Reclaiming Hermeneutics, Justice, and Internal Critique in Islamic Thought

By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof, New Age Islam 11 October 2025 This paper offers a rejoinder to Naseer Ahmed's critique of contemporary Islamic reformist discourse, particularly his accusations of "collaboration" with imperial agendas and perpetuation of a "Good Muslim/Bad Muslim" binary (The Collaborators: How Empire Manufactures “Reform” to Criminalise Islam, How Wahhabi Distortion Became the Empire’s Favourite Alibi). This response deconstructs Ahmed's assertions. It redefines hermeneutics as a vital, inevitable, and principled method for engaging with sacred texts, rather than a tool for theological distortion or political choreography. By clarifying the critical engagement with classical Tafsir and Wahhabi interpretations, the paper argues that internal Muslim critique is not an act of subservience to external powers, but an imperative for spiritual liberation, ethical renewal, and a return to the Quran's universal message of justice, mercy, and pluralism. It challenges the "Empire" frame as a rhetorical device that stifles necessary self-reflection and fosters intellectual stagnation within the Ummah, advocating instead for robust, self-critical, and ethically grounded Islamic scholarship. Beyond Accusation – Framing a Principled Dialogue The contemporary landscape of Islamic thought is vibrant yet fraught with intense debates, particularly concerning the interpretation of sacred texts and the pathway to reform. Amidst this intellectual ferment, the critique levelled by Naseer Ahmed against specific reformist approaches demands a comprehensive and judicious response. Ahmed's central thesis, as distilled from his writings, posits that certain critical engagements with Islamic tradition, especially those concerning classical Tafsir and Wahhabi/Salafi interpretations, constitute a "collaboration" with imperial designs, serving as "stenography for the 'war on terror' machine." He argues that such critiques inadvertently perpetuate a "Good Muslim/Bad Muslim" binary, thereby undermining Muslim unity and agency. This monograph aims to dismantle these accusations systematically, not through mere counter-polemic, but through a commitment to intellectual honesty, humanistic values, and a rigorous, Quran-centric hermeneutical framework. To begin, it is essential to contextualize Ahmed's critique within the broader socio-political environment. The post-9/11 era has seen a surge in discourses that seek to "reform" Islam, often under the guise of counter-terrorism or modernization, which Ahmed rightly identifies as imperial manoeuvres. However, his broad-brush application of this lens to all internal critiques risks conflating genuine scholarly efforts with politically motivated agendas. This rejoinder challenges that conflation by demonstrating that reformist critiques are driven by an intrinsic commitment to the Quran's ethical imperatives, not external pressures. The Stakes of the Debate: Intellectual Freedom vs. Conspiratorial Silencing The gravity of Ahmed's accusations—branding scholars as "collaborators" or "native informers"—cannot be overstated. Such labels, historically wielded to silence dissent and enforce ideological conformity, carry a profound chilling effect on internal Muslim discourse. They risk transforming legitimate scholarly inquiry into a dangerous political act, where any deviation from a prescribed narrative is met with charges of betrayal. This environment, where self-criticism is conflated with treason, ultimately benefits neither the Ummah nor the pursuit of justice. It stifles the very intellectual freedom essential for dynamic faith traditions to adapt, evolve, and address contemporary challenges effectively. Consider the historical parallels: during colonial times, indigenous intellectuals who critiqued local traditions were often labelled as traitors by conservative elements, even when their aim was decolonization and renewal. Similarly, Ahmed's framework echoes this, potentially hindering the Ummah's ability to confront internal issues like extremism or interpretive rigidity. The present debate is, therefore, not merely academic; it touches upon the fundamental right of Muslim intellectuals to engage with their tradition critically and constructively, without fear of politically charged vilification. A humanistic approach demands we prioritize human dignity and ethical renewal over conspiratorial narratives that paralyze progress. This paper will try to demonstrate that: 1. Hermeneutics is an indispensable and principled discipline for understanding complex religious texts, not a deceptive tool for "erasing contradictions" or imposing "alien standards." 2. Critique of classical Tafsir, particularly its exclusionary outcomes, is a descriptive and analytical exercise aimed at uncovering interpretive mechanisms, not an endorsement of those outcomes. 3. Engagement with Wahhabi/Salafi interpretations is a necessary act of internal Muslim critique, addressing specific ideological pathologies that have caused immense harm, rather than a "convenient foil" for imperial agendas. 