Staying Ahead of the Curve

Anticipating next steps, discourse dysfunction, and the need for temperance

Photo by Zachary Shakked on Unsplash

What accounts for our collective mood? Everywhere you turn, anger is in the air. Our political debates polarize and worsen. Our news media is saturated with infighting and public spats. The most interesting parts of Twitter see figures, sometimes only pseudonyms of unknown identity, duking it out. Even in sports, everyone is mad, with fan bases infighting or arguing about the latest story. Freddie Deboer described this state of affairs as an “age of kayfabe,” with professional wrestling setting the paradigm for social affairs. For Deboer, the debates, violent as they may be, are all a bit like professional wrestling in that they’re just a big performance. No one really cares after all if Damian Lillard is traded to Miami or whether Mitch McConnell is declining cognitively (whether they should care or not is a different question), but they love pretending to care, because it gives them something to fight over or make fun of.

If I were to adjust Deboer’s theory a tad, I’d say that our world is being consumed by “sports talk,” with Skip Bayless representing the paradigmatic norm for social relations. Professional wrestling draws in viewers by impersonating something real and presenting faux athletic feats. Kayfabe relies on everyone involved treating staged events as if they were real, which implies a veneer of seriousness. Bayless operates with no such pretense. Unlike the WWE, Bayless succeeds by transparently embracing the role of public troll. He doubles down on ridiculous positions just because, even when he knows doing so is offensive, and often enjoys seeing the rise it gets out of people. Like Bayless, people online contrive arguments and fights out of thin air, develop “sides” in a debate, polarize audiences across liberal and conservative lines, and sit back and watch the (often vicious) fallout unfold.

And “Muslim Social Media,” especially its “trad” subculture (of which I view myself a member), appears to be no exception. People are mad. Of course, the heterodox have always held reservations with the orthodox (why else would they be heterodox?). But now their activist contingent regularly exudes venom online, even embracing guilt-by-association when congenial to their theopolitical efforts. For too long, some of these figures have assimilated themselves into mainstream Muslim spaces by focusing on certain shared causes, Islamophobia being a favorite, while hiding or obscuring their “eccentricities.” It has taken a rupture with a few tenets of the partisan liberal ‘aqida, notably LGBT, to expose their “cause appropriation” for what it is, and I am hopeful greater care will be taken to determine who truly represents our interests as believers going forward.

Unlike the progressives, the “trad” subculture is mad about other things. They are angry at popular scholars and preachers. They are angry at online Muslims they don’t like, especially young Muslim women with liberal views – a frequent target of their ire. They are upset at their fellow brethren when they seem to trespass newly-exacting standards made popular on social media. Their anger too often consumes their online activity. Lengthy posts excoriating this or that. Righting past wrongs, litigating lectures and events from years ago, relishing in others missteps, and scandalizing the cringe-inducing mistakes of the ‘awwam.

In saying this, I’m not suggesting that anger is not justified at times, or even often. I have inveighed myself a great deal over the years. Liberal society promises us tempered passions and reasoned differences. It tells us that social settlements are possible when we set aside our beliefs, when we relegate God to the realm of private confession, and when we deliberate only on the grounds of “public reason.” But one cannot so easily subdue his concerns about essential matters of life. Muslims must reject the temptation to self-secularize, to view their beliefs as good and true for them and them alone, and to internalize attitudes of apathy and indifference toward a deteriorating social order. Not everything can be reduced to “gentlemen’s differences,” after all. Nevertheless, in retaining our passions we must resist the allure of elevating everything to the proverbial rank of Extinction Level Event. The sheer frequency of catastrophizing, the condescending lecturing to all and sundry, the mockery of any who have the gall to differ slightly over the latest social media drama….it’s all so very tedious.

Worse yet, what immediately becomes evident is the utter lack of joy in this digital setting. The only laughs are vindictive, gained by way of insulting and jeering an opponent (the term “adab” is met by too many with nothing but scorn). Memes provide the occasional outlet for humor, and some are, admittedly, quite witty. But a people who cannot discern between the grave and trivial have devolved into tanfirism. And like those who have trodden the path of tanfir before them, I am concerned they will burn out.

The great irony in this is that the rising temperature appears to coincide with improving conditions elsewhere, particularly concerning matters in dire need of attention and rectification. Consider, for instance, the now-infamous “Navigating Differences” statement. Roughly two months have passed since it hit the street. To say it provoked some measure of criticism would be an understatement. And to be sure, there are many legitimate and fair critiques that have been lodged. It is certainly not a perfect product by any means. But is it a positive development? Does it assist those right now in North America seeking legal, vocational, or educational exemptions from being consumed by the LGBT currents? The answers are unquestionably “yes” and “yes.”

Some people (justifiably, I think) wanted a statement oriented towards the imperative of da’wah. Others desired greater moral urgency and stridency. It goes without saying that a single statement can’t do everything, and the particular scope of this statement was more limited than what some certainly wanted or hoped for. But even with those criticisms granted, the moral language of the statement is unambiguous and clear. Its tone, though perhaps lacking in a polemical flair, is nevertheless littered with declarative remarks (the inclusion of al-Aḥzāb:36, “By a decree from God…,” “Islam strictly prohibits…,” “categorically reject such efforts as theologically indefensible…,” “refuse the false choice…,” etc.). The suggestion that it is “weak,” I think, is overstated.

And the early returns are encouraging. More Muslims are standing up to LGBT pressures. At the public school level, parents are speaking out. Throughout Canada and America, Muslim parents and leaders are finding their voice. Mississauga recently saw an anti-pride “Haya Day” rally and parents in Ottawa gathered together chanting “leave our kids alone!” American Muslim organizing is picking up steam as well. Muslims in Maryland are in a heated battle with local school districts over LGBT teachings which have been introduced into schools without an opt-out clause. To their credit, CAIR-Maryland and CAIR-National have been at the forefront of the resistance. Muslim city council members in Hamtramck, Michigan have outlawed Pride flags in government buildings and on city property. Wassim Fayed, the now former city council member of Sammamish, Washington, courageously stated during a city council meeting that “God created us as a male and a female, and to go against the creation of God and to spread diseases in the community is something that we should speak up against.” Not all of this can be credited to the Navigating Differences Statement, though I can state with some certainty that many have been inspired by its words and have used it to activate a concerned but unsure base.

The signatories of the statement, particularly some of the “big names,” are discovering their voices while attempting to make amends for regrettable decisions in the past. Dr. Yasir Qadhi apologized for variously endorsing and remaining silent over liberal Muslim politicians (which he followed up with a fiery khutbah against the progressive left). Dr. Omar Suleiman, too, made a video forthrightly addressing his past and LGBT. Shaykh Suleiman Hani recently published an excellent op-ed for Religion News entitled “When the ‘left’ lectures Muslims on the ‘right’ on LGBTQ curriculums.” The number of khutbahs and programs addressing LGBT this past June alone has exceeded the past decade combined. Again, progress.

Years ago I predicted, “As Muslim leaders and institutions get deeper in bed with the progressive left, it is my contention that very soon, they will realize the rather difficult and unpleasant position they have placed themselves in, and it will be from there that they will need to recover their lost credibility.” The days of reckoning, it seems, are before us. The tides of promiscuity and degeneracy have swung far beyond what they and others thought possible. What was once dismissed as alarmism is now our reality. And to their credit, some leaders and institutions are trying to rectify their mistakes. Rather than play up their past faults, my own view is that Muslims are better served encouraging improvement and rewarding it when it occurs (indeed, who would want to atone for his past if doing so invited nothing but ridicule?).

Listening to Critics

Having said that, it is important to engage with the dissatisfied. Criticisms, even bitter and uncharitable ones, occasionally contain nuggets of truth. One of the more astute criticisms on this count of the Navigating Differences Statement fallout comes from a fellow named Faraz Nomani. Nomani believes that some are prematurely letting preachers and scholars “off the hook” for their past. He also questions their credentials as supposed “scholars.” Though I don’t agree with his take entirely, I am particularly sympathetic to one point he makes: “Stand for truth and the ummah courageously when it is HARD to do so.” Hear, hear!

