Sapience Institute Live: With Mohammed Hijab & Subboor Ahmad (2021-03-06) ​

0:00:01 assalamu alaikum
0:00:03 welcome to sapience institute
0:00:07 live we are going to be talking about
0:00:10 arguments for god's existence
0:00:12 arguments for the validity of the quran
0:00:16 speaking about arguments for why islam
0:00:18 is the truth
0:00:20 and also looking at the contentions
0:00:23 against islam and how those can be
0:00:26 addressed and like always we want you
0:00:30 the viewer to come forward and
0:00:33 present cases for islam cases against
0:00:36 islam
0:00:37 and of course any non-muslims are most
0:00:40 welcome to come onto the live stream
0:00:42 and actually openly challenge the
0:00:44 content that we're actually putting out
0:00:46 so to get us going there's some recent
0:00:49 videos
0:00:49 hijab which have been put on to the
0:00:52 sapiens
0:00:53 uh channel uh could you let us know
0:00:55 about those videos
0:00:57 why those are important and what is the
0:00:59 objective
0:01:00 behind this or regular content that the
0:01:03 sapience institute
0:01:04 regularly pushes out right i just had to
0:01:07 post this on the community page of my
0:01:08 channel
0:01:09 that's done now yeah so
0:01:12 what we are doing as support kind of
0:01:15 alluded to here at
0:01:16 the sapiens institute is really two
0:01:18 things the objectives are twofold
0:01:21 one is to argue
0:01:24 rationally a case for the truth of islam
0:01:27 why islam is true
0:01:29 and the other one is to handle
0:01:31 objections
0:01:32 of those people who have such objections
0:01:35 or detractors of islam these are just
0:01:37 basically if you want to put it in
0:01:39 a nutshell what we do how we do that
0:01:42 obviously
0:01:42 is through videographic information
0:01:44 through the publication of material
0:01:46 through training courses which is a big
0:01:48 part of what we do
0:01:49 training individuals and so on and so
0:01:51 forth having
0:01:52 live sessions with you guys like this uh
0:01:55 among
0:01:56 myriad of other things we do as well um
0:01:59 research based text based which you will
0:02:02 see hopefully inshallah in the next six
0:02:03 months
0:02:05 what we've been focusing on in terms of
0:02:07 the sapience thoughts project
0:02:09 what i have been focusing on because the
0:02:10 safety and souls project is not just
0:02:13 the material that i'm putting out but
0:02:15 it's going to be
0:02:17 many different speakers talking about
0:02:18 different things but what i personally
0:02:20 the project that i've undertook
0:02:22 is um the scientific narratives
0:02:26 narrative
0:02:27 which has been out there for some time
0:02:30 um i would say
0:02:31 for the last 20 years ever since the
0:02:33 scientific miracles narrative
0:02:35 has been out there and so there has been
0:02:37 kind of these
0:02:38 uh back and fro kind of discussions
0:02:42 between people who are advocating that
0:02:44 this the quran is a scientific miracle
0:02:47 because
0:02:47 it contains information that couldn't
0:02:49 have been known at the time
0:02:50 and those on the other hand that are
0:02:52 saying in fact the quran is not
0:02:54 because it contains information which is
0:02:57 contrary to modern science and these are
0:03:00 competing claims
0:03:01 so what we do is we come in the middle
0:03:03 try and arbitrate these claims and say
0:03:05 well hold on let's have a robust
0:03:06 discussion number one is science
0:03:08 corridorable or incorrigible
0:03:10 is it transient or is it eternal in
0:03:12 terms of its epistemic
0:03:14 uh ability to produce truth number two
0:03:17 are the
0:03:18 verses of the quran are they or are they
0:03:21 are they
0:03:22 uh clear or are they ambiguous are they
0:03:27 and then we say okay so what does the
0:03:28 language allow there's a language allow
0:03:31 this interpretation or this
0:03:32 interpretation or even interesting
0:03:34 enough does it allow both
0:03:35 interpretations
0:03:36 what does the president show what's the
0:03:38 classical precedent
0:03:39 what scholars said before this the the
0:03:42 scientific revolution for example 16th
0:03:44 century before
0:03:45 things were very widely known to be
0:03:48 scientifically true what were people
0:03:50 saying
0:03:50 in the 8th century the 9th century so we
0:03:52 look at that
0:03:54 and we have a team of very good
0:03:56 researchers in the background
0:03:57 helping us and gather all of these
0:03:59 things and obviously this is an
0:04:00 interdisciplinarian thing
0:04:02 and we're putting philosophy of science
0:04:04 in history of uh science
0:04:06 um and the good news alhamdulillah is
0:04:08 that we have completed
0:04:09 the recording of this series so next
0:04:11 week
0:04:12 we already are uploading three videos
0:04:16 per week the it should go up by next
0:04:19 week to maybe five four to five videos a
0:04:21 week
0:04:22 uh of the sapiens thoughts um videos are
0:04:25 going to
0:04:25 go up and because what we have is a lot
0:04:28 of
0:04:28 as we have a backlog of uh information
0:04:31 that has already been recorded
0:04:33 that needs to go out there because now
0:04:34 we want to go to the next
0:04:36 set of uh contentions and
0:04:39 arguments against got uh the gratitude
0:04:41 of islam
0:04:42 which is these kind of moral arguments
0:04:44 when i kind of go into that
0:04:46 that will be the next project and then
0:04:48 obviously after that
0:04:49 that or maybe during that we'll have to
0:04:51 kind of discuss and see the logistics of
0:04:52 it
0:04:53 we're going to be giving arguments for
0:04:54 the truthfulness of islam historical
0:04:56 arguments predictions
0:04:58 you know the preservation all of these
0:05:01 kinds of things that you may have had
0:05:02 before but we're going to kind of
0:05:03 approach it from a different
0:05:04 perspective when collaboration with uh
0:05:07 great people from the
0:05:08 the middle east and translating some of
0:05:11 their works like a doctor
0:05:13 who has uh you know books
0:05:16 which are freely available in the arab
0:05:18 world which were in the course of
0:05:20 translating
0:05:21 like um which is a
0:05:24 big book that he has spent a lot of time
0:05:26 on so we we're trying to pick the lower
0:05:28 lane fruit
0:05:29 bring all this kind of intellectual uh
0:05:31 property together
0:05:32 and information together and bring
0:05:35 cutting-edge information
0:05:36 uh and deliver it to the people
0:05:40 so in a nutshell this is what we're
0:05:42 trying to do
0:05:44 absolutely for that um i'd like to jump
0:05:47 straight in
0:05:48 and go to the viewers uh we have our
0:05:51 brother
0:05:51 martial allah youssef who has some very
0:05:53 colorful
0:05:54 headphones welcome yusuf to sapience
0:05:58 institute
0:05:59 live let us know your questions let us
0:06:01 know where you're coming from
0:06:03 and just generally any other thing you
0:06:05 want to share inshallah
0:06:11 how are you doing brother alhamdulillah
0:06:16 um so i have a bit of a it's a bit of a
0:06:18 long
0:06:19 uh question i was watching muhammad
0:06:21 hijab i was watching your debate with
0:06:23 edward uh tabash yes
0:06:26 and he uh he was trying to refute the
0:06:30 contingency argument
0:06:31 yeah no i didn't i'm going to quote to
0:06:34 you his refutation
0:06:37 um and i would uh i want you to explain
0:06:40 to me what his refutation is because i
0:06:42 can't understand
0:06:44 and why his refutation isn't correct so
0:06:47 end quote he says a necessary fact
0:06:49 cannot explain a contingent fact
0:06:51 without introducing a fact in need of
0:06:54 explanation
0:06:55 if a necessary fact cannot explain a
0:06:57 contingent fact except by entailing it
0:06:59 because any fact entailed by a necessary
0:07:02 fact
0:07:03 must itself be necessary however the
0:07:06 necessary fact does not entail the
0:07:07 contingent fact
0:07:09 then the explanatory explanatory
0:07:11 connection
0:07:12 it has to the contingent fact must be a
0:07:15 contingent one
0:07:16 which introduces a new contingent in
0:07:18 fact in need of explanation
0:07:20 and if the defender of the argument
0:07:21 replies sorry
0:07:23 sorry go back and go back three
0:07:28 sentences
0:07:30 the it has to the contingent fact must
0:07:32 be in it might be a contingent one which
0:07:34 introduces a new contingent in fact
0:07:36 in need of explanation all right start
0:07:37 again from the beginning sorry i i
0:07:39 apologize i was not
0:07:40 concentrating let me let me write this
0:07:43 down so that
0:07:44 i'm sure that got pen okay
0:07:48 even i even i wrote it down myself all
0:07:50 right so let's let's see what we have to
0:07:52 say go ahead
0:07:53 okay so a necessary fact cannot explain
0:07:56 a contingent fact
0:07:58 without introducing a fact
0:08:01 in need of explanation without
0:08:04 without without without uh introducing
0:08:08 uh a contingent fact in need of
0:08:10 explanation
0:08:14 okay let's do one on our time otherwise
0:08:16 it's impossible yeah
0:08:17 sure okay okay so let's let's deal with
0:08:20 that one
0:08:21 all right a necessary fact cannot
0:08:24 explain a contingent fact
0:08:26 okay without introducing a contingent
0:08:29 fact
0:08:31 in need of explanation okay this
0:08:34 already is a mischaracterization of the
0:08:36 argument that's put forward on two
0:08:38 grounds okay that's
0:08:39 because we otherwise you're just gonna
0:08:40 read all of what he has to say
0:08:42 this first instance this first sentence
0:08:45 already for me and i remember
0:08:47 writing this down when we had the debate
0:08:50 in california at that time
0:08:52 and seeing what he's trying to say but
0:08:55 look first of all we're not talking
0:08:56 about necessary facts we're talking
0:08:58 about necessary existences
0:09:00 so here's what we need to distinguish
0:09:02 between okay
0:09:03 you have these universals or you can
0:09:05 call them transcendental universals
0:09:07 you can call them categories uh master
0:09:10 key categories
0:09:11 so for instance if i say a master key
0:09:14 category or
0:09:15 you can even call them geniuses okay
0:09:17 genus yeah
0:09:19 so for instance let's say a master key
0:09:21 category is
0:09:23 fatherhood okay fatherhood or let's say
0:09:26 another master key category is existence
0:09:30 okay you can say other master key
0:09:32 categories facts
0:09:33 now facts and existences are not the
0:09:35 same thing they're not interchangeable
0:09:38 my argument was never based on facts was
0:09:41 a necessary fact and what's a contingent
0:09:43 fact and this is very important
0:09:45 the category that i was talking about
0:09:48 was
0:09:48 not the category of necessary facts or
0:09:52 contingent
0:09:52 facts the category which is important
0:09:55 that needs to be
0:09:56 paid attention to is existence
0:10:00 so already this is a it's
0:10:02 mischaracterization of the argument yeah
0:10:04 because he says unnecessary fact cannot
0:10:06 explain a contingent fact
0:10:08 without introducing contingent facts in
0:10:12 need of explanation
0:10:13 okay well we're not talking about
0:10:15 necessary facts and contingent facts the
0:10:17 only
0:10:18 part of that debate which i remember
0:10:19 talking about necessary facts
0:10:21 was when i said two plus two equals four
0:10:23 is a necessary fact
0:10:25 but i was using that as an analogy for
0:10:28 necessary existences not as uh
0:10:30 interchangeable with it
0:10:32 which is a very important misconception
0:10:34 i think i need to
0:10:35 clarify right so there's a difference
0:10:37 between
0:10:38 facts and existences why do we have to
0:10:41 deal with existences
0:10:42 because existences is the base of
0:10:44 everything
0:10:46 that my argument started and this is not
0:10:48 actually my argument
0:10:49 but let's be honest it's the argument of
0:10:51 avicenna it starts with
0:10:53 there is no doubt that there is
0:10:55 existence
0:10:56 okay there's no sheikh there's no doubt
0:11:00 that there is
0:11:01 there is there is existence is
0:11:03 difference to
0:11:04 facts is existence yeah
0:11:08 so the monthly category that i'm the or
0:11:10 the universal the transcendental
0:11:11 universal
0:11:12 i'm dealing with here is not the
0:11:13 transcendental universal of
0:11:15 facts i am dealing with the
0:11:18 transcendental universal
0:11:19 of existences number one
0:11:23 so let's rephrase this if if he says a
0:11:26 necessary existence cannot
0:11:28 explain
0:11:31 instead of saying what he said which is
0:11:32 which is a a
0:11:34 necessary fact so if we if we
0:11:37 re-characterize it as per
0:11:38 what we're talking about which is the
0:11:40 category of existence let's see if his
0:11:42 argument has any way
0:11:44 a necessary existence cannot explain
0:11:47 a contingent existence without
0:11:49 introducing a contingent existence
0:11:51 in need of explanation that's false
0:11:54 that's not true how is that true he has
0:11:56 to that's that's a claim that's
0:11:58 unevidenced
0:11:59 right he's saying that unnecessary
0:12:02 existence cannot explain
0:12:04 a contingent existence let's say that
0:12:06 because he's got it wrong
0:12:07 facts the facts and existences are two
0:12:09 different things and necessary existence
0:12:11 cannot explain
0:12:12 a contingent existence without
0:12:14 introducing a contingent existence
0:12:16 in need of expression that's absolutely
0:12:17 false we believe that the necessary
0:12:19 existence
0:12:21 is the cumulative result
0:12:24 okay of reasoning from contingency
0:12:29 so what he's what he's supposing is that
0:12:31 we're starting from
0:12:33 uh we're starting from necessity and
0:12:35 arguing back
0:12:36 to contingency but what we're actually
0:12:39 doing or what we actually have done
0:12:41 is we have started from contingency and
0:12:44 argued towards
0:12:45 necessity the way the argument the form
0:12:48 of the argument which she has miscap
0:12:50 mischaracterized is not that because
0:12:53 this would be a circular argument if we
0:12:55 said that
0:12:56 the necessary existence explains
0:12:59 contingent existences well that would
0:13:02 exactly be begging the question that
0:13:03 would be
0:13:04 me putting the first premise as the
0:13:06 conclusion so that's not the way that we
0:13:08 have
0:13:09 uh argued in the debate and this is not
0:13:11 the contingency again
0:13:13 the contingency argument says there
0:13:15 cannot be a world with only possible
0:13:17 existences
0:13:18 this is what it's saying it's saying
0:13:19 that a world it's inconceivable and this
0:13:23 is called
0:13:23 it's called argumentum add absurdum
0:13:27 okay argumentum adam absurdum is to
0:13:29 let's try
0:13:30 and conceive of a world with only
0:13:32 possible existences or to be specific
0:13:34 let's try and conceive of a series of
0:13:38 things
0:13:39 existence thing existing things
0:13:42 wherein all of those theories are
0:13:45 contingently existing not
0:13:46 uh necessary existence we will say that
0:13:49 such series cannot exist
0:13:51 without something outside of it
0:13:55 which is necessary in order to explicate
0:13:58 it or
0:13:58 explain it all the series itself has to
0:14:01 be necessary
0:14:02 in which case we will say how could it
0:14:04 be when
0:14:06 it can be rearranged or that you can
0:14:08 conceive of adding and subtracting to it
0:14:10 so that's the form of the argument so in
0:14:12 other words to say
0:14:13 that unnecessary fact cannot explain a
0:14:15 contingent fact without introducing a
0:14:17 contingent fact
0:14:19 in need of explanation number one is
0:14:21 mischaracterization on two counts
0:14:23 because that's not the form of the
0:14:24 argument we have not even mentioned the
0:14:26 words
0:14:27 facts is not what we were talking about
0:14:29 we were talking about existences
0:14:31 that's number one number two uh
0:14:34 we weren't arguing in a circle we
0:14:36 weren't arguing from necessary existence
0:14:38 to contingent existence
0:14:39 in indeed we're in fact doing the exact
0:14:42 opposite of that which is arguing from
0:14:43 contingency to necessity does that
0:14:45 answer the question
0:14:47 uh yes it does thank you very much
0:14:50 yeah uh the i have one one question is
0:14:53 the last question
0:14:55 same debate um you also mentioned how
0:14:58 burton russell said that
0:14:59 the argument from causation or cause and
0:15:01 effect has the fallacy of
0:15:03 composition yes so
0:15:07 i want you to like uh request that you
0:15:10 explain that a bit more because i don't
0:15:13 kind of
0:15:14 see it and why would this fallacy
0:15:18 maybe you know for example why wouldn't
0:15:19 it apply to contingency
