Yelling my insides out: I need to control something!

What the hell am I supposed to debate? Splitting us into "coptic christians" and "muslims" to make a persuasive argument/debate? This was based on religion, and you can't convince someone their religion is wrong. This is such a waste of my time, and this argument is going to border along racist, bigoted lines that I have always been taught to avoid. What am I supposed to say with the one reading we did, which essentially was written to tell Muslims that there is nothing in their religion to justify the persecution of Copts. I look for more information. "Copts" did this, the "Muslims" did that. Religion. Yes, religion and politics intermingle freely here, but this "persuasive debate", what am I persuading? That oppression along religious lines is right? That it's wrong? Of course it's wrong. I can't think of any way this question be debated when we're debating religion. No one will win, and no one has so far. I won't engage in polemics. If I'm the Muslim side, what am I to say? My oppression of you is correct? I'm told this is not religion, but political. I say that the issues are too blurred. I'm told no, there is a difference. No, Copts are Copts because they are a religion, Copts are oppressed. Not Alexandrians, not teenagers. Copts...when you say this religious appellation, you are involving religion. The argument seems moot. My Western trained mind kicks in: no, there isn't a logical argument in religious discourse.  I didn't realize until later that yes, it isn't for me or my society. But in Egypt, it is the MAIN discourse and how people frame the debate. Religious beliefs and interpretations are as strong and weighty in some cases as the authority of our precious Constitution, as well as the interpretations of the verses, like court interpretations of that document. Religion is in more sectors of life because it provides the believer with a plan on how life should be lived, and these points spill into politics, or as I like to think, the "way that people decide to organize their everyday life and deal with each other". Religion, in this case, is Politics. I'm not engaging in a hateful bigoted argument. I will not take up the only position of violent pulpit speech that I thought. 

This conversation, which lasted 3 hours in a bougey fish restaurant in Sidi Gabr 'al-Bahr with my other professor/director, was where I realized that I need to think like an Arab to understand how these issues, among others: Israel, women's rights, human rights, and despotism, are all handled. This is such a huge undertaking. To cast aside fundamentally how I think and learn for the sake of understanding another. Think about that for a second. I mean, really think. Do not inject your own preconceived notions about the other, walk in completely neutral, and let them explain their thought process. How? I'm equipped for this, surely. I just wish I was told this before I sent these emails yesterday. I wish I had more information provided for me, and I wish I would have been given more direction in the conversation between the first 2 emails. But alas, I am a stubborn mule when it comes to sticking by my cherished principles of diversity, equality, human rights, among others. It turns out that everything I knew about the world must be set aside to make room for new interpretations based on another's life experience, and really, cultural and historical experience.  The task before me really makes my brain throb, but I understand the intrinsic value of this exercise. I enjoyed dinner with my professor, and I could tell that he admires my steadfastness to a degree, and my academic curiosity and honesty. "You are the only student I've had all these years in this program who has sent an email, admitting you haven't read the material, and that you would not be in class because you didn't want to waste my time Your work is very good, and that is why I put you in the upper class. That is why I am worried about you. I want you to be happy in class. When I observed you, you weren't the same Matt I had this summer. Zehad's class was different; you're nervous, you're short, you look stressed. I know it's because he cuts people off and spews out his opinions without being asked. He's opinionated. I ask you though, I feel there is something else. Will you tell me? Is there something personally you don't like about Zehad?  I spilled the beans about the summer, when he said in front of me that he thought the American man is weak, because the American woman controls his life and everything else. The Egyptian woman is also weak (hmmm, who keeps her weak??), and the Egyptian man only has one fault: He is jealous." He knew I was listening..."That's just my opinion," he said. I was, of course, pissed. This educated man was making a negative stereotype about a whole people based on 3 months in the US, further showing his ignorance of the diversity of thought and identity and STRENGTHS in our society that are not found in Egypt. 

Abdelsalam was shocked. "You can't think about this every time you are in class. I know you are Matt that reacts with his mind, not with his heart (your gut reaction). Zehad will be talked to again about his opinions. Don't feel upset." 

