Live with Sapience institute - Mohammed Hijab and Subboor Ahmad (2021-02-21) #

0:00:02 assalamualaikum
0:00:03 welcome to sapience institute live
0:00:07 we're trying out some new technology
0:00:09 today so
0:00:10 please let us know in the comment
0:00:12 section if you can actually hear us
0:00:15 if you can actually see us clearly we've
0:00:18 connected this
0:00:19 to another camera so martial there's
0:00:22 quite a few people
0:00:24 online so please in the comments please
0:00:27 put down
0:00:28 one if you can hear us properly and you
0:00:31 can see us properly
0:00:32 two if there's an issue in the hearing
0:00:35 or
0:00:35 in the actual video
0:00:39 so let's see what's going on
0:00:43 so far one one one one one brilliant
0:00:47 brilliant all right guys what do you
0:00:50 think
0:00:51 we are going to be discussing today of
0:00:53 course we're going to be discussing
0:00:55 the arguments for islam and we're going
0:00:58 to be arguing
0:01:00 not only in favor of islam but also
0:01:02 we're going to be challenging the
0:01:04 contentions which are put up
0:01:06 against islam and i can already start
0:01:08 seeing some comments
0:01:10 no hijab got rid of his hair why
0:01:13 and uh some other comments about mr
0:01:16 hijab looking dangerous so
0:01:17 let's let's first deal with the elephant
0:01:19 in the room um
0:01:21 how does it feel being two inches less
0:01:23 taller than you are
0:01:25 does it affect your self-esteem do you
0:01:28 feel
0:01:29 as if people are looking down on you now
0:01:31 do you feel more intimidated
0:01:33 it was you know it's a good point now
0:01:34 because when i had that when i have afro
0:01:36 when i especially when i put it out
0:01:38 i'll be walking if if the hair counted
0:01:41 as my height
0:01:42 i'd be walking around like six foot nine
0:01:44 not bad which is pretty close to seven
0:01:46 foot
0:01:46 dealing but that's not my that's not my
0:01:48 height my height is for six
0:01:50 okay so yeah uh do you know it's
0:01:52 actually a fake discussion
0:01:54 on whether the hair is part of the body
0:01:55 or not right okay
0:01:57 and uh obviously the whole heart it says
0:01:59 the nails on the hair are not part of
0:02:00 the body
0:02:01 um okay so do you
0:02:04 so if you took the opinion that it was
0:02:06 part of your body think you would have
0:02:07 lost like
0:02:08 would you feel like you lost a family
0:02:09 member you're two inches you know
0:02:11 it's almost like a little me it's like a
0:02:13 little thing isn't it
0:02:15 two inches of hair in it's too much
0:02:17 maintenance man it's a lot of
0:02:18 maintenance especially
0:02:19 a shower and it's all messed up man you
0:02:22 know i wanted this job
0:02:23 i'm a curious kind of guy bro i'm a
0:02:25 curious kind of guy
0:02:27 i need to try things we're just talking
0:02:28 about traveling you've been to 30
0:02:30 countries
0:02:30 you're kind of like that kind of
0:02:31 adventurous guy as well i'm the same
0:02:34 so i've always wondered how i look like
0:02:36 with cane rose
0:02:37 single plaits over afro you know i so i
0:02:40 had to
0:02:41 experiment yeah you know now that that
0:02:43 the curiosity or the itch has been
0:02:45 scratched
0:02:46 you can move on to bigger and better
0:02:47 things okay you ever thought about what
0:02:50 it would be like if you had i don't know
0:02:51 magpies living in your hair or
0:02:53 just different sort of species of birds
0:02:55 you know you ever wonder
0:02:59 yeah yeah just put some you know some
0:03:02 some we're
0:03:17 the question essentially was about you
0:03:18 like to try new things out yeah man you
0:03:20 have to
0:03:21 yeah why do you look shorter because
0:03:22 normally you you're much taller than me
0:03:25 even when you're sitting down it's just
0:03:26 a slouch or is it the hair
0:03:28 maybe a combination okay combination man
0:03:31 yeah but
0:03:32 the hair is it's a mess bro it was too
0:03:34 much to
0:03:35 but i enjoyed it i enjoyed it whilst i
0:03:36 might go back to it as well okay
0:03:38 you know how it goes so today we're
0:03:40 going to be discussing guys
0:03:43 not only a continuation from last week
0:03:45 we had some guests and by the way the
0:03:47 guests that joined us last week
0:03:48 we couldn't really address their
0:03:50 questions please come forward straight
0:03:52 away
0:03:53 we'd like to speak to you essentially
0:03:55 what we're going to be arguing for today
0:03:58 is all of the recent videos that we've
0:04:00 been putting out on the sapiens channel
0:04:02 in terms of sapience
0:04:03 thoughts we're going to be looking at
0:04:05 contentions that people can put out to
0:04:07 these types of videos
0:04:08 and also how how
0:04:11 you would like to see sapiens to deal
0:04:13 with the future issues now
0:04:15 you mentioned this in the last live
0:04:16 stream and i think it's worth mentioning
0:04:18 again
0:04:19 what's the point of making this large
0:04:22 library
0:04:22 of refutations when there could be
0:04:24 really good stuff out there
0:04:26 we don't really need to be producing it
0:04:28 i reckon that
0:04:29 refutations just as uh with explanations
0:04:34 need to be renewed
0:04:35 okay uh we need to be and the thing is
0:04:37 we have a careful blend
0:04:39 right of interdisciplinary stuff so
0:04:42 we're trying our best to bring people
0:04:43 from different specialists to help us
0:04:45 in research you know people are good
0:04:48 with science people that are good with
0:04:49 philosophy the philosophy of science and
0:04:51 people that are good at islamic studies
0:04:52 bring it all together and create a mega
0:04:55 libraries of
0:04:56 refutation and explanation and also
0:04:59 um trying to present a case for islam so
0:05:02 all of that will be there in one place
0:05:04 and the aim is to have that centralized
0:05:06 for everyone so that they can use at the
0:05:08 disposal so someone comes now like let's
0:05:10 put this in a practical setting
0:05:12 someone's in a school in a university in
0:05:13 a college at work or whatever and then
0:05:16 you're gonna have conversations with
0:05:18 people about islam and all these things
0:05:19 right
0:05:20 so there's gonna be the common
0:05:22 objections that you're gonna deal with
0:05:24 or that you might want to explain islam
0:05:26 to someone and there will be a common
0:05:28 template like the goal rep for example
0:05:30 now but when people go into more depth
0:05:32 they're going to ask for more evidence
0:05:34 so we want to provide as much evidence
0:05:36 as is consumable by an end user public
0:05:39 and is not too daunting for them at the
0:05:41 same time
0:05:42 in addition to giving them a centralized
0:05:45 location
0:05:46 for videographic and a written textual
0:05:50 refutational material on the objections
0:05:52 of islam such that nobody really has
0:05:55 um a problem with being able to explain
0:05:58 islam
0:05:58 and to answer the objections and to make
0:06:00 a case for it that's what we're trying
0:06:02 to do
0:06:03 we're trying to argue for the case of
0:06:05 islam
0:06:06 and we want to answer the objections
0:06:08 against it that's
0:06:09 what sapience institute is all about all
0:06:12 right
0:06:12 brilliant so uh what we're going to do
0:06:14 is we're going to get straight into it
0:06:16 and start inviting guests
0:06:18 um just a small reminder for everybody
0:06:21 watching
0:06:22 uh please stick to questions about why
0:06:25 islam is true
0:06:26 and also the contentions against islam
0:06:29 anything to do with
0:06:31 islam's opinion on music or slums
0:06:33 opinion on all the other things that we
0:06:35 were discussing last week
0:06:37 on uh matters of islamic jurisprudence
0:06:40 or political issues or
0:06:42 anything like that we really don't want
0:06:44 to talk about that we really want to
0:06:46 talk about
0:06:47 why islam is true and what are the
0:06:49 arguments against
0:06:50 islam we have our first guest masha
0:06:53 allah
0:06:54 wasn't he a muslim
0:06:58 what are you doing brother i'm doing
0:06:59 really well alhamdulillah how are you
0:07:01 alhamdulillah doing really well i i love
0:07:04 the look mohammadi job this is the
0:07:05 traditional look
0:07:06 oh you like it yeah yeah i actually do
0:07:08 like it um
0:07:10 well i have a quick problem so i
0:07:13 i clicked on the link and i kind of
0:07:15 missed what you were saying because i
0:07:16 had like a question i don't know if
0:07:17 there's a
0:07:18 so i don't know if i can like talk about
0:07:21 darwinism
0:07:22 yeah of course of course
0:07:25 essentially i need to like bring
0:07:28 something up really quick so the
0:07:30 question that i have
0:07:31 is you probably know from reading
0:07:33 comments that you have a lot of people
0:07:34 who think they know what they're talking
0:07:35 about right
0:07:36 yeah so there was this person that he
0:07:38 was kind of
0:07:40 um wait one sec
0:07:43 so he was basically like arguing um you
0:07:46 know the video that brother
0:07:47 uh zeeshan uploaded right
0:07:50 yeah yeah exactly so he was kind of like
0:07:53 arguing
0:07:53 uh in the comments and uh
0:07:58 so he was basically saying that you know
0:07:59 how these transitional fossils right
0:08:01 he was naming the transition of fossils
0:08:03 and then saying how you know it's very
0:08:04 evident that this happened blah blah
0:08:06 and i had i didn't have an answer there
0:08:08 essentially
0:08:09 so he was saying that you know if if you
0:08:11 deny like that this
0:08:13 evolved to the from this to this blah
0:08:14 blah then essentially somehow you're
0:08:17 going against you know paleontology and
0:08:20 that to me blah blah
0:08:21 so yeah yeah that's a very good question
0:08:24 actually and it's one that comes up
0:08:26 often
0:08:27 um all you simply need to do is
0:08:30 ask them fair enough you're giving us
0:08:33 one fossil and you're giving us another
0:08:34 fossil
0:08:35 what's the evidence that natural
0:08:37 selection led this to that
0:08:39 the fossil is going to be telling you
0:08:41 that information
0:08:42 so what is your evidence that this
0:08:46 fossil
0:08:46 transitions this fossil through blind uh
0:08:50 variations being worked on by natural
0:08:52 selection and
0:08:54 at that point usually what happens is
0:08:56 they don't understand the question they
0:08:58 actually don't understand the question
0:09:00 and then uh well most of them by that
0:09:02 time they realize okay
0:09:04 so that argument didn't work but the
0:09:05 ones who will try and continue they'll
0:09:08 try and continue from a
0:09:09 point of view of trying to say well it's
0:09:12 not natural selection is kind of
0:09:13 irrelevant the mechanism's kind of
0:09:14 irrelevant
0:09:15 the history more important so they'll go
0:09:17 to homology but then again we can go to
0:09:19 homology being the assumption of
0:09:22 genetic or or anatomical similarities
0:09:27 as an assumption is fine but if you're
0:09:28 going to say it's actually a conclusion
0:09:30 it's going to be an it's going to end up
0:09:32 being a circular argument so
0:09:34 the easiest thing to do is simply to
0:09:35 throw it back at them and say to them
0:09:38 what's the evidence for in fact the
0:09:39 really funny video inshallah i'm going
0:09:41 to be
0:09:41 um i'm going to be making a response to
0:09:44 my channel i'm just a little bit worried
0:09:46 about the
0:09:46 the right issue on it it's basically
0:09:49 where
0:09:50 bbc took a bunch of uh
0:09:53 creationists from uk and took them to
0:09:55 america
0:09:56 and they made them meet uh you know
0:09:59 these these biologists and
0:10:00 anthropologists and
0:10:01 paleontologists and whatnot and you know
0:10:04 all of them were basically from a
0:10:06 christian background but then there was
0:10:07 one is somalia
0:10:08 yeah so he turns up in the pope he's
0:10:11 there
0:10:12 and you know when it comes for prayer
0:10:13 time he's like okay i'm gonna go off to
0:10:15 pray
0:10:16 he's just like a traditional aki yeah
0:10:18 and the guy's hanging on about fossils
0:10:20 and this and that and all the rest of
0:10:21 the creationists they're saying that
0:10:24 they have no idea how to answer this guy
0:10:26 he literally turns around and says to
0:10:28 the guy
0:10:29 i think his t his name's timothy white
0:10:31 some paleontologists says to him
0:10:34 what's the evidence you've shown us all
0:10:35 these fossils what's the evidence that
0:10:37 this
0:10:38 led to this using natural selection
0:10:41 automatically the guy tim
0:10:43 you could tell he had no idea how to
0:10:45 answer that question
0:10:46 and he tried to just you know use
0:10:48 certain terms and just try and hoodwink
0:10:51 uh the the smiley brother but it didn't
0:10:54 work and that was
0:10:55 as classic i loved it because amongst
0:10:58 all of them
0:10:58 all of the all of the people on that
0:11:00 show is only the muslim who actually
0:11:02 asked the right question
0:11:04 all the rest of them were getting
0:11:05 bamboozled by all this information they
0:11:06 didn't know how to actually respond
0:11:08 so the interesting thing is actually i
0:11:11 was watching you
0:11:12 uh that you know like one sapiens
0:11:15 institute you had like this webinar when
0:11:16 you were talking about evolution i think
0:11:18 i actually
0:11:19 like probably like 20 minutes ago i
0:11:20 listened to exactly that
0:11:22 and um the thing is like so essentially
0:11:26 when someone brings something up like
0:11:28 fossils and whatever whatever not
0:11:30 then that the only answer is someone has
0:11:32 to
0:11:33 give to that is well how do you know
0:11:35 that that actually happened due to
0:11:36 natural selection because
0:11:38 and that's so essential if natural
0:11:39 selection breaks down
0:11:41 anything else that you like derived
0:11:44 through that actually also falls apart
0:11:46 exactly and a very simple way of putting
0:11:48 it is before darwin
0:11:49 we had fossils fossils aren't like oh we
0:11:52 just discovered them like yesterday
0:11:54 enough fossils have existed for a long
0:11:55 time
0:11:56 darwin's the one who came up and said
0:11:58 actually everything is linked to each
0:11:59 other and the mechanism of natural
0:12:01 selection
0:12:02 so when you when you question the
0:12:03 mechanism and they have to provide
0:12:05 evidence from the mechanism
0:12:06 you've moved the conversation away from
0:12:09 uh just similarities
0:12:10 because if it's just about similarities
0:12:12 things are similar let's not even
