The Modernist Menace To Islam by Daniel Haqiqatjou

Both left and right wing critics of Islam appeal to philosophical liberalism in their critiques of Islam, employing concepts like freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of dress, gender equality, separation of church and state, etc.

Please keep in mind that a losing strategy is to argue back against these critics that these liberal concepts are indeed Islamic and that Islam endorses these notions. (Yes, there are Islamic positions that can be conceivably understood as partially supporting some of these notions, but it’s a highly conditioned endorsement at best.)

Even if Muslims accept every contemporary Western practice related to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of dress, gender equality, marriage equality, etc., it will never be enough. Even if Muslims start performing gay weddings in Mecca today, tomorrow the West will ask why there are no transvestite, cross dressing imams leading prayers in the haram! And if tomorrow, they bring tranny imams to the haram, the day after, there will be a new criticism of Islam being “too restrictive” compared to the ever-evolving, ever-progressing West.

This is the nature of progressivism, which is the pillar of Western thought and culture. According to this philosophy, constant change is necessary and good. To remain stagnant is to fall behind and end up on the “wrong side of history.” This philosophy, of course, is completely contrary to Islam (and all traditions because traditions require depending on the past). We know as Muslims that the best of times were in the past, with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the salaf and things have been deteriorating ever since. We can never win the battle of “Who is more progressive? Who is more free?” So we shouldn’t play a losing game. Our winning strategy should be to say that these concepts of liberty, freedom, etc., are incoherent for such and such reasons and they don’t contribute to justice and goodness, and Islam offers the best alternatives for humanity for such and such reasons. This is the blueprint for all such debates with modernist progressives.