Twenty Common Mistakes in Critical Writings (with an attached case study: UIUK article)
By: Farhad Shafti
May 2017
Note: This is the general article on the above title. There is also a case study with detail technical comments that is attached to this general article by a hyperlink that can be found at the end of the Preface and at the end of the article.
Preface:
Writing a critical piece on a view point is a delicate matter. With due deliberation and care a critical writing can provide the readers and the two sides with a fantastic opportunity for an in depth learning of a subject. However a not very professional and well written criticism can work mostly against us by exposing the shortcomings of our knowledge, defects in our analysis and possibly dogmatism in our mind-set.
Being an academic, writing critical pieces and evaluating critical writings have been my job for more than two decades at this time. I cannot claim that I am now a perfect critic, but I think I have the right to say that I have enough experience to notice and write about some of the common mistakes and weaknesses in critical writing.
When I received a detailed article in response to the first edition of my article on Universality of the Qur’an (the second edition is now available from here) I was first very happy for the opportunity of having a rational dialogue. My happiness very quickly turned into disappointment when I noticed that the article that was sent to me had violated moral ethics of criticism. My first decision was to ignore the whole article. However I then decided to take the opportunity and turn my response to this article into an educational material on Common Mistakes in Critical Writings. After all I have been a teacher for most of my adult life, and I consider it my duty to use every opportunity to learn and to share that learning with others so that I can learn more.
In this article I have pointed out twenty common mistakes in critical writing. I have tried to explain each of these items first on a general basis, and then, where applies, by giving examples from the article that was sent to me. Then I have used the article that was sent to me as a Case Study where I added my detailed comments on the margins of the document. At the end of nineteen out of the following twenty points I have pointed out the corresponding Comments in the case study article. There are too long and too detailed and are not aimed for a general reader. My specific target audience for these marginal comments are only those very few students of Islam who want to take the opportunity to learn more by comparing two different arguments in detail, no matter which side they would favour. I will use this case study in an online class on Principles of Criticism, which I will run in near future.
The case study article (i.e. the article that was sent to me along with my comments on the margins) can be found here: “Case Study Article for Common Mistakes in Critical Writings ISLAM-A RELIGION OF MANKIND OR THE RELIGION FOR MANKIND” (once the pdf file is opened in a new tab, hold down the Ctrl key and press + on your keyboard several times to make the fort of the comments in the margins large enough for reading. Alternatively you can download the file by right clicking on this link and saving it. Then open the file and zoom in for 150% to read the comments on the margins easier).
The twenty common mistakes in criticism are explained in the rest of this article:
**********
1. Moral Ethics of Criticism:
There are two approaches in discussing reasons with others:
In one approach we see each other as students of truth. None of us believes that we know and we possess the whole truth. None of us casts doubt on the honesty of the other person.
The implication of this approach will be that we are keen to hear an opposite view because we never rule out the possibility that we may be wrong. When hearing an opposite view we consider it our duty to fully understand it before even starting to think how to criticise it. When we criticise an opposite view we respect the fact that the other person sees things differently and we appreciate and adore the opportunity that has been materialised for sharing our findings in our common path of searching for the truth. This even prompts us to demand our audience to appreciate the exchange of the reasons rather than to side with one argument and condemn the other one right at the start.
Then there is a different approach. This time we are almost certain that we know all the truth and we find it very unlikely that we may be wrong. Moreover, we think that the truth that we have found is so crystal clear that not appreciating it can only be due to three factors: stupidity, ill intentions, or both!
The implication of the above is that when we criticise a view, we see ourselves as the defenders of the truth and we see the other side as the one who is attacking the truth. Further, since we think what we believe in is crystal clear, we have no way but to consider the opposite view to have some agendas in mind, so we begin to see his reasoning not an honest endeavour in the path of the truth, but an attempt ‘in order’ to fulfill those agendas. This is when an honest view point on the Qur'an, Islam and the prophet (pbuh) will be seen as an attempt "in order to" diminish the religion and religious sources, only because that view point is different from ours. This is when we start criticising the person with a judgmental language and a language that is more patriotic rather than rational and our criticism will look like warning the reader against a “dangerous view”, rather than humbly sharing our opposing reason with the audience and allowing the audience to decide which reasoning is stronger.
The first approach is in line with the moral ethics of criticism and the worse that can happen is that we may find that our reasoning was wrong. The second approach is not in accordance to the moral ethics of criticism. Here, the least bad thing that can happen is that we hold ourselves responsible in this world and in the hereafter for making unfound accusations against another human being.
Unfortunately there are a number of instances of statements that are not at all in line with moral ethics of criticism in the attached case study and I do not like to bring examples here. The general tone is based on the second approach. As far as I know, I have reached some conclusions about the truth that are different from the traditional views and this was through my honest endeavor and after many years of studies, much deliberation, consultation and seeking critical review of my reasoning. However according to the authors of the case study article the story is totally different: I provide my reasoning "in order" to "discredit" the truth.
[In the attached case study these are referred to by my comments number S28, S41, S42, S96, S102, S115, S138, S139, S154, S158]
2. Technical Ethics of Criticism:
Beside the important moral ethics of criticism, there are certain unwritten but generally accepted rules of criticism that can be referred to as the technical ethics of criticism. The main objective of technical ethics of criticism is to avoid making comments that can only confuse the reader without adding any value to the criticism. Since this is an important subject that can only be clarified with examples, I will explain the three main instances in which the technical ethics have not been observed in the attached case study article:
a. When we criticise a view, we first need to appreciate the terminologies that are used in that view even if we think that this terminology is not correct. This will make the link between the view and its criticism clear for the reader. However if the critic at the very start of the article announces that he does not agree with these terminologies and therefore is not going to use them in his writing, then the reader will not be able to clearly understand the criticism. The critic can always mention that for the reasons that will be explained he disagrees with these terminologies, however he should still keep using them for the sake of discussion. Right at the beginning of the criticism in attached article (p. 9*) the authors announce that they do not appreciate my terms of General and Specific Universality of the Qur’an. The result of this is that they make statements in the article that I can say I fully agree with or I can say I fully disagree with, depending on the angle through which we are looking at them.
