A Signal Through Time is not just a book—it’s a message to the future. An urgent call for dignity, conscience, and intelligence at the dawn of a new age. This is not prophecy. It is preparation. jamescoates.eth | jamescoates.eth.limo

by on

Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ir-Raheem (In the Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Most Beneficent)

by James S. Coates

Introduction

“And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. And remember the favour of Allah upon you—when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favour, brothers.” — Qur’an 3:103

I have worked with a number of major Muslim organisations and movements in America. I have organised events with them, raised funds for them, defended them in the media, and built bridges between them. I have also been praised by them, shut out by them, and ultimately expelled by some of them. I have seen the best of our community and the worst.

I originally wrote this article in 2007, when these experiences were fresh and the wounds still raw. I have since stepped back from active involvement in the organised Muslim community in America. I am revisiting and revising this piece now because, while some things may have changed in the intervening years, structural divisions along ethnic, tribal, and movement lines do not disappear quickly. If even some of what I witnessed remains true, then naming it is still necessary. I offer this not as a definitive account of how things are today, but as a testimony of what I experienced and an invitation for others to reflect honestly on whether these patterns persist in their own communities.

What follows is an account of the divisions I have witnessed within the American Muslim community—divisions along ethnic, national, tribal, and doctrinal lines. I write this not to condemn but to name what many of us know but few will say openly. If we cannot name a problem, we cannot solve it.

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said in his final sermon:

“All mankind is from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; a white has no superiority over a black, nor does a black have any superiority over a white—except by piety and good action.”

We profess this. We must ask ourselves whether we live it.

The Divisions

The topics I address in this article are:

  1. Immigrant versus Indigenous American Muslims (not new converts)
  2. Immigrant versus American Muslim Converts
  3. Immigrants versus their American-born Children (2nd generation)
  4. Jamaat-e-Islami versus Muslim League
  5. Ikhwan versus other Movements
  6. Salafi versus other Madhabs (schools of thought)
  7. Tablighi Jamaat versus other Movements
  8. Summary of Alliances and Divisions

Please bear with me as I explore and explain these divisions. Some of what follows will be uncomfortable. But the Prophet (peace be upon him) told us that the best jihad is a word of truth spoken to an unjust ruler. Sometimes the injustice is within our own house.

1. Immigrant versus Indigenous American Muslims

In this divide, you have approximately 30% of the Muslims in America being indigenous to the Black American community—descendants of former slaves taken from Islamic areas of Africa. Many of them are in poor communities. Some are Muslims from birth through family lineage; others came through the Nation of Islam and, like Malcolm X, realised it was not true Islam, left, and joined the broader Muslim community. They form their own communities and sometimes intermingle with the general Muslim community at large.

On the other side, you have foreign-born Muslims. Other than the approximately 2% of whites, Hispanics, and others who are indigenous or convert to Islam, the first-generation immigrant population makes up roughly 68% of Islam in America. Many came in the 1940s fleeing Communism in former Soviet bloc countries. Pakistanis came from South Asia fleeing famine and drought. In 1948 and 1967, the wars with Israel brought both Christian and Muslim Palestinians. The mid-1960s marked a significant increase of Muslim immigration from Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, and other Eastern and Arab countries, coming with the oil and other industries, seeking education or jobs.

What I Witnessed

I have seen a severe divide between indigenous Black American Muslims and immigrants—to the extent that they have formed entirely separate communities. When I was raising money for ICNA to build the Freeman Center in Houston, which is in a Black American community, I heard immigrant Muslims question why I was doing such a deed. One said, “Every time you see a black, they have their hand out.” It didn’t matter that the area had Muslims in it; they were indigenous former slaves and lumped into the larger stereotype of Blacks in America.

In the 1960s and 70s, Black Muslim communities, joining the fight for civil rights, attempted to ally with first-generation Muslims. According to one Imam in Houston, the first-generation community viewed Black Muslims as having serious doctrinal issues. Instead of attempting to correct such issues, they ostracised the Black indigenous Muslims and treated them as apostates—to the extent that Black Muslims had to form their own masajid (mosques).

At the Texas Dawah Conference 2003, a Canadian-born Islamic scholar told the conference that it was good they got together, but all he saw was Pakistani and Arab faces. He urged them to get indigenous Black American Muslims represented as an active part of the conference since they represent such a significant portion of the Islamic community in America.

So at the Texas Dawah Conference 2004, I attempted to heal this rift. I invited the Black indigenous Muslim community to be a part of the conference. The Black leaders I spoke to were eager to participate, even in a small way, and repeated to me the need to heal this rift—but were concerned with how the immigrant community would treat them.

When I spoke to the organisers, it was initially met with cautious optimism. The concern was what the Black Muslims would be “teaching” at the conference and whether it was sound doctrine. So it went through the ranks, and the main organiser dispatched an email putting a dead stop to it on the basis that the indigenous Blacks’ doctrine was not sound—even though they acknowledged the Black indigenous Muslims were Muslims in need of education in Islam. Instead of working with them in a way that addressed their concerns, they completely shut them out of the conference. There was no indigenous American Muslim representation on an official basis, and virtually none showed up to attend.

The conference is billed to the community as a unifying force to bring organisations together. It failed to bridge the gap between indigenous American Muslims (30% of the community) and the immigrants (the organisations represented at the conference).

The divide between immigrant and indigenous Black American Muslims is deeply felt and will not be healed soon, since the immigrant community continually views them as beggars, shuts them out, and ostracises them.

2. Immigrant versus American Muslim Converts

According to the majority of Islamic scholars, one of the primary reasons Muslims have to live in a non-Muslim nation is for the purpose of dawah (propagation of Islam)—making converts. Yet making converts in a non-Muslim land creates a paradox for immigrant Muslims, and the experience is often frustrating for new converts.

One of the best moments in a convert’s life is first becoming Muslim. It is a sense of freedom, belonging to a greater community, brotherhood, and guidance. As converts grow in their new faith, they acquire knowledge of Islam from the immigrant perspective, are inundated with an array of political ideas (typically anti-Western), and struggle to understand the inner workings of the faith, various cultures, and the Arabic language.

The Language and Cultural Barrier

When I became involved in the Islamic community, I struggled for clear answers from knowledgeable Muslims because of the language barrier. Most of the Imams and scholars in the West are not American, or at least were born in another country and immigrated to America, even if they acquired citizenship. They are ESL (English as a second language) people from Egypt, Pakistan, or elsewhere. The same applies for the majority of Muslims in the masajid. They speak English at an academic level but do not understand street lingo or common American English. They also have little or no connection to the plight of Americans, our history, or how our country operates outside of what they know from back home.

The prominent undercurrent of ideology in the masajid reflects people who come from countries with brutal regimes, where law enforcement agencies are arms of dictatorships, where there is constant turmoil and often poverty. Attitudes towards the West are dominant, and to oppose these attitudes publicly can put one’s conversion in question. First-generation Muslims in the masajid are on constant lookout for infiltrators, and new converts feel heavy pressure to go along with the flow and view anti-Western politics as Islamic, even when it is not.

One of the first things that happened to me was that I was questioned about my view of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Even though I somewhat agreed with the stance of most Muslims, I didn’t convert to Islam for such ideology. I wasn’t at the meeting for a contemporary political discussion but to learn about Islam. As time went on, constant inundation with various Muslims’ political ideology made me more comfortable with radically different ideologies since it seemed to be the norm. Eventually, I grew out of that. However, a large number of converts do not.

The “Lap Dog” Experience

New converts are seen by foreign-born Muslims as people who can help the plight of Islam among non-Muslims much easier than themselves. However, when it comes to matters of Islam, politics, or social integration, first-generation Muslims often view converts—no matter how educated or how long they have been Muslim—as uneducated in Islam and having little bearing on the direction of the community and its organisations. For example, as a Muslim now for 28 years, I am still told that I know nothing about Islam when it suits their point of view.

Converts often feel similar to how I felt since 9/11. When they needed us after 9/11, they thrust us in the public eye to defend Islam and put a clean, sanitised face on Islam and Muslims. However, when it comes to listening to our opinion on the direction of the communities, Islamic thought on issues regarding the religion, and running for or holding office in the organisation, they will not have it. It is extremely rare for an American Muslim to hold leadership positions—I know of only one case where a Black American Muslim was voted into local office as President of ICNA’s Houston Chapter, and that wasn’t without bitter rivalry.

I, and others I associated with, felt like a lap dog. I worked feverishly night and day, sacrificing time with my family while they enjoyed theirs, and it amounted to nothing. They love to pat you on the head and sing your praises when you’re in public making them look good, but they don’t want you to say anything meaningful or try to be a significant part of their immigrant-controlled organisations.

First-generation Muslims will profess that we are all equal in the sight of Allah. But they almost never relinquish control of their organisations to an American convert (unless they feel they can control him), nor are they hiring American Muslim scholars in the masajid. They will almost always hire scholars who are not American, and they will not allow many qualified American Muslims to give sermons in the masajid for Friday prayers or other events.

Double Standards

Furthermore, there is a pattern of double-speak. They condemn terrorists or extremists breaking our laws while supporting them through their actions. If a convert supports an immigrant, then great—but if you disagree, or speak to law enforcement about criminal activity in the community, they will brand you an infiltrator and claim you’re not really Muslim. Blood is thicker than water; it becomes tribal. They won’t play fair, following through on the teachings of Islam they instilled in you. They won’t give you opportunity to explain yourself. Instead, they will expel you from their organisations even though your work is what earned them a trusted name. If that is not all, they will post your name and photos everywhere in an attempt to threaten and intimidate you. It is exactly what happened to me.

The last I checked, Islam stood for justice, not lawlessness, and didn’t require us to protect lawbreakers simply because they are Muslims, nor on the basis they are from Pakistan, etc. It certainly forbids Muslims from threatening other Muslims.

The immigrant and convert divide is stark. It is not only different cultures meeting but different approaches and resolutions to life’s issues. It’s a different approach to Islam since most American Muslims are proud to be American and Muslim, while many who immigrated are here to benefit from America, their minds on returning home at some unknown point in the future, but not to become American or integrate into American society to show non-Muslims that we are not all terrorists. It’s almost as if things go south, they have somewhere else to go, but American Muslim converts do not have such options. It makes for a different worldview between us.

Where the Energy Goes

When I put on a Justice For Allah Rally in 2003, speaking out against Israeli atrocities against Muslims in Palestine, it was easy to get 400 people to show up and voice their opinion. But trying to get them to feed the homeless on a regular basis, give clothes to the needy, have a friendly meet with their neighbours, or do dawah work was worse than pulling teeth.

Save one instance that deserves merit: when they found out it would benefit them publicly to help the Hurricane Katrina evacuees, they came together and did some good work. But it wasn’t without some of them trying to take all the credit in front of the cameras from the others, and private threats from one organisation to the next. If it wasn’t for a Christian interfaith organisation (that I had a chance to work for as a Muslim liaison) that helped get past the petty rivalries, they would never have pulled it off.

3. Immigrants versus their American-born Children (2nd Generation)

A large portion of first-generation Muslims in the United States are not citizens and seem to have the intention of returning to their home countries after they receive their education or retirement. However, it is a common joke—and I heard this at the Texas Dawah Conference 2004—that immigrants come with the intention of returning to their countries, but every year they postpone it. Then, after years of delay, when they finally tell their kids (who were born and raised in the USA) that they want to move the family back home, their kids question the sanity of such an idea: why would they leave America when this is the only home they’ve ever known?

Cultural Clashes

Cultural values of the immigrant population are in stark contrast to those of their American-born children. The elder generation tends to adhere to archaic cultural values based from their home countries. An example of this is marriage. Many immigrant families have an understanding that they will bring their children back to Pakistan (or wherever they are from) to find a suitable spouse (oftentimes cousins) when their children are old enough. Furthermore, they tend to want to make the choice for their kids without any significant input or protest.

When presented with such an idea, the children typically dread such a concept. Their children, after all, grew up in America where this is not a cultural norm. Islamically, the children are right to consult the parents, but in Islam the parents are not the deciding factor on whom they marry. Islam encourages ethnic mixing and the freedom for children to choose their own spouse on the basis of piety.

