Debating format is counterproductive
Debates are counterproductive to understanding Islam.
I’ve noticed something important in some debates I’ve watched the past couple of months, and that is that the Motion is sometimes rather easy for the non-Muslims to argue, and more difficult for the Muslims to argue; for a specific reason. The debate appears to be set up that way.
(I’m posting this “as is” although I should revise to add another debate. I still have to reconsider some of this theory, to be fair. Nonetheless, there are some valid points here, so please read on, and leave a comment if you have any interest in this issue.)
Tariq Ramadan vs. Douglas Murray
The motion was; Is Europe failing its Muslims
Tariq Ramadan for the motion; Murray is against the motion
Murray’s approach is different and unexpected; yes one would say that’s a good strategy for winning a debate. The first point; for Murray, debates are about winning; nothing else matters;
Unless its sports, it doesn’t matter if it was fun and everyone had a good time. In fact it’s usually considered a success, if one side gets annihilated, or humiliated.
Dirty tactics; Douglas Murray, again, brings into the debate some very unscrupulous, below the belt tactics; he brings background information. That Tariq Ramadan’s grandfather – who lived In Egypt, was an extremist; head of an extremist movement or political party. (After first posting, I realized that this information Mr. Murray uses was not mentioned in the debate "Is Europe Failing It's Muslims?" but in another debate which I watched the same day, which was about Muslim Extremism, which would of course mean that Tariq's Grandfather, as perceived by some, or by Murray who brings us this information, is an example of such extremism (although we really don't know much more about him or his views at this point). I apologize for stating otherwise at the beginning of this post. - correction).
Obviously there was time to prepare the materials or one’s arguments; a debate is not usually going to be spontaneous when a live audience is watching.
Tariq Ramadan follows a code of ethics, which probably states that he will not stoop to name calling or a smear campaign. Point no. two; uneven playing field.
What kinds of rules are there, if the debaters can embarrass one another with their family members and so on - It doesn’t seem ethical or fair-minded?
If we look at this in specific detail –
Murray says in his argument that Tariq’s grandfather was an extremist; it’s quite handy that he has found this out. Some people would say that’s fair; but consider this; the debate is about how Muslims are integrating or not into Europe; Murray argues for the motion, that Europe is not failing (its) Muslims. He changes the question, he asks, Are Muslims Failing Europe? (I will get to this later; it’s an important problem in terms of “fairness”).
The debate should focus on Muslims in Europe; which is what Tariq does. It seems like Murray just brings his opposition’s ancestors into it, to discredit him, or prove the point that; well Tariq Ramadan’s granddaddy was an extremist’, so everyone is a suspect; even Tariq might well harbor extremist feelings or an extremist agenda, or at the least he is “opening the door for X-tremists” dangerous to Britain.
Unfortunately, later on, Tariq Ramadan’s counter argument doesn’t even address this issue; which is not smart; maybe he couldn’t think of something to say, with regards to his background; Is Murray attempting to look like a MI5 saving Europe from Tariq’s connection to extremism; is he trying to score by using Islamophobia to his advantage? Point no. three; the debate enforces stereotypes about Muslims. \
There is a history of Europeans committing terrorism for religious reasons; Shin Fein is an example of an extremist group that existed In Europe not long ago, more recently than Tariq’s grandfather was ‘operating’ In Egypt; there are also relevant examples In recent history of extremists and terrorism by Muslims; i.e. 77. So why should Murray bring Tariq’s grandfather into a debate about Europe; when he was living all the time in Egypt? Shouldn’t his example better be reserved for examples of Muslim extremism in their own countries, for another debate? There seems to be no clue by the mediator (s) to stop this “sideshow”; another problem with the debating format and/or with the mediator(s) lack of skill.
There is a history of Europeans committing terrorism for religious reasons; Shin Fein is an example of an extremist group that existed In Europe not long ago, more recently than Tariq’s grandfather was ‘operating’ In Egypt; there are also relevant examples In recent history of extremists and terrorism by Muslims; i.e. 77. So why should Murray bring Tariq’s grandfather into a debate about Europe; when he was living all the time in Egypt? Shouldn’t his example better be reserved for examples of Muslim extremism in their own countries, for another debate? There seems to be no clue by the mediator (s) to stop this “sideshow”; another problem with the debating format and/or with the mediator(s) lack of skill.
Tariq’s best argument might be to argue that he himself is not an extremist, but that the fact that Murray would even bring his granddaddy into this, proves that “Europeans hate Muslims”; and they will never try to have peace or reconciliation with Muslims; because some of them have committed terrorism, so some Europeans will never forgive them or give Muslims a chance to properly integrate. The ball is in Ramadan’s court a second time, but he fails to make a strong volley. (His “gym” metaphor, as comments on the site note, fails utterly.)
As per one particular audience member’s opinion about the successful integration of Muslims into Europe, etc Tariq Ramadan could explain that he is successful and integrated, but that most immigrants will not be so fortunate; the audience seems easily manipulated by their own lack of understanding of the issues, or the whole voting process is a sham, what are their own motivations for being in the audience? I think more likely there is an imbalance here, due to the format – I’d prefer questions from the audience only to clarify what has already been said, but no comments which derail one of the opponent’s arguments; this is a debate between Ramadan and Murray, not between either of them and the audience. (Actually I’d prefer no debate format at all; I think the ‘forum’ is not civil.) About Muslim problems in Europe, he needs more stats to back this up. Muslim Jobless rates, unemployment or crime rates etc. Unfortunately, I was not able to see all the arguments, or video about the debate, to be fair, but what I did see was telling enough. I thought Tariq Ramadan’s approach at the beginning was successfully argued. He makes many valid points; maybe his overall argument was lacking a final “explosive” coup d’état. I guess Murray does that to the audience’s satisfaction.
Another thing to be said briefly about Tariq Ramadan’s position at the U of Oxford, is that, while very nice, is not as compelling against the motion “Is Europe Failing It’s Muslims” (not other Muslims, only the Muslims living there) because it is not surprising that the U of Oxford would want a person who is an Arab. They could’ve perhaps hired someone else, but Tariq admirably qualified for the position. Nonetheless, this doesn’t show how most Muslims are integrating into Europe or that Europe is helping them to integrate; Tariq Ramadan probably helped himself up by his bootstraps; or if he was from a well-to-do Muslim family, still had to merit the respect which he gets as the head of an Islamic Studies Dept. in one of Europe’s best and well-liked capital cities and a coveted destination for students of higher learning.
It’s too bad, that Wisdom of the Crowds doesn’t always hold true. We could site Hitler’s campaigns to annihilate the Jews and take over the world; while he didn’t finally succeed, 6 million Jews and so many other peoples died, either in gas chambers, or in concentration camps, or in some killing fields, etc. Had it not been for the SS or German army and many ordinary people who ‘did nothing’, Hitler would never have been able to get as far as he did.
Murray says in his argument that Tariq’s grandfather was an extremist; it’s quite handy that he has found this out. Some people would say that’s fair; but consider this; the debate is about how Muslims are integrating or not into Europe; Murray argues for the motion, that Europe is not failing (its) Muslims. He changes the question, he asks, Are Muslims Failing Europe?
Let’s think about this clear -headedly.
The original Motion is “Is Europe Failing its Muslims? Murray argues, no. Europe is not failing its Muslims. That he sees the real issue as Muslims are failing Europe focuses negative attention on the Muslims, and takes away the negative attention from Europe, where the original question had placed it.
This is what all racists and extremists, such as the Americans or Europeans do; they take the negative attention away from their own obvious faults, such as their governments’ policies of systematic discrimination - which they support - and focus it on the Muslims.
- Many non-Muslims ask why Muslims don’t speak out against terrorism.
- They ask, why can’t Muslims be like everyone else
- They say Muslims are misogynistic.
- They say Muslims are dangerous.
In fact, for every other government failing, they turn the spotlight on the Muslims, to in effect blame them. For example, I often ask people on the internet, doesn’t their country or government make sufficient laws to protect the original people? I think they do make sufficient laws, or if they lack policing, due to economic or budgetary constraints, is that not the fault of the government? Almost in any emergency, which is a catastrophe, budgets are often at fault. Ie. New Orleans, the cleanup took too long, people were stranded for over two weeks, in New York, people didn’t have electricity or water for over two weeks, etc. Europeans are aware of their own stats in regards to this.
The blame game
It is not dissimilar, or any more acceptable than what was done in history to the masses of Jewish people. Yes, Jews dressed differently, sometimes, or made money through money-lending - not something considered illegal anywhere, in this day and age (although maybe ppl didn’t like it, they at the same time believed that they “needed” money lenders; after all, who told them to go into debt, or asked too much money from them, probably other people of their own culture or religion. Their government taxed them too much and the feudal system was probably mostly to blame; was it Jews or other Christians; their employers, the landowners, prices or what have you, who/which caused their suffering?)Even if you can argue successfully that it was the Jews, who through their activities, hurt the Europeans, that they owned many properties, or owned the banks, or had unfair advantages, so to speak, then why is it that the Muslims didn’t have similar problems with the Jewish? Maybe the “crazy” Arabs were just smarter? We know that many problems in the world are not easily explained away, or helped by blaming others and ignoring our own failings.
Did the Muslims woo the Jews with their flamboyant Bedouin charm?
Or it was not true after all what history has for a millennia believed, that Muslims and Jews have always fought and hated each other since Abraham’s sons; one a Jew, one an Arab, according to the written history by the Orientalists and the media? It’s no coincidence, either that Islam prevented some of the natural animosity that might have arisen, had Muslims, like Christians, been permitted to deal in usury, ‘riba’in Arabic. Muslims didn’t deal in usury, but they used to borrow on guarantee of something they owned, to Jewish lenders, with a stipulation about when they would pay back their debt, or so on. There was no injustice done to either party in such dealings or other economic transactions. The only problems which seem to have arisen between the two groups were usually due to treachery by a Jew or some Jewish tribe. For example, this happened when the Jews broke their covenant with the Muslims in Medina. That led to the complete dissolution of the treaty they had with that tribe of Jews and their allies – with the allies, probably after a certain period of time had passed; such as their covenants with other Jewish people or tribes ended with the date specified for the renewals or cancellations of the same. If they had problems with some people they had the choice not to renew their covenants with allies of those people.
There were some cases, not systematic, but of Muslim individuals who had been spurred by their “temperament” or boldness to act hastily; such as the case was when Khaled Ibn Waleed annihilated some people (it’s unclear to me whether these were non-Muslims or new converts to Islam) who he believed had refused to hear his message; he had in fact misunderstood what was being said by those people, from what can be understood in the text (reference – revising). At the time, the Prophet Muhammad, had said, “I am free from what Khaled has done”, two times.
There were some cases, not systematic, but of Muslim individuals who had been spurred by their “temperament” or boldness to act hastily; such as the case was when Khaled Ibn Waleed annihilated some people (it’s unclear to me whether these were non-Muslims or new converts to Islam) who he believed had refused to hear his message; he had in fact misunderstood what was being said by those people, from what can be understood in the text (reference – revising). At the time, the Prophet Muhammad, had said, “I am free from what Khaled has done”, two times.
No, it’s not right that a debate about Europe’s Muslims place in Europe, supported with either private or public monies, should be sanctioned by the British Council, and yet openly allows extreme nationalism, racism, or xenophobia to take centre stage, not as entertainment, but as a ‘serious’ form of reflection.
Palestinian victimhood
Would a normal, intelligent person today argue that to detain arrest or hurt children is not illegal? Would they defend Israel’s use of chemical weapons, such as white phosphorous, which they lob into civilian areas in daylight hours, and which also can penetrate into roofs of homes?
Muslims/Arabs deserve a solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict; they deserve their state, the Palestinian state to be free of Israeli occupation. They deserve a chance for Peace with their Christian and Jewish neighbours, who are innocent of Zionist crimes. Zionism is racism. It is also the main culprit behind wars, oppression, schisms, fear of destruction, the greatest support for the “war on terror” and the first to promote hatred of religions.
The above shows that debates are counterproductive to presenting and understanding Islam.
As entertainment their value is questionable, due to the nature of some of the participants’ possible ulterior motives and ‘proofs’, such as impede true understanding of important issues and make a farce of the democratic nature intended for debates, which should aim for professionalism equal to the Toastmasters, or “Ted Talks”. The “Douglas Murray Debates” as highlighted on YouTube are heavily one-sided and reflect the obvious bias of the person who posts debates featuring Douglas Murray. People, who readily agree, almost like automatons, that Murray is an intelligent and successful speaker neglect to see the reality of his arguments steeped in what are racist and Islamophobic precursors, abetted by his silver-tongued sorcery applied to every topic. In actuality, he lacks peerless originality and ‘prophetic’ wisdom which are required of someone aiming for Giant status.
I hate to mention “Zionism” here, but alas, it is the last thing on my mind as I leave the discomfort of my writing for the relaxation of a lunch (prepared by my daughter, who has a holiday from school today.) I bid you adieu.
Part two is ready for publishing as well, look forward to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment