Portals, Politics, and Post-Modernism: A Call for the Liberatory Moment


It is important to note that my own process of becoming Muslim involved the destabilization of my Atheism and the stabilization of an Islamic Theism occurring simultaneously. These were overlapping developments in my life when I was in my early 20s. Although they are necessarily kept separate in these blog posts, I want to stress that I was reading about Islam at the same time that I was reading Anarcho-Primitivist critiques of Science and Marxist critiques of Secular Humanism.


I have already elucidated before a bit about my early path to Islam on this blog. In fact, Michael Muhammad Knight, in his book Why I Am a Salafi posed an interesting question in response to that blog post.

“A blogger, naming me as an influence on his early explorations of Islam, credited my books along with various Qur’an translations, Vali Nasr’s The Shia Revival, Carol Anway’s Daughters of Another Path, Karen Armstrong’s biography of Muhammad, and The Autobiography of Malcolm X as forming the assemblage that he called ‘Islam’ and to which he converted. What kind of Islam does that sack of potatoes make? To what origin, exactly, can it revert him? Is it really Islam? And if not, if it is only a portal that leads to other portals, at what point does that process arrive upon the real thing, the Islam of preexisting coherence and unbroken unity?” (p. 345)

Knight points out an important aspect of my conversion to Islam – it was based on a limited reading in a specific time and place that cannot be universalized and cannot be retrospectively applied as a standard for understanding Islam. In a post-modern condition, my reading of Islam is thoroughly post-modern (as is, for example, my reading of Marxism-Leninism and post-modernity itself).

In answering these questions adequately, we must first accept some important points – the Islam to which I reverted was certainly an Islam of my own making, just as everyone else’s Islam (whether Muslim or not) is an Islam of their own making. It’s an Islam of what they have read and what they have not read (or chosen not to read). It’s an Islam of what they have been told or haven’t been told and what they accept or don’t accept to be legitimate.

Applying Post-Modernism

We could take the post-modern critique that I proposed in Part One to its conclusions and say simply that reality is always mediated and distorted through a subjective lens and we can never arrive at anything objective. This would mean that these “portals” will never “arrive upon the real thing” and we will never reach “the Islam of preexisting coherence and unbroken unity”.

Whether we follow the ideas of Heidegger, Foucault, or Deleuze (all three white men from Europe), we’re struck by the fact that we’re are trapped by the limited access that humans have to Truth. Indeed, post-modernism (correctly, in my determination) insists that our limited ways of being in the world constitute our limited ways of understanding the world.

The concept of Truth has essentially two dominant strains in society today – correspondence and constructionism. These two ways of thinking more or less fit to two divergent epistemologies – realism and constructionism.

The Correspondence Theory of Truth would be that Truth is out there in the world and we have access to it. If I say something is “true”, we can accept it based on how it corresponds to reality.

The Constructionist Theory of Truth would be that Truth may be out there somewhere, but our access to that Truth is based entirely on our extremely narrow perspectives. We construct social realities and then treat those social constructions as true. If I say something is “true”, then that begs a hundred thousand questions of what it could mean, under what circumstances, and what the structures are that provide me with the means to make such a claim.

As a theist, when I make claims about Truth, the constructionist would ask those questions. The constructionist would ask the same questions, however, if an atheist made claims about Truth. And despite the agnostic (whether strong or weak) attempt at folding out of the debate, there are also deeply embedded Truth claims in agnosticism, along with a mode of being that reflects one or the other predilection.

And I should point out, for the sake of being explicit, that I subscribe to the Constructionist Theory of Truth, which does have its twin in the post-modern critique.

At this point, you could reasonably ask: if we accept the post-modern critique, however, does that mean that we should simply reject any attempts at uncovering the world (in the Heideggerian sense) as it is?

I want to return to this question a bit later. But before doing that, I think it would be worthwhile to address some of the ideas that allowed me to disassemble my Atheism and assemble a Theism.

Being an Atheist and Not Reading Freud

When I was a New Atheist, I had some bizarre ideas and had some deep prejudices based on my very limited experiences.

Indeed, the unexamined core of my New Atheism was the assumption that all religious people are stupid, uneducated (read, un-indoctrinated into proper secular reasoning), and/or delusional. This is a self-serving belief when you’re a young, straight, white boy from the First World. It also becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because I wasn’t debating theologians or religious philosophers, I was arguing with my peers and my relatives (to whom I owe an enormous apology for being a complete buffoon).

In reality, my Atheism was sparked by a (justified) feeling of alienation and a(n unjustified) feeling of superiority. It seemed that people were just accepting what they had been told and I was determined to break away from the herd. The absurdity of this is most evident when you consider that I wasn’t asking any real fundamental questions – I was just thinking something along the lines of: if there’s no evidence (based on my own subjective standards) for God, then there must not be a God.


Unfortunately, I did not have access to this wonderful clip from James Burke’s Connections:

Obviously, because I’ve read Anarcho-Primitivist literature, I think that Burke is sorely mistaken about the prospects of technology. However, he is right to point out that alternative views of the universe aren’t any more or less ignorant than rationalistic approaches. If I had been thinking even slightly deeper, then the fallacies would have likely been more evident to me.

How do we determine what is true?

What do we mean when we say something is true?

Does Truth exist?

When we say that something exists, what does that mean?

What should we accept as evidence for such claims?

Are falsifiable claims the only claims worth making?

Is that itself a falsifiable claim?

I had the internet at my disposal and I was wasting my time watching Richard Dawkins lecture to his disciples about how creationists pose a grave threat to humanity. Mind you, I don’t think I knew a single creationist personally, but I was convinced that they were wrong and they needed to be converted to accepting evolutionary biology as a fact.

That was a priority.

If I had had access to Lenin’s critique of this line of thinking, I might have been spared such an enormous waster of energy. But, alas, I spent much of my time wondering how I, the straight white cis-man, could save the planet from the scourge of religion, which I would do by showing people that they were deluded in their beliefs (obviously indicating that I was not – I was above delusion).

Psychologism – the attitude that reduces everything to a person’s psychology – is a tempting game to play for a lot of people who criticize religion. It allows you to say, “Oh, that person believes in God, because they’re afraid of death!”

Since becoming Muslim, I’ve had a number of atheists reduce my experiences, thoughts, and perspectives down in the same exact way. Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” really solidified that attitude in the atheist community.

At the time of my New Atheism, I too thought that people were only religious, because it offered them a sense (a false sense) of comfort.

That was how I thought of it – obviously, anybody who thinks about it rationally and accepts their death will absolutely reject religion!

Of course, this psychologism goes both ways. We have to speak in terms of totalities. The comforts of Atheism (and indeed Agnosticism) are no different than the comforts of Theism. All of these ideas provide the individual with some semblance of understanding the world. If we accept the perspective of psychologism, then we must conclude that no one escapes their own prejudices and subjectivities.

Because of this perspective, however, my New Atheism began to soften and slowly unravel once I had the enlightening thought that maybe not all religious people are total idiots.

In my first year at university, I decided that I would spend each summer reading about a different religion. My plan was that I would gain insights just by treating religions (just slightly) more fairly. Interestingly, it was through reading the literature of Anarcho-Primitivists, who are almost entirely white men, that I began to take the voices of Black and Brown people more seriously.

