Muḥammad Akram Nadwī
“The Reins Are Mine”
By Dr Muḥammad Akram Nadwī
Oxford
22/12/2025
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
For several days I had been travelling continuously, and a variety of commitments had so completely hemmed me in that I did not find even a moment of leisure or calm. During that period, a debate entitled “The Existence of God” was held in Delhi, which was regarded in religious circles as an event of unusual importance. Outwardly, the affirmative side appeared to prevail, and scenes of joy and celebration were witnessed on all sides at its success, as though a festival atmosphere had been created.
However, the repercussions of this debate gave rise to numerous questions that were sent to me, and some individuals persistently requested that I respond to them in writing. Owing to the press of engagements, it was not possible to provide those responses in a timely manner. Nevertheless, among them are certain questions whose answers are indispensable, for if they are not addressed, there is a danger that misunderstandings concerning Islam and truth will spread among the public—misconceptions that run contrary to reality and religion and that may lead minds astray.
Accordingly, a summary of those questions is presented below, and their answers will be set out in order.
First question:
Some people are claiming that the success of this recent debate has made it as clear as daylight that our ancient educational curriculum is entirely sound, effective, and complete; therefore, all criticism levelled against it is baseless, and it should be reinstated with full force. Is this line of reasoning sound when weighed on scholarly and logical scales?
Second:
If it is accepted that the victory of the affirmative debater is in fact a victory for Islam, does it not then follow that if, tomorrow, the deniers of God were to prevail in a debate, this would have to be taken as proof of the falsity of Islam? Can such an impression be accepted?
Third:
You maintain that a debater’s victory is not proof that he is truly upon the truth. In that case, please clarify what the real reasons and factors were behind the success of the affirmative side in this particular debate.
Fourth:
You have stated that debate, in and of itself, is unhelpful in several respects, and at times even ill-omened and harmful. Do you still hold this view, or has this recent debate brought about any change in your position?
Answer to the first question
It is astonishing that anyone should take the success of this recent debate as a basis for arguing that the ancient curriculum is entirely correct. In reality, this argument is not only defective, but rests upon a sheer misunderstanding from both a logical and scholarly perspective.
The famous lexicographer and historian Abū ʿUbaydah relates an incident that perfectly illustrates this point. Once, a horse race was held, and one horse surged ahead of all the others. Seeing this, a spectator began clapping uncontrollably, swelling with pride and leaping about in exuberant delight. Someone asked him, “Is this horse yours?” He replied, “No, the horse is not mine—the reins are mine!”
This example lays bare the intellectual fallacy into which some have fallen. Scholarly arguments concerning the shortcomings or deficiencies of the ancient curriculum have been presented repeatedly, and there is near consensus among education specialists on this matter. Despite this, to take the success of a single debate as proof of the curriculum’s soundness is like attributing a horse’s victory to the reins.
One seminary rejoices because the horse belonged to it; another rejoices because the reins were theirs; while the rest of the Muslims rejoice because the horse’s name was Marzabān, whose first letter is mīm, just as the first letter of Muslim is mīm.
Answer to the second question
If someone argues that the victory of the affirmative debater is a victory for Islam, then let it be made clear: if tomorrow the deniers of God were to prevail in a debate, would that mean Islam has been proven false?
The answer is unequivocal. A debate cannot make the victory of any side proof of its being upon the truth, nor defeat proof of falsehood. Debate is a craft whose outcomes depend on eloquence, style of presentation, quick repartee, psychological impact, and command over the audience. It has no intrinsic connection to the principles of truth and falsehood. One who wins today may lose tomorrow, and one who loses today may win tomorrow. This only highlights the transient and unstable nature of debates.
The same can be seen in the game of cricket: sometimes Pakistan wins, and sometimes India. Yet everyone knows that Pakistan’s victory does not prove Islam to be true, nor does India’s victory prove it false.
The truth and authenticity of Islam are established by their own innate and rational proofs—proofs that are enduring and unaffected by the victories or defeats of debaters. To claim that success in debate is the yardstick of religious truth is nothing but an intellectual delusion.
Answer to the third question
If a debate’s victory is not proof that a side is upon the truth, then what were the real reasons for the success of the affirmative side in this particular debate?
First, it must be clearly understood that winning a debate is itself a skill—one known and mastered only by those who practise it with strategy and discipline. Generally, the one who presents his position with expertise and planning prevails. The reasons for such victory include the following:
Scholarly competence and intellectual superiority:
The winning debater exposed the intellectual gaps and weaknesses in his opponent’s case through knowledge and argument, creating in the minds of the audience the impression that the affirmative position was more reliable and rational.
Dignity, composure, and confidence:
Throughout the debate, the affirmative side avoided anger and displayed restraint and dignity. This had a profound effect on the audience, who sensed an inner confidence grounded in strong, clear, and credible arguments.
The psychological advantage of a positive claim:
As a general principle, when one side advances a positive assertion and the other merely denies it, if both are otherwise equal, the affirmative side is more likely to prevail.
For example, if someone claims that visiting the Somnath Temple brings blessings, and another denies it, the one asserting the blessings tends to succeed. Likewise, if someone claims that visiting Ajmer Sharif grants children, and another refutes it, the one making the claim often prevails, while the denier appears unfamiliar with the matter.
A well-known scholarly principle applies here: absence of knowledge does not imply absence of existence. If a blind person cannot see a scene, that does not mean the scene does not exist. Similarly, the opponent’s denial or ignorance does not undermine the affirmative position.
Answer to the fourth question
You asked whether I still hold the view that debate is, in itself, an ill-omened and harmful activity. My position remains clear and firm, and I continue to hold that view. It is not an emotional stance, but one grounded in experience and reflection.
From a daʿwah perspective, this debate has proven harmful. It has reinforced in the minds of atheists the impression that the class of scholars is under-learned, ill-mannered, and disorganised—an attitude that betrays their intellectual and moral bankruptcy. The celebrations that followed the debate’s success did not bring atheists closer; rather, they widened the intellectual and psychological distance.
Success in daʿwah lies not in winning debates, but in winning hearts. Sometimes it is better—and even necessary—to lose certain battles so that future influence may be deeper and more enduring.
At present, a kind of fervour dominates among the youth, at times resembling intoxication. There is an emotional tendency among Muslims whereby a superficial victory in a game or a debate is celebrated as though an entire country had been conquered. In such an atmosphere of jubilation, scholarly and rational discourse goes unheard.
When this intoxication subsides, it will then be possible to speak with realism and clarity, and to cultivate in young minds genuine understanding and a sound intellectual orientation.
Dr Muḥammad Akram Nadwī
Oxford
Disclaimer: This article was translated by AI. Original post: https://t.me/DrAkramNadwi/7976
