To whom it may concern:

I am a registered user of the ARI site, and a great fan of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.

But while reading some of the op-eds I have been receiving from the ARI, “objectivism” was the last word that came to mind. These op-eds were about “Islamic” terrorism, and the writers were proposing that the religion of Islam was the root of the terrorist attacks in London.

I am mainly referring to the articles written by David Holcberg (The Terrorists’ Motivation: From the Camel’s Mouth) and Edwin A. Locke (The Terrorists’ Motivation: Islam), where the writers even include quotations from the Holy Koran to support their claims. However, as an Islamic researcher, I find the writers’ approach to be misleading, inaccurate and can hardly be called objective. Objectivism does not only depend on the logical strength of the argument, but the truth of its premises. The misinterpretation of Koranic verses makes the premises of the writers’ arguments false and, therefore, defeats their whole argument.

Has it ever occurred to the writers that they may be taking the verses out of context, or using wrong translations of the text?

Have they not recognized that the context of the verses which promote violence is a military confrontation? The Holy Koran clearly states: “Fighting has been made permissible for those at war because they have been oppressed.” [ 22:39 ]

Have the writers not realized, through their reading of the Holy Koran, that it does not promote enmity towards all disbelievers, but only those who oppress the Muslims? Again, the Holy Koran places the Muslim enmity towards the disbelievers (wrongly translated in the verses quoted by the above writers as Pagans, but originally means: those who reject the truth, and implies hostility) in the context of being oppressed, by saying:

“Allah does not forbid you, with regards to those who do not fight you on account of your religion nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loves those who are just.” [60:8]

Mr Locke also made the bizarre claim that Islam – as a religion – discourages reason and expects the Muslims to blindly follow its dogma. While some Islamic sects may tend towards this position because they are unaware of the rational basis of Islamic beliefs, Islam should not be blamed for their ignorance. The Holy Koran repeatedly refers to the use of reason, and encourages its readers (who are not necessarily Muslim) to ponder and to engage their intellects, as the following verse demonstrates:

“Say: ‘I advise you on one point: that you stand up before Allah,- (It may be) in pairs, or (it may be) singly,- and reflect (within yourselves): your Companion is not possessed: he is no less than a warner to you, in face of a terrible Penalty.’” [34:46]

The sayings of Prophet Muhammad and his family (peace be on them) are full of praise for the intellect and the use of reason. There are sayings which regard the intellect as the noblest creation and which explain that references to the “heart” in the Holy Koran are actually references to the intellect (where “heart” in that context refers to the core of human beings: their intellect).

And if Mr Holcberg and Mr Locke wish to quote verses out of context, then the same can be done with the ARI website and its op-eds. A recent op-ed by Alex Epstein (Fight the Root of Terrorism With Bombs, Not Bread) can be said to promote violence in the same way the Koranic verses do.

I wish to make it clear that I did not write this as an “offended” Muslim who wishes to blindly defend his religion, but as a rational individual who wishes to defend objectivity. I believe Ayn Rand’s philosophy has a lot to offer, especially the objective defense of reason and the promotion of living on principle. It would be a real pity if Mr Holcberg and Mr Locke would discredit the philosophy by using it to juggle false premises. And if they wish to further a political agenda, then this should not be done in the name of Objectivism.

The literalist approach is what the extremists use to justify their own political agendas, and I’m afraid Mr Holcberg and Mr Locke are only using the extremist’s approach, without bothering to dig out the true meanings intended by the Holy Koran.

Best regards,

Haider

A friend of mine pointed out that the “first step” that I took in trying to resolve my inner conflict, by observing Islam fully, is not an objective approach, because it didn’t involve me detaching myself from my existing beliefs (Islam). Therefore, if I truly wished to be objective, I should have abandoned my existing beliefs, and started from scratch.

While I accept that it seems odd to say: “In order to find the truth, I committed myself to my existing religion,” I wish to point out the reasoning behind this conclusion, and what I was intending to achieve.