That’s why in the summer of 2010, I spent a lot of time at the library poring over books on Hinduism. My rationale was that I would read over the largest religion that I knew the least about. Luckily, the library had an extensive collection on Hinduism that provided me with endless information. But, to be honest, at the end of that summer, I felt like I still didn’t have a full grasp on what people meant when they were talking about Hinduism.

It was at this time, however, that I made the decision that I would learn about Islam next, because I felt like it was important to learn about the supposed enemy of the West.

I already knew a bit about Islam.[1] I certainly knew more about Islam than I did about Hinduism and, as an Abrahamic faith, I had some basic knowledge of the cast of characters and some other information – I was already primed for confronting the textual elements of the formal religion of Islam, due to my experiences with Christianity.

However, I wasn’t going to wait until the summer.

Instead, I neglected a number of important responsibilities throughout the next two semesters to read about Islamic history and theology.

Those books and articles, along with the Anarcho-Primitivist literature, had slowly begun to lead me to the questions that I should have been asking. The jump from being an atheist to being a theist began with me questioning my underlying assumptions. It is important to note that I was not interested in becoming religious, I was interested in religion simply as an intellectual pursuit. However, once I started to look into my own epistemological ideas about the world, I realized that I hadn’t thoroughly investigated these questions.

By June of 2011, I was a Muslim.

I couldn’t yet answer these epistemological questions, but by reading more philosophy and theology, I was able to figure out a clear path (even if retrospectively).

Critiquing Post-Modernism

Returning to the question I posed above, should we simply reject any attempts at uncovering the world as it is?

I wasn’t (and still am not) ready to throw out all rationality or attempts at reaching reality. Post-modernism offers us an approach and skepticism that I think we should take seriously – as displayed in Part One. However, this approach isn’t unique to post-modernism and that’s something important to keep in mind.

In her article, The Primacy of the Ethical, Nancy Scheper-Hughes takes a position against post-modernism, arguing that “[t]his imagined post-modern, borderless world (Appadurai 1991) is, in fact, a Camelot of free trade that echoes the marketplace rhetoric of global capitalism, a making of the world and social science safe for ‘low-intensity democracy’ backed by World Bank capital.” (p. 417) Scheper-Hughes sees post-modernism as laying the groundwork for neoliberal capitalist takeover and tries to reveal that for what it is.

This critique of post-modernism is correct, but also a posteriori, and to get to a deeper critique at the heart of post-modernism, we need to shine the critical light of the post-modernists onto their own philosophical underpinnings.

In their article, The Postmodernist Turn in Anthropology: Cautions from a Feminist Perspective, Mascia-Lees, Sharpe, and Cohen refer to important feminist critiques of post-modernism:

“Political scientist Nancy Hartsock… finds it curious that the post-modern claim that verbal constructs do not correspond in a direct way to reality has arisen precisely when women and non-Western peoples have begun to speak for themselves and, indeed to speak about global systems of power differentials. In fact, Hartsock suggests that the post-modern view that truth and knowledge are contingent and multiple may be seen to act as a truth claim itself, a claim that undermines the ontological status of the subject at the very time when women and non-Western peoples have begun to claim themselves as subject. In a similar vein, Sarah Lennox has asserted that the post-modern despair associated with the recognition that truth is never entirely knowable is merely an inversion of Western arrogance. When Western white males – who traditionally have controlled the production of knowledge – can no longer define the truth, she argues, their response is to conclude that there is not a truth to be discovered. Similarly Sandra Harding claims that ‘historically, relativism appears as an intellectually possibility, and as a ‘problem,’ only for dominating groups at the point where the hegemony (the    universality) of their views is being challenged. [Relativism] is fundamentally a sexist response that attempts to preserve the legitimacy of androcentric claims in the face of      contrary evidence.’ Perhaps most compelling… is the question Andreas Huyssen asks in   ‘Mapping the Postmodern’: ‘Isn’t the death of the subject/author position tied by mere   reversal to the very ideology that invariably glorifies the artist as genius?… Doesn’t post-structuralism where it simply denies the subject altogether jettison the chance of challenging the ideology of the subject (as male, white, and middle-class) by developing alternative notions of subjectivity?’” (p. 15)

In other words, there is no reason to embrace post-modernism, because it’s a bad faith analysis of the world. The argument is that we can achieve the same things through feminism, but that’s an even better lens to achieve those things, because feminism is politically grounded.

Post-modernism doesn’t break down the Enlightenment subject outside of time and space, but rather post-modernists advanced this project that directly benefited them personally and reified the position of white men in academia. In other words, post-modernism is open to its own discursive reversal and falls victim to its own critique – it is nothing more than a discourse of power.

I would argue, along with the feminists, that we could achieve the same things from a variety of different politically-invested stances, including Islam and Marxism.

We could, as good classical Marxists, call post-modernism a fully bourgeois ideology.

However, I think it would be improper to write off post-modernism as well. Rather, we can alter Lyotard’s (in)famous definition of post-modernism as an “incredulity towards metanarratives” to a “skepticism towards metanarratives”.

In the last post, I said that “I have no problem with meta-narratives”. That isn’t exactly the case.

Here, I have no intention of writing a piece called “In Defense of Grand Narratives” or anything of the sort. Instead, I’m arguing that we should approach metanarratives, such as feminism, religion, science, rationalism, Marxism, atheism, theism, etc. with a healthy amount of skepticism. However, that also does not necessitate a total rejection of metanarratives.

Real liberation allows us to embrace metanarratives on their own terms, engage with them from a position of skepticism, and question our own subjectivities with regards to Truth.

Of course, as Mascia-Lees, Sharpe, and Cohen argue, all of this can be accomplished (and, indeed, be accomplished better through something like feminism, which forces us to do these things, but nevertheless maintain a political commitment to liberation). Alternatively, we could take the theoretical position of Fanon and recognize the subject/object relationship reflecting the colonizer/colonized – dismissing the subject of modernism and digging our feet in the political sands of anti-imperialism.

How do we know what we know?

How do we arrive at Truth, if possible?

In 2011, I found myself dismantling my Atheism as much as I began to see it as an active metaphysical position, rather than just some objective metaphysical position. Systems of knowledge are never a given. As I argued in Part One, it is clear that Secular Humanist Scientism not a neutral perspective and neither are the Atheisms that accompany it.


Many like to argue that Atheism is a religion in the same way that bald is a hair color.

Regardless of the validity of that analogy, we can certainly say that Atheism is a metaphysical position in the same way that Theism is a metaphysical position. Only by challenging these positions on their own terms are we able to see their strengths and weaknesses clearly.

In a journal I was keeping at the time, I wrote:

Evidence exists only when it is observed and interpreted. We interpret phenomena – there is no objective, non-ideological lens. For example, if I claim that everything is a sign (therefore evidence) of God, the response would be that I’m interpreting things through a specific bias, but that is the bias that similarly exists for other ideologies” (October 22nd, 2010).

These three sentences represent a huge break with my previous atheism, because it was the first time that I asked a more fundamental question about epistemology. It was my very attempt to step fully into another system of knowledge.