The Generational Divide in the Masajid

Another divide is in the religious community. Second-generation children tend to grow up with Western values which allow for more free thought, and these are infused into their Islamic understanding of the world and the community. They are young, idealistic, and have a lot of energy. When children of immigrant Muslims grow old enough, they see the flaws in the community their immigrant fathers (“Uncles” they call them) are running—how it is run and how Islam is being taught—and have a strong desire to change it. They are frustrated when they see the community politics, backstabbing, underhanded behaviour, and when they are shut out of any meaningful effect or ability to hold office.

This division is very much like that of the division between converts and immigrant Muslims, except that the second-generation Muslim children are still very much united by ethnicity and their parents’ tribal affiliations that American Muslim converts do not have.

Muslim communities are seriously stifled from progress and growth due to the elder generation of first-generation Muslims’ power struggles, tribal warfare, false accusations, politicking to get rid of moderate Imams and scholars or those they just don’t like, seizure of power, destruction of property, and refusal to allow fresh blood into control of the governing and consultative bodies and the presidencies.

4. Jamaat-e-Islami versus Muslim League

An underlying divide among Pakistani immigrants in America, not evident to the general public, is a political divide originating in Pakistan. Jamaat-e-Islami is a religious and political movement in Pakistan that elevates and follows the teachings of Syed Maududi. It is a movement that aims to get back to the basics of Islam and has representation in the Pakistani National Assembly.

The Jamaat propagates its ideology worldwide in the masajid and founds organisations in various countries that reflect its ideology. In the United States and Canada, they have founded the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and ICNA Relief. Since ICNA cannot operate as a political party in the USA and Canada, they have founded the movement as a religious organisation whose purpose is to propagate Islam according to its movement’s ideology.

According to an ICNA official that I spoke to privately on this issue, the Muslim League is the “other” party. They are the ruling class that originally received the handoff of power from the British after the ending of colonial rule and the subsequent founding of the nation of Pakistan. They are seen by Jamaat supporters as puppets of the West and a corruption of Islam in Pakistan.

The divide between these two groups is kept very private, but it is very evident in the Islamic community in America when one looks at the community politics in the masajid. This barrier is very real and originates long before the two parties immigrated to America.

5. Ikhwan versus other Movements

The Ikhwan are highly active people who engage in many facets of society. Like other movements, they propagate their ideology around the world in the masajid, but in addition they also propagate among Muslims in universities. The Ikhwan can be cautious about public statements regarding some of their ideology due to their Egyptian history of government persecution. However, they have aspirations of being politically active in the West and will engage in society and attempt to affect change positively through the political process.

In the United States, they have founded their organisation as the Muslim American Society (MAS), and in universities and schools they have founded the Muslim Students’ Association (MSA). They have also founded a political organisation called MAS Freedom Foundation and a worldwide relief organisation called Islamic Relief.

Working with the Ikhwan

The real division between Ikhwan and other movements in the American Islamic community is that the Ikhwan have a strong desire to be seen publicly and to be looked at by the Islamic community as being effective and moderate. However, in my experience, some can act as bullies in the community, pressuring other organisations to let them take the lead or take credit for joint efforts. Any event they are involved with becomes a struggle for other organisations to control, as well as a struggle over who actually is recognised in the end for their work and organisation. So other organisations find it difficult to work with them.

6. Salafi versus other Madhabs (Schools of Thought)

Among the various groups in the masajid are the Salafi. The Salafi movement traces its methodology to the Salaf—the first three generations of Muslims (the Companions, the Successors, and those who followed them). Opponents of the movement often call them “Wahhabi” after Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, a reformer in 18th-century Arabia, though Salafis themselves rarely use this term and generally reject it as a label designed to malign their movement.

The movement was founded during a time when Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula had distorted Islam to the point of reverting to old pagan ways. Its aim was to bring people back to Islam through sound teaching based on Qur’an, Sunnah, and the understanding of the Salaf. Eventually, the movement formed an alliance with the Saudi government, and it is traditionally associated with the Hanbali school of fiqh (jurisprudence).

Like other movements in Islam, Salafi teachings are propagated around the world in the masajid. It is among the most strict and literalist forms of Sunni Islam. It is not uncommon for Salafis to oppose becoming involved in the political process of non-Muslim countries, viewing it as a system of kufr (disbelief). So the only way many will engage politically is if an Islamic system of government is already established. Some Salafis view their religious methodology as superior to others, to the extent that they will pronounce takfir on other Muslims (declare them apostates) not part of their group—though this practice is condemned by mainstream Salafi scholars.

The Salafi are not recognised as a separate school of thought by mainstream Sunni Muslims, who recognise only four schools (Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi’i). However, their strict methodology puts them in contrast with the general community at large. They are often very vocal in the masjid and propagate their way aggressively, which creates division.

7. Tablighi Jamaat versus other Movements

The Tablighi Jamaat is a movement whose origins are in India, begun during a time when Muslims were reverting to the ways of Hinduism. The purpose of the Tabligh is to do dawah (propagate Islam) among Muslims and call them back to Islam. It is their practice to leave behind family and friends occasionally for an extended period of time to travel from community to community to encourage people to adhere to Islam and recruit into their ranks. They typically just show up in an unsuspecting community, make friends, and stay with people they meet who feed and support them for the duration of their stay, or with other Tablighis. Sometimes they stay in the masajid themselves.

The Tabligh operate in the US and Canada as their own organisation with a hierarchy apart from most institutions. There is criticism among the general community that their teachings are from books containing weak hadith (teachings of the Prophet that cannot be confirmed as authentic) and thus are somewhat inaccurate. They are often not allowed to operate within the masajid without consent and sometimes without prior approval for what they will be teaching or books used in their sermons. Some communities have restricted them due to their transient lifestyles.

It is not uncommon for a new recruit of the Tabligh to be encouraged to abruptly leave their home to go on a two- or three-week mission to another community to propagate Islam (according to the Tabligh) or learn more about Islam and the Tablighi way.

The movement is rather large and largely made up of Indian and Pakistani members. However, the movement has gained considerable ground in the Black American Muslim community.

Summary of Alliances and Divisions

Ethnic and Generational Divisions:

  • First-generation Muslims versus indigenous American Muslims, converts, and their 2nd-generation children born and raised in America
  • Second-generation ethnic children of first-generation Muslims group together and often separate on ethnic lines from indigenous American Muslims and converts
  • Indigenous Black American Muslims follow the natural segregation lines in society when it comes to integration with other groups

Movement Alliances and Rivalries:

  • Jamaat-e-Islami (ICNA, ICNA Relief) is a religious movement allied with the Ikhwan in the USA (MAS). The Jamaat is opposed to the group representing the Muslim League in Pakistan, who have formed cultural centres to promote Pakistani culture rather than the religion of Islam.
  • The Ikhwan (MAS, MSA, MAS Freedom Foundation, Islamic Relief) tends to go it alone among all of the groups. Other movements are in constant struggle over how MAS controls, assimilates, and takes over their events. MAS (Ikhwan based in Egypt from the teachings of Syed Qutub) and ICNA (based in Pakistan from the teachings of Syed Maududi) have discussed merging their two movements in the United States and Canada. However, due to the stark nature of both movements, their cultures, and differing levels of Islamic knowledge, this has proven very difficult.
  • The Salafi movement is relatively isolationist while at the same time not ashamed to publicly and vocally oppose other movements. They are often academic scholars but can lack tact and the ability to deal with people without giving offence.
  • The Tablighi Jamaat operates largely independently, focused on internal Muslim revival rather than engagement with broader society or other movements.

A Path Forward

I have worked with all of these groups and know people and scholars from all of them. These findings are mine, based on my personal experience, talking with organisational officials, common folks, and scholars.

I write this not to condemn any group but to name what we all know exists. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

“The believers in their mutual kindness, compassion, and sympathy are just like one body. When one limb suffers, the whole body responds to it with wakefulness and fever.” — Sahih Muslim

We are not acting like one body. We are acting like competing tribes, each convinced of our own superiority, each protecting our own power, each suspicious of the other.

What would it look like to actually change?

  • For first-generation communities: Include indigenous Black American Muslims and converts in leadership—not as tokens, but as equals. Hire American-born scholars. Listen to the perspectives of those who grew up here.
  • For converts: Be patient but persistent. Document what you experience. Write books and articles on your experiences, they are valuable. Build alliances with second-generation Muslims who share your frustrations.
  • For second-generation Muslims: You are the bridge. You understand both worlds. Use that position to push for change from within.
  • For all movements: Cooperate on common causes without needing to control or take credit. The goal is the pleasure of Allah, not the reputation of your organisation.
  • For all of us: Remember that the person you are dismissing, ostracising, or threatening is your brother or sister in Islam. On the Day of Judgement, our tribal affiliations and organisational memberships will mean nothing.

“O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you.” — Qur’an 49:13

May Allah help us to see past our divisions and become united for good causes. May Allah help us to forbid the evil and promote the good. May Allah forgive us where we have wronged each other, and may He guide us to be one Ummah as He commanded.

Ameen.

Article by BrJimC © 2007, revised 2026

by on

What does it mean to switch faiths? What is it like for Muslim “converts” in particular? (For lack of a better term!) What are the typical highs and lows that new Muslims experience? What happens to those open-minded seekers that when joining a group are led to exclusivism and narrow-mindedness? In this episode Dr. Farhad Shafti and Veronica Polo are joined by James Coates, who helps us with these questions as he walks us through his own particular journey.


by on

A July, 6 1959 fatwah from Al-Azhar made great strides towards healing and reconciliation in the historic divide between Sunni and Shi’a.

After 9 years of the Bush administration’s war in Iraq which allowed the Shi’a government of Iran to make significant political gains in the Middle East, Al-Azhar saw a massive increase in Salafist influence. The Salafi movement is a Saudi Arabian based movement, a nation that is Iran’s historic enemy. Consequently, in 2012, the 1959 fatwah was reversed.

As a consequence of both of these events, we have a proxy war raging between two Muslim nations in multiple third party nations while their leaders vie for public support among Muslims worldwide for their cause against each other based on religious grounds.

As Muslims we need to remain committed to following Allah’s command. Our struggle, fisabilillah, is to remain a united community and resist the dividers.

“Hold fast to God’s rope all together; do not split into factions. Remember God’s favour to you: you were enemies and then He brought your hearts together and you became brothers by His grace; you were about to fall into a pit of Fire and He saved you from it- in this way God makes His revelations clear to you so that you may be rightly guided.” – Qur’an 3:103

by on

“Apple Pie”

If there is one fundamental cultural icon in America today, it is apple pie. But why? Where did apple pie come from? What makes it “American”?

Long before Homo sapiens roamed the planet, there was the apple. Some Christian depictions of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden show an apple as the fruit Adam and Eve ate.

The apple wasn’t the fruit in the Garden of Eden, but it is a fruit indigenous — millions of years ago — to an area of the planet we now know as Kazakhstan. Yes, that 70% Muslim country and former Soviet republic is the ancestral home and cradle of civilization among apple trees. The origin of apples lies in the heart of the Tien Shan mountains, where “forests of wild apples, some growing at 10,000 feet, others in 1,300-foot-deep canyons, show a wealth of diversity and resistance to disease and pests” (Cornell University).

As people began to travel west, they brought apple seeds with them, and the fruit eventually found its way to Europe.

Upon the settling of the Americas, there were no apples in the Western Hemisphere. Early settlers had to rely on shipments from Europe while their planted seeds began to grow.

The first cultivation was in Jamestown in 1607, but those apples were so bitter they were not for eating. They were only good for making cider. Instead, the colonists were more likely to make meat pies.

Thousands of years of cultivation created a large array of species in many shapes, colors, and sizes. In the American colonies, countless orchards sprang up, and apple trees began a dramatic genetic diversification. John Chapman (1774–1845), better known as Johnny Appleseed, made it his life’s quest to supply many states with new seedlings.

By the eighteenth century, apples used in pie began to become a popular dessert in America, and they remain so today.

It is evident that the apple is woven into the fabric of America. The apple, which predated the country by millions of years, has been among us since the beginning — at first in bitter form. Its presence has served us, been cultivated by us, and become a positive contributor to our culture and society.

Likewise, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our society and culture from the beginning. Not as a recent arrival, but as a thread present from the founding. Enslaved African Muslims were among the earliest people brought to these shores — men like Bilali Muhammad of Sapelo Island, who wrote in Arabic, prayed five times a day, and fasted during Ramadan while laboring on a Georgia plantation. Islam did not immigrate to America. It was dragged here in chains.

