, despite them, going to live within a nation that he falsely interprets to be Ya’jūj and Ma’jūj.

RELATED: Pervez Musharraf (1943-2023): The Disgraceful Career of a Liberal Agent


Source: Ghāmidiyyat Kiyā He?, ‘Abdur-Raḥīm Chāryārī, Jāmi’ah Ḥanafiyyah Imdād Town, Faisalabad, Pakistan pp.120-123

  1. Monthly Ishrāq, January 1996, p.61 
  2. Ibid 

Follow Mufti Abdullah on Twitter: @MuftiAMoolla


Who Are the ”Madkhalis”?

In a recent article, we wrote about the Islamic Awakening Movement (also known as the “Sahwa”), a social protest movement that arose in Saudi Arabia during the ’90s as a reaction to the government’s decision to allow American troops into the land of the Two Holy Mosques.

The state cracked down hard on the movement, which included imprisoning its leaders as well as hundreds of its supporters. However, there was a more subversive strategy employed by the Saudi Government, one that was more effective at weakening the appeal of the Sahwa Movement.

With the emergence of “countermovements,” which were actively supported by the government, they were able to weaken the appeal of the protests and divert people’s attention away from criticizing and critiquing the royal family and, instead, getting them to focus on creating divisions between different Muslim groups.

One such countermovement is that of the so called “Madkhalis” or “Jamis” as they are also known, referred to as such after the name of their founder, Muhammad Aman al-Jami. They have also been known as “the scholars (‘ulama’) of Madinah,” due to the most eminent among them having been based there, primarily at the Islamic University.[1]

Who are the “Madkhalis”?

How did they originate and why?

And were they really a created by the Saudi secret police?

These are the questions that we will be exploring in the course of this brief article.

The Age-Old Question: Da’wah or Politics?

Shaykh Rabi’ bin Hadi al-Madkhali is its most well-known figure, right up to this very day. He was born in 1931, and he taught until the late 1990s in the Faculty of Hadith at the Islamic University of Madina. As a student of al-Albani, in the 1970s he had briefly joined the group known as Al-Jama’at al-Salafiyyat al-Muhtasibah (this was, of course, Juhayman al-Otaybi’s group).[2]

After the disastrous 1979 siege of Makkah, al-Madkhali had somehow managed to not go to prison, and, thereafter, he had demonstrated an immense sense of loyalty towards the regime. In the late 1980s, he made a name for himself within the Saudi religious field through his authorship of a book entitled The Method Followed by the Prophets in Religious Preaching Contains Wisdom and Reason. Herein he argued that the priority in matters of da’wah should be the purification of the Muslim creed (aqidah).[3]

This cuts right down to the core of Muslim disagreement in the modern age—the battle between those who say we must first secure a strong political structure which will protect the Muslims and those who say we must first educate the people on correct beliefs and then turn our focus to the government thereafter.

RELATED: [WATCH] Saajid Lipham and the Madkhali Virus

The first group believes that securing a strong political entity will also rectify the problem of a lack of knowledge among the population (this is because you gain control of the educational institutions). The latter group, on the other hand, believes that by correcting wrong beliefs, this will somehow manage to end up trickling upwards and impact the government.

A Creation of the Secret Police or a Mere Tool of the Government?

As tensions between the Sahwa Movement and the Saudi government intensified, al-Madkhali was one of the first among the fraternity of religious scholars to openly criticize the Sahwa Movement and their scholars. He was soon joined in his criticism by other figures who were loyal to the royal family, and thus the Madkhali movement was formed.

In return for their loyalty, the Saudi government provided a huge amount of support towards this new countermovement, notably through the minister of the interior, Prince Nayef:

“The significant material and institutional resources it soon had at its disposal made it attractive to those who felt marginalized in the social arena or in the religious field”.[4]

The Madkhalis focused on two things, namely fierce opposition against the Sahwa; and demonstrating intense loyalty to the Saudi royal family. They labelled the Sahwis as Muslim Brotherhood and accused them of having deviant aqidah despite the Sahwis themselves identifying as belonging to the same Athari creed. Safar al-Hawali had actually even dedicated entire books to denouncing what he deemed to be the “deviations” of Sufis and Ash’aris.[5]

To get around this obvious problem, the Madkhalis introduced a new distinction:

“These Sahwis may be salafis’ in terms of creed (‘aqidah), but their methodology (manhaj) is not orthodox.”

