Refuting Islam

Critical Response to “Colonialism and Reform (1800s–1900s)

Collapse, Revival, and the Struggle to Define Islamic Authority”

I. The Framing Fallacy: Collapse Blamed Solely on Colonialism

The article begins by casting European colonialism as the primary force responsible for the disruption of Islamic civilization in the 19th and early 20th centuries. While colonial expansion undeniably altered the political and social landscapes of Muslim-majority regions, this framing omits a crucial historical reality: the Islamic world had already been in decline—politically, militarily, economically, and intellectually—for centuries prior to colonial intrusion.

❖ Pre-Colonial Internal Decay:

Ottoman stagnation (1600s–1700s), marked by bureaucratic corruption, military inefficiency, and economic decline, preceded European colonization.
The Mughal Empire in India was fragmenting internally before the British conquest, with regional rulers often engaging in internecine conflict.
Scientific stagnation: While Europe entered the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, Islamic intellectual centers had largely abandoned ijtihād (independent reasoning) in favor of taqlīd (imitation), centuries before the arrival of colonists.

Conclusion: The portrayal of Islamic decline as a direct outcome of colonialism is historically simplistic and overlooks deep-seated internal dysfunction. Colonialism exploited weakness—it did not create it.

II. Legal and Educational “Displacement” or Necessary Reform?

The article laments the “displacement” of Shariah and madrasah authority by Western legal and educational systems. However, this assumes that pre-colonial systems were superior or at least sufficient for societal progress—an assumption not supported by evidence.

❖ Legal Pluralism vs. Sharia Absolutism

Shariah was not a monolithic, uniform system even before colonialism; it varied widely and often led to arbitrary judgments, lack of legal equality (especially for non-Muslims), and poor protection of property rights.
Western legal systems introduced codified, predictable laws and universal procedures that enhanced accountability—even if imperfect.

❖ Islamic Education in Crisis

Madrasahs in the 18th and 19th centuries focused heavily on rote memorization of outdated texts, with little emphasis on logic, science, or empirical reasoning.
The article criticizes secular education for marginalizing Islam, but it fails to acknowledge that modern scientific advancement was impossible under traditional Islamic pedagogical frameworks.

Conclusion: The legal and educational reforms introduced under colonial rule, while often culturally disruptive, offered models that fostered modernization and institutional development—areas where Islamic institutions had already failed.

III. Ulama, Sufism, and the Myth of Pure Authority

The narrative laments the marginalization of the ʿulamā’ and Sufi orders under colonial regimes. Yet, these institutions were often themselves complicit in the ossification of Islamic thought and societal stagnation.

❖ Ulama: Guardians or Gatekeepers?

Many ʿulamā’ resisted printing presses, modern medicine, and even clocks—seeing them as “Western” or un-Islamic.
Their authority was not simply spiritual—it was deeply political, often allied with oppressive monarchies.

❖ Sufism: Spiritual Tradition or Social Control?

While Sufi brotherhoods played positive roles in community bonding, many devolved into cults of personality, shrine-based superstitions, and esoteric mysticism divorced from rational theology or ethical reform.

Conclusion: The sidelining of traditional religious elites was not always the result of colonial suppression—it was often a corrective to entrenched, regressive power structures that had failed to address the challenges of modernity.

IV. The Reform Movements: Fragmentation, Not Revival

The text praises the Wahhabi, Deobandi, and Salafi movements as reformist responses to colonialism. However, these movements themselves reflect the fragmentation, internal contradiction, and ideological crisis of modern Islam.

❖ Wahhabism: Reform or Regression?

Claimed to be a return to pure Islam, but in practice, it violently opposed centuries of Islamic diversity, destroying tombs, shrines, and theological pluralism.
Alliance with the House of Saud was less about reform and more about establishing a theocratic monarchy that persists today.

❖ Deobandism: Orthodoxy as Resistance?

Opposed British colonialism but retained rigid traditionalism and strict gender segregation.
While it maintained some Sufi elements, it led to insular clericalism, resisting broader Islamic unity.

❖ Salafiyya: Modernism or Masked Literalism?

Advocated for ijtihād but was inconsistent: rejected taqlīd, yet remained doctrinally rigid.
Figures like Rashid Rida supported authoritarian models of the Caliphate and harbored anti-Western, anti-democratic sentiments despite claims of rational reform.

Conclusion: These movements did not constitute a coherent revival. Rather, they signaled the ideological disorientation of a religion struggling to define itself in a post-Enlightenment, post-industrial world.

V. The Caliphate’s Fall: Symbol Over Substance

The abolition of the Caliphate in 1924 is portrayed as a catastrophic loss, yet its symbolism outweighs its actual relevance.

❖ Was the Ottoman Caliphate Truly Islamic?

By the late 19th century, the Ottoman Empire was a secularizing, multi-ethnic polity that used the Caliphate for political legitimacy, not religious leadership.
Non-Arab Turks held the Caliphate for centuries, often ruling Arab Muslims harshly and prioritizing imperial interests over religious ones.

❖ Universal Caliphate: A Historical Illusion?

The idea of a single, righteous Caliphate uniting all Muslims is more ideological fantasy than historical norm. The Islamic world has almost always been politically fragmented—even in its so-called “Golden Ages.”

Conclusion: The emotional attachment to the Caliphate is fueled more by modern Islamist nostalgia than any proven necessity for global Islamic unity. Its demise was the result—not the cause—of Islamic political decline.

VI. Qur'anic and Hadith Citations: Misused and Misapplied

The article employs several scriptural quotes to justify revivalist or political aims. These references warrant closer scrutiny.

❖ Qur’an 3:110 ("You are the best nation...")

This verse is often used triumphantly, but its context is conditional: the “best nation” is one that upholds justice and righteousness—not one that clings to historical victimhood or imposes authority through dogma.

❖ Hadith about Caliphate (Abu Dawud 4284)

Frequently used by Islamists to advocate political restoration. Yet, this hadith is weak in chain and ambiguous in content, interpreted variously across Sunni, Shia, and modern schools.

Conclusion: The invocation of scriptural authority to justify political or reformist movements reflects selective hermeneutics, often guided by ideology more than theology or scholarly consensus.

Final Assessment: A Crisis of Legitimacy, Not Just Authority

The article frames the 1800s–1900s as a heroic struggle to restore Islamic authority. But a more accurate reading shows that this was not simply a response to foreign domination—but a crisis of legitimacy from within.

Reformers could not agree on what Islam meant: literalism vs. rationalism, monarchy vs. caliphate, ijtihād vs. madhhab loyalty.
The attempt to reconcile Islam with modernity remains deeply unresolved, producing movements that often contradict each other more than they resist colonialism.

Conclusion

Rather than a coherent revival, the Islamic response to colonial modernity was a fractured and often self-contradictory struggle. It produced conflicting visions of Islam—some hyper-literalist, others pseudo-modernist—none of which have yielded stable, sustainable solutions to the challenges posed by modernity, pluralism, science, and human rights.

If Islam's authority collapsed under colonialism, it did so in part because it had already lost the intellectual and moral coherence necessary to adapt to a changing world. The legacy of this collapse is not reform—but fragmentation.