Faith vs. logic

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I have always argued that logic can be applied to religion and that religion should not be faith (iman) minus logic. But Muslims resent what they view as someone ‘questioning’ Islam. To these people, those who raise questions or arguments are ‘jahil’ (ignorant). They would be branded as heretics and would be advised to go learn about Islam before talking. Anyone who offers counter arguments must be ignorant; he or she cannot be otherwise. And if you do not speak Arabic then you certainly have absolutely no business talking about Islam. You are expected to trust the preachers and agree to what they say without question. And logic definitely cannot be applied to Islam for faith defies all logic. In short, don’t think, just follow.

To kick off 2005, I am going to defend my belief that Islam saw its heydays and became a great and progressive empire when it produced thinkers. We are told that some non-Muslim societies even invited the Muslims to rule them because under an Islamic government they progressed and prospered.


Thereafter, Islam declined. Why? Was it because the West started producing intellectuals and scientists whereas the Muslims got bogged down in outdated traditions and beliefs and were discouraged from thinking? Was it because Muslims were taught to follow and not question and only take the word of the religious experts (preachers)?

Well, let us argue this issue. And I do not mean let us discard faith. I am saying let us strengthen our faith with logic.

One-time Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad said that the difficulty with beating PAS (Islamic Party of Malaysia) is because PAS’ platform is religion and religion is based on faith and not logic. Faith, said Dr Mahathir, is a very powerful force and not easily defeated by logical arguments. Therefore, to defeat PAS is very difficult since Muslims subscribe to faith and will disallow logic from being applied.

But why must Dr Mahathir try to defeat faith? Why not instead try to strengthen it with logic? Or is Dr Mahathir agreeing that faith and logic are incompatible?

Islam views the doctrine of faith or aqidah (pronounced a-kee-dah) as supreme and if any Muslim’s aqidah were to become defective then he would cease to be a Muslim. There are many things in Islam, we are told, which cannot be questioned lest your aqidah suffer defects. If you are not sure about certain rulings, then you should ask the learned Arabic-speaking religious leaders and experts who will guide you. You must never, we are advised, learn by yourself from books (kitabs). Your teacher must always be human. If you learn by yourself, we are cautioned, then the devil will be your teacher.

This is what has been drummed into our heads for generations. Since we are not supposed to question anything and since we must accept the word of the preacher, we have been accepting all what we are told without question. We dare not even think about it let alone ask, for we would be viewed as one with a defective aqidah or a heretic.

Followers of the Al Arqam movement were once detained without trial under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for ‘deviating’ from Islamic teachings. They are, we were told, Muslims with defective aqidah, so they had to be removed from society and detained behind the barbwire fence of the detention center. Even when they were eventually released they were placed under restricted residence, a form of banishment.

I suppose, what I am about to say, if this was 1505 instead of 2005, I would be declared a heretic and be put to death. But I am going to argue that, contrary to what we are being told, one can use logic to reason out religion and still not suffer a defective aqidah. And I defy those so-called preachers and religious teachers to tell me otherwise.

I remember one sermon I received about 20 years or so ago where my Tok Guru told me,

“In the Prophet’s time, even if you failed to perform 10% of what Islam prescribed, you will go to Hell. Towards the end of time, even if you can perform 10% of what Islam prescribes, you still have a chance to go to heaven as long as your aqidah is intact.”

The question now would be: can 2005 be considered ‘towards the end of time’? And another question: would not this also mean that Islam adapts and changes with the changing of times (in that it relaxes and becomes less stringent towards the end of time)?

What does this tell us? Everything is about interpretation and different preachers interpret Islam differently. (And this was the gist of Dr Mahathir’s latest speech). That is why we have so many different imams, and the Malays of Malaysia follow Imam Shafiee. In fact, following the Shiah of Iran is a crime in Malaysia that can result in your detention without trial under the ISA, as many have been subjected to in the past. Even the Al Arqam members, though they still follow Imam Shafiee, were not spared detention just because they revered their leader. For that matter, going by this same ‘ruling’, those Anwar Ibrahim ‘diehards’ and those Umno members who revere Dr Mahathir should be detained as well.

I have always been naughty in that I like to pose logical questions just to see whether the preachers who imply they know everything really do know everything. My favourite is how do we fast from dawn to dusk and pray five times a day (according to the movement of the sun) in countries where they have six months of daylight and six months of night? But that question is just being naughty.

Preachers resent anyone asking logical questions because it upsets the predetermined order. They fear that, by doing so, it may sesat (lead astray) those with weak iman. Let me give you one example where if I was to raise a logical question it would send shockwaves through the system.