In other words: These Muslims may very well have sound ‘aqidah according to us, but the methods they employ are blameworthy innovations (bida’), thus they are not true ‘salafis’ like us.[6]

The Madkhalis also targeted the Sahwis’ interest in politics, which had allegedly turned them away from ‘ilm (sacred knowledge). To the Madkhalis, obedience to the government was an absolute obligation. They denounced the Sahwis’ hostility towards existing regimes and accused them of hizbiyyah, i.e., factionalism. The Madkhalis’ eagerness to support the Saudi regime led Sahwi leaders to mockingly accuse them of being a “party of the rulers” (hizb al-wulat).[7]

The Madkhalis’ principal form of action was to produce dozens of refutations (rudud) against the writings and declarations of the Sahwi scholars. The Madkhalis also increased in their public lectures with the support of the authorities, who hastened to secure venues for them to lecture at. This went to the extent that they actually imposed themselves within the mosque where Safar al-Hawali would regularly teach.

On a particular occasion, al-Suhaymi and Abd al-Razzaq al-‘Abbad (two Madkhali scholars) were sent to Buraydah by the Ministry of Islamic Affairs to uphold the Madkhali line when they were interrupted, while preaching, by young Sahwis who had cut the electricity, disabling the loudspeaker and chanting:

“Buraydah rejects you, you [Madkhali]!”[8]

The Madkhalis also made a habit of writing reports on their opponents, which they would then send to the secret police. They urged for cooperation with the secret police, with the aim of encouraging them to act against their rivals. One such report was instrumental in convincing the Saudi government to support the Madkhalis.

The report in question is titled: The Secret World Organization, between Planning and Application in Saudi Arabia – Documents and Facts. Its authors identify themselves as “the loyal salafis” and denounce the existence of a secret Islamist organization inspired by the ideology of Sayyid Qutb, which they allege had the goal of overthrowing the regime. Within this report, they went so far as to accuse the Sahwa of having ties with foreign groups and urged the government to put an end to the activities of the organization.[9]

Based on the above, it can perhaps be concluded that the Madkhali countermovement really was a creation of the Saudi secret police, who viewed it as a chance to use the group in order to deter criticism away from the regime. Furthermore, it can be said that even if the Saudi intelligence community did not have a direct hand in the creation of the group, nonetheless the movement did, whether knowingly or unknowingly, serve as a convenient tool in the hands of government, one that was used to deflect criticism away from them.

RELATED: A Response to Supposed “Islamic” Objections Against Khilafah


[1] Lacroix, Stéphane. Awakening Islam, Harvard University Press, 2011, p.212.

[2] Yaroslav Trofimov, The Siege of Mecca (New York, Doubleday, 2007).

[3] Awakening Islam, p.212.

[4] Ibid., p.213.

[5] See: Safar al-Hawali, Manhaj al-Asha’irah fi-l-’Aqidah [The Methodology of the Ash’arites in Creed],; al-Hawali, Al-Radd ‘ala-l-Khurafiyyin [Refutation of the Superstitious],

[6] Awakening Islam, p. 215.

[7] Ibid., p. 216.

[8] Ibid., p. 217.

[9] Abu Qatada al-Filastini, Bayna Manhajayn – Halaqah raqm 76 [Between Two Methodologies – Part 76],


Kick Feminism to the Curb! Contentment in Marriage and Motherhood

I am happy to be a traditional housewife.

I’m content with being a homemaker, a wife who plays a supporting role to my husband’s lead role. I’m busy enough in my position as a stay-at-home, as a mother homeschooling five children, alhamdulillah, that I do not wish for any further responsibilities to be placed upon my shoulders.

I feel completely fulfilled and at peace within my feminine frame, alhamdulillah. Thus, I have no desire to warp my essence or defy my fitrah (natural innate disposition) by trying to assume a masculine frame; or by competing with my husband; or by becoming independent of him.

I’m perfectly fine with being dependent on my husband—financially, emotionally, physically and so on.

