Nietzschean Islam? Selfhood, Strength, and the Muslim Response to Nihilism
Something I don’t talk about much is Nietzsche’s role in my own conversion to Islam.
As the years since taking my shahada start to roll by, Nietzsche has been relegated to the background the more I learn and study and grow as a Muslim. However, Nietzsche’s role in my thinking and my own conversion was not a minor one.
I started thinking about this again as I was lifting weights and listening to this excellent takedown of Jordan Peterson’s erroneous take on Nietzsche. (I often say, some of my best thoughts are in the gym or in the masjid.)
It would seem like few pairings seem more unlikely than Nietzsche and Islam. (And I know quite a few Muslims who would probably bristle at the idea.) Nietzsche is popularly remembered as the philosopher who proclaimed the “death of God,” denounced organized religion, and sought to overturn much of the moral framework of the Western world. Islam, by contrast, presents itself as a divinely revealed religion grounded in submission to God, prophetic authority, and sacred law. At first glance, the two appear fundamentally incompatible.
Yet the relationship between Nietzsche and Islam is more complicated than many realize. While Nietzsche’s critiques of religion were sweeping, his attitude toward Islam was often markedly different from his attitude toward Christianity. Indeed, scattered throughout his writings are remarks expressing admiration for aspects of Islamic civilization, particularly its vitality, nobility, and affirmation of worldly life.
In The Antichrist, Nietzsche famously wrote:
“Christianity robbed us of the harvest of ancient culture; later it also robbed us of the harvest of Islamic culture.”
Elsewhere, he praised Islamic Spain as a higher cultural achievement than much of Christian Europe. Such remarks should not be overstated. Nietzsche was certainly not a Muslim, nor was he a friend of revealed religion. However, his remarks do suggest that he saw in Islam certain qualities he believed Christianity had largely lost.
This raises an intriguing question — a question that I often circle back to: Is a “Nietzschean Islam” possible?
The answer depends largely on which Nietzsche one has in mind.
Beyond Ressentiment
One of Nietzsche’s central concerns was the problem of ressentiment — a form of resentment and bitterness that disguises itself as morality. According to Nietzsche, many moral systems elevate weakness into virtue, celebrate victimhood, and condemn strength out of envy rather than genuine ethical conviction.
Whatever one thinks of Nietzsche’s critique, there are elements of the Islamic tradition that appear resistant to this tendency. Classical Islamic ethics frequently emphasize courage, dignity, magnanimity, self-mastery, and excellence. The Quran repeatedly calls believers to patience, steadfastness, and trust in God rather than resentment toward fate.
The Arabic concept of ihsan — often translated as excellence, beauty, or spiritual perfection — may be especially relevant here. The goal of the religious life is not merely obedience but the cultivation of the highest possible form of human character.
Likewise, the ideal of jihad al-nafs, the struggle against the lower self, bears a striking resemblance to Nietzsche’s notion of self-overcoming. Both reject complacency. Both insist that human beings must struggle against their own limitations. Both view the self not as a static entity but as something to be transformed.
The differences, of course, are substantial. Nietzsche saw self-overcoming as an essentially human project. Islam understands such transformation as ultimately dependent upon divine grace. Yet the structural similarity remains noteworthy.
The Perfect Human and the Higher Type
Perhaps the closest Islamic analogue to Nietzsche’s vision of human excellence can be found in the Sufi concept of the Insan al-Kamil — the Perfect Human.
Developed most famously by Ibn Arabi, the doctrine holds that the human being is capable of becoming a complete manifestation of the divine attributes. The Perfect Human is not merely morally upright; he or she becomes a living mirror of divine wisdom, compassion, beauty, and power.
At first glance, comparisons with Nietzsche’s Übermensch may seem obvious. Both concepts describe a higher realization of human potential. They both reject mediocrity, and they both envision humanity as something unfinished — something in process.