Similar to the first bitter apple the colonists tasted, the presence of Islam in America has often been met with suspicion — something foreign, something to reject. But like that bitter apple, it has been cultivated, shaped by the soil it grew in, and become part of what this country is.

Like the apple, once planted by colonists in an ecosystem where no apples existed, Islam too was planted here where it had not existed. It is, and will forever be, what we make of it together. You can choose to help Muslims make a positive contribution to a society they love and have been part of for over two centuries. Or you can stand against something that is already woven into the ground beneath your feet. Either way, Islam, like the apple, is here to stay. It is not here on probation. It is not awaiting permission. It belongs.

Islam is as American as apple pie.

The instruction is ancient, and it is clear:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” — Matthew 5:43–48

 

by on

by James S. Coates

The Denial of Muslim Heritage

A few days ago, a fundamentalist Christian I knew from long ago was having a Facebook conversation with some of his friends about Islam in American history. His friend (another Christian) was citing history on the existence of Muslims who helped build America from its earliest beginnings. To my amazement, my friend denied the existence of Muslims until the mid-1900s. As with many fundamentalist Christians that I know, the conversation then quickly digressed off topic to debating (self-affirming) to each other as to how you must be saved, Muslims are the enemy, and they all are going to hell.

My “friend” (now former) must not have realised that I was reading the thread. Their “Spirit filled, speaking in tongues and baptised in fire” Pentecostal sect believes that I am guided by the dark forces and deceived by Satan because I converted to Islam. So, when I imparted my knowledge affirming his friend’s assertions, I was soon after removed from his friends list!

Ordinarily, I’d think that a person who denies the existence of Muslims in early America is poorly educated on American history or at least has not put much thought on the topic. The problem for me by thinking that in this case is that this friend of mine is a scientist working on things like the cure for AIDS and is in his late 60s. Not only has he had enough time on this earth and debated the topic enough to know better, but he is a well-read and educated individual in his area of study. One would think that someone like him should know how to research topics that concern him enough to vehemently oppose such a notion.

It is typical of many politically minded evangelical “Christian conservatives” to believe that America is a “Christian” country and therefore no one else has played a role in its creation, existence, or advancement. Despite the early colonies being founded by people fleeing religious persecution by other Christians in Europe, they still assert that America is a “Christian country” founded on “Christian values.” The ideology leads people to insinuate that no other religion played an integral part (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Native Indian religions) or at least if they did, contrary to the Declaration of Independence, they are not equal and deserving of acknowledgement.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” — Declaration of Independence

Of course, according to the history of the African and indigenous Indian in America, we know that American Christians in those days did not view everyone as equal.

“Most colonists were intolerant and fearful of American Indians whom they perceived to be a single, standard, homogeneous, and heathen Indian nation—and as such, a threat to white progress, humanity, and most importantly—Christianity.” — Humboldt State University

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Muslim Lands and Slave Ports

Muslim Lands and Slave Ports

To find Islam in America, one does not have to look far beyond the question of: “Where did America get its slaves?” Everyone can agree it’s Africa that provided the supply of slaves to the Americas. What is one of the main religions on the continent of Africa?

Historians estimate that between 15 and 30 percent of enslaved Africans brought to the Americas were Muslim. Documented cases abound: Omar Ibn Said, a Islamic scholar from Senegal who wrote his autobiography in Arabic while enslaved in North Carolina; Ayuba Suleiman Diallo, a Muslim merchant from Senegal who was kidnapped and enslaved in Maryland; and Bilali Muhammad, who served as an imam to a community of Muslim slaves on Sapelo Island, Georgia, and left behind a manuscript of Islamic jurisprudence.

Just because Christian slavers captured, bought, or kidnapped (in the case of freemen) Muslim black people and sold them to other Christians in the West does not mean they were not Muslims, nor does it mean that they did not retain their identity as Muslims in many cases. It also does not negate their contributions to the founding and building of America.

In fact, when bringing religion into the discussion, I’d even argue that to negate these facts (while claiming credit for Christendom) is to be complicit with colonial slave owners. It was a predominantly Christian slave-owning society that denied, and took credit for, the contributions of Muslim (and other non-Christian) slaves on the basis of their African heritage.

The Erasure of Indigenous and African Contributions

A similar dubious argument is often made by Americans when they teach in schools that Christopher Columbus discovered America. The fact is, it wasn’t a European at all who “discovered” America. Who do we think the ancestors of the Navajo, Apache, Cherokee, and Sioux natives were (to name a few)? How much earlier did they land on the continent than Christopher Columbus or any European for that matter? How did Europeans (and later Americans) end up with “possession of the land”?

The American Indian paid perhaps the greatest contribution (forcibly) to the creation of America, not to mention the Aztecs, Mayan, and other tribes in South and Central America.

It is a common theme of us “European” Westerners to rewrite history to our liking in an effort to feel a sense of pride or nationalism, but let’s give some credit here. Before we knew what a “Native American Indian” was, they were already here! And from the moment we began bringing African Muslim slaves to the Americas (North, Central, and South), Islam began its legacy among the colonial countries that now exist.

We Have Always Been Here

Did Muslims contribute significantly to the early colonies, the American Revolution, creation of America, and even the rebuilding of the nation after the Revolutionary and Civil Wars? Absolutely. One cannot in good conscience deny the blood, sweat, and tears of the African people brought here, many of whom were Muslims, on the basis that they were slaves.

In closing, I find it curious that it took a national tragedy for Americans to wake up and realise there were Muslims living in their country. We have been here since the beginning. We may not have looked like “those people” who came over upon the advent of the discovery of oil in the Middle East. Our facial representations may evolve as a community, but Islam has always been woven into the fabric of society.

We are part of America’s heritage.

Article by BrJimC © 2016, revised 2026

by on

Here is the dichotomy, Muslim brothers and sisters.

One one hand, if Muslims do not report dangerous ideas and an investigation ensues involving a load of agents that don’t know the people, culture, faith or religious idea and even the meaning of Arabic words, there is a greater chance of the government getting it wrong and building a case against a person out of ignorance or misunderstandings.

On the other hand, if Muslims do report it, members of our community look at us as government spies who were only there to “entrap” innocent Muslims, nevermind that they were out training in jihadi camps, had radicalized online, had tons of evidence against him/her proving otherwise.

Important things to note:

1. The Muslim community in the US (since I am from the US), is largely distrustful of law enforcement.
2. Most convictions in the community are not entrapment, especially ones involving Muslim agents/informants. If they are entrapped, then the convictions can be overturned on appeal.
3. People around those individuals who have been convicted or carried out a terrorist plot all report seeing signs of radicalism but few report (out of apathy or distrust of authorities) and the cases (or attacks) could have been averted.
4. De-radicalization programs are relatively new and most people (Muslims and FBI) rarely look at those as options, if they even know about them.

In my opinion, especially in this climate of fear and mistrust of Muslims, we need to embrace a pro-law enforcement view rather than a distrustful one (not just pay lip service to it). We need to police our own communities otherwise people in law enforcement agencies who don’t know our faith will trample it trying to solve the problem of extremism which leads to attacks, a problem that only we can solve. If we all don’t take a part, even if it be against our own flesh and blood, then the system fails, mistrust grows and more idiots call for Muslims to be banned, rounded up, interned or even “ethno-religiously” cleansed through mass deportation. Dare I even mention (aside from what Nazi Germany did to the Jews) what happened in Bosnia to cite as one example.  In the end, clowns like ISIS will win through our apathy.

Some of my long time friends suggest that it is not our responsibility to be proactive but passive in our action to confront extremist ideology that can lead to attacks.  It is totally backwards from the teachings of Islam in my opinion.  The Prophet (pbuh) not only established a system of social justice by founding Islam as the religion, but he actively set in place guidelines among Muslims to regulate our behavior.  He actively corrected the Sahabah (companions) when they were in error.  Allah also made us responsible to protect each other from anything amounting to evil

“The Believers, men and women, are protectors one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practise regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His mercy: for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise.” Qur’an 9:71

“You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah . If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient.”  Qur’an 3:110

“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah , even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted.” Qur’an 4:135

We are to avoid suspicion and spying for the purpose of gossip and fault finding, but we still have an Islamic duty to confront extremist ideology and to protect, not only Muslims, but society at large from criminal acts and terrorism.

“The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Beware of suspicion, for suspicion is the worst of false tales; and do not look for the others’ faults and do not spy, and do not be jealous of one another, and do not desert (cut your relation with) one another, and do not hate one another; and O Allah’s worshipers! Be brothers (as Allah has ordered you!”)” – Sahih Bukhari Book 78, Hadith 94

In light of all of these evidences, we need to be diligent and proactive. Our reactive behaviour that has been our modus since 9/11 is creating huge problems for our communities.

Our survival depends on it.

by on

In 2004 I was attending a seminar at the Department of Justice with a friend who worked there. He was interested in my diversity training programme on Islam and Muslim communities for government agencies. At the time I was heavily involved with a national Islamic organisation that supported my activist work — anti-war and pro-Palestine protests, defending the Muslim community in the media, running seminars.

I sat down next to a man I did not know. He introduced himself. He told me he was an FBI agent. I perked up in intrigue. Then he told me he was a Muslim. My heart sank as if I were sitting next to Satan himself.

It was time for prayer. I made Thuhr Salat beside him, reluctantly. Afterwards we talked. He explained that his motivation for becoming an agent was to help the Muslim community fight against extremism — and that most of his Muslim friends, and even some of his family, had disowned him when he told them. I walked away with dismay, intrigue, confusion, and a question that took years to answer: how could a Muslim do this?

The answer was already in front of me. I just was not ready to see it yet.

“O you who have believed, when you go forth in the cause of Allah, investigate; and do not say to one who gives you a greeting of peace, ‘You are not a believer,’ aspiring for the goods of worldly life. For with Allah are many acquisitions. You yourselves were like that before; then Allah conferred His favour upon you, so investigate. Indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted.” — Qur’an 4:94

Islam does not teach us to make takfir on another Muslim. It took me years to deprogramme from the community narrative that the intentions of government and their investigations are out to round us up. The Muslim agent at the DOJ had the right intention: to investigate and find out who is a threat to the Muslim community and to society at large. The narrative I had been carrying around was not Islamic. It was cultural, and it was wrong.

This article is about why.

Understanding Informants

Confidential informants have been used in domestic law enforcement for a long time, in many Muslim countries and in the West. They are considered an invaluable tool by every law enforcement agency operating against extremism — by Muslims or by non-Muslim groups — as well as against organised crime, drug trafficking, and other crimes. They are not without controversy. The social stigma of “informing” on family or friends has produced a great deal of confusion and misinformation about how informants actually function.

“Not many people know very much about informants, and to many people it’s a queasy area. People are not comfortable with informants… The informant is THE — with a capital T — the most effective tool in law enforcement today, state, local or federal.” — William Webster

The motivations of informants vary widely. Some are upstanding citizens who happen to come across criminal activity. They are not always random members of the public — sometimes they are the leaders of our organisations: presidents, imams, sheikhs. Others are people who have been involved in a group that turned to criminal activity, who themselves became implicated, and who turned on an individual or a group to reduce their own exposure or sentence.

Some informants are paid; many are not. They are not used legally by law enforcement in the United States to subvert religious groups, to act as agents provocateurs, or to manufacture cases against people who have done nothing wrong. They are used in intelligence-led investigations of criminal activity.

“Informants are not official employees of the FBI, but many receive compensation for their services. They are screened for suitability before they enter into relationships with the FBI and are screened periodically thereafter.” — PBS

There are three basic classifications:

  • Confidential Informant (CI) — provides additional information in an investigation.
  • Cooperating Witness (CW) — testifies in court and operates under a formal agreement regarding obligations and expectations.
  • Source of Information (SOI) — does not collect information actively, but provides routine access to information through legitimate professional position.

The use of informants has been standard FBI procedure in the fight against organised crime since 1961. In 1978 a formal programme was established to support active investigations. Informants have been used most notably against the mafia and other organised crime networks, in drug enforcement, against right-wing radical groups, and in domestic and international terrorism cases — with a high degree of success.

The ability to use informants has historically provided an invaluable tool for bringing to light secretive crimes that would otherwise never present themselves for investigation.

