The Islamic Discipline of Debate and Argumentation with Dr. Safaruk Chowdhury (2020-08-15) ​

0:00:04 brothers and sisters and friends and
0:00:06 welcome to the sapience institute
0:00:09 youtube channel welcome to this live
0:00:11 stream
0:00:12 and with me i have a very very special
0:00:14 guest
0:00:15 i'm not only saying that because he's
0:00:17 special because he's close to my my
0:00:18 heart i've known him for i think over 15
0:00:21 years now
0:00:22 and he's been a huge influence in my
0:00:25 development and progression
0:00:26 i've mentioned him in my book he was
0:00:28 instrumental
0:00:29 with regards to various of my book the
0:00:32 divine reality especially
0:00:34 the the update or the chapter on god's
0:00:37 testimony on trying to articulate
0:00:39 a kind of robust case for why the quran
0:00:42 is from
0:00:44 from a linguistic point of view but with
0:00:46 the idea that the person reading it
0:00:48 doesn't need to know anything about the
0:00:49 arabic language so we used inference of
0:00:51 the
0:00:52 explanation and we used the epistemology
0:00:55 of testimony
0:00:56 and there was such a headache point
0:00:59 about al-muttanabbi
0:01:00 and i remember calling dr saf and i was
0:01:02 like my head was basically spinning and
0:01:04 alhamdulillah
0:01:06 he solved that problem so while i bless
0:01:08 him and you know we've been around for
0:01:11 for over a decade alhamdulillah and
0:01:13 masha'allah to see him progress
0:01:14 phenomenal so for those who don't know
0:01:16 let me just introduce dr safrik
0:01:18 chowdhury so he's a
0:01:20 teacher examiner and educational
0:01:23 consultant
0:01:24 is already a research fellow at the ibm
0:01:27 center of excellence for grammar
0:01:29 research
0:01:30 and senior instructor at whitebread
0:01:32 institute
0:01:33 he studied philosophy at king college
0:01:35 london
0:01:36 and islamic studies at al asari
0:01:38 university in cairo before completing
0:01:40 his masters
0:01:42 by the way his masters i believe was on
0:01:44 logic in the quran
0:01:46 referring to ali ghazali and his masters
0:01:48 was like half a phd i just thought i'd
0:01:50 let that
0:01:50 let everyone know and he received his
0:01:54 phd at the school of oriental african
0:01:56 studies in london
0:01:57 he is the author author of a sufi
0:02:00 apology
0:02:01 of nishapur the life and thoughts of
0:02:06 sulaimi 2019 and he's got a forthcoming
0:02:09 book coming out which is called the
0:02:11 problem of evil
0:02:12 in islamic theology in actual fact i was
0:02:15 looking at one of his videos he was
0:02:18 looking into
0:02:19 the material school of creed
0:02:22 and he's trying to find uh figure out on
0:02:24 how to solve the problem of animal
0:02:26 suffering i believe
0:02:28 uh i haven't finished it yet but i
0:02:29 thought it was very very very insightful
0:02:32 so today we're going to be talking about
0:02:34 this it's a new book
0:02:36 alhamdulillah it's a treatise on
0:02:39 disputation and argument
0:02:41 and it is by the ottoman i believe
0:02:48 i think that's how you pronounce his his
0:02:50 name now
0:02:52 doctor suffolk chaudhary basically what
0:02:53 he's done he's translated the text
0:02:56 and he's also extensively annotated the
0:02:58 text
0:02:59 and when he basically shared this with
0:03:01 me i was like wow i bought 10 copies so
0:03:03 inshallah please buy your copy we're
0:03:05 going to put the link or the amazon link
0:03:07 um somewhere on on the youtube or the
0:03:12 live stream
0:03:13 and when he send it to me and when i
0:03:15 when i looked at the contents and flick
0:03:17 through
0:03:17 i was like this is phenomenal this is
0:03:19 exactly what we need
0:03:21 this fills a gap in the kind of outreach
0:03:25 the online the offline outreach the kind
0:03:27 of activism
0:03:28 you know we want to you know part of the
0:03:30 objectives of sapience institute
0:03:32 to share islam intellectually
0:03:34 academically and to empower
0:03:36 and motivate others to do so to create
0:03:38 these kind of academic intellectual
0:03:39 activists
0:03:40 to touch move and inspire people and to
0:03:43 work with all sorts of people uh
0:03:46 and muslim organizations and individuals
0:03:48 in order to basically fill those
0:03:49 objectives but when i saw this was like
0:03:51 we need to talk about this so
0:03:52 i know i've spoken too much now but i'm
0:03:54 just gonna be asking the questions so
0:03:56 i'm gonna go on my phone my phone has
0:03:58 notes in it unfortunately the phone now
0:04:00 is an expensive
0:04:00 extension of one consciousness the
0:04:03 memories are not here anymore they're in
0:04:04 the phone
0:04:05 uh so you know
0:04:08 that reminds me actually a funny joke
0:04:10 they asked they asked must
0:04:12 they asked mike tyson what's the secret
0:04:15 for a support for marriage or something
0:04:17 and he said a bad memory
0:04:21 so let me just ask so my memory is on my
0:04:23 phone at the moment alhamdulillah my
0:04:25 mirrors are good as well
0:04:26 so let's go to the questions uh firstly
0:04:30 give salaam to everybody doctor
0:04:33 everyone how are you happy you are i'm
0:04:36 good i'm just so happy to see you i
0:04:38 really i really could tell everyone
0:04:39 everyone could see the excitement in me
0:04:41 um
0:04:42 so let's go straight to the questions in
0:04:45 sha allah
0:04:46 so we have around 11 questions inshallah
0:04:48 we'll be able to cover them all
0:04:50 so the first question i want to ask you
0:04:53 is
0:04:53 why did you translate and annotate the
0:04:55 book and what gap do you think
0:04:57 it feels in the kind of sector that
0:04:59 we're in
0:05:01 all right
0:05:07 it's my delight and pleasure to be on
0:05:09 and thank you for inviting me on yeah i
0:05:11 mean i can't contain my excitement
0:05:13 but you know i've got to stay seated
0:05:16 in the seat properly if i move around
0:05:18 you know it's uh
0:05:19 alhamdulillah it's it's you know
0:05:22 blessing the work that you do
0:05:24 um you know even with the new institute
0:05:26 sapience institute i pray that allah
0:05:28 takes it from strength to strength
0:05:29 um um
0:05:33 and so you know keep that up keep that
0:05:35 up you know how
0:05:36 difficult it is out there in the field
0:05:39 especially that strata of darwin
0:05:42 because it's upper march and so
0:05:46 you know you're better than most you
0:05:47 know it's very different from being in
0:05:49 the
0:05:50 sort of not the low end of the field but
0:05:52 the less intellectually challenging area
0:05:55 of the field so
0:05:56 handler each has its own place isn't it
0:05:58 as you know but
0:06:00 there are levels there are levels so
0:06:03 well i mean
0:06:04 in terms of the first question i mean
0:06:08 i've always um i always try and write
0:06:11 books
0:06:11 i wish i had yeah i always try and write
0:06:14 books
0:06:15 i wish i had and when i was growing up
0:06:18 trying to study islam there was always
0:06:21 certain books
0:06:22 i would wish i had and maybe that would
0:06:25 have helped
0:06:26 in my own development my own
0:06:27 understanding
0:06:29 and ever since i've kind of used that
0:06:31 that motto i want to try and write books
0:06:34 not necessarily academic books but just
0:06:36 try and write
0:06:37 something that i wish i had when i was
0:06:40 trying to develop and learn
0:06:42 islam and so this subject matter
0:06:46 of islamic argumentation or islamic
0:06:49 theory of argumentation and disputation
0:06:51 was one
0:06:52 area i didn't find anything
0:06:56 so short simple within the english
0:06:58 language there may be stuff in arabic
0:06:59 language and
0:07:00 and there are and maybe very simple text
0:07:02 for those who are arabic speaking but
0:07:03 for us
0:07:04 who are you know mainly english-speaking
0:07:05 communities
0:07:07 i didn't have anything it was always
0:07:08 been on my mind to write something
0:07:10 on it um it wasn't it wasn't very good
0:07:13 but at least something out there
0:07:15 so i'm always i've always been
0:07:17 interested in writing books that have
0:07:18 been overlooked or neglected
0:07:20 so one area like balarama wrote a little
0:07:23 lame book on that
0:07:25 um certain areas of fit that not many
0:07:27 people touch on like in
0:07:28 employment things like that so
