Ex-Experts
I have noticed on occasion that those concerned with the spread of Islam in the West will at times support their argument by bringing to the stand an ex-Muslim who has, we’re told, seen the light (or, rather, the darkness) and is therefore in a perfect position to educate us non-Muslims about how horrible Islam is deep down where the rest of us cannot clearly see. I find myself suspicious of these ex-Muslim experts, and, to be fair, ex-fill-in-the-blank experts of any kind. My reasoning? It’s not that these former believers do not or cannot speak the truth; it’s rather that I’d be skeptical of some ex-Catholic or ex-traveler-in-alterity who claimed to have the horrid goods on my beliefs and ways of thinking, and it seems to me that I ought to hold other ex-experts to the same skepticism and not rush to crown anyone of them an authority on matters I little understand.
Comments are closed.
Yes, it is possible that someone can be an “ex” something and offer reasonable analysis. I would not entirely discount what an “ex” has to say. However, it is often true that there is more to what they have to say than such reasonable analysis — they often have an agenda, a crusade against that which they left. Often it is an anger for “being deceived,” but in doing so, they cloud their own reasoning. They seek to put the ex in the worst light possible. It is one thing being critical and explaining why one no longer believes what they used to; it is another to make the other look as bad as possible, for that then ignores the good in the tradition, the good which many others follow (often without accepting the worst people point out).
I’m a former Protestant. Yes, I sometimes can be harsh on Protestantism, however, I will also affirm my respect for many Protestants, and will not say the whole Protestant tradition is erroneous (how could I?). Indeed, I still look to major Protestant thinkers and often learn from them — Barth, Moltmann, Ellul, Lewis, even Melanchthon…
I tend to be skeptical of ‘ex-’ people also. When someone is trading on a past affiliation with a group to gain some sort of attention by that association, they often have both conscious and unconscious psychological incentives to over-dramatize or mis-characterize their experiences. For instance, some ex-Catholics on-line who I’ve encountered claim to have been really heavily involved and knowledgeable about their faith, but reveal themselves to be startlingly ignorant about many basic teachings of the Church that one could learn through a simple Google search.
I’ve become skeptical of “testimonies” over the years. People have a hard enough time getting basic facts correct that we should be somewhat dubious of them having a great understanding of a meta-narrative. There are countless instances of people taking rumors and offering them as a personal narrative. I think there was a book not too long ago that lost its prize for doing this. Then there is the all too familiar phenomenon of people treating that which is exceptional as normative. Then there is the tendency of sourcing things incorrectly as when happens with Middle Eastern ethics around marriage and the role of women vis-a-vis Islam is commented upon.