Hard Questions to Hamza Tzortzis (2017-10-10) ​

0:00:00 assalamualaikum warahmatullahi or a
0:00:02 kettle and welcome to a new episode with
0:00:06 our blessed guest alaikum assalam hi al
0:00:12 hamdulillah
0:00:13 Hamza sources is an international
0:00:15 speaker and author of this book hear the
0:00:17 divine reality which I've read and
0:00:20 giving you feedback on obviously and
0:00:22 benefits it from myself hamdulillah it's
0:00:25 a book which is wise on Allah is how
0:00:27 come people buy this book they can
0:00:29 basically go to Amazon and get type in
0:00:32 the divine reality and come to their
0:00:34 house yeah what we're talking about
0:00:38 today guys I wanted to speak times are
0:00:40 about a few issues some issues that he
0:00:42 actually Allison has become popular for
0:00:43 his you could say especially in the
0:00:46 Western Dawa he's been responsible for
0:00:49 changing you could say some perceptions
0:00:51 in regards to some of the commonly used
0:00:54 things in dour like for example science
0:00:57 and he's used and employed the
0:00:59 philosophy of science to do that so he's
0:01:02 delved into that field he's doing now
0:01:03 his post are you doing your PhD in that
0:01:06 now is you should be starting in October
0:01:08 I'm jealous I doing you're doing that
0:01:10 the point being here is I want to ask
0:01:13 you a few questions
0:01:14 first and foremost some people would
0:01:16 have already known your view would have
0:01:18 heard what you had to say before and
0:01:19 other channels and whatnot and
0:01:20 discussions but in a nutshell what is
0:01:23 the problem with believing that science
0:01:26 is certain well of course it depends I
0:01:30 mean by certain yeah now if one means by
0:01:33 certain that it's absolutely true its
0:01:35 conclusions are absolutely true or
0:01:37 scientific theories are absolutely the
0:01:39 problem with that is that it basically
0:01:41 is very unscientific and it is
0:01:45 incongruent it goes against mainstream
0:01:49 consensus concerning the philosophy of
0:01:51 science because science changes right
0:01:55 understanding its methods on a basic
0:01:59 level because it's based primarily on
0:02:01 observations as Professor Eliot sober
0:02:03 was an atheist by philosopher of science
0:02:06 a philosopher of biology if you like he
0:02:09 says scientists are limited to the
0:02:10 observations that have her
0:02:12 so you your observations will always be
0:02:14 limited yeah so the question is is there
0:02:17 a possibility that you can have another
0:02:19 observation that contradicts previous
0:02:22 observations can you have a new
0:02:24 observation that contradicts your
0:02:26 conclusions your current conclusions
0:02:28 based on limited observations of course
0:02:30 you can well just like for example you
0:02:32 know if I observe a thousand white sheep
0:02:34 I may conclude therefore all sheep are
0:02:37 white fine that's my inference but it's
0:02:40 probabilistic is based on a probability
0:02:42 so this is the production yeah I can't
0:02:44 have you an observation of a gray sheep
0:02:46 or black sheep when that's the fact
0:02:48 black sheeps do exist
0:02:49 now let me you're the black sheep in the
0:02:52 family that's right I mean they always
0:02:55 fool me the black sheep I was going to
0:02:57 ask you now here you've outlined the
0:02:59 problem of induction and you're a very
0:03:00 cute black keep warm you know maybe stat
0:03:03 maybe it's to watch it you don't know
0:03:07 right I'm in your book yes you discuss
0:03:11 some of the things some of the problems
0:03:13 like how to prove God exists in a sense
0:03:15 or arguments for God's existence
0:03:17 documents for God's existence and you
0:03:18 and you become much more Quranic you
0:03:20 could say then maybe you're in your
0:03:21 previous life everyone's on a journey
0:03:23 right and I'll ask you now that a lot of
0:03:26 your premises are actually based on that
0:03:30 which is inductive in a sense you could
0:03:32 argue so in some of arguments yeah so we
0:03:36 could one argue that because here like
0:03:39 empiricism isn't needed was it wasn't
0:03:41 necessary evil but you cannot escape I
0:03:44 wouldn't call it an evil but I see well
0:03:45 okay well okay and purse is amiss
0:03:47 something which is a necessary part of
0:03:48 epistemological building knowledge
0:03:51 building yep if I say that if we say
0:03:54 that well there's the problem of
0:03:55 induction hmm well I mean that would
0:03:59 render a lot of the things that you have
0:04:01 to say in terms of arguments okay what
0:04:04 can you say well there's no certainty in
0:04:06 that either yeah absolutely so there are
0:04:07 few things safer see some of the
0:04:09 arguments are metaphysical it's for
0:04:12 going over the argument from dependency
0:04:13 also known as the argument contingency
0:04:16 is a metaphysical one it doesn't rest on
0:04:18 the understanding that you're gonna have
0:04:20 limited
0:04:21 patience right it's based on first
0:04:22 principles it's based upon how you see
0:04:24 the world how you see reality so that's
0:04:27 a different discussion so some arguments
0:04:29 are metaphysical nature they're not
0:04:30 based on the problems of induction or
0:04:32 the problems of empiricism yeah
0:04:34 another arguments yes they have
0:04:35 inductive premises meaning that your
0:04:38 premises can change based on new
0:04:39 insights absolutely however if you read
0:04:42 the book you'll understand that in the
0:04:44 first few chapters I really focus on the
0:04:46 Islamic epistemology right from the
0:04:48 point of view of the team en approach I
0:04:50 would even Katara yeah and I would even
0:04:51 argue it's the gazelian approach if that
0:04:54 makes sense as well so what that
0:04:57 approach is is that we already know so
0:05:00 we have a form of proto knowledge so we
0:05:02 don't start with doubt well we start
0:05:04 with some kind of strong foundation
0:05:06 which is that we have proto knowledge
0:05:07 primary knowledge now in the Islamic
0:05:09 tradition as per the hadith of the
0:05:11 prophet sallallaahu ayah he was
0:05:12 something and ayat in the Quran and this
0:05:15 particular hadith is in Sahih Muslim you
0:05:18 see that every child is born in a state
0:05:20 of fitrah coulomb eluding us yeah so
0:05:22 Fatah Fondren Fatah who something has
0:05:24 been created within us to acknowledge
0:05:25 Allah according to the ulema to have an
0:05:28 affinity to worship Him or to praise him
0:05:31 right and some early MSA basic morality
0:05:33 right okay standing of ethical rules
0:05:35 right so this is interesting you're
0:05:36 saying that your your first premise here
0:05:38 is not based on empirical reasoning it's
0:05:41 based on its kind of s principle this is
0:05:44 my career this is my metaphysic okay
0:05:47 this or mine I'm standing on the
0:05:48 shoulders of giants my the earlier man
0:05:50 right basically say this is our
0:05:52 metaphysic which is further the first
0:05:55 principle the lenses that you have in
0:05:57 order to see the world if you don't have
0:05:58 lenses you can't see the world I see so
0:05:59 what lens are you gonna put on the lens
0:06:01 I'm gonna put on our that there is a
0:06:03 human being the human reality and he has
0:06:07 a fitrah hmm whether it's part of the
0:06:09 solenoid is affected are fees it's a
0:06:11 it's a discussion amongst our
0:06:12 scholarship so we have a fitrah that
0:06:15 acknowledges god wants to worship him
0:06:18 Ryan wants to praise Him
0:06:19 yeah that's the starting point so
0:06:21 therefore these arguments yes I know
0:06:24 ends they become means right
0:06:26 there's a subtle is it sort of a big
0:06:28 difference here right they are means to
0:06:31 awaken that truth within
0:06:33 okay they're not ends in themselves
0:06:34 right and that's saying very important
0:06:37 ascending the Dow itself because when
0:06:38 you study philosophy on a more academic
0:06:41 level I nothing humble it I had the
0:06:43 opportunity to do that you see that
0:06:45 there is no absolutes when you're using
0:06:47 this type of framework for a Suffolk
0:06:49 framework because you could spend years
0:06:52 and I'm talking about 40 years
0:06:54 discussing definitions like for example
0:06:57 there's an idea called physicalism in
0:06:58 philosophy physicalism is the world v or
0:07:01 the view if you like that says that
0:07:03 everything can be reduced to physical
0:07:04 processes can be explained physically
0:07:06 yeah and not necessarily bits of matter
0:07:07 by at least physical processes right
0:07:09 it's quite similar to naturalism yes
0:07:11 they don't even know how to define that
0:07:15 properly there's even like academic
0:07:17 essays and journals on what is the
0:07:19 physical mmm right right because they
0:07:22 say they used to say is because what is
0:07:24 the physical is what the physicists say
0:07:25 but if you go to quantum theory you got
0:07:28 problems right because why because look
0:07:30 was I in ghostly right that's right part
0:07:32 it could be here and it could be over
0:07:33 there and you could have basically the
0:07:35 same particle in two places at the same
0:07:36 time paradoxical one you're tickling the
0:07:39 other yes yeah and it's what's going on
0:07:41 so there is a discussion on where is the
0:07:44 visible that's why in reality when you
0:07:46 have discussions with these physicalists
0:07:47 a bonobo physicalism in my view study
0:07:50 the topic define your terms right and
0:07:53 some of them unfortunately can't spell
0:07:54 the word anyway but if initially I was
0:07:57 gonna now said you give a white yeah I
0:07:58 do get yes awaken the true Sweden and I
0:08:00 want to give Venus in soccer and that's
0:08:01 the role of I actors or that role of
0:08:03 ayat in the Quran is to awaken the truth
0:08:05 within role of translated food I act
0:08:07 assigns evidences also they are verses
0:08:10 in the Quran
0:08:10 they're there to awaken the truth within
0:08:12 rational arguments are there to weaken
0:08:14 the truth the truth within ya spiritual
0:08:16 experiences and it and it's nice analogy
0:08:20 right I'm walking to my mom's basement
0:08:22 I'm kidding my mom's basically I'm 37
0:08:24 years old I've come 37 today
0:08:27 go take bro you extremely nice handsome
