They say “existence of two ears and one tongue for human beings suggests that humans should listen more but speak less!” Sufis, in the Muslim tradition, have had adopted the formula of “qillat-i kalām” (speaking less or speaking only when necessary) for the reason that humans should learn to ponder and think more than they speak. This may be also the case vis-à-vis the writing vocation of a person (writer). In this regard, a well-known scholar was once asked by a student that when he should start writing? The scholar answered that he should read so much that “(words) writing should automatically gush forth from his pen!” This rule could be also applied to speaking because before maneuvering with the “speaking profession” one should familiarize himself with pondering over and analyzing things and phenomena so much so that his speech should become fruitful for both the speaker as well as the listener.
The majority of people indeed prefer listening to speaking and, as such, they behave as good listeners. There are people, however, whose temperament, aptitude or calling pulls them to the path of speaking. And, there is nothing wrong in one’s becoming a “speaker.” This is because many a people revisit their capacities, reshape themselves or find their forgotten ways which they had derailed from by dint of the speech of a good intelligent speaker. This could be understood by the example that actually the listener stretches out his hand and the speaker takes him to the source wherefrom he can the object desired. As such, the speaker becomes a kind of a “messiah” for the listener because the latter trusts the former fully.
Among all the intellectually driven speakers, teachers have always ruled the roost. The reason is simple that whatever a teacher (speaker) teaches (speaks about) should be based on facts and backed by data and it should be quite away from fairy tales and mere sloganeering. That is why the teacher has been unanimously declared as the “builder of the society!” In the process of teaching, however, the teacher makes all the possible “innovations” to bring home different facts to the students. Not only does the teacher take his students from the concrete facts to the abstract ones, but he also elaborates complex problems before them after making them habitual of simple concepts. A global teacher of the stature of Rumi, has given a unique example through which a teacher can smoothen the path of learning for his pupils. Rumi says that the concept of love can be taught to an initiate (novice) by saying that “love is like sugar.” However, to an advanced learner the same concept could be conveyed by saying that “love is like Maryam; everyone of us has a Jesus within!” As such, a teacher’s talk/lesson becomes a blend of both a “sermon” as well as a “motivational speech.”
Over the years, however, a trend has developed among the learners/listeners who deem it necessary that the talk, lecture or lesson should not be (like) a sermon! The reason for this mentality is not far to seek. Actually, the modern mind, by and large, harbours an aversive tendency vis-à-vis religion and the symbols and terminology thereof. Now, a sermon is deemed to be any “rhetorical talk” by a religious preacher or scholar/doctor that is laden with judgmental pronouncements often hurting the sentiments of the listener or the audience. A sermon is also understood to be a lecture sans logical arguments and there, it is believed, is no space for any question and discussion on any set position.
Here, I am reminded of a religious gathering long back in 2004-05 when a scholar, perhaps irked by some long sermons which preceded his lecture in a religious gathering, started his talk with the words that “taqrir ka zamanah khatam ho-chuka hai; ab tahqiq ka zamanah hai,” that is, the days of sermons are gone; it is the age of research (-based talks); which simply meant that sermon-based approach had lost its appeal! The criticism which this scholar received from the sermon-loving audience is testimony to the fact that sermons could not be replaced by any other form of speech, the change in the approach of sermonizing notwithstanding. Likewise, in a university seminar in 2009-10, a participant was “charged” by the chairperson of a particular session that he had delivered a “sermon” instead of having presented a “paper/talk!”
However, in spite of the severe criticism which sermons and sermonizers face in the modern era, the fact still remains that, human beings’ tendency and aptitude to listen something new and novel from others whom the listeners deem more knowledgeable than themselves, is ever increasing. That is the reason that we see people thronging to “motivational speakers” of diverse fields to satiate their urge to listen. Indeed these speakers have something to offer to those who approach them and attend their sessions. Nevertheless, it doesn’t mean that the motivational speakers’ every word is borne out of established facts, logical arguments and life experiences. Large sections of these speeches indeed consist of figments of imagination, fairy elements and written fiction (if not fictitious altogether). And, motivational speaking having become an art, the speakers engaged in this art indeed touch the susceptibilities and sentiments of their audience through different mental techniques and psychological methods. Moreover, different motivational speakers, if not all, make best and calculated use of religious teachings to appeal the psyche of their target audience.
As such, if more people are attaching themselves to motivational speeches, it is not because these speeches are mathematical, logical and philosophical. These are not and can’t be so, because through logic, as per al-Farabi, we don’t discover any new truths. Through logic we only learn to make best use of the already known truths or data. And, according to Ibn Khaldun, logic can’t make a person a genuine seeker after truth. Nevertheless, here it is not suggested that motivational speakers don’t perform any positive function. They indeed do, but deeming such a speaker “impeccable” in every respect and following them without questioning their credentials would indeed be an injustice to the innocence of their listeners and audience.
Thus, it is clear that the functionality of sermons and sermonizing would never cease. It should be added, in this regard, that sermons should be loaded with facts (historical, logical, scientific, etc.) and reasonable arguments and there should always be provisions for questions and critique so that the target audience could always feel at home. And, there is no reason for a sermonizer to shy away from questions and queries posed by the listeners because there are well established precedents in which questions were posed to the Prophets (‘AS) of God which they answered to the satisfaction of their people. Here, the sermonizer of monotheism should not forget that the Mount of Beatitudes is witness to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and the Mount of Rahmah (‘Arafah) is witness to the Last Sermon of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW).
(The author is Assistant Professor at HED J&K. Feedback: [email protected])