Prudence

The use of confidential informants in terrorism-related cases is highly controversial among Muslims in the West, particularly in the United States. The tendency among many Muslims is to view their use as government invasion of privacy, entrapment, and the unjust targeting of Muslims as a group.

As in any area of law enforcement, some people do get caught up in investigations because of abuse by individual officers or handlers. This is the rare exception, not the rule. Government agencies understand that ethical conduct in the use of informants is essential. It is important for our communities to ensure proper oversight of agencies that use informants, and even more important that those agencies maintain factual cases, integrity, and professionalism throughout.

In light of world affairs, it is especially prudent for the Muslim community to prevent acts of terrorism or radicalism before they happen rather than react after the fact. Muslim informants from within the community are better suited to act as a guide for law enforcement than an outside investigator reacting after the event. They are better positioned than someone who does not know how to navigate the community, interpret the language, or identify what someone has expressed an intention to do. Muslim informants are the most likely people to ensure that the government does not build an unjust case based on misunderstandings and prejudice.

Plots are not hatched in the open. They cannot be discovered by ordinary means. If there is a possibility of a threat from radicalism in our communities, then these types of investigations are necessary because of the very nature of the secrecy surrounding plots of this kind.

The Double Standard

In a time when the Islamic community has serious problems with people travelling to Iraq and Syria to join groups like ISIS or al-Qaida, it matters that we deal straight with the government rather than acquiescing to radicalism and then turning on law enforcement when a plot is uncovered.

The double standard is glaring. On the one hand, we claim to condemn extremism and terrorism. On the other hand, we do not want the government to investigate us, and we do not want our people to work with them to root out radical plots from within our ranks. The Muslims who do become informants or FBI agents are often ostracised, and dedicated webpages and social media campaigns spring up to rail against them, sometimes with implicit or explicit threats of violence. In many of these cases the informants and agents cannot publicly rebut the abuse because of ongoing prosecutions that may last for years — making it easy for the family and friends of those accused to mislead public opinion and manufacture a conspiracy. The job of law enforcement, and of those who support them, is not to engage in a social media battle. It is to deal with investigations and the courts.

Islamic organisations publicly tell members to work with law enforcement if they come across information about extremism and terrorism. But within the community, our default is to attack government investigative methods and defend perpetrators rather than weigh the evidence — or support the person who tried to prevent the crime by approaching authorities. It is a catch-22 in logic, and it is a catch-22 the community does not seem to recognise about itself.

In a US court, the defendant is presumed innocent and cannot be convicted if there is reasonable doubt. It is the defence lawyer’s job to create that reasonable doubt — even when the defendant is, in fact, guilty. That is why, given the overwhelming evidence in most extremism cases, the defence almost always claims entrapment. As a community we cannot take defence arguments as scripture and launch campaigns against the government and its informants on behalf of people who are claiming to be falsely accused. We have to weigh the facts ourselves, listen to the court evidence, and understand the legal definition of the very thing we are claiming.

“When they disregarded the warnings that had been given them, We rescued those who forbade Evil; but We visited the wrong-doers with a grievous punishment because they were given to transgression.” — Qur’an 7:165

Focusing on the Wrong People

In any country, in any jurisdiction in the United States, there may be bad agents, bad informants, bad investigations. That is the reason to ensure proper oversight. It is not the reason to be reflexively suspicious of the entire system put in place to protect us from radical violence. It is not the reason to jump on the entrapment bandwagon every time someone in our community is charged. There are far more good agents, good informants, and good investigations than bad ones — and they are there to protect not just the general public, but the Muslim community itself.

Investigations involving informants can run into the millions of dollars. There is no institutional motivation to waste that kind of money making false cases against people who have done nothing wrong, just to “get a Muslim.” Intentionally targeting the wrong people would be counterproductive, and it would let the real threats fall through the cracks.

Conversely, in many Muslim countries — countries from which a great number of Muslims in the United States originate — the system does have a motivation to suppress its own people. Many Muslim organisations operating in those societies are viewed as a direct threat to the ruling party, the dictatorship, or the military power structure. The Arab Uprising made this visible to the world.

“Government critics say Malaysia’s sedition laws have been increasingly used to silence dissent.” — BBC

That is not to justify the actions of those governments. It is to say that Muslims who come to the West and occupy our masajid carry the same cultural attitudes towards the US government that they carried towards their home governments. Those attitudes get taught to converts as if they are Islamic. They are not. They are imported. We hear them parroted from the activist platform, from the minbar at Jumuah, in special talks, conferences, and programmes. They have nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with the political experiences of countries that are not the United States.

The Entrapment Bandwagon

Just because a case involves a paid or unpaid informant does not mean the government set out to entrap the would-be perpetrator. It does not reflect on the quality of the information the informant provided.

There is an enormous amount of confusion about what entrapment actually means. In most of the extremism cases where it has been claimed, the people making the claim have no idea what they are talking about. The legal threshold is straightforward: an investigation using an informant requires only that the idea or engagement of the criminal act originate with the would-be criminal. Anything the agency provides after that is for the purpose of discovering the extent of the plot, identifying those involved, and collecting the evidence required to demonstrate intent in court.

“The key to entrapment is whether the idea for the commission or encouragement of the criminal act originated with the police or government agents instead of with the ‘criminal.'” — Online Legal Dictionary

Consider the contrast. When it was first reported that the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal Building might be the work of Muslims, the assumption ran wild before any investigation had concluded. When Timothy McVeigh was identified — a white Christian boy raised in Lockport, New York — the Christian community did not rally to his defence. They did not declare he had been framed. They did not manufacture conspiracy theories about federal entrapment. They jeered at him as he was led away.

When a Muslim is charged, our community’s first instinct is the opposite. The default is to declare the accused innocent, to claim entrapment before a single piece of evidence is presented, and to treat defence counsel’s argument in court as established truth. Christians did not do this for one of their own. They let the evidence speak. They let the trial run. They let the verdict land.

We could learn from that.

If we want to stay out of the criminal justice system, we stay far away from anything to do with extremism. When I was a young Catholic boy long before I converted to Islam, my grandmother had a rule for us. Don’t say “I’ll kill you” to your brothers and sisters. Someone might believe you.

That rule scales. Don’t talk about wanting to do violent things. Don’t broach the topic if someone else mentions it first. If a conversation turns that direction, walk away from it. If those people are being investigated, they may drag you in with them on the strength of something you said that can be interpreted as intent. If you are not involved, you have nothing to fear. And if you become aware that someone else is involved, you have an obligation to act. We will come to that.

The fact is that the majority of cases involving Muslim informants and Muslim defendants in extremism plots are solid cases built on documented evidence. They are not entrapment.

Rage Against the Informant

Posting names, photographs, and angry videos of informants on the internet is a futile exercise. It accomplishes nothing for the person charged. It does not free them, it does not strengthen their defence, it does not change the evidence. What it does is signal to the wider public that the Muslim community is unwilling to be trusted to help protect society from extremist plots. It subverts the public statements our own leaders give against extremism. It hands every hostile commentator a fresh example of what they have been claiming about us all along.

It does more harm to the peaceful existence of the Muslim community in the West than it does good. And it does nothing — not one thing — to help the person whose name is on the indictment.

We have to get away from the culture of revenge that we imported. Revenge is personal vigilantism. It is misguided more often than not, and it is the cultural inheritance of societies where the rule of law has either failed or never existed. It is not Islam. From the earliest days of the Ummah in Madinah, the rule of law has been central to social justice in Islam. If we believe in the innocence of someone, or in an injustice done to them, then it is our duty to ensure that the truth comes out — through lawful means. Not through revenge.

“Twice will they be given their reward, for that they have persevered, that they avert Evil with Good, and that they spend (in charity) out of what We have given them.” — Qur’an 28:54

“The Messenger of Allah replied: An angel came down from Heaven and he was rejecting what he had said to you. When you took revenge, a devil came down. I was not going to sit when the devil came down.” — Abu Dawud, General Behaviour, Book 41, Number 4878

It may also be that the informant against whom revenge is being plotted is the person in the entire equation who has done nothing wrong. Our duty as Muslims is to stand for justice — even if that justice runs against our families, our tribes, our nations, or our co-religionists.

“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not personal inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort your testimony or refuse to give it, then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted.” — Qur’an 4:135

Many criminals are otherwise upstanding citizens. They give to charity. They serve their communities. Drug bosses and mafia leaders have done this for generations. The fact that we know someone as a good neighbour or a generous donor does not mean they are not also engaged in something hidden — something that can only be uncovered through covert investigation. That is the nature of secret crime. It hides itself behind the visible.

Sense and Sensibility

Today, every Muslim country in the world maintains domestic intelligence services designed to root out extremism, drug trafficking, and organised crime. Despite this, an enormous taboo persists among Muslims in the United States about the use of informants in American investigations.

In the United Arab Emirates, plain-clothes police officers operate undercover on the streets and make arrests. The Criminal Investigation Department goes undercover. Who does the average Muslim think the Inter-Services Intelligence agency is in Pakistan? Or the General Intelligence Presidency in Saudi Arabia? Do these agencies announce their investigations to the targets? How does anyone imagine they gather intelligence on plots? They use human intelligence — informants. The same tool, in the same manner, for the same purposes.

“O ye who believe! Avoid suspicion as much as possible: for suspicion in some cases is a sin. And spy not on each other behind their backs. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay, ye would abhor it… But fear Allah: For Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.” — Qur’an 49:12

The Qur’an forbids spying for personal reasons — backbiting, gossip, settling scores. It is clear from the Seerah, the Qur’an, and the consensus of scholars in Muslim countries that informing the authorities about criminal activity that could harm Muslims or society at large is permitted. One would be hard-pressed to find a serious scholar who says otherwise.

The fact is that in the United States and most Western countries, a person stands a far better chance of being accused objectively, having a fair trial, and exercising rights of appeal than they would in many of the Muslim countries those same critics hold up as more legitimate.

Our Islamic Duty

Once a Muslim becomes aware that another Muslim intends to break the law, there is an obligation to bring it to the attention of the authorities and to cooperate as required to protect everyone involved — including the would-be perpetrator from himself.

“And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.” — Qur’an 5:2

“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives…” — Qur’an 4:135

The Fiqh Council of North America has issued a clear ruling on the matter:

  • All acts of terrorism targeting civilians are haram in Islam.
  • It is haram for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group involved in any act of terrorism or violence.
  • It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians.

Don’t let radicalised Muslims act in your name — in the name of the religion you hold dear. If you have information, the responsibility to stop it falls on you.

If you know someone who has decided that they are going to make hijra to a Muslim land to fight a jihad to establish “justice in the land” and bring back the Caliphate, think ahead about what they are about to do. Think about what it means for the Muslims and the organisations in your country when their plans land on a front page. Think about whose name and whose religion is going to be dragged through the public square afterwards. Think about the families — the parents and siblings of the young men they will recruit on the way.

And then think about this:

The Caliphate cannot be established through violence and injustice.

Article by brjimc © 2015, 2018, revised 2026

by on

The Myth of Wahhabism

by James S. Coates

Introduction

Over the years, I have had the pleasure of working with many types of people in the Islamic community—a cross-section of ideologies, cultures and sects. I have taught classes with them, represented them in the media, and learned about them from them. When someone opens themselves up to learning about others, understanding comes, fears subside, and stereotyping dissipates.

One of the divisive ideological topics among Muslims is that between those with an agenda to malign the Saudi Kingdom and their brand of Islam dominant on the Arabian Peninsula by labelling Salafis “Wahhabi.” Interestingly, it is also a term propagated by anti-Islam haters to describe all of us Muslims.

I will explain how the term is misleading, divisive, offensive and, yes, even racist in its use by Muslims and non-Muslims alike—and should not be used. However, before I explain, it is important that anyone who discusses this topic understand the basic history of the Saud’s rise to power and the modern politic. There are a lot of supporting link references throughout the article for you to study if you really wish to delve into the topic.

The purpose of this write-up isn’t for the defence of the Salafi movement or the Saudi Kingdom. However, as a Muslim, it is my duty to draw the line where the facts and sound reason exist, to stand firm for justice. Far too often innocent bystanders (and new Muslims) are caught up in a vicious propaganda campaign of hate waged by some Muslim groups and non-Muslim hate groups on this topic.

