The Ideological Divide Between Islam and the West

{“Some people view the current situation with the middle east as a clash of civilizations. I think it’s more than that, way more than that. I think it’s an outright declaration of war from radical Islam on western culture, on the Judeo-Christian culture, and we should know that. It’s a declaration of war.” } Nonie Darwish


The Ideological divide

This issue itself is rarely grasped by the Muslims and is not even grasped in the non Muslim world on an intellectual level save the antagonists of Islam and certain think tanks and policy makers. Most of the known world merely accepts the premise that western civilization and Islam are total polar opposites with regard to their cultural views, values, and its beliefs. In my entire research, I have found only a handful, and I mean a virtual handful of Muslims who understood the categorical realities that demarcate Islam so drastically from Western culture.

The following are the actual categories of why Islam differs from the west so greatly.

1.    The view of what role and level does human intellect play

2.    The issue of freedom: Who has the right to tell me what to do

3.    Who decides what is good and what is bad and do these two change by time or not

4.    The transformability of good and evil due to time and place

5.    The conceptual understanding of equality

6.    The Christian relationship between the individual and the ruler being likened to the Muslim relationship with the ruler and the ruled

7.    The understanding of love and hate between the west and Islam

These few topics by themselves are the pivotal reasons and represent the base aspects that clearly bring forth the clarity of difference between the west and Islam. I’ am sure that even with these points mentioned, people are still in the lurch as to what are the implications of these matters between Islamic and Western perspectives

1.    The View of What Role and Level does Human Intellect play in the Overall Scheme of Political and Social Affairs


The Islamic Approach

With regards to Islam, it has a unique position regarding where the place of intellect resides.  It was recorded by Haafidh al-Imam Abu Mudhafar as-Samaanee the following in his book “al-Hujjah”

{“The People of the Sunnah say, ‘the foundation of the religion is following (ittibaa), and the intellect is subservient.’ So if the foundation of the religion was upon the intellect, the creation would have been in no need of revelation, no prophets, and the meaning of commanding and prohibiting would be false, and whoever wished could have said whatever he wished”}


In other words, In the religion of Islam, the methodological behavioral pattern of the Muslims is one of submission through following the prophetic methodology (preserved in the texts of hadeeth) and the directives mentioned in the Qur’an, for they are the source to all that is good and beneficial to man and society at large and the protection of man from all that is a detriment to man and society at large. In fact, this is what makes a Muslim, a Muslim, for the derivative of the verb “Muslim” comes from Istislaam, meaning “to submit”. Therefore, by default of being a Muslim, the Muslim is one who submits to the will of Allah and to whatever guidance His messenger has passed to humankind and placing them at a higher level of precedence over whatever their own opinions and views might be. Thus they have made their intellects subservient to the texts, and they do not make Islam subservient to them, which is unfortunately what the antagonist of Islam wish for the Muslim world to adopt as well as some radical apostates like Irshad Manji and others who wish for the Muslims to endorse as part of their religion.

In this regard we have a Hadeeth collected by Imam al-Bukhari which was reported on the authority of Ali that

{“If the religion was based on the intellect, the bottom of the sock would take preference in being wiped instead of the top of the sock.”}[1]

For those who don’t understand what he was referring to, regarding ritual ablution before the prayer, one of the practices that was shown by the prophet was to wipe over the top of the socks (once one had ablution already and wore socks after performing it) by which his ablution would be complete. What the prophet’s companion, Ali, was saying is that according to the intellect of men, it would make more sense to wipe over the bottom of the sock, since we walk on the bottom and not the top, thus the bottom becoming dirty while the top remaining clean, but Ali was explaining that the religion, from its basis, does not rely on nor is it founded, nor is it to be defended and understood from the sole route of the human intellect alone. Rather the human intellect reserves itself as secondary while placing the revelation as primary to human interactions and societal behavior. This is because in reality, the Arabic word “aql” meaning intellect, its very derivative meaning comes from the word “a-qa-la” which means “to hold back and restrain” which was referred to the leash when the horse rider would use to hold the horse back and or to restrain from venturing on its own. What does this have to do with the intellect? This marks the beauty of the Arabic language. It is because this reality is the essence of what the intellect does. It holds the mind from venturing on its own, wondering blindly in the wilderness of life, trying to figure things out on its own. The “aql” (read “intellect), its purpose is to hold back and restrain one from venturing out from where it has no business being thus preventing harms to it from where the intellect does not perceive.

