LINGERING DOUBTS

Some people might be puzzled by the question: “How can you object to this interpretation? We have witnessed with our own eyes how it has transformed so many people remarkably. How can we then assume that all of this was wrong?” My response would be that, indeed, your observation is valid. However, you are making the mistake of treating a past experience as if it were a current reality. If you were to step out of your realm of devotion and see your idealized personalities as they appear today, you would realize that what you perceive as “transformation” was, in fact, a temporary fervor that has long since dissipated (except in rare cases, if God wills).

1.        Human beings inherently seek an ideal. The rush of many people toward misguided philosophies or erroneous religious interpretations results from this inner quest. However, the search for an ideal is essentially the natural urge to seek one’s Creator. This desire can only find true fulfillment when a person’s journey genuinely leads them to God, where their soul connects with its Master without any intermediary barrier. Such a person finds infinite potential for growth. There is no question of any decline.  But if one approaches a limited or lesser reality, mistaking it for the absolute truth, it will not be long before nature reveals its incompatibility with that person. An artificial ideal can never replace a true one. Consequently, life will naturally start to revert to its former state. The initial enthusiasm within will fade, eventually bringing about a time when one will become completely indifferent, lying lifelessly by the edge of their chosen ideology—much like how the moths, that restlessly circled all night, appear in the morning: lying motionless around the extinguished light.

This outcome is destined for all the major and minor figures of such movements. However, if any among them possess certain innate qualities that appeal to the masses—such as intelligence, physical charisma, eloquence, or the ability to write or speak effectively—then these outward traits will continue to hide their lifeless personalities from many people. Their followers will continue to think of him as alive, just as the jinn under the command of Prophet Solomon (u) assumed he was still alive after his death, merely because of his outward appearance. Likewise, some individuals are naturally endowed with commendable traits like good manners and compassion. Such qualities can be found in anyone involved in a movement. But these are personal attributes that should not be attributed to the movement itself, nor do they hold any ideological significance. In the same way, some qualities develop only as part of group identity or movement ethics, while a person’s personal life becomes empty of serving others. Yet, under the “service to humanity” department, they appear active in collective programs alongside others.

2.        At times, people find it difficult to recognize the flaws in a movement that claims to work for the religion because they see that some benefits are indeed resulting from it. They think that if a movement benefits the religion, it cannot possibly be flawed. Its usefulness, in their eyes, serves as proof of its correctness. However, the truth is that there is no necessary link between the two. It is entirely possible for an effort to bring some benefit to the religion while still being fundamentally flawed. In Europe, for instance, some Christians have provided extremely high-level scientific arguments in favour of God’s existence—arguments that no Muslim scholar has been able to match thus far. Yet, despite this, no one would claim that this is what God ultimately desires from a human being or that Christians are true representatives of God’s religion.

The presence of both good and bad aspects within a movement is a common observation, and even Prophet Muhammad (e) predicted such occurrences. In a lengthy hadith narrated by Hudhayfah, he asked the Prophet:

“We were in ignorance and evil, then Allah brought us this good (Islam). Will there be evil after this good?”

The Prophet replied: “Yes.”

Hudhayfah continued: “Will there be good after that evil?”

The Prophet e said: “Yes, but it will not be pure. Rather, it will be mixed with impurity.”

Hudhayfah asked: “What is that impurity?”

The Prophet e replied: “There will be people who follow other than my Sunnah, and who guide according to other than my guidance. You will see some things they do as good, and you will reject others as wrong.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 7084; Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1847).

In essence, efforts made in the name of religion can be divided into two categories: witnessing to the truth of religion (shahadat al-deen) and supporting the religion (ta’yid al-deen).

• Witnessing to the religion refers to a movement that arises solely to convey the pure message of Islam, presenting it in its most authentic form, free from the deficiencies previously mentioned. This is the truly desired path, and in the Hereafter, only those who work in this way will be raised as true witnesses.
• Supporting the religion refers to efforts that, directly or indirectly, contribute to strengthening Islam. Examples include refuting false ideologies, defending against enemies, or striving to preserve even a part of the faith. For this type of effort, neither soundness of belief nor uprightness of personal conduct is an essential condition.