* note: page numbers in this writing refer to those in the attached case study article that is extended in space to allow comments on margin. These are not the same page numbers as in the original format of the article.
b. One of the most important merits of a writing is in respecting the mental ability of the readers. When we provide strong reasoning, we do not then need to decorate it with campaign type statements. Statements like “The above arguments given by the Author carry no substance”, “These statements are based on misunderstandings which can be easily cleared”, “(these are) in fact clear misunderstandings”, “Please read the very detailed and enlightening commentary of Islahi and Ghamidi on these verses which clearly show the mistake of the Author”; are disrespect to the reader. They basically serve to mean “this is what you – the reader – have to conclude now”. If we insist that what we are criticising is a very clear misunderstanding then our very hard work to criticise it can go under question.
c. One of the most obvious rules of criticism is that our criticism should be on the material that are officially published by the writer as his views. To criticise something that is not published is like talking to someone that does not exist! In page 56 the authors criticise a point that does not exist. Our haste to find a mistake in someone’s work should not lead us to target something that is not there otherwise it only discredit our own writing.
[Only some of the examples related to the Technical Merits of criticism and the consequences of not following them are pointed out in the attached case study article in the following comments: S12, S19, S29, S33, S34, S46, S55, S74, S98, S147, S155]
3. Assuming the Role of Representative:
None of us has the right to say or write that this is or that is not what ‘Muslims’ say. This is because not all Muslims have a same view about Islam and more importantly because none of us are representative of Muslims. Similarly, none of us are representatives of Islam. We all simply have an understanding about Islam that normally is correct to some extent and incorrect to some extent.
Example of this in the attached case study is where the authors make statements to the effect that “this or that is the Muslims understanding”. The authors of the article in the case study know very well that they do not represent Muslims at all, and that some of the main scholars that they learn from (and I fully respect) are known (very unjustly and wrongly) by many of the mainstream scholars as fitnah. I never claimed I represented Muslims and I don’t think that the authors can make such claim either. In particular if such claim also violates the Moral Ethics of criticism by implying that anyone who does not believe the same is not a Muslim.
[Instances of Assuming the Role of Representative in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S37, S41]
4. Basic vs. Rich Criticism
When criticising a view we may simply express what we think by the most obvious counter argument to that view and assume that the author did not know that counter argument or did not pay enough attention to it and was therefore wrong in his conclusions. While this approach is not objectionable, it does not provide the reader with an opportunity for an in-depth study of the subject either. Often this approach provides a false image of the writing that is under criticism, as it causes the less educated readers to underestimate the strength of the arguments and the depth of the view of the writer. This is the approach that I refer to as Basic Criticism.
Another approach is what I refer to as Rich Criticism. Here, the keen students of truth who intend criticising a view point sometimes even put themselves in the position of a humble student of the holder of that view point in order to fully understand it with all its dimensions, before criticising it. In this approach you do not attribute almost all of the arguments of your academic opponent to clear misunderstandings and confusions. Rather you try to fully understand the view point and the premises from which these arguments are developed and formulated. By following this approach in criticising an author, we will provide our readers with not only a rich source of deliberation but also a fair one, where we do not give impression that the arguments that we are opposing are clearly weak and product of clear misunderstandings.
I try to illustrate the above two approaches with an example. Imagine you have a friend who is a professional football player. One day you hear that your friend says that the size of the football pitches differ. You may choose to approach this in a very basic level by saying “he is obviously confused, as the size of the football pitch is standard”. You may choose to take a more difficult but a richer approach and appreciate that a football player that makes such claim for sure knows about standards of a football pitch, so he may have some more detailed arguments that you need to explore before attempting to challenge his view.
In the attached article the authors have made the writings of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi and Amin Ahsan Islahi as their basis and they frequently refer to these scholars and invite the readers to read their arguments “which clear the subject in a convincing manner”. There seems to be no interest in their writing to take the reader beyond the viewpoints of these two scholars. Judging from their writing, the authors seem to be not only totally unaware of the newly developed line of modern scholarship in the past century but also do not show any appreciation of some of the relevant writings of our traditional scholars. Even within the line of scholarship of Islahi and Ghamdi there is no attention to the fact that the teacher of these two scholars, Imam Farahi, expresses a view in one of his books (quoted in my article) that is very much close to the view that I presented and far different from the views of his students.
There is another surprising fact in the attached article. The authors know that I know the approach of Ghamidi and Islahi very well, had been direct student of Ghamidi and had taught his views for more than a decade before revising my views. They know that I have discussed my revised views with Ghamidi in detail. With a little deliberation they could easily appreciate that I was fully aware of Ghamidi’s and Islahi’s arguments that go against mine and yet found mine more convincing. This could prompt a keen student of truth to try to understand my view points in more detail and depth in order to provide a much richer response to them. Despite the availability of resources to do so there is no sign that the authors had any interest in doing so. As the result, many of my comments on their article were only to remind or repeat my views and arguments or to clarify the authors' misunderstandings, rather than to provide a response to a new counter argument.
[Instances of the above basic approach in criticism in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S36, S50, S53, S56, S74, S130, S131, S133]
5. Populism
Populism is one of the most unprofessional attitudes in criticism. In a populism approach the writer instead of providing proper reasons, makes statements that are appealing to the less educated readers. In particular if the subject is religion, the role of populism can be very strong. Followers of every religion have some sensitive beliefs and norms. The writer can easily trigger these by making statements that give impression that the person whose views are criticised has rejected or violated one of the crucial pillars of the religion. In the streets of a religious city a person can be killed by shouting “he/she burned the Qur’an”. The mob will first kill the person, and only then try to figure out if the accusation was correct! Similarly, in a piece of writing one can shout by typing “he believes in such and such”, and thus guarantee that the person under criticism will be immediately perceived by less educated readers as a heretic and therefore not even deserving to be heard.
There are many examples of populism approach in the attached case study. For instance in page 54 the authors claim that the implication of my views is that it is perfectly fine to bow to idols! This is while I have very clearly condemned such beliefs and acts in my article. There is absolutely no difference between such statements and those who are directly responsible for murder of innocent people by shouting and attributing false things to those people.
[Instances of populism in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S114, S134, S138, S139, S168, S170]
6. Circular Argument:
Circular argument is a very famous flawed argument in the science of logic. It refers to the situation when we argue that A is correct because B is correct and B is correct because A is correct.
