In other words, the assertion makes sense, based on the assumptions of the speaker. It is part of a whole. In order to understand the part, we must see where it fits into the whole, determine where the fault lies in the entire outlook of the speaker (if one is to be found) and judge the part accordingly.

For example, suppose someone tells you he believes religion should bring happiness. For a religious person with a different understanding of religion, this idea might not make sense, because he thinks religion is about obedience to God, and doing the right thing. “Happiness” doesn’t have a place in religion (at least not in this life time). To resolve the misunderstanding, you wouldn’t go anywhere by repeating the same statement. The two have different frames of reference. The statement doesn’t make sense to the listener, because it doesn’t have a place in his frame. It’s not part of his “big picture.” He would have understood what is being meant by the statement, but doesn’t think it is a correct assertion.

Now, if the speaker moves up one level, and presents his frame of reference, or a part of it that places the statement in a more meaningful context, then the discussion can move forward:

“Religion doesn’t bring God any benefit, but is for the benefit of mankind.”

“God created human nature, and His religion is compatible with their nature.”

These statements, while not necessarily sufficient to convince someone that the initial statement is true, offer a wider scope – and reveal a greater part of the picture – to understand what the speaker’s opinion is based on.

There are two things that need to be done in order to have fruitful discussions:

1-Reveal the frame of reference to the point of commonality: Most beliefs share a common overall frame, then branch off when dealing with more specific issues. In order to resolve misunderstandings, and to have a discussion on the level that matters, you need to begin with the belief you have in common. This defines a common frame of reference for both parties to use.

2- Question the validity of your own frame of reference: Your personal frame of reference might not be a valid one. Assess whether the other party’s frame of reference is more realistic than your own. This presents the problem of judging your frame of reference by the standard of your own frame of reference (which is why all religions are correct according to their followers)! What is important here is the willingness to accept that your frame of reference can be wrong and should be questioned.

]]> http://www.afilsforyourthoughts.com/blog/2008/08/31/frames-of-reference/feed/ 2 http://www.afilsforyourthoughts.com/blog/2008/07/24/intolerance-towards-tolerance/ http://www.afilsforyourthoughts.com/blog/2008/07/24/intolerance-towards-tolerance/#comments Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:28:14 +0000 Haider http://www.afilsforyourthoughts.com/?p=97 There are many religious individuals, or even scholars, who condemn religious tolerance – i.e. the acceptance of other religions and cooperation with their adherents – because it is considered to be the acceptance of falsehoods, and those who are propagating false beliefs.

This is especially critical when the beliefs promoted by other religions conflict with one’s own beliefs. That is, how can one assert the belief in a single deity, yet accept to interact with those who believe in multiple deities? How can one build ties with those who deny the prophethood of the one whose religion they follow?

Some of the points to note about religious tolerance are:

• To accept the existence of other religions does not mean that you accept their beliefs to be true, or equally valid to yours

• To interact with others from different faiths does not mean that you approve of all their actions

• Religious tolerance is to respect people’s freedom to think for themselves and choose their beliefs as they see fit, without the use of intimidation or compulsion

• Where people have disagreements about their beliefs or their customs or moral codes, they should be willing to discuss these matters, and to exchange their opinions

• To refuse to interact with others does not help you promote your religion. It is only through dialogue that people can form a better understanding of one another

While it’s extremely important to address the issue of sectarianism and to acknowledge the growing dangers it poses, the approach that’s being taken in Kuwait is fostering greater sectarianism, and is preventing the spread of the only possible solution to the problems sectarianism can pose.

What are Sects?

Every religion is open to a wide range of possible interpretations, and the adherents of religions rarely agree on what interpretation to accept. This leads the adherents to pursue the interpretation they believe (or want to believe) is the correct interpretation of the religion. Sects form when the adherents of a religion are divided over its interpretation, and they distinguish themselves based on their differences, even if they share a lot of common ground. The differences are usually over major issues that the adherents believe are of great importance that they must express these differences by parting ways or using additional labels to distinguish themselves from one another.

