وَتُعِزُ مَن تَشَاء وَتُذِلُ مَن تَشَاء
“And You honor whom You will, and You humble whom You will”
On December 19, 2025, a major intellectual event captured global attention: a live public dialogue titled “Does God Exist?” featuring Indian poet-lyricist and outspoken atheist Javed Akhtar and Islamic scholar Mufti Shamail Nadwi. The discussion, moderated by journalist Saurabh Dwivedi, took place at the Constitutional Club in New Delhi and was watched by a large audience both in person and online.
This exchange was not a casual conversation but a philosophical and theological debate tackling one of humanity’s most enduring questions. Both speakers came from very different perspectives Akhtar advocating skepticism rooted in reason and critical inquiry, and Mufti Shamail defending theistic belief using Islamic theology and philosophical argumentation.
Background of the Participants
Javed Akhtar is an acclaimed poet, lyricist, and public intellectual known for his rationalist views. He openly identifies as an atheist and has frequently criticized religious literalism and blind faith, advocating instead for reason, humanism, and intellectual freedom.
Mufti Shamail Nadwi is a respected Islamic scholar educated at Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama in Lucknow and the founder of the Markaz al-Wahyain educational institution. His work combines traditional Islamic scholarship with engagement in contemporary intellectual and social debates.
Framework and Opening Positions
The debate began with opening statements. Javed Akhtar asserted that the existence of God cannot be proven through empirical or scientific evidence, and that humans should rely on reason and observable reality rather than metaphysical assumptions. He argued that concepts such as divine intervention, miracles, and cosmic purpose lack objective proof and therefore remain unconvincing to a rational mind.
Mufti Shamail Nadwi responded by stating that God’s existence is similar to other fundamental realities that humans accept despite their non-material nature. He argued that science explains mechanisms and processes but does not address ultimate causes. According to him, the order, balance, and complexity of the universe indicate purposeful creation rather than blind randomness.
Key Philosophical Arguments
- Evidence, Reason, and God’s Existence
Akhtar repeatedly emphasized that belief in God should be based on evidence, especially in an era shaped by scientific advancement. He questioned whether belief in God merely fills gaps in human knowledge that science has yet to explain.
Mufti Shamail countered by explaining that scientific explanation does not eliminate metaphysical reality. He presented belief in God as the concept of a first cause or unmoved mover, arguing that attributing existence to a deliberate Creator is a rational conclusion rather than blind faith.
- Morality and Purpose
Another major theme was morality. Javed Akhtar argued that moral values can exist independently of belief in God and are rooted in human empathy, social cooperation, and cultural evolution. He challenged the idea that ethical behavior requires divine authority.
Mufti Nadwi responded that objective morality cannot be fully grounded in changing human societies, as moral standards differ across cultures and eras. He argued that belief in God provides a stable moral foundation that transcends subjective preference and social fluctuation.
- Suffering, Evil, and Divine Wisdom
Akhtar questioned how an all-powerful and merciful God could allow suffering, injustice, and natural disasters. He used this classical problem of evil to challenge the idea of divine benevolence.
Mufti Shamail replied that human beings perceive reality through a limited perspective, while divine wisdom encompasses a broader purpose. He explained that suffering may serve moral, spiritual, and existential functions and does not negate divine intent.
Tone and Style
Throughout the debate, both speakers maintained a respectful and intellectual tone. While their disagreements were sharp, they avoided personal attacks. The moderator ensured that the discussion remained structured and that both sides had equal opportunities to present and respond to arguments.
Public Reception
The debate generated widespread discussion and strong reactions from the public. Supporters of Javed Akhtar praised his commitment to reason and skepticism, while supporters of Mufti Shamail Nadwi appreciated his calm and coherent defense of theism grounded in philosophy and theology.
Challenging Skepticism and Theological Reasoning: Key Exchanges Between Javed Akhtar and Mufti Shamail Nadwi
A significant strength of the debate lay in its direct question-and-answer exchanges, where Javed Akhtar posed sharp philosophical questions and Mufti Shamail Nadwi responded from a theistic and Islamic intellectual framework.
One of the first major questions Javed Akhtar asked was why God is not directly visible or empirically detectable if He truly exists. Akhtar argued that in an age governed by science and evidence, belief without physical proof appears unreasonable. In response, Mufti Shamail Nadwi explained that God’s existence is not meant to be established through physical observation, because God is not a material entity. He argued that many accepted realities such as consciousness, intellect, and moral responsibility are not physically visible yet undeniably real. According to Nadwi, God is known through reason, signs in creation, and human intuition, not laboratory experiments.
Another question raised by Akhtar concerned the problem of suffering. He asked why an all-powerful and merciful God allows wars, poverty, disease, and injustice. He suggested that such suffering weakens the claim of divine benevolence. Mufti Shamail Nadwi replied that human beings judge reality through a limited temporal perspective, while divine wisdom operates on a broader scale. He argued that life, according to theistic belief, is a test, and that suffering can serve purposes such as moral growth, accountability, and the manifestation of free will. Nadwi emphasized that the absence
Life as a Test and Free Will as a Moral Tool: Mufti Shamail Nadwi’s Explanation of Evil
First, he used the example of an examination paper. He explained that an exam paper may seem difficult or even unfair to a student who is unprepared, but the same paper is not cruelty on the part of the examiner. Instead, it serves a purpose: to test knowledge, effort, and sincerity. Without a test, there would be no meaningful distinction between a hardworking student and a negligent one. Similarly, Mufti Nadwi argued that life’s difficulties function as tests, allowing human qualities such as patience, honesty, gratitude, and perseverance to become evident.
He then gave the example of a knife. A knife itself is not evil; it is a neutral tool. In the hands of a surgeon, it saves lives, while in the hands of a criminal, it causes harm. The responsibility lies with the user, not the object. In the same way, Mufti Shamail Nadwi explained that free will is a powerful tool given by God. When used correctly, it leads to moral goodness, and when misused, it results in evil. Therefore, the existence of evil does not negate God’s wisdom, but highlights human responsibility and moral choice.
Verdict
The debate on “Does God Exist?” between Javed Akhtar and Mufti Shamail Nadwi presented two contrasting worldviews skepticism and faith. While no definitive conclusion was reached, Mufti Nadwi offered a coherent theistic framework, and Akhtar raised critical rational questions, leaving the final judgment to individual reflection.