In generations past, disagreements would occur between people facing each other, or at least via a telephone or even a letter. These incidents could be simple political or social differences being voiced loudly between family and friends, or on personal grievances and religious dogmas.
In today's world, this has "evolved" into posts online (with the plethora of platforms available), in which a person can take an anonymous identity, pretend to be someone else, engaging people with a viciousness that would more than likely not be visible if the parties concerned actually met face- to- face. Strangers can find ways to violate the privacy of their interlocutors, hacking into their medical or financial records, and even "dox" their ideological foes. If that was not bad enough, universities, companies and governments can (and often do) penalize individuals for expressing views contrary to their own, and, worse still, pressure individuals to vocalize "official" positions. The whole idea of freedom of thought and political expression drowns in a sea of water released by those who truly believe in a world-order that would make George Orwell cringe! We have seen this repeatedly in Western nations in the wake of recent Middle East violence. Comedians, musicians and a host of other non-political actors under pressure illustrate this very well.
Arguing with the stubborn
While some certainly have financial incentives to engage in arguments online, others do so out of a seemingly genuine conviction that their assertions are true, despite a plethora of evidence to the contrary. In the real world, we may end up in cycles of arguments with colleagues, relatives and even neighbors. The digital realm offers a certain amount of freedom of expression not experienced in the real world, especially with the ability to adopt nicknames and disguising of one's identity, yet there are also the dangers of inciting negative emotions in face-to-face encounters.
وَّاِذَا خَاطَبَہُمُ الۡجٰہِلُوۡنَ قَالُوۡا سَلٰمًا
The Qur'an says "and when the ignorant address you, say "peace"" (Q 25:63). The term "ignorant" (Al-Jaahiloon in this particular verse) has the following relevant meanings (1) Having qualities that do not demonstrate tolerance, intelligence and forbearance) (2) Lack of information and insight on the particular subject. (3) Behavior and disposition that does not display maturity. The English term stubborn can be seen as an equivalent for the Arabic term Jaahil!
Arguing with the intelligent
Engaging with an intelligent interlocutor can have its rewards, such as them having the capacity to see your viewpoint (and you theirs), sharpening the presentation, and coming to a mutual understanding and positive conclusion. However, even with this, it can delve into name-calling, emotional tirades and inappropriate retaliation. We must also recognize that those we may deem intelligent opponents also can operate from an insincere agenda, perhaps to provoke you into a statement or an action that would lead to unnecessary problems. Others may want to distract you from engaging in productive work.
The Qur'an does say "Do not debate with people of scripture, except in ways that are best, unless it is with those among them who do injustice and say, "We believe in what has been sent to us, and what has been sent to you, our god and your god is one (and the same), and we are submissive to Him."{Q 29:46). This shows us that we should try to find common ground when we deliver our presentation.
Qur'an has also told us not to ridicule the idols of the idolaters (Q 6:108) and not to engage with those who are making fun of us, at least until they turn to another subject (Q 4:140). These guidelines help us to maintain mutual respect in any discussion.
Conclusion
Arguing just for the sake of arguing is largely unproductive. It wastes time and energy. If arguments are entered into, it should be with the right people, at the right place and the right time. We should share correct information when it is appropriate and do what we can to dispel slanders and false news. The workplace may not always be the best place to do that, and emotional replies tend to not produce positive results.
When we do engage with those with different beliefs (be they political, religious or other), we should present well, with evidence and logic, yet. be prepared that for whatever reasons, they may leave the discussion with the same views that they entered into it. The Qur'an itself gives an entire chapter in recognition of this fact, ending with the words to those with differing theology "To you be your way (deen) and to me my way." (Q 109:6)
9 comments:
What a bizarre take on a subject which has been so thoroughly studied through the ages.
Are you unaware that grammar, logic and rhetoric are the foundation of the classical liberal arts?
Our Western tradition is deep in this area; rather than extemporizing on these subjects based on a few words from Muhammad, perhaps you should educate yourself by doing some readings from Western sources.
Your article does provide many clues about your style.
@ N.B.
Thank you for proving my point. You have shown demonstrated precisely the point of this short post. Your post demonstrates arrogance, ignorance (atleast when it comes to me) and overall incorrect assumptions.
Let's dissect your comment above.
" What a bizarre take on a subject which has been so thoroughly studied through the ages.
Are you unaware that grammar, logic and rhetoric are the foundation of the classical liberal arts?" ( N.B.)
