Sapience Live Q and A: Mohammed Hijab & Subboor Ahmed (2021-07-24) ​

0:00:02 assalamualaikum
0:00:04 welcome to sapience team live
0:00:07 as always we're going to do a question
0:00:09 and answer session
0:00:11 we are here back after a short break
0:00:15 hope you guys had a fantastic eid with
0:00:17 your friends and your family
0:00:19 and what we want to do today like every
0:00:22 show
0:00:23 is cover the reasons why islam is true
0:00:27 and go over the contentions
0:00:30 against islam and as always
0:00:33 i'm going to give a short disclaimer one
0:00:36 question
0:00:37 per person because we have a lot of
0:00:39 people trying to enter the studio
0:00:41 and apart from that no questions related
0:00:45 to
0:00:45 islamic jurisprudence political issues
0:00:49 or anything unrelated to the
0:00:51 aforementioned
0:00:52 what we want to speak about is why islam
0:00:54 is true and what are the arguments
0:00:56 against islam and to go over
0:00:58 contemporary
0:00:59 contentions so i'm going to be posting
0:01:04 the link
0:01:07 so mr hijab how is your eid
0:01:14 pretty okay you know either sometimes
0:01:16 the very
0:01:17 most time in terms of getting everything
0:01:19 together and getting the family you know
0:01:20 and seeing the right people and those
0:01:22 kind of things but
0:01:23 you try your best to try and manage it
0:01:24 and uh
0:01:26 try and make it a time where you give
0:01:27 gifts and you do the
0:01:29 loss and stuff like that obviously
0:01:32 islamically there is a very important
0:01:33 they're actually very important days
0:01:35 yeah that's the big eid as well and i
0:01:38 said in a sense
0:01:42 three days after so it's four days some
0:01:45 people don't know the actual days of eat
0:01:47 there's the the one after ramadan is one
0:01:49 day whereas the one
0:01:50 the one uh after the hedgehog is
0:01:53 there's basically four days altogether
0:01:58 yeah it's just it's much bigger yeah so
0:02:01 yeah so in many ways that can be
0:02:04 advantageous
0:02:05 excellent so we have our first
0:02:09 questioner brother
0:02:12 salman assalamu alaikum
0:02:16 you are muted brother
0:02:20 brother
0:02:32 [Music]
0:02:35 sure uh there's some atheists
0:02:39 like they and maybe that they're gonna
0:02:42 say
0:02:42 okay he didn't write the quran
0:02:47 okay the moon was split to uh
0:02:50 the moon split okay but but that does
0:02:53 not mean that he's a prophet
0:02:55 uh he just said that god help him or he
0:02:59 did it
0:02:59 does not mean that he's prophet or or
0:03:02 the quran
0:03:12 that has been split so how this is
0:03:15 does not mean that muhammad he split it
0:03:20 so how like how can we say that you know
0:03:23 it's muhammad
0:03:24 peace be upon him he is the one that he
0:03:27 did the split
0:03:29 okay i mean we have to i think the way
0:03:32 that this question is being asked
0:03:34 uh by the atheist or whoever it is that
0:03:36 is asking this question is
0:03:38 quite a muddled way of uh questioning
0:03:41 the first thing is why do we believe
0:03:44 that the prophet peace be upon him is a
0:03:46 true messenger of allah
0:03:47 it's actually a whole bunch of reasons
0:03:50 that together come together
0:03:52 for a case which is robust so
0:03:55 we talk about obviously the miraculous
0:03:57 nature of the quran
0:03:58 the sociological impact of the quran the
0:04:01 message itself
0:04:02 the predictions in the quran the
0:04:04 prophecies of the prophet peace be upon
0:04:06 him preservation
0:04:07 the historical facts which were
0:04:10 you know there's no way that they could
0:04:12 have been known at the time
0:04:14 of the the life of the prophet peace be
0:04:17 upon him
0:04:17 so when you add all of these things
0:04:19 together then we would say that he is a
0:04:22 true messenger of allah so the moon
0:04:25 split
0:04:27 miracle we believe in it because it's
0:04:30 mentioned in the quran and we have
0:04:31 reasons independent reasons for
0:04:33 believing that the quran is true
0:04:34 so i think his sort of questioning
0:04:38 um of why we believe he's a messenger
0:04:42 i think you just need to lay out that
0:04:44 foundation because i think he doesn't
0:04:46 seem to understand why we believe he's a
0:04:47 messenger of god
0:04:52 and you know you can go on if you want
0:04:54 to see a list of those reasons with some
0:04:56 evidences
0:04:57 uh you can go on k by h dot code uk
0:05:00 and i've got an article there refer
0:05:03 called truth evidences for the
0:05:06 truthfulness
0:05:06 or truth of islam and you can get that
0:05:09 for free that's k
0:05:10 by h dot co dot u k k for kilo
0:05:14 then by b y and h for hotel
0:05:18 dot co dot uk go on that and you'll see
0:05:22 like some of the reasons
0:05:23 and i divide them into or refer to as
0:05:26 necessary conditions and sufficient
0:05:28 conditions
0:05:29 necessary conditions that you'd expect
0:05:31 of any present
0:05:33 any um word of god seems like
0:05:36 preservations and lack of inc
0:05:38 contradiction inconsistencies and then
0:05:40 you have sufficient conditions things
0:05:42 which
0:05:43 bolster the case things like what you've
0:05:44 just mentioned prophecies things like
0:05:47 um you know the lorawi the language
0:05:50 miracles the structural miracles of the
0:05:52 quran the life of the prophet muhammad
0:05:55 himself his track record
0:05:57 you know the physical miracles of which
0:05:59 the moon splitting is just one thing
0:06:01 there's so many other examples i don't
0:06:03 you know and
0:06:04 classically scholars have spoken and
0:06:05 written huge books like the letter and
0:06:07 the book
0:06:07 huge book whose book huge books on this
0:06:10 kind of thing so
0:06:11 i try and condense it it's in like i
0:06:14 don't know 10 pages or 12 pages
0:06:16 and i and i mentioned 15 such evidences
0:06:18 for the audience
0:06:19 that's k by h uk you can download it for
0:06:22 free
0:06:22 hopefully that will set like you said a
0:06:24 better foundation
0:06:26 makes sense brother solomon yeah
0:06:29 i know what you mean but like maybe like
0:06:32 some
0:06:33 atheists they're gonna say that muhammad
0:06:35 was a special guy
0:06:37 just a special guy but he wasn't like a
0:06:40 prophet yeah
0:06:41 his book is very special nobody can
0:06:44 bring something like the quran but that
0:06:47 doesn't mean that he is
0:06:49 the prophet or the quran we don't know
0:06:52 the quran from where it's not from
0:06:53 muhammad
0:06:54 but we don't know well don't focus too
0:06:58 much on what the atheist
0:06:59 says that's sometimes we we we
0:07:02 we take responses of the atheists like
0:07:04 very seriously
0:07:05 the atheist can say whatever the hell he
0:07:07 likes you know how do you respect
0:07:08 him um you know he's gonna be in the
0:07:11 when he's been given this evidence and
0:07:13 he rejects it
0:07:14 you know the quran states he's going to
0:07:16 be in a position where
0:07:18 you know it says
0:07:24 you know you're going to be in the hell
0:07:26 fire whether your patience or
0:07:28 you're patient or not it doesn't matter
0:07:29 you're going to be in a situation where
0:07:31 all the talking that you have now
0:07:33 is going to be nothing basically so talk
0:07:35 say what you want you know at the end of
0:07:36 the day
0:07:37 you know uh we've given you the message
0:07:39 the way we see it in islam is this
0:07:41 you're born on the fitra
0:07:57 them into whoever religion is now the
0:07:59 prophets have not come to force anybody
0:08:01 to become believers
0:08:03 we're not here to force anyone to be
0:08:05 believers lest that
0:08:06 be muslim allah has told the prophet
0:08:09 you're not
0:08:11 you're not meant to compel these people
0:08:13 into islam
0:08:14 so all we're doing is we're reminding
0:08:16 them of an instinct they should already
0:08:18 have
0:08:19 which is the instinct of to believe in
0:08:21 one god and worship one god that's why
0:08:23 i mentioned this recently but i was
0:08:25 pondering over the ayah
0:08:26 allah says
0:08:34 if you're in any doubt about my religion
0:08:37 i don't worship any of the gods that you
0:08:38 worship aside from allah
0:08:40 but i worship allah the one who takes
0:08:42 that consciousness away
0:08:43 now why does allah mention that because
0:08:45 the number one proof of this
0:08:47 the validity of islam is this
0:08:49 puritanical and respectable monarchism
0:08:52 [Music]
0:08:53 it should hit a nerve hearing about
0:08:56 talking of allah the creator of god if
0:08:58 it doesn't
0:08:59 then that means you're corrupt to a
0:09:00 state of no to a point of no return
0:09:03 and whatever punishment you get in the
0:09:04 hell fire thereafter will be the
0:09:06 the work of your own uh arrogance your
0:09:10 your psychological arrogance that you
0:09:11 had against something which should be
0:09:13 instinctive to you so the ac what the
0:09:16 atheist says
0:09:17 i mean would you respect who cares what
0:09:18 the atheist has to say we're here to
0:09:20 present
0:09:21 what we believe in if he wants to be an
0:09:22 ultra skeptic in everything else
0:09:25 everything uh religious everything
0:09:26 rational but not his own life
0:09:28 you know in inference making he's not
0:09:30 like that in his own life
0:09:31 he doesn't he's not ultra skeptic or
0:09:33 anything he wants to be like we'll see
0:09:35 on the day of judgment yeah i think it's
0:09:37 a very good point that you raised about
0:09:40 being selectively skeptical because
0:09:44 for example in this case he's saying
0:09:45 well if even if the moon split
0:09:48 it means he's special and he's not the
0:09:50 messenger and other atheists have said
0:09:52 things like
0:09:53 well it is possible that you know um
0:09:57 this miracle happened or that miracle
0:09:59 happened but that doesn't mean
0:10:00 this it could be the devil it could be
0:10:02 this it could be people give all these
0:10:03 types of possibilities
0:10:05 but the fact is in your everyday life
0:10:08 nobody thinks like that exactly yeah and
0:10:10 so what they're doing is they are
0:10:12 dialing up
0:10:13 the skepticism skepticism to a thousand
0:10:16 percent when it comes to theology
0:10:18 but when it comes to their everyday life
0:10:20 they make it
0:10:22 you know it's a reasonable reasonable
0:10:23 standard 20 30 whatever it is
0:10:26 and i also think there's something
0:10:27 important
0:10:29 muslims think sometimes
0:10:32 because of the way that we have a
0:10:36 lack of understanding of the way that we
0:10:38 should articulate islam
0:10:39 that every assertion is an argument
0:10:43 it's not an assertion is simply an
0:10:46 assertion it's it's water off a duck's
0:10:47 back so if someone says
0:10:49 well even if the moon split doesn't mean
0:10:51 he's a messenger yeah that's
0:10:53 an assertion that's not actually an
0:10:55 argument and i've often seen muslims
0:10:56 falling into the trap of thinking
0:10:58 an atheist said x therefore i need to
0:11:01 respond to x no you don't
0:11:02 if x is simply an assertion then what is
0:11:05 asserted without evidence can be
0:11:07 dismissed with our evidence
0:11:08 you can simply just just whack it in
0:11:11 that way
0:11:12 so hopefully that makes sense brother
0:11:13 salman
0:11:15 thank you okay
0:11:19 next we have brother commander
0:11:25 something i can't sorry yeah i didn't
0:11:28 really put much thought into that name
0:11:30 um hosting this yeah
0:11:33 i don't know i was just i don't know but
0:11:36 uh thank you for hosting this live
0:11:37 stream um i actually wanted to ask you
0:11:39 that
0:11:40 for these past two months i've actually
0:11:42 been going on this like uh
0:11:44 almost intellectual crusade with this
0:11:46 one christian we've been arguing back
0:11:48 and forth about which religion is true
0:11:50 um and and of course i've hit him with
0:11:52 all the prophecies that
0:11:53 uh were fulfilled and that came true in
0:11:55 the modern era
0:11:56 um and of course you know he hits me
0:11:58 back with like these are vague or he'll
0:12:00 misappropriate the dates or whatnot
0:12:02 um but i don't mean to go unattentioned
0:12:04 uh of all the things he's addressed the
0:12:06 misconceptions about islam
0:12:08 that i was able to research most of them
0:12:09 and debunk them all there was one thing
0:12:11 that he brought up
0:12:12 that kind of stumped me and i couldn't
0:12:14 really find an answer are you familiar
0:12:16 with the um
0:12:17 inheritance distribution verse in the
0:12:19 quran i can't remember which verses it
0:12:20 was
0:12:21 but basically right basically he tallied
0:12:24 it up
0:12:24 and he was like oh it goes over one
0:12:26 percent and i found some uh
0:12:28 reasoning as to why it goes over one
0:12:29 percent but just really briefly could
0:12:31 you explain that verse
0:12:34 yeah well this area in the foreign
0:12:36 doesn't go over one percent uh sorry
0:12:38 hundred percent
0:12:39 one that's right it's only in if if you
0:12:43 if you put certain people
0:12:46 in the equation it can go over one
0:12:49 now the point is there's nothing wrong
0:12:52 with
0:12:53 things that go over one it's a hundred
0:12:56 and ten percent
0:12:57 is as valid as true a number is a
0:12:59 hundred percent
0:13:00 it's why is there an assumption that it
0:13:02 has to be one hundred percent
0:13:04 why can't it be 150 and then we can
0:13:06 split it from 150.