Yet strangely enough, in today’s world, many people would consider my position in life to be precarious, perhaps even downright stupid.

“Why would you put yourself in this vulnerable position, so utterly dependent on a man?”

“Why don’t you want to go out there and get a job so you can make money just for yourself, independent of your husband’s income? You know, just in case…”

And, that’s when all the what-ifs start:

“What if he leaves you?”

“What if he cheats on you?”

“What if he abuses you?”

“What if he decides to go and marry a second wife?”

“What if he dies and leaves you behind as a widow with five children and then, you and your kids starve and become homeless?”

“What if you get bored with him; stop loving him; or drift apart, growing distant in your marriage? You’ll be trapped in a loveless marriage!”

Sorry, but I don’t want to live my life consumed by fear about potential disasters. I simply refuse to make decisions borne of pessimism. I will not allow my life choices to come from a place of manufactured anxiety and dread.

This fear is a fake fear. It is a fear that is artificially induced and pumped into the hearts and minds of women by the secularized modern world. It is intentionally manufactured by deliberate agents, much like fake designer handbags or shoes that are made in China.

The truth is, marriage has always been like this, endowed with a certain degree of risk. And that goes for both the man and the woman. There is a level of inherent uncertainty when it comes to marriage. If they allowed it to, these what-ifs could scare both the husband and the wife into actually destroying their marriage rather than doing their best to live happily together in harmony.

RELATED: A Message for Muslim Males: Traditional Muslim Women Are Counting on You…

But, for some reason, we seem to forget that marriage is not the only endeavor in life that involves risk. Everything does!

What if you lose your iman (faith) at school and become an atheist?

What if you spend decades of your life obtaining degrees but can’t find a job in this economy?

What if you get a job that you hate?

What if your manager at work is an abusive narcissist?

What if you devote all your time, effort, energy and ideas to a company and, one day, they decide to fire you for absolutely no reason whatsoever, only to replace you the very next day with someone younger, smarter or more physically capable?

What if you remain loyal to a company and work for them for years, allowing them to them make millions of dollars off your hard work and they make you redundant after having robbed you of your best years, then you find yourself all alone, without a husband or children or a family and, at this point, it’s just too late for you to be able to get all of those things?

What if you die alone and miserable, as a lonely retired career woman?

I mean, we could keep playing the what-if game all day long.

Only Allah knows the ghayb (the realm of the unseen). We have no knowledge or certainty regarding what is going to happen tomorrow; or how the decisions we make will end up affecting us; or how our choices will play out in the future.

وَعِندَهُ مَفَاتِحُ الْغَيْبِ لَا يَعْلَمُهَا إِلَّا هُوَ ۚ وَيَعْلَمُ مَا فِي الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ ۚ وَمَا تَسْقُطُ مِن وَرَقَةٍ إِلَّا يَعْلَمُهَا وَلَا حَبَّةٍ فِي ظُلُمَاتِ الْأَرْضِ وَلَا رَطْبٍ وَلَا يَابِسٍ إِلَّا فِي كِتَابٍ مُّبِينٍ

Moreover, with Him are the keys of the [realms of the] unseen. No one knows [of] them but Him. And He knows, [as well,] all that is in the land and the sea. Not even a leaf falls but He knows it. Nor is there a [single] grain [hidden] within [the veils of] the darkness of the earth — nor anything moist [therein] nor anything withered — but that it is [recorded] in a clear Book [preserved in Heaven]. (Surat al-An’am, verse 59)

إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عِندَهُۥ عِلْمُ ٱلسَّاعَةِ وَيُنَزِّلُ ٱلْغَيْثَ وَيَعْلَمُ مَا فِى ٱلْأَرْحَامِ ۖ وَمَا تَدْرِى نَفْسٌۭ مَّاذَا تَكْسِبُ غَدًۭا ۖ وَمَا تَدْرِى نَفْسٌۢ بِأَىِّ أَرْضٍۢ تَمُوتُ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ خَبِيرٌۢ

Indeed, with Allah, Himself, [alone] is knowledge of [when] the Hour [of Judgment shall come]. And it is He [alone] who sends down the rain. And it is He [alone] who knows [everything about] all that is in the wombs. And no soul apprehends [its destiny as to] what it will earn tomorrow. And no soul apprehends [its destiny as to] the land in which it will die. Indeed, Allah is all-knowing, all-aware. (Surah Luqman, verse 34)

Therefore, the best we can do is simply follow our naturally feminine fitrah as women and surrender to our human nature to pair bond with a spouse and create a family. Then, once we’ve made the decision to do that, we can use the means that we have at our disposal to vet our options thoroughly and move forward accordingly with full tawakkul (reliance) on Allah.