There are two elements involved in pursuing the truth: the intellect and the character.

The Intellect

The intellect deals with concepts, and uses reason to distinguish between different beliefs, finds the contradictions, evaluate the reasoning behind the beliefs, etc. Its domain is ideas and their validity. From the beginning, I was aware that many people wanted to be objective, and were willing to re-evaluate their existing beliefs, but they seek to find the positives in other religions, and the negatives in their own! After all, since they had spent most of their lives finding the negatives in other religions and the positives in theirs, they figure that a role-reversal could add a balance to their outlook.

However, this often translates to one’s existing religion being treated unjustly. Many Muslims are able to offer an explanation for why the Christians took part in the Crusades – from the point of view of the Christians – but they cannot explain why the early Muslims engaged in warfare. And if they do attempt to explain it, they do not do so from the point of view of the Muslims, but from the point of view of non-Muslims! This approach is considered objective, because the Muslim isn’t applying an Islamic standard to the study of Islam, and assumes that any other standard would be objective.

I knew that Islam could very well be the true religion, but I wanted to accept it based on shared human values. I wanted to find out what these human values are, and then to evaluate religions based on these values. But this didn’t mean that I had to begin with references external to Islam in order to be objective. In fact, I used the Holy Koran and several narrations in my quest for the truth. I didn’t rely on their authority, but on their validity.

For example, Imam Ali (peace be on him) is narrated to have said: “If two armies fought against each other, at least one of them is in the wrong.” I didn’t know what the law of non-contradiction was at the time, but it seemed rational to me that what is right, and what is true, cannot contradict itself. I didn’t accept it because Imam Ali said it, but because what he said was reasonable.

I didn’t cast doubt on all my Islamic beliefs so that I can begin from the point of complete doubt. I wanted to re-evaluate Islam from an objective standard. I didn’t, nor do I think, that one has to completely abandon his religion before he can assess it objectively. He must certainly be exposed to different beliefs, but there is no need for complete detachment.

The Character

The inner conflict I was experiencing wasn’t doubt, but hypocrisy. The first step I took wasn’t to resolve a confusion, but a contradiction. I wanted to make sure that I can follow the truth, no matter what it demanded of me. At that point, I didn’t have anything against Islam. In fact, I didn’t know Islam that well to decide whether it was true or not. I had accepted many beliefs as part of my heritage, but did not evaluate them for myself. This doesn’t mean that I must first forsake them in order for me to re-consider them.

At that point I simply wanted to ensure that I can fulfill whatever is expected of me. To abandon the prayer wasn’t a sign that I was being objective. In fact, it could be a sign that I was being lazy. To stop praying is more appealing than to pray on time. But I wasn’t going for what was appealing. In fact, I wanted the exact opposite. What appealed to my emotions I viewed with disdain.

I wanted to be able to commit myself to what I believed is true, and still be willing to consider other religions. I used to think about those who reached high ranks in their respective religions and used to ask myself: if I was to reach a high status in any religion, would I be unwilling to accept that I was wrong, simply because of my status? This is something I took into consideration and was adamant not to attach any significance to my status or reputation. This didn’t mean that I cannot be devoted while I accepted that the religion I am following is true.

The first step I took was to overcome a character defect and not an intellectual one, and I didn’t want to detach myself completely from Islam, but didn’t want to feel attached to it emotionally or socially. I wanted to develop the willingness to abandon it, but still evaluate it objectively

Unknown to me at the time, but when I attempted to rid myself of the false criteria that can be used to select one’s beliefs, I had developed distorted criteria of my own!

I was concerned not to follow my emotions, or the dictates of society. But rather than ignore these two, I used them as a criteria! I began to go against my emotions, and wherever society went, I took a different direction!

In the name of impartiality and objectivity, I began to depend on my emotions and what society was doing to determine what I should do. While, physiologically, pain and pleasure are intended to indicate what is harmful to us and what is beneficial to us, I reversed the signals, so that pain meant that I was doing something right (by abandoning my emotions), and pleasure meant I was doing something wrong (by succumbing to my whims and desires).

