The “civilizational and scientific change”

 When the ‘God’ of the screen collided with the ‘God’ of reality: Mufti 

Shamail vs Javed Akhtar, a great scientific operation! - 

The “civilizational and scientific change” that I have been trumpeting for the past several days, in which I repeatedly said to leave the “arena of debate” and come to the “table of dialogue”, today nature has put a practical stamp on my words. This “Great Dialogue” taking place in the land of India was actually not a clash of two personalities, it was a clash of two “ideological universes” (Worldviews). 

On one side was Bollywood’s dazzling, 60-year-old king of artistic rigor and word magic, Javed Akhtar, and on the other side was a soft-spoken man armed with the weapons of the Quran, logic and philosophy, Mufti Shamail Nadwi

 This dialogue proved that when “truth” confronts falsehood with full preparation and “scholarly dignity”, then falsehood’s eloquence, its aura and its fame all fall to the ground. 

Come on! 

Let’s do an “Epistemological Post-mortem” of this historic session and see how a Muslim scholar, without raising his voice, deflated the balloon of atheism. 

1. Psychological War: Monotheism vs. Celebrity Aura: 

First of all, understand the psychology of this scenario. 

Javed Akhtar is no ordinary atheist. He is that “intellectual” of the subcontinent whose written dialogues are applauded by millions of people. 

He is the “godfather” of the media. 

When such people speak, whether they have arguments or not, their “pressure” and “charisma” swallow the next one. 

 The average cleric either becomes intimidated and becomes “apologetic” in front of such people or gets angry and becomes rude (which is actually a reaction to fear).

But Mufti Shamail Nadvi looks like a rock here. 

Why?

This is the “power of monotheism”.

When the belief is firmly established in your heart that honor, humiliation, death and life are only in the hands of the “Lord” whose case you are fighting for, then whether it is Javed Akhtar or the Pharaoh of the time, he does not seem to you more than an “ordinary person”.

Mufti Sahib completely ignored Javed Akhtar’s “celebrity status” and spoke to him as if he were addressing an ordinary student. 

He did not challenge Javed Akhtar’s “ego”, but put his “intelligence” on the dock. 

This was the first psychological victory!

2.  Socratic Method: Asking questions instead of answering:

I have always said that do not play the atheist on defense, bring him on defense. 

Mufti Shamail used the “Socratic Method” here with great skill.

The gist of Javed Akhtar’s entire talk was: 

“I do not believe in God because I do not understand or see.”

Common scenes here start giving “evidence for the existence of God.” But Mufti Sahib attacked “Epistemology.”

He raised the fundamental question:

“Can the absence of something in your knowledge be an argument for its non-existence?”

(Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence).

This is the logical trap in which even a smart person like Javed Akhtar got caught. 

Mufti Sahib explained with great love that Javed Sahib! 

 Your “ignorance” is only proof of your ignorance, not proof of the emptiness of the universe.

If a blind man says, 

“There is no sun because I cannot see it”, 

then the sun does not disappear, it only proves the blindness of the blind man. 

Mufti Sahib showed Javed Akhtar the mirror that he is denying God not on the basis of “science”, but on the basis of his “personal understanding”, which in itself is an unscientific attitude.

3. The problem of good and evil and Bollywood’s “fiction”:

Javed Akhtar, like every traditional atheist, finally pulled out the most worn-out arrow from his quiver:

“The problem of evil”.

He mocked God that if he exists, why is there so much suffering in the world? 

This argument was based on emotion, not logic.

 Mufti Shamail's answer here was a "philosophical masterpiece". 

He explained that the existence of "Evil" is not an argument for the "non-existence of God", but rather an argument for "human empowerment" (Free Will). 

If there were no suffering in the world, this world would not be a "testing ground", it would be a paradise. 

And the king of the film world should have understood that if there is no "villain" in the story and there are no difficulties for the hero, then the "purpose" of the story is lost. 

Mufti Sahib explained to Javed Akhtar using the logic of his field (story and script) that Allah has not created this universe as a "Comfort Zone", but as a "Testing Zone". There is a difference between a machine malfunction and a machine test. 

4. The answer to sarcasm is a smile: moral victory: 

In Javed Akhtar's conversation, there was an attempt to prove "sarcasm", "mockery" and religion as stereotypes at various places. 

 They were repeatedly going off topic and talking red herrings to confuse Mufti Sahib.

But salam to Mufti Shamail’s nerves!

He responded to rudeness with arguments and to sarcasm with a smile.

This is the “power of dialogue” that I am a proponent of.

When you respond to insults with insults, the audience sees a “riot”. 

But when you respond to sarcasm with serious arguments, the audience sees the “difference between right and wrong”.

Mufti Sahib proved that a Muslim is not an “emotional fanatic”, but a Muslim is one who has the “tranquility of truth”. He who is truthful does not shout.

Summary and our plan of action:

My youth! 

My friends!

Mufti Shamail