As the Prophet e said: “Indeed, Allah supports this religion even through an irreligious man.”(Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 3967)

I have no hesitation in acknowledging the valuable contributions of those holding the ideology under discussion; they have provided significant service in defending Islam. I am also willing to admit that they have a greater understanding of Islam’s interests than many of today’s so-called “Islamic representatives.” However, I strongly believe that the way they present Islam is not accurate. While they have certainly defended Islam against external attacks, they have also tried to interpret Islam by offering a specific understanding of it. And it is precisely in this interpretive effort that they have made a mistake. Their interpretation has seriously distorted the true essence of Islam, and this is why I feel compelled to speak out against them. If their work had been limited to simply defending Islam without trying to give a particular interpretation, I would never have critiqued them.

3.        One person, after reading my writings, commented, “Your analysis seems accurate, but it is still hard to understand how everything that Maulana Maududi wrote in his explanation of Islam could be entirely wrong.” This doubt can easily be cleared up if we understand the nature of the literature in question. As I have mentioned before, Maulana Maududi did not focus on any specific part of Islam; instead, he aimed to provide a comprehensive explanation of the entire religion. He sought to establish an overarching concept that could help understand all aspects of Islam, including its components. This is a significant task but also a very delicate one, because its accuracy or errors impact the entire understanding of Islam. If correct, the perspective on Islam as a whole will be accurate; if not, it will lead to a flawed view of the entire religion.

For example, if Shah Waliullah were to make a mistake in explaining the wisdom behind ablution, it would not impact the rest of his work. However, Maulana Maududi’s project is different. He has tried to explain the wisdom of the entire religion, so any mistake he makes could affect his entire ideology, making the whole body of his work questionable. Errors in explaining specific parts of Islam are limited to that particular issue. But if someone attempts to explain the wisdom of Islam in its entirety and makes a mistake, that mistake influences their entire argument, ultimately distorting their entire ideology.

Imagine a building in front of you, and you describe one part of it as a “window.” This explains a specific part. If you mistakenly call the window a “door,” that would be a mistake, but it would only apply to that particular part. You can still have the correct view of the rest of the building, even if you misunderstood the nature of one window.

In contrast, if you describe the whole building as a “house,” this reflects your overall understanding of the entire structure. This term signifies the main idea through which you connect all its parts into a unified whole. On the other hand, if you call it a “factory,” that represents an entirely different interpretation of the same structure. With this new concept, you would see each part in a different way. Therefore, it’s not just your understanding of one part that changes, but your whole perspective on the structure.

It’s clear, then, that a minor error limited to a specific component warrants only limited criticism. However, we should not treat a mistake that alters one’s understanding of the entire structure the same way.

4.        You may hear some people say, “Despite this long discussion, we still don’t understand the difference between the two interpretations.” I don’t consider this doubt to be entirely baseless. Sometimes, two things may appear similar but be fundamentally different in essence. Imagine a child tipping over his four-wheeled cart, tying a string to it, and then pulling it from the back. At first glance, the cart’s appearance hasn’t changed much, but this act has completely ruined its function.

Those who doubt are focusing on the difference in how the two interpretations look outwardly, which is why they don’t see the true distinction. The real difference isn’t in their outward appearance but in their underlying essence. The issue with the interpretation being discussed isn’t that it has deliberately changed the forms of religion, but that it has misunderstood their true nature. Essentially, the actions remain the same, but the ideology behind them has shifted. The other flaws we see in this interpretation weren’t intentionally added but are results of this fundamental mistake.

The truth is that everything has a real form. If you understand the real nature of something, you can also see all its outer features clearly. But if you misunderstand its reality, everything will seem different in your mind. For example, if an elephant statue is somewhere, recognizing it as an elephant helps your mind connect all its physical features to the idea of an elephant. But if you see that figure as a carved stone building, your interpretation changes completely. You might see its legs as pillars, its back as the roof, and the trunk and tail as drains hanging from the roof. Its ears could look like windows. In this way, the whole image of the elephant would turn into a building in your mind, and your view of it would change accordingly. Now, the form of an elephant would no longer imply a mode of transportation but might instead be seen as a shelter you could rest under, not ride.

Your perspective on an issue shapes all your associations with it. Communism and the Sarvodaya movement both advocate for a collective economy, but the former views its purpose in material terms, while the latter sees it in spiritual terms. This difference causes communism followers to focus mainly on politics, whereas Sarvodaya followers appeal to human morals.

The error in this interpretation is that, due to certain reasons previously discussed, it has not understood the true image of Islam. Consequently, the entire nature of the image has shifted in the mind of its adherents. The same structure, which once represented an elephant, now appears as a building due to a difference in perspective. It’s similar to how, in the eyes of a believer, all phenomena of life appear as the creation of the Creator. Yet, within Darwin’s framework, they serve to affirm the theory that plants and animals are not products of creation but merely outcomes of evolutionary processes.