0:07:31 this is just another one of the books
0:07:33 that i'm trying to
0:07:35 fill a fill a gap or perceive what i see
0:07:38 a perceived gap
0:07:40 and so yeah it's a lost discipline
0:07:43 um a lot some people even said to me
0:07:45 they didn't know there was a theory of
0:07:47 argumentation within the islamic
0:07:48 intellectual
0:07:50 tradition they never knew it existed
0:07:52 they just thought it was a modern
0:07:53 yeah they just knew the modern thing so
0:07:56 my aim was
0:07:57 was to do that and what made me sort of
0:07:59 hurry up with it a bit is um
0:08:00 you know i think last year there were
0:08:03 two
0:08:04 famous uh imams let's say from the
0:08:07 midlands
0:08:08 you know who had a pre-debate um
0:08:11 debate yeah type thing and
0:08:14 um that that got quite heated and
0:08:17 um they're both obviously knowledgeable
0:08:19 but you know one one of the
0:08:21 knowledgeable interlocutors
0:08:23 didn't want to proceed unless they
0:08:25 follow the rules of
0:08:26 what we call monado you know the rules
0:08:29 of debate
0:08:30 and so that triggered in my mind i've
0:08:32 got to get this book finished my notes
0:08:34 were just bit
0:08:35 scatters i thought i've got to put it
0:08:36 together quickly because obviously
0:08:39 it's become notorious now you know
0:08:41 argumentation
0:08:42 this this subject matter has piqued
0:08:45 everyone's interest
0:08:47 uh it's prickly everyone's interested so
0:08:48 i thought let me get it out as soon as i
0:08:50 can and hopefully it can be a benefit
0:08:52 but um the aim really is for general
0:08:54 students and madrasa students to
0:08:56 understand
0:08:57 um the practical purpose of
0:09:00 argumentation and debate
0:09:02 um and what the the epistemological
0:09:06 goal is why are we doing it and the
0:09:09 goal is really you know it's it's
0:09:11 truth-seeking
0:09:12 so um once we find the truth
0:09:16 we submit to it and the argumentation is
0:09:18 supposed to get us there
0:09:20 okay good
0:09:23 just to add to that would you say as
0:09:26 well at the same time because of the
0:09:28 social context that we live in
0:09:29 yes debates have an epistemic goal
0:09:32 meaning that we want to
0:09:33 account for the truth you know the
0:09:35 famous statement of
0:09:36 imam shafi'i may allah have met on him
0:09:38 when he would pray that the truth would
0:09:40 come
0:09:41 through the mouth and the words of his
0:09:43 interco intellectual which shows a lot
0:09:45 of
0:09:46 sincerity but this is within the context
0:09:50 of course within a in a intra-muslim
0:09:53 discussion context but also from a
0:09:56 context of debating
0:09:57 people outside of islam not only has it
0:10:00 an epistemic
0:10:02 goal but it has a social goal it shows
0:10:06 the kind of veracity of islam
0:10:08 even when i remember when i had a debate
0:10:09 with professor lawrence krauss
0:10:11 many young students they the iman
0:10:15 was increased or they had more faith
0:10:18 they probably didn't understand many of
0:10:20 the arguments but because someone was on
0:10:21 a platform
0:10:23 someone was doing it was the perfect
0:10:25 time for recall
0:10:27 you know as a social performance yeah
0:10:31 that's the point so the point is it also
0:10:33 has social
0:10:36 impact as well at the same time right
0:10:38 definitely
0:10:40 strategic yeah yeah that's right and if
0:10:43 you look at anyone who knows
0:10:44 uh familiar with this history will know
0:10:46 that there were public debates held
0:10:48 in the courts of the rulers things that
0:10:51 so
0:10:51 it was a part it was a feature of
0:10:55 in social interaction within muslim
0:10:57 societies islamic society so
0:10:59 yeah so my aim was to try and plug that
0:11:02 gap where i felt
0:11:03 well there was a perceived gap but there
0:11:06 was nothing out there that's just
0:11:07 sort of basic um that just sets out the
0:11:11 rules
0:11:12 of debate and the etiquettes of debate
0:11:15 yeah so that was my aim to try and get
0:11:17 something out
0:11:18 um on a bottom footing and then those
0:11:21 who like it or you know want to take it
0:11:23 further can do a better job and you know
0:11:25 maybe go on to higher higher works in in
0:11:28 the field
0:11:30 but even skimming through this doctor
0:11:31 what i've noticed is
0:11:33 that you know you go through for example
0:11:35 logical fallacies
0:11:36 you go from different different forms of
0:11:39 logic
0:11:40 now i would probably argue with you now
0:11:42 or not argue agree with you
0:11:44 if i'm assuming that you you you affirm
0:11:47 this point as well
0:11:48 that many who engage in debate and
0:11:50 dialogue
0:11:52 they don't know basic logical fallacies
0:11:55 they don't know for example how to make
0:11:56 a valid inference
0:11:58 they don't know how to make a valid
0:12:00 deductive argument for instance or
0:12:02 the different modes of logic which are
0:12:03 very important important in articulating
0:12:06 an argument
0:12:07 and putting an argument together and
0:12:09 sometimes we think we have won over our
0:12:11 opponent but in actual fact
0:12:12 we've missed our key premise or we
0:12:15 haven't made the necessary logical link
0:12:17 and this is why when you put this in
0:12:19 your book i found it i thought it was
0:12:21 fantastic it was fascinating that
0:12:23 exactly what we need so moving to the
0:12:26 second question so what does
0:12:28 what does mean like in a kind of islamic
0:12:31 intellectual theological context oh all
0:12:34 right
0:12:34 so um well the the the discipline
0:12:38 is is a combination of um
0:12:43 so the word bath in arabic generally
0:12:46 means or comes from the root that means
0:12:48 like
0:12:49 to to examine to investigate
0:12:59 it comes from the root of of
0:13:02 which obviously means to to see it
0:13:04 something to gaze at something but it
0:13:06 also means to like
0:13:08 rationally rationally investigate to
0:13:11 explore to examine
0:13:13 so put together those two words
0:13:16 a a definition given by those in the
0:13:20 field
0:13:20 is something like um
0:13:31 so um the science this discipline
0:13:34 is the principles by which you arrive
0:13:38 at or by which you know how to avoid
0:13:41 error in debate
0:13:43 so this science is supposed this
0:13:45 discipline is supposed to give you
0:13:48 the tools by which to avoid making
0:13:51 errors in debate
0:13:52 so munavala is like what we're like two
0:13:54 people who are
0:13:56 having exchange having an exchange of
0:13:59 views
0:14:00 so to arrive at to arrive at the truth
0:14:04 whereas that's different from uh
0:14:07 mujahidella
0:14:08 so mujahide is because it's this kind of
0:14:11 inheritance from the greeks you could
0:14:12 say
0:14:14 is two people having an exchange but not
0:14:17 to seek truth necessarily that's not the
0:14:19 epistemic goal rather it's
0:14:21 me to win the debate so i'll do you over
0:14:25 because i'm more eloquent than you or
0:14:27 happen to have on the day
0:14:30 i articulate myself in premises stronger
0:14:33 than you
0:14:34 but i may not necessarily be right i may
0:14:36 not found the truth but
0:14:37 i won over you so that's the difference
0:14:40 between yeah
0:14:40 jedel and
0:14:42 [Music]
0:14:49 yeah so would that be
0:14:53 that meaning always because when you
0:14:55 refer to the quran for example i think
0:14:57 it since chapter 16
0:14:58 when allah says and discuss with them
0:15:02 and debate with them in ways that are
0:15:04 better
0:15:05 so are we going to need the quranic word
0:15:08 here
0:15:08 the way that you've just explained it or
0:15:10 are we going to understand it through
0:15:12 for example he comments on this verse
0:15:14 and he says
0:15:16 you argue them in ways that is better
0:15:18 with no gruffness and no harshness
0:15:20 but how did you feel at that point yeah
0:15:22 definitely
0:15:23 um obviously that judder that i
0:15:25 mentioned that
0:15:26 the meaning there was a technical
0:15:27 meaning like so how it's done
0:15:29 within yeah within the kind of technical
0:15:32 um the meaning within the discipline but
0:15:35 allah definitely uses the word as you
0:15:36 mentioned in the ayah
0:15:38 um argue with them in the best way so we
0:15:40 have to have not only
0:15:42 not only must we employ the best proofs