“You who believe, uphold justice and bear witness to God, even if it is against yourselves, your parents, or your close relatives. Whether the person is rich or poor, God can best take care of both. Refrain from following your own desire, so that you can act justly—if you distort or neglect justice, God is fully aware of what you do.” — Qur’an 4:135

Basic History

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was born and lived in ‘Uyaynah, Arabia from 1703–1792, though he spent many years abroad and taught in Basra, Iraq. He completed his education in Madina. In Iran, 1736, he taught against the ideas of various prominent Sufi leaders. The movement he founded in his lifetime never extended beyond Arabia, though its emphasis on Tawhid (monotheism) would later spread through educational institutions funded by Saudi oil wealth.

The Context of Decline

Since the sack of Baghdad in 1258 by the Mongols, the Islamic Empire struggled with decline. Europe, in the period after the Dark Ages, benefited from education in Islamic territories and began to increase with technological and cultural innovation. By the 1700s, it had fully experienced the Renaissance and began exporting this cultural innovation back to Islamic lands.

Seeing these things as corrupt Western innovation (bid’ah) of religion, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab began a peaceful (non-violent) revivalist response to the decaying beliefs, morals, and Islamic practice in the Arabian Peninsula. He preached the removal of polytheism from Islamic society and a return to the roots of the Salaf (ancestors). The Salafi movement was mainly concerned with issues of Tawhid (monotheism), shirk (polytheism), and Western modern innovative influence among Arab Muslims seen to be the cause of moral decay. Today, the movement views the world in much the same way.

The Saudi-Wahhab Alliance

In 1744, Muhammad bin Saud sought to use his immense military forces to found the first Saudi state but didn’t have the influence he desired among all of the people to secure his rule. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was well known among these same Arabian tribes for his revivalist work. The two movements officially allied. Muhammad bin Saud married his son to Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s daughter to seal the deal. Under the new Saudi state, Muhammad bin Saud was to be charged with political and economic affairs; Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was in charge of religious affairs.

The alliance became strong as the Sauds conquered much of the Arabian Peninsula. Religious enforcement (sometimes religious violence) was sanctioned and backed by the government of the newly formed state. To bolster Muhammad bin Saud’s forces, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab began to use his influence as a religious leader to recruit people to join the military for deployment in battlefield jihad on behalf of the state.

The Illusion of Orthodoxy

The mix of fundamental revivalist teaching coupled with strict state-sanctioned enforcement lends outsiders to have the “illusion” of orthodoxy in Islam where Salafis are concerned. The madhab (school of thought) dominant in Saudi Arabia where the Salafi movement originates is Hanbali. There are many schools of thought in Islam, and thus there is no “orthodoxy” in Islam.

What Salafis Actually Believe

Before addressing the slanders against them, it’s worth understanding what Salafis actually teach:

  • Tawhid (monotheism) as the absolute centre of faith—rejection of anything that could compromise the oneness of God
  • Return to the Salaf (the first three generations of Muslims) as the model for authentic practice
  • Rejection of bid’ah (religious innovation) that lacks precedent in the Qur’an, Sunnah, or practice of the early community
  • Literalist approach to hadith with emphasis on authenticated narrations
  • Political quietism (for most Salafis)—obedience to rulers and avoidance of political activism, which they consider sinful

Salafi groups generally do not partake in protests or even the political process, considering it a sin. They believe in obedience to government and are generally peaceable. Such an idea may work well in a monarchy like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

However, as with any group, there are varying degrees of those (a minority) who grow disillusioned with passivity and become militant within the same ideology. Militant groups in all movements often go to the extent of replacing reputable established Islamic jurists with their own leaders in order to pronounce takfir (declaring disbelievers) on other Muslims to sanction and attack them for not acting on the same “triggers” deemed legitimate by the group. Duality is human nature, and within individuals or groups the reversal of moral value or opinion can happen for many reasons and often has triggers. It is not an event that is specific to the Salafi movement or Islam and happens all over the world.

Modern Politics

The Myth of Ideological “Export”

Attempts are often made to say that the Salafi movement is the “exporter” of extremist ideology because groups like ISIS are “Salafist,” but the facts do not support the idea of such sinister ideological “export.” The spread of terrorism misusing the Salafist ideology is incidental. ISIS is not the only terrorist group in the world. There is no evidence to support that all terrorist movements are “Salafist,” and most of these terrorist movements engage in acts that contravene the teachings of the movements from which they came.

The Root Cause: Foreign Policy

The root cause for the current terrorism crisis is simmering political instability caused by United States foreign policies that began in the 1980s. To advance the interests of the United States to fight communism, the US secured an agreement with the Saudi Arabian government (in coordination with Pakistan, Egypt, and Israel) to drive the communist Soviet Union from Afghanistan by funding, arming, and training extremist groups with US taxpayer money and resources.

The problem was made worse by Operation Desert Storm in 1990 and subsequent 12 years of sanctions that reduced a middle-class nation (Iraq) to one of the poorest in the world. These same CIA-funded and equipped jihadist assets based in Afghanistan became disillusioned with US foreign policy and later went on to attack the United States on September 11, 2001. The problem of global terrorism metastasised after the destabilisation of Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 and continues to grow with US foreign policies that include endless bombing campaigns, attempts at nation building, and interventions across the Middle East, Asia, Europe, and North Africa.

The Birth of ISIS

Today’s Middle East crisis with ISIS is born directly out of political instability created by the United States invasion of Iraq, the attempt to “de-Baathify” the Iraqi civil and military services leaving hundreds of thousands of Sunnis formerly loyal to Saddam Hussein without a job, and removing the only security apparatus from the nation. The United States established a Shi’a-led Iraqi government that marginalised Sunni groups. Al-Qaida Iraq chose to capitalise on this, and in 2006 it was renamed Islamic State of Iraq. The group has rebranded itself many times since (ISIS/ISIL/IS; all the same group).

If countries are not stable, there is either no security apparatus or it is too weak to be effective. Lawlessness becomes the norm. Misuse of religion, iconography, and ideology is commonplace in unstable or lawless countries. In fact, a large number of the recruits of these criminal enterprises or gangs also have criminal histories. The most notable global misuses of religion in human history have been the pogroms, Crusades, and Inquisitions inflicted on the world by Christendom.

“Whether Sunni or Shia, Salafi or Sufi, conservative or liberal, Muslims—and Muslim leaders—have almost unanimously condemned and denounced ISIS not merely as un-Islamic but actively anti-Islamic.” — New Statesman

The Council of Senior Scholars of Saudi Arabia have issued a ruling against terrorism and groups like ISIS, irrespective of the political establishment’s support for using them in the proxy war to confront Iranian influence in the region.

State Terrorism

It’s also worth noting that in political foreign affairs most governments have employed or supported terrorist groups to achieve their goals. In the case of the United States, examples range from the jihadist groups fighting “godless” Soviet communism, to the Bay of Pigs disaster, to even funnelling arms and money to Al-Nusra Front in Syria (an Al-Qaida affiliate).

The current regional proxy war between Saudi Arabia (supporting groups like ISIS against Iran) and Iran (Hezbollah and Revolutionary Guards against the Saudi Kingdom) should be seen with these facts in mind as we try to make sense of and solve the crisis of terrorism. If one condemns one nation’s terrorism, we must face the fact and condemn our own nation’s terrorism equally.

The coordinated efforts by the United States, Israel, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia (circa 1978) to fund, arm, and train these extremist groups to fight Soviet communism gave the initial credibility and rise to jihadist groups that we despise, like Al-Qaida and ISIS. The problem of terrorism (a tactic of war) lies primarily with government entities, not Islam or any one Islamic movement.

Now that we have waded through the politic and how Islamic movements have been distorted and misused for political gain of both Muslim and non-Muslim governments, let’s go on to draw the lines where they belong.

The Myth of “Wahhabism”

“Do not speak ill of one another; do not use offensive nicknames for one another. How bad it is to be called a mischief-maker after accepting faith! Those who do not repent of this behaviour are evildoers.” — Qur’an 49:11

“The Messenger of Allah said, ‘Do you know what is backbiting?’ The Companions said: ‘Allah and His Messenger know better.’ Thereupon he said, ‘Backbiting is talking about your (Muslim) brother in a manner which he dislikes.’ It was said to him: ‘What if my (Muslim) brother is as I say?’ He said, ‘If he is actually as you say, then that is backbiting; but if that is not in him, that is slandering.'” — Riyadh as-Salihin (Muslim)

Why Not “Taymiyyan”?

The Salafi do not follow Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. They rarely make mention of any of his teachings, instead referencing various hadith from common sources (Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Majah, Tirmidhi, etc.). In fact, if one is lucky they may just find a biography of his life in a bookstore where Salafis patronise. Of the four Islamic schools of thought, their madhab is Hanbali. Why are they not named after the madhab—”Hanbalian”?

The Salafi rely on a host of scholarly opinions, but Orientalist scholars claim that they rely more heavily on Ibn Taymiyyah. If they reference Ibn Taymiyyah extensively and rarely if ever (I’ve never heard one in my 21 years as a Muslim) reference Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, how can they be “Wahhabi”? Why not “Taymiyyan”?

Followers of Muhammad (PBUH)

Salafis never call themselves Wahhabi. In fact, it is considered a derogatory term designed to malign their movement by making the false claim that their movement is synonymous with terrorism (much like Islam-haters do to all Muslims). Like any other Muslim with our pet ideologies or favourite movement, they are followers of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Consequently, this is the same logic that is used by the Islam-hate industry to slander all Muslims.

A Tool of Islam-Hate

It is a term also used by many non-Muslims to promote anti-Islam agendas. The term “Wahhabi” means different things to different people. It means nothing (other than slander) to the Salafi because they don’t follow Wahhab. It is misapplied to them by other Muslims. It is a term applied by media pundits at times to identify terrorism. It is applied to all Muslims by the Islam-hate industry. The term is the source of confusion and hatred used not against just Salafi, but all Muslims—be one Sunni, Sufi, Shi’a, liberal or conservative, whatever your persuasion.

Sectarianism

Muslim political and religious opponents (like some Sufi, Shi’a, even fellow Sunnis and others) intentionally mislabel Salafi as “Wahhabi.” It is commonplace among those opposing Muslim groups with an agenda to stereotype and malign both the militant and the pacifist among the Salafi, Saudi citizens, or Arabs in general—painting them with a broad brush as the monolithic ideological source of all that is evil in the world (convenient for those swayed by alternate religious or national agendas).

It is also used by some Muslim groups with an agenda to disqualify, dehumanise, and demonise a fellow group of Muslims through labelling them extremists and spread unjustified fear and abhorrence for them. The fact is that we have already discussed the factors that brought extremist groups into existence and gave them credibility; no one group is the source of all evil. Muslim groups are being played in a game of divide and conquer by corrupt governments (Muslim and not) to advance their own interests.

No Clerical System

Catholics believe that Jesus himself is God. Yet not all Catholics follow the dictates of the Pope, despite the Pope being the head of the clergy and Jesus Christ’s divine representative on earth among Catholics. In Islam, there is no formal clerical hierarchy, let alone God’s divine representative on earth. It should be a no-brainer that not all Salafi side with the dictates of the Saudi political/religious establishment.

Like other religious groups of people, despite perceived religious hierarchy or clergy, they are still not homogeneous. Salafism has developed several schools of thinking:

“There are Salafis who have become close to centrism, which is based on combining the opposites, combining mind and matter, combining the spirit and the material, sometimes interpreting and at other times abstaining from interpretation, and combining intellect, action, religion, and politics. Moreover, we cannot disregard the development of the Salafis; in the past they did not talk about politics, but now they participate in the political battles…” — Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi

Just Plain Stupid

In its mislabelling, the efforts of these Muslim opponents to keep people away from the teaching of the Salafi are made futile. As people become familiar with the slanderous label and then enter the mosque or community centre, there is no one there that calls him/herself “Wahhabi”—but you will find people that refer to themselves as Salafi or following the Salaf.

So, mislabelling may seem like semantics, but all it does (besides the obvious slander and misleading people) is keep people from recognising them in the mosque. So, if one seriously fears their ideology so much as to want to preach to people against them, why not want them identified by their proper name? Again, a no-brainer here.

Discouraging Converts

Intentionally mislabelling them a name that they don’t call themselves is divisive. The slander creates needless trouble between religious leaders (and their followers) who have agendas of hatred for the Salafi, the Salafi who don’t want to be maligned, and those who want to learn about Islam.