When we break down modernist conceptions of Truth, Reason, and Progress, we’re left with a level playing field of ideologies, for better or for worse. What initially appears to be a pyramid to many (with science at the top and religion at the bottom) is actually a flat plane upon which individuals determine which ideologies to embrace and which to toss out based on personal preference, knowledge, external structures, etc.[2]

Real skepticism means being skeptical about any systems and any claims to Truth, including those of science as much as those of religion.

This is the liberatory moment.

Standing in front of the plane of ideologies and considering them on their own terms, while recognizing our own limitations, we become free (well, as free as possible) to establish our lives as we please.

When we recognize the potential in other systems of thought, and not just the dominant system that masquerades as the repressed, we stand before an endless sea of new modes of being and new modes of understanding. And although we are not tabula rasa at this moment, we are at least free to choose our next step forward.

In 2011, I chose my next step forward in the direction of Islam for reasons that I will address in upcoming blog posts.

I can accept that I read Islam through a subjective lens and that Michael Muhammad Knight is correct when he writes that I’m stepping through portals that lead to other portals.

There is no pure, authentic Islam at the end, because there is no pure, stable subject to reach it.

I would argue that we’re all just going through portals that lead to other portals. However, that shouldn’t stop us from making steps in a specific direction. Our limited interpretations lead us to limited conclusions, but acting in the world allows us to move closer to more-correct or less-correct conclusions.

As Marx shows, our modes of being do in fact influence our modes of understanding. It is for that reason that we should consciously make the commitment to think, to act, and to be in the world.

When I converted to Islam, I came to Islam with a whole host of cultural baggage and I constructed an Islam for myself in the same fashion that I had constructed an Atheism, although this time I felt that I had made a leap towards getting closer to that Truth out there.

Does that make my Islam any less legitimate?

I don’t think so.

Instead I think it offers me the opportunity to say that I don’t have all the answers and I can’t possibly have all the answers to questions about reality and Truth. And, at the same time, no one has all the answers.

The liberatory moment can (and must) repeat itself in order for the individual to move closer to that reality. Every day we choose which ideologies we’ll embrace – but that choice can be restricted or open. Our knowledges and ignorances define that moment, we’re neither totally free nor totally unfree.

This is a radical skepticism that allows us to also be skeptical of our own prejudices and biases that remain after the moment.

Part of the cultural baggage that I was carrying was my ideas about “rationality” and in Part Three, I will address rationality, theism, and arguments for/against the existence of God.




[1] An interesting side note here is that I used to defend Islam to atheists on the internet. My politics led me to be critical of “my” religion, but I was highly defensive of the religions of religions. This made Christianity my primary target, while I often defended other religions, particularly Islam and Judaism.

[2] Here, I don’t want to wade in too heavily into debates about structure vs. agency, only to remark that the dominant Western paradigm of a hierarchy with science at the top is very obviously artificially constructed.


Science, Silence, and Subjectivity: A Critique of Secular Humanist Scientism

Dear reader, it is time for a confession.

I was once a fan of the New Atheists.


In my defense, I was always super critical of their politics (which are ghastly), but I nevertheless found their critiques of religion convincing and compelling. I was unable to see through the smoke and mirrors of their rhetorical appeals to science and rationality. However, over a longer time than I would like to admit, I was eventually able to steer myself out of the philosophical muck of New Atheism by examining their ideas more closely.

Unfortunately, particularly since becoming Muslim, I’ve discovered that a lot of seemingly intelligent people are soaked to their core with this unexamined ideological baggage.

As Slavoj Žižek has argued elsewhere, the dominant ideology often isn’t what it seems – Christianity seems to continue to be the dominant ideology in the West, whereas, in reality, Secular Humanist Scientism is the dominant ideology of the day. We could point to any number of pieces of evidence, but let’s leave it with the fact that Daniel Dennett has already made a similar argument.

This reversal is important to recognize, because it reveals that the New Atheists are not the subversives they claim to be. They aren’t killing sacred cows, they’re flogging their corpses and replacing them with the sacred cows of post-religious modernity – science, reason, and progress.

And what makes Scientism as an ideology so influential is that it is so omnipresent in Western culture that it serves as some sort of common sense. People don’t unpack their own premises, because they don’t even think that there are premises. It’s not ideology – it’s fact. This covers up the huge leaps of faith that are required in order to make Scientistic claims about reality.

What makes this particularly dangerous is when people misidentify or misdiagnose a societal problem and then draw up absurd solutions to said “problem”. Those Secular Humanists (who misidentify the problem as “religion”, “irrationality”, or having any “non-scientific” views about reality) want to stamp out all forms of dissent from the dominant paradigm.

And it just so happens that the dissenters are often Black and Brown People and their “irrational” beliefs about the world.

Is it any surprise that the Secular Humanists tend to be White Men?

This essay (the first of a series covering a defense of why I became a Shi’i Muslim) is aimed at revealing the substantial contradictions at the heart of the dominant ideology in the West. The goal here is to illuminate the weak foundations upon which Secular Humanist Scientism is built and how the ideology itself is not as liberatory as it may appear.

Part 1: Secular Humanist Scientism

Scientism, the underlying outlook of the New Atheist crowd, is critically defined by Thomas Burnett as “a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning.” According to Burnett, this is separate from science, which is merely “an activity that seeks to explore the natural world using well-established, clearly-delineated methods.”

To unpack Scientism a bit, I would like to define it here as: the belief that science as a discipline can account for all meaningful questions, whether natural or philosophical.

Indeed, this belief has even led some, like Stephen Hawking, to declare the death of philosophy.

Apparently, Hawking was unable to see how his own worldview was submerged in the ocean of philosophy. After all, Hawking and his ilk are not even simply science-nerds. They are disciples of a supremacist vision for humanity and bring with them the apparent moral charter for that viewpoint – Secular Humanism.

According to the Center for Inquiry (CFI), a Secular Humanist organization, Secular Humanism “is a nonreligious worldview rooted in science, philosophical naturalism, and humanist ethics.”

This is the working definition that I will be using for this essay.

The Secular Humanist value system, according to the CFI, is based on “integrity, benevolence, fairness, and responsibility, and [Secular Humanists] believe that with reason, goodwill, the free exchange of ideas, and tolerance, we can build a better world for ourselves and for future generations. Secular humanism calls upon humans to develop within the universe values of their own. Further, secular humanism maintains that, through a process of value inquiry informed by scientific and reflective thought, men and women can reach rough agreement concerning values, crafting ethical systems that deliver optimal results for human beings in a broad spectrum of circumstances.”

By that definition, Secular Humanism illustrates its deep connection to Scientism. Scientism offers the epistemological and ontological justification for Secular Humanism and Secular Humanism offers the moral justification for Scientism. You really can’t have one without the other. This is a point on which the New Atheists are consistent – their dominant philosophical trends aren’t explicitly contradictory.

However, this consistency, along with the nearly universal acceptance in the West of both ideologies, masks the enormous holes in their logic.

Part 2: Exposing Scientism

Scientism, as a philosophy, is really a perverted Logical Positivism – or, the idea that “[a] statement is meaningful if and only if it can be proved true or false, at least in principle, by means of the experience.” Logical Positivism, the philosophical movement that drove early 20th century scientific inquiry (and arguably continues to do so), has been thoroughly discredited by scientists, philosophers, and anthropologists, but apparently the New Atheists never got the memo.

In order to believe that science ought to be the privileged methodological framework in all times and places, regarding all subjects of inquiry, one must make enormous assumptions.