Risk is inescapable in this dunya (temporal, worldly abode). We must be capable of accepting this fact as reality.

Getting a higher education won’t erase risk.

Having a successful career won’t erase risk.

Possessing our own personal wealth won’t erase risk.

Life involves risk. Yes, getting married and relying on your husband carries some degree of risk. But so does accumulating lots of educational degrees and having a high-profile career.

RELATED: No, Muslim Women Don’t Need Careers To Be Empowered

However, in the modern feminist liberal world, we have been trained to zero in like an eagle on certain specific kinds of risk and to completely ignore others. We have developed a massive blind spot.

The only thing we’ve been brainwashed to identify (and hyper-focus on) are the risks of getting married, having children and working cooperatively with the husband. Yet these are the very things that most of us women yearn for within the deepest depths of our hearts. We dream about this stuff from when we’re little girls.

At the same time, we’ve been brainwashed to NOT recognize the risks of spending decades pursuing a secular, liberal western education and sacrificing our best years for an employer to whom we are just another faceless number. This path supposedly makes us “safe” somehow, but it leaves us miserable and full of regret.

This brainwashing is a long, subtle, delicate process, and it relies heavily on manufacturing fear and peddling it to the female masses. It entails sowing seeds of mistrust towards men, inducing suspicion against marriage and an all-consuming dread of motherhood.

The best way to fight this fear is to have fear only of Allah and to have full tawakkul on Him and the system that He has designed for us.

وَخَلَقْنَاكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا

[Have We not] created you in pairs [as males and females]? (Surat al-Naba’, verse 8)

Under the tafsir (explanation) of this ayah (verse), Ibn Kathir writes:

يعني : ذكرا وأنثى ، يستمتع كل منهما بالآخر ، ويحصل التناسل بذلك.

Meaning: as males and females, each of them enjoying the other, and procreation results therefrom.

What a beautiful and simple way of looking at things. We are meant to enjoy ourselves and one another! Imagine being open, trusting and vulnerable enough to actually enjoy your spouse! Not to be bogged down by fear; or suspicion; or mistrust. But just to enjoy and relish one another!

So have trust in Allah. Have trust in His system. Have trust in the fitrah upon which He has created us. Allow yourself to trust your husband and enjoy his company, affection, generosity, care, etc. Allow yourself to commit fully to your marriage and to motherhood, and take comfort in knowing that you are living a life with purpose, surrounded by loved ones.

Do not allow others to push you into avenues that go against your nature as a woman. Do not be dragged away from your natural source of happiness and fulfillment. Especially when what they are luring you towards will neither make you happy nor will it save you from risk.

Want to learn about traditional Islamic wifehood in depth? Enroll in Umm Khalid’s Extended Online Course at Alasna Institute.


LUMS: Pakistan’s US-Sponsored Feminist Factory

A few days ago, Pakistan’s Twitter was set ablaze due to what was a pretty odd display. University students were seen celebrating some supposed “Bollywood Day.” And besides the absurdity of their dress-up attire, observers noted that it was an unwanted and unwarranted tribute to India’s main cinema industry, one which has, over the decades, promoted both anti-Pakistan and anti-Islam tropes.

This fiasco took place at LUMS, i.e., the Lahore University of Management and Sciences.

LUMS had also hosted the following event just a few days ago:

LUMS: A Liberal-Feminist Lab

It’s not even the first time that LUMS stands accused of blatant liberal and feminist activism. It regularly hosts feminist or feminist-oriented conferences, and some of the academics that are affiliated with the institution, such as Nida Kirmani (associate professor of sociology), are public figures who regularly take proactive stances when it comes to “women’s empowerment.”