4. The pursuit of internal reform is a Quranic imperative rooted in conscience and faithfulness, distinct from and often in opposition to imperial interests. 5. The accusation of perpetuating a "Good Muslim/Bad Muslim" binary ironically reflects a similar binary logic in Ahmed's own critique, which divides the Ummah into "resisters" and "collaborators." Methodology: Reason, Humanism, and Quranic Principles The approach taken in this paper is based on humanistic values enshrined in the Quran: Centring human dignity, justice, mercy, and compassion as core ethical principles guiding interpretation and critique. This aligns with the universal moral horizon often emphasized in the Quran itself, such as in verses that underscore the sanctity of life (5:32) and fairness (4:135). Grounding arguments in a close reading of the Quran, emphasizing its calls for reflection (4:82), justice (4:135, 60:8), and the importance of contextual understanding and Maqaṣid Al-Shariah). It asserts that a faithful engagement with the Quran necessitates a dynamic, intellectually rigorous, and ethically informed interpretive practice. Naseer Ahmed's critique fundamentally misconstrues the nature and function of hermeneutics in Islamic scholarship, presenting it as a suspicious, almost conspiratorial, "art of erasing contradictions." This mischaracterization forms the bedrock of his accusation that reformist scholars, by engaging in hermeneutics, are effectively dignifying distortion or importing "alien human standards" into Quranic interpretation. This section will clarify what hermeneutics truly entails, demonstrating its inevitability and necessity for a living faith tradition, while sharply challenging Ahmed's logical inconsistencies. At its core, hermeneutics is the theory and practice of interpretation. Far from being a nefarious "smuggling operation," it is a discipline that encompasses the methods, rules, and tests scholars employ to read and understand texts responsibly. In the context of the Quran, this includes a range of tools designed to honour the text's depth and divine origin: • Contextual Analysis: Understanding the historical occasions and social realities surrounding the revelation of specific verses. For example, verses revealed during times of conflict must be read in light of those circumstances to avoid misapplication in peaceful contexts. Delving into the nuances of Arabic vocabulary, syntax, and rhetorical devices. Words like "Kafir" carry multiple shades of meaning—ingratitude, denial, or oppression—requiring careful dissection. Recognizing different literary forms within the Quran (e.g., legal injunctions, parables, historical narratives, ethical admonitions). A parable is not a literal command, just as a historical account is not always a universal prescription. Tracing the development of Islamic law and its interpretive principles, acknowledging how early jurists adapted revelations to their eras. Moral Purpose (Maqaṣid al-Shariah) is also most significant: It is identifying the overarching ethical objectives and wisdom underlying divine commands, such as justice, mercy, preservation of life, and human dignity. This framework, developed by scholars like al-Shatibi, ensures interpretations serve human flourishing. To call this comprehensive engagement with the text an "alien human standard" is to misunderstand the very act of reading. Any meaningful interaction with a complex text requires interpretive principles. The pertinent question is not whether one interprets, but which principles are most faithful to the text's ultimate purpose and coherent message. Ahmed's dismissal ignores that these tools are derived from the Islamic tradition itself, not imposed from outside. The Inevitability of Interpretation: Every Reading is Hermeneutical One of Ahmed's most significant logical flaws is his implicit claim to a "literal" reading that somehow bypasses hermeneutics altogether. This is an intellectual impossibility when dealing with a text as rich, layered, and historically situated as the Quran. Every act of reading is mediated by language, context, prior understanding, and the interpreter's own conceptual framework. For instance, when Ahmed himself argues that "kafir" should not be monolithically conflated with "disbeliever" destined for eternal hellfire, he is performing a sophisticated hermeneutical act: differentiating semantic fields, contextualizing terminology, and synthesizing verses to arrive at a nuanced understanding. His assertion that his reading is "truly literal" and "radically universalist" ironically relies on the very hermeneutic moves—selection, synthesis, and prioritization—that he denounces when others employ them. The difference lies not in the absence of hermeneutics, but in the outcomes produced by different hermeneutical choices. To illustrate, consider a simple verse like Quran 2:256 ("There is no compulsion in religion"). A "literal" reading might seem straightforward, but applying it to