In December 2025, Indian Islamic scholar Mufti Shamail Nadwi gained widespread attention following a high-profile public debate with poet-lyricist Javed Akhtar on the topic “Does God Exist?” Held on December 20 at New Delhi’s Constitution Club and moderated by journalist Saurabh Dwivedi, the event drew millions of views online and sparked discussions on faith, reason, and morality. However, the debate also led to the resurfacing of an older, undated video clip in which Nadwi expresses views prioritizing Islamic principles (deen or Shariah) over national loyalty and secular governance. This has ignited a polarized controversy, raising questions about religious freedom, national unity, and the boundaries of free speech in India’s secular framework.
Mufti Shamail Nadwi, a young scholar in his early 30s educated at Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama in Lucknow and pursuing advanced studies in Malaysia, is known for his online lectures and founding the Wahyain Foundation, which promotes Islamic education. In the viral clip, he argues that Muslims erred by accepting secularism and the supremacy of national institutions over Shariah, criticizing democracy and the notion of placing the nation (desh) above religion. He questions whether believers should passively accept court verdicts conflicting with Islamic law. These statements, while presented as theological opinions, have been interpreted by critics as undermining India’s constitutional secularism and promoting religious supremacy.
The backlash primarily emanates from nationalist and right-wing circles. Outlets like OpIndia, a website known for its Hindu nationalist perspective and frequent dissemination of misinformation and inflammatory content targeting Muslims—as documented by academic studies (e.g., Kalyani Chadha and Prashanth Bhat in Indian Journalism in a New Era, Oxford University Press, 2019; Fathima Nizaruddin in the International Journal of Communication, 2021) and fact-checking organizations (e.g., Alt News and the International Fact-Checking Network, which identified numerous fake news instances and rejected OpIndia’s fact-checker certification due to bias)—have labeled Nadwi a “radical Islamist” with a “supremacist and exclusionary mindset.” OpIndia articles amplified the clip, framing it as evidence of anti-national sentiment and comparing Nadwi to controversial figures like Dr. Zakir Naik.
Social media platforms, including Reddit threads and X (formerly Twitter), echoed this criticism, with users accusing Nadwi of discouraging patriotism among Muslims and advocating Shariah over the Indian Constitution. Some viewed his remarks as regressive or potentially dangerous in a pluralistic society.
Conversely, supporters, including segments of the Muslim community and pro-Islam outlets like Muslim Skeptic, defend Nadwi’s statements as legitimate expressions of Islamic theology, where faith inherently takes precedence over worldly affiliations. They argue that such views do not call for violence or illegality but reflect a personal religious hierarchy common in orthodox interpretations. Mainstream coverage in outlets like India Today, The Indian Express, and The Quint focused more on the intellectual merits of the God debate itself, praising its civility while noting the broader implications for public discourse on religion and secularism.
From a legal standpoint, no formal actions—such as arrests or charges—have been reported against Nadwi for these statements as of late December 2025. India’s Constitution guarantees freedom of religion (Articles 25-28) and speech (Article 19), allowing individuals to express personal beliefs prioritizing faith, provided they do not incite violence, hatred, or threaten public order. Similar opinions have historically been protected unless crossing into sedition or unlawful activities.
This episode underscores deeper tensions in contemporary India: the balance between religious orthodoxy and civic nationalism in a secular democracy. While Nadwi’s visibility has grown, amplifying voices from traditional Islamic scholarship, the controversy highlights how resurfaced clips can fuel polarization. In an era of viral media, such debates reveal not only philosophical divides but also the challenges of maintaining harmonious pluralism amid competing loyalties to faith and nation.
Ultimately, the targeting of Nadwi appears confined to online and media criticism rather than institutional persecution, reflecting ideological fault lines rather than outright legal transgression. As India navigates these discourses, fostering respectful dialogue—exemplified by the Akhtar-Nadwi debate—remains essential for preserving its secular ethos.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