Yet the differences are again decisive. Nietzsche’s Übermensch emerges beyond traditional religious frameworks. The Islamic idea of the Perfect Human, by contrast, is realized through complete surrender to God. The former seeks transcendence through self-creation; the latter through self-transformation in the divine presence.
Nevertheless, both concepts challenge the increasingly modern tendency to treat comfort, consumption, and social approval not merely as human desires but as the principal measures of a successful life.
Muhammad Iqbal: Islam’s Nietzschean Interlocutor
If one thinker deserves the title of Islam’s most significant interlocutor with Nietzsche, it is almost certainly Muhammad Iqbal.
The philosopher-poet of British India engaged deeply with Nietzsche’s thought while rejecting his atheism and metaphysical conclusions. Like Nietzsche, Iqbal believed that modern humanity had become passive and spiritually weakened. Like Nietzsche, he called for the cultivation of strength, creativity, and vitality.
His response was the doctrine of Khudi, usually translated as “Selfhood.”
Get Sa’īd Abdul Latif (T. Brandon Heagy)’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
For Iqbal, the human self is not an illusion to be dissolved nor an ego to be annihilated. Rather, it is a reality to be strengthened and perfected. The goal of spiritual life is the development of a powerful, creative, and God-centered personality.
In one of his most famous formulations, Iqbal writes:
“Raise thyself to such heights that before every destiny, God Himself will ask thee: Tell me, what is thy desire?”
The verse is startlingly Nietzschean in tone, yet profoundly Islamic in orientation. Human greatness is not achieved through rebellion against God but through a relationship with God so intimate that the human person becomes a conscious participant in divine creativity.
One could argue that Iqbal sought to preserve Nietzsche’s critique of weakness while redirecting it toward an Islamic understanding of spiritual realization.
Ali Shariati and Revolutionary Selfhood
A similar dynamic appears in the work of the Iranian sociologist and revolutionary intellectual Ali Shariati. Deeply influenced by existentialism, anti-colonial thought, and modern European philosophy — including figures such as Sartre, Camus, and, indirectly, Nietzsche — Shariati sought to recover what he regarded as the original revolutionary spirit of Islam. Against both Western secularism and what he saw as a stagnant, ritualistic religiosity, he presented Islam not as a system of passive piety but as a force capable of transforming both society and the individual.
Central to Shariati’s thought is the conviction that human beings are not finished products but unfinished projects. Like the existentialists, he believed that each person is called to become something greater than they presently are. Yet unlike Nietzsche, who sought human self-transcendence beyond traditional religion, Shariati understood this process as unfolding within the prophetic tradition. The human being realizes himself not by overcoming God, but by responding to the divine call embedded within history.
His ideal Muslim is therefore neither resigned nor fatalistic. Rather, he is active, creative, and engaged in the struggle for justice. Shariati frequently criticized forms of religion that encouraged passivity in the face of oppression or reduced faith to personal consolation. “To be a human being,” he wrote, “is to be in the state of becoming.” Elsewhere, he famously declared: “Man is a choice and a struggle.” Such statements reveal the profoundly dynamic character of his anthropology. Human existence is not something simply received; it is something that must be consciously enacted and continually recreated.
In this respect, Shariati often sounds surprisingly close to Nietzsche. Both thinkers rejected complacency, conformity, and the passive acceptance of inherited social roles. Both sought to awaken human agency and challenge the forces that diminish human potential. Yet where Nietzsche ultimately placed his hopes in the creation of new values by exceptional individuals, Shariati located the source of authentic human transformation in prophetic religion. The goal was not the Übermensch but the fully awakened believer: a human being who discovers freedom, dignity, and responsibility through conscious participation in God’s ongoing work within history.
One might therefore describe Shariati as offering a distinctly Islamic answer to Nietzsche’s challenge. He accepted much of Nietzsche’s diagnosis of modern humanity — its passivity, its conformity, its loss of purpose — while rejecting Nietzsche’s solution. For Shariati, the cure for nihilism was not the abandonment of religion but its rediscovery in its most revolutionary and life-affirming form.
