by MM Salem
I did not write this sentence with AI. If I did, how would you know? Do you have any idea of how to differentiate human intelligence from artificial imitation?
For centuries, Muslim scholars have contemplated the relationship of human intelligence and tawhid. All would argue that intelligence without ruh, the soul, is no intelligence at all.
Muslims today have not yet digested the seriousness of such a consensus. Instead, we’ve heard arguments about whether the use of AI is halal or haram, should we use it or should we not. Yet, it exists with or without our participation. Others say there’s a way to use it ethically or minimally. These are the kind of discussions that Malcolm X called a “sit-down philosophy” — or as I say, a sit-down theology. The question is not whether we should or should not use this technology, such discussions are for ears who want a manual, not a religion. This technology exists, but the questions are: for whom, why, what harm will it do, what good will it do, and what is our responsibility as a people of action?
Computational White Supremacy: The Bizarre Money behind AI Development
On May 13, 2025, President Donald Trump and then DOGE Director Elon Musk received a royal welcome from Saudi political, business, and religious elites during the US-Saudi Investment Forum in Riyadh. The conference promised furthering relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia, harnessing support for building a techno-futuristic kingdom. At the conference, ministers, officials, and business leaders applauded President Trump for renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, removing refugees from the United States, and lauded his incriminating policy on Palestine.
President Trump’s bizarre speech at the conference paled in providing any real captivating insight as to why the US and Saudi Arabia would be eager in building a techno-futuristic kingdom. However, a glimpse into these motivations were alluded to at a panel an hour before the president’s address, between Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Communications and Information Technology, Abdullah Alswah, and Elon Musk. The minister asked Musk more about his work, to which Musk mentioned being inspired by science fiction author Iain Banks’ Culture series.
The series follows the clash of civilizations between an advanced post-scarcity AI-led utopia, known as The Culture, fighting an ongoing war against the theocreatic, militaristic Idiran empire who rejected AI as a form of idolatry, a war Banks called a “jihad” (Banks 1987: 455). Aside from the ironic mention of this Gulf War, postmodern series in Saudi Arabia, another notable mention of AI sci-fi central to the future Musk wants to make is Isaac Asimov’s 1940s Foundation series, which Musk has used to evangelize his worldview and name his Cybertruck models. The series has also been a source of inspiration for economists and politicians.
The technology is growing faster than the majority of the public’s ability to grasp it, all of us hoodwinked before our eyes.
Asimov writes about a mathematician building a statistically advanced method named psychohistory to rationally calculate predictions that solve civilization’s issues and prevent the collapse of an empire. The method is used by the enlightened brilliance (elites) of a collapsed civilization, who are propelled to a distant planet to shorten the period of catastrophe. Although Asimov did not write the words artificial intelligence in the 1940s, his psychohistory has been the unintentional inspiration for the development of AI, and the motivation behind achieving the evolved artificial general intelligence (AGI). Similarly, Banks’ work on how AGI-like humanoids can create utopian futures, while requiring battles against archaic civilizations, further propels the imagination of tech tycoons that this future may be worth it if we can reckon with the violent struggles to get there. Whether methodically hopeful or cynically fiction, such views on technology will no doubt lead to irrevocable harm.
It’s forecasted that by the end of 2025, 4,750+ data centers will be built to fuel the energy of AI development, destroying the natural resources of already resource-stressed communities in the US and abroad, while disrupting the health and infrastructure of black, brown, and poor white neighborhoods — an evolution of a new form in eco-apartheid. The technology is growing faster than the majority of the public’s ability to grasp it, all of us hoodwinked before our eyes. Why? Silicon Valley elites eventually want to build the myth known as artificial general intelligence (AGI), a superintelligence-god, a technological idol, on Earth. The philosophy behind this development for superintelligence attempted by Silicon Valley has been written about by contemporary scholars, scientists, former tech-workers, and philosophers; a ‘secular’ religion that UC Berkeley Electric Engineering and Computer Science professor Ben Recht coined AGI-theism.
