Presented by Zia H Shah MD

I. Introduction: The Paradox of Certainty in a Polarized World

In the contemporary landscape of human discourse, we observe a perplexing phenomenon: the unprecedented availability of information has not led to a convergence of opinion but rather to a fragmentation of reality. Whether in the halls of the United States Congress or the theological seminaries of the Islamic world, the acquisition of knowledge appears to be a cumulative process only within the silos of pre-existing belief. Outside those silos, evidence functions not as a bridge, but as a wedge. To understand this dynamic, particularly as it manifests in the high-stakes arenas of political tribalism and religious sectarianism, one must engage with the concept of Kripkean Dogmatism.

Derived from a paradox formulated by the philosopher Saul Kripke, this concept provides a rigorous logical framework for understanding the “closed” nature of belief systems. The paradox posits a startlingly simple yet devastating logic: if an agent knows a proposition $P$ to be true, then they know that any evidence $E$ contradicting $P$ must be misleading. Consequently, the agent is epistemically justified in disregarding $E$ without further examination.¹ This creates a “dogmatism paradox” where knowledge—or the conviction of knowledge—becomes a mechanism for ignorance.

This report posits that Kripkean Dogmatism is not merely an abstract philosophical puzzle but the defining sociocognitive mechanism of our time. As argued by Zia H. Shah MD, the Chief Editor of The Muslim Times, Kripkean Dogmatism serves as the “best metaphor” for understanding the intractability of modern religious and political debates.³ It explains why a Republican and a Democrat can view the same economic data and derive opposite moral conclusions, and why a Sunni, a Shiite, an Ismaili, and an Ahmadi Muslim can read the same Quranic verse and see in it mutually exclusive theological imperatives.

This analysis will proceed in three parts. First, we will dissect the mechanics of belief polarization through the lens of Thomas Kelly’s analysis of Kripkean Dogmatism and Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory, establishing how “sacred values” create cognitive blinders. Second, we will apply this framework to the Islamic world, conducting a granular analysis of how sectarian hermeneutics utilizes dogmatism to interpret the Quran, effectively creating parallel theological universes. Finally, we will explore the Quranic antidote to this condition, utilizing the insights of Zia H. Shah MD to argue that the principle of non-contradiction found in Surah An-Nisa (4:82), combined with the universal language of scientific commentary, offers the only viable path out of the dogmatic labyrinth.

---

II. The Mechanics of Polarization: Kripkean Dogmatism and Political Psychology

To grasp the power of Kripkean Dogmatism in political and religious spheres, one must first understand its operation as a descriptive model of psychology. It challenges the classical Enlightenment assumption that human beings are rational updaters of information who adjust their beliefs in proportion to the total evidence available.

2.1 The Kripkean Framework vs. The Kellyan Scrutiny Model

In his seminal analysis of disagreement, philosopher Thomas Kelly contrasts Kripkean Dogmatism with other models of belief processing. The dogmatist, according to Kripke’s formulation, adopts a policy of dismissal. If one holds a belief—for instance, “Capital punishment is a deterrent”—it follows deductively that “Any evidence suggesting capital punishment is not a deterrent is misleading”.¹ The dogmatist uses their initial belief as a license to ignore counter-evidence entirely. This is the “pure” form of the paradox: knowledge justifies the rejection of future counter-evidence.

However, the reality of human cognition, as Kelly argues, is often more subtle and insidious than simple dismissal. Research indicates that individuals do not merely ignore contrary evidence; they engage in “biased assimilation.” When “You” and “I” disagree on a factual matter and are subsequently exposed to a shared body of mixed evidence, we do not converge. Instead, the gap widens.

This phenomenon is known as Belief Polarization. As Kelly illustrates, if I believe in deterrence, I will scrutinize the studies suggesting no deterrence, finding methodological flaws to explain away the data. You, believing the opposite, will apply the same hyper-scrutiny to studies supporting deterrence.¹ This suggests that Kripkean Dogmatism in practice often functions through a “Kellyan scrutiny model,” where the dogmatism lies not in ignoring the evidence, but in the asymmetry of the cognitive resources deployed to evaluate it. We work harder to debunk that which threatens our worldview than we do to verify that which confirms it.