This is why, in the Qur’an, all of the verses that speak of intellect (read “aql) and its derivatives (like fiqh, aqala, yaqiloon, ponder, reflect, etc), all have a central theme and context behind them. When Allah challenges mankind to think and use their brain, the context neutralizes the use or tool of thinking to come to the conclusion that “Allah is our Lord and who is One, not many” and “Muhammad is the Messenger of God” and “Islam is the religion ordained for humanity”.

Once, the human individual was intelligent enough to use their intellect by arriving to the ultimate reality that Allah(God) is His Lord who is the Only One deserving his worship, love and gratitude, and that Muhammad was sent as His last messenger to guide him in all affairs and was sent to be the role model for him and humankind, and that Islam is the religion to be adopted. Once the individual comes to these conclusions, then the fourth context which Allah encourages the one who accepts these realities (by which they become Muslim) is to think and ponder over the creation as Allah says in His Book

And it is He Who spread out the earth, and placed therein firm mountains and rivers and of every kind of fruits He made Zawjain Ithnaeen (two in pairs – may mean two kinds or it may mean: of two sorts, e.g. black and white, sweet and sour, small and big, etc.) He brings the night as a cover over the day. Verily, in these things, there are Ayat (proofs, evidences, lessons, signs, etc.) for people who reflect.  
  سورة الرعد  , Ar-Rad, Chapter #13, Verse #3)

Therefore, for the Muslim, pondering and using our rationale and intellect is neutralized within the realm of secular sciences like math, astronomy, and other sciences. In other words, the intellect is used to strengthen the faith of a Muslim, by which humanity is benefited by default of that, and it is not used to take the place of faith and religion.

Another factor which makes the intellect suitable for use is to attain knowledge. That is why a common person has no say with regard to the decision of a physician or medical expert, for they are not qualified to exert their own opinion in a field they have no idea or knowledge of what they are judging on. Therefore, with a lack of knowledge of a certain field, the judgment of people commenting on a particular topic is rendered unqualified by any sane person who understands how knowledge is to be understood and implemented. And this is one of the major problems the Muslim nation faces as it has within its umbrella certain groups who, in the name of “reason” and “intellectual progress” actually do not understand the grass roots of Arabic language, much less the actual sciences of jurisprudence, Usool (fundamentals of jurisprudence), shariah (Islamic law including aims of the law) hadeeth, and theology. They have absolutely no knowledge of Islam, and whatever texts they read which is unfortunately transcribed as “knowledge”, they read in their own pre-conceived notions. In other words such people do not care what Islam states on an issue, rather they have their own opinions and when they read the texts of Islam, their focus is in how to incorporate their already pre-conceived notions into the texts, only to legitimize their distorted and heretical ideas. In essence, they cause Islam to submit to their own desires rather than becoming a Muslim by submitting to the religion.

With regard to the intellect itself, there are certain undeniable proofs for the faultiness of its essence. They are the following

1.    Environment (influences on a societal level)

2.    Upbringing

3.    Education

4.    Influences of individuals

5.    Class (financially and racially)

6.    Gender

7.    Experiences

8.    Time (era one lives in)

9.    Location

10.Political climate



In essence, the human intellect is the by-product of all of these factors; each shaping the formation of an individual’s thought process. Therefore while two or a handful of individuals may agree on a number of theoretical issues, they will never agree in totality to each other, for people’s intellectual constitutions may differ from person to person, or from society to society, and such differences may be in epic proportions. Thus, with all of these factors, all limit the human intellect. The problem the Muslim world faces now on a theoretical level is that the western world has treated the role and level of the human intellect to be divine in and of themselves, even though it is not specifically stated by any particular individual per se, however it is treated as being on a level above being criticized when it comes to how the intellectual abilities of westerners deduce the basic values of ethics, morality and the fundamentals of religion.