0:15:45 but we have to employ the best day
0:15:47 quorum in delivering that proof
0:15:49 yeah and that's unfortunately something
0:15:51 i sense i'm sure you know you
0:15:54 you know you know much better than many
0:15:57 i think that side is lacking that side
0:16:00 is lacking the decorum with which you
0:16:01 deliver the truth or you deliver your
0:16:04 proofs
0:16:04 yeah yeah and uh well i've learned that
0:16:07 i mean
0:16:08 i've made those mistakes on my own
0:16:09 journey so
0:16:11 i think it's very important for us to
0:16:13 basically be the best ambassadors for
0:16:15 sure i mean today because of social
0:16:17 media
0:16:18 everyone has a platform and that's one
0:16:19 of the unfortunate things
0:16:21 so okay moving on then on the third
0:16:23 question so
0:16:26 so why do you think it's important those
0:16:28 who engage in monothera
0:16:30 in debates and discussions
0:16:33 why do you think it's important for them
0:16:35 to study logic
0:16:36 and if you can give us some examples of
0:16:38 the type of logic that you use in your
0:16:40 book
0:16:41 okay so
0:16:45 now strictly speaking i mean in the
0:16:47 quran does it make
0:16:48 a condition to use logic to argue
0:16:52 yeah um well maybe if we have time i'll
0:16:54 touch on like the quranic what i
0:16:56 feel is probably what the chronic method
0:16:59 of argumentation is but
0:17:00 it's not a condition in order to argue
0:17:02 or have a dialogue with someone or
0:17:04 to have a debate with someone that one
0:17:06 has marked with logic that's not a
0:17:08 condition i think that's very clear from
0:17:09 the quran i think that's very clear from
0:17:11 the sunnah
0:17:12 but what why logic is important
0:17:16 is we need to know the grammar of things
0:17:18 i can't remember which author
0:17:19 said that but we need to know the
0:17:20 grammar of things when you're learning a
0:17:21 language you need to know the grammar of
0:17:22 the language
0:17:24 similarly when you're arguing you need
0:17:26 to know the grammar
0:17:27 of the argument um and the grammar of
0:17:30 the argument in a manner of speaking is
0:17:32 logic
0:17:33 so logic is like it is a system that
0:17:35 tells you
0:17:37 what follows from what
0:17:40 so if you make a claim or you make a
0:17:42 statement or you
0:17:43 you put forward some proposition
0:17:47 what is entailed by that proposition or
0:17:50 what you can deduce or infer from that
0:17:52 your logic will tell you that or the
0:17:54 logic will tell you what you can and
0:17:55 what you can't
0:17:56 what doors you can enter in through and
0:17:58 what doors are closed for you
0:18:00 so i mean so that's very important
0:18:03 because
0:18:03 you might infer something which you're
0:18:05 not allowed to infer from your own claim
0:18:08 and that's very important that's why
0:18:09 allah talks about a lot you might
0:18:11 claim something but you have no right to
0:18:14 make that claim from the claims you
0:18:15 already made
0:18:16 so that's important you need to know
0:18:18 what route you can take
0:18:19 in an argumentation or debate or what
0:18:22 you can't and your logic will tell you
0:18:23 the other thing is that logic allows you
0:18:25 to formalize
0:18:26 your arguments to put them methodically
0:18:29 in steps
0:18:30 um and so by putting it methodically in
0:18:34 steps
0:18:35 you can now check whether it's valid or
0:18:37 not
0:18:38 um and it also allows you to sort of get
0:18:40 clarity in what you're saying
0:18:42 so logic is important you know because
0:18:45 of that
0:18:46 lots of times we might make arguments
0:18:48 but we may it may come across
0:18:50 jumbled it may come across a bit hazard
0:18:54 or it might it may not come across with
0:18:56 clarity but once we put it down in steps
0:18:59 and see what follows from what we can
0:19:01 get some clarity
0:19:02 as to what's being said and i think
0:19:03 that's important that's important
0:19:06 so in debate our le mans emphasized
0:19:09 putting
0:19:10 arguments in a logical form and that's
0:19:13 primarily the syllogism
0:19:14 so that's why i think probably the
0:19:16 largest chapter
0:19:18 in in the notes part of the support
0:19:21 material
0:19:22 is on logic where i go through some sort
0:19:25 of um
0:19:26 different types of logic so we've got
0:19:28 there for example
0:19:29 yeah so we've got here for example
0:19:33 page 68 onwards yeah yeah yeah
0:19:36 so we've got um syllogistic logic so
0:19:38 syllogistic logic is probably the most
0:19:41 familiar people would have been waving
0:19:43 through your own work maybe through
0:19:45 uh they studied logic themselves so a
0:19:48 syllogistic logic
0:19:49 looks at arguments put into three lines
0:19:53 two premises and a conclusion so if i
0:19:55 give the audience
0:19:57 if i give the audience one example um
0:20:00 so let's say premise one to line one
0:20:02 premise one
0:20:03 if god is maximally loving then he must
0:20:05 be maximally forgiving
0:20:08 you might know that not joy but this two
0:20:11 the biblical god is not maximally
0:20:13 forgiving therefore
0:20:15 that's the third line the biblical god
0:20:18 is not maximally
0:20:19 loving that's the syllogism that gives
0:20:22 you
0:20:22 the first premise the second premise and
0:20:24 a conclusion
0:20:26 most people when they think of logic
0:20:27 they think of that
0:20:29 like yes put it yeah putting into
0:20:31 syllogism
0:20:32 so so yeah so you've got to see logistic
0:20:36 logic then you've got
0:20:37 predicate logic predicate logic is about
0:20:40 statements containing things
0:20:42 um like uh how we describe
0:20:46 things so if i say zaid is tall
0:20:50 or amar is sure
0:20:54 master al-aqsa is a blessed land so
0:20:56 muslim
0:20:57 is a subject and the predicate is
0:21:01 blessed land because i'm qualifying the
0:21:03 subject al-aqsa with
0:21:05 the description the predicate blessed
0:21:07 land
0:21:08 zaid is tall tall is predicated of zaid
0:21:12 so that's predicate logic we look at
0:21:15 statements that describe
0:21:16 objects um then i think the other
0:21:20 thing in there is quantificational logic
0:21:23 quantification logic is when we make
0:21:24 statements involving all or some
0:21:27 so if i say all human beings have a
0:21:29 fitrah
0:21:30 that all i'm saying that
0:21:34 whatever a thing is if it is human it
0:21:36 has a fitra
0:21:38 um yeah the universal quantifier
0:21:43 yeah we call that the universe yeah i
0:21:46 did this for my m.a
0:21:47 and oh my god i was like it's another
0:21:49 language
0:21:53 yeah for me i prefer the philosophy of
0:21:55 logic
0:21:56 like why do we even have this stuff in
0:21:58 the first place
0:21:59 why why did that necessarily follow but
0:22:02 in order for me to pass their exam honda
0:22:04 passed it quite well
0:22:05 i had to trick my brain i had to trick
0:22:07 my brain bro
0:22:09 and to say right these are just the
0:22:10 rules of the game i'm accepting the
0:22:12 rules don't talk about the rules don't
0:22:14 philosophize the rule
0:22:16 and just do it and i'm telling you it
0:22:18 was an alien language for me and one
0:22:20 morning
0:22:21 i just got it i'll keep on writing out i
0:22:23 just got it so it is
0:22:24 it could be quite complicated with the
0:22:26 uh existential quantify the universal
0:22:28 quantum
0:22:29 it's more deep and you have all these
0:22:30 funny symbols yeah carry on absolutely
0:22:33 no no but you're right
0:22:34 yeah it is can be it can be an alien
0:22:36 language definitely for many and this is
0:22:37 why lots of people feel comfortable with
0:22:39 the syllogistic logic because
0:22:41 you use natural language like you know
0:22:43 to put it into syllogism you'd have to
0:22:44 use symbol
0:22:46 so the other aspect of conservation
0:22:47 logic is when we use words like sum
0:22:49 or few so i know some people rejected
0:22:52 allah's messenger so some
0:22:54 so in arabic use bard yeah so
0:22:58 and then you've got something in there i
0:23:00 think a little short section of modal
0:23:02 logic
0:23:02 now modal logic is big modal logic
0:23:06 is the logic that examines when we use
0:23:08 words like
0:23:09 necessary that must necessary
0:23:12 and possible may be so when we use words
0:23:15 like that we're using