The Violation of Commutativity

A critical insight from Kelly’s analysis is the violation of the Commutativity of Evidence Principle. In logic, the order in which evidence is received should not alter the conclusion ($A + B = B + A$). However, under Kripkean Dogmatism, the temporal order is decisive.

• Scenario A: An individual encounters Evidence X (supporting Liberalism) first. They form a belief. Later, they encounter Evidence Y (supporting Conservatism). Because they already believe X, they treat Y as misleading and dismiss it.
• Scenario B: The same individual encounters Evidence Y first. They form a Conservative belief. Later, they encounter Evidence X. They treat X as misleading and dismiss it.

This “path dependence” means that our political and religious identities are often accidents of history—determined by which arguments we heard first, or which community we were born into—yet we defend them with the certainty of absolute truth.¹

2.2 Jonathan Haidt and the Political Moral Matrix

The transition from individual cognitive bias to collective political polarization is best illuminated by the work of social psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Haidt provides the “content” that fills the Kripkean “structure.” If Kripkean Dogmatism explains how we protect our beliefs, Haidt explains why we care so deeply about them. His central thesis, articulated in The Righteous Mind, is that “Morality binds and blinds”.⁴ It binds individuals into cohesive teams (political parties or religious sects) but blinds them to the validity of the opposing team’s moral matrix.

2.2.1 The Moral Foundations of Republicans and Democrats

Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory posits that human morality rests on six evolved foundations: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Liberty/Oppression, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation. The divergence between the American Democratic and Republican parties can be mapped precisely onto these foundations, creating distinct “moral matrices” that function as closed epistemic systems—classic environments for Kripkean Dogmatism.

Moral Foundation	The Democratic (Liberal) Matrix	The Republican (Conservative) Matrix
Care / Harm	Primary Driver: Intense focus on protecting the vulnerable, victims of systemic oppression, and the poor. “Bleeding heart” liberalism. 4	Valued but Balanced: Care is important, but often focused on local community or those who “deserve” help (proportionality).
Fairness / Cheating	Equality: Defined primarily as equality of outcome or opportunity. Rich people not paying taxes is “cheating.”	Proportionality: Defined as people getting what they earn. Redistribution is “cheating” the productive.
Liberty / Oppression	Liberation: Freedom from traditional social constraints (gender roles, religion) and corporate oppression.	Libertarianism: Freedom from government interference, taxes, and regulation. “Don’t tread on me.”
Loyalty / Betrayal	Weak/Negative: Often viewed as xenophobia or nationalism. Skepticism of “my country right or wrong.”	High Value: Patriotism, sacrifice for the group, and upholding national symbols are sacred duties.
Authority / Subversion	Skepticism: Authority is often viewed as a mechanism of power and abuse. hierarchies are to be dismantled.	High Value: Respect for traditions, parents, police, and religious institutions is essential for social order.
Sanctity / Degradation	Rejection (mostly): Often viewed as archaic religious baggage. (Exception: Environmental sanctity).	High Value: The body is a temple; life is sacred (anti-abortion); marriage is a sacred institution.

Haidt’s Insight: Haidt argues that Republicans have an electoral advantage because they can appeal to a wider range of human moral intuitions (“moral capital”)—accessing all six foundations—whereas Democrats rely heavily on just three (Care, Fairness, Liberty).⁶ This imbalance makes the Democratic matrix “WEIRD” (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic), a statistical outlier in human history.⁸

2.2.2 The Clash of Sacred Values and “Republican Party Bad”

The intersection of Haidt’s theory and Kripkean Dogmatism occurs at the level of “Sacred Values.” When a value becomes sacred, it exits the realm of trade-offs and enters the realm of the absolute. Sacred values function as the Kripkean premise $P$ that cannot be questioned.