Muslims are told to believe in all the Holy Books of the Jews, Christians and Muslims. On the other hand, we are told that the other Holy Books other than the Koran have all been corrupted and must no longer be followed. The ‘non-Islamic’ Holy Books that Muslims believe in are the ORIGINAL Holy Books that were introduced by Moses and Jesus and which no longer exist, not these new or modern ones that have been changed. We do not reject the entire contents of the Jewish and Christian Holy Books but only those parts or sections that have been changed.

If the original Holy Books of the Jews and Christians no longer exist how do we know which parts of the new ones have been changed? We have no OLD Jewish and Christian Holy Books to use as a comparison to the new ones. Anyway, in this first place, Moses and Jesus never wrote any Holy Books. The Holy Books of the Jews and Christians were all written later. How do we know that even the original or uncorrupted ones were correct in the first place? (And we have never seen them have we)?

Of course, I am using logic here and we are told we should not pose such logical questions but accept the word of the learned preacher without question.

If the guide to which parts of the new Jewish or Christian Holy Books which Muslims must reject would be the Koran (since the old Jewish and Christian Holy Books no longer exist) then would not the Koran be the ONLY Holy Book around and therefore we need not believe in the Jewish and Christian Holy Books since they do not exist? After all, the Koran is already complete and the most current of Holy Books.

Now, I am saying this not to insult Jews and Christians as I do believe in the Islamic teaching that the Holy Books of the Jews and Christians are also the Holy Books of the Muslims. What I want to do is clear the ambiguity of the Muslim argument about the difference between the old and new Holy Books.

We are told that Prophet Muhammad did not introduce a new religion but perfected the old Jewish and Christian religions. That is why much of what is in the Koran agrees with what Moses and Jesus taught us. But how do we know what Moses and Jesus taught us since their Holy Books do not exist? Did these Holy Books even exist in the first place since they were never written in Moses’ and Jesus’ lifetime but by others after them? If it is clear that the Holy Books of the Jews and Christians were never written by Moses and Jesus but by others after them, and that they have been greatly corrupted, can’t we then assume that even the original Holy Books are defective since no one has seen them? (Which would mean there are no ‘Holy Books’ before the Koran and therefore only the Koran should be the Muslims’ guide).

You see, from just this one argument alone, which is based on logic, it would put into question the basic issue of aqidah — belief in ALL the Holy Books of the Jews, Christians and Muslims. That is why preachers want us to follow religion based on faith and not logic for, according to the preachers, arguments based on logic would render our aqidah defective.

Let me raise another point. We are taught that God gave us many nikmat, such as a tongue to speak and taste the delicious food, plus a brain so that we can think. And we are also taught we should be grateful to God for these gifts and not abuse or misuse them. Would I then not be ungrateful if I do not properly use the brain God gave me to think, ponder and contemplate between right and wrong?

Muslims are further taught that we must be ikhlas (sincere) in what we do and that God will reject all good deeds and acts from someone who is not sincere. Fine, I buy that. Then we are told that we must pray, fast and do all that God has commanded with sincerity and for no other reason whatsoever. Okay, I can agree to that as well. Then we are told that we must do all these good deeds plus do what God has commanded for we shall go to Heaven if we do and to Hell if we don’t. All the good deeds we do will be rewarded and we shall be punished if we do not comply with God’s commands.

So, Muslims pray and fast so that they can avoid punishment in Hell and enjoy rewards in Heaven. But our prayers and fasting are cumbersome but we do them nevertheless to avoid Hell and enjoy Heaven. And Muslim women cover their heads and allow their husbands to take second wives because this too would guarantee them a place in Heaven though they feel uncomfortable and hot in their head-scarf and feel hurt that their husbands are sleeping with another woman.

Would this not mean you are not sincere in doing all this and only do so to avoid Hell and be guaranteed a place in Heaven? And since you are not sincere, would not then God reject what you do since you did not do all this for God but for your personal gain (to avoid Hell and be rewarded with Heaven)? Since you expect a reward from God for all your ibadah and good deeds, what better are you compared to someone who preaches religion not because of service to God but because of the government salary he is receiving?

You see, once you start applying logic to faith, the preachers would have a lot of explaining and re-teaching to do. Suddenly, what they have been teaching us all these generations begs further clarification. I of course can go on, but before someone brands me a heretic I will stop here and allow you to ponder on these salient points that not only affect our aqidah but may render all our deeds null as well if we are doing them for the wrong reason (reward in Heaven) rather than for the love of God.

I would like to be a good Muslim. But I wish those preachers would not corrupt my iman by telling me what I must and must not do because of the incentives, bonuses, rewards and penalties, thereby turning me into a Muslim who is ‘bought’ rather than one who performs deeds out of love for God.