EXPLANATORY AND APOLOGY STATEMENT CONCERNING THE PRE-QUARTERFINALS

MOTIONS OF PIALA TUN RAZAK 2019

Written by Mohammad Aidil bin Ali and Iyad Zakiy Amal, Co-Chief Adjudicators of PTR 2019

1. The 2019 edition of Piala Tun Razak 2019 has concluded on the 13th of October 2019, and it was yet
another successful edition of PTR. The participants, which were made up of SBP students ranging from
13 to 15 years old contended in the competition, and the race for the championship trophy was won by
the defending victor, Sekolah Tun Abdul Rahman, Ipoh. In spite of the success of the tournament, there
rose a concern pertaining the motions that were provided for the pre-quarterfinals round. The theme of
the round was religion, and the motions read:

a) This House believes that secular democracies with substantial religious communities should not
allow a separate legal system for those communities (e.g.: Canon Law, Syariah Law, etc.)
b) Given the ability to rewrite the Quran, this House, as moderate Islamic scholars would republish a
new version of Quran with contents vulnerable to radical misinterpretation removed.
c) A solid irrefutable evidence was found which proves that being homosexual is not a sin in Islam.
There is no direct commandment from God regarding this, and it is instead a law decreed thousands
of years ago from ijtima whose judgements were clouded by inherent homophobia. This House
would not disclose this evidence.
2. These motions, particularly the second and the third motion were deemed to be heavily controversial
and insensitive to the religious belief of the participants who were majorly Muslims. However, there are
several explanations as to why we as the co-chief adjudicators chose to run these motions.

a) These motions fall under the category of hypothetical motion, of which the debaters – should they
debate the motions – are required to envision an imaginary world where the motions can take
place.
b) In reality, particularly for the first motion, nobody has the right to rewrite the Quran, true to Allah’s
commandment in the Quran which reads:

And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, those who do not expect the meeting with
Us say, "Bring us a Qur'an other than this or change it." Say, [O Muhammad], "It is not for me to change it
on my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me. Indeed, I fear, if I should disobey my Lord, the
punishment of a tremendous Day." (Surah Yunus, verse fifteen)
 This verse explicitly stated that should there come one time when doubters and non-believers came
and demanded for the Quran to be modified, it is not of anyone’s accord including Rasulullah
(PBUH) to create a new one.

c) However, in the spirit of the motion, assuming there exists an imaginary world where Muslims
can create a newer version of Quran in the same way how there exist many different versions
of the Bible (Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox), should it be the duty of
moderate Islamic scholars to do the job?
d) We have extensively discussed about this motion, and we have foreseen that this motion does
not require anyone to demonize or assassinate Islam as a religion. Instead in the side
proposition, the arguments that could take place are:

i. What are the contents of the Quran that are vulnerable to radical misinterpretation?
ii. Why must it be moderate Islamic scholars, not anyone else in the Muslim community, who
should take this duty of rewriting a newer Quran devoid of these contents?
iii. Is it a strategic thing for these scholars to do such thing?
iv. What would it tell the doubters and non-believers of the Quran?
v. What would be the reaction of the Muslim communities in the wake of the existence of a newer
Quran?

Meanwhile, in the side opposition, the side which calls for this motion to fall, the arguments that
could be executed are:

i. Why is it not in the best interest of moderate Islamic scholars, or anyone else in the Muslim
community for that matter, to create a newer version of the Quran?
ii. What is the significance of these contents of the Quran, albeit them being vulnerable to radical
misinterpretation?
iii. If the goal of the creation of a newer Quran is for moderation, what should be the other
alternative for the moderate Islamic scholars to take instead of coming with a newer Quran?
iv. What would be the adverse effects of the creation of this newer Quran? (antagonization of
radical ultra-conservative Muslims, fragmentation of the Islamic community, newer form of
sectarianism, etc.)

e) Similarly, for the third motion, it is also a hypothetical motion which requires the debaters to imagine:
if ever such evidence was found, why should it not be disclosed? What would be the outcome of
the disclosure?

3. These motions are not created with any intention to indoctrinate or brainwash the young debaters,
nor is it a form of liberal agenda by anyone. In the defense of debating a sport, debating has always
been an activity where participants are required to think out of the box, to not limit one’s worldview while
at the same time not sacrificing their faith and belief, and be ready to think critically.
4. Furthermore, there are a lot of more debating competitions out there which would require debaters to
debate more interpretively controversial motions. Examples of such motions include “This House would
boycott Hajj and Umrah”, “This House believes that birth lottery should be a legitimate defense for the
non-believers in the Afterlife”, etc.

5. Thus, we think that it is best to expose the young debaters to this type of motions so they would be
aware of the reality of discourse that they would face in a lot more debating competitions, and learn
from it the kind of arguments that they could run without having to jeopardize their faith in religion.

6. At the same time, after the both of us have discussed on the possible arguments that could be run, we
have concluded that these motions – albeit being interpretively controversial – are safe for debaters of
this group of age to debate about.

7. This conclusion is also made out of our greatest confidence that although these debaters are young,
they are a group of bright talented people who are capable of executing the motions properly without
having to fear that they would be indoctrinated into doubting their belief.

8. As adults, while it is our duty to ensure that the young ones under our supervision are not exposed to
bad indoctrination, it is also our duty to ensure that they are safely exposed to the reality of discourse
so that they would be prepared for the real world in which they would be laid bare to a lot more things
that would cultivate seeds of doubt and uncertainty.

9. However, regardless of all these, things have happened, and if there is any party involved who find
these to be insensitive and offensive, we and the organizing committee of PTR 2019 would like to
profusely and wholeheartedly apologize for any discomfort that has been caused. We will take this as
a precautionary lesson and would ensure that for the future edition of PTR, such motions would be
avoided.

10. It is a great honor and pleasure for the both of us to serve as the co-chief adjudicators, and having
adjudicated all these young minds, we believe that there is a bright future for the debating arena of
Malaysia in the future, and in SBPs we can put our confidence.

Signing out,

Mohammad Aidil Ali and Iyad Zakiy Amal

Co-Chief Adjudicator (English category),
Piala Tun Razak 2019