It confuses people, especially new Muslims, who don’t know better and struggle to decipher Islamic groups that may be approaching them in the mosque. The agenda is more easily seen by new Muslims who get turned off by the divisiveness in a religion they chose—more than likely—to get away from this same kind of behaviour in a Church. Perhaps they just don’t have the time in their lives for such childish behaviour either.

You aren’t doing da’wah here; you are doing anti-da’wah. People will leave Islam and probably not even take the time to tell anyone. How is that going to look in our book of deeds?

“The record of their deeds will be laid open and you will see the guilty, dismayed at what they contain, saying, ‘Woe to us! What a record this is! It does not leave any deed, small or large, unaccounted for!’ They will find everything they ever did laid in front of them: your Lord will not be unjust to anyone.” — Qur’an 18:49

Racism and Cultural Supremacism

There is a conglomerate of groups that engage in this type of smear campaign. Western media and pundits, Islam-haters, and even other Muslims who use the term “Wahhabi” are using the term to identify a particular type of extremism (or terrorism) that they oppose. Yet there are no “Wahhabis.”

Who They Really Mean

Instead, what they are tacitly referring to without being forthright is:

  • “All Salafis,” or
  • “All Saudis,” or
  • In some cases, “all Arabs,” or
  • In the case of non-Muslim Islam-haters: all practising Muslims

The Colonial Legacy

Racism isn’t merely maligning someone based on ethnicity. It is a legacy construct of colonialism that places value on European civilisations over that of the occupied “savage” colonies. The implication is an “us versus them” attitude where all of “them” are savages worthy of hatred, pogroms, or civilising campaigns based on “their” grouping.

By the same token, these former colonies have begun using these “superior” attitudes against others based on ethnicity, nationality, madhab, religion, etc. It is an attitude of “supremacy” once particular to colonial Europe (that still exists among white supremacists today) which has been learned by the colonised, who are now using it against each other—in this case, against the mythical demon named the “Wahhabi.”

Racism is also not always expressed in explicit terms but tacitly. Racism may also entirely cast aside ethnic markers. This is known as “cultural racism.”

A Personal Experience

There are many groups of Muslims and Western non-Muslims that use the term “Wahhabi” in the derogatory sense to imply “all Arabs” or “all Saudis” are extremists. Recently, I experienced a group on Facebook (which will go unnamed).

It was a 7,000-member-strong Facebook group with a stated goal to “help new convert Muslims.” In reality, the group was mostly a cross-section of Asian Muslims who had repeated threads about the evil “Wahhabi” and how to defeat them. The discussions rapidly descended into hate speech against Arabs.

When prodded about what was meant by some of the anti-Arab statements, one of the members joked, “All Arabs are killing machines.” I reasoned with him that mislabelling them and grouping all of them together, coupled with making a statement like that, is what leads to hate speech against peaceful Salafi (fellow Muslims)—and it does no practical good to mislabel them.

Needless to say, he didn’t take that well. He sent me a message cursing at me, accused me of calling him a hater, and called on the admin to try to get me banned.

The point is that, though the group may have started with the best of intentions, the entire group was whipped up into a frenzy of “us versus them” to the point that no one could reason—and it didn’t take long. It was a flash response to challenging the social norm of anti-Arab (Muslim-on-Muslim) hate.

If I were to believe their psychological projection onto the Salafi, it would be something I might have expected from these so-called “intolerant” people they hated. It was no longer a forum of learning but a forum of anti-Arab hate speech. Stereotyping, educating new Muslims (their stated goal), teaching them not to paint people with a broad brush of blind hatred, giving reasons for objection to the Salafi movement—none of it mattered. Anyone who questioned their blind stereotyping was a threat and needed to be cursed at and strong-armed into silence.

What mattered more was that they are Malay and they don’t like Arabs; “our Islam is more valuable and valid while someone else’s is not.” It is “us versus them.” It’s the same thing Muslims often complain about when non-Muslims stereotype Islam, but on a micro level. I suspect, in addition to ethnicity, religious persuasion played an “us versus them” role in this hateful response also.

“The Messenger of Allah said, ‘Four are the qualities which, when found in a person, make him a sheer hypocrite, and one who possesses one of them possesses one characteristic of hypocrisy until he abandons it. These are: When he is entrusted with something, he betrays trust; when he speaks, he lies; when he promises, he acts treacherously; and when he argues, he behaves in a very imprudent, insulting manner.'” — Al-Bukhari and Muslim

Summary

Bottom line: it doesn’t solve the problem of extremism to mislabel Salafi (or anyone) “Wahhabi.”

Most Salafis, like most Muslims, are peaceful. Extremist militants do exist among them, but extremist militants have existed among Jamaat-e-Islami, Ikhwan, Sufi, Shi’a, etc.—and in all other non-Muslim faiths, even Buddhism. In all cases, most people (Muslims and those of the Salafi movement included) value peace and security, and militants are very much a small minority. Triggers and variations in these groups and their numbers are often relative to the politics in the region or globe and governments asserting their interests.

It’s okay to disagree with how Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab did things, to criticise the Salafi or their scholars, to criticise how the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does things, to think they have an ideological problem that needs fixing, or to have fundamental disagreements between each other—but maligning others by calling them by false names is unbecoming of a Muslim and fraught with error.

Instead, our language should be precise and accurate. Reasonable discussion, intellectual education, and debate need to happen for any of us to benefit or solve the problems that plague our global community.

The term “Wahhabi” is a manufactured-from-history and inaccurate name created by people with the intent to malign. It is incoherent, divisive, and slanderous. If one is a Muslim and sincere in their faith, they should ask themselves if this is the kind of thing Allah would want us to be doing. I suspect He wouldn’t.

“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.” — Qur’an 16:125

Article by BrJimC © 2016, revised 2026

by on

Long History of Islamic Art

In dealing with the issue of photography, we naturally have to reach back and talk about Islamic art since they both deal with the thing people object to, images.  Art creativity has been around since long before the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), but as Islam expanded to new regions different attitudes towards the arts emerged.  As Islam spread rapidly throughout the middle east, the Umayyids (661–750CE) made some advances in the arts but were the predecessors of the Islamic Golden Age.  The Umayyids spread Islam as a dynamic religion which adapted to local cultures and the arts within the limitations of Islamic civilisation.

The Umayyids were a ruling tribe from the tribe Banu Umayya. The Banu Umayya were a tribe of Quraysh who converted to Islam during the time of the Prophet, the most notable of them Uthman ibn Affan who went on to become the third Caliph during the Rashidun period.  Uthman ibn Affan is considered the third of four ‘Rightly Guided Caliphs‘ who Sunni look to (in addition to Qur’an and Hadith) when interpreting Shari’ah.  Caliph Uthman is also attributed with completing the very first full edition of the Qur’an begun under Abu Bakr’s term as Caliph.

The Umayyid Caliphate was established by Caliph Muawiya I ibn Abu Sufyan who succeeded Caliph ‘Ali ibn Abi-Talib. The Umayyid period (661 CE – 750 CE) is the second to rule Islamic civilisation after the Rashidun Caliphate period (the four Rightly Guided Caliphs, 632 CE – 661 CE).  Islamic civilisation since thrived in the sciences and arts, some of which have survived until today.

The Abassids where direct descendants of Al-Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, the youngest uncle of the Prophet Muhammad and overthrew the Umayyids in 750 CE.  The Abassid reign under Caliph Harun al-Rashid built upon the culture and sciences of the Umayyids.  The result was an explosion of advances in art, music, literature, science, medicine and much more that led Islam into a full blown Golden Age, while Europe plunged itself into the Dark Ages.  It was this age that Europeans traveled to Islamic lands to study in Islamic universities to acquire education which they would carry back to Europe.  Eventually, this led to the renaissance in 1300 CE pulling Europe out of the Dark Ages.

 

In the illustration on the right, a doctor and his assistant or patient stand on either side. (Source)

The Abbasid rule lasted from 750 CE until the Mongol invasion and sack of Baghdad in 1258 CE and killed Caliph al-Musta’sim.  Dynastic struggles brought about political instability and declining institutions but it was this moment that marked the decline in Islamic civilisation.  Islamic civilisation has not fully recovered since.

Traditionally, as seen in Islamic History, even human portrayals can be found in all eras of Islamic art.  In addition to humans, animals and plant portrayals are common even in Islam’s fourth most revered mosque, The Great Mosque of Damascus.  Since the earliest days of the Islamic empire Muslims have designed coinage and miniatures with depictions as well.

 

Islamic coin featuring human figure in art. American University of Beirut, Lebanon

 

Abbasid Bowl, 9th Century, Iraq. Qatar Museum of Islamic Art

 

Since the beginning, Islamic civilisation has been familiar with depictions of Allah’s creation. 1400 years of Islamic history tells us that these depictions were mostly permitted unless there was an element of shirk (idolatry) associated with it.  Even in the case of art that had idolatrous significance that became owned by Muslims, it was often marked but not destroyed. Human (or any) representation for the purpose of worship is shirk (idolatry) and is strictly forbidden.  However, the evidence shows that Muslims from all eras have never conclusively viewed representation of mundane figures as forbidden.

However, if we reach back to the Prophet’s example, although shirk is forbidden, we still do not see a total destruction or defacement of works of art among non-Muslim communities who were in alliances with Muslims.  The Prophet himself demanded that Muslims respect other faiths and even participate in maintaining and repairing their religious buildings, which were decorated with paintings, statues and other works that would naturally have items of religious value considered shirk by Muslims.  Examples:

“No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it… Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.” – Prophet Muhammad, Promise to the Monks of St. Catherine’s Monastery Until the End of Days

“Assist in reconstruct (patch, remodel) their churches and monasteries, and this would be as aid to them in their religion and for their commitment to the covenant.” – Prophet Muhammad, Covenant penned in the Prophet’s Mosque by Ali bin Abi Taleb

In recent centuries an effort to re-establish the past glory of Islam’s Golden Age, many Muslims have come to believe that instead of building from where we were at the height of the Golden Age that we must dial back Islamic civilisation by viewing it all as bid’ah (innovation) involving varying degrees of shirk (idolatry).  In doing so, there is considerable effort put into regressive ideologies that do not consider the ‘larger picture’ of the facts of Islamic history, modern living, culture, science, economy and governance.  One such movement today, the Salafist movement, is preoccupied with forbidding the things that were once the pinnacle of Islamic civilisation from its earliest days to its decline at the hands of the Mongols.  This movement began 300 years ago in the mid 1700s and is rooted in Saudi Arabian history. The fundamentals of this revivalist Salafist movement seems sound on the surface. It is more often overly zealous to avoid what it identifies as unnecessary bid’ah (innovation) and ascribes shirk (polytheism) where none exists. It’s marriage to the Saudi Arabian government often is problematic when interpreting Islam as it applies autocratic ideology within the country and in the movement worldwide.  Since the earliest days, Islam has always been a more dynamic faith.

O people, beware of exaggeration in religious matters for those who came before you were doomed because of exaggeration in religious matters. – Sunan Ibn Majah 

There is nothing wrong with being overly cautious, however, this seemingly monastic outlook is unnecessary and shouldn’t be put off as the only correct Islamic view.  Furthermore, it is over-burdensome in a way Allah and the Prophet (PBUH) never intended for the believers.  Such puritan ideas in the arts (among other things) are themselves a destructive bid’ah (innovation) of religion in my view.

God wants ease for you, not hardship. He wants you to complete the prescribed period and to glorify Him for having guided you, so that you may be thankful. – Qur’an 2:185b

God does not wish to place any burden on you: He only wishes to cleanse you and perfect His blessing on you, so that you may be thankful. – Qur’an 5:6

A bedouin urinated in the mosque and some people rushed to beat him up. The Prophet said: “Leave him alone and pour a bucket of water over it. You have been sent to make things easy and not to make them difficult.” – Riyad as-Salihin (Bukhari)

Interestingly, one of the things that most Muslims do not think about is the representation of one celestial body (sometimes accompanied by a second) that were once used by pagan idolaters that exists on most Mosques, many national flags or religious accessories today (like carpets).  Like representations of humans, animals or plants, and unlike other symbols of faith, they are representations of Allah’s creation and people in the past have gone astray to worship them or use them for polytheistic purpose.