historical contexts of conquest or modern issues of apostasy requires hermeneutical decisions: Is it universal or situational? Does it override other verses? Ahmed's own work involves such choices, making his critique self-contradictory. Classical Tafsir as Hermeneutical Practice: Description vs. Endorsement Ahmed accuses the reformist argument of "admitting" that classical Tafsir used hermeneutics to universalize kufr. This is a profound misreading of a descriptive claim. When it is stated that classical exegetes like al-Ṭabari, Ibn Kathir, and al-Razi "routinely subsumed Jews, Christians, and polytheists under the umbrella of kufr... by synthesizing verses based on theological premises," this is a historical-exegetical observation, not an endorsement. It is a diagnosis of how certain interpretive methodologies, often informed by the legal and political contexts of early Muslim polities, led to specific theological conclusions. To observe that a methodology was used to produce problematic outcomes is not to defend those outcomes. Rather, it is to understand the epistemic texture of Tafsir and identify where and how certain interpretations diverged from what might be considered the Quran's broader ethical and pluralistic vision (e.g., 60:8–9, 2:62). As an analogy, if a surgeon says, "This scalpel work caused the infection," is he celebrating infection? No, he's identifying the cause of the pathology to prevent future errors. Acknowledging the hermeneutical process within classical Tafsir is an act of scholarly precision, enabling critical engagement and correction, rather than a concession of guilt. Ahmed's interpretation here is a straw man, sharply challenged by this rational clarification. The Quranic Mandate for Reflection (4:82) and Interpretive Coherence Crucially, the Quran itself invites reflection and deliberation, rather than demanding a static, uncritical acceptance. "Do they not contemplate the Quran? Had it been from other than Allah, they would have found in it much contradiction" (Quran 4:82). This verse is a powerful mandate for hermeneutics. It does not foreclose interpretive diversity; rather, it invites it, challenging believers to seek coherence and profundity within the divine text. The very act of discerning this coherence—reconciling historical, linguistic, and theological layers—is fundamentally a hermeneutical one. Ahmed, ironically, relies on this very verse to critique the traditionalist reliance on abrogation (Naskh) to erase contradictions. Yet, to discover the Quran's non-contradictory nature requires interpretive skill. It demands careful synthesis that honours divine coherence, not simply a "literal" reading of isolated fragments. To deny the necessity of hermeneutics is to petrify revelation into dogma, a move that historically produced precisely the rigid, literalist interpretations that Ahmed himself condemns. Hermeneutics, therefore, is not the enemy of revelation; it is the vital intellectual breath that keeps the divine word alive, relevant, and ethically grounded across centuries. In daring to confront Ahmed, we ask: If hermeneutics is mischief, how does your own universalist reading avoid it? This humanistic lens reveals hermeneutics as a tool for compassion, ensuring the Quran's message of mercy reaches all humanity without distortion. Deconstructing the "Kafir" Conflation: Challenging Exclusionary Theology A core contention in Naseer Ahmed’s critique is his assertion that reformist arguments, by acknowledging hermeneutics, somehow "admit" that this process "can convert every non-Muslim into a Kafir destined for eternal hellfire—though the Quran itself does not." This claim fundamentally misrepresents the reformist position, distorting a descriptive analysis of historical theological development into an endorsement of exclusion. The statement in question, cited by Ahmed, is: "classical Tafsir—by al-Ṭabari, Ibn Kathir, and al-Razi—routinely subsumed Jews, Christians, and polytheists under the umbrella of kufr. How? By synthesizing verses based on theological premises. That, precisely, is hermeneutics." Ahmed interprets this as an "admission" that hermeneutics itself is responsible for this exclusionary outcome, and that the reformist position concedes this power to interpretation. This is a critical misreading. The statement is explicitly diagnostic, not prescriptive. It analyses the method that produced a certain outcome in classical exegesis, not an endorsement or celebration of that outcome. The objective is to expose the mechanism of exclusion, to understand how certain problematic traditionalist positions arose, rather than to claim that the Quran inherently mandates such interpretations. By identifying the hermeneutical choices made by classical scholars—their selection, synthesis, and prioritization of verses based on specific theological premises—the reformist argument aims to critically evaluate these choices, not to validate them. To reiterate the analogy: when a surgeon identifies the cause of an infection, they are not celebrating the infection but