0:08:34 guy that's right so the thing is you
0:08:39 were 27 Allah
0:08:42 lightly will get everywhere with me all
0:08:45 right
0:08:45 Giddings aqua heroes so the point is say
0:08:48 I'm your mother's basement and I'm 37
0:08:50 years old and it still meaty now I'm
0:08:51 cleaning up all the dust cobwebs in this
0:08:53 year old school bag I open the school
0:08:55 back what do I find a plastic Donald
0:08:57 Duck and I select my toy plaster no duck
0:08:59 was around five years old are you giving
0:09:02 the people your life story yeah so I
0:09:03 don't worry about I don't remember
0:09:06 anything about that toy right but the
0:09:08 minute I see the toy what happens your
0:09:09 recollection yes Mike oh yeah
0:09:12 so you're saying the facts Donald uh
0:09:13 yeah sneeze like him anyway so the point
0:09:23 is thank you - I've had too many dates
0:09:26 today no I mean like you know the fruit
0:09:28 date stuff it'll law any the point is
0:09:33 broke yes um yeah well you can have
0:09:35 dates with one of them and you can have
0:09:37 many days I'm happily married that's
0:09:39 what I meant your wife yeah obviously
0:09:40 absolutely so I I have awoken the truth
0:09:43 within myself by experiencing that toy
0:09:45 yeah I forgot what about it but it woke
0:09:48 in the truth within similarly ayat
0:09:49 verses in the Quran prophetic tradition
0:09:52 spiritual experiences negative
0:09:53 experiences in life and also rational
0:09:57 arguments they are there as a means to
0:09:59 awaken that truth with a zebra not the
0:10:01 ends themselves okay now what I want to
0:10:04 what I want to put you is as follows you
0:10:06 do have in your book sections on say
0:10:08 fine-tuning and things like that yes
0:10:09 which which you have to kind of admit
0:10:11 here this is inductively reasoned
0:10:14 absolutely yeah so what we don't I mean
0:10:16 I'll just correct me if I'm wrong what
0:10:18 you're not saying is induction is a [ __ ]
0:10:20 is a is a bad method or is a novice
0:10:23 you're saying it has its limitations yes
0:10:24 we use it in in Islamic jurisprudence as
0:10:27 well yeah so so is your position on
0:10:29 induction that yeah it does have its
0:10:31 limitations
0:10:32 yeah in fact it is a method which it can
0:10:35 awaken the truth within okay now the
0:10:37 only reason we start looking induction
0:10:39 from a kind of theö philosophical point
0:10:41 of view and saying hold on a second you
0:10:43 can't compare apples and pears here yes
0:10:44 yes is when you're saying something like
0:10:46 you're gonna compare a metaphysical
0:10:48 point yeah with an inductive point
0:10:51 that's the problem and that's what we're
0:10:53 saying so when we scrutinize things like
0:10:55 you
0:10:56 the Koran yeah when you're scrutinizing
0:10:58 MoMA scrutinizing even like the
0:11:00 Darwinian mechanism not rejecting
0:11:01 Darwinism yeah we're saying hold your
0:11:03 horses yeah it's inductive in nature
0:11:05 it's probabilistic it has assumptions it
0:11:07 has disputes yeah ossible says really
0:11:10 nicely you know had I remedy as pad
0:11:12 probabilistic has assumptions and has
0:11:15 two speeds right if you into academia
0:11:16 you see this that don't be evangelical
0:11:19 with it that's always saying okay and
0:11:20 what we sing to Muslims and religious
0:11:22 folk well you shouldn't now therefore
0:11:24 doubt your own tradition because of
0:11:25 saying that has that is based on
0:11:27 probabilities it has assumptions and
0:11:29 it's based on disputes yeah and that's
0:11:30 the point
0:11:31 because if you do believe in your
0:11:33 metaphysics which is not based on
0:11:34 induction it's been something more solid
0:11:35 then you shouldn't have a problem that's
0:11:37 the issue I guess with probability it's
0:11:39 not so much the probability it might
0:11:43 just be how probable is it based on the
0:11:46 evidence is look I want to ask you three
0:11:48 Oh
0:11:49 basically what I'll ask you here
0:11:51 segwaying onto a different thing which I
0:11:53 think you your self went like you're
0:11:54 saying a spiritual journey in the
0:11:56 beginning you were talking about like
0:11:57 science in the Quran and you have you
0:11:59 had well in the beginning
0:12:01 I actually rejected that in the
0:12:03 beginning I had the view that you can't
0:12:05 use science to prove religion okay you
0:12:08 can't use science to prove things like
0:12:10 the Quran was possibly for you like
0:12:11 absolutely in essence right okay at
0:12:14 least from a spiritual point what's your
0:12:15 position and then I change it so what is
0:12:17 it what was your position now on it like
0:12:19 for example now we have kind of I'd
0:12:21 order cliched this and say there's two
0:12:23 extremes or or any kinds of extreme but
0:12:25 I'm just saying you have different
0:12:26 approaches within our within even
0:12:29 scholarship there's different
0:12:30 discussions now that scholars are having
0:12:32 on those kind of things and in regards
0:12:34 to kind of approaching the Quran oh
0:12:38 let's say a Western audience in
0:12:39 particular or even just an Eastern
0:12:41 audience or any audience let me ask you
0:12:44 to what extent do you think it's legit
0:12:46 legitimate recourse to say well Islam
0:12:50 there's a corroborating evidence base
0:12:52 that Islam is true in so much as X why
0:12:56 is that as a scientific theory
0:12:58 corresponds of X Y Z verse yeah I
0:13:00 wouldn't rest my belief in Islam based
0:13:03 on science especially when there is a
0:13:07 consensus in academia
0:13:09 amongst the scientists in the
0:13:10 philosophers of science yeah that
0:13:12 science can change okay let me ask you
0:13:14 it let me kind of play devil's advocate
0:13:15 a little bit with you yeah you do you
0:13:18 agree that there are some parts of this
0:13:21 or there are some Sciences or there's
0:13:23 some science which is stronger than
0:13:25 other Sciences like for example
0:13:26 observational science is stronger than
0:13:29 you could say theoretical science or
0:13:32 speculative science well yeah well in a
0:13:35 sense yeah we could go into the whole
0:13:37 topic of things like Theory Laden Ness
0:13:39 and going to topic of the limitations of
0:13:41 observation and but there's no point but
0:13:44 I see what you're saying is one theory
0:13:46 better than another no what I'm saying
0:13:49 is that there are tools in the flows of
0:13:51 science to assess that yeah unless for
0:13:53 example a very small book introduction
0:13:54 to philosophy of science by a semi
0:13:57 okasha yeah he said that when he saw
0:14:00 that wasn't on our postcard reading this
0:14:01 the way was it no oh yeah
0:14:07 and basically what someone to understand
0:14:08 what's going on that's good and he
0:14:10 really interests he really interesting
0:14:12 to put points out that for example you
0:14:13 work some vases yeah
0:14:14 if you drop ten vases and you see vas is
0:14:18 depending on how you pronounce it guys
0:14:19 yeah you drop ten verses or hundred
0:14:22 visors and all of them drop and smash
0:14:24 right that's a kind of induction that
0:14:27 you're looking at now the VARs dropping
0:14:29 is an induction you're looking at it
0:14:31 you're seeing it the explained the
0:14:33 explanatory mechanism of why is that the
0:14:35 vasa is falling is the theory like the
0:14:38 theory of you go Einstein in versus
0:14:40 Newtonian explanations for example in
0:14:42 this particular regard that is more
0:14:45 check would you agree that that's more
0:14:46 changeable the theory behind the
0:14:49 explanation see that I think you've
0:14:50 complete you things here you can play it
0:14:52 inductive reasoning with inductive
0:14:54 arguments and there is a difference okay
0:14:56 so me seeing the Voss's of vases
0:14:59 dropping and breaking that's inductive
0:15:01 reasoning because I lose my senses to
0:15:03 reason what's happening know what I'm
0:15:05 saying is that the adaptive argument is
0:15:07 is basically the inference of the
0:15:09 conclusion you make to explain a
0:15:11 phenomena what you've observed okay yeah
0:15:13 so what I'm saying yeah that's exactly
0:15:15 correct here so I'm saying that all
0:15:16 sheep are white that hasn't explained
0:15:19 whatever that's explained what I've
0:15:21 observed was explaining the unknown as
0:15:23 well okay you're saying all sheep are
0:15:24 white so the hunters shake you example
0:15:27 to the hundred sheep say a thousand
0:15:28 sheep yeah a thousand sheep are white
0:15:30 therefore although an inductive
0:15:31 reasoning I'm using so I'm using my
0:15:33 observations I've seen one two three up
0:15:35 two thousand sheep Hawaii therefore all
0:15:39 sheep all right yes therefore is the
0:15:43 inductive argument right so what
0:15:44 abductive reasoning is I've seen and
0:15:46 observed a thousand white sheep yeah the
0:15:48 argument is making that logical leap
0:15:50 saying all sheep are white which
0:15:52 explains your data it does absolutely
0:15:54 yeah but is it the only explanation we
0:15:56 take no and is it the truth one we don't
0:15:58 know because we haven't observed every
0:16:01 single instance of raki
0:16:02 but would you accept for example if I
0:16:04 say yeah you've got inductive reasoning
0:16:06 versus inductive argument ation yes and
0:16:08 what you're saying is that inductive
0:16:10 reasoning is the observance like you
0:16:12 actually see using your senses right
0:16:14 okay so I guess what I'm asking you is
0:16:16 would you accept that of observation or
0:16:19 inductive reasoning is a higher or has a
0:16:22 higher epistemological is stronger
0:16:25 epidemiologically than inductive
0:16:27 argument ation yes because yeah if I've
0:16:30 observed X yes yes all I'm saying is X
0:16:33 right then that has a higher epistemic
0:16:36 value unless you say all of them I've
0:16:38 been saying I've observed X and
0:16:42 therefore Y yes because because the
0:16:44 therefore Y is the inductive leap right
0:16:46 right argument so that's why I even
0:16:48 mention this in the book yes they say
0:16:49 the c100 second one Islam use inductive
0:16:51 argument say no it's some uses inductive
0:16:53 reasoning so for example yeah when a
0:16:55 sahaba companion of the prophet muhammad
0:16:56 sallallahu alayhi wa sallam upon him be
