If God Watches Suffering and Does Nothing, Why Pray? Javed Akhtar’s Question
Nidhi | Dec 22, 2025, 12:50 IST
"Hang my head in shame": Javed Akhtar furious over "reverent" welcome given to Afghanistan's Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi at Deoband
Image credit : ANI
Veteran poet and lyricist Javed Akhtar has sparked intense debate after questioning the idea of prayer in a world filled with human suffering. Speaking at The Lallantop’s Does God Exist? debate, Akhtar argued that faith demands belief without logic, while progress comes from questioning. He challenged religious explanations around evil, morality, free will, and divine silence, asking whether prayer makes sense if suffering continues unchecked. The discussion, which also featured Islamic scholar Mufti Shamail Nadwi, has triggered widespread reactions online, especially among younger audiences rethinking belief, reason, and moral responsibility.
<p>"Hang my head in shame": Javed Akhtar furious over "reverent" welcome given to Afghanistan's Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi at Deoband</p>
Veteran poet and lyricist Javed Akhtar has once again triggered a wide and uneasy debate by raising a question that goes to the heart of faith itself: If God sees human suffering and chooses not to intervene, what meaning does prayer really hold?
Speaking at The Lallantop debate titled Does God Exist?, Akhtar’s argument was not built on provocation alone, but on logic, moral reasoning, and a broader observation about how belief systems are changing across the world.
Akhtar began by pointing to visible social change, particularly in Europe. “If we look in Europe, then the church is empty. So things change with time,” he said. For him, the decline of organised religion is not accidental. It is closely linked to education, access to information, and the habit of questioning.
According to Akhtar, societies evolve when people stop accepting ideas simply because they are inherited. The same questioning mindset that built modern science and technology, he argued, is now being applied to faith as well.
A key part of Akhtar’s argument was his distinction between belief and faith. Belief, he said, can be shaped by reason and evidence. Faith, as it is often defined, demands acceptance without proof.
“Faith means there is no witness, no proof, no rationale, no logic — and yet you believe,” Akhtar said, adding that accepting something without logic or evidence amounts to intellectual dishonesty. In his view, belief should never require switching off reason.
Akhtar argued that human advancement has never come from surrender. Every major breakthrough — scientific, social, or technological - happened because people questioned existing ideas rather than submitting to them.
He rejected the claim that religion encourages questioning, saying that faith ultimately asks for obedience. “You are told to believe this and not ask questions. I am not ready to surrender,” he said, asserting that reason should not stop where belief begins.
The core of Akhtar’s discomfort lies in the gap between belief and lived reality. Referring to widespread human suffering, especially the deaths of children in conflict zones, he questioned the idea of worshipping an all-powerful, compassionate God who witnesses such pain without intervening.
“If He is seeing and does not interfere, then why should I pray?” Akhtar asked. Even if such a God exists, he said, he cannot accept that idea. For him, prayer that coexists with silence in the face of extreme injustice feels morally empty.
Responding to Akhtar, Islamic scholar Mufti Shamail Nadwi argued that good can only be understood in contrast to evil. Without wrongdoing, concepts like justice would lose meaning; without darkness, light would not be recognised.
Akhtar challenged this reasoning. He questioned whether respect for women requires the existence of sexual violence, or whether children’s innocence needs to be defined through their deaths. For him, framing cruelty as a moral necessity risks normalising it.
The debate moved deeper when Nadwi described life as a test, where both good and evil exist to help humans develop noble qualities. Evil, in this view, is not divine cruelty but a condition that allows moral growth.
Akhtar responded by asking who created evil if it is part of this design. When told that even evil exists within God’s creation, he drew a troubling conclusion: if injustice is widespread and permitted, it can appear that the world favours wrongdoing.
“In this world, the majority looks evil,” Akhtar said, suggesting that it sometimes feels as though moral imbalance is built into reality itself.
