Courses
This is not to promote anything, but growing up in the UK,
certain things became ingrained in discussions at schools and colleges. The
popular British comedy show "Goodness Gracious Me," which first aired
on UK television back in 98, highlighted the experiences of the Indian
expatriate community by both playing up and debunking common stereotypes about
South Asians.
One of the recurring sketches featured the character "Mr. Everything Comes from India," who embodies the idea of a first-generation immigrant humorously asserting that everything has its origins in India. This character frustrates his Westernised son by insisting that everything from Hollywood actors to Italian Renaissance art is Indian, delivering his claims with a mix of humour and illogical reasoning. For example, he argues that the British Royal Family is Indian because they live as a joint family, work in the same business, and have arranged marriages.
In another instance, he claims that Superman's roots are in
the subcontinent, citing his bad haircut, working two jobs, never taking a day
off, and picking cheap flights as proof. Similarly, he humorously asserts that
Santa Claus is from Jalandhar, with his reindeer Rudolph actually named
Ranjeet. Santa's Indian identity is confirmed, according to him, by the big
beard, huge belly, and terrible suit—all traits he considers unmistakably
Indian.
The character also reimagines the names of Hollywood stars
with an Indian twist: Robert Redford becomes Robert Red Fort, Tom Cruise
becomes Om Cruise, Nicole Kidman is Nicole Kidda, Roger Moore is Raja More, and
Cindy Crawford is Hindi Crawford. When his exasperated son accuses him of
making things up, Mr. Everything Comes from India cleverly responds by asking
how Shirley Temple can be explained.
His most outrageous reasoning is in a sketch where he claims
that Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa was based on Meena Losa, a Gujarati washerwoman from
Bhavnagar, and that Da Vinci himself was from Faridabad, not Florence. To
support this, he points to The Last Supper, saying that the twelve men at the
table with no women around is a clear indication that the women were in the
kitchen—a scenario he believes is distinctly Indian.
I use this anecdote to illustrate something I’ve been trying
to highlight in the area of psychology and ‘Islamic Psychology.’ It seems that
now some people are claiming that Islam and Muslims were the originators of
many modern psychological therapies. Some even assert that the problematic and
unscientific DSM classifications (or some of them) were first coined by Muslim
scholars. It would probably require PhD-level research to debunk these
reductive and somewhat baseless claims. But it's important to understand how
psychology and psychologisation functions in society.
The idea behind the "Goodness Gracious Me" sketch
had some truths in it. Some Indian words have indeed been co-opted into the
English language, which isn’t surprising given the history of colonisation. The
producers may have wanted to show, from a comedic perspective, the problems of
colonisation and how India’s resources were exploited for hundreds of years.
One problem with psychology is its ability to connect things
in such a way that the formulations are so loose that one can connect
everything and anything together. It’s difficult to disprove these claims
because flawed connections can easily be made.
Psychohistory, for example, is a contentious
interdisciplinary field briefly defined as the study of historical events using
psychological theory and methods. Some dismiss it as fiction. Historically,
psychohistory was initially dominated by psychoanalytic approaches, rooted in
Freud's 1910 essay on Leonardo, followed by numerous similar historical studies
by other analysts. While some see psychohistory as a promising development in
historical studies, critics like Russell Stannard (1980) have accused it of a
cavalier attitude toward facts, contorted logic, and myopic cultural
perspectives. Erik Erikson's 1958 study of Luther marked a revival in
psychohistory, but controversies linger, as seen in Roger Johnson's 1977
collection of critical essays.
Human beings operate "psychologically" in the
sense of engaging with others based on desires, motivations, and needs.
However, interpreting historical figures' behaviour from a psychoanalytic
perspective is more methodologically challenging than analysing living clients
in psychological investigations. In the latter case, theory refinement evolves
alongside new discoveries. Clients also collaborate, with their reactions
guiding analysis development.
None of this applies to historical figures, risking
theory-derived claims being presented as indistinguishable from historical
facts.
Complexities arise when examining basic narratives in
Islamic discursive texts. In the age of moral relativism, emotivism, and
contemporary worldviews, reading historical figures and their narratives
becomes problematic. Consider the story of Yusuf (AS), who, in today's
psychological worldview, lived in a "toxic" and dysfunctional family.
His father was over-loving, his brothers wanted to kill him, they threw him
into a well and left him to die, and he was taken to work as a servant in a
toxic household. He was accused by a manipulative woman and falsely imprisoned.
At each stage of his life, he experienced "trauma" after
"trauma."
An astute reader and observer can see the profundity of
these claims. Take, for example, CBT, as I’ve discussed here before. The
popularity of CBT in modern times stems from socio-economic, cultural, and
political developments in the West. Furthermore, suggesting that Muslim
scholars were pioneers of these notions and labels is extremely lazy and,
frankly, dishonest.
What exactly are we referring to? Are we discussing CBT as
understood by the ancient Greeks, its premodern understanding, its post-World War
II conceptualisations, or its contemporary practices across various societies
and institutions? Are we talking about theoretical approaches, technical tools,
or modalities of CBT? While there may be theoretical and epistemological
similarities between these paradigms, asserting that a Muslim scholar was a
pioneer requires clarity. Are we also considering how some of these notions
were developed and manifested in Eastern traditions like those of China and
India?
Undoubtedly, during Islamic history, when much knowledge was
translated from Greek into Arabic, cultural fusion facilitated the exchange of
ideas. And no doubt Muslims explored various fields of study and developed
ideas. That, of course, doesn’t necessarily imply that everything Muslims have
done in the past is Islamic—an epistemological discussion that needs to be had.
Additionally, some concepts are simply common-sense
approaches and not necessarily confined to a specific civilisation or society.
It's akin to saying Muslims discovered that the sky is blue.
In terms of explanatory frameworks, there are various models
presented (psychodynamic, behavioural, etc.). For example, the cognitive-behaviourist
school might suggest that it is possible to think that this inner
"something" that is broken is broken in a purely psychological way.
They often describe panic disorder in terms of a dysfunctional and
self-perpetuating pattern of thoughts and feelings in actions. This is a way
(according to them) of seeing something broken or dysfunctional inside the
"patient"—but it is not a biological something. It's a psychological
something.
There are numerous explanatory frameworks out there. My
contention is with how (ontologically and epistemologically) they are adopted
and developed. And what epistemological mechanisms/frameworks (naturalism,
empiricism, etc.) are being used to explain "abnormal" behaviour or
psychological problems.
It begs the question about the motivations behind claiming
that a particular Islamic scholar is a pioneer of concepts within the modern
secular context. Is it to validate Islamic teachings by aligning them with
cherry-picked concepts, similar to what some have done recently with scientific
miracles in the Qur'an?
There seems to be a push from some quarters to produce
slogans and write "academic" papers to demonstrate
"groundbreaking" discoveries-a form of self-validation or
self-accolades. Such approaches mirror the secularisation of Islam and Muslims,
reminiscent of what happened in the Euro-American context with Christianity.
Courses