0:16:58 peace basically heard for example good
0:17:01 who Allah who I had say God is uniquely
0:17:04 wrong about the Quran yes he didn't now
0:17:06 infer make the inductive argument which
0:17:09 therefore and he said therefore Alif
0:17:12 LAAM Meem which is a different part of
0:17:13 the quran when he said i heard good who
0:17:17 Allah who I had therefore had okay
0:17:21 that's the point they didn't make these
0:17:22 these leaps of what you gave the example
0:17:24 of a thousand sheep yeah let's be
0:17:26 completely like honest here if I give
0:17:29 you an example of something with a
0:17:30 billion examples like for instance if I
0:17:33 say to you that we have a million people
0:17:35 they have smoked
0:17:37 and we've looked at longitudinal studies
0:17:40 of their behavior and it seems like they
0:17:44 are basically did
0:17:46 deteriorating in their health as a
0:17:47 resolved smoking yeah you're making an
0:17:49 inductive argument with that and with
0:17:50 that it's an inference yes an inference
0:17:52 but it's also you can say an inductive
0:17:54 argument because you're saying a hundred
0:17:56 here or a thousand or a million or
0:17:57 whatever is and based on that we were in
0:17:59 infinite dr. argument sometimes uses
0:18:01 synonyms
0:18:02 oh yeah you're inferring and yeah
0:18:04 explaining what inference to the best
0:18:05 explanation as you put in your book in
0:18:07 one of your one of your reasons why the
0:18:09 profit is is a profit but having said
0:18:12 this I'm saying so you get a million
0:18:14 people all of which are the signs of
0:18:16 smoking deteriorates their health yep
0:18:19 Muslim jurists now are convinced that
0:18:21 okay smoking is Haram for the most part
0:18:24 why because they say well actually
0:18:26 that's enough evidence for us so
0:18:28 induction unless it goes against the
0:18:32 Quran is something for us we don't have
0:18:34 a problem with that sound reasonable yes
0:18:38 to some degree absolutely I'm not
0:18:40 rejecting the fact that you don't reject
0:18:41 scientific correlations of course not
0:18:43 okay so as I said what we're doing is
0:18:45 when it goes against something that we
0:18:48 believe to be of higher pisto mcvade you
0:18:49 that's the problem
0:18:50 yeah so like look like if you metaphysic
0:18:52 yeah whoever is is of a certain
0:18:55 epistemic value why would you take
0:18:57 something that's lower that you know can
0:18:59 potentially change yes yes sir she
0:19:01 basically challenged your metaphysics
0:19:02 that's my problem right why would it
0:19:04 challenge your first principles even
0:19:06 Immanuel Kant made a really good example
0:19:08 concerning causality
0:19:09 he was like well you cannot reject
0:19:11 Cazale because you need the causal
0:19:14 lenses in order to understand your
0:19:15 experiences if you have cooler
0:19:17 understanding that a priori knowledge
0:19:20 that there is some kind of understanding
0:19:22 before you experience anything that
0:19:24 things have causal connection yes how
0:19:27 can you understand your experiences your
0:19:28 experience would be just like
0:19:30 meaningless right right even the order
0:19:32 of things if there was a boat going down
0:19:34 the Thames you know you see the front
0:19:36 before you could see the back hmm how do
0:19:38 you know you could only see the front if
0:19:39 you see the back because there is some
0:19:40 kind of causal logical connection
0:19:42 somehow yeah it's applied to those
0:19:44 experiences and you understand it if you
0:19:46 didn't have that understanding yes how
0:19:47 on earth are you going to even connect
0:19:49 spirit so the game is
0:19:50 that's my point there are things that
0:19:52 you have that are right April
0:19:54 they're metaphysically true going back
0:19:56 to it based on first principle I want to
0:19:58 solve if that is yeah what you would
0:19:59 call absolute right then why would you
0:20:03 take something that is of lesser
0:20:05 historic value try to challenge that
0:20:06 right does it make sense let me ask you
0:20:08 a question going back but at the same
0:20:09 time it doesn't mean you reject the
0:20:11 conclusions practically yeah hundreds
0:20:13 and I think Dominus was a good good good
0:20:15 example here yeah yes this chant can
0:20:17 change this probe based on probabilities
0:20:18 and I'm sure there's some shows only has
0:20:20 disputes so you know saying I totally
0:20:22 reject it I thought of the baby out of
0:20:23 the Buffalo what we're saying is yeah I
0:20:25 accept it because it's the best that we
0:20:27 have at the moment yes and I accept it
0:20:29 practically but do I take into my Creed
0:20:31 mmm no because if some of it somehow
0:20:34 challenges what I think is more absolute
0:20:36 then I don't have to right I don't I
0:20:38 don't become unscientific I don't reject
0:20:40 the whole thing yeah I just I give it
0:20:42 its proper status okay just like most
0:20:47 philosophers of science and most
0:20:48 scientists say it can change its
0:20:50 probabilistic based on assumptions yes
0:20:51 disputes going back to kind of levels of
0:20:55 different scientific inquire because I'm
0:20:56 doing a project now doing it with with
0:20:59 Medina graduate we were together were
0:21:01 doing this kind of project under the
0:21:02 disco so both I'm studying the Felicia
0:21:04 science not only he studied that's why
0:21:07 we got you on the show so what
0:21:08 philosophy of science do you get my new
0:21:10 dick day yeah no but he's more but what
0:21:14 I'm saying we need to move forward that
0:21:15 we have the theologians yeah ology the
0:21:19 theologians understand the reality the
0:21:22 talking about it yeah so having said
0:21:24 that the project we're doing is kind of
0:21:25 assessing their scientific narrative and
0:21:27 stuff like that right now in my kind of
0:21:31 discovery of this and trying to close
0:21:33 the bridge as you say between the the
0:21:34 theologians and people to enter
0:21:36 pre-islamic texts with the philosophy of
0:21:38 science
0:21:39 we've had to explore these different
0:21:40 themes or what are the things that seem
0:21:41 to be prominent in our discoveries or in
0:21:44 our assessments is the fact that for
0:21:46 example I know this is going to be
0:21:47 controversial to some flat-earthers out
0:21:49 there but the fact that the earth is
0:21:50 around we would say is has a higher
0:21:54 paestum illogical value then uh yeah
0:21:56 that it's true that it relies on some
0:21:58 testimonies and some patches and whatnot
0:22:00 but for the majority of people of
0:22:02 mankind they'll say it has a high
0:22:04 epidemiological value then say for
0:22:06 instance you know some string theory
0:22:09 yeah because there's something which can
0:22:10 be observed with the naked eye is
0:22:12 something which there is evidence for
0:22:14 and the evidence triangulated geometric
0:22:17 evidence in addition to okay senses more
0:22:20 directly right so if we were going back
0:22:23 to the science in the Quran narrative
0:22:24 right this is one thing I do use and
0:22:26 I'll be honest with you here and you can
0:22:27 obviously scrutinize my approach as well
0:22:30 I'm open to that completely with things
0:22:32 like that with things like for example
0:22:34 the earth being round one of the
0:22:38 arguments I put forward yeah I say -
0:22:40 let's say a Christian or non-muslim
0:22:42 audience I say to them the fact that the
0:22:44 earth is round Islam is the only
0:22:46 religion which has scholars predating
0:22:49 the the Classical period that I say for
0:22:51 example I haven't been humble 2:41 who
0:22:55 died 241 he mentioned that the earth is
0:22:57 round in accordance with because of his
0:22:58 reading of the Quran yes yes on verse of
0:23:00 the Quran now if you compare this with
0:23:02 the biblical narrative in job chapter 9
0:23:04 verse 6 for example you'll find that
0:23:05 there's no way you can interpret the Old
0:23:08 Testament biblical narrative as meaning
0:23:10 that the earth is round there's no way
0:23:12 of doing it this is just something I've
0:23:14 kind of and I've tested this with lost
0:23:15 Christian theologians now is it a
0:23:18 legitimate argument for me to put
0:23:20 forward and citizen if this is a
0:23:22 conditional sentence if you believe that
0:23:24 for example the earth is round
0:23:26 then Islam is more closely correlated to
0:23:30 science than any other ancient world
0:23:32 religion including Christianity based on
0:23:34 the evidence no logical fallacy they're
0:23:36 gone because only if you assume that the
0:23:39 whole of science is that the world is
0:23:41 round it's no no I'm not saying anything
0:23:44 about science now ok but no but that
0:23:45 your stay was condition he said if blah
0:23:47 blah blah blah yeah there's more cording
0:23:49 to science now has it it would be
0:23:51 correct
0:23:51 besides the hold of science was you know
0:23:53 I was a science so if you know I'm your
0:23:55 brother not to debate me no you know
0:23:57 what I moved from like an awful hog to
0:23:59 pointing because I want to become
0:24:07 inductive inductive now give me your
0:24:10 principle against okay so it's a
0:24:12 conditional sentence I'm saying if you
0:24:14 believe the earth is round then Islam is
0:24:16 the most closely correlated village
0:24:17 which to that reality of the earth being
0:24:21 ground okay I statements cool yeah so
0:24:24 sorry yeah
0:24:25 so both if you believe they are because
0:24:27 there's another problem no because you
0:24:29 have to imagine your own religion you
0:24:30 have to assume that ancient world
0:24:33 religions didn't believe the world was
0:24:35 that's not my assumption I'm just saying
0:24:36 that if you believe the F is around yeah
0:24:38 do you see I'm saying but if you believe
0:24:40 the earth is round
0:24:41 yeah and the psalm does which is great
0:24:42 there's a correlation I agree good earth
0:24:44 is round
0:24:44 yeah answers earth is round I'm not
0:24:47 saying okay say see Bible doesn't but
0:24:49 what about all the other religions have
0:24:50 you studied those yeah I'm just saying
0:24:52 that ancient world religions but have
0:24:54 you studied all the ones are existent
0:24:55 they they've never said that it's
0:24:56 because the the the Jewish faith and
