The Modernist Menace To Islam

by Daniel Haqiqatjou

Modernism is the religion of the colonizer. Modernism is the religion of the imperialists who bomb and occupy the Muslim world. Modernism is the religion of secularists subjugating Muslims around the world. Modernism is the religion of those who publish cartoons insulting the Prophet . Modernism is the religion of the governments that ban hijab and halal meat. Modernism is the religion of the anti-Muslim bigots who want to see Islam wiped off the face of the Earth. Modernism is the religion that is being forced onto Muslims, pressuring them to abandon Islam and the Islamic tradition. This book is a response to the Modernism menace.

Genres: Islam, Religion, Nonfiction, Philosophy

273 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 2021

Reviews

[Sakib Khan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an eye opener for so-called modern & moderate Muslims...

[Farhan Ishrak · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book helps to rethink the meaning of modern buzz words.

How we Muslims are in Inferiority complex. It's an eye-opener and has lots of materials to think.

[Rafay Syed · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent resource for anyone looking for a comprehensive criticism of modern ideologies and systems under the umbrella of liberalism. Many Muslims do not realize what a severe impact these ideologies have had on the psyche of the average Muslim and of course, most non Muslims as well. This book highlights many of the self contradictory aspects of these ideologies and criticizes them while providing the alternative solution that comes with Islam. It is very effective and persuasive for anyone with a desire for understanding reality of the human nature. Specifically, the book addresses how these modern systems destroy family, spousal relationships, and connections with religion/God, while traditional systems like an Islamic one preserve them.

My only gripe with this book is since it is a collection of Daniel Haqiqatjou's writings on website, some of it is specific to certain incidents and events, which makes this book not as timeless and robust as it could have been. I really wish some of the material was edited and streamlined for the book format that it has been placed in.

Other than that, most things produced by Daniel Haqiqatjou and his team are really high quality and this book isn't an exception. For anyone curious about the state of the modern world and its relationship with Islam and Muslims, pick this book up. Even if you're not a Muslim but are interested in a criticism of liberalism and a defense of traditional society, you will still find this book useful.

Daniel Haqiqatjou was generous enough to send me a signed copy of this book for free. جزاه الله خيرا

[Jizya Collector · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is great book critiquing modern ideologies in a brief and concise way, which has plagued and is plaguing the ummah, and is threatening the faith of Muslims today. As well as causing the decline of humanity itself. Although brother Daniel does not go into depth critiquing all these ideologies, which isn't the aim of the book as mentioned in the introduction, the book is meant to serve as brief way at how Muslims should defend Islam which is constantly attacked in the secular liberal world order today. The book does 'pack a punch' and serve as the beginning for readers to see how flawed these modern ideologies are when compared to superiority of Islam. Insha Allah this book will open the eyes of many Muslims that may have doubts about their deen and will increase their yaqeen in Islam. I look forward to future books from Daniel, which will have a more in-depth critique of these ideologies, which he has alluded to in the introduction. May Allah reward him for his efforts. آمين

[Abdirahman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Daniel Haqiqatjou's "The Modernist Menace to Islam" offers a valuable exploration of the harmful impacts of liberal ideologies on Islamic thought and practice. In this concise yet impactful book, Haqiqatjou provides readers with a clear understanding of the dangers posed by modernist interpretations of Islam and the need to deconstruct and resist such influences.

Haqiqatjou's analysis is both insightful and thought-provoking. He skillfully highlights the ways in which modernist ideologies have undermined traditional Islamic principles and values, shedding light on the detrimental effects of liberal interpretations on Muslim communities worldwide.

To conclude, I believe that "The Modernist Menace to Islam" is a valuable resource for anyone seeking to understand and combat the influence of liberal ideologies within the Muslim community. Haqiqatjou's clear and concise writing style, coupled with his insightful analysis, makes this book a must-read for those looking to deepen their understanding of Islamic thought. I highly recommend it to others seeking clarity on this issue.

