Have you ever considered this simple question, what does a person want to achieve through academic research? Whatever the field of research, man wants to reach the “truth” because something may be rejected even on the basis of doubt, but it cannot be accepted until its truth is known. Some part of all the realities of the universe is hidden in the soul, and some in the matter, and man wants to reach the “reality” of the field of life of his own interest and taste with the help of various sciences, arts, and exercises. It is in fact a “movement of rightism” and success in it comes only to those who are “realists”.
Although such people were seen even in the golden era, but in our time, they are available in bulk, who mistook the mirage not for water, but for life water and claimed, “I have got reality”, but such people could not be mentioned in history. These are the people who first look for a rival and when found, then make it their goal to “outrage” him with the help of futile arguments or debates. The fruitless debate has three associations with ignorance.
One is that its purpose is not to convince, but to make the other speechless, and this act is nothing but a satanic disposition. Look at the occasion of the creation of Adam, the angels asked God the reason for the creation of this being in order to understand, and God did not say I am the creator and owner, who are you to ask? Rather answered and convinced them. On the other hand, the devil stood stubbornly and said “I will surprise you by giving logical arguments that there is no one better than me.” And his argument was only that he is made of fire and Adam is made of clay, fire is better than clay, so “I became better than Adam.” The result of the passion for debate is the fate of debaters. Shaytan is destined for eternal humiliation. Persuasion on the contrary is a divine sunnah. Who, despite being the creator and master of his own creation, sent down four books and many scriptures to convince him. And in this regard too, he explained everything well and said, “Now follow the path of your choice, but remember that I have told you the “results” of each path. Don’t say tomorrow that there was no news.
Another relation of futile debate to ignorance is that its first condition is “limited time”. If the goal is to “reach the truth”, how can it be determined how long this goal can be achieved? For example, scientists want to reach the reality of AIDS treatment and they have been continuously researching it for years, but they have not been able to reach it yet and they cannot tell how long this will be possible. Whereas the debate ends the moment one of the parties becomes unanswerable. Can being unanswerable be an argument to be wrong? This is only an argument to end the understanding of one side. And it is quite possible that an even greater debater is standing outside the door, which at any moment will enter the hall and make speechless the winner.
A third connection of debate to ignorance is that it ends in humiliation and humiliation is not an intellectual approach. The current collective mood of the Muslim world is one of debate, in which making the rival speechless has become a life goal. There are such masters among the clerics and if you look at the scientists, there are also many Parvez Hodbai. Both sides are, Masha Allah, high debaters, and both find solace in humiliating their rivals. Reaching the truth has been excluded from the collective mood of Muslims, which is the main goal of both the spiritual and scientific fields. And this is the real reason for our decline over the last five hundred years. The day we start persuading instead of debating our progress will begin.
There are liberals in our society who have a complaint against Khadim Hussain Rizvi and there are Maulvis who have a problem with Parvez Hudbai because at one level or another, they all believe in mere debating and humiliating the rivals. And people like me are suffering among both as Mullah Calls us liberals and to liberals we are Mullahs. The problem is that if we admire a right thing of a liberal, then he shares it and praises our realism, but if we criticize any wrong thing of the same person, then he gives us the title of “hypocrite”.
The same we are facing from Mullah, he wants us to admire his everything and if you differ from him in any matter you will be targeted badly. Do you understand this logic? Someone can tell, why is it obligatory to appreciate every work of one whose work is appreciated. And why is it necessary to reject all the steps of one whose steps are rejected?
