Apply reason to religious debate
By Sardar Anees Ahmad
Waterloo, New York

This past October marked the 10th presidential debate in American history. A demonstration of the public’s influence in politics aside, the debate embodies Americans attachment to a universal ideal: the furnishing of proof in support of a platform. While polemics is not a solely American concept, the First Amendment has certainly encouraged its growth in America. Yet while we welcome a debate on foreign policy or the mortgage crisis, we shudder at the thought of applying this principle to religion.

To be clear, this is not an attempt at persuading the reader to change their religion. Rather, this is an attempt to persuade the reader to understand their religion, or lack thereof, with the same instrument that dictates the rest of their life – through reason.
 
It may seem comical that a representative of today’s seemingly most intolerant religion, Islam, is arguing for the employment of rationale to understand religion. The fact is that the Qur’an incessantly demands that man employ reason in order to discover the truth. Dr. Abdus Salaam, the first Muslim Nobel Laureate in physics, often remarked that while the Qur’an issues 250 legislative edicts, it exhorts the reader 750+ times (nearly 1/8th of the Qur’an) to study nature in order to assess the Qur’ans claim. Furthermore, the Qur’an has cited the furnishing of proof on nineteen separate occasions to determine what the truth is, irrespective of faith.
 
The Bible agrees. For example, Jesus Christ declares, “I have come to bring division. For from now on, five members of a family will be divided, three against two and two against three; father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother” (Luke 12:51-53). Christ is essentially arguing that commitment to righteousness trumps familial ties. Truth must be pursued, regardless of any social construct; e.g. heritage, culture, etc. The Qur’an, on more than thirty occasions, supports this attitude.
 
(Genesis 1:27) contains one of the most famous Biblical declarations, “God created man in his own image.” Despite its renown, the declaration is understood within very strict confines. For example, how often do we remind ourselves of the “wise God” of Romans (16:27)? If we have some resemblance to a wise God, surely reason should be employed in attempting to understand Him, if He does exist.
 
Aside from its mind-numbing effect, unchecked and unqualified belief in any ideology slowly converts into dogma. The end result is the endless application of ‘heretic’ to every individual who refuses to agree with the established ideology. Notorious examples such as the Spanish Inquisition, radical elements of the Zionist movement, the Taliban, etc. all find support for their cause in unchecked, dogmatic belief.
 
America has granted its citizens the license to speak and think freely not only as rights, but also as responsibilities. Today, a debate between Paul Krugmann and Grover Norquist is not only welcomed, but may very well help people understand what economic philosophy they agree with on principle, not partisanship. Until religion is treated with the same attitude, Mark Twain’s dismal appraisal will remain true: “It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them.”