I’ll provide an example here. This interpretation, with its revolutionary explanation of Islamic concepts, led followers to conclude that the “ultimate goal of Islam” is to create a righteous society and a divinely-guided government. The natural result of this interpretation was that rituals like prayer and fasting were seen as “training exercises” to prepare individuals as “ideal recruits” for this specific mission (as described in Islamic Ibadah and sermons), while beliefs were viewed as “ideological foundations” for this righteous social and political system. Therefore, elements that Islam directly aims for as ends in themselves were, within this framework, shifted to a secondary, indirect role.

When the primary goal of Islam is viewed as establishing a specific system on Earth, the realities of the Hereafter cannot play a direct, intentional role in a person’s life; instead, they can only serve as supplementary tools for guidance. Admittedly, in later policies, there are statements like: “We must conduct our work of calling others to Islam in a way that impresses upon the audience the true reason behind it—that salvation in the Hereafter should be presented as the central concern of life. The foundational tenets of this call—Tawheed (oneness of God), the Hereafter, and Prophethood—should be deeply rooted in hearts and minds by critiquing the false foundations of the current system” (Monthly Zindagi, August 1960). However, in reality, this new interpretation has not changed the core message. Its only addition is the word “drive.” According to this view, the real goal of the Islamic movement remains establishing a system for worldly salvation; only now, this worldly salvation is motivated by the promise of salvation in the Hereafter!

Consequently, despite this addition, the overall rhetoric and discourse remain unchanged. Even after the formation of this policy in November 1960, a major national gathering took place in the capital. However, the announcements and speeches surrounding it did not suggest that this was a gathering of a movement aiming to bring “salvation in the Hereafter” to the forefront as the “central issue.” Instead, throughout these proceedings, Islam was presented as a way to create a better citizenry, a better society, and a better state.

In this example, you can clearly see that prayer, fasting, heaven, and hell are all part of this religious framework, but due to a shift in ideological perspective, these elements no longer hold their original significance. The religion of God has, in a sense, become foreign within its own structure.

Some people might not outright reject my observations, but they may feel there is significant “exaggeration” in them. They might doubt that the image before them is truly their own, since it looks so alarming and distorted. If that’s the case, I would compare their situation to someone who doesn’t understand the science behind an iceberg. If a thousand-foot iceberg were lifted from the ocean and placed in front of them, they might find it hard to believe that this huge mass of ice is the same as the one they saw before, with only a hundred feet visible above the surface.

This doubt mainly arises because, when a person looks at the literature of this interpretation and the lives of its followers, they see that outwardly, everything seems to align with what the Quran and Hadith teach. So, they are confused about what flaw in this interpretation might justify such harsh criticism. However, this “everything” that you see within its framework is not truly an essential part of it. Most of its elements were not adopted consciously; rather, they have entered it mechanically under the influence of tradition.

In reality, not everything a person does is driven by conscious awareness. Much of human action originates from suppressed, subconscious motives. Because we hold certain beliefs at the conscious level, we tend to attribute our entire lives to that ideology. We assume that everything we do is motivated by this ideology, but if we were to conduct a psychological analysis, we would find that a large part of our actions and beliefs is not directly connected to our conscious thoughts or decisions. Instead, they are simply expressions of deep-rooted, hidden influences.

The subconscious is like the huge part of an iceberg hidden below the surface of the ocean. Trying to understand yourself only through conscious thoughts, without considering this subconscious part, is as wrong as trying to judge how big an iceberg is by only looking at what is visible outside the water.

A further example will help clarify this. If you study the great thinkers and scientists who emerged in Europe between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, you will find that most of them believed in a single Creator. From Descartes to Newton, all acknowledged the existence of God. Even Darwin’s famous book Origin of Species, published in the mid-nineteenth century, which sparked intense debate and criticism within religious circles, contains multiple references to a Creator. He concludes his book with the words: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been evolved.” (The Origin of Species, pp. 528-529)

Yet, the next generation of these scientists became either atheistic or, at the very least, skeptical of God. Why did this happen? After examining this, we conclude that the scientific theories developed by these scientists carried within them an inherent spirit that shaped the mindset of later generations. The way scientists approached the study of the universe suggested they intended to explain the cosmos without calling upon God. In other words, they were, at their core, secular thinkers. When we see acknowledgments of God in their statements or writings, it was not from clear, conscious awareness but rather because of the religious environment in which they were raised and the long history of Christianity they were part of. This environment naturally added certain influences to their thinking.