Inspired by Asimov’s psychohistory, AGI-theism portrays technology one day predicting human behavior and intervening at a global scale, replacing the belief in the God of Abraham with a superintelligence made by scientists. This is the philosophy of AI development shared among Silicon Valley’s elites that ex-Google computer scientist Timnit Gebru and philosopher Émile P. Torres warned against due to its eugenic and eco-apartheid roots, a philosophy of technology that wants to remove ‘suboptimal’ human populations and eliminate human decision making in preference for a techno-utilitarian calculus.
Much of the criticisms towards the development and use of the technology so far has rightfully brought attention to how racism, discrimination, and white supremacy transposes itself to seemingly ‘neutral’ technologies– hiding its politics. For example, AI risk assessment tools used by courts discriminate against Black defendants by ‘objectively’ labeling them as high risk for future crimes at almost twice the rate of white defendants. In healthcare, a study found that Black patients lost out on critical preventative health services due to AI labeling these patients as “low risk,” thus bearing the costs of paying off emergency intervention. The technology also makes it easier to justify housing discrimination by rejecting tenants and denying housing assistance through the guise of ‘statistical neutrality.’ In reality, these outcomes are replicating structural racism in our world as an objective predictive science in the digital one – allowing for discrimination to persist through seemingly unbiased calculation. We are entering an era of discrimination that sociologist and Princeton University professor Ruha Benjamin coined as the New Jim Code.
AGI-theism portrays technology one day predicting human behavior and intervening at a global scale, replacing the belief in the God of Abraham with a superintelligence made by scientists.
None of this should be surprising as Ronald Fisher (d. 1962), a eugenicist who chaired the Department of Eugenics at University College London, developed the mathematical frameworks of modern statistical analysis for pattern recognition and classification which AI is built on. If we can acknowledge that Fisher’s work was motivated by his beliefs in eugenics then we must take seriously the racist origins of AI algorithmic development and training. After all, the ability to discriminate and the ability to predict leads to the same end in a troubled society– even when hidden under the veil of scientific objectivity.
To witness this technocratic philosophy of intelligence celebrated in Saudi Arabia reminded me of al-Muhasibi (9th century) and al-Ghazali’s (11th century) own warnings against Mu’tazila Rationalist philosophies. Mu’tazila philosophers attempted to explain the existence and power of Allah subhana wa ta’ala (swt) as something that can be calculated by human reason, or in the case of AGI and psychohistory, by humanity’s creation.
The Cautious Tale of Mu’tazila Philosophies
The Mu’tazila philosophers believed that divine signs can be scientifically decoded through human intelligence. Those in favor of Mu’tazila philosophies today find the criticism against their metaphysical works as unscientific and baseless, a backwards mindset that prevents Muslim societies from achieving modernity. But what exactly is considered modern? Did theologians questioning rationalist philosophies do so out of pure dogma? I disagree. It would be in bad faith to paint these debates between theologians and philosophers as clear dogmatic oppositions, even when dramatized.
Allah (swt) is beyond our comprehension, thus true justice will forever be outside of our understanding.
In practice, the work of al-Muhasibi tells us why core components of Islamic theology find this form of metaphysics problematic. In With the Heart in Mind by Imam Mikaeel Ahmed Smith, Imam Mikaeel explains al-Muhasibi’s opposition to rationalist philosophies through his theory of intelligence that countered the Mu’tazila understanding of ‘aql, the human intellect. For Mu’tazila philosophers, humans could understand Allah (swt) through our own judgement— the intellect takes primacy. In al-Muhasibi’s theory of intelligence such a task is impossible.