0:24:58 they obviously the Christian faith when
0:25:00 we talk about job we're talking about
0:25:01 the Old Testament anyways what about the
0:25:03 Buddhist tradition the Buddhist
0:25:05 tradition the Hindu tradition is to be
0:25:07 honest with you I'm not gonna lie on
0:25:08 self-study they're in depth okay say
0:25:10 they say the world is round
0:25:11 what would you say that okay I'd preface
0:25:13 what caveat or what condition I'll make
0:25:16 it so your conditional statement becomes
0:25:17 very conditional right yes referring to
0:25:19 head and shoulders but okay then I'll
0:25:21 just say our Christianity of
0:25:22 Christianity Judaism Islam yeah do you
0:25:24 get it but yeah but then that's an
0:25:25 argument then see see this is I think
0:25:27 this is the problem with the approach I
0:25:29 thought we need to be comprehensive and
0:25:31 coherent yeah yeah but that's fair
0:25:33 enough of the six major major religions
0:25:35 one of them is is not ancient which is
0:25:37 Sikhism okay yeah obviously if we talk
0:25:41 about Chinese folk religion blessing I
0:25:42 know that and don't want you don't you
0:25:44 talk about religion here is that again
0:25:45 is a bit neither here or there because
0:25:47 you have seen us talking start talking
0:25:49 about what about other traditions of
0:25:51 ways of life that actually said that the
0:25:52 world was round no but you see that
0:25:54 there was a cross right there was a
0:25:56 fertile like fertilization of knowledge
0:25:58 because
0:25:59 cross culture on we have the had the
0:26:02 Greeks right or the henyk period
0:26:04 whatever the case may be the name they
0:26:05 probably thought that that the witness
0:26:08 to objects were round yeah so and
0:26:10 religions were part of that culture that
0:26:11 human culture yeah so for you I say just
0:26:14 to the religions I think it's also
0:26:16 misplaced not holistically okay let me
0:26:18 let me counter that but I think that's
0:26:19 not here it's not split hairs would you
0:26:21 approach them with the penance what does
0:26:23 what I'm trying to say here I don't
0:26:24 wanna create a nuance right and the
0:26:27 nuances as follows yeah you said that
0:26:28 these there are other civilizations I
0:26:30 believe like
0:26:31 free Islamic civilizations like the
0:26:33 Hellenistic Greeks or whatever that
0:26:35 might have believed the earth is run and
0:26:37 not all of the Greeks by the way some of
0:26:38 them might have some of them might not
0:26:39 have sure just like some scholars say
0:26:41 that as is flat yeah some scholars say
0:26:43 the other slap but what what I say is
0:26:44 that it's the only that's why you see
0:26:46 what correlated there are some people
0:26:48 that say that it's mounted like him take
0:26:50 me and do any and and others even hasn't
0:26:53 say this is mal which is very nice is
0:26:55 the edema is there consensus that there
0:26:57 is a consensus that's a good question
0:26:59 you know and this goes back students
0:27:01 already believe this yeah of course the
0:27:02 Sahaba and these things absolutely but
0:27:04 the question here that the point I'm
0:27:06 making here is going back to the parable
0:27:08 that you gave of not throwing the baby
0:27:10 with the bathwater yeah
0:27:12 what I'm saying is that this is an
0:27:14 example most of humanity would agree
0:27:16 that the earth is round okay so does
0:27:18 that know for teachers you can God no
0:27:20 I'm not saying that this thing you see
0:27:21 you see this is not the this is not the
0:27:23 approach so I wanna know your approach
0:27:25 yeah so give me give me the approach in
0:27:27 summary so the fortunate summary is is a
0:27:29 conditional approach depending upon the
0:27:31 background of the person and once again
0:27:33 that's why I start the sentences if so
0:27:36 if someone here believes that the earth
0:27:38 is round for instance yeah aslam is the
0:27:41 most closely correlated ancient world
0:27:43 religion that basically upholds that
0:27:45 reality yeah
0:27:46 some scholars master said that the earth
0:27:49 is flat but ya never lose at will which
0:27:52 means that at least there is scope for
0:27:54 disagreement or agreement whereas in the
0:27:56 Christian faith there was no scope or in
0:27:58 the Jewish faith there is no scope
0:28:00 there's actually only one answer that
0:28:01 the earth is flat and it's got pillars
0:28:02 okay see my problem with this is as
0:28:04 follows right and by the way I'm not
0:28:06 saying as a result the therefore I'm not
0:28:09 using I'm not saying here therefore the
0:28:11 Quran is from God yeah but because this
0:28:13 knowledge couldn't have been known at
0:28:14 the time I understand that there are
0:28:15 some people before that could have had
0:28:17 that knowledge but what I'm saying is if
0:28:19 you're a true seeker and you're looking
0:28:20 at all of the different religions and
0:28:21 you realize that one of those religions
0:28:23 has this ability for you to interpret
0:28:26 its verses like this and all the other
0:28:28 religions don't have the ability so for
0:28:31 the truth seeker say okay as so it
0:28:34 becomes a question of if I believe the
0:28:36 earth is flat I can't be a Christian or
0:28:37 a Jew almost it almost becomes like that
0:28:40 sorry if I believe the earth is round I
0:28:42 will be doing it yes it's the only
0:28:44 proper hell this is
0:28:44 psychological okay with someone you they
0:28:47 have to presume that science is still a
0:28:48 method of establishing your worldview
0:28:52 which I don't think that's the case
0:28:54 because of its inductive nature okay so
0:28:56 if someone says yes you know I like
0:28:58 science yeah and the Koran seems to be
0:29:00 one of the only ancient religion that
0:29:02 seems to correlate with science these
0:29:04 science yeah yes but the only problem
0:29:05 with that is is when we apply to other
0:29:07 spheres of science and then it might not
0:29:09 work that's why I agree that's what can
0:29:12 follow logically this they'll be say
0:29:13 fine you know the Quran somehow says
0:29:16 that the moon is neuron it has a board
0:29:19 light which is one of the
0:29:20 interpretations of the word noron right
0:29:21 it's a board light and no one knew this
0:29:24 at the time no h of religion you this at
0:29:26 the time therefore the quran is close to
0:29:28 science but then if you do a bit more
0:29:29 reading we think oh my god five hundred
0:29:31 years prior to the Common Era the the
0:29:34 before the Common Era
0:29:35 you had an excise the Greek or fattest
0:29:37 right Yes or something of Samos and some
0:29:41 other Greek guy right here they but you
0:29:43 know if I agree yeah they believed that
0:29:44 the Sun that moon didn't have its own
0:29:46 light right this the moon brought the
0:29:48 light from the Sun it was reflective
0:29:49 light so by that logic they should say
0:29:52 well the closest to science was the
0:29:56 Greek thinking right what was what was
0:29:58 summer supporting the guy something from
0:30:00 any stars of Samos or something what was
0:30:02 the phallus on what was annex a crescent
0:30:05 oh there were Stoics I'm gonna become a
0:30:07 stoic now and the things were they they
0:30:10 invented conditioners as well the neck
0:30:12 but the plane is one per se to you it
0:30:14 becomes a little bit inconsistent that
0:30:15 way right no I said when we look at all
0:30:17 the stuff in the Quran take for example
0:30:18 yes and we create the heavens on the
0:30:20 earth and we split them asunder right
0:30:22 yeah people say the Big Bang and this is
0:30:24 where my way we have we do have yet
0:30:27 you're right say Omega my question is
0:30:29 this we have video on this was people
0:30:30 believe that the Big Bang is a fact
0:30:33 right they have zero study in the
0:30:35 philosophy of science on the sites yes
0:30:37 there are 17 different models that
0:30:39 explain the same data right it's caught
0:30:41 under under determination where you have
0:30:44 some data which is background radiation
0:30:46 and all that stuff and you have seven
0:30:48 different 17 different models that
0:30:49 explain the same data and these 17
0:30:51 different models they disagree with each
0:30:52 other and they have very key the same
0:30:53 epistemic weight so how can you ever say
0:30:55 it's a fact you have a popular
0:30:58 version of science understanding not
0:30:59 only that you're assuming the Koran is
0:31:02 gives details about one of the models of
0:31:05 the of the of the Big Bang which is
0:31:06 incorrect
0:31:07 in actual fact there is Sumerian
0:31:09 literature which could the epic of
0:31:11 gilgamesh which is way before Quranic
0:31:13 revelation yeah you use a course of word
0:31:17 closest words to crying I'm not seeing
0:31:18 the copied or the put no wait yeah I'm
0:31:20 not saying that nurses what I'm saying
0:31:22 is we need a robust approach that can
0:31:24 explain all of these discrepancies with
0:31:26 a robust approach that explains things
0:31:28 that may not make sense in Israel in
0:31:32 scientific terms today so I think though
0:31:35 with that look I mean I agree with my
0:31:37 approach I think it's very robust yes
0:31:39 give me some yeah I just have
0:31:41 conditionals not if and it's not based
0:31:43 on certain individual and it's my I
0:31:44 think it's more comprehensive you know I
0:31:45 told me and let me let me tell you so so
0:31:47 this is I call it the mulches obviously
0:31:50 it's a it's the classic approach in my
0:31:51 view if you look at the toughest here if
0:31:53 you look at the exegetes they didn't
0:31:55 really even used to go into this
0:31:57 narrative of science there's one thing
0:31:59 and therefore the Quran has to match
0:32:01 what science says whatever the case may
0:32:02 be
0:32:02 right okay because they knew the
0:32:04 epistemic weight of science even for
0:32:05 example shot TV he has a famous quote
0:32:07 that actually deals with this issue
0:32:08 right anyway
0:32:09 Tuukka long story short the quran uses
0:32:13 words when it refers to natural
0:32:16 phenomena and Allah is creative power
0:32:19 okay and these words have many layers of
0:32:24 meaning within a scope classical scope
0:32:27 right they have their multi-layered many
0:32:29 layers meaning yes and they address