understanding its pathology to effect a cure. Ahmed's twist on this is a sharp logical error, one that ignores the intent of reformist scholarship to heal rather than harm. Exposing the Mechanism of Exclusion: Theological Accretions in Classical Exegesis The reformist critique highlights that classical Tafsir, operating within specific historical, legal, and theological contexts, often developed interpretive frameworks that prioritized an exclusionary premise: that kufr broadly encompasses all non-Muslims. This premise, in turn, guided the synthesis of various Quranic verses, sometimes leading to a narrowing of the Quran's ethical universalism. A key part of this process involved the "importing of an alien human standard ('theology')" into Quranic interpretation. This is precisely the core critical point of the reformist position: it is the classical scholars who imported these standards, often reflecting the political and social realities of nascent Muslim polities, and in doing so, created a system that, at times, generated contradictions or obscured the Quran’s broader messages of mercy and justice. For example, al-Ṭabari's commentary on surah al-Tawbah integrates verses on warfare with general theological assumptions about disbelief, extending them beyond their revelatory context. The reformist argument is, therefore, not about importing new alien standards, but rather about identifying where historical interpretations may have introduced extra-Quranic premises that resulted in exclusionary theology. This critique is further strengthened by the traditionalist reliance on abrogation (Naskh) to "erase contradictions." While Ahmed rightly points out that such reliance is irreconcilable with Quran 4:82 (which declares a divine book must be free of contradiction), the reformist position asserts that the classical Tafsir methodology itself, through its interpretive choices and the application of Naskh, often failed the Quranic test of 4:82 by creating a system riddled with apparent contradictions that required abrogation to resolve. The goal of reformist hermeneutics is to demonstrate that the Quran, read holistically and ethically, does not contain such inherent contradictions, thereby negating the need for extensive abrogation and its often restrictive implications. This approach dares to challenge centuries of tradition with Quranic fidelity. The Quran's Nuanced Understanding of Belief and Disbelief (e.g., 60:8-9, 2:62) The core of the reformist argument against the universal conflation of all non-Muslims with Kafir lies in the Quran's own nuanced understanding of belief and disbelief. The text itself presents a complex moral horizon that resists simplistic binaries. Quran 60:8–9 clearly calls upon Muslims to engage with non-belligerent outsiders with kindness and justice, running directly counter to the notion of a monolithic and universally condemned Kafir category. Many classical Mufassirun, despite some juridical limitations, acknowledged the operative nature of 60:8, affirming the Quranic ideal of justice towards non-belligerents. To reduce these methodological distinctions to moral bankruptcy, as Ahmed does, misrepresents scholarly practice and the Quran's own injunctions. Furthermore, Quran 2:62 among others, explicitly praises righteousness regardless of creedal label, presenting a radically inclusive vision that challenges the theological synthesis in classical Tafsir that often subsumed these communities under the blanket of kufr. This is not a "theology imposed upon the text" by reformers, but rather the text itself challenging traditional theological assumptions. The Quran distinguishes between fundamental disbelief (kufr) and rejection after clear recognition (takdhib), and often links condemnation to moral and political failures rather than mere creedal difference. Verses like 5:69 reiterate this inclusivity, emphasizing deeds over labels. The reformist project, far from endorsing eternal damnation for non-Muslims, aims to fundamentally redefine kufr within a broader Quranic ethical framework. Instead of a blanket theological label for all non-Muslims, kufr is understood more dynamically, often signifying a moral or political failure—a deliberate rejection of truth and justice after it has become manifest, or an act of ingratitude and oppression, rather than simply belonging to a different religious community. As Ahmed's own work, in his more constructive moments, seeks to "demolish the traditionalist conflation of kufr with disbelief" by proving "the Quran’s literal Islam is universal, plural, merciful, and just for all humankind," it becomes evident that the reformist position and his own purported aim are not adversaries but "intellectual allies against a shared traditionalist error!" The shared goal is to move away from exclusionary interpretations towards a robust universalism. This requires a hermeneutical approach that: 1. Selects (a hermeneutical act) verses like 60:8-9 and 2:62. 2. Synthesizes (a hermeneutical act) them with verses describing hellfire to redefine kufr as a moral/political failure rather than merely religious difference. 