For a Republican operating under Kripkean Dogmatism, the belief that “America is a unique force for good (Loyalty/Sanctity)” functions as the premise. Any evidence (e.g., historical critiques of American foreign policy) that contradicts this is immediately categorized as misleading, unpatriotic, or a violation of sacred loyalty. Similarly, for a Democrat, the protection of the vulnerable (Care/Harm) is the premise. Arguments about the economic necessity of cutting social safety nets are not viewed as economic arguments but as moral failures—evidence of a lack of compassion that must be dismissed.

Haidt himself experienced this dogmatism. In a controversial blog post titled “Conservatives Good, Republican Party Bad,” he initially argued that while conservative philosophy contained wisdom, the modern GOP had become “dysfunctional” and “low on empathy”.⁴ He cited House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s comments on taxes as evidence of a “punitive mindset” toward the poor. However, upon receiving feedback from conservative readers who explained the moral logic of proportionality and fairness (that everyone should contribute something), Haidt publicly retracted the post.⁴ This retraction serves as a rare example of overcoming Kripkean Dogmatism: Haidt allowed “evidence” from the opposing moral matrix to penetrate his own liberal bias, realizing he had misinterpreted a “Fairness” argument as a “Harm” violation.

Haidt observes that since the 1980s, the two parties have become “perfectly sorted,” creating “purified” coalitions where cross-cutting cleavages no longer exist.⁹ This sorting exacerbates Kripkean Dogmatism because the social cost of entertaining counter-evidence increases. To accept evidence from the “other side” is not just an intellectual error; it is an act of treason against one’s moral team. As Haidt famously stated:

“Morality binds and blinds. It binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle. It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say.” ⁵

---

III. Kripkean Dogmatism in the Muslim World: Sectarian Hermeneutics

The mechanisms of belief polarization described by Kelly and the moral tribalism described by Haidt find a profound parallel in the sectarian divisions of the Islamic world. Zia H. Shah MD applies the metaphor of Kripkean Dogmatism to explain the intractability of disputes between Sunni, Twelver Shi’a, Ismaili, and Ahmadi Muslims. In these contexts, the “primary belief” ($P$) is not a policy preference but a theological axiom regarding authority and salvation.

3.1 The Structure of Sectarian Dogmatism

In the Islamic context, Kripkean Dogmatism operates by pre-validating the authority of a specific tradition or leader, thereby rendering all external interpretations “misleading” by definition. Each sect possesses a “Parochial Box” ¹⁰—a closed epistemic system where truth is self-referential.

3.1.1 Sunni Islam: The Dogmatism of Consensus

For the mainstream Sunni tradition, the Kripkean premise $P$ is often grounded in the authority of the Salaf (pious predecessors), the Ijma (consensus) of the community, and the canon of the Sihah Sitta (six authentic Hadith books).

• The Kripkean Trigger: If a theological argument contradicts the Ijma of the classical jurists, it is dismissed a priori as innovation (bid’ah).
• Example: In debates regarding the “Finality of Prophethood” (Khatm an-Nubuwwah), the Sunni dogmatic position relies on the consensus that no prophet can come after Muhammad. When presented with Ahmadi arguments citing verses that imply continuity of spiritual guidance, the Sunni Kripkean filter dismisses them instantly because they contradict the “settled” consensus. The sheer weight of history serves as the justification for dismissal.¹¹

3.1.2 Twelver Shi’ism: The Dogmatism of Lineage

Here, the Kripkean premise centers on the authority of the Ahl al-Bayt (the Family of the Prophet) and the Imamate.