First, in order for the scientific method to work, we must assume that cause-and-effect is philosophically stable and metaphysically reliable (even though causality can’t be tested using the scientific method).

Second, in order for science to serve as the prime (or only) modus operandi, one must accept the uniformity of nature (despite the obvious problems with such an idea, as David Hume figured out a long, long time ago).

And third, similarly to religion (and really every other system of knowledge), science is post-metaphysical and contains the problem of induction.

Regardless of the inevitable problem of induction though, Scientism’s adherents present science as a method to something untouchable. Listening to these people talk, one would think that science’s methodology was created by (dare we say it) some perfect, omnipotent being, rather than by a bunch of White European Cis-Men at the peak of colonialism.

Poking holes in Scientism is not as difficult as it may appear. Many have attacked it from different angles and I’m going to present some of these individuals and their arguments to show that, regardless of one’s position, Scientism is not the infallible philosophy that it masquerades as.

Paul Feyerabend, a philosopher who coined the term “epistemological anarchism”, makes a damning critique of the elevation of science as a discipline over other forms of knowing. Describing himself as an epistemological anarchist, Feyerabend writes in his book, Against Method, about the history of Galileo and the Catholic Church and shows how rationalism, not religion, hindered the development of a new scientific revolution and why that was.

Feyerabend was writing as a contemporary of Thomas Kuhn, a physicist and probably my favorite philosopher of science of the 20th century.

Kuhn, by all measures, published perhaps the single greatest wrecking ball to logical positivism with his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In it, he argues that the history of science is defined by paradigms and paradigm shifts, which are constructed and deconstructed in a variety of ways. Kuhn shows that science hasn’t delineated any objective progress. Instead, paradigms (such as the Copernican Revolution, competing geometries, or Newtonian and Quantum Physics) are simply better at answering some questions, but may be worse at answering others.

Kuhn’s critical stance towards the history of science paved the way for the philosophical death of logical positivism and the birth of a series of arguments about the subjectivities that are inherent in supposedly “objective” science. This post-positivism isn’t a complete rejection of the desire to find some objectivity, but rather an acceptance and deep awareness of subjectivity.

A powerful example of the subjectivity in supposedly “objective” science is exposed by Feminists like Emily Martin, an Anthropologist of Science. In her article The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles, Martin demonstrates that “gender stereotypes [are] hidden within the scientific language of biology.” (p. 486).

Londa Schiebinger shows that Feminism has even changed science (particularly medicine and primatology), by “uncovering sexism in the substance of science”. (p. 1171)

If this is the case, then what do we get when we construct our value systems based on “science”, like the New Atheists claim to? The result is, of course, a feedback loop of our own cultural hang-ups. So our culture speaks back to us, including its racism, sexism, queer/transphobia, ableism, and other oppressive ideologies.

Science, in other words, is not value-neutral.

I would argue that in many cases, we can’t even begin to talk about objectivity, because we don’t even know what objectivity would look like.

Admittedly, at the time that I was leaving New Atheism, I was barely engaging with these Post-Modernist or Feminist critiques. Instead, I was reading a lot of Anarcho-Primitivist literature.

Ahhh, Anarcho-Primitivism – perhaps the cissiest, whitest, and malest of all the anarchos.

A lot of Anarcho-Primitivist literature that was based on a critique of technology and a critique of civilization, but often went further to criticize the scientific project itself.

I find that Anarcho-Primitivism, although no longer resembling anything like my political ideology, nevertheless continues to uphold an unanswered critique by the true believers of Scientism (or even of science itself).

Anarcho-Primitivism very modestly asks, “Who the hell do we think we are?”

If we accept evolution and say that we are nothing but bipedal primates, then why should humans control and dominate nature? We are a part of nature (whatever that means), right? And why on earth are we so convinced that our ape minds can even achieve something like objectivity? How can we possibly think that our understanding is somehow outside of and superior to nature? Our mental faculties are not so special.

That’s a powerful critique if you take it all the way. Jacques Ellul (about whom I posted last month) argued that science had become the sacralized discipline of the West, replacing religion. Ellul’s criticism centered on how technology and science has become the dominant ideology in the West and remain completely unexamined. The opening line of his book Propaganda reads: “True modern propaganda can only function within the context of the modern scientific system.

Indeed, as I brought up at the beginning of this essay, the faithful followers of Scientism have elevated science to an untouchable level – a level equivalent to the role that God played (and continues to play) in deeply religious societies.

Michel Foucault, in many ways developing Nietzsche’s line of thought, makes another important critique of science on the basis of the relationship between power and knowledge. Foucault advocated using genealogies as a method of tracing the development and diachronic advances of discourses.

As Foucault argues in his Two Lectures: “genealogies are therefore not positivistic returns to a more careful or exact form of science. They are precisely anti-sciences. Not that they vindicate a lyrical right to ignorance or non-knowledge: it is not that they are concerned to deny knowledge or that they esteem the virtues of direct cognition and base their practice upon an immediate experience that escapes encapsulation in knowledge. It is not that with which we are concerned. We are concerned, rather, with the insurrection of knowledges that are opposed primarily not to the contents, methods or concepts of a science, but to the effects of the centralizing powers which are linked to the institution and functioning of an organised scientific discourse within a society such as ours.” (pp. 83-84)

In other words, science and Scientism are not universals.

Science is embedded in institutional (and cultural) power.

And only when we recognize its embeddedness can we extract its usefulness.

Those acolytes of Scientism who insist on science’s universality cover up exactly what the rest of us seek to lay bare, that science is now (and has always been) dependent on Western institutions. When Richard Dawkins castigates Muslims for not having enough Nobel Prizes, he does so without acknowledging the limited resources, brutalities of colonialism and imperialism, and the cultural divides between England and, say, Somalia.

We could also mention here that there is no objective (scientific) reason to value Western knowledges over non-Western knowledges and that, in reality, the frameworks of thought of people in Nicaragua, Burundi, or Sri Lanka are not any less valuable than the frameworks of thought of White People living in the First World.

And who the hell cares about a Nobel Prize in the first place?

How can someone think about earning a Nobel Prize if they have to worry about war and famine?

And why are the people who worry about war and famine not valued equally?

Scientific “evidence” for a proposition exists only insofar as it is observed and interpreted. We interpret phenomena as we interpret everything else – culturally.

In other words, there is no objective, a priori, non-ideological lens. After all, if we accept (dubiously) that the scientific method works as we are told, then we must recognize that the first step of the scientific method – the hypothesis – is already colored through a cultural lens. We construct questions within (not without) our cultural frameworks.

And these frameworks establish, to parrot Kuhn, our paradigms. Science, in other words, is not culturally neutral.

And, of course, we know that science is often anything but morally neutral. This leads us to the moral system that is supposed to guide humanity to a supposedly better future. 

Part 3: Deconstructing Secular Humanism

The assumption made by the New Atheists and many other Secular Humanists is that if someone is religious and she then ceases to be religious, then she will “naturally” become a Secular Humanist.

As though this was the default moral and philosophical foundation embedded in human biology.

The fact that this is essentially the case made by an evolutionary biologist of Dawkins’s caliber is a joke that should be lost on no one.

