Hamza A. Tzortzis@HATzortzis
STOP DISHONOURING EACH OTHER!
Muslims will debate theology for centuries.
Free will vs. divine decree. The attributes of Allah.
Profound disagreement. Tolerated. And in some cases, celebrated as scholarly rigor.
But dare to read a geopolitical situation differently, and suddenly you are a traitor.
The name calling crosses sacred redlines: The honour of a believer.
There is ikhtilaf (valid differences) in matters of eternal consequence.
And there is supposedly no room for it in probabilistic political judgments made on:
Incomplete data, fragmented narratives, and competing claims.
Someone explain the logic.
Because theology concerns ultimate reality.
Politics, in most cases, concerns contingent assessment.
Limited information. Many variables.
Sincere people, valid reasoning, different conclusions.
If difference is legitimate in the more foundational domain, how does it become betrayal in the more uncertain one?
What this usually reveals is not principled Islamic epistemology.
It is ego dressed as conviction. Partisanship performing as certainty.
The inability to distinguish between holding a position firmly and treating all other positions as kufr-adjacent.
Yes, theology shapes politics. Creed informs how we read the world. Acknowledged fully.
But there is still a distinction between foundational theological truth and probabilistic political judgment made under conditions of uncertainty.
Collapsing that distinction is not strength.
It is an epistemological error.
The inconsistency is telling.
Ikhtilaf in aqidah: scholarly tradition.
Ikhtilaf in geopolitics: betrayal of the ummah.
That asymmetry deserves serious reflection. Because what drives it is rarely love of truth.
P.s. For those with poor comprehension skills, this obviously cannot be applied to Israel’s and Zionism’s evil. I thought I’d mention this just in case.