• The Kripkean Trigger: A Twelver Shia holds the belief that true interpretation of the Quran lies solely with the twelve infallible Imams. Consequently, Sunni Hadith collections (like Bukhari) that omit or contradict the narratives of the Imams are filtered out as misleading evidence.¹³
• Historical Polarization: The event of Ghadir Khumm, where the Prophet Muhammad declared “Of whom I am Master, Ali is his Master,” is the foundational evidence ($P$). A Sunni interpretation that frames this as a statement of friendship rather than political succession is rejected by the Shia mind as a distortion of history, filtered out to protect the core axiom of Ali’s right to rule.¹⁵

3.1.3 Ismaili Islam: The Dogmatism of the Esoteric (Bāṭin)

The Ismaili tradition takes Kripkean Dogmatism into the realm of the esoteric. The central premise is the authority of the living Imam (currently the Aga Khan) to interpret the “inner meaning” (bāṭin) of the Quran.¹⁶

• The Kripkean Trigger: The Aga Khan has the sole authority to determine questions of interpretation.¹⁸ If the literal text (zāhir) appears to conflict with the Imam’s guidance, the Kripkean filter prioritizes the Imam’s Ta’wil (allegorical interpretation).
• Interpretation: For an Ismaili, a Sunni critique based on literalism (e.g., regarding the physical movements of prayer or Hajj) is dismissed because the critic lacks the “key” (the Imam) to unlock the truth. The text is seen as a veil; only the Imam sees the face of the divine meaning. This creates a highly centralized “closed” system where the Imam’s word overrides textual literalism.¹⁹

3.1.4 Ahmadiyya Muslim Community: The Dogmatism of the Messiah

For Ahmadis, the Kripkean pivot is the acceptance of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Messiah and Mahdi.

• The Kripkean Trigger: Once this premise is accepted, Quranic verses are interpreted through his writings. Arguments against his claim are filtered through the belief that “A true claimant cannot be destroyed by God” (based on Quran 69:44-46). Since the community has survived and grown, any theological counter-argument is deemed “misleading”.²⁰
• Organization: Similar to the Ismaili structure, the Ahmadiyya community operates under a centralized Khilafat. This creates a structural dogmatism where the Caliph’s guidance unifies the community’s worldview, making it resilient but also resistant to external interpretive frameworks.¹⁴

3.2 “Quintessential Kripkean Dogmatism”: Mutually Assured Rejection

Zia H. Shah describes a “quintessential Kripkean dogmatism” that defines the interaction between these groups. This occurs when the source of evidence is rejected strictly based on its origin, independent of its content.

“This is quintessential Kripkean dogmatism: if an Ahmadi encounters a Sunni scholar’s refutation first, he will treat it as misleading and hold to Ahmadi interpretation. If a Sunni encounters an Ahmadi argument, he dismisses it because it contradicts the consensus.” ³

This mutually assured rejection is most visible in two specific theological battlegrounds:

Case Study A: The Death of Jesus

The theological status of Jesus serves as a perfect Kripkean case study.

• Sunni Position ($P_S$): Jesus ascended bodily to heaven and is alive (based on traditional exegesis of 4:157).
• Ahmadi Position ($P_A$): Jesus survived the crucifixion, migrated to Kashmir, and died a natural death (based on rationalism and specific verses like 3:55 and 23:50).³
• The Dogmatic Clash: When these groups debate, they cite the same Quranic verses. However, the Sunni rejects the “swoon theory” (survival of crucifixion) because it contradicts the tradition ($P_S$). The Ahmadi rejects the “ascension theory” because it violates the laws of nature and the finality of Muhammad ($P_A$). Kripkean Dogmatism ensures that neither side’s evidence ever penetrates the other’s cognitive fortress.

Case Study B: Political Leadership (Caliphate vs. Imamate)

• Sunni Argument: The Caliphate is a political office determined by consultation (Shura) or historical precedent (Abu Bakr).
• Shia Argument: Leadership is a divine appointment (Imamate) residing in the lineage of Ali.
• The Dogmatic Clash: A Sunni uses historical fact (Abu Bakr was chosen) as evidence. A Shia dismisses this “fact” as a historical usurpation, prioritizing the Ghadir Khumm tradition as the only valid evidence of legitimacy. The Kripkean filter defines “legitimacy” differently for both, making the evidence for one side invisible to the other.¹⁵

---

IV. The Believer versus The Non-Believer: Quranic Epistemology

The dynamic of Kripkean Dogmatism is not limited to intra-faith disputes; it is fundamentally inscribed in the interaction between the believer and the non-believer (or the hypocrite). The Quran itself addresses the psychology of belief and disbelief in ways that anticipate modern theories of cognitive bias and epistemic closure.