This is why for Muslims, We have a single creed, the pure Sunni creed laid down by the first three generations of Islam, also known as al-Aqeedatu-Salaf, or stated simply, the salafi creed. All creedal talking points and theories opposing the creed of the salaf (the pious predecessors) are rendered as innovated and heretical in the eyes of the orthodox Sunni world for as long as Islam was completed by the hands of the Prophet Muhammad (salallahu alaihi wa sallam). So when the intellectual thoughts of Muslims begin to oppose the other, Allah commands the ‘believers” to resort to Allah and His Messenger for the final judgment, and such an act is rendered as what is better for us. Therefore, when the intellectual thoughts of Muslims clash, we have a divine source to unify ourselves or to render the opposing side to be false and incorrect or unislamic. However, with our western counterpart, they do not have this unifying “separate” entity which may validate which views are correct and which are not, since all the sources used within each theoretical school among the disbelieving world is based on manmade concepts that have no divine backing in and of themselves.


The Western Approach

For our western counterpart, the role of intellect takes on a more divine approach, in a sense that even if they read a spiritual scripture which they hold to be from God, they blatantly render their scripture obsolete within the context of their own opinions or whatever their own theories have concluded for themselves. In other words, religion for them became something of a personal nature by which their religion conforms to what they will and desire rather than what their prophet had ordained for them.

This approach actually has its roots in the world of philosophy. The entire western format of intellectual reason and its place in human development and sociopolitical affairs stems from the school of thought of the philosophers like Aristotle, Socrates, Philo, and others. The basic essence of the school of the philosophers is mainly themed at what they perceive to be the fact that the human intellect is what is best and is the ultimate source for guidance and the best determining factor in all situations. In other words, the intellect of a human is the criteria by which all else is judged by. This methodology, in Islam, runs contrary to the methodology of the prophets, whose basic theme regarding intellect was through subservience and submission to the Divine. This is why the philosophers regarded themselves as greater than the prophets for they felt their approach to this issue was much more befitting than the traditional prophetic approach.



2.    Freedom and who has the right to legislate my life

As for the first, with regard to individual freedom, the question arises ‘who has the right to tell me what to do’?

Within the Islamic perspective, the Muslims believe that their Lord has the right to tell them what to do. They believe that their Lord sent Messengers because He wanted guidance for mankind and because He loves us and does not wish for mankind to fail the test of this world. From the Islamic perspective, Muslims see that since their Lord, Allah is not only the Creator of everything that exists, but He as well is the Most Knowledgeable of all things by which nothing escapes from His knowledge. Likewise they also believe that Allah is the One Who is most suitable to know, deal with, and correct the affairs of humanity. In other words, they see their Lord as the One who knows mankind better than they know themselves, after all, He it is who has created them to begin with. It is due to these factors, and more, that compel the Muslim to understand, by default, that God simply is the only One who has the right to legislate in his or her life. In other words, practicing Muslims do not see the issues that the west has problems in accepting from the Muslims, like gender related rulings, to even be an issue to begin with. They feel that the practice that they do has nothing to do with gender inequality at all. To this day, after 14 centuries later, the masses of Muslim women do not view their covering of themselves as a cultural degradation of them as the west erroneously misconstrues.