Sects can form out of a disagreement regarding the attributes of God (e.g. whether He has a body or not) or other doctrinal issues, the appointment of a leader to lead the adherents (e.g. whether a leader was appointed by the founder of the religion, or if the decision was left to the adherents, who the leader should be, what are the means to determine the next leader, etc) or can be about the ethical code or  the mandatory duties of the adherents (e.g. whether the end justifies the means or not). Sects rarely form out of disputes on what colour the curtains should be in their place of worship.

Therefore, it is important to acknowledge that these differences are considered important by the sects, and they cannot be dismissed or ignored. Otherwise, the very existence of these sects would not be warranted by their adherents. For this reason, the government cannot make a demand that sects set aside their differences, because this infringes on the freedom of religion (i.e. the right to choose which religion – or sect – one wishes to follow). Such a demand would naturally infringe on the freedom of expression, since any statement deemed sectarian will be punishable by law, and it will, therefore, infringe on the freedom of thought, since the citizens of that country will be limited by the ideas they can be exposed to, or the conclusions they are allowed to reach.

We’ll revisit these issues in a later section, where we will point out why the Ministry of Information’s approach to the problem of sectarianism is harmful to the adherents of these sects, and to any country as a whole. But first, we must point out some of the positive aspects of sectarianism, and then to identify where the problem with sectarianism lies.

Good Sectarianism

The existence of sects is extremely natural and far more healthier than if a single body appoints itself – or is appointed by the government – as the sole source of acceptable interpretations, and bans any interpretation that is in conflict with its own teachings. Bodies established to filter interpretations are hardly infallible, and they usually promote more dangerous interpretations than the ones they are banning. The attitude itself is destructive, in that it dismisses the importance of an individual’s ability to reason and evaluate ideas for him or herself, and to reach one’s own conclusions. By taking over this role, the “thought police” are only encouraging ignorance and misunderstandings between sects, or between individuals with differing beliefs and convictions.

Sectarianism – in itself – is the freedom to disagree with others, and the freedom to follow one’s own convictions. If one is born into a sect that he later disagrees with, he has (or should have) the freedom to join another sect, where he will find others that will share his outlook. For this to occur, one must be exposed to the interpretations other sects espouse, without any attempt to misrepresent these beliefs, or limit their exposure. By granting – and demanding – that other sects enjoy this freedom, people morally assert their own right to such freedom. Any sect that claims to have the sole right to express its views and to embrace adherents from other sects is guilty of hypocrisy and, therefore, forfeits – by the standard it places on others – its own right to its freedom of expression and association.

Sectarianism as a result of intellectual freedom is extremely positive, and is a great asset to the community, the country and the religion itself.

Benefits to the Community:

The community (i.e. members of a particular sect) benefit because they are able to associate with individuals that share their beliefs, and be able to live by and express the convictions they uphold, without being forced into accepting beliefs that one disagrees with. For example, the Muslim community is divided over its understanding of the concept of free will, according to Islam. Some say that there is no such thing as free will, since it means that God’s authority is limited, whereas other Muslims believe that we do have free will, since God would not judge us for actions we had no choice in committing. The issue is extremely important, because it forms a basis for one’s understanding of God (i.e. it will influence one’s spiritual connection with God), and one’s understanding of himself and the world (how will a person behave if he thinks he has no free will?).

If Muslims are unable to follow their own convictions regarding this issue, and are left to accept an opposing belief to their own, they will either feel distant from Islam, or live in constant contradiction, where their convictions are clashing with their religious beliefs. Having the freedom to live by one’s own understanding of Islam removes the inevitability of such a contradiction, and Muslims can have a more rewarding spiritual and religious experience.