The Star and Crescent signifies victory, sovereignty and divinity. According to tradition, in 339 BC a brilliant crescent moon saved Byzantium (now Istanbul) from attack by Philip of Macedon. To mark their gratitude, the citizens adopted the Crescent of Diana as the city’s emblem. After Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, Byzantium became a Christian city in 330 AD and was renamed Constantinople.  The Crescent was adopted from the goddess Diana and given a Star by the Emperor as symbolic of the Virgin Mary.

After 1299, during the reign of Sultan Osman Gazi of the Ottoman Empire, the Sultan had a dream of a crescent moon in every corner of the world with a “mighty wind, and turned the points of the sword-leaves towards the various cities of the world, but especially towards Constantinople.”  The dream then became a symbol of the Ottoman dynasty. When Constantinople was conquered by Mehmed II in 1453, the crescent came to represent both Islam and the Turkish empire.

It is understood by all Muslims that this is merely symbolic and has no religious significance or polytheistic merit despite its idolatrous origins.

The night, the day, the sun, the moon, are only a few of His signs. Do not bow down in worship to the sun or the moon, but bow down to God who created them, if it is truly Him that you worship. – Qur’an 41:37

Yet, the Crescent and Star decorate our Islamic societies in the same way as picture art since the earliest days of Islam (unlike the Crescent and Star, such Islamic art never had any polytheistic or religious merit).  We know with certainty that picture art decorated Mosques, town centers, palaces, homes, etc. since the Umayyids.  There is one similarity between these two things (Crescent decoration and art) that tie this up into a neat bundle of understanding and is perfectly in line with Quran and Hadith.  In creating and using these items, there is no intent to create a relic for people to venerate.  No shirk is involved.

Image by yours truly.

Modern Photography

Since the development of the camera, there has been the ongoing debate over whether or not taking a photograph is forbidden or permitted in Islam, but there has been little understanding about what photography actually is.  There are two forms of photography addressed by the scholars, ‘still photo’ and ‘video’.

Though it shares all of the characteristics of imagination involved in creating a painting, photography today is not creating a picture, nor is it taking a picture.  A photograph is a reflection of a scene that already exists.  Photography is the control of reflective light bouncing off of a subject.  Controlling this light is similar to the control of water if you were to open a water tap and fill a jug for use at a later date. Photography is both an art form and a science.  Photography is applying the talent that Allah has given you to see something and adjusting the mechanisms to control light which in turn determines how it is recorded on a micro storage chip, resulting in a great photograph for you to consume (use) at a later date.  Here is how it works:

 

 

In the above diagram light rays already exist, even in total darkness.  You can adjust light with a flash or simply have a longer exposure.  Light bounces off or radiates from something in the world and is constantly travelling towards your camera. When you point the camera at a subject, the image is bouncing off of your mirror (or shutter in the case of mirror-less).  The aperture in your lens can be adjusted for a faster (larger) or slower (smaller) light setting. The shutter can be set slower to allow more light or faster to allow less light.  The sensor that will record the light can be set to more or less light sensitive.  When the settings are optimal the shutter is released for the specified time.  When the shutter is released, light that is already travelling into your camera continues on its way to the sensor.  The sensor is electronic and the light from the scene is interpreted by the CPU, converted to data and stored in your data drive.  The still photo is called a ‘frame’.  The data from the photo frame can be exported for data manipulation on your PC, stored or printed for whatever reason.

Whether you have a camera dedicated for television or movies, DSLR or mobile phone, all digital cameras are video capable. A video is a series of still photo frames that are taken with the correct lighting controls (aperture, shutter speed and sensor strength) that are recorded for playback into what is called ‘frame rate’.  When they are played back, the frame rate is the number of images that are played back, displayed or projected per second.  Although video can be viewed as a separate art form, it works in the exact same way that still photography works, with one exception:  audio.  Audio breathes life into the collection of rapidly projected photographs and is imprinted on what we call television, computer screens, tablets and mobile phones.  It can also be frozen by frame and printed the same as a still photo with the right software.  Although this is less quality and overlooked in place of more appropriate still photography, Ultra-High Definition is making for clearer television pictures as technology advances.

Photography has many beneficial uses and as with anything that exists can be abused.  It has some very relevant purposes, such as to communicate, tell a story, inspire, capture history, innocent retention of memories and challenge creativity.  All of this can be used for good causes like remembering lost loved ones, making a record of your life for your family, communicating beauty on various subjects, conveying emotions, identification for ID cards or social media profiles, journalism, education in all sciences, and much more.

Scholarly Opinions, are Opinions

In large part, scholars do ‘permit’ photographs, even if they forbid painting art. However, most Salafis, who have now propagated their movement worldwide with the support of the Saudi Arabian government, have taught that still photography is forbidden except for photo ID like passports, etc.  Interestingly, in the same stroke of a brush they claim that taking video is permitted.  In fact, there is no difference between the two from a photographic standpoint.

It seems a lot of us Muslims get amnesia when it comes to leaders like the Saudi Arabian King Salman and a number of other Muslim dictators across Arab ‘Muslim’ countries.  Their imposing portrait paintings and photographs are plastered all over our Islamic societies.  These types of paintings and photos are designed to remind us who is in charge, who we should fear and who we should admire, and I don’t think they have Qur’an, Sunnah or Allah in mind.  Still two wrongs wouldn’t make a right and someone’s disingenuous argumentation doesn’t allow us a free pass, so lets examine this topic further.

 

Saudi Arabian King Salman

The evidences the scholars use to come to these conclusions are not based in Qur’an.  There is no prohibition on drawing, painting, or creating art of any type in the Qur’an.  The core message of Allah to Muslims is Tawheed (Oneness) and in the Qur’an He warns us about engaging in forms of idolatry.  In other words, ascribing a supernatural quality, partnership, or divinity to corruptible things, either in Creation or that we create.  If one examines the totality of hadith on the topic, there is a clear line in Islam between permissibly and discretion that indicates to us at what point our intent becomes the idolatrous behaviour which is prohibited in the Qur’an.  Allah does not prohibit us from enjoying his creation through the arts, but limits us in our acts of divine adoration, supplication and worship to Him only.  What I am speaking of is plain in the Quran:

If any, after this, invent a lie and attribute it to Allah, they are indeed unjust wrong-doers. – Qur’an 3:94

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him. – Qur’an 112

Further to the discussion, according to the Qur’an Allah even blessed Prophet Sulaiman (a.s.) and his family to enjoy these things that were made for them.

They made him whatever he wanted- palaces, statues, basins as large as water troughs, fixed cauldrons. We said, ‘Work thankfully, family of David, for few of my servants are truly thankful.’ – Qur’an 34:13

The Qur’an is our primary source as it is the most authentic source.  The hadith are our secondary source because they are not the words of Allah but a series of chain narrations that have been authenticated and recorded hundreds of years later (longer than it took for parts of the Bible to be put on papyrus), hence all hadith must be looked at in light of the Qur’an.

The prohibitions imposed by scholars who prohibit photographic art are entirely based on a group of hadith that if seen together, in light of Qur’anic verses and the history of what purpose many images served in the time of the Prophet, they can be easily understood as they always have been since the time of the Prophet Muhammad when Islam was perfected.

This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. – Qur’an 5:3

Here is what the scholars say:

According to Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the subject matter of a photograph is factor in prohibition.  For example, nude or semi-nude photographs, drawings or paintings would be forbidden because they go squarely against Islamic morals.  Such a prohibition would also include portraits of tyrants or people who are leaders or celebrities that propagate immoral behavior.  He also includes subject matter like religious symbols, such as crosses, idols, etc.

Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, says, “Photography as a medium of communication or for the simple, innocent retention of memories without the taint of reverence/shirk does not fall under the category of forbidden Tasweer [picture/image].

One finds a number of traditions from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, condemning people who make Tasweer, which denotes painting or carving images or statues. It was closely associated with paganism or shirk [association of partners with Allah]. People were in the habit of carving images and statues for the sake of worship. Islam, therefore, declared Tasweer forbidden because of its close association with shirk. One of the stated principles of usul-u-Fiqh( Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence) is that if anything directly leads to haram [forbidden acts], it is likewise haram. In other words, Tasweer was forbidden precisely for the reason that it was a means leading to shirk.

The function of photography today does not fall under the above category. Even some of the scholars who had been once vehemently opposed to photography under the pretext that it was a form of forbiddenTasweerhave later changed their position on it – as they allow even for their own pictures to be taken and published in newspapers, for videotaping lectures and for presentations; whereas in the past, they would only allow it in exceptional cases such as passports, drivers’ licenses, etc. The change in their view of photography is based on their assessment of the role of photography.

Having said this, one must add a word of caution: To take pictures of leaders and heroes and hang them on the walls may not belong to the same category of permission. This may give rise to a feeling of reverence and hero worship, which was precisely the main thrust of the prohibition of Tasweer. Therefore, one cannot make an unqualified statement to the effect that all photography is halal. It all depends on the use and function of it. If it is for educational purpose and has not been tainted with the motive of reverence and hero worship, there is nothing in the sources to prohibit it.”

Imam Afroz Ali, writes, “…the dominant opinion of the modern Scholars of High Knowledge is that photography is permissible as long as they are of benefit and not for any harmful or prohibited purposes, and that photographs of humans and animals not be displayed [on a wall].”

 

Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz (Source)

Sheikh Ibn Baz and other more restrictive scholars expressly forbids photographs and art, claiming that the areas that he deems ‘doubtful’ should be avoided. I’ve included a portrait of him here to illustrate that this type of outright restriction seems disingenuous.

The swiftness that Shiekh Ibn Baz and others exchange ‘avoidance’ (or other qualifiers) with ‘forbidden’ regarding photography is concerning.  Qur’an says:

Be a community that calls for what is good, urges what is right, and forbids what is wrong: those who do this are the successful ones. – Qur’an 3:104

God wants ease for you, not hardship. He wants you to complete the prescribed period and to glorify Him for having guided you, so that you may be thankful. – Qur’an 2:185b

You who believe, do not forbid the good things God has made lawful to you- do not exceed the limits: God does not love those who exceed the limits – Qur’an 5:87

Allah has never given a command forbidding picture making, but he has forbidden shirk, that we know in the Prophet’s time was more often associated with picture making.  In the same ease of saying it is a ‘doubtful’ area (since it isn’t mentioned directly in Qur’an, hadith and history seem to conflict) that the Sheikh forbids it, we can also say that it is permitted unless shirk is involved.  With the same logic to forbid it we can also make it permitted as something good for us, unless misused in ways against Qur’anic teaching of Tawheed.  It’s important to note also that where these scholars used to expressly forbid it in all cases, many have now changed their views regarding some of it.  Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi has even noted this among some of these Salafist scholars:

“The Salafis also have developed in several jurisprudence issues, such as “photography,” which they used to consider one of the major crimes, but now they consider it allowed.”

My viewpoint

As a photographer, I would also say that there is legitimate reason to photograph some of these things Sheikh Al-Qaradawi mentions depending on circumstance.  For example, education, journalism, news reporting, etc.  The line to draw is in the intent of the photograph.  For example, a picture of a cross can tell a story that can illustrate to the audience a valid educational opportunity or simply can serve as a mere collection of memories on a holiday trip to the Vatican, etc.  Conversely, a portrait of a nation’s regime leadership is intended to portray them in a false light that exalts them, normalises them, reinforces their rule or washes out their crimes.  I agree with Sheikh Kutty that the line is drawn at the use and function of it.

According to the sum of the hadith that even Sheikh Ibn Baz lists, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) dealt with issues where the images were closely associated with promoting shirk, which was common in the culture of his time.  The intent of such art was towards advancing beliefs contrary to Islam.  Centuries of Islamic civilisation dating back to the earliest surviving examples from the 7th century through the Islamic Golden Age serve as an indicator of how this topic was interpreted by the early sahabbah [companions] and subsequent scholars. Surviving documents dictated by the Prophet Muhammad himself tell us how even in some cases Muslims were ordered to repair and maintain properties of other faiths that (as common in that time) would have had religious statues, paintings and other image art incorporated into their architecture. Such a notion is still completely in line with Qur’an that expressly forbids Muslims from engaging in all forms of shirk while serving a higher purpose of Islamic civilisation.

If we consider the sum of all hadith, the Qur’an, historical context since the time of the Prophet and sahabbah, agreements the Prophet Muhammad has made with non-Muslim groups and even later Islamic history leading into the Golden Age, we can see that the hadith that many people today use to prohibit all image making is really only prohibiting Muslims from the making of relics.

