Okay, there's a lot I could say on this but I'll try to limit myself to what I think is the core of what Avdullah is getting at which is summarized here:
"But, there’s a point many of these critics have reached that’s beyond the point of insanity. It's a known goal of the Sharia that prioritizing life itself overrides outward implementation of the religion when the former is under threat."
This axiom, that preservation of life is fundamental to the Sharia, is not only a case where madhahib diverge but it is not necessarily even the dominate opinion. Yes, their exist differences of opinion within fiqh. This is meant to be a mercy and beautiful thing in our religion but when out of balance harms can occur. As someone who has done their best to practice a madhab - Maliki - and studied with the talib ilm of some of its sharpest scholars in Egypt, UAE, Mauritania, and Algeria, I can confidently say that this issue of prioritizing preservation of life or preservation of religion is debated at the very highest levels. In Maliki fiqh the dominate position is actually preservation of religion and my understanding is that this is the case in other madhahib as well. The scholars have their wisdom in why they hold to divergent opinions and I want to highlight that both sides are valid positions. Where I think judgement can be made is in their outcomes.
Here is where I think the ruling on hijra is an important case study and it's appropriately framed at the start of the Avdullah's article. The dominant opinion on hijra is that it is wajib to migrate from the West to Muslim lands. Muslim lands are defined by their ruler being a Muslim (minimum requirement is that they are publicly seen making salat and do not prevent it in their realm). For a Muslim to migrate to a non-Muslim land (dar al-harb) is haram and only permissible if the intention is for dawwah or as an official diplomat of the emir. Any other intention in migration away from Muslim lands is a fitna. For example, to be a refuge from war or fleeing from religious persecution is not an edge case that merits a fatwa and such justifications are invalid. Even the foreign born convert must abandon land and family and make hijra to a muslim nation state.
As you can see this ruling is completely based on preservation of religion, not preservation of life. But what Religion? The way this ruling has inherently been framed is politically motivated. We have had Ikwan in Turkey that can't migrate to Egypt, Sufis chased out of Wahhabi dominated KSA. Shia had best avoid migrating to Syria and we know Sunnis will avoid Iran. For those of us born in the West like Avdullah and myself it becomes easily clear when we visit Muslim lands that this sectarianism is part of what has kept most emirates preoccupied while the West progressed 2 centuries into the future.
Divide et impera
I really don't care to get into the flavor of government your Muslim country has, I have enough identical flavors where I live. The point is your Muslim country's policy and laws are focused on preservation of your version (often ethnic) of the religion and not on the preservation of Muslim lives. Yes not even those of your own citizens.
It does not take must effort to understand how the side of preservation of life sees this ruling on hijra. The sunnah speaks to it in multiple ways with emigration first to Abyssinia and then to Medina both being due to persecution the Muslims faced in Mecca (a third hijra from Mecca also echos similarly of preservation of life being at its foundation). I really don't think I need to say any more on this other than it should be obvious we have two very divergent opinions on the topic of hijra that are both valid.
Briefly circling back to their merits, which I will clearly state both have, the side preserving religion speaks a conservative tone and the side preserving life a progressive one. Again, not saying either of these is better than the other. My point is that balance is needed and we've drifted heavily in the favor of one of these positions over another. And this is just looking at the hukm around hijra which could be considered obscure for many. Are there other rulings that should be revisited with a balanced approach in mind? I leave that for the reader.
I will end with saying I feel deeply for what Avdullah experienced. I too have been in similar situations and found myself asking these questions. Although I'm certain I disagree with elements of what he has written it is clear that the thematic orientation of this article points in a direction I wholeheartedly sympathize with:
"These attitudes aren’t just contrary to ideal Islamic doctrines of treating and caring for your fellow Muslims; they're an anti-spiritual weapon that actively disenchants and takes you out of your faith in “the Ummah” over time."
In the spirit of supporting this spiritual rebalancing I think that we need to acknowledge that any path that leads to the cheapening of life itself (human or non) cannot be an Islamic path. The question I invite us all to ask is whether the institutions we have now are leading us to corruption or not. I think most of us will agree that at the least most institutions are not well optimized for success in our current reality. But what can we do to not just make them better but infuse ihsan into them? Our replacement will come, be it with our children or a nuclear Armageddon and we all want that future Ummah to be better than ours right now. I'm not claiming to have answers to these deep questions, I just know that for my part I'm working to build a space for Muslims here on nostr because I see this as a powerful tool for our future. Whether you are prioritizing life or religion, please try to at least be considerate of the other perspective and hopefully in that space we can find a balance together.
