Mufti Shamail and Javed Akhtar's debate has been scheduled

The conversation or debate between Javed Akhtar and Mufti Shamail is not just a discussion, but a clash of two different ideologies. On one hand, Mufti Sahib's arguments are based on logic and rational understanding, while on the other hand, Javed Akhtar remains firm on his stance, driven by emotions, and remains dissatisfied until the end. Javed Akhtar is an open and straightforward atheist and progressive intellectual. He believes in examining the concept of religion and God through the lens of logic, human reason, and scientific evidence.

To convince him of the existence of Allah, Javed Akhtar required a more scientific and rational approach, rather than traditional or emotional speeches. Many critics have pointed out that Javed Akhtar is not a "preacher" or advocate of atheism, but rather a free-thinking writer. For such a person, it was not necessary to open a "scientific front" on such a large scale, but rather, he could have been approached in a simple and loving manner.

The debate between Javed Akhtar and Mufti Shamail revolves around several key points. Mufti Shamail's primary argument is based on the concept of the design of the universe - that such a complex universe cannot exist on its own. At a layman's level, it makes sense to say that "if there's a clock, there must be a clockmaker." Javed Akhtar, on the other hand, believes in evolution and the laws of physics as the driving force behind the universe's order and questions, "If everything was created by someone, then who created God?"

Javed Akhtar's atheism is not just scientific, but also social. He views religion as a human-made necessity. His problem is that if everything was created by someone, then who created God? Those who claim the existence of God must prove it. His point of view is that whoever claims existence must provide evidence. Javed Akhtar insisted that Mufti Sahib should provide tangible, material evidence that can be perceived by human senses, not just mental logic.

In such debates, the psychological aspect often comes into play, where neither party is willing to concede or be "satisfied." Mufti Sahib's objective was to defend his faith and strengthen the audience's belief. Javed Akhtar's goal was to question traditional religious concepts.

In summary, for atheists like Javed Akhtar, God is a "personal existence" that must be proven materially in the universe. For Mufti Shamail, God is a "necessary being" that can be understood through reason. Atheists argue that religious thinkers rely on the "God of the gaps," where science is silent, and God is invoked.

Mufti Shamail's arguments are weighty for those who seek a "purpose" in the universe. However, for Javed Akhtar, these are just "beautiful words" without any tangible material reality behind them. The satisfaction is not achieved because both have different standards for truth.

Leaving aside the debate between Javed Akhtar and Mufti Shamail for a moment, let's try to say something on our own. Javed Akhtar is a champion of human rights and ethics. One could ask him that if the universe is just an accident and there is no God, then where do "good" and "evil" come from on a universal scale? If matter is all there is, then ethics should be just chemical reactions, but humans consider it a "sacred responsibility." Who gave this perception?

The concept of "necessary being" by ancient Muslim philosophers like Ibn Sina or Imam Ghazali could be a topic of scientific discussion. The argument that every event requires a cause, and this chain of causes must ultimately rest on a being that is not dependent on anything else, is a philosophical standpoint.

The reality of consciousness is another aspect - science can explain material objects, but where does "consciousness" or the sense of "I" come from? Matter is inanimate, so how do feelings and emotions arise? Javed Akhtar could be asked about the metaphysical reality of human consciousness or soul, which might point to the existence of a higher being beyond matter.

The definition of God is that He is "uncreated" and "eternal." If we say that God was created by someone else, then He would not be God, but a creation. This would lead to an infinite regress, which is logically impossible.

Javed Akhtar's repeated question about why God remained silent on the destruction of Palestine, the killing of 45,000 children, and why He did not stop Israel, is not a new question. It is an ancient question in the history of philosophy and religion, known as the "problem of evil." His perspective is based on rationalism and human empathy, which is the narrative of someone who views the universe solely from a material and human perspective.

The Islamic perspective on this issue is that God has given humans the freedom to choose between good and evil. If God were to stop every evil act immediately, the concept of human "trial" and "free will" would be negated. What is happening in Palestine is human injustice, and humans are responsible for it. The world, according to religion, is not a place of reward, but a place of trial. The injustices here are temporary, and true justice will be served in the afterlife.

God's silence does not mean approval - according to the Quran, God gives the oppressors a respite so that they may reach the ultimate limit of their oppression, after which they will be punished more severely.

Javed Akhtar's question also has a critical aspect - when we question God about injustices like Palestine, are we not, in a way, shirking human responsibility? The question should also be asked why Muslim countries, despite having the awareness of "enjoining good and forbidding evil," remained silent on Israeli brutality. This is a very important and bitter question that is circulating in the minds of Muslims and justice-loving people worldwide.

The "silence" or "inaction" of Muslim countries on the Gaza and Palestine situation is due to complex political, economic, and strategic factors. Many Muslim economies are tied to Western powers, particularly the US and the European Union, for trade, investment, and technology. They fear that taking a strong stance could harm their own economies and survival.

Some Arab and Muslim countries rely on the US for defense equipment and security. They also fear that if they take a strong stance, it could disrupt the balance of power in the region or draw them into a direct conflict for which they are not prepared.

The question arises - where are the global community and the champions of human rights? Whenever a resolution against Israel comes up in the Security Council, the US or other major powers veto it, rendering the global community powerless.

Is this a failure of God or the system created by humans? It is undoubtedly a failure of the system that humans have created in the name of "justice and equality." When humans apply their laws only to the weak and exempt the powerful, the system becomes flawed.

Javed Akhtar's question is an emotional and logical protest that arises in the heart of every person who witnesses human suffering. However, for the faithful, this situation is not evidence of the non-existence of God, but rather of human oppression and disregard for the law, and the imperfection of this world, where true justice can only be achieved in God's court.