0:13:08 and this is known as
0:13:14 because at the time of um the
0:13:17 you know they asked him this question if
0:13:18 we if we have this person and that
0:13:20 person two
0:13:21 a wife and two kids or two three
0:13:23 daughters and
0:13:24 like these particular cases yeah it goes
0:13:27 over one
0:13:28 so what do we do all we do is we
0:13:30 distribute it in the same ratio
0:13:33 as we would do if it had been one that's
0:13:36 what we do simple as that really and
0:13:37 this
0:13:39 dealt with that and so the alibni and it
0:13:42 was referred to as
0:13:44 but remember because he said it when he
0:13:47 was on the mimba
0:13:48 he they asked him the question when he
0:13:50 was in the pulpit and he answered it
0:13:51 when he was on the pulpit
0:13:53 because after um so these things are
0:13:56 very well known in the shariah
0:13:58 the fact that you have an inheritance
0:14:00 that goes over 100 percent there is no
0:14:02 mathematical problem with that otherwise
0:14:03 if this was an invalid way of
0:14:05 mathematical expression improper
0:14:06 fractions would be an invalid way of
0:14:08 mathematical expression
0:14:10 improper fractions where the denominator
0:14:12 is bigger than the
0:14:13 the numerators bigger than the
0:14:14 denominator is a thing
0:14:16 it just it can be expressed as what it's
0:14:19 like
0:14:19 one and then whatever it is the fraction
0:14:22 is or it can be expressed as an improper
0:14:24 fraction both
0:14:24 of those expressions are mathematically
0:14:27 fine
0:14:28 it is no tanaka there's no um
0:14:31 inconsistency there you see the point so
0:14:34 right
0:14:35 yeah so the assumption that it cannot go
0:14:38 over 100
0:14:39 is it has to be justified somehow the
0:14:41 prophet muhammad said he said okay well
0:14:42 you
0:14:57 your mother pete and alibaba
0:15:00 and they knew the sunnah and they are
0:15:02 part of that what the prophet muhammed
0:15:04 said so what they said in terms of
0:15:06 the krishna or the division of something
0:15:08 which goes over 100
0:15:10 which is to ratio it as if it was 100
0:15:13 and to do with it accordingly
0:15:14 and there's other steps like i'm going
0:15:16 to go into deep uh
0:15:17 the steps what you'd have to do here
0:15:19 right now
0:15:21 uh you know that is a way that we we
0:15:23 deal with it
0:15:24 the the the assumption that it has to be
0:15:26 100 or
0:15:27 one like one the number one a whole
0:15:30 is an unjustifiable assumption because
0:15:32 110 is as
0:15:34 valid a percentage as a hundred percent
0:15:38 you can is is a thing it's not like
0:15:40 people are so dumb that they don't
0:15:41 realize that
0:15:42 150 percent is oh 150 or 100 like
0:15:45 they think it pops 100 no you can't have
0:15:47 expression 150 is not a false
0:15:50 expression do you see the brain like
0:15:54 if i say one and one third what am i
0:15:57 saying 133
0:16:00 that's what i'm saying 133.3 percent
0:16:03 uh are people that illiterate
0:16:05 mathematically that they don't
0:16:06 understand that these are very
0:16:07 legitimate
0:16:08 i'm not saying you but right right
0:16:10 they're assuming that it has to
0:16:12 be within one why there's no
0:16:13 justification for that it's so stupid
0:16:15 right yeah well if we were to apply this
0:16:18 kind of
0:16:19 thinking to profits right your business
0:16:21 would never grow beyond 100 percent
0:16:24 oh oh no no so we can't declare we can't
0:16:26 make more profit than this because this
0:16:27 is going into mathematical irregularity
0:16:29 not impossibility
0:16:29 you're making it seem like going over
0:16:31 100 is my favorite belief
0:16:34 right i think yeah then you'd have to
0:16:37 you have to ask the guy why is going
0:16:39 over 100 a mathematical impossibility
0:16:41 that's like that is low iq thinking i'm
0:16:43 really so i'm not mathematician but i
0:16:45 know that
0:16:45 there is such a thing as 110 there's
0:16:47 such a thing as a thousand percent you
0:16:50 know it's just it's just an expression
0:16:52 of a hundred percent time sin i mean
0:16:55 these people
0:16:56 they have nothing to attack the quran
0:16:58 they have nothing
0:16:59 this shows you the shambolic state of
0:17:01 attacking the quran
0:17:02 right exactly i completely agree with
0:17:04 you and also can i ask just one last
0:17:06 one burning question that i've had on my
0:17:07 mind for such a long time
0:17:09 um sorry could we have one question per
0:17:12 person
0:17:13 cause it's burning come on
0:17:18 i'll try to make this very short in my
0:17:20 brief um compare like
0:17:22 after two months of fighting with this
0:17:24 guy uh i finally summed it down to
0:17:26 um i told him like referred the history
0:17:29 of how the bible was formed by paul
0:17:31 which was about two decades
0:17:32 after the ascension of jesus and so my
0:17:35 conclusion was it was
0:17:36 it was a man made by uh by paul whose
0:17:40 only claim to authority was he
0:17:41 supposedly saw jesus in a vision now
0:17:44 having said that uh
0:17:45 um he attacks the preservation of the
0:17:47 quran narrative saying that it was
0:17:49 compiled
0:17:49 one year after the prophet's death so i
0:17:52 said uh
0:17:52 and in addition to that he said um
0:17:55 because of that
0:17:56 it's not worthy so i said comparatively
0:17:59 speaking
0:18:00 two decades is far more inauthentic
0:18:02 compared to and on top of that
0:18:03 um it was written not just compiled it
0:18:05 was written by paul whereas at the time
0:18:07 of the prophet's death
0:18:08 uh the quran was already written it was
0:18:10 simply compiled by uh his sahaba who had
0:18:12 already memorized it on top of the fact
0:18:14 so then he finally concluded that fine
0:18:16 in that case since the hadiths were 250
0:18:18 years after the prophets
0:18:20 uh islam those must be man-made so then
0:18:22 i said okay fine let's agree to this
0:18:24 by your definition that means the bible
0:18:26 is inauthentic christianity is false and
0:18:28 we're left with islam that has no hadith
0:18:30 because they're a man made
0:18:31 that still doesn't deny the fact that we
0:18:33 have modern
0:18:34 uh prophecies that came true from the
0:18:36 hadiths not to mention the prophecy
0:18:38 in the persian romans you're giving him
0:18:40 too much uh the hadith were not
0:18:43 written 250 years after the prophet
0:18:45 that's categorically false
0:18:47 okay this is the compilation of
0:18:51 big macha like al-bukhari that they're
0:18:53 talking about
0:19:01 you know he had his own written hadith
0:19:04 collection
0:19:07 had his own sahih basically a big
0:19:11 number of sahaba had their own
0:19:14 had their own written
0:19:17 hadith records the prophet muhammed in
0:19:20 his own
0:19:20 life he said he said
0:19:25 uh he said rightfully
0:19:29 you know write for them what and then i
0:19:32 think it was
0:19:35 him but the hadith of could be last but
0:19:38 i have to double check
0:19:39 where he was asking him what shall i
0:19:41 write he said write anything that comes
0:19:43 out of these two
0:19:44 subhanallah this is such a powerful
0:19:46 hadith he said anything that i say
0:19:49 anything that comes out of these two
0:19:50 lips he said
0:19:53 even in the situation when you're angry
0:19:55 in this he said everything that comes
0:19:56 out of these lips write it down
0:19:58 so we have hadith the prophet telling us
0:20:00 to write everything down
0:20:01 telling the sahabah to write everything
0:20:03 down telling the sahaba to write for
0:20:05 other people
0:20:06 and then you have the compilations of
0:20:07 the sahaba like
0:20:10 you have the compilations of abu bakr
0:20:12 and these became
0:20:14 part of and then you had maybe in like
0:20:16 110 ah
0:20:18 then you had an actual governmental
0:20:19 attempt to
0:20:21 um to do tattooing of the sunnah to
0:20:24 write down the sunnah that i wasn't
0:20:25 around but just to write it down
0:20:27 to classify it and that was spearheaded
0:20:30 by abu shayhab azhari which was way
0:20:32 before uh
0:20:34 which was way way before what you call
0:20:37 it
0:20:38 so this was like a hundred years before
0:20:41 and this was a governmental
0:20:43 thing and as still exists to this day
0:20:47 then you had imam malik and bukhari and
0:20:49 these kind of things
0:20:50 to say that you didn't have any hadith
0:20:52 written down
0:20:54 before al-bukhari and it's just
0:20:55 illiteracy it's
0:20:57 jahil and we cannot allow them to impose
0:20:59 the ignorance on us
0:21:01 it's as simple as that ahadis were they
0:21:04 were
0:21:05 actually i i say today with all
0:21:08 uh with all confidence that there is no
0:21:12 system in the world
0:21:13 historical system that even comes close
0:21:16 to the method of the hadith nothing
0:21:19 you have to have five conditions for
0:21:21 hadith
0:21:23 five conditions that it cannot have
0:21:25 defects it cannot be anomalous
0:21:28 it cannot be in con anomalous meaning it
0:21:30 cannot be
0:21:32 in a contradiction to something which
0:21:35 someone who is more historically
0:21:36 qualified
0:21:37 said it has to be
0:21:41 senate it has to be completely in line
0:21:44 in terms of
0:21:45 the chain of narration the person has to
0:21:47 have good writing skills
0:21:49 can't be just anybody in a rating or
0:21:51 good heads
0:21:52 and it has to be which means
0:21:53 memorization and the person has to have
0:21:55 a good
0:21:55 track record meaning have adela these
0:21:58 are the five
0:21:59 conditions and under each of these
0:22:01 conditions there are sub-conditions and
0:22:02 more sub-conditions
0:22:04 we are talking about a situation there's
0:22:06 no historical method known to man that
0:22:09 has this kind of detail
0:22:10 how can this people be talking to us
0:22:12 about history
0:22:13 honestly how can he how dare he talk
0:22:15 about pork
0:22:16 paul davis saw jesus he wrote 13 books
0:22:19 according to the majority opinion of the
0:22:20 new testament
0:22:22 none of them are eyewitness testimonies
0:22:23 why are his books even in the new
0:22:25 testament
0:22:26 he never saw them again his dreams and
0:22:28 stuff like that how dare you bring that
0:22:30 and compare it to how these eyewitness
0:22:31 testimonies
0:22:32 you know how many ideas you ever have
0:22:33 tens of thousands of hadith
0:22:36 you know we even you can even say we
0:22:37 have hundreds of thousands of hadith
0:22:39 you know and some say even millions but
0:22:41 you know how many made the final cut of
0:22:43 sahih hadith authentically
0:22:45 maximum ten thousand so of hundreds of
0:22:48 thousands hadith
0:22:49 the ones that according to no we made it
0:22:51 through the final cut is like ten
0:22:52 thousand hadith which means we actually
0:22:54 are the biggest hadith rejecters we
0:22:56 reject the majority of hadith
0:22:58 but we accept the hadith which fulfill
0:22:59 the criterion of rigorousness and
0:23:01 authenticity
0:23:03 and this is a that's like what we're
0:23:04 talking about one percent or like two
0:23:06 percent of the hadith
0:23:07 we and those hadith basically give us
0:23:09 all the information we need to live our
0:23:11 lives you know these
0:23:12 these christians uh when they come up
0:23:14 with these types of arguments
0:23:16 i honestly just envisioned someone with
0:23:19 a butter knife trying to cut a diamond
0:23:23 well where'd you get this metaphors from
0:23:25 this guy is like a metaphor machine man
0:23:27 so he is because ultimately he'll just
0:23:31 bend the knife because
0:23:32 honestly if we look at the islamic
0:23:36 um uh way of compiling these narrations
0:23:40 the prophet
0:23:40 peace be upon him we even saved the ones
0:23:43 which we know are forgeries
0:23:45 so that if they reappear we know
0:23:47 actually here is this forgery and here's
0:23:49 when it was forged
0:23:50 which is which is allah we've got to
0:23:52 classify different types of forgery
0:23:54 hadith
0:23:55 is different which is different to
0:23:58 hadith
0:23:58 people think they're all the same thing
0:24:00 no we can't is not just one category
0:24:02 like a
0:24:02 ba someone who's a liar right this this
0:24:05 hadith is not only rejected but it's
0:24:07 like you said it's saved in the books of
0:24:08 whatever and so on so if we
0:24:10 see this guy again reject him like come
0:24:13 on man
0:24:13 they're coming everything you know if we
0:24:15 had the bible in our hands and we
0:24:16 applied the same
0:24:17 rigorous thing do you know what would be
0:24:18 left of it nothing nothing
0:24:20 nothing nothing and that yeah that was
0:24:23 the standard if the bible was it was if
0:24:24 the bible was left in the hands of the
0:24:26 muhammad
0:24:27 [Laughter]
0:24:28 right and that was kind
0:24:31 know what the bible would we would have
0:24:34 the bible and every single fabrication
0:24:37 would be allocated to the same period
0:24:39 you'd actually have a genealogy of all
0:24:40 of the fabrications
0:24:42 basically the bible is the of our books
0:24:44 of fabrication
0:24:46 and weak hadith that's what it is
0:24:49 that's all it is man they can't come to
0:24:50 us and tell us anything
0:24:52 symbolize that really honestly at the
0:24:54 end of the art day my biggest question
0:24:56 was does this make islam false or does
0:24:58 this make christianity fall so those
0:24:59 were the questions those the big
0:25:00 questions i was asking so at the end of
0:25:02 the day
0:25:02 we have proof right islam has proved
0:25:04 christianity has no proof i think wish
0:25:06 dates
0:25:07 okay so brother you said some say what's
0:25:09 your name again
0:25:12 what's your actual name uh bilal
0:25:16 bilal right you know you said something
0:25:19 so intelligent and i just want to really
0:25:21 commend you for it
0:25:23 we have to ask this question all right
0:25:26 is this something which means islam is
0:25:29 false and your worldview is correct
0:25:30 because this way of thinking wallahi if
0:25:33 we apply this to the vast majority of
0:25:35 the issues which
0:25:36 are being challenged which are being
0:25:38 against islam
0:25:40 we will find that actually the answer is
0:25:43 no too much race
0:25:44 right you know i often get asked
0:25:46 questions of
0:25:47 you know oh there's this new fossil that
0:25:49 we've discovered
0:25:50 dennis ovens and they had this burial
0:25:52 ritual i mean i i made a mockery of this
0:25:55 i actually made a video
0:25:56 called was homo erectus hanafi
0:26:00 these questions are irrelevant it's
0:26:02 totally irrelevant does this mean islam
0:26:04 is false no
0:26:05 does this mean your worldview is correct
0:26:07 no then why are you asking me
0:26:10 another way like we've got to look at
0:26:12 that which has religion disproving
0:26:14 implications
0:26:15 yes yes exactly that's that was we don't
0:26:18 have that
0:26:19 but i'll tell you what does have that
0:26:21 sorry to say to say
0:26:22 that a man is god with that we say your
0:26:25 religion is disproven we don't even need
0:26:27 to go further to be honest
0:26:28 and just keep it as simple as that yeah
0:26:30 can i yeah
0:26:31 you're him and his mom you see the food
0:26:34 yeah i i just keep it i i just keep it
0:26:36 at two points the first
0:26:39 it's in many forms my favorite ones are
0:26:40 the prophecies christianity
0:26:42 it's like we don't need to do anything
0:26:44 because they can't get past the trinity
0:26:46 thing
0:26:46 they can't get incarnation they can't
0:26:48 get past it it's just it's impossible to
0:26:50 get past it
0:26:51 it's impossible to get past it you get
0:26:53 the best logician in the whole wide
0:26:55 world
0:26:56 and the best um thinker and philosopher
0:26:58 no one's going apart
0:26:59 and no one's gonna get past incarnation
0:27:01 yep many prophets one message actually
0:27:04 posted a video about two weeks ago
0:27:05 talking about the
0:27:06 history of paul and the origins of the
0:27:08 bible yeah
0:27:11 i'm not sure i i should do it yeah it
0:27:13 was like a 15 minute video but
0:27:14 alhamdulillah
0:27:15 it was so informative it completely
0:27:18 destroyed christianity i took notes on
0:27:20 it like crazy
0:27:22 the guy who authors that stuff is like
0:27:24 you know one of the main researchers
0:27:26 right now yeah yeah
0:27:30 he's he's he genuinely i think he's a
0:27:32 godsend man you know he helped me
0:27:34 probably the most
0:27:36 uh in the debate with david wood a lot i
0:27:38 use a lot of his research material and
0:27:41 he he produced a lot of stuff ira as you
0:27:43 know he wrote the book for women
0:27:44 prophecies
0:27:45 yeah yeah yeah that was the book
0:27:51 this book also other materials he
0:27:53 proofreads them
0:27:54 um i'm actually talking to him right now
0:27:58 he's always doing stuff right now
0:28:04 not only this you know this brother he
0:28:07 is actually in full-time work
0:28:08 and he's doing all of this stuff says oh
0:28:11 i i need um
0:28:13 you know i need time the fact is you
0:28:16 have time for things which are important
0:28:17 you have a
0:28:18 you know what you have what is this guy
0:28:20 yeah yeah definitely
0:28:22 did there's this idea me and hamza used
0:28:24 to discuss the collateral
0:28:26 damage theory of time yeah meaning you
0:28:29 chuck in
0:28:29 everything in your calendar and the most
0:28:31 important things get done
0:28:32 it's like this here it's like if you get
0:28:34 a jar and you put rocks in the jar then
0:28:36 you put sand
0:28:37 the sand of the small things they fill
0:28:39 in but if you put in sand first
0:28:41 then you try and put in rocks the rocks
0:28:43 don't fit so in your life you do the
0:28:45 biggest most important things first
0:28:46 everything else fits
0:28:48 so people who love allah people who love
0:28:49 the dawah they will always find times
0:28:52 for these things
0:28:57 definitely definitely you know and um uh
0:29:00 allah is time you have if there if you
0:29:03 have a will to give allah you know he's
0:29:06 right in terms of
0:29:07 all this kind of stuff allah will give
0:29:08 you barack on your time
0:29:11 you know whatever the tao is the thing
0:29:12 like people don't realize how important
0:29:14 that
0:29:14 is if you read the quran and you don't
0:29:17 conclude
0:29:17 from it then you haven't read the quran
0:29:19 either you're ignorant or you may be
0:29:20 drunk
0:29:21 you know you know you know adnan said
0:29:23 this the other day adnan said we can
0:29:26 describe the quran
0:29:28 or part of the quran as a dawah diary
0:29:30 because it is the experiences of the
0:29:32 prophets with their nations
0:29:34 absolutely and you know it's amazing
0:29:35 it's like all the prophets were engaged
0:29:37 in every single one of them was engaged
0:29:39 in that
0:29:39 not every single one of them the quran
0:29:40 tells us how they engage in war not
0:29:42 everyone's seeing one of them is engaged
