Author: Dr.Babu Suseelan
Publication:
Date: May 11, 2004
In public meetings, professional
conferences, in interfaith discussion groups, Muslim fundamentalist leaders
frequently ask the question: "Are you a Muslim? Do you have any Islamic
religious experience? If you don't have any experience with Islam, how
can you tell me about Islamic Jihad, Koranic dictates and Islamic history?"
Everything is Islamic religious "experience so many Muslim leaders would
have us believe.
To accept the proposition, however,
is to move toward the position that there is no "knowledge" only "opinion"
and "experience". "It is all Islamic life experience" an educated Islamic
leader once remarked. "Until you have experience with Islamic life, you
are unable to discuss the meaning of Jihad and Islamic history".
These statements and questions are
intended to act like a silencer. It can bring rational discussion about
the brutal past of Muslims and Jihadi terrorism to a stop. It can inhibit
discussion before it begins about Islamic fundamentalism and Jihadi terrorism.
This vague talk and faulty logic about "Islamic experience" has erroneous
subversive power. The question is posed to discredit non-believers.
This state of mind of fundamentalist
Muslims can lead to a sort of whimsical talk. It means Muslim fundamentalist
leaders are afraid to look at what they are doing, practicing and preaching.
Muslim radical leaders use "Islamic life experience" as a term of contempt
for reason and knowledge. Even to ask the question, "Are you a Muslim?"
takes a lot of courage and means a shortcut to denial.
There are powerful implications
in such questions. One is that experience with Islamic life distorts facts.
It is a false assumption that only a practicing Muslim can understand Islamic
Jihad and its history. Fundamentalist Muslim leaders to dismiss knowledge
and reasoning frequently use Islamic life experience.
Like all relativistic, dogmatic,
irrational arguments, this one is faulty. In any case, "experience with
Islamic life" is less credible. It is to be discredited simply by identifying
its origin. Running to "Islamic experience and faith" is running away from
the whole business of truth seeking. It is blinking the issue of the brutal
past of Islam and the atrocities committed by Jihadi terrorists. Jihadi
terrorists, suicide bombers and fundamentalist preachers have "Islamic
experience". Who in the world would deny that? They might sensibly boast
of it. They offer their "Islamic experience" without rational analysis
or in total ignorance of their past history.
I do not want to deny religious
experience of Muslim radicals but only suggest that the assumption that
"Islamic belief" is where we start and never where we end is enormously
unsafe.
One can gain knowledge and insight
about Islamic theocracy without believing in Koranic concepts or practicing
Islamic dictates. A view might be acquired with no experience, with out
belief at all, as most people acquire the view that Jihadi terrorism and
suicide bombing is wrong on no experience of terrorism or bombing and,
yet, prove dependable.
The assumption that belief and experience
necessarily underlies knowledge or the notion that all knowledge needs
to be based on practical experience is a fallacy. The Muslim radical's
fallacious argument is, nonetheless, potent. "How do you know?" and "How
can you tell us about Jihad and Islam if you are not believer or practicing
Muslim is really an impertinent question. One can certainly know that Jihadi
terrorism is dangerous. We know that suicide bombing is dangerous. One
would continue to believe that fundamentalist; dogmatic Islam poses a threat
to pluralism, secularism and religious freedom without any Islamic religious
experience or faith in Koranic concepts. Any argument to discredit this
proposition would be discredited even before it is heard.
Muslim radical's assumption about
"Islamic faith and experience" needs to be replaced with the idea of "coherence
theory". Coherence theory proposes that knowledge and common views are
seen to be true when they cohere with other common views and historical
facts one already holds and accepts. Coherence theory accepts that in speaking
of morality, we know what to value and what to condemn.
I shall expand the coherence theory
with further illustrations. Many of us have not witnessed the Islamic conquest
of Constantinople or the destruction of Persian civilization by Muslim
invaders but are convinced with certainty, that these are historical facts.
This certainty is not irrational, and our knowledge would not be reinforced
even if I have converted to Islam. Many of us have not witnessed suicide
bombing but are utterly convinced that suicide bombing is inhuman and they
are mostly Muslims.
We know that Jihadi terrorism, suicide
bombing, kidnapping, hijacking, coercive religious conversion are wrong.
Our belief on these criminal acts need not be grounded on any single argument,
set of arguments, or faith and experience.
To the Muslim fundamentalist's challenge
of "How do you know about Islam?" or Are you a believer?" one need only
answer that no answer to that challenge is necessary. We know because the
numerous considerations that bear on the danger of Jihadi terrorism cohere
and fit with worldview on that matter.
A recent incident reminded me vividly
of the marked validity of coherence theory. On publishing a pamphlet on
"Dangers of Coercive religious Conversion", I received comments from a
number of Muslims arguing that "freedom" means freedom to forcefully convert
non-believers, freedom to impose Islamic morality and Muslim jurisprudence.
Perhaps, there is no single argument by which one could refute that whimsical
statement, but if I had to choose between freedom from Islamic morality
and freedom to believe in secularism, I would choose the later without
hesitation.
The Muslim radicals may reply that
my belief about freedom, secularism and my religious belief fail to reflect
the ontological concepts of Islam. This mirror image is potent in the sense
that it is widely accepted by Islamic fundamentalists. It is also known
as "correspondence theory". It is often assumed that one must believe in
Islamic faith and experience Islamic life in telling the truth about Islam.
This also means one must have blind faith in Islamic concepts in interpreting
Jihadi terrorism. Though plausible, the argument is inadequate and ultimately
false.
Life of a Jihadi terrorist can be
real, and then that life in itself may not be the life one ought to live.
Muslim fundamentalists and Jihadis must transcend the narrow Islamic tunnel
vision and see the real world as a whole, it means that partial, dualistic
and particular Islamic worldviews are partial, narrow, rigid, inadequate,
and false.
The impatience, hostility, tunnel
vision, and cognitive distortion are characteristic of Muslim fundamentalists.
They are in a hurry to discredit non-believers. "How do you know about
Islam?" is less a question than a challenge.
The task of convincing an Islamic
radical the market superiority of reason and knowledge over rigid, dualistic
and false belief system could take more time that a Muslim would be willing
to give. A Muslim will not stay for an answer or willing to be free. They
are to be forced to freedom.