Javed Akhtar–Mufti Shamail Debate on God Sparks Intense Public Reaction
A high-profile and thought-provoking debate on the question of God’s existence, involving poet-lyricist Javed Akhtar and Islamic scholar Mufti Shamail Nadwi, packed the Constitution Club in New Delhi and triggered intense online debate, polarizing views on faith, logic and morality.
The nearly two-hour dialogue, moderated by journalist Saurabh Dwivedi, brought together a self-proclaimed atheist and a religious scholar in a rare face-to-face exchange under the title: “Is There a God?”. The debate spanned philosophy, ethics, science, and lived human experience.
During the discussion, Akhtar questioned the idea of an all-powerful and benevolent God, citing human suffering, especially the ongoing war in Gaza. He asked how belief in an all-powerful god could be reconciled with the death and suffering of children in conflict zones, arguing that such realities challenged traditional notions of divine justice and mercy.
“If God is omnipresent and omnipotent, then he is also present in Gaza,” Akhtar said, adding that witnessing such suffering makes it difficult for him to accept the existence of a merciful god.
These words sparked harsh reactions, especially from some segments of the Muslim community; Critics accused him of insensitivity and provocation, while his supporters defended his right to question religious beliefs on moral grounds.
Mufti Shamail Nadwi responded by emphasizing man’s free will, arguing that acts of violence and cruelty result from human choices rather than divine intent. “The Creator created the possibility of evil, but He is not evil,” Nadwi said, placing the responsibility for injustice squarely on man.
The scientist also argued that science and religion operate in different spheres. While science explains physical processes, it cannot address metaphysical questions, such as why the universe exists, he said. He added that Scripture cannot persuade those who reject revelation as a valid source of knowledge.
At one point, Nadwi challenged Akhtar, saying that lack of complete knowledge does not justify denying the existence of God. Akhtar responded by saying that accepting uncertainty was precisely his position and emphasized that neither philosophers nor scientists claim absolute knowledge.
The debate also explored the distinction between belief and faith. Akhtar argued that belief should be based on evidence and logic, whereas faith requires acceptance without evidence; he warned that this could discourage critical questioning.
Debates over morality also revealed sharp differences. Akhtar argued that morality is a man-made system designed to maintain social order, rather than a law established in nature. Nadwi countered this, questioning whether moral standards can be left to majority opinion and whether injustice is acceptable just because it is widely supported.
Marked by sharp exchanges and philosophical depth, the event has since sparked intense debate on social media and reflects enduring tensions between religious belief, secular reasoning, and moral responsibility in public life.