Let’s take for example justice. For the Mu’tazila philosophers, justice can be easily defined by values set from human reasoning, and once defined, Allah (swt) is measured to definitions we’ve decided (as humans) looks like justice. For example, Allah (swt) is just because Allah is Al-Adl (The Embodiment of Justice), who punishes the transgressors and protects the innocent. This example of justice has a cause and effect, a beginning and end. However, for theologians such as al-Muhasibi, this reduces Al-Adl (The Embodiment of Justice) to what we can comprehend (as humans) about what we think is justice. It limits justice to a reaction because we as humans think reactively. The issue with this is that Allah (swt) is beyond our comprehension, thus true justice will forever be outside of our understanding. Our intellect is not meant to define justice, to do so is to define Allah (swt). Instead, we need to seek knowledge of justice through signs, events, and phenomena for revelatory proof of justice, but never try to confine the proof to a concrete definition or acquisition of its core meaning.
Belief vs Knowledge: The Artificial Divide
Think of an infant . They may have five senses, but they do not know the world from those first moments, and neither do we in our adulthood. How would an infant make sense of justice without being told what is just and unjust? The fact that they need to be told brings into question who is relaying that information, and if the interpretation of that information is even the whole truth. Our senses help us understand what someone else’s reason alone cannot tell us.
In our society, suing for damages or imprisoning convicts is considered justice in the eyes of the law. We know in our hearts that this cannot be justice in itself, so now we have this concept of ‘social’ justice to capture what the law cannot. These are all attempts to redefine what we think is justice, but justice can never fully be defined in the first place because humans cannot define what we don’t have true knowledge of. The concept of justice is a work in progress to conceptualize it in our society, but for Allah (swt) its existence neither began nor was created — it’s eternal, Al-Adl, The Embodiment of Justice.
In most cases, we translate concepts of justice, but we do not actually know justice. A way of seeking knowledge of justice is through a 6th way of making sense of the world, through the faculties of our mind, heart, and soul, the ‘aql connected to As-Samad (The Eternal, Satisfier of Needs). We exercise this sense like an infant would strengthen their muscles, but it is not so straightforward. As humans, we forget ourselves and we make mistakes. We are perfected imperfection— that is the human, yet we were told we are better than all of creation for having the ability to attempt articulating what we can see (Surat al Baqarah 2:31-33; Al-Araf 7:11-25).
We are a people that bear witness, we become the true faithful when what we observe becomes an imperative for action.
This understanding of human intelligence acknowledges the importance of the faculties of the soul and heart, something reasoning alone cannot do to ever achieve full intellect. Does this mean rationality and logical reasoning is the enemy of belief? For Muslims, no. As Imam Mikaeel Ahmed Smith writes, “the immaterial soul was of divine origin, and rationality was its defining attribute. Rationality is the strongest ally to belief in Allah and His prophets” (45). We are a people that bear witness, we become the true faithful when what we observe becomes an imperative for action. Central to this mission, the oneness of Allah (swt) requires understanding of a bond that is indivisible between nature, humanity, and all life on earth. The concept of tawhid expands beyond the individual belief of one God with 99 names, but that the principle of the world submits to this Oneness.
With this in mind, western philosophers have struggled for centuries to articulate this understanding. Thus, our use of the English language falls short of comprehending this relationship. As it stands, western philosophy has inaccurately attempted to reconcile rationalist contradictions of the intellect of the soul, inspired by Immanuel Kant’s (d. 1804) own Christian tradition when he writes, “I must, therefore, abolish knowledge, to make room for belief. The dogmatism of metaphysics… is the true source of the unbelief (always dogmatic) which militates against morality.” — Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason.
As Muslims we must not only know, but fully commit ourselves to understanding in our heart and mind that Kant’s abolishment of knowledge to make room for belief is not only a contradiction in our faith, it’s a deeply flawed conclusion to what al-Muhasibi conceptualized in his theory of intelligence.