3. Prioritizes (a hermeneutical act) the non-contradiction principle of 4:82 to reject Naskh as a primary interpretive tool. Therefore, the reformist acknowledgement of the classical interpretive process is not a concession to its problematic outcomes, but a critical first step towards dismantling them. It aims to reveal that the Quran's inherent message of mercy, justice, and pluralism can be fully retrieved by a hermeneutic rooted in its own ethical universalism, thereby challenging the very structures of exclusion that Ahmed purports to oppose. This daring humanistic challenge invites Ahmed to recognize the alliance, rather than manufacture division. ‘Literalism’ Refined: Unmasking the Wahhabi/Salafi Hermeneutic Naseer Ahmed’s critique includes the accusation that reformist scholars are complicit in a narrative that portrays Islam’s "literal" form as dangerous and violent. He charges that by calling Wahhabi distortion both "literalism" and "hermeneutics," reformists are "dignifying distortion with the name of ‘literalism’" to serve imperial interests. This accusation reveals a profound misunderstanding of the nuanced critique being levelled. This section will clarify the reformist position, demonstrating that the distinction between a claimed "literalism" and an underlying "hermeneutic" is not a trick, but a scholarly attempt at precision aimed at exposing the true nature of Wahhabi/Salafi interpretive methodology. We will rationally dissect Ahmed's claims and assert the necessity of this critique for ethical renewal. Ahmed’s conflation of the term "literalism" with an endorsement of its outcomes is a fundamental misrepresentation. When reformist critique refers to Wahhabi readings as "literalist," it is often describing their methodological self-image or their performative claim rather than validating their fidelity to revelation. Wahhabism, and many Salafi strains, pride themselves on a direct, unmediated reading of the Quran and Sunnah, rejecting what they perceive as the unwarranted complexities of traditional scholasticism or mystical interpretations. They claim to take the text "literally," eschewing allegorical or contextual layers in favour of apparent meanings. However, the reformist argument emphasizes that this claimed literalism is often simplistic, atomistic, and ahistorical. It confuses the form of the text (individual words or isolated verses) with its deeper essence or moral totality. To highlight this self-proclaimed "literalism" is not to dignify it, but to identify the methodological lens through which these groups operate, even when that lens leads to profoundly problematic conclusions. The danger lies not in reading the text, but in how the text is read and for what purpose. Ahmed's accusation ignores this nuance, turning a descriptive term into a supposed political endorsement. Wahhabism’s Claim to Literalism vs. Its Selective, Ahistorical Practice The crucial point of the reformist critique is that Wahhabism’s asserted literalism is a veneer over a much more complex and often problematic interpretive methodology. While claiming to adhere strictly to the plain meaning of the text, Wahhabi/Salafi approaches, in practice, engage in a highly selective and reductive hermeneutic. This selectivity manifests in several ways: • Atomistic Reading: Verses are often ripped from their broader Quranic context, their historical occasions of revelation, and their legal-ethical framework. Specific "war verses," for instance, might be read in isolation, divorcing them from the overarching Quranic themes of peace, justice, and the sanctity of life (e.g., 5:32: "Whoever kills a soul... it is as if he had slain mankind entirely"). This approach ignores the Quran's holistic nature, leading to justifications for violence that contradict its ethical core. • Ahistorical Application: Interpretations are often imposed across vast temporal and geographical divides without adequate consideration for the historical evolution of Islamic law, theology, and diverse communal practices. This leads to a rigid, decontextualized dogma that struggles to engage with the complexities of the modern world, such as pluralism or human rights. • Prioritization of Power over Ethics: While claiming literalism, the Wahhabi hermeneutic often prioritizes command-based interpretations over broader ethical principles (Maqaṣid Al-Shariah), and obedience to a narrow understanding of religious law over conscience and universal justice. This can lead to interpretations that sanction violence, exclusion, and social rigidity, as seen in historical alliances between Wahhabi theology and political domination. Therefore, when the reformist argument calls Wahhabi distortion "literalism and hermeneutics," it is not a contradiction but a deliberate attempt at precision. The Wahhabi claim is literalist in its simplistic, decontextualized reading of specific fragments. Yet, its overall worldview, its systematic condemnation of other Muslim practices as shirk or Bidah, and its specific