In the case study article, in an overall view, I see the whole premise to be based on a circular argument. The authors first explain what they think religion, Islam and the Qur’an are. They then interpret the verses of the Qur’an according to this thought, and then they argue that due to those verses, the thought is correct!
The above is the overall trend of the case study article in my view, but a more specific example is in page 35 where the authors interpret a verse based on their views and argue at the same time that the verse is an evidence for their view.
[Instances of Circular Argument in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S70, S82, S110]
7. The Delicate Matter of Context
This in particular applies to religious criticism, and reasoning based on the Qur’an specifically. There is absolutely no doubt that any verse of the Qur’an has to be interpreted within the context. However the argument of “within the context/ Out of the context” is one that can be used by anyone in order to justify or reject an interpretation of the Qur’an. The problem starts when the person believes in a particular interpretation of the verse, then conveniently argues for that interpretation and argues against any other interpretation by bringing up the concept of context. What actually happens in these situations is that the writer interprets the verses of the Qur’an based on the context of his beliefs, thinking that he is guided by the context of the verse Itself.
Example of the above in the attached case study is in pages 29 – 32, where the authors first state their assumption as a matter of fact and argue that all people of the book are supposed to follow the shari’ah of Islam. They list a number of verses of the Qur’an while not even a single verse among them instructs the people of the book to follow the shari’ah of Islam. The authors then review the verses in the sura of Ma’idah with the context that is formed by this assumption and argue at the end that this is actually the context of these verses.
When it comes to the context in the Qur'an, the following point should be carefully considered:
The most important contextual observation when looking at the Qur'an (which is also true for any other text) is the theme of the Book and the theme of every chapter of the Book. Any analysis of context should go through the hierarchical levels of contextual themes. This starts from the overarching context of 'theme of the Qur'an'. From there and while remaining loyal to this overarching theme, such analysis should then find its way down through the themes in the next levels, that is, in 'group of chapters' where the chapter containing the verse is located, then the chapter in which the verse is located, then the group of verses surrounding the verse under analysis and then the verse itself.
[In the attached case study article this is explained in comments S43, S47, S70]
8. Generalisation:
Many of us may associate ourselves with certain school of thought and certain views that belong to that school of thought. There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, this helps with structuring our thoughts. However when it comes to criticising a view point, we need to make sure that we do not refer to these school-of-thought-specific views as obvious facts. We may do so when we are discussing with people who are associating themselves with the same school of thought but when it comes to other people, we need to first try to prove these specific scholarly views, and only then use them as a basis to criticise another person’s view.
An example of this in the attached case study article is the way that the authors conveniently divide the guidance of God into three phases by writing: “Hence we can see that Allah (swt)’s guidance has three phases” and later refer to this as “the correct position which can be easily understood from the Qur’an” (p. 6, 26). The way this is written gives impression to less educated readers that these are agreed among facts. This is while these are simply based on the scholarly opinion of two great contemporary scholars.
[Instances of Generalisation in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S3, S52, S79, S115, S133]
9. Inconsistent Basis:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with relying on the views of a particular scholar, just as there is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting only some of the views of a particular scholar. However when we make an argument based on the premises that are set by a particular scholar, then we need to make sure that we illustrate these premises correctly and do not misrepresenting them, otherwise the basis of our framework of criticism will be shaking.
An example of this is the fact that the authors have written their article almost wholly based on the teachings of Islahi and Ghamidi, inviting readers to read the interpretations of these scholars five times in their article. Yet, where they are writing within the domain of the theories of these scholars, they at times make a comment that is not in line with these theories. For instance the assertion that Bani Israel, as a race, were exclusively chosen to enlighten the human beings at their time, and that the absence of the term Bani Ishmael from the Qur’an means this is different for Muslims (p. 8). This argument is also labelled as Illogical Deduction as can be seen in my comments.
[Instances of Inconsistent Basis in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S5, S6, S162]
10. Ignoring a Fact due to It being Mentioned for a Particular Reason:
This can be best illustrated by the following example:
When I want to remind my younger friend that he is not the only person who has facing challenges in his life, I may say, I had gone through much challenges in my life. The reason I am saying this is to comfort my friend by making him realise that he is not the only person who feels life challenges. This however does not cancel out the fact that I have seen challenges in my life, unless of course I am lying!
The application of this in analysing the verses of the Qur’an is very important. The Qur’an was revealed in a time and a place where different groups of the addressees of the Book had variety of dynamics among themselves and with the prophet (pbuh). Certainly many verses of the Qur’an were revealed to address a particular issue at the time. This however does not cancel out the factual information that these verses are giving.
An example of this is in page 32 where the authors explain why the verse 5:43 was revealed and form there they conclude that (despite the verse literally saying it) the Jews in Arabia were not supposed to follow the Torah after the coming of the prophet (pbuh).
[Instances of the above in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S54, S71, S72, S75]
11. Proof for Existence, No Proof for Non-Existence
It is one of the most basic rules of logic that we only need evidence to prove something exists, we do not need to bring evidence to prove something does not exist. If I challenge someone who claims that there is a dragon living in the river Thames in London, logically he cannot challenging me back by demanding me to bring evidences that there is no dragon living in the river Thames!
This most certainly applies to the matter of religion as well. It will be illogical if I demand someone to prove evidence that God does not exist, or that the Qur’an has not been revealed by God. Rather, it will be my responsibility to bring evidences to prove these statements.
Example of this in the attached case study is where in page 36 the authors argue that since they believe that the Jews and Christians had to follow the shari’ah of Islam, hence it is my responsibility to bring evidences otherwise. As I have explained in my comment, while I have brought many evidences from the Qur’an that in my understanding are explicitly against this belief, the fact remains that it is the authors’ responsibility to bring a verse of the Qur’an to support their claim.
[In the attached case study article this is referred to in my comment number S85]
12. Ignoring an Argument:
When we criticise a view point we need to make sure that we do not rely on something that the author has argued against it, unless we first address that argument. If we ignore the argument that is provided by the author then we are leaving holes in our criticism.
For example in page 24 the authors quote my interpretation of verses 6:92 and 42:7 and then by comparing these verses with some other verses they conclude that my interpretation was wrong. In doing so, they totally ignore the important technical point that I made about these verses that makes them incomparable and in a totally different level, with regard to other similar verses of the Qur’an.