0:23:16 modal terms um so if i say it is
0:23:19 possible that
0:23:20 i live in mecca this is possible so it's
0:23:24 possible that
0:23:25 i don't it is necessary that the whole
0:23:28 is greater than the parts
0:23:30 so it must be the case that the whole is
0:23:31 greater than the parts now why are these
0:23:33 important
0:23:34 because in debate or dialogue or any
0:23:37 form of exchange
0:23:39 we may be making claims um in these
0:23:43 forms but we're not realizing it
0:23:45 so we've got to be careful what we can
0:23:47 infer from what
0:23:48 and so this these logic become very very
0:23:51 important
0:23:52 but just for those who perhaps are maybe
0:23:54 about the book or logic is not their
0:23:56 thing
0:23:58 you know if you want to skip that
0:24:00 chapter do
0:24:01 but i think it's worth worth investing
0:24:04 some time in
0:24:06 to be familiar with basic at least
0:24:08 reduced to syllogistic logic i would say
0:24:11 yes yes and yeah for me what i found
0:24:15 very useful
0:24:16 was when i started to appreciate the
0:24:19 flow of an argument and how things
0:24:21 how statements can connect what you can
0:24:23 infer or do
0:24:26 you could use it as a code in analyzing
0:24:28 for example your opponent's
0:24:30 argument as well for example many
0:24:32 atheists sometimes
0:24:33 come out with a hell of a lot of logical
0:24:35 fallacies concerning religion
0:24:37 or they infer things that shouldn't be
0:24:40 inferred
0:24:41 or they make statements that they can't
0:24:43 make by virtue of
0:24:45 you know the logical systems that we
0:24:47 both agree on
0:24:49 so it it enables you to understand right
0:24:52 they've made a statement but behind that
0:24:54 there is an assumption what is their
0:24:55 premise
0:24:56 right and there is an assumption behind
0:24:58 the premise we could unpack that
0:25:00 and so it's i think it is very important
0:25:02 to understand
0:25:03 things but this leads up to a very
0:25:05 important question actually which is
0:25:06 quite controversial in our tradition
0:25:08 um is what about you know is logic
0:25:11 anti-quran
0:25:12 yeah and could you even find some
0:25:17 forms of logical statements or logical
0:25:19 arguments
0:25:20 in the book of allah oh
0:25:23 now anyone who looks at our history
0:25:27 our intellectual history will know
0:25:29 obviously logic
0:25:31 is a contested science so meaning that
0:25:36 somewhat especially those who are also
0:25:38 inclined
0:25:39 like league of theoreticians
0:25:43 they didn't have time for monty they
0:25:44 just said this is this is not
0:25:46 necessary for um
0:25:51 deriving it's a foreign discipline
0:25:55 it's got no use for them so there
0:25:59 there was a there is a camp and the big
0:26:01 scholars in that camp
0:26:03 um you're looking at imam even salah for
0:26:05 example the great mohaddiv
0:26:07 obviously you've got as well islam even
0:26:10 tamiya
0:26:11 on that side who generally push back
0:26:13 against
0:26:14 greek logic although he wasn't against
0:26:16 logic per se
0:26:18 he just didn't like um
0:26:21 the way logic was being you know
0:26:23 inflated into like some big bad boy so
0:26:25 he
0:26:26 just he wanted to deflate that um
0:26:29 so yeah there's that cam and then you've
0:26:32 got
0:26:32 the hezeli camp um
0:26:36 sort of the more sort of rationally
0:26:38 inclined
0:26:40 i think hojo islam is an exception other
0:26:42 than
0:26:43 imam razali generally a lot of the the
0:26:46 the
0:26:46 the kalam incline scholars the muta
0:26:49 kalimun
0:26:50 they use logical arguments in or logic
0:26:54 in their dialectic
0:26:55 so they will put things in premises and
0:26:57 then say well if you say this then we
0:26:59 will reply
0:26:59 like this and you can't infer this from
0:27:02 that
0:27:02 so that their dialectic involved logic
0:27:10 takes logic i think to it to a different
0:27:12 level
0:27:13 now what he does is not only does he say
0:27:17 logic is valuable but he's saying
0:27:20 that the quran
0:27:23 has an un can exhibit an underlying
0:27:26 logical structure
0:27:28 in fact um the quran anywhere
0:27:31 we look in the quran we can see logical
0:27:33 syllogisms
0:27:34 at work and they're called the mizan he
0:27:37 calls him the mizan
0:27:39 and in other verses
0:27:55 yeah that's his gloss on it that's his
0:27:57 gloss on it so
0:27:58 he says it can't be scales to to weigh
0:28:00 barley and wheat and and rice
0:28:02 he goes nah there's more noble scale
0:28:05 than that for him
0:28:06 so it's the scales of logic
0:28:09 so for example i mean
0:28:13 um my mma dissertation was on this um
0:28:16 so if we take an example i think it's in
0:28:19 surat al baqarah
0:28:21 where allah subhanahu ta'ala talks about
0:28:25 i think the ibrahim given the proof
0:28:29 to um i think it's nimrod
0:28:33 about nimrod claimed to be a deity
0:28:39 so do you not so allah is asking his
0:28:42 prophet have you not looked at
0:28:44 the one who argued with ibrahim
0:28:46 regarding his lord nothing
0:28:56 is
0:28:58 said to nimrod look my lord is the one
0:29:00 who
0:29:01 who gives life and and so he gives life
0:29:04 and he takes his life
0:29:06 and the murder said well i can give life
0:29:08 and i can take life so he orders someone
0:29:09 to be killed you know
0:29:10 and then it spared someone's life sort
0:29:12 of thing
0:29:19 so he says my lord is the one who can
0:29:22 bring the sun
0:29:23 from the east so you bring it from the
0:29:26 west
0:29:27 then allah says
0:29:31 then he was dumbfounded he knew he he
0:29:33 didn't have that power
0:29:34 so islam says that here we can put it
0:29:37 into a syllogism
0:29:38 so the syllogism goes something like
0:29:40 this
0:29:42 whoever has the power um
0:29:45 to bring the sun
0:29:49 from the west yeah then that person is
0:29:54 a deity he is god um
0:29:57 and then he says so if
0:30:01 um if i remember the premise correctly
0:30:03 so he says if
0:30:04 whoever can bring whoever can bring the
0:30:08 deity
0:30:09 let me just bring up because i think i'm
0:30:10 not doing it off the top of my head
0:30:11 properly so i think he's saying here
0:30:13 whoever can bring
0:30:14 whoever has the power over the sunrise
0:30:16 so that's the whoever power of the
0:30:17 sunrise that thing is god
0:30:20 um ibrahim's deity is something that has
0:30:22 power over the sunrise
0:30:24 therefore ibrahim's deity is god so for
0:30:26 all x
0:30:27 if x for any object if that object has
0:30:30 the power over sunrise
0:30:32 then that object is god ibrahim
0:30:35 al-islam's deity has
0:30:37 power over sunrise therefore ibrahim
0:30:39 al-islam's deity
0:30:40 is god so if p then q p the therefore q
0:30:44 that's hundreds of islam's inference
0:30:46 yeah that's his inference from
0:30:48 um uh if p then q p therefore q
0:30:52 so he says underlying the argument is
0:30:54 that logical structure
0:30:56 and then he goes on more and more and
0:30:57 more um
0:30:59 where he tries to fit quranic arguments
0:31:03 into illogistic form any of the
0:31:04 valid forms that aristotle had found
0:31:07 altogether i think there's 54
0:31:08 moods of the civilization 56 moves of
0:31:11 the syllogism
0:31:13 so yeah that's an example there and then
0:31:17 you know he gives lots and lots of
0:31:19 examples and this can be found in our
0:31:20 custard
0:31:22 now not everyone accepts this yeah
0:31:24 obviously not everyone accepts it
0:31:26 this is this is yeah this is it is a
0:31:28 controversial
0:31:29 um but you would
0:31:33 where everyone accepts the fact that you
0:31:35 that if you're going to basically
0:31:36 articulate something
0:31:38 and trying to prove something you have
0:31:39 to do in a way
0:31:41 that is logically valid meaning
0:31:44 yeah one statement leads to the next
0:31:47 conclusion
0:31:49 fine you don't have to basically have
0:31:50 this kind of you don't have to fall in
0:31:52 love with the aristotelian paradigm
0:31:55 and you know make it into this monster
0:31:57 but i think
0:31:58 even because when you read the works of
0:32:00 ibn tamiya may allah have mercy on him
0:32:03 you would see that he had an argument
0:32:04 like he had an argument against
0:32:06 the the the best of possible worlds
0:32:09 in the problem of evil in actual fact he
0:32:11 called al-ghazali's argument as well
