Tic tac toe

All my life I have loved to debate about politics and religion.
While I am not a "died in wool"  anything, I am passionate about the various anecdotal stories that make up the lore that the various religions are made of.

Religion and politics, have over the years fueled so many debates and wars that it's almost impossible to imagine John Lennons world without out them.

What is clear is that each person that I have ever met is convinced that they were born into the truth.

The one true path.

It's not that people can't change because there are enough who do change their faith and way of life to prove that people can change.

People change their minds and Outlook on life all the time. The world is full of examples of this.
We are influenced at a fundamental level by society and the media. Our views on same sex relationships has evolved over the years and this is largely due to the subliminal influence of the media.

The point I am making is that largely unless people have an epiphany or a fundamental disillusionment with the faith of their birth they will largely live their lives in the manner they were taught to. And defend their faith and point of view with passion. But this is a discussion for another time.

Major religions are mostly more than a thousand years old and some of them older.

There have over that long period been millions of researchers and debates by really smart people.

They have all evolved a strategy of Defense.

The "learned scholars" have all learnt these strategic fallback positions.

To better explain my point I will compare it to the game of tic tac toe.

Anybody who plays this game regularly has learnt that if you don't make a mistake you cannot lose. You might not win, depending on whether your opponent makes a mistake or not, but you cannot lose.

When two people argue and only one of them is a believer the conversation is impossible as the faith is based on the acceptance of the unseen and the unknowable.

"Is there life after death.?"
Being one such question.

One can't argue either way if both parties don't agree on the basic assumptions.

Debates between believers are far more interesting because both sides have accepted some premise. And the debate proceeds from that premise outwards.

If two Muslims have a debate, they both agree on the oneness of God, the messenger, the integrity of the great book and the authenticity of the hadith.

The ground rules are set, now it's simply who's  knowledge has greater detail.

There have been millions of interpretations and a million precidents. All that is needed is for the contestants to have access to this body of knowledge. All based on the same accepted premises and ground rules.

This discussion is can be used to establish the correct behavior and as a guide to moral behaviour. The question of right and wrong can be extracted from the body of knowledge in most instances.

This legal wrangling is not to be confused with the search for truth. Because the search for truth doesn't have any restrictions and limitations in terms of premises that need to be accepted up front.

You can't for example be forced to accept the concept of life after death, then go on to attempt to find the truth. Your search for truth is hindered by the assumptions that you are forced to accept.

How often do we hear the learned scholars end a complex debate with "so and so was a Sahaba and by inference mujtahid and as a result their actions cannot be examined critically".

There are those who would argue that Moawia went to war with Hazrath Ali because he disagreed with the way that Justice or lack thereof was metered out in one matter.
The assassination of Hazrath Usman.

This disagreement with Ali justified going into battle with the caliph and the death of thousands of believers. And the analysts would argue that despite all of the death, and treachery on the battlefield, and the sacrilege of pages of the Holy Quraan being used on lances. Despite all of this, the actions of Moawia cannot be criticized because he was a Sahaba and as such Mujtahid?

Tic tac toe.

A fruitless game.