0:15:21 why only cause effect yeah that's it
0:15:23 though thank you
0:15:25 the argument the the contingency sorry
0:15:27 the cosmo um the composition fallacy
0:15:29 is the in my opinion anyway it's the
0:15:31 most
0:15:32 uh severe um logical
0:15:36 um objection and probably the one of the
0:15:39 most
0:15:41 you know um i would say uh
0:15:45 serious actually objections to the the
0:15:48 calam cosmological argument from a
0:15:49 brazilian perspective
0:15:51 and i'll explain to you what this is
0:15:52 first of all the argument goes as
0:15:54 follows we're saying that
0:15:57 you've got two kinds of fallacy you've
0:15:59 got the fallacy of composition and you
0:16:00 have the fallacy of division
0:16:02 okay these are opposites in fact the
0:16:05 fallacy of division is the opposite to
0:16:06 the fallacy of composition
0:16:08 and just for your notes
0:16:11 um this whole study is called myriology
0:16:15 muriology is the body of parts and holes
0:16:18 parts and holes
0:16:26 so the study apartment which has by the
0:16:27 way taking and like with analytic
0:16:29 philosophy now in the 21st century has
0:16:31 taken different forms like it's
0:16:32 it's undergone different kinds of uh
0:16:35 formulations yeah
0:16:36 but the point is this they're saying
0:16:38 look
0:16:40 he bertrand russell he said
0:16:43 that with his uh in his discussion with
0:16:46 um
0:16:47 uh called kostenkopson
0:16:50 in the radio debate he said right
0:16:53 yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah i thought yeah
0:16:56 i forget exactly as brown
0:16:58 but he said he was not just a priest to
0:17:00 be fair he was actually
0:17:02 a very serious philosopher as well um
0:17:05 and and basically said just because
0:17:08 that human beings have a mother and
0:17:10 father it doesn't mean humankind has a
0:17:12 mother and father right
0:17:13 and so this is what bertrand russell was
0:17:14 saying in other words he's saying this
0:17:16 an elephant is so big or small to our to
0:17:20 in
0:17:21 comparative to us is it bigger it's big
0:17:24 it's a big one yeah now an elephant is
0:17:27 composed of
0:17:29 many different atoms now our atoms big
0:17:32 or small
0:17:34 compared to us they're small yeah so
0:17:38 yes so you have the big elephant which
0:17:40 is made up of small atoms yes
0:17:44 yeah all right good now here's the point
0:17:46 he was saying this if we're saying
0:17:47 everything that begins to exist has a
0:17:49 cause
0:17:50 the universe began to exist therefore
0:17:51 the universe has a cause
0:17:53 yes are you with me so far yes yes
0:17:56 how do we know that the universe has a
0:17:58 cause because
0:18:00 or how do we argue for it if we use this
0:18:03 form of the argument
0:18:05 we argue for it by saying that since
0:18:07 there are causes within the universe the
0:18:09 universe itself must have a
0:18:11 course are you with
0:18:14 okay good so far so good right so he's
0:18:17 saying
0:18:18 but there is clearly a disparity between
0:18:20 the part
0:18:21 and the whole so in other words
0:18:24 for example the elephant is made up of
0:18:27 small atoms and yet the elephant is big
0:18:31 so you can have a difference in property
0:18:34 between that which is
0:18:36 a part of something and the larger part
0:18:38 of it
0:18:39 in the case of the elephant you have
0:18:41 small atoms making up a big elephant
0:18:43 are you with me so far
0:18:46 yeah yeah i am here you're saying that
0:18:49 the universe itself has a cause because
0:18:51 the universe has causes within it
0:18:54 you he's saying it's the same problem
0:18:58 you got the same problem you're saying
0:18:59 that you're doing tamim you're doing
0:19:00 generalization
0:19:01 you're saying because what's in it is
0:19:03 small the whole thing must be small
0:19:05 yeah so it's because what's within it
0:19:08 are causes yeah
0:19:10 the whole thing must have a cause now
0:19:13 here's the problem
0:19:15 the fallacy of composition only works
0:19:18 when you have a full knowledge of the
0:19:20 whole
0:19:21 okay now let me explain if i have
0:19:25 if i say the the the uh
0:19:29 brick wall is made up of red bricks
0:19:34 now each brick is what color
0:19:37 red red and the wall is what color
0:19:41 red red so is there is there
0:19:44 compatibility here
0:19:45 between the part and the hole yeah how
0:19:48 do i know
0:19:49 how do i know because you absorb
0:19:52 observed
0:19:53 the whole because i've observed the
0:19:55 whole has anyone observed the universe
0:19:56 from a outside perspective no
0:20:00 no so can we make claims about the
0:20:02 universe
0:20:03 interesting what this does the problem
0:20:06 here
0:20:08 what this does is it basically stunts
0:20:11 the discussion because
0:20:12 either one of those people cannot say
0:20:14 like the theists cannot say
0:20:16 just because there are causes within the
0:20:18 universe that the universe itself has a
0:20:20 cause
0:20:21 and the atheist can't say just because
0:20:23 there are causes within the universe
0:20:25 it doesn't because neither the theist or
0:20:27 the atheist has what a full knowledge of
0:20:30 the whole the whole universe thank you
0:20:32 very much so this
0:20:33 this is why it's serious because it
0:20:35 doesn't number one it's not an undercut
0:20:37 it's not a defeater but it's a blind
0:20:40 spot
0:20:40 it is a blind spot it's a it's a blind
0:20:44 spot
0:20:45 which has to be covered that's why i
0:20:47 don't argue from causation
0:20:49 i this is what even the foil said yeah
0:20:51 able to file one of the arab
0:20:54 philosophers he says this and i
0:20:56 mentioned this in my book actually okay
0:20:58 cosmological arguments he says you have
0:21:00 to argue on two tracks
0:21:03 and what he was talking about two tracks
0:21:04 is the causation and
0:21:06 contingency which is necessity
0:21:08 contingency because when you use both
0:21:10 it's like when you
0:21:10 play chess it's not possible i don't
0:21:12 play chess but for my limited knowledge
0:21:14 of the game
0:21:15 it's not possible usually for you to
0:21:17 finish off the queen unless you have two
0:21:18 things moving at the same time
0:21:20 you have to set up the punch in order
0:21:22 the haymaker in order for it to land
0:21:24 causation is like i'm happy to use
0:21:27 causation
0:21:28 but causation in order to for the the
0:21:30 argument to be
0:21:31 an undercutter completely should be
0:21:33 coupled with contingency
0:21:34 why because contingency the same thing
0:21:37 is not
0:21:38 it's not the same we're not making an
0:21:41 argument from
0:21:41 part to whole in fact we're making an
0:21:45 argument
0:21:46 that which is called which is actually
0:21:49 the opposite
0:21:50 we're saying that anything which is made
0:21:51 up of anything parts
0:21:54 anything which is made up of parts is
0:21:56 dependent
0:21:57 the universe is made up of parts
0:21:58 therefore the universe is better
0:22:00 can you see this so yeah anything which
0:22:03 is i wouldn't
0:22:04 we would define parts we're talking
0:22:05 about something which can be
0:22:07 assembled and reassembled somebody can
0:22:09 take in the arcane a pizza
0:22:10 you take a pizza eat it you slice like
0:22:13 that anything which is made of the human
0:22:15 being
0:22:16 and by the way is in the quran you know
0:22:20 when allah says you know um
0:22:23 quebec he's the one who doesn't keep of
0:22:26 you
0:22:28 is where you put different parts and you
0:22:30 put them together now the fact
0:22:32 that and that something is
0:22:35 more or in this case composed of
0:22:39 parts like this shows that there is a
0:22:42 moroccan
0:22:44 that there is something which allowed
0:22:46 these things to be put composed together
0:22:48 now so we're not arguing from parts to
0:22:51 holes and in fact we're doing the
0:22:52 opposite
0:22:52 we're saying not even arguing from a
0:22:54 holster parts even where
0:22:56 we're making one simple observation
0:22:59 anything that is made up of parts is
0:23:01 generated
0:23:03 okay is dependent is dependent dependent
0:23:06 and or generated and that the universe
0:23:09 is made up of parts therefore it's
0:23:10 generated and or depend
0:23:12 tell us in this case the only way out
0:23:15 of this is to to claim that the universe
0:23:18 is not made up of parts
0:23:19 and that it's not dependent and now you
0:23:22 have to start providing proofs now the
0:23:24 burden of proof is upon the person who's
0:23:25 making the claim
0:23:28 huh yeah yeah yeah well that's what
0:23:30 solves the composition fallacy for me
0:23:32 you argue on you can use this argument
0:23:34 of gazali yeah
0:23:36 it's good nice but don't use it by
0:23:38 itself that's why i use the other one
0:23:39 because they'll always come with a
0:23:40 composition fallacy you know
0:23:43 and both of us have no full answer of
0:23:44 the whole we can uh yani
0:23:46 if you wanted to go into metaphysical
0:23:48 causation ah
0:23:49 it's a it's a it's a jar with
0:23:53 worms that you know you don't want to
0:23:55 open it
0:23:56 it's seriously it's a long story yeah
0:23:59 causation there's philosophers have
0:24:01 spoken about it for a long time you can
0:24:02 argue of metaphysical causation meaning
0:24:04 annie
0:24:04 causation is not physical only you can
0:24:07 you can argue on a priori grounds and
0:24:09 that's another way out
0:24:10 but for that for that to be accessible
0:24:12 to a lay audience
0:24:14 that's going to be a challenge in and of
0:24:16 itself so i
0:24:18 that's why i like to use the argument
0:24:19 that i use does that make sense
0:24:21 yeah it does yeah but what about the the
0:24:23 fossil because you mentioned the
0:24:24 opposite of the fallacy of composition
0:24:26 is the fallacy of division
0:24:28 yeah but this is not applicable here
0:24:31 you know why it's not applicable because
0:24:32 we're not saying that
0:24:34 we are making a single premise argument
0:24:37 we're not
0:24:38 one two three we're saying one thing
0:24:40 anything which is
0:24:41 generated sorry anything that is made up
0:24:44 of parts
0:24:44 is it generated yeah generated
0:24:47 that's one and you can have an argument
0:24:49 with one premise that's my argument
0:24:51 anything that is made up of parts that
0:24:54 you can write
0:24:55 down take out and put in like this is
0:24:56 what we mean by parts it's
0:24:58 subject to disassembly if you want to
0:25:00 call it that you know
0:25:01 anything that is subject to disassembly
0:25:04 or additional subtraction
0:25:05 anything like that that is dependent
0:25:08 that's
0:25:08 one observation one premise argument
0:25:11 and if someone says no it has to be
0:25:12 three premises who told you that it has
0:25:15 to be three premises
0:25:16 that this is uh this actually is not
0:25:18 correct you can have
0:25:20 an argument which is a logical argument
0:25:22 with only one premise
0:25:26 okay cool okay that was uh
0:25:29 you know that was it that was it that's
0:25:30 it brother yusuf before you go
0:25:33 yes um so jazakallah for joining us on
0:25:37 uh institute live now mashallah you had
0:25:39 very good questions
0:25:41 and uh these answers i i don't want them
0:25:43 to be lost on the
0:25:45 nether regions of the internet so if you
0:25:47 could
0:25:48 actually write up the answers that hijab
0:25:51 gave
0:25:52 and if because martial you've written
0:25:54 the other stuff as well
0:25:56 um in terms of the questions and if you
0:25:58 could actually post that
0:26:00 in the comment section so you could just
0:26:02 if you if you take the time stamp which
0:26:03 was i think around 16 mark
0:26:05 when you tried asking and you say by the
0:26:07 way we discussed this and you and you
0:26:09 summarized it
0:26:10 yeah and anybody else that joins us i
0:26:12 would also say that we don't want just
0:26:14 this
0:26:14 information to be you know just floating
0:26:16 around on the because these live streams
0:26:18 are quite long
0:26:19 so i really enjoyed the back and forth
0:26:20 between you two and there was a lot of
0:26:22 very novel information there
0:26:24 so i think this will you know it'll take
0:26:25 you a bit of time uh maybe half an hour
0:26:27 something
0:26:29 i'm willing of course i'm willing yeah
0:26:30 that's our problem yeah also
0:26:32 um it would be good if uh what's it
0:26:35 called
0:26:37 i'm not sure if you're on twitter or
0:26:39 whatever if you could
0:26:40 uh you know tweet that out as well right
0:26:44 um and just
0:26:47 do hijab just with the twitter
0:26:50 what i'm finding and maybe even if you
0:26:52 take a clip of this video
0:26:54 and then you just re repost it on
0:26:56 twitter and stuff
0:26:57 because some of these things are really
0:26:58 like you know like we have to sometimes
0:27:00 repeat them every week as well
0:27:02 but this thing was this this thing was
0:27:04 quite unique so i don't want it to be
0:27:06 lost
0:27:08 okay thank you uh one last small thing
0:27:11 uh mohammed hijab i have a message for
0:27:13 you
0:27:14 um i have i have a friend of mine
0:27:18 i was it was kind of like you know
0:27:19 difficult to like you know
0:27:21 get him interested in islam
0:27:24 alhamdulillah you know it happened
0:27:25 through
0:27:26 through your videos and through like
0:27:27 your debates and stuff
0:27:29 yeah so he loves you he wanted me to
0:27:31 tell you that send you the message
0:27:42 okay next we will go to our brother
0:27:45 and by the way brother yusuf anybody who
0:27:47 finishes on the live
0:27:49 i i get them to leave the studio because
0:27:51 there's lots of people trying to enter
0:27:53 and emyard only allows us to allow 10
0:27:56 people to enter a time
0:27:57 by the way we do a complaint from last
0:27:59 week's live stream guys
0:28:00 um so i'm gonna try and reduce
0:28:03 uh each question into one question so
0:28:06 that more and more people actually
0:28:07 interact and then we can recycle as well
0:28:09 because uh uh we we had that issue that
0:28:12 a lot of people were waiting we couldn't
0:28:14 actually get through to them
0:28:15 so the next is brother janae
0:28:18 welcome what is your question
0:28:25 um yeah my question sorry just before
0:28:28 i'll get to my question just on that
0:28:30 the point of causation couldn't you also
0:28:33 oh can you hear me
0:28:34 yes yeah yeah we're here oh something
0:28:36 happened okay
0:28:37 can you also just argue i think you
0:28:39 mentioned it by saying the a priority
0:28:41 thing
0:28:42 that well all of our knowledge is or
0:28:44 like yani
0:28:45 as in we only get our knowledge by
0:28:46 whether you're gonna argue
0:28:48 um rationality experience intuition
0:28:50 whatever
0:28:51 so on that basis we see the universe
0:28:54 around us everything has causation
0:28:56 so from our experience then um the most
0:28:59 rational argument that we can possibly
0:29:01 make
0:29:01 is assume that causation also happens
0:29:04 there because
0:29:05 even if it's not that's a fine argument
0:29:07 in my opinion and that's a
0:29:08 great argument uh the reason why i do
0:29:11 the argument the way i do it
0:29:12 you can add that to it is because it
0:29:14 just leaves no space for that
0:29:16 like but yeah that there's a fine
0:29:18 argument and
0:29:20 what i think is good is if you use
0:29:21 mathematics or something which is
0:29:23 like clearly out of the realm of the
0:29:26 empirical
0:29:26 right out of the wrong and show that is
0:29:28 there is there no causation going on
0:29:30 here this
0:29:31 like for example even logical arguments
0:29:33 themselves you know
0:29:35 something causes something else or you
0:29:37 know there are so many things that are
0:29:39 happening
0:29:40 which you can you can argue for a priori
0:29:42 um causation
0:29:43 and for sure there's a lot of stuff that
0:29:46 has been written it's back and forth on
0:29:47 it
0:29:48 but because there's some some degree of
0:29:51 philosophical controversy okay
0:29:54 that's why i i always try and find under
0:29:57 cutters
0:29:57 yeah i need something which no one can
0:30:00 come back from
0:30:01 yeah oh you can you can throw that in
0:30:03 there for sure
0:30:05 yeah you know i get that okay so
0:30:07 basically
0:30:08 my question yeah so i kind of have two
0:30:10 questions but we'll see how it goes so
0:30:11 the first one is
0:30:12 basically to do with um uh the idea of
0:30:15 um like a logical contradiction right
0:30:18 so is it that like um
0:30:23 uh i do we as muslims basically believe
0:30:26 that uh if something's a logical
0:30:28 contradiction in this realm
0:30:30 in this world it will be a logical
0:30:31 contradiction everywhere like
0:30:33 nothing can be and not be at the same