Again, this is with regards to the masses. That does not mean that there are pockets of people here and there that actually believe as most of the Muslims believe. This is because there are some who claim Islam, and feel quite westernly inclined to these issues that for the most part the normal Muslim does not go through. What is most ironic is how these outcastes find their way into the media and are elevated by the media as “spokespeople of Islam” and treat them as those who properly understand Islam. Since they are given a platform by the media, it is deliberately assumed that the views of these outcastes are the views of entire masses of Muslim women throughout the world, and they further utilize the lack of our response to them as a ploy to insinuate that most, if not all, Muslim women agree with them except that “they are too afraid to voice their opinion”. The point being, Muslims, both men and women, do not hold sacrilegious views of their Lord that “He has singled out men over women” and other multifarious stereotypical western responses to our code of conduct as an individual. Islam means linguistically, not in the deduction of its legal definition, submission and that submission, if performed, brings about the desired intent of all human beings, peace. Submitting oneself to Allah is what makes one a Muslim and by default of his or her submission equals true peace for that individual and for the society at large. The key point of this matter is that the Muslim is one, who submits, and their submission is to the law of their Lord by abiding by His injunctions and whatever He sent His messenger with that as well entail commandments and prohibitions. By definition the Muslim is one who enslaves himself to his or her Lord with the reasoning that “oh my Lord, you created me, You’re the Most knowledgeable, you tell me what to do”. By definition, the Muslim is he who gives up his freedom and submits to whatever he or she believes their Lord told them to do or what not do. Similar is the case in a way that a normal sane child views their parents to know what is best for their child and whom the parents are in a station of knowledge, foresight, understanding, and capability to know what harms may come to that child from avenues of where that child cannot perceive. This is the Muslim relationship with their Lord. That is why a saying from the Muslims who practice the religion correctly is well known. The saying goes that “the one who tried to leave the guidance of the sunnah (the prophetic methodology) treads a longer path than the one who traverses upon the sunnah, for such a one took the long way to security” This statement originally was a response to the practitioners of religious innovation, but such a statement is significantly needed to put our relationship with our Lord in context for the non Muslim readers.


For our western counterparts, they have a completely different approach to the question of “who has the right to tell me what to do”. This approach is best summed up in one line.

“Nobody! I’ am the only one who can think for myself.  I m a free man”


Even those who are known for religiosity in the west, most of them behave with their Creator in a way that “well, I believe in God, so I am okay to do with what I want, as long as I don’t do those things that I (i.e. my intellect) deems as wrong”

Thus, such a one does not even center their life on the ruling of their Lord, but the ruling of what they legislate for themselves even if there is a specific scriptural biblical text that advises against what their mind already convinced them of otherwise.

This is why I have boldly stated that the modern religious views or philosophical outlook of life present in the west is not Christianity no more; rather it is hedonism and humanism at its grass roots.

The westerner’s outlook on this question is more centered on an egotistical and self centered outlook at how life should operate on this planet whereas the Islamic outlook on this very question is centered towards a selfless aspect at how life should operate on this planet.

The issue goes deeper than that. One may bring forth the idea that caring for oneself is a part of human nature and therefore one should use himself as the criteria for judging all matters in order to justify whatever desires such a one wishes to carry out. Again the two views differ greatly.

For the Islamic view, the Muslim sees himself as a traveler in this life. It was narrated by the prophet Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa sallam) in which he said

“the life of the believer in this world is like a traveler who saw a tree and stopped, and rested, and woke up and kept on going”

In other words, the Muslim in the Islamic sense does not allow him or herself to be swooned or carried away by the glamour of whatever this world has to offer. Rather he or she reserves the glitter of joy and fulfillment of their desires for the afterlife. The Muslims reason that man, by default, is created wanting everything. They want every speck of material joy and pleasure and each time he gains something, he wants more. This is mere human nature. So therefore the Muslims reason that this nature is not defined as greed, but when it is carried out in this life, then it is defined as greed. We humans were inherently created in this fashion and this is attested to by human reason so much so that anyone can here this idea in speeches, spoken word, and  lyrics among many westerners. In the afterlife, true and absolute freedom without bounds exists. In the afterlife, the Islamic concept of someone infringing upon someone else’s territory or rights does not exist. Therefore, due to this, the Muslim understands that this worldly life does not operate under the position that it must cater to every single desire each and every human has for this planet was not created for that purpose.

