Tom Facchine – Minute with a Muslim #018 – Should We Engage in DEBATE

Tom Facchine
AI: Summary © The speaker discusses the danger of debating and arguing in public, as it is dangerous and damaging to the group. They argue that avoiding arguing and debating is a fundamental political political revolution, where everyone is faced with a choice between pride or acceptance of the truth. The speaker suggests that people are not as knowledgeable as they think they are and that social media is a source of influence, which can lead to negative sentiment.
AI: Transcript ©
00:00:00 --> 00:00:35

Ragosa honey wants us to understand that debating is very, very problematic and dangerous is a chapter titled discouraging arguments and debates among laymen in every single situation, okay? And he says that allowing lay people mean people, people who aren't scholars, allowing them to argue about religious topics, and they don't even understand what the evidence is or what's acceptable evidence or not acceptable evidence in the first place. It's like unleashing demons it's like setting loose Jews and met Judah, it's a really, really bad idea, because as he says, There are predators out there that are waiting for them to do this predators that are going to overpower the

00:00:35 --> 00:01:11

intellect and the bounds of the Cydia, the predators that he's talking about the ego and everything with the shaytaan and sites, the ego tours where whether it's pride or rejection of the truth, and what have you. And so he argues, he says that I was for honey that many scholars have taken the position that debate is disliked, even for scholars. So then what about laymen? What about somebody who's not a scholar? In fact, Allah subhanaw taala condemns argument and debate in the Koran and actually says that one of the more defining features and this is in the SIAC of them, this is in the sort of context of blame that makes up human beings is that they are argumentative, jendela in the

00:01:11 --> 00:01:46

idea where Allah subhanaw taala orders argument, it's circumscribed, that's not unconditional. It's limited by arguing with that, which is better. And so the reasons for avoiding arguing and debate etc, is because they rarely result in anything good, or they rarely result in anything except enmity and rejecting the truth. And the tricky thing about it is that you might think that you're defending Islam, you might think that you're standing up for the truth, but in fact, all you're doing is exercising your own ego and leading yourself down into a place where it's going to be very, very hard for you to turn back and admit that you were wrong. We see this today with egos on social

00:01:46 --> 00:02:17

media, people who style themselves as students of knowledge, but in reality, are only social media influencers and they get up on screen and maybe they get the playbook seems to be to debate some sort of atheist or somebody's ex Muslim or somebody like this, get a ton of subscribers and views and then you start debating other Muslims. Well, what do you think's going to happen? You haven't studied the deen properly? Your social media maybe has some sort of financial impact on your life in some sort of way. You have a conflict of interest. How are you going to turn back? How are you going to admit when you are wrong? How are you going to be spoken to in a way that's really going to

00:02:17 --> 00:02:28

encourage introspection and Maha Sabha and sort of taking oneself to Account No, you're only going to go out to prove your own point. You're only going to go out to humiliate others and it's going to lead you down a very, very dark road.

Share Page

Related Episodes