0:12:14 debate we all know things are similar
0:12:16 carl linnaeus
0:12:17 uh he put up uh the classification
0:12:21 system which we still use today
0:12:22 he existed about uh in the 1700s right
0:12:26 so we're talking about like at least 100
0:12:28 years before darwin
0:12:29 he was a creationist but he he
0:12:31 classified life
0:12:32 in terms of things that were similar so
0:12:34 of course humans with chimpanzees and
0:12:36 you know this type of thing he makes
0:12:38 this entire
0:12:38 linnaean classification to this day
0:12:42 we use the linnaean classification
0:12:44 although
0:12:45 carl linnaeus himself was a creationist
0:12:47 and he didn't believe these things went
0:12:49 back to a tree of life
0:12:50 so things being similar and being
0:12:52 categorized by being similar
0:12:54 whether it's uh genetic or anatomical is
0:12:57 not new
0:12:59 you know the darwinists try and say this
0:13:02 as if they've discovered something
0:13:04 really amazing
0:13:06 when you pick up the origin of species
0:13:08 you see
0:13:09 darwin's main argument is about natural
0:13:11 selection it's not
0:13:12 like oh things are similar well we knew
0:13:14 things were similar anyway so
0:13:16 the upshot is darwin's theory is not
0:13:18 theory of similarity
0:13:20 it's a theory of transformation through
0:13:22 natural selection
0:13:24 and that's what they need to provide
0:13:25 evidence yeah that was actually really
0:13:27 helpful um
0:13:28 you know i really don't like mine to i
0:13:30 don't like want to waste any time or
0:13:32 anything but um
0:13:33 i was just trying to understand that
0:13:36 like you you quoted at times uh henry g
0:13:38 right i'm not sure what he is he like um
0:13:40 the senior entertainer
0:13:42 of nature so i i want to like just
0:13:44 understand one of his quotes
0:13:46 and that is that you guys it was like a
0:13:48 debate i watched your debate like it was
0:13:50 like three years ago or something where
0:13:51 you quoted him saying that to take like
0:13:53 a line of fossils right and then claim
0:13:55 ancestry
0:13:56 is actually as valid as telling you know
0:13:58 scientifically as valid as a bedtime
0:14:00 story
0:14:00 yeah and essentially what i wanted to
0:14:02 understand by that is when i
0:14:04 like quoted him this person and you know
0:14:07 when it comes to he was like bombarding
0:14:08 me with questions to be honest
0:14:10 you know questions i can't answer
0:14:12 obviously because i have no knowledge on
0:14:13 this topic
0:14:13 maybe i'll come on on like another time
0:14:16 ask them but
0:14:17 he kind of was saying that do i i was
0:14:19 taking his quote out of context and he's
0:14:21 just talking about direct ancestry
0:14:22 rather than general ancestry
0:14:24 that's true so you know what you could
0:14:26 do anytime someone challenges a quote
0:14:29 and they do that a lot they say someone
0:14:32 can say the sky is blue
0:14:33 and the other person says well you're
0:14:34 saying the person's out of context
0:14:36 what i would do in that case is drop the
0:14:38 quote completely
0:14:39 any call and just stick to the point and
0:14:42 the point is
0:14:43 fine you've got this fossil where's
0:14:45 natural selection in this
0:14:46 which is exactly what the smiley brother
0:14:47 did yeah we can argue about you've taken
0:14:50 this quote our context you've taken that
0:14:52 thing our context
0:14:53 and the funny thing is that when you
0:14:56 actually show them the context it gets
0:14:58 worse so in my debate with aaron rah he
0:15:00 claimed
0:15:01 a book that he hadn't read that i was
0:15:04 taking things out of context and when i
0:15:05 read it
0:15:06 in context it actually got worse for him
0:15:08 because
0:15:09 the word genetics is not going to be
0:15:10 there but it was there so
0:15:12 sometimes when these quotes when you
0:15:14 start getting these uh
0:15:16 into this mud slinging match of you've
0:15:18 taken out context you're taking out
0:15:19 context
0:15:20 the easiest thing to do is to simply
0:15:22 step back and go to concept
0:15:24 ignore all the quotes yeah um and yeah
0:15:27 that that's how i would
0:15:28 uh address it um so just look at bosnian
0:15:31 muslim
0:15:31 yeah to just end i just want to say like
0:15:34 i apologize you know speaking a lot
0:15:35 about evolution it's just
0:15:36 no no no like i don't understand any
0:15:38 people like you know it's
0:15:40 i realize you know debating with people
0:15:41 it's when you don't have knowledge it
0:15:42 gets very like counterproductive right
0:15:44 because they kind of make you doubt and
0:15:45 stuff and i'm just trying to
0:15:46 i guess step by step understand
0:15:48 everything and yeah so you know may
0:15:50 allah bless
0:15:50 uh both your brothers and your families
0:15:52 and take care inshallah i mean
0:15:54 do you join us mashallah join us every
0:15:56 week so make sure you keep doing it
0:15:57 online
0:15:58 and the other live streams
0:16:02 i'm going to go straight to brothers oh
0:16:05 yes the brother
0:16:06 i'm going to go straight to brother uh
0:16:08 sakeria ahmed you're working
0:16:13 yes it's still working because we're
0:16:14 here sakuriya ahmed
0:16:16 we had you on a previous live stream we
0:16:18 we didn't get you to
0:16:20 uh join at that time so i thought i'd
0:16:22 give you priority today how are you
0:16:23 doing brother
0:16:25 um i'm doing very good uh
0:16:28 i just finished finished some biology
0:16:30 work
0:16:31 even though i'm not stuck being biology
0:16:33 but
0:16:35 i'll get through it can you guys hear me
0:16:39 yes we can yes we can okay my question i
0:16:42 have two questions but
0:16:43 i'll start with one which is um i
0:16:47 started
0:16:48 reading quran the english translation
0:16:51 i started with bahra and it got me
0:16:54 thinking about muhammad
0:16:55 sallam and how their relation was
0:16:59 miraculous and a question popped in my
0:17:02 head
0:17:03 which i wasn't able to answer which is
0:17:08 how do i show that muhammad
0:17:12 didn't copy from the jews or the
0:17:14 christians
0:17:15 how can i show how can i show to other
0:17:18 people that
0:17:19 their quran was miraculous and then
0:17:21 muhammad didn't have
0:17:23 connections to christians he did have
0:17:26 connections but he didn't get
0:17:27 inspiration from them
0:17:29 that's my first question and i'll just
0:17:32 start with that
0:17:33 that's a really good question brother
0:17:34 it's a common missionary sort of
0:17:36 line how do you address that the main
0:17:38 thing is that it corrects
0:17:40 the jews and christians and it does so
0:17:43 in ways which
0:17:44 are verifiable outside of the
0:17:46 theological framework
0:17:48 so if you look at this is an example we
0:17:51 use
0:17:51 just to you know wet someone's appetite
0:17:54 if you like you know on this
0:17:56 if you look at for example and i was a
0:17:58 career does a great video
0:18:00 on this on uh many prophet one message
0:18:03 youtube just look at the field of
0:18:06 history
0:18:06 okay as a standalone right and
0:18:09 let it adjudicate this discussion in a
0:18:12 sense
0:18:12 because if you look at the historical
0:18:14 details of the same story being told
0:18:18 and the old testament new testament on
0:18:20 the one hand
0:18:21 and then the quran and the other you'll
0:18:22 find that the quran
0:18:24 notably corrects the old testament
0:18:28 on issues of history which uh only
0:18:30 became
0:18:31 uh came to light recently so i'll give
0:18:33 you an example
0:18:35 an example of that is the mention of
0:18:38 uh in solace yusuf
0:18:41 the mention of the ruler of egypt being
0:18:44 a king
0:18:46 yeah so this is just one example you of
0:18:49 many and
0:18:50 and if you want to see the other
0:18:52 examples
0:18:54 just refer to the video uh which
0:18:56 references
0:18:57 the uh the historical differences
0:19:00 between the quran and the bible
0:19:02 and let that adjudicate uh
0:19:06 that discussion another thing really is
0:19:09 the theology is simple
0:19:11 and pure whereas the christian theology
0:19:13 is neither of those two things
0:19:16 so for example the quran talks about
0:19:18 tahit
0:19:19 and it rebukes the trinity in detail
0:19:22 right and rebukes the idea of a deity of
0:19:24 christ
0:19:25 um moreover you'll find that
0:19:29 even in reference to vital attributes of
0:19:32 allah
0:19:34 allah subhanahu wa ta'ala he corrects
0:19:36 the old testament understand
0:19:37 for example the book of genesis talks
0:19:40 about
0:19:41 allah resting on the seventh day very
0:19:43 easy example right
0:19:44 well allah says he created the heavens
0:19:47 in the earth
0:19:50 and that he did not get tired through
0:19:53 the creation of these things
0:19:56 that slumber doesn't overtake him nor
0:19:58 does it does sleep in
0:20:01 uh and allah says sorry the hadith says
0:20:06 in allah and then that allah does not
0:20:08 sleep
0:20:13 that he does this the prophet allah does
0:20:14 not sleep and it's not befitting for him
0:20:16 to sleep
0:20:17 so allah doesn't sleep he doesn't rest
0:20:20 let alone
0:20:21 you know wrestle with jacob and all
0:20:22 these things obviously some scholars
0:20:24 just be fair say that was an angel and
0:20:27 whatever
0:20:28 but still the discussion about god
0:20:30 resting on the seventh day is seen as
0:20:31 literal
0:20:33 across the board almost you know and
0:20:35 yeah there are some metaphorical
0:20:37 interpretations here and about
0:20:38 you know the old jews sort of like this
0:20:42 and that he repented to israel and
0:20:44 there's a verse that talks about god
0:20:46 repenting to israel in the old testament
0:20:49 and this shows you the the hand of human
0:20:51 interpolation
0:20:53 you know into the old testament corpus
0:20:55 such that
0:20:56 the tribe of israel will be prioritized
0:21:00 almost in a racially discriminatory way
0:21:03 uh
0:21:03 which we believe is uh one of the
0:21:06 problems of the old testament that is
0:21:08 very exclusive in terms of its messaging
0:21:10 so
0:21:11 yeah so all of these things is clear
0:21:14 like
0:21:15 at the end of the day the diff there's
0:21:17 some these are some of the differences
0:21:18 but the similarities are
0:21:21 explained by the fact that allah
0:21:24 he has said that these are previous
0:21:26 dispensations
0:21:28 we do believe in the old uh the the
0:21:30 torah and the injeel and that
0:21:32 some of the information would have maybe
0:21:34 appeared itself
0:21:35 in the older new testament and so it's
0:21:38 not as if
0:21:39 like with sikhism modern-day sikhism it
0:21:42 does not affirm the old
0:21:44 uh the previous scriptures it doesn't
0:21:47 affirm prophet muhammad
0:21:48 it doesn't affirm uh jesus and moses in
0:21:51 the
0:21:52 prophetic sense that they were actual
0:21:53 prophets because if it did affirm
0:21:56 prophet muhammad then
0:21:57 it wouldn't make sense that you have a
0:21:58 guru now a new guru
0:22:00 who's in effect you know taking the
0:22:03 mantle of a prophet
0:22:04 you know with revelation and so on but
0:22:07 the f
0:22:07 but they don't affirm the prophet
0:22:09 muhammad yet you will find in their
0:22:11 practices and in their beliefs
0:22:12 and in their books the ggs
0:22:16 so many similarities between the quran
0:22:18 and the ggs
0:22:19 in fact they even have to do kind of
0:22:21 rituals before they touch their ggs
0:22:23 which are ablution type rituals they do
0:22:27 chanting which is similar to reciting
0:22:29 they have a beard which is similar to
0:22:31 what we do you know there's lots of
0:22:32 similarity you cannot
0:22:34 deny the fact that there are a lot of
0:22:35 similarities between
0:22:38 sikhism and islam and many scholars
0:22:40 comparative religions
0:22:41 see sikhism as a kind of amalgam between
0:22:44 uh islam and um
0:22:46 and hinduism but there is no
0:22:49 credit given to previous dispensations
0:22:53 or profits claimants to prophecy
0:22:57 in uh in any real sense of the world a
0:23:00 word
0:23:01 so for that reason i would say
0:23:04 that the main thing to show
0:23:07 that the quran has not copied from the
0:23:10 bible
0:23:10 is that it corrects it in fields wherein
0:23:14 the adjudication is outside is extra
0:23:18 biblical or extra quranic
0:23:19 in other words the adjudication is
0:23:21 either historical
0:23:22 logical theological or otherwise
0:23:26 and with that we say well if it copied
0:23:28 it then it did a good job in correcting
0:23:30 it i mean
0:23:31 it's like selective copy it copied in
0:23:33 the right places and
0:23:35 if if that was the case then the copying
0:23:37 was miraculous itself
0:23:38 like how did you know yeah
0:23:43 my second question is about atheism
0:23:46 i live in norway so i tend to deal with
0:23:49 christians and atheists they are like 50
0:23:52 50
0:23:53 in this country my second question
0:23:57 is i know that the logical arguments
0:24:00 about the calami cosmological arguments
0:24:03 lead to
0:24:04 a distinct kind of god but how can we
0:24:07 show that allah is a conscious
0:24:11 god who has a will
0:24:16 without
0:24:19 are not safe without making it too
0:24:23 abstract well i mean look i i don't
0:24:27 think that you
0:24:28 i think you can on logical grounds prove
0:24:31 that god has a will
0:24:32 and for example in medieval
0:24:36 scholarship this was referred to as
0:24:38 tarsis this is the argument that taxis
0:24:40 is
0:24:40 the theory of particularization
0:24:43 and it the theory basically or the the
0:24:46 argument of particularization tarsis
0:24:48 is it goes as far as mentions this along
0:24:50 with a lot of other
0:24:52 uh medieval scholars they say look
0:24:56 if you look at the contingent things in
0:24:58 the world
0:24:59 they all have an explanation outside of
0:25:01 themselves
0:25:03 so for example this pink cup can you see
0:25:06 this pink up
0:25:07 it has an explanation outside of itself
0:25:10 namely
0:25:11 that the materials were created and
0:25:14 formatted in a certain or structured in
0:25:16 a certain way
0:25:17 so as to make it cylindrical
0:25:20 and to make it kind of have
0:25:24 a surface at the bottom of it so that i
0:25:26 can put water inside of it as is the
0:25:28 case right
0:25:29 so how do i explain the cylindricality
0:25:33 of this
0:25:34 cup i can explain it using the materials
0:25:37 or talking about the materials
0:25:39 or i can explain this cup outside of
0:25:41 itself
0:25:43 now there is no necessary way that this
0:25:45 cup could have been