0:29:43 in like
0:29:44 he doesn't allow us to mention that his
0:29:45 death hits him to us but every single
0:29:47 prophet in the quran
0:29:49 every single every single one has been
0:29:51 described in the context of doubt
0:30:17 we're gonna move on because there's
0:30:18 quite a few people waiting jazakallah
0:30:32 yes we can okay so here's my question
0:30:35 shall we
0:30:36 my question is it has a bit of context
0:30:38 to it my question is that
0:30:39 essentially i was having a conversation
0:30:41 with an atheist
0:30:43 and they were attempting to disprove the
0:30:45 quran
0:30:46 using science right and i was explaining
0:30:48 how this doesn't really make sense
0:30:50 because you can't use the
0:30:51 size to disprove the quran because if
0:30:54 the quran says something
0:30:56 and it conflicts with the most prevalent
0:30:58 scientific theory
0:30:59 it's based on induction right and it
0:31:02 could be
0:31:02 overturned in a few years or something
0:31:04 and you guys know this better than i do
0:31:06 right
0:31:06 so then he said to me do you use history
0:31:10 to prove the quran right and i said yes
0:31:12 he said history is based on induction
0:31:15 right for example um if there was a
0:31:18 bunch of
0:31:18 historians they came together and said
0:31:20 we believe that at the time of
0:31:22 yusuf alayhi salaam they were called um
0:31:26 the king the pharaoh was actually called
0:31:28 the pharaoh it was used as the house and
0:31:30 this is something which is used this is
0:31:32 has
0:31:32 evidence to it right but maybe
0:31:35 miraculously it can be turned on its
0:31:37 head in a few years and they'll say oh
0:31:38 we messed up and
0:31:39 changed their whole prevalent theory
0:31:41 yeah so if
0:31:42 we can't use the crime
0:31:45 with science to prove it's true because
0:31:47 it's not absolutely true is it not
0:31:49 inconsistent that our muslims
0:31:51 use history that's true because it's a
0:31:53 good point you're making and it's a good
0:31:54 point it's true that
0:31:56 the historical enterprise does does
0:31:58 depend on some kind of induction
0:32:00 one we've never made the argument that
0:32:02 we can't use science
0:32:04 uh to talk about the quran or that some
0:32:07 scientific things are not understood
0:32:08 like for example
0:32:09 human being is x the man is xy
0:32:11 chromosome the woman's x
0:32:15 if we didn't believe that was qatari and
0:32:17 that there was there was which means
0:32:18 certain which means
0:32:19 the some possibility that a man can have
0:32:21 bxx and that they're going to overturn
0:32:23 that
0:32:23 or that they're going to overturn the
0:32:25 fact that man has hormones in his body
0:32:27 or that he's differentiated from the
0:32:28 woman
0:32:29 then really we could overturn so many
0:32:31 things that can we're going to lead to
0:32:32 post-modernist ridiculousness
0:32:34 now it would lead to a kind of
0:32:35 post-modernist absurdity
0:32:37 so we are not proposing that because
0:32:40 science is filled with induction
0:32:42 therefore
0:32:42 science is not something we use we're
0:32:44 saying that
0:32:45 a lot of the time when people do the
0:32:47 scientific miracle stuff they make the
0:32:48 wrong argument
0:32:49 the arguments that has been historically
0:32:51 made about the scientific
0:32:53 miracle thing is this couldn't have been
0:32:55 known at the time we're saying that
0:32:56 argument is not a good argument because
0:32:58 most of the things
0:32:58 talked about in the quran about science
0:33:01 there have been something
0:33:02 said somewhere by some civilization in
0:33:05 the past
0:33:06 and so that part of it's not good idea
0:33:08 well if you mention some of the theories
0:33:09 like the big bang theory
0:33:11 um the problem with that is number one
0:33:13 the ayat a bit ambiguous
0:33:15 number two is that there are other
0:33:16 theories which you reject
0:33:19 like for example darwinism and stuff
0:33:20 like that even though the evidence
0:33:22 could potentially you know
0:33:25 be be said to be or seen to be at least
0:33:28 the same level as big bang theory
0:33:30 we're saying that the methodology
0:33:31 reviews of science therefore is not the
0:33:33 best
0:33:33 but there are some things which i
0:33:34 personally believe fit
0:33:36 they they passed a threshold of
0:33:39 acceptability in my eyes
0:33:40 like for example like we said what
0:33:43 constitutes a man what constitutes a
0:33:44 woman
0:33:45 the uh pregnancy period for a woman
0:33:47 these are all scientific things by the
0:33:48 way
0:33:49 but we don't think they're going to be
0:33:50 overturned we don't think that a woman's
0:33:53 pregnancy they're going to discover
0:33:54 something about that we don't think that
0:33:56 about the form of the man
0:34:00 we don't think that's going to happen we
0:34:01 don't think xyz so
0:34:03 we say yes you're right on the on on the
0:34:07 basis of probability so it's always
0:34:08 going to be probabilistic reasoning
0:34:10 that both of them use induction however
0:34:12 history has an added advantage
0:34:14 which is that it has a retrospective
0:34:16 perspective
0:34:18 now let me tell you why this is
0:34:19 important that which has happened in the
0:34:20 past
0:34:21 is unlikely to change whereas that which
0:34:24 is
0:34:25 based on a falsification of the future
0:34:27 has more probability to change
0:34:29 for example string theory for example
0:34:31 quantum mechanics for example the big
0:34:33 bang theory for example the expanding
0:34:34 universe
0:34:35 look at what roger penrose was writing
0:34:37 10 years ago about the
0:34:39 expanding universe and what he is
0:34:40 writing today there have been changes
0:34:42 because the data this is called theory
0:34:44 it's called undeterminism
0:34:46 ethio-relatedness where you describe the
0:34:49 data in different way you can interpret
0:34:50 in different ways
0:34:51 now we're saying when it comes to
0:34:53 historical fact
0:34:54 that the threshold of that being the
0:34:56 case is less because these are things
0:34:58 that have no
0:34:59 uh propensity to change so there is a
0:35:02 retrospective perspective which is
0:35:04 afforded to history or historical
0:35:05 enterprise
0:35:06 which unfortunately is not afforded to
0:35:09 the scientific enterprise
0:35:10 to give you to give you a very simple
0:35:12 example on that point well look 50 years
0:35:14 ago
0:35:15 50 years ago is that history yes it's
0:35:16 history some historians would say 50
0:35:18 years ago is history
0:35:19 right so the holocaust i was sure okay
0:35:22 well there's some
0:35:23 speculation in the holocaust lies no
0:35:24 problem but some people are alive
0:35:27 and they have witnessed the second world
0:35:29 war they are still alive and they have
0:35:30 witnessed it
0:35:31 now the the basic question of how did
0:35:34 the second
0:35:34 world war happen that's a basic question
0:35:38 is that the answer to that question is
0:35:40 it and did it happen from the years 1939
0:35:42 to 1945
0:35:43 is the answer to that question more or
0:35:45 less likely to be falsified
0:35:46 than the question of is quantum
0:35:48 mechanics the copenhagen model
0:35:50 more likely or less likely to be
0:35:52 disproved in the future i think you know
0:35:53 the antenna
0:35:54 as well so in other words the
0:35:56 retrospective and the hindsight
0:35:57 perspective
0:35:58 gives more epistemic weight to the
0:36:01 historical enterprise
0:36:02 than it does to the scientific
0:36:04 enterprise and
0:36:05 because the scientific enterprise
0:36:06 according to clark popper and the most
0:36:08 recent
0:36:09 foster science discussions is based on
0:36:11 falsification
0:36:12 which is always going to be mean that is
0:36:14 that
0:36:15 it's incorrigible and there's some
0:36:16 susceptibility to change
0:36:18 whereas history though yes it's true
0:36:20 there's revisionist history
0:36:21 it's less likely and i'm using the word
0:36:23 carefully to do that especially on basic
0:36:25 matters
0:36:26 to do with events that took place the
0:36:28 more further back you go in history
0:36:29 the more vague it gets of course but we
0:36:31 have to now apply the critical methods
0:36:34 which historians use anyway and and
0:36:36 argue on the basis of probability
0:36:38 so it's never been about well this
0:36:41 we're not using induction at all because
0:36:42 we think induction is not certain
0:36:45 we don't say that we use induction but
0:36:47 we use it
0:36:48 uh as a matter of uh to to to assert a
0:36:52 probabilistic reasoning
0:36:53 and the higher the probability when it
0:36:55 goes over a certain number then quite
0:36:57 frankly we're not going to reject it we
0:36:58 say that
0:36:58 and that's why by the way and the
0:37:00 evidence of the quran is allah says
0:37:05 you will see it with the eye of yakim
0:37:09 so how if if seeing is empiricism and
0:37:12 empiricism is always going to be
0:37:13 somewhat inductive
0:37:14 because you're not going to see
0:37:15 everything then allah is basically
0:37:17 telling us
0:37:18 the reality of this human condition is
0:37:20 that if you see something
0:37:22 visually and you experience something
0:37:24 then really
0:37:26 the psychological human being you will
0:37:27 believe in it and so therefore
0:37:29 we don't reject them through our
0:37:31 induction no we just say that we
0:37:33 there's a certain threshold that
0:37:34 unfortunately a lot of science does not
0:37:36 know
0:37:36 and history can do really brilliant
0:37:39 brilliant answer and
0:37:40 i really like the way that uh hijab
0:37:43 first explained about
0:37:46 when people make this straw man argument
0:37:49 and some atheists do this that we don't
0:37:51 use science at all to verify the quran
0:37:54 actually no the whole argument is that
0:37:57 the way it was done previously is false
0:37:59 if they are for example intermittent
0:38:01 fasting right
0:38:03 why shouldn't we talk about the fact
0:38:05 that you know this type of fasting
0:38:07 is now being recommended by doctors
0:38:09 twice a week interestingly enough right
0:38:12 and you know the whole um
0:38:15 uh prophetic way of eating when you're
0:38:17 hungry as opposed to just
0:38:19 eating in a uh so whenever you you feel
0:38:22 like
0:38:23 even you know the ambrosia thing like
0:38:24 you know one hadith which sticks out
0:38:26 which has not been used that much in
0:38:27 science i don't even know why not
0:38:28 less that
0:38:32 the born child is not from the entirety
0:38:34 of the the into the the the fluid
0:38:37 what what a simple thing we know it's
0:38:41 not
0:38:42 which means there is genetic
0:38:45 contribution for the man and the woman
0:38:46 yeah
0:38:47 so we know already that it's not farming
0:38:49 and then we know now it's not from the
0:38:50 whole thing is
0:38:51 it's part of that yeah so these are very
0:38:54 very important things i think that
0:38:56 i think that hadith and that thing is a
0:38:58 very powerful argument for islam being
0:39:00 true absolutely honestly absolutely and
0:39:01 another point i think which is worth
0:39:03 uh repeating is
0:39:06 that we don't make a hasty
0:39:10 generalization of the epistemic way of
0:39:12 all of science so we don't say
0:39:15 um water being h2o is as
0:39:19 uh in flux as string theory that's again
0:39:21 another straw man because
0:39:23 what it is is what the the issues which
0:39:26 contradict the quran the scientific
0:39:29 theory which contradict the quran
0:39:31 you will find that they'll always be
0:39:33 about these grand paradigm
0:39:35 ideas which are susceptible to as as
0:39:40 muhammad said theory-ladenness
0:39:43 under-determination problem of
0:39:44 unconceived
0:39:45 alternatives um you know problem
0:39:48 induction
0:39:48 uh methodological naturalism restriction
0:39:51 restricting the answers which are
0:39:52 possible but when it comes to
0:39:54 the everyday practical science and i
0:39:56 think this is super important
0:39:58 you will not really find something in
0:39:59 the quranic discourse which goes against
0:40:02 that
0:40:02 and another thing to keep in mind is
0:40:05 that
0:40:06 when it comes down to these type of
0:40:08 ideas they say something like in quantum
0:40:10 mechanics you have the copernican
0:40:11 interpretation or many worlds
0:40:12 interpretation of these types of
0:40:14 interpretations
0:40:15 those things you'll never find something
0:40:18 solid there
0:40:19 that they can use to try and challenge
0:40:22 the quran
0:40:22 because you know those things are in
0:40:24 flux the other thing
0:40:26 uh distinction which was being made
0:40:28 about history
0:40:29 and um about science i i think is very
0:40:33 important which is that
0:40:34 the types of science which
0:40:38 are retrospective are more likely
0:40:42 to use history in their results and the
0:40:44 reason why is because
0:40:46 obviously it's a past event we're not
0:40:48 talking about future events
0:40:50 future events are much more likely to be
0:40:52 susceptible to
0:40:53 the problem of induction in terms of
0:40:54 your data collection however
0:40:57 what this uh atheist was referring to
0:40:59 when they were
0:41:00 challenging you in this was not to do
0:41:02 with problem
0:41:03 induction being applied to observations
0:41:05 the problem of induction being applied
0:41:07 to interpretations
0:41:09 okay now this is a very important
0:41:11 distinction one's observations one's
0:41:13 interpretations however
0:41:15 his here's a very subtle important point
0:41:18 the interpretation has a particular
0:41:21 paradigm
0:41:22 within which you have um a different
0:41:25 range of results so for example
0:41:28 historically
0:41:29 we know napoleon fought in waterloo we
0:41:33 know that
0:41:33 now historians can revise
0:41:36 okay did you use this strategy okay this
0:41:38 guy's personal account we found out as a
0:41:40 forgery
0:41:41 but you won't actually change the
0:41:42 fundamentals because that's a historical
0:41:45 fact
0:41:45 which you know certain things are
0:41:47 immutable like the the battle itself and
0:41:49 you know who won and who didn't but the
0:41:51 interpretations can change
0:41:53 but with science those things are much
0:41:56 um
0:41:57 much more broader so malleable exactly
0:42:01 so whenever people try and use this um
0:42:03 argument
0:42:04 to uh challenge uh you know our approach
0:42:09 they are basically misusing
0:42:12 the fact that most people don't think
0:42:14 about these things in a deep
0:42:16 way and initially it sounds quite
0:42:17 plausible oh but history's like this
0:42:19 history is his induction science is
0:42:21 induction
0:42:22 therefore you know this and that's the
0:42:24 danger of having a little bit of
0:42:25 knowledge
0:42:26 that's right that that's uh because
0:42:27 they're unable to they're unable to like
0:42:29 they've got these
0:42:30 uh ideas but they're unable to
0:42:32 critically kind of delineate
0:42:34 like for instance you were just saying
0:42:35 something interesting because i reminded
0:42:37 me actually of what richard dawkins
0:42:38 himself said
0:42:39 he was talking about the theory of
0:42:40 evolution and i don't know if that was
0:42:42 in his discussion with him
0:42:43 actually in the streets when when he
0:42:45 results was
0:42:47 was dominating him but was was before
0:42:49 that when he said like well actually
0:42:51 um some of the effect of um
0:42:55 theory evolution is like a murder case
0:42:58 yes
0:42:58 yes and he said that we have to look at
0:43:00 the clues and we have to look at and we
0:43:01 have to make our decision as to what
0:43:03 happened right
0:43:04 and i think he said it perfectly
0:43:05 actually and that in that analogy
0:43:07 is like a murder case but as we know
0:43:10 from
0:43:10 miscarriages of justice cold cases all
0:43:13 these kind of things which
0:43:14 revived we know that actually
0:43:17 you can get it fundamentally wrong when
0:43:19 you're trying to interpret the data
0:43:21 and what we're saying is we know that
0:43:22 there are fossils we know that there are
0:43:24 similarities between creatures
0:43:26 anatomically we know those things how do
0:43:28 you interpret them how do you interpret
0:43:30 what happened here
0:43:31 so then your lamar king will say
0:43:32 something the genetic bias
0:43:34 mutationism yeah mutationism what's the
0:43:36 other one genetic engineering
0:43:38 yeah natural genetic engineering natural
0:43:40 genetic engineering all of them will
0:43:41 have their spin on it
0:43:42 like okay and the new darwinian will say
0:43:44 whatever you they all have their own
0:43:46 interpretation so they're making their
0:43:47 own narrative they're making their own
0:43:48 stories bro
0:43:49 like you told me something really
0:43:50 interesting one time before you were
0:43:52 telling me
0:43:52 what's referred to as just sort of
0:43:53 stories you know yeah yeah and that
0:43:55 stuck in my mind it really it was a good
0:43:56 thing maybe i want to explain to the
0:43:58 people so
0:43:58 you know just those stories is obviously
0:44:01 rudyard kipling's book
0:44:03 in which you know how did the zebra get
0:44:05 its
0:44:06 stripes how did the elephant get a long
0:44:08 trunk and they have all these stories
0:44:09 that the crocodile was dragging the
0:44:11 uh elephant and you know it kept getting
0:44:13 a long snout so this was actually a term
0:44:17 used to describe the stories that
0:44:20 biologists were using to describe traits
0:44:23 that we have genetic anatomical traits
0:44:25 and how they actually evolved
0:44:26 because these were stories which i think
0:44:29 very important to understand
0:44:30 are coherent with natural selection
0:44:33 however they don't have any evidence
0:44:35 so is it like for example you were
0:44:36 giving an example before like why women
0:44:38 like pink might because they're cutting
0:44:39 the meat and they see the rest yeah yeah
0:44:40 yeah exactly so the steven j gould and
0:44:44 men love blue because they look in the
0:44:45 sky when they're hunting
0:44:46 um can you get me that book that really
0:44:49 big one over there please
0:44:51 so um stephen j gould and richard
0:44:54 lewinton they were both
0:44:56 uh biologists from um harvard
0:45:00 they basically um came up with this term
0:45:03 just so stories
0:45:04 because what they found was that there's
0:45:06 lots of stories being given
0:45:08 but they didn't have any evidence but
0:45:10 they were plausible stories so for
0:45:11 example
0:45:13 you come home one day and you find a
0:45:15 letter you find a letter
0:45:17 uh which has your name on it and you can
0:45:20 see that
0:45:21 you know it's come from the gas bill or
0:45:22 whatever now one
0:45:24 proposition is that the postman came and
0:45:26 they actually put the letter in
0:45:29 another proposition is that the postman
