Understanding “Contingency” in the God Debate: What the Javed Akhtar–Mufti Shamail Nadwi Discussion Revealed

Public debates on faith and reason often bring complex philosophical ideas into mainstream conversation. One such moment occurred during the widely discussed New Delhi debate on the question “Does God exist?”, featuring poet and lyricist Javed Akhtar and Islamic scholar Mufti Shamail Nadwi. Moderated by journalist Saurabh Dwivedi, the discussion aimed to explore belief, skepticism, logic, and morality in a civil and intellectual manner.

Among the many arguments exchanged, one term stood out and soon became a talking point beyond the debate hall, “contingency.” The word momentarily shifted the focus of the discussion and sparked curiosity, confusion, and commentary across social and news platforms. Understanding what contingency means, and how both speakers approached it, helps clarify why the exchange drew such attention.

In philosophy, contingency refers to the idea that something exists because of external factors or causes. A contingent thing does not exist by necessity; it exists because certain conditions made its existence possible. For example, a human being exists because of parents, biology, time, and environment. A tree exists because of soil, water, and sunlight. These things could have failed to exist if conditions had been different.

This idea is usually contrasted with the concept of a necessary being, something that exists by its own nature and does not depend on anything else for its existence. Classical philosophers such as Aristotle and Leibniz used this distinction to address a fundamental question: If everything in the universe is contingent, then what ultimately explains existence itself?

In religious philosophy, this necessary being is often identified as God.

During the debate, Mufti Shamail Nadwi introduced the concept of contingency while explaining a classical philosophical argument for the existence of God. His reasoning followed a familiar structure: the universe and everything within it appears to be contingent; dependent on causes beyond itself. If everything depends on something else, then logically, there must be a final cause that does not depend on anything. According to this argument, that cause is a necessary being.

At this point, Javed Akhtar expressed discomfort with the terminology. He stated that he did not clearly understand the term “contingency” as it was being used and asked for the idea to be explained in simpler language. This request itself became a focal moment, as it highlighted the gap that can arise when technical philosophical language enters public debate.

Mufti Nadwi then attempted to explain contingency using everyday examples, such as human birth and natural processes to make the concept more accessible.



Javed Akhtar approached the debate from a position of skepticism. Rather than directly rejecting the idea of contingency, he questioned whether such philosophical reasoning could conclusively prove the existence of God. His broader argument focused on the limits of human knowledge and the role of questioning.

Akhtar also raised moral and existential concerns, asking how the idea of an all powerful and benevolent God aligns with the presence of suffering, violence, and injustice in the world. From his perspective, philosophical explanations, whether based on contingency or necessity do not fully address these realities.

His intervention during the contingency discussion reflected a larger concern: that complex terminology should not replace clarity, and that philosophical arguments must be understandable to be meaningfully debated in public.

Mufti Nadwi maintained that questions about God and existence fall partly outside the scope of empirical science. He argued that while science explains how the universe functions, philosophy addresses why it exists at all. From this view, the contingency argument serves as a logical bridge between observable reality and metaphysical reasoning.

He also emphasized that human free will plays a role in the existence of evil and suffering, suggesting that not all events can be attributed directly to divine will. According to him, the presence of hardship does not invalidate the idea of a necessary being but rather reflects the complexity of human choice and moral responsibility.

The contingency argument has been debated for centuries and remains central to discussions about God, causality, and existence. Its importance lies not in providing a definitive answer, but in framing the question: Why does anything exist at all? Does the chain of causes go back infinitely, or does it terminate in something that exists necessarily?

In the context of the Javed Akhtar–Mufti Shamail Nadwi debate, contingency became significant not because one side “won” the argument, but because it exposed the challenges of discussing deep philosophical ideas in a public forum. It highlighted how language, belief systems, and reasoning styles differ and how misunderstanding can arise even in respectful dialogue.

The discussion around contingency in the God debate reflects a broader tension between faith based philosophy and skeptical inquiry. While Mufti Shamail Nadwi used the concept to argue for a necessary cause behind existence, Javed Akhtar questioned its clarity and explanatory power. Neither position claimed absolute certainty.

What the debate ultimately revealed was not just a disagreement about God, but a deeper conversation about how humans seek meaning through logic, belief, questioning, or doubt. In that sense, the word “contingency” became more than a philosophical term; it became a symbol of how complex ideas travel from academic thought into public understanding.

Unlock insightful tips and inspiration on personal growth, productivity, and well-being. Stay motivated and updated with the latest at My Life XP.