Nadwi returned to the idea of free will, arguing that divine non-intervention preserves moral responsibility. Without freedom, he said, ethics would lose meaning. Akhtar acknowledged free will but questioned its moral cost if it consistently results in large-scale injustice.
When challenged on whether limited knowledge justifies doubt, Akhtar clarified that he was not claiming certainty. Neither science nor philosophy claims absolute truth, he noted. What matters is the honesty to admit uncertainty.
“We should have the humility to say that we don’t know,” he said, warning against what he described as “worshipping our ignorance.”
What makes Akhtar’s argument resonate is not its denial of God, but its refusal to accept comfort without accountability. His question is not merely theological — it is moral. If belief demands surrender, silence, and acceptance of injustice as divine will, he asks, is that faith or fear?
In an age where questioning is no longer a privilege but a habit, Akhtar’s stance reflects a wider shift. Many are not abandoning belief out of cynicism, but out of a demand for reason, responsibility, and honesty.
The debate offered no final answers — only an enduring discomfort. And perhaps that is exactly why Akhtar’s question lingers: If prayer does not challenge injustice, what purpose does it truly serve?
Speaking at The Lallantop debate titled Does God Exist?, Akhtar’s argument was not built on provocation alone, but on logic, moral reasoning, and a broader observation about how belief systems are changing across the world.
Why belief systems are changing across the world
According to Akhtar, societies evolve when people stop accepting ideas simply because they are inherited. The same questioning mindset that built modern science and technology, he argued, is now being applied to faith as well.
The difference between belief and blind acceptance
Changing Faith Path
Image credit : Freepik
A key part of Akhtar’s argument was his distinction between belief and faith. Belief, he said, can be shaped by reason and evidence. Faith, as it is often defined, demands acceptance without proof.
“Faith means there is no witness, no proof, no rationale, no logic — and yet you believe,” Akhtar said, adding that accepting something without logic or evidence amounts to intellectual dishonesty. In his view, belief should never require switching off reason.
Why questioning has always driven progress
He rejected the claim that religion encourages questioning, saying that faith ultimately asks for obedience. “You are told to believe this and not ask questions. I am not ready to surrender,” he said, asserting that reason should not stop where belief begins.
When suffering challenges the idea of prayer
“If He is seeing and does not interfere, then why should I pray?” Akhtar asked. Even if such a God exists, he said, he cannot accept that idea. For him, prayer that coexists with silence in the face of extreme injustice feels morally empty.
Can good exist without evil?
Good over evil.
Image credit : Pexels
Responding to Akhtar, Islamic scholar Mufti Shamail Nadwi argued that good can only be understood in contrast to evil. Without wrongdoing, concepts like justice would lose meaning; without darkness, light would not be recognised.
Akhtar challenged this reasoning. He questioned whether respect for women requires the existence of sexual violence, or whether children’s innocence needs to be defined through their deaths. For him, framing cruelty as a moral necessity risks normalising it.
Is the world designed as a moral test?
Akhtar responded by asking who created evil if it is part of this design. When told that even evil exists within God’s creation, he drew a troubling conclusion: if injustice is widespread and permitted, it can appear that the world favours wrongdoing.
“In this world, the majority looks evil,” Akhtar said, suggesting that it sometimes feels as though moral imbalance is built into reality itself.
Free will, responsibility, and unanswered questions
When challenged on whether limited knowledge justifies doubt, Akhtar clarified that he was not claiming certainty. Neither science nor philosophy claims absolute truth, he noted. What matters is the honesty to admit uncertainty.
“We should have the humility to say that we don’t know,” he said, warning against what he described as “worshipping our ignorance.”
Why Akhtar’s question unsettles belief
In an age where questioning is no longer a privilege but a habit, Akhtar’s stance reflects a wider shift. Many are not abandoning belief out of cynicism, but out of a demand for reason, responsibility, and honesty.
The debate offered no final answers — only an enduring discomfort. And perhaps that is exactly why Akhtar’s question lingers: If prayer does not challenge injustice, what purpose does it truly serve?