Their true intellectual pursuit aimed to uncover the mysteries of the universe without including the concept of God. However, due to subconscious impressions formed by their environment, they could not explicitly deny God’s existence. The idea of God was like a piece of furniture in their household—present but often unnoticed by the inhabitants. God was not a genuine part of their intellectual lives but rather a traditional fixture. As these historical influences faded in later generations, open deniers of God began to emerge, and the very findings of scientists who once believed in God were used as evidence to argue that there is no God—that the universe operates solely according to natural laws.

If someone now quotes isolated statements from these early scientists to argue that their thinking was not opposed to belief in God, it would be naive.

The same situation will happen among Muslims. Since Islam has an authentic book and a history lasting over a thousand years, any movement claiming to be in the name of Islam, even if flawed from the start, will likely include elements that have always been linked to Islam and are now seen as part of it. As a result, people influenced by such a movement will bring along the beliefs and customs they have inherited from their family and community. These beliefs, deeply rooted in their subconscious over the years, are so part of them that even if they wanted to let go of them, they probably couldn’t.

This phenomenon applies not only to the visible beliefs still present in their lives but also to those that might not be outwardly expressed yet are stored in their memory. When individuals are influenced by a movement that claims to revive Islam, all those previous feelings about Islam, which were buried in their subconscious, will resurface. Along with adopting the specific program of the movement, they will also naturally accept aspects of Islam that the movement did not explicitly promote but which their subconscious tells them are necessary to be a Muslim.

This is why, for example, a secular-minded young person in Egypt influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood does not necessarily feel compelled to grow a beard or avoid photography. In contrast, a similarly secular-minded young person in India, influenced by an equivalent movement, might grow a beard and even tear up their photographs. This difference between Egypt and India arises from the differences in the form of Islam traditionally practiced in each country.

When something stems from subconscious emotions, it does not genuinely become part of one’s life or conscious understanding. Instead, it may only show up on paper or in outward behavior. Observers can easily see that the version of Islam a person practices through their specific movement reflects their true understanding of Islam, while other aspects of Islam that appear alongside are simply formal or traditional attachments, not part of their consciously chosen Islam. Let’s understand this through a few examples:

1.        At a public event to introduce your movement, you prepare an “opening speech” that begins by stating that the movement’s three main principles are God, the Hereafter, and Prophethood. However, with the phrase, “the root cause of all the corruption in the world is a departure from these fundamental truths,” the speech diverges, and for the next forty pages, the focus shifts entirely to national issues. It makes no mention of an additional concern after death that people should fear. Yet, as the speech ends, the traditional mindset pushes for the inclusion of a phrase like, “The sole purpose of a believer is to attain the pleasure of God and success in the Hereafter.” There is no logical flaw in this lengthy presentation, as it links success in both this world and the Hereafter to Islam. However, after reading the entire speech, anyone can see what the speaker is truly warning about and what they prioritize. Are they more worried about linguistic disputes and economic issues, or are they imagining the angel Israfil standing ready with the trumpet, waiting for the command to blow and overturn the world?

2.        A “distinguished scholar of Islam” fills thousands of pages in the effort to present Islam. His works are full of critique and investigation, high-level oratory, and powerful language. However, his writings lack signs of genuine sincerity; his words do not carry the heat of a true inner fire. His works lack glimpses of truth that someone close to divine secrets would see and share with others. Nowhere in his lines do we see tears blur the ink. He discusses dozens of philosophies around prayer and fasting, but from what he writes, it’s clear that he views these acts of worship as merely external practices. The prayer that overwhelms a person, turning into a whispered conversation and encounter with God, still escapes him. He writes on topics like connection with God and the Hereafter, yet his sentences lack the restlessness that would show he is speaking from the depths of a transformative experience. Remove some of the literary flourishes, and it becomes clear that this isn’t a discourse on spiritual invitation and purification, but a dry treatise on the philosophy of Shariah, offering a superficial explanation of Islamic teachings based on familiar rules.

3.        Determining the truth of something solely because ‘everything’ appears listed is a flawed approach. Often, ideas linked to a certain ideology are claimed by people either knowingly or unknowingly without truly belonging to that ideology. Sometimes, even when they are headed in a completely different direction, a person adds something to their list just to reassure themselves they are not straying. For example, regarding China’s aggression against India in late 1962, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind posted a poster titled “Protect Freedom,” calling for a united response to this challenge. One reason mentioned in the poster was that China “wants to make the servants of Allah into its own slaves.”

It’s clear that the phrase about “making the servants of Allah into its own slaves” has no real connection with the protest against Chinese aggression, since, according to Jamaat-e-Islami’s stated ideology, the same offense is being committed by the very government in whose favor this protest was held. So, what sense does it make to support one guilty party while opposing another? In reality, this phrase was included simply to give a sense of satisfaction—that their actions were fully in line with their purpose, not something separate from it.

The truth is that, from a psychological perspective, what matters is not what elements a person includes in their list, but what they truly value. Many reasons might exist for including something in a list, but a person’s genuine focus rarely errs; it immediately reveals the individual’s core personality and the worldview they have truly adopted.

You will find many Muslims who see themselves as completely religious. You would never be able to convince them that their Islam is lacking. Still, when we look at how they live, we notice that worldly affairs are always on their mind; even small disruptions in these matters cause them great distress. But when it comes to Islam and the Hereafter, they are content with just fulfilling the obligatory duties, and their faith doesn’t push them to seek more. This shows that their Islam is truly incomplete—their real devotion is to material things, not to the Hereafter.

The same issue is clear in this interpretation. On the surface, it appears to cover everything, from changing the world to changing the self. But when we see that all the energy is focused on outer transformation while inner transformation is mostly seen as just obligatory duties, the truth of this ‘comprehensive list’ becomes obvious. Here are a few examples to illustrate this point.

1.        When someone speaks under the banner of an “Islamic revolution,” it quickly becomes clear to him that just following the law isn’t enough to earn a reward for this effort. He says: God and His Messenger have prescribed the minimum rights of God upon you, but no limit has been set for the maximum. Therefore, you should participate with the spirit of always striving to do more. This is a great mission, for which you must go “beyond the bare requirements of duty.” You should “give preference to God’s work over your personal affairs” and “develop within yourself the spirit of financial and physical sacrifice.” He emphasizes that, to succeed in this work, you must abandon all pursuits and interests that take your time and attention away from this cause, and—aside from unavoidable economic needs—dedicate every moment of your time to it.

Yet the very next day, when someone stresses the need for a simple life as part of self-reform, he dismisses the suggestion as a “demand for ostentatious poverty,” and says:

“Let me assure you that neither the Companions nor the Prophet Muhammad (e) ever tried to make their lives seem more ascetic than they were, nor did they intentionally lower their standards for clothing, housing, and food simply to be admired for their poverty. They all led naturally simple and balanced lives, guided by the principle of avoiding what is forbidden by Shariah, keeping life within permissible limits, earning lawful sustenance, and remaining firm on the path of God—whether that involved enduring hardship or being blessed with God’s bounty. Deliberately wearing poor clothing when good clothing is available through lawful means, or eating inferior food when quality food is accessible through lawful ways, was not their approach. Among them, those who could earn lawful wealth while striving in the path of God would eat well, dress well, and live in well-built houses. The Prophet (e) never approved of wealthy individuals pretending to be poor; in fact, he told them that Allah loves to see the signs of His blessings on His servants through their clothing, food, and transportation.”

Consider this: in order to play one’s full part in the “lesser jihad,” the need for a certain principle was felt with great intensity—yet that very need was forgotten when it came to the “greater jihad.”^[1] (the inner struggle). In the struggle in God’s path that takes place in the political field, success was seen to require going beyond the legal limits of what is prohibited and permissible, and adopting the path of sacrifice. But in the struggle in God’s path that takes place within the self, merely avoiding prohibitions was regarded as sufficient.

What was considered so essential in the campaign for reforming society was deemed unnecessary in the campaign for reforming the self. In the first case, apart from unavoidable economic needs, there appeared no hope of attaining anything else; but in the second case, worldly prosperity was also secured in full measure. To the extent that, in order to validate this perspective, you even went so far as to wrongly pull the Messenger of God to your side—whereas it is an established fact that the Messenger of God deliberately chose for himself a simple and austere life. This fact is so evident that it requires no proof. Nevertheless, I will cite a brief reference below:

“The Prophet e was the most abstinent of all people in regard to worldly possessions, despite having full ability to acquire them.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol. 5, p. 327)

In other words, although the Prophet e had the means and power to obtain the comforts of this world, he chose instead to renounce them more than anyone else.

2.        During the Makkan period, the Companions faced great difficulties and hardships. Explaining the reason for these trials, someone said, “These trials were necessary because, without them, they could not develop the deep commitment to the cause that a true believer needs. Enduring hardships for the sake of Islam cultivated the correct Islamic mindset, built a pure Islamic character, and continually deepened their sincerity in worship. This intense training through suffering naturally nurtured the Islamic spirit within them. When a person rises for a cause and goes through struggle, hardship, suffering, hunger, exile, and other tribulations, the core of that cause fully takes over their heart and soul, transforming their entire personality into a reflection of that purpose.”

However, when you tell these individuals that a believer should not seek comfort in worldly life because it weakens one’s sense of the Hereafter, they respond by saying:

“Perhaps you think that God’s blessings^[2] are reserved only for those who busy themselves with their own affairs instead of serving His cause—while those who dedicate themselves to God’s work are undeserving of His bounty. Or perhaps your mind is so shaped by the image of monks and ascetics that you regard piety and monasticism as inseparable. That is why a devout believer who eats and drinks in the normal way appears to you as an anomaly.”

Consider this: you understand that a longing for something can only develop in the heart of someone who has endured hardship for it—at least from a political and revolutionary point of view. However, you did not see the same thing from another perspective: that the desire for the Hereafter can only grow in the heart of someone who has sacrificed worldly pleasures for it. To adopt a revolutionary mindset, it was necessary to endure hardship for the revolution’s sake. But to adopt the longing for the Hereafter, you didn’t feel the same need—that a person must go through trials endured for the sake of the next life. What was regarded as so important for worldly goals became, in the case of the Hereafter, a subject of ridicule.

3.        A person might have such sharp political instincts that he declares any employment under a “non-divine system of governance” to be illegal, and even issues a ruling that: “There is no difference between one part of a non-divine system of obedience and another. Those parts which seem innocent are just as impure as the rest.”

Yet when it comes to using worldly conveniences, he reasons in this way:

“In my view, every lawful facility that helps a person perform religious work better and more effectively is not only permissible but also preferable to use. Just consider: if someone can travel comfortably in second class and start his work right after arriving the next day, why should he endure a sleepless night in third class and then spend the next day recovering from fatigue instead of working? If, in the heat, he can use an electric fan to do more mental work, why should he sweat profusely and waste a large portion of his energy? Should he abandon these facilities just because they are blessings from God enjoyed by those who serve Satan, not by those who serve God?”

Consider this: the same person who struggled to accept conveniences under an opposing political system became indifferent when seeking comforts in worldly life. However, if working for a non-Islamic government is seen as collusion with false politics, then indulging in worldly luxuries is no different from cooperating with one’s lower self. He argues that such comforts help a person to perform religious duties more effectively and in greater measure. But in reality, what really matters for religious work is a sincere longing of the heart—and that longing begins to fade once layers of comfort cover it.

It must be clarified that there is a difference between necessity and comfort. For religious necessity, anything may be used, and in that case it is the better option. But for physical comfort, nothing can be considered better, even though legally all such things are entirely permitted. At this point, I will quote a passage from Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al Ghazali (1058–1111 CE), one of the most influential Muslim scholars:

One must recognize that a person cannot reach Allah, the Exalted, except by turning away from desires, restraining oneself from pleasures, limiting them to necessities, and devoting oneself wholly to Allah in every movement and stillness. (Ihya Ulum al Deen, vol. 1, p. 265)

Worldly pleasures are indeed permissible, but overindulgence in them risks dulling one’s finer sensitivities, leaving the soul without a strong desire for the Hereafter. Such a person may still engage in Islamic work, but it would be purely an intellectual pursuit, lacking genuine heartfelt commitment, much like many orientalists who study external subjects without any personal attachment.

To serve faith, we need someone who isn’t satisfied even in luxury, finds air travel uncomfortable, and loses peace when surrounded by comforts that ordinary people enjoy.

There are many such examples all around us. If you observe carefully, you can see what people have already gained and what they still lack. However, despite these obvious facts, if you claim, “I have not made any alteration in the religion; I only wish to establish it in its highest and most complete form,” then, in my opinion, such a claim holds no weight.

For example, a Muslim who understands the hadith of the Messenger—“Whoever says La ilaha illa Allah shall enter Paradise” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Hadith No. 2638)—as guaranteeing Paradise for anyone who utters the testimony, may not necessarily reject the commands of Islam. Yet it is certain that his motivation to act upon those commands will be weakened.