A Night Out + My Thoughts on 'Da'wah'

Dr Abdullah Periyardhasan struts his stuff

The other day I had the opportunity to attend a talk by Dr Periyadhasan, these days also better known as Dr. Abdullah, well-known Indian psychologist, politician, former film star and visiting professor at the University of California - oh yes, and celebrity Muslim convert. The talk, themed "Atheism to Islam", outlined his journey from Hinduism to atheism to flirtations with Buddhism and Christianity, and finally to the deen of Muhammad s.a.w. (btw, I wonder what the reaction would have been if this was an atheist event titled "Islam to Atheism"?)

After accidently walking into the sister's section, I was directed to the bloke's entrance where I perused the tables the hosting organization had loaded with various books - the usual stuff on how to achieve domestic harmony, treatises on the afterlife, "comparative religion" etc. as well as the obligatory material from petrodollar-rich Saudi publishing houses. After a little squiz, we were ushered into the lecture room where I observed that the vast majority of the audience were very obviously Muslim. After a brother recited an extract from Surah an-Nisa, the talk began in earnest.

Speaking in accented but articulate English, Dr. Abdullah proceeded to tell us of his spiritual journey. From his disillusionment with the expense and cruelty of Hindu rituals, then atheist anthropocentricism, Buddhist hedonism and hypocrisy before his final satisfaction in Islam, he (perhaps needless to say) had the audience largely on his side, even cracking a few well-received jokes now and then. I got the impression that he was basically a pretty good bloke.

After a break (and a $2 slice of pizza in my case), we reconvened in the theatre where a dude showed us a trailer of his organization's new historical presentation - "Crusades II - Mongol Scourge" complete with sinister music and a burning pile of decapitated heads (in the trailer, not real life!), after which a bunch of cute little poppets came up to sing "The Heart of a Muslim"  by Zain Bhikha. Unfortunately, I couldn't stay for the scheduled Q&A session with Dr. Abdullah.

When he was finishing his talk, Dr. Abdullah stated that he wasn't interested in converting non-Muslims. However, the whole experience got me thinking about the current status of da'wah in this society of ours.

Islam doesn't nearly have much of a proselytizing tradition as western Christianity, although it does see activities of outreach and invitation, which can be directed at both existing Muslims (e.g to strengthen their knowledge and faith) and non-Muslims.

I've noticed several patterns in contemporary da'wah practices. The first is the "comparative" approach. This involves pointing out (real or perceived) fallacies and weaknesses in other beliefs, and setting them up against a superior equivalent of your own belief system. "Oh lol, Hindus worship cows! Weez has a real God!" "Them atheists got no morality!" etc etc. etc. (without meaning to state that Dr. Abdullah actually said any of this)  However, this has very real disadvantages. At best, such an approach, when self-directed, only contributes to the development of pride in one's heart and at worst, contributes to parochialism and fanaticism. When directed at others, it simply serves to offend and further distance them from the da'i (performer of dawah).
'
Then there is the "apologetic" approach. This employs the use of rational arguments to defend one's religion, and to demonstrate that it is not irrational, or contradicts current trends, or science or human nature. For example, we can argue how Islam does not contradict 'democracy' or women's rights', or how the Quran mentions scientific facts. In my opinion, regardless of the validity of the arguments, this approach is merely passive and anaemic. It just serves to implicitly affirm the superiority of the dominant paradigm and its centrality in determining norms. Islam only becomes as valuable as its success in being an appendage to current fashions, rather than as a viable alternative in its own right. Thus we have things like "Islamic Feminism", "Islamic Socialism" and so on. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence will fail to be persuaded by such a presentation. If I'm an atheist, why don't I ignore "Islamic Feminism" and go with plain old "Feminism" instead?

And then we have the "Fire and Brimstone" approach. When I was university, during one "O-Week" our Islamic Society set up a stall which included such delightful material as some brochures expounding all the terrible punishments in hell dealers in interest money wll face......says it all, really.

Dr Abdullah's presentation itself was good insofar as it was an account of his own experiences in life. However, much of the packaging of the event only served to further perpetuate such counterproductive da'wah. Elements which could have been beneficial to Muslims too often just felt like exercises in self-congratulation, and elements which could have benefited non-Muslims felt rather more like plain-old turn-offs.

But it doesn't have to be this way. Islam is a treasure chest of gems - we should just show these gems! What's the point of having leaflets on the comparative merits of Islam and Christianity, or hackneyed brochures on how Islam does not condone terrorism when we have things like Rumi's Masnavi and Farid ud-Din Attar's Conference of the Birds, or the works of Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Al-Ghazali? Why pontificate on how Islam promotes respect of people when we could simply make a habit of smiling at the bus driver, or try out at a soup kitchen? Certainly more effective at giving a good impression than threats of damnation!

We have such a rich tradition, a living tradition and we should plumb it. For a people who value their own religion so much, it is ironic that we so often look to the likes of Evangelical Christianity to inspire our activities.

Wa Allahu a'lam