Conflict Management: Analysis of CNN Interview with Reza Aslan Report

This report analyzes a CNN interview featuring Reza Aslan, focusing on conflict management strategies. It examines the rationale of each participant, the arguments presented, and instances of potential conflict escalation. The report delves into the stories the participants told themselves, identifying any acts of vilification and instances where participants relied on opinions rather than facts. It highlights moments where participants may have felt threatened and explains the underlying reasons. The analysis also provides an overview of the interview's context, including discussions on equality, freedom of Muslim women, and the role of Islam in violence. The report concludes with an assessment of the effectiveness of the conflict management approaches used, and it suggests alternative strategies for more constructive dialogue and resolution of conflicting viewpoints. The report also references various academic sources to support its findings and conclusions.

CONFLICT
MANAGEMENT

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
Q 1. What are the rationale of each participant at the beginning of the interview. And whether
the arguments are directed to cause conflict or manage conflict?...............................................3
Q 2. What are the stories the participants were telling themselves and did any specific act of
vilification arise?.........................................................................................................................4
Q 3. Any instances in the interview where any of the participants became threatened and
explain why.................................................................................................................................4
Q 4. Any instances where the participants were relying on opinions rather than facts..............5
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
Conflict is an inexorable part of work and life. A person may across many situations
where their opinions, goals and needs have clashed. Sometimes, it may also arise due to different
attitudes. It becomes imperative to manage such circumstances to create a healthy and peaceful
environment (Misra, 2013). Here, comes the concept of conflict management. It is defined as the
process of identifying and addressing the differences to resolve them by getting into a
conclusion. This report is based on an interview show on the video, where the parties have put
their respective statements. Also, the report will provide the appropriate theories or concepts
which can be applied to resolve the conflict (Wolff, 2013).
Q 1. What are the rationale of each participant at the beginning of the interview. And whether the
arguments are directed to cause conflict or manage conflict?
The interview with Reza Aslan, a scholar of religions, an author a professor at University
of California, Riverside, was to throw lights on a matter, that the whole world wants to know.
CNN Tonight invited the professor, to talk about equality and freedom of Muslim women in
Muslim majority countries. But soon, the conversation got shifted to ISIS, as it is also a prime
issue that needs to solved (Kouzakova and et. al., 2012). The main objective of the Camerota and
Lemon (interviwer) to know the opinions of Reza Aslan on the current practices by Muslim
countries on women. They wanted the answers in a more factual way, to make the world believe
and make them compare the data to observe the differences in today's scenario from what it was
decades ago. On the other hand, the professor presented his arguments by providing factual data
to an extent but he was more insisting into defending the Islam by comparing it with other
religions such as Christianity, Hinduism etc. This made it clear that the ultimate and sole
objective of his was to win the argument by giving vague opinions (Avruch and Mitchell, 2013).
The statements given by Reza were more likely to cause conflict in many countries across
the world as he has said many things which must have hurt sentiments of people worldwide. The
video shows the tone in which he was saying his part of things. It can be seen clearly, that he was
not ready to accept the fact how Muslim women are treated by their husbands and in laws. He
addressed the genital mutilation practice is a practice in African countries and is nowhere
connected to Islam as the largest population in Africa practice Christianity (Condliffe, 2012).
There were some of the moments when, he agreed with the realistic data but majorly he denied

the fact that Muslim women in vast numbers are mistreated and bounded to take permission even
for their basic rights. Also, he did not even try to put the topic about ISIS. All these describe how
conflicting the arguments were (Weingart and et. al., 2015).
Q 2. What are the stories the participants were telling themselves and did any specific act of
vilification arise?
Both the parties presented their parts by giving their respective opinions. The
interviewers, Lemon and Camerota questioned the justice system in Muslim countries as the
cases that have been happening with women in Muslim majority countries. Continuing this, they
played a video clip showing Bill Maher saying how women are circumcision for women, not
respecting the rights of women etc. To which Reza said that genital mutilation is not an Islamic
problem, but an African problem as majority of Christian people live there (Mac Ginty and
Williams, 2016). To prove this point he even, gave the statistical data about the population living
in African countries and along with this, he agreed on the fact that women are mistreated in
states like Iran and Saudi Arabia. The interviewers focused to discuss on the free and open
society for Muslim women in those two countries. To which he continued to narrate about the
importance that Muslim majority countries give to its women, for this he gave examples of
Turkey, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia etc. and that seven Muslim women were chosen as
their heads of state in these and other Muslim majority countries. Further, they again played a
video, in which Benjamin Netanyahu addressed that Hamas is ISIS and ISIS is Hamas and all
militant Islamists share in common. On the basis of this, Reza was asked whether Islam promote
violence (Harff, 2018). To which, the professor answered that Islam does not promote violence
and it depends on what a people in a particular religion bring to it. Further, if a person is violent,
his Islam, Christianity, Hinduism is going to be violent and the attitudes of the people are
influenced by their politics, social and the way they want to see their communities. In the whole
interview, Mr. Reza has answered some of the arguments very peacefully and fairly. But he has
called the Benjamin, illogical and that people don't take him seriously. Saying such strong
statements for a prominent person could heat up the situations.
Q 3. Any instances in the interview where any of the participants became threatened and explain
why.
The interviewers appreciated the way Reza Aslan answered each and every question
being asked (Yarnell and Neff, 2013). He even criticized the practice of stoning, mutilation and

