America is rife with political traps. What’s your escape route? | The Dilemma Ep. 3

I had seen the character you were playing on TV. We have to be willing to criticize if we're going to defend the universality of human rights. Why do I have to push you to give them credit? You don't have to push me. It's all bad news, as far as you're concerned.

I think you were America's provocative Muslim. And I think it's like, somewhere along the way, I was like, "Why do you play this angry person on TV?" You don't seem like an angry person at all. In this episode of "The Dilemma," you'll meet someone who helped me develop my moral courage. I'm bringing a deeply personal conundrum. It's about my role and responsibility as a content creator. Namely, do I air an interview that I did with an Islamic Jihad leader in Gaza, an interview that exposed how he manipulates Islam scripture, the Quran, or do I shelve that interview since it'll likely only deepen distrust in media narratives?

The question is, what kind of person do you want to be? And I think it's obvious, the path that you have chosen, which is that you wanna be a social healer. If you're talking about a Messianic Jew in the West Bank justifying violence or if you're talking about a white supremacist justifying violence, it's the same issue. It's about making that kind of connection across any of that justification.

I think a lot of people have a tendency to view, like a conversation, as a debate rather than an actual discourse. And I feel like when we pivot towards a debate-centered conversation, then we start to lose respect for one another. And when that happens, there can be no trust. You know, that adrenaline rush that comes from feeding your ego brain? The dilemma is, are you willing to trade it for the slower, more enduring rewards of reviving trust in one another? Welcome to "The Dilemma." How do you remember our first encounter?

So I've read your book, and of course, I'd seen all of the kind of explosion around the book, and I had seen the character you were playing on TV. I think you were America's provocative Muslim. Moderate Muslims, what you've been calling for. Not many, not many. Stepping up with signs, visibly making themselves targets. And I feel sorry, in Libya, like there are some of them. You've gotta give them credit though, Bill. Absolutely. Okay. Because they could be assassinated in doing that. But why do I have to push you to give them credit?

By the way, at the time, I was playing a character on TV, too. I was America's friendly Muslim, but I found the character to be narrow and stultifying. We are all part of the us, and if we confuse this, if we get a sense that it is a religion that is against us, man, this is only gonna get worse. I knew the distinction between a public persona and a private individual. I was aware of that, and I think it's like, somewhere along the way, I was like, "Why do you play this angry person on TV? You don't seem like an angry person at all."

So I'll tell you why I came off publicly as angry. It's because I felt under siege all the time for having a point of view, for advocating reform in our faith at a time when saying that was seen as a sop to Islamophobia. Yeah. And so, honestly, when you said to me, you know, "You seem so nice," I remember thinking, "Because I am." Yeah, yeah. I am. The reason your innate decency had the dramatic effect on me that it did is that you gave me what I would call an honorable off ramp from culture warring.

The truth of the matter is your inner car had been burning its engine so hot on the highway of anger, it was looking for an off ramp, and I just happened to be present when you were like, "Oh, I think I'll turn off here," right? And I think what's powerful about this is we might be in that situation as a culture. I think that there might be like wide groups of people who are at the end of their anger highway whose engines have burned too hot for too long, and they're looking for an off ramp. You were yourself a culture warrior.

Yeah. For a few years. I grew up in the Western suburbs of Chicago. So I get to college, and I hear language like institutionalized racism and white supremacy, and I swallowed the pill whole, and I just raged, and part of the reason I raged was because the people who initiated me into social change were angry people. And there's like something romantic about it. People wear Che Guevara T-shirts, right? There is something romantic about a fist in the air approach, and that's how it was presented to me, but it did not take me very long to realize this is not who I am, and it's burning me up inside, but the problem is I'd created a character for myself.

It's exactly because I'm a different person today than I was 20 years ago that I will be completely transparent with you. I'm not just embarrassed, I'm ashamed of the interview that I conducted with the political leader of Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and ashamed because of the way I conducted it. Is what? He's too busy, he's gotta go now.

[Irshad] He's too busy? Are you sure that you're not pulling a fast one on me? You are not just not wanting to answer this question? I played gotcha, and, Eboo, I got him. But so what? The world is replete with gotcha journalism, which is why I believe that if I were to publish this interview now, I would only be feeding the noise machine.

I don't think you wanna do 100 interviews about releasing that footage, which is what you would then be presented to the public as the person who played gotcha with this figure, and that's the character you would have to play, and the problem with playing a character on TV is it seeps into your personhood, as you and I both know, right? I don't think you wanna be that character. The question is, what kind of person do you want to be? Who do you want to be? And I think it's obvious, the path that you have chosen, which is that you wanna be a social healer. And I think that that's all about trust. People trust people who have competence and caring to build a more beautiful social order.

I'll tell you why I've chosen the path of being a social healer. It's because it has healed me. I don't think it's something noble. I don't think it's, you know, something that we need to leave to the Mandelas and Rosa Parks and Gandhis of this world. Fact of the matter is that when I lift the pressure off of my shoulders to be right all the time in every situation, I can lead my life with curiosity, which teaches me so much more than I would otherwise learn, and learning is a joy.

Yeah, totally. You know? Yes. I honestly think that one of the greatest, not just skills, but qualities anybody can have is can you create a space where people can have an honest and searching conversation? That's a question that we should all ask ourselves, and that's a question that has answers.

I feel very resolved about this specific dilemma. Do I do anything with the footage of the interview with the Islamic Jihad leader? And for reasons you now know, I'm at peace with not releasing it. Doesn't mean I'm right. You might even advise me otherwise, and I'm genuinely curious if you do advise me otherwise.