0:32:13 they agreed on that issue
0:32:14 that this is the best possible world
0:32:16 that allah can create
0:32:17 um and he had another argument
0:32:19 concerning the problem of evil when he
0:32:21 was referring to allah's name and
0:32:23 attribute
0:32:24 that he is the wise but there is wisdom
0:32:26 behind these things so
0:32:28 he had an argument he thought that his
0:32:29 conclusion
0:32:31 was valid based upon all the other
0:32:34 justifications he made in the previous
0:32:36 statement that he made in his writing so
0:32:39 he may not have placed on him the same
0:32:41 so the thing is i don't think that
0:32:42 rejected the need to be able to
0:32:47 have an argument that flows properly
0:32:50 yeah
0:32:51 i don't think they disagreed with that i
0:32:53 think what you're trying to say here
0:32:55 kind of inflation of logic which even
0:32:58 tamir
0:32:59 uh tried to uh dismantle in his um
0:33:04 in uh book
0:33:18 so yeah i want to be clear for the
0:33:21 audience so they don't think that
0:33:22 you know even the the the
0:33:26 anti-logic yeah what can we mean
0:33:29 they had to use certain principles or
0:33:31 logical principles
0:33:33 to derive rulings especially when they
0:33:34 did and other bits and pieces right
0:33:39 so yeah so we've got yeah so i'm not
0:33:41 trying to say that
0:33:42 um sorry islam is antithetical to logic
0:33:46 or those
0:33:47 who denied a sort of logic
0:33:50 primarily our society and stoic
0:33:52 abyssinian farabi and logic
0:33:55 that they weren't intellectual or they
0:33:56 were they were anti-irrational i'm not
0:33:58 saying that at all i'm just saying
0:33:59 the way uh islam has taken it to a
0:34:02 metaphysical plane
0:34:03 because now he's saying or we can infer
0:34:06 that
0:34:07 you've you've said now logic is the way
0:34:09 the divine
0:34:10 discourse is formed yeah you see there's
0:34:13 a big claim yeah
0:34:16 maybe yeah maybe people didn't want to
0:34:19 climb up that and that high
0:34:20 metaphysically absolutely so that was
0:34:22 very controversial for sure
0:34:24 uh but just for the audience saying
0:34:26 unique
0:34:28 for the sake of the live stream um you
0:34:31 know having an argument that flows
0:34:33 in a way that is valid is very important
0:34:36 when
0:34:37 when we're engaging in monado uh but
0:34:40 obviously
0:34:41 there's a huge camp of the olympia who
0:34:44 reacted the kind of metaphysical aspects
0:34:46 of logic
0:34:48 which is part of mainstream islam so
0:34:50 this leads now to
0:34:51 logical policy you talk about logical
0:34:53 fallacies in the book so what
0:34:55 is a logical fallacy and maybe give us
0:34:57 an example of some logical fallacies
0:35:02 um so in logic you know
0:35:06 so people can reason correctly in logic
0:35:09 you can reason correctly
0:35:10 um so you set out your your argument in
0:35:13 premises
0:35:14 and the conclusion follows from the
0:35:15 premises that's great
0:35:17 sometimes um the way you reason
0:35:21 the conclusion doesn't quite follow from
0:35:24 what you're saying
0:35:26 um so and that could be because of the
0:35:29 way you constructed your argument
0:35:31 so you think you can infer something
0:35:35 that but you can't given based on what
0:35:37 you've already claimed
0:35:38 so you've committed an error in
0:35:40 reasoning your reasoning isn't
0:35:43 correct and sound so fallacy just
0:35:45 basically is
0:35:46 um a mistaken belief or conclu
0:35:50 a mistaken inference you make for
0:35:52 something you've said or claimed
0:35:54 you think you can claim it uh infer it
0:35:56 but you can't
0:35:57 so fallacies then are those types of
0:35:59 arguments that
0:36:02 show a error an incorrect
0:36:05 um setting out of an argument
0:36:08 so that's very very important to know
0:36:12 because i need to know when i'm making
0:36:14 an argument have i committed a fallacy
0:36:16 because if i have then i can't that
0:36:18 argument i need to change it
0:36:20 um yes similarly i need to point out to
0:36:23 my opponent that if she has used
0:36:25 a fallacy then she may not be aware
0:36:29 um i need to alert her to her fallacious
0:36:32 reasoning um because at the end of the
0:36:34 day remember we're trying to reach
0:36:35 truth it's not haha i picked a fault in
0:36:37 your argument
0:36:39 yes and you definitely my argument and
0:36:41 we're just going to bruise each other's
0:36:43 egos there's nothing to do with that
0:36:45 bottom line it's about seeking truth
0:36:48 so you can't reach truth by an error in
0:36:51 reasoning
0:36:52 you can't reach the truth through an
0:36:53 error in reasoning
0:36:55 so so that's why in arabic we call
0:36:57 fallacies
0:37:00 you made that you made a a mistake in
0:37:02 your reasoning
0:37:04 and there are tons of fallacies um
0:37:06 [Music]
0:37:11 some fallacies sorry there's a bit of a
0:37:13 delay for that so i do apologize
0:37:15 so some fallacies
0:37:18 are not fallacies if you apply them
0:37:21 correctly
0:37:22 like for example before you give us some
0:37:24 examples but one that comes to mind is
0:37:26 you know the argument from contingency
0:37:28 or the argument from dependent
0:37:30 some uh interlocutors or atheists or
0:37:34 or skeptics they say oh you've committed
0:37:37 the fallacy of composition and the
0:37:39 fallacy of composition is a error in
0:37:41 reason where you think
0:37:42 the whole has to have the same
0:37:44 attributes as its part
0:37:46 so they would say that's a policies
0:37:49 because given example of the fallacy
0:37:52 um the persian rug is heavy in weight
0:37:56 but its individual threads are light in
0:37:58 weight
0:37:59 so just because the individual threads
0:38:02 are light in weight
0:38:03 you can't now infer that the whole
0:38:05 persian rug is light in weight so that's
0:38:08 however you have to be careful how you
0:38:10 apply that fallacy because it's not
0:38:12 always the case that it's a phallic
0:38:14 for example a brick wall a brick wall is
0:38:17 hard
0:38:18 and its individual parts bricks are also
0:38:20 hard so you can say
0:38:22 the individual brick by hard make up a
0:38:24 hard wall
0:38:25 so the hole will have the attribute of
0:38:28 its
0:38:28 individual car and with the specific to
0:38:32 the argument from contingency
0:38:34 you can't apply this fallacy to the
0:38:35 argument continue because
0:38:37 of the principle of dependency or the
0:38:39 principle of contingency that contingent
0:38:41 things always make up contingent holds
0:38:45 from that point of view so and
0:38:48 yeah you're right there's a lot of
0:38:50 fallacies but they get
0:38:51 also complicated to the point where
0:38:53 sometimes they're applied and sometimes
0:38:55 they're not so give us some other
0:38:56 examples what
0:38:58 your example just shows the need while
0:39:00 we need to study fallacies so we use
0:39:01 that if we're applying
0:39:02 if i accuse my inner debate in islam in
0:39:05 islamic
0:39:06 in bathroom another like if i accuse my
0:39:08 opponent or something
0:39:09 i can't just throw out a flimsy
0:39:11 accusation or that that's a fallacious
0:39:13 argument
0:39:13 i i better you know i better bring my
0:39:16 evidence
0:39:17 if i'm misunderstanding fallacies
0:39:20 then i'm making a false accusation
0:39:21 against my debate opponent can you see
0:39:24 we don't have to do that so that reaches
0:39:26 the etiquette debate
0:39:27 so we've got to be very very careful in
0:39:29 how we do that yeah i mean there are
0:39:31 tons
0:39:31 in the book i tried to put some examples
0:39:34 maybe i'll mention a couple
0:39:35 where i don't often find these fallacies
0:39:37 being
0:39:38 studied or mentioned so they get off the
0:39:40 radar
0:39:42 but i think they're quite important um
0:39:44 and sometimes we may fall prey to them
0:39:46 or some people
0:39:47 may use it against us and then we're
0:39:49 scratching your head thinking that
0:39:50 sounded right
0:39:52 but you know what you go back and you
0:39:53 think and you think uh how did i not get
0:39:55 that
0:39:56 um so i mean for example there's one
0:39:59 the one that's called the fallacy of
0:40:01 appeal to accomplishment
0:40:03 so the form goes something like this
0:40:06 p something is true p is true because
0:40:09 the person
0:40:10 making the claim has an impeccable