And the fact is that it is easier today to stand against LGBT ideologues than it was a decade ago. The social and cultural tides in the West are turning. What was once verboten is now acceptable. The cultural right is obtaining power and one needs to be honest about that. Elon Musk owns Twitter (X?), arguably the most influential social media platform in the West. Musk’s ownership has radically altered the digital dialogical landscape – conservative and contrarian voices have been re-platformed on Twitter and are thriving on it. Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are followed by millions. The market for “anti-woke” voices is big, and a growing number are monetizing anti-woke content for big bucks. Tucker on Twitter’s inaugural episode was viewed over 120 million times. By comparison, cable news shows are lucky to get two million views. Joe Rogan’s Spotify contract is reportedly worth $200 million. Andrew Tate receives the attention of Tucker Carlson, Piers Morgan, and Candace Owens. Chic anti-establishment conservatism is in full swing.

Meanwhile, progressive politicians have toned down the radical planks in their agenda, while other progressive goals have been assimilated into the Democratic Party’s platform. Gone are the days of cosplaying as outsiders. “The Squad” struggles to motivate a jaded base, and the pretense to heterodoxy is now a difficult sell to all but the loyalists. Four years ago the New York Times announced that “The Squad” represented “the future of politics.” Axios now tells us their politics are backfiring against the party. Meanwhile, the very term “woke” – once a cherished credential – has become a derogative. Progressive activists and politicians repudiate the term as cheap polemic and dismissive. Comedians of all stripes pillory woke verities.

Anecdotally, I have seen these changes reflected on the ground. University MSAs and ISocs no longer want speakers to give them the tired bromides of inclusion and affirmation. Increasingly, they want to learn their religion. Something rigorous and meaningful, something that can guide them in their lives. Shrill cries of injury cannot offer that. Establishment American Muslim conferences are now featuring sessions wrestling with modernity. Secularism, LGBT, liberalism, and more are being engaged critically. We still have a ways to go, but it’s a start.

It is my sense that this also accounts for the rebarbative online discourse within “trad” spaces I referred to earlier. A great many Muslims adhering to the tradition resent the overtures made by American Muslims over the past decade in the interest of placating liberal demands. And they feel more empowered to point it out in a setting that has made highlighting those absurdities acceptable. The forceful gender diversification of speakers at programs and events to avert public outcry and scandal. The sprinkling of liberal talking points into religious discussions, even when doing so entailed radically misrepresenting the tradition (our mother Khadija’s (رضي الله عنها) supposed “CEO” status being a particularly unfortunate example). The groveling over and incessant promoting of shrill activists. This anger – a frustration I too share – is not without merit. It is simply late, and in my mind, too fixated on reliving the past instead of improving the present and appreciating positive momentum where it exists.

In saying this, I don’t mean to dance on progressivism’s grave prematurely, nor do I mean to suggest that revisiting the past has no place. One should reflect on past mistakes, track errors, and interrogate where things went wrong. People who don’t learn from their errors will continue to make them. And progressivism, particularly its rainbow agenda, has proven to be a rather stubborn belief to dislodge from our public institutions. It has a certain staying power – more than I would have guessed, at least. Even as progressivism has been bludgeoned, its ground game continues apace, pushing the rainbow agenda further and further to the left. No inch can be ceded for fear of untangling the entire ball of yarn. In many states, new curriculum reforms are being proposed to start at the pre-k level, i.e., kids three years-old. Such madness bespeaks ideological blindness, insecurity, and panic.

A Path Forward

Muslims in America, even as a small minority, have an opportunity here to inject reason into this world of madness. Our digital playground has a role to play in that process. Muslim pugilists have done well to highlight corruption, heresy, and cowardice. But a movement of meaning cannot subsist solely on scrutiny and policing moral lines. Like the kalima itself, one needs to both negate and affirm. And this means not only calling out bad actors, but promoting good ones. For all the talk of hierarchy and denunciation of faux authorities, there are few religious authorities of eminence, age, and piety that some pugilists appear willing to engage with, let alone subordinate themselves to.

It is also important here to recognize that digital community carries meaning beyond the specifics of the day. Yes, there are substantive issues at bay that need to be tackled and addressed, and many online scandal cycles focus on those very issues. But it is also true that many join in the fray for reasons unrelated to the specific issues at hand – there is something profoundly affirming in being part of a social current, to be able to express a form of moral superiority over those allegedly responsible for degrading our social fabric, and to witness first hand the ways ones collaborators work in mutual collaboration and cobelligerency.