0:25:47 there's no reason i i can take this cup
0:25:49 out of existence
0:25:50 indeed there was a time where this cup
0:25:52 probably wasn't even in existence
0:25:54 so this cup is a possible existence it's
0:25:57 not a
0:25:58 necessary existence now difference
0:26:02 right it's not a necessary thing it's a
0:26:04 it's a possible thing meaning what it's
0:26:06 dependent it's
0:26:07 it's it could have not been the case and
0:26:09 it can be taken out
0:26:11 i can destroy this cup i i
0:26:14 guarantee you i can destroy this cup you
0:26:16 know i can
0:26:18 [Music]
0:26:19 shred it up i can burn it i can make it
0:26:21 sure
0:26:22 vaporize it whatever it is yeah the fact
0:26:25 that i can do that to this cup
0:26:27 means that this cup is not eternally
0:26:31 necessary it doesn't have to be the case
0:26:33 in pre-eternity or post-eternity this
0:26:35 cup can be destroyed
0:26:37 yeah and reformatted into something else
0:26:40 vapor or something yeah
0:26:42 now the point is the fact that i can do
0:26:45 this
0:26:45 means the cup can be something
0:26:48 else okay the fact that we have
0:26:52 objects in the universe like this jug
0:26:56 or this cup which can be something else
0:27:00 is evidence that it was particularized
0:27:05 so this jug has a particular
0:27:09 shape are you with me permanent yeah
0:27:12 right so if this
0:27:13 this jug has a particular shape
0:27:18 other than another so it can be this
0:27:22 or it can be that by is this
0:27:25 this could this once again cylindrical
0:27:28 uh
0:27:29 jug could have been circular or
0:27:32 spherical
0:27:33 it could have been a spherical job right
0:27:35 but it's actually cylindrical
0:27:37 but i can make it into a spherical jug
0:27:40 if i wanted it to be
0:27:42 this fact and the fact that there's
0:27:45 nothing which in here
0:27:46 within this jug which makes it
0:27:49 necessarily cylindrical
0:27:52 is evidence to the fact that it was
0:27:55 particularized
0:27:57 or made in one shape rather than another
0:28:01 oh and there's no contradiction here
0:28:02 right are you with me so far
0:28:04 this thing was made into one shape
0:28:06 whereas it could have been made into
0:28:08 another shade
0:28:09 is there any controversy in this
0:28:10 statement no is that controversial
0:28:13 no okay so and
0:28:16 that's the past tense i can change this
0:28:18 jug into another shape
0:28:20 yes sir now if i change this jug into
0:28:24 another shape
0:28:26 how have i done so using my will
0:28:30 right so okay now the point is this is
0:28:33 that
0:28:34 the universe is one way
0:28:38 out of possible alternative ways there
0:28:40 could have been other ways
0:28:42 and there can be other ways where the
0:28:44 universe can be reformatted
0:28:45 or parts of the universe very much like
0:28:47 this jug i can make this into another
0:28:49 shape
0:28:50 no one can argue that this jug
0:28:54 is necessarily cylindrical so
0:28:57 because if someone foolish enough argues
0:28:59 that this jug is necessarily cylindrical
0:29:02 then i can disprove them by changing its
0:29:04 shape does that make sense
0:29:06 because if i change the shape of this
0:29:08 jug from cylindrical
0:29:10 jug into a spherical jug i have
0:29:14 falsified the theory that this jug is
0:29:17 cylindrical
0:29:18 uh sorry is uh necessary because
0:29:21 necessary means it has to be one way
0:29:23 forever yeah
0:29:25 okay now what can you give me an example
0:29:28 for okay universe or a part of the
0:29:32 universe
0:29:33 look i'm saying this part of the
0:29:34 universe this junk okay
0:29:36 no one can argue it's necessarily
0:29:38 cylindrical so
0:29:40 because that would mean necessary means
0:29:42 it can't be any other way
0:29:44 but i can make this jug into a spherical
0:29:47 jug
0:29:48 that would disprove the fact that it's
0:29:50 necessarily cylindrical
0:29:52 i can change it myself with my hand yeah
0:29:56 now the point is this the whole universe
0:29:59 is
0:29:59 one way and not another way
0:30:04 just like rug is cylindrical and
0:30:07 not spherical
0:30:10 it's there could have been another shape
0:30:12 this jug could
0:30:13 but it's not now the fact
0:30:17 that that is the case that the universe
0:30:20 is particularized in a certain way or
0:30:23 specified
0:30:24 in a certain way rather than other
0:30:27 logically possible ways logically
0:30:29 possible
0:30:30 yeah is evidence
0:30:33 that there was a particularization or a
0:30:37 specification
0:30:39 and now the question is where did this
0:30:41 specification
0:30:43 come from was it a random generation
0:30:46 okay
0:30:47 or as we would say was there a specifier
0:30:51 we say look just like this cylindrical
0:30:54 jug
0:30:55 was specified into cylindricality
0:30:59 such is the case with the universe that
0:31:02 it was one way
0:31:03 out of a possible set of many different
0:31:06 possible ways
0:31:07 that it could have been or it can be
0:31:12 and yet it is one way and this
0:31:15 particularization or specification
0:31:18 is evidence of a specifier or a
0:31:21 particularizer
0:31:22 okay and in this case we say that if
0:31:25 there was a specifier or a
0:31:27 particularizer
0:31:28 this specifier must have had a choice
0:31:32 to make because like right now this
0:31:34 cylindrical
0:31:35 jug could have been spherical
0:31:39 or it could have been cylindrical i have
0:31:42 a choice to make
0:31:44 i can make this into spherical jug
0:31:47 or it can remain as a cylindrical jug
0:31:50 now the fact that it is one way and not
0:31:53 another
0:31:55 means that there was a choice that was
0:31:57 made let's use it in the passive sense
0:31:59 and that a choice actualized and if
0:32:03 it was an actualizer which actualized
0:32:06 this choice which we
0:32:07 would the cosmological argument would
0:32:10 attribute it to the first cause
0:32:13 that would uh evidence will because will
0:32:15 is
0:32:16 what is will volition or will is when
0:32:18 you can
0:32:19 you have choices to make basically and
0:32:22 you choose one thing rather than another
0:32:24 the fact that this judge is cylindrical
0:32:27 rather than spherical is absolute
0:32:30 evidence that this
0:32:31 jug there was a choice
0:32:35 that was made
0:32:38 that this jug was either going to be
0:32:40 spherical or cylindrical
0:32:42 and this the choice that actualized was
0:32:45 that this
0:32:45 was cylindrical and therefore you can
0:32:48 either attribute this to chance which is
0:32:50 we can have a discussion about the
0:32:52 non-existence of this thing called
0:32:53 randomness or chance
0:32:55 or to an actualizer or a specifier we do
0:32:59 the latter in other words we say it's
0:33:01 the specifier or the actualizer
0:33:03 that caused the uh particularization of
0:33:06 the universe
0:33:07 so this is the evidence of this is this
0:33:10 is the evidence of
0:33:11 and al-ghazali in his in his works he
0:33:13 says he gives
0:33:14 an example he says that for example look
0:33:16 at the planetary motion
0:33:19 the planets are going one way right
0:33:23 he said the planet could have been
0:33:24 revolving another way
0:33:27 do you get the idea he says so therefore
0:33:30 there was a choice that was made either
0:33:31 the planets could we go in this way
0:33:33 let's say anti-clockwise but it could be
0:33:35 going clockwise for the sake of argument
0:33:37 such that if it was anti-clockwise it
0:33:41 would not be impossible
0:33:43 it's still conceivable logically
0:33:44 conceivable right
0:33:46 so this this doesn't even affect someone
0:33:49 may say well i'm a determinist i believe
0:33:50 everything was the case because
0:33:52 uh of determination we say that doesn't
0:33:55 matter
0:33:56 because this jug even if you're a
0:33:57 determinist you cannot argue
0:34:00 okay that i can't change this junk into
0:34:02 another shape
0:34:03 you can't argue that you can't argue
0:34:05 that this jug
0:34:07 is necessarily cylindrical you cannot
0:34:10 you can't how i can make it into a
0:34:12 sphere
0:34:13 that's it you cannot argue that
0:34:17 so you have two choices either this jug
0:34:21 is cylindrical and this is what by the
0:34:24 way al-baqilani mentions in his kitab
0:34:25 tamid very very good and he actually
0:34:28 uses the example of a jug by the way i
0:34:29 think
0:34:30 funny enough i think he uses the example
0:34:32 of a joke and i think he actually uses
0:34:34 the example of cylindricality as well
0:34:36 i'm not i can't remember exactly
0:34:38 so this is this is handy we have this
0:34:40 here
0:34:43 he says look this jug there's no
0:34:47 property in this jug
0:34:50 which necessarily makes it cylindrical
0:34:53 which adheres with english drug which
0:34:55 makes it cylindrical
0:34:56 for if that was the case
0:34:59 it would have been inconceivable to
0:35:01 assume a state of affairs
0:35:04 where this drug was ever out of
0:35:06 cylindricality
0:35:08 and all things which are ever going to
0:35:10 be cylindrical should all exist
0:35:12 at one time in other words there should
0:35:15 be no time
0:35:16 where in which this was not cylindrical
0:35:18 or will not be cylindrical
0:35:19 anyway uh so the particularization of
0:35:23 tarsis
0:35:23 is evidence of a mohastis or a
0:35:26 particular item
0:35:28 yeah so uh hopefully that makes sense uh
0:35:32 to you brother sequilia how do you say
0:35:34 your name again
0:35:37 sorry zacharia but it starts with the s
0:35:41 though
0:35:41 yeah my mom chose that
0:35:45 all right jazakallahu for joining us
0:35:46 brother welcome thank you guys for
0:35:48 everything
0:35:51 so let's go to
0:35:54 jack munson
0:36:02 can you guys hear me properly yes we can
0:36:05 welcome to sapience institute live what
0:36:08 is your question where are you calling
0:36:09 from
0:36:10 perfect uh i'm calling from uh from uae
0:36:14 okay
0:36:17 i appreciate the guys the work you guys
0:36:18 are doing by the way it's uh
0:36:20 it's it's really it's really great and
0:36:22 i'm you know i'm learning a lot from it
0:36:24 my question is about evolution so i
0:36:27 understand
0:36:28 that in evolution um you know
0:36:31 animals or animals can you know they can
0:36:33 change from environment to environment
0:36:36 depending on the environment that
0:36:37 they're in yeah is that correct
0:36:40 they adapt to the environment um that's
0:36:42 the standard
0:36:44 uh barwinian sort of way of explaining
0:36:47 but but there's a bit more to it we can
0:36:49 also adapt the environment to our needs
0:36:52 so it works in the reverse order which
0:36:55 it really shouldn't from a darwinian
0:36:56 point of view
0:36:58 okay does that apply to human beings do
0:37:01 because there are some for example the
0:37:03 eskimos in in northern russia
0:37:05 their noses are they're a bit more
0:37:08 flattened
0:37:08 because the air there is really you know
0:37:10 it's really cold
0:37:12 or for example you know in africa the
0:37:15 the people there they're a lot more you
0:37:16 know they're more muscular they're
0:37:18 stronger they have
0:37:19 uh a higher recipe capacity
0:37:24 so can we say that humans to a certain
0:37:26 extent
0:37:27 can they also you know maybe not use the
0:37:30 word evolve or maybe adapt
0:37:32 to the environment that they're in to
0:37:33 best suit what
0:37:35 yeah i mean i i think the words are kind
0:37:38 of uh
0:37:39 i think even the word evolve is okay as
0:37:42 long as you
0:37:42 you define what it means so we adapt to
0:37:45 the environment we adapt the environment
0:37:47 to our needs
0:37:48 uh however this doesn't um necessarily
0:37:51 lead to
0:37:52 natural selection being the cause of our
0:37:55 traits our biological or genetic traits
0:37:58 the thing to keep in mind is
0:38:02 us being able to adapt to our
0:38:04 environment is kind of
0:38:06 a trivial historical fact i mean if you
0:38:09 were to go
0:38:10 say um a thousand years ago
0:38:14 you were to come to medieval europe and
0:38:17 to just say to some
0:38:18 peasant who has a pitchfork and you know
0:38:21 is illiterate and stuff
0:38:22 to say that do do you find that
0:38:26 human beings adapt to the environment
0:38:29 what you mean by that
0:38:30 is that you know um so for example
0:38:34 uh if that if you gave the peasant the
0:38:38 example that
0:38:39 human beings that had a certain genetic
0:38:43 uh sort of a genetic predisposition to
0:38:46 restore more fat yeah they're more
0:38:49 likely to survive than those who don't
0:38:51 in colder climates of course
0:38:53 so um if you have say five children
0:38:56 three of them
0:38:57 um they have that predisposition to to
0:38:59 store fat
0:39:00 and therefore they can go on longer in
0:39:03 the past without eating
0:39:04 and you know they go through this deep
0:39:06 ketosis where you know
0:39:08 ketones are released and this type of
0:39:09 stuff um are they more likely to survive
0:39:11 of course
0:39:12 these things are not like there's
0:39:15 nothing special about them
0:39:17 what is interesting is how the dominance
0:39:20 try and use that to try and explain
0:39:22 everything say
0:39:23 essentially that's how all of life
0:39:24 evolved it was
0:39:26 you know gradual uh random mutations
0:39:29 being worked on by natural selection and
0:39:31 that's how you get
0:39:32 from the moment to the man and you get
0:39:34 everything interestingly enough
0:39:37 even though it's not uh it's not
0:39:39 sufficient to show that we adapted the
0:39:41 environment to
0:39:42 to to uh to show the darwinian mechanism
0:39:45 is is true
0:39:46 what's interesting is uh the recent
0:39:50 publications on niche construction so
0:39:52 anybody who's interested in this topic
0:39:55 i would ask you to go to say um any
0:39:58 scientific
0:39:58 journal which which covers biology and
0:40:01 uh
0:40:02 just put in niche construction right
0:40:05 it's a very interesting thing um
0:40:08 more and more uh obviously this was
0:40:11 known for some time but
0:40:13 the way the literature is being
0:40:14 published now on it is like
0:40:18 nothing like in the past in terms of his
0:40:19 magnitude and his significance
0:40:21 what is basically going on to show is
0:40:23 that humans
0:40:24 and other creatures uh adapt the
0:40:28 environment
0:40:29 to their needs as opposed to evolving to
0:40:31 the environment
0:40:32 and and this type of adaptation this
0:40:35 evolvability this
0:40:36 this this uh plasticity that we have
0:40:40 is really hard to explain from a
0:40:42 darwinian point of view
0:40:44 um so yeah look look that up that's a
