Javed Akhtar’s Question on God: Emotions, Intellect, and Reality
An objection surfaced from the atheist Javed Akhtar regarding the non-existence of Allah: “You say that not even a leaf moves without the permission of Allah, who is above the seventh heaven; then tell me, why, despite His presence, is there poverty, destitution, wickedness, bloodshed, and looting in the world?!
If Allah truly exists and He questions me, then I will question Him: ‘Why did all this happen despite Your presence?!'”
Respected Readers! The thunder of words and the bitterness of tone never constitute an argument, because when this objection (criticism) is tested on the anvil of intellect, it proves not to be a protest but an intellectual slip;
The real fallacy is that the atheist mixes Allah’s divine will—i.e., maintaining the universal system, granting respite, and establishing trials—with human free will—i.e., intention, choice, and responsibility for action—into one category. However, the manifestation of oppression is not the result of Allah’s command of compulsion (Jabr), but the fruit of human wrong choice. This is the fundamental point which, when ignored, makes this objection appear deep on the surface but weak in reality.
The Quran speaks very clearly here:
“وَهَدَيْنَاهُ النَّجْدَيْنِ”
(Al-Balad: 10)
“And We showed him the two ways.”
And it says:
“إِنَّا هَدَيْنَاهُ السَّبِيلَ إِمَّا شَاكِرًا وَإِمَّا كَفُورًا”
(Ad-Dahr: 3)
“Indeed, We guided him to the way, be he grateful or be he ungrateful.”
Meaning, the servant has been given choice; he has not been compelled. Because if humans were compelled, then guidance, denial, reward, and punishment would all become absurd.
This is why the Quran, negating injustice from Allah, clearly says:
“وَمَا اللَّهُ يُرِيدُ ظُلْمًا لِّلْعَالَمِينَ”
(Ali ‘Imran: 108)
And further clarifies:
“إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَظْلِمُ النَّاسَ شَيْئًا وَلَٰكِنَّ النَّاسَ أَنفُسَهُمْ يَظْلِمُونَ”
(Yunus: 44)
Meaning, the murder, poverty, wickedness, and corruption in the world are not arguments against Allah’s existence, but the result of man’s wrong choices. The Quran describes this as:
“ظَهَرَ الْفَسَادُ فِي الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ أَيْدِي النَّاسِ”
(Ar-Rum: 41)
“Corruption has appeared throughout the land and sea by [reason of] what the hands of people have earned.”
The Quran explains a very fundamental yet decisive logical point here: that cause and result should not be confused. Allah established this world on a system of causes. Fire has the property to burn, but the blame for burning does not lie with the creator of fire, but on the person who knowingly puts his hand in it. Similarly, Allah gave man choice, power, and freedom of action, but did not command oppression, murder, and corruption. Therefore, when man chooses the path of evil with his free will, placing the responsibility of its consequences on Allah is against intellect, because the fault lies not with the system but with the one making the wrong choice.
Now, this objection: “If Allah exists, why doesn’t He stop oppression immediately?!”
The Quran answers this with deep intellectual wisdom:
“وَلَوْ يُؤَاخِذُ اللَّهُ النَّاسَ بِظُلْمِهِم مَّا تَرَكَ عَلَيْهَا مِن دَابَّةٍ”
(An-Nahl: 61)
“And if Allah were to impose blame on the people for their wrongdoing, He would not have left upon it [the earth] any creature.”
This delay is not weakness, but a respite for the test.
That is why the Quran clarifies the destiny of the world:
“الَّذِي خَلَقَ الْمَوْتَ وَالْحَيَاةَ لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ”
(Al-Mulk: 2)
“He who created death and life to test you.”
This world is not the court of justice, it is the examination hall. Another day is appointed for perfect justice. If there were no oppression, poverty, or trials in the world, what would be the test?!
Similarly, the person who says: “I will question Allah,” the Quran cuts that mentality from the root:
“لَا يُسْأَلُ عَمَّا يَفْعَلُ وَهُمْ يُسْأَلُونَ”
(Al-Anbiya: 23)
The Creator is not questioned; the creation is questioned.
This is a logical principle: The one who receives authority is accountable, not the one who grants authority.
If there were truly no God, as the atheist claims, then the Quran raises another logical question:
“أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ”
(At-Tur: 35)
“Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?”
This verse is still embedded in the chest of atheism like an arrow of logic—silent but fatal.
Because this does not impose a belief, but places human existence in front of the human himself and asks the intellect to decide. Regarding human existence, the intellect has only three possible paths; neither less nor more. There is absolutely no fourth door.
First Possibility:
Did man come into existence without a creator, merely on his own support?
Accepting this is synonymous with slitting the throat of the intellect. Neither science, nor philosophy, nor simple human understanding accepts that existence bursts forth from non-existence. If this principle is accepted that “anything can happen without a cause,” then all the laws of the universe, the entire edifice of ’cause and effect’, and all foundations of knowledge collapse in an instant. Such an intellect remains neither capable of raising questions nor worthy of believing in any answer.
Second Possibility:
Did man create himself?
This claim is not just wrong but logically ridiculous. How can that which did not exist become a creator? Non-existence possesses neither will, nor power, nor consciousness.
To create oneself, one must exist first; to be existent and non-existent at the same time is a clear contradiction. Due to this contradiction, this possibility collapses under its own weight and perishes.
Third and Only Reasonable Possibility:
When it is proven that man did not come into existence by himself, nor did he create himself, reason automatically reaches the conclusion that someone created man—a Being who is not a creation Himself, who possesses power, who knows, and who wills.
This is the point where the #Atheist’s tongue becomes #Silent, because here he is not being asked to believe in a religious book, but his own intellect is being asked what explanation it offers for his existence. And when the intellect is honest, it has no path left before this verse except silence.
Finally, the Quran says the decisive word, which sums up this entire objection:
“أَفَحَسِبْتُمْ أَنَّمَا خَلَقْنَاكُمْ عَبَثًا”
(Al-Mu’minun: 115)
“Then did you think that We created you uselessly?”
The existence of oppression in the world is not proof of Allah’s non-existence, but the strongest proof that a day will definitely come when every oppressed person gets their right and every oppressor meets their end.
That is why the Quran said:
“إِنَّ رَبَّكَ لَبِالْمِرْصَادِ”
(Al-Fajr: 14)
Thus, the false doubt of people like #Javed that “not a leaf moves without His command” absolutely does not mean that the murderer was commanded to murder, the robber to rob, and the adulterer to commit adultery. Rather, it means:
• Allah has given man free will (Ikhtiyar).
• That free will is within the scope of Allah’s will (Mashiyat), but the choice of action (Fi’l) is made by man himself, because if there were no free will, then punishment would be meaningless, reward would be injustice, and Heaven and Hell would remain a joke.
If every movement meant that Allah compelled man, then free will, responsibility, law, crime, and punishment would all become meaningless. If the murderer was compelled to murder, then jails are injustice, courts are a deception, and for people like #Javed Akhtar to get angry at “oppression” is also futile, because raising a moral objection against a compelled creature is against intellect.
Understand it this way: free will means that man has the freedom to choose. When there is freedom to choose, it necessarily includes the possibility that man can choose right and can also choose wrong. If the possibility of error is eliminated, then in reality, free will is eliminated. Therefore, where there is free will, there will be the possibility of evil, and this is not a defect but the natural price of free will.
Therefore, the question is, why was the free creature created free? And the only answer is: because morality, testing, and meaning are born only with freedom.
If the existence of oppression in the world is proof of Allah’s non-existence, then by this logic, the existence of crimes demands the negation of the law, and the presence of patients in hospitals should be proof that health and doctors are merely a deception. Whereas the reality is exactly the opposite; crime declares the violation of the law, not its absence, and illness does not belie the concept of health but points towards it. Then, an even deeper and decisive question is, on what basis does the atheist call oppression “oppression”? If there is no God, no Hereafter, no accountability, then the strong crushing the weak remains merely an animalistic reality, survival becomes the rule, and murder a natural strategy. In such a world, there remains no intellectual or moral justification to say “this is wrong.” But the reality is that the atheist denies Allah with his tongue, but through moral anger, unconsciously accepts a universal moral law. And a moral law always demands a Lawgiver. Therefore, if there were truly no Lord and no Hereafter, then neither is Hitler wrong, nor Pharaoh a tyrant, nor Israel a criminal; rather, might becomes right. But when Javed Akhtar himself calls all this wrong, he has, despite his denial, accepted a moral God without whom his protest, his anger, and his “this is wrong” remain merely a meaningless scream.
Since #Javed Akhtar understands the language of #Cinema better, the matter is fully clear in that style too: Assume a film is playing with a complete script; the hero is present and so is the villain; there are the tears of the oppressed and the temporary success of the oppressor. Now, if an actor stands up in the middle of shooting and objects, “If there is a director, why is there oppression in the film? And if he is powerful, why doesn’t he stop the villain right now?” then every person of understanding will say that the film has not reached its conclusion yet; justice happens in the final scene, not in the middle. This is exactly the reality of the world’s affair. The world is not a film, but it is certainly a purposeful script, where the characters have been given free will so they can decide for themselves whether to be the hero or the villain. Because if every oppressor were caught in the very first scene, neither the trial would remain nor the story. That is why saying that delay in a film is art, while delay in life is proof of God’s denial, is a clear contradiction. The Quran describes this reality as:
“أَفَحَسِبْتُمْ أَنَّمَا خَلَقْنَاكُمْ عَبَثًا”
“Then did you think that We created you uselessly?”
And it also clarifies that this respite is not negligence but a test:
“وَلَا تَحْسَبَنَّ اللَّهَ غَافِلًا عَمَّا يَعْمَلُ الظَّالِمُونَ”
“And never think that Allah is unaware of what the wrongdoers do.”
Then it announces the end in very definitive terms:
“وَنَضَعُ الْمَوَازِينَ الْقِسْطَ لِيَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ فَلَا تُظْلَمُ نَفْسٌ شَيْئًا”
“And We place the scales of justice for the Day of Resurrection, so no soul will be treated unjustly at all.”
Meaning, the world is currently an ongoing story, and that final scene, where every character will give an account of their acting, will inevitably come.
✏️✏️ Hassan Abdul Ghaffar