0:30:36 time that's everywhere
0:30:37 that that's just you can just say yes or
0:30:39 no and i'll add to that
0:30:43 now it depends on how you define a
0:30:44 logical contradiction if you're talking
0:30:46 about
0:30:46 [Music]
0:30:48 if you're talking about textbook logical
0:30:49 definitions then yes this is the case
0:30:51 because a thing is defined as by
0:30:54 definition
0:30:56 that which can conceivably exist so for
0:30:59 example a square triangle can
0:31:01 there's no possible world in which a
0:31:03 square
0:31:04 squared triangle or triangle squared
0:31:07 can never exist it cannot exist because
0:31:09 of its uh
0:31:10 impossibility yeah it's not a thing
0:31:14 yeah okay so then on that then um
0:31:17 couldn't someone argue
0:31:20 like for example let's say on the debate
0:31:23 kind of thing right
0:31:24 um if if we respond to the god of debate
0:31:26 we say okay look this is from god's
0:31:27 attributes
0:31:28 yeah uh he predestines and he gives us
0:31:31 free will
0:31:32 and since it's in god's realm we can't
0:31:34 understand it
0:31:35 but it's not for us to you know any pick
0:31:37 and choose what what he has to tell us
0:31:39 so if he tells us it's true but then
0:31:42 couldn't
0:31:42 someone argue okay but even if it's even
0:31:45 if god's in some other realm
0:31:49 predestination and free will that's a
0:31:51 open kind of contradiction
0:31:53 so it's a logical contradiction so it
0:31:54 can't be possible in any possible world
0:31:57 yeah i don't think that can be argued
0:31:59 like that um
0:32:00 the reason why i first of all if that
0:32:02 was so simple then there would not be
0:32:05 this huge school of thought called the
0:32:06 compatibilists first of all
0:32:08 right because the compatibilists which
0:32:11 range from thomas hobbs
0:32:13 and go all the way to john mill john
0:32:15 stuart mill
0:32:16 and all of those in between and i think
0:32:18 if you do a probably a count
0:32:20 philosophy count in the secular world of
0:32:23 uh
0:32:23 compatibility it's probably the largest
0:32:25 school of thought of the three a
0:32:26 libertarian
0:32:27 compatibilist and determinist but do
0:32:30 they believe like sorry just quickly
0:32:31 in terms of compatibility i know they
0:32:33 may believe what's it called that
0:32:35 everything and it can be known
0:32:36 beforehand but do they believe that
0:32:37 everything is literally decreed
0:32:39 and also you can have that tweet the way
0:32:42 that the
0:32:43 the they would frame it they wouldn't
0:32:44 use what decreed they would they would
0:32:46 just say that there is an uninterrupted
0:32:47 causal chain of events
0:32:49 which renders everything that happens
0:32:52 as necessarily happening because of that
0:32:55 change so in other words
0:32:56 everything that i'm saying right now
0:32:58 everything that i'm doing
0:32:59 is happening because of this
0:33:01 uninterrupted chain of causal events
0:33:04 atheists believe in this by the way like
0:33:05 sam harris has a book
0:33:08 on it so this is what they say
0:33:11 everything i'm saying
0:33:12 in fact everything i'm thinking not just
0:33:13 about everything i'm saying is as a
0:33:15 result of the uninterrupted causal like
0:33:18 something happened before this and
0:33:19 something happened before that and
0:33:20 something happened before that
0:33:21 and these dominoes caused me to do and
0:33:23 say what's happening right now and what
0:33:25 i'm saying right now
0:33:26 the problem that these people face is
0:33:28 intuition okay the immediate knowledge
0:33:30 of me
0:33:31 having the first person experience which
0:33:34 is undeniable to me which is that i have
0:33:36 volition
0:33:37 okay now for for anyone to deny that
0:33:40 that i have that
0:33:41 is tantamount to almost denying one's
0:33:44 exist owns existence
0:33:45 it's it's impossible for one to falsify
0:33:48 that
0:33:48 and epistemologically it's you could
0:33:51 argue even more powerful some have
0:33:52 argued more powerful than
0:33:54 the demonstrative method you could argue
0:33:56 these things so you have these two
0:33:57 things which on their
0:33:59 world view are almost impossible to
0:34:02 refute
0:34:03 number one is the uninterrupted causal
0:34:06 line
0:34:06 of things that have happened before what
0:34:08 i'm saying now has happened
0:34:10 and number two the immediate knowledge
0:34:12 that i have of volition
0:34:15 and these two things have to somehow
0:34:17 exist together
0:34:18 the mechanism of them existing together
0:34:21 is unknown
0:34:22 but then to say that it's a
0:34:24 contradiction is equivalent to going to
0:34:26 quantum physics and saying well we don't
0:34:28 understand how two particles can be in
0:34:30 one place at the same time
0:34:32 and therefore it's a contradiction it's
0:34:33 a contradiction because we're using
0:34:36 uh different paradigms for different
0:34:38 things
0:34:39 in this case we are talking about
0:34:42 something
0:34:42 which we don't actually have knowledge
0:34:44 of the mechanism of
0:34:46 so we're saying that it has to be the
0:34:48 case one and two have to be the case but
0:34:51 how the howellness is to be honest with
0:34:53 you no compatibilist
0:34:55 within any school of thought that i've
0:34:57 seen have given me a really
0:34:59 robust definition of how the two things
0:35:00 can happen at the same time
0:35:02 so i would say that just because we have
0:35:04 to suspend judgment on the wholeness of
0:35:06 how these two things happen at the same
0:35:08 time it doesn't mean to say now that the
0:35:10 two things are not happening at the same
0:35:11 time
0:35:12 you know and so the the fact that you
0:35:16 can dump
0:35:17 demonstrate both of those things free
0:35:19 will and determinism
0:35:21 okay it's not an evidence against either
0:35:23 of them
0:35:24 uh number one and number two the fact
0:35:27 that we can't explain mechanisms
0:35:29 of their equal existence or coexistence
0:35:34 or symbiotic existence it's not an
0:35:36 evidence that
0:35:37 that such symbiotic existence is not
0:35:39 happening
0:35:40 so if you wanted to mechanically write
0:35:42 down how is this happening is
0:35:44 the k fear the how the on the honest
0:35:46 truth is no one knows how
0:35:48 but if if we would be in a problem if we
0:35:51 couldn't demonstrate either of the two
0:35:52 things
0:35:53 like if we couldn't demonstrate the fact
0:35:55 that there is an uninterrupted causal
0:35:56 line
0:35:57 which we believe comes from allah they
0:36:00 believe there's an infinite regress or
0:36:01 whatever they want to say
0:36:02 or we couldn't demonstrate that we have
0:36:04 volition okay
0:36:06 then we'd have some problems but we can
0:36:08 demonstrate both of those things but not
0:36:10 how they
0:36:11 symbiotically uh mechanically
0:36:14 uh interact with one another and this is
0:36:17 the mystery of
0:36:19 that that's right so to call it a
0:36:20 contradiction because you don't know how
0:36:22 it interacts with her
0:36:23 it's almost equivalent to calling
0:36:26 um you know something of quantum physics
0:36:29 uh contradiction
0:36:30 yeah um so then on that point then
0:36:32 wouldn't the
0:36:33 like a response be that well well how do
0:36:36 you know that something's like a
0:36:38 uh so true by intuition that you know
0:36:40 and you must be true because for you
0:36:42 it might be that okay i definitely have
0:36:44 free will that's intuitive but someone
0:36:45 else
0:36:46 it's intuitive that you know this like
0:36:48 they'll they'll say okay it's intuitive
0:36:51 look honestly this is something which
0:36:53 almost everyone agrees because
0:36:55 uh moral the whole justice system is
0:36:58 based on this assumption okay there
0:37:01 would be no courts
0:37:03 if we were not responsible for our own
0:37:04 actions that's this was the argument of
0:37:07 the liberals and that's why they made
0:37:08 their point to mention this you know
0:37:10 there would be no blame on anyone
0:37:13 like you know what sam harris makes his
0:37:15 moral arguments for example he makes uh
0:37:17 and those who follow him and other
0:37:18 terminus like him
0:37:20 they say this person was so bad to me
0:37:22 you know this person was that this
0:37:23 person's so horrible
0:37:24 religion is so bad why are you making
0:37:25 all these arguments yeah these people
0:37:27 are not responsible for their actions
0:37:29 on your worldview with one
0:37:32 a young man in oxford university young
0:37:35 park who keeps changing his mind on
0:37:36 certain opinions
0:37:38 and he keeps you know complaining about
0:37:40 how my behavior is
0:37:42 he makes video here with the video
0:37:43 they're upset about this you know
0:37:44 triggered and i'm standing back him up
0:37:47 you know cut him off and you know it's
0:37:50 obviously there's some kind of
0:37:52 looking up to me and stuff like that
0:37:53 it's very natural stuff no problem
0:37:55 but you know he makes this video saying
0:37:58 he done this and he recited the quran
0:38:00 like that and
0:38:00 whatever whatever the complaints he had
0:38:03 why are you blaming me if you're a
0:38:04 determinist
0:38:05 you should blame the uninterrupted
0:38:07 causal line of events
0:38:08 which caused me to do these things for
0:38:11 no cause of my own no plan of mind and
0:38:12 do this
0:38:13 it was the uninterrupted causal line sam
0:38:16 harris
0:38:16 uh ifrazie one time he said it's very
0:38:18 interesting or like he said sam harris
0:38:20 wrote a book
0:38:21 called what's it called the free will is
0:38:22 it called free will waking up
0:38:26 his book on the determinism one not the
0:38:28 moral landscape the free will one or he
0:38:30 talks about free will
0:38:31 and at the bottom of it he wrote sam
0:38:33 harris
0:38:34 why are you why are you taking
0:38:36 responsibility for the book
0:38:38 you know when actually it was an
0:38:40 uninterrupted cause of line that which
0:38:42 yeah you had no say in the matter it was
0:38:44 you being forced in a sense
0:38:46 into compulsion and necessity to write
0:38:48 the book
0:38:49 why i don't understand why i determine
0:38:51 this is the worst
0:38:52 kind of contradiction i don't understand
0:38:55 why determinist
0:38:56 atheists who do not believe human free
0:38:59 will
0:39:00 have the audacity to come to human
0:39:02 beings and
0:39:03 blame them for anything it wasn't my
0:39:05 fault
0:39:06 everything according to this world view
0:39:09 was because of an uninterrupted causal
0:39:11 line
0:39:11 which forced and compelled me to this
0:39:14 you know just to add to that they are so
0:39:17 loud about human rights
0:39:19 yeah human rights is like you know
0:39:22 pronouns and
0:39:24 uh feminism and all this stuff but it's
0:39:27 all meaningless
0:39:28 under determinism absolutely uh uh oh um
0:39:31 you know i'm just determined to be you
0:39:34 know to not care
0:39:35 about these things okay you're
0:39:36 determined to care about them it's just
0:39:39 and you know i i think this is a good
0:39:41 segue to bring in
0:39:42 your research about uh during your
0:39:45 masters on
0:39:46 how moral issues are seen as so
0:39:49 important
0:39:50 they're more important than the
0:39:51 scientific issues other issues
0:39:53 yet those moral things become completely
0:39:56 irrelevant
0:39:56 if when you take determinism absolutely
0:40:00 the new atheist the new atheist project
0:40:03 one of its main
0:40:05 kind of arguments against religion is
0:40:07 moral yeah
0:40:09 but if half of them are saying that
0:40:11 we're determinists i know daniel dennett
0:40:12 doesn't believe in that he has an
0:40:14 argument with
0:40:15 harris so i'm not saying all that but
0:40:16 someone like harris he's a complete
0:40:18 hypocrite
0:40:19 sam harris is a complete hypocrite
0:40:21 because why
0:40:22 is sam harris challenging religion on
0:40:25 moral bases
0:40:26 when in fact morality or at least
0:40:30 individual responsibility
0:40:32 is totally suspended on a deterministic
0:40:35 worldview
0:40:36 a human being on determinism
0:40:39 is not responsible for their behavior
0:40:43 a human being on determinism is a puppet
0:40:47 yes they are puppet and that which is
0:40:51 puppeteering them
0:40:52 is the uninterrupted causal line of
0:40:55 events so for someone like this
0:40:59 sam harris and co who are cowards yeah
0:41:01 because they will never
0:41:02 yeah come forward and debate anyone on
0:41:04 these matters
0:41:06 and they're having debates only among
0:41:07 their own little echo chambers
0:41:10 how on earth and how dare they come out
0:41:13 and challenge religion on a basis like
0:41:16 this
0:41:17 this is a clear-cut contradiction which
0:41:20 i i'm actually shocked hasn't been
0:41:23 called out
0:41:24 and he's had conversations with
0:41:26 intellectuals like jordan peterson and
0:41:28 uh others you know yeah why isn't anyone
0:41:31 like ben shapiro maybe even
0:41:38 have you not understood this determinism
0:41:40 is you are not responsible for your own
0:41:42 behavior
0:41:44 come on and you know um when you see
0:41:46 these hard determinists
0:41:48 trying to explain themselves and trying
0:41:50 to explain why they believe in
0:41:51 punishment
0:41:52 why they believe in accountability why
0:41:54 they believe in the justice system or
0:41:56 morality or any of these types of things
0:41:58 you find that they're just playing
0:42:00 semantical games they really
0:42:02 do not accept hard determinism although
0:42:05 they just label themselves
0:42:07 because there is consequentialism yeah
0:42:08 yeah he said well how are you going to
0:42:09 be a consequentialist determinist yeah
0:42:11 well yeah you're giving us like a
0:42:13 welfare you know consequentialism and
0:42:15 then you're determined so everything is
0:42:16 like it's everything now your behaviors
0:42:19 your silly train
0:42:20 uh idea why is this that's unbelievable
0:42:24 these are the intellectuals of the day
0:42:26 yeah
0:42:28 you don't realize subhanallah you know
0:42:30 the islamic court has been dealing with
0:42:31 this question
0:42:33 for thousands 300 years they pretend
0:42:35 they came to the party
0:42:36 and they realized all the stuff all this
0:42:38 stuff and no one
0:42:40 no one before them but you know like
0:42:42 like the old saying uh there's nothing
0:42:44 new under the sun
0:42:45 yeah yeah it's i mean they're primitive
0:42:48 in their thinking because what they're
0:42:50 doing is they're kind of like
0:42:52 the answers be and we're like no we're
0:42:54 asking you a philosophical question
0:42:56 i said you
0:43:00 you know these people these new atheists
0:43:02 because they don't a lot of them don't
0:43:03 even believe
0:43:04 in theology as a subject that's what uh
0:43:07 and a lot of them have a disdain for
0:43:09 philosophy like for example they're
0:43:11 yeah and that's why he was humiliated by
0:43:12 uh pigleyuchi and that lecture by
0:43:15 telling him
0:43:15 you know these are eight things and he's
0:43:17 supposed to be a new atheist
0:43:18 as well bro the worst thing is what the
0:43:21 issue is they refuse to stand on the
0:43:23 shoulders of
0:43:24 giants oh they refused the fact that
0:43:27 people before they were intelligent as
0:43:28 well not only intelligent but they have
0:43:30 dealt with their issues
0:43:31 shown a contradiction in their reasoning
0:43:33 and have
0:43:34 a whole legacy to show what kind of
0:43:36 contribution they're talking about
0:43:39 sam harris's views on determinism and
0:43:40 consequentialism are so contradictory
0:43:43 that actually
0:43:43 it actually makes me angry brother yeah
0:43:45 well i actually makes me angry that some
0:43:47 atheists are going around
0:43:48 and actually copying his style makes me
0:43:50 angry yeah yeah and
0:43:51 even um just a segway um
0:43:55 his debate with craig william lane craig
0:43:58 right
0:43:59 yes there's some debates that what you
0:44:01 do
0:44:02 is after the debate the most respectable
0:44:04 thing is you just take off your coat
0:44:07 and you go work in a 7-eleven or a
0:44:09 petrol station
0:44:10 and that's it that's it there's no point
0:44:13 carrying on so like the debate with
0:44:14 david wood where he decided to carry on
0:44:17 debate with sam harris he decided to
0:44:18 carry on but actually anybody that
0:44:20 watches that debate i'm being honest
0:44:22 with you
0:44:22 guys i don't think i've ever seen
0:44:26 an atheist lose that badly yet still if
0:44:29 you watch every single one of his
0:44:30 replies he's he he's
0:44:32 he's basically doing motivism he's
0:44:34 trying to steal well that's why he's
0:44:35 retired bro yeah yeah
0:44:37 why do you think he's retired from
0:44:37 debating he's retired from debating
0:44:39 because now he's going on spiritualism
0:44:41 yeah talking about scripture and this
0:44:43 and that lost the plot
0:44:44 bro let me let's be honest with him yeah
0:44:47 this message to sam harris and someone
0:44:48 sent this to him maybe one of the guys
0:44:50 cut this out
0:44:51 yeah and send it to him yeah listen sam
0:44:54 we know that you're trying to be a
0:44:55 spiritualist because you have
0:44:56 a spiritual void yeah you have a
0:44:59 spiritual void because
0:45:01 sam harris you're an atheist
0:45:04 and not only are you an atheist but you
0:45:05 are a determinist suffering from
0:45:07 cognitive dissonance because somehow
0:45:09 you're a consequentialist as well
0:45:10 these are incompatible that's right
0:45:13 these are incompatible philosophical
0:45:14 postulations
0:45:16 consequentialism assumes that you have
0:45:19 um you have volition and you have free
0:45:21 will whereas determinism
0:45:22 completely denies that so you going now
0:45:25 to be a spiritualist and helping people
0:45:26 breathe and this and that and think of
0:45:29 little depression leaving depression you
0:45:31 will not be able to do that because
0:45:33 you have already determined that there
0:45:36 is a limit to our existence and that is
0:45:38 the empirical
0:45:38 naturalistic limit therefore you trying
0:45:41 to be a spiritualist of some
0:45:43 an atheist guru of some sort is as
0:45:46 joke as a joke as hitler trying to be an
0:45:49 advocate for the anti-semitic
0:45:50 for the anti-semitic party don't try it
0:45:53 my friend
0:45:53 yeah and you're trying to give people an
0:45:56 alternative you realize that people
0:45:57 require the spirit
0:45:59 bro it's an admission well no not only
0:46:00 this enough people need spirituality
0:46:03 you bang on about science and how
0:46:05 western
0:46:06 world came up with science and how
0:46:08 science is the way that we should be
0:46:10 trying to understand the world
0:46:12 yeah this is the new hds narrative yeah
0:46:14 at the same time yeah you're talking
0:46:15 about spirituality which has no
0:46:17 scientific basis absolutely
0:46:19 absolutely yeah it's crucial absolutely
0:46:22 so
0:46:23 brother junaid sorry about that before
0:46:25 banging on about this guy but
0:46:26 um
0:46:30 we will now go to french muslim
0:46:33 i'm assuming you're from germany
0:46:36 is that right me no no i'm french right
0:46:40 you're french
0:46:43 so yeah thank you uh first of all i'd
0:46:45 like to apologize for slaughtering
0:46:47 english
0:46:47 with my french accent i'll try to to be
0:46:49 as scared as possible sorry what's that
0:46:52 uh i said that first of all yeah
0:47:00 [Music]
0:47:02 okay so i have a question for subor um
0:47:04 regarding evolution and more
0:47:06 particularly
0:47:06 than vestigial organs um
0:47:10 this is a question with today to a
0:47:12 dimension
0:47:13 i like i i try to to make it in one
0:47:16 question
0:47:17 so a recent paper showed how during the
0:47:20 embryo
0:47:20 genesis how we see additional muscle
0:47:24 developing in the ends of the embryo and
0:47:27 which is which are
0:47:28 supposedly like reptiles muscle so the
0:47:31 muscles develop and then die
0:47:33 and the paper identified this as a
0:47:35 phenomenon has a reminiscence of reptile
0:47:38 muscles
0:47:38 and which is supposedly come from a
0:47:41 distant common ancestor
0:47:42 of human being um so there is this
0:47:45 dimension
0:47:46 and another dimension to make it short
0:47:48 uh which is like the palmaris longus
0:47:50 muscle you know in the in the forearm
0:47:52 which is a slightly different issue
0:47:54 because uh
0:47:54 this is not like the appendice or
0:47:56 something like that because this is not
0:47:58 present in every human being
0:47:59 uh this is a and whether or not it's
0:48:02 present
0:48:02 it it has no effect on like the the
0:48:05 power in your hand or
0:48:07 in your forearm so how do how do we deal
0:48:09 with that
0:48:10 because i know that you've dealt with
0:48:11 this issue in many videos and uh
0:48:13 barakah laufik for for your work it
0:48:15 helps a lot thank you
0:48:17 so yeah very good question the thing is
0:48:19 firstly for the benefit of viewers i'm
0:48:20 just going to dump things down a little
0:48:22 bit
0:48:23 by explaining what is vestigial organs
0:48:25 um
0:48:26 so in essence vestigial organs are
0:48:29 going to be um parts of the body which
0:48:34 had a function and no longer have a
0:48:36 function and therefore
0:48:37 are vestigial right they're just like
0:48:40 this
0:48:40 yeah well they they used to say that
0:48:42 about the appendix is
0:48:43 good you raise the appendix because now
0:48:45 we know the appendix actually has some
0:48:47 very important functions although darwin
0:48:49 said he was vestigial the first thing i
0:48:51 want you to understand brother
0:48:53 is that common ancestry is not an
0:48:57 assumption
0:48:58 it's not a hypothesis it's not a theory
0:49:01 it is a
0:49:03 unquestioned paradigm
0:49:06 the bedrock of evolutionary theory
0:49:09 so um paul nelson i'm not sure if you
0:49:12 uh saw my interviews with him he he
0:49:15 points this out he's a philosopher of
0:49:16 biology that
0:49:17 it's not even up for questioning and
0:49:18 there's no scientific evidence
0:49:21 which could hypothetically challenge it
0:49:24 because
0:49:24 it's just taken as no matter what i mean
0:49:27 it's like
0:49:27 a plus b is equal to c right so c
0:49:31 is common ancestry no matter what it
0:49:33 always adds up to c c is always always
0:49:35 there
0:49:35 so vestigial organs from an islamic
0:49:39 perspective from a creationist
0:49:41 perspective
0:49:42 there's nothing wrong with the idea of
0:49:45 believing that they were organs which
0:49:47 were used and then
0:49:48 over time we lost functions for them so
0:49:50 for example i was watching a very
0:49:52 interesting documentary about these fish
0:49:56 who were living uh
0:49:59 and uh they were living in a part of the
0:50:01 ocean where obviously they were using
0:50:03 their eyes and stuff like this
0:50:05 then what happened is um they actually
0:50:07 got trapped
0:50:08 near this desert area in which they got
0:50:11 trapped underneath
0:50:13 some basically they got cut off from
0:50:15 natural light
0:50:17 and then they reproduced and reproduced
0:50:19 and as you know
0:50:20 um the human body it conserves
0:50:23 um energy right and humans even us
0:50:27 uh if we stop using something our body
0:50:30 stops putting energy towards that thing
0:50:32 right so what happened was over time and
0:50:35 your eyes use up a lot of energy now it
0:50:37 was pitched up
0:50:39 these fish basically um
0:50:42 they still had the eye sockets but then
0:50:45 the eyes no longer
0:50:47 were uh of any benefit so therefore all
0:50:50 of the children that they're reproducing
0:50:52 they're basically blind um and
0:50:55 uh having the using that extra energy
0:50:59 using the eyes is no longer there
0:51:01 that's vestigial right the idea that
0:51:04 vestigial
0:51:06 is against um god's design or anything
0:51:09 like that is nonsense
0:51:10 so even if vestigial was actually
0:51:13 vestigial like in the case of the
0:51:14 appendix it turned out
0:51:15 that the appendix it reserves
0:51:19 some bacteria which is useful uh as a
0:51:21 backup
0:51:22 also it plays a role in young infants so
0:51:25 there's
0:51:25 reasons for the appendix but even if it
0:51:28 was purely
0:51:29 residual um it still wouldn't mean
0:51:33 that it fits within the darwinian
0:51:35 picture is bad design like they say
0:51:38 but what you have to understand is
0:51:39 because now they have something that
0:51:41 one either is truly vestigial or two
0:51:45 it's a false positive it may be
0:51:46 vestigial according to the best of our
0:51:48 knowledge but it may turn out not to be
0:51:50 the case
0:51:51 they will always say aha therefore if
0:51:54 it's in common ancestry like this
0:51:55 and that's what they've done in the
0:51:56 example that you pointed out yeah
0:51:59 so i've covered this in a few videos in
0:52:01 the past but the upshot is
0:52:03 it doesn't matter what comes
0:52:06 their way something is functional
0:52:08 they'll say
0:52:09 this is designed by natural selection
0:52:12 something which is non-functional
0:52:14 this is a byproduct of natural selection
0:52:16 something which was uh
0:52:18 seen as vestigial but now is seen as
0:52:21 functional
0:52:22 they will say natural selection did it
0:52:24 that way and and just as a live example
0:52:26 for you
0:52:27 to ponder now i'm sure you're aware of
0:52:30 the recent controversy about
0:52:32 junk dna yeah now initially
0:52:35 philip kitcher who i think you referred
0:52:37 to earlier
0:52:39 uh who's referring to philip kitscher
0:52:40 somebody who's referring to philippines
0:52:42 anyway um philip kitcher you know
0:52:46 junk dna the idea that we have junk 98
0:52:49 of our dna is junk philip kitcher
0:52:52 said the majority of our dna is junk
0:52:56 and uh god needs to go back to school
0:52:59 yeah
0:53:00 i mean that that's what he was saying
0:53:02 yeah that our dna majority of his junk
0:53:05 and therefore it's you know what kind of
0:53:08 design is this he used to ridicule this
0:53:10 he's an atheist philosopher
0:53:12 now what happened was people like
0:53:14 richard dawkins
0:53:16 and and uh you know other people like
0:53:18 jerry coyne and others
0:53:20 they use junk dna you know it's
0:53:22 vestigial
0:53:23 most of our dna is junk only two percent
0:53:26 functional what kind of design is this
0:53:27 blah blah blah blah blah
0:53:29 even then i believe we could have
0:53:30 formulated an argument
0:53:32 to show that actually no it's fine
0:53:35 anyway
0:53:36 uh the encyclopedia of dna elements
0:53:39 encode they did a study they published
0:53:41 it it showed something like eighty
0:53:42 percent eighty percent of what they
0:53:45 consider to be junk
0:53:46 is not junk is actually regulatory genes
0:53:50 right it actually switches on
0:53:53 and off certain things which are related
0:53:55 to you know diabetes and
0:53:57 you know other sorts of things so now we
0:54:00 found
0:54:00 it wasn't junk it was simply we had no
0:54:03 idea how complicated it was
0:54:05 wow then in an interview uh the former
0:54:08 rabbi uh of uh
0:54:12 the grand rabbi i'm not sure what they
0:54:13 call him of the uk he's a he's a
0:54:16 oxford what's his name jonathan sacks
0:54:18 yes
0:54:19 he's the main guy yeah yeah yeah so he
0:54:21 he's passed away and now it's another
0:54:23 guy
0:54:23 in charge but anyway this guy is a
0:54:24 philosopher from oxford university
0:54:26 he's really smart guy he was in a debate
0:54:28 with richard dawkins
0:54:30 he used this he said look you guys were
0:54:33 saying this
0:54:34 yes right and now it's turned out it's
0:54:36 functional and original
0:54:39 yes that's the one yeah and then what
0:54:40 richard dawkins says to him is
0:54:42 yeah but of course we would expect
0:54:45 natural selection to get rid of the junk
0:54:48 and the dna would be functional
0:54:49 but that's the exact opposite what the
0:54:51 darwinists were saying before so the
0:54:52 problem is the paradigm
0:54:54 yeah this is what kuhn speaks about yeah
0:54:56 right the paradigm
0:54:58 it makes you look at every anomaly
0:55:00 anomaly and reverse engineer it
0:55:02 ad hoc rationalize it and give it as a
0:55:04 confirmation right right right
0:55:06 and that's what's happening so something
0:55:07 so he just changed he just changed his
0:55:09 passion
0:55:09 from one from one and he goes and you go
0:55:11 back to school and he was like yeah it's
0:55:13 all just
0:55:14 that phillip kitchen but same same
0:55:15 people right the same way he was using
0:55:17 the stuff right same stuff
0:55:18 and now he's saying no it's actually
0:55:19 what we expect this anyways but this is
0:55:21 not as bad
0:55:22 it's not as bad as pizza myers yes
0:55:25 he's admirers instead of actually
0:55:28 saying what richard dawkins said which
0:55:30 by the way from their materialistic
0:55:32 point of view yeah i agree with them
0:55:34 that from your materialistic point of
0:55:36 view you can give that answer
0:55:39 the answer is that before he was junk
0:55:41 now they say
0:55:42 natural selection got rid of the job so
0:55:45 they try and say of course natural
0:55:47 selection wouldn't keep 98 percent of
0:55:49 your dna's junk how inefficient is that
0:55:51 natural reflection obviously you're
0:55:52 going to get
0:55:52 what's he saying yeah
0:55:56 he's an embryologist yeah okay so it's
0:55:58 not even his
0:55:59 field we're talking about genetics he
0:56:02 challenged the entire study
0:56:04 he challenged their definition of
0:56:05 functional and he just started attacking
0:56:07 all of the scientists
0:56:12 an end code just a
0:56:19 it's called bad biology yeah so he said
0:56:22 myers just started attacking the
0:56:24 scientists
0:56:25 saying how they're doing shoddy science
0:56:26 now what's very interesting is he just
0:56:28 attacks anyone
0:56:29 n code this is a study that was done
0:56:33 yeah encode uh encyclopedia of dna
0:56:36 encode yeah yeah
0:56:36 encode yeah so these people
0:56:40 their study was not funded by some
0:56:43 creationist institute
0:56:44 these were top scientists from around
0:56:46 the world top scientists from america
0:56:49 no re they did not know that them
0:56:52 publishing this story is going to
0:56:56 make them enter a theological
0:56:59 hornet's nest they were simply just
0:57:01 doing science
0:57:02 now it's very interesting is when i was
0:57:04 doing my masters
0:57:06 my dissertation was actually related to
0:57:09 how darwinism leads to false positives
0:57:13 how it stops research one of the things
0:57:16 which i did
0:57:17 um and inshallah i'm going to put this
0:57:19 on my website sugrahma.com my
0:57:20 dissertation
0:57:22 i showed how darwinis
0:57:25 were actively stopping dna
0:57:29 being investigated as being functional
0:57:32 because they said it's a waste of time
0:57:35 so they were hindering the progress of
0:57:37 science
0:57:38 their assumptions were hindering the
0:57:40 progress of science now we know about
0:57:42 the
0:57:42 yeah now we know about this stuff about
0:57:44 dna and stuff
0:57:45 uh the functional stuff and the
0:57:47 regulatory function of it
0:57:49 this will help us solve things related
0:57:52 to cancer
0:57:53 diabetes and other conditions wow
0:57:56 however
0:57:58 what is it going to show you shows you
0:57:59 darwinism itself was stopping science
0:58:02 wow
0:58:03 wow wow how come we haven't read this
0:58:05 before
0:58:06 yeah oh you're
0:58:21 whatever his name is he gave me a very
0:58:24 high distinction for this
0:58:26 and when i got this review by an
0:58:28 academic he actually said this is the
0:58:29 best thing
0:58:30 he's read yeah so it's not for me it's
0:58:33 alhamdulillah from allah but
0:58:34 it just goes to show you how darwinism
0:58:37 is a science stopper
0:58:40 regardless of french muslims i don't
0:58:43 think you that i don't think you require
0:58:45 i mean you could have gotten a better
0:58:46 noise but better answer than that
0:58:50 i i just i just have an answer uh to to
0:58:53 to bring
0:58:53 regarding the dna example and the
0:58:56 palmaris longus
0:58:57 example is it not slightly different
0:58:59 because the the muscle is not present in
0:59:01 every human being
0:59:14 supposedly universal this example that
0:59:16 he gave is particular
0:59:18 which was yeah about the muscles and
0:59:20 about the
0:59:21 muscle you're right in terms of
0:59:24 statistical data but in terms of
0:59:27 the concepts which i described with the
0:59:29 first natives and that is the same
0:59:32 but is there no distinction between the
0:59:35 the expectation we can give
0:59:36 as uh is it relevant to to insert the
0:59:39 palmaris longus cases uh by uh
0:59:41 giving the concept with junk dna the
0:59:43 thing is
0:59:45 i wouldn't see it as a relevant
0:59:47 difference
0:59:48 yeah so you're right the junk dna that's
0:59:51 present in everyone
0:59:52 but as the concept the fact that a
0:59:55 vestigial organ
0:59:56 if it's true it can fit within a
0:59:59 theistic paradigm
1:00:00 and also that they using a materialistic
1:00:03 paradigm will always reverse engineer it
1:00:06 these things are are concepts that apply
1:00:09 to your example and to the jungle dna
1:00:11 example
1:00:12 they are okay so we don't need to
1:00:14 explain it
1:00:15 uh it is not relevant yeah
1:00:19 also something else which is i think is
1:00:20 very important uh my by the way what's
1:00:22 your name
1:00:23 uh marwan we told you an email for a
1:00:25 wiggler research
1:00:26 uh you know so you say that again uh you
1:00:29 said you
1:00:30 on twitter you you've been searching
1:00:32 someone for for a research project
1:00:33 project for the
1:00:34 rigors i've applied like uh two weeks
1:00:37 ago
1:00:37 that's me yes yes you emailed me i
1:00:40 believe yeah yeah yeah but that's
1:00:42 another subject it's all right
1:00:44 yeah it's not a martial brother uh uh
1:00:46 what's it called can you just re-email
1:00:48 me so your email comes at the top and we
1:00:50 will take it from there
1:00:51 now the thing is um i was just about to
1:00:53 say yeah
1:00:54 this is very important yeah everything
1:00:57 i'm saying to you on this live stream
1:00:58 and everyone watching now
1:01:00 i just want everybody to recognize
1:01:02 something none of this
1:01:04 is a scientific argument what i always
1:01:07 try and do
1:01:08 and i learned this from hamza sauces
1:01:10 many years ago when it came to evolution
1:01:12 narrative
1:01:13 is to give philosophical concepts which
1:01:15 could be applied
1:01:16 to whichever scientific information is
1:01:18 coming out
1:01:19 so sometimes what happens is i've given
1:01:22 this example of junk dna
1:01:24 or we've covered this particular example
1:01:26 about the muscles
1:01:28 the issue is sometimes people an atheist
1:01:31 sometimes what they do is they bring the
1:01:33 new information about vestigial organs
1:01:35 and they say aha
1:01:36 i have something new but that's
1:01:38 irrelevant because the concepts which
1:01:40 i'm giving
1:01:41 are timeless they're irrelevant it's
1:01:43 irrelevant if that information came out
1:01:45 now
1:01:46 or if they came out 20 years ago yeah so
1:01:48 i think that's very important because
1:01:49 sometimes when i speak it's it's a bit
1:01:52 scientifically heavy
1:01:53 so it looks like i'm making a scientific
1:01:56 argument when i'm not making a
1:01:57 scientific argument
1:01:58 also the junk dna example
1:02:02 even if i never had that example the
1:02:04 concept would still be correct
1:02:06 yeah and you think that's relevant um
1:02:08 despite there is this
1:02:09 universal versus particular occurrence
1:02:13 it wouldn't make a difference because um
1:02:16 the particular
1:02:17 and the universal still fit within the
1:02:19 philosophy of biology and these are
1:02:21 philosophical these are arguments from
1:02:22 the philosophical
1:02:23 point of view because i mean yeah these
1:02:26 arguments in a way
1:02:27 are meta level i'm going to take this
1:02:29 part of what you just said and i'm going
1:02:31 to put it on my channel
1:02:35 i want to get the quote of uh what's his
1:02:36 name man philipp kitchen
1:02:38 yeah philip kitcher and if uh please
1:02:40 admire bro
1:02:41 that's but you have to publish i think
1:02:44 people would agree with me that
1:02:45 you have to publish your dissertation
1:02:54 and if i have a suggestion uh suggestion
1:02:56 for a serpent institute
1:02:57 i think that what's happening in france
1:02:59 is a very a very big issue in
1:03:02 the muslim world you know what i think
1:03:04 what's big in front what's happening
1:03:05 uh the islamophobia phenomenon which is
1:03:08 started by the politics and all that
1:03:09 stuff i think that's a very important uh
1:03:12 thing to to deal with and maybe stop
1:03:13 institut can
1:03:15 deal with it because there is a lot of
1:03:17 um you know rhetoric about islam
1:03:20 and uh bombing and all that stuff which
1:03:22 is used by by politics
1:03:24 it's uh maybe that france is like a
1:03:26 laboratory
1:03:27 uh maybe that things that will happen in
1:03:29 the future in in
1:03:31 at a global scale maybe that are
1:03:33 happening now in france
1:03:34 uh so i think that studying the french
1:03:36 case regarding islamophobia
1:03:37 is very important just to clarify i mean
1:03:40 muhammad hijab in terms of his
1:03:43 public uh profile and using his uh
1:03:46 social media presence and myself
1:03:48 independently of sapiens we can say
1:03:50 stuff
1:03:51 but because of safety clarity status we
1:03:54 don't make anything
1:03:55 political because that's not allowed
1:03:58 right when you're working on a charity
1:04:00 but definitely
1:04:01 i mean we do sympathize it is whatever's
1:04:04 happening in france will
1:04:06 you know it's a blueprint for the rest
1:04:08 of europe
1:04:09 well barcelona
1:04:16 okay next is brother proving islam
1:04:23 salam alaykum
1:04:27 this is my it's my youtube channel's
1:04:29 name which is why it's like this but um
1:04:32 yeah so i wanted to uh discuss
1:04:35 like uh like the main things you were
1:04:39 talking about
1:04:40 like the reason that sapien institute
1:04:42 you guys started it was to give
1:04:44 arguments for islam
1:04:46 right so to me
1:04:49 the greatest proof for islam is actually
1:04:52 the theology itself
1:04:55 so i think if you read the quran like
1:04:57 this is the thing which shows up like
1:04:59 all the time right most of the quran is
1:05:01 just self-evident
1:05:03 based on the linguistics and
1:05:06 just the message like a lot like that's
1:05:08 why allah always repeats this idea of
1:05:11 don't you will you not remember etc etc
1:05:14 so to me that's the uh strongest
1:05:17 argument for islam just looking
1:05:21 at its theology and then comparing it to
1:05:24 all the shirk and kuffar and this and
1:05:26 that right so like
1:05:28 christianity is so obviously false uh
1:05:31 it makes no sense uh the atheism is
1:05:35 so obviously false um idolatry
1:05:38 like idol worship etc but the one
1:05:42 religion which
1:05:42 uh i haven't seen as much content on
1:05:46 is judaism because people tend to
1:05:50 believe that
1:05:51 judaism and islam is the same in terms
1:05:54 of its
1:05:55 main concepts so you'll see people like
1:05:58 um
1:05:59 sorry i'm just going to turn off my fan
1:06:00 here so you can hear me better but uh so
1:06:02 i can hear you okay so like um
1:06:06 you know uh i'm sure you guys are
1:06:07 familiar with rabbi tovia singer
1:06:09 so yeah yeah so that's like the popular
1:06:12 version of judaism
1:06:13 out there and to me like if if
1:06:17 there is a bit of a problem with that in
1:06:19 that it sort of hinders our argument
1:06:21 because it makes it seem like
1:06:23 like imagine how strong an argument it
1:06:26 is to say islam is the only monotheistic
1:06:28 religion right
1:06:29 but now if you include judaism in that
1:06:31 then you sort of got like two
1:06:34 you know so i started noticing this
1:06:36 problem because
1:06:37 uh it was brought to my attention that
1:06:39 there are actually muslims who were
1:06:40 becoming noahides
1:06:43 in his comment section and this and that
1:06:45 so
1:06:46 uh i think it's actually very important
1:06:48 to
1:06:50 because i like i would suppose that
1:06:52 you're gonna make this argument
1:06:54 uh on sapien institute because it is one
1:06:56 of the main arguments of the quran right
1:06:58 yeah so it is a very so i would expect
1:07:00 that so uh i would say that
1:07:01 it's important also to address judaism
1:07:04 because i've actually seen
1:07:05 brother muhammad hijab make a video on
1:07:07 this he was asked this question once on
1:07:10 like salaam or
1:07:11 channel or something and he mentioned
1:07:14 how
1:07:15 the jewish goddess weak god and he
1:07:17 regrets and this and that
1:07:18 but actually i think it's very important
1:07:20 to study what the quran says about jews
1:07:22 if you read from surah al-baqarah to
1:07:24 surah
1:07:26 even like there's and surat allah
1:07:28 mentioned so much
1:07:30 that the jews right so it's important to
1:07:31 understand that you know
1:07:33 allah is not just speaking about the
1:07:34 medina jews
1:07:37 this is important to understand because
1:07:38 the quran is timeless it's not just
1:07:41 supposed to be about
1:07:42 the medina jews and so we have to sort
1:07:44 of
1:07:45 go back to the quran and look at well
1:07:47 what's the
1:07:48 framework that the quran is putting on
1:07:50 because the quran is very angry with
1:07:51 jews like allah is
1:07:52 extremely angry with the yahood in
1:07:57 i was doing research on this and uh i've
1:07:59 actually made a lot of videos on this
1:08:01 where i found out that
1:08:02 basically everything allah speaks about
1:08:05 in the quran regards with regards to
1:08:07 like jews
1:08:08 and the shirk and this and that that
1:08:10 they've done this is actually all in
1:08:11 their literature but no one just knows
1:08:12 about it
1:08:14 so i wanted to request that you guys
1:08:16 look into that
1:08:17 and just like when you find out like
1:08:19 they're worse than christians i'm
1:08:20 telling you right now
1:08:21 uh the the amount of like allah
1:08:24 mentioned that they worship their
1:08:25 scholars
1:08:26 right that's in sura
1:08:32 that's actually in their talmud they
1:08:34 have that they have a narration
1:08:36 which says that you take rabbis over god
1:08:39 because you remember
1:08:40 like you guys know the hadith where the
1:08:42 prophet explains that the meaning of
1:08:43 this ayah is like legislation that's in
1:08:45 the talmud
1:08:46 then you have the hadith where they
1:08:48 worship their
1:08:50 prophets graves that's in the talmud as
1:08:52 well
1:08:53 you have stuff like magic that's
1:08:55 mentioned
1:08:59 that's in the talmud you have
1:09:01 superstition allah
1:09:02 mentioned that as well
1:09:10 they have uh they actually made
1:09:14 i made idols on uh this thing called the
1:09:16 ark of the covenant
1:09:17 so that's part of their thing it's
1:09:20 actually very weird so in the
1:09:22 in in the in the talmud you have this
1:09:23 narration that
1:09:25 they have these two idols they're
1:09:27 essentially well they're graven images
1:09:29 they don't call them idols but they're
1:09:30 graven images
1:09:31 when you talk about the talmud can you
1:09:34 give us some references from the top yes
1:09:35 yes so
1:09:36 uh i can give you the the references for
1:09:39 sure
1:09:40 uh if you want me to pull them up right
1:09:42 now i can't because then
1:09:43 it's also the emoji yeah because i
1:09:45 actually have it all
1:09:46 like i've i posted recently like because
1:09:49 the initial
1:09:50 videos i made were like hours and hours
1:09:52 long but recently i
1:09:53 i com i compress everything into a 20
1:09:56 minute like quick video
1:09:57 i have a document with all the
1:09:58 references i have a video so i can send
1:10:00 you that
1:10:03 islam but it only has 400 subscribers so
1:10:05 uh it might be harder to look up
1:10:07 so maybe if you could look up everything
1:10:09 wrong with judaism in 20 minutes
1:10:11 proving islam you might you might find
1:10:13 it but
1:10:14 like the reason i i like for me this was
1:10:17 a big thing because when i was
1:10:18 younger i was thinking about you know
1:10:20 like everyone plays this cancellation
1:10:22 game like
1:10:23 okay this this religion can't be true
1:10:25 because it's trinity and that's stupid
1:10:26 and this religion can't be true because
1:10:28 it's idols and that's
1:10:29 doesn't make any sense so for me it was
1:10:31 always like well what about judaism
1:10:34 because they seem to have the same
1:10:35 concept of allah but they actually don't
1:10:37 and i think it's just important that
1:10:39 people find
1:10:40 that out for themselves so i think that
1:10:42 you've made a few
1:10:43 like a host of really good points
1:10:45 there's one thing i would
1:10:46 be careful of saying especially in
1:10:48 public is that allah is very angry with
1:10:49 the jews
1:10:51 okay yeah well what i meant was in in
1:10:53 yeah i understand what you're saying but
1:10:55 like if you read the quran
1:10:56 allah describes them as a people who are
1:10:58 who he's angry but
1:10:59 angry with but the reason he's angry
1:11:01 with and it's important it's good that
1:11:03 you brought that up because now i get to
1:11:04 clarify
1:11:05 the reason that the yahood are
1:11:07 classified as the people allah is angry
1:11:09 with
1:11:10 is because they knew the description of
1:11:13 muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam in
1:11:14 the torah
1:11:15 and they turned away anyway so it's not
1:11:17 that oh they're jews so allah hates them
1:11:20 no rather allah chose them they they
1:11:21 were chosen people
1:11:23 and they knew that the prophet is coming
1:11:25 but yet they turned away so that's a
1:11:26 good point i'm glad you made that we've
1:11:28 got to be careful that
1:11:29 uh are the jews of today the same like
1:11:32 are they actually jews in the sense that
1:11:34 like from the definitions that we have
1:11:36 or are they european
1:11:38 uh i mean to what extent well well okay
1:11:40 but see the thing there
1:11:42 is
1:11:45 the religion and bani israel means the
1:11:47 race so
1:11:48 i don't think that distinction applies
1:11:50 to the quran because yahood is the
1:11:51 religion so even if you say that the
1:11:53 today's jews are
1:11:54 europeans
1:11:59 is that right though what what
1:12:02 when israel is definitely talking about
1:12:05 race for sure yeah
1:12:06 because even even even uh the earliest
1:12:08 followers of isla islam are called bani
1:12:11 israel in the quran
1:12:12 in surah 61 ayah 14.
1:12:16 no but it's not just this it's like a
1:12:18 latina
1:12:20 so that they have they've become
1:12:22 something it's like they are yeah so
1:12:23 that's their religion
1:12:24 yes makes sense okay look
1:12:28 what i'm saying to you now is uh you've
1:12:30 made a host of good points we'd like to
1:12:31 have
1:12:32 your references yeah i mean one more
1:12:33 thing that i would add to what you've
1:12:35 said is that the
1:12:36 quran says
1:12:39 yes we haven't seen you before i have an
1:12:42 answer for that as well
1:12:43 yeah because i know the jews say that a
1:12:45 prophet cannot abrogate the law
1:12:47 so this is one point i actually wanted
1:12:49 to make to brother muhammad hijab that
1:12:51 he brought up that
1:12:52 i uh that it's important to understand
1:12:54 that the prophet sallallahu alaihi
1:12:57 wasallam is in there by it is in their
1:12:59 books like
1:13:00 i i can tell you that for a fact right
1:13:01 now because i know like i've seen videos
1:13:03 where mohammed hijab
1:13:05 uh brother is saying like he doesn't
1:13:07 think deuteronomy 18
1:13:09 and the paraclete sings are that clear
1:13:11 but that he thinks isaiah 42 is clear
1:13:14 and this and that
1:13:15 well i'll i'll tell you right now like
1:13:17 they can't answer
1:13:18 the uh these prophecies like i like you
1:13:20 can ask me i have experience in this
1:13:22 field with
1:13:23 like i know you're more inclined to like
1:13:25 the philosophical kind of stuff you guys
1:13:26 you're more into that by someone who's
1:13:28 more
1:13:28 uh like uh exposed to the kitab side of
1:13:31 things
1:13:32 i can tell you that that for sure the
1:13:34 those prophecies are
1:13:36 uh yeah yeah so you can find that
1:13:39 document in the description
1:13:41 too it's in the description but what i
1:13:43 wanted to say to brother muhammad
1:13:45 i know you're into that stuff but as
1:13:47 someone who's more exposed to that
1:13:49 i can tell you that he is there for sure
1:13:51 and it's very very clear
1:13:52 the problem is you have to check back
1:13:55 the hebrew a lot of times because they
1:13:58 they they hide stuff in translations
1:14:01 intentionally or unintentionally if i
1:14:03 just just speak
1:14:04 look i mean it's not bad no i i no i
1:14:06 mean uh what i'm trying to say is
1:14:08 unintentionally or intentionally the
1:14:10 translations uh
1:14:12 are problematic but if you actually
1:14:14 check back the hebrew and also a lot of
1:14:16 times their explanations
1:14:18 are really bad but people just buy them
1:14:19 because people don't understand the
1:14:21 bible so i know like i'm sure you guys
1:14:23 i have heard of brother zucker her say i
1:14:26 would say if you really want to know the
1:14:27 stuff you can contact him because he's
1:14:29 done
1:14:30 10 years of research on this and i can
1:14:32 tell you for a fact like those are
1:14:34 legitimate
1:14:35 prophecies even we have clear clear
1:14:37 evidence that they were waiting for
1:14:39 the prophet muhammad because you know
1:14:41 they'll say that oh you only get that
1:14:42 from the hadith and you muslims must
1:14:44 have made it up right
1:14:45 but in dead sea scrolls they're waiting
1:14:47 for the prophet they actually call him
1:14:49 the prophet and the reference is
1:14:50 deuteronomy 18.
1:14:52 the new testament they're waiting for
1:14:54 him it's the same thing
1:14:56 in john 1 21. so you can see the jews of
1:14:58 the first century
1:14:59 in the dead sea scrolls were waiting for
1:15:00 a prophet this was the end time prophet
1:15:02 to come
1:15:03 in in the new testament you have
1:15:05 evidence that they were waiting for this
1:15:06 prophet as well because it's the jews
1:15:08 speaking
1:15:08 so even though they don't accept the new
1:15:10 testament historically it's true
1:15:12 and then finally in philo's writings do
1:15:14 you guys know who philo is
1:15:17 alexandra yeah yeah so uh he also
1:15:19 expects the deuteronomy 18 prophet to
1:15:21 come
1:15:22 or it's hinted towards that it's the
1:15:23 deuteronomy 18 profit
1:15:25 and then finally you have the medina
1:15:27 juice so that's four independent sources
1:15:29 which confirmed they were all waiting
1:15:31 for a profit so
1:15:33 you've got like the medina jews like um
1:15:36 for instance you know that
1:15:38 i'm not sure obviously he's been to haye
1:15:41 and she was the prophet
1:15:44 she was one of the dwight of the prophet
1:15:45 and he basically
1:15:47 um obviously he was killed in the
1:15:51 kaiba yeah
1:15:54 and people don't realize that and we
1:15:56 will make a video about this actually
1:15:58 quite
1:15:58 soon inshallah about how this whole
1:16:01 thing took place because
1:16:02 it's you've got to think about sophia
1:16:04 she
1:16:05 married the man
1:16:08 whose army killed her father and you
1:16:10 know parts of her family so
1:16:12 it was not an easy it wasn't just like
1:16:14 you know he just took her hand and
1:16:16 just said that's how it goes there was a
1:16:18 lot of
1:16:19 discussion between sophia and muhammad
1:16:22 allah
1:16:23 and in that discussion you see you get
1:16:25 an in
1:16:26 um house kind of a picture of what was
1:16:29 what these particular benu
1:16:31 uh nadir jews or the particular tribe
1:16:35 what they were doing what they were
1:16:37 saying and
1:16:39 what basically uh she said and this is
1:16:41 one of the most
1:16:42 powerful narrations in the islamic
1:16:44 tradition
1:16:45 uh that i came across on this matter
1:16:49 is that she said that obviously she had
1:16:51 her dream and that's
1:16:53 you guys can check that out her dream
1:16:55 like you know that she saw this and the
1:16:56 moon and all that stuff
1:16:58 check that away out if you don't know
1:16:59 what i'm talking about but something
1:17:00 really powerful is that she one time
1:17:02 overheard her dad
1:17:03 yeah yeah and her uncle having a
1:17:06 discussion
1:17:07 right and they were discussing with each
1:17:10 other
1:17:10 and they were saying something to the
1:17:11 effects of do you think he is the
1:17:14 pro like you were saying right yeah yeah
1:17:16 that's interesting because
1:17:17 everyone refers to this prophet as the
1:17:20 prophet
1:17:26 so after he's you know what do you think
1:17:29 of him in and
1:17:30 the father said i know for a fact that
1:17:33 this is him
1:17:34 okay obviously
1:17:38 yeah so here's this
1:17:41 and sorry this this particular uh had it
1:17:44 for this particular incident
1:17:46 she said he said yeah so what are you
1:17:48 going to do with him so now the uncle's
1:17:50 questioning the father he says what are
1:17:52 you going to do with it he says i'm
1:17:53 going to impose him as long as i live
1:17:55 and this and this was one of the main
1:17:57 reasons by the way that made sophia
1:18:00 she inclined to the prophet muhammad
1:18:02 because she knew that he was a true
1:18:04 prophet
1:18:05 and that she saw that she witnessed that
1:18:07 conversation because the medina
1:18:09 why would think about the quran like it
1:18:11 would make no sense for the quran to
1:18:13 make the claim
1:18:14 uh you know they they know him like they
1:18:16 know that you're yani like they are
1:18:18 like their children yeah why would
1:18:19 people say that and
1:18:21 why would it say things like you know
1:18:23 they know it this kind of thing
1:18:25 brother hijab you don't understand like
1:18:28 once
1:18:28 you interact with jews like because
1:18:31 dawah to jews is
1:18:32 almost no one does it right but ivan's
1:18:35 like reading suratul baqarah
1:18:37 and like mothering quran like for so
1:18:40 long
1:18:41 and when i started actually doing tawa
1:18:43 to jews like
1:18:44 you'll be shocked at the way they react
1:18:47 is exactly like the quran affirms it
1:18:50 like
1:18:51 exactly what the quran says they'll
1:18:52 don't exactly what they do
1:18:54 don't generalize because yeah i know but
1:18:57 you're like you can see those attitudes
1:18:58 like i had a jew
1:18:59 i had a jew tell me no because he's an
1:19:01 arab i understand this i get it
1:19:04 and by the way they've got us in the old
1:19:06 testament you know god repents it to the
1:19:08 jews you know in genesis rabbi 27 4
1:19:12 it mentions how god was about that
1:19:14 repent idea he's like
1:19:17 you're sorry just for the for the okay
1:19:19 so genesis rabbi is a
1:19:24 i know you're a bit excited and i
1:19:25 appreciate that you're giving some
1:19:26 really good
1:19:27 you know points but i'm like you on
1:19:29 twitter yeah yeah
1:19:31 but please just yeah okay thanks for
1:19:33 that but what just when i
1:19:36 try and add something of benefit please
1:19:38 just allow me to do that so we can
1:19:40 you know for the benefit of the viewers
1:19:42 on yeah so i was going to say that with
1:19:45 yeah genesis rubber is um it's part of
1:19:48 the mid-ration
1:19:49 right so it's probably what you said is
1:19:52 right
1:19:52 so this is according to news now joseph
1:19:55 newsna
1:19:55 i'm not sure if you know who he is you
1:19:56 know he is uh no okay you should know
1:19:59 because you said you're a specialist in
1:20:00 judaism and he's like the number one
1:20:02 most published man uh
1:20:04 for judaism and talks about these
1:20:05 matters right so
1:20:07 so once again bro you know if you're
1:20:09 going to claim to be especially
1:20:11 something you should know the names of
1:20:12 the people who are the olympia of that
1:20:14 thing so
1:20:15 news now is actually he's on the
1:20:17 guinness guinness world book of records
1:20:19 or something for
1:20:20 producing the most books ever written
1:20:23 okay
1:20:23 uh in the present age i think he's
1:20:25 actually produced 900 books
1:20:27 his he's he's uh he produced 900 uh
1:20:31 news now his name is newsnah right in
1:20:33 the present age according to
1:20:35 in the present age yeah oh right i know
1:20:37 but i i
1:20:38 tend to stick to the classical jewish
1:20:40 scholars
1:20:41 yeah of course but of the present ages
1:20:45 the second resource material and he he
1:20:48 says that eugenice's rubber is actually
1:20:51 dated between 400 to 500
1:20:54 a.d which is interesting because what
1:20:56 four to 500
1:20:57 a.d is um
1:21:00 after the futuristic period for the most
1:21:02 part like most ecumenical writers would
1:21:04 have written what they had to write
1:21:05 so which means genesis rabbi which is
1:21:07 part of mid-russian right
1:21:09 yeah all right is it post dates
1:21:13 so in post states genesis rabbi
1:21:17 it post states the patriotistic works
1:21:19 and so
1:21:20 but this this is important in and of
1:21:22 itself i think
1:21:23 i think i actually read
1:21:27 certain jewish tafseers on this
1:21:30 where they i'm going to slow down
1:21:32 because you advised me so i think i
1:21:34 actually
1:21:35 read sir some uh tafsirs of of uh
1:21:39 the genesis where it talks about god
1:21:41 regretting and they were
1:21:42 quoting genesis rabah this idea
1:21:46 i like found it in every tafseer i was
1:21:48 going through rashi
1:21:50 ibn ezra all of them they were all
1:21:52 quoting this idea from genesis rabad
1:21:54 that
1:21:54 the basically the story is god is like
1:21:56 it was my mistake that i
1:21:58 uh created human beings i should have
1:22:01 made them angels and this and that
1:22:04 so uh we think the tradition
1:22:08 might go back because you know even the
1:22:10 talmud is influenced by islam some of it
1:22:12 so i think the traditions are going back
1:22:15 even though it might have been written
1:22:16 later
1:22:17 okay well thanks so much for your
1:22:19 contributions you've been you've been
1:22:20 great and
1:22:21 given us some really good points and
1:22:22 you've advertised your channel hopefully
1:22:24 people can i just say i didn't mean to
1:22:26 mock you brother
1:22:27 like i'm about to twitter no no no i
1:22:30 didn't mean to mock you or anything by
1:22:31 the way i i subbed to your channel
1:22:33 that's fine
1:22:33 we've all made mistakes before yeah like
1:22:36 more of the people over there
1:22:37 no i think you're a good brother you do
1:22:39 good work i was just like making a joke
1:22:41 to lighten the mood because i know i
1:22:43 interrupt sometimes that's right but
1:22:46 we'll be younger
1:22:47 i'm younger guys i like i talk different
1:22:49 all right
1:22:50 go young let me give you one piece of
1:22:52 advice before you depart one piece of
1:22:53 advice i'm young as well i've got the
1:22:55 impulsive nature and stuff like that but
1:22:59 be careful what you claim about yourself
1:23:01 this is just one thing
1:23:02 i didn't say i didn't say that i'm a
1:23:04 jewish expert or anything
1:23:06 no i know and i'm not saying that you
1:23:07 said that but i'm just saying that be
1:23:10 careful of it because now
1:23:12 uh to be to be actually established in a
1:23:14 field like and bro
1:23:16 like i would i'm scared of that because
1:23:20 the jewish works are deep and you know
1:23:22 the taliban
1:23:23 the taliban the jewish people but
1:23:25 they're they're not like the christians
1:23:27 by the way
1:23:28 like yeah they're very extreme no no no
1:23:30 let me explain that bro not everything
1:23:32 is extremism
1:23:32 all this what i mean here is this what i
1:23:34 mean is that
1:23:36 if you meet the typical christian okay
1:23:38 he will not know
1:23:40 hebrew and he will not even if he's a
1:23:41 scholar in christianity he will not know
1:23:43 hebrew and he will not know
1:23:44 carnegie if you meet a rabbi it would be
1:23:47 embarrassing if he does not know hebrew
1:23:49 right he'll be able to speak in hebrew
1:23:51 talking hebrew
1:23:52 reading hebrew understanding hebrew he
1:23:54 would know like
1:23:56 there's london is fulfilled with
1:23:58 orthodox jews
1:24:00 people that when when i meet a jewish
1:24:02 scholar
1:24:03 he is completely different to a
1:24:05 christian scholar this guy has spent
1:24:07 20 30 50 years we have to be very
1:24:10 careful especially as young people
1:24:12 approaching these people okay who are
1:24:14 not like the christian
1:24:16 pastors who just read it in english
1:24:18 these guys are
1:24:19 they're serious we you you'll quote to
1:24:21 them the mid russian
1:24:22 they'll come with the uh talmud
1:24:28 and he'll be able to do what you call
1:24:31 and he knows what's right and what's
1:24:32 wrong and there's different
1:24:34 bro judaism is a ba
1:24:37 it is c and and and and be
1:24:40 very weary because i know like the
1:24:43 taliban
1:24:44 like if you get a strong muslim yeah
1:24:47 the quran understands it and whatever
1:24:49 and some fool comes he doesn't know the
1:24:50 arabic language
1:24:51 the taliban will run circles around him
1:24:53 okay now you
1:24:54 imagine the same thing is the case with
1:24:56 the jews yeah if you try to come with
1:24:58 arrogance with them like oh you're evil
1:25:00 and this and it says that bro
1:25:01 i didn't mean it that like i understand
1:25:03 but i was trying to connect it to the
1:25:04 quranic description
1:25:06 no of course bro because you are
1:25:07 masha'allah i'm good
1:25:09 brother and we advise you alike because
1:25:11 you are in the tower that's why i'm
1:25:12 speaking to you like that
1:25:14 make sure you humble yourself to these
1:25:16 people because if you're speaking to
1:25:17 jewish scholars
1:25:18 they're not like christian scholars
1:25:20 christian scholars yeah they have the
1:25:22 same access to
1:25:23 you the jewish scholars i'm sorry no and
1:25:25 it takes time to properly be fluent in
1:25:27 hebrew
1:25:27 and to go through these things and to
1:25:29 understand it so yeah
1:25:30 we have to humble ourselves
1:25:36 by the way which means
1:25:40 we've done the jewish topic for a long
1:25:41 time and there's loads of brothers
1:25:43 waiting
1:25:43 so we'll end it there uh brother for
1:25:46 joining us
1:25:50 [Music]
1:25:51 next is kazi welcome
1:25:55 to sapience live
1:25:58 i believe your question is about
1:26:01 dmt or something right actually i have
1:26:04 two
1:26:05 uh questions one is kind of request
1:26:08 first i'll go
1:26:08 go through that uh first of all uh
1:26:11 assalamu alaikum and
1:26:13 i really appreciate your work and i
1:26:15 really
1:26:16 i mean i'm inspired by your work
1:26:18 brothers my question is to both of you
1:26:21 i'll tell you why i'm asking you later
1:26:23 do you like poetry
1:26:27 poetry to be honest i really like the
1:26:29 poetry of iqbal
1:26:31 yeah okay um but other than that other
1:26:34 poetry things
1:26:35 i'm not really into me personally i like
1:26:38 it bro
1:26:39 i'm not gonna lie but i i don't like it
1:26:41 enough to listen to it as much as i
1:26:42 should be listening to it as a muslim
1:26:44 because i reckon that
1:26:45 to be honest a muslim should be should
1:26:47 be knowing a lot of poetry because
1:26:50 especially the arabic poetry it's all
1:26:52 beautiful yeah it allows you to
1:26:53 appreciate the quranic language a lot
1:26:55 more
1:26:56 so for me that's one of the adventures
1:26:57 that i want to like inshallah in the
1:26:59 next couple of years
1:27:00 i want to have yeah well actually i'm a
1:27:03 poet
1:27:04 myself and uh i have recently published
1:27:06 uh
1:27:07 my book which is my 40 poems to know the
1:27:10 meaning of life
1:27:13 yeah it's in english give us
1:27:21 you know sometimes reading about
1:27:23 abstract philosophical or religious
1:27:25 topics can be some sometimes boring and
1:27:28 dull experience for some readers so
1:27:30 i try to convey the message of islam
1:27:32 through my poems
1:27:33 uh and i was hoping that you guys can
1:27:37 review my book
1:27:38 if possible um
1:27:41 i'll be very honest with you about
1:27:43 reviewing it but i've given us a bit of
1:27:44 poetry now and we'll review it now
1:27:47 this is more this is i'm not going to
1:27:48 lie to you bro i'm not going to have
1:27:50 time
1:27:50 if you give us a five line or we can
1:27:52 review come on
1:27:54 okay so basically i've divided the
1:27:58 poems into different parts like it's
1:28:00 based on different pillars of faith we
1:28:02 have in islam like
1:28:03 i've covered the uh here after the uh
1:28:08 faith the six basic i mean the six
1:28:11 pillars of islam all are covered in this
1:28:14 uh i'll just
1:28:15 uh read about the poem which i have
1:28:17 written about our prophet
1:28:19 this one i've covered yes
1:28:23 just give me one sec no problem take
1:28:25 your time
1:28:34 so this is about our profit one incident
1:28:36 which happened uh
1:28:37 during his lifetime
1:28:40 the poem is called the prophet's date
1:28:43 the prophet's days days okay yeah
1:28:47 it was the month of ramadan when in the
1:28:50 service of the prophet
1:28:51 came a man i broke my fast oh prophet
1:28:54 said he
1:28:55 o messenger of god do thou guide me
1:28:58 go ye your lord is forgiving he forgives
1:29:00 man's every sin
1:29:02 to expiate your sin go free a slave such
1:29:04 is the command which your lord gave
1:29:06 o messenger of god i am weak in all
1:29:09 honesty to you do i speak
1:29:11 to free a slave for me is impossible
1:29:13 over your command you do my
1:29:16 go ye seek his forgiveness for your
1:29:18 misdeed you fast for two months
1:29:20 indeed your lord is most forgiving such
1:29:22 is the command of your lord which i
1:29:23 bring
1:29:24 o messenger of god i am we fast of
1:29:27 ramadan i could not complete
1:29:29 fasting for two months for me is heavy
1:29:31 so gracious be thou to my plea
1:29:34 go ye your lord sees and listens in his
1:29:36 path you feed 60 men
1:29:38 indeed your lord is most forgiving such
1:29:40 is the command of your lord which i
1:29:42 bring
1:29:43 o messenger of god i am weak to feed 60
1:29:45 men is beyond my reach
1:29:47 be thou be gracious upon me o messenger
1:29:49 of god do thou guide me
1:29:51 goi take these dates from me give ye to
1:29:54 the poor and needy
1:29:55 indeed your lord is oft forgiving upon
1:29:57 his slaves he showers his blessings
1:30:00 o messenger of god indeed i am poor no
1:30:03 poor of madina from me can be poor
1:30:05 so be thou be gracious upon a poor man
1:30:07 give him out of your bounty what you can
1:30:10 a smile broke across the prophet's
1:30:12 blessed face as he hearkened to the man
1:30:14 with
1:30:14 utmost grace go ye and take all of these
1:30:18 eat my dates until you are pleased
1:30:23 allah this is this is the one brother i
1:30:26 like him man
1:30:31 the book is called my 40 poems to know
1:30:33 the meaning of life
1:30:35 wow wow wow i think look we're going to
1:30:37 get this book right now
1:30:38 so this is a collection of 40 poems you
1:30:41 know it introduces a person to islam
1:30:43 all the you know the articles of faith
1:30:46 and everything is covered
1:30:47 when you read my book from the atheistic
1:30:50 perspective you will uh you'll know how
1:30:52 it uh opens the mind of a person to the
1:30:55 idea of god and you know
1:30:56 to islam that was a very nice you know
1:30:59 poem it's interaction between one man
1:31:01 and the prophet
1:31:03 yeah it's it's based on the hadith
1:31:05 mentioned in the
1:31:06 sahih bukhari uh you might be knowing
1:31:08 about that yeah are you talking about
1:31:10 the hadith where the man
1:31:11 had intercourse with his wife yeah yeah
1:31:12 yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
1:31:14 what he said what's your family and he
1:31:16 you can see his molar teeth it's a
1:31:17 beautiful hadith yeah yeah
1:31:19 yeah yeah absolutely did you like my
1:31:21 opponent do you like it
1:31:22 i like that how could you not anyone who
1:31:25 says they don't like it they don't they
1:31:26 don't know about poetry brother
1:31:31 would it be possible for you guys to
1:31:33 please read it at once at least and
1:31:35 review it and
1:31:36 maybe you can yeah i'll be very honest
1:31:39 with you we get loads of requests for
1:31:40 reviews if we do it brother for you
1:31:42 we'll have to do it we'll have to do it
1:31:43 for because i
1:31:44 i'll honestly tell you this is a review
1:31:45 brother no it's very good mashallah this
1:31:48 is a very reasonable thing
1:31:49 yeah very nice we love it
1:31:52 the thing is as a muslim we should never
1:31:54 commit to something unless you
1:31:56 absolutely are going to do it and i've
1:31:58 learned that the hard way i've committed
1:31:59 to things and never done it
1:32:01 all the time they call me the rejecter
1:32:06 i wouldn't i wouldn't uh go that far
1:32:08 yeah no
1:32:10 well how can i say no yes but yes i i
1:32:12 tried my best to give you the review
1:32:13 from
1:32:14 basically what you've said yeah so um so
1:32:16 let us know your question inshallah
1:32:18 brother uh muneeb kazi
1:32:20 it was not like a question like it was a
1:32:23 comment
1:32:24 really you you uploaded a video
1:32:27 regarding dmt and out of body experience
1:32:29 and all that
1:32:30 i just wanted to point out that uh do
1:32:32 you like uh
1:32:33 have any idea of astral projection
1:32:37 do you know that no no i don't know
1:32:38 what's it called astral projection
1:32:40 astral projection you know you should uh
1:32:42 look it up it's uh like uh
1:32:44 it's basically the idea like when we
1:32:46 sleep you might be knowing like
1:32:48 our soul exits our body right yeah
1:32:51 so in the quran
1:33:06 so basically when we sleep our soul
1:33:09 exits our bodies so
1:33:10 the idea is like when you try to do
1:33:13 astral projection
1:33:15 you try to make your body sleep but you
1:33:18 keep your mind conscious you know you
1:33:21 don't
1:33:21 let your mind sleep you just focus uh
1:33:24 keep your mind focused
1:33:25 and let your body sleep so so basically
1:33:28 what happens
1:33:29 when you when your soul exits your body
1:33:32 you can
1:33:33 you can be well aware like like how we
1:33:35 are away right now conscious right now
1:33:37 you can see everything you can see your
1:33:38 body you can see the soul leaving uh
1:33:41 the body so uh so do you get me
1:33:44 absolutely i i'll have to look into that
1:33:47 yeah
1:33:48 so there are loads of videos available
1:33:51 on youtube uh like
1:33:52 go check it out i'm gonna yeah i'm
1:33:54 writing it down on my
1:33:55 my notes so i can go and check it out so
1:33:58 there are
1:33:58 lots of uh loads and loads of
1:34:00 testimonies already available on
1:34:02 youtube like people upload their stories
1:34:04 how they did
1:34:05 astral projection what they saw there's
1:34:08 a huge
1:34:09 you i i can say hundreds and hundreds
1:34:11 upon hundreds of uh
1:34:12 testimonies on youtube available for us
1:34:14 to see
1:34:15 uh i just i was just wondering is this
1:34:18 permissible
1:34:19 uh in islam like i don't know what it is
1:34:21 i can't i mean
1:34:22 there's three things
1:34:26 and he doesn't know where he is it's
1:34:29 compounded ignorance like the blind
1:34:31 leading the blind if i were to give you
1:34:32 an answer to that i would just
1:34:34 be catastrophic the blind not knowing
1:34:37 he's supposed to lead
1:34:38 yeah you know more than i do
1:34:42 i'll be honest i'll be honest with you
1:34:44 like i just tried it once
1:34:46 and i felt my soul like leaving the body
1:34:49 actually
1:34:50 and it was really like i would say be
1:34:52 careful with this stuff
1:34:54 i think i i'll tell you one time this
1:34:55 actually happened you know
1:34:57 it wasn't to me it was to my opponents
1:34:59 because when whenever i debate them the
1:35:01 soul leaves the body
1:35:03 you know they have astro projections
1:35:07 this is this is real brothers like you
1:35:10 wanna
1:35:10 um just add something like her brother
1:35:13 munich
1:35:14 says you just spoke about the opponents
1:35:16 and stuff that's good
1:35:17 you know uh this thing about the way you
1:35:20 look um
1:35:21 during debates and a lot of it a lot of
1:35:23 the communication is non-verbal
1:35:26 i don't know why but this image stuck in
1:35:28 my head
1:35:29 and the image was when you know during
1:35:32 the debate there was just one segment
1:35:33 because i was watching it live in
1:35:35 pakistan
1:35:36 and i'm not sure what time it was in
1:35:37 america but in pakistan it was after
1:35:38 fajr so i was watching it
1:35:39 live at fajr
1:35:42 and i was saying that and there's one
1:35:44 point
1:35:46 where i actually saw david woody and
1:35:50 he just looked really vulnerable like
1:35:53 i've never seen him
1:35:54 look like you know like i've always
1:35:57 looked at him and always felt like oh
1:35:58 this guy's an idiot he's this he's that
1:36:00 you feel like just just refuting him
1:36:03 but he actually it was almost like you
1:36:06 know
1:36:06 to the point where someone is so
1:36:09 humiliated
1:36:10 you actually start to feel empathy for
1:36:12 him now what happened with me and i i
1:36:15 it's a weird thing but somebody that you
1:36:17 see as
1:36:18 okay that's a strong opponent of islam
1:36:20 that's an islamophobia
1:36:22 it's a person that you see him in the
1:36:23 video he's got this smurf
1:36:25 you know what i'm talking about yeah
1:36:26 this constant smoke and he's got this
1:36:29 look and the camera angle in his face
1:36:31 and that point bro
1:36:33 it literally you know it reminded me it
1:36:35 reminded me
1:36:37 of you know i'm not sure how true this
1:36:39 is but
1:36:40 supposedly there's this idea that firon
1:36:42 he hated going to the toilet
1:36:44 i don't i don't know if you i've not
1:36:46 read it but the reason was because it
1:36:48 showed his humanity
1:36:49 yeah so he hated going to the toilet
1:36:51 because it was kind of like
1:36:52 he's supposed to be a god he's supposed
1:36:54 to be great and he's he's going and he's
1:36:57 uh going to a toilet right so so you
1:36:59 know
1:37:00 that image is now ingrained in my brain
1:37:03 with the image where he's so vulnerable
1:37:05 i feel sorry for him
1:37:07 so now i have these mixed feelings yeah
1:37:09 so i have this
1:37:10 now after that when i saw that debate
1:37:12 and
1:37:13 and the aftermath and everything i just
1:37:15 thought to myself do you know what
1:37:16 that's it he's finished now when he went
1:37:19 back
1:37:20 he looked like conor mcgregor yeah yeah
1:37:22 yeah he made the same quality videos
1:37:24 with the same confidence
1:37:26 and i was like that just reminds me of
1:37:28 you know in school
1:37:29 somebody gets buoyed they get bullied
1:37:31 like somebody just bullies them
1:37:33 in front of everybody yeah the next day
1:37:35 they pretend to be hard again it's like
1:37:36 no no that's gone now that [ __ ] that
1:37:38 that boat's gone now and that ship
1:37:41 sailed basically
1:37:42 but i don't know if you've if you felt
1:37:44 that because i had this weird feeling
1:37:46 during the debate that that's it
1:37:47 i felt the same thing with you and aaron
1:37:49 actually when you had his debate when he
1:37:50 came back and he saw you and speaking
1:37:52 he didn't seem like he wanted to be
1:37:54 there like he saw one night he's like
1:37:55 you know it's like he saw
1:37:56 it's like the school bully has come he's
1:37:59 just not he's not interested and now
1:38:01 look at his
1:38:02 look at him goes back to confidence
1:38:04 where is he now what's he doing with
1:38:05 himself
1:38:07 after that i don't think he's where is
1:38:08 he what's he doing no but
1:38:10 i do find this i think it's the sam
1:38:12 harris has the same issue
1:38:13 he lost the debate to the point that
1:38:17 there's no point carrying on yeah he
1:38:18 retired but he now makes videos
1:38:20 as if nothing happened the thing is once
1:38:23 you've done
1:38:24 something like that i think that i would
1:38:27 respect somebody who simply says do you
1:38:29 know what all right
1:38:30 hats off i'm gonna go become a janitor
1:38:33 like i'd respect that person more than
1:38:34 somebody who
1:38:35 pretends nothing happened and they just
1:38:37 pretend also one of my
1:38:39 uh uh one of my thoughts on this is this
1:38:41 is pure
1:38:43 like you your ego is so big
1:38:46 you know we're talking about astral
1:38:47 projection yeah your ego
1:38:49 is so big you don't realize what just
1:38:52 happens here
1:38:53 i i actually feel but he might be my
1:38:56 fault colin
1:38:57 this david wood because uh i mean
1:38:59 independently lifted from him
1:39:01 like he made a video he's talking about
1:39:02 his mom and brother dying or something
1:39:04 and he said it with no emotion
1:39:06 and seriously if you're if you're going
1:39:08 to do that i am
1:39:10 actually going to suspect he said he's a
1:39:11 psychopath but he might be psychotic
1:39:14 actually as well he might have he might
1:39:15 be insane he might be clinically insane
1:39:18 and for for all intents and probably if
1:39:20 he's insane is
1:39:21 my fault it could be this well you know
1:39:24 the strange thing is not
1:39:26 that he's just insane or or these types
1:39:29 of things i mean that's obvious i mean
1:39:30 anybody who you know
1:39:32 what i love about him this is why i
1:39:33 actually really like him yeah
1:39:35 is that these christians they work so
1:39:37 hard to build a narrative
1:39:39 of jesus's love it's all about love our
1:39:42 religions love crusades has nothing to
1:39:44 do with us
1:39:45 you know we're all about love they go to
1:39:46 muslim countries they go to other
1:39:48 countries
1:39:49 they try and just talk they build up
1:39:51 this amazing narrative of
1:39:53 jesus and rainbows in unicorns and
1:39:56 safety and then in comes along a man
1:39:58 with a sledgehammer eating food yeah and
1:40:01 he just
1:40:01 he just he thinks he's hurting yeah and
1:40:04 he smashes their narrative
1:40:06 bro you know
1:40:09 [Music]
1:40:11 all of the hard work i'm sure there's
1:40:13 emergency meetings that are happening
1:40:15 yeah
1:40:16 i actually had an idea for hijab and
1:40:19 what it was
1:40:20 what you do basically right you go to
1:40:23 meet a christian and you meet them in
1:40:25 brixton you know britain you've got
1:40:26 those churches black churches and you
1:40:28 know
1:40:29 these uh something yeah yeah and you go
1:40:31 there
1:40:32 yeah pentecostal yeah you go there and
1:40:34 you basically say to them look
1:40:36 you know muslims and christians don't
1:40:38 you agree that
1:40:39 both of us should be facing atheists
1:40:41 together he's like yeah you're right
1:40:42 don't you agree that both of our
1:40:43 religions you know we should be getting
1:40:45 along like we're going along in africa
1:40:47 okay that's good um what do you think
1:40:49 christianity teaches they're going to
1:40:50 say oh you know teaching
1:40:52 love love thy neighbor and you're like
1:40:53 you're right do you know what
1:40:55 i want to ask you something yeah i want
1:40:57 to ask you do you think bin laden do you
1:40:59 think
1:40:59 baghdadi do you think these people
1:41:01 represent islam the christian is going
1:41:02 to be of course more
1:41:03 these people don't represent islam we
1:41:05 know that these are bad muslims we know
1:41:06 that these are terrible people
1:41:08 some of them will say something else
1:41:10 yeah yeah and
1:41:12 we could say well you know just like
1:41:13 these bad muslims do you think there's
1:41:15 bad christians
1:41:16 like i want to show you something you
1:41:18 know love and peace and all this stuff
1:41:20 you spoke about
1:41:21 what do you think about this person in
1:41:22 the quran
1:41:24 you get the reactions of oh all the
1:41:28 christians
1:41:29 who you first hype up to make them talk
1:41:30 about love and peace then you show them
1:41:32 that video
1:41:33 right and now they're talking i reckon
1:41:34 that video go viral i don't get it
1:41:36 do you know what these christians do
1:41:37 they wait for their guys to die and then
1:41:38 they start challenging them like this
1:41:40 rather yeah
1:41:41 he's got a scandal on him but now you're
1:41:43 just abusing his family who's
1:41:44 the non-bystanders because they have to
1:41:46 hear all these things about their i
1:41:47 don't know their dad or their uncle or
1:41:49 whatever why don't you do that when he
1:41:50 was alive
1:41:50 yes by the way if they were to die and
1:41:52 they're probably going to go do the same
1:41:53 thing
1:41:53 yeah i i'm not surprised by the sale
1:41:56 yeah absolutely
1:41:58 brother kazi
1:42:01 just one more thing like i just wanted
1:42:03 to say i just
1:42:05 sent this copy to uh brother imran
1:42:08 hussein recently and
1:42:09 he seemed to have read few of my poems
1:42:11 and he did really like it sure
1:42:14 and i i sent one copy to alex also alex
1:42:18 uh opener the cosmic step
1:42:19 skeptic
1:42:23 yawning is your reaction to that uh yeah
1:42:26 brother and one more thing regarding
1:42:29 that
1:42:29 astral projection i told you yeah you
1:42:32 know people have given
1:42:33 ted talks also regarding this uh topic
1:42:36 and their experiences
1:42:37 so this is a very very real thing um if
1:42:40 you can
1:42:40 just uh we'll check out although i would
1:42:43 say
1:42:44 uh you know we're not promoting it here
1:42:46 and if anybody tries it i mean
1:42:48 if it is something then definitely we
1:42:50 need to look at the halalness of it
1:42:51 first insha'allah
1:42:56 next is danish khan welcome
1:43:00 to sapience live uh brother qazi and
1:43:04 anybody else who's been
1:43:05 live already if you can please leave the
1:43:07 studio because it can only allow 10
1:43:09 people to enter
1:43:11 so if i do uh kick you from the studio
1:43:13 just remember it's a gentleman
1:43:15 also if there's any non-muslims uh last
1:43:17 night who you are as well
1:43:18 and we'll give you a priority we'll give
1:43:20 you priority in fact you get priority if
1:43:22 you're a non-muslim
1:43:23 and if you put your cameras on is that
1:43:26 right
1:43:26 yep absolutely in fact anybody with a
1:43:28 camera on gets a priority
1:43:30 so guys uh because we're coming to near
1:43:33 the end of the live stream i want to
1:43:35 make sure that we
1:43:36 get as many people as possible who've
1:43:38 attended the studio
1:43:40 um so uh welcome
1:43:43 to the live stream danish khan what is
1:43:46 your question today
1:43:51 so um this is my second time coming on
1:43:54 thank you again
1:43:55 for like having us um so i wrote down my
1:43:58 question so it could be brief and other
1:44:00 people could like ask questions
1:44:02 um i'll just like read it out really
1:44:03 quickly so it's about like the
1:44:06 contingency argument so i found your
1:44:09 comments on
1:44:10 kalam very interesting and the
1:44:11 discussion in your book and in the quran
1:44:13 about multiple deities and how this is
1:44:15 not possible as they would like
1:44:17 outstrip each other and that they would
1:44:19 have uh to be defined against each other
1:44:22 so like to quote um i believe the
1:44:24 conclusion of your book
1:44:26 uh quote there cannot be more than uh
1:44:28 one such
1:44:29 a being since it would entail that at
1:44:31 least one of these beings is
1:44:32 differentiated possible or dependent
1:44:35 uh to practice i'm only asking this
1:44:37 question like to see like what logically
1:44:39 follows from like the argument
1:44:41 this isn't like any like doubt or
1:44:42 anything like that i have
1:44:44 so two questions based upon this right
1:44:46 why doesn't the instantiation of
1:44:48 dependent objects limit the necessary
1:44:50 existence in question
1:44:52 so why like how would you how would you
1:44:54 argue that like in
1:44:55 instantiation of an independent um like
1:44:59 uh existence uh creates a
1:45:01 differentiation between like the two
1:45:03 exists existences if that makes any
1:45:05 sense and then second of all
1:45:07 this is um kind of related uh not
1:45:09 directly related
1:45:10 but would moral restrictions restrict
1:45:12 the independence omnipotence
1:45:14 so like if allah has a moral code that
1:45:17 uh he follows
1:45:18 is that um a hindrance to omnipotence
1:45:22 let's start with the first question
1:45:23 first i think there might have been a
1:45:25 bit of a confusion between
1:45:27 uh deleted temeno which is what you're
1:45:29 referring to which is that they would
1:45:30 outstrip one another
1:45:32 that's in reference to chapter number 23
1:45:34 verse 91 where it says
1:45:43 that allah did not take a son and he
1:45:46 didn't have with him any
1:45:47 god had this been the case they would
1:45:49 have outstripped one another
1:45:52 and this is what the people of kalam or
1:45:56 whoever it may be theologian systematic
1:45:58 theologians of the muslim world refer to
1:46:00 the leader tamannaah which means
1:46:03 the mena is basically
1:46:07 something is a preventive something
1:46:09 which prevents something else
1:46:10 so tamannaah is the preventive the
1:46:14 the evidence of prevention okay so
1:46:18 what is prevented here the what is
1:46:20 prevented of
1:46:21 in this verse that you can't have two
1:46:23 all-powerful
1:46:25 deities you can't have two or powerful
1:46:28 entities because by ex by necessity
1:46:31 this would mean to say that one of them
1:46:35 is you can't be the most powerful
1:46:38 if there's another one of you who is of
1:46:41 equal power
1:46:42 because that would mean to say that you
1:46:44 are more powerful and
1:46:45 equally powerful to that other entity at
1:46:48 the same time
1:46:49 as you get this point if there's more
1:46:50 than so if the postulation is
1:46:53 that there are two all-powerful agencies
1:46:56 so if we say all powerful what do you
1:46:57 mean by that the most powerful
1:46:59 then what we're saying is you can't have
1:47:01 something which is the most powerful
1:47:04 which is what we say god is the most
1:47:06 powerful yet
1:47:07 equally uh powerful to another entity at
1:47:10 the same time
1:47:11 because you can't be equally and more at
1:47:13 the same time
1:47:14 most like implies one thing right right
1:47:17 right good
1:47:17 so that's that's right you can't have
1:47:20 two
1:47:21 all-powerful things which are more
1:47:23 powerful than all things that exist
1:47:24 because if that is the case
1:47:25 then they will be more most powerful uh
1:47:29 there would be more powerful than the
1:47:30 other one and equally as powerful than
1:47:32 the other one
1:47:33 which is by the way on this point all of
1:47:36 these
1:47:36 deviant sex in islam and it's not all
1:47:40 like for example to sharia
1:47:41 the shii sect right not all of them say
1:47:44 this but there are definitely some 12s
1:47:46 who say that
1:47:47 ali has the same knowledge as god for
1:47:50 example
1:47:52 yeah he said he has the same knowledge
1:47:54 as god and they have
1:47:56 uh chapter headings of the kafi book
1:47:58 saying that he knows all the things that
1:48:00 come from the sky and blah blah blah
1:48:02 and they will make an argument saying
1:48:04 that the only thing
1:48:06 why this is acceptable is because allah
1:48:08 has given him the permission
1:48:10 all right and this is not something
1:48:11 which is i'm sorry to say
1:48:13 exclusive to the shiites there are some
1:48:15 sufis who i've heard say this
1:48:17 myself i've heard them say this that
1:48:19 muhammad sallallahu alaihi
1:48:20 knows everything that exists
1:48:23 even the quran says
1:48:29 and this some say no muhammad knows
1:48:31 everything and in fact not only he knows
1:48:33 it but he can hear everything and
1:48:35 therefore we can
1:48:37 invoke him directly because he can hear
1:48:39 everything this is
1:48:41 there's no way that you can believe that
1:48:43 and remain to be muslim
1:48:45 because how can you be first of all it's
1:48:47 logically impossible
1:48:49 a is logically impossible because you're
1:48:51 saying now that allah has
1:48:53 there's another entity which is meant to
1:48:55 be as
1:48:56 powerful and less powerful than
1:48:59 god or as knowledgeable and less
1:49:02 knowledgeable than god
1:49:03 or as he uh has the same ability to hear
1:49:07 has less ability to hear and more
1:49:10 the same ability to say as god if any
1:49:13 muslims believe that that's a nullifier
1:49:14 of islam
1:49:16 this is very important because it's not
1:49:17 just something which yeah in this verse
1:49:19 some
1:49:20 muslims call themselves muslims believe
1:49:22 in it i've heard them
1:49:23 my own two is i've had discussions of
1:49:26 talab from the shiite people and they
1:49:29 say we believe al hussein
1:49:31 knows everything that he knew
1:49:34 when he was going into karbala when he
1:49:36 was going into the war that he
1:49:37 would get killed and he went there doing
1:49:39 suicide mission he knew that yeah i mean
1:49:42 he knows everything this is
1:49:43 this is no different from christianity
1:49:45 we have to appreciate this
1:49:47 this is no different believing in that
1:49:50 there's no difference between believing
1:49:52 in that and believing in jesus
1:49:54 who also has similar abilities so we put
1:49:56 them in the same campus christians
1:49:58 those individuals who vehemently like
1:50:00 believe in that without
1:50:01 obviously not might take fear of them
1:50:03 will say you know this is what the quran
1:50:04 says this is why it's logically
1:50:05 impossible
1:50:06 but that is another fire islam i know
1:50:08 this i just went on a tangent here
1:50:10 sorry to say but that's
1:50:13 which is the preventative uh
1:50:18 oh the the the evidence of prevention or
1:50:20 you i'll try i'll think of a way to
1:50:22 to to translate that maybe or look at
1:50:24 what the literature already has
1:50:26 but the what i was making in the book is
1:50:28 not the leader by the way
1:50:30 this what i was making in the book was
1:50:33 uh
1:50:33 the evidence that you can't have more
1:50:35 than one necessary existence
1:50:37 now why can't you have more than one
1:50:39 necessary existence if a necessary one
1:50:41 of the definitions of a necessary
1:50:43 existence
1:50:43 is something which cannot be any other
1:50:45 way so if there's two of them
1:50:47 there's two options okay there's two
1:50:49 options i want you to think about this
1:50:50 yeah
1:50:51 option one that that thing
1:50:54 is described in exactly the same let's
1:50:56 call it
1:50:58 necessary existence a for the sake of
1:51:00 argument and you have necessary
1:51:01 existence b
1:51:02 are you with me oh yeah i'm writing
1:51:05 everything down so
1:51:06 we'll tell you if you agree you have
1:51:08 necessary existence a
1:51:10 and you have necessary existence b
1:51:12 necessary existence a
1:51:14 is described as having
1:51:17 necessary qualities yeah which cannot be
1:51:20 any other way
1:51:21 which means that these qualities are you
1:51:24 cannot add subtract rearrange
1:51:26 it's that way and it cannot be in your
1:51:28 way yes
1:51:30 now if we say necessary distance b is
1:51:34 the same
1:51:35 but has one difference okay which is
1:51:38 that for example necessary existence b
1:51:42 has the difference of let's say
1:51:46 one quality quality x are you with me
1:51:49 yeah okay so if we differentiate
1:51:53 necessary resistance b from next to
1:51:54 existence a
1:51:56 because net existence b yes
1:51:59 has quality x which is different then by
1:52:02 definition
1:52:03 necessary distance b is not necessary
1:52:05 but it's contingent
1:52:07 because a contingent existence is
1:52:08 something which can be something
1:52:10 uh another way if you differentiate
1:52:12 necessary distance a from b
1:52:14 then you've already rendered necessary
1:52:16 resistance b for any
1:52:18 differentiating reason then you've
1:52:20 already rendered
1:52:21 necessary existence b as contingent
1:52:24 because a contingent thing is something
1:52:26 which can be any other way
1:52:28 and since you're saying there's a
1:52:29 variable which can be rearranged
1:52:31 in order to differentiate a from b then
1:52:34 that variable by definition must make
1:52:37 necessary distance b into a into a
1:52:39 contingent
1:52:40 existence rather than switches now one
1:52:43 point okay
1:52:44 so go ahead first go ahead so um one
1:52:46 question so you're
1:52:47 would you see okay so you're saying that
1:52:50 there's one variable that means
1:52:52 uh because there's a variable that means
1:52:55 it follows that it is contingent because
1:52:57 that means
1:52:58 that like that existence could be some
1:53:00 other way which is
1:53:01 in negation unnecessary right what
1:53:03 pushed in before
1:53:04 uh one question before what about like
1:53:07 free will of like the entity that would
1:53:08 not come
1:53:09 under like this argument because like we
1:53:12 believe allah and necessary existence
1:53:14 allah has free will right so you could
1:53:15 do one thing could do another thing
1:53:17 right
1:53:18 so uh wouldn't like we're saying that
1:53:21 properties or qualities that you say
1:53:23 quality x um
1:53:25 is different from like free will itself
1:53:27 is equality
1:53:28 but what like the necessary existence
1:53:31 does with the free will
1:53:32 is not equality right i don't know if
1:53:35 that made any sense but
1:53:36 i think i know what you're trying to say
1:53:37 look volition or will here
1:53:40 now we're going into a different
1:53:41 discussion as to what the necessary
1:53:43 existence
1:53:44 does now we're not talking this
1:53:46 discussion is not focused on
1:53:48 or verbs we're talking about what and
1:53:51 is we're not talking about what they do
1:53:53 right we're talking about it
1:53:55 right right so this is only focused on
1:53:57 intrinsic attributes
1:53:58 okay okay all right so that's the other
1:54:01 option is to say that necessary
1:54:03 existence a and necessarily
1:54:05 there is no differentiation yeah there's
1:54:08 nothing to differentiate a and b
1:54:10 okay we don't have this issue we don't
1:54:12 have this issue now according now
1:54:13 on this logic we don't have this issue
1:54:15 right of
1:54:17 necessary existence b having a quality x
1:54:20 say to differentiate it from this
1:54:22 existence uh
1:54:23 a yeah but if we say that necessary
1:54:26 distance a
1:54:28 is the same in terms of how how we
1:54:30 define it
1:54:31 as x is b that's resistance b it's the
1:54:33 equivalent of saying a equals a which is
1:54:35 the totality which means that both of
1:54:37 the same thing
1:54:38 exactly okay there is actually no
1:54:40 difference between necessarily
1:54:41 a and b in that case we we we have
1:54:44 solved the issue
1:54:45 these are the exhaustive ways you can
1:54:47 deal with this situation okay yeah
1:54:48 okay um i was going towards like a
1:54:51 similar track thank you
1:54:52 like uh by making it clear um
1:54:55 uh do you uh would you be able to answer
1:54:58 like the second part of the question uh
1:54:59 would moral restrictions restrict the
1:55:01 independent like being
1:55:02 omnipotent like being like omni like
1:55:05 having like complete mercy and like uh
1:55:08 omnipotence like
1:55:09 how are they not contradictory so so so
1:55:12 basically say that again that lost while
1:55:14 the christian story
1:55:15 having infinite mercy and having
1:55:17 omnipotence how are they not
1:55:18 contradictory
1:55:20 why would they be sorry why would they
1:55:23 like um
1:55:24 for us allah cannot do like allah cannot
1:55:27 be evil right
1:55:28 so like um omnipotence means that like
1:55:30 you can do all things right
1:55:32 if i please correct me if i'm like
1:55:34 saying anything wrong right
1:55:35 uh but um yeah omnipotence means that
1:55:37 you're like
1:55:38 yeah okay so so allah allah
1:55:43 that allah is over all things powerful
1:55:46 exists to the category of
1:55:48 existence which is possible existences
1:55:51 so in other words when we say this
1:55:55 comes out of that is the things which
1:55:57 don't exist for example
1:55:59 uh contradictions or square circles or
1:56:00 whatever because that doesn't exist
1:56:02 they're not things
1:56:02 okay okay that's that's an important um
1:56:06 point so go ahead okay yeah so um
1:56:09 would you so would that mean like uh
1:56:13 would that mean that uh like saying that
1:56:16 like um under omnipotence under our
1:56:19 definition of omnipotence only things
1:56:22 that
1:56:22 are like merciful can like happen right
1:56:25 like would that like what
1:56:28 that's like my question is basically
1:56:30 omnipotence means that like
1:56:32 the necessary existing existence can do
1:56:35 all things right
1:56:36 if you believe in like all merciful like
1:56:39 necessary existence
1:56:40 then by definition it means that that
1:56:42 necessary existence
1:56:44 cannot do evil things so how is that not
1:56:46 a contradiction
1:56:47 okay so uh then first of all there's two
1:56:50 things here
1:56:51 i'll tell you you've been taking his
1:56:52 opinion on this he had a theology
1:56:55 telling me i didn't believe the evil
1:56:56 existed in the real world
1:56:58 which is a very interesting position by
1:57:00 the way he said that evil is only
1:57:03 nisby and this was the opinion of him
1:57:05 i'm actually trying to gravitate towards
1:57:07 this position
1:57:09 qualifications can you define the last
1:57:12 word you said
1:57:15 that evil is only relative oh relative
1:57:19 okay
1:57:19 yeah so let me give an example right let
1:57:21 me give you let me play devil's advocate
1:57:25 and god steal
1:57:29 um everything is his so no there you
1:57:32 have it so
1:57:33 because but can i steal yeah
1:57:37 oh yeah you can always be graphic can
1:57:41 god rape um i mean no
1:57:45 because like no no good
1:57:50 because there's no such thing it's the
1:57:52 same one
1:57:53 you would use for steel it just has
1:57:54 different connotations
1:57:56 the point is uh these evil actions that
1:58:00 we're doing
1:58:01 on this on this view right are only evil
1:58:03 because
1:58:04 we interact with the world in a certain
1:58:06 way which make
1:58:08 that it's a relative evilness okay
1:58:11 it's a relative evilness which means
1:58:12 that my interaction with x
1:58:14 is such that i am evil because of what
1:58:17 i'm doing
1:58:17 my actions are evil now this
1:58:21 allah has created our actions this is a
1:58:24 very important point by the way
1:58:26 and i take his view on this so i'm just
1:58:27 going to give you all i take the view on
1:58:30 ibrahim says this allah doesn't do our
1:58:33 actions
1:58:34 yeah and i think he's the best
1:58:36 contributor of this in the islamic
1:58:38 discourse
1:58:42 that allah doesn't do what we do
1:58:46 he doesn't do it i do what i do
1:58:49 allah because here's the issue right
1:58:52 some people think it's something which
1:58:55 is uh against and this is the
1:58:57 position of the calvinists and the
1:58:58 reformed tradition yeah
1:59:00 yeah anything against the sovereignty of
1:59:02 god
1:59:03 that i may act within my own uh or i may
1:59:07 have education efficacious action or
1:59:10 action which is efficacious
1:59:12 or volition or will of my own aside from
1:59:14 the will of god
1:59:16 are you with me yes yeah so our
1:59:19 we say this and this is i think the best
1:59:21 answer to the question from all schools
1:59:23 of law
1:59:25 that i've read and i've read all of them
1:59:26 like modernism
1:59:28 uh calvinism um armenianism
1:59:31 um uh ashadism um
1:59:34 and within usheism the different flavors
1:59:37 and and then they replay him and i think
1:59:38 for me ibukim was the best okay he says
1:59:42 this
1:59:44 human being human being doesn't do his
1:59:47 own actions
1:59:49 okay allah sorry sorry allah doesn't do
1:59:53 human beings actions
1:59:54 right human being does his own actions
1:59:59 but the the relationship of omnipotence
2:00:03 that allah has with our actions is a
2:00:06 creative relationship
2:00:08 so in other words allah creates our
2:00:10 actions
2:00:21 this is how to preserve the omnipotence
2:00:23 and the sovereignty of god
2:00:25 that allah's actions
2:00:29 are not our actions they're not
2:00:30 synonymous if you say that they are then
2:00:32 we have no free will
2:00:33 it's gone there's no free will we're
2:00:36 puppets
2:00:37 go back to jabri uh
2:00:45 we are in control of the health we are
2:00:47 sorry in control of our own actions
2:00:49 but allah has created us and therefore
2:00:51 indirectly created what
2:00:52 our so the the way to preserve the
2:00:56 omnipotence of god
2:00:58 is through a creative relationship
2:01:01 not through a verbal doing relationship
2:01:05 so this is my position number one
2:01:08 first and foremost we're saying evil is
2:01:10 nisbi evil
2:01:11 or or evil is relative to the doer
2:01:16 it's subject relative okay and in the
2:01:19 case of the human being
2:01:20 it's relative to the human being are you
2:01:22 with me so far yeah
2:01:24 so can god can god commit shirk
2:01:27 no this makes no sense it's impossible
2:01:31 this uh sorry to say this this this big
2:01:34 debate that the maturities are having
2:01:35 with the ashari's
2:01:37 about can god lie how can how can
2:01:41 something which is all
2:01:43 true lie actually if god is
2:01:46 a lie would be upset it's like it's now
2:01:50 yeah so this is the answer to the
2:01:52 question god cannot lie
2:01:54 because that's mohal okay so so what
2:01:56 we're saying is
2:01:57 sorry i'm going into deviance i'm going
2:01:58 in
2:02:00 i'm going to take it the point is this
2:02:03 sorry
2:02:05 what was the question i said why are you
2:02:07 doing that yeah infinite mostly infinite
2:02:08 power
2:02:09 just so so sorry the evil argument
2:02:14 from the from this theo theodicy
2:02:16 paradigm
2:02:17 we say the following god's infinite
2:02:20 power
2:02:20 is not jeopardized therefore
2:02:24 by creating creatures with volition that
2:02:26 have actions of their own
2:02:28 which which have an indirect creative
2:02:30 relationship with allah
2:02:33 because he has that indirect creative
2:02:35 relationship with it
2:02:37 so we maintain the omnipotence of god
2:02:40 but at the same time we what we maintain
2:02:43 the
2:02:44 the mercy paradigm or the uh the wisdom
2:02:46 paradigm or the goodness of god paradigm
2:02:48 all that stuff
2:02:49 okay this is true this is this is an
2:02:52 area where we have to tread carefully
2:02:53 because many different people have
2:02:54 different
2:02:55 opinions but i'm just outlining to you
2:02:57 what my opinion is
2:02:58 sure and that's and that's what it is
2:03:00 okay so uh
2:03:01 brother danish khan for joining us i'm
2:03:03 gonna apologize to
2:03:04 bosnian muslim and daniel
2:03:08 please join us next time we run out of
2:03:09 time um
2:03:11 unless we finish the stream on time we
2:03:13 actually uh
2:03:14 it actually gets quite difficult um so
2:03:17 jazakallah for joining us everybody this
2:03:19 week
2:03:20 um and we're going to give priority to
2:03:21 brother bosnian muslim and daniel
2:03:23 next time anybody else in the studio as
2:03:25 well so there's loads of people trying
2:03:27 to enter the studio so
2:03:29 um next time we could actually
2:03:33 um uh uh entertain your questions a
2:03:36 small request to everybody watching
2:03:39 if you are a guest on this uh live
2:03:42 stream make sure that your question you
2:03:44 time stamp it and you summarize it and
2:03:46 you put in the comments
2:03:47 and also anybody else watching if you
2:03:49 could timestamp
2:03:50 uh the aspects um the the parts
2:03:54 rather in this live stream which relate
2:03:56 to certain questions being answered
2:03:58 because that saves us time when it comes
2:04:00 to future live streams as well
2:04:01 any last words you're gonna put in
2:04:04 before we i know
2:04:04 um i think we've started we've said oh
2:04:07 i've learned a lot from you today so i
2:04:08 wanna thank you and thank a lot of the
2:04:10 the people that have been interacting
2:04:12 with us yeah i've learned a lot from
2:04:13 them as well
2:04:13 how old are you brother danish um you
2:04:16 have it over 18 policies so
2:04:19 i'm 16. you've been you've been trying
2:04:23 to trick us
2:04:25 huh where are you from by the way just a
2:04:28 quick question
2:04:29 um i'm from pakistan uh but i'm living
2:04:32 in sugarland texas
2:04:33 sugarland wow yeah
2:04:37 houston like maybe 30 minutes like away
2:04:39 from houston
2:04:40 you go to houston if you want to have
2:04:41 some good time yeah
2:04:43 um like houston is like right now like
2:04:46 there's nothing to do
2:04:48 like i don't know but right now you have
2:04:50 um electricity cuts and
2:04:52 yeah like always having a pretty cool
2:04:55 weekend
2:04:57 yeah so many there's like um like like
2:05:00 a lot of masjids like so many resources
2:05:03 like there's a very
2:05:04 good muslim
2:05:18 thank you welcome so