For our western counterpart, they do not hold the afterlife as a reason to live their lives here according to the limits that this worldly life and planet can sustain them with. For them, the dream is “be all you can be, the world is yours” and this concept is ingrained in them so much so that they feel that owning everything they want or see is their individual “God given right”.  This concept has a heavy root in the concept of “freedom” and how the west views its distribution. The current motto in western views among many circles and walks of life and viewpoints within their respective societies is the common saying “You only got one life to live, live it up to the fullest” and such slogans as these. What these ideas really implicate is that one must grab and seek everything they wish for, everything, or else one will regret it later on. This is how western society operates at a fundamental level and has been operational for a number of decades.


3.    Who decides what is good and what is bad and do these two change by time or not

Another cultural and theological divide that demarcates a gross difference between western thought and Islamic thought is this very issue.

For the Muslim nation, their belief is explained in this matter in that God and His Messenger have defined in absolute terms the reality of something to either be good or bad. What brings further comprehension to the matter is a classical juristic deduction called in English “the principle of permissibility” an example of this principle in legal action that the non Muslim audience can easily grasp is the issue of eating pork. For Muslims, the eating of pork is itself immoral, bad, and wrong, simply from the standpoint that Allah has prohibited it. The principle of permissibility comes into play when a person is in a specific situation where he is close to starvation or extreme hunger by which something negative will happen to a person physically if they do not eat. Adding to this is that there is nothing to eat except a piece of pork. Under such a circumstance the originally prohibited act becomes permissible under such specific circumstance. However, in spite of its allowance, the origin of the action itself is morally wrong and does not change from time and place, and this is the case with most of the legal rules and laws Islam came with due to its generality and universal application applicable throughout time.

This thinking pattern is most proper considering that the Lord of the Worlds does not contradict Himself nor is He unwise, rather He is all-wise and most knowledgeable of all of creation. There is not a single deficiency in this Lord whom we refer to as God or Allah.

For our western counterpart, such a process was replaced for a philosophical pagan concept of Aristotle and the Greek logicians. The reason for this is due to the methodology of the philosophers in how they elevated human rationale, reason, and the use of intellect to a divine status much like earthly and material creations of this world were elevated to godhood by certain groups among humanity. This is why in Islam, the concept of “referring back to the judgments of jahiliyyah (man-made views)” is part of polytheism and is deemed as such because the concept of rule belongs exclusively to God.

It follows that since our western counterpart has a different way of viewing who has deemed something good or bad, we also enter into the realm (for westerners) that such good and evil can itself change and morph into its opposite by the mere passing of time. In other words, what is good in one time can be very evil in the next generation, and vice versa. How can good and evil change by time. It can change because the fundamental criteria of that issue is itself based on a flawed branch of human reasoning. That is because human reasoning is a byproduct and result of the limitations of his environment, educations, etc, and therefore since the intellect of a group of people change, then likewise the view of the matter in question changes along with it. A practical example of this most absurd and preposterous phenomenon that is common in western society today are the following.

a.    Just merely a century ago, here in America, women did not dare go out of the house except with something covering their head and a long dress up to their ankles. In this society, such women were looked down upon and were deemed as hookers and whatever name was prevalent in their time. Now, it is no big deal for them to go out in virtually a bikini like garment on the streets of any city, and added to this barbaric allowance, is the idea that people have in their minds that this is called “liberation” and is deemed as “freedom”

b.    Up until the last 60 years, war was deemed by Americans as a progress to their prestige despite their acknowledgement of its negative effects on other peoples. Now, it is changing slowly into an idea that it is “negative and inherently lacking in diplomacy”

c.    Just one generation ago, homosexuals were looked down upon. They were outcaste of society and were deemed as people who have terrible psychological problems. Now, one cannot even speak negatively about them without being demonized and described as a homophobe and “one who speaks hatred” or a bigot.


These are mere examples of commonly known phenomenal experiences of the west in which the morality of an issue changed by time, and by the avenue of the people’s perception.

So therefore, the Muslim nation sees that their western counterpart does not have a solid foundation, with which, and by which he judges what is right and wrong. In essence, our western counterpart does not have a valid measuring tool by which he can determine what is right and wrong, instead whatever is 10 feet one day is 2 feet the next day and a mile the next day. And this can only be due to his making his whims and desires as the reference point for what is right and wrong, thus taking their own judgment superior to that of the judgment of their Lord regardless of their disbelief in the Creator or their disbelief of the Creator’s right to legislate for them.