0:40:13 record or accomplished record therefore
0:40:16 p is true
0:40:17 so someone may say to you look i've got
0:40:20 a phd
0:40:21 i've got so many jazzers to teach so
0:40:24 believe me when i tell you yeah
0:40:26 there's no contradiction between this
0:40:28 and that well believe me if you know
0:40:30 islam is compatible with this or islam
0:40:32 is compatible with that
0:40:34 okay but truth is not dependent on
0:40:38 the accomplishment of someone otherwise
0:40:40 we would have to say
0:40:42 someone more accomplished than the
0:40:43 person making that argument will be even
0:40:45 truer
0:40:46 yes so it doesn't really matter
0:40:50 i'm not demeaning ejazza i'm not for our
0:40:52 audience please don't mistake we're
0:40:54 talking about logic here we're talking
0:40:55 about strictly what can follow from what
0:40:57 you may have a bundle of ejazzers it
0:41:00 doesn't make
0:41:00 your claim about something true yes
0:41:04 because someone will come along and say
0:41:06 i have 10 to the power of two e jazzers
0:41:09 yeah so therefore i'm truer than you in
0:41:11 what i claim
0:41:13 but truth has to be independently
0:41:16 established and verified through
0:41:17 evidence
0:41:19 so that's called the appeal to
0:41:20 accomplishment um
0:41:22 and people try and you've got to
0:41:23 remember this and the quran points this
0:41:25 out beautifully fallacies are used
0:41:27 in a performance to to shut out the
0:41:30 opponent's argument
0:41:32 that's what fallacies are used for to
0:41:34 shut out
0:41:35 all the debate so it's it has a it has a
0:41:38 adverse pragmatic function yes
0:41:42 and allah recalls these fallacies in the
0:41:44 quran in many many places
0:41:47 another thing is this um appeal what
0:41:50 they call appeal to consequence
0:41:52 um something is um uh
0:41:55 you could say some belief
0:41:59 or something has negative consequences
0:42:01 therefore that thing is false
0:42:03 or you can do the opposite and say
0:42:05 something has positive consequences
0:42:07 therefore that thing is true
0:42:09 so you're pegging truth and falsity
0:42:12 on mere consequences um
0:42:16 so so i know someone might say um
0:42:20 look at all the youth and muslim youth
0:42:22 out there who don't
0:42:23 live a hedonistic lifestyle you're
0:42:25 robbing them of so much
0:42:27 enjoyment and fun and whatever it is
0:42:30 yeah
0:42:31 therefore you know living by your
0:42:34 religious rules and guidance
0:42:36 that must be false um but that's clearly
0:42:39 fallacious
0:42:40 you can't play truth on the mere
0:42:43 consequences of something
0:42:45 um because we can get lots of a lot of
0:42:49 a lot of yeah they say oh
0:42:52 no the crime says this it's bad
0:42:55 therefore it's wrong
0:42:56 right so number one is a logical policy
0:42:59 but also
0:43:00 we could under we could unpack their
0:43:02 premise well
0:43:05 according to whose framework is that bad
0:43:08 how do you define bad right or into what
0:43:11 normative
0:43:12 theory what is your method what's your
0:43:14 normal theory to even make that judgment
0:43:16 so that's why it's very important you
0:43:18 mentioned it's not important for people
0:43:19 to understand that
0:43:20 when people make these emote because
0:43:21 remember logical fallacies have
0:43:23 emotional
0:43:24 uh content
0:43:28 you don't even have a phd yet who are
0:43:30 you so-and-so you don't even know arabic
0:43:32 or who are you so so you don't know this
0:43:34 now in in certain contexts that might
0:43:36 make sense for what you don't know
0:43:37 arabic and you're claiming to be
0:43:39 an expert in tafsir exegesis then we
0:43:41 have a problem
0:43:42 so again it's applied but generally
0:43:44 speaking if you if you're discussing
0:43:45 about a topic that
0:43:47 you know you have some expertise over
0:43:48 someone's saying oh you don't have this
0:43:50 therefore you're wrong
0:43:52 that's that's fallacious so and they all
0:43:54 have emotional content and that's right
0:43:55 in a debate you have to be very clear of
0:43:57 your emotions
0:43:58 like reminds what bruce said about when
0:44:00 you're ready to fight he said you have
0:44:02 to be ego less like a wooden doll
0:44:05 just allow the limbs to work themselves
0:44:07 don't get emotional because if you have
0:44:08 too much emotional content
0:44:10 you won't be able to address the logical
0:44:12 fantasy because
0:44:14 you've just been the the emotion has
0:44:16 been imposed on you you don't realize
0:44:17 that actually there's an error in their
0:44:19 reasoning so yeah that's brilliant i'll
0:44:22 give you one more
0:44:24 question yeah and this is called the
0:44:26 fallacy of inflation of conflict
0:44:28 um i don't want to mention um a recent
0:44:32 example
0:44:32 but you know i'm sure our viewers can
0:44:35 make the connection
0:44:36 the inflation of conflict fallacy says
0:44:38 that imagine you have authority person a
0:44:41 an authority person b they are they
0:44:43 differ over some
0:44:45 claim or proposition we and then the
0:44:48 person infers that therefore
0:44:50 we cannot say anything certain or
0:44:52 meaningful about
0:44:53 p so person a and person b differ over p
0:44:57 therefore we cannot say anything certain
0:44:59 or meaningful about p
0:45:00 now the reason why that's gracious is
0:45:03 because we cannot make that inference
0:45:04 all we can say is
0:45:06 person a and b differ over p that's all
0:45:09 we can say
0:45:09 we cannot infer that there's nothing
0:45:11 more meaningful to say or nothing more
0:45:13 certain to say
0:45:14 so if two or lamar differ over a
0:45:17 particular
0:45:18 issue um it doesn't mean therefore the
0:45:21 whole subject matter is in dispute or
0:45:25 there's nothing certain in that subject
0:45:27 area all it says is that two scholars
0:45:30 disagreed
0:45:32 that's the extent of the claim that we
0:45:33 can make so
0:45:35 unfortunately a lot of a lot of muslims
0:45:37 i see that
0:45:38 they commit that inflation of conflict
0:45:40 fallacy just because two giant scholars
0:45:42 disagreed about something
0:45:43 therefore the whole subject matter
0:45:44 they're talking about what issue is so
0:45:46 uncertain
0:45:47 and that's not clear can you see you
0:45:49 know what you should say
0:45:51 what you should do is maybe do a youtube
0:45:52 video on like the
0:45:54 top 30 logical fallacies on muslims
0:45:57 social media
0:45:58 you know people's reactions to things oh
0:46:00 this looks like this we've got to say
0:46:01 that and you could we could
0:46:03 basically do like apply the logical
0:46:05 fallacy to these reactions
0:46:07 but here okay good so the next question
0:46:09 is a very important question uh
0:46:11 doctor so what are the etiquettes of
0:46:14 debates
0:46:15 in the islamic tradition so give us an
0:46:17 overview
0:46:18 tickets of debating of munabhara in the
0:46:20 islamic tradition
0:46:23 i mean there are so many and
0:46:30 when one you know
0:46:35 has to be looked at as an act of worship
0:46:38 um
0:46:38 because you're seeking the truth um so
0:46:42 um it also falls under actually
0:46:45 you know commanding right forbidding
0:46:47 wrong because that what falls under that
0:46:49 so your argumentation should fall into
0:46:51 your
0:46:52 program of darwin essentially
0:46:55 so anyway so so bearing that in mind we
0:46:58 have to have that
0:46:59 there cannot be any inappropriate
0:47:01 behavior in a debate we can't become
0:47:03 angry infuriated agitated lose our
0:47:06 composure
0:47:07 shout um flail you know gesticulate
0:47:11 you you know like that um
0:47:16 because we're gonna lose focus on
0:47:17 remember the focus is we're arguing to
0:47:19 attain the truth
0:47:22 not to throw a barney at someone where
0:47:25 we're just we want to focus on the truth
0:47:27 so um the first etiquette debate
0:47:31 at one etiquette debate is that we
0:47:34 shouldn't
0:47:34 um we shouldn't make assumptions about
0:47:37 the person we're debating
0:47:39 um we mustn't assume the person has ill
0:47:43 intentions
0:47:44 um uh we shouldn't assume
0:47:48 that they're out with some kind of sub
0:47:51 unless we have reasons to obviously
0:47:52 there are always exceptions right unless
0:47:54 we have reason to the default is
0:47:57 you have good opinion of your intel your