0:40:46 very interesting
0:40:47 um sort of up and coming topic
0:40:59 yeah okay cool cool um
0:41:02 my second question is about the
0:41:04 scientific narrative
0:41:07 right so uh um
0:41:10 uh because i think you know it's very
0:41:11 it's very important because i think you
0:41:13 know there are
0:41:13 you know sometimes even like you know
0:41:16 just you know normal people that you
0:41:17 know they're
0:41:18 somewhat interested you know being dua
0:41:21 or they want to like you know
0:41:22 prove islam they they get sucked in
0:41:25 into this narrative and then you know
0:41:28 you know problems happen
0:41:30 so my question is are you guys going to
0:41:33 make like a comprehensive video about it
0:41:35 in the future
0:41:39 yeah i mean maybe you can first firstly
0:41:41 for the viewers maybe explain because
0:41:43 not everybody's in tune with what is the
0:41:45 scientific
0:41:46 approach that we're challenging and and
0:41:48 what do we have planned for it
0:41:51 me oh what are you asking um
0:41:56 yeah look i mean the problems have been
0:41:59 there have been many limitations with
0:42:01 the scientific approach
0:42:03 of the scientific miracles approach um
0:42:06 and some of them have been
0:42:08 philosophical and some of them have been
0:42:09 theological right
0:42:11 and some of the limitations have
0:42:13 involved historical problems as well
0:42:16 that's why initially when this thing was
0:42:19 kind of put forward
0:42:21 and maybe in the 80s or 90s they didn't
0:42:23 have the right people
0:42:24 like in my opinion to spearhead it
0:42:28 because what you really needed was a
0:42:31 historian of science like there's a
0:42:33 whole history
0:42:35 it's a category of history called
0:42:36 history of science and you needed a
0:42:38 philosopher of science
0:42:39 and you needed as well some people that
0:42:42 were involved
0:42:43 in the science and you need them
0:42:49 you need four types of people and these
0:42:51 are the four most important
0:42:52 in the historian of science in the
0:42:54 philosophy of science
0:42:56 you need a scientist and and you need a
0:43:00 like someone who at least have some
0:43:01 usual and see it and so
0:43:03 these four needed to come to the same
0:43:05 table and have a conversation
0:43:08 the lack of um or the
0:43:12 the lack of existence or that that
0:43:14 communication did not exist
0:43:16 and so the argument started to have
0:43:19 flaws which even a lay
0:43:21 person could identify like a
0:43:24 a youtuber could identify them not even
0:43:27 like an academic forget this
0:43:29 forget about academia this would not
0:43:30 like for example it could never have
0:43:32 been known at the time
0:43:33 or it could never have been known at the
0:43:35 time no one said it before these are the
0:43:36 kinds of things that have been said
0:43:38 although you know the earth was um
0:43:40 ostrich egg and that was
0:43:42 first of all that's false it doesn't say
0:43:43 that in the quran and then that was not
0:43:45 known before
0:43:46 like two two false statements like
0:43:51 why because the person who made this
0:43:53 statement didn't have
0:43:54 good enough grounding in uh tafsir
0:43:58 or the arabic language or all the other
0:44:01 tafsiri works and they did not have
0:44:03 access to
0:44:04 the history of science they didn't know
0:44:06 they didn't know what the
0:44:08 the greeks said before they didn't know
0:44:09 that stuff so the
0:44:11 this is an interdisciplinary thing
0:44:14 okay and that's why it's important that
0:44:18 no
0:44:18 one person gets involved in this by
0:44:20 themselves thinking they can solve
0:44:22 it this is the problem the problem and
0:44:25 that number one number two is the
0:44:26 argument itself was flawed
0:44:28 it could never have been known at the
0:44:30 time
0:44:31 like really if this was presented in am
0:44:35 forget about forget forget about like a
0:44:38 postgraduate thing
0:44:39 if this was undergraduate like any
0:44:41 academic would say well
0:44:43 that's false isn't it because there's
0:44:45 many people that have like the greeks
0:44:47 just look at the greek and uh the greeks
0:44:49 ancient greeks
0:44:52 you had people talking about
0:44:53 heliocentrism explicitly
0:44:56 and arguing the case for it many people
0:44:58 believe the earth was around
0:45:01 aristotle was making arguments all kinds
0:45:04 of arguments
0:45:04 about other things uh but the like there
0:45:08 was things that are
0:45:09 they're not even in the quran but
0:45:11 explicitly
0:45:12 in the greek literature like for example
0:45:14 heliocentrism
0:45:16 what are you going to say that's more
0:45:17 superior than the quran
0:45:19 you know so it's things like that it's
0:45:22 you could say well these are scientists
0:45:23 and this
0:45:23 yeah but now you're adding layers to the
0:45:25 argument so the argument has to be
0:45:27 tight from the beginning if you if you
0:45:29 start off by saying well it couldn't
0:45:31 have been known that time
0:45:32 the argument itself is weak that's the
0:45:35 that's the problem
0:45:36 the argument is weak now you have to
0:45:38 change your argument
0:45:40 and the argument we believe the best
0:45:42 argument to make is to say
0:45:44 that the quran when it's talking about
0:45:46 naturalistic phenomena
0:45:49 it's facilitative enough to
0:45:52 communicate directly with people from
0:45:54 the 7th century all the way through to
0:45:55 the 21st century
0:45:57 what's unique about this and this is
0:45:59 where i think the argument gets juicy
0:46:01 and
0:46:01 now we start making uh
0:46:05 sorry yeah sorry now we start making
0:46:07 active claims
0:46:09 is whereas this is the case with islam
0:46:11 [Music]
0:46:13 it's not the case with other religions
0:46:15 so for
0:46:16 especially ancient ancient religions
0:46:18 that will have to define ancient in a
0:46:19 very specific way
0:46:20 right so for example let's take uh
0:46:22 judaism
0:46:24 or old testament or christianity even
0:46:25 because they have the ultimate as well
0:46:28 like there are things in the bible which
0:46:31 only indicates
0:46:32 an ancient authorship there's no there's
0:46:35 no connection
0:46:36 at all with what we believe in in terms
0:46:37 of nationalist phenomena
0:46:40 for instance and i give this as a
0:46:42 standard example right
0:46:44 the the shape of the earth i know this
0:46:47 because i
0:46:48 researched it i i've done a bath on it i
0:46:50 want to know
0:46:52 what the church fathers
0:46:55 and the midrash tradition what people
0:46:57 said
0:46:58 about this about the universe they had
0:47:00 metal plate theory they had
0:47:01 the the pillars of the flat earth when
0:47:04 they saw it
0:47:05 in christianity speaking about the shape
0:47:08 of the earth
0:47:08 and the universe and pillars and all
0:47:10 that when they
0:47:11 got rid of that is when they looked
0:47:14 towards the greeks
0:47:15 it's not because of the bible and this
0:47:17 contents
0:47:18 whereas the quran because the quran
0:47:20 there were people who mislead with it
0:47:22 from the very beginning
0:47:23 saying that this is the earth is this
0:47:24 shape and the universe is like that and
0:47:26 and all of that stuff interpretations of
0:47:29 which
0:47:30 is correlated with what we have today in
0:47:32 the 21st century
0:47:33 so for us now why this is important
0:47:36 because if someone's going shopping
0:47:37 religious shopping right
0:47:38 and they wanna they wanna be faithful to
0:47:40 a tradition
0:47:42 and they don't wanna metaphorize the
0:47:44 tradition which is what the christians
0:47:46 have resorted to because they know
0:47:47 that if they don't it's gonna be
0:47:49 ridiculous you're gonna have a six
0:47:50 thousand year old universe
0:47:51 and you're gonna have no dinosaurs or
0:47:52 whatever like you're gonna have this
0:47:54 stuff like what the
0:47:55 answers in genesis people say that
0:47:58 and there's only one ministry that's
0:48:00 pathetically trying to in the christian
0:48:02 world like in the
0:48:04 uh trying to have a concordless approach
0:48:07 this guy called you ross
0:48:08 it's really pathetic it's the most
0:48:10 pathetic meager attempt
0:48:12 i've ever seen in my life for
0:48:13 concordance it's and even so
0:48:15 that they would admit this themselves
0:48:17 you know the christians the evangelicals
0:48:19 they'll say this is ridiculous sorry
0:48:20 they're they're trying to reconcile yeah
0:48:23 yeah so this guy called hero
0:48:25 he's trying to say the big bang is
0:48:26 mentioned in genesis we can still have
0:48:28 yeah genesis talks about the big bang
0:48:31 genesis talks about
0:48:32 expanding the universe but yeah he's
0:48:34 trying to very similar
0:48:35 so it's like well no but to be fair like
0:48:38 zachary and ike when he does all that
0:48:39 stuff
0:48:40 he's got some precedent like at least
0:48:42 he's got yeah and it's not
0:48:44 ridiculous when you're talking about
0:48:46 genesis saying that now
0:48:47 sorry annie genesis says on the second
0:48:50 like for example
0:48:51 this is let me give you some interesting
0:48:53 points
0:48:55 jefferson says that
0:48:59 genesis says that um
0:49:04 the light was created on i'm just trying
0:49:06 to get the first day or second day
0:49:08 don't remember but it's the the order is
0:49:09 wrong basically no no on the fourth day
0:49:11 where
0:49:11 the sun was created yeah the sun was
0:49:14 great on the fourth day
0:49:15 i'm trying to memorize um recall the
0:49:17 verse
0:49:18 that the light was created on the second
0:49:20 day i believe and then the the
0:49:21 the cause of the light was created on
0:49:22 the fourth day something like that more
0:49:24 problematically
0:49:26 okay in genesis chapter 2
0:49:30 genesis chapter 2 it says no no plant
0:49:32 has sprung up yet
0:49:35 but we already had the plants being
0:49:36 created in the fourth day or whatever it
0:49:37 was angelus chapter one
0:49:39 so so much so that these guys
0:49:42 they admit the contradictions in it like
0:49:44 for example origin of alexandria he
0:49:46 wrote a book called
0:49:47 first principles and if you look at the
0:49:49 index page of that book
0:49:50 first principles yeah um origin of
0:49:53 alexandria who's like an ecclesiastic
0:49:55 church father
0:49:56 he says
0:49:59 it's uh it's a contradiction he
0:50:01 basically admits it's a contradiction
0:50:03 and he says that's why we have to
0:50:04 spiritualize the text we have to
0:50:06 metaphor any spiritual
0:50:07 in in his language in his hermeneutical
0:50:09 language was meaning metaphorize it make
0:50:11 it into
0:50:11 an allegory an allegory yeah so the
0:50:14 reason why i have to make it into
0:50:15 allegory because otherwise it would be a
0:50:16 yeah it would be a confliction that you
0:50:18 have in genesis chapter one
0:50:20 the plants were created on the fourth
0:50:21 day whenever it was and then genesis
0:50:22 chapter 2
0:50:24 verse 15 or whatever it may be it's
0:50:26 saying no plant has sprung up yet
0:50:28 and the the other point which i want to
0:50:30 put to you and i think it's very
0:50:31 important bring in here if you have a
0:50:33 book in which you
0:50:34 admit that there's a metaphors
0:50:37 right you you allow the possibility of
0:50:39 metaphors you can't use the same book to
0:50:42 actually then
0:50:42 go with a concordant uh perspective
0:50:45 because
0:50:46 you you it doesn't make any sense
0:50:47 there's a guy that came like i forget
0:50:49 the name of the guy
0:50:50 and i've got these references one day
0:50:52 i'm going to publish them yeah
0:50:54 there's a guy who came to origin of
0:50:55 alexandria he said you believe in
0:50:57 because he he was a spiritualized attack
0:50:58 he was criticized for
0:51:00 over spiritualizing the text yeah he was
0:51:02 criticized for that and
0:51:03 um because the whole alexandrian school
0:51:05 you have different schools
0:51:07 the alexandrian school at that time was
0:51:09 inter
0:51:10 uh spiritualizing that philo who's a jew
0:51:13 uh
0:51:14 cleveland of alexandria origin of
0:51:15 alexandria they're all spiritualizing
0:51:17 their texts or metaphorizing it so they
0:51:18 were kind of they had a reputation for
0:51:20 that
0:51:20 so one guy came to him he was a
0:51:22 apologist for he wasn't a christian
0:51:24 and he said what do you say of those who
0:51:26 say
0:51:27 that jesus the crucifixion
0:51:30 okay didn't take place because how can
0:51:33 god
0:51:34 be crucified like that and i have a
0:51:36 reference which basically says that he
0:51:38 says
0:51:39 spiritualize it no because if you're if
0:51:41 you're going to spiritualize
0:51:42 genesis you might as well spiritually
0:51:45 airbrush everything
0:51:46 you're going to spiritualize the
0:51:47 crucifixion the whole the whole dean is
0:51:49 gone
0:51:49 yeah the whole dean is fake so the whole
0:51:51 religion is finished
0:51:53 that's why the christian world has uh
0:51:56 her musical dilemma right now
0:51:58 either they spiritualize it and risk
0:52:02 spiritualizing the key doctrines or they
0:52:04 uphold
0:52:05 literalism which is what answers in
0:52:07 genesis whatever the contradiction and
0:52:08 then you have not only
0:52:09 like glare like serious stuff that would
0:52:12 cause
0:52:13 huge apostasies like you have to believe
0:52:15 the dinosaurs didn't exist
0:52:17 or that they existed 6 000 years ago or
0:52:19 that yeah all that stuff you have to
0:52:20 believe in that
0:52:21 yeah but when you're going religious
0:52:23 shopping now
0:52:25 you have to you have to choose a
0:52:26 religion okay i'm going to choose a
0:52:28 religion which says
0:52:29 that the universe is 6 thousand years
0:52:31 old that the dinosaurs existed
0:52:34 pre-existed with human beings uh that
0:52:36 the shape of the earth is flat and i
0:52:38 believe that the flat earth movement
0:52:39 was from christians by the way like i
0:52:41 have a whole theory of this
0:52:43 the whole flat earth thing is from
0:52:44 christians because they know that on
0:52:45 literal
0:52:46 interpretation that you can't you you
0:52:48 cannot say the earth is round yeah
0:52:51 the whole flat earth thing in the in the
0:52:52 west so you have that
0:52:54 all you've got to metaphorize it but
0:52:56 risk the problem of metaphorizing the
0:52:58 key doctrines
0:52:59 this religion is fake yeah so you have
0:53:02 that
0:53:03 choice or the choice of you can keep
0:53:05 everything literal and basically