[Instances of Ignoring and Argument in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S3, S45, S46, S59, S61, S65, S66, S78, S89, S121, S163]
13. Missing the Point:
Missing the point is a milder version of ignoring an argument. Here the argument is not ignored and it is indeed addressed by the critic, however the core point of the argument is misunderstood and therefore the criticism is not even relevant. It is important that when we criticise an argument we first make sure that we fully understand the argument. We will lose the trust of the reader if he feels that we are missing the point in our criticism.
For example in page 56 the authors assume that my source of recognising akhlaq (morality) was the verses of the Qur’an and Bible, while, as I clearly implied by the expression “obvious rules of morality” my source was the human beings themselves.
[Instances of missing the point in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S20, S26, S30, S31, S32, S51, S103, S105, S107, S111, S148, S159, S160, S168]
14. Illogical Deduction:
Obviously any argument can be considered as illogical deduction by the person who disagrees him. On that basis, I see all the arguments by the authors to be illogical deduction while obviously they too have the same view about my arguments.
However, sometimes an illogical deduction is so obvious that noticing it will no longer become subjective to the views of a person, and basic rules of logic are enough to easily show the flaw in the deduction.
Example of this is in page 23 where the authors argue that heaven or hell is the destiny of all human beings and the Qur’an has mentioned heaven and hell, therefore it can be concluded that the Qur’an was sent for all human beings to follow it.
[Instances of Illogical Deduction in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S6, S21, S44]
15. Confusion between Evidence and Associating Facts:
Although this too can be categorised as an illogical deduction, but since this is a very important common mistake and it has happened in the attached article more than once, I thought it deserved a separate explanation.
The best way of explaining this is with a simple example. You are watching your guest at home and you notice that he wore his jacket. You immediately conclude that it is cold. When you ask him however he explains that he wore his jacket because he wanted to dress more formal. The reason you have made such wrong conclusion is that you confuse what is an associating fact (that when people are cold they wear more dress) with the actual evidence (whether the temperature is really below the norm). I have seen this same mistake happening in many religious discussions.
An example of this in the attached article is in page 13 where the authors argue that since the Qur’an was preserved and rearranged therefore this means that it was sent for all human beings. Normally the best way of realising this mistake and verifying such statements is to consider the reverse logic. Is this statements correct: “If it is not cold then no one wears jacket!”. Just as this statement is incorrect, the following too is incorrect: “If a divine book is not revealed for the whole mankind, then the primary addressees will not preserve and rearrange it!”.
(For information, there is another similar logical confusion that I refer to as 16. Confusion between Evidence and Reason. This is where the writer discusses and justifies the reason that something takes place, instead of first proving with evidences that the thing does takes place.)
[Instances of Confusion between Evidence and Associating Facts in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S22, S23, S49, S108]
17. Unverifiable Statement:
One of the necessary characteristics of ‘Reasoning’ is that it should be capable of being studied and verified, and therefore accepted or rejected. A statement that is too general that cannot be verified is not a reason, it is more like a propaganda.
For example in the attached case study the authors write in page 15: “Anybody who reads the Quran even superficially would be convinced that the Book is generic in its message and addresses the whole of mankind.” This is not a reason simply because there is no way to verify if this is true (besides the fact that I know many people who have a different perception when they read the Qur’an).
[Instances of Unverifiable Statement in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S24, S27]
18. Denying Instead of Rejecting:
As a thinker we have every right to reject an argument with reasons. However not agreeing with an argument does not give us the right to deny that there was an argument. This will not be fair to the readers who may actually be interested in the argument that we deny its existence.
Example of this is in page 20 where the authors deny that I have provided any evidences. It would have been more accurate if instead they would have argued that evidences were provided but to the writers’ understanding, they were not satisfactory.
[The instance of Denying Instead of Rejecting in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S18, S35]
19. Misquoting/Mispresenting:
The reader needs to be able to trust that when we quote something we quote it correctly, or that when we claim that a person has a particular view, that is correct. If the reader feels that he needs to double check every time, then he will lose trust in our reasoning and conclusions as well. The instances of misquoting or mispresenting my views in the attached article are many. These will in particular become very seriously unfair when considering that what is attributed to me is not only wrong, but is something that is a very sensitive issue.
For example in page 54 the authors argue that to me there is nothing wrong with belief in trinity or idol worshiping! This is while I have clearly pointed out that any belief that is against the values that the Qur’an gives us are wrong. We need to be very careful in quoting someone or presenting one’s views, as attributing false views to a person who does not hold those views is an obvious violation of moral ethics of criticism.
[Instances of misquoting/mispresenting in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S13, S14, S26, S37, S58, S60, S84, S97, S99, S101, S119, S120, S136, S138, S140, S169, S171]
20. Confusion of Specifics and Generics:
Many years ago I was arguing with a person who had the view that the Qur’an contains knowledge of everything. When I asked him what the cure of Alzheimer was according to the Qur’an he replied that the Qur’an advised us to gain knowledge, gaining knowledge leads to cure to Alzheimer!
We need to appreciate that there is a difference between generic references and specific references. I can say that I will make a statement in which I address all the problems of life. The statement is as follows: “all the problems of life need to be treated with patience”. Yes I have addressed all the problems of life but is this going to help? The answer is no, because I addressed them with a generic statement rather than a specific one.
Example of such confusion in the case study is where in page 21 the authors argue that all human societies of all times can be divided in certain categories and the Qur’an has addressed all these categories, therefore the Qur’an has fully discussed the beliefs and ailments of all the societies in the world.
[The instance of Confusion of Specifics and Generics in the attached case study article is pointed out in the comment S38]
**********
Again, those students of Islam who want to study arguments and counter arguments in detail can download the case study article with my detailed comments on the margins of the document: “Case Study Article for Common Mistakes in Critical Writings ISLAM-A RELIGION OF MANKIND OR THE RELIGION FOR MANKIND” (once the pdf file is opened in a new tab, hold down the Ctrl key and press + on your keyboard several times to make the fort of the comments in the margins large enough for reading. Alternatively you can download the file by right clicking on this link and saving it. Then open the file and zoom in for 150% to read the comments on the margins easier).
