The rising clergisation of Islamic thought

A few days ago, I wrote a short Facebook post: "Thank God science remained beyond the reach of the religious class, otherwise they would have done to it what they did to religion." I knew the statement would provoke reactions and it did. Hundreds of comments followed - some supportive, some thoughtful, many emotional, and a few outright hostile. But beneath the noise, the discussion revealed something far more important than the post itself: our society's deep confusion between religion and religious authority.

Many people immediately assumed I was attacking Islam. I was not. My criticism was directed at a particular religious culture that has gradually transformed faith into identity politics, sectarian loyalty, inherited dogma and emotional mobilisation. There is a profound difference between questioning religion and questioning those who claim monopoly over its interpretation.

One commenter argued that if the religious class did not exist, society would become morally bankrupt. Another insisted that scholars are "the inheritors of the prophets". I do not deny the importance of scholarship, nor the need for moral guidance. The problem begins when scholars stop seeing themselves as seekers of truth and start behaving as custodians of unquestionable authority. This distinction matters because history itself bears witness to what happens when religion becomes captive to rigid authority structures.

Ironically, many commenters defended the religious class by mentioning Muslim scientists such as Ibn Sina, Al-Khwarizmi, Jabir ibn Hayyan and Al-Biruni. But those names actually strengthen my argument rather than weaken it. Those scholars emerged during periods when Muslim civilisation was intellectually confident, curious and open to inquiry. Philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, medicine and theology coexisted within a wider culture of learning. What made that civilisation extraordinary was not blind conformity but intellectual exploration.

One of the most revealing moments in the online debate came when several people confused criticism of "the religious class" with criticism of Islam itself. In many societies, religion has become so deeply fused with clerical authority that questioning the latter is treated as rebellion against the former. No human being has the right to place himself between God and human reason. The Qur'an consistently appeals to reason, reflection and evidence. It repeatedly criticises blind following of ancestors.

The issue becomes even more serious when religious authority begins resisting modern knowledge itself. Science thrives because no scientist is considered permanently infallible. Every theory remains open to challenge, revision and replacement through evidence. This culture of verification allows science to evolve. By contrast, many religious environments have normalised intellectual immunity. Opinions formulated centuries ago are often treated as untouchable, even when historical circumstances, human knowledge and social realities have radically changed. The result is stagnation disguised as piety.

This does not mean science is morally superior in every sense. Science can produce technology, but it cannot independently produce ethics, meaning or wisdom. Humanity still needs moral frameworks. It still needs spiritual depth. But religion can only guide civilisation when it remains intellectually alive rather than psychologically defensive.

One commenter wisely wrote: "Science is not threatened by religion; it is threatened by ignorance. Religion is not threatened by science; it is threatened by narrow-mindedness." That observation captures the heart of the matter. The crisis facing many Muslim societies today is not Islam versus science. It is truth versus tribalism, inquiry versus insecurity, and intellectual courage versus inherited comfort.

What worries me most is not disagreement, but the growing inability to separate ideas from identities. Too many people no longer ask whether something is true; they ask whether it threatens their group, sect or emotional loyalties. And perhaps that is why facts alone rarely change minds. As one quote shared beneath my post observed: "Most people do not use facts to form their opinions. They use their opinions to form their facts."