Are arguments actually worth it?

 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)

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH: REFLECTIONS ON "1984" BY GEORGE ORWELL

 

Introduction

Since the dawn of humanity, there has been countless seers, men and women of insight with the capacity to address not only the present circumstances with a creative analysis, but who can actually observe the road into the future! Consequently, those observations can be repeatedly consulted, long after the seers have left the scene.

George Orwell's 1984 is one such work. Published in 1944, against the backdrop of the rise of communism and towards the end of the second world war, the British writer (whose actual name was Eric Arthur Blain) has imagined a civilization which has, in many ways, has come into being.

The general plot can be summarized as follows: A world of conformity to the image of Big Brother, the "common man" represented by Winston Smith, navigates his life in the fictional nation of Oceania, which, although at war with two other nations, focuses on the preservation of its power over its own citizens through what amounts to brainwashing, manipulation, xenophobia, and a host of other activities. The title of this review - IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH - is taken from one of the slogans expressed within the story.

Eventually he begins to question the society's attitudes (albeit in secret, with little verbalization), and runs afoul of the authorities, is interrogated and tortured by "Mr. O'brien", who shares with him (Smith) a handful of insights that are designed to destroy any hopes of authentic change of the status quo.

Reading this work afresh has led this writer to find frightening parallels in today's world, some of the more interesting examples are noted below

Ministry of Truth

The ninety-second page of the 2003 edition (ft.1) shows that Oceania has a government body that has "concerned itself with news, entertainment, education and the fine arts" known as the Ministry of Truth. While it is universally expected that governments have entities which present their narrative, it is our observation that the current trend has gone beyond that. The current trend is to influence all of humanity to think and act in one fashion, and that message is conveyed through all available means. 

"Ministries of truth" exist throughout the world today, albeit with different names. They exist outside of government bodies as well. They exist on college campuses, high schools, social media platforms, and increasingly infiltrate religious communities. 

Generations that grow up in today's world are exposed to "values" and ideas that are quite contrary to those of the previous generation, and thus are expected to conform or be "cancelled". Careers are ruined, family relationships torn apart, religious values (and sometimes even texts) are altered in the name of being "woke"! 

I have seen within mainstream media, from media organizations as well as politicians, lately, present historical untruths, and likewise the fear of even presenting a sound view on certain subjects, seemingly out of fears of political or financial consequences. 

Ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness

In a Western context, the rise of white nationalism, so called "Random" shootings that almost always target minorities (blacks, Asians, etc.), such occurrences no longer shock Americans. Orwell has spoken of xenophobia inspired by the government of Oceania (applicable in today's world) with the following words " A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill. torture, to smash faces with a sledgehammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic." 

Thoughtcrime

One of the many terms created in 1984, it imagines a world in which one's very thoughts are punishable by the authorities. Those thoughts can be simple normal grievances with local government, or even of a personal nature, yet they are harshly punished. 

In the academic world this is perhaps more noticeable. A writer is careful in sharing conclusions, for fear of damage to one's career. In some nations, it is an actual crime to question the details of a specific historical event! 

Increasingly, conformity to trends within society is demanded, upon threat of income loss. One's own values are made to take a back seat, regardless of how irrational or unreasonable the trend is. Some are "Doxed" by their foes. 

Freedom of thought, speech and faith are increasingly becoming things of the past, even within the nations that pride themselves on being bastions of liberty! 

Cleansing language

The Ministry of Truth has-in 1984, produced dictionaries, which has removed terms which could be used to express dissent. One example in the book is the removal of the word "bad", replacing it with "ungood". 

We see similar actions with what can be termed "politically correct" language within all aspects of public speech, literature, and even religious discourse. Recently I saw a public statement which, quoting Quranic scriptures, replaced "Him" with "Her".! The texts are in reference to God. (ft.2)

No access to knowledge

In the Oceania of 1984, the ministry of truth worked had the ability to remove perceived foe's information (names, accomplishments etc.) from records, making it as if they never existed. Executed prisoner were "dissolved", and the main protagonist (Smith) himself is a torture victim, made to think that a certain book and certain people in fact were simply creations of his own mind!

While our world has seemingly access to plethora of knowledge like never before, it is our observation that actually the opposite has happened. Professionals are ignored and belittled, in the face of social media savvy amateurs! 

People can read much on their mobile phones yet find it almost impossible to retain that information! A fad of video- viewing (and short videos at that) has replaced studying from a book and taking notes.

While it is true that the learning process varies from one to another, our fear is that the electronic revolution will make it impossible for people to be able to develop critical thinking skills, let alone the information needed for other areas of life.

Conclusion

This article is by no means exhaustive, it is simply a handful of observations. 1984 is a work that deserves to be read, in particular by teachers, politicians, community leaders, parents and activists. It will generate thought on the dystopian world that will emerge in a complete fashion if we are not careful. 

Footnotes

(1) The edition consulted (which also has Animal Farm by the same author) is the 2003 edition, published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (Boston, Ma).

(2) The Quranic name for God is "Allah", and while the Qur'an certainly uses masculine pronouns, none have understood it to mean that God is actually male! Moreover, Arabic, like other languages, can use masculine or feminine pronouns and not imply natural gender at all. The Quranic texts I am referencing use "He" (Huwa in Arabic), and the author of the public statement changed it to "she" or "Her", deliberately, without any respect for the original language. The change was made in order to conform to a movement that seeks to address patriarchy by emphasis on feminism. My point is that in the Quranic and Arabic context, such a debate is totally unnecessary and utterly illogical.