The issue of who determines the correct interpretation of Islam, and the extent to which Muslims have the freedom to interpret Islam for themselves is a broad subject that I would need to address separately. We must bear in mind that Islam, as a divine message, should be understood as God had meant it to be, and not how we wish to interpret it. People cannot consider themselves the followers of non-violent Mahatma Gandhi, while they promote violence, or claim that Gandhi would have approved of their violent actions judging from their “unique” circumstances. If they wish to be loyal to Gandhi’s teachings, then they should ask themselves: What would Gandhi do in this situation? Then act according to the answer. But to claim adherence while dismissing the message, or to interpret it according to one’s wishes is a betrayal of the message itself.

The same is true with Islam. Muslims cannot simply interpret Islam the way they want to interpret it, but should be sincere in their belief that their interpretation is the correct reflection (or as close as they can come to the correct reflection) of the message God had intended to convey. To grant people the freedom to interpret Islam does not mean that their interpretations are valid, or that they are free to customise Islam to suit their taste.

Benefits to the Country:

The benefit sectarianism (i.e. the freedom to follow one’s own interpretation of a religion) brings to a country is that it is an expression of the freedom of thought and association. These freedoms allow citizens to think for themselves, which requires that they educate themselves, as well as to develop a confidence in their thinking and their abilities. The result, provided that sectarianism is promoted in its correct sense, will be a confident, intelligent citizenry that respects other people’s opinions and seeks to influence others through dialogue. When the government steps in to teach its citizens which ideas are acceptable and which are unacceptable, the citizens will abandon their personal efforts to evaluate ideas. They will, instead, expect to be spoon-fed their beliefs. The alternatives are, of course, reform or revolution, but the natural consequence of a country stripped of its ability to judge for itself, is that it will default to ignorance. Granting people the freedom to judge ideas for themselves strengthens their commitment to be better educated and to put in the effort to learn for themselves.

Besides, it’s close to impossible for any country to ban ideas. If books and other media outlets are banned, the government can never ban the thinking process that goes on in an individual’s mind. They may cripple his ability to think properly, if he is not exposed to the correct information and a sound education, but he can still develop ideas that the government may not wish him to have. And in all likelihood, if a person is forced into thinking a certain way and behaving in a certain way, then he will develop a negative impression of the ideas and actions that he is being forced to accept, and will usually favour the alternative – any alternative – to these ideas and actions. Therefore, rather than promote the ideas being forced on the citizens, the government would be developing contempt towards itself, and is making opposing ideas more appealing.

Benefits to the Religion:

While division within a religious community is often regarded as a negative phenomenon, it can serve a crucial purpose for the religion.

It must be noted that different interpretations express different messages. If a single statement is interpreted differently, it is as though two different statements were expressed. This is because the actual words used to convey a message are not as important as the meaning they hold. The message is in the meaning, and not in the words. Therefore, the message is in the interpretation, and not in the text, which can be used to convey a set of different messages.

For the message of a religion to be conveyed correctly, it must be interpreted correctly. If the interpretation is incorrect, the message is different to the one that’s intended to be conveyed. In the case of Islam, or any divine religion, if the interpretation of the scripture is incorrect, then the message is no longer divine. It is not the message that God communicated. It is not the meaning that God intended. Therefore, the incorrect interpretation should not be attributed to Him. We would have to say: “Our understanding of Islam is…” but it’s difficult to assert that “Islam is…” especially when we are prone to make mistakes.

But if false interpretations of Islam should not be attributed to the religion, then why is sectarianism a good thing? Should we not limit the possibility of false interpretations of Islam by limiting the freedom to interpret Islam, or to ban the existence of some sects (as in the case with the Ahmadiyya sect in Pakistan), or to ban discussion on the issues that divide Muslims (which is the direction Kuwait is taking)?

Looking back at the problem of interpretation: if the interpretation of a message is incorrect, then the meaning of that message is not conveyed. If there is only one interpretation, which is incorrect, then the message is lost. However, if there are a number of interpretations to that message, then the possibility of finding the correct interpretation increases and, therefore, there is a chance of finding the correct meaning being conveyed by the message. Therefore, the existence of sects is an opportunity to find the true message of Islam, rather than have a single body determine what the meaning of Islam is, and burying its true message in the process.

In the absence of an authoritative person or body that knows and understands Islam as it should be known and understood, no individual or institution or government should decide how Islam, or any other religion, should be interpreted, or to place restrictions on what interpretations can be expressed, or what issues can be addressed. Placing such restrictions would distort the message being conveyed by the religion, and any honest Muslim would want to have the freedom to understand Islam as it should be understood, and not to have its meaning filtered through the ignorance and politics of others. Exposure to different interpretations and perspectives can help develop a better understanding of language, interpretation, psychology, philosophy, human understanding and a range of other issues that contribute to a more accurate interpretation of the message. In the absence of  such understanding, people would interpret the message out of some knowledge, and a great deal of ignorance, which is usually the case with those who don’t consider other possible interpretations to the verses they seek to interpret.

Bad Sectarianism

Sectarianism has a bad reputation for a reason. It rarely offers the benefits I highlighted earlier. This isn’t because the existence of sects is intrinsically bad, but because the attitude towards sectarianism often is. Adherents of sects, especially the uneducated masses, do not adhere to their sect after careful reflection and study, but do so out of custom and by default. They defend their sect not because they are certain that it is the true interpretation of their religion, but because it is their sect and their interpretation. The issue, therefore, is not the message of the religion, and the pursuit of the true meaning God intended to convey, but the identity they associate themselves with.

When sectarianism is approached through the lens of identity, and adherents of different sects are not prepared to consider or attempt to understand the different interpretations other sects promote, nor express their own views in a manner to be understood by other sects, then the benefits sectarianism brings will never be realised, and the only consequences will be the problems commonly associated with sectarianism. Nobody benefits from such sectarianism. Neither the community, nor the country, nor the religion.

Problems to the Community:

When a community that adheres to a particular sect does so purely out of tribal affiliation, the adherents will seek to reassure themselves that their version of Islam is correct by misrepresenting other sects and perceiving Islam and the world through its own sectarian lens, which would make perfect sense to the adherents, since the criterion for judging the validity of the sect’s outlook is the sect itself! Such dishonesty is both intellectually and spiritually damaging, and gives the moral justification for the adherents of other sects to adopt the same attitude, and sects will not gain adherents that are drawn towards them through conviction, since each sect clings to its beliefs out of cultish obedience rather than objective conviction.

Intolerance is usually the product of ignorance and emotion. When an individual cannot understand another person’s point of view, he will usually experience frustration and anger whenever he is exposed to other people’s opinions. If objectivity is dismissed, then this is the chronic condition that the community, or the country, will live in. When people adhere to their “subjective truth,” sectarianism becomes the breeding ground for conflict and intolerance. But it’s not the existence of sects that’s to blame, but the intention that people have for adhering to their sects.

Problems to the Country:

One of the greatest problems experienced in a country with a strong religious or sectarian presence (i.e. religious affiliation is a feature used to distinguish between different citizens) is that the adherents of each sect will only seek to benefit those belonging to their sect. This is extremely damaging to any country, because this is where the division within the country will be felt the most. Members of parliament will not be voted for based on their credentials and abilities, but on their religious affiliation and how they can serve their sect. The gain of one sect will necessarily mean a loss for the other. Justice will no longer be used as a criterion, but religious affiliation will. And where justice is abandoned, no country can prosper.

Problems to the Religion:

One of the most prominent themes in the Holy Koran is the detachment from false criteria for determining the truth. These come in many forms, such as loyalty to one’s parents, culture, tradition, or one’s unwillingness to admit being wrong. Islam sought to break these attachments, which prevent a person from seeing the truth for what it is. There’s absolutely no Islamic endorsement for commitment to one’s sect if it’s not for the sake of the truth, and one who clings to his sect out of tribal affiliation is expressing the same vices that Islam came to fight.

Problems with Banning Sectarianism

While I accept that sectarianism can have many potential harms, the proposed solution to fighting sectarianism will only amplify the negatives, and suppress the positives. By limiting one’s right to express his or her beliefs regarding other sects, this will not destroy one’s sentiments, but may even intensify them, as they feel unable to express the strong convictions they hold. Even if these convictions are due to ignorance, you cannot defeat ignorance by banning communication.

The Ministry of Information have gone to the extent of banning books that promote a particular sect (albeit the minority Shia sect), deeming it sectarian. But this is the only resort any sect should have to defend and promote itself. By ignoring the fact that sects do exist, and hoping that by removing sectarian labels from society, sectarianism would disappear, isn’t realistic and, therefore, isn’t beneficial.

Solution to Sectarianism

Banning publications that promote (or condemn) Islamic sects will not help promote understanding. Those who condemn other sects are demonstrating their own attitude, and expressing their own opinions. Refusing to listen to what they have to say won’t make them or their ideas go away. You cannot promote knowledge by sensitizing the issue of sectarianism, and making people feel threatened by the law if they are to discuss a dangerous subject won’t encourage calm and thoughtful dialogue.

The only possible solution to bad sectarianism is to encourage the adherents of all sects to be willing to exchange their views without the use of intimidation or any tactic that undermines fruitful dialogue (such as the misrepresentation of other people’s views, name calling, etc). But the important point to note here is that this isn’t the responsibility of the government, but of society, and the leaders and scholars of the sects. Rather than appeal to the government to silence others when their sect is criticized, scholars should present their beliefs to those interested in listening to them, and to promote a suitable atmosphere for dialogue.

People should judge material based on the truthfulness of its content, and the intellectual honesty of its writer. Rather than have the government decide which books are causing sectarianism and which are not, the citizens should be able to judge for themselves, so that they can take responsibility for reaching their own conclusions, and to help them train themselves in the art of dialogue and the science of critical thinking.

The government should step in when people, especially in government roles, discriminate based on sectarian affiliations. If a government official places bureaucratic obstacles in the way of citizens that belong to a particular sect, then the authorities must step in to question the official, and take the necessary actions to guarantee that the citizen’s rights are protected, regardless of his religious convictions.

Promoting understanding between the sects is ultimately the responsibility of the citizens, especially the scholars, who represent their respective sects more than the laymen. And before people look to the government to step in and resolve sectarian problems, they must ask whether they are doing enough to promote dialogue and understanding.

A friend of mine noted that when the Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel first started, the set for the show “The Opposing Direction” had a small table between the guests. However, because the guests couldn’t keep to their side of the table when having a discussion, that small table was replaced with a larger table. Guests sometimes appear on the show via satellite link-up, so that the guests are separated by continents, since the table can’t seem to do the job!

Even then, most guests are easily frustrated, and most episodes end up as shouting matches, without any fruitful outcomes from the discussions. Many people enjoy the show, probably because they can associate with one side, and feel relieved that they could vent their emotions during the show. For them, expressing emotion is more important than conveying their ideas, which reinforces the emotional attitude towards debates.

In this article, we will look at some of the reasons behind our emotional outbursts, and what the solution to each reason is. By being able to control our emotions, we can promote a more fruitful discussion every time we participate in one.

The Causes of Emotional Eruptions:

Not all emotional outbursts are for the same reason. And in order to have control over our emotions, we must first know why they arise in each situation. The default reason (i.e. excuse) we say to ourselves when we have an emotional outburst is that others have triggered our reactions. However, the focus should not be on what others do, but on how we respond to what they do, and why we respond the way we do.

We can become emotional when others express an opinion we disagree with, or when they do things we don’t approve of. However, the root cause behind these incidents is deeper than what we perceive. Below are some of the reasons behind the emotional eruptions we can experience during a discussion:

 1) An Attack on Our Values: Opinions express values, and values arouse emotions. When we consider something of value to us, we do not like to see it undermined or attacked. An opinion contradictory to our own expresses values that clash with ours, which incite negative emotions from us. And since dialogue involves the exchange of opposing beliefs, it’s natural that we can become emotional.

Solution: The solution for this can either be simple, or complicated, depending on how we arrived at our values to begin with. If we do not know why we value what we value, then we cannot offer others a reason. And since we lack an explanation that will convince us, we cannot expect others to be convinced of why we are right (and they are wrong). Therefore, the first step to take is to identify the basis for our values. Ask yourself this question: what is the reason why you value what you value?

What are the reasons? And how convincing are they?

If the best you can come up with is: “because I feel it’s true”, “I’ve always been brought up to believe X, Y, Z”, “How can it not be true?” and anything else besides a tangible reason, then the problem is slightly complicated. On the bright side, you would have discovered why you get emotional during debates (i.e. the basis of your values are your emotions, when it should have been rational reasons that define your values, which you should feel emotional about).

You will need to dig deeper to find out whether your values are worth keeping, and whether you need to do more thinking and researching to understand the reasons behind your values. This is especially true if you subscribe to a religion, where you may not be aware of the reasons behind its beliefs, and have always taken your religion for granted.

If you know the reasons why you have adopted your values, and can clearly express the rationale behind them, then the solution is simple (in principle, but not always in practice). What you need to realise is that others may not know your reasoning, or have attached different meanings to the words you use. For example, someone can fanatically oppose religion because he equates religion to irrationality. If you believe that your religion promotes rationality, then you need to identify where the misunderstanding has occurred and offer your own understanding of the term.

The point behind debates is not to oppose other people’s values, but to discuss their underlying reasons. You can’t discuss emotions directly, because you’ll only get emotions as a result. If people have emotions as the base to their values, then you can either try and convince them that emotions cannot be the basis of values, or you can leave the discussion (never forget that that’s an option!!).

2) Difficulty Communicating: A common reason for why we can lose our tempers during a discussion has nothing to do with our “opponents” but our ability to express our beliefs. This difficulty in getting the message from point A to point B usually leads us to blame point B for not getting the message!

Solution: Identify where the misunderstanding is taking place, and seek to correct it. You can either use simpler words, or different words to help bring the message across. It is also crucial that you get used to writing down your beliefs, so you can familiarise yourself with them, and make it easier for you to recall structured sentences in a debate, as opposed to saying: “Well, it’s like… it’s quite complicated really… the thing is, you know… it’s like…”

Many discussions arise without prior notice, and they usually involve questions we may not have asked ourselves before. There are some questions you should prepare yourself for, especially if they are raised in the media (or related to news items), you have heard others asked the question before, you would ask “you” if you were in other people’s shoes, etc. For example, Muslims - especially those living in the West – should know how to explain the link between Islam and terrorism, etc.

 You should also pay attention to using a strategy when answering questions. For example, if somebody is not familiar with Islam and is not involved in politics, but doesn’t like seeing crimes committed in the name of Islam, he may be curious to know what the connection is between Islam and violence: Does Islam promote violence, or do the terrorists derive their inspiration from something else?

It’s not very wise to say: “Why you say we are terrorist?! Islam is not terrorism! You! America bomb Muslims everywhere and you call us terrorists!? You terrorist! Islam is about peace! And Muslims must protect themselves from America!” (the bad English is to complement the disorganized thinking)

For one thing, this answer seems to justify terrorism in the name of defending ourselves. It is also extremely difficult to swallow: how can Islam be considered “about peace” when it sanctions terrorism (which can be assumed, based on the answer)? The one asking the question may not even support US foreign policy, but the example answer is very confrontational, and pits the blame on the person asking the question.

Such an answer is very common, and lacks strategy and structure. While I won’t be dealing with this issue in this post, it’s important to note that the absence of strategy and structure hinders communication (especially because it opens the floodgates to all kinds of assumptions).

If you are not prepared for a discussion, and think you need more time to think about the topic, you can say that! You can easily say: “I haven’t thought about that before”, “I’m not sure about that”, or anything along these lines.

3) Expectations and Experiences: Frustration often arises from the gap between our expectations and our experiences. If we expect people to understand our point of view, and to immediately accept it, we will become frustrated when they either fail to understand us, or choose not to accept what we say.

Solution: Don’t expect people to be moral, let alone perfect. There are tons of reasons why people may not accept your opinions, especially on the spot. People usually need time to change their beliefs, and this often occurs when they are left to continue the discussion in their head. Give people space to make up their own minds.

It is vital that you use every discussion you have as an opportunity to identify what went wrong in the discussion, and how you can fix it in the future. And even if a discussion goes perfectly, people will exercise their free will, which never guarantees the correct action to take. So don’t expect people to do the right thing, no matter how obvious it is to you.

4) Irrational Beliefs: Not every person you have a discussion with will make sense to you. There are beliefs that are irrational to their core, and there’s no way around the irrationality. If somebody says to you: “I’m a communist” then good luck having a rational discussion! (only kidding… well, at least I wouldn’t put it this bluntly if I wasn’t kidding ). A more serious example would be: “How do we know we even exist?”

It’s extremely difficult to answer such a question, because you wouldn’t know where to begin. Also, you can gauge the “thinking” behind the question from the question itself, and it’s very difficult to identify common grounds with such thinking when it doesn’t seem to have any basis for it.

Solution: Never rationalise the irrational! The worst mistake you can ever do is to think that you can somehow understand irrationality. By definition, irrationality is in conflict with rational thought. Your mind wouldn’t know what to do with irrational opinions, so don’t strain yourself trying to understand them. What you can do is identify what’s absent from an irrational belief (what makes it false), or why it was adopted by the person professing it (the psychology behind the adoption of the belief), but you can never directly understand an irrational belief.

If somebody says to you: “Rationality is for matters of this world, and faith is for matters of the spirit,” you can tell that the person professing this belief has no evidence to support this opinion, and does not place any importance on evidence when it comes to “matters of the spirit.” You can identify the consequences of such a belief, and what sort of beliefs it justifies (every belief under the sun!). You can even say that such a person evades thinking, and has not clearly defined what “matters of the spirit” means, but you cannot begin to understand the irrationality behind this idea. Don’t bother understanding it, otherwise you’ll end up frustrated.

Irrational people are hard to have a discussion with, unless they are willing to question their premises. In most cases, they will not be, because their own lack of understanding leads them to resort to emotions, and emotions cannot be directly discussed. Don’t forget that a viable answer is a smile and a nod, then leaving the debate.

(Some people usually get excited when they are offered an excuse to “let people be”, and are happy to think of others as “irrational”, “stupid”, “ignorant”, etc, so that they don’t feel responsible trying to affect a change, when it’s not possible to “get through to them.” Not all people are lost cases, and there is a lot one can do to promote rational thoughts. I don’t intend to discourage you from having discussions when I say you can always leave a discussion. But you must judge each case and be honest with yourself to find out whether the person you are having a discussion with is worth your effort or not.)

5) Provocative Attitude: The form of a discussion is as important as its content. The vast majority of debates collapse because they are not approached with the right attitude. Sadly, many people assume that just because (they think) they’re right, they can put their message across in any form possible. They usually resort to sarcasm, name calling, intimidation, and a string of other behaviours that amplify emotions and blur out the content.

Solution: You’d be surprised by the amount of sense you can instill in people just by setting an example of how they should behave. People often judge their actions by the actions of others. This works both ways: they can either realise that they are being rude because their opponent isn’t, or can justify rudeness because their opponent is. Therefore, behave in the way you’d like others to behave, and you’ll soon realise that their behaviour will gravitate towards yours.

Even if this strategy doesn’t influence the behaviour of those around you, their actions don’t justify you taking their lead. If they want to be rude, don’t be rude in return. If they try to be intimidating, don’t try to intimidate. Abandoning the retaliatory mentality (if they do it, then I must do it in return) can help you focus on your message, and not be influenced by their attitude. It also helps you act on your beliefs, rather than simply state them. I can’t begin to count the times I’ve seen Muslims behave in the rudest of ways, while trying to defend the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him and his family). If the Prophet taught us to control our tempers, then us losing our tempers in a debate will do greater damage than what our opponents can ever say.

As Imam Ja’far Al-Sadiq (peace be on him) said: “Become preachers without using your tongues.”

While I have not identified all the reasons for why we can become emotional in debates, it’s important to find out what the reason is, and to adopt a mindset that helps you to abandon the emotional reaction (rather than struggle to suppress it).

I felt the need to organize this project because of the negative experiences I have had with Muslims in Speakers’ Corner. Most of them are confrontational, obnoxious and extremely stupid. And having realised that commonsense was not very common, I thought that I should participate in the discussions, to at least show people that there are Muslims with different ideas and a different approach to the ones that frequent Speakers’ Corner..

Overall, my experience in Speakers’ Corner was a positive one, and I learnt many things throughout my involvement in the project. The greatest weakness in the approach of the Muslims is that they seek to teach, but not to learn. They want to speak, but not to listen. This not only prevents them from benefiting from the people they speak to, but it develops the same attitude in them. When others struggle to get their message across to Muslims, they either give up and walk away, or begin talking and no one would be listening..

Anyways, Speakers’ Corner isn’t the topic of this post, but what I learnt from one of the people there is. He said that the reason why people talk a lot about the weather was because they think it’s rude (i.e. wrong, i.e. a taboo) to talk about religion or politics. The weather doesn’t cause confrontations and people tend to agree on what the weather is like (if the sun is out, I doubt anyone would disagree). Religion and politics, on the other hand (both of them on the same hand… I only have two hands!), usually cause friction and tension, which many people do not think is appropriate to start or take part in..

I have also heard that one of the “rules” in Toastmasters (or at least one of their clubs in Kuwait) is that presentations cannot be about religion or politics..

I strongly disagree with this opinion. The problem is not solely the fault of the topics, but the way in which these topics are approached. I say “solely” because many people base their political or religious opinions on their emotions, whereas they use their senses to determine what the weather is like. And since you usually can’t hold a peaceful discussion when two people hold opposing views, but don’t know why they hold these views, the topics themselves are regarded as off-limits..

Rather than discourage discussion, we should encourage understanding. We do not need to accept other people’s opinions if we disagree with them, nor feel compelled to change them, especially if we cannot offer valid reasons for why they should. We should be aware of other people’s beliefs, and learn to listen to what they have to say, before expecting them to hear what we have to say..

There is an important lesson in this, for both Muslims and non-Muslims. Many, many non-Muslims adopted the taboo-attitude, and thought that they should let Muslims believe what they wanted to believe, without seeking to understand what Islam was about. But when “Islam” was being accused of promoting terrorism, and posing a threat to the West, they began to realise the power of ideology, and what actions it can incite. By this time, their understanding of Islam was light-years behind, which left them vulnerable to the pseudo-experts on Islam, who offered their own understanding of the religion, and affirmed that it was behind the terrorist acts..

Muslims who thought that they can live peacefully in the West without raising the issue of what Islam is about were light-years behind in their ability to express their beliefs, especially to a Western audience. Their failure to defend their religion and to help others gain the correct understanding of Islam perpetuated the problem. Now, to cover up their failures, they only seek to silence the critics of Islam, rather than to present reasoned arguments to change people’s impressions of their religion..

To promote understanding and tolerance, we must promote dialogue rather than prohibit it. As Imam Ali (peace be on him) said: “people fear what they are ignorant of.“