Zahid Abbas has brought up the concept of Islam being the original and therefore oldest religion in the world, which has ignited a rather impassioned debate here.

One segment of readership upheld Zahid's belief, while others articulated that Islam came after the Common Era, and it is therefore the newest religion.

A modicum of understanding is required to reconcile these two contradictory antipodean stances.

To understand the situation, we should not dive headlong into the issue or subject causing the conflict; not yet.

This cautionary note might have something to do with the very human tendency of a person to be very jealous and guarded, very emotional, about what he perceives to be true, and religious truth is right on top of this heap.

It is more sobering and productive if we conceptualise and intellectualise the thinking norm that 'produces' this statement, which I plan to do and share with readers. I will analyse Zahid's thinking norm.

Before I proceed I have to make my usual disclaimer. I mention Zahid not specifically as an individual, but more because of the thinking norm he has demonstrated.

I also mention Islam, as it is within the context of this religion that Zahid has made his statement. I accord my greatest respect to Islam, and to Zahid.

For the purpose of this analysis, I bring forward three thinking features and tools of logic: (i) knowledge, (ii) the law of excluded middle, and (iii) dogma.

Knowledge

I begin by analysing knowledge to be of two types, (i) indefinite, and (ii) definite.

Indefinite knowledge is when an idea, a group of ideas, or a postulation is/are accepted as true, without recourse to any scepticism, criticism, evaluation, or experimentation. This type of knowledge requires no proof to its viability and credibility.

'An angel has a pair of wings' is an idea that belongs to indefinite knowledge for so far as I know, no one has seen an angel. The notion that he/she has two wings is accepted as true without any observation and other proof.

As it requires no proof, it contains suppositions, ambiguity, approximations, and rationalisation. These in turn are what legends, myths, speculations, and even mysteries are made of.

More pointedly, religion falls under the ambit of indefinite knowledge, for almost the entire belief structure of religion - any religion - is based on belief, that is, on indefinite knowledge.

Definite knowledge is based on ascertainable facts. Such facts have undergone scrutiny and observation, testing and experimentation, and are known to be free from any doubt.

Unlike indefinite knowledge which is tentative and ambiguous, definite knowledge is specific and certain.

'A cow has four legs', is an example of a specific and certain fact, therefore belonging to definite knowledge. It is accepted as the truth by the entire human community wherever they live in the planet Earth. There can be no arguments pertaining to the truth it upholds.

It is provable (I take a cow, and show you how many legs it has - four), it is predictable (when I think of a cow, I 'predict' it has four legs), and it appeals to human reason. There is no mystery in definite knowledge.

Let me now quote what my ustaz or religious guru tells me about the Muslim perception of knowledge. I remember his saying:

"God knows everything, and at the beginning of Man, mankind knows nothing. God then reveals whatever knowledge He deems fit for mankind to know and gain benefit, by way of a series of revelations or wahy , starting from Adam, right down to Mohammad. All knowledge therefore comes from God."

This group of ideas has been accepted by the Muslim community without any scepticism and evaluation, without any proof. To wit, when a Muslim uses the word 'knowledge', he does not analyse it into something definite or indefinite, as was done above. Instead he generally means it to be indefinite knowledge.

The law of excluded middle

Next I bring a tool of logic known as the law of excluded middle. This law says that there are only two possibilities to anything - either a thing is white, or it is black. There is nothing in between. Life is that simple.

It says furthermore that if one side is white, the other must be black. If one party is right then the other party is wrong. If I am right, then you must be wrong. If you are not with me, then you are against me.

This tool of logic works well with indefinite knowledge.

We see the appearance of this law in many Muslim minds. 'Islam is the one right religion; other religions are wrong', Muslims are known to claim.

There is another feature of this law relevant to this present postulation. It is that whatever truth it holds, this law will amplify and glorify it. It has tendency to hyperbolas.

For instance, whatever Islam stands for, it is the best there is. Islam is the perfect religion, the Quran is the perfect Holy Book, Mohammad is a perfect human being; these are examples of hyperboles in Islam.

Dogma

I now bring a third item, dogma. A dogma is an indefinite idea or a set of indefinite ideas that begins with a doctrine. So we begin with describing a doctrine.

A doctrine is an idea or sets of ideas touted around for acceptance. The idea that Islam had existed since Adam is one such hyperbolic body of ideas once touted for acceptance.

Islamic theology has accepted this doctrine, which elevates it to a dogma. A dogma therefore is a doctrine's message that has been accepted by a society.

There is one feature of dogma that makes it different from many other tools of logic. For once accepted, it becomes animated, it becomes 'alive'. And, like many a living thing, it refuses to die a graceful death even though its time is past.

Dogma carries the property of coercion. It threatens its believers with some pretty serious punishment if they renege on keeping the faith or divert from its messages.

It seems to be saying: 'Now that you believe in me, you have to continue doing so. Otherwise, I will mete some terrible punishments to you. In no way will I allow you to stop believing in me.'

Dogma instills fear in the mind of its adherents. This fear is its weapon to stay alive.

Completing the jigsaw

Now that the background concepts have been explained, we can see the scenario surrounding this current topic of debate. We can now bring the specific detail on Islam mentioned by Zahid to the fore.

Zahid has made the statement that Islam existed since time immemorial (date not mentioned) and not since 610AD, the year Mohammad first received God's revelation. Zahid grew up with this body of wisdom, so thinking being reality, he accepts its truth with no element of uncertainty and ambiguity. To him it is the truth, and the only truth.

But he has not given any irrefutable arguments, nor any facts and evidence, to substantiate his claim. He would merely substantiate his claim by saying something like '... in Islam, we believe that the Islamic religion is the first to ever appear to mankind'.

This religious truth then falls under the ambit of the law of excluded middle. Here, its viability is protected. It is confirmed by this law as the truth. This law furthermore states that there can be no other alternative version to this claim (that Islam existed since the first man).

Dogma then takes over to protect the sanctity of this truth. Muslim adherents are required to protect this truth against any doubters, sceptics and unbelievers.

This is what Zahid has done. He is under threat of committing a sin if (i) he doubts, or (ii) he fails to protect Islamic truths against doubters.

Committing sin would mean the punishment of hellfire in the Hereafter. Dogma punishes any and all recalcitrant adherents for any breach of loyalty.

Synthesis

With that, I conclude my conceptualisation of Zahid's thinking frame. It provides a good template (or blueprint) as any to the thinking of the mainstream Malay.

Readers may test this hypothesis by taking any fairly common religious issue, and running it against the background of the three thinking features I have articulated above.

With this conceptualisation, it might now be possible to understand Zahid's statement that Islam began since time immemorial, albeit in the form of 'Proto-Islam'.

He talks within the backdrop of indefinite knowledge, supported by the law of excluded middle and dogma. He is not obliged to show proof to his statement, yet stands tall claiming it to be absolutely right.

It is also possible to understand why he nonchalantly pushes aside historical facts that indicate something totally different.

But while we can begin to understand him, his mental frame is not about to understand the rational view that must be supported by fact, by definite and universally accepted knowledge, to earn its viability and credibility.

Therein lies the root of the problem.