[George Hong]

this is kind of sad. secular iranian american muslim's sister is killed and brother Daniel's world is turned upside down. now he goes full tilt conservative muslim hoping for a sharia world that is more just. thing is his arguments are stupid. 1) when you live in the west most liberals bend over backwards to praise islam and protect muslims. 2) also ironic to say the western powers are colonizers when islam was a colonial power for a thousand years. 3) finally it is funny a western raised man can't see muslim's are jealous of the west's material success and have only themselves to blame for throwing the advantages they had during the muslim golden age.

[Imran Shah · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author displays his training in philosophy with his well-crafted and -reasoned arguments against many of the challenges/issues muslims face today. Many of these issues, we may have thought about or discussed, but the author puts them in very understandable terms and well-substantiated. And God knows better. A must-read for the muslim living in the 21st century!

[Yassir Morsi · Rating 1 out of 5]

My comments might not be surprising for those who know about the populist blogger Daniel Haqiqatjou. But, my irritation with this book was somewhat unexpected. It wasn't his overblown performance as the latest Muslim defending us against the liberal West that bothered me. It was how the book could not achieve this purpose while thinking it had. His project was to help Muslims and non-Muslims alike tackle contemporary topics because:

"In sum, religion is seen as lacking any intellectual credibility. The only way to restore that credibility in the minds of the doubting masses is to address these questions head-on (p.268)"

He may only have achieved what he had aimed to disprove. This book lacks any intellectual credibility. I suspect my background in teaching political theory might have contributed to my frustration. I was maybe too familiar with many Western ideas Haqiqatjou criticises and I do not know how those new to Western thought might find this book. But in a sentence with a clause: it is awful, if it is meant to be scholarship.

I can only focus on one thing because I would be here all day. So, I will discuss his criticism of “philosophical liberalism” or the thing he calls that but which is not liberalism.

So, despite positioning himself as a critic of liberalism, he writes without referencing any major liberal or secular thinkers; not one. No Locke, no Smith, no Mills, no Rawls; none of their texts are mentioned. Yet, Bill Maher, the talk show host, is.
Imagine a critic of Islam not citing a single a serious work or engaging with any significant Muslim thinker and yet presenting their criticism with a haunting tone of how they are destroying the Muslim tradition. How seriously would you take them?

Instead of canon, Haqiqatjou references a bunch of op-eds (and even then cherry-picks them). The shallow approach fails to provide a thorough and balanced critique and inadvertently strengthens the arguments of those he aims to criticize by failing to adequately challenge them.

Any good point made by Haqiqatjou isn't his own, even if he came up with it. He just butchers it. I think he is attacking the liberal abstract or possessive individualism of liberal law. I also think he is denouncing the transcendental ego of Kantian Enlightenment. There are traces of …. hints at, semblances of, he brings up colonialism kind of… Wallahi I don’t know. I had to take guesses and bring everything I know to fill in the gaps, and there were so many.

I think he is against the results of capitalism’s “progressivism” which he inaccurately attributes to coming from leftist ideas, because, he notes (in his own way) capitalist society’s destructiveness towards tradition and its consumerism built off individualism. Still, he provides no reading of power or history; actually he provides no reading full stop. He sounds like he is just having a moral breakdown about how the neighbourhood (the west) has gone bad. Why he is invested in the neighbourhood is an important question.

Others have already thought of better criticism and explained it better, and they also gave references for further reading. They were generous to their readers. I don't even need to reach for the critical or radical Western political traditions. It is not stretching the truth to say that liberals themselves have made the same or even better criticisms of liberalism.

Let me provide some quotes and examples of what I mean about his rushed, superficial, inaccurate and limited criticism. Haqiqatjou writes:

“But freedom is a misunderstood concept. The truly free person, according to liberal philosophy beginning with the European empiricists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, is the person who starts off with a blank slate, i.e., the tabula rasa. This person has no prior beliefs or commitments. His mind is not contaminated with falsely imposed ideas about the world, about God, about the state of nature. This person, with his free mind, is then able to form his own authentic beliefs from scratch. Ideally, those beliefs will be formed on the basis of sound scientific investigation — that’s what the empiricists hoped for at least in their philosophy of mind and epistemology" (p.49)

Firstly, the concept of "tabula rasa" relates more to the origins of our ideas and knowledge rather than to the concept of freedom. Although John Locke, who popularised the term "tabula rasa," was a liberal philosopher, he did not equate being a blank slate with being truly free. Instead, for Locke, freedom was about the absence of external coercion or restraint.