0:32:31 different levels of understanding so
0:32:33 their multi-leveled so it's
0:32:35 multi-layered and multi-leveled yes and
0:32:38 you could take this and apply this to
0:32:40 any word in the Quran that refers to
0:32:42 natural phenomena okay for example let's
0:32:45 take the word Alaka okay of course the
0:32:47 classical tradition the word Alaka has
0:32:49 five major meanings blood in a general
0:32:51 sense
0:32:52 a blood clot clay that sticks to the
0:32:55 hand something that clings and a leech
0:32:58 or a worm these are the five wings
0:32:59 anything else other than that would it
0:33:01 because of the classic understanding of
0:33:03 that word all right now you could take
0:33:05 each layer of that meaning and apply two
0:33:07 different levels of understanding so
0:33:09 let's take the seven
0:33:10 to understanding okay it is
0:33:11 probabilistic based on inductive
0:33:13 reasoning yeah an arguments if you like
0:33:15 that at the time of Revelation in the
0:33:17 7th century they adopted a gal enik on
0:33:19 ambry ology right what gaiden was the
0:33:22 2nd century Greek physician in his book
0:33:24 de cemani he uses Greek words like South
0:33:26 co-eds and Amador's I read the Greek
0:33:27 myself and it basically means a blood
0:33:30 filled fleshy thing yeah so this is not
0:33:34 a miracle because you could see what the
0:33:35 observed with with direct observation
0:33:37 with a naked eye because when you see
0:33:38 natural abortions which are called
0:33:40 miscarriages you look like a blood
0:33:41 fleshy thing a blood clot so you could
0:33:45 use a basic understanding of the word
0:33:47 which means blood clot correlate to the
0:33:49 service of your understanding and you
0:33:51 still have the objective that's met
0:33:53 because what is the what what's the role
0:33:55 of an ayah what's the word what's the
0:33:58 role of the verse addressing natural
0:34:00 phenomenon the role of a verse
0:34:01 addressing natural phenomenon is to take
0:34:04 you from God's creative power yes to the
0:34:07 fact that he deserves worship divinity
0:34:08 yes yes so therefore you're looking say
0:34:11 I'm a seventh century guy yeah I believe
0:34:12 the human baby begins as a blood clot
0:34:15 right Oh
0:34:15 at one stage is a blood clot that's my
0:34:18 belief yes I'm I'm looking at the
0:34:20 reality as well yes and I'm like oh my
0:34:22 god I came from a blood clot so then you
0:34:25 think how and who and who created the
0:34:29 physical causes in the universe in order
0:34:30 for me to emerge or be developed from a
0:34:33 blood clot there must be a divine wisdom
0:34:35 and power do you see my point so it's
0:34:37 moving me from understanding God's
0:34:39 creative power and wisdom to the fact
0:34:41 that he deserves worship or praise or
0:34:43 whatever the kids might be now so that's
0:34:44 one layer now you could do another layer
0:34:46 go to the 15th century discover the
0:34:48 microscope and when you look at the
0:34:49 microscope you look at the embryo some
0:34:51 doctors some academics have described it
0:34:53 as they worm dr. Dale laymen in anatomy
0:34:55 demystified described it as a worm so if
0:34:58 you look at it looks like a worm so you
0:34:59 may say and I'm not saying this is this
0:35:01 is different you may say they could
0:35:03 refer to the external appearance of the
0:35:05 embryo can also that even fast forward
0:35:07 more yeah
0:35:07 we're assuming their first two sides you
0:35:09 may not even have nothing to do with
0:35:11 science it may be about the relationship
0:35:13 with the mud with the embryo in the womb
0:35:14 because the embryo has a parasitic type
0:35:17 of relationship just like the leech if
0:35:19 you refer to the works of dr. Robert
0:35:21 with with
0:35:22 from imperial universities and emeritus
0:35:24 professor of fertility studies he
0:35:27 basically says the leech in the embryo
0:35:28 they act very similar but from the
0:35:31 get-go it's all about themselves do they
0:35:32 leave sucks the blood yeah from its host
0:35:34 and what the embryo does it raids the
0:35:37 mother's resources from her bloodstream
0:35:38 and it takes from there literally just
0:35:41 like a parasite yeah so maybe I am I
0:35:42 saying you will your behavior was like a
0:35:44 leech you were a parasite your mother
0:35:47 willingly and willfully gave her
0:35:49 resources to you so lower your wing of
0:35:51 humility and be loving and compassionate
0:35:52 to your mother so you could have a
0:35:53 non-scientific paradigm but finally just
0:35:56 to make it more comprehensive yes it may
0:35:58 it may not even make sense
0:36:00 scientifically to us that there are some
0:36:02 things a clan that makes make no sense
0:36:03 scientifically for example yes yeah it
0:36:05 doesn't mean the crown is wrong
0:36:07 it may mean two things number one it
0:36:09 allows us to investigate further because
0:36:11 the crown is all about wanting us to
0:36:13 learn about ourselves the physical world
0:36:14 and spirituality and it may mean that
0:36:17 there may be a future future observation
0:36:19 of a future scientific understanding
0:36:20 that can maybe make us make us abuse a
0:36:23 day what's happening with this verse
0:36:24 right but at the end of the day yes we
0:36:26 have to appreciate what is the role of
0:36:27 an ayah concerning natural how's the
0:36:30 role of the ayah is to move from God's
0:36:31 creative power to the fact that he
0:36:33 deserves worship and if you don't if you
0:36:35 if you have a primitive understanding of
0:36:37 the how yeah it makes no difference the
0:36:39 reverse to ask a question based on your
0:36:41 reading because it's good so this makes
0:36:42 it competitive yeah I want to ask you as
0:36:44 a Greek speaker as well because this is
0:36:45 a good thing that we have as a resource
0:36:48 really as someone who can show decipher
0:36:51 they cannot the Greek language was going
0:36:52 to say to you is that when you're
0:36:53 reading of ganon because this is
0:36:54 something that oriented is I'm sure
0:36:56 you're aware use as a counter to the
0:36:58 whole and by the way I'll be honest with
0:37:00 you I'm completely I don't buy this
0:37:02 argument from the Orientalists well this
0:37:05 thing where they whereby they say okay
0:37:07 whether were the Prophet Muhammad SAW he
0:37:09 had ability to take from Greek sources
0:37:12 via let's say people who would have who
0:37:15 would have who would have learned Greek
0:37:17 and maybe translated not least because
0:37:20 obviously the Quran it refuses itself I
0:37:22 mean who lunar dust where nobody you
0:37:24 know who live homie ala moon he said
0:37:25 they say that you have gone and studied
0:37:27 and that will make this the fact that
0:37:29 this is not the case clear to people
0:37:32 that don't know that no this is
0:37:35 and other other verses but apart from
0:37:39 this reality with the Quran refuted
0:37:41 directly this was a locker now here you
0:37:46 said that gallon and I read in English
0:37:48 but what he in his treatise he mentions
0:37:51 blood yeah he said blood it's a it's a
0:37:53 warden it's a fleshie blood filled thing
0:37:56 what's the word in region so the EMA
0:37:58 dose means blood
0:37:59 okay sorry this means fleshy okay good
0:38:01 now the Arabic word Allah ha yeah
0:38:04 as you mentioned correctly now it
0:38:05 encompasses let's say five different
0:38:06 meanings yeah in this instance of Allah
0:38:11 ha do you know of anyone before the
0:38:13 Muhammad SAW Allah who came and said not
0:38:16 only is it something which is let's say
0:38:18 a clot like bloody thing but also that
0:38:21 that caught like bloody thing had the
0:38:22 propensity or the ability to attach
0:38:24 itself to to anything and act like a
0:38:27 bloodsucker yes the Greeks actually said
0:38:29 leech as well who I have the people have
0:38:32 to give it to you but its prior to the
0:38:34 process oh no Meah ok see here this is
0:38:36 really interesting here ok i TI t ity
0:38:38 this is which which of the Greeks
0:38:39 because what I remember from Aristotle
0:38:41 yeah sure it's a non of Italian sauce
0:38:45 here yeah look this is the point here
0:38:47 for me the refutation of the fact that
0:38:50 the person we even try to borrow
0:38:51 anything yes is the fact that the
0:38:53 Quranic language doesn't represent a
0:38:55 language of the 7th century yes because
0:38:57 the language of the century will give
0:38:58 you a sense since your understanding
0:38:59 only yes but what's unique about the
0:39:01 crime which I'm telling you right now
0:39:02 because it's multi-layered it can
0:39:03 address different understandings over
0:39:05 time well and that for me is its
0:39:07 timeless nature does it mean is a
0:39:09 scientific miracle no but doesn't mean
0:39:11 has the ability to address different
0:39:13 understandings across time yeah using a
0:39:15 language as understood by the 7th
0:39:17 century and the 15th century and the
0:39:19 30th century yes okay and that's the
0:39:22 unique thing about the crying discourse
0:39:23 and the reason you're finding problems
0:39:25 are with your may be conditional apology
0:39:27 is because of the fact that you're still
0:39:29 pursuing that there must be some kind of
0:39:31 the way I put it in a correlation no no
0:39:34 what I say is that look if you did the
0:39:36 19th century oh you wouldn't be having
0:39:37 this argument let me tell you to the
0:39:40 scientists if the universe hi the
0:39:42 beginning is not steady state theory in
0:39:44 the 19th century but if there's no
0:39:45 began to the you know except that it's
0:39:47 not a conciliation what I'm saying is
0:39:48 that there are like we said before that
0:39:50 there are different levels of scientific
0:39:53 science basically so as we say
0:39:55 scientifically that's post hoc a logical
0:40:00 fallacy right now you know what the
0:40:02 science isn't now you know what the
0:40:03 piston big weight of the signs that you
0:40:05 understand but at that time they thought
0:40:07 the steady state theory was one of them
0:40:08 put myself in the 21st century Martin I
0:40:10 think said I know I'll be missing the
0:40:11 point gone the issue I'm gonna say is
0:40:13 you can't now compare the steady state
0:40:16 theory and say oh but that has a less at
0:40:18 the stomach corner because you all know
0:40:21 that now but if you're in the 17th if
0:40:24 you're in the 19th century yeah you know
0:40:26 what is your the same theory is gonna
0:40:27 have less upper stomach weight than any
0:40:28 observation isn't so the earth is round
0:40:31 is an observation isn't it yep okay so
0:40:35 what I mean is that now using the earth
0:40:37 being round as something we can
0:40:38 physically see also you see when you
0:40:40 observe like natural from like like an
0:40:41 embryo for example yes okay good but
0:40:43 there is a problem here a problem is
0:40:45 that there's a few things from just for
0:40:48 know sort of zero point influence on
0:40:50 yeah
0:40:50 so in a little tough so does you know
0:40:52 much better than me when it comes to
0:40:54 words when it comes to words that refer
0:40:56 to natural phenomenon that ambiguous in
0:40:58 nature right but do not have a prophetic
0:41:00 tradition that really explain in detail
0:41:02 per se and you have to rely on the
0:41:04 classical understanding on the language
0:41:05 well you said there's got more than one
0:41:07 sometimes yeah is good X may mean why
0:41:11 you can't say word X that definitely
0:41:15 means Y right because you're assuming
0:41:17 that that is the intention of the author
0:41:20 Allah subhana WA Ta'ala his word that's
0:41:22 intentional of of the of the expression
0:41:26 of that of that yeah yeah linguistic
0:41:29 item that word yeah and you have to
0:41:31 assume that this is exactly the science
0:41:33 it's never going to change we could
0:41:34 never say those things so oh you can be
0:41:36 is with the approach is very
0:41:37 probabilistic about it okay xB mean why
0:41:40 just like I have been with a
0:41:41 multi-layered approach it's more toward
0:41:43 upward pondering approach rather than
0:41:44 conclusively saying therefore it must be
0:41:47 from the divine that's my point
0:41:49 yeah so you say so it's may mean why
0:41:51 this is good because it kind of feeds on
0:41:53 so I don't think there's a contradiction
0:41:54 by the way by your approach in my
0:41:55 approach it sounds a bit similar no no
0:41:57 because I'll tell you why because the
0:41:58 mold
0:41:59 - later anything understandings by
0:42:00 having I agree with the multi-layered
0:42:01 approach by the way I think it's a good
0:42:03 approach because you're saying what
0:42:04 you're effectively saying is that people
0:42:07 of today can interpret the Quran in a
0:42:10 certain way which the language allows
0:42:12 and which the old Tennessee allow and
0:42:14 people yesterday can interpret it in
0:42:17 another way which the language allows
0:42:19 them and there's a third point or they
0:42:21 may interpret interpret it in a way that
0:42:23 they mean have no scientific
0:42:24 understanding would encourage more
0:42:26 learning yes
0:42:27 so that's what that's all you need to
0:42:28 say yes but with the premise which is a
0:42:30 very important point because we missus
0:42:31 about the book of Allah soprano words
0:42:32 that we read into the Quran Allah the
0:42:34 Quran to read to us and that's the
0:42:36 problem we bring to the Quran we don't
0:42:38 allow the Quran to bring to us which is
0:42:40 that the role of I act what is the role
0:42:42 of it of a verse in the Quran because a
0:42:44 natural phenomenon here it's to move you
0:42:45 from understanding God's creative power
0:42:47 the fact that he it deserves to be
0:42:49 worshipped and you see this yeah in most
0:42:51 of the ayat that talk about the the
0:42:53 celestial objects the creation is always
0:42:56 the conclusion therefore worship God
0:42:58 there is only one allure there's only
0:43:00 one day to body of worship so that's
0:43:01 always the kind of relationship between
0:43:03 these verses and what the conclusion is
0:43:05 which is a spiritual conclusion here and
0:43:06 therefore God doesn't therefore is
0:43:09 telling you you have to know all the
0:43:10 nitty gritties behind the science no you
0:43:13 see whatever your knowledge is it could
0:43:14 be even primitive or whatever you know
0:43:16 and this is the timeless nature your
0:43:19 primitive you're going to conclude
0:43:22 there's a divine power you're going to
0:43:24 conclude maybe give you example
0:43:25 yes Bona right Allah saying that the Son
0:43:28 of Allah grants for honey oh they are
0:43:30 swimming right now Arab in the similar
0:43:32 century desert Arab is looking looks
0:43:34 like it's swimming in the ocean of space
0:43:35 you know miracle here bro but what he
0:43:38 can tell us to say does revolve it is
0:43:40 spinning listen to this yeah he's
0:43:43 looking to the ocean of space thinking
0:43:44 what kind of power did this what's the
0:43:47 what's the wisdom of time is the divine
0:43:49 wisdom I deserve glorification yeah
0:43:52 fast forward of 21st century we now know
0:43:55 set of two mechanics right they are
0:43:57 looking like they're swimming in in
0:43:59 space I don't they're orbiting so it's
0:44:01 in line with a more modern understanding
0:44:02 to now into this stuff but the Sun this
0:44:05 is the sun's doing an orbit
0:44:06 yeah at that time they believed the Sun
0:44:08 was going around the earth which is not
0:44:09 true is it true
0:44:10 well no according to army
0:44:12 - I understanding right so it's not true
0:44:14 yeah but lots of people had done
0:44:16 understanding especially some scholars
0:44:18 even Eva's got us today right yeah yeah
0:44:20 so the point that they were believing
0:44:22 and some do believe that the Sun goes on
0:44:24 earth that's right even if you believe
0:44:26 that you're still gonna conclude a lot
0:44:28 deserves worship how does that happen
0:44:29 why was the divine power he deserves
0:44:32 glorification and what's very
0:44:33 interesting though mortal aid
0:44:35 multi-level to daughter the son does the
0:44:37 hell have orbit it orbits the Milky Way
0:44:39 200 on its own axis but the point that's
0:44:43 the point is what I'm not best not
0:44:44 basically interpreted fine you're gonna
0:44:46 find interpretations here then you can
0:44:48 find counter interpretations yeah the
0:44:49 point right you can't find the module
0:44:50 that I am using now is a robust model to
0:44:53 the point where you throw any
0:44:54 accusations they thought the copping
0:44:56 accusation so the accusation of it's not
0:44:58 scientific another accusation of this
0:45:00 and the other yeah it it comes out very
0:45:03 clean how was that I've asked you a
0:45:04 question
0:45:05 absolutely to find more information this
0:45:07 go to my new YouTube channel yeah which
0:45:08 is quote comes address to this that's it
0:45:10 okay definitely weapon on this issue is
0:45:12 quite linked 100% pretender this I don't
0:45:15 want to blow my trumpet but I just I'm
0:45:17 just worried of the fact things are
0:45:19 gonna do they're gonna get this and
0:45:20 they're gonna subscribe to that channel
0:45:21 and the baby they can't afford the book
0:45:23 a lot of the main chapters already free
0:45:25 on my website inshallah I was gonna ask
0:45:27 you now what do you think of I know it's
0:45:29 gonna sound tangential voice it's going
0:45:31 to come back to the core historical mill
0:45:34 using the word historical miracles
0:45:36 linguistic miracles of the Quran yeah
0:45:37 what do you think what I see historical
0:45:39 stuff is also based on what you would
0:45:40 call some kind of inductive premises
0:45:42 well okay because we don't have the full
0:45:45 understanding we haven't historically
0:45:46 observed everything that you wanna use
0:45:48 the term right okay look as I said these
0:45:51 are things to awaken the fit also awaken
0:45:52 the truths within but would you would
0:45:54 you have a problem with using that term
0:45:56 historical miracle yeah
0:45:58 yeah maybe okay would you have a problem
0:46:02 with using my linguistic whiny I think
0:46:04 it's far more robust you could you could
0:46:05 get deductive argue with using it I'm
0:46:07 not saying by the way that I advocate
0:46:08 using the term scientific move yeah sure
0:46:11 why I'm saying would you have a problem
0:46:12 with using the word prophetic miracle in
0:46:15 the census of prophecy and Bill okay Ted
0:46:20 terms are one thing and understanding of
0:46:22 the terms are another okay what I mean
0:46:24 by is like a just and bearable
0:46:26 what we try and do now is we say things
0:46:28 like isn't this interesting
0:46:29 isn't this doesn't this point to
0:46:31 something isn't this more likely if I
0:46:33 said this a week and the truth within
0:46:34 that God deserves we're chef before
0:46:36 doing our salute I agree but if I say as
0:46:38 a formidable perspective is there a
0:46:40 problem for me to say look there's a
0:46:42 miracle
0:46:43 in the sense that the problem how much
0:46:44 ice element predicted XYZ and these
0:46:47 things happened if you have a robust
0:46:48 argument and you can conclude that why
0:46:50 not well couldn't that couldn't I be a
0:46:52 contradiction and your isn't it let me
0:46:54 tell you what only be a conviction there
0:46:55 in the reasoning if your reasoning
0:46:57 wasn't strong enough to claim milk now
0:46:59 let me tell you why if I so easily never
0:47:01 say why it if your reason is good enough
0:47:03 to conclude that why not let me say well
0:47:05 let me let me try reasoning never say
0:47:07 why say for example we say that there's
0:47:10 a miracle in the and by the way I
0:47:12 believe is a book code number wet and a
0:47:15 gentle Quran I walked back alone worth
0:47:17 from even Tamiya all of that is I've
0:47:21 read about Becky Loni right yeah and
0:47:23 Bucky Lonnie from my humble view it
0:47:25 doesn't really show us America across
0:47:29 this kind of schools of thought I came
0:47:31 to be SUNY within Islam all of them kind
0:47:34 of call these stuff miracles it will
0:47:36 take miracles in miracle Colonia Jesse
0:47:39 yeah mostly it also means amazing yeah I
0:47:43 just means incapacitated doesn't it well
0:47:45 it could mean like no but when he uses
0:47:47 it he definitely means it in that and I
0:47:48 told you back to the future you got the
0:47:53 flux capacitor you put into the car and
0:47:55 you went back and you spoke to EB Damien
0:47:56 told you that's clear it's clear in the