Pervez Hoodbhoy, perhaps the most famous liberal-secularist activist in the country, also had a brief career with LUMS but was eventually ousted for apparently not fulfilling his administrative duties, which included recruiting faculty members and mentoring junior faculty members.

You could make a pretty long list of former and current LUMS academics who harbor nefarious agendas—for example, there’s Sara Shroff’s “digital feminist theory.”

It is thus no wonder then, that in eyes of Pakistan’s public, LUMS is associated with liberalism, feminism and, more generally, progressivism.

What could explain this phenomenon?

Well, it’s probably the American dollars.

LUMS was founded in the ’80s by businessmen who wished to cater to professional managers that aimed to optimize their enterprises. It was modeled upon the Harvard Business School, where the founder of LUMS, Syed Babar Ali, himself was educated; emulating, in particular, the school’s teaching methods.

Initially, it held classes within rented buildings and houses of Gulberg, a town in Lahore. Then, however, in 1989, some 10 million US dollars from the United States Agency for International Development money (USAID) ensured that LUMS now has a 100-acre permanent campus.

Thanks to US dollars, LUMS transformed from being a business school, instead to a university that focuses on research in the social sciences in particular—namely, in subjects such as anthropology and sociology. After all, you wouldn’t be able to inject your feminist rhetoric into the other sciences as effectively as you could in these.

As mentioned explicitly on its website, USAID has an entire Gender Equality and Female Empowerment program that it employs in Pakistan.

A few months ago, the US allocated no less than $200 million towards “gender equity and equality programs” in Pakistan.

It goes without saying that the liberal-feminist astroturfing in LUMS (and elsewhere) will utilize all of this American money for its teaching programs, conferences and more, in order to enact the “campus culture wars” that can often be seen in the Anglosphere, with its own rotten brand of SJWs.

Readers will thus be able to see the larger picture:

LUMS is not something organic to the country. It is an obvious PSYOP on a much larger academic scale, one that finds its rationale and perhaps even its existence in the continuous outpouring of US support, particularly US money.

RELATED: NYC: “Muslim” Feminist Unveils Satanic Statue Dedicated to Abortion

Is LUMS Representative of Pakistan?

Pakistan is a large country. In the official 2017 census, its population was estimated at being close to 220 million. However, mut more recent estimates put bring it closer to 250 million.

It goes without saying that the faculty and even the student body at large in LUMS is not at all representative of the wider trends within the general population of Pakistan.

In fact, the reality is that they would likely be at odds with the average Pakistani.

This becomes quite evident when examining the findings of the World Values Survey (WVS), which describes itself as follows:

The World Values Survey ( is a global network of social scientists studying changing values and their impact on social and political life, led by an international team of scholars, with the WVS association and secretariat headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden.

The survey, which started in 1981, seeks to use the most rigorous, high-quality research designs in each country. The WVS consists of nationally representative surveys conducted in almost 100 countries which contain almost 90 percent of the world’s population, using a common questionnaire. The WVS is the largest non-commercial, cross-national, time series investigation of human beliefs and values ever executed, currently including interviews with almost 400,000 respondents. Moreover the WVS is the only academic study covering the full range of global variations, from very poor to very rich countries, in all of the world’s major cultural zones.

The WVS seeks to help scientists and policy makers understand changes in the beliefs, values and motivations of people throughout the world. Thousands of political scientists, sociologists, social psychologists, anthropologists and economists have used these data to analyze such topics as economic development, democratization, religion, gender equality, social capital, and subjective well-being. These data have also been widely used by government officials, journalists and students, and groups at the World Bank have analyzed the linkages between cultural factors and economic development.

In its “Wave 7” (from 2017 to 2022) findings, we find that Pakistani women tend to actually be more traditionalist and less secular the more “educated” they are:

Counter-intuitive stats: In Pakistan, women who are more educated tend to be more religious & nationalistic, & less ‘secular.’ The trend is surprisingly linear—most educated women display the highest levels of religiosity & nationalism, & the least secularization (and vice versa)

You can peruse the numbers on WVS’ Online Data Analysis.