Also Haqiqatjou actually used the phrase “state of nature” without irony to almost suggest the foundation of liberal thought doesn’t take nature seriously. For those who know, you know. He is saying classical liberalism does not take seriously natural philosophy. I can’t. It is like the Peterson fanboys who blamed Marxism for postmodernism.

Another conflation occurs between “authentic beliefs” and “scientific investigation”. His statement implies that forming "authentic beliefs from scratch" based on "sound scientific investigation" is an ideal of liberal philosophy and empiricism. While it's true that empiricists, like Locke, believed that knowledge should be based on experience and evidence, it is a gross oversimplification to suggest this is the same as forming beliefs "from scratch."

If we must generalise, empiricists would argue that our beliefs should be based on our experiences and the evidence available to us, but this does not mean starting with no prior beliefs or commitments at all, as that would be practically impossible. Instead, it means revising our beliefs based on new evidence. It is not even a liberal idea. But this type of “everything western is liberalism and unnatural” is found throughout the book. At one stage he claimed progressivism, “is the pillar of Western thought and culture.”

Does he actually believes the West’s intellectual pillar is its commitment to gradual change through reform towards social justice? Here, Haqiqatjou is a bigger believer in the West than the West. Later in the chapter, there is his confusion about the “rule of law”. Haqiqatjou writes:

What is supposed to distinguish civilized countries from uncivilized ones is respect for the rule of law. Yet Trump, left-wing activists, and pretty much everyone else in secular countries appeal to the rule of law when it serves their political ends but argue that the law should be changed when it does not serve those ends. The assumption is that just because something is legal, doesn’t make it morally right and just because it is illegal, doesn’t make it morally wrong. So ultimately, it is those underlying morals that are all determinative, not the rule of law.

The rule of law is a fundamental principle that ensures that laws are applied consistently and fairly to all citizens, regardless of their political beliefs. While liberals may argue for changes to the law based on their moral beliefs (not an easy process), this does not undermine the importance of the rule of law. Changing laws, does not change the rule of law. Maybe he thinks the rule of law means laws are rules. I don’t know. Because he doesn't cite anyone.

Yet another strange claim:

"Put another way, freedom of religion in secular nations assumes a starting point of non-religion. But why is non-religion the starting point, the neutral ground? Why are non-religious values the default? One might say, well, there are a variety of religious beliefs so rather than prefer or endorse one, the secular state chooses none. But this is a gross mischaracterization of the reality. Non-religion is also a particular set of beliefs. If the secular state chooses non-religion, it has still preferred and endorsed a particular belief system over others." (p.51)

Okay. I brought this up because he called secularism “non-religion” – which I found strangely brilliant. So he accepts the secular demarcation of “religion” and then moves to attack them for being “non-religion”. I love this. I will try and provide an example of why. Imagine someone insulted you and called you “backwards”. Outraged, instead of destroying the category itself as a function of power, and denaturalising its right to judge, you decide to attack them back for them not being backwards. You call them "non-backwards" and how the "non-backwards" are even more backwards than the backward. This is his entire approach with the West.

I refuse to believe Islam is a “religion”. I don’t care how confusing that is for some or what suspicious looks I get. Religion is some weird confining a term and category. It is entirely made up to make sense of Christendom’s history.

But, I brought this passage up because this needs to be read in Haqiqatjou’s strange protection of Christianity. I always suspected him to be some right-wing Christian friend – hundreds of ferocious videos against atheism, barely any debunking of the Christian view of Christ. He writes:

"As the West moves away from the influence of its Christian roots and continues to adopt paganistic and satanic ideologies, the day will come that the law of the land will make it impossible to practice the Islamic religious obligations." (p.34)

Is he saying Christianity protects Muslims? So, if America becomes Christian “again” we are more likely to be allowed to be Muslim? I do not know what history books he has read, but I do know which ones he hasn’t. But his affinity with Christianity goes deeper:

"… I think we have to give a lot of credit to our non-Muslim neighbours who do sincerely tolerate us (with a real and not superficial tolerance) and what for them must be a lot of weirdness. My belief is that, it is that deep cultural memory from the days when these were traditional Christian societies" (p.34)