barbaric in the world. He even said, that countries like Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia do not belong
to 21st century as they encourage such customs. When the show was about to end, he reacted
very loudly on the remarks made my Israel prime minister. He became furious and called the
statements of the prime minister irrational and illogical and questioned his leadership in the
global context. Also, denoted Israel have become an isolated from rest of the world (Shetach,
2012). Instead of showing strong condemnation about such terrorism practices by ISIS, he called
the statements of the prime minister ridiculous. The major reason for his reaction could be
because of the fact that Muslims are indeed involved with terrorism or better say that the
terrorists found in different countries follow Islam (Methods of conflict resolution between
nations, 2017). Along with this, he is very well aware of the situation of Muslim women being
treated in Muslim majority country. Reza should have analysed that he is a important personality
whose behaviour will reflect his opinions and how he should have really behaved. Instead of
reacting in that way, he should have first listened to Camerota and Lemon carefully and present
his stories in such a way which will be unbiased when it will be interpreted by others. Also, it
should be add a meaning and should give some motive to make the situations better (Tlaiss,
2015). When you are on a national television, you should create a balance between emotions as
some of the questions might be sensitive to oneself, but it is where, a person should present his
judgement in the best way. Along with this, a person should apologize, if he say something
inappropriate which may not be accepted by others and could hurt their emotions. In this case,
Reza should have immediately apologised when he disrespected Benjamin.
Q 4. Any instances where the participants were relying on opinions rather than facts.
There were many incidents where Mr. Reza was seen relying on the opinions rather than
facts. He is an author as well as a professor therefore, it's quite obvious to present his opinions.
But he should have given those views and judgements by being intellectual and factual to the
possible extent. He said that Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Turkey are the Muslim
majority countries that give freedom and open society to its women (Cerni and et. al., 2014).
However, when told that driving is prohibited for women in Saudi Arabia and are stoned to death
in Pakistan. He called Saudi Arabia an extremist by quoting the 19 people that it has beheaded
and ignoring the numbers that ISIS have beheaded till now. Also, it can be clearly seen that he is
driven by opinions, when connected violence with religion. He talked about how an individual
community is being treated in a country makes him violent. In his opinion, hamas is not equal to

ISIS (Rokem, 2012). He is not right at this point, the comparison is somehow correct as Hamas
movement was to form a separate Islamic state in place of Israel and it became a leader in
terrorism activities and involved suicide bombing. The ultimate goal was to kill people to take
the authority and set an independent country. The topic of the interview was very sensitive,
therefore, it should have discussed properly by resolving the conflict of opinions (Sidaway,
2013).
CONCLUSION
From the above report, it has been concluded that, a person can not avoid a conflict but
he should surely know how to resolve it in order to get to a conclusion for the benefit of all.
Further, the when differences arise in the judgements or the views, it should be resolved by
applying the problem solving skills. Also, there should be enough evidence to prove one's point.
Along with this, when in an interview there arise a conflicting situation, it should be resolved as
soon as possible. Further, there should be sufficient management in advance to not let conflict
arise.

REFERENCES
Books and journals:
Wolff, S., 2013. Conflict management in divided societies: The many uses of territorial self-
governance. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 20(1), pp.27-50.
Avruch, K. and Mitchell, C. eds., 2013. Conflict resolution and human needs: Linking theory
and practice. Routledge.
Mac Ginty, R. and Williams, A., 2016. Conflict and development. Routledge.
Harff, B., 2018. Ethnic conflict in world politics. Routledge.
Shetach, A., 2012. Conflict leadership. Journal for quality & Participation. 35(2). pp.25-30.
Cerni, T., Curtis, G.J. and Colmar, S.H., 2014. Cognitive‐experiential leadership model: How
leaders’ information‐processing systems can influence leadership styles, influencing
tactics, conflict management, and organizational outcomes. Journal of Leadership
Studies. 8(3). pp.26-39.
Tlaiss, H.A., 2015. How Islamic business ethics impact women entrepreneurs: Insights from four
Arab Middle Eastern countries. Journal of Business Ethics. 129(4). pp.859-877.
Yarnell, L.M. and Neff, K.D., 2013. Self-compassion, interpersonal conflict resolutions, and
well-being. Self and Identity. 12(2). pp.146-159.
Kouzakova, M., Ellemers, N., Harinck, F. and Scheepers, D., 2012. The implications of value
conflict: How disagreement on values affects self-involvement and perceived common
ground. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 38(6). pp.798-807.
Misra, A., 2013. Politics of civil wars: conflict, intervention & resolution. Routledge.
Sidaway, R., 2013. Resolving environmental disputes: from conflict to consensus. Routledge.
Condliffe, P., 2012. Conflict Management: a practical guide. LexisNexis Butterworths.
Weingart, L.R. and et. al., 2015. The directness and oppositional intensity of conflict
expression. Academy of Management Review. 40(2). pp.235-262.
Rokem, J., 2012. Politics and conflict in a contested city. Urban planning in Jerusalem under
Israeli rule. Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem, (23).
Online:
Methods of conflict resolution between nations. 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/2-important-methods-of-conflict-
resolution-between-nations/113160>.