4.1 The Sealing of Hearts (Quran 2:7-12)

The concept of Kripkean Dogmatism finds a potent scriptural analogue in the Quranic description of the “sealed heart” (Khatama Allah).

“Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil…” (Quran 2:7).²³

Commentators like Zia Shah and classical exegetes argue that this “sealing” is not an arbitrary act of predestination but a description of a psychological law—essentially, the solidification of Kripkean Dogmatism.²⁴ When an individual persistently rejects evidence ($E$) to maintain a prior commitment to disbelief ($P$), their cognitive faculties atrophy regarding that specific truth. The “rust” on the heart described in the Quran is the accumulation of biased assimilations.

In Verses 2:8-12, the Quran describes the Hypocrites (Munafiqun)—those who claim belief but lack conviction. Their psychology is one of cognitive dissonance.

“When it is said to them, ‘Do not cause corruption on the earth,’ they say, ‘We are but reformers.’” (Quran 2:11).²⁶

This mirrors Haidt’s observation of the “moral matrix”: within their own closed system, the hypocrites genuinely believe they are “reformers” (righteous), even while external observers (and God) see them as “spreading corruption.” Their dogmatism blinds them to the reality of their actions.

4.2 The Dual Nature of Revelation (Quran 17:82 and 17:89)

The Quran explicitly acknowledges that the same evidence produces divergent results depending on the observer’s internal state—a perfect description of belief polarization.

“And We send down of the Qur’an that which is healing and mercy for the believers, but it does not increase the wrongdoers except in loss.” (Quran 17:82).²⁷

Here, the Quran serves as the “mixed evidence” in the psychological experiment described by Kelly.

• For the Believer ($P=$ Truth): The text serves as “healing and mercy,” reinforcing their faith and psychological well-being.
• For the Dogmatic Wrongdoer ($P=$ Falsehood): The exact same text increases their spiritual loss. They scrutinize it to find fault, mocking its verses or twisting its meaning. The more they read, the more confirmed they become in their disbelief.

Verse 17:89 reinforces this by stating that despite the Quran containing “every kind of example” (metaphors, arguments, rational proofs), “most of the people refused [anything] except disbelief”.²⁸ This refusal is Kripkean: the disbeliever has pre-committed to a worldview where the Quran cannot be true, rendering all its examples impotent.

4.3 The Engine of Dogmatism: Decisive vs. Allegorical (Quran 3:7)

Perhaps the most sophisticated diagnosis of sectarian and dogmatic hermeneutics is found in Surah Al-Imran, Verse 3:7. The Quran categorizes its own verses into two types:

1. Muhkamat (Decisive/Fundamental): These are the “Mother of the Book”—clear, unambiguous verses (e.g., “God is One,” “Do not kill”).
2. Mutashabihat (Allegorical/Ambiguous): Verses susceptible to multiple interpretations (e.g., God’s “Hand,” the nature of the soul).

The verse diagnoses the pathology of the dogmatist:

“As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]”.²⁹

This is the mechanism of Kripkean Dogmatism in sectarian debates. A sect (Sunni, Shia, or Ahmadi) will often bypass the clear, decisive verses (which call for unity) and fixate on allegorical or ambiguous verses to support their specific dogmatic claims. By focusing on the Mutashabihat, they generate “fitna” (discord) and reinforce their distinct identity against the “other.” The verse warns that this pursuit of ambiguity to validate prior biases is the root of sectarian division.³⁰

---

V. Thematic Epilogue: Resolving Dogmatism through Coherence and Science

If Kripkean Dogmatism and moral tribalism are the diagnoses, the question remains: what is the cure? How can believers and political partisans break out of their “parochial boxes” and engage in a genuine pursuit of truth? The answer, as articulated by Zia H. Shah MD and supported by Quranic theology, lies in the principle of Coherence and the utilization of Scientific Commentary.