To say the Muslim body works as some trigger for a tolerant Christian’s nostalgic reminiscing of the good old days is the “lot of weirdness”. I don't mind these points, but it is interesting at what point he decides to stop generalising and drops his outraged tone . It's when he discusses Christanity. But, maybe its best he doesnt read history, for then again he is blaming the French Revolution and secularism for unfairly targeting the Catholic church, which he turns into a victim through cherry-picking the sole op-ed he cites on the topic:

“In a 2015 op-ed, Anglican priest Giles Fraser wrote on the history of secularism: “At the end of the 18th century, France’s war against the Catholic church reached its bloody conclusion. By Easter 1794, the same revolution that once proclaimed freedom of conscience had forcibly closed down the vast majority of France’s 40,000 churches. What began with the confiscation of church property and the smashing of crosses and chalices, ended with forced conversions and the slaughter of priests and nuns at the guillotine.” (P.23)

Haqiqatjou uses Fraser to say look how terroristic secularism is. The problem is Fraser is attacking the French state, not just secularism. He is providing a reading of power, and he goes on to characterise the Catholic church during the revolution in the very next paragraph that Haqiqatjou excluded from his book:

“Yes, it (Catholic Church) had cornered a huge proportion of France’s wealth. Yes, it had a dangerously symbiotic relationship with the monarchy and reactionary aristocrats in powdered wigs. But these days, the Catholic church is no longer any political challenge to the French state.”

I should stop, but I could write so much more, and you will notice the passage from their page numbers that they came early in the book - cause I kind of gave up taking notes. There is just too much to say.

I really wanted to write about how amazingly he titles himself as a skeptic and a critic of the Enlightenment. But words don’t have origins for Haqiqatjou, because he is not a critic of the West, he just wants to be. He sells the idea, not the work. And maybe this describes his popularity because his work is closer to how he describes “liberal culture” as “composed of highly addictive habits, which spread like crack or fentanyl use.”

He is selling a false victory, a way to detach ourselves from our political reality in the very moment he claims he is addressing it. His delusion that he has exited the liberal matrix is but the entrance into the matrix. He keeps us stupid.

[Syazwina Johari · Rating 5 out of 5]

Daniel Haqiqatjou is a physics and philosophy graduate of Harvard University that highly against modern -isms (secularism/liberalism/feminism and etc) brought by the Western ideologist for he firmly believes, the modernist is a menace towards Islam.

In brief, Islam is globally against for being considered as conservative, orthodox or unprogressive system of belief just because we're thought to be in opposition of modernisation.

We're not against modernisation but more of opposing the concept of modernisation brought by the Westernist.

If we agree with their ideal modern world, we must also accept their ideas in which against our own belief which is atheism, secularism and etc. We believe we can create a great future without eradicating our belief but the Western people believe otherwise that we can strive without religion.

"The main concept of liberal thoughts is to maximize individual choice and rights but the problem is that the existence law precludes individual choice in any and every society. All people are constraint by laws. Everyone's will and freedom of choice is constricted by the law." - page 65

Based on this line, even if they wish to fight for equality and freewill, no one is above the law and can do whatever they please in the name of freewill. Just like Islam, but we rely on the Quran as the barrier in deciding what's permissible and what isn't.

So basically, the western never really fight for the truth, they only fight for what they believe is the truth. They believe their thoughts and opinion are more important than relying on the divine scripture. They even prove that the equality they fight for is nothing but sugarcoated lies when they trample and discriminate upon those whom chose religious belief out of their own freewill.

I highly suggest to read this book, sebab dalam dunia moden, musuh bijak dalam menggunakan perang saraf menyerang pemikiran kita atas nama baik, kebaikan sejagat sedangkan apa yang mereka uphold itu menentang Al-Quran dan hadis. Tingkatkan ilmu supaya tidak mudah diperdaya.

[Salma Beevi · Rating 1 out of 5]

The blurb on the book is dense with misconstrued misleading notions of "modernity".
There were at least a couple of false messengers claiming prophethood DURING the lifetime of the prophet himself.
There were numerous attempts at corrupting the collection of the verses of the Qur'an. attributing its verses to the books of the Christians/Jews and even linked to the eloquence of the established poets of the time (Imrul Qais for example.)

