Does God Exist? Javed Akhtar vs Mufti Shamail Nadwi’s Debate
Reflections on the Javed Akhtar–Mufti Shamail Nadwi debate: Islam vs atheism, faith vs reason, and the search for God’s existence.
There are questions that never grow old. Does God exist? is one of them. It’s the kind of question that has echoed across centuries, whispered in philosophy classrooms, debated in coffee shops, and now argued in a public debate between poet and rationalist Javed Akhtar and Islamic scholar Mufti Shamail Nadwi. And perhaps, in listening closely, I realize the debate was never about winning, it was about understanding.
Recently, I found myself contemplating on this debate on faith and reason, Islam and Atheism. The debate was indeed mind-opening, and some of the points shaped my perception in many ways. The moments that struck me most were: Nadwi’s reminder about the limits of science, his analogy of the pink ball on the island, his response to the problem of evil, and his argument against infinite regress. Each of these points lingered with me long after the debate ended.
One of Nadwi’s opening points was about science. He reminded us that science is a tool for studying the physical world; atoms, galaxies, DNA etc. But God, by definition, is not physical. Expecting science to prove or disprove God is like asking a microscope to measure love. The tool simply isn’t built for that.
That analogy stayed with me. In our age of data and evidence, atheism often insists that if something can’t be measured, it doesn’t exist. But Nadwi’s point was subtle: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The Qur’an itself speaks of “those who believe in the unseen” (Al-Baqarah 2:3). Faith, in Islam, isn’t irrational; it’s an acknowledgment that reality stretches beyond what instruments can capture.
Nadwi could have leaned heavily on scripture, but he didn’t. He knew Akhtar wouldn’t accept revelation as evidence, so he chose logic instead. Still, when i was listening, the Qur’an’s verse echoed in the my mind; “We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth” (Fussilat 41:53).
It’s fascinating how Islam frames revelation: not as blind faith, but as a lens through which reason sees more clearly. Nadwi’s restraint here was telling, he wanted the debate to stand on common ground.
Then came the analogy that lit up the debate. Nadwi asked us to imagine walking on a deserted island and finding a pink ball. Instinctively, we’d wonder: how did it get here? Why this shape, this color? We’d assume someone placed it there.
Get BAREERA TARIQ PARACHA’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Now expand the ball until it’s the size of the universe. Does the question change? Not at all. We still ask: how did this universe, with all its fine-tuned properties, come to exist?
This is the contingency argument. Everything we see is contingent -dependent on something else. At some point, there must be a necessary being, independent and self-existent, upon which all contingent things rely. The Qur’an captures this beautifully in Surah Al-Ikhlas (112:1–2): “Say: He is Allah, One. Allah, the Eternal Refuge.”
Akhtar, like many atheists, leaned on the classic objection: if God exists, why is there evil? Nadwi’s response was striking. Evil, he argued, is not proof against God but proof of accountability. Without the possibility of evil, human choice would be meaningless.
The Qur’an frames life as a test: “He who created death and life to test you as to which of you is best in deed” (Al-Mulk 67:2). Suffering, then, is not arbitrary; it’s part of a moral framework that gives our actions weight. Where atheism sees evil as undermining belief, Islam sees it as the very condition for moral responsibility.
Another layer of Nadwi’s reasoning was the impossibility of infinite regress. If every cause requires another cause, the chain stretches endlessly without explanation. At some point, there must be a first cause-a necessary being that itself requires no cause.
Philosophically, this is hard to escape. Conceptually, infinity exists in numbers, but in reality, existence needs a foundation. The Qur’an affirms this in Surah Az-Zumar (39:62): “Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is, over all things, Disposer of affairs.”
What made Nadwi’s arguments compelling wasn’t just their logic, but his humility. He openly said: if Akhtar could present a definitive logical argument against God’s existence, he would accept it. That openness reminded me of the Qur’an’s invitation: “Travel through the land and observe how He began creation” (Al-Ankabut 29:20). Faith, in Islam, is not blind; it’s inquisitive.
Akhtar’s skepticism sharpened the dialogue. By demanding evidence, he forced Nadwi to articulate his reasoning with clarity. And that’s the beauty of such debates: they don’t just test arguments, they test us — our patience, our openness, our willingness to wrestle with mystery.
In an age of sound bites and outrage, the Javed Akhtar–Mufti Shamal Nadvi debate stood as a reminder that some questions are too profound for slogans. Whether one leaves convinced or unconvinced, one cannot leave unchanged. And perhaps that is the true success of any meaningful intellectual encounter: it leaves the mind less certain of its assumptions, and more sincere in its search for truth.
The debate didn’t end with a definitive answer. How could it? The existence of God is not a puzzle solved in two hours. But it did leave me with something more valuable: a demonstration of how faith and reason can converse without hostility.
Javed Akhtar vs Mufti Shamail who won? I saw many people asking this question online, as if truth could be tallied like points in a game. But the real impact of the debate wasn’t in victory or defeat. It was in how it made people think. For me personally, Nadwi’s arguments; the limits of science, the contingency of the universe, the necessity of a first cause, the moral framework of evil — all pointed toward a rational foundation for belief in God. His clarity, humility, and refusal to rely on emotional or scriptural appeals made his case intellectually compelling.
And perhaps the most fitting conclusion comes from the Qur’an itself, in Surah Ar-Ra’d (13:16): “Say, ‘Who is the Lord of the heavens and the earth?’ Say, ‘Allah.’” Indeed, there is a Creator — the One upon whom all contingent existence depends.