0:47:59 your debate partner
0:48:01 um and you you know you have the
0:48:04 intention to draw nearer to allah
0:48:07 and you always want to give a good
0:48:08 opinion of them
0:48:10 so that's that's the second etiquette
0:48:13 debate
0:48:14 another etiquette debate is um not to
0:48:17 debate
0:48:18 in inappropriate places so we shouldn't
0:48:22 conduct debates in intimidating places
0:48:26 um like maybe we invite someone to
0:48:29 debate and then we want the audience to
0:48:32 you know bae for blood
0:48:35 you know um that kind of thing or we
0:48:38 shouldn't be debating in
0:48:39 areas where we may get overwhelmed
0:48:42 like overcome with fear um
0:48:46 yeah so we need to avoid places like
0:48:48 that places that aren't safe
0:48:50 um and places in effect really
0:48:53 for any platform or place that doesn't
0:48:56 allow you to
0:48:57 achieve your aim again which is the
0:48:59 truth
0:49:01 so not in a not in a so any place that's
0:49:04 considered inappropriate as if it bars
0:49:06 you from
0:49:06 reaching the truth the other etiquette
0:49:08 of debate is to debate your peers
0:49:10 generally
0:49:11 i know you you debated obviously
0:49:13 professor kraft and that was the first
0:49:15 time it was done
0:49:16 and i think there was a milestone
0:49:19 but generally um we should be cognizant
0:49:22 of who we're debating we shouldn't
0:49:23 debate
0:49:24 like like a high school per high school
0:49:26 kid and we're adults
0:49:28 yes generally peers are like
0:49:30 intellectual peers
0:49:32 um we should avoid debating
0:49:35 people who are considered yani
0:49:38 respectful and dignified like and we you
0:49:41 know we come along
0:49:42 and try and you know
0:49:46 agitate them for a debate we should we
0:49:49 ought not to do that
0:49:50 we ought not to we want to keep within
0:49:52 our our peer
0:49:53 um so so there's a so in order to do
0:49:55 that we have a rightful and appropriate
0:49:57 level of engagement
0:49:58 yes we must have patience and diligence
0:50:02 we have to have a suburb we cannot lose
0:50:04 patience in the debate
0:50:06 um because at the end of the day however
0:50:09 long the debate partner takes to make
0:50:11 the claim
0:50:11 you have to sit patiently yes
0:50:14 unless you set a time and whatever it is
0:50:16 you know unless you have logistical
0:50:18 agreements but
0:50:19 you must have patience and and bear
0:50:23 out what your opponent is saying you
0:50:25 cannot
0:50:26 um you know lose it basically
0:50:30 so we need to be respectful kind we
0:50:32 shouldn't interrupt
0:50:33 that's a big thing um we are not allowed
0:50:37 to interrupt our debate partner
0:50:39 can't cut them off they have to finish
0:50:41 making their point or their
0:50:42 clarification or their claim
0:50:44 or their premise or their proposition um
0:50:47 and we have to wait till they finish
0:50:50 yeah
0:50:50 and then the list goes on and on and on
0:50:58 yeah in your view would this be applied
0:51:01 to debates
0:51:02 with non-muslim interlocutors as well
0:51:08 it's across the board there's no when
0:51:10 the undermine talk about it it is not
0:51:13 they don't specify that it's just a
0:51:14 believer
0:51:16 okay not a muslim with muslim debating
0:51:19 in fact
0:51:20 it's anyone who's your debate partner
0:51:22 your debate opponent
0:51:24 um so can't insult each other
0:51:27 unfortunately
0:51:28 i've seen some clips even recently
0:51:31 respectable
0:51:32 scholars insulting each other um
0:51:36 you know you know how it is
0:51:39 you know you yeah i'm sure you've seen
0:51:42 and heard it yourself
0:51:44 absolutely absolutely okay i'm going to
0:51:46 advise people to go to that relevant
0:51:48 section the etiquettes of debate in the
0:51:50 islamic tradition
0:51:51 it talks about that aspect in the book
0:51:53 so the next
0:51:54 thing is you also talk about quranic
0:51:57 method of argumentation the prophetic
0:52:00 method of argumentation
0:52:03 what what are you talking about what is
0:52:05 the quranic method of argumentation
0:52:07 what is this the the sunnah of
0:52:09 argumentation the prophetic methodology
0:52:11 and and give us some examples okay
0:52:14 um the quranic discourse
0:52:18 in the quranic discourse how the quran
0:52:22 models argumentation how it gives
0:52:25 examples of argumentation
0:52:27 is very different from
0:52:30 a philosophical type of argumentation
0:52:32 but i'll come i'll mention that a bit
0:52:34 later but let me mention some of the
0:52:35 features of
0:52:36 what i think are the quranic
0:52:37 argumentation
0:52:39 um we have to remember by the way
0:52:41 quranic argumentation
0:52:43 is part of the jazz of the quran because
0:52:46 it's coined in the arabic language
0:52:48 interesting so so you know
0:52:52 if language is what grounds or quran's
0:52:54 inimitability and you've written
0:52:55 extensively on that
0:52:58 and argumentation is based on the
0:53:00 language then it's part of the
0:53:01 inimitability
0:53:03 uh the other feature of the chronic
0:53:05 argumentation is it appeals to
0:53:08 um both the intellect and the emotions
0:53:12 and i think sometimes you mentioned in
0:53:13 your talks that an ayah
0:53:16 is supposed is you know is supposed to
0:53:18 just activate
0:53:20 in you um you know
0:53:23 your sense of awe and wonder
0:53:30 so arguments are aimed at hitting that
0:53:32 as well not just our thinking
0:53:34 but to awaken that war in us
0:53:37 so the chronic argumentations are
0:53:40 addressing
0:53:40 the human person holistically it's not
0:53:44 just a
0:53:44 rational thing it's addressing our
0:53:47 emotions
0:53:48 our fear our hopes our longing our
0:53:50 desires and things like that
0:53:53 the quran uses evidence is based on what
0:53:57 is
0:53:58 on sense perception of what is sensible
0:54:01 um it doesn't base premises or claims on
0:54:05 wild guesses speculate
0:54:08 far-fetched convoluted examples um
0:54:12 so everything is grounded in a claim
0:54:15 that can be traced back
0:54:17 and verified through the senses
0:54:20 so that's another feature of the chronic
0:54:22 argumentation there's no contrived
0:54:24 artificial language it's all
0:54:27 couched in beautiful eloquent heart you
0:54:30 know
0:54:31 pulling at the heart so allah uses that
0:54:34 kind of language
0:54:36 um the other stuff the other sort of
0:54:40 feature of the quranic argumentation is
0:54:42 um
0:54:43 the quran always gives justifications it
0:54:46 gets you to think
0:54:49 why allah when allah makes a claim he's
0:54:51 grounding acclaim
0:54:52 um they're not groundless
0:54:56 um and so things like that and then the
0:54:59 quran uses different
0:55:00 styles for his argument sometimes it's
0:55:03 polemical and hard hitting
0:55:06 so like warnings um
0:55:10 sometimes it's persuasive it's trying to
0:55:11 convince you
0:55:13 it's using you know if you want to use
0:55:15 that outstanding language
0:55:16 of ethos logos pathos and all that kind
0:55:18 of stuff so it's using
0:55:20 persuasive language other times it uses
0:55:23 a legal language
0:55:25 other times it just narrates using uses
0:55:27 narration or style
0:55:29 so there's so many different styles in
0:55:32 the quran
0:55:33 so you mentioned
0:55:37 an example for example to use an example
0:55:40 if we look at for example um
0:55:44 let me just think uh what i can think
0:55:46 that would be an easy one
0:55:49 so uh allah subhanallahu ta'ala gets
0:55:52 us here's one a feature of chronic
0:55:56 argumentation
0:55:56 is allah makes us see allah wants to
0:56:00 make
0:56:02 to expose the contradiction in the
0:56:03 opponent's view
0:56:05 so for example when the the the
0:56:08 the mushrik the mushipoon arab times
0:56:11 they
0:56:12 they their faces used to go black when
0:56:15 they had a daughter born
0:56:18 when they had a daughter born the faces
0:56:20 used to go dark black out of shame
0:56:22 and we know what their heinous practice
0:56:25 was
0:56:26 bringing alive you know newborn
0:56:29 daughters like that
0:56:30 um it's infanticide and allah says okay
0:56:34 you don't like girls you don't like
0:56:36 females
0:56:37 you kill him so backwards
0:56:40 and barbaric but yet you have you don't
0:56:43 see it as a problem
0:56:44 that you attribute daughters to allah