0:45:31 came
0:45:32 and they delivered it to somebody at the
0:45:34 top of the street and that person picked
0:45:36 it up
0:45:36 and then they went all the way down to
0:45:38 your house and they put it in and you
0:45:39 thought it was the postman when it was
0:45:41 actually
0:45:42 this another possibility is the postman
0:45:45 delivered it to house number two
0:45:46 but then that person came to you so now
0:45:48 you've got an infinite number the fact
0:45:49 is
0:45:50 each one of these stories is coherent
0:45:53 doesn't mean there's any evidence for it
0:45:56 so
0:45:56 what these guys were saying was that
0:45:58 there are a lot of stories being given
0:46:00 which are coherent but the stories don't
0:46:02 have any evidence now
0:46:04 when you look at something like this
0:46:05 like evolution the first uh
0:46:08 four billion years this is uh mike uh
0:46:10 sorry michael roos and
0:46:11 uh eo wilson and all the rest you'll
0:46:14 find actually
0:46:15 any any particular thing how do how is
0:46:18 it that human beings
0:46:19 like uh uh have a certain
0:46:23 preference for colors so they'll say
0:46:25 okay we'll have this certain preference
0:46:27 for colors because
0:46:28 back in the time when we were
0:46:28 hunter-gatherers men
0:46:31 who were more predisposed to like the
0:46:32 color blue because the sky is blue
0:46:34 because the watering hole is blue are
0:46:36 more likely to survive
0:46:37 and you know you you'll get literally
0:46:39 volumes of these types of stories which
0:46:41 you'll find in all types of evolutionary
0:46:42 books
0:46:43 however the problem is they are equally
0:46:46 plausible
0:46:47 alternatives just like the postman n
0:46:50 plus one
0:46:51 yeah but none of them can be adjudicated
0:46:54 hence why they are pure just soul
0:46:56 stories now
0:46:57 this doesn't mean that one of them is
0:47:00 not true
0:47:01 because you know the idea that the
0:47:02 postman delivered to your door
0:47:05 is way more likely than somebody
0:47:08 accidentally gave it to the top of the
0:47:10 street and then
0:47:10 it came to you however so there is one
0:47:14 right answer and there's possibly uh
0:47:16 you know many many wrong answers but
0:47:18 what's super important
0:47:19 is that for the vast majority of people
0:47:22 because they're very
0:47:23 simple a coherent story
0:47:26 they will interpret as evidence and
0:47:29 that's why the just so story
0:47:31 uh term was so popular that
0:47:34 now today is actually becoming into an
0:47:36 academic term yes
0:47:38 it's actually referred to in journals in
0:47:40 books and lectures
0:47:41 yeah just so stories is now an academic
0:47:44 term initially it was a
0:47:46 ridicule of the dominance position right
0:47:48 but now it's it's evolved
0:47:49 so you're well in summary therefore
0:47:50 you're saying is uh
0:47:52 actually you know it is a difference
0:47:55 between
0:47:55 the observable number one and that
0:47:58 and the interpretation of the observable
0:48:00 and the interpretation of the observable
0:48:02 is subject or susceptible to a variety
0:48:05 of different interpretations
0:48:06 and this is the problem of
0:48:07 undetermination yeah and
0:48:09 each interpretation would you say that
0:48:10 correct yeah yeah
0:48:12 yeah under determination except that
0:48:15 each particular story is
0:48:19 internally consistent yes and
0:48:22 people mistake internal consistency for
0:48:24 evidence
0:48:25 because let's say you go to a police
0:48:27 right uh
0:48:28 somebody robbed you or you're being
0:48:30 accused of murder the police will try
0:48:32 and find inconsistencies if they find
0:48:34 that you're consistent it seems your
0:48:36 testimony has weight
0:48:37 so human beings normally associate
0:48:40 consistency
0:48:41 with truth but consistency could be just
0:48:44 a very consistent story
0:48:46 it's not necessary that that story is
0:48:49 true so
0:48:50 truth um requires consistency
0:48:54 as a necessary condition but not
0:48:56 sufficient
0:48:57 so yeah that's why it's true
0:49:02 because you mentioned from everything
0:49:04 i've gathered and it was very very
0:49:06 beneficial like i've actually not heard
0:49:08 the answer to this before
0:49:10 that for science it's very true that you
0:49:12 can't compare string theory to the fact
0:49:14 that we are men
0:49:15 female and have different chromosomes
0:49:16 right so do you have a sort of criteria
0:49:19 or have you
0:49:20 come up with a structure how do you say
0:49:23 it there is hold
0:49:25 on threshold yeah now you're right
0:49:28 you're right to ask that question
0:49:29 okay what is the threshold here's what i
0:49:32 would think
0:49:32 is the reasonable psychological
0:49:34 threshold it comes back to what you were
0:49:35 saying someone before about what we
0:49:38 what we expect in everyday life the
0:49:41 threshold we want
0:49:42 the atheist interlocutor or the skeptic
0:49:44 interlocutor to use
0:49:45 is the same exact threshold he uses in
0:49:47 his everyday life in decision making
0:49:50 we we are calling them out for having a
0:49:52 psychological double standard
0:49:54 we're exposing that double sign actually
0:49:56 epistemic justification comes very
0:49:58 naturally all right
0:50:00 you know you exist right now because
0:50:01 you're talking to me you know you you
0:50:03 might
0:50:04 have money in your pocket you might not
0:50:05 see it but you might feel it and that
0:50:07 for you is enough to determine that the
0:50:08 money is in your pocket
0:50:10 you you might have books in your shelf
0:50:12 you've
0:50:13 you know the last time you saw them they
0:50:14 were there you might not have them there
0:50:16 anymore
0:50:17 but you're assuming that they are there
0:50:19 and that's an inference
0:50:20 these assumptions that we are making are
0:50:23 natural
0:50:23 and we don't even think twice about them
0:50:25 otherwise we would actually literally go
0:50:26 mad
0:50:27 a true skeptic is somebody who belongs
0:50:31 in the
0:50:31 in the mental institute by the way
0:50:33 someone who is skeptical about
0:50:35 everything that happens in their life
0:50:36 and they're not unsure
0:50:37 someone who lives that life is
0:50:39 psychologically unstable person
0:50:41 do you know that like a true skeptic on
0:50:44 every life decision would be
0:50:45 psychologically troubled
0:50:46 and you know what's very interesting
0:50:47 about this um when i was
0:50:50 at university and we were doing uh moral
0:50:53 philosophy
0:50:55 the professor mentions a point which
0:50:57 sounded
0:50:58 which was actually very profound but he
0:51:00 did it in a very mundane way right
0:51:02 what he basically said is the arguments
0:51:05 for moral skepticism
0:51:07 are the strongest in philosophy yet they
0:51:10 are rejected by the majority of
0:51:12 philosophers
0:51:13 even though their arguments haven't been
0:51:15 addressed
0:51:16 which shows that the philosophers
0:51:18 themselves are not really following
0:51:20 that philosophical skepticism they're
0:51:22 rather bophitri
0:51:23 they rather believe in some form of uh
0:51:26 moral objectivity
0:51:28 you'll talk about moral skepticism we
0:51:29 were talking about epistemic steps yeah
0:51:30 the reason why i was saying that is
0:51:32 because
0:51:33 uh skeptic skepticism whether it's moral
0:51:36 existential or whatever
0:51:38 it's always going to be an impractical
0:51:40 philosophy
0:51:41 so even with this case when they're
0:51:42 using this type of
0:51:44 skepticism and epistemology they will
0:51:47 not be able to be consistent with this
0:51:48 just like the
0:51:49 moral philosophers won't be able to be
0:51:51 consistent
0:51:52 in this regard because we always have to
0:51:55 ask this question
0:51:57 is this argument that the person is
0:51:59 using a double-edged sword
0:52:01 and if it's a double-edged sword just
0:52:03 show them is cutting you as well yes i
0:52:05 think that's the same thing with
0:52:06 post-modernism to be honest with you
0:52:07 because
0:52:07 it's the whole thing of how i understand
0:52:09 possible this is
0:52:11 deconstructing meta narratives gonna put
0:52:13 it in this yeah yeah yeah yeah good
0:52:14 that's our understanding you know so i
0:52:16 don't think many people understand what
0:52:17 postmodernism is
0:52:19 you know some people think it's marxism
0:52:20 it's not it's completely different
0:52:21 ideology right
0:52:23 and um anyway it's the same problem
0:52:25 because like
0:52:26 one of my refutations which has not been
0:52:28 given as much uh
0:52:30 exposure perhaps you know is uh when i
0:52:32 was refuting the third wave feminist and
0:52:34 judith butler in particular
0:52:35 and i found it and this actually started
0:52:37 off as an essay it got really high
0:52:38 grades
0:52:39 the woman was a transgender herself you
0:52:41 know
0:52:42 the cheering they were whatever you know
0:52:44 how she wants to
0:52:45 was the transgender what she recognized
0:52:47 the force of the argument i put it into
0:52:48 the book the fifth word feminist book
0:52:50 that i wrote
0:52:50 which is basically this it's like i was
0:52:53 reading what jesus butler was saying
0:52:54 saying that everything was a social
0:52:55 construct here
0:52:56 like race is a social consonant like she
0:52:58 doesn't say what but
0:53:00 biology things like biological [ __ ] i in
0:53:02 my reading she's saying that sex is a
0:53:04 social construct right and then what
0:53:06 this might sound like completely
0:53:08 peripheral or
0:53:09 a tangential potentially even not
0:53:11 related
0:53:12 but that's why i read in what she was
0:53:13 talking about the palestine israel
0:53:14 conflict and she was referring to those
0:53:16 palestinians
0:53:17 she's on our side let's say for that i
0:53:19 was happy with that obviously but then
0:53:20 on the other hand i was thinking why is
0:53:22 she mentioning palestinians
0:53:24 and israelis in that language because
0:53:26 that is to categorize them
0:53:28 according to a transcendental or some
0:53:30 kind of yeah
0:53:31 right right you know it's some kind of
0:53:32 genus yeah some sort ontrological
0:53:34 category yeah
0:53:34 so so what i'm saying here is that so
0:53:37 you in
0:53:38 everyday life you're compelled to think
0:53:40 that there is some demarcating factor
0:53:42 between person or people x and people y
0:53:45 but in your skeptical post-modern
0:53:48 um quantification you're you're very
0:53:51 strong you know very very delicate when
0:53:53 it comes to the material right
0:53:54 so a matter of you know differentiation
0:53:56 when it comes to sex
0:53:58 sex and gender so you want to have your
0:54:00 taken in your book the truth of the
0:54:01 matter is you can't really speak about
0:54:02 racism
0:54:03 unless we speak about race and we can't
0:54:04 speak about race until we talk about
0:54:06 biology and we can't talk about biology
0:54:08 if you're a postmodernist and you deny
0:54:10 it
0:54:10 but if the same thing applies now with
0:54:12 um
0:54:14 with sex and gender i remember being in
0:54:16 the i don't know if i told you a story
0:54:18 before i was in the
0:54:19 elevator one time and there was a woman
0:54:22 who was part of the course as well doing
0:54:23 gender society stuff
0:54:25 and she's just for some reason she
0:54:26 blurted something out she said i believe
0:54:28 that sex
0:54:30 like actually have penetrative sex like
0:54:31 intimacy right
0:54:33 intercourse she says i believe that sex
0:54:35 is a social construct
0:54:37 so it was only like 10 seconds left
0:54:38 before i got out the lift i thought
0:54:40 she's saying something ridiculous let me
0:54:41 say something ridiculous too
0:54:43 i said i said in that case then rape is
0:54:45 a social construct
0:54:46 oh you know because they don't write
0:54:48 they don't realize
0:54:49 the ramifications of what they're saying
0:54:51 if you say that sex is a social
0:54:53 construct now a rape of a conversation
0:54:54 if you say that racist social a racism
0:54:56 becomes a social construct if you say
0:54:58 that
0:54:58 gender is a social construct then
0:55:00 patriarchy in the words
0:55:02 in in the words which capture this
0:55:04 really well
0:55:05 if you make an uncomfortable bed you
0:55:07 have to lie in it wow man
0:55:08 you don't even know these words you're
0:55:10 writing them down no these these these
0:55:12 are just
0:55:13 things you pick up when you read and
0:55:14 stuff somebody
0:55:16 brother salaam alaikum
0:55:22 okay we have uh i've seen your question
0:55:24 brother send you you can repeat it we
0:55:27 can repeat it to
0:55:28 hijab here i think it's a very good
0:55:30 thing um if we speak about that because
0:55:32 that's a
0:55:34 that's an important topic
0:55:39 send you
0:55:44 you are muted at the moment
0:55:52 okay
0:55:55 assalamu alaikum welcome to sapiens life
0:56:00 can you hear me yes we can hear you how
0:56:03 are you doing brother
0:56:05 and i'm just fine so my question was
0:56:08 uh regarding geodesy i was
0:56:12 today i was studying about the christian
0:56:14 narrative regarding theodicy
0:56:16 i studied the augustine theodicy and
0:56:19 iranian theodicy i found iranian
0:56:23 theodicy
0:56:24 uh something closer to the islamic
0:56:26 understanding i
0:56:27 i want to know your opinion upon that
0:56:30 what is the iron in philosophy
0:56:33 yeah well well um islamic understanding
0:56:36 is one thing
0:56:37 theodicy in islam and theology and
0:56:39 christianity are
0:56:41 not monolithic things the schools of
0:56:44 thought
0:56:44 and christianity are different to the
0:56:46 schools of thought in islam
0:56:48 augustine you talked about augustine i'm
0:56:50 not sure which book he wrote this in but
0:56:51 he
0:56:52 had very very troubling opinions i'm not
0:56:54 sure if you know this right augustine
0:56:56 obviously is the same for the catholic
0:56:58 church and he believed that if an infant
0:57:00 does not get baptized it will go to hell
0:57:03 yeah i'm not have you have you read that
0:57:05 that's part of his odyssey and part of
0:57:07 his writing theological writings on the
0:57:09 matter
0:57:10 so he believed that if this is very
0:57:12 categorical in his speech i only
0:57:14 recently i think it was rat single one
0:57:15 of the
0:57:16 popes he made um
0:57:19 he made a kind of uh declaration that
0:57:21 this is
0:57:22 you kind of moved away from that but for
0:57:24 the fourth thousands of years now you
0:57:26 know the catholics have been upon this
0:57:27 and they believe that
0:57:28 now the theology of islam
0:57:32 first of all we have to define what is
0:57:33 evil
0:57:35 uh and this is a subject of contention
0:57:38 for islamic scholars okay
0:57:40 now um does evil exist in the real world
0:57:44 as in the platonic realism or as in
0:57:46 conceptualism or as
0:57:48 in does actually even exist now there's
0:57:50 a question which is there's there's
0:57:52 difference of opinion on so the ash
0:57:53 haris and the maturities and the matases
0:57:55 would say yeah
0:57:55 evil exists in that sense and the evil
0:57:58 is
0:57:58 to go to the euro throws dilemma is
0:58:01 dependent or contingent on
0:58:03 the divine command theory so whatever
0:58:04 god makes whatever god
0:58:06 says is wrong is wrong because of his
0:58:08 very saying
0:58:10 but even tamiya doesn't believe in that
0:58:11 and neither does
0:58:13 jose who wrote a book on this called
0:58:16 they believe that they believe that evil
0:58:19 is adam
0:58:20 evil is privation okay so they believe
0:58:22 that evil is
0:58:23 when something lacks to call a
0:58:25 particular quality
0:58:26 uh why do they say that because they
0:58:29 have different
0:58:29 approaches to the attributes of god than
0:58:32 ashari's do
0:58:33 say god is good okay god is good and
0:58:36 this is not something which we take as
0:58:38 metaphoric
0:58:39 and maturities and more attendees take
0:58:41 that as metaphoric okay
0:58:43 you have to understand that so if asha
0:58:45 is saying
0:58:46 that he's not actually good in the sense
0:58:49 like
0:58:50 they do take a wheel of that right so
0:58:52 the uh event
0:58:53 he says no god is good and any anything
0:58:56 good
0:58:57 is a manifestation of the goodness of
0:58:58 god and so therefore anything
0:59:01 other than anything bad is defined as
0:59:04 the
0:59:04 privation or the deprivation or the
0:59:07 elimination
0:59:08 of that goodly quality of god
0:59:11 in the thing from that then they move on
0:59:14 to
0:59:15 well what so therefore a shovel as he
0:59:18 referred to as
0:59:19 both which is pure evil doesn't exist in
0:59:22 real world according to them
0:59:23 and pure evil is something which is
0:59:25 relative to the situation
0:59:28 uh and and so on so first of all
0:59:30 defining what is evil is something which
0:59:32 this like islamist cause is diffident
0:59:34 uh we need to understand that and so
0:59:37 have christian scholars if different on
0:59:39 what is evil in the first place
0:59:41 now the questions then then that we then
0:59:44 ask about
0:59:45 why is there even and suffering in the
0:59:46 world and all these kinds of questions
0:59:48 which relate to theodicy and so on
0:59:50 they are really highly dependent on this
0:59:52 on this
0:59:53 starting point so we have to understand
0:59:55 that islam has different opinions on
0:59:56 what evil is
0:59:57 i personally i'm more inclined to even
0:59:59 tell me an explanation
1:00:00 because then if you if someone was to
1:00:02 say well um divine command theory right
1:00:05 which is what shall we say if someone
1:00:07 says divine command theory
1:00:09 well then if allah subhanahu wa in the
1:00:11 quran because when i read this verse i
1:00:12 kind of was more persuaded to his
1:00:14 perspective
1:00:17 allah does not command to evil
1:00:20 which suggests to us that it may suggest
1:00:23 okay that evil exists
1:00:24 as an ontological entity right which
1:00:26 will be against whatever tommy has said
1:00:28 but on the other hand
1:00:29 if the just that people has been who was
1:00:32 there before the command was there
1:00:33 does that make sense so if because they
1:00:35 are saying the evil is because allah
1:00:37 made
1:00:37 he said it because he says evil becomes
1:00:40 evil
1:00:40 now we're saying that if allah says
1:00:44 that would be a meaningless thing right
1:00:47 which is actually they believe that you
1:00:50 can
1:00:51 stumble or you can extrapolate evilness
1:00:53 from the real world
1:00:55 without an us without some kind of thing
1:00:57 so in many ways
1:00:58 the martessilis and the intamia school
1:01:00 or the athletes actually
1:01:02 uh coalesce at this point the point
1:01:04 being here i don't want to go into too
1:01:05 much
1:01:05 details you know depending on how you
1:01:08 define evil
1:01:09 then we'll have different answers to the