theological framing of outsiders are produced by a sophisticated, albeit narrow and violent, hermeneutical method—one involving synthesis, selection, and prioritization structurally similar to classical Tafsir, but with far more restrictive theological premises. Ahmed's failure to grasp this distinction is a rational shortfall that weakens his critique. Critique as Differentiation: Exposing the Theological Root of Distortion Ahmed asserts that this critical analysis is a "trick" or "political choreography" designed to "project yourself as the enlightened reformer, the 'Good Muslim.'" This is a reductive and cynical misinterpretation of a genuine scholarly effort. The "trick" is not political; it is an analytical attempt to show that the problem is not merely "literalism" (which, applied to any complex text, is an almost meaningless term without context), but the underlying methodology of interpretation that allows exclusionary and violent premises to govern the text. The critique of Wahhabism is thus an act of differentiation. It distinguishes between the rich, diverse tapestry of Islamic tradition—encompassing Sufism, Ash'arism, Mutazilism, and more—and a specific, powerful, and historically recent strain that has demonstrably distorted the faith's teachings. By exposing how Wahhabism constructs its interpretations—its specific selections (e.g., emphasizing punitive verses), syntheses (combining them into a worldview of constant jihad), and prioritizations (elevating Takfir over mercy)—reformist scholars aim to reveal the theological roots of its problematic outcomes. This is not about "dignifying distortion," but about precisely identifying the nature of that distortion to effectively challenge it. Historical examples abound: Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's 18th-century campaigns anathematized fellow Muslims as polytheists, leading to sectarian violence that echoes today in groups like ISIS. Why Critiquing Wahhabism is an Act of Spiritual Liberation, Not Collaboration Ahmed’s claim that critiquing Wahhabism equates to "serving an imperial agenda" or acting as a "convenient foil" is not only unfounded but dangerously dismissive of the urgent need for internal reform within the Muslim world. The critique of Wahhabism/Salafism is not "convenient"; it is necessary for several compelling reasons: • Addressing the Source of Ideological Toolkit: The specific theological framework of Salafism, particularly its radical offshoots, is uniquely responsible for providing the ideological toolkit for modern transnational terrorism (e.g., ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban). Their interpretations of verses like 9:5 ("kill the polytheists wherever you find them") as eternal mandates ignore context and Maqasid, fuelling violence. To ignore this nexus is to ignore a critical pathology within the contemporary Muslim landscape, one that has caused untold suffering to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. • Reclaiming Faith from Extremism: Many Muslims are actively seeking to reclaim their faith from extremist interpretations. Critiquing Wahhabi distortions is an act of internal spiritual liberation, aiming to restore the Quran’s universal and pluralistic message of mercy and justice. It serves the cause of true Islamic reform from within, empowering communities to reject violence in favour of ethical engagement. • Dismantling Empire’s Alibi: Ahmed correctly identifies that the "War on Terror" needs theological pretexts. However, the most potent "alibi" for empire's "clash of civilizations" narrative is precisely the exclusivism and violence espoused by groups claiming to represent "true Islam." Wahhabism’s role in this narrative is not one of being a mere straw man; its exclusionary theology is the Empire’s most valuable recruitment tool and theological justification. Dismantling it is therefore an act of resistance against empire, as it deprives external actors of their chosen "Muslim voice" that confirms their prejudiced narratives. To suggest that Muslims should remain silent about a dangerous internal pathology because "the Empire also criticizes it" is a profoundly anti-Quranic posture. The Quran demands that believers "stand firmly for justice, even against yourselves" (4:135) and speak truth, irrespective of who else might utter similar words for different motives. Our integrity is defined by the truth of what we say and the ethical intent behind it, not by the tactical overlap of criticism with external actors. The challenge is not to avoid critique, but to ensure that critique is textual, moral, and aimed at upholding Quranic justice and protecting vulnerable lives. This is not collaboration; it is principled faithfulness, a humanistic imperative that dares to prioritize compassion over conspiratorial silence. ----- V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. URl: https://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/hermeneutics-justice-internal-critique-islamic/d/137193 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism