15 May 2010 By Dr. Hamad Al-Majid “Al Buraik is a lion and al Saffar turned into a
sheep,” “our sheikh beat their sheikh,” “our sheikh
knocked out their sheikh.” These are examples of the
comments made by fans of both Sheikh Saad al Buraik
and Sheikh Hassan al Saffar after their appearance
together on Al Bayan al Tali talk show presented by
Dr. Abdulaziz Qassim on the Al Daleel television
channel. I commented on this discussion in my article last
week however the subsequent reactions, especially
among intellectual elites, are no less important than
the dialogue itself. The reaction of the audience
alone – whether it is satisfied or disgusted by the
outcome of the dialogue – is an indicator that we are
yet to reach the minimum level required to deal
successfully with diversity, a concept that God made
unavoidable. The dialogue was confined to the concepts
of a “homeland for all” and the rights and duties of
citizens regarding doctrinal diversity rather than
being a debate between two ideologies and doctrines.
It was a dialogue for mutual understanding in order to
define common ground rather than a boxing match during
which the fans ardently wait for the knockout moment
or for one of the boxers to win based on points. In this regard, I recalled the debates between
Sheikh Ahmed Deedat, may God rest his soul, and
members of the Christian church such as Jimmy Swaggart,
with whom Deedat had a famous debate. Despite my deep
respect for Sheikh Ahmed Deedat and his skill at
understanding the Christian heritage and at
professionally seeking out Biblical contradictions,
using the mechanism of scoring points in front of the
audience, just like in boxing, unfortunately, caused
the debate to lose its real significance i.e. to
convey the truth to others by means of wisdom, fair
preaching and polite dispute. Others will not be
pleased with the truth if they received it by being
refuted, humiliated and entrapped by the speaker. Watching the Deedat-Swaggart debates was exactly
like watching a boxing match. Each spectator waits for
the moment the representative of his religion knocks
out his rival even if by means of mockery and sarcasm.
This is what happened when Swaggart noticed that
Deedat was carrying several copies of the Bible.
Swaggart looked at Deedat in disdain and said, “The
way you’re carrying all those copies of the Bible
reminds me of the Quranic verse: ‘The likeness of
those who were charged with the [obligations of]
Torah, then they did not observe it, is as the
likeness of the ass bearing books, evil is the
likeness of the people who reject the communications
of Allah; and Allah does not guide the unjust people’”
The audience burst into laughter and applauded but
Deedat was no easy target, as he responded with just
as much sarcasm. Is this the ideal way to debate and refute claims?
Isn’t the impact of this method quite negative? I do
not know anyone who practically or realistically
monitored the impact of “point scoring” during debates
and the extent to which it actually affects people’s
beliefs. There is no doubt that people naturally
adhere to their religion, their doctrinal affiliation,
and their symbols, and it is not easy to influence
them by directly challenging them, as this may push
followers to uphold their religion, doctrine and
symbols even more. The possibility of peaceful coexistence in the real
Islamic vision, which was applied by Muslims from the
dawn of Islam until recently, does not look into the
details of other doctrines regardless of how different
they might seem from the Islamic concept. Islam
coexisted side-by-side with Christianity, Judaism,
pagan religions, Zoroastrianism, Confucianism and
others, so how can other doctrines be restricted under
the Islamic umbrella? We often praise Islamic moments
of glory and the spirit of justice and beneficence
when dealing with people of other religions and
ideologies, but when it comes to real action we turn
into something else altogether. Comments 💬 التعليقات |