Unlike Kantian depictions, our intelligence and the drive for knowledge-seeking is not an obstacle to belief. If we were to look for signs of this relationship, the swinging motion of a pendulum to an eventual still exemplifies this equilibrium. Not so different, the dunya pulls us in several directions. We often react to its chaos, as is natural, but we also attempt to reach our personal equilibrium in motions of our everyday life through the coolness of a faith that envelops our spirit through remembrance and knowledge-seeking.
The technology’s understanding of morals, values, and purpose is a reflection of our nafs — a ghost, a soulless ego — the lowest arrangement of knowledge.
After all, knowledge is not truth, “knowledge is conceptualization.” (Bihari quoted in With the Heart in Mind, Imam Mikaeel Ahmed Smith). As flawed beings who are perfectly imperfect, we do not define something like morality because every attempt to define it will somehow fall short of its actual definition. Our deeply flawed nature is an opportunity to seek knowledge, but not arrogantly think we have acquired complete understanding. To do this, we must actively structure knowledge-seeking into an engagement with our entire being that does not lie about what we are doing — we are not knowers, we are seekers. In the English language, this offers a sense of intellectual humility, but it is more than just humility — as humility hints to passive disposition — it is what we are in our DNA. Imam Jamil Al-Amin beautifully writes this in “Liberating the Soul: Wisdom from within Prison Walls”
Belief (faith) is as much an integral part of the human makeup as the intellect (mind) and physique (body); it is the bridge between action and non-action, resistance and passivity, struggle and acquiescence: the difference among mankind is the quality of belief as it is assessed by his Creator. Belief, in any lesser or more quantity may assume any given value or set of values. Values based upon the incorrect belief (disbelief) are incapable of producing the moral incentives to bring about human ascension, which is necessary for a true revolutionary progression. Yet, every offspring of Adam, radi Allahu `anhu (may Allah be pleased with him), is coded before being brought into this life with belief DNA…” (Liberating the Soul: Wisdom from within Prison Walls)
The issue of AGI-theism among Silicon Valley elites is that the whole premise of superintelligence is actually no intelligence at all. The data in which AI is trained on is based on observations of aggregated data on human behavior and other available information — data that is prone to errors, gaps of information, poor measurement, disinformation, and falsification. Human behavior at its core, even when aggregated, is flawed. We can surely make statements about these aggregations, but to misrecognize them as a form of artificial intelligence is idiotic. A superintelligence built on a falsified premise cannot be corrected because its information will always be incomplete knowledge. As Ibn Masruq wrote, “whoever does not use his intellect to protect himself from his intellect will be destroyed by his intellect” (quoted in With the Heart in Mind, Imam Mikaeel Ahmed Smith). As Imam Jamil warns, “values based upon the incorrect belief (disbelief) are incapable of producing the moral incentives to bring about human ascension, which is necessary for a true revolutionary progression.”
Assuming that AI, or the drive for AGI, can somehow solve our problems and direct our futures when built on incomplete aggregate human data and measurements is the kind of dangerous, arrogant thinking that we need to protect each other from. More importantly, technology is not a person. It has no soul, no DNA for tawhid, no built-in drive for unified harmony between creation and Creator. The technology has no want for justice, it regurgitates an incomplete understanding of what we think justice is. The technology’s understanding of morals, values, and purpose is a reflection of our nafs — a ghost, a soulless ego — the lowest arrangement of knowledge. The idea that this technology can decide in the present who gets healthcare, housing, or a lengthier court sentence with the hopes of one day becoming AGI, or psychohistory, to intelligently calculate solutions for every living thing on the planet is not only absurd and irresponsible, it’s dangerous to think that can happen in way that is in alignment with balance and tawhid.
