Indian Islamic scholar hailed after debate with atheist Javed Akhtar

NEW DELHI, India (MNTV) — A young Indian Islamic scholar has drawn widespread attention and praise following a high-profile public debate on the existence of God with poet and Bollywood lyricist Javed Akhtar, a self-declared atheist, in a discussion that has since sparked intense reactions across social media and intellectual circles.

The debate, held at the Constitution Club in New Delhi, featured Mufti Shamail Nadvi, 28, who approached the question “Does God exist?” through philosophical reasoning rather than theological preaching.

Over nearly two hours, Nadvi relied on classical arguments drawn from logic and metaphysics, while Akhtar framed his challenge largely around moral outrage and human suffering, particularly referencing the war in Gaza.

Nadvi argued that the existence of a contingent universe necessarily points to a first cause, warning against what philosophers describe as the fallacy of infinite regress.

Akhtar, in response, questioned the idea of a benevolent God in a world marked by violence, asking how divine justice could coexist with the killing of children in conflict zones.

Clips from the exchange quickly travelled far beyond the auditorium. The debate has been viewed more than 10 million times across platforms, including Nadvi’s official YouTube channel and The Lallantop, the Indian digital outlet that moderated the event. As viewership grew, so did commentary—much of it praising Nadvi’s composure and method.

Among those responding was Hamza Tzortzis, a UK-based philosopher of religion, who said Nadvi presented his case with clarity and intellectual discipline, contrasting philosophical reasoning with what he described as weak objections.

Political figures, media professionals and academics echoed similar sentiments, highlighting Nadvi’s ability to stay focused on argument rather than rhetoric.

Radio presenter Sayema said Nadvi offered “apt and knowledgeable” explanations, while Srinagar-based physician Dr Tariq Tramboo remarked that the scholar’s familiarity with concepts of time and space appeared to catch Akhtar off guard.

Politician Salman Nizami went further, saying Nadvi exposed what he viewed as flaws in atheist arguments with remarkable brevity.

Beyond individual praise, several commentators pointed to the tone of the event itself. Academics and journalists noted that both speakers maintained civility, even while disagreeing sharply.

Former Jawaharlal Nehru University professor Purushottam Agrawal said the significance of the debate lay as much in its existence as in its content, calling it a rare example of good-faith disagreement in an increasingly polarized public sphere.

Journalist Asad Ashraf described it as a healthy precedent for public debate in what he termed an “argumentative India.”

At the same time, the reaction also exposed fault lines. Some right-wing voices and online commentators rushed to defend Akhtar, resorting to personal attacks against Nadvi.

Social media users used slurs such as “mullah,” while others attempted to portray the scholar as regressive or extremist—labels supporters said reflected Islamophobic tropes rather than engagement with his arguments.

The debate also reignited familiar culture-war narratives, with some Akhtar supporters framing the exchange as a battle between believers and non-believers, and reviving claims that religion is inherently linked to violence or intolerance.

Responding to such assertions, Delhi University professor Apoorvanand noted that atheism, by itself, does not confer moral superiority, adding that he had often encountered atheists who were no less arrogant than the faithful.

As reactions to the debate continue, its impact appears to extend beyond applause or criticism. For many young Muslims, the exchange has triggered a renewed confidence that faith can be articulated and defended without anger or insecurity, using reason, philosophy and calm argument.

Mufti Shamail’s performance, supporters say, has challenged the stereotype that religious belief is incompatible with intellectual rigor, and has energized a generation that no longer sees public debate as a space it must retreat from.