May 2017
Note: This is the general article on the above title. There is also a case study with detail technical comments that is attached to this general article by a hyperlink that can be found at the end of the Preface and at the end of the article.
Preface:
Writing a critical piece on a view point is a delicate matter. With due deliberation and care a critical writing can provide the readers and the two sides with a fantastic opportunity for an in depth learning of a subject. However a not very professional and well written criticism can work mostly against us by exposing the shortcomings of our knowledge, defects in our analysis and possibly dogmatism in our mind-set.
Being an academic, writing critical pieces and evaluating critical writings have been my job for more than two decades at this time. I cannot claim that I am now a perfect critic, but I think I have the right to say that I have enough experience to notice and write about some of the common mistakes and weaknesses in critical writing.
When I received a detailed article in response to the first edition of my article on Universality of the Qur’an (the second edition is now available from here) I was first very happy for the opportunity of having a rational dialogue. My happiness very quickly turned into disappointment when I noticed that the article that was sent to me had violated moral ethics of criticism. My first decision was to ignore the whole article. However I then decided to take the opportunity and turn my response to this article into an educational material on Common Mistakes in Critical Writings. After all I have been a teacher for most of my adult life, and I consider it my duty to use every opportunity to learn and to share that learning with others so that I can learn more.
In this article I have pointed out twenty common mistakes in critical writing. I have tried to explain each of these items first on a general basis, and then, where applies, by giving examples from the article that was sent to me. Then I have used the article that was sent to me as a Case Study where I added my detailed comments on the margins of the document. At the end of nineteen out of the following twenty points I have pointed out the corresponding Comments in the case study article. There are too long and too detailed and are not aimed for a general reader. My specific target audience for these marginal comments are only those very few students of Islam who want to take the opportunity to learn more by comparing two different arguments in detail, no matter which side they would favour. I will use this case study in an online class on Principles of Criticism, which I will run in near future.
The case study article (i.e. the article that was sent to me along with my comments on the margins) can be found here: “Case Study Article for Common Mistakes in Critical Writings ISLAM-A RELIGION OF MANKIND OR THE RELIGION FOR MANKIND” (once the pdf file is opened in a new tab, hold down the Ctrl key and press + on your keyboard several times to make the fort of the comments in the margins large enough for reading. Alternatively you can download the file by right clicking on this link and saving it. Then open the file and zoom in for 150% to read the comments on the margins easier).
The twenty common mistakes in criticism are explained in the rest of this article:
**********
1. Moral Ethics of Criticism:
There are two approaches in discussing reasons with others:
In one approach we see each other as students of truth. None of us believes that we know and we possess the whole truth. None of us casts doubt on the honesty of the other person.
The implication of this approach will be that we are keen to hear an opposite view because we never rule out the possibility that we may be wrong. When hearing an opposite view we consider it our duty to fully understand it before even starting to think how to criticise it. When we criticise an opposite view we respect the fact that the other person sees things differently and we appreciate and adore the opportunity that has been materialised for sharing our findings in our common path of searching for the truth. This even prompts us to demand our audience to appreciate the exchange of the reasons rather than to side with one argument and condemn the other one right at the start.
Then there is a different approach. This time we are almost certain that we know all the truth and we find it very unlikely that we may be wrong. Moreover, we think that the truth that we have found is so crystal clear that not appreciating it can only be due to three factors: stupidity, ill intentions, or both!
The implication of the above is that when we criticise a view, we see ourselves as the defenders of the truth and we see the other side as the one who is attacking the truth. Further, since we think what we believe in is crystal clear, we have no way but to consider the opposite view to have some agendas in mind, so we begin to see his reasoning not an honest endeavour in the path of the truth, but an attempt ‘in order’ to fulfill those agendas. This is when an honest view point on the Qur'an, Islam and the prophet (pbuh) will be seen as an attempt "in order to" diminish the religion and religious sources, only because that view point is different from ours. This is when we start criticising the person with a judgmental language and a language that is more patriotic rather than rational and our criticism will look like warning the reader against a “dangerous view”, rather than humbly sharing our opposing reason with the audience and allowing the audience to decide which reasoning is stronger.
The first approach is in line with the moral ethics of criticism and the worse that can happen is that we may find that our reasoning was wrong. The second approach is not in accordance to the moral ethics of criticism. Here, the least bad thing that can happen is that we hold ourselves responsible in this world and in the hereafter for making unfound accusations against another human being.
Unfortunately there are a number of instances of statements that are not at all in line with moral ethics of criticism in the attached case study and I do not like to bring examples here. The general tone is based on the second approach. As far as I know, I have reached some conclusions about the truth that are different from the traditional views and this was through my honest endeavor and after many years of studies, much deliberation, consultation and seeking critical review of my reasoning. However according to the authors of the case study article the story is totally different: I provide my reasoning "in order" to "discredit" the truth.
[In the attached case study these are referred to by my comments number S28, S41, S42, S96, S102, S115, S138, S139, S154, S158]
2. Technical Ethics of Criticism:
Beside the important moral ethics of criticism, there are certain unwritten but generally accepted rules of criticism that can be referred to as the technical ethics of criticism. The main objective of technical ethics of criticism is to avoid making comments that can only confuse the reader without adding any value to the criticism. Since this is an important subject that can only be clarified with examples, I will explain the three main instances in which the technical ethics have not been observed in the attached case study article:
a. When we criticise a view, we first need to appreciate the terminologies that are used in that view even if we think that this terminology is not correct. This will make the link between the view and its criticism clear for the reader. However if the critic at the very start of the article announces that he does not agree with these terminologies and therefore is not going to use them in his writing, then the reader will not be able to clearly understand the criticism. The critic can always mention that for the reasons that will be explained he disagrees with these terminologies, however he should still keep using them for the sake of discussion. Right at the beginning of the criticism in attached article (p. 9*) the authors announce that they do not appreciate my terms of General and Specific Universality of the Qur’an. The result of this is that they make statements in the article that I can say I fully agree with or I can say I fully disagree with, depending on the angle through which we are looking at them.
