Javed Akhtar–Mufti Shamail Debate on God Sparks Intense Public Reaction
Mufti Shamail Nadwi responded by emphasising human free will, arguing that acts of violence and cruelty stem from human choices rather than divine intent
A high-profile and thought-provoking debate on the question of God’s existence featuring poet-lyricist Javed Akhtar and Islamic scholar Mufti Shamail Nadwi filled the Constitution Club in New Delhi, triggering intense online debate, polarising views on belief, logic and ethics.
The nearly two-hour dialogue, moderated by journalist Saurabh Dwivedi, brought together a self-declared atheist and a religious scholar in a rare face-to-face exchange titled “Does God Exist?”. The discussion ranged across philosophy, ethics, science and lived human experience.
During the debate, Akhtar questioned the idea of an omnipotent and benevolent God by invoking human suffering, particularly the ongoing war in Gaza. He asked how belief in an all-powerful deity could be reconciled with the deaths and suffering of children in conflict zones, arguing that such realities challenge traditional notions of divine justice and mercy.
“If God is omnipresent and all-powerful, then He is present in Gaza as well,” Akhtar said, adding that witnessing such suffering made it difficult for him to accept the existence of a compassionate deity.
His remarks triggered strong reactions, especially within sections of the Muslim community, with critics accusing him of insensitivity and provocation, while supporters defended his right to question religious beliefs through moral reasoning.
Mufti Shamail Nadwi responded by emphasising human free will, arguing that acts of violence and cruelty stem from human choices rather than divine intent. “The Creator has created the possibility of evil, but He is not evil,” Nadwi said, placing responsibility for injustice squarely on human agency.
The scholar also argued that science and religion operate in different domains. While science explains physical processes, he said, it cannot address metaphysical questions such as why the universe exists. Scripture, he added, cannot persuade those who reject revelation as a valid source of knowledge.
At one point, Nadwi challenged Akhtar by saying that a lack of complete knowledge does not justify denying God’s existence. Akhtar responded that acknowledging uncertainty was precisely his position, stressing that neither philosophers nor scientists claim absolute knowledge.
The debate further explored the distinction between belief and faith. Akhtar argued that belief should be grounded in evidence and logic, whereas faith demands acceptance without proof — something he warned could discourage critical questioning.
Discussions on morality also revealed sharp differences. Akhtar maintained that morality is a human-made system designed to sustain social order, rather than a law embedded in nature. Nadwi countered by questioning whether moral standards can be left to majority opinion, asking whether injustice becomes acceptable simply because it is widely supported.
The event, marked by sharp exchanges and philosophical depth, has since sparked intense discussion across social media, reflecting enduring tensions between religious belief, secular reasoning and moral accountability in public life.