Firstly, of course I am aware of the importance of grammar, rhetoric and logic to the liberal arts. Those fields are not alien to me at all.
This article is not talking about some Socratic discussion between philosophers in a campus setting, or even a moderated political or religious debate, rather, it is talking about random arguments with stubborn people.
You, my dear N.B., have been posting on here for years, with atleast one long pause, with no agenda in mind besides arguing and outright insulting. When others reply to you (sometimes with the same as what you dished out to them), you try to play the victim-card and assume some moral high ground.
One of the points of the article is to not waste time and energy on those who simply want to drain both.
" Our Western tradition is deep in this area; rather than extemporizing on these subjects based on a few words from Muhammad, perhaps you should educate yourself by doing some readings from Western sources." (N.B.)
I don't deny the importance of the fields you mentioned above (they also have a role in traditional Islamic scholarship), and I am actually amazed that you now assert that I have not read "Western sources".
You are talking about something totally different from what I was saying in the article. Either you didn't initially understand me (which is not very likely), or you are simply attempting to provoke another argument.
" Your article does provide many clues about your style" ( N.B.)
That's fine. We all have our styles of speaking, writing and expression. Indeed, it was after your second anyonymous post in the "Misleading and Misled" article that I recognized it was actually you (I have no idea why you initially seemed to try to hide that).
Perhaps now that you have "clues" about my style. it will help you to see things better, and not just in the manner you have displayed in times past.
To make it more clear, the article's core message is to engage with the right people at the right place and time, and not be drawn into pointless arguments.
And you have proved my point. Thank you.
Now, please take a deep breath and then go talk to someone who has some expertise in this subject... perhaps a rabbi or an Christian minister.
Great Article. Timely!
And to NB, you need to calm down, take your own advice.
@Anonymous: I am calm. There was a time when I was angered by what Waheed said, and, more significantly, what he DIDN'T say, but I'm well past that stage now. I no longer have an expectation that he will respond thoughtfully to my comments.
I haven't taken the time to point out the errors in this article because I feel that it would be a waste of time. Waheed has shown me over and over again that he is close-minded to input from me. Sometimes I post a comment which is intended mainly for the readers in the hope of stimulating a conversation. However, there seem to be few readers who are interested in conversations.
If you are genuinely interested in a thoughtful conversation, I might find the time to elaborate on my first comment and explain to you why I don't agree with you that this is a "great article".
@ N.B.
Just getting around to posting on the blog, and wanted to remind you that for most of the readers who have engaged with you over the years, generally they cease the engagement. They stop because of their own time restrictions, and- most importantly- they similarly feel it is a waste of time to simply argue with you.
Similarly, I also don't wish to waste time in endless arguments. Debating just for the sake of debating is not always a good idea, especially when the other person engages in disrespectful hit and run tactics, and then complain when we don't buy what he is selling.
You are, of course, free to engage or not as you see fit, but remember others have the same choices available.
Just more evidence, Waheed, that you do not understand the nature of a conversation in which people don't agree on everything; something which is more common than not. Like I said in my first comment: what a bizarre take on the subject.
You should think carefully about the implication of your words: "When we do engage with those with different beliefs ... yet be prepared that for whatever reasons, they may leave the discussion with the same views that they entered into it."
Is there no possibility that YOU may leave the discussion with DIFFERENT views that you entered into it?
This is what I meant by my reference to "your style".
@ NB
Actually, the reverse is true, and you are simply projecting your own views onto me.
I am very capable of having intelligent, rational discussions with those who disagree with me. I do so on an almost regular basis, with Muslims, non-Muslims, Christians, Jews, even atheists. I even count some non-Muslim clergy and certain philosophers as friends, with all that entails such friendships.
I also don't mind it if (and when) people disagree with my views, however, the point of the article (which so far you have missed or ignored) is that arguing just for arguing sake, engaging with disrespectful and belligerent parties is simply unproductive.
I don't believe in the trinity, but I don't go to Christian websites to argue with Christians about it. I don't go and insult Christians on their podcasts or their Church services.
However, the above is what you do, and at least on surface you seem to enjoy it. You insult and insult, get mad at even the mildest of replies, assert some (false) claims of being attacked, and attempt to save face by making some moral claims.
It is the above, more than anything else, that makes people not want to engage with you. If you act like this in real life, it would do you good to engage in serious introspection. I truly mean that.
@ N-B
It maybe useful to read the article on polemics on this blog.
Post a Comment