I would never show that in isolation because it's not about that one interview. It's about any justification of violence. So if you're talking about a Messianic Jew in the West Bank justifying violence or if you're talking about a white supremacist justifying violence, it's the same issue. It's about making that kind of connection across any of that justification, and I think if you do that, it's automatically less inflammatory because it's not about that one interview anymore.

Problem is that we live in a world in which there's something called context collapse. And it means that those with agendas and, boy, are they ever everywhere, will take snippets or will ignore the context that you've given, you know, even as you set it up. And not only will they ignore it, but then they'll inflame it with their own commentary. So if I wanna be, going back to the point, who do you wanna be, if I wanna be worthy of trust, I don't see how I'm furthering that vision by releasing this interview.

So I was thinking that if you had the opportunity to talk, obviously, you won't be able to talk with this gentleman, but if you had someone who had his similar views in a sort of one-on-one, like a debate, is that something you would be willing to engage in?

I actually did engage in a much healthier debate with a journalist from Al-Jazeera, and I prepared myself emotionally, emotionally. I said to myself, "Irshad, remember, he is not your enemy. He is only your adversary."

If you buy this argument that the Mullahs are all bad, everyone thinks for- No, we're all bad. Come on. Okay, a lot of them are bad. Stop hyping that. A lot of them are bad. Don't be a typical journalist. A lot of them are bad. A lot of them are bad.

Don't do that. A lot of them are bad. When he asks a question. Take a moment. Take actually, a breath. Let that panicky part of your threat-seeking brain slow down enough to now move over into the, you know, more evolved part of the brain where feeling and thinking can coexist. And that can happen just by taking a deep breath. If your challenger makes a good point, say so. There is no shame in acknowledging that everyone has a slice of, you know, valid experience to share.

I feel like, especially when talking about contentious political issues and especially issues that impact people on a personal level, I think a lot of people have a tendency to view a conversation as a debate rather than an actual discourse, and I feel like when we pivot towards a debate-centered conversation, then we start to lose respect for one another and the inability to actually listen to each other and listen to what that person's experiences are or their background or what areas of value they can bring to the conversation.

And when that happens, there can be no trust. Exactly. Going back to what you were talking about, Irshad, yeah.

Well, Hana, I love how you put that a discussion doesn't have to be a debate, and a lot of people do conflate those two things. The problem with debate, and, by the way, I love a good debate. Don't get me wrong. Debate is wonderful for a tournament, lousy as a way to live your life because, in a debate, there can only ever be one winner, right? And that ego brain, that primal brain that we're all born with is saying, "I'm not gonna let you lose."

The thing is, my ego brain is saying the same thing to me. I'm not gonna let you lose. So then we're both just yelling at each other without even listening to what the other one’s saying. Exactly, and, worse, we're trying to one-up each other for the sake of winning something that never needed to be win-lose in the first place.

Yeah. Right? Have you ever self-censored, stopped yourself from speaking because you didn't trust that the person or people on the other end would be willing to hear you?

All the time, all the time. I'm very picky about who I like to be friends with because I want people who are on my same, like political spectrum. So when they aren't, then I have a hard time kind of wanting to do dialogue with them because I know I'll blow up at them, and I know they'll blow up at me. So a lot of the times, when I'm talking with my friends at work, and they say something against LGBT issues, then I have to kind of just like, "Stop."

I'm gonna say something that might seem presumptuous.

Oh, yeah, of course. You can tell me if it is. I'm sensing that maybe you are treating that encounter as win-lose, namely, "Since I can't win, I'm just gonna stop right here." Is that, in your heart of hearts, how you feel about those sorts of encounters?

Yeah, I would have to say so, yeah. Yeah. Because I would really want everyone to be on my side, and if you're not on my side, then it's just kind of an, oh-well situation type thing for me.

Instead of just ending the conversation, what would be valuable to do, as far as you're concerned?

I would say definitely questioning it a lot more and trying to have more of a peaceful, not debate, but just, you know, a one-on-one where it's like, "Hey, can you at least tell me, you know, why you're feeling that way? And I can tell you how this makes me feel and why it makes me feel that way." And then, hopefully, we can continue going on from there.

When you tame your ego brain, you're actually not giving anything up except the emotional drama that comes from, you know, engaging in either/or. In other words, you can stand your ground and create common ground at the same time. It's not one or the other. Standing your ground is about what you believe. Creating common ground is about how you express what you believe. So if you can leave your other feeling respected, not agreed with but heard, you've just motivated them far more than they would've been otherwise to give you a fair hearing in turn.

Yeah, and, I mean, what I really love is the Socratic method. When you're talking about asking questions. Yeah. You are forced to listen. You are forced to kind of think about, "How can I get more out of that person? I need to listen, and then I need to reformulate it," and so as a method of getting that empathy, asking questions is the best skill to have.

Mmm, as long as they're sincere questions.

Sure. And I know that should go without saying, we are all very, very good as human beings, at asking really judgey questions.

Sure. "Do you have any idea what that means? Have you got any clue the impact of what you just said?" Well, that is a question, all right, but it's really an accusation with a question mark at the end of it, yeah? So it really is about easing us as a, "Yes, I'll be this ambitious," easing us, as a species, out of the either/or mindset and into something richer, more complex, and for that reason will require us to slow down a little bit.

Yeah. You know, and that is the "both and" paradigm.