And rather than evaluate what society was doing, and decide for myself whether I should be doing the same, or do something else, I refrained from what society was doing because society was doing it. Anything in common practice meant conformity, and I could not allow myself to “go with the flow.”

This distortion, I believe, is the root of extremism. While I will not offer a complete analysis of this matter here, but wanted to point out how this distortion relates to extremism:

Extremism is a relative term. You are only extreme in relation to something else (i.e. a reference point). Society refers to people as extreme because they go beyond the norm. They don’t behave like the greater part of society, especially the part of it that we relate ourselves to. If we get drunk in the weekends, it’s extreme not to drink. If we don’t drink, it might be an extreme for someone to not even step into a bar.

Extremists don’t refer to themselves as such. They may only do so jokingly, but they believe that what they are doing is right and everyone else is lenient (compared to them).

There are instances in which the common practice is wrong, and those in the right are unjustly referred to as “extreme.” Some people don’t believe in moral principles, and think those who do are being rigid and “extreme.”

But the extremism I fell into wasn’t a commitment to a principle that society didn’t share with me (although this is partly true), but it was a commitment to being different to society, because I feared that I may blindly follow what others were doing. Society became the benchmark, the reference point, that I had to avoid and, therefore, by definition, I had to be an extremist.

I did not want my emotions to intervene in my thinking. I was meant to remove them from my equations but, instead, they became the key variable. I based my decisions on my emotions, but I didn’t see it as such. Extremists usually suffer as a result of their extremism, but they consider the struggle a part of being right and treading on the right path (after all, what hurts the extremists the most is the society they wish to dissociate themselves from).

By using emotion and society as the grain that I had to go against, my reasoning was severely distorted about a range of issues. And the more committed I became to warding off the “threat” of emotions and society to my reasoning, the more extreme I became. Having this outlook places people in a vicious cycle: the more pain they suffer, the more pain they think they should suffer. The more distant they are to society, the more they struggle to maintain their distance.

These are the roots of extremism in the mindset of the extremists. But there are other elements within the extremist outlook that keep them committed to extremism, as I will elaborate on.

Searching for the Truth

When searching for the truth, I spent a great deal of thought and effort trying to understand what the criteria for knowing the truth is. I knew that the truth I was searching for should be accessible to all. Otherwise, why would I have access to this truth that no one else had access to?

Therefore, the truth can be known by all people, and the criteria to know the truth must be possessed by all. The belief in the Holy Koran, or the Bible, are not shared by everyone. At one point some people didn’t believe in these books, and then chose to believe in them. What made them take such a decision? They must have used something in order to conclude that the Holy Koran is the truth, for example. If it is to do with the miracles the Prophet performed, then these are not accessible to everyone, throughout the ages. For someone to believe in a miracle the Prophet performed, he must accept the accounts that have recorded these miracles. The accounts themselves are not proof, so how can the miracles that we have not witnessed be proof of the truth of the Holy Koran, and of Islam?

Scripture itself is not proof. We must possess a criteria by which we can determine the validity of what we read or hear. This criteria must be possessed by every human being, or should be attainable at least.

There are three elements human beings possess that I thought can be used to knowing the truth, and they have been used in the past by different people. These are:

1- Intuition
2- Emotion
3- Reason

Intuition is something that’s hard to define, or even make sense of. Is the intuition you experience God communicating with you? Or you trying to justify an act to yourself? Or Satan whispering in your soul? Besides, I thought that the truth can be communicated to others. You can use a proof to offer others that would allow them to know the truth for themselves. Intuition is an extremely personal experience that cannot be shared with others. It certainly cannot be used as proof for others. Just because I saw a vision, or think that I saw a vision, doesn’t mean that others should believe in my vision. The “sense” that I get requires interpretation, and can be formed by my own impressions of a situation, without there really being any mystical significance to these senses. I may have formed a bad impression of a person, and can now “sense” that he’s a bad guy, when he isn’t. And how can one develop his intuition or begin to know how to?