1:01:11 european dilemma which is a very
1:01:12 important dilemma
1:01:13 so islam does not have one singular
1:01:15 answer here through a divine level we'll
1:01:16 have different answers
1:01:17 uh the problem with if you take a divine
1:01:19 command theory is what europe
1:01:21 talked about is it only good because
1:01:23 allah said it's good that's one problem
1:01:25 but a secondary problem is
1:01:26 then you have certain questions which
1:01:27 you'll have to answer in the positive
1:01:29 which may
1:01:30 be very uncomfortable for you to do so
1:01:31 if you take this view which is if allah
1:01:33 said it was
1:01:34 it was okay to rape a two-year-old child
1:01:36 does it become okay just because he said
1:01:38 it
1:01:38 and on that view you'd have to say yes
1:01:40 on the view
1:01:42 that uh they've been telling me if you
1:01:44 would say no
1:01:45 uh that allah would not command that
1:01:46 because in allah almighty
1:01:49 and that is for in and of itself which
1:01:51 means it's something which is lewd and
1:01:53 unacceptable so you have to think about
1:01:55 where you lie on the spectrum of belief
1:01:57 here
1:01:57 uh i think i've indicated where i think
1:01:59 i'm more comfortable i'm a bit
1:02:00 less comfortable with even tamiya's
1:02:03 clear
1:02:04 nominalism on these points but i'm more
1:02:06 comfortable with his uh
1:02:07 explanation of allah's attribute being
1:02:10 and uh him being the goodness and that
1:02:12 pride the evil is
1:02:14 privation of that goodness in a
1:02:15 particular thing so i'm not too
1:02:17 like the the way that you explained it
1:02:20 there i'm aware of this
1:02:22 but in terms of you're saying the other
1:02:25 uh schools hold the view that objective
1:02:28 morality doesn't exist
1:02:30 uh they do i don't think another
1:02:34 objective morality everyone says
1:02:35 objective money exists right everyone
1:02:37 says that
1:02:38 but the only thing is a lot of people
1:02:40 make a difference like and
1:02:41 hamsa's also talks about this quite well
1:02:43 there's a difference between objection
1:02:44 absolutely right no i get that you know
1:02:46 you for example a god commanding what is
1:02:50 evil um i'm assuming that even
1:02:54 within the other schools the it's a lot
1:02:56 more nuanced than that
1:02:57 that they probably have sub types for
1:03:00 example the maturities
1:03:10 like uh that's a question so they might
1:03:12 really just say no it's not possible so
1:03:14 i'm not
1:03:14 the kind of pelvis whatever and then the
1:03:16 video going to say yes because why can't
1:03:18 he not you can do
1:03:19 everything that he wants so the bundys
1:03:21 are very broad though so it's just a
1:03:23 well i think it looks like that's what
1:03:25 the debate is between those two schools
1:03:26 but
1:03:27 i don't know if everyone would say that
1:03:28 but the idea is really if you take the
1:03:30 position allah
1:03:31 like what we say because well the
1:03:33 athletic school would say
1:03:35 if allah subhanahu wa is good then he
1:03:37 can't really do
1:03:38 is against his majesty to do things
1:03:40 which are against his intrinsic
1:03:41 characteristic
1:03:42 so truth it's against the attribute of
1:03:45 haqq to lie so it becomes almost as
1:03:48 impossible as
1:03:49 uh it's as meaningless as allah creating
1:03:52 a squared circle
1:03:53 but for that high school is that
1:03:56 attribute is is
1:03:59 you're making tawi love in the first
1:04:01 place so you can't really say that it's
1:04:03 impossible in that sense yeah so
1:04:05 based on where you start from really it
1:04:06 does it depends if you're sometimes
1:04:08 making that wheel of the sifat of allah
1:04:10 has implications far beyond the prima
1:04:13 facie
1:04:14 examination sometimes it has it has
1:04:16 implications on the theology as well
1:04:18 okay for your question brother hazek
1:04:22 we're going to go now to arshan
1:04:34 [Music]
1:04:38 um
1:04:52 you can go uh so basically my question
1:04:55 was about
1:04:56 pantheism as i'm from india and i and
1:04:58 caught on many hindu friends
1:05:00 and we'll talk about this so how how do
1:05:03 we go with pantheism
1:05:04 according to the way i've um
1:05:07 the way i like to deal with that is very
1:05:09 simple which is that
1:05:11 anything that is made up of parts is
1:05:13 generated
1:05:15 the universe is made up of parts
1:05:17 therefore the universe is generated if
1:05:18 god is everywhere
1:05:20 with his essence which is in in the
1:05:22 arabic terms called
1:05:24 pantheism if god is everywhere in this
1:05:26 sense this would
1:05:28 uh entail but he can be divided into
1:05:30 pieces
1:05:32 because if he's everywhere in his
1:05:33 essence that means he in he in his
1:05:36 he inherits in every single aspect
1:05:40 of creation which includes parts and i
1:05:42 think that can be broken up
1:05:44 and that would entail if the car or the
1:05:46 idea of
1:05:48 dependence and that would entail being
1:05:49 generated and the evidence of that in
1:05:51 the quran is the last panel
1:05:52 mentions
1:05:59 that he is the one who
1:06:02 created
1:06:08 in any form that he wanted to he done
1:06:10 turkey of you he put you together
1:06:12 meaning what meaning really what we can
1:06:14 understand is that anything which is
1:06:16 moroccan or is made up of individual
1:06:18 parts which can be
1:06:20 divided divided really this requires an
1:06:23 external agency in order to put it
1:06:24 together
1:06:25 otherwise it wouldn't exist and so the
1:06:28 pantheistic model it puts
1:06:30 god's um power and it puts his
1:06:34 indivisibility into great distribute
1:06:37 um and therefore it's it's an absurd
1:06:40 concept
1:06:41 in contra in in contrasting with god i
1:06:43 think it's
1:06:44 it's impossible to believe in this
1:06:45 actually i'm believing god i think
1:06:47 that's a
1:06:47 that's actually talking about religious
1:06:49 implications i think if someone believes
1:06:50 in the pantheons to go like
1:06:52 i've heard some sikhs say that you know
1:06:55 a guru nanak
1:06:56 guru nanak to god
1:07:00 okay is like you know a drop of a drop
1:07:02 of water in the ocean
1:07:04 so in other words he's part of him right
1:07:06 we say okay in that case you can
1:07:07 so if god can be taken like water out of
1:07:10 an ocean that means god can be emptied
1:07:11 like an ocean
1:07:12 and you can put more water into the
1:07:13 ocean and that would suggest that god is
1:07:15 some kind of physical thing
1:07:17 this is a kind of anthropomorphism
1:07:18 because panthers
1:07:24 yeah and i think another point which is
1:07:26 ver very important
1:07:28 to understand from a from the
1:07:30 perspective of polytheism
1:07:32 and islamic monotheism
1:07:36 is rather than just talking about the
1:07:40 for example you know they they
1:07:44 the the hindus will say okay we've been
1:07:46 this
1:07:47 right and you believe in that i think
1:07:49 it's important as well
1:07:51 to actually show them that
1:07:55 if we look at the history of hinduism
1:07:58 and we look at the various different
1:08:00 types we can even argue
1:08:02 that there is no such thing as hinduism
1:08:05 right it's not actually
1:08:07 and this is very interesting and this is
1:08:08 one of the miracles of islam that
1:08:10 the center point of the hindu religion
1:08:14 is actually the modern state of pakistan
1:08:16 so the modern state of [ __ ] maybe
1:08:17 this is why
1:08:18 a lot of hindus hate pakistan right
1:08:20 because that's like the where it began
1:08:22 from and when it actually began
1:08:24 and and you start to see all these uh
1:08:26 branches and whatnot
1:08:28 it's not one religion the religion of
1:08:30 the people
1:08:31 of uh the the indus valley civilization
1:08:35 or from the hindu kush
1:08:36 they were called you know hindus
1:08:40 because they're from that geographic
1:08:41 region but it's not one religion
1:08:43 this is very interesting amongst them
1:08:47 we have historical accounts of hindus
1:08:50 right who are atheists who actually
1:08:52 don't believe in god
1:08:54 then you get hindus who actually have
1:08:57 beliefs
1:08:57 in a god or multiple gods and this type
1:09:01 of thing
1:09:01 then you have others who actually
1:09:03 believe in one god so you have all of
1:09:04 these people and they've all been
1:09:06 categorized
1:09:07 as hindus and i think what's important
1:09:09 is like hijab mentioned we can show them
1:09:11 logically
1:09:12 and using the quran that actually
1:09:14 polytheism makes no sense
1:09:16 however we can also say to them look you
1:09:19 also have to understand that there is no
1:09:21 such thing as
1:09:21 islam versus hinduism because hinduism
1:09:24 is many
1:09:25 it's not monolithic and additionally
1:09:28 what's very interesting
1:09:30 is that i had
1:09:33 obviously people remember things when
1:09:34 it's mentioned
1:09:36 in the form of a conversational story i
1:09:38 was having this conversation with this
1:09:40 hindu guy when i was at university and
1:09:42 he literally shocked me
1:09:43 because i said to him why do you believe
1:09:45 in so many different gods and he's
1:09:46 actually quite learned in hinduism he
1:09:48 takes it very seriously
1:09:49 he said we don't we actually believe
1:09:51 there's one god which this is brahman
1:09:53 right it's a good
1:09:54 brahman some say shiva
1:09:58 some others have this type of trinity of
1:10:00 hinduism
1:10:01 but ultimately they believe that all
1:10:04 of their demigods right go back to one
1:10:06 supreme
1:10:07 yeah which is how different is that to
1:10:09 the quraish not that different
1:10:11 exactly all it is all it is is that
1:10:14 polytheism look the fact is there's
1:10:16 nothing new under the sun
1:10:17 whether the quraish were worshiping
1:10:21 or shiva brahman or whatever ultimately
1:10:23 they have the same philosophy right
1:10:25 yeah so very similar to the pantheon of
1:10:28 the greeks as well
1:10:28 exactly exactly all of them actually
1:10:30 have the same i want to share something
1:10:33 which is phenomenal it's actually really
1:10:36 uh
1:10:36 something which is going to stay with me
1:10:38 till today i probably know
1:10:40 yeah so we got a phone call in the
1:10:43 office next door the ira office
1:10:45 there's a guy who wanted to
1:10:48 leave islam he's a new kong don't want
1:10:50 to leave islam you know
1:10:52 the the camera brother so
1:10:56 he said to me look there's this guy he
1:10:58 he wants to leave islam he converted to
1:11:00 islam
1:11:01 can you talk to him i said sure so i
1:11:03 rang it
1:11:05 and i said to him why do you want to
1:11:08 leave islam
1:11:09 he said i converted to islam because of
1:11:12 monotheism
1:11:13 however i went to the mosque and in the
1:11:16 mosque they had and he's up nor
1:11:17 somewhere
1:11:18 they have a picture of one of their
1:11:20 sheikhs and they told me to worship god
1:11:23 through him to actually use him as an
1:11:26 intercessor and he said
1:11:27 i only converted to islam because of
1:11:29 monotheism but if this is what islam
1:11:31 teaches then i don't want to be muslim
1:11:33 so i said to him my brother do you know
1:11:34 what your understanding of islam is that
1:11:37 islam doesn't allow this and you're
1:11:38 absolutely correct
1:11:39 islam doesn't allow to go through an
1:11:41 intercessor there must be some sect
1:11:43 that some extreme sex that he was living
1:11:46 around where they had this
1:11:47 he said that they actually had the
1:11:48 picture of the sheikh in the mosque
1:11:51 anyway so i just happened to ask him i
1:11:53 mean and the quran
1:11:54 is very clear about justice
1:12:00 and the messages are for god so don't
1:12:02 don't fall
1:12:03 any other than him in the message and
1:12:05 this is so powerful so a new muslim
1:12:08 is recognizing that when i read the
1:12:10 quran i understood that this is not
1:12:12 allowed
1:12:13 so then i asked him out of curiosity i
1:12:15 said to him why did you convert to islam
1:12:18 i expected him to say i was an atheist i
1:12:20 was a christian that's what you get
1:12:22 he gave me a radically different answer
1:12:24 he said i was a traditional
1:12:26 english pagan i believed in the nordic
1:12:29 gods
1:12:30 and we believed in idols and amongst our
1:12:33 idols
1:12:34 we used to pray to them one day when i
1:12:36 was in my worship
1:12:38 i decided to pray to the overall supreme
1:12:41 god that they believe in
1:12:42 just like the quraish and all of these
1:12:44 gods are gods that that supreme god gave
1:12:46 permission to
1:12:48 he said that day i asked the supreme god
1:12:51 for guidance and in my heart i lost
1:12:55 all interest in these idols and after
1:12:58 that supplication to god
1:13:00 i became a firm believer that there's
1:13:02 only one god
1:13:04 then when i looked into religion i
1:13:06 recognized islam must be the truth
1:13:08 because of his strict monotheism so his
1:13:11 reason for accepting islam was
1:13:12 monotheism his reason for rejecting
1:13:14 islam possibly
1:13:15 was because he thought islam doesn't
1:13:17 teach mundians however
1:13:19 even as a mushrik he made dua
1:13:22 to the supreme god so even when it comes
1:13:24 to hindus when it comes to
1:13:26 people they are sometimes scared of the
1:13:27 word allah or even the word god with
1:13:29 hindus right
1:13:30 if you say them look ultimately you
1:13:32 believe there's one supreme who's beyond
1:13:35 everything right doesn't it make sense
1:13:38 that there's one supreme above
1:13:39 everything and all of the rest of these
1:13:41 gods are powerless
1:13:42 and sometimes it's better to use
1:13:46 this type of argument even though
1:13:48 conceptually it's the same as
1:13:50 but they're less likely to put up their
1:13:51 barriers because as soon as you mention
1:13:53 allah as soon as you mention
1:13:55 you know these types of technologies
1:13:56 they get scared because what
1:13:58 one thing which is very hard to get
1:14:01 around
1:14:02 right is that all of these polytheistic
1:14:04 religions they're on an uphill battle
1:14:06 it is so fittery is so natural to
1:14:09 believe in one supreme being
1:14:11 you know this is this is something which
1:14:13 is so hard to get out of the human
1:14:15 psyche
1:14:15 i would put it this way in terms of
1:14:17 rationally there are two arguments that
1:14:19 completely defeat polytheism and you
1:14:20 don't need more than that
1:14:22 and that includes trinitarianism
1:14:23 hinduism and sikhism all of them
1:14:25 because as we said sikhism and hinduism
1:14:28 both rely
1:14:29 for the most part and obviously there
1:14:30 are some variations and i'm being very
1:14:32 clear
1:14:32 but for the most part on pantheistic
1:14:34 notions which is for us
1:14:35 a form of polytheism by the way so what
1:14:37 we'll say is
1:14:39 there's two dalils two evidences which
1:14:41 you should acquaint yourself with
1:14:42 one of them is called which is mentioned
1:14:46 in chapter number 23 verse number 19
1:14:48 one i believe it's night one anyway it
1:14:50 could be 93 but allah he mentions
1:15:03 and he has not taken with him any god
1:15:06 if that had been the case they would
1:15:08 every single one of them would have
1:15:10 taken away what they had created and
1:15:12 that they would have tried to outstrip
1:15:13 one another
1:15:14 it makes no rational sense for them to
1:15:17 be more than one all-powerful
1:15:19 entity because if you say there's more
1:15:21 than one more powerful
1:15:22 then your they can't potentially cannot
1:15:25 be all powerful if they're not powerful
1:15:27 over the other one
1:15:29 simple as that you can't have more than
1:15:30 one more powerful you can't have one
1:15:32 supreme creator
1:15:33 and you can't have one supreme will
1:15:35 that's why allah says
1:15:37 you know
1:15:41 that had there been any gods other than
1:15:43 allah the heavens and the earth have
1:15:45 been destroyed
1:15:47 and so because you can't have one more
1:15:48 than one supreme will it's like driving
1:15:50 a car and you have two people driving
1:15:52 like where's the car gonna go it's gonna
1:15:54 go in different directions it's not
1:15:55 gonna be
1:15:56 the the uniformity of nature brings us
1:15:58 to the conclusion that you have one
1:16:00 supreme will
1:16:01 that's organizing all the things having
1:16:03 said that two uh
1:16:04 one argument which is tamannaah which is
1:16:06 the idea that you can't have one supreme
1:16:08 will power and uh creative capacity
1:16:12 you can't have more than one of those
1:16:14 and you can't have more than one
1:16:15 necessary existence if you want to add
1:16:17 that to that as well
1:16:18 right the second thing is when it comes
1:16:20 to pantheism especially and
1:16:24 then what breaks that is the deleted
1:16:26 keep or the argument from division
1:16:28 the idea that you can't have a form
1:16:30 which is generated
1:16:32 so which is made out of divisible parts
1:16:34 which can somehow
1:16:36 uh not be generated anything that is
1:16:38 made out of parts
1:16:39 is generated the universe is made out of
1:16:41 parts therefore the universe is
1:16:43 generated if you say that god belongs
1:16:45 within the universe
1:16:46 with his essence and he is generated as
1:16:48 well and that's
1:16:49 uh that would disprove the uh the idea
1:16:51 that version of god cannot exist
1:16:53 simple as that yeah
1:16:57 for your questions uh we're going to go
1:17:00 to brother
1:17:01 send you if your mic is working if not
1:17:04 then we'll go to someone else
1:17:10 send you are you there
1:17:14 we will go to brother yusuf
1:17:20 brother yusuf are you there
1:17:22 [Music]
1:17:26 can you hear me properly yes we can
1:17:30 okay how are you guys doing
1:17:32 alhamdulillah
1:17:33 how are you doing alhamdulillah um
1:17:36 i was just i wasn't actually planning on
1:17:39 asking anything specific but i was
1:17:42 i heard muhammad hijab you were talking
1:17:43 about the
1:17:45 the evil thing existing or non-existing
1:17:48 and the difference in the schools
1:17:52 etc so i
1:17:55 and i note down the book that you
1:17:57 mentioned for abner
1:17:59 i was just hoping if you can give me a
1:18:01 book for the ones that are talking about
1:18:03 an ashara al metro
1:18:04 in that issue this is a very interesting
1:18:07 subject
1:18:07 that i want to know more about yeah so
1:18:28 i remember him saying that very vividly
1:18:29 that this is not even if you like
1:18:31 it actually i'll tell you where he makes
1:18:33 he mentions this
1:18:36 he wrote a commentary on ibn cena's work
1:18:40 okay and he was surprised that he'd been
1:18:43 seen that
1:18:44 dealt with the problem of evil because
1:18:46 he said like the philosopher
1:18:48 are well known to work from first
1:18:49 principles and so far
1:18:51 he said like this is not even an issue
