If one superficially studies the incident of Prophet Ibrahim’s destruction of his people’s idols (al-Anbiya’ 51-70), one can easily start wondering if this was an act of religious fanaticism.

Was it aggressive behavior that violated the principles of religious freedom and tolerance? Was Ibrahim's behavior a potentially harmful influence?

However, a comprehensive analysis establishes the invalidity of those speculations. What actually happened was that Ibrahim was on the receiving end of aggressive institutional behavior and religious intolerance. It was he who was the target of injustice and bigotry simply because he was different and dared to question the tyrannical status quo.

Having been left with no choice, his actions indicated a form of self-defense. The actions were proportionate to the level of mistreatment received. They also demonstrated a strong willingness to sacrifice personal interests for the sake of a higher ontological order. Breaking down idols entailed the removal of the agents responsible for coercion and exploitation.

Ancient Mesopotamia as a cradle of civilization or uncivilization

The ancient Mesopotamian civilization, as the context of Ibrahim’s birth and early prophetic activities before his forced migration, was an intriguing environment. It is conventionally believed that this vast region was the cradle of some of the earliest human civilizational advancements. Different parts of Mesopotamia were governed by various powers, representing the forefront of civilization.

However, that is a misconception, a fabrication.

Observed against the backdrop of ultimate truth, the Mesopotamian so-called civilization was the cradle of the earliest formalization and institutionalization of falsehood, resulting in previously unknown sophisticated crusades against the truth. It was the first time in human history that the truth was targeted and replaced at all levels of spiritual, intellectual and civilizational existence.

One universal code of life was to be substituted with another. As could be expected, zero tolerance was needed for the success of the scheme. Highlights were the first scientific steps, such as in the direction of astronomy, which aimed to give an extraterrestrial character to earthly religious falsehoods and civilizational pretenses.

This ensured and facilitated further mystification of beliefs and misguidance in specific sacraments. The elements of falsehood were thus given an added sense of appeal and awe.

Moreover, Nimrud was the first king in history to whom Almighty Allah granted sovereignty as a test, not only for him personally but also for humanity as a whole, in terms of rule being both theory and practice, which is essential for fulfilling human purpose (al-Baqarah 258).

However, he rebelled against this divine gift and misused it to support and disguise his claims to divinity.

A corollary of this approach was the invention of what later became known as the divine right of kings, which caused humanity unprecedented suffering. All subsequent systems of despotism, tyranny and dictatorship were the outgrowths of this unholy ideology. 

The pain it caused was so great that when humanity eventually managed to shed it, it resorted to the other extreme of the government spectrum. The results were contemporary systems of liberalism, relativism, nationalism and various forms of radicalism. It is difficult to determine which extreme—the old or the modern—is worse and more prone to affecting human misery.

The synergy of the deceitful cosmology and the domineering political ideology gave rise to a host of socio-cultural behavioral molds and standards, thus completing the human embryonic uncivilizational blueprint. At the top of the hierarchy of life systems, organizations and traditions—reflecting the hierarchy of social classes—were those related to religion.

Accordingly, religious norms, institutions and clergy were the most prominent and played the most critical roles.

In addition to being a way of life, religion likewise was a political tool and a social reference point. Religion operated within the realms of politics, society and culture simultaneously, and these, in turn, were seen as extensions of religion. In short, politicized religion served as a justification for existence. It was the alpha and omega of society.

To exist meant to be religious and obedient to a tyrannical regime. Defying this was anomalous. It meant giving a reason for “non-existence,” which under all types of absolutist regimes brought about imprisonment, torture and ultimately loss of life. Indeed, this was the first clear instance of the doctrine “be with us or against us” or “align with us or be our adversary.”

The emergence of Prophet Ibrahim

In the middle of this rigid environment and troubling cultural system, Prophet Ibrahim was born and raised. As a prophet and a rational person, Ibrahim was uncomfortable with the absurdities of his society.

Not only could he not accept them, but he also felt compelled to express his disagreements. Doing so was both his right and duty, as speaking the truth before an unjust ruler and in the midst of a widespread unjust system is the clearest sign of faith and the best form of struggle.

Ibrahim neither willed nor was required to go beyond the parameters of dialogue and argumentation. His philosophy was clear: “Unless my Lord guides me, I will surely be among the people gone astray”; “O my people, indeed I am free from what you associate with Allah.

Indeed, I have turned my face toward He who created the heavens and the earth, inclining toward truth, and I am not of those who associate others with Allah” (al-An’am 77-79). In healthy situations and wholesome atmospheres, all parties are bound to benefit from constructive interactions and communication.

In such environments, the prospects of freedom and impartiality are unwavering. However, Ibrahim’s surroundings were anything but healthy and wholesome, and his society was anything but free and just.

No sooner had Ibrahim asserted and exercised his civil rights than he was declared public enemy number one. His “crimes” could be summed up as a desire for freedom of religion and freedom of expression, grounded in rationality, righteousness and honesty.

After that, everyone was free to choose their own path and do as they wished. The 'crime' of all 'crimes' was Ibrahim's difference and noncompliance in both spiritual and intellectual matters.

As such, Ibrahim became a marked person. He had to endure severe mistreatment—commensurate with his “wrongdoings”—which culminated in an attempt on his life. The method to kill him and eliminate him once and for all had to be exceptional and serve as a lesson for future generations. Therefore, they cast him into a fire that was so massive and violent that it resembled a worldly hell (jahim) (al-Saffat 97).

Fire was additionally appropriate because it is so painful and humiliating that, as stated by Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), only the Creator of fire can punish with it (Sunan Abi Dawud).

The person responsible for the entire proceeding was King Nimrud. He wished thereby to demonstrate his supposed divine authority and power, while also highlighting the “smallness” and “inferiority” of Ibrahim.

All in all, antagonism against Ibrahim became a national mania. It was both secretive and open, and both arbitrary and organized. Ibrahim embodied a detrimental condition that necessitated elimination. The developments morphed into an all-out conflict between Ibrahim alone and his people.

From the beginning, Ibrahim was on the defensive, just trying to put across his messages and defend his standpoints. When his people’s conduct became unbearable and the general situation untenable, Ibrahim performed the greatest act of bravery and potential self-sacrifice. 

Seeing that the idols of his people were not merely gods and, as such, the object of worship, but also, and more importantly, the instruments of all the evil associated with the community, from the corrupt ruling elites to the brainwashed people on the street, Ibrahim knew where to direct his self-defensive tactics.

Without hesitation, Ibrahim turned his attention to those idols-turned-means of creating and sustaining wicked ways. He destroyed the idols, demonstrating in the process that he was ready to stop at nothing to defend his dignity and rights and to stand up to the rampant and infesting modes of injustice.

Ibrahim did not destroy the idols per se, but the venomous ideas and behavioral patterns they represented. Since they stood for the agencies of oppression for Ibrahim’s enemies, they also represented both the target and means of his resistance.

Ibrahim as a reformer, not a destroyer, and as a self-defender, not an antagonist

It is safe to say that if those idols were no more than meaningless statues made of dead matter dedicated to some pointless rituals, Ibrahim would have surely directed his focus elsewhere. 

He would have ignored them and pitied those who wasted their only existential opportunity worshipping them or other supposed but worthless deities through them.

What was happening was an unjust “war,” so Ibrahim needed the best self-protective strategies to stand his ground. The idols and their temples were the focal points of the “war,” so they had to be addressed accordingly.

That Ibrahim eventually left his hostile people, including his family and his birthplace, migrating to better environments and seeking more favorable conditions, proves that his aim was not to destroy anything or impose himself and his ideas by force, but to convey a message and try to reform the immoral conditions of his community as much as possible.

After that, the principle of “to you your religion, and to me my religion” would have applied. Ibrahim was by no means a destroyer, but a reformer. He wanted to purify, build and sustain both people and society in a noble state.

He was a promoter of true civilization, serving as the antithesis of the forces and elements of the ongoing Mesopotamian uncivilization.

This Ibrahim’s benign stance is embodied in his farewell words to his father, who represents the evil society and had previously threatened to stone him: “Peace be upon you. I will ask forgiveness for you of my Lord.

Indeed, He is ever gracious to me. And I will leave you and those you invoke other than Allah and will invoke my Lord. I expect that I will not be in invocation to my Lord unhappy” (Maryam 47-48).

Finally, according to the message of the Qur’an (al-Nahl 120), Ibrahim was a nation or an exemplar (ummah), setting benchmarks to be followed. Based on those benchmarks—that is, the normative ethics of confrontation—Prophet Muhammad removed the Ka’bah idols of the Quraysh, and Muslims historically faced the undesirable but inevitable pain of fighting. The constant pivots were self-defense and taking a stand against fecund injustice and tyranny.