Challenging Sit-down Theology: Towards Tawhid in our Labor
As Muslims, equilibrium means that we believe in the sentience of life on earth and its connection to Allah (swt), including the earth and planets. It is a connection to each other beyond our comprehension. The world too feels this push and pull from our actions in its submission to tawhid. What we do on this planet will testify for or against us. Reaching equilibrium is not a how, but a when, and as Muslims we are asked to submit to this law not as passive observers, but to obey and carry Allah’s orders to seek justice when the movement of the pendulum becomes violent, reaping chaos, sowing deceit, and corrupting the designed mission of life on Earth. This disruption in the natural order is a form of oppression, a word that in Arabic (dhulm), its literal translation (ظ-ل-م dh-l-m) means that something is out of balance and subsumed in darkness.
We have a duty to challenge this corruption and to do so is to commit to action and change our patterns in our behavior. As Malcolm X stated:
“Once you change your philosophy, you change your thought pattern. Once you change your thought pattern, you change your attitude. Once you change your attitude, it changes your behavior pattern. And then you go on into some action. As long as you got a sit-down philosophy, you’ll have a sit-down thought pattern. And as long as you think that old sit-down thought, you’ll be in some kind of sit-down action. They’ll have you sitting in everywhere… “ (“The Ballot or the Bullet” speech by Malcolm X from April 12, 1964.)
Calls for federal regulations of Silicon Valley are met with paralysis or indifference in our community, as profit becomes the drive for neglecting our social responsibility.
In Silicon Valley, beginning in the 2010s, pockets of tech workers have engaged in “some action.” In 2018, Google tech workers protested against surveillance contracts with the Pentagon. In 2024, there was opposition among tech workers against a $1.2 billion contract with Israel’s Project Nimbus. In 2025, two Microsoft workers were fired for protesting against the company’s contracts with Israel’s military, including Ibtihad Aboussad for confronting Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman. In response, the sector’s business titans increased punishments against worker mobilization by firing, laying off, and union busting dissenters. These firings produced a chilling effect among employees, now aware of their disposability. Not just silencing opposition, these firings dismantle the very capacity for workers to control how their labor will be used—disrupting the restoration of balance in our labor, nullifying the importance of tawhid, and undermining a core principle in our faith.
Although tech workers protested the technologies designed to spy on and target communities here and abroad, including Muslim populations, the response from Muslim Americans remains muted. Aboussad’s firing and Mustafa Suleyman’s position as CEO points to the hypocrisy driving discord from within our communities. Here, Aboussad’s firing becomes an act of courage, while Suleyman’s position as Microsoft’s AI CEO receives no comparable scrutiny from Muslim leadership for his role in suppressing labor organizing and facilitating global turmoil. Calls for federal regulations of Silicon Valley are met with paralysis or indifference in our community, as profit becomes the drive for neglecting our social responsibility. Here, Mustafa Suleyman’s Islamic faith disappears into the backdrop of simply doing his job, whereas Aboussad’s fight for justice becomes a lone radical act without a moral community to follow-suit.
For Muslims, challenging a placated ‘sit-down philosophy’ means that the scholars and leaders of our religious communities must engage community members who work in these sectors and pray in the mosques of these tech-sector cities, to understand just how politically motivated the products of their work are. It means challenging them to act on what it would mean to reclaim their expertise away from oppressive anti-harmonious regimes. This includes educating members on Islamic understandings of intelligence, the political motivations of Silicon Valley, and demanding their participation in small and large ways for unionization efforts in the sector.
We are tasked with restoring balance and will be questioned for what we do and do not do.
Unionization supports workers in legally binding companies into agreements for how they want the products of their expertise and labor to be used. It means that research and code cannot be stored or replicated for corrupt purposes, enforcing transparency. It also means that the sector cannot continue to harm communities and the environment, nor mimic human intelligence for nefarious gain. Note, this is a step, not a revolution. Unionization gets us closer to Islamic principles of labor and justice, democratizing labor so that companies cannot ‘pay off’ the morality of their employees through benefits and salaries. It means that employees must contend with the political motivations behind their employment, and a fair agreement that represents the employees.
For community leaders and theologians, this would mean continuing to engage your membership in discussions about how companies use their labor. It also means sheikhas and sheikhs, leaders and scholars must continue learning about the philosophies behind Silicon Valley AI development and participate in dialogue within and outside of our masajid to learn and provide religiously-informed perspectives. This may include engaging with alternative frameworks in the sector, such as Timnit Gebru’s Distributed AI Research Institute (DAIR), Data for Black Lives, and other AI ethics organizations. It could also mean starting faith-based initiatives to join efforts figuring out how to contain an industry that has become a beast with multiple heads. It could also be taking the time to seriously engage in religious contemplation, not guided by your nafs, or seeking answers for the sake of answers, but building on the scholars before you who have wrestled with messages of the Quran and sunnah to answer the questions of their own time. That said, with something evolving as quickly as AI, engage your community when you can from a place of conviction, not urgency —- meaning you’re knowledgeable and seeking knowledge, but the core belief remains firm no matter the information gaps you may have.
I also want to warn leaders against the sit-down philosophy of easy solutions. Should someone quit their job? Should they unionize? Do we fight for regulations? Do we boycott using AI or use it for cooking recipes rather than fact-finding? Do we start a revolution? Regardless of how you answer the question, belief requires action. Not every belief leads to one unified action because those with the same beliefs differ in core values. When there’s a difference in core values and people try to force alignment, their work implodes before it begins because they cannot agree on a set of actions. I agree that quitting is one avenue, but it doesn’t stop how the company will use the machinery or technology. Fighting for regulations can stop the company, but regulations will not happen in governments that do not believe in them, and these regulations can change as governments do.
What can be done for those who work in these companies is to join efforts to reclaim what the product of their labor goes to. If you’re afraid to lose your job by supporting coworkers in unionizing, reflect on your iman so you do not excuse your nafs. Become firm in your principles for your actions to reflect your duty. If you can no longer work in tech out of principle, then join efforts that do align with your principles but do not absolve yourself from seeking justice in tech. Quitting does not make it easier to disrupt the company from being able to continue injustice. As these companies stand now, they can easily fire and replace their workers, but a union (imperfect but important) can taper the power these companies hold.
As I said before, this is a step, not a revolution. Removing Muslims from the tech sector does not absolve us from seeking justice in tech. We are tasked with restoring balance and will be questioned for what we do and do not do. That said, do what matches your conviction, but for the sake of Allah (swt) —do not do nothing.
Conclusion
I hope this article is a step for you to think about your relationship with this technology and its politics in Silicon Valley. Many of our brothers and sisters work in the tech sector for its business giants. This is not a call for them to quit their jobs or experience ethical paralysis — this is a conversation-starter for Muslims in tech to understand the fruit of their labor and what they can do to ensure their work remains theirs.
I implore our leaders, scholars and activists to rigorously engage their membership on these issues, encourage them to join efforts to regulate and unionize tech giants, continue to learn about the data this technology is trained on, and grasp the intent behind how it will be used.
Muslims in centuries past have contributed to the advancements of their age in mathematics and science. The scientists in our community are part of this lineage, so too are our activists, theologians, philosophers, and leaders challenging societal hypocrisy in all its forms.
Further Reading:
On Classical Islamic Beliefs of Intelligence – With the Heart in Mind by Imam Mikaeel Ahmed Smith
On Artificial Intelligence and Racial Inequality- Race After Technology by Ruha Benjamin and discussion guide.
On Technology, Policing, Race and Inequality- Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor by Virginia Eubanks
Further Viewing:
Documentary – Coded Bias and discussion guide. PBS.
On Netflix: Documentary – The Social Dilemma
MM Salem writes at the intersection of faith, race, and praxis. As a human on earth who loves other humans on earth, her writing is informed by her fascination with the evolution of societies. She’s inspired by both creative and non-fiction explorations of the rhetorical question: ‘how does it feel to be a problem?’ Currently, you can find her hunched over a book at a university library, hoping to retain information that can be useful for the world outside of her doctoral studies.
No comments