The opportunity to belong is, therefore, one of the primary allures of joining digital debates, following them, and identifying tribally within them. In a world so exceptionally disembodied, bereft of any social spaces where young men can find class and community with other men and women with other women, where homosocial solidarity always has to live in the shadows, wracked with fears of appearing “too” this or that, even a WhatsApp group with brothers or sisters can feel cathartic. It is no wonder that so many are drawn to fulmination, for it is within the context of these debates that people can discover themselves, establish meaningful camaraderie with brethren, and discover purpose.

And here, I think, is perhaps a part of where we can potentially shift the discourse into a healthier form of dialogue: the establishment of spaces where homosociality can emerge and develop in the real world. Many men in particular are starved of male fraternity, and the weight of relational satisfaction cannot fall fully on a marriage, let alone WhatsApp group or Twitter/FB community. Men require the affirmation of other men. They need to express in healthy ways their aggression, assertiveness, their distinctive forms of dialogue and banter, and more.

Men and women cannot allow their digital footprint to grow at the expense of their personal and spiritual lives. Remaining constantly ensconced in online fitnah, to put it plainly, is soul crushing. You are not obligated to have an opinion on everything, and it is possible to develop interests and passions that are not ravaging Muslim Twitter or part of whatever thing is “hot” at the moment. Discerning carefully between moments when frustration and denunciation are necessary from those where charity can be expressed, delineating between those things appropriate for digital contexts versus the lived solidarity of spending time alongside brothers and sisters, and discovering those places where one can gain spiritual fulfillment — in worship, solitude, and reflection — will be key for our collective futures. We ask Allah to grant us the courage to pursue such ends with a concern for Him and His Messenger. Ameen.

---

Other notes:

• I recently returned from a trip to England. Although there is much to say about the trip, I was truly honored to meet so many bright, enthusiastic, and committed brothers. Shaykh Moinul Abu Hamza, Ustadh Asim Ayub, Shaykh Siddiq Mitha, Shaykh Abu Aaliyah Surkheel Sharif, Ustadh Hamza Tzortzis, the many folks at the Karima Foundation, The Quran Institute, Norbury Muslim Centre, Islam21c, Salman Butt (and the hilarious Yusuf Patel), and the Saeed Institute who went out of their way to provide a level of khidma and care that I certainly am unworthy of. I pray Allah rewards them copiously for their efforts, increases their work in barakah, and makes them leaders of the pious. Ameen.

• Particularly heartening on the trip was hearing about the various projects and work taking place on the ground. Even those with seemingly meager resources have tremendous himma, and they are working fervently to improve their communities, to revive a culture of ‘ilm and worship, and to bring people closer to Allah.

• Shaykh Moinul recently announced an Ummatica Diploma Programme scheduled to launch in January 2024, insha’Allah. People can register their interest now.

• Although I occasionally write here and elsewhere, I am admittedly a subpar public speaker. I suppose it is good that I am self-aware enough to know it is not an especially strong suit of mine. Accordingly, I tend to over-prepare (and underdeliver) for talks, and have my notes from the talks I delivered in the UK. I intend to post the transcripts from the talks in the coming days/weeks, insha’Allah. Perhaps there will be some benefit in them.

• Dr. Ovamir Anjum observes: “A few elites in every country have become billionaires and the masses of humanity everywhere are dispossessed—dispossessed not only of meaningful wealth and prospects, but of their humanity, of meaning, of respect, of virtue they can understand...It is no wonder that the West itself has lost meaning and identity. It has conquered the world, and nothing is left to conquer.” Give the entire talk a listen.

• Dr. Hasan Spiker announces his latest publication addressing the philosophical underpinnings of transgender ideology in addition to a book coming out in October. The publication is up at Renovatio, and he discusses the article on Blogging Theology with Paul Williams. Take a look at both.

• Charles Camosy writes about rising support for “medical aid in dying” (MAID), a misleading and pernicious euphemism for physician assisted death. Polling in Canada shows that support for MAID is especially high among the younger generation aged 18-34: a full sixty percent (!) supported seeking MAID for a person with a disability, and forty percent endorse assisted death for those in poverty. Camosy argues that we need a new term to describe what is going on here: Physician-Assisted Killing (PAK).

Allah Knows Best