4.    The conceptual understanding of equality

Another profound aspect of absolute difference between Islam and western ideals is the concept of equality.

There are four positions on the concept of equality when contrasting between Islam and Western ideals, three of them originally stem from western thought, and one with Islam, showing the illogical evolvement of equality for the west whereas the Islamic concept remains steadfast upon not only this one legal theory, but an ultra-widely accepted view of equality since the completion of the religion of the prophets (i.e. Islam) at the passing of Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam.

1.    Women were not even considered in the same sphere or species of men

2.    Women are unequal, both ethically and spiritually

3.    Women are equal ethically and spiritually

4.    Women are equal spiritually but not ethically

The first three were characteristics of western concepts about women, and the last one is exclusively the Islamic outlook. As one can see, the first three, all fall into extremism somewhere. They either were to barbaric, or were too prejudiced and biased, or were to lax and liquefied the proper outlook. A befitting explanation for the above is mentioned below.

With respect to the Islamic concept, which is inherent in point 4, equality among Muslims is one that is spiritual. That is because the spirituality of this world is what matters most to a Muslim. The real Muslim woman does not care about why they have to cover and men don’t. Such thinking is not even taken into consideration for the majority of the Muslim women’s world. The same with men, the men are not concerned with why women are allowed to wear silk and gold, and are allowed certain musical allowances and actions that women can do that men can’t. Real Muslim men do not even raise such differences as a matter of concern.

For our western counterpart, equality which they call to is equality with regards to the cultural practices of worldly life. It has even come down that many westerners look down and call the role of women who continue to fulfill and always fulfilled and whom many western women admit they naturally want to fulfill, as inherently the second class culture to men. In other words, the west, specifically the feminist movement blinded by their defense of women’s right, downplayed everything that was associated with womanhood and fought a battleground that women should live up to “manly standards” under the veil that “women can do what men can do”

As for Islam, it recognized that women and men were inherently different in their physiology, psychology, mentality, methodology of action, and a myriad of other factors. It is for this reason, that there are certain gender affiliated rulings in Islam which came as mercy to each gender. The equality Islam promotes is that no role (men or women) is looked down upon by the other gender. I, nor any other man I know look down at our female counterpart Muslim just because of her womanhood or because of the prohibited nature of some of her rulings, and likewise, I know of now women who inherently looks down upon men just because our men cannot do what they were allowed to do. Likewise, when God judges us, He will judge us according to how we had fulfilled our roles in which He placed us in, and not according to the gender of the servant. In other words, the judgment on a women will not depend at all on how successful she was in living up to a man’s role and the same applies vice versa. It is a fundamental mistake to judge men and women on equal terms in worldly life due to the surrounding realities of each gender.

In this regard, the reputable Islamic scholar, jurist, theologian, grammarian, and reviver of Islam Muhammad bin Saalih al-Uthaymeen says

“Here we should note that there are some people who speak of equality instead of justice, and this is a mistake. We should not say equality, because equality implies no differentiation between the two. Because of this unjust call for equality, they started to ask, what is the difference between male and female?’ So they made males and females the same, and then the communists said, ‘What difference is there between ruler and subject? No one has any authority over anyone else, not even fathers and sons; the father has no authority over his son,’ and so on.

But if we say justice, which means giving each one that to which he or she is entitled, this misunderstanding no longer applies, and the word used is correct. Hence it does not say in the Qur’aan that Allaah enjoins equality, rather it says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Verily, Allaah enjoins Al‑‘Adl (i.e. justice)”

[al-Nahl 16:90]

“and that when you judge between men, you judge with justice”

[al-Nisa’ 4:58]

Those who say that Islam is the religion of equality are lying against Islam. Rather Islam is the religion of justice which means treating equally those who are equal and differentiating between those who are different.

