Constructive Critique of Engineer Mohammad Ali Mirza
Engineer Mohammad Ali Mirza: A Critical Reflection on His Evolving Discourse
Engineer M A Mirza is a widely recognized Islamic scholar known for boldly voicing his opinions on controversial religious and socio-political matters. His name frequently surfaces in discussions due to his consistent commentary on nearly every issue that arises in the Muslim world. While everyone undeniably has the right to express their opinion, the manner in which he presents his views often diverges from mainstream Islamic scholars and aligns, at times, more closely with secularists, liberals, or even anti-Muslim narratives.
Having followed Engineer Mirza's work for nearly eight years, I genuinely appreciate the contributions he has made to the discourse on Tawhid, his staunch defense of the Finality of Prophethood, and his effort to shed light on sectarian divisions, superstitions, and various misunderstandings in the Muslim community. May Allah reward him for the truths he has spoken and for any benefit his work ha brought to the Ummah.
Healthy disagreement within the bounds of Islam should be welcomed—it fosters critical thinking and brings nuanced perspectives to light. However, opinions, especially on issues of collective importance, must be presented with wisdom and awareness of timing and circumstances. Truth should always be spoken, but how and when we speak it matters. If someone talks about peace during war, people might call them a coward. And if someone speaks of resistance during peaceful times, they might be seen as a troublemaker. So, timing and wisdom are important.
In Engineer Mirza’s case, I have increasingly noticed a shift—one that often feels more diplomatic than principled. God knows his intentions best, but he often takes a position that seems distanced from the mainstream Muslim stance, as if to appear politically correct or balanced — a tendency that many observers, including his critics, have frequently pointed out. Repeatedly, he has issued sweeping statements without fully assessing their gravity or broader implications.Such an approach doesn't suit a person who has hundreds of thousands of followers on YouTube. Moreover, sharing premature, unverified or one-dimensional views is, frankly, an intellectual disservice.
What is especially striking is how his tone and stance have evolved. Once, on the Hidayah Portal, he powerfully narrated how early Arabs—devoid of advanced weaponry, unaware of catapults or modern siege tactics, snatched even weapons from enemies —defeated superpowers with nothing but faith in the Qur’an, ignited by spiritual zeal. But today, the same person asserts that Muslims are incapable of confronting kufr, claiming the enemy is superior in every domain—militarily, economically, and technologically.
This assertion disregards reality. Muslim nations today have millions-strong combined armies, stockpiles of tanks, missiles, rockets, even nuclear capabilities. They have trillions of dollars in economic power and a vibrant, youthful population in the tens of millions. Still, Engineer insists on promoting a defeatist narrative—one that aligns more closely with anti-Muslim rhetoric than a Quranic vision of empowerment.
It’s perplexing almost as if he's detached from the realities on the ground, living in a utopian realm where only abstract ideals matter, ignoring the tangible strength the Muslim world already possesses. Worse, his repeated call to 'not compare ourselves with the Sahaba' is deeply troubling. One of his most frequently cited comparisons is deeply flawed: claiming that if Khalid bin Walid (ra) drew a sword, the Roman general also had one—implying parity in combat and suggesting that today’s asymmetry makes resistance futile. Today, if a Jew arrives with modern weapons, even a hundred Khalids cannot defeat him. But this analogy is absurd. No one expects modern Muslims to go into battle with swords and horses. Are Hamas fighters using swords in their battles? That would be ridiculous. Even with limited resources, one can still resist by utilizing whatever scaled-down versions of modern weaponry are available.
This defeatist analogy not only disrespects history but undermines present-day resistance movements. Look at the example of the Palestinian mujahideen. With virtually no technology—just basic, homemade rockets—they’ve repeatedly struck billion-dollar military assets like Israel’s advance Merkava tanks. If millions of dollars worth of Western equipment can be shaken by a $2,000 rocket, imagine what the Muslim world could do if it truly united.
Just providing air support, or supplying weapons and funds, could shift the balance. Yet Engineer sahab dismisses such possibilities by arguing we must first advance in science and technology. But progress is already happening. Countries like the UAE and others in the Gulf are making rapid strides in these fields. If even one country can make such progress, why does he pretend the collective Muslim world—rich with resources, manpower, and military potential—cannot play a decisive role in halting genocide?
It’s not just one state’s responsibility. We are talking about a global Ummah, and its potential is massive. In every era, Muslims were often outnumbered and outarmed—from the Battle of Badr to many other key historical confrontations. Yet they prevailed, not due to military superiority, but because of faith, courage, and the love of martyrdom. If anything is lacking today, it is that very resolve.
This is where Engineer Mirza’s shift becomes alarming. It feels as though secular and liberal forces have gradually taken hold of his narrative—maybe not through direct influence, but perhaps because of a mutual sense of liking. These groups often quote and praise him, and in return, it seems a soft corner has developed in his heart for them. Psychologically, it’s natural, when people praise you, it tends to create a sense of warmth or attachment, even if unintentionally. Many people experience this. Of course, only Allah truly knows his intentions, and I don’t claim to judge him. I’m only speaking based on what is outwardly visible. Whether consciously or not, he ends up validating their narratives while undermining that of the Ummah. His calls for practicality often mirror propaganda. His diplomacy, once rooted in sincerity, now risks becoming compliance.
He often reminds us of the Hadith where the Prophet (PBUH) said that a group will continue to fight till the Day of Judgement, near the land of Quds. But today, the same person suggests those very people should retreat. He once passionately cited examples like the People of the Trench (Ashab al-Ukhdood), or Imam Hussain’s unshakable defiance. But now, in trying to appear neutral or intellectual, he ends up sounding disengaged and dismissive.
As someone who has benefited from his earlier work, I sincerely urge Engineer sahab to reflect deeply on the direction his discourse has taken in recent years. In striving for neutrality, he must be cautious not to inadvertently echo the narratives of those who neither represent the values of Islam nor the interests of the Ummah. Intellectual honesty demands that we speak the truth, not merely what sounds acceptable to secular audiences. A voice as influential as his carries a responsibility—to remain rooted in Islamic conviction, not swayed by popular sentiment.
We are all brothers, and we love and hate for the sake of Allah. May He remove our differences, expose falsehood, and illuminate the truth for us all.
Comments
Post a Comment