0:47:58 context I already kitty Bona okay so
0:48:00 yeah fine do you see what I'm saying
0:48:02 yeah so the classical scholarship of
0:48:04 cordis
0:48:05 yeah jazzy okay can some classical
0:48:07 scholarships in areas of HD hardened
0:48:09 I'll be wrong yeah of course know what
0:48:11 I'm saying now if
0:48:13 prophetic miracles are Jesse by I I
0:48:17 would almost call it a consensus by the
0:48:18 way as that because she has a book or
0:48:21 sullen or Sulu Quran al-karim boron it
0:48:25 has lost most of the scholars I don't
0:48:27 know of one scholar that has not called
0:48:29 the fact that for example Allah has
0:48:33 pretty certain things I gotta come in
0:48:34 the future and they materialized they
0:48:36 haven't called their Jesse yeah in the
0:48:38 sense that is miraculous
0:48:40 however if we use the same inductive
0:48:42 argument because they will hold on we
0:48:44 know that history our perception of it
0:48:47 can change mmm so this historical event
0:48:50 our perception of it that can also
0:48:52 change yeah but you're assuming that
0:48:53 they'll see there can you see the point
0:48:55 maybe the argument was deductive maybe
0:48:57 they they claimed that they saw all
0:48:58 historical events because the linguistic
0:49:02 argument you could produce a deductive
0:49:04 version of it but how can you have the
0:49:05 duction without promises that are
0:49:07 inductive of course you can know in this
0:49:10 in this instance I'm talking about you
0:49:11 know see it might be empirical see a
0:49:13 deductive argument yeah doesn't mean
0:49:15 that your premises are deductive okay
0:49:18 this no this I'm saying that your
0:49:21 premises are based on inductive cut type
0:49:22 of reasoning yep absolutely
0:49:24 yes so cool deductive argument active
0:49:28 argument is yeah the conclusion
0:49:30 necessarily follows from that those
0:49:31 premises guarantee the truth of conclu
0:49:33 yes yes that there is a logical
0:49:35 connection or link video and necessary
0:49:36 logical link between the conclusion and
0:49:38 the premises right yes the premises may
0:49:40 be inductive yeah right but if premise
0:49:43 one and two are true yeah
0:49:46 therefore three follows my hands I can I
0:49:49 can only think of two or three different
0:49:51 things which could enable for there to
0:49:54 be a premise which is deductive and is
0:49:58 metaphysical and not inductive at all
0:50:00 and that's mathematics in formal logic
0:50:01 yes fine so if it's my agreement if it's
0:50:03 not mathematical it doesn't mean
0:50:04 deductive arguments are not necessarily
0:50:06 true because their premises are
0:50:08 inductive that's never the case yeah so
0:50:10 what I'm saying is like now if the
0:50:12 scholars agree that for example calling
0:50:14 the prophecies of of Islam okay
0:50:20 miraculous but what's the point my point
0:50:22 is this is still based on inductive type
0:50:24 reasoning which can change okay so I'm
0:50:27 what I'm saying here is that yeah but
0:50:29 they may have had the metaphysic of the
0:50:32 fitrah approach and if they said they
0:50:33 were miraculous because what they didn't
0:50:35 know what you're saying is a non
0:50:37 sequitur because you pining in a whole
0:50:39 lot of assumptions here but you can
0:50:40 harness
0:50:41 either were silent assumptions here bro
0:50:44 his uncle assumption auntie assumption
0:50:47 you got the whole family man you got the
0:50:48 triplets coming as though this full of
0:50:49 assumptions know what you're saying
0:50:50 because you have to now ask the question
0:50:52 to these
0:50:53 colors hmm what do you mean by ages what
0:50:56 do you mean by its miraculous they may
0:50:59 say like I and I'm very close to saying
0:51:01 go if I paint a mere mala well eligos
0:51:04 ardi wasi
0:51:06 all of them said if there were life may
0:51:08 Allah have mercy on them they're
0:51:10 obviously big and better than us right
0:51:20 is my problem is ask them would you
0:51:24 managers and any future than tiny cut
0:51:26 and if you say to them do you mean that
0:51:30 these things are very rational to the
0:51:32 point that they can awaken the truth
0:51:34 within or do you mean that there ends in
0:51:37 themselves by understanding them yeah
0:51:39 they would give you the truth they would
0:51:41 never say that in my humble view the
0:51:44 intellectual philosophical backdrop
0:51:45 I just would that feel philosophically
0:51:47 from this issue abhi these things are to
0:51:49 awaken the truth within and that's why
0:51:51 yeah fair enough if they like yet wow
0:51:55 it's really interesting you say that
0:51:56 well let me tell you something no it's
0:51:59 not it's no disagreement yeah I believe
0:52:01 that look a lot of hunters used to
0:52:03 address as far as I remember this he
0:52:05 only uses that word one or two times in
0:52:07 whole Quran well I can remember certain
0:52:09 matters I just saw an economist I had a
0:52:11 what up for February so at a fee where
0:52:14 he's talking about fastball hamon energy
0:52:15 delicate and hibernate chapter 5 verse
0:52:18 31 where he says that I just I couldn't
0:52:20 even be like this crow I just do an
0:52:23 economy that what up I couldn't be like
0:52:25 this crow and he used the word address
0:52:27 hey interesting mr. burrows telling me
0:52:29 how intelligent crows are the very
0:52:31 intelligent everything links but the
0:52:33 point is is issues and the world I
0:52:34 choose means old woman in Arabic but the
0:52:37 point I'm saying is that linguistically
0:52:39 means incapacitated old feeble unable
0:52:42 but it's still a Ian it came from that
0:52:45 from what from my reading came from
0:52:47 martelli's yeah the martelli's
0:52:48 introduced it but it's not to say that
0:52:50 just because they introduced a term is
0:52:51 wrong because the Martin is Muhammad
0:52:53 Ali's introduced more to Westar as well
0:52:55 what you use yes very powerful use their
0:52:57 one motor Wesson means good things and
0:52:59 everything growing right so the
0:53:01 Montessori uses some air just to suggest
0:53:03 that there's something extraordinary
0:53:06 about
0:53:07 this which is coming from the Quran
0:53:08 whether it be the law ha the language
0:53:10 whether well I would argue for example
0:53:12 take even tame here for example you
0:53:14 would argue this extra ordering to the
0:53:15 point that it's enough if understood to
0:53:18 awaken the truth within it's not extra
0:53:20 ordering to the point that if understood
0:53:22 in in of itself by virtue of its own
0:53:25 argumentation that it would lead to the
0:53:26 truth there is a subtle difference mmm I
0:53:29 see your point
0:53:30 as you I get that yet is what you've
0:53:33 described
0:53:34 yeah and that's I've also been trying it
0:53:37 as miracles right yeah miracle sundae
0:53:39 you know so from that point of view
0:53:40 there's things are just to awaken yeah a
0:53:42 hundred percent not bro yeah gone and
0:53:47 I've learned this the hard way if people
0:53:49 know about my life I have transformed
0:53:51 and you know as my friend sorry we
0:53:53 refined I'm gonna say I'm refine I could
0:53:55 be worse Allah knows yeah but the point
0:53:57 is I try to keep on improving keeping
0:53:58 helping the Dower right yeah from this
0:54:00 point of view we have to understand
0:54:02 something
0:54:02 mmm the do art have this fetish right
0:54:05 yeah yeah this they over fetishize
0:54:08 argumentation true yeah especially when
0:54:11 Allah says you know the the son of the
0:54:13 man is is a contentious fellow yeah yeah
0:54:16 you say this is blue you say no it's
0:54:18 green and you say it's green it is not
0:54:20 as pink yeah that we debates about
0:54:21 everything yes we have to understand
0:54:23 that he daya guidance is a gift from
0:54:27 Allah subhana without for His mercy in
0:54:28 wisdom and it's not based on any kind of
0:54:31 rational algorithm hmm so we have to
0:54:34 understand if you have this Fitri
0:54:36 approach to the human being you will
0:54:39 know when to stop arguing
0:54:40 for example I've discussed of it is so
0:54:42 many times and I've got a little bit a
0:54:44 little bit of experience on what I know
0:54:45 when to not use arguments anymore and
0:54:47 sometimes that my ego says we fear Him
0:54:49 boy hmm
0:54:50 and I could yeah some of them they
0:54:53 pretend to know Flossie they don't know
0:54:54 anything right honestly right I'm only
0:54:57 comes things like emerging materialism
0:54:58 some guy was saying oh you've
0:54:59 misunderstood something so no you have
0:55:00 because weak measure materialism
0:55:03 really assumes reductive physicalism
0:55:06 materialism those won't go there bro
0:55:07 anyway so the point is yeah I could do
0:55:09 that but not so why when they go to
0:55:11 nitty-gritty and they split the
0:55:13 intellectual hair yeah what does it say
0:55:15 to me psychologically number one it says
0:55:17 to me this argument is him in the
0:55:21 yeah yeah yeah number two it says to me
0:55:26 that his problem is not intellectually
0:55:27 more it's an emotional psychological
0:55:29 problem what's important I really feel
0:55:31 that sometimes yeah so what I say to
0:55:32 them they go to that nitty-gritty like
0:55:33 you know what I'm getting really tired
0:55:36 bro maybe we could talk next week but
0:55:37 you know I would really love to take you
0:55:38 for dinner engage with the guy in there
0:55:40 and you may find out well lie you may
0:55:43 find out that his main problem was
0:55:45 because his mom passed away when he was
0:55:47 3 years old but you've been spending
0:55:49 five weeks today I'm talking about
0:55:50 cosmology philosophy you're pretending
0:55:51 to be someone that you're not
0:55:52 and you haven't engaged who's this cool
0:55:54 problem and we have a lot and this is
0:55:57 and I'm learning from my own mistakes we
0:55:59 have a lot of spiritual and intellectual
0:56:02 immaturity Paola and I see this hyde
0:56:04 park videos that debating the
0:56:06 nitty-gritty stuff bro if he's debating
0:56:08 the most stupidest question and he's
0:56:10 raising the most stupidest argument that
0:56:12 should be assigned to you that has
0:56:13 nothing to do with Russian money and
0:56:15 everything to do about beauty is how
0:56:17 he's been brought up and who the hell
0:56:18 you are Wow so be a human being connect
0:56:20 with the guy and that's what we've
0:56:22 neglected I think the kind of
0:56:23 psychological direction of the process
0:56:25 um the empathy the human nature I was I
0:56:27 was in my town and someone saw a debate
0:56:29 with Krauss Paul Dunn and I have moved
0:56:31 on since then right and and and he said
0:56:33 Babson an atheist he was an apostate
0:56:34 absurd an atheist I said you know what
0:56:36 sure enough he's old by the way how's
0:56:38 your parents everything all right mmm
0:56:39 and he stood that thing about 5 10
0:56:41 minutes telling me about his problem
0:56:42 with his parents Wow saying that you
0:56:44 know I saw was really dark for me
0:56:45 because you know the association of my
0:56:47 parents because they had a very kind of
0:56:48 dark for you do you see my point yes so
0:56:50 he's issue now is psychodynamic
0:56:53 it's not cognitive you know yes yes no
0:56:55 never no I had a debate with professor
0:56:58 King James provoking genes cause it in
0:57:01 my friend he's he's a scholar is an
0:57:03 itching scholar I mean I had lunch with
0:57:05 him recently yeah I had a dividend him
0:57:07 years ago bro and it was one of the rare
0:57:09 debates where I wasn't that arrogant
0:57:11 yeah because before I was an arrogant
0:57:12 idiot yeah still am but may Allah guide
0:57:14 and protect us who yell to carry on well
0:57:16 you know we would prove trying proof so
0:57:17 the point is it was really nice in King
0:57:20 James said to me look it's not about
0:57:22 deductive arguments for me and stuff
0:57:23 like that my son's disabled right Wow
0:57:26 and in who's saying this publicly with
0:57:28 me
0:57:29 said you know that's why I'm finding it
0:57:30 very hard to reconcile the issue some
0:57:32 Charles Darwin Evis yes so from the
0:57:33 point is the point of view is there's an
0:57:36 end from that discussion that's how I
0:57:37 got into my I did two postcards and now
0:57:40 I'm ensure that gonna start a PhD just
0:57:42 because he was from his discretion Wow
0:57:45 yeah hey calling story short I had lunch
0:57:49 with him right and we connected in such
0:57:51 a human way and he was saying Hamza
0:57:54 don't let the Muslim two minute you
0:57:55 react to these new atheist no atheists
0:57:58 are not the same we're gonna say about
0:58:00 people oh yeah people are not the same
0:58:02 yeah and even in the talks about if
0:58:04 there's an upright in just people so
0:58:06 there's bad Muslims there's good Muslims
0:58:08 there's bad Christians there's good
0:58:09 because there's good atheists as bad 80s
0:58:11 right but what we do because we ret to
0:58:14 online erotism to the loudest voices we
0:58:16 use them as baggage to to engage with
0:58:19 people so we're giving dower to our
0:58:20 judgements we're not giving down to the
0:58:22 human being himself and that is a big
0:58:24 food psychological special problem are
0:58:26 facing in our community now because we
0:58:27 can't engage with the likes of Prophet
0:58:28 James and have a sincere discussion with
0:58:30 him but now hopefully I'm you know 37
0:58:33 out of mature debate and we had a great
0:58:34 two-hour lunch and he was saying he
0:58:37 doesn't like Vimeo theists he says right
0:58:39 he was also saying over the I want to do
0:58:41 videos against them wow he doesn't like
0:58:43 the new atheist because he believes that
0:58:45 you know if you really do tonight good
0:58:47 you cannot have any metaphysical
0:58:48 grounding for your more values or for
0:58:50 your or a funny deep meaning in your
0:58:52 life and that's the problem of atheism
0:58:53 he said he'd mix it he's honest he's a
0:58:56 neat change scholar who would say that
0:58:57 was right and he says I don't like the
0:58:58 likes of Krauss and talking because they
0:59:01 wanna they want to deny God but they
0:59:03 keeping religion yes
0:59:04 they bring religion in the back door by
0:59:06 saying oh there's aesthetics and
0:59:07 objective morals and objective meaning
0:59:09 and value he understands a problem so
0:59:12 the point is how can we engage people
0:59:15 like him we're missing the sunny
0:59:17 majority and that's and that's a big
0:59:19 problem for us so when it comes to these
0:59:21 little nitty-gritty arguments you know
0:59:23 one eighty said to me was you know I
0:59:24 gave a really good argument he said what
0:59:25 was God doing for eternity before he
0:59:27 created us I was like what like what was
0:59:30 I doing thirty-six years before maybe
0:59:31 you not knowing why you would have
0:59:36 forced everything in there
0:59:37 because you wanna and that's why
0:59:39 sometimes the best and I mentions in the
0:59:41 book
0:59:41 yes the best question - awesome
0:59:42 sometimes is if God did exist would you
0:59:44 worship Him I'm telling a broad majority
0:59:45 don't say but say no would they would
0:59:48 say no so the question is not really
0:59:50 okay the question is more arrogant is to
0:59:52 do with psychology stupid that
0:59:54 perception perception of who God is
0:59:56 yes how many times do we say who Allah
0:59:57 is we say greater exists the Prophet
1:00:00 Muhammad upon him peace is is the final
1:00:02 prophet the Quran is from God but we in
1:00:04 that discourse do we say who a lot of
1:00:05 Hannah water Anna is and that's what
1:00:07 they need because they're thinking guy
1:00:09 in the sky big beard
1:00:10 hates everybody hates everyone is not
1:00:12 merciful and even if you prove them all
1:00:15 these things it's very abstract not
1:00:16 connecting with their soul on who they
1:00:18 are where is online the discussion mmm
1:00:20 now if you were to see no God is
1:00:23 merciful God doesn't want to send you to
1:00:26 hell God wants people to connect with
1:00:29 him that's why I sent you a message
1:00:31 God is al Rahman the intensely merciful
1:00:33 he's and whoa dude he's got boundless
1:00:35 love would a loving that is giving if
1:00:38 you talk to them who are not so kind of
1:00:40 what it is I'm telling you you'll have
1:00:41 probably more powerful effect than
1:00:43 talking about the Kalam cosmological
1:00:44 argument talking about prophecies and
1:00:46 all of this stuff it might be now
1:00:48 obvious I'm being a bit passionate here
1:00:49 but what when I show to people is use
1:00:52 both have a balance yeah I agree with
1:00:54 that
1:00:54 I don't do that but and that's why these
1:00:56 discussions are happening in the coming
1:00:58 into fruition now yeah it's because I
1:01:00 think they've seen the problem with the
1:01:01 approach of rational robots yes and
1:01:05 she'd be honest I'm gonna be very honest
1:01:06 through the year it's all ego bro not
1:01:09 for everybody but for all of them yes
1:01:11 yeah and I'm on some of these private
1:01:12 whatsapp groups let's refute him bro I
1:01:15 haven't seen a supplication from one of
1:01:17 these brothers
1:01:18 oh Allah please guide so it's all
1:01:20 because because I want good for him I
1:01:23 never seen that bro yeah I haven't seen
1:01:26 that where is it oh you see this
1:01:27 aggression this kind of alter ego and
1:01:31 you know it's a microcosm of the
1:01:32 macrocosm it's a small example what's
1:01:34 happening in the whole know you already
1:01:35 well so we have to be very balanced from
1:01:37 that point I wanted to come together and
1:01:39 that's where these conversations are
1:01:40 beautiful do you think to round up here
1:01:41 cuz I know this is what kind of running
1:01:45 running late with this to kind of run up
1:01:47 with this I just wanted to say so do you
1:01:49 think now I I do agree that may
1:01:51 using the term miracle might be a bit
1:01:55 now it's the scope connotations which
1:01:58 are bit cliche yes anything if anything
1:01:59 really to be honest with you if a
1:02:01 non-religious profiles a non-religious
1:02:03 person I hope I've got these miracles
1:02:05 and it's a it's a cliche for me it's got
1:02:06 its cheesy if anything so putting that
1:02:09 terminal away when you're talking about
1:02:12 things like science correlating inside
1:02:14 with the Quran history of the Quran
1:02:18 prophecies of the Quran would you agree
1:02:19 also that that doesn't mean to say we
1:02:21 should throw the baby with the bathwater
1:02:23 of course and that's why I try to
1:02:25 articulate the multi limit multi-level
1:02:27 multi-layered approach with my condition
1:02:29 approach is in conjunction with that
1:02:31 it's very similar but the thing is what
1:02:33 I would argue is is just listen to my
1:02:34 webinar on my channel yeah I thought
1:02:36 you'd be thoroughly convinced I am
1:02:38 already convinced yeah I know you don't
1:02:39 need to but this is very important which
1:02:41 I love this discussion so I always
1:02:43 believe when people have frank
1:02:44 discussion like this
1:02:45 they will just refine themselves yeah
1:02:47 and refine their ideas and we have to
1:02:49 push Islam to the whole world with
1:02:52 compassion and intelligence absolutely
1:02:54 do any people of compassion now and
1:02:57 people of sound reason jealously bro
1:03:00 sorry guys that that was some resources
1:03:04 very fruitful discussion is always a
1:03:06 pleasure having him around and speaking
1:03:08 to him and really kind of not only
1:03:10 testing my cognitive abilities both so
1:03:13 my my my emotional side is well he
1:03:16 brings out to me brings out from
1:03:18 anything and also the spiritual side so
1:03:21 that's something that I believe is part
1:03:23 of your dower now pop your repertoire
1:03:24 and and it's coming out more and more
1:03:26 the the spiritual side and I and I hope
1:03:29 it's be able to develop that myself
1:03:30 Charlie so guys make sure you read this
1:03:33 book it's a really interesting book and
1:03:34 I read it myself really really
1:03:37 interesting it will give you an
1:03:38 introduction to the majority of proper
1:03:40 arguments for God's existence in
1:03:43 addition to the Quranic argumentation
1:03:45 being a part of that so he's always
1:03:48 quoting the Quran I think it's a really
1:03:51 really good read from that angle and
1:03:53 also subscribe to your news channel and
1:03:56 subscribe to this channel and we'll see
1:04:00 you later was salam alikum wa
1:04:01 rahmatullahi again