1:18:53 because it's not something which we can
1:18:54 prove or disprove from first principles
1:18:56 but he he did it in one of the hats of
1:18:59 even seen as
1:19:00 i i don't think it's because that
1:19:03 particular kitab has
1:19:05 uh even though i think i don't think
1:19:08 that's
1:19:08 particularly the one but uh we'll have
1:19:12 to check
1:19:12 which book for the where dean in
1:19:15 particular
1:19:16 um talks about that now other scholars
1:19:20 like
1:19:25 i think the most well developed theodicy
1:19:27 from a national perspective
1:19:29 so definitely check him out in terms of
1:19:32 uh
1:19:32 al-qaeda from the matasil school
1:19:36 he mentions this in his hamsa he
1:19:39 mentions this in his
1:19:40 hamsa uh he mentions this in his book
1:19:43 where he talks about the adal because
1:19:45 remember they believe in five things
1:19:46 there's five
1:19:48 like us all of them tesla uh school of
1:19:50 thought
1:19:51 and one of them is adil and obviously
1:19:52 that connects to
1:19:54 and he's also got another book which i
1:19:56 forget what the name of it is but it's
1:19:57 also mentioned
1:19:58 i can't remember but um it's another
1:20:01 book
1:20:01 which is also been published is one of
1:20:04 those things but
1:20:04 there's another one which i'm completely
1:20:06 forgetting for the sake of argument now
1:20:11 is the guy go to guy is
1:20:14 for the martesli movement he is the
1:20:16 representative he's the
1:20:18 living the one representation of
1:20:20 mortezalism which his works has have
1:20:22 remained
1:20:23 with us uh so we talked about yeah the
1:20:26 the maturity yeah so you you look at
1:20:29 someone like
1:20:30 ignore man or something like that he
1:20:32 spoke about kadalkata and scored written
1:20:34 books and stuff you know
1:20:35 that's why i would go bro like you know
1:20:37 and uh actually or for an english
1:20:39 resource
1:20:40 sherman jackson's written something
1:20:41 called black death
1:20:43 where she actually enumerates all of
1:20:44 these opinions in english language it's
1:20:46 pretty good book actually i'll start
1:20:47 with that
1:20:48 it's called black death or something
1:20:49 like that and he talks about the
1:20:51 sherman jackson he talks about all the
1:20:53 different schools i don't think he he
1:20:54 does a really good job with the
1:20:55 actualities and the thing
1:20:56 but he doesn't do as good a job in my
1:20:58 opinion of imitamia he does try and i
1:21:00 knew his opinion as well
1:21:04 but there was something that you
1:21:05 mentioned also about the
1:21:08 raping the child yes and how
1:21:12 i mean i would think that if if
1:21:15 presumably of course if allah said that
1:21:17 would be moral than it would be
1:21:19 yeah well this is the thing a lot in the
1:21:21 law
1:21:24 but then again wouldn't allah define
1:21:26 what a fascia
1:21:39 that's what it means that means they're
1:21:41 speaking in tautologies
1:21:42 that would make no sense so it would it
1:21:44 must mean that al-fatiha is something
1:21:46 out there
1:21:46 which allah yeah that's why
1:21:50 that's my conclusion of the ayah because
1:21:51 it will be trying to
1:21:53 say about it's like saying allah does
1:21:55 not command to that which she does not
1:21:57 command you
1:21:58 makes no sense does it yes
1:22:01 it does not yeah you're right have i
1:22:03 changed your mind on that
1:22:06 i'm a fair person i'd like to think so
1:22:08 you see this is the reason
1:22:10 [Laughter]
1:22:12 you see what comes with people's minds
1:22:14 as you come onto the show you get change
1:22:16 your mind
1:22:16 yeah i'm only kidding no no
1:22:20 no no i thought about this it was
1:22:22 something i was thinking about for some
1:22:23 time
1:22:24 i i think sorry and the martezilies are
1:22:28 more right than escalating
1:22:30 so then how would you define fascia
1:22:34 oh yeah it's things which are evil
1:22:38 basically
1:22:40 yeah how would you know how would you
1:22:42 know we have to look at dictionary
1:22:44 for if you wanted uh i can't remember
1:22:47 anything on the top of my head
1:22:48 no i didn't mean like a tariff of the
1:22:50 word but how would you know which is
1:22:52 bad bad and which is bad that you think
1:22:56 it's bad but it's not actually bad
1:22:59 no you don't know that a lot that's why
1:23:01 you've been telling me he answers this
1:23:02 question actually
1:23:03 because he they asked him about this
1:23:05 question and he mentioned this
1:23:08 he mentions this in one of his uh i
1:23:10 think the first two or three volumes or
1:23:12 something
1:23:13 they asked them how do you know if it's
1:23:14 fit three and you know these things
1:23:16 how do you why do you even need
1:23:17 revelation he said because socialization
1:23:19 is so strong
1:23:20 that you won't be able to differentiate
1:23:21 between that which is socialized
1:23:23 and that which you think you know from
1:23:25 instinct so this is a real problem and
1:23:27 that's why you always need and that's
1:23:28 what jay mackey wrote i i've found this
1:23:30 book i had
1:23:31 good good notes on it jay mackey
1:23:34 is is one of the major people of ethics
1:23:36 and at the end of his book he mentions
1:23:38 very good book yeah i think it's just
1:23:40 called
1:23:41 that the book is perfect at the end of
1:23:43 the book he said he's basically reading
1:23:45 something called error theory
1:23:46 and at the end of the book he says
1:23:48 basically uh he so basically does not
1:23:50 believe in objective morality
1:23:52 uh he is an atheist okay but he said
1:23:54 that the only
1:23:55 he he admits to the only way the
1:23:58 grounding problem can be solved
1:23:59 is through a god basically and he said
1:24:02 he said it would be
1:24:04 gratuitous this is the word he uses
1:24:06 right it will be gratuitous
1:24:07 for a theist to think that they can have
1:24:10 a list
1:24:11 of commandments okay which and he says
1:24:14 it's near the end of the book
1:24:15 that basically would outline what
1:24:17 morality is without
1:24:19 a revelation and i was very astounded by
1:24:21 him saying that because i found that
1:24:22 it's exactly true
1:24:23 in order for us to be guided we need the
1:24:25 guidance
1:24:26 okay and that's why we believe in allah
1:24:29 he is the all-knowing one he sends books
1:24:31 and it makes sense that he sends books
1:24:33 to outline to us in very clear
1:24:35 language what we need to do what we
1:24:37 can't do and that is the best way for us
1:24:39 to understand morality
1:24:41 even if things like seem on the face of
1:24:43 it
1:24:44 when i was young 13 14 and i was
1:24:46 starting to try getting into the deen
1:24:49 i had for the first time looked at
1:24:50 bukhari and muslim and read it and
1:24:52 thought
1:24:53 wow this is a bit unusual i'll be honest
1:24:54 with you that's what i was saying to
1:24:55 myself i read the quran for okay i
1:24:57 understand but when i started looking at
1:24:58 the hadith
1:24:59 i thought it was very unusual because i
1:25:01 was brought up in the west
1:25:03 you get it so when i saw spitting on
1:25:05 your left side and you know
1:25:07 eating the lizards and you know this
1:25:09 thing that you find in the hadith you
1:25:10 get what i'm trying to say
1:25:11 even though the prophet didn't eat the
1:25:12 lizard but he was presented with it and
1:25:14 food and this and nine wives at one time
1:25:16 and
1:25:16 all these calamba like i thought what's
1:25:18 this it's a bit unusual
1:25:20 but then you started realizing that i
1:25:22 asked myself the question and i remember
1:25:24 i was in egypt alexandria for the summer
1:25:26 holiday with my mom
1:25:28 and i was going through this bukhari
1:25:30 muslim and i asked myself a question
1:25:32 i said to myself why do i think this is
1:25:34 weird and i was 13 at the time and i
1:25:36 look back now
1:25:37 16 years later i think that was a good
1:25:39 question the reason why i think it's
1:25:40 weird because i was born and raised in a
1:25:42 certain time which that's
1:25:44 unusual to me so i have to now take if i
1:25:47 believe that these books are wahi from
1:25:49 allah
1:25:50 i have to now reassess my understanding
1:25:52 of weirdness aesthetic
1:25:54 aesthetically pleasing right and wrong
1:25:56 in line with this book
1:25:58 the fact that i find this way it means
1:26:00 that i'm weird basically i
1:26:01 came to that conclusion at a very young
1:26:03 age so socialization is a very strong
1:26:05 thing
1:26:06 okay and we have to be very weary of it
1:26:08 so in terms of
1:26:09 finding out what the moral reality is
1:26:12 from what is not
1:26:13 we can't do that we need revelation
1:26:17 interesting okay that was
1:26:20 my only question inshallah take care my
1:26:23 friend
1:26:23 you're regular
1:26:28 i forgot to tell you okay i'm sorry i i
1:26:32 always forget to
1:26:33 i always want to like practice it a bit
1:26:35 the language
1:26:39 is he's going to be doing his channels
1:26:41 in i think
1:26:44 well we need him to do it yeah i've
1:26:46 never been lazy
1:26:47 we needed to do it and we're trying to
1:26:49 get we have a lot of you know
1:26:50 pakistani dua and i believe that they're
1:26:53 they're not doing
1:26:54 uh what they need to be there i've just
1:26:56 started the naval channel i'm trying my
1:26:57 best to know
1:26:58 so now i can push people in that manner
1:27:00 i can push people in that manner
1:27:02 of course of course
1:27:07 i just had a quick small question mini
1:27:09 mini mini question
1:27:11 about the quran so i i'm right now i'm
1:27:13 studying
1:27:16 and uh i'm coming across
1:27:21 et cetera so uh i came across
1:27:24 it's just a question that i was
1:27:26 wondering i came across a difference of
1:27:27 opinion
1:27:28 regarding writing reference style
1:27:33 [Music]
1:27:48 yeah yeah yeah so there are two opinions
1:27:51 um
1:27:52 one opinion is by el nino where he says
1:27:56 that
1:27:57 cough or the the little in general
1:28:01 they're at their highest level of the
1:28:03 when they're after an
1:28:04 alif okay and then
1:28:08 there is another scholar who uh who is
1:28:11 before him
1:28:12 you mean
1:28:26 the the i meant the pronunciation of the
1:28:29 cough would be extremely
1:28:31 rather than it being after an effect
1:28:37 you get what i'm trying to say say that
1:28:38 against me if the cough had an
1:28:41 alif after it the pronunciation of the
1:28:44 kaf
1:28:45 not kolkafi is more mufacham
1:28:52 yeah if i had an alif after it but if
1:28:54 the
1:29:08 and the way to do not has preserved and
1:29:11 hack
1:29:11 and the prophecies themselves saying
1:29:16 shouldn't we know how properly how
1:29:20 these letters are being pronounced at
1:29:22 different what is
1:29:55 [Music]
1:29:58 the question is there are two different
1:30:00 things which are differences
1:30:02 okay there are what you call us li
1:30:04 differences
1:30:05 in the differences okay these are the
1:30:08 two particles of difference the lastly
1:30:10 differences
1:30:11 are the the differences in tattooid
1:30:13 rules like for example
1:30:15 you mentioned path okay is the kaf is it
1:30:33 yes i think that this is is this is uh
1:30:36 it's uh yes so you will say oh
1:30:41 like you put the you put the fat on the
1:30:44 heart
1:30:45 in one karat but the other
1:31:00 is
1:31:14 now the question is does this change the
1:31:16 meanings no the question is did the
1:31:18 prophet muhammad sallallahu
1:31:19 alaihi wasallam when he was reading the
1:31:22 quran okay when he was reading the quran
1:31:24 right
1:31:25 obviously he didn't read it in the book
1:31:26 when he read it did he
1:31:29 in every word of every page of the quran
1:31:33 implement every single one of those
1:31:36 differences
1:31:38 i say it's you could say that but it's
1:31:41 unreasonable to say that
1:31:43 what's more reasonable to say is that
1:31:44 it's maki so the prophet muhammed
1:31:47 in in one chapter of the quran right he
1:31:50 could have implemented
1:31:53 and so for the heart and maybe he didn't
1:31:55 so there's two principles we have in
1:31:57 place you can
1:31:58 sometimes implement the for the heart
1:32:00 and you don't implement that
1:32:02 now it's all the prophet had to do is it
1:32:06 he had to do it one time for there to be
1:32:08 a class on it
1:32:09 so in other words the
1:32:12 which is tajweed
1:32:15 they only need to be said once like for
1:32:18 example
1:32:19 like the email at of uh for example
1:32:22 watch or whatever or the
1:32:23 met battle of six rather than four oh
1:32:26 uh which is four or six points it says
1:32:29 six halacat
1:32:30 all of those things the prophet didn't
1:32:31 have to read the whole quran with them
1:32:33 it's a big it could be a misconception
1:32:36 it's not against the preservation quran
1:32:38 narrative to say
1:32:39 that the prophet muhammad all he had to
1:32:41 do is that one time he didn't need to
1:32:42 read
1:32:43 with the rules of tajweed according to
1:32:45 all
1:32:46 of the art in one way throughout from
1:32:49 fatihatis all he had to do
1:32:51 was demonstrate that you can do x with
1:32:53 heart and y with
1:32:54 heart and then and then one card it will
1:32:56 it will do
1:32:57 choose one way to do it and be
1:32:58 consistent with it and the other card it
1:33:00 will choose another way and be
1:33:01 consistent with it
1:33:02 so long as it has precedent from the
1:33:04 prophet muhammed
1:33:06 that's how they worked that's how they
1:33:07 work that's why you'll find that the
1:33:09 tajweed rules in usual i can be
1:33:11 different
1:33:12 but it doesn't mean that because someone
1:33:13 will say what did the prophet really
1:33:14 start from fattah hatunas
1:33:16 doing this and doing that and allah and
1:33:19 this and
1:33:20 the no we're not saying that
1:33:23 he only had to do it once like that for
1:33:25 each of the variations and then
1:33:27 cast then there's some sort of the card
1:33:30 he can choose whatever he likes to do
1:33:32 and there's nothing wrong with that
1:33:33 because it doesn't even change the
1:33:33 meaning
1:33:34 as now so we said there's two categories
1:33:36 there's also and then there's
1:33:38 um the the fashion
1:33:41 is where you do find difference of a
1:33:43 difference of meanings so to integrate
1:33:45 and
1:33:46 and in in in dots in in
1:33:58 there's only 600 of them okay there's
1:34:00 only 600 of such
1:34:02 words which there's difference okay 600
1:34:04 the quran is made up of 77 000 words
1:34:07 77 000 words now how reasonable is it or
1:34:11 unreasonable
1:34:12 to say in 600 of those instances the
1:34:14 prophet muhammad gave you
1:34:16 two ways of saying it according to
1:34:17 jibril and according to that i think
1:34:19 that's very reasonable
1:34:20 so the real issue is not with that the
1:34:23 issue is with the
1:34:24 uh or with the the things which change
1:34:27 the meaning
1:34:28 and with that there's only 600 such
1:34:30 examples of 77 000. now if someone has a
1:34:32 calculator
1:34:33 they'll do 600 divided by 77 000 times
1:34:35 100
1:34:36 and you'll get less than one percent so
1:34:38 we're talking about is
1:34:39 why is it such a monster for people to
1:34:41 think well the prophet can say
1:34:44 in in this whole quran of 77 000 words
1:34:46 and whether i get this number of 600
1:34:48 the 600 number comes from uh who wrote
1:34:51 the
1:34:52 muslim scholarly authority right
1:34:56 a huge quality authority it's and i
1:34:58 actually put this to one of the
1:34:59 non-muslim
1:35:00 things and they said the same thing said
1:35:01 yeah it's true it's about 600. so what
1:35:03 we're talking about here
1:35:04 why is it they're using this is the new
1:35:06 this is the new ploy of these pathetic
1:35:08 people
1:35:08 that are using 600 words which are found
1:35:12 across 10 karat as evidence the quran
1:35:15 has not been preserved
1:35:16 why is that evidence that the quran has
1:35:17 not been preserved it has no evidence at
1:35:19 all
1:35:20 because we have a hadith of the prophet
1:35:22 saying
1:35:24 it came down like that and i came now
1:35:25 malik and malik is a very prominent
1:35:27 example
1:35:28 why can't we not think why is it so
1:35:29 difficult to believe
1:35:31 that there are 600 of these examples of
1:35:33 american medic in the quran
1:35:35 and it wasn't haphazard it's not it's
1:35:38 not it's not it's not difficult to
1:35:39 believe that at all
1:35:40 sorry i don't find it difficult at all
1:35:43 and if you do find it difficult i think
1:35:44 that's the problem is with you not
1:35:46 with the quran or with the quran with
1:35:48 any of those things so
1:35:50 they say it's unreasonable that all the
1:35:52 usual and all the tajweed rules that the
1:35:54 prophet said
1:35:54 in all these different ways we say
1:35:55 you're right it is unreasonable but he
1:35:57 didn't have to do that
1:35:58 he just had to do it one time in one
1:35:59 page and once
1:36:02 more alhamdulillah and then there's
1:36:04 pierce that's done on it and the rest
1:36:06 with the
1:36:06 with the fool that the ferocious is very
1:36:07 small anyways the differences are six
1:36:09 hundred number
1:36:10 of seventy seven thousand times that are
1:36:11 divided by each other and then times up
1:36:13 by a hundred you'll see that it's less
1:36:16 all right we're coming too close to
1:36:17 twelve o'clock so i think we need to
1:36:19 yeah we'll have one let's see yeah no
1:36:22 problem
1:36:22 all
1:36:44 can you speak now
1:36:50 okay we can't hear the aim
1:36:54 we'll go to bro
1:36:57 hello hello
1:37:03 with youtube and that's why that's why
1:37:06 there's an echo
1:37:07 can you hear me yeah
1:37:10 what's the problem right oh sorry uh
1:37:13 i'll turn that fan off how can i turn
1:37:15 the echo off
1:37:17 this off now all right so first i want
1:37:20 to say uh
1:37:21 like um muhammad hijab i've read your
1:37:23 book it's blowing my mind
1:37:26 um it's the one about metaphysics like
1:37:31 yeah i read it and it's blowing my mind
1:37:34 it's made me think about things
1:37:36 then we look at things a lot differently
1:37:38 um i talked about maths
1:37:40 and it just it's really it brings the
1:37:43 whole argument of like um
1:37:45 this it makes the whole atheist argument
1:37:48 very very hollow
1:37:49 uh wouldn't you bring metaphysics in
1:37:51 because you can't really deny
1:37:52 metaphysics
1:37:54 um that's not the question and i'll try
1:37:56 to be quick because i think there's all
1:37:58 people waiting and
1:37:58 yeah and i've just got one question i
1:38:01 would say
1:38:02 a muslim this question i have it doesn't
1:38:04 really discount islam as a whole it
1:38:06 doesn't it doesn't discard monetization
1:38:07 but it's really weird
1:38:09 it's made me it's made me like feel
1:38:12 weird about it
1:38:13 um so this is i was really reading
1:38:15 hadith randomly
