Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib, in a letter to malaysiakini last month projected the amazing view that Islam is not a dogma, but Darwinism is.

To the best of my knowledge, it is the opposite that is true. As there might be a different perception to the meaning of dogma here I am obliged to substantiate my differing view by defining it. I have first to describe and or analyse two words relevant to it, knowledge and theory.

First, knowledge. Knowledge is divisible into two, definite and indefinite. Indefinite knowledge is one unsubstantiated by evidence or fact, its existence being based largely on unqualified and blind acceptance.

Indefinite knowledge belongs to imagination, superstition, legend, fairytale, speculation, taboo, hearsay, prejudice, religion, and magic and the spirits. They are generally passed down from one person to another, from one generation to another, without any skepticism, criticism, and doubt.

A statement like 'An angel has two wings' would serve as an example of indefinite knowledge, for no one really have seen an angel to begin with, so no one could really substantiate its existence, let alone ascertaining it having two wings. An angel exists only in the human imagination.

Definite knowledge on the other hand is based on facts and evidence, on matters that appeal to human reason. 'A cow has four legs' should serve as an illustration. Everybody from any corner of the globe would agree that a cow has four legs. It has universal acceptance.

Understanding theory

Secondly, a theory. A theory begins with a hypothesis, a tentative and preliminary understanding of some unknown things or ideas. On the Darwin theory of evolution that mankind is descendant from apes we can imagine some scientists digging and collecting prehistoric chimpanzee bones in the wilderness of Africa.

They then begin assembling some sets of bones largely apelike in their general features, but gradually developing manlike features like larger cranial or brain capacity, and longer hind limbs.

Larger brain means a developing mental power and capability, and longer and stronger hind limbs suggest the vital ability to walk upright. Together they hinted strongly to the origin and anatomical points of departure of humans from apes. We can then imagine scientists hypothesising thus: 'The shape, size and general features of these fossilised bones indicate the gradual evolution of apes to hominids, the earliest form of man.'

The leap from ape to man to be sure did not happen overnight, it happened about four million years ago. Nor did it happen suddenly, like a chimpanzee mother suddenly giving birth to a human baby boy one day.

Evolution is a gradual process and taking place over a long period of time. Scientists say there have been many 'versions' of hominids before the Homo sapiens, that's us, emerged.

On Darwinism

Finally, a dogma. A dogma begins with a doctrine. It is an idea or sets of ideas which are unsubstantiated, thus belonging to the indefinite knowledge category. But despite the absence of substantiation, it is presented to a society for acceptance.

The concept of monotheism is an example of a doctrine. In the history of religion Abraham (or Ibrahim) bandied about the idea of monotheism to the Arabs who were largely polytheists.

Once a doctrine gains acceptance by society, it displays a particular characteristic or feature. It assumes a life, which like other form of life refuses to die. The way it does this is by coercing the society to continue believing in the original message of the doctrine, on the pain of some punishment should it refused.

On monotheism (as an example again), it says that there is only one god. Once they do believe so, they must continue to believe in it, and must never deviate from it, on pain of going to hell in the hereafter. Coercion and compulsion comes strongly out, together with the punishment set out for recalcitrant believers. This principle of coercion and punishment is integral to a dogma.

I have to interject here that, between theory and dogma, only dogma that contains this element of coercion and punishment. A scientific theory does not have it. It leaves only to the sense of rationality of an individual or society whether or not to accept a theory or to reject it completely.

Dogma does not leave a person in peace. It hounds its adherents to keep on believing in its messages by reminding them about its array of punishments.

With this brief background description and to surmise, let's see whether or not Darwinism is a theory or a dogma.

On the statement that man is descendant from apes, this hypothesis is backed by data, facts and evidence. It belongs to the category of definite knowledge. It has gone through the process of examination and evaluation from hypothesis to theory. Darwinism is now a firm scientific theory.

Either Abdul Rahman accepts it, or he does not; the choice is entirely his. The length a theory stays current the better it is, for it means that no one has yet been able to refute it.

As for Islam, it begins as a doctrine, a form of indefinite knowledge, centering on monotheism. It was bandied for acceptance by Abraham. Once gaining acceptance this doctrine shows an inherent will to live and to stay alive.

The believers in the One God are compelled not to deviate from it. Islam for instance forbids the very thought of duplicating God. A Muslim must never even harbour the thought, the merest conceptual possibility that there could be another form of the Almighty. There is a penalty for those who would still deviate despite this stern warning, the perpetual fires of hell.

Higher plane

Abdul Rahman has no option open to him: he has to accept the concept of monotheism for otherwise he will be branded apostasy and be in the queue to go to hell.

Based on this definition and the reality, I do say that it is Islam is obviously a dogma, and Darwinism a very strong scientific theory.

Abdul Rahman might find my definition and analysis startling, offensive, and insulting. If indeed he does so, it is because any person is jealous of his perception of truth, and religious truth is topmost in the list.

But I do encourage him to have a second look to the meaning of dogma which I have tried to explain above, which I believe is more universally accepted. If he still finds my definition wrong I defend his right to retain his understanding.

My request is for him not dismiss my explanations the standard way this matter or issues similar to this have been treated by orthodox Malay-Muslim thinking:
- By way of character assassination: by questioning my religious qualification;
- By dismissing my line of argument as berfikir secara barat or thinking the Western way;
- By reasserting that only the ulama are qualified to give any judgment on religious issues; or
- By flaunting the dictates of dogma; that I should repent immediately on pain of going to hell.

These are the blas lines of defence of closed-minded souls running away from issues they claim to champion, but have little competence and confidence to defend.

But I do commend Abdul Rahman for taking the discussion of religion on to a higher conceptual and intellectual plane as it should be.

Specifically in this case he was chiding Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad for stating that Islam is nothing more than a Middle East dogma, which Abdul Rahman vehemently denied and which prompted me to project my present views and observations.

The point to note is that this debate is limited to the periphery of concepts and ideas. There has been no frontal personal attack made by Abdul Rahman on Syed Alwi as an individual. I detect here a form of Darwinist evolution taking place in the Malay mind, which merits nurturing and supporting.

I look forward to the day when the mainstream Malay-Muslim community can, as a matter of course, debate and discus religion as a concept and body of ideas and with level-headed rationality. It should never be dismissed arrogantly and dare I say, dogmatically.

AB SULAIMAN is a malaysiakini reader.