Oxford Symposium: Between Divergence and Discord
Dr. Howaida Salah El-Din
On Saturday, July 26th, as we resolved to attend the symposium titled “Diverging Interests and Visions, and the Pillars of Preserving Peace and Unity”, I believed that the devastating war engulfing Sudan, with its daily scenes of destruction, death, brutality, and the oppression of men, would be enough to break us free from the cocoon of narrow-minded thinking and unite us in the hope of a bright, renewed future.
The title of the symposium, proposed by the organizers in Oxford, was enough to reflect the stark intellectual and political differences — something that was evident in the diversity of speakers on the panel: Dr. Sidgi Kaballo from the Communist Party, Professor Hassan Makki, an Islamic thinker, and Othman Mansour from the group Sumood. This composition aptly reflected today’s Sudan, which swings between the far right and the far left. However, the issue did not lie with the speakers themselves. Each expressed their convictions and sharp insights without hostility or provocation. In fact, there were moments where someone on the far left defended someone on the far right, clearing them of the sins of the former regime. Their dialogue was compelling, fluid, enjoyable, and engaging. So, where was the problem?
The real problem began once the floor was opened for discussion. Some — and I emphasize, only some — abandoned even the most basic principles of respectful dialogue, logic, and reasoning. Instead, they chose to raise their voices, cause a commotion, and interrupt speakers with loud, chaotic, and confrontational behavior. Regrettably, this was at times led by individuals we had assumed to be of the “gentler sex,” but it seems gentleness had never found its way to them.
To be clear, I never expected people to rise in ovation, declare love, or chant in support of the speakers. But, at the very least — in the spirit of authentic Sudanese values — I had hoped for respect toward the invited guests, who had endured the hardships of travel to be there, rather than being met with heckling and verbal attacks, as if we were in a protest and not an academic lecture.
None of us expected the Oxford audience to be in harmony with one another or to align fully with any of the speakers. It is simply human nature — and a universal law — for people to disagree. But what we did not expect was for some attendees to behave, in these dire circumstances, in ways unworthy of the dignified and respectful Sudanese character. At the very least, one would hope that views and beliefs would be expressed from the perspective of: “My opinion is right, but may be wrong; yours is wrong, but may be right”. Such an approach fosters respectful debate and prioritizes the strength of logic over chaotic, aggressive argumentation. As Imam Al-Shafi’i once said: “I never debated someone except that I wished the truth would appear on his tongue.” Where do we stand in relation to that noble sentiment?
The poison of hate speech has blinded some weak souls, leading them to see verbal aggression as the only way to express themselves and impose their views. In such cases, I believe the wiser course is not to respond — as the saying goes: “Do not argue with a fool, for he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.”
It is perfectly fine for us to disagree. We can spend hours in discussion to find common ground. And if we cannot, we part ways still respecting ourselves and each other. In that spirit, Dr. Sidgi Kaballo rightly said in response to critics that, as a speaker, he was merely presenting his viewpoint and convictions on the ongoing war in Sudan — and if the audience disagreed, that is their right, and they are free to seek other perspectives.
As the great freedom fighter Nelson Mandela once said: “No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion.” People learn hatred through the trials, misfortunes, and conflicts they endure. And it seems that the string of calamities Sudan has faced since independence has caused some to lose their sense of direction, their capacity for dialogue, and their ability to navigate through polarized and contradictory landscapes — to the point where some no longer seek peace or reform at all.
True strength lies in listening — truly listening — to those who disagree with you. A wise mind respects even an idea it doesn’t agree with. The absence of logical discussion is a disaster that shatters thought itself, for rigid, aggressive opinions ultimately breed arrogance and superiority.
In conclusion, despite the saying that “evil prevails,” I must note that many in the audience were indeed models of refinement, good manners, and calm dialogue. I especially commend Mr. Bashir Mohamed Ibrahim, the session chair, who did his utmost to maintain order and neutrality. My thanks and appreciation also go to Dr. Anas Al-Waseela and his wonderful wife, Dr. Rasha, who welcomed us with immense generosity and true Sudanese hospitality.
Finally, I hope that in all historical moments, our guiding motto remains:
“Discipline your soul with morals, and it will be disciplined.”
Professor at the University of Al-Neelain