No one who knows the religion of Islam would say that it is the religion of equality. Rather what shows you that this principle is false is the fact that most of what is mentioned in the Qur’aan denies equality, as in the following verses:

‘Say: Are those who know equal to those who know not?”

[al-Zumar 39:9]

‘Say: Is the blind equal to the one who sees? Or darkness equal to light?’

[al-Ra’d 13:16]

‘Not equal among you are those who spent and fought before the conquering (of Makkah, with those among you who did so later’

[al-Hadeed 57:10]

‘Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allaah with their wealth and their live’

[al-Nisa’ 4:95]

Not one single letter in the Qur’aan enjoins equality, rather it enjoins justice. You will also find that the word justice is acceptable to people, for I feel that if I am better than this man in terms of knowledge, or wealth, or piety, or in doing good, I would not like for him to be equal to me.

As for our western counterpart, their concept of equality has changed for the better in their early history, and then it regressed in their modern history. In their early history, women not only were stripped of rights, they were not even deemed as those who have rights at all. They were nothing more than property and not only did they not have the right to inherit, they were themselves inherited. Then it progressed to a more Islamic concept in that at least they had some rights and were not always inherited and viewed as property. This took centuries of course and even up to the turn of the 20th century in many European countries, women could not technically own land, whereas Islam gave many of our women these rights and much more from day one. Then within the last century, women began to change in the way they interact with society and eventually regressed into a state where they think and feel superior to all women who existed before them. And once this change happened, we see the statistics of their crime which soared through the galaxy unseen by any nation before ours, much of it due to the tribulation of women and the capacity and power they have to influence men to barbaric and atrocious acts never committed in human history. The lewdness is more than appalling. At any rate, our western counterpart stepped into the third phase of their treatment of women and went beyond bounds, and now they are paying the price of it regressively.

     Clarifying the Deception

What resulted from the above phase of western societies ended in certain individuals to review women’s treatment in other countries, mainly the Muslim countries, and began attacking Islam and the Muslims for their treatment.

The reality is that for 13 hundred years, the western women were behind the Muslim women. There was no room for anyone in the world to criticize Islam because quite frankly Islam gave women much ore rights than their western counterpart and other societal dealings with their respective women. Now, for the last half century, the Muslim nation has to defend something they were never questioned about and were deemed superior to their western counterpart due to the level of knowledge and the perfection of law implemented in Islamic countries. In other words, now we have to defend beliefs and practices due to events that have taken place outside of our own civilization and those events that took place with other nations were deemed by them as “superior” to the Islamic outlook

The deception mentioned in this section are those studies done by orientalists that take place in some Islamic countries. Examples of these studies are women’s genital mutilation. Many of these acts are themselves UNIslamic and have no basis in textual rulings, literal or implicitly, in the textual sources of Islamic law. But in order to demonize Islam and the Muslims, such atrocities are deemed as Islamic and attributed to Islam by our western counterpart in spite of many Muslims acknowledgement of such a baseless practice in Islam.


5.    The understanding of love and hate between the West and Islam

The understanding of the concepts of love and hate is likewise different. Under the western paradigm, the only thing that is propagated is “love is good” and “hate is bad” therefore we should learn to love each other and it is wrong to hate. However, the hypocrisy of their obvious behavioral pattern mentioned about their negative view of hate is put down the drain once it becomes clear to them of a matter that their minds have convinced them that such a person is indeed worthy of being hated upon.  In short, the average person completely condemns hate, and then usurps its feeling when she or she is convinced of the eligibility of their hate.

Another factor that should be noted is that hate is rendered by our western counterpart to only be employed based on crimes like murder.

In Islam love and hate is totally geared by God. Muslims love what God loves and hates what God hates. They base their allegiance and enmity solely on this factor alone. That is why for Muslims, love and hate is not only isolated to criminal activity, it is as well linked with religious criminal activity like

·         Disbelief

·         Innovations in religion

·         Major sins and illicit actions

·         Following of one’s desires


[1](Related by Abu Dawud and ad-Daraqutni with a hassan or sahih chain.)