I, therefore, concluded that intuition cannot be followed as a criteria for knowing the truth.

For around a week before I reached this conclusion, I used to see the Prophet and his household (peace be on them) in my dreams, every night. But when I concluded that intuition wasn’t a means to knowing the truth, I didn’t want to use such visions as a sign for the validity of Islam. If I am to find the truth, I must use a valid criteria. I wasn’t looking for a “message from above.” I wanted to begin where others began and work my way from doubt to certainty through the right channel. I asked God not to have these visions, and I stopped having them.

Emotion is even more problematic. Emotions can have a stronger affect on us, but can be experienced for a number of reasons. One can feel a strong hatred for something because it reminds him of the truth, when he chooses not to think about it. The feeling of hatred for another race doesn’t indicate any truth about that race. It only reveals what we think about this race. Emotion is the by-product of beliefs. It doesn’t indicate whether a belief is true or false. In fact, it can stand in the way of us embracing the truth, because we do not feel like conforming to it.

Reason, on the other hand, was more predictable. Reason operates with knowledge, not with feelings. It is something we can exchange, and can be used to evaluate what others say, and to express why we disagree. We evaluate other beliefs primarily through the use of reason, coupled with the beliefs we assume to be correct. But we cannot abandon reason when trying to make sense of any belief. If the beliefs we are using are incorrect, then we can use reason to determine the contradictions that exist within them, and to gain knowledge to better understand these contradictions and how they can be resolved.

I, therefore, reached the conclusion that reason is the main criterion to knowing the truth. And since reason aims to point out contradictions, I realised that there were two forms of contradiction:

1- When a belief contradicts itself

2- When a belief contradicts reality

Reason and knowledge must be used to recognize both forms of contradiction.

And before looking into other religions or sects, I decided to ignore any religion that condemned reason or invalidated it. If reason is abandoned, what are we left with?

Destroying the Major Obstacle

Having realised that reason is my main tool for knowing the truth, I waged a campaign against my emotions, so that they will never interfere with my reasoning. I didn’t want my emotions to sway me away from the truth, and so I worked to destroy them. I wanted to get rid of all my existing emotions, and all emotional attachments that I had in order to build them up according to my new reasoning. I didn’t want emotions to stand in the way of my reasoning, but to go behind it, so that my feelings supported my reasoning, and not the other way around.

I began to detach myself from anything that I loved. I didn’t want to love the Prophet because I was brought up to love him. I had to discover something in him that all human beings can recognize to be good, and to love him for that. This attitude extended to all Islamic personalities, all beliefs, all activities. Everything. To have an emotional attachment meant that I was compromising my reasoning for my emotions. It meant that I was following my desires, rather than following the truth.

I, therefore, stopped doing things that I did because I enjoyed. I stopped eating the foods that I liked to eat, because this meant that I was following my desires. I used to be a movie lover, but I stopped watching movies, or even television. I wouldn’t even go to the living room, in order to avoid television. Boycotting television happened overnight. I remember watching the sitcom Frasier, and asking myself: “Why am I watching this when I don’t know whether I should be watching it or not?”

I walked out of the living room, and didn’t watch television shows for another 2 to 3 years.

Conditioning My Emotions

In order to rid myself of my existing emotions, I would spend a couple of hours every night visualizing myself in different situations, behaving, not in the way I think I would behave, but how I wanted to behave. If somebody criticised me, would I feel offended? I’m sure I would. In fact, as I visualized the scene, I would feel my face turning red. I would then imagine myself not feeling offended, but responding calmly, and defending myself. I practiced this visualization exercise for a number of reasons, with many different situations. How to present my ideas to others, how to control my emotions, how to improve my character, etc.

I even imagined myself following different religions, so that I wouldn’t dismiss any religion because I don’t feel comfortable in it. I would even imagine myself in a Buddhist robe, with a shaven head, walking down London streets, and tried not to feel any embarrassment as I visualized the seen. If Buddhism is right, then I shouldn’t be afraid of what following it might entail, or what ridicule I might experience.

