Does God Exist? This was the topic of debate between a well-known poet, Bollywood script writer and lyricist, Javed Akhtar and Mufti Shamail Nadvi, an Islamic scholar and speaker. The debate was organised by Lallantop and moderated by its editor and veteran journalist Saurabh Diwedi. The debate and subsequent content based on the various aspects of the debate have garnered hundreds of millions of views on YouTube and other social media platforms.
The debate has become particularly popular among the Muslim community as it was perceived that Mufti Shamail was able to outclass Javed Akhtar and comprehensively prove the existence of God, delivering a body blow to the ideology of atheism. To be honest, the 80-year old Javed Akhtar is now a pale shadow of his once fiery version and Mufti Shamail is an extremely well read and highly educated Islamic scholar. So, the contrast in terms of what the two speakers were going to bring on the table was very apparent from the beginning. However, as the debate progressed, it became apparent that Javed Akhtar could not fire any new ammunition beyond the stereotypical ideas of atheism to debunk the existence of God and hence it was mostly easy going for Mufti Shamail as he was fully prepared for the debate.
But more than the debate, what was perhaps its most important aspect, was the message that Mufti Shamail delivered just after the debate, while talking to the media. Mufti Shamail said, “I will appreciate Javed Sab as well as his team, because you know what the conditions in our country are like. In these circumstances, to sit together with love and affection and have an academic-style discussion – I think this is a milestone. This is a very significant achievement. And I believe that rather than fighting, all the different ideologies should sit together and talk with love and affection. They drink coffee together and talk. You prove your point, then let the audience decide – whoever understands whatever, they can do that. The day we start doing this in this country, remember – there will be no riots or conflicts in this country.”
Arguments by Javed Akhtar
In the debate on the existence of God, JavedAkhar’s emphasis was on the difference between belief and faith. He used the English words not their Urdu equivalent. Maybe he meant these two are separate: “yaqeen” (conviction) and “iman” (faith in God and Divine dispensation). Akhtar’s central contention is that religion (mazhab/deen) fundamentally rests on faith (iman) while belief (conviction/theory) is supported by evidence, reason, and testimony.
For Javed Akhtar, faith demands acceptance without proof. Since the existence of God is presented by various religions as an article of faith, he argued that faith cannot be treated as a rationally demonstrable claim. Akhtar argued that gods themselves could not stand the test of time. For example, the deities in Greek, Roman, and Egyptian religions, no longer exist and have vanished from human consciousness. This means that they were imaginary constructs of particular cultures and of those times rather than necessary realities.
Akhtar also challenged the theory that the universe was created by God and there was no evolution. He argued that randomness and contingency are intrinsic to nature. He opined that the universe lacks any moral compass and concepts such as justice, fairness, and accountability are man-made ideas. Hence, promises of divine justice after death reflect human psychological needs rather than reality based on observation. Hence human suffering cannot be justified as part of a divine moral order.
Finally, Akhtar challenged the idea of an omnipotent God that is not only the Creator but also the Regulator of all the affairs of the world (nothing can happen without His Izn (permission)). Pointing to mass suffering, starving children, and preventable diseases, he questioned whether such an Entity who allows all this pain and sorrow, if it exists, is worthy of worship. Why does God not prevent so much violence, killing and obvious injustice? Javed Akhtar concluded by saying that we must accept the limits of human knowledge and continue to question all assumptions rather than submit to (blind) faith.
Assertions by Mufti Shamail
In his response to Javed Akhtar, Mufti ShamailNadwi reframed the debate by weaning it away from semantics, history, and sociological critique (i.e. religion causes conflict, shapes power, or controls people). He argued that Akhtar’s views on the historical disappearance of gods misunderstands the Islamic concept of God. In Islam, Allah (God) is not a contingent cultural construct (an idea or belief that exists because of a particular culture and time and could be different or disappear in another culture or era) like Jupiter or Ra. The irrationality and inconsistency of false gods does not invalidate the concept of a necessary, eternal cause. Faith in Islam is not irrational but grounded in reason, logic, and evidence. Faith (iman) and belief (conviction) can both be true or false depending on the evidence and reasoning behind them.
Mufti Shamail’s main rebuttal was about the contingency argument put forth by Javed Akhtar. The theory that everything in the universe depends on something else (and exists within the confines of time and space), and therefore cannot be eternal or self-existing – is not correct. He argued that causes cannot go back endlessly in real life. A necessary and independent first cause is unavoidable (Wājib al-Wujūd (Necessary Existent)).
Mufti Shamail said that JavedSahab confused social habits with moral truths. Justice cannot be reduced to changing moral norms and conventions of society. Otherwise, oppression and injustice can be defended by saying the majority approves of it. Mufti Shamail maintained that the innate human demand for justice itself shows that there must be a ‘Day of Judgment’ in which God Almighty dispenses Divine Justice. Finally, he rejected the “God of the gaps” (explaining things we do not yet understand by saying “God did it) accusation, saying scientific explanations only uncover the “how” of things and not the “why”. Thus, for Mufti Shamail, science, reason and logic does not take you away from God, rather, it leads you towards God.
Winning Hearts and Minds
As ambassadors of Islam, Muslims must understand that their job is to present the “Deen-e-Haqq” (Religion of Truth) to the people with utmost love and affection. They are not here to merely to win the debate and show their moral and intellectual superiority. That “Roab” (awe) will be imposed by Allah. Their job is like the medical doctor who treats his/her patients with utmost care and respect. He/she does not hate the patient. His/her animosity is directed against the disease not its victim. The Qur’an (3:159) says: “It is part of the Mercy of Allah that thou (Prophet Muhammad ﷺ) dost deal gently with them; Wert thou severe or harsh-hearted, they would have broken away from about thee.” Without winning hearts, minds cannot be changed. Those who rule the minds, rule the world.