This man is pretty much amazing, and as far as the program goes, I finally feel like I have someone to confide in.  Finally.  Taking me to dinner to talk to me was so unexpected and shows me the part of Egyptian culture that I've heard so much about that I've never actually experienced. Watching him with the waiter really gave me insight into the exceptional man that he is, especially through his manners. Things I'm not used to here.  

My revere and absolute respect for this man is unparalleled. This, coupled with the fact that I realize was wrong to disrespect Zehad in the first place (below), I have decided to take up his suggestion and explain to Zehad how I felt in a more constructive way and apologize. I know I was wrong, and I know I have to fix it. It's gonna be a long year, and I'm a man of principles and ethics. 

The Letters:

Ahlan ya Usatz,

After reading the description for the activity on the debate and discussing it with some people in the class, we have decided that we do not feel comfortable engaging in what would amount to a polemical debate. What would we debate? I can only see this as an argument over how the minority is oppressed and how the majority is justifying it over bases of religion. As we've discussed the uselessness and futileness of these arguments in class, I find it odd that we would be expected to engage in the same type of argument. If we are to discuss reconciliation, then it would just amount to a class discussion, without the division into "teams". We essentially would all be putting forth the same point. Again, we do not see the need to engage in a debate based on religious grounds as this only leads to the perpetuation of narrow-minded arguments that do not benefit our understanding of the controversy. Religious bases, in this context, will only inflame ill will with no real constructive point.

Thank you,

Matt

__________________

Hello Professor,

I received your email and I am still not convinced of the goal of this exercise. The debate is not political, it is religious. Politics is different because they do not entail such contentious issues as religion, as it is an integral part of someone's identity. There is not really a way to not talk about religion in a neutral way in this context. The problem in Egypt is based on religious intolerance of the other, and a debate therefore would result in one group attacking the other's beliefs. In this case, we would be trying to tell the other that they are wrong because of how they believe, and the Muslims would say they are right to have their position as the majority. This activity in persuasion is dangerous and polemical, and as I said, does nothing to further my understanding of the issue. All we would do is spew hatred, and I don't feel comfortable that intolerance is justifiable, which one side will inevitably have to take up. How can the Muslim defend this? They can't because it's inherently wrong to avoid what is written in the Quran about Christians. There is no defense! This is not a debate. I will not participate.

Matt

---------------------------------

السلام عليكم

كيف حالكم جميعا ؟ أتمنى أنكم بخير أنك استمتعتم بيوم العطلة

في البداية أريد أن أشكر دانيل على فهمه الجيد للسؤال، وأريد أن أقول إن المطلوب من المناظرة هو فعلا الجدل والقدرة على الإقناع، لقد تكلمت معكم في الصف الأول عن هدفنا خلال هذا الفصل الدراسي وهو الوصول إلى المستوى المتميز، ولذلك لا بد أن نتعلم النقاش المجرد. ولا شك أن المناظرة وسيلة ممتازة لتعلم الإقناع وعرض الآراء وتفنيد حجج الآخر .

ليس الهدف من التمرين الدخول في نقاش ديني أو محاولة إظهار أي دين أحسن أو أصح، ولكن الهدف أن تفكر بعقلية رجل آخر يؤمن بقضية ما ويحاول إثباتها . وقد تكلمت مع الأستاذ محمد عبد السلام في هذا وهو يوافقني تماما

كان من اللازم في الحقيقة أن تقرؤوا الخطة من أسبوع، وقد ذكرت ذلك أكثر من مرة في الصف .

غدا إن شاء الله سوف نقوم بتمرين المناظرة للأسباب التي ذكرتها، حيث سنقسم الصف إلى مجموعتين، وكل مجموعة سوف  تعرض لآرائها والمجموعة الثانية سترد عليها وهكذا

شكرا لكم

وأراكم غدا

أ. زهاد صبري 

----------------------------------

From my wise, patriarchal director, Dr. Abdelsalam:

Marhaba Matt,

I would like to thank you for your notes about this activity. I want to meet you to discuss some issues. could you please meet me today and take dinner with me at 8.00pm.

All the best,
Mohamed

-----------------------------------