Yes
96% (99 votes)
No
3% (3 votes)
It may depend on the subject being discussed
1% (1 vote)
Total votes: 103
For an Islamic talk, is the speaker "having a personality" as important as their knowledge?
Published by TPOS on 14 February, 2013 - 18:27
every person is different
we look at 4 caliphas, abu bakr ra soft person, umar ra harsh strict, uthman ra shy, ali ra was in between abu bakr ra and umar ra not too harsh but not too soft either and he was not shy
evey person is different so the way they deliever their speach will be different
but yeah it is important to keep the listeners hooked in so the need to use certain techniques to keep them in is important but every speakers have their own style, some fast some slow some in between, others funny, others serious others calm
theirs different types depending ont he person
What I meant by "having a personality" was they're entertaining, have charisma etc. I know people have different personalities, but for this I just meant, would it be good enough for someone to just sit there and give the facts with a mostly neutral expression or do people expect/want/need more.
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
its good to see scholars throw in some jokes or humour which makes things a bit interesting rasulullah saw did joke and he said as long as you joke makesure it contains no lie so joking is sunnah so putting that in your islamic lecture will make it better again depending on the topic for example entertainment is not best tool to use in afghanistan palestine syria affairs but for biography of a sahaba ra it can be used
No, we shldnt fall in yhe trap of wanting ertatnment rverywhere. Thats our loss. Really its going to be our loss. Ehat I meant by per so nality is having manners, nt being jsrsh, being on the level of the listeners, nt looking down on them. But abt entertaining liateners. Thats wrong. Look at the news. We wanted entertainment so nw we dnt get real nrws. Jist flashy n superfitial garbage.
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
A speaker must hold the interest of the listeners. (preach with wisdom etc.)
How thats done, well many ways and depending the audience, some will like plain facts others may need greater engagement.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
jazakallahkhair
I like how this has exactly 100 votes
I was listening to a talk and the speaker mentioned how in the past people used to travel far and wide to gain knowledge and then they'd get their and some of the scholars/teachers would be quite boring and may even speak in a low tone and so one - basically they weren't like the sort of teachers we want today.
In that sense, it's right not to expect every speaker to have a "personality" as long as they pass on the necessary information. It shows that you have the determination to learn despite the hurdles in between.
On the other hand, it depends on your personality, some people just may not be able to listen to such a talk at all, they just may not benefit from it.
Furthermore there's no harm in using the knowledge we have today to help people learn better - for example the time spent on a talk - people may think it's good and easy to teach someone about something for a whole day non-stop, but it'd be silly to ignore things like the attention span of people. Also more on topic, these days, we probably do want a little more entertainment, I don't think there's anything wrong with that as an idea, but I think there probably could be too much. It's a matter of striking the balance. Actually I don't think it's so much as wanting to be entertained, but more being able to relate, and having a sort of "relationship" with the speaker, so they don't sound so robotic, I think that's what's more important and it's the jokes and "entertainment" which help to do that.
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
i guess then we need to divide the seeking knowledge into the student of knowledges teachers and the general speakers who talk to the masses.
the one who talk to the masses wld need more of a "personality" than the student of knowledge's teachers. coz for the former the listener might not be interested/willing; for the latter the listener is willing.
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
I remember NAK giving an example that Umar (ra) wouldn't respond to like a full on lecture whereas Abu Bakr (ra) who had a different personality would. I think again it goes back to being able to relate to your audience, but yes to some extent those divisions are sensible.
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
A lot of talks revolve around emotional issues and most of the time when you can hear or see the person delivering the talk being effected by the words he is uttering to the point where he finds it hard to continue is something which really captures the moment for me and embeds in me that same emotion that for example the sahaba may Allah be pleased with them may have felt.
Very simple example, i'd find it hard to listen to someone talking about the death of the prophet pbuh and the state of the sahabah on that woeful day in a way in which he or she was showing no emotion at all...and yea there are many scholars like that who can literally go on for ages in that same dreary tone which does nothing to keep the listener active.
However that's not to write them off, after all every scholar has gone through some difficulty or another to attain whatever knowledge that is in their possession. But like i said for me, i need to hear that the lecturer is passionate in his words and really knows what buttons to push to attract the audience and to make their words as such that they will have a lasting effect upon the listener.
When i read the title i kind of thought you meant should the speaker have good manners etc and know the proper etiquettes of delivering talks and also of other things. The latter is just as important IMO, i can't listen to someone who feels the need to shout and bring the house down with each and everyword and feel the need to write and slag other people off in their speech.