❖ The Misguided Trend of Associating Western Terminology with Islam ❖
📌 Modernist Thinkers and Western Concepts
One of the major issues with our modernist thinkers is their persistent attempt to superimpose Western concepts onto Islamic history and teachings without deeply understanding either. They often rely on highly illogical and baseless interpretations to draw superficial parallels between fundamentally different ideas.
🧩 The Misuse of Terminology
In scholarly discourse, a term cannot be understood without its historical and intellectual context. Terminologies are not mere words with literal meanings — they carry a particular philosophical and historical evolution. When these terms are used with arbitrary interpretations, it gives rise to intellectual dishonesty.
⚠ Misinterpretation of “Enlightenment”
Take the term Enlightenment as an example. Some thinkers argue that since the word implies “light” and “thought,” and both carry positive connotations, it must be a noble concept.
Dr. Farooq Khan, associated with the Javed Ahmad Ghamidi school of thought, promotes such shallow interpretations in his book “Jadeed Zehan ke Shubhaat aur Islam ka Jawab”, despite lacking a deep understanding of the foundations of the modern mind.
Similarly, Dr. Shakeel Auj defined “Roshan Khayali” (Enlightenment) merely in its literal sense:
“Roshan Khayal is a Persian expression. ‘Roshan’ means illuminated, bright, shining, as well as clear and evident. When combined with ‘Khayal’ (thought), it means a clear, evident, and enlightened idea.”
(Al-Tafseer Quarterly, Apr/May/Jun 2005, p. 3-4)
This explanation is not academic but merely a linguistic play, because the actual historical background of Enlightenment is deeply rooted in Western philosophy and secularism. Trying to Islamicize it through literal translation is an unscientific approach.
🛑 Attempting to Link Secularism with Islam
Wahiduddin Khan once wrote:
“Today’s Islamists unnecessarily oppose secularism, perceiving it as an anti-Islamic ideology, while in reality, it is analogous to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah — a kind of eternal peace treaty.”
(Al-Risalah, Feb 1990, p. 41)
This is a highly flawed analogy, because the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was a temporary strategic move, whereas secularism is a comprehensive ideological system, fundamentally aimed at excluding religion from collective life.
⚖ Similar Treatment of Islamic Terminologies
If someone interprets the Islamic term “Sunnah” using only its literal meaning (habit or tradition) to inject their own views, would that not be a violation of scholarly integrity?
Similarly, if one were to reinterpret “Uṣūl al-Fiqh” as “Rules of Understanding” and equate it with modern scientific principles, it would also be incorrect.
📌 Misinterpretation of Jihād
The same distortion has occurred with the term Jihād — a specific Islamic term. Stripped of its technical definition, it is reduced to its literal meaning “struggle,” and then indiscriminately applied to everything:
◄ Jihād against inflation
◄ Jihād against unemployment
◄ Jihād against ignorance
◄ Even Jihād against mosquitoes and polio
These are examples of non-academic behavior and misuse of Islamic terminologies.
⚖ The Difference Between Fiqh and Law
This issue goes beyond simply “Islamicizing” Western terms — it also includes redefining Islamic terms using Western equivalents. For instance, “Fiqh” is often translated as “Law” in Urdu and English, though the two are not equivalent.
◉ Law refers to regulations set by the state, enforceable by courts.
◉ Fiqh, however, encompasses all aspects of human life — including worship, ethics, economy, society, and politics — not merely state legislation.
Therefore, calling Fiqh “Law” is incorrect because Law is only one subset of the broader scope of Fiqh.
(For further reading, see: Dr. Mahmood Ahmad Ghazi; Muḥāḍarāt-e-Fiqh, pp. 39–40)
✅ Conclusion
The practice of forcefully linking Western terminologies with Islam, or translating Islamic terms according to Western ideological frameworks, is intellectually flawed and philosophically harmful. Every term carries a specific meaning within the cultural and scholarly tradition it originates from. Removing it from its historical context amounts to academic dishonesty.