I’ve also found that many scholars do not understand what photography is and have not properly consulted the industry and educated themselves on the science.  When making rulings on any topic this is imperative. In the end we are responsible to Allah for ourselves. Photography is a beautiful art that has many purposes.  When you take photographs, consider your subject matter, is it haram?  What is the intent of the image, education, saving a memory?  In the end, you are the best qualified to chart the course of your life.  Don’t surrender your mind to others who wish to use the ‘just in case’ reasoning to ban photography.

We have bound each human being’s destiny to his neck. On the Day of Resurrection, We shall bring out a record for each of them, which they will find spread wide open, ‘Read your record. Today your own soul is enough to calculate your account.’ Whoever accepts guidance does so for his own good; whoever strays does so at his own peril. No soul will bear another’s burden, nor do We punish until We have sent a messenger. – Qur’an 17:13-15

My view is that if you feel you need to go that extra mile to avoid something, then do it. However, such personal convictions shouldn’t be imposed on others. It could be that Allah has permitted it, as I believe is clearly shown in in light of all of the facts of Qur’an, hadith and history.  The one who does not transgress the limits set by Allah (shirk) is exercising a creative right given by Allah to enjoy for a better purpose. There are things Allah has made clear and other things He has not.  Of the things He hasn’t made clear He has left us room for growth. Both the conservative and liberal thinker can be right within the confines of what Allah has set out for us in the Qur’an.  In the end, we must have faith in Allah that He is the God He says He is, the Most Merciful.  Niyyah (intentions) is the foundation for every act in Islam.

Messenger of Allah said, “The deeds are considered by the intentions, and a person will get the reward according to his intention. So whoever emigrated for Allah and His Messenger, his emigration will be for Allah and His Messenger; and whoever emigrated for worldly benefits or for a woman to marry, his emigration would be for what he emigrated for”. – Riyad as-Salihin [Bukhari and Muslim]

Allah would, however, raise them according to their intention. – Sahih Muslim

 

Pray: Muhammad Berkati, Indonesia, Arts and Culture; 2015 Sony World Photography Awards

 

Allah has given us a beautiful gift and it should be used for His glory and our enjoyment.  An art that portrays a sense of skill, pride, joy and beauty in the world is not forbidden from Allah, it is a gift of Allah.

And (He has created) horses, mules, and donkeys, for you to ride and use for show; and He has created (other) things of which ye have no knowledge. – Qur’an 16:8

Article by BrJimC © 2017

by on

The Core Problem: Certainty Where None Exists

There is no scholarly consensus on Aisha’s age at marriage. The hadith literature contains multiple contradictory accounts, and anyone claiming certainty—whether asserting she was six, nine, or nineteen—is revealing their agenda rather than their scholarship.

To arbitrarily say Aisha was six or nine years old without taking into account the many other hadith that contradict this is a serious logical error. To put faith in that assertion and deliberately hang on to the belief that Islam teaches Aisha was this young, the Prophet Muhammad was a sexual predator or Islam teaches Muslims to do this is simply half-baked and absurd.

This article examines the full body of evidence. The honest conclusion is not a specific number but rather an acknowledgment of uncertainty—with the weight of evidence pointing away from the lowest figures commonly cited.

Understanding Hadith: Why Contradictions Exist

As I have established in my articles on ‘The Hadith‘ and ‘Shariah‘, the Qur’an is the primary source that guides a Muslim’s belief system, lifestyle and values. The hadith supplement these things in interpretations of Shariah that scholars make. In this decision making process, Shari’ah which does not relate to religious life (See: Islam is a 3 Dimensional Religion) or practice is “dynamic” and able to change based on time, place, the people and technology. Interpreting hadith is a science that many scholars devote their entire lives to. There is a historical and cultural context to hadith.

The hadith were written between 200-300 years after the Prophet and he never saw them or authorized them as he did the Qur’an, so we have to ‘authenticate’ the narrators. We call this ‘isnad‘ (chain of narration) and this tells us that the people who narrated the hadith are trustworthy or not. Isnad does not tell us that what was recorded in the hadith is definitively what was said or happened. Hadith are basically “hearsay evidence” and have many classifications of authenticity of isnad, not accuracy of content. This is why the hadith are a secondary source that supplement the Qur’an.

Keep in mind that although Muslims believe in the Bible (New Testament), we don’t rely on it for our belief system partly for the reason that the earliest writings are from 132AD (in Aramaic) and wasn’t canonized until 325AD (in Greek). More precisely, it has no isnad (chain of narration). That’s 100 to over 300 years after Jesus. The Prophet never saw our books of hadith and Jesus never saw the Bible to authorize it.

Addressing the Strongest Counterargument

Some readers will note that certain hadith in Sahih Bukhari—considered among the most rigorously authenticated collections—state that Aisha was six at marriage and nine at consummation. This requires acknowledgment.

However, strong isnad (chain of narration) does not guarantee accurate content. It tells us the narrators were considered trustworthy, not that memories recorded 200+ years after the events were free from error, confusion between lunar and solar years, or transmission mistakes. When multiple hadith with credible chains contradict each other, we must examine the full body of evidence rather than privileging one account while ignoring others.

The Evidence: Categorised

The contradictions in the hadith regarding Aisha’s age fall into several categories. Examining them systematically reveals why confident assertions about her age are unwarranted.

Chronological Calculations

The Asma Calculation:

It is generally accepted among historians that Aisha’s sister Asma was ten years older than her. Two sources (Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb and Ibn Kathir’s Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah) state that Asma died in the 73rd year after Hijra (migration to Madina) when she was 100 years old. If Asma was 100 at that time, she would have been 27 or 28 during Hijra in 622 CE. This would make Aisha 17 or 18 years old at that time. If Aisha got married a year or two later in 1 AH or 2 AH (After Hijra) she would have been somewhere between 18-20 years old at the time of marriage.

The Fatima Calculation:

Fatima was five years older than Aisha according to Ibn Hajar. Fatima was born when Muhammad was 35 years old. This means that Aisha was born when the Muhammad was 40 years old which would make Aisha twelve years old when she was married.

The Jahiliyyah Report:

Tabari also reports that during Jahiliyyah (days before he accepted Islam) all of his kids were born. His jahiliyyah ended in 610 CE. This would make Aisha twelve when she married in 622 CE.

Participation Constraints

Battlefield Minimum Age:

Sahih Bukhari states that Aisha participated in both the battle of Badr and Uhud. According to Bukhari’s Kitab Al’ Maghzi (Book of History), Ibn Umar said that the Prophet did not allow him to participate in the battle of Uhud because he was 14 years old. No one younger than 15 was allowed to accompany raiding parties. However, on the day of the Khandaq battle Ibn Umar was 15 and he was allowed to participate. Since it was not allowed for people younger than 15 to participate in raiding parties, Aisha who participated in the battle of Uhud was at minimum 15 years old. This would put her at 13-14 at the time of marriage.

The Battle of Badr:

According the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, Aisha was at the battle of Badr, which took place in 624 CE. It is not possible for her to be at the battle of Badr without being at minimum age 15 because no one younger than this was allowed to accompany raiding parties. If she was at the battle of Badr (which she was according to Qur’an) she would have been 15 or older. So, when she was married following the hijra (migration to Medina) in 622 CE she would have been 13 or older.

Pre-Islamic Betrothal Evidence

Abu Bakr is reported in Tabari to have wished to spare Aisha the harsh trip to Ethiopia shortly after 615 CE and tried to marry her to Mut’am’s son sooner than planned (she was engaged once prior to the Prophet marrying her). Mut’am refused because Abu Bakr had converted to Islam. If Aisha was old enough to be engaged (of marriageable age) in 615 CE she would have been much older than nine in 622 CE when she married.

Internal Contradictions

The Surah Al-Qamar Problem:

Aisha is said also to have been born eight years before Hijra (migration to Medina) in 622 CE. Yet, in Sahih Bukhari that at the time of the 54th chapter of the Qur’an was revealed (Surah Al-Qamar) Aisha is reported to have said, “I was a young girl”. However, the 54th Chapter of Qur’an was revealed nine years before Hijra. According to this, Aisha had not even been born yet. So, if Aisha, as an adult after the death of the Prophet, relayed a hadith remembering to a time when she was a young girl (during a time when she wasn’t even born yet) she would most likely be referring to being between 7-14, which would make her between 14-21 at the age of marriage.

The Ibn Sa’d Discrepancy:

Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat and Ansab al-Ashraf books are in disagreement concerning Aisha’s marriage. Accordingly, her marriage would have been two to five years after Hijra (migration to Madina) and would make her about 17-20. (Source)

The Early Conversion Evidence

The earliest surviving biography of the Prophet (Ibn Hisham) says that she converted to Islam before one of the Prophet’s main companions (Umar ibn Al-Kattab) in the few years around 610 CE. In order to convert to Islam she had to be of the age of talking and understanding. Assuming this is around age three, that would make her at least 15 in 622 CE when she was married.

Why This Matters to Muslims

Some readers may wonder why Muslims engage with this question at all. The answer is theological, not defensive.

The Prophet Muhammad’s character (uswa hasana—the beautiful example) is central to Islamic ethics. Muslims look to his life as a model for conduct. Getting the history right matters because it shapes how that model is understood. This is not about “excusing” anything; it is about accurate scholarship regarding a figure of profound religious significance.

The Qur’an itself establishes principles regarding marriage that require consent and maturity. Forced marriages are prohibited. The Islamic tradition has always maintained that Aisha’s marriage was willful and accepted by her as per custom among Muslims.

What We Can Say With Confidence

Tallying the contradictions across the hadith literature, the weight of evidence points toward late teens rather than single digits. The lowest figures require ignoring substantial contradictory evidence from credible sources.

Important points:

Aisha was at minimum the age of puberty at the time of marriage according to 7th century customs, possibly older.

Aisha deeply loved the Prophet Muhammad long after he died and until the day she died. She was in love with him her entire life and he with her. Many hadith support how close and intimate their love was for each other.

Of all the demonizing from local tribes claiming he was demonically possessed, insane or altering the market economy by making their gods obsolete, etc., no one ever accused him of marrying a girl too young to be married.

Aisha was a warrior who commanded men from her tribe in battle. She was a strong woman with high status in Islam and Arabia. She relayed the majority of the Prophet Muhammad’s hadith after he died. Since she had the power to do so, there is no evidence that she reflected in her stories of the Prophet’s life that he victimized her by marrying her or that her marriage or relationship made her unhappy. She was totally devoted to him until she died.

Aisha never gave any indication that she was forced to marry. Forced marriages are against Islamic teaching, and her marriage was willful and accepted by her as per custom among Muslims.

Aisha had a healthy relationship with the Prophet and no serious scholar of Islamic history has ever noted signs of a forced or sexually abusive relationship.

The Double Standard

Before making negative judgments about 7th century Arabian customs, consider the standards applied—and not applied—elsewhere.

Unlike in much of today’s western world, in seventh century Arabia, the onset for puberty defined adulthood. As late as five centuries later, this was the case also in Europe. King John of England was 33 years old and married Isabella of Angoulême, who was 12 at the time.

“Modern standards” in the United States alone vary greatly but all states allow early marriageable ages, some as young as 12. According to various US state law, a girl with her parents consent can marry and have sex in that marriage in her early to mid teens. There is no top end cap on the age of men, either. In Europe, many countries limit the legal age of consent to sex as low as 14 years old. In Israel, the age of consent can be as low as 14, provided both parties consent and have an age gap of three years or less—and in 2023, the Justice Ministry reportedly sought to expand this to a five-year gap. It may not be acceptable to most of us at these ages, but before holding a double standard on 7th century Arabian cultural norms, we need to consider these facts, because they aren’t much different.

The critique of Islam on this basis often comes from people whose own legal codes permit marriages at ages they would condemn if practiced elsewhere. If someone genuinely cared about child welfare as a matter of principle, they would be lobbying their state legislature rather than point-scoring about contested medieval hadith.

Seventh-century Arabian norms are held to a standard that modern Western legal codes do not even meet. And crucially, Islamic jurisprudence itself has mechanisms for updating rulings based on time, place, and circumstance—the dynamism referenced earlier. The tradition is not frozen in the 7th century.

Before condemning 7th century Arabia, examine your own legal codes.

Article by BrJimC © 2017, revised 2026