A Muslim Response to Nihilism
Perhaps the most fruitful meeting point between Nietzsche and Islam lies in their shared opposition to nihilism.
Nietzsche feared that modernity had destroyed traditional values without successfully replacing them. The result, he believed, would be cultural exhaustion, spiritual emptiness, and the reduction of human life to comfort and consumption.
Many contemporary Muslim thinkers have voiced remarkably similar concerns. The targets differ, and the proposed solutions certainly differ, but the diagnosis often sounds familiar: modern society produces abundance while starving the soul.
In this context, a “Nietzschean Islam” would certainly not mean an Islamic version of atheism or the rejection of revelation. Rather, it would mean taking seriously Nietzsche’s challenge to mediocrity, conformity, and spiritual weakness while responding from within the resources of the Islamic tradition.
Such an approach would emphasize excellence over complacency, self-overcoming over self-indulgence, courage over resentment, and spiritual transformation over passive belief.
Ultimately, Nietzsche believed that humanity had forgotten what it meant to become great. The Islamic tradition, at its best, offers a different answer to the same problem. It suggests that true greatness is found not in replacing God but in becoming fully alive before Him.
Why Incorporate Nietzsche into Islam at All?
At this point, some readers may object that the entire idea of a “Nietzschean Islam” is fundamentally misguided. If Islam is a complete and self-sufficient tradition, why bring Nietzsche into the discussion at all? Why seek points of contact with a philosopher who rejected revelation and proclaimed the “death of God”?
I think the objection deserves to be taken seriously. The purpose of such a comparison is not to supplement some perceived deficiency within Islam, as though the Quran required Nietzsche in order to become philosophically complete. Nor is it an attempt to baptize Nietzsche as a secret Muslim or force an artificial reconciliation between fundamentally different worldviews. Islam stands or falls on its own terms.
Yet intellectual encounters across traditions can still be fruitful. Throughout Islamic history, Muslim thinkers engaged with Greek philosophy, Persian literature, Indian metaphysics, and countless other intellectual currents. They did not do so because revelation was insufficient, but because truth can sometimes be illuminated through unexpected conversations.
In this sense, Nietzsche is valuable not as an authority but as an interlocutor. He identified genuine spiritual maladies within modern Western civilization: nihilism, conformity, consumerism, the loss of meaning, and the reduction of human aspiration to comfort and entertainment. Muslims may (rightfully) disagree sharply with many of his conclusions, but his diagnosis often remains penetrating.
Moreover, figures such as Nietzsche can serve as bridges for Western readers approaching Islam. Many people who would never open a book of theology have nevertheless wrestled with the questions Nietzsche raised. They know the experience of disillusionment, the collapse of inherited certainties, and the search for a more meaningful form of existence. When such readers discover that Islamic thinkers like Muhammad Iqbal or Ali Shariati were grappling with many of the same concerns, new possibilities of understanding emerge.
Perhaps the goal, then, is not to create a “Nietzschean Islam” at all. Rather, it is to show that some of the deepest questions posed by modern Western philosophy have already been confronted within the Islamic intellectual tradition. Nietzsche may help modern readers recognize the problem. Islam may offer a different answer.
Again… I have to say that for me, personally, Nietzsche was a sort of bridge into Islam from my own Western/Christian understanding. The conversation is therefore valuable not because Islam needs Nietzsche, but because many modern people do. And if Nietzsche can serve as a guide leading some seekers toward a richer encounter with the Islamic tradition, then the dialogue has already justified itself.
If you find this writing meaningful and wish to support it, you are welcome to do so via PayPal or Venmo. I am currently studying Islam and the Arabic language, and any donation — however small — will greatly help me to continue my studies and my work. Please feel free to reach me at saidheagy@gmail.com.
Wa billāhi al-tawfīq — may God grant success, sincerity, and right intention, and draw us ever closer to Him.