The "book" is not special. And no, you DO NOT need to buy it because all of its content are simply extractions of his blogposts / FB posts and articles on his Muslim Skeptic platform.
All of which are scathingly unoriginal. Nothing you would not on a typical Alt Right wing platform which most Muslims are not privy to --something Jou latches on to for his sensationalist headlines with his inconsequential rants.

[Chaza Khatib · Rating 5 out of 5]

There’s so much to say about this book, but for one thing, if brother Daniel ever reads these reviews, I want him to know that I made a lot of duaa for him while reading his book. May Allah teach us and him the best ‘ilm. Ameen.

[Kenan A · Rating 5 out of 5]

such a informative book, daniel does an amazing job at addressing a number of important topics that are brought up and used against islam today. 100% recommend this to anyone looking to learn more about these claims being thrown at islam

[Monis Khan]

A amazing critique of the contemporaneity world. It comes as breeze of fresh air.

[Surviving Soul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reject Modernity, Embrace Islam.

[Aakif · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent book by Brother Daniel. It is a collection and expansion of various articles posted on the Muslim Skeptic site. Brother Daniel has dealt with some of the most important contentions between Islam and modernity, making a case for a pure Islamic worldview based on the classical tradition.

I deducted one star because the book is relatively small, and sometimes certain subtopics don't receive the desired space, or just the Orthodox position is stated without addressing the counterarguments.

Nonetheless, I believe this book is a must-read for Muslims, whether they live in the West or not. It can serve as both a jumping point in critiquing modernity based on an Islamic epistemology or as a reminder of the numerous inconsistencies plaguing the various 'isms'.

[Yaser · Rating 5 out of 5]

I believe every young Muslim should read this book. Daniel Haqiqatjou (the author) made amazing points with great clarification explaining in detail all of the popular modernist views. For example, in chapter 7, where the subject of the matter is science and scientism, the author clarified and refuted common misconceptions about science and the Quran, with an undeniable solution. While also providing examples and evidence from history. I recommend this book to every Muslim, especially Muslims living in the west. And most importantly the author refuted all the modernist ideologies without being apologetic.

[Saif Ahmad · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is important as Daniel counters the modernist trends that are hurled at Islam and makes one feel that the religion is opposed to the so-called newfound ethics in social and sexual preferences, and many other topics. He also gives a rational argument as to why not to judge the Quran on modern-day science, as science is ever-changing, and what one might prove to be a working theory today might be rejected tomorrow. Also, he talks about the hypocrisy of liberalism and how they have destroyed itself with its own agenda.
It is a good book covering a lot of topics of modern hypocrisy that has surrounded Islam and wants Islam to submit to its ideologies.

[Alina Fatima · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Modernist Menace to Islam is a strikingly well-written and accessible book. Daniel invites readers to rethink their understanding of concepts that have become so ingrained they are often left unquestioned. This shift in perspective feels revolutionary, pushing the boundaries of conventional thought and offering a fresh, much-needed viewpoint on religion, identity, and societal values. The book encourages you to see the world from an entirely new angle, challenging what many have come to accept as the default way of thinking

[Menna Hamouda · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredibly refreshing to see a Muslim intellectual who actually critiques liberalism and modernism instead of rehashing the banal 'please don't misunderstand us, white masters– Islam is liberal too!' kind of apologetics that keep Muslims subservient to western values. I found the chapters about feminism and the hijab particularly pertinent to my life as a Muslim woman who used to identify as an intersectional feminist.

Overall, a very well-reseached series of essays with razor-sharp observations and logically cogent arguments.

[Meherab Sami · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am a slow reader but this book is one of the few which I read quickly. This book deals with the question thrown towards Islam by modernists and liberals and answers. Islam on feminism, gender fluidity, Democracy, scientism, secularism, modernity etc.

I would strongly suggest this book especially to the Muslims, who have questions on these topics.

The Author also runs a YouTube channel

[Israel Rodriguez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every muslim should read this.

[Miss Ambitious · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing..
I liked how this book explains the reality of Islam