Critique of Critique: Between Critique and Criticism
Peace be upon those who follow reason, abandon blind imitation, and think… Greetings.
There is no doubt that critique is necessary, regardless of the idea being discussed. However, when critique turns into a destructive tool that aims only to tear down without offering constructive solutions, it becomes even more dangerous than the idea being criticized—no matter how flawed that idea may be.
Critique is both a science and an art. It has rules and conditions that must be followed, and at the same time, there is a methodology that distinguishes a professional critic from an amateur.
One of the primary goals of critique is to provide alternatives or better solutions. Any form of critique that exists only for the sake of criticism is nothing more than a denunciation of flaws, with the sole purpose of condemning an idea and belittling those who believe in it. This is an aggressive act rather than a constructive one.
Unfortunately, in our region, we do not clearly distinguish between critique (النقد) and criticism (الانتقاد), even though the Arabic language itself makes a clear distinction between the two.
Critique (النقد) is an objective evaluation that highlights both strengths and weaknesses of an idea, with a focus on improving the weaker aspects. True critique is conducted by experts in the subject, based on thorough research and rational analysis, without targeting individuals or groups. It is purely an assessment of the idea itselfin an unbiased manner.
Criticism (الانتقاد), on the other hand, is different. It is primarily directed at individuals or groups, aiming to demean, attack, or ridicule them. It focuses only on negative aspects, disregards constructive improvement, and seeks destruction rather than reform. This negative form of critique is what we refer to as “criticism” in English. It is often practiced by those who are ignorant of the subject, or by those who deliberately seek to destroy an opposing ideology.
Of course, critique exists in various fields—social, economic, historical, psychological, and more. Critique can also take many forms—through words, writing, art, music, or satire. There are critiques of ideologies, religions, groups, and individuals, and there are both professional critics and amateur ones—not to mention parasites who pretend to be critics.
Critiquing Ideologies: The Case of Religion
In this reflection, we focus on ideological critique, specifically the critique of religions—a topic of immense importance not just today, but throughout human history. In fact, human progress has always depended on critique. However, it is essential to practice constructive critique, not destructive criticism.
Throughout history, destructive criticism has only fueled hatred, conflict, and division among people. It has never led to progress.
One of the fundamental principles of critiquing ideologies is that no ideology is entirely good or entirely bad. Some ideologies are more subject to critique than others, but no system is purely evil, nor is any belief system purely righteous.
If someone is only criticizing without offering solutions, their intentions are dishonest. Their critique is driven by hatred, personal bias, or political motives rather than a genuine desire for reform.
We often see this pattern of destructive criticism among religious and ideological groups—especially in Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). These religions have a long history of branding outsiders as “infidels” (kafirs), “goyim” (gentiles), or “the misguided”. Such dogmatic labeling has been one of the greatest causes of religious conflicts throughout history.
The Three Golden Rules of Proper Critique
A skilled critic must follow three essential rules:
1. Do Not Condemn an Entire Ideology—Focus on Specific Ideas
Critique should never demonize an entire ideology. It is true that some ideologies deserve more scrutiny than others, but no ideology is purely evil or purely good.
Those who engage in destructive criticism often seek to eliminate an ideology entirely. They refuse to acknowledge any potential for reform. This is not logical and is not an honest approach to critique.
2. Evaluate Ideas in Their Historical Context
Many amateur critics make the mistake of judging historical ideas with modern values. This is intellectually dishonest.
A professional critic must acknowledge that certain ideas were once acceptable due to the historical context. A skilled critique should explain:
- Why an idea was once considered valid.
- Why it is no longer acceptable today.
- What specific historical conditions made it functional in the past.
- What modern conditions make it obsolete today.
Ideas should be evaluated like products with an expiration date. Just because an idea is outdated does not mean it was inherently bad—it simply means its time has passed.
For example, some social customs, economic models, and legal systems that were once effective may no longer work in today’s world. However, it would be unfair to condemn those who lived under such systems in the past based on our modern values.
3. Offer a Practical Alternative
A true critique must offer a realistic alternative. If you criticize an idea without presenting a better solution, your critique is pointless.
- A critique without a solution is just empty noise.
- A critique with an impractical solution is useless.
- A critique that imports foreign ideas without considering local realities is doomed to fail.
Many failed reforms in our societies stem from importing ideas that do not align with our culture. Instead of creating organic solutions, we adopt foreign ideologies that do not fit our societal needs. This is why many reform movements in our region fail—they try to erase cultural identity instead of evolving it.
For real change to happen, critique must be deeply rooted in the realities of the society it seeks to improve. Change must come from within, not from forced external influence.
Conclusion: The Future of Critique
We must learn the difference between critique and criticism.
We must abandon destructive criticism and embrace constructive critique.
We must analyze ideas objectively rather than condemning entire ideologies or cultures.
We must respect historical context rather than judging the past with modern biases.
And most importantly, we must propose viable alternatives instead of simply attacking ideas without solutions.
Ideas never die. What we consider progressive today may be outdated tomorrow. What we see as advanced now may one day be considered primitive.
The key is not to impose one absolute truth—whether religious or secular—but to continue evolving, questioning, and improving. The true mark of a civilized society is one that embraces critique, diversity, and open dialogue.