After all, why should we be Secular Humanists simply if we cease to believe in God? Why not Nihilists? Why not Existentialists? Why not (perhaps most frighteningly for the White Bourgeoisie) Marxist-Leninists?

Louis Althusser correctly identifies Marx’s anti-humanism in his 1964 article Marxism and Humanism. Althusser points out that there is an ideological component to humanism that masks the realities of capitalism. Althusser draws our attention to the relationship between the base and the superstructural element to ideology.

As Althusser concludes, the focus on the human subject’s emancipation (or, as the CFI elaborates “men and women can reach rough agreement concerning values, crafting ethical systems that deliver optimal results for human beings in a broad spectrum of circumstances.”) is a product of the material conditions of capitalism. Instead of a focus on humanism and attempting to achieve emancipation under capitalism, the only way to truly attain human emancipation is by accomplishing communism and overcoming class struggle.

Indeed, there’s a reason that none of the New Atheists are communists. Secular Humanism and Communism are competing ideologies – and only one can serve as the dominant ideology of neoliberal capitalism.

We don’t need to take a strict Marxist perspective to see the failures of Secular Humanism.

Alternatively, we could follow the path of the Post-Colonialists and the Post-Structuralists who questioned the validity of the subject.

Frantz Fanon saw the “subject” as the figure of the colonialist, specifically the White Man, who established the “subject” as diametrically opposed to the “object” of the colonized person. Foucault saw the “subject” as the discursive creation of the Enlightenment. We could, for example, take Foucault’s critique of science mentioned above and see the extension in his critique of humanism. Indeed, in The Humanism Effect, one of the best articles on the subject, Anthony Alessandrini argues that both Franz Fanon and Michel Foucault were engaging in a “movement towards a critical ontology of ourselves, a critical ontology that they both suspect to be impossible.” (p. 74)

As a side note, there are plenty of solid Feminist and Third Worldist critiques of this process of de-centering the “subject” in philosophy that I won’t go into right now. And certainly anyone who has spent any amount of time reading this blog will notice very quickly that I have no problem with meta-narratives.

Suffice it to say that the Post-Modernist attempt at attacking the “subject” isn’t full-proof, but nevertheless it is an extremely powerful critique of Secular Humanism.

Furthermore, even if we accept the value system of the Secular Humanist paradigm, it has largely failed as a project in achieving its own goals. Secular Humanism and the Enlightenment project more generally contain the trappings of those problems which they sought to solve.

As Shabbir Akhtar writes in The Qur’an and the Secular Mind, “Secular humanism was intended to aggrandize humanity but ironically, in a secular industrialized society, no one needs to reduce the self to size since society does it for us – automatically, decisively, casually. As people jostle for places on an underground train or queue to receive unemployment benefit, they know they are nothing. No religion has negated the self, in all its pride, as effortlessly as modern mass society.” (p. 115)

But doesn’t Secular Humanism have some liberatory potential?

For example, doesn’t Secular Humanism save women suffering under religious tyranny? After all, as the CFI feels comfortable arguing, “Religion in general and Islam in particular are women’s enemy.”

Lila Abu-Lughod responds to such claims in her seminal article Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?:

“Projects of saving other women depend on and reinforce a sense of superiority by Westerners, a form of arrogance that deserves to be challenged. All one needs to do to appreciate the patronizing quality of the rhetoric of saving women is to imagine using it today in the United States about disadvantaged groups such as African American women or working-class women. We now understand them as suffering from structural violence. We have become politicized about race and class, but not culture.” (p. 489)

So, it turns out that the language of science is infused with misogyny, as demonstrated by Emily Martin, and the language of Secular Humanism is similarly infused with misogyny and imperialism. If we become politicized about culture, as Abu-Lughod says we should, then we can also become politicized about the consequences of that culture – like science, reason, and progress, which are not neutral concepts.

What can we see here then? Secular Humanism can’t save Muslim women or, indeed, any women, which is not even its primary intention.

In the end, there is absolutely no reason to accept Secular Humanism if one becomes an atheist (as Nietzsche pointed out over a century ago). However, if one accepts Scientism (and all of its flaws), then Secular Humanism (and all of its flaws) seems far more appealing.

What kind of value system is this anyway?

Look at how joyfully the New Atheists cheer when Western countries drop bombs on Muslims. We can clearly see that the discourse of Secular Humanist Scientism is intertwined with the discourses of neoliberal capitalism and Western imperialism.

To pretend otherwise is not only to ignore history, but also to ignore the voices of real living (predominantly Black and Brown) people around the world.


Scientism and Secular Humanism feed into each other. Science provides the basis of Secular Humanism and Secular Humanism powers science in liberal democratic capitalism.

Because of the material conditions upon which this ideology has formed, Secular Humanist Scientism inevitably accompanies a whole set of troubling implications about the world, including the depraved arguments made by individuals like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris (who correctly take their premise to its logical conclusion) when they support imperialist projects to bomb Black and Brown People into accepting the Western order.

Do these conclusions require us to reject science and all pursuits of objectivity? I certainly don’t think so. However, they do require us to reject Scientism, to reject the belief that science is the only means of gathering information about the world and developing some moral system based off of that false belief.

It also should lead us to take the Post-Modernists seriously when they encourage us to hold a general skepticism towards meta-narratives. Unfortunately, the New Atheists who claim to uphold skepticism fail to turn that skeptical gaze toward their own presuppositions.

The idea that Secular Humanism is somehow philosophically neutral or objective is self-evidently ridiculous. Just as science is infused with subjectivities, Secular Humanism can often lead a person to be wrong.

And we should never forget that Sam Harris is wrong about everything.

Listening to the voices of women, people of color, queer people, and people from the Third World requires a more sophisticated consideration of the questions of knowledge and power. Feminists, Post-Colonial Theorists, Marxists, and Post-Structuralists all have demonstrated the decrepit foundations upon which the New Atheists have chosen to build their homes.

After all, what do we mean when we talk about science, reason, and progress?

In the end, the many critiques of Secular Humanist Scientism demonstrate that it is important that we scrutinize any claims to truth made by Straight White Cis-Men (including myself and those cited in this text) with immediate suspicion. By echoing the voices of these men, the adherents of the True Faith of Secular Humanist Scientism effectively silence the voices of most of the world.

This is what I had failed to do when I was a fan of the New Atheists and their apparently “common-sensical value system” and “objective” truth claims.

As part of my confession here, in good Roman Catholic tradition, I would like to atone for my sins.

Please forgive me for ever having subscribed to such a worldview and thinking that I had found the “Truth” as preached by these Straight Cis-White Men from the First World.

“Truth” and claims to it will be discussed more thoroughly in the next post.

How to Understand the Middle East

The most commonly (ab)used phrase in any discussion of the Middle East is, of course:

“Well, it’s a very complicated situation.”

This is almost always used to justify Israel’s brutal occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights and it usually follows some vaguely racist statement about Arabs. Something along the lines of “those (quasi-)people just don’t seem to want freedom, democracy, and peace.”

As though it was just a matter of cultural heritage to desire constant war and upheaval.

It seems to me that these past few years have been the most tumultuous in the recent era. The Arab Spring has spawned a wild transition from uncomfortable, repressive stability to uncomfortable, repressive instability.

If you’re an Egyptian, then you’ve already experienced 4 different quasi-functioning governments over the past three years – with exactly 100% of them conveniently resembling each other in backwards authoritarianism.

If you’re a Libyan, then you’ve witnessed the brutal murder of the former dictator and the fast descent of the small population of your rather large country into chaos between warring militias and small tribal statelets.

And if you’re an American, then you’ve probably understood none of it.

Many of my dear friends have asked me to explain situations in the Middle East to them in clear terms. I ought to preface this with the other most commonly (ab)used phrase in any discussion:

“I’m no expert, but…”

I’m no expert, but I do know how to make heads and tails of the situation(s), conflict(s), and war(s) throughout the Middle East. And there’s a very easy way to do this, although it requires a bit of time and patience.

STEP 1: Gathering Background Information

You have the internet. Use it.

I’m actually kind of surprised when people come to me with total ignorance about something like the war in Iraq or the Saudi royal family. With resources like Wikipedia and Google, you can pretty much find anything.

Wikipedia has a page on Hamas, Christianity in the Middle East, Hezbollah, Iran, Kurdistan, Algeria, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, The Druze, and Elvis Presley.

Don’t like reading?

Let me recommend this speech:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3I3ahtwrZE]

Don’t want to watch a speech?

Let me recommend some documentaries for you on Youtube: Once Upon a Time in Iran, American Radical, Bahrain: Shouting in the Dark, and Islam: Empire of Faith.

Don’t like documentaries?

Go watch Paradise Now.

If you’re looking for books about Middle Eastern history, you could read anything by Laury Silvers, Omid Safi, or Edward Said. Or you could read a book by Juan Cole, Hamid Dabashi, or Norman Finkelstein.

If you’re looking for books on modern politics, then you could read literally anything by Noam Chomsky about the Middle East.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jCLFWM6P60]

STEP 2: Ascertaining the Current Situation

Watching the news can be cumbersome, I know. Plenty of people have complained to me that it’s impossible to determine what’s happening at all. Given the state of the media today, who really knows what’s happening?

Here’s what you need to keep in mind: everyone’s agenda is usually easy to figure out.

Let’s just ignore most American news, because it’s almost all unreliable.

Al Jazeera is owned by Qatar and basically toes the Qatari line. It also appeals to mainstream Sunni Muslims. So when it comes to the media Al Jazeera produces, you need to read it with that lens in mind.

Press TV is owned by Iran. Ultimately, it serves as little more than Iranian propaganda, but occasionally has some really good material that you aren’t going to find elsewhere.

RT (standing for Russia Today) obviously represents the interests of Russia in the Middle East, but has had some really outstanding reporting on conflicts like Iraq, Israel/Palestine, and Libya.

It’s important to keep in mind that there are a couple of news outlets that are worthwhile in the U.S. – one of them being Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman, which posts a roughly 10 minute video on Youtube every weekday going through world headlines.

You can spend 10 minutes every day learning about the world around you.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5AzbnNdeEA]

And since Democracy Now isn’t owned by any corporation or state, it serves as probably the single most objective news source out there.

STEP 3: Thinking

This is naturally the most difficult task of them all. But a natural skepticism towards information is probably the most important faculty you can develop with regards to the Middle East.

If someone tells you that Hezbollah in Lebanon is a terrorist organization, don’t take that as necessary fact. Read a book, watch the news, ask a Lebanese person.

I think the trickiest thing about our present situation is the fact that most Americans simply don’t know any Iraqis, Saudis, Iranians, or Egyptians. They can’t turn to their friend and say, “Hey, can you explain this to me?”

So instead, they choose to make wildly ridiculous statements like “Saddam has WMDs” or “Israel is defending itself” or “Arabs are just aggressive and hate freedom”.

Don’t do that.



Maybe visit your local mosque, ask one of your Muslim friends, watch a Youtube video. You won’t get the whole story, but you may get some new insights with regards to the Middle East.

The Middle East isn’t quite as backwards, barbaric, or ballistic as it may appear.

And there’s no excuse for ignorance today.

Will you understand everything about the Middle East?

Well, I’m no expert and it’s a very complicated situation.

But this should help.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpcbfxtdoI8]

Confessions of a Muslim Communist

At first glance, you might suspect some intense cognitive dissonance with me claiming to be a “Muslim Communist”, but I can assure you, dear reader, these ideas are not as opposed as they might seem.

In order to locate myself on this spectrum of political and religious thought, we have to go back a few years. We have to retreat to my adolescence and its discontents.

We have to talk about the first prophet that I ever followed.

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov was born in April in the year 1870 at the twilight of the Russian Empire. When he attended university in the late 1880’s, Ulyanov was transformed by the works of Marx, Engels, and Chernyshevsky. After he changed his name to Lenin in 1901, Vladimir went on to lead the Great October Revolution in Russia in 1917 and establish the Soviet Union. For the next four years, he and Leon Trotsky led the Red Army against the White Army (a collection of monarchists, nationalists, and proto-fascists) in a brutal civil war. His meteoric career was cut short by a series of strokes and by 1924 the communist leader was dead.

Lenin Mr. Skittles

When you think of the Soviet Union, you probably think of a gray, icy dungeon; a frozen hell where all there is to eat is one single potato, and even that is covered in mold and ice. The people are surrounded by chains and commissars and, in order to pass the time, everyone drinks vodka and builds nuclear weapons.

We all know the distorted image that Americans have of the Soviet Union.

But you can rest assured that I’m not here to sing the praises of the USSR.

However, when I was fifteen, I was more than happy to do so.

After all, the Soviet Union under Lenin was the first country in the world to decriminalize homosexuality (which would later be re-criminalized by Stalin and remains an issue to this day), it was the first country to legalize abortion and provide abortions on demand for free, and it was the first country to implement universal healthcare.

I was totally willing to overlook the pitfalls of the revolution as long as I could maintain my glossy-eyed reverence for Lenin and my deep and abiding love for the Communist movement.

To this day, I still have to catch myself occasionally, because once you slip into that mindset, it becomes far trickier to wiggle yourself free. Conviction turns into some sort of self-righteous rebellion and your ego takes over.

If you’re ready and willing to see the good things that the USSR accomplished, then you’re probably ready and willing to see the terrible things that the US has done. At this point, it becomes easier to simply flip allegiances and latch on to the absurd notion that 20th century Soviet-styled countries were borderline paradise.

Before you know it, you’re wishing Fidel Castro a happy birthday on your blog, despite your better judgement.

(To be clear, I don’t regret wishing Castro a happy birthday, but I wish I would have written something more balanced and critical, because I think that post doesn’t really reflect my genuine opinions about the government of Cuba.)


This actually reads “Thank you, dear Stalin – for the happy childhood!”

But if Lenin was my first prophet, then it wasn’t Stalin who served as my first khalifa (or “Caliph”, meaning “successor” or “vicegerent”). No, Stalin’s Russian chauvinism and bureaucratic despotism represented to me everything wrong with 20th century communism.

The only legitimate khalifa I would recognize would be someone with whom I felt a deep affinity in their opposition to such a deformed communism.

That title goes to the man with whom Lenin commanded the Red Army throughout the civil war – Lev Davidovich Bronstein, also known as Leon Trotsky (if you want to his life story, I highly recommend this excellent documentary).

Trotsky had joined with Lenin on the eve of the revolution and would stand by his side for the next 7 years (not without a few hiccups here and there). Following Lenin’s untimely demise, Trotsky fought against Stalin for control over the Communist Party. Stalin had successfully consolidated his power by 1926 through some political maneuvering and in 1929 Trotsky was thrown into exile. He spent the next 11 years writing, speaking, and organizing against Stalin’s “degenerated worker’s state“. He was assassinated in 1940 by one of Stalin’s agents in Mexico.

In the eyes of many, Trotsky was a man of theory while Lenin was a man of action. Trotsky was the esoteric and Lenin was the exoteric. Trotsky was the tragic hero and Lenin was simply the hero.



But, as time went on, I moved on to a more nuanced position regarding the “Great” October Revolution.

This isn’t to say that I don’t still have love for Lenin and Trotsky, because I do. However, I’m not the Trotskyist that I once was. On the flip side, I’m also certainly not trying to strengthen the pathetic argument that Marxism is some sort of religion with prophets and false prophets, blah blah blah.

I’m simply placing the lens upon my experiences as a former Trotskyist and a current Muslim.

The story of a prophet and his/her dispossessed rightful successor has played out countless times throughout the history of humanity.

And if you happen to know the story behind the Sunni-Shi’a split, then you’re probably already able to predict the parallels I’m about to draw. If not, dear reader, then away we go!

There exists a classical and incredibly potent story of a prophet and his/her dispossessed rightful successor. That is the story of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) and Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon him).

Briefly, the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was born in or around the year 570. When he was 40 years old, he was visited by the Angel Gabriel and began receiving revelation. This revelation would be eventually compiled into what is now the Qur’an. Throughout the rest of his life he would fulfill the roles of father, grandfather, husband, statesman, general, diplomat, and (most importantly) messenger of God. He passed away when he was 63 and his death sent the young Muslim community into disarray.

Two main factions emerged almost immediately – the proto-Sunni and the proto-Shi’a.

The Stalinists and Trotskyists of their age (although neither group would like me characterizing them in those terms).

The people who came to be called “Sunni” pledged allegiance (or some form thereof) to the actual political successors to the Prophet (PBUH) in the following centuries. The Shi’a, on the other hand, believed that Imam Ali (a.s.) had been designated by the Prophet (and by extension, by God) to be the true successor. Just as the Trotskyists had been designated by Lenin (and by extension, by Marx) to be the true successor.

And since Imam Ali (a.s.) was the son-in-law and cousin of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and had been raised in his shadow, it’s easy to see why. Imam Ali (a.s.) is considered to be one of the most noble individuals to have ever lived. In his marriage to the Prophet’s daughter Fatima (a.s.), and their lineage, the Shi’a draw the people whom they consider to be the 12 imams – the 12 true successors to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

In fact, even the Sunni venerate Imam Ali (a.s.), albeit not recognizing his imamate and unrivaled claim to khalifa from the beginning. He instead fulfills the role of 4th Rightfully-Guided Caliph. And although his son, Hasan (a.s.) was the 2nd Shi’i Imam and the 5th Sunni Caliph, his brief political career is overshadowed by the preceding and succeeding civil wars.

(For a great, also brief, video about the life of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and the religion of Islam, I recommend this video.)

Kofi Annan Imam Ali

The nexus between the story of the Russian revolutionaries and the early Muslim community might seem a bit tenuous at first, but I’d invite you to examine the haunting similarities between Imam Ali (a.s.) and Leon Trotsky.

Both men were considered to be almost too fitting for the role of successor.

In the case of Imam Ali (a.s.), the argument has often been made that if he had led the Muslim community, it would’ve collapsed into strife, simply because he was too noble in his decision-making. Whereas in the case of Trotsky, the other Bolsheviks were trying to prevent him from becoming a second Napoleon.

You see, the early Soviet leaders very much saw themselves as having taken up the mantle of the French Revolution of 1789.

Therefore, they constantly were analyzing the progress of the Russian Revolution against that of the French Revolution. And who killed the French Revolution?


He was too clever, powerful, and charismatic. The others banded behind Napoleon in the counter-revolution and the establishment of the First Empire.

So the Bolsheviks looked around and thought to themselves, “Who is a potential Napoleon here?” For them, the answer was obvious.

Trotsky had studied literature, languages, culture, politics, and history. He was charming, attractive, and intelligent. He was the best public speaker among them and he had the broadest support throughout the ranks of workers. He had led the Red Army to victory and all the while wrote brilliant works of literary criticism like Literature and Revolution.

He was clearly the next Napoleon.

And it was this paranoia of Trotsky’s power that eventually led to a number of Communists standing behind Stalin, whom they initially believed would serve as the perfect mindless bureaucrat and just shuffle paperwork.


Trotsky, being charismatic.

And although the 7th century Muslims probably weren’t scared of Imam Ali (a.s.) morphing into Napoleon, the tribal leaders certainly didn’t want him in power.

After all, he was from the same blood as the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), which means that once that bloodline was established in power, other factional groups were not going to be able to regain the control that they lost after the message of Islam decimated their Pagan political-economic systems.

Imam Ali (a.s.) says in Nahj al-Balagha: “Greed is an eternal slavery.”

Sounds fairly close to communism to me.

These two men share more than just their dispossession. They were both top-notch generals and warriors. They were both considered to be men of deep theory and sharp wit. They both spent their lives fighting against what they perceived as injustice. And they both were assassinated by former allies.

And Trotskyists and Shi’a Muslims have more in common than might initially meet the eye. They both obsess over the distortion of “correct” history – about rumored (and actual) last wills. They both read heavily into texts in order to grab at historical indications of their prophets designated the true successor. And they both mourn for the loss of the true, righteous path of the ideology.

If only my person had won out, everything would be different!

I do it too. How could you not?

Sometimes it’s easy for me to play with the histories of my two ideologies.

I can imagine Imam Ali (a.s.) commanding the Red Army in the war against the fascists.

Or Leon Trotsky pressing his head in the sand in submission to Allah and reciting duas in Russian.

The call to prayer echoing over Saint Petersburg, including the Shi’a line “ashhadu anna aliyun waliullah”.

Shaykh Lenin’s Mosque being constructed in Saudi Arabia around his tomb proclaiming his elevated place among the community of the believers.

Sufi mystics twirling on Red Square during the Victory Day Parade.

My two seemingly paradoxical viewpoints seamlessly blending into one another in my head. It’s never been difficult for me to justify both positions, even though everyone may look at me like I’m incredibly neurotic.

Perhaps it’s my need to identify with the dispossessed in order to feed into some self-righteous nonsense.

Maybe there’s something deeply psychological in the way I’ve read and interpreted the stories.

It might not be so accidental that a young Trotskyist would later identify with a minor sect of Islam.

Or maybe I’m not as neurotic as I seem.


“Yes you are.”

That insanely handsome man in the photo was a Tatar Muslim Communist who became a prominent member of the Bolshevik Party during the early years of the revolution.

Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev serves as one of my clear historical reference points.

He was the theorist and strongest proponent of national communism. He fought for national self-determination for the Muslims of the former Russian Empire and supported a Marxist analysis of economics, while remaining committed to the Muslims of the world. Lenin and he were incredibly close, but after Lenin’s death he was purged from the Party and eventually killed by Stalin’s systematic persecution of early Bolshevik leaders.

But, for Sultan-Galiev, there was nothing inherently contradictory in the tenets of Islam and the tenets of Marxism.

In fact, in many ways, they complemented each other.

And he isn’t alone in this trajectory.

Abu Dharr al-Ghifari was a contemporary of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and sided with Imam Ali (a.s.) in the initial question of succession. We could call him a proto-Shi’i Muslim, while at the same time easily slipping him into the history of socialism.

Frantz Fanon, who although himself was not a Muslim, wrote extensively about Muslims struggling against the imperialist yoke of the West. In books like Black Skin, White Masks and The Wretched of the Earth, he formulates a new method of thinking about resistance to European/American hegemony. His account of the Algerian Revolution is considered to be one of the most important accounts of any revolution ever.

And Ali Shariati, the man considered to be the theorist behind the Iranian revolution, made a point of sewing together the fabric of socialism with the fabric of (Shi’a) Islam. His works on reinterpreting Shi’i history as well as his anti-imperialist positions make his works a light in the darkness.

Ali Shariati

Alright, that’s the most terrifying image of Ali Shariati.

Putting the words “communist” and “Muslim” together is fairly dangerous these days.

Some crackpot, right-wing lunatic is going to steal this blog post in order to defend their bizarre conspiracy theories about Barack Obama.

So I’ll leave you with this, dear reader:

Unfortunately, Barack Obama is neither a Muslim nor a Communist. A Muslim would not drone-bomb Pakistani children and a Communist would not have such dismal policies in helping impoverished people.

And, of course, there’s probably no convincing you of that if you’re one of the wretched idiots who still thinks that Obama is a socialist, Muslim, fascist, black-power, Kenyan Nazi.

But you can rest assured, dear reader, if Barack Obama was a Muslim Communist, then I would have voted for him.

On the First Day of Ramadan, My True Love Gave to Me

“Virtue does not consist in whether you face towards the East or the West; virtue means believing in God, the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets; the virtuous are those who, despite their love for it, give away their wealth to their relatives and to orphans and to the poor, and to travelers and those who ask for charity. The virtuous are those who set slaves free, and who attend to their prayers and pay the alms, and who keep their pledges when they make them, and show patience in hardship and adversity, and in times of distress. Such are the true believers; and such are the God-fearing.”

 -The Qur’an 2:177

I’ve been struggling with this verse all day. It’s one of my favorite verses of the Qur’an, but it left me pondering an existential-crisis-inducing question.

How can you possibly be virtuous today?

In our post-industrial age of perpetual technological bombardment, is virtue even possible?

How do you find virtue in your actions in the endless cacophony of pop culture and superficiality?

Does virtue even matter? Or, as post-modern philosophers would argue, is the idea of virtue a nonsensical, moral boundary that can be dispensed with in our era after the supposed death of God?

Here, I disagree with the post-modernists, but that’s where my distress comes in.

"Dis dress comes in?"

“Dis dress comes in?”

Bad pun, sorry.

I consider one of the most important moments of my life to be the moment I stopped thinking personally and started thinking politically.

Politically meaning with regards to social relationships and social structures.

When I was around 15 or 16, I walked by a television that had been left on in an empty room. Immediately as I passed, on came one of those missionary evangelical Christian commercials.

“For the price of a cup of coffee, you can feed this child for a week.”

Despite the self-serving, imperialistic, evangelizing message of the commercial, it has influenced me more than perhaps any other single moment.

The images of the sick, impoverished children haunted me.

I suddenly realized that these were real people.

Real people.

Not on some intellectual level, but on a true, deep, visceral level.

It made me ask the most important question that someone could possibly ask.


Why is it that children around the world are starving and are in need of a mere 65 cents in order to get food?

Why is it that my clothes are made (mostly) by poor women across the world, but never in my own country?

Why is it that so many innocent people are dying needlessly in wars across the globe?

But, more importantly,

Why is it that I’m not?


Today, nine years later, on the first day of Ramadan, I’m stuck asking those same questions.

The amount of money I give to charity is a pittance compared to my income. The shirt I’m wearing as I write this was made in India. Perhaps it was made in a city that I visited last year as a rich, white, awful tourist. And, as everyone knows from the news, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Honduras, The Central African Republic, Egypt, Myanmar, Thailand, Somalia, Mexico, Libya, Pakistan, Nigeria, Yemen, and South Sudan aren’t doing so hot right now.

That’s why being virtuous is important to me. How can you look at the world with callous indifference?

The United States is funneling money and weapons into Syria and Iraq.

Obama is pursuing an absurd foreign policy of supporting the militants when they cross into Syrian territory and killing the militants when they cross into Iraqi territory.

This only makes sense if you consider the fact that the U.S. clearly wants the Syrian conflict to continue.

And why would the U.S. government ever want that?

It’s a very meticulous historical strategy of divide and conquer.

Like an empire?


And how can you be virtuous when you live in the center of an empire at its peak?

George W. Bush’s State of the Union in 2002. I’ve had a difficult time watching that clip for years.

Something about it makes me want to cry.

I’m not sure whether it’s the fact that Bush said that in an apparently sincere way or if it’s the insidious policies he pursued that contrasted that statement. How do you say Muslims are people and then subsequently drop bombs on Muslim children?

Maybe it’s just the way he said “Allah“, as though we worship some alien god.

Maybe it’s all of those things simmering together in a minute of intense emotion.

Honestly, it’s not easy to be a Muslim and an American.

Not because I feel discriminated against. Not because I’ve ever felt the racist backlash against Muslims. Not because I’ve ever felt the micro-aggressions and evil glances for my attire.

But for me, the difficulty is reconciling my beliefs with how I live my life.

For me, the difficulty is in being virtuous.


boo hoo

How can you possibly be virtuous today?

As an American, the ability to live a virtuous life sometimes feels as though it has been stolen from me.

The taxes I pay go to funding militant groups and corrupt governments across the globe.

The gasoline I buy props up oppressive dictatorships and monarchies in the Middle East.

And any money I put into the economy by purchasing any item directly fuels this entire system of imperialism and capitalism.

It’s easy to feel helpless.

But for the next 29 days I will try my best to think deeply politically.

As a human being, thinking politically means opposing the structures and hierarchies that lead to mayhem, war, and genocide.

It means acting upon that base compassion for others and being mindful of your words and deeds.

It means recognizing the world as it is, but striving to continuously make it better.


This Ramadan is my fourth. It gets easier every year. From dawn to sunset, over a billion Muslims go without food or water.


In order to fulfill the divine injunction on all able Muslims to fast.

In order to remember the poor and the hungry.

In order to empathize with those who are suffering.

In order to increase self-reflection, humility, patience, kindness, and strength.

In order to find an outlet to be virtuous. Or at least to learn virtue.

In order to be like the Prophet Muhammad – may God’s peace and blessings be upon him.

In Surat al-Imran, the 3rd chapter of the Qur’an, it says:

“Say, ‘If you love God, follow me and God will love you and forgive you for your sins. God is most forgiving and most merciful.'” (3:31)

The goal is to be the best person you can be. If not, then why bother living?

On the first day of Ramadan, my true love gave to me some guidance when I felt lost.

InshaAllah, that will only continue.