* note: page numbers in this writing refer to those in the attached case study article that is extended in space to allow comments on margin. These are not the same page numbers as in the original format of the article.
b. One of the most important merits of a writing is in respecting the mental ability of the readers. When we provide strong reasoning, we do not then need to decorate it with campaign type statements. Statements like “The above arguments given by the Author carry no substance”, “These statements are based on misunderstandings which can be easily cleared”, “(these are) in fact clear misunderstandings”, “Please read the very detailed and enlightening commentary of Islahi and Ghamidi on these verses which clearly show the mistake of the Author”; are disrespect to the reader. They basically serve to mean “this is what you – the reader – have to conclude now”. If we insist that what we are criticising is a very clear misunderstanding then our very hard work to criticise it can go under question.
c. One of the most obvious rules of criticism is that our criticism should be on the material that are officially published by the writer as his views. To criticise something that is not published is like talking to someone that does not exist! In page 56 the authors criticise a point that does not exist. Our haste to find a mistake in someone’s work should not lead us to target something that is not there otherwise it only discredit our own writing.
[Only some of the examples related to the Technical Merits of criticism and the consequences of not following them are pointed out in the attached case study article in the following comments: S12, S19, S29, S33, S34, S46, S55, S74, S98, S147, S155]
3. Assuming the Role of Representative:
None of us has the right to say or write that this is or that is not what ‘Muslims’ say. This is because not all Muslims have a same view about Islam and more importantly because none of us are representative of Muslims. Similarly, none of us are representatives of Islam. We all simply have an understanding about Islam that normally is correct to some extent and incorrect to some extent.
Example of this in the attached case study is where the authors make statements to the effect that “this or that is the Muslims understanding”. The authors of the article in the case study know very well that they do not represent Muslims at all, and that some of the main scholars that they learn from (and I fully respect) are known (very unjustly and wrongly) by many of the mainstream scholars as fitnah. I never claimed I represented Muslims and I don’t think that the authors can make such claim either. In particular if such claim also violates the Moral Ethics of criticism by implying that anyone who does not believe the same is not a Muslim.
[Instances of Assuming the Role of Representative in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S37, S41]
4. Basic vs. Rich Criticism
When criticising a view we may simply express what we think by the most obvious counter argument to that view and assume that the author did not know that counter argument or did not pay enough attention to it and was therefore wrong in his conclusions. While this approach is not objectionable, it does not provide the reader with an opportunity for an in-depth study of the subject either. Often this approach provides a false image of the writing that is under criticism, as it causes the less educated readers to underestimate the strength of the arguments and the depth of the view of the writer. This is the approach that I refer to as Basic Criticism.
Another approach is what I refer to as Rich Criticism. Here, the keen students of truth who intend criticising a view point sometimes even put themselves in the position of a humble student of the holder of that view point in order to fully understand it with all its dimensions, before criticising it. In this approach you do not attribute almost all of the arguments of your academic opponent to clear misunderstandings and confusions. Rather you try to fully understand the view point and the premises from which these arguments are developed and formulated. By following this approach in criticising an author, we will provide our readers with not only a rich source of deliberation but also a fair one, where we do not give impression that the arguments that we are opposing are clearly weak and product of clear misunderstandings.
I try to illustrate the above two approaches with an example. Imagine you have a friend who is a professional football player. One day you hear that your friend says that the size of the football pitches differ. You may choose to approach this in a very basic level by saying “he is obviously confused, as the size of the football pitch is standard”. You may choose to take a more difficult but a richer approach and appreciate that a football player that makes such claim for sure knows about standards of a football pitch, so he may have some more detailed arguments that you need to explore before attempting to challenge his view.
In the attached article the authors have made the writings of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi and Amin Ahsan Islahi as their basis and they frequently refer to these scholars and invite the readers to read their arguments “which clear the subject in a convincing manner”. There seems to be no interest in their writing to take the reader beyond the viewpoints of these two scholars. Judging from their writing, the authors seem to be not only totally unaware of the newly developed line of modern scholarship in the past century but also do not show any appreciation of some of the relevant writings of our traditional scholars. Even within the line of scholarship of Islahi and Ghamdi there is no attention to the fact that the teacher of these two scholars, Imam Farahi, expresses a view in one of his books (quoted in my article) that is very much close to the view that I presented and far different from the views of his students.
There is another surprising fact in the attached article. The authors know that I know the approach of Ghamidi and Islahi very well, had been direct student of Ghamidi and had taught his views for more than a decade before revising my views. They know that I have discussed my revised views with Ghamidi in detail. With a little deliberation they could easily appreciate that I was fully aware of Ghamidi’s and Islahi’s arguments that go against mine and yet found mine more convincing. This could prompt a keen student of truth to try to understand my view points in more detail and depth in order to provide a much richer response to them. Despite the availability of resources to do so there is no sign that the authors had any interest in doing so. As the result, many of my comments on their article were only to remind or repeat my views and arguments or to clarify the authors' misunderstandings, rather than to provide a response to a new counter argument.
[Instances of the above basic approach in criticism in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S36, S50, S53, S56, S74, S130, S131, S133]
5. Populism
Populism is one of the most unprofessional attitudes in criticism. In a populism approach the writer instead of providing proper reasons, makes statements that are appealing to the less educated readers. In particular if the subject is religion, the role of populism can be very strong. Followers of every religion have some sensitive beliefs and norms. The writer can easily trigger these by making statements that give impression that the person whose views are criticised has rejected or violated one of the crucial pillars of the religion. In the streets of a religious city a person can be killed by shouting “he/she burned the Qur’an”. The mob will first kill the person, and only then try to figure out if the accusation was correct! Similarly, in a piece of writing one can shout by typing “he believes in such and such”, and thus guarantee that the person under criticism will be immediately perceived by less educated readers as a heretic and therefore not even deserving to be heard.
There are many examples of populism approach in the attached case study. For instance in page 54 the authors claim that the implication of my views is that it is perfectly fine to bow to idols! This is while I have very clearly condemned such beliefs and acts in my article. There is absolutely no difference between such statements and those who are directly responsible for murder of innocent people by shouting and attributing false things to those people.
[Instances of populism in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S114, S134, S138, S139, S168, S170]
6. Circular Argument:
Circular argument is a very famous flawed argument in the science of logic. It refers to the situation when we argue that A is correct because B is correct and B is correct because A is correct.
