DEBATE: An Ancient Way of Teaching

Contemporary schools of instructions pride themselves on their methods of teaching which, they claim, develop the faculty of analytical reasoning. In Pakistan, at least, the assumption is that the Islamic seminaries (madrassas) emphasize memorization while the modern schools sharpen reasoning and teach the students how to apply their knowledge to problems at hand. This is not entirely true as the present article proposes.

Anybody who has read Plato’s Dialogues will immediately agree that the protagonist, the great philosopher Socrates, argues with his opponents. He follows what has been called the dialectical method. That is, he begins with a thesis; a proposition. Then he encourages those around him to deduce some conclusions from it. Then these conclusions are proved to be wrong or absurd and an antithesis emerges. Of course, Socrates always wins the argument and everybody is much impressed by his intellect. In real life, as we all know, arguments are never won by pure logic alone. They are products of emotion, our irrational fears, loves, hatreds, insecurities and personality. As a character, Levin, says in Leo Tolstoy’s novel Anna Karenina, the argument is really about the inner self. While we talk of logic on the surface, we are really in conflict because of our ego or some deeply, and emotionally, held position.

Anyway, Plato assumed that the best way of teaching was by debate and disputation. The medieval Christian philosophers, the scholastics, also used this method. The only difference was that the debate had to stay within the ideological limits laid down by the Church. So, while nobody was free to doubt the basic doctrines of Christianity, one was free to interpret them differently or come to new conclusions based upon the same authorities.

Islamic scholars too borrowed this method. By the ninth century (C. E) the works of Aristotle (Analytics, Topics) dealing with disputation had been translated into Arabic. The Muslim philosopher all-Farabi (d. 950) actually wrote a commentary on some parts of the Topics going into such practical details as to how questions should be asked and answers given in a disputation. Thus the scholastic method of teaching, emphasizing debate (i.e. application of knowledge and not mere reproduction of rote learning), became the major pedagogical method in the Islamic world. A number of terms were used to describe this method. Among these were jadal (dialectic), Khilaf (disagreement), munazara (debate). Everyone agreed on the fundamentals of Islam and there were agreements on a number of subjects within schools of theology or sects. These were the ijma (consensus). However, there were also points on which there was disagreement (khilaf). It was basically about these points that one could dispute. In short, unlike the analytical method used in modern research methodology which allows one to express doubt about all subjects and all opinions, the medieval Muslim methods of teaching allowed doubt on difference of opinion about some matters only. Moreover, none of the matters which could be doubted were the fundamental articles of faith. Like Christianity, Islam too did not allow doubt about the basic doctrines of religion. So, it was within some ideological limits that medieval systems of teaching and scholarship allowed the exercise of reason.

However, within this limit, debate was valued much more than it is in many contemporary educational institutions. First, there were many works on disputation. The Shafi scholar Abu Ali al-Tabari (d. 961) wrote Al- Muharrar fi’n Nazar and al Jadal. The Hanafi scholar Abu Zaid al-Dabusi (d. 1039) wrote on controversial matters (Khilaf) thus creating rules of disputation. There are others who contributed to the art of debate and South Asian madrssas even now teach a book called Rashidiya to prepare their students for the munazara (disputation or debate). Of course, the sad truth in Pakistan and India is that madrassa students have to memorize these Arabic sources and learn their disputation through the living example of their teachers rather than the texts themselves.

In medieval Islam the munazara became a highly developed field. To be successful as a scholar one had to defend one’s theses. This meant that one could not rest content with memorized knowledge. Instead, one had to know one’s sources extremely well as the argument was oral and not in writing. So, one needed a sharp mind as well as a sharp memory to outwit one’s adversary. Moreover, as one had to speak, this method of teaching led to the sharpening of linguistic and theatrical skills. If one was not proficient in the language of the disputation, one could lose the debate altogether. Thus, pronunciation, grammar, idiomatic language, poetry etc become important acquisitions for the scholar. The Mutazilite scholar Bishr al-Marisi (d. 834) was censured for speaking incorrect Arabic which his opponent did not.

The munazara developed in Baghdad and was taken to Spain (al-Andalus) and other parts of the Muslim world. One hears of the Mughal King Akbar’s interest in it. He is said to have encouraged great debates between different religious schools and sometimes joined in the proceedings himself. Of course, the orthodox ulema did not take too kindly to being placed upon an equal footing with non-Muslims which is one reason of their resentment against Akbar. Akbar, however, was not the only Muslim ruler who patronized debates. Caliph Harun at Rashid also sat through the munazaras held in his court. The minister Ali bin Isa (d. 950) arranged such sessions in his own court during the tenth century. It was in the courts and in the age of these rulers that the great debate between the Mutazilites and the Asharites (orthodox) was held during the tenth century.

The debates were lively affairs but, as is usual in all debates, there was much heat—sometimes less light than heat. For instance, Ali an-Nashi (d. 976), a Mutazilite was engaged in debate with an orthodox opponent. The debate was about predestination and whether all actions proceeded from God alone or not. At one point an-Nashi slapped his opponent, al-Ashari. When al-Ashari demanded an explanation he said: ‘that is God’s doing, not mine!’. Al-Ashari replied that it was Ali an-Nashi’s doing. Al-Nashi thereupon exclaimed that at-Ashari had contradicted himself i.e. that all acts are not God’s doing. At this the audience burst in laughter and al-Nashi won the argument.

Not all munazaras ended in laughter, of course. Some ended in anger and vitriolic criticism. Some people went to extreme lengths and there are records of famous scholars’ followers beating up their opponents or followers. The early decades of the twentieth century were witness to many munazaras between the Christians and the Muslims and also among the Muslims themselves. There were, of course, the age old disputes between the Shias and the Sunnis. Also, there were debates between the Deobandis and Barelvis and the Ahl-i-Hadith and the Deobandis as well as Barelvis. The proceedings of these munazaras are found in books and make interesting reading. Unfortunately, contemporary readers focus upon the polemics and the anger rather than the fact that the discussion involves learning, use of relevant sources, wit, linguistic skills and deductive logic—the very qualities which are said to be lacking in madrassa students.

The schools, colleges and universities established by the British in India emphasized rote learning even more than the madrassas. Indeed, while the madrassas did teach the manazara through example and also in theory, the secular system of education did not. School and college debates were based on rote learning and oratory and involved only volunteering students whose debates were written out by somebody else.

This system still prevails and disputation is discouraged because it leads to quarrels. Even the madrassa students do not get the chance to debate controversial points with their secular, modernist or other opponents because such debates are far too dangerous now that the opponents are fully armed. The Western system of education does teach argumentation, analysis and refutation but only at the higher level and generally in writing. The oral debate, which was such an important part of teaching both in the ancient world and the medieval age, is no longer in practice. This is an omission which needs to be corrected and its fallout, the bitter altercations, will simply have to be tolerated.