(cf. Scott Alexander “Conflict vs. Mistake”)
I.
Today, I revisited Tariq Ramadan’s Al-Jazeera Head-to-Head interview , and one of his responses caught my attention:
Mehdi: Is there no clash at all between so-called liberal, secular, enlightenment-values of Europe, and on the other hand Islamic values, Islamic principles, core Islamic beliefs?
Tariq: No, there is no tension. There are tensions between dogmatic minds. So you have dogmatic secularists. They look at Secularism as a new religion. They are transforming the legal system into a new religion. And they are telling you the only way to be free is to be free the way we are.
His denial of a clash-of-civilizations between Islam and the West is not surprising. Tariq Ramadan is an Islamic Modernist. A defining pillar of Islamic Modernism is its reconciliatory approach between European Enlightenment values and Islamic values.
But when Ramadan shifts the blame onto the so-called “dogmatic minds” of both sides, something clicked for me.
In today’s post-modern world, there are two approaches to truth that are completely opposite. Simply: one approach takes truth as good, and the other takes “truth” as evil. That sounds very wrong; who would take truth as evil? Welcome to post-modernism.
II.
School 1: The Truth is Good
The basic truths about life — of man, society, God — are clear. These truths are absolute, and not relative. Those who reject these truths are blameworthy: their own arrogance, jealousy, biases etc. blind them to what is obvious. Anyone with a basic level of sincerity will accept the truth, once a believer presents to them the basic evidences.
The truth is the means by which progress, justice, peace, and all things good will come. Anything which is not the truth is the means for ruin, injustice, backwardness, and all things bad.
And so the world is separated into two groups, pitted in eternal conflict. The righteous believers, who have humbly accepted the truth, and work to implement it in the world. And the evil disbelievers, who have rejected the clear truth, work to hinder the efforts of the believers. You are either with the truth, or against it: “the only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing”.
School 2: “Truth” is Evil
The truth is not clear, even (and maybe especially) when it comes to the fundamental truths about life. The truth is complicated; nuanced; relative; up-to-interpretation.
Accordingly, the forces of good in the world are those who are skeptical about truth. They are not too convinced of anything1, because the world isn’t black-and-white. The important thing is not having the truth, but rather taking an open-minded and collaborative journey towards the truth, even if we never attain it. Thus, the world doesn’t have to be a clash of civilizations, or a tension between values. The freethinking minds of the world can instead work together to converge on mutual understanding.
But the problem is the fanatics. Those who believe in truth — or rather, believe they have the truth — are the most dangerous people in the world2. They don’t want to find common ground, nor agree to disagree. Their black-and-white view of the world self-justifies their relentless imposition of “the truth”.
Rational skepticism about any one “truth” is the means towards progress, justice, peace, and all things good. Dogmatic belief in “the truth” is the means for ruin, injustice, backwardness, and all things bad.
And so the world is separated into two groups, pitted in eternal conflict. The rational skeptics, who have humbly accepted that they don’t have the absolute truth, and seek to collaborate towards the truth with those they tentatively disagree with. And the evil fanatics, who have a foolish confidence in one exclusive “truth”, and work to impose it on everyone else. Their dogmatism blinds them to the possibility of common ground and reconciliation with the other.
III.
School 2 is what’s in vogue. It’s the approach to truth taken by sophisticated Western academics (like Tareq Ramadan). On the other hand, believing in an absolute truth has become gauche in today’s intellectual landscape. The school 1 type thinkers, Tareq Ramadan’s “dogmatists”, would be more alien to a modern university campus than a cat among the pigeons.
But I don’t buy this one bit. School 2, taken seriously, is a sham, however balanced it might seem.
By rejecting the 2-color “black-and-white truth” as too simplistic, they ironically adopt an even more simplistic 1-color view of the truth — “gray” (see Fallacy of Gray). Donald Trump is gray, Hitler is gray, the crusades were gray, your mom is gray, everyone and everything is gray! School 2 becomes a timid escape from holding any real and important opinions that you might have to stand for.
Moreover, it’s self defeating. If one purports that truth is too nuanced for anyone to be sure of themselves, then no one should be sure of truth being too nuanced! The rational skeptics become dogmatic in their rational skepticism. If it is then said, some basic truths (like this one) can be known, but most truth is too nuanced to become dogmatic about, then that’s exactly what School 1 says. We might just disagree about what those truths are.
Which is exactly the case. Tareq Ramadan, Mehdi Hassan, and the rest of the panelists in that discussion did hold certain truths to be absolute — the liberal conception of human rights, democracy, freedom, and so on. In this way, the kind of messaging in School 2 is a form of prevarication, a disguise of neutrality. A motte (skeptical approach towards truths you don’t hold) and bailey (absolutist approach to your ‘basic truths’).
A good example is of the secularist’s (Yasmin) pearl-clutching about stoning (her absolutist condemnation of stoning as evil), and Tareq Ramadan’s School 2 response. Condoning stoning as Islamic would upset the audience, and condemning it would go against his Islamic principles (and upset principled Muslims). Thus, Tareq Ramadan’s School 2 approach to the issue (stoning is nuanced complicated contextualized issue that requires non-black-and-white discussion) is really just a dodge.
IV.
Of these approaches to truth, which one does Islam take? Or in other words, which one should a Muslim (like Tareq Ramadan) take?
The Qur’an is unequivocal. The oneness of God — in creation and in sovereignty — is clear. Rejecting this truth is evil, and can only be done for evil reasons. God would not burn disbelievers in hell for eternity unless this was the case.3
While School 2 says you shouldn’t be too convinced of anything, the Qur’an emphasizes absolute conviction (imaan) in God, the revelation, and everything in it. What School 2 would call “fanatical” belief is explicitly encouraged.
The School 2 approach of reconciliation and common ground between different “truths” of the world is explicitly and harshly condemned in Surat Al-Kafirun. The pagans of Makkah tried to find common ground with the teachings of Muhammad (PBUH). They wanted to eliminate the tension, the clash-of-civilizations, by bringing the two religions together. The Surah was revealed in response.
Say, "O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship. Nor are you worshippers of what I worship. Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship. Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship. For you is your deen, and for me is my deen.”
Ironically, the last verse — “for you is your deen and for me is my deen” — is misconstrued today to mean a plea for mutual tolerance! The context makes the meaning clear; it is not an agreement to disagree. It is a rebuffing of pagan attempts to neutralize a clash of ideas. Within a couple of decades, Makkah would be conquered by the Muslims, and the idols of the pagans destroyed.
Islam is a system, not merely a personal religion. People can believe whatever they want, but the system of Islam must be carried to the world, as the divine law is the only regime for human happiness. As Allah says,
It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the ideology of truth to manifest it over all ideology, although those who associate others with Allāh hate it.
[TMQ 61:9]
Bertrand Russell — “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people are so full of doubts.”
C.S Louis — “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.”
Now, it might not be clear to you. But that’s because you’re messed up. You’re plagued by your own ego and arrogance. If your heart weren’t so diseased and your brain so closed, you would see it clearer than the sun.