In the case study article, in an overall view, I see the whole premise to be based on a circular argument. The authors first explain what they think religion, Islam and the Qur’an are. They then interpret the verses of the Qur’an according to this thought, and then they argue that due to those verses, the thought is correct!
The above is the overall trend of the case study article in my view, but a more specific example is in page 35 where the authors interpret a verse based on their views and argue at the same time that the verse is an evidence for their view.
[Instances of Circular Argument in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S70, S82, S110]
7. The Delicate Matter of Context
This in particular applies to religious criticism, and reasoning based on the Qur’an specifically. There is absolutely no doubt that any verse of the Qur’an has to be interpreted within the context. However the argument of “within the context/ Out of the context” is one that can be used by anyone in order to justify or reject an interpretation of the Qur’an. The problem starts when the person believes in a particular interpretation of the verse, then conveniently argues for that interpretation and argues against any other interpretation by bringing up the concept of context. What actually happens in these situations is that the writer interprets the verses of the Qur’an based on the context of his beliefs, thinking that he is guided by the context of the verse Itself.
Example of the above in the attached case study is in pages 29 – 32, where the authors first state their assumption as a matter of fact and argue that all people of the book are supposed to follow the shari’ah of Islam. They list a number of verses of the Qur’an while not even a single verse among them instructs the people of the book to follow the shari’ah of Islam. The authors then review the verses in the sura of Ma’idah with the context that is formed by this assumption and argue at the end that this is actually the context of these verses.
When it comes to the context in the Qur'an, the following point should be carefully considered:
The most important contextual observation when looking at the Qur'an (which is also true for any other text) is the theme of the Book and the theme of every chapter of the Book. Any analysis of context should go through the hierarchical levels of contextual themes. This starts from the overarching context of 'theme of the Qur'an'. From there and while remaining loyal to this overarching theme, such analysis should then find its way down through the themes in the next levels, that is, in 'group of chapters' where the chapter containing the verse is located, then the chapter in which the verse is located, then the group of verses surrounding the verse under analysis and then the verse itself.
[In the attached case study article this is explained in comments S43, S47, S70]
8. Generalisation:
Many of us may associate ourselves with certain school of thought and certain views that belong to that school of thought. There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, this helps with structuring our thoughts. However when it comes to criticising a view point, we need to make sure that we do not refer to these school-of-thought-specific views as obvious facts. We may do so when we are discussing with people who are associating themselves with the same school of thought but when it comes to other people, we need to first try to prove these specific scholarly views, and only then use them as a basis to criticise another person’s view.
An example of this in the attached case study article is the way that the authors conveniently divide the guidance of God into three phases by writing: “Hence we can see that Allah (swt)’s guidance has three phases” and later refer to this as “the correct position which can be easily understood from the Qur’an” (p. 6, 26). The way this is written gives impression to less educated readers that these are agreed among facts. This is while these are simply based on the scholarly opinion of two great contemporary scholars.
[Instances of Generalisation in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S3, S52, S79, S115, S133]
9. Inconsistent Basis:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with relying on the views of a particular scholar, just as there is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting only some of the views of a particular scholar. However when we make an argument based on the premises that are set by a particular scholar, then we need to make sure that we illustrate these premises correctly and do not misrepresenting them, otherwise the basis of our framework of criticism will be shaking.
An example of this is the fact that the authors have written their article almost wholly based on the teachings of Islahi and Ghamidi, inviting readers to read the interpretations of these scholars five times in their article. Yet, where they are writing within the domain of the theories of these scholars, they at times make a comment that is not in line with these theories. For instance the assertion that Bani Israel, as a race, were exclusively chosen to enlighten the human beings at their time, and that the absence of the term Bani Ishmael from the Qur’an means this is different for Muslims (p. 8). This argument is also labelled as Illogical Deduction as can be seen in my comments.
[Instances of Inconsistent Basis in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S5, S6, S162]
10. Ignoring a Fact due to It being Mentioned for a Particular Reason:
This can be best illustrated by the following example:
When I want to remind my younger friend that he is not the only person who has facing challenges in his life, I may say, I had gone through much challenges in my life. The reason I am saying this is to comfort my friend by making him realise that he is not the only person who feels life challenges. This however does not cancel out the fact that I have seen challenges in my life, unless of course I am lying!
The application of this in analysing the verses of the Qur’an is very important. The Qur’an was revealed in a time and a place where different groups of the addressees of the Book had variety of dynamics among themselves and with the prophet (pbuh). Certainly many verses of the Qur’an were revealed to address a particular issue at the time. This however does not cancel out the factual information that these verses are giving.
An example of this is in page 32 where the authors explain why the verse 5:43 was revealed and form there they conclude that (despite the verse literally saying it) the Jews in Arabia were not supposed to follow the Torah after the coming of the prophet (pbuh).
[Instances of the above in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S54, S71, S72, S75]
11. Proof for Existence, No Proof for Non-Existence
It is one of the most basic rules of logic that we only need evidence to prove something exists, we do not need to bring evidence to prove something does not exist. If I challenge someone who claims that there is a dragon living in the river Thames in London, logically he cannot challenging me back by demanding me to bring evidences that there is no dragon living in the river Thames!
This most certainly applies to the matter of religion as well. It will be illogical if I demand someone to prove evidence that God does not exist, or that the Qur’an has not been revealed by God. Rather, it will be my responsibility to bring evidences to prove these statements.
Example of this in the attached case study is where in page 36 the authors argue that since they believe that the Jews and Christians had to follow the shari’ah of Islam, hence it is my responsibility to bring evidences otherwise. As I have explained in my comment, while I have brought many evidences from the Qur’an that in my understanding are explicitly against this belief, the fact remains that it is the authors’ responsibility to bring a verse of the Qur’an to support their claim.
[In the attached case study article this is referred to in my comment number S85]
12. Ignoring an Argument:
When we criticise a view point we need to make sure that we do not rely on something that the author has argued against it, unless we first address that argument. If we ignore the argument that is provided by the author then we are leaving holes in our criticism.
For example in page 24 the authors quote my interpretation of verses 6:92 and 42:7 and then by comparing these verses with some other verses they conclude that my interpretation was wrong. In doing so, they totally ignore the important technical point that I made about these verses that makes them incomparable and in a totally different level, with regard to other similar verses of the Qur’an.
[Instances of Ignoring and Argument in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S3, S45, S46, S59, S61, S65, S66, S78, S89, S121, S163]
13. Missing the Point:
Missing the point is a milder version of ignoring an argument. Here the argument is not ignored and it is indeed addressed by the critic, however the core point of the argument is misunderstood and therefore the criticism is not even relevant. It is important that when we criticise an argument we first make sure that we fully understand the argument. We will lose the trust of the reader if he feels that we are missing the point in our criticism.
For example in page 56 the authors assume that my source of recognising akhlaq (morality) was the verses of the Qur’an and Bible, while, as I clearly implied by the expression “obvious rules of morality” my source was the human beings themselves.
[Instances of missing the point in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S20, S26, S30, S31, S32, S51, S103, S105, S107, S111, S148, S159, S160, S168]
14. Illogical Deduction:
Obviously any argument can be considered as illogical deduction by the person who disagrees him. On that basis, I see all the arguments by the authors to be illogical deduction while obviously they too have the same view about my arguments.
However, sometimes an illogical deduction is so obvious that noticing it will no longer become subjective to the views of a person, and basic rules of logic are enough to easily show the flaw in the deduction.
Example of this is in page 23 where the authors argue that heaven or hell is the destiny of all human beings and the Qur’an has mentioned heaven and hell, therefore it can be concluded that the Qur’an was sent for all human beings to follow it.
[Instances of Illogical Deduction in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S6, S21, S44]
15. Confusion between Evidence and Associating Facts:
Although this too can be categorised as an illogical deduction, but since this is a very important common mistake and it has happened in the attached article more than once, I thought it deserved a separate explanation.
The best way of explaining this is with a simple example. You are watching your guest at home and you notice that he wore his jacket. You immediately conclude that it is cold. When you ask him however he explains that he wore his jacket because he wanted to dress more formal. The reason you have made such wrong conclusion is that you confuse what is an associating fact (that when people are cold they wear more dress) with the actual evidence (whether the temperature is really below the norm). I have seen this same mistake happening in many religious discussions.
An example of this in the attached article is in page 13 where the authors argue that since the Qur’an was preserved and rearranged therefore this means that it was sent for all human beings. Normally the best way of realising this mistake and verifying such statements is to consider the reverse logic. Is this statements correct: “If it is not cold then no one wears jacket!”. Just as this statement is incorrect, the following too is incorrect: “If a divine book is not revealed for the whole mankind, then the primary addressees will not preserve and rearrange it!”.
(For information, there is another similar logical confusion that I refer to as 16. Confusion between Evidence and Reason. This is where the writer discusses and justifies the reason that something takes place, instead of first proving with evidences that the thing does takes place.)
[Instances of Confusion between Evidence and Associating Facts in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S22, S23, S49, S108]
17. Unverifiable Statement:
One of the necessary characteristics of ‘Reasoning’ is that it should be capable of being studied and verified, and therefore accepted or rejected. A statement that is too general that cannot be verified is not a reason, it is more like a propaganda.
For example in the attached case study the authors write in page 15: “Anybody who reads the Quran even superficially would be convinced that the Book is generic in its message and addresses the whole of mankind.” This is not a reason simply because there is no way to verify if this is true (besides the fact that I know many people who have a different perception when they read the Qur’an).
[Instances of Unverifiable Statement in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S24, S27]
18. Denying Instead of Rejecting:
As a thinker we have every right to reject an argument with reasons. However not agreeing with an argument does not give us the right to deny that there was an argument. This will not be fair to the readers who may actually be interested in the argument that we deny its existence.
Example of this is in page 20 where the authors deny that I have provided any evidences. It would have been more accurate if instead they would have argued that evidences were provided but to the writers’ understanding, they were not satisfactory.
[The instance of Denying Instead of Rejecting in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S18, S35]
19. Misquoting/Mispresenting:
The reader needs to be able to trust that when we quote something we quote it correctly, or that when we claim that a person has a particular view, that is correct. If the reader feels that he needs to double check every time, then he will lose trust in our reasoning and conclusions as well. The instances of misquoting or mispresenting my views in the attached article are many. These will in particular become very seriously unfair when considering that what is attributed to me is not only wrong, but is something that is a very sensitive issue.
For example in page 54 the authors argue that to me there is nothing wrong with belief in trinity or idol worshiping! This is while I have clearly pointed out that any belief that is against the values that the Qur’an gives us are wrong. We need to be very careful in quoting someone or presenting one’s views, as attributing false views to a person who does not hold those views is an obvious violation of moral ethics of criticism.
[Instances of misquoting/mispresenting in the attached case study article are pointed out in Comments S13, S14, S26, S37, S58, S60, S84, S97, S99, S101, S119, S120, S136, S138, S140, S169, S171]
20. Confusion of Specifics and Generics:
Many years ago I was arguing with a person who had the view that the Qur’an contains knowledge of everything. When I asked him what the cure of Alzheimer was according to the Qur’an he replied that the Qur’an advised us to gain knowledge, gaining knowledge leads to cure to Alzheimer!
We need to appreciate that there is a difference between generic references and specific references. I can say that I will make a statement in which I address all the problems of life. The statement is as follows: “all the problems of life need to be treated with patience”. Yes I have addressed all the problems of life but is this going to help? The answer is no, because I addressed them with a generic statement rather than a specific one.
Example of such confusion in the case study is where in page 21 the authors argue that all human societies of all times can be divided in certain categories and the Qur’an has addressed all these categories, therefore the Qur’an has fully discussed the beliefs and ailments of all the societies in the world.
[The instance of Confusion of Specifics and Generics in the attached case study article is pointed out in the comment S38]
**********
Again, those students of Islam who want to study arguments and counter arguments in detail can download the case study article with my detailed comments on the margins of the document: “Case Study Article for Common Mistakes in Critical Writings ISLAM-A RELIGION OF MANKIND OR THE RELIGION FOR MANKIND” (once the pdf file is opened in a new tab, hold down the Ctrl key and press + on your keyboard several times to make the fort of the comments in the margins large enough for reading. Alternatively you can download the file by right clicking on this link and saving it. Then open the file and zoom in for 150% to read the comments on the margins easier).