0:53:06 uphold all the scientific things that
0:53:08 you believe in yeah almost all of them
0:53:10 without exception
0:53:12 with maybe the slither of the exemption
0:53:14 of adam and his creation with evolution
0:53:16 nobody evolution
0:53:17 which one of you which one are you going
0:53:18 to do as as a artillery person in the
0:53:20 21st century
0:53:21 it's there's so many um barriers to
0:53:24 entry
0:53:25 when it comes to christianity you're
0:53:27 either going to literalize it and make
0:53:28 the universe 6 000 years old
0:53:30 the the the earth flat with pillars and
0:53:33 so on no dinosaurs nor humans or
0:53:36 you're going to metaphorize it run the
0:53:39 problem of
0:53:40 of making the text a metaphor everything
0:53:42 is a metaphor
0:53:43 then the crucifixion was a metaphor like
0:53:45 origin had to concede to this
0:53:46 greek guy or you can just believe in
0:53:49 another religion
0:53:50 okay which basically tells you the truth
0:53:53 of the matter is
0:53:55 the truth of the matter is you can
0:53:56 believe in everything that you believe
0:53:57 in except for
0:53:58 like the miraculous stuff including the
0:54:01 creation of adam
0:54:02 and you don't have to compromise your
0:54:03 beliefs your logical scientific beliefs
0:54:05 quite frankly
0:54:06 you don't even there's no problem with
0:54:08 believing in the
0:54:09 14 billion year old universe or the big
0:54:12 bang
0:54:13 so long as you believe in allah he's the
0:54:14 one who orchestrates it yes
0:54:16 so any article person this is very
0:54:18 important would choose islam
0:54:20 if you really be honest with yourself
0:54:22 and that you have to hate rather than
0:54:23 the trinity
0:54:24 the nonsense of the trinity you have
0:54:26 honey there's so many yeah you get on
0:54:27 jose yeah so your
0:54:29 your spirituality your rationality yeah
0:54:31 does that make sense
0:54:32 yeah yeah i'm just trying i don't
0:54:36 i don't believe in throwing the baby up
0:54:38 but out with the bath water in terms of
0:54:40 the scientific miracles narrative
0:54:41 because i do believe there's a nuanced
0:54:42 argument you can make but i just believe
0:54:44 that their argument
0:54:45 a lot of it was problematic a lot of the
0:54:47 arguments were problematic
0:54:49 and that's why we were faced with the
0:54:50 issues that we were faced with because
0:54:51 people were refuting them with
0:54:53 like actual refutations which were true
0:54:55 you know
0:54:56 yeah and there's also kind of like
0:54:57 opening up the way i
0:54:59 i felt about it uh afterwards right
0:55:02 was it was kind of like opening up
0:55:05 yourself
0:55:06 to basically doing an
0:55:10 own goal by straw manning the quran yeah
0:55:13 so
0:55:13 you have a book well preserved which
0:55:16 makes
0:55:16 really powerful arguments existential
0:55:18 arguments uh which is coherent and so on
0:55:21 and so forth
0:55:22 and then what you basically do is you're
0:55:23 trying to win a point which is
0:55:26 not a point which is going to be so
0:55:27 decisive it's going to change the world
0:55:28 but just trying to make a point
0:55:30 but that point strawman's the quran then
0:55:32 and then makes
0:55:34 makes it liable not liable but looks as
0:55:37 if it's making it liable to be
0:55:39 uh discredited very easily and it
0:55:42 it's really short selling the quran it's
0:55:44 almost like you know
0:55:45 um i mean we can't compare anything to
0:55:48 the words of allah right
0:55:50 imagine imagine you get a brand new
0:55:53 tesla
0:55:54 right a brand new like spanking one of
0:55:56 those tesla
0:55:57 jeeps right and then somebody asks you
0:56:00 how is it and then you say i didn't
0:56:02 switch it on i didn't
0:56:03 turn the ignition i didn't take it for a
0:56:05 drive but you know what
0:56:07 the cup holder had a nice shape like
0:56:09 you'd be like
0:56:10 you bought a tesla why are you talking
0:56:12 about the cup holder
0:56:13 it's something so irrelevant right so if
0:56:16 you really think about what is the point
0:56:19 of the words of allah it's to bring you
0:56:22 closer to our lives to make you think of
0:56:23 the hereafter is to reform
0:56:25 reform society morally spiritually
0:56:27 ethically
0:56:28 and then when you bring in the
0:56:30 scientific perspective and you really
0:56:31 look at
0:56:32 what the purpose of the quran in it and
0:56:35 why allah sent the quran
0:56:36 and you look at how it was used within
0:56:39 the context of
0:56:41 islamic apologetics it didn't make any
0:56:43 sense
0:56:44 at all there's there's nothing even if
0:56:47 you look at
0:56:48 um even if you look at the the these
0:56:52 just these scientific uh arguments
0:56:55 are on a face value point of view right
0:56:58 which is okay there's some information
0:56:59 here
0:57:00 which wasn't known before therefore it's
0:57:02 a miracle what's interesting about this
0:57:04 is uh what what's that book by um uh
0:57:08 uh uh the criterion uh between
0:57:12 the friends of allah and the friends of
0:57:13 shaitaan yeah so even in that book it
0:57:16 mentions that
0:57:17 don't just believe in something because
0:57:19 it has miracles right you got to have
0:57:21 like the message is important so you
0:57:24 know if a book has all these miracles
0:57:27 but it doesn't come with the right
0:57:29 uh creed it doesn't come with the with
0:57:31 essentially right
0:57:32 you can discard it um it is irrelevant
0:57:35 from that perspective because the job
0:57:37 will do miracles and
0:57:38 and and the friends of shaytan do
0:57:40 miracles right so
0:57:41 the scientific miracles itself was kind
0:57:43 of secularizing islamic spirituality as
0:57:45 well
0:57:46 because the people using it including
0:57:48 myself when i used to use it many many
0:57:49 years ago well
0:57:50 many many years ago you completely lose
0:57:53 track
0:57:54 of what the main purpose of even islam
0:57:56 is and why are you trying to convey
0:57:57 it becomes more like a a sort of way of
0:58:01 compensating for the lack of
0:58:03 productivity in the islamic world
0:58:05 of of being a header in science it's
0:58:07 kind of like scrap that
0:58:09 scrap all the hard work here's a here's
0:58:11 an argument for why
0:58:13 um the big bang is in the quran so it's
0:58:16 actually
0:58:16 quite it's almost like a post-colonial
0:58:19 trauma catch-up type of mechanism
0:58:21 going on it's like funny you say that
0:58:23 there was a i think his name is uh
0:58:25 i have a george salad or someone like
0:58:26 this he's a historian of science he
0:58:28 actually made exactly this
0:58:29 he's very good he's very good yeah from
0:58:31 georgetown i think he was he actually
0:58:32 made it
0:58:34 yeah yeah he made exactly the same
0:58:35 amount he said that
0:58:37 it's ironic that muslims are talking
0:58:39 they use this
0:58:41 at a time where the the furthest behind
0:58:43 the temple yes
0:58:44 and he's he's actually an arab christian
0:58:47 but he's
0:58:47 very nuanced and very um
0:58:53 neutral i wouldn't even say neutral i
0:58:56 would say he
0:58:57 challenges the orientalist attacks on
0:58:59 islam although he's not muslim himself
0:59:01 so for example the classical narrative
0:59:04 as it's known the argument that imam
0:59:06 ghazali took down science
0:59:08 uh the islamic orthodoxy took down
0:59:10 science he completely refutes it
0:59:12 i mean i forgot the name of his book but
0:59:15 i mean he's a
0:59:16 really great academic from that
0:59:17 perspective but his point i totally
0:59:19 you know concur with um it's just a
0:59:22 compensation mechanism
0:59:24 yeah i i think i think it was because of
0:59:26 the rise of scientism
0:59:28 i think maybe you know some people took
0:59:30 that approach
0:59:32 but uh really good uh answers my last
0:59:36 i have a last question it should be a
0:59:38 bit short
0:59:39 look what i'm gonna do now is because
0:59:41 we've got loads of people waiting i'm
0:59:43 only gonna allow one question per person
0:59:44 i think we've answered two of yours
0:59:46 if you can once we once we do the other
0:59:48 ones
0:59:49 also guys in the private chat please put
0:59:51 down your questions because what i'm
0:59:53 feeling is that
0:59:54 we're answering questions which have
0:59:56 been answered during this live stream
0:59:58 ordering the last week's live stream
1:00:00 and some new ones are not so for example
1:00:03 brother uh
1:00:04 darnish is asking a question about the
1:00:06 harm principle and i actually want to
1:00:08 you know hear the question and uh i'm
1:00:10 sure we're going to get something new
1:00:12 here
1:00:12 so darnish i'm going to go to you uh
1:00:14 what is your question about the harm
1:00:16 principle
1:00:21 um yeah i'm really excited to be with
1:00:23 you guys i've been watching you guys for
1:00:25 a really long time you guys leopard used
1:00:27 to be like masha but you guys have been
1:00:29 doing like
1:00:30 really good work so yeah um basically my
1:00:33 like general question it was kind of a
1:00:35 comment but um
1:00:37 uh i want to like know like in your like
1:00:40 approach towards liberalism both of
1:00:41 y'all
1:00:42 um you usually like go down like the
1:00:45 track of like social contract theory
1:00:46 like
1:00:47 explaining how like um in uh brother
1:00:50 hijab's book he talks about like
1:00:52 how um human rights are like
1:00:55 uh it's basically social contract is
1:00:57 conducive to the hadood and all of like
1:00:59 the penal laws in
1:01:01 islam etc right so um
1:01:04 i feel like uh what are your thoughts on
1:01:06 the harm principle because
1:01:08 when i talk to like most people um who
1:01:11 espouse liberalism
1:01:12 they go down like a general like harm
1:01:14 principle like route where they say like
1:01:16 i'm not harming anyone else thus i
1:01:18 should be able to do whatever i want
1:01:21 um i feel like that like kind of like um
1:01:24 scapegoats like the entire question like
1:01:26 at hand
1:01:27 uh because like i read this uh like
1:01:31 paper by this
1:01:32 uh professor i forgot his name at uc san
1:01:35 diego
1:01:35 it was a really good paper um kind of
1:01:37 like about um
1:01:39 how their conception of like the harm
1:01:41 principle differs from like
1:01:43 jon stewart mill or like other
1:01:44 proponents of liberalism
1:01:46 when they actually have like a
1:01:47 prioritization of rights
1:01:49 um and it's not like just pure harm
1:01:51 principle because they understand that
1:01:52 would like
1:01:53 uh limit liberty um much more than like
1:01:57 they would like to say
1:01:58 so um why do you guys
1:02:01 um do you guys think it would be
1:02:03 productive to discuss the harm principle
1:02:05 and kind of like
1:02:06 expose how hollow it is in like dawah or
1:02:09 whatever
1:02:11 i think there's we don't necessarily
1:02:14 disagree with everything in the ham
1:02:15 principle first and foremost as muslims
1:02:17 because
1:02:18 we do have a principle within islam
1:02:21 which is
1:02:23 there is no harming and reciprocating
1:02:25 harm
1:02:26 says and do not call
1:02:29 do not let your own hands be the cause
1:02:31 of your destruction
1:02:32 um now what kind of so that's not
1:02:35 harming yourself
1:02:36 and obviously that's in a way that's
1:02:40 against the hum principle because with
1:02:42 the liberal conception of it because the
1:02:43 liberal conception
1:02:44 will conceive of a situation with
1:02:47 someone timing themselves
1:02:50 um so yeah in terms of that is is
1:02:53 exactly what on utilitarianism what js
1:02:55 nor tried to do which is to
1:02:56 to give a basis to his ideology of
1:02:58 utilitarianism and that's what he admits
1:03:01 he can't do on an
1:03:02 objective level and so the
1:03:05 the idea really is putting the burden of
1:03:07 proof on them and
1:03:08 allowing them or giving them a chance to
1:03:11 believe in what they owe to explain what
1:03:12 they believe in and telling us why they
1:03:14 believe what they believe
1:03:15 not to say that we disagree with
1:03:16 everything they say in terms of the
1:03:18 hundreds
1:03:19 we agree with it like in our stance we
1:03:21 believe in parts that are harmful
1:03:22 we disagree with other persons but the
1:03:25 the part we disagree with
1:03:26 is that human being the individualistic
1:03:29 part that he is the best
1:03:30 human being is best to judge his own
1:03:31 affairs we don't believe in that believe
1:03:33 that allah is the best
1:03:35 allah knows everything that he's the
1:03:37 most wise and the most knowledgeable and
1:03:38 he's the best one to know our effect
1:03:40 god is the only knowledgeable one is the
1:03:42 best one to know our affairs
1:03:44 um and so it's that individualistic
1:03:46 presupposition which that
1:03:48 we are the best for our own affairs
1:03:50 which which we need to
1:03:52 question that as well because the harm
1:03:54 principle is not just a principle it's
1:03:56 got
1:03:56 presuppositions which is that we know
1:03:58 what's best for us
1:04:00 how do you prove that how do you prove
1:04:02 that we know what's best for us
1:04:03 and there's even discussions within
1:04:05 liberalism which are kind of interesting
1:04:07 like the communitarian individual
1:04:08 individualism discussion uh and
1:04:12 not only just in relation to rights but
1:04:13 responsibilities as well
1:04:15 like there's um obviously michael sandel
1:04:18 interesting he's written
1:04:19 stuff about this he's coming from a
1:04:21 liberal paradigm really what we would
1:04:22 consider a living paradigm but he's
1:04:24 the question of communitarianism now to
1:04:27 what extent is the community responsible
1:04:29 for
1:04:30 uh or should we be responsible to the
1:04:32 community and and to what extent does
1:04:34 the community
1:04:35 like have an impact on what we are we're
1:04:38 interdependent not depend uh we're not
1:04:40 um
1:04:40 independent and so the starting point is
1:04:43 different because now you're gonna have
1:04:44 to dismantle this individualist
1:04:46 take a presupposition and it's easy to
1:04:48 do that when you really think about
1:04:49 when you interrogate it um but
1:04:53 the point i'm making really is this is
1:04:54 that the building blocks
1:04:57 are as follows hedonism number one okay
1:04:59 so heathen is the hedonistic principle i
1:05:01 mean john locks talks back but it's
1:05:03 something which runs all the way through
1:05:04 from john locke
1:05:06 to john rules even though he had a
1:05:08 different way of uh
1:05:09 systemizing or kind of communicating
1:05:12 it's just a reason why he had this whole
1:05:14 abstract theater thought process put
1:05:16 john also aside
1:05:17 but between the two between john locke
1:05:22 and john rules you have this hedonistic
1:05:24 principle
1:05:25 here that i said principle is you
1:05:28 are the you need to prioritize your
1:05:30 pleasures
1:05:32 maximize pleasure and minimize pain
1:05:34 that's what it is
1:05:35 that's in the form of utilitarianism and
1:05:37 then it's kind of refined by the human
1:05:39 principle
1:05:40 first thing is how do we prove that the
1:05:42 hedonistic principle is true
1:05:44 why is it true this is what john stuart
1:05:47 mill tried to do what many of them
1:05:48 do and they all stumbled with this they
1:05:50 all fumbled with this and i've got
1:05:51 um you said you read my book there's a
1:05:53 i've actually written something you can
1:05:55 download for free called the problems of
1:05:56 liberalism
1:05:57 you can download that and it goes
1:05:58 through you know why is it and how it is
1:06:01 that they stumbled with this
1:06:03 so that's one thing the other thing is
1:06:06 the individualistic presupposition with
1:06:08 the harm principle that we know what's
1:06:09 best for us
1:06:10 which is now being questioned from
1:06:11 within with communitarianism
1:06:13 and then um finally
1:06:17 we're not going to disagree with every
1:06:18 part of the hum principle because we
1:06:19 believe in a kind of harm principle but
1:06:21 like beautifully i mean uh a lot of the
1:06:24 osulli scholars
1:06:25 in islamic jewish prudence they talk
1:06:28 about
1:06:29 when they when they talk about harm and
1:06:30 stuff like it's very interesting how
1:06:31 they put it
1:06:32 they say like let's start with the harms
1:06:36 to the dunya and let's prioritize
1:06:40 like the dunya and the hereafter palms
1:06:42 and but that's
1:06:43 that's much physical that's something
1:06:45 that these people are never gonna
1:06:46 because there's almost a materialistic
1:06:47 presupposition there as well
1:06:49 like it's a secular materialistic police
1:06:51 audition we have a religious
1:06:53 uh castle um eschatological
1:06:56 presupposition
1:06:57 with oh there's a hereafter there's this
1:06:59 and that so
1:07:00 everything is different and um
1:07:04 but if they insist on their morality
1:07:05 being true they have to be able to um
1:07:08 demonstrably prove every part of what
1:07:10 they believe in from the hedonistic
1:07:11 principle
1:07:13 to the individualistic presupposition to
1:07:15 the hum principle itself
1:07:17 all of those things are never evidence
1:07:19 and they know it and that's
1:07:20 that is the reason why john rules by the
1:07:22 way after a long
1:07:24 like but what is how many hundreds of
1:07:25 years between john locke in general
1:07:28 we're talking about 300 years something
1:07:29 else you know
1:07:31 why have they continued to change the
1:07:33 way
1:07:34 why have liberal theories theorists
1:07:37 theoreticians
1:07:38 con change the way they um
1:07:43 they uh they basically have a theory for
1:07:45 justice why
1:07:46 now this john rules he has a book called
1:07:48 the theory of justice and he starts from
1:07:50 a different starting point
1:07:51 why did he feel the need to do that if
1:07:53 liberalism already had the answers
1:07:55 you see if the hedonistic principle and
1:07:57 the utilitarianism
1:07:59 and the harm principle was all good
1:08:00 enough why the john rules after
1:08:03 he's he's a liberal right and he's the
1:08:05 last contributor like major contribute
1:08:07 of the
1:08:07 i would say of the liberal tradition i'm
1:08:10 huge for like
1:08:11 obviously there's people that care after
1:08:12 him but he's one of the only ones that
1:08:14 you could do a phd on like let's say put
1:08:16 it that way
1:08:17 and he changed the whole mechanism if
1:08:21 you go and
1:08:21 research john rules he has an entire
1:08:23 different system
1:08:25 of finding out what's right and what's
1:08:26 wrong in a sense then the hedonistic and
1:08:28 utilitarian
1:08:29 ways have passed in fact he he actually
1:08:31 criticized the italian
1:08:32 uh ways of of john millen and so on
1:08:36 and so if if he did that he must have
1:08:39 known that there were some issues
1:08:41 improving
1:08:44 what he what is he's trying to prove but
1:08:46 yeah
1:08:47 this is from a theoretical perspective
1:08:50 and so
1:08:51 bring people into that and let them know
1:08:52 that it's completely their whole
1:08:54 ideology their dominant ethic of the
1:08:56 west is uh
1:08:58 is balanced on a spider as well exactly
1:09:01 what i've noticed is like people free
1:09:03 right on like something like
1:09:05 it's kind of like undisputable when you
1:09:06 hear like the harmfulness of like
1:09:08 do everything except for harming someone
1:09:10 else is it's so attractive that they go
1:09:13 towards it
1:09:14 but they don't understand that like the
1:09:16 whole discussion about like morality
1:09:18 itself is like what constitutes
1:09:20 as harm and like for us as muslims we
1:09:22 like
1:09:23 are like scholars or like um people and
1:09:26 your spirits decide like what is harm
1:09:28 and what isn't that's something within
1:09:29 like
1:09:29 the fold of islam but like the whole
1:09:31 question is like what is harm what isn't
1:09:33 harm
1:09:34 and that kind of gets circumvented like
1:09:36 uh when people impose
1:09:38 that it's beautiful because i was
1:09:39 reading something
1:09:44 and he uh in his in his uh fossil on
1:09:46 malachi
1:09:49 he actually goes into so much deep
1:09:51 details
1:09:52 like well i all these conversations they
1:09:53 have in consequentialism now
1:09:56 and liberal consequentialism and all
1:09:57 that stuff they're having today like
1:09:59 in the last hundred years have been had
1:10:01 like
1:10:03 for example he mentions a tatars
1:10:07 which is the idea of shielding yourself
1:10:10 with innocent
1:10:11 uh bystanders in war where the you know
1:10:14 you'll be beaten and this
1:10:16 they go into so much details and and
1:10:18 that's why i believe like
1:10:19 sometimes people think that islam is
1:10:22 categorical and absolute in terms of
1:10:23 this
1:10:24 morality but i disagree with that it is
1:10:26 obviously objective
1:10:28 but it's uh there's i believe in
1:10:30 something called and i've mentioned
1:10:31 since my words
1:10:32 consequentialism and that is basically
1:10:40 the quran says whoever is compelled in
1:10:43 and so on like and or to eat
1:10:47 pork or to drink alcohol then that's but
1:10:49 that that itself is a principle which is
1:10:52 um you know
1:11:05 and all of these things are interplaying
1:11:08 with each other and a lot of it is
1:11:09 hinged on and harm and physical harm and
1:11:13 so on and so forth
1:11:14 all of this have been discussed by our
1:11:16 scholars in the past
1:11:17 and i find it really interesting uh that
1:11:19 they're catching up
1:11:21 to this but it's not books of basel man
1:11:22 that's really interesting
1:11:24 i like the term sharia consequentialism
1:11:28 i think that needs to be popularized
1:11:30 does that answer your question brother
1:11:32 darnish uh yes uh completely thank you
1:11:35 for
1:11:35 answering this uh my question i will
1:11:38 everywhere
1:11:39 like because it's something that i spent
1:11:41 a lot of time thinking about me that's
1:11:42 like
1:11:44 obviously i had a lot to say about it
1:11:45 but yeah if for future for more
1:11:47 references
1:11:48 because i've actually written something
1:11:49 on it maybe like six thousand words or
1:11:51 something i don't know
1:11:52 yeah i've written something just write
1:11:53 my name on google and write problems
1:11:55 with liberalism
1:11:56 okay you'll get the references there
1:11:58 yeah all right
1:12:00 brother danish next we're gonna go to
1:12:03 brother sean ahmed
1:12:11 so just letting you guys know i'm
1:12:13 speaking from canada
1:12:15 and uh yes your work has made it here so
1:12:17 thank you for all the hard work you guys
1:12:19 have been doing
1:12:20 appreciate it so much thanks so much man
1:12:23 we appreciate it so my question is
1:12:26 i have a few i know you guys only want
1:12:28 one so i'll just go with the one i
1:12:29 really want to know about
1:12:31 um i'm very interested in
1:12:34 prophet adam peace be upon him um
1:12:38 i'm very i'm very interested in
1:12:39 evolution in that regard
1:12:41 um how was he made i'm curious
1:12:44 um we the quran
1:12:47 definition of what a human being is
1:12:51 why does it not incorporate
1:12:54 neanderthals for example why is it that
1:12:57 homo sapien
1:12:58 is kinda what we go with but
1:13:02 primitive sort of primates are not
1:13:06 considered a part of that
1:13:09 yeah um so so there's a few ways of
1:13:13 looking at this question so
1:13:15 when we take a purely scientific
1:13:18 perspective
1:13:19 when they say human they including
1:13:21 dennis owens
1:13:23 hormonaladi homo erectus everybody right
1:13:27 what's the first one called again uh
1:13:29 dennis owens
1:13:30 right all these different
1:13:34 species of hornets the thing is the
1:13:36 quran
1:13:38 we can only go by like allah says he
1:13:40 creates that which you
1:13:41 know that which you don't know i mean
1:13:43 allah says he creates that which you
1:13:44 don't know um
1:13:46 the thing is the quranic definition of
1:13:49 insane of human
1:13:50 is the children of adam al-islam so
1:13:54 from us and automatically when we start
1:13:56 saying
1:13:57 uh humans and the scientists are saying
1:14:00 humans would mean two different things
1:14:02 so
1:14:02 their perspective is far broader right
1:14:05 human beings would go back
1:14:07 a long long time than than what the
1:14:09 islamic definition allows
1:14:11 now why is it that they aren't called in
1:14:14 sun
1:14:14 by allah although they're creations of
1:14:16 allah so homo erectus i mean i covered
1:14:18 this previously
1:14:19 uh you know how did homo erectus make
1:14:20 wudu or whatever right
1:14:22 um that's just something which you know
1:14:26 from from uh from a quranic perspective
1:14:30 it's just
1:14:31 i mean i don't really see how we can
1:14:33 address that it's just simply what allah
1:14:35 revealed so it's kind of like
1:14:36 why did allah reveal you know five
1:14:39 prayers rather than seven
1:14:40 it's just allah willed so if allah has
1:14:43 just described the children of adam
1:14:45 al-islam as
1:14:46 in son and why didn't allah use this for
1:14:50 say
1:14:51 homo naladi right
1:14:54 which was you know it had burial um
1:14:58 sort of traditions and you could say
1:15:00 tool use and other sorts of things
1:15:02 what's the reason behind that i don't
1:15:04 know although there's some interesting
1:15:07 things i've been thinking about over the
1:15:08 years
1:15:09 as i've been looking into these hominid
1:15:11 creatures which is that
1:15:13 and you probably know this brother um
1:15:15 about language right
1:15:16 and how allah says to adam alayhi salaam
1:15:19 that
1:15:20 um you know he taught adam alayhi salaam
1:15:23 of all things right what's beautiful
1:15:26 about this
1:15:26 is um when you look at the history of
1:15:29 humans from a scientific perspective not
1:15:31 our definition our definition is only
1:15:32 bani adam
1:15:34 they actually categorize all these
1:15:36 hominids and then you have the cognitive
1:15:38 revolution with language
1:15:40 which they make as a point of inflection
1:15:42 in which intelligence goes up then you
1:15:43 get civilization you get culture you get
1:15:45 technologies all these things
1:15:47 and i think it's subhanallah it's almost
1:15:48 like allah is teaching us in this modern
1:15:50 times that he could have made his like
1:15:52 homo no ladies
1:15:54 so that could have made us really can i
1:15:56 add a question to that too
1:15:57 like i mean history has a um history of
1:16:01 civilization it's probably about 10 000
1:16:03 years
1:16:04 max and and with that we're actually go
1:16:06 like
1:16:07 we're we're we're stretching it to be
1:16:09 honest industry of our mesopotamia what
1:16:12 six seven thousand years i mean let's
1:16:14 add a three thousand four thousand yeah
1:16:16 so for example jericho we could arguably
1:16:18 say uh
1:16:20 is the oldest yeah you civilization is a
1:16:23 bit hard to define but you get your
1:16:25 point you have the ten thousand
1:16:26 so they say that the first human being
1:16:29 uh well humans homo sapiens right so
1:16:31 what we are
1:16:32 yeah that's hundreds of thousands three
1:16:34 hundred thousand years yeah yeah
1:16:35 so between the first homo sapien
1:16:39 and human civilization is like two
1:16:41 hundred ninety thousand yeah
1:16:43 what were they doing for them
1:16:50 this is the thing i was really thinking
1:16:52 about right language
1:16:53 how language changed everything now they
1:16:56 they give it around the year
1:16:58 70 000 years ago is when this cognitive
1:17:00 revolution was supposed to
1:17:02 have happened but you see these numbers
1:17:04 get revised but
1:17:05 since language is supposed to be that
1:17:07 point of inflection it could have been
1:17:08 closer to the 10 000 year mark
1:17:10 right um in terms
1:17:13 in terms of the effects of that
1:17:17 it's just one thing if you think about a
1:17:18 language but the impact in terms of
1:17:21 everything in terms of writing in terms
1:17:22 of technology culture communication
1:17:25 it's just yeah it's just mind-blowing
1:17:27 but you know one thing i always think
1:17:29 about is you know
1:17:30 one of the teachings from the sunnah and
1:17:32 one of the teachings from the quran is
1:17:34 to always look at people who have less
1:17:36 than you
1:17:36 right and to always look at in terms of
1:17:39 knowledge of islam
1:17:40 or these types of things look at people
1:17:42 obviously are better than you
1:17:43 and we can trivialize our blessings if
1:17:46 we look at always people who are richer
1:17:48 than us
1:17:48 yeah likewise you know whenever i think
1:17:50 of these hominids i literally think you
1:17:52 know subhanallah
1:17:53 it's almost like allah is teaching us
1:17:55 through all these paleontologists that
1:17:57 if he wanted we could have been like
1:17:59 that we could have had short
1:18:00 brutish nasty lives like you know hob
1:18:03 said
1:18:04 we think about it look how comfortable
1:18:06 our lives are like we're sitting here in
1:18:08 a live stream
1:18:09 talking discussing like he's not
1:18:12 grunting he's like he's losing language
1:18:14 you know what it is man like
1:18:15 you know this whole language thing we
1:18:17 talk about why and how we can ask why
1:18:19 and all morality
1:18:21 that distinguish human beings from other
1:18:22 one this language thing people don't
1:18:25 like when you start understanding
1:18:27 it yeah it's so understated language
1:18:30 we're talking about
1:18:31 how many human languages are it it has
1:18:33 allowed us to do things
1:18:35 is allow us to accumulate knowledge like
1:18:37 from one generation to another
1:18:38 generation to another generation around
1:18:40 so we can store knowledge and and pass
1:18:42 on to next generation
1:18:43 sorry just on that point storing
1:18:46 information culturally yeah i want
1:18:49 everyone to understand this here
1:18:51 when you come into the world you've got
1:18:54 hundreds of thousands of words and
1:18:56 cultures and social norms
1:18:58 and they've not been preserved on
1:19:00 something right
1:19:01 they're actually in culture and it's
1:19:04 really interesting
1:19:07 it's like a vertical inheritance that
1:19:08 you get from culture
1:19:10 and without language none of these
1:19:12 things will be possible and it's crazy
1:19:13 because like i've got a question for you
1:19:15 and once again this is like clayman
1:19:16 questions yeah
1:19:17 nothing some stupid atheists in there
1:19:18 say oh well
1:19:28 a question i had in my mind yeah if
1:19:31 language can be evolved like okay not
1:19:35 even language let me rephrase the
1:19:36 question
1:19:37 if noises that animals make to signal
1:19:40 to one another which we see in the
1:19:42 animals
1:19:43 [Music]
1:19:44 can of can evolve to a complex use of
1:19:47 language
1:19:48 okay my question is why are we not
1:19:51 seeing that in other
1:19:52 species and why have we never seen
1:19:54 another species
1:19:56 well is there any explanation for that i
1:19:58 would actually challenge that question
1:19:59 yeah so i would say rather than saying
1:20:02 why
1:20:03 because what you're what you're doing is
1:20:04 you're mixing two different issues
1:20:06 you're mixing the issue of the origin of
1:20:08 language
1:20:09 with human exceptionalism these are two
1:20:11 different things right so for example
1:20:13 do animals have language yes we could
1:20:16 argue with a certain definition of
1:20:17 language they have language
1:20:19 your real question is about human
1:20:20 exceptionalism so let's separate the two
1:20:22 questions
1:20:24 humans have exceptionalism we
1:20:27 we do by the way sorry when you say the
1:20:29 definition of language yeah
1:20:31 when i when i'm using language and also
1:20:32 about communication methods
1:20:34 yeah you're talking about yeah yeah
1:20:36 grammar syntax
1:20:38 yeah all of that yeah grammar syntax
1:20:41 semantics
1:20:41 but your question is not about origin
1:20:43 language your questions about human
1:20:44 exceptionalism
1:20:46 yeah yeah so and that's a separate
1:20:47 question for darwinis yeah
1:20:49 so what i'm doing is i'm taking your
1:20:51 question and i'm separating into
1:20:53 not one problem for the darwinis but two
1:20:55 one is the origin of language
1:20:57 one is why human beings are exceptional
1:21:01 okay in terms of their language right so
1:21:04 let's deal with one at a time
1:21:05 the first thing to know is from a
1:21:07 darwinian point of view what would be
1:21:09 the function of language
1:21:10 like what would they say survival
1:21:13 exactly so in the suffrage gene
1:21:15 richard dawkins uh says that the
1:21:17 function of basically language
1:21:19 is the this uh is for deception
1:21:24 of the signal receiver by the signal
1:21:26 sender right so essentially
1:21:28 um it's about you know
1:21:32 what are the fitness advantages of
1:21:34 communicating in this particular way so
1:21:36 so so language uh is supposed to be
1:21:39 something that helps our survivability
1:21:41 and
1:21:42 and and this type of thing however
1:21:44 there's a problem with that immediately
1:21:46 um people who are generally literate
1:21:50 people who are generally uh not not
1:21:52 literal everyone's literate now but in
1:21:53 even in the past
1:21:54 and people who are good at communication
1:21:56 and people who are good at
1:21:57 reading and writing and this type of
1:21:59 stuff they actually had
1:22:01 a lot less kids right and that's a
1:22:04 historical fact
1:22:05 so it doesn't go in line with okay so if
1:22:07 language evolved for that purpose and
1:22:09 people who are actually
1:22:10 good at communication actually have less
1:22:13 children
1:22:14 which wouldn't make any sense and also
1:22:17 um
1:22:18 people who are more intelligent it's a
1:22:19 bit of a segue so a bit of a tangent but
1:22:22 people are more intelligent actually
1:22:23 have less children as well there's
1:22:24 something else that just comes to my
1:22:25 mind
1:22:25 and once again i'll be late man
1:22:26 questioning right none of these are
1:22:28 layman so far by the way
1:22:30 he keeps saying it's like because the
1:22:32 thing is this is languages
1:22:33 for in order for it to be uh
1:22:37 it has to be with a group of people
1:22:40 at least two or more let's say well but
1:22:43 it's it's it has to be of a group of
1:22:45 people yeah
1:22:47 what i'm saying is how do you get from
1:22:50 noises for communication purposes
1:22:54 to complex language syntax semantics
1:22:58 grammar okay good
1:22:59 but no okay when in order for such thing
1:23:02 to be
1:23:03 constructed you need two or more
1:23:06 actors to work in synchronization with
1:23:09 one yeah
1:23:10 yeah yeah how does this kind of yeah so
1:23:12 now what you've done is
1:23:13 you you raise the issue of the original
1:23:15 language and you raise the issue of
1:23:17 human exceptionalism you're raising a
1:23:18 third issue which is known as
1:23:20 aggregate problem and the third one i'll
1:23:21 do a fourth one as well before you do
1:23:23 that because
1:23:24 you know you know what's what i find
1:23:27 confusing yeah language is not
1:23:32 a biological trait it's a cultural
1:23:35 inheritance
1:23:36 like language is not you can't argue
1:23:38 that because i've heard this before
1:23:40 right language is involved
1:23:41 okay in one usage of the term but it's
1:23:43 not something like skin
1:23:44 no it's not evolved it's not but we have
1:23:46 the cognitive architecture
1:23:48 for it yeah that's fine yeah yeah but
1:23:50 what i'm saying is
1:23:51 basically you have something moving from
1:23:54 simplicity to complexity yeah which is
1:23:56 language yeah
1:23:58 and in order for that to be the case two
1:23:59 more actors have to be actively
1:24:02 yep okay creating systems yeah
1:24:05 so how does that happen yeah so what see
1:24:07 this is a really good thing and
1:24:08 uh so we've gone from the origin of
1:24:10 language which you raised
1:24:12 the human exception is another problem
1:24:14 so another problem which they term the
1:24:16 aggregate problem
1:24:17 the aggregate problem is the complex
1:24:20 sociological phenomena of language and
1:24:22 transmission and grammar and all these
1:24:24 things
1:24:25 how can that break down to individual
1:24:28 level strategies individual level yes
1:24:30 yeah and
1:24:31 it's almost like there's an emergent
1:24:33 property
1:24:34 that's known as the aggregate problem
1:24:36 right right so they don't really have a
1:24:37 solution for it yeah but
1:24:39 we do that because here's one point
1:24:43 you have this complex problem and you
1:24:45 have to like seriously a theory that has
1:24:47 to come into that
1:24:48 to to explain all these problems is a
1:24:50 lot we have a very simple verse in the
1:24:52 quran
1:24:54 oh sorry the other one which says that
1:25:08 [Music]
1:25:17 all the names all of them or not
1:25:20 every single one of them but a lot of
1:25:22 them and then
1:25:25 and then adam then communicated them to
1:25:28 the angel or the angels
1:25:34 basically was input yeah yep okay this
1:25:37 makes a lot more sense doesn't it
1:25:38 yeah input output
1:25:42 correction that's how learning works
1:25:44 yeah yeah exactly how long it is
1:25:47 if you have something now look you've
1:25:49 got two options you've got the
1:25:51 the religious option which was basically
1:25:53 telling you that language was inherited
1:25:55 in exactly the same way
1:25:56 as software is built yeah yeah like we
1:25:58 have software computers right
1:26:01 so so how does that work you have input
1:26:03 output correction that's how it works
1:26:05 input from allah straight to the first
1:26:08 human
1:26:09 output to the angels and then correction
1:26:13 that makes more sense than anything they
1:26:14 can come up with i'm sorry it does
1:26:17 and you know there's something really
1:26:19 really beautiful about that particular
1:26:21 and i just
1:26:22 this isn't planned but i'm going to put
1:26:24 this question to hijab
1:26:25 so the angels when allah creates adam
1:26:28 islam
1:26:29 the angels look at other militants
1:26:33 what do they say
1:26:36 they say that give me the tell me no no
1:26:40 no no no
1:26:41 that's later right the first thing is
1:26:45 that allah created this creation when we
1:26:48 sanctify you and
1:26:50 basically where the angels are saying
1:26:52 would you create one that sheds blood
1:26:54 now that was the first human
1:26:57 right so what was going on shedding
1:26:59 blood before that that looked like a
1:27:00 human
1:27:02 well some say the gin as some say the
1:27:04 bun
1:27:05 like you know no but okay no i i know i
1:27:08 know i know that one i i know i know
1:27:10 about that but
1:27:11 but that's by the way that's quite
1:27:12 interesting because you know this whole
1:27:13 bun thing that probably mentions it i
1:27:14 think in this
1:27:15 syria yeah on the on the a of this uh
1:27:18 i'm gonna go back to this i'm gonna
1:27:19 check this one out actually because it's
1:27:20 very interesting
1:27:22 he said that there was a creation before
1:27:23 human beings
1:27:25 called bun we should look like humans
1:27:27 which were like human beings yeah and
1:27:28 that they were fought each other yeah
1:27:30 now he now here's what's very
1:27:31 interesting yeah you see
1:27:34 when we look at the uh uh when the
1:27:36 angels are basically looking at adam and
1:27:38 islam you have to remember
1:27:39 they're looking at adam al-islam and
1:27:41 then they're saying
1:27:43 that would you create one that sheds
1:27:45 blood so obviously they're referring to
1:27:46 something that looks like him
1:27:47 not looks like an elephant or something
1:27:48 yeah right right and that sheds blood
1:27:50 now what's interesting is when we look
1:27:52 at the hominids previously
1:27:54 they were very violent right they were
1:27:57 at each other their cranium their uh
1:28:00 you know their skeletal features and all
1:28:02 these things
1:28:03 they literally look like um i mean uh
1:28:07 it was almost like you know if you take
1:28:08 a really tough looking human
1:28:10 yeah you know those people that almost
1:28:12 feel like the the
1:28:14 the skull is almost twice the size of a
1:28:16 normal like
1:28:17 these were really tough things and there
1:28:19 was a lot of battles there was a lot of
1:28:21 uh we shouldn't say battles raids
1:28:23 killings
1:28:24 snatchings there's a lot of bloodshed so
1:28:27 it makes
1:28:28 kind of sense that the angels are saying
1:28:30 you know
1:28:31 would you create one which you know
1:28:33 sheds blood
1:28:34 and then here's the thing uh
1:28:37 allah distinguishes and answers them and
1:28:40 what's their contention their contention
1:28:42 is violence
1:28:43 yes their contentious violence what does
1:28:45 allah answer
1:28:47 what makes this creation different what
1:28:49 makes this creation different
1:28:51 language and the language when when
1:28:54 you're teaching a language
1:28:56 you have to teach concepts with the
1:28:59 language so each word
1:29:01 comes with the type of concept so cup
1:29:04 right it's it's it's not just a a word
1:29:06 it's actually a concept
1:29:08 so some scholars say when allah says
1:29:12 he taught are them the names of things
1:29:15 the word
1:29:16 uh the the name encompasses
1:29:19 concepts as well not just names which is
1:29:22 obviously uh
1:29:24 it is an extension of that now
1:29:27 by human beings communicating they
1:29:30 actually have a lot less violence
1:29:31 right that's just a standard thing the
1:29:33 other thing is you take um and
1:29:35 this biologist said this right you take
1:29:38 a hundred and fifty
1:29:40 chimpanzees and you stick them
1:29:44 on a plane they're all sitting in a
1:29:46 plane and you you put them there
1:29:48 what do they do nothing scream they will
1:29:51 scream and
1:29:52 shout and rip off each other's genitalia
1:29:54 and and just
1:29:55 go mad you've been watching a lot of
1:29:57 those documentaries so anyway
1:29:59 uh and joe rogan goes crazy about what
1:30:01 chimps would have done here
1:30:02 now you take 150 strange humans and you
1:30:05 stick them on a plane
1:30:06 they put on their seat belts they sit
1:30:08 there right they'll act totally
1:30:10 different
1:30:11 right now what what makes us different
1:30:14 language language is is definitely there
1:30:17 it's also temperament and
1:30:19 these types of things yeah but we're
1:30:20 totally sociologically different
1:30:22 right to what is supposed to be oh we're
1:30:24 just one percent off oh we're so close
1:30:27 we're almost
1:30:27 we are chimps we just which is more
1:30:29 sophisticated we're clearly not clearly
1:30:31 there's something a lot more going on
1:30:33 so you know this there's also something
1:30:35 else that i keep thinking about that
1:30:37 it's interesting that all of these
1:30:39 discoveries are coming now
1:30:40 they didn't come in the 17th century
1:30:42 didn't come in the 16th century they
1:30:43 come
1:30:44 and this is a century in which not only
1:30:47 are we more affected by fitna
1:30:48 of in terms of material wealth allah is
1:30:51 also giving us more reason to be
1:30:53 grateful for what we actually have
1:30:55 and one of the things because i do this
1:30:57 a lot i have to look into
1:30:59 all of these hominid species and the way
1:31:01 they lived i honestly think
1:31:03 if someone just spent a little bit of
1:31:05 time looking into how these hominids
1:31:07 lived
1:31:08 they would be grateful the poorest human