This aligns with trends that exist elsewhere in the Muslim world, something that is also highlighted in the important Inglehart–Welzel world cultural map. Its latest edition was released just a few days ago:

All of these statistics must be borne in mind when we’re tempted to make generalizations about any Muslim-majority society, especially when virtually all of these societies are victims of some kind of elite takeover, by an elite that represents the interests of some Western capital rather than those of their “own” populations.

RELATED: Pervez Musharraf (1943-2023): The Disgraceful Career of a Liberal Agent


Stop Colonizing Religion with LGBT: #DecolonizeReligion

Obergefell vs. Hodges may sound familiar, and that’s because it’s the gay marriage Supreme Court case. Justice Alito explicitly raises the possibility that if gay marriage is legalized, then there won’t be much ground to oppose legalized polyamory (two men and two women together, etc.).

Here’s an excerpt from the oral arguments of the case:

Justice Alito: “Suppose we rule in your favor in this case, and then after that a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?”

Lawyer for Obergefell: “I believe so your honor.”

Justice Alito: “What would be the reason?”

Lawyer for Obergefell: “There would be two, one whether the state would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons…”

Justice Scalia: “I didn’t understand your answer.”

Justice Alito: What if these are four people, two men and two women—it’s not the sort of…polygamous relationship that exists in other societies and still exists in some societies today, and let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers. What would be the ground under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case, what would be the logic of denying them the same right?”

The lawyer tries to deny the possibility. Her answer is a variation of her earlier answer above, with additions about how such a union could even work, particularly if it is then dissolved. It seems she’s working through it as she goes (pages 19-20). Alito seemed unconvinced and, as we can now see, he was right to be.

Here’s something else she says which is simply not true:

“…there is…a social science consensus that there’s nothing about the sex or sexual orientation of the parent that is going to affect child outcomes. And this isn’t just the research about gay people. It’s research about…the effect of gender for 50 years.” (21)

At the very least, in the social-science world such an assertion is highly disputed. For us as Muslims (and for most human beings that have walked this earth), we know that what she’s saying is nonsensical.

The conservative justices lost this case, and their predictions are now becoming reality. What was also embedded in their questions to the lawyer was something even deeper than the definition of ‘marriage.’ If who can get married to whom is something that can be changed, then why wouldn’t the path for other types of sexual relationships and other displays of sexuality also become acceptable?

The New One Percent

Homosexual behavior as well as, let’s say, other activities associated with LGBTQ+-identification is deviant by nature of the fact that they do indeed deviate from the norm. This is why gay people, trans people, ‘non-binary’ people, etc., account for around a mere 1% of the world’s global population.

RELATED: Study Shows Disgust Reactions to Homosexuality

From our bug-pushing friends at the World Economic Forum (June 2021):

As has been pointed out many times by now, the rise of LGBTQ+-identification among the younger generation is likely due to the fact that they have been confused and given many options from which to experiment with. It is actually not too dissimilar to fashion trends. One year, everyone’s wearing bell-bottoms, the next, it’s skinny jeans. That may come across as somewhat reductive, but young people in particular are impressionable and subject to society’s whims as they make their way in the world and try to forge identities for themselves.

RELATED: Disney Commits to Pushing LGBT: What Muslim Parents Should Know

Religious Discrimination & ‘Humanizing’ LGBTQ

This video is actually about the work of Gay and Lesbian Alliance Defamation (GLAAD), an organization in the US that tries to de-stigmatize LGBTQ-whatever behavior by ensuring that these groups are represented in the media, in shows, etc.

From this same embedded video, a GLAAD employee explains the following about their approach to normalizing homosexuality around the world:

“It’s really about humanizing who we are and telling our stories, so that’s about getting into scripts, in television, into movies, storylines about LGBTQI people so that people who don’t know personally someone who is transgender, someone who’s gay, learn through media….And so if you look back to India, decriminalizing LGBTQI 2 years go [2018], a lot of that was led by business leaders and us working with business leaders to bring about an awareness to education…”

Just at it is interesting that the WEF is pushing for rights that are more about sexual desire than anything else, it is equally as interesting that the most critical group that GLAAD mentioned was business leaders and not, say, civil society leaders.

