A rare public exchange between poet-lyricist Javed Akhtar and Islamic scholar Mufti Shamail Nadwi on the existence of God drew a packed audience to the Constitution Club and sparked a wider ideological debate online. The nearly two-hour discussion titled “Does God Exist?” brought together sharply contrasting worldviews, touching on suffering, morality, faith and reason, and igniting polarised reactions across social media platforms.
Akhtar Questions Divine Justice Amid Human Suffering
During the discussion, Akhtar, a self-declared atheist, challenged the idea of an omnipotent and benevolent God by pointing to large-scale human suffering, particularly the ongoing war in Gaza. He argued that the deaths of innocent civilians, especially children, posed a serious moral challenge to traditional religious explanations of divine justice.
“If God is omnipresent and all-powerful, then He is present in Gaza as well,” Akhtar said, adding that such realities made it difficult for him to reconcile belief in a compassionate deity with the scale of violence and suffering witnessed in conflict zones.
His remarks triggered strong reactions, particularly among sections of the Muslim community. Critics accused him of insensitivity and deliberate provocation, while supporters defended his right to question religious belief using moral and logical reasoning.
Free Will, Faith & The Limits Of Science
Responding to Akhtar’s arguments, Nadwi emphasised the concept of human free will, asserting that violence and injustice result from human choices rather than divine intent. “The Creator has created the possibility of evil, but He is not evil,” he said, placing responsibility for moral wrongdoing firmly on human agency.
Nadwi also argued that science and religion operate in separate domains. While science explains physical processes, he said, it cannot answer metaphysical questions such as why the universe exists at all. He added that scripture cannot persuade those who reject revelation as a valid source of knowledge.
The debate later turned to belief, faith and morality. Akhtar argued that belief should rest on evidence and logic, warning that faith without proof could discourage critical questioning. He also maintained that morality is a human construct shaped to sustain social order. Nadwi countered by questioning whether moral standards can simply be determined by majority opinion, asking whether injustice becomes acceptable if it is widely endorsed.
The exchange, marked by sharp disagreements and philosophical depth, has since fuelled extensive online discussion, reflecting enduring tensions between religious belief, secular reasoning and moral responsibility in contemporary public discourse.