1:31:10 being on earth would be grateful for
1:31:11 everything they have
1:31:12 our lives are so much more comfortable
1:31:15 than theirs
1:31:16 but they're constantly worried about
1:31:17 being attacked and killed
1:31:19 it might be living your life like that
1:31:20 bro imagine like to be honest
1:31:22 uh a human being in the jungle
1:31:25 it doesn't have language doesn't have
1:31:27 guns no weapon nothing it's a hobbesian
1:31:29 war against all against
1:31:30 all that bro i imagine you have to go
1:31:32 against the lion yeah
1:31:34 you know you know even i think
1:31:37 you're gonna be the king of the jungle
1:31:38 with your
1:31:40 frame of your body and this bloody lines
1:31:43 in there even you know this is very
1:31:44 interesting
1:31:45 um ignoramus yeah that's not
1:31:51 some um some animals
1:31:54 uh they actually uh can actually
1:31:57 communicate
1:31:58 over huge distances like uh whales and
1:32:01 and these types of things but despite
1:32:04 their
1:32:04 huge brain sizes and the fact that they
1:32:07 can communicate over these large large
1:32:08 large
1:32:09 distances their communication and
1:32:12 everything that they do is still very
1:32:15 primitive i mean what they're going to
1:32:16 talk about food or
1:32:18 safety or these types of things but if
1:32:20 you look at humans
1:32:22 a lot of our discussions are not to do
1:32:24 with food and survival
1:32:26 right they're not to do with
1:32:26 reproduction and survival a lot of it's
1:32:29 to do with
1:32:30 concepts and ideas and ideals and morals
1:32:34 and ethics and
1:32:35 you know these types of things different
1:32:37 completely different thing i think it's
1:32:38 an insult when they're comparison
1:32:40 monkeys
1:32:41 well we're always talking about genetics
1:32:43 is that all that that's genetic
1:32:44 reductionism
1:32:45 yeah genetic reductionism because what
1:32:48 they're basically telling us is look
1:32:50 we're just a bit more sophisticated than
1:32:52 a chimp yeah so
1:32:54 give it the ability to have sex give it
1:32:55 a little bit of a banana and you feel a
1:32:57 bit safe it'll be happy
1:32:59 but honestly you take the human being
1:33:01 and you give them the ability i mean
1:33:03 technically if we
1:33:04 truly if me and if i don't break a high
1:33:06 monkey
1:33:16 i wouldn't be sitting here nearly one
1:33:18 o'clock in the morning talking about
1:33:20 this topic
1:33:21 he would be a sperm bank waiting cueing
1:33:24 i would be somewhere hunting we'd be
1:33:26 acting in a darwinian perspective just
1:33:29 spreading our genes
1:33:30 and you know doing these types of
1:33:31 behaviors no one acts like that
1:33:33 yeah and the reason why behavior is very
1:33:35 important is because
1:33:36 all of the rest of the things that the
1:33:38 darwinists say we can't really test
1:33:40 ourselves but behavior is something we
1:33:42 can test ourselves
1:33:44 and we know that actually it doesn't fit
1:33:46 the dominant picture at all
1:33:50 thank you so much for your answer um i
1:33:52 have one more question
1:33:55 i have one more question
1:33:59 it's all good no you know i it's frank
1:34:01 because you guys went to language
1:34:02 and when i was when i said mohammed
1:34:04 hijab way uh outside the sperm bank yeah
1:34:07 no one laughed but actually that
1:34:11 if you really think about it you go to a
1:34:13 sperm bank
1:34:14 and you just literally just just go in
1:34:16 there keep giving your sperm
1:34:18 they keep making these babies and they
1:34:20 your jeans are being spread everywhere
1:34:22 no one's having their job gets paid too
1:34:26 but i'll be honest there was one time i
1:34:28 was gone dude
1:34:31 [Laughter]
1:34:34 [Music]
1:34:39 [Laughter]
1:34:44 there was these people used to call me
1:34:45 for medical trials
1:34:47 not all like like medical treason and
1:34:50 ever i used to call them back and say
1:34:51 okay what's what's the risks and
1:34:53 whatever
1:34:54 and one time i put like they used to
1:34:55 tell me text message and whatever and
1:34:58 uh no i didn't do the the the sperm
1:35:00 thing obviously
1:35:02 but there was one time i actually went
1:35:03 ahead with like a medical trial on it
1:35:05 really yeah i went to the hospital and
1:35:07 everything i filled out the form i said
1:35:09 i want to do it and
1:35:10 i went to the hospital there was a a
1:35:12 hospital
1:35:14 and then i just looked at the people
1:35:15 that has turned back and then
1:35:18 some of these have gone wrong by the way
1:35:20 these medical experiments they did one
1:35:21 in
1:35:22 northwick park hospital oh yeah yeah and
1:35:24 it just
1:35:25 it caused serious issues yeah so um i
1:35:28 forgot what your original question was
1:35:29 but jazakallah for joining us
1:35:31 ah thank you so much all righty
1:35:34 next uh brother shawn ahmed next is
1:35:38 eamonn almady
1:35:49 yes we can thank you so much for what
1:35:52 you're doing guys it's really a pleasure
1:35:53 being here with you guys
1:35:59 discussion seems a little bit more
1:36:00 interesting
1:36:03 so my question basically is just about
1:36:06 a methodology with which
1:36:10 by the way uh a methodology
1:36:13 in which we can deal with the
1:36:15 contradictions between science and
1:36:17 quran or because i have a lot of people
1:36:19 in my family that say that
1:36:21 well this verse contradicts science and
1:36:24 so
1:36:24 how can we deal in a general way with
1:36:26 those types of
1:36:27 questions it's not a general-like answer
1:36:32 i think it requires interdisciplinary
1:36:34 study
1:36:34 it requires you to uh
1:36:37 look and do the bath unfortunately and
1:36:40 actually the research and check out and
1:36:42 that's what same thing thoughts is i
1:36:43 mean we've got like 10 more videos to
1:36:45 film 10 more videos to come up
1:36:47 and then really we should be covering
1:36:49 everything out there
1:36:50 there's about i think there's about
1:36:52 maybe
1:36:54 seven let's say 70 but
1:36:57 really it's about 35 35 major
1:37:00 contentions but then they can be
1:37:03 subdivided into about 70
1:37:05 that these anti-slamming apologies have
1:37:08 and you have to know the answers for
1:37:09 them
1:37:09 and that's what we're doing sapiens
1:37:12 thoughts
1:37:13 were already going through the majority
1:37:15 of them and by the end of maybe
1:37:17 three four weeks time all of them would
1:37:19 have been released yeah
1:37:21 so i just wanna have one in particular
1:37:24 because one of my family members keeps
1:37:25 saying that
1:37:26 it's about uh
1:37:34 the six days thing and uh so how do you
1:37:36 know how can i answer this type of
1:37:38 question i think there's a video on this
1:37:40 yeah i've done a video on that yeah yeah
1:37:41 it's on sapiens thoughts
1:37:43 you can watch a good video on this
1:37:44 inshallah okay thank you so much thank
1:37:46 you so much
1:37:54 uh we actually started this live stream
1:37:57 late uh we're going to try and start it
1:37:59 earlier next week inshallah around
1:38:00 it seems like more people came on board
1:38:02 now yeah and even the views are not
1:38:05 not too bad there but we're gonna have
1:38:07 to end uh because it's nearly one
1:38:09 o'clock here in the uk
1:38:11 and uh yeah so dulban please
1:38:14 uh state your question and where you're
1:38:16 calling from
1:38:18 welcome to savings institute live
1:38:23 welcome yes we can brother
1:38:27 okay alhamdulillah it's for
1:38:30 hijab i'm from germany actually so my
1:38:32 question goes like this
1:38:34 it's about dmt so basically
1:38:37 um everyone who experiences kind of
1:38:42 such kind of experiences like emt for
1:38:45 example
1:38:45 always come up with some um
1:38:49 fabricated kind of belief right so for
1:38:51 example um
1:38:52 joe rogan conor murphy or some other
1:38:55 people so they never go
1:38:56 the path of uh monotheism
1:38:59 they go actually the path of you know uh
1:39:03 much more god and stuff like this so
1:39:05 what is your
1:39:06 response to i know you didn't take it
1:39:08 yourself but
1:39:09 um how can we uh tell them to go to the
1:39:13 right path to islam
1:39:16 situation so i hope you had my question
1:39:19 well if
1:39:20 not the thing is if
1:39:23 when they make any report when they're
1:39:25 reporting on something right what are
1:39:26 they
1:39:27 putting off they're gonna report of
1:39:28 seeing images of whatever images they
1:39:30 see like a monkey
1:39:31 this or i don't know that or geometric
1:39:33 shapes whatever they see right
1:39:36 the fact of the matter is that whatever
1:39:38 they claim to see
1:39:39 or hallucinations is coherent to some
1:39:42 extent
1:39:42 like for example if they say i see
1:39:44 geometric shapes
1:39:46 but you so you can make sense of what
1:39:47 you see
1:39:49 now if you can make sense of what you
1:39:51 see now you're talking about reality
1:39:53 which is outside of physical existence
1:39:55 which feels as real as physical
1:39:56 existence which has coherence
1:39:59 how can you explain such reality of
1:40:00 materialism this this for me
1:40:03 the dmt thing is actually a shot on the
1:40:05 foot for them
1:40:07 that's why i feel like the dmt thing
1:40:11 uh the psychedelic experiences for if
1:40:14 you really think about it right
1:40:15 if you're talking about experiencing
1:40:17 coherent
1:40:19 experiences outside of material realm
1:40:21 which feel as
1:40:22 real as the material realm
1:40:25 it must be that consciousness has some
1:40:27 kind of different interaction
1:40:29 with with human beings it's not simple
1:40:33 as oh it's all that we see in the
1:40:34 physical existence is what there is
1:40:36 i don't see how that does anything to
1:40:38 discredit religion in fact
1:40:40 it does a lot to credit it because it's
1:40:43 showing you there's a whole world out
1:40:44 there that you can't make sense of
1:40:46 unless you start invoking metaphysics
1:40:49 basically right but it's uh yes it gives
1:40:52 credit to religion
1:40:53 per se but how can we um use this energy
1:40:56 of the people to uh give them uh the
1:40:59 pathway to islam you know how can we
1:41:01 argue
1:41:02 for islam
1:41:11 like he associated sleep was death he
1:41:14 says that the sleep is the brother of
1:41:16 death
1:41:18 and so when consciousness when you lose
1:41:20 consciousness and sleep
1:41:23 consciousness travels to a different
1:41:24 location literally your soul is it goes
1:41:26 to a
1:41:27 different place it goes to the same
1:41:29 place where it sleeps
1:41:31 than what it does when it dies which
1:41:34 shows you that which is the bazaar right
1:41:36 this this place
1:41:38 this makes sense of the experiences it
1:41:42 makes sense of
1:41:42 how consciousness you can be in a
1:41:44 trapped in another realm and seeing
1:41:45 different
1:41:46 things but it also makes sense as a fact
1:41:49 or it points the direction of
1:41:52 materialism not being once again the
1:41:55 five senses and what we understand
1:41:57 through them
1:41:58 physicalism materialism is not the only
1:42:00 reality that is out there
1:42:02 and there is no explanation in any other
1:42:04 religion
1:42:05 that explains another realm in the same
1:42:09 way that
1:42:09 islam does when it comes to sleep and
1:42:12 loss of consciousness and connecting
1:42:14 with death
1:42:15 i i actually was watching something
1:42:17 today with this guy his name is
1:42:19 and that guy i refused was his name
1:42:22 tyson something tyson
1:42:24 what's his name again person the guy the
1:42:27 astrophysicist
1:42:29 i thought yeah
1:42:33 yeah sorry sorry yeah he was he was he
1:42:35 was being interviewed
1:42:37 by larry king i think his name was jeff
1:42:40 and and larry king said to him what's
1:42:42 going to happen he was scared like he
1:42:44 was actually
1:42:44 it was as if he was going to a priest or
1:42:46 something and he's asking what's going
1:42:47 to happen after death
1:42:49 and he said that well you this is so
1:42:52 like i thought about this guy and i
1:42:53 thought this guy doesn't even think
1:42:54 properly because
1:42:56 he said well you didn't exist before
1:42:59 and what's going to happen after death
1:43:00 is that you're just not going to exist
1:43:02 like you did like how it was before
1:43:04 so he's trying to say that just as you
1:43:06 didn't exist before
1:43:07 that same experience of non-existence is
1:43:10 going to repeat itself
1:43:12 but that's a false analogy i thought to
1:43:14 myself is that guy so dumb to not
1:43:16 realize
1:43:17 but we never had an ex experience of a
1:43:20 situation
1:43:21 where we were conscious and then yeah
1:43:23 and then
1:43:24 and then it's it's
1:43:27 such a disanalysis
1:43:33 if you were nothing and you were brought
1:43:35 to life and you become nothing the
1:43:37 chances are you being brought to life
1:43:39 are bet more now because it's already
1:43:41 happening before
1:43:43 so it's it's it's a terrible analogy you
1:43:45 need to make a video on that
1:43:47 i thought about making a video on it but
1:43:49 i just thought i mean
1:43:51 look i i thought to myself look it's a
1:43:53 simple thing he's saying that you didn't
1:43:55 exist
1:43:55 so we have experience of not existing in
1:43:58 existence
1:43:59 but we have no experience of
1:44:02 not existing existing and they're not
1:44:05 existing yeah
1:44:06 it's so easy yeah and but there's
1:44:08 there's more to it than that
1:44:09 that's the islamic argument
1:44:12 the only time we've lost consciousness
1:44:18 is in sleep
1:44:21 and every single time we lose
1:44:23 consciousness we regain it
1:44:25 that's a scientific point every single
1:44:28 time
1:44:28 [Music]
1:44:30 so why do you think that you're going to
1:44:32 continue losing consciousness
1:44:34 or that you're going to lose
1:44:35 consciousness and not regain it again
1:44:36 absolutely
1:44:37 just on that point my battery is going
1:44:39 to you know lose its juice very soon
1:44:42 so we may lose this live stream but
1:44:44 jazakallah
1:44:45 brother dulban for
1:44:54 so please everybody join us uh next week
1:44:58 for the same inshallah we're gonna be
1:45:01 back
1:45:01 probably around seven eight o'clock uk
1:45:03 time and going live as we usually do for
1:45:06 about three hours two and a half three
1:45:07 hours it's about an hour 45 minutes not
1:45:09 bad
1:45:10 about one o'clock in the morning um but
1:45:12 yes
1:45:13 uh please do join us may allah bless you
1:45:16 all
1:45:16 assalamu alaikum