False Criteria

Not only did I realize that emotions can come in the way of knowing the truth, but that there are many other false criteria that I can use, and people were using, to choose their beliefs. These false criteria are mentioned in the Holy Koran, and I didn’t want to follow any of them. Embracing a belief because one’s parents held the same belief, or because it is part of one’s heritage, or to blindly accept what society has blindly accepted all went against what I was pursuing: to know the truth for myself, without handing over the thinking to others.

Since I had already decided that I will not follow the beliefs of my parents, I wasn’t prone to following other people’s parents. That criterion was already dealt with. But the false criterion that I was afraid of following was society. I knew that I was susceptible to falling in this trap, and that I had to be vigilant about it.

All my decisions took two considerations into account: was I using my emotions to make the decision? Was I basing my decision on the views of society?

In this article I offer an insider’s perspective on what extremism means, and what it’s true origins are. This is a personal account of how I became an extremist, and why I chose that path.

I should first note that I will not be giving a full analysis of my extremist beliefs, or why I chose to abandon them later on. This I will leave for some follow-up posts. I would also like to point out that not all the beliefs that I mention here are wrong, but I include them as part of my reasoning at the time, to help give a complete picture of my thinking process. Although not all extremists may have had the same starting point as me, but there will be common elements shared by all extremists.

Extremism Begins with the Mind

It is ridiculous to blame social conditions for fostering extremism. You don’t tackle extremism by fighting poverty. You must tackle extremism by addressing the ideas that lead to extremism. And while social conditions can certainly act as a catalyst, extremism begins with the mind. How we perceive ourselves and the conditions in which we live in is what determines if we will become extremists or not. As I will reveal in this post, extremism often begins with noble aims. The basis of extremism is not hatred or destruction, as many people would have us believe. My personal experience has given me an appreciation for understanding how easily one can fall for extremism, and continue on that path, without realizing how destructive it is.

Changing My Surroundings

Most opportunities for change in oneself begin with a change in surroundings. We often continue thinking and behaving in the same way, as long as we are leading the same lifestyle, doing the same chores, going to the same places, meeting the same people and reading the same material. By default, we are influenced by our surroundings. As long as we’ve become numb to a large degree to external stimuli, we lack the motivation to think differently. Our thoughts are dependent on our experiences. Experience the same routine, and your mind will not feel it necessary to analyze your life any differently to how it has already analyzed it. Give it a new experience, and your mind will work to make sense of it, and may possibly re-evaluate your previous conditions.

The opportunity that helped me re-evaluate my life was when I left high school for university. I was in different surroundings, with different people. I wasn’t doing the same things or saying the same jokes, or thinking the same thoughts. I didn’t have to fill a role that I was filling in high school. I didn’t have to fulfill the expectations others had of me. I didn’t simply leave for university. I was handed over to myself to take elsewhere. I had to decide what to do with me now, and began to retrace my steps and asked myself whether I should continue on the same path or not.

An Inner Conflict

I touched on my reasons for becoming religious in my “About Me” page, but will give a more detailed account here.

My journey to extremism began, not out of poverty or hatred towards others, but an intense feeling of hypocrisy for having the reputation of being religious, while being selective on what I was “religious” about. The label “religious” is usually referred to one who chooses his actions according to God’s instructions. I chose my actions partly on God’s instructions, and partly on what I felt like doing. But if this was the case, then I didn’t really choose my actions *because* God has instructed me to, but because it became a habit to. I didn’t possess the principle of obeying God, but, due to my upbringing, have accepted that there are things I should do, and things that I shouldn’t. Therefore, I didn’t deserve the label of being “religious,” and I certainly couldn’t tell others to obey God, when I only did so by default, out of obedience to my parents. I couldn’t tell others to observe one part of Islam while I gave myself permission to ignore another part.

This feeling was so unbearable that I felt I no longer deserved the title, and didn’t want to be known as “religious.” But rather than announce this to the world, I thought to myself: “If I’m not following Islam fully, and only do so when it serves me, should I abandon the rest of Islam, or seek to follow it completely?”

During high school I would participate in sectarian debates between Shia and Sunni beliefs. I would argue with my friends, and be surprised how they wouldn’t accept my beliefs, when the evidence was so obvious. I expected them to be willing to abandon the beliefs they were brought up with, and embrace a new belief. But I didn’t know if I’d be willing to do the same, or whether I strongly believed in my sect because of the evidence that I saw, or that I saw the evidence according to my beliefs. Was I being fair in my reading of the evidence? Did I jump to conclusions to support my beliefs?

These questions contributed to the hypocrisy that I felt: I should be willing to fulfill any expectation I have of others. Was I really prepared to do what I expected others to do? How did I reach the certainty in my own beliefs? According to my beliefs themselves? How much did I invest in understanding other sects or religions? Did I approach other beliefs with the willingness to accept them if they were true?

I couldn’t ignore these issues, especially while pretending to represent something more than what I really am.

Resolving the Conflict

It wasn’t out of devotion to Islam that I became religious, but a desire to know the truth for what it is, and not to accept any falsehood masquerading as the truth.

At that point I wasn’t too clear on how to determine what the truth was, especially since I was never taught how this can be done. I was always taught to accept beliefs, and to know some of their reasons. But I took the beliefs for granted. I accepted them without questioning their validity. What I did acknowledge was that there is a way to know the truth, and before I could find out what the truth is, I had to discover what this way was.

Before making this discovery, I vowed that I will never abandon the truth, regardless of where it would take me. I wasn’t prepared to sacrifice the truth for my personal interests, or in order to please my parents, or my friends or anyone else. Most of my thinking was done while I addressed myself, and sometimes addressing God. And when I made this vow with myself, I knew that I didn’t really know for certain whether God existed, or if it was part of the beliefs that I inherited blindly. I also acknowledged that I didn’t understand evolution or philosophy fully to be able to think about this issue properly. But as part of my vow I added, addressing God: “And if I find out that you do not exist, I’m prepared to abandon my belief in you.”

I didn’t place any restrictions on myself, and didn’t want to have any attachment to anyone or anything that would compromise my pursuit of the truth. I thought about the Prophet, and what he might say if he saw me questioning his religion, or whether God approved of my venture. But if the Prophet came to bring the truth, then he will not be offended if one of his followers was sincere in his quest to find the truth. In fact, I knew that he would be proud of me for being honest with myself. And if God expected people to embrace Islam, then he also expected them to question their existing beliefs. And if the differences between the Islamic sects was important, then the follower of each sect should also be willing to objectively view the beliefs of the other sects, so that they can come to embrace the right sect.

The First Step

I was aware of my limited knowledge and ability to discover the truth for myself, and one of the things I wanted to resolve was the conflict between knowing the truth and acting on it. Throughout my whole life I believed Islam to be the true religion, but I didn’t treat it as such. I was prepared to know the truth, but act against it. I was prepared to know what’s right and do what’s wrong. Therefore, the first step I took was to bridge the gap between what I think is right, and what I do. Even if my beliefs are wrong, but I think them to be true, then I should be acting on them, so long as I believe them to be true. There should never be a contradiction between knowing the truth and acting on it.

This is why, before confirming whether Islam is the true religion or not, I began to pray on time, and tried my best to follow it fully, as much as I could. This would mean that I am resolving the conflict in my character (of knowing the truth and acting against it), but was searching for the truth at the same time. If I was to discover that I prayed incorrectly, or at the wrong times, or didn’t have to pray at all, I’d be prepared to make the shift, as long as it was what I believed to be true.

I wanted to be like clay that can be moulded in whatever way that suits the truth. I didn’t want to have any rigidity in my character that may reject the truth simply because it didn’t suit me.