Argumentation in Imran Khan’s United Nation General Assembly Addresses on Islamophobia: A Toulmin Model Analysis

Abstract

Argumentation plays a pivotal role in public discourse, particularly within democratic societies where citizens and their representatives engage with sociopolitical issues. Leaders across the world have attempted to represent the sentiments of Muslims regarding Islamophobia through discourse; however, these efforts have often been critiqued for lacking clarity or failing to prevent the misrepresentation of Muslim communities. In contrast, the two addresses delivered by former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi, at the United Nations General Assembly have drawn international attention for their explicit articulation of concerns related to Islamophobia. A number of researches are available on the addresses of former Prime Minister, Imran Khan, on Islamophobia but limited research is available on the argumentation in Imran Khan’s United Nations General Assembly addresses on Islamophobia. Thereby, applying qualitative methodology using Toulmin's Model of Argumentation under the broader umbrella of Argumentation theory by Stephen Edelston Toulmin, this study aims to analyze the argumentation in Imran Khan’s United Nations General Assembly addresses on Islamophobia. The findings shows that Imran Khan supports his claims on Islamophobia by presenting factual evidence, including references to incidents of discrimination and violence, and by appealing to universal principles of justice and religious tolerance. His argumentation also draws upon historical context and moral reasoning to emphasize the urgency of addressing Islamophobia at the global level. Overall, the study concludes that argumentation plays a pivotal role in shaping public discourse on religious intolerance, offering insights into how political leaders employ reasoning strategies to influence global policy debates and promote intercultural understanding.