What’s more is that we don’t really need these stories to be ‘humanized.’ We are not incapable of seeing that these people are people with feelings, challenges, good aspects, bad aspects and desires. We simply disagree with acting on these types of desires. We believe that acting on them is harmful for both the individual and society.

So, why would they need to be ‘humanized’ for us?

This implies that we’re incapable of seeing people as people.

I would argue that Islam in fact gives us far more ‘humanity’ than the culture of the Western liberal world, one that is so focused on sodomy and dressing like the opposite sex (as if wearing a dress and liking pink is the ultimate indication of feminity) that they have little time these days to see the harms they commit around the world.

RELATED: The Inhumanity of the US Army Laid Bare

Strangely though, this campaign works. Go around explaining to people, no matter how patronizing you may be about it, that they need to understand how LGBTQ+ people have feelings too.

Being racist typically involves hating a person based on superficial things like skin tone. This is not what being against homosexuality entails. At its heart, it is being against acting on certain desires—desires that, when allowed, open up the path for even more deviant desires to be normalized, which is precisely what we are now seeing.

This is why the Republicans have a problem. Many of them ‘don’t care’ about homosexuality, but they are very bothered by the various other forms of deviance that are now being permitted.

Our Own Campaign

Rather than Compassionate Imams bending over backwards to not offend, perhaps we should have campaigns to explain why these activities are wrong. Right now, it’s the pro-Israel Daily Wire that even pretends to take up this activity (at least in terms of the wide-reaching, more-mainstream media outlets), and when it comes to articulating why homosexuality is wrong, they’re pretty weak sauce.

Let’s make the campaign slogan something like this:

Stop Colonizing Religion.

Aren’t these people also Social Justice Warriors? Then they need to understand that they, the WEF and their buddies in business need to cease with their colonial attempts to cleanse our faith (and most traditional societies) of what they perceive as inhumane and savage.

Consider how they would respond to the answers of this Masai man when asked if a man can be a woman. Would the SJWs dare to call this man transphobic? Would they patronize him and see him as not yet enlightened? I’d guess probably the latter.


RELATED: Human Rights: A Tool for Governing Muslims


A Message for Muslim Males: Traditional Muslim Women Are Counting on You…

Muslim men, stay strong, and do not cave to the system.

Don’t cave to the system’s conception of “modern masculinity,” i.e., being a simp.

Don’t cave to vague and vacuous notions of “toxic masculinity.”

Don’t cave to feminism or being “an ally.”

Don’t cave to the expectation that you place the entire genus of womankind on a pedestal.

Don’t cave to the modern demand that you become emasculated and effeminate.

Don’t cave to the dictate that you live in your feelings.

Don’t cave to accusations that your masculinity is “dangerous” or “toxic” or “scary.”

Don’t cave to the mistranslation and distortion of men being “qawwamun” over women (الرجال قوامون على النساء) means merely being their “maintainers,” i.e., the servants of women rather than authorities over them.

ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّٰمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍۢ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُوا۟ مِنْ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ ۚ فَٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتُ قَـٰنِتَـٰتٌ حَـٰفِظَـٰتٌۭ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَٱلَّـٰتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّۭا كَبِيرًۭا

Men have whole charge over their wives, because Allah has favored the one above the other, and because they have spent well of their wealth: So righteous women are lovingly obedient, dutifully keeping everything secure when their husbands are gone through Allah’s own protection; While those who you fear may show rude defiance, first patiently admonish them, then draw away from them in bed, and failing all else, you may finally even strike them: And if they return to obedience, seek no way against them: Verily was Allah ever exalted in might over you, supreme in greatness. (Qur’an, 4:34)

Don’t cave to social pressure urging you to seek out a “strong, empowered, independent, highly educated career woman” to marry so she can help you pay the bills.

Don’t cave to the claim that you marrying the traditional type of woman, the kind you really want to marry, means that you are somehow “insecure” or “intimidated” by the stunning amazingness of modern feminists.

Don’t cave to the popular sentiment that gender roles are oppressive.

RELATED: What Gender Roles Should Muslims Aspire To?

Don’t cave to the ridiculous notion that you, as the husband, must bend over backwards to cater to your wife’s every whim and desire or that you are required to fulfill her every fancy.

Don’t cave to the expectations for you to step aside and let your wife wear the pants in the relationship.

Don’t cave to the pressure of the weaponized feelings and tears of women that are meant to hold you hostage.

Don’t cave to the demands that you become a dayyuth without honor or masculine protective jealousy over your women.

RELATED: Ghayrah: A Vital Muslim Trait in Increasing Decline

Don’t cave to the prevalent trend of becoming sedentary, complacent and distracted by useless time-wasting activities such as video games or screens over those that actually increase your masculine vigor, vitality and virtue.

Don’t cave to the call for androgyny.

Don’t abdicate your male authority or your masculine role for anything or anyone. You will have to stand alone before Allah and answer for how well you fulfilled your responsibilities as leader, authority, provider, protector and imam over your family, community and society.

So stay strong, manly, assertive, determined, brave, principled, confident, stoic, responsible, unyielding against injustoce and illicit behaviors. Stay fully within your leadership role and masculine frame.

Don’t cave to the system which seeks to strip you entirely of all your natural traits and strives to warp your fitrah (natural, innate disposition).

So please don’t cave.

We, the traditional women, are counting on you to remain traditional men.

RELATED: Masculinity in Islam: Masculine Assertiveness and Authority


Atheist Logic 101: Examining the Link Between Religion and Intelligence

Ustadh Daniel Haqiqatjou recently debated Aaron Ra, an ardent representative of idiotic atheism. Ra argued the typical nonsensical rubbish that we are so accustomed to hearing from new atheism. As one of his actual arguments, he said that atheists have higher IQ scores than theists, attempting to demonstrate how atheism is true but theists are ultimately just too stupid to understand this “fact.”

Here are some interesting statistics (taken from a 2019 Forbes article) that we can show Aaron and his ilk:

This comparison between the current IQ scores with the number of Nobel Prize winners and the standardized school level of each country is interesting. Why? Because it is supposed to provide an indication of where each country is situated intellectually, past; present; and future.

Nobel Prizes illustrate the intellectual prowess of those who were educated yesterday. IQs reveal the intellectual capabilities of the current population. School levels indicate the potential of the next generation.

In addition to this, these metrics are generally accepted by atheists themselves, and there is no greater satisfaction than beating an opponent at their own game. As for us, as Muslims, we shouldn’t afford too much credit to these tests, especially since they often conceal a lot of antagonistic, normative criteria under the false pretense of neutral descriptivism.

Keep in mind that the Nobel Prizes are a very biased and controversial institution which is known to have, throughout its history, favored certain select demographics over others. As for IQ scores, they were developed by materialistic atheists that hold a subjective view of what constitutes “valuable cognitive capacities” and what does not.

RELATED: Latest Arab Youth Survey: Less Democracy and More Shariah Please!

Scientific theories and models are always changing, and no psychiatrist in the world to date can claim to have developed an exhaustive and comprehensive theory of intelligence. The study of intelligence is a field that contains many competing theories and models. To rely so heavily on such shallow metrics is already an L for atheists.

In any case, the statistics displayed above provide us with an interesting conclusion regarding the correlation between religiosity and intelligence. Contrary to the claims and predictions of these know-it-all atheists, many liberal and atheistic countries are actually in intellectual decline. For instance, consider France, which has one of the largest non-religious populations in the world and is declining rapidly in terms of intelligence. Look also at how low the Czech Republic is on the board, while being one of the most atheistic countries in the world.

In fact, the intellectual decline of these atheistic countries could very well indicate the exact opposite of what they claim. If we follow their line of thinking, irreligiosity may actually be correlated with stupidity. Now I must admit myself that this would not be a very reliable conclusion. The reason for this is that these changes are more likely an indication that Nobel Prizes, IQs and School Levels are linked to socioeconomic factors.

This just goes to show just how incompetent these atheists really are. They try to establish all kinds of corresponding links in order to try and score points, but they refuse to confront the hollowness of their empty philosophy.

There is a valuable lesson to be taken away here:

Don’t be fooled by random statistics presented to you by insincere perverted morons, and always thoroughly scrutinise their shallow arguments.

RELATED: Arabs Are Getting More Religious. Why Isn’t Western Media Reporting It?