Background
In August 2025, the West Bengal Urdu Academy postponed a literary programme featuring poet and lyricist Javed Akhtar following objections raised by several religious organisations, including the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind. [1] Among the objections was that some of Akhtar's comments had hurt religious sentiments. [2] [3] Islamic scholar, Shamail Nadwi's Wahyahin Foundation was one of the protesting groups. He extended an invitation to engage Akhtar in a debate on the existence of God, while maintaining that the protests did not seek the cancellation of the event, rather an extra care; "Since it was a government-backed programme, extra care should have been taken before inviting someone who openly mocks religious beliefs. We are inviting Javed Akhtar Sahab to a healthy debate on 'Does God Exist?'." [3] The academy postponed the event without providing any reason beyond stating that the event was postponed due to unavoidable circumstances. [4]
Debate
The debate was held at Constitution Club of India in New Delhi, India, and live streamed on YouTube by both Nadwi and The Lallantop. [5] It was moderated by journalist Saurabh Dwivedi, who was the founding editor of the latter. It quickly became a viral video, [6] surpassing 1.5 million views in the first six hours. [7]
Dwivedi's moderation rules for the debate strictly forbade the participants and audience from chanting slogans or using personal attacks, such that the discussion was not "promoting or criticising any particular religion." [8]
Arguments
Nadwi argued that neither empirical science nor religious scripture could function as a universally accepted standard for proving or disproving God’s existence. He maintained that science is confined to the physical realm, while scripture presupposes belief in revelation. Instead, he grounded his position in philosophical reasoning, particularly the contingency argument (cosmological argument), asserting that the universe depends on causes and therefore requires a necessary, independent being to explain its existence. [8]
Nadwi further contended that scientific explanations address how natural processes function but do not resolve the question of why the universe exists. On moral philosophy, he questioned whether ethical standards can be determined by majority opinion alone. Addressing suffering and evil, he emphasised human free will and moral responsibility, arguing that acts of violence and cruelty arise from human choices rather than divine intent. [9]
Akhtar approached the debate from an atheist and rationalist standpoint, questioning the permanence and universality of religious belief systems. He distinguished between belief grounded in evidence, testimony, and reason, and faith that requires acceptance without proof, stating that such faith discourages questioning. Akhtar maintained that morality is a human-created framework developed to regulate social behaviour rather than an inherent feature of nature. [8]
A central theme of Akhtar’s argument was human suffering, particularly the deaths of civilians in conflict zones such as Gaza. He questioned how the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent God could be reconciled with the continued suffering of children, stating that such realities challenged traditional notions of divine justice. He also emphasised that his position was one of questioning absolute claims about God’s existence rather than asserting certainty. [5] [10]
The debate was described as an exchange, a direct public debate between atheistic and theistic viewpoints, which generated extensive discussion on social media, while noting that it was not a contest resulting in a clear victory or defeat for either side. [11] Political theorist Saroj Giri interpreted the debate as part of a broader philosophical and political discussion rather than a simple confrontation between belief and disbelief. He observed that the positions articulated by both speakers reflected underlying assumptions about entitlement, morality, and human suffering, suggesting that the apparent opposition between theistic and atheistic perspectives was less absolute than it appeared. He situated the exchange within wider contemporary debates on modernity, consumerism, and ethical responsibility, linking it to broader questions of faith, skepticism, and human agency in conditions of conflict and inequality. [12] Gauhar Raza described the debate as an unusually civil exchange in a polarised public environment and argued that its significance lay in demonstrating how sharply opposing views could be expressed with restraint and dialogue. [13] Yogendra Yadav argued that public debates on the existence of God risk diverting attention from more urgent issues of religion and religiosity, while acknowledging the debate’s civility and popularity. [6] Others observed the exchange as avoidable, suggesting that such debates offer limited relevance to contemporary social concerns [14] while some critics cautioned against portraying the debate as a win–loss confrontation, criticising attempts by some commentators to frame it as a symbolic victory or defeat, and emphasising that the exchange remained a civil intellectual discussion rather than a battle between faith and disbelief. [15]
Scholarly and interpretive responses
Hamid Naseem Rafiabadi interpreted the debate through the lens of classical metaphysics and moral philosophy, contrasting Nadwi’s grounding in traditional arguments of contingency and necessity with Akhtar's ethical and rhetorical critique. He framed the exchange as reflective of enduring philosophical approaches rather than a resolution of the question of God’s existence. [16] Yasir Nadeem al Wajidi described the debate as part of a broader global conversation on the question of God, stating that such discussions were taking place worldwide and that the exchange in New Delhi was an important part of that ongoing conversation. [7]
Shabnam Hashmi observed the debate as timely and socially significant, defending its relevance as an assertion of scientific temper and critical inquiry in contemporary India, particularly amid rising challenges to rationalism, secular values, and democratic discourse, [17] while others situated the exchange within the Islamic intellectual tradition of reasoned theological debate, particularly Ilm al-Kalam, presenting it as a continuation of Islam’s historical engagement with logic, free will, and moral responsibility rather than a purely modern confrontation between faith and skepticism. [18] Jagdish Rattanani, a journalist, connected the debate to critiques of modern rationalism and development, arguing that technoscience-driven progress has contributed to ecological degradation and a loss of ethical and civilisational balance, and calling for greater environmental and moral responsibility in contemporary discourse. [19] [20]
In an interview following the debate, Nadwi told Al Jazeera Mubasher that the exchange attracted significant interest among young people and non-Muslims, and that he received messages from individuals who said it prompted them to reconsider questions of faith; he added that while he perceived an impact, no independently verified data were available to support broader claims. [21] In a separate interview with Frontline , Akhtar reaffirmed his atheistic position, arguing that human suffering, war, and injustice strengthened his skepticism and that moral responsibility rested with human action rather than divine intervention. [22]
This page is based on this
Wikipedia article Text is available under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
