IKIM VIEWS
By MD ASHAM AHMAD,
Fellow of Centre for Shariah, Law and Politics
To evaluate the arguments and bickering going on around us every day on TV and in the newspapers takes a critical mind coupled with sound judgment.SOME people erroneously think that open-mindedness means to accept all opinions and to avoid making judgment over those opinions.
A rational person will not make a blind, hasty or an uninformed judgment nor will he accept ideas and opinions indiscriminately.
He will listen to what others have to say and suspend judgment until what is being said is properly understood.
That is open-mindedness but ultimately, judgment has to be made regarding the true worth of an idea or opinion.
Life is about decision-making and every decision-making is actually a judgment that the decision is the correct one or the best among all other choices. So, everybody is basically a judge.
It is easy to judge. What is difficult is to make a sound (correct) judgment.
A wrong judgment could ruin one’s life and perhaps the life of others as well.
But life is too precious to be wasted just like that, hence every thinking person would work hard to make the best of his or her life.
Everyone desires to live a good life. But what is actually a good life?
More than 2,000 years ago, Socrates proclaimed that “an unexamined life is not worth living”.
To live an examined life means to live a conscious life. It means not to take things for granted.
Actually, that is what a rational human being would do.
He would carefully and critically examine the soundness of all the premises upon which important decisions in life are made.
In order to do that, he must be able to gather facts and evaluate them intelligently.
He must also be able to express his ideas clearly and concisely using the correct and proper words.
He would do all that because he is very concerned with misjudgment or wrong judgment, because he values his life.
Just consider for a moment all the arguments and bickering that are going on around us every day on TV and in the newspapers.
Some social scientists are trying to convince us that our society is not progressing well because the way we understand and practise our religion is no longer relevant.
Some religious leaders are so supportive of a certain popular motivation programme while others are telling us all that it is against Islam.
Politicians and social activists are arguing and disagreeing among each other as to which policy is best to promote unity among the citizens.
To tell the difference between what is right and what is wrong, or between what is true and what is false, one must have adequate knowledge.
To say “this act is wrong” or “that statement is false” means to propose that a particular act or statement is contradictory to what is right and true.
It assumes the person knows the difference between a true and false statement about reality and the difference between what is right and what is wrong in terms of human conduct.
To arrive at that knowledge one must have a critical mind and know the right techniques or methods needed.
Behind all the issues, questions and suggestions posed by social scientists, religious leaders, politicians and social activists are certain facts which must be researched, analysed, defined, discovered, uncovered and so on.
Only a critical mind will be able to evaluate the arguments underlying an advertisement, the finding of a scientific study or the most recent survey presented to us in the media and tell what’s true, what’s false and what really doesn’t matter at all.
Instead of appealing to the intelligence through logical argument, it is easier and more effective to use rhetoric (the art of persuasion) by appealing to feelings and emotions.
Politicians, then and now, are notorious for their use of rhetoric to promote and defend corrupt ideas in order to gain money, fame and power.
They know that not many people are intelligent enough to weigh arguments and verify the evidence presented to them.
Today, rhetoric coupled with rigorous advertising and public relations exercises are used extensively to influence public opinion.
Rhetoric uses language without logic while advertising and public relations manipulate images and events to mislead the innocent public. And those who control the media easily control one’s choices and decisions.
Democracy, by the way, is about who commands the support of the majority, not about who is right or wrong.
Free media, in the sense of being free from political affiliation or patronage, does not guarantee that people would have the freedom of choice.
The public has to be freed first of all from ignorance.
They have to be made aware of the assumptions, inconsistencies and contradictions of the politicians on major issues affecting them.
Who else can do that more effectively than the scholars?
This, however, will not happen if the scholars themselves are corrupt because “corruption of the best is corruption at its worst”.
It is indeed worse than the corruption of the politicians and public administrators.
Hence, universities should not be allowed to be the breeding ground for corrupt leaders devoid of intellectual and moral integrity.
Professors who profess nothing other than their allegiance to their political masters should not teach in our universities.
They will only perpetuate cowardice and flattery.