5.1 The Falsification Test: Quran 4:82

The central pillar for resolving this epistemic crisis is found in Surah An-Nisa:

“Will they not, then, meditate upon the Quran? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradiction.” (Quran 4:82).³²

This verse offers a rational criterion for truth: Non-Contradiction. It challenges the reader to find inconsistency. Zia Shah argues that this verse is the antidote to dogmatism because it demands integration. A true understanding of the Quran cannot lead to internal contradictions or contradictions with established reality.³³

If a sectarian interpretation (Sunni, Shia, etc.) leads to a contradiction with another part of the Quran or with established facts, the Kripkean license to “ignore the evidence” is revoked by the Quran itself. The verse mandates Tadabbur (deep reflection) to resolve conflicts, rather than dogmatic dismissal. If a belief ($P$) creates a contradiction within the text or with the external world, $P$ must be revisited.

5.2 Science as the Neutral Arbiter (Tafsīr ʿilmī)

Zia H. Shah MD proposes a modern hermeneutic strategy to bypass sectarian gridlock: Scientific Commentary.

Sectarian debates are often circular because they rely on disputed historical texts (Hadith) where each side rejects the other’s sources. However, Nature is a text that all sects share. Gravity, biology, and cosmology function the same way for a Sunni, a Shia, a Republican, or a Democrat.

Shah argues that because the Quran is the “Word of God” and Nature is the “Work of God,” they cannot contradict (The Unity of Truth).¹⁰ Therefore, established science can serve as a neutral arbiter to resolve interpretative disputes.

• The “Book of Nature”: In the “Republic of Knowledge,” the authority on nature is held by the scientist, not the jurist. By validating Quranic truths through observable realities (embryology, geology, cosmology), scientific commentary democratizes access to the text.¹⁰
• Resolution: If a sect interprets a verse to mean the earth is flat or that biological evolution is impossible, and science proves otherwise, the “Unity of Truth” demands that the interpretation be adjusted (taking the verse as Mutashabih or metaphorical) rather than rejecting the science.

5.3 Moving from “Parochial Boxes” to the “Open Ocean”

The ultimate resolution to Kripkean Dogmatism is a shift in epistemic attitude. Instead of using belief as a fortress to defend against evidence, the believer is invited to view the Quran as an “Infinite Ocean” of meaning.

Referencing the “ink of the sea” metaphor in Quran 18:109 and 31:27 (“If all the trees were pens and the ocean were ink… God’s words would not be exhausted”), Shah argues against the “Closure of Meaning”.¹⁰ Kripkean Dogmatism relies on the idea that the truth was fully captured by the founding Imams or Jurists of the past. The Quranic view is that the Word of God is inexhaustible.

• The Parochial Box: A closed system where truth is limited to what the “founding fathers” (of a sect or party) interpreted. It fears new evidence.
• The Open Ocean: An open system that recognizes God’s words are inexhaustible. It welcomes new evidence (scientific, historical, moral) as a means to uncover deeper layers of the text.

In this model, “wisdom is the lost property of the believer.” Whether that wisdom comes from a Republican or Democrat, a Sunni or an Ahmadi, or a scientist or a theologian, it is to be integrated into a coherent whole. By prioritizing the coherence demanded by Quran 4:82 over the loyalty demanded by sectarian Kripkean Dogmatism, one achieves not only intellectual honesty but spiritual liberation.

Conclusion

Kripkean Dogmatism serves as a powerful diagnostic tool for understanding the fractured state of human discourse. Whether manifested in the “moral matrices” of American politics described by Haidt or the sectarian schisms of the Muslim world, the mechanism is the same: the use of prior belief to filter out inconvenient truths. However, the Quran itself, through verses like 4:82 and 3:7, provides the epistemological tools to dismantle this dogmatism. By enforcing a standard of internal consistency and external coherence with the natural world, and by warning against the weaponization of ambiguity, the scripture invites humanity to rise above tribal certainty into a more expansive, rational, and unified understanding of the Truth.

If you would rather read in Microsoft Word file: