On Friday, 16th December, we will have MUNAZARA (debate) in class. The rules for the debate are posted here:

Current Issues in Islamic Economics

16 Dec 2011

A Baghdadi Munazara

The debate is an art form invented by the Muslims. Just like today people watch movies and sporting events, there was a time when debates and musha’ras were the main entertainment form for Muslims. Everybody enjoyed listening to sharp debaters argue subtle points of theology – it was more thrilling than a boxing match. Books were written on how to debate and also on the rules for fair fighting. Today, the Muslims have forgotten everything about this legacy –

Gunwa dee ham ne jo Aslaf say meerath pai thee, Surayya say Zameen par Asman ne hum ke de mara

In class on Friday 16^th December, we will have some practice Munazara’s. These will be conducted in groups of FIVE or SIX people – no more and no less. The topic will be the same as last week: QUESTION TO BE DEBATED: Is the West (USA, Europe) MORE DEVELOPED than the East (meaning Muslim Countries).?

The five or six students will have the following ROLES:

A: DEBATER: Argue that OF COURSE the West is more developed. Any body who says otherwise is ignorant and causing harm to Muslims by preventing them from taking the path which will lead them to progress.

B: WRITER: Supporter of A. He will write down the arguments that A makes in the debate, and can also help A in feeding him additional arguments as needed.

C: DEBATER: Argue that Muslims have more knowledge and better societies than the West. That it is wrong to think of the west as more developed. That Muslims will progress by following Islam and not by following the West.

D: WRITER: Supporter of C. He will write down the arguments made by C, and also help C by providing him with additional arguments as needed.

E: JUDGE: He will listen to the debate and evaluate which side makes better arguments. He should take notes about how well the students spoke, and how convincing their arguments were. Initially, both sides will make a FIVE minute presentation of their point of view. THEN there will be an open debate with both A,B participating and talking, and C,D making arguments against each other. The JUDGE will be the UMPIRE -- he will say who can talk and also stop people from talking and ask others to talk.

F: (optional) 2^nd JUDGE: same role/duties as E.

After the debate, WRITEUP and SUBMIT the following:

A, B together will write up arguments in FAVOR of the West being developed. They will separate the writeup into TWO PARTS:

ONE: Arguments made DURING the debate, and

TWO: Additional arguments thought of after the debate.

Arguments can also be COUNTER-ARGUMENTS – that is, Opponents C,D said THIS, but THIS is wrong because of THAT.

C,D together will write up arguments OPPOSED – they will try to show that Islamic countries are more developed than Western countries. Follow that same pattern as that of A,B – write up separately arguments made during the debate, and arguments thought of afterwards in course of writing. Also try to REBUT – that is provide counterarguments to – arguments made by A,B.

E (together with F, if there is a sixth person) will write up a JUDGMENT. This will also have two parts:

ONE: An evaluation of the DEBATE. Who made the stronger arguments, who could not respond well to attacks. It may be (like what happened in class) that the wrong side makes better arguments and wins the debate.

TWO: An independent evaluation of the two sides of the argument and which is stronger.

ONE LAST THING TO REMEMBER: The object of this argument is NOT to feel superior to the West. Suppose one person A is a millionaire and the other person B is a poor person. It is not for A to feel superior or to mock B saying that “I have more money than you” – the question is: what GOOD is A doing with this money? Similarly, those who have been given the treasure of Islam are OBVIOUSLY superior to the rest of humanity. But this is not something to be PROUD of – the question is how much good we are doing with this knowledge. IF we are completely ignoring it, violating it, contradicting it with our actions, then we should be ashamed and embarrassed. Those who don’t have Islam have an excuse – they did not know the truth. What is our excuse for having the knowledge, having the greatest gift of Allah, and then not appreciating it and not acting upon it?

When the Mongols conquered Baghdad, one the Mongol princes was going out on a hunting party. One of the Mashaikh and Awliya-ullah crossed the path of his hunting party and cause some delay and obstruction. In anger, the prince said to the Shaykh: My dog is better than you!

The Shaykh responded that "That remains to be seen" -- that is, we cannot be sure of this right now. The prince was surprised at this response, and asked "what do you mean by this?" The Shaykh said that if I die with Islam, then I am better than your dog. If I die without it, then your dog is better.

For us the question is: Are we acting like "Ahsan-e-Taqweem" or more like "Asfala-Safeleen"?