1:38:16 uh i was in surah bakari and i come
1:38:19 across a hadith
1:38:20 about aisha and she said something like
1:38:23 to prophet muhammad
1:38:25 is like why do trees are dogs or camels
1:38:30 it pertains towards it reading mars and
1:38:32 how
1:38:33 how he says basically if a woman touches
1:38:35 your dog touches you or camel touches
1:38:36 you
1:38:37 invalidates it in my head
1:38:40 how rationalized this it's like maybe
1:38:42 she says it's immature because
1:38:44 how can she say this about the prophet
1:38:46 muhammed's versus dogs
1:38:48 and because i've seen that she's but
1:38:50 temperamental as well
1:38:52 is this a genuine hadith why would she
1:38:55 why would she accuse the prophet
1:39:15 you know if if one of three entities
1:39:18 comes in front of you
1:39:20 uh what can we get the actual hadith i
1:39:22 don't wanna i don't know
1:39:23 quote it so with the
1:39:38 in terms of this hadith how they have
1:39:42 they interpreted it
1:39:43 so the hamburgers know that about it so
1:39:45 before you go to interpretation yeah
1:39:47 just give it all right so
1:39:48 sorry i apologize now in terms of hadees
1:39:51 do you want to get the have you thought
1:39:52 what does it say
1:40:06 prayer of the person is invalidated the
1:40:10 three things go in front of it
1:40:11 uh or not i mean this is the question is
1:40:13 it invalidated right
1:40:16 so it cuts the prayer of the muslim or
1:40:19 three things come in front of it
1:40:20 the
1:40:25 which is a woman and and the donkey and
1:40:27 the black dog
1:40:28 now they say well that actually came
1:40:30 along
1:40:31 like you know what you put me in the
1:40:33 same characters um which obviously
1:40:36 uh is not the case in the sense that
1:40:38 well in terms of value right we know
1:40:39 that
1:40:40 men and women are actually the same in
1:40:42 terms of value in islam
1:40:44 however how did this be how was this
1:40:47 hadith interpreted does it mean yakita
1:40:49 salat
1:40:50 meaning that their prayer is invalidated
1:40:52 there are two opinions in islam one
1:40:53 opinion says yes because that's the
1:40:55 vahrehvah
1:40:56 and the other opinion says no it's not
1:40:58 invalidated because
1:41:01 does not mean invalidation that's the
1:41:02 opinion of the hamburly school now why
1:41:04 these three things why is three entities
1:41:06 in particular
1:41:07 is it because that uh all of them are
1:41:09 the same in terms of uh
1:41:11 worth absolutely not it just is the
1:41:13 three most distracting things you can
1:41:15 imagine
1:41:15 if you want to bring a heckman on this
1:41:17 if you are praying and some
1:41:19 woman comes right in front of you okay a
1:41:22 physiological impulse from a man would
1:41:23 be to be distracted by that and
1:41:25 the distraction might be as such that it
1:41:27 could actually uh
1:41:29 kind of bring you out of what you
1:41:30 started doing in the first place
1:41:32 now if someone will say well that's the
1:41:34 case why isn't it the case that for a
1:41:35 woman
1:41:36 that the man uh would break the salah
1:41:40 we say that the fact first of all the
1:41:42 fact that it breaks the salah in the in
1:41:44 the sense that it invalidates it is no
1:41:46 consensus among the muslims as we've
1:41:48 discussed
1:41:49 in the method it would not break the
1:41:51 salah the second thing is
1:41:54 there is an assumption in islam and i
1:41:55 think there's a very clear assumption
1:41:57 that there are different physiological
1:41:59 responses
1:42:00 for men and women in different
1:42:03 situations whether it's a murder
1:42:05 situation
1:42:06 whether it's uh even writing things down
1:42:08 even to anything
1:42:10 where requires witness testimony there's
1:42:12 lots of physiological impulses which are
1:42:13 different to women and men
1:42:15 now we have to be comfortable with the
1:42:16 fact that islam
1:42:18 says that equality in value between men
1:42:22 and women does not mean identicality in
1:42:24 roles
1:42:24 that's just the the assumption of the
1:42:26 second word feminism we can't run with
1:42:27 that
1:42:28 now and she said shabbat night
1:42:32 knowing full well right it was kind of
1:42:34 like a facetious statement
1:42:35 knowing full well that it's not tessuya
1:42:37 in the sense of value or
1:42:39 leveling and equal
1:42:43 she's saying that what like you know
1:42:44 you've mentioned all these three things
1:42:45 in one go
1:42:46 meaning that we're put in the same
1:42:48 category as them as the
1:42:50 donkey and the black dog these are
1:42:52 things which distract people in the
1:42:54 prayer a woman
1:42:55 i would for me personally quite frankly
1:42:56 for me a woman would distract me more
1:42:58 than a black dog
1:42:59 you know or um the donkey
1:43:02 you see because if a donkey came in
1:43:04 front of me with black talking from me
1:43:06 yeah the black dog is associated with
1:43:07 gin and stuff like you don't want to be
1:43:08 there
1:43:09 but moreover that's first part of the
1:43:10 second part of the answer is even a man
1:43:12 can
1:43:13 you know this is what there is so we
1:43:15 said about a woman
1:43:16 but even a man can have as is like that
1:43:18 as well because
1:43:19 if you put a sutra if you put a sutra
1:43:22 which is like a
1:43:23 spear-like object okay you put that in
1:43:25 front of the person and a man goes in
1:43:26 front of it it's actually hadith says
1:43:28 you can push the man
1:43:29 there's no such hadith about that for a
1:43:31 woman because the man is coming in front
1:43:33 of you can push him push him away
1:43:35 because he's like the devil it's like
1:43:36 why would he be interrupting your prayer
1:43:38 so it's not specific to women about
1:43:41 coming in front of them and they invited
1:43:42 this is that
1:43:43 coming in front of them is different to
1:43:44 coming between them and the sutra
1:43:46 where the man comes in between the sutra
1:43:48 you can actually push them away now i'm
1:43:50 saying that
1:43:51 so it's not a matter of it's amount of
1:43:52 distraction a woman poses a huge
1:43:55 distraction from a man
1:43:56 you know these kind of things man to be
1:43:57 honest you know they do social
1:43:59 experiments i was watching one minute i
1:44:00 was 16 years old
1:44:02 you know and there was a woman in the
1:44:03 street and stuff and they and they
1:44:04 tracked the eyes of the guy like how he
1:44:06 looks oh yeah yeah
1:44:07 well these things are there bro like
1:44:08 it's there's even cognitive
1:44:10 where they look and yeah where they look
1:44:11 is like the distraction that women calls
1:44:13 for men
1:44:14 is completely different on on an
1:44:17 impulsive level on a physiological level
1:44:20 than the opposite and that is just the
1:44:21 reality of the situation
1:44:23 you know and so yes there are these
1:44:25 kinds of rules but as i say
1:44:27 there's not like there's no rules for
1:44:28 men in fact being uh coming in front of
1:44:30 the sutra rules and yes we don't agree
1:44:33 that there's everything that is uh for
1:44:34 men is for women
1:44:35 and furthermore the level that the
1:44:37 hamburglar is
1:44:38 i know i don't know much about the other
1:44:39 schools but the humble is certainly
1:44:41 don't see it as an invalidation of the
1:44:42 prayer
1:44:43 they just see it as uh whatever it is
1:44:46 it's nux in the
1:44:47 or deficiency in the reward that you
1:44:49 you'd get in that player
1:44:50 hope that answer the question bro thank
1:44:53 you so much for the answer hijab um
1:44:55 lastly i want to say to sabah thank you
1:44:57 so much for your like campaign for the
1:44:59 yoga like stuff
1:45:01 you're on the front line and i honestly
1:45:02 really really appreciate it because like
1:45:04 you're fully focused on it and it's hard
1:45:06 to see anyone like
1:45:08 china worry about it
1:45:12 because everyone sketched up everyone's
1:45:14 sketch talk about china and i really
1:45:16 appreciate it lastly
1:45:17 uh senju has been trying to send a
1:45:19 question in for the past hour
1:45:21 yeah in text every single time i'm
1:45:24 trying to get
1:45:25 time i'm trying to get his mic doesn't
1:45:28 work
1:45:28 apparently his mic doesn't work he says
1:45:31 uh i'll check i'll read the question off
1:45:32 for him if he has it here
1:45:34 sure because i think he's been here for
1:45:36 an hour um sanji if you can hear this
1:45:38 can you like post a
1:45:39 question yeah i'll go into the
1:45:43 i'll go into the private chat
1:45:47 okay thank you cheers
1:45:52 thank you bring that with the arab guy
1:45:54 man we've got some arab dogs
1:45:56 with
1:46:11 it's cool assalamu alaikum welcome to
1:46:14 sapiens life
1:46:22 yes i'm asking you to advise me to go
1:46:25 and
1:46:25 reading my study my course and in the
1:46:28 university
1:46:30 say that again sorry
1:46:33 i'm discovering the as a speaker
1:46:35 chronodama before like
1:46:37 two months ago and i'm addicted to
1:46:40 following this channel
1:46:44 so can you advise me to stop doing that
1:46:49 so you want advice on what to study at
1:46:52 university
1:46:54 yes yeah you studied in the past what
1:46:57 are you good at
1:46:58 but where'd you live sorry
1:47:01 in jordan okay and what did you do turn
1:47:04 away i'm mother
1:47:08 mother did you do secondary school there
1:47:12 i'm not understand what you are no i'm
1:47:15 not
1:47:16 anyway do you not call it that no no no
1:47:18 i'm not
1:47:19 i'm at the university okay what are you
1:47:21 doing university
1:47:23 i'm studying english and german uh
1:47:26 language
1:47:27 okay very nice now what do you so you're
1:47:29 already in university so what
1:47:31 what's the what's the question what
1:47:32 you're talking about master's degree
1:47:34 what you want to do like
1:47:36 um baccalaureate yes yeah well you're
1:47:39 already enrolled in a club in this
1:47:40 course
1:47:41 so what do you want to do you want to
1:47:43 you want to do something more
1:47:45 like after you finish your bachelor uh
1:47:47 bachelors no no
1:47:48 no i would like to study master
1:47:52 see again sorry i wouldn't like to study
1:47:55 master no no no when you finished your
1:47:58 degree in german and yeah
1:48:01 in english would you want to do is like
1:48:03 kenny would you want to do a majesty
1:48:05 what do you want to do i want to
1:48:10 to search about a job job
1:48:14 yes i'm sure and since
1:48:18 jordan they have some they have some
1:48:21 organizations that can help you with
1:48:22 this
1:48:24 like why i can ask you a question now
1:48:26 why job when you are you not thinking of
1:48:28 having a family something like that is
1:48:30 that something you're thinking about
1:48:31 yourself
1:48:33 it's difficult to find some like
1:48:35 suitable one
1:48:37 yeah but jordan is filled with a little
1:48:39 higher
1:48:40 and very good yes yeah
1:48:44 because okay
1:48:47 let me give you since you've come on
1:48:49 like maybe you're looking for some
1:48:50 advice
1:48:51 i want to give you my advice hold you
1:48:52 like 22 or something like 21 i don't
1:48:54 know
1:48:54 look you've got to be careful of
1:48:56 something yeah
1:48:58 you could be careful of entering the
1:49:01 workplace
1:49:02 with the feeling that this is going to
1:49:04 be a substitute for a family
1:49:06 let me tell you something the one of the
1:49:07 biggest studies that has ever been done
1:49:10 in psychology okay
1:49:14 was a study that was done between the
1:49:16 years of 1970 and 2000 i think or 1990
1:49:20 and it was a study by someone called
1:49:21 oswalt okay
1:49:23 and you can find this online and
1:49:25 basically in the years which
1:49:27 corresponded with
1:49:28 when the feminist movement became very
1:49:30 powerful the
1:49:32 immediate after effect where women were
1:49:34 getting more money now because they were
1:49:36 working and something like that
1:49:37 it corresponded perfectly and exactly
1:49:40 with the time where they were
1:49:41 less the least happy in their life and
1:49:44 according to the study
1:49:46 their their happiness went down almost
1:49:49 in commensurate
1:49:51 uh or mirrored way to how men's
1:49:54 happiness went up
1:49:55 men were happy not committing men were
1:49:57 happy that the woman is paying more for
1:49:58 his
1:49:59 wallet is getting bigger and so on their
1:50:01 resource extraction as they call it you
1:50:03 know those people red pills and so on
1:50:05 that was not happening so what we need
1:50:08 to understand
1:50:09 is if you decide to go into the world of
1:50:11 work
1:50:12 okay and you somehow prioritize that
1:50:16 over some things which you will find
1:50:18 natural
1:50:19 let me just put it in that sense then
1:50:21 what will happen is that according to
1:50:23 can you repeat the few words that you
1:50:26 say because i'm not
1:50:27 understand
1:50:30 if you're going to work and you start
1:50:33 okay
1:50:34 then what will happen is when you reach
1:50:36 your 30s
1:50:38 yeah you're very likely to be in a state
1:50:41 of depression
1:50:42 okay if you sacrifice what could have
1:50:45 been a healthy
1:50:46 happy family life according to the data
1:50:48 that we have
1:50:49 i'm not saying this as from my opinion
1:50:51 no this is according to the deck
1:50:52 that we have i'm not against the the
1:50:56 the the family idea but yes uh
1:50:59 there's the like i don't know how can
1:51:02 i explain it let me tell you something
1:51:04 interesting maha yeah
1:51:06 yeah one of the prominent feminists i
1:51:09 was reading something recently
1:51:11 she came out she was one of the top
1:51:13 feminists
1:51:15 yeah she's in the city and what happened
1:51:18 is
1:51:19 uh she was talking about actually the
1:51:21 same thing though you know being a
1:51:22 housewife as a slave and all this yeah
1:51:25 and what happened to her is she
1:51:28 she said something so powerful in a book
1:51:31 that she wrote called the whole woman
1:51:32 you know what she said she goes i mourn
1:51:35 for my unborn children
1:51:37 which means
1:51:43 that i because she never wanted to have
1:51:45 kids
1:51:47 yeah so she's mourning for the fact that
1:51:48 she never had kids because she was
1:51:50 attacking
1:51:51 the housewives she was attacking the
1:51:52 mother so she had a change of
1:51:54 and then you know what she said as well
1:51:56 maha and this is the shahid milk
1:51:58 in her book the whole woman you know she
1:52:00 said she had milk
1:52:02 that she said that we have to now start
1:52:04 looking at
1:52:05 full-time mothers as a career option
1:52:08 as a career option people realize that
1:52:11 late childhood
1:52:11 look at her she's she was the one of the
1:52:14 founding mothers of the feminist
1:52:15 movement
1:52:16 she came like what 20 30 years later
1:52:18 after saying all this stuff
1:52:20 and she said no actually we have to
1:52:21 start looking at here
1:52:23 we have to start looking at a mother and
1:52:25 the housewife as a full-time career
1:52:27 option
1:52:28 this among many different examples of
1:52:30 like you know this betty friedan
1:52:32 who wrote the feminine mystique she
1:52:33 wrote another book by the way people
1:52:34 don't know about it
1:52:35 and it's called the second stage and in
1:52:37 that book she was saying that
1:52:39 you know she was saying that the whole
1:52:40 comfortable concentration camp
1:52:43 yeah the the the home the home is a
1:52:47 you know uh comfortable comfortable
1:52:49 concentration she said this was
1:52:51 extremist
1:52:51 she said i think it was a bit extreme
1:52:53 and she realized that because women were
1:52:55 following her advice they were becoming
1:52:56 more sad she wrote that herself
1:52:58 she realized that because women you know
1:53:00 they were they had so much pressure on
1:53:02 them to go into
1:53:03 amel work and so on it's like cute right
1:53:06 now i have to do amman i have to do work
1:53:08 you don't have to do any of that to be
1:53:10 honest with you maha you don't have to
1:53:11 do you can do it
1:53:12 as much as you want to do you can do
1:53:14 part-time work you don't have big money
1:53:16 that's not really your responsibility
1:53:17 you can get somewhere else a man to do
1:53:18 it let him do it
1:53:20 why did you have to do this you can do
1:53:21 talaba
1:53:23 yeah and raising and teaching them
1:53:25 rather than
1:53:26 the khalas that you become the man yeah
1:53:28 and you have a double burden
1:53:30 you have to get the money and this and
1:53:32 that and also you have to be the woman
1:53:34 and i and why all of this
1:53:37 why all of this is this enough is enough
1:53:39 for the woman she has a lot of ayani
1:53:41 work on her hands anyway so i would say
1:53:44 don't get addicted to the world of work
1:53:46 your sounds is not clear no yeah if you
1:53:49 get into this stuff
1:53:50 believe me when you're in yourself
1:53:51 believe me it's like this stats are like
1:53:54 70
1:53:54 you will be uh really upset and and
1:53:57 you'll you'll feel sad and all of these
1:53:58 women
1:53:59 that are spearheading the feminist
1:54:01 movement to some extent or another
1:54:02 they've admitted that they were wrong to
1:54:04 some extent or another so i'm saying
1:54:05 that why fall into the traps
1:54:07 of alma alberta you know the white woman
1:54:10 who's tried this already and she failed
1:54:12 so you need to
1:54:13 you know they say being clever being
1:54:16 thaki
1:54:17 being clever and
1:54:20 that's
1:54:34 the biggest studies that have been done
1:54:37 in the west
1:54:38 yeah with hundred thousand women being
1:54:40 asked in britain america
1:54:42 they are not happy with this whole world
1:54:43 of work thing don't think about work
1:54:45 think about family and if you don't have
1:54:47 kids then look after your mom and dad
1:54:50 that will give you more satisfaction
1:54:51 happiness and things in your life than
1:54:53 anywhere
1:54:53 any work any employer that you can get
1:54:55 in jordan or any other
1:54:56 country in the middle east or anywhere
1:54:57 else i'm really i'm not
1:55:00 i'm agree with you but i mean that uh
1:55:04 i'm i'm some like um
1:55:07 against the the society the society
1:55:10 moral in this
1:55:11 uh subject in my society
1:55:15 i don't understand just tell me
1:55:31 exactly what is the way that the society
1:55:33 looks at the way
1:55:35 the way that they are dealing with the
1:55:38 with the marriage and to choose the
1:55:41 the correct wife or the correct husband
1:55:46 i hate it really i i look i don't know
1:55:51 i don't know i don't know i'm sure
1:55:54 there's some people that do the wrong
1:55:55 things and i'm sure that some people
1:55:56 do the right things you just need to it
1:55:58 doesn't matter if you if
1:56:00 if some things are not perfect you don't
1:56:03 need to make it perfect just like the
1:56:05 dunya is not perfect
1:56:06 just your priority should be at this
1:56:08 point finish your education
1:56:10 if you want to do a little bit work here
1:56:11 and then home but don't make that your
1:56:13 life to understand because you are in
1:56:14 your 20s now
1:56:15 if you do that and you fall into the
1:56:18 trap of the mother
1:56:20 you are not the white woman you are
1:56:21 going to suffer the same problems as she
1:56:23 suffered
1:56:25 simple as that you go that's what i have
1:56:28 to say
1:56:28 you will get more pleasure raising
1:56:30 children than you can ever get
1:56:32 being in a bank or selling this or doing
1:56:34 that or whatever it is you decide to do
1:56:36 i can promise you that i'll have i have
1:56:37 that i can translate something
1:56:39 yeah in the future inshallah
1:56:53 that a child is upright that does die
1:56:55 for him you know
1:56:58 that which is continuous
1:57:04 beneficial knowledge that the people
1:57:06 benefit from
1:57:07 so we have to build that
1:57:20 i've read your comment that you posted
1:57:24 an article muhammad the job's evidence
1:57:25 is for the truth of islam on an app
1:57:27 called amino
1:57:28 in philosophy amino is a community of
1:57:31 many other communities an atheist made a
1:57:33 critique of your article
1:57:34 i want you to respond back to it it's a
1:57:36 blog he made on philosophy amino
1:57:39 if you could email um or even come on
1:57:42 and
1:57:42 tell me what they are no but he had a
1:57:44 mic problem yeah he's the one
1:57:46 yeah so infosapienceinstitute.org if you
1:57:49 can email and that will
1:57:50 come through to hijab inshallah and then
1:57:52 he can look at that
1:57:54 and we'll go with our last guest which
1:57:56 is brother
1:57:57 daniel salakum was a big
1:58:00 big fan uh hope you're doing well uh
1:58:03 i have a question i have a question in
1:58:06 regards to the attributes of allah and
1:58:08 i was asked it a while back by i think a
1:58:11 christian
1:58:12 and it's that uh can it's like to do
1:58:15 with can the attributes of allah be
1:58:16 limited to the
1:58:17 presence of the creation by necessity
1:58:20 and the example he gave was
1:58:21 prior to creation if allah was ever
1:58:23 allah if allah was ever alone
1:58:26 why would there be a need for the mercy
1:58:29 like the infinite mercy or the other
1:58:30 forgivingness that
1:58:31 of allah and i i guess like in between
1:58:34 especially the question is the
1:58:35 is the need for the attribute a
1:58:37 determiner and is the attribute
1:58:39 ever present in allah so the answer is
1:58:42 no the need for the abstract the
1:58:43 so-called need for the attribute is
1:58:45 actually the wrong wording because
1:58:46 allah does not need anything right but
1:58:48 it's not that allah he addresses that
1:58:50 he's facing what's
1:58:51 out there that allah is and everything
1:58:54 will follow
1:58:55 right right so there is a very famous
1:58:57 but he's kind of allah
1:59:00 you know what kind of there's two
1:59:02 there's two readings
1:59:03 one is like allah existed and there was
1:59:06 nothing with him
1:59:07 and there's one additional uh part of
1:59:10 the hadith who says
1:59:11 and that his arasho is thrown on the
1:59:13 water which would indicate that there
1:59:14 was something there right
1:59:16 so that's why the scholars have
1:59:17 different words allah ever alone in that
1:59:18 sense
1:59:19 but anyway the point is it's irrelevant
1:59:22 because if you get someone who is all
1:59:24 loving a very loving person he loves his
1:59:25 children so you put him in a desert
1:59:26 island
1:59:28 the end of the day allah does not need
1:59:31 to to
1:59:31 exercise the action in order to have it
1:59:33 and that is a logical quantity to think
1:59:36 that you need to be exercising something
1:59:38 in order to have it
1:59:40 that is full of good and there's nothing
1:59:42 to presuppose that and the christians
1:59:44 will come and say well
1:59:45 that's why um the trinity makes sense
1:59:47 because love
1:59:48 needed to be a thing to be manifested to
1:59:52 someone so that the bodies of the
1:59:53 trinity are also on each other
1:59:55 so okay well do you believe that a
1:59:56 creation acts 9 or they say yes we
1:59:58 believe
1:59:58 most of them do believe in krishna
2:00:00 meaning they believe that there was a
2:00:01 point
2:00:02 where the creation was as well allah was
2:00:03 creating what about forgiveness
2:00:05 whether human beings always there that
2:00:07 needs his forgiveness no
2:00:08 so what about forgiveness there's so
2:00:10 many examples like that criticisms
2:00:11 cannot answer those
2:00:12 so they are selected in choosing which
2:00:14 attributes they think
2:00:16 need to be manifested based on the
2:00:18 attribute based on the situation
2:00:19 but then once again they're not they're
2:00:21 not applying that to all the actual
2:00:23 we're saying therefore you know i'm so
2:00:25 sure that it's not the case that allah
2:00:27 is not some evolutionary theory that
2:00:29 allah only he only has attributes to the
2:00:32 need of the
2:00:33 environment around him that's that's
2:00:35 such like an absolutely morphistic way
2:00:37 of thinking about it like this is like
2:00:38 whatever it says they made allah the
2:00:42 the the the branch and they made
2:00:44 themselves they made themselves
2:00:47 so it's like the reasoning backwards
2:00:48 from the creation and they think that
2:00:50 whatever
2:00:51 is applicable to there's nothing and
2:00:54 there's nothing
2:00:55 in in monty in logic
2:00:58 that'll make us think that yeah thank
2:01:01 you very much
2:01:01 i appreciate the answer brother
2:01:05 bless you thank you for joining us on
2:01:08 sapience institute live
2:01:12 okay so we're gonna come to an end now
2:01:14 uh anybody who
2:01:16 we didn't invite we really do apologize
2:01:19 a lot of people were trying to join and
2:01:20 obviously
2:01:24 last person okay there you go okay
2:01:33 we added you as the additional guest
2:01:42 regarding the absurdity of the infinite
2:01:45 regress
2:01:46 and i was like um like how do we know
2:01:48 that infinite regress is absurd like um
2:01:50 especially in light of things like like
2:01:52 the xenos paradoxes and like
2:01:54 um so how do we how do we justify
2:01:57 that infinite regress is something that
2:02:00 is absurd
2:02:06 are you aware of the standard way that
2:02:09 the absurdity of
2:02:11 the infinite regress is explained
2:02:14 yeah can i state it so it's basically
2:02:17 that
2:02:17 so for instance just in the case of um
2:02:23 okay um basically
2:02:27 so for instance in the case of length
2:02:28 length has to be made up of discrete
2:02:30 indivisible chunks because otherwise we
2:02:31 have infinitely many infinitesimal
2:02:33 chunks
2:02:34 and that would add up to literally
2:02:36 nothing because each chunk is zero
2:02:38 and this is in a similar way right is
2:02:41 this correct
2:02:43 we usually use the example in terms of
2:02:45 the first cause
2:02:46 and a series of causes going back
2:02:49 forever would mean that the effect today
2:02:52 was not
2:02:52 true um so in in terms of
2:02:56 a discrete length
2:02:59 which is being cut off in into infinite
2:03:01 amount of
2:03:02 uh units where i i usually don't use
2:03:06 that i just use
2:03:07 a infinite regress of causes uh and um
2:03:11 you know this is actually something
2:03:13 which even
2:03:14 in the god delusion interestingly enough
2:03:17 uh
2:03:18 you know richard dawkins talks about
2:03:19 this first cause which is
2:03:21 you know there can't be an infinite
2:03:22 regress and you know okay what is the
2:03:24 first cause going to be so whether
2:03:25 you're an atheist or a theist
2:03:27 the idea that there is a primary first
2:03:30 cause because of the absurdity of
2:03:33 infinite regress
2:03:35 being real um is something which
2:03:38 usually is not challenged so i'm not
2:03:40 sure um
2:03:42 you know so the thing is like you
2:03:45 you can't have so if you're moving like
2:03:48 from point a to point b
2:03:49 you can you can you have like infinitely
2:03:51 many points before that but the motion
2:03:53 is possible so in a similar way can't
2:03:54 that happen
2:03:55 like backwards we need to differentiate
2:03:58 between an infinite regress of causation
2:04:00 and an infinite regress in general okay
2:04:04 now my personal opinion is that the
2:04:07 infinite
2:04:08 the infinity in the past is not
2:04:10 something which is
2:04:11 uh necessarily absurd in that sense it's
2:04:13 not it's actually conceivable right
2:04:15 so for example you're talking about the
2:04:17 infinite now amount of lines between
2:04:19 this point and this point
2:04:21 that's something which is conceivable
2:04:22 there's uh you know there's infinite
2:04:24 amount of lines and that's where it's
2:04:25 material infinity right
2:04:27 and people that kind of made arguments
2:04:30 for god's existence many of them
2:04:32 were eternalists and being eternalist
2:04:34 means you believed that there was an
2:04:35 infinite amount of time that pre-existed
2:04:38 like avicenna was the nutella
2:04:40 uh my understanding also aristotle was
2:04:42 that so i have to double check his books
2:04:44 to physics and the metaphysics
2:04:46 but um i mean funny enough even tamiya
2:04:48 in a sense he believed that
2:04:50 what he called which is basically
2:04:54 like things existed one after you're
2:04:55 perpetually up until
2:04:57 no point so they all all of these
2:05:00 eternalists
2:05:01 they differentiate very clearly
2:05:03 concisely between
2:05:05 an infinite regress of say time infinite
2:05:08 regress of things whatever those things
2:05:09 may be
2:05:10 and on the other hand an infinite
2:05:11 regress of causation
2:05:13 now what is absurd is the infinite
2:05:16 rigors of causation okay
2:05:18 that's where you have viciousness they
2:05:20 refer to this as viciousness
2:05:21 okay we're not talking about an infinite
2:05:24 regress of time
2:05:26 or things that's not what we are talking
2:05:28 about
2:05:29 we can make arguments like al ghazali
2:05:31 has made like
2:05:32 famously like the hilbert experiment and
2:05:36 we can make hugger but for me i prefer
2:05:39 to
2:05:39 sidestep those arguments i don't care
2:05:41 about this argument me personally i find
2:05:44 the strongest way to deal with the
2:05:46 infinite regress of causation
2:05:48 point it's exactly the way they have
2:05:49 sent and dealt with it which is to say
2:05:51 that if you believe in that then there's
2:05:53 the absurdity of believing that causes
2:05:55 will be effects
2:05:56 and the effects will be the same causes
2:05:57 for those effects there's one level of
2:05:59 absurdity
2:06:00 and another point of absurdity and this
2:06:02 is mentioned by the way
2:06:04 herbert davidson's book probably the
2:06:06 best book on
2:06:07 ancient english language um
2:06:11 which is about jewish kalam also about
2:06:14 um arabic kell amazon on these matters
2:06:17 okay
2:06:18 uh of course you can read uh frank
2:06:20 griffin for
2:06:21 for who he doesn't he believes that any
2:06:24 kind of infinity in the material world
2:06:26 would be impossible
2:06:27 but what ivy son which i think is a
2:06:30 stroke of genius he says okay you want
2:06:31 to you want
2:06:32 an infinite regress of things you want
2:06:34 sorry an infinite regress
2:06:36 you've got an infinite regret it's not
2:06:37 probably unless let's just assume
2:06:40 that there is such a thing as an
2:06:41 infinite rules okay
2:06:43 let's assume that that infinite regress
2:06:45 exists let's assume no problem i haven't
2:06:47 got
2:06:47 let's let's do it so what now so is this
2:06:51 infinite regress is it dependent or is
2:06:53 it independent
2:06:55 now this is the question if they say
2:06:57 well it's dependent then what is it
2:06:59 dependent on it has to be dependent on
2:07:00 something which is
2:07:01 either dependable independent and then
2:07:03 the infinite regress will require
2:07:05 an infinite rubric of itself and then
2:07:07 you have another problem here
2:07:09 or you could say the infinite regress
2:07:10 itself or the set of
2:07:13 things which constitute the infinite
2:07:14 regress that that thing
2:07:16 is a necessary existence that is
2:07:18 independent well we say anything that is
2:07:21 made up of parts
2:07:23 is generated the set of
2:07:26 infinite regress is made up of us
2:07:27 therefore to say is generated
2:07:29 therefore it can't be the necessary
2:07:31 necessary existence can't be made of
2:07:33 parts
2:07:34 we're saying therefore that even if you
2:07:36 presuppose the existence
2:07:38 of an infinite regress it doesn't solve
2:07:40 the problem of dependence why
2:07:42 if you say well there existed an
2:07:43 infinite tree and i've made this point
2:07:46 with edward tabash but i want to repeat
2:07:47 it
2:07:48 in his debate if you believe in an
2:07:50 infinite tree you must
2:07:52 believe that with that infinite tree
2:07:54 comes there was there's an infinite sun
2:07:56 because a tree does not exist without
2:07:58 the sun
2:07:59 you can't have photosynthesis and
2:08:01 continuation of life
2:08:02 without the sun the tree doesn't it
2:08:04 doesn't make sense
2:08:06 outside of its eco system because this
2:08:08 tree has an ecosystem
2:08:10 the ecosystem is situated in the planet
2:08:12 the planet is situated in the
2:08:14 solar system the solar system and a very
2:08:16 special place in the source
2:08:18 and the solar system is situated in the
2:08:19 universe milky way and then that's
2:08:21 situated
2:08:22 in wherever it's situated now what i'm
2:08:24 saying is
2:08:25 if all those chains of things which are
2:08:27 situated in x
2:08:28 which depend on that situation in order
2:08:30 to be what it is
2:08:33 that is is an indication of dependence
2:08:36 if you have an
2:08:37 eternal tree which existed before time
2:08:39 which means for infinite time in the
2:08:41 past
2:08:41 you'd have to have an eternal sun if you
2:08:43 have eternal rays
2:08:45 that come from the sun you have to have
2:08:47 an eternal sun we're saying
2:08:48 the existence of an eternal tree or the
2:08:51 existence of eternal raise
2:08:52 does not do anything okay but it just
2:08:56 makes gives us more questions namely the
2:08:58 question namely the question
2:09:00 what is it dependent on
2:09:03 this is the question that i'm asking
2:09:05 what is the infinite regress dependent
2:09:07 on
2:09:07 can either be dependent on itself or
2:09:09 depend on something else
2:09:10 if you say it's dependent on itself then
2:09:13 it can't be because we've talked that
2:09:14 we've already argued argumenta mad
2:09:16 absurd
2:09:16 uh i understand that it can't be because
2:09:19 of it's made of parts
2:09:20 then it has to be dependent on something
2:09:22 else what is that thing depend
2:09:23 that thing has to be either depend or
2:09:25 independent we can't keep going to do
2:09:27 this we have to have something
2:09:28 independent if we have something
2:09:29 independent
2:09:30 then the existence of an infinite amount
2:09:32 of whatever
2:09:33 so long as it's not causation it's not a
2:09:35 problem for us so
2:09:37 it's theologically because we don't
2:09:38 believe in that theologically but in
2:09:40 intellect neurologically it's not a
2:09:41 problem for us because we will just say
2:09:44 what is it dependent on we'll say it's
2:09:45 dependent on god
2:09:47 and always depends on the necessary
2:09:48 existence so it's as simple as that
2:09:50 the infinite regret does nothing yeah
2:09:53 i've listened to your
2:09:54 your this point before as well so i'm
2:09:56 definitely aware that like contingency
2:09:58 argument it would not collapse because
2:09:59 of like this issue but
2:10:00 the only thing is like what what is the
2:10:02 difference between an infinite
2:10:03 regression of causes
2:10:04 and of things or temporally or like
2:10:07 how how do you how what is the
2:10:09 difference between these that
2:10:11 helps us understand as to why for
2:10:13 causation it will be absurd and maybe
2:10:15 whatever
2:10:16 it means because a cause understood is
2:10:18 something which brings rise to phenomena
2:10:22 okay a cause is something which brings
2:10:23 rise to phenomena
2:10:25 if something brought rise to something
2:10:27 it brought off this month
2:10:28 brought right to something else which
2:10:29 brought us something up and that keeps
2:10:31 going on
2:10:32 then you would never get to the point
2:10:34 where you are speaking from that's the
2:10:35 first thing it's
2:10:36 it's a it's a matter of bitcoin they
2:10:38 don't what the way
2:10:40 that philosophers talk about infinite
2:10:42 regress is not in terms of contradiction
2:10:44 or lack thereof
2:10:45 it's in terms of viciousness or lack
2:10:47 thereof so there is an
2:10:49 in there's a they call it a vicious
2:10:51 cycle or a vicious regress okay
2:10:54 it's vicious because it's never ending
2:10:55 it keeps going it it's like a bottomless
2:10:57 pit
2:10:58 like it's it is like a bottomless pit
2:11:01 we're saying that the bottomless pit
2:11:03 doesn't explain the existence of
2:11:04 anything above it
2:11:06 simple as that it's like we when we go
2:11:08 and i've given this
2:11:09 example when you go to the sea
2:11:12 and you see the water you know there's a
2:11:15 sea floor there
2:11:16 and you know there's a sea floor there
2:11:18 because you know
2:11:19 epistemically using inference that it
2:11:23 can't keep going
2:11:24 in in in that way because there'll be no
2:11:26 foundation
2:11:28 you don't see castles floating in thin
2:11:30 air you see them all
2:11:32 with foundations so what i'm saying to
2:11:33 you is that the viciousness of the
2:11:36 infinite regress
2:11:37 and it brings us to the conclusion that
2:11:39 existence would not
2:11:41 even exist we can't have vicious or
2:11:43 ignorant because existence itself
2:11:44 would be difficult and for that reason i
2:11:47 say
2:11:47 it's the viciousness of the cycle that's
2:11:50 the problem and it's also what is that
2:11:52 what is that infinite rigorous dependent
2:11:54 on
2:11:55 even if we save is there what is it
2:11:57 dependent on can either be dependent on
2:11:59 something else or not
2:12:00 and that's what we're saying if we're
2:12:01 trying to establish the necessary
2:12:03 existence
2:12:03 you cannot stop at an infinite regress
2:12:05 because the infinite rulers gives us
2:12:07 more questions
2:12:07 than our answers thank you
2:12:11 okay brother
2:12:14 sameed so
2:12:18 we're going to come to an end now we
2:12:20 will be back in sha allah next week at
2:12:22 the same time we'll try and
2:12:24 probably go live a bit earlier thank you
2:12:26 for joining us and
2:12:28 uh as always it's been very enlightening
2:12:30 hearing the questions and answers from
2:12:32 everybody
2:12:33 so until next time assalamu alaykum