0:56:49 allah has no problems in the sense of
0:56:51 it's not allah is having a problem with
0:56:52 females it's not that
0:56:54 it's based on your own logic and your
0:56:56 own your own viewpoint you don't like
0:56:58 anything female but yet you find it
0:57:01 dignified enough to attribute it to
0:57:03 your deity so allah exposes it yeah
0:57:07 the inconsistency and i think
0:57:10 very profound doctor because the quran
0:57:13 in its statements and arguments are just
0:57:15 very multi-layered because on one
0:57:18 area it's like an ayah is like a diamond
0:57:22 and where you put the light it has a
0:57:24 different reaction
0:57:26 so you know take for example when allah
0:57:29 talks about
0:57:30 uh in in sort of 52 verse 35 to 36
0:57:34 when allah says did you come from
0:57:35 nothing you create yourself do you
0:57:36 create the heavens
0:57:40 you have no certainty now that primarily
0:57:42 can be used as a psychoemotive point to
0:57:45 awaken what is intuitive
0:57:47 so some argue that's part of the fitra
0:57:50 but
0:57:51 also there's an underlying powerful
0:57:53 argument behind that
0:57:54 concerning things that are things that
0:57:57 come into being
0:57:59 could they come from nothing could they
0:58:00 create themselves could they be created
0:58:02 by something else created or is an
0:58:03 uncreated creator
0:58:05 so you could have a rat no powerful
0:58:06 argument on one hand
0:58:09 but the same verses can also have a
0:58:11 psycho emotive
0:58:14 function to bring out what is naturally
0:58:17 within us which is what allah is the
0:58:19 reality and his worthy of extensive
0:58:20 praise absolutely
0:58:22 absolutely so right you also talk about
0:58:25 the prophetic methodology
0:58:27 of argumentation so what is that and
0:58:29 give us some as well
0:58:32 so that yeah so the prophetic argument
0:58:34 it does overlap with the quranic
0:58:36 argument but what i was trying to say
0:58:38 there
0:58:38 i think there is a sunnah methodology in
0:58:41 argumentation
0:58:42 um so the prophet when he's delivering
0:58:45 the truth
0:58:46 he uses so some of the features of how
0:58:49 the prophet used to argue
0:58:52 um he used to use one the most eloquent
0:58:55 language
0:58:56 he was the most eloquent arab of course
0:58:58 without a doubt so his arguments were
0:58:59 always couched in
0:59:01 the most beautiful in an eloquent and
0:59:04 respectful way
0:59:06 respectful terms um
0:59:09 he he he would use some of the most sort
0:59:12 of
0:59:13 penetrative examples
0:59:16 when he's using when he's in debate he'd
0:59:19 try and you'd use the strongest proof
0:59:21 to establish the claim um
0:59:25 so but you've got to remember his
0:59:26 arguments were arguments
0:59:28 aimed at being transformative
0:59:33 not aimed at me giving you propositional
0:59:35 knowledge can you see
0:59:37 his aim was he's got to transform
0:59:39 because he's bringing guidance he's
0:59:41 trying to transform human lectures and
0:59:42 i've come to talk about the fitra
0:59:44 hopefully in just a bit um never do you
0:59:47 find him in the sunnah
0:59:48 argumentation merely for sport
0:59:52 or quarreling or dueling
0:59:57 you know just for no purpose at all
1:00:01 argumentation the prophet used was to
1:00:04 to awaken general realization in human
1:00:07 beings
1:00:08 the arguments were never complicated or
1:00:10 confounded the prophet
1:00:13 ever sat down and made an argument to
1:00:15 the companions or to his
1:00:17 debate opponents like mushy corn and
1:00:18 they said who
1:00:20 muhammad what are you saying that's so
1:00:22 convoluted
1:00:23 it was always simple it was never
1:00:25 abstract and disconnected from reality
1:00:28 can you see so
1:00:31 so yeah so the prophet would use that
1:00:34 obviously his
1:00:35 argumentations were linked with the
1:00:36 quran because he used to wait for
1:00:38 revelation to come down
1:00:41 so one example is the example for
1:00:43 example of isa ali
1:00:44 salam where the delegation from nagaland
1:00:47 came to the prophet
1:00:48 and they were discussing and debating
1:00:51 many issues and one of the issues that
1:00:52 cropped up was
1:00:54 the nature of isa alaihissalam and they
1:00:57 were saying to the prophet were muslim
1:00:58 before you even came
1:01:00 um and the prophet said no that's not
1:01:02 true based on what you said
1:01:04 your claim is that you say jesus is
1:01:07 um and then the argument they bring as
1:01:10 we told in the probably
1:01:11 and the syrup hashem even others like
1:01:14 that
1:01:15 that you know they claim that you know
1:01:17 islam what makes him unique is that you
1:01:19 know he was born
1:01:20 from singapore from a single from a
1:01:22 mother only
1:01:24 um but if that is the case so the
1:01:27 prophet waited for the response
1:01:28 you know if that is the case then surely
1:01:31 if you think that's weird let me give
1:01:32 you something even
1:01:33 stranger what would you say in the case
1:01:36 of someone who had no parentage
1:01:38 on your logic remember this is not the
1:01:40 quran is not making this claim a lot the
1:01:42 prophet is not making this claim
1:01:43 this based on the claim that the um
1:01:47 the christian delegation from najib made
1:01:49 you are claiming someone's divinity
1:01:50 based on the fact that they were born
1:01:52 without one
1:01:53 biological parent but what if i give you
1:01:55 the example of someone who's born about
1:01:57 no biological parents so things like
1:02:00 that
1:02:01 and and you know so and there's many
1:02:04 many
1:02:05 many many i know we haven't got time to
1:02:06 go through the process but
1:02:09 the whole time yeah so the whole point
1:02:12 of this to encourage people to actually
1:02:15 uh get the book as well you can get it
1:02:17 off
1:02:18 amazon and please study as well and also
1:02:21 for this to plant a seed in your heart
1:02:22 and mind
1:02:23 so you can continue your journey if
1:02:25 you're going to get involved in these
1:02:26 things
1:02:27 please learn about logical fallacies
1:02:30 different
1:02:30 uh types of logic learn about the
1:02:32 chronic methodology of argumentation
1:02:35 the prophet prophetic methodology of
1:02:37 argumentation learn about the etiquettes
1:02:39 of
1:02:39 monad and discussion and debate and so
1:02:42 on and so forth so this leads us to our
1:02:44 final question ultimate question i've
1:02:47 got two more questions
1:02:48 one the penultimate question is what is
1:02:51 the difference between
1:02:52 quranic argument and philosophical
1:02:54 argument
1:02:57 the difference between quranic argument
1:02:59 and philosophical
1:03:02 yeah now after everything i just said
1:03:05 about logic
1:03:06 yeah i'm i'm not dismissing logic at all
1:03:09 um i know we've encouraged it today um
1:03:12 for those who are working
1:03:14 to do to study logic for the reasons we
1:03:16 mentioned earlier
1:03:18 um but but there is a difference between
1:03:22 how the quran presents arguments and how
1:03:24 a philosopher
1:03:25 presents arguments um the quran
1:03:28 is based on natural language whereas
1:03:32 whereas philosophers logicians use an
1:03:34 artificial language i know you mentioned
1:03:36 earlier about free m a
1:03:37 you have to study the squiggly lines and
1:03:39 the symbols and things like that
1:03:40 there's no artificial language in the
1:03:42 quran is natural language
1:03:45 the quranic arguments are often informal
1:03:48 um they're not set out formally in a in
1:03:51 in a logically structured way whereas
1:03:55 the philosopher philosophical arguments
1:03:57 are set out in a formal way
1:03:59 um the quranic arguments are based on
1:04:02 what you can sense and perceive
1:04:04 what the mind can grasp but philosophers
1:04:06 arguments can be about the metaphysical
1:04:08 the meta-metaphysical you know the hype
1:04:12 because yeah you know um
1:04:15 the chronic arguments are for everyone
1:04:18 because it's
1:04:19 a guidance for all humankind so it has
1:04:21 to be addressed
1:04:23 be understood at every level whereas
1:04:24 philosophical arguments are only known
1:04:26 by specialists
1:04:27 [Music]
1:04:29 those who know logic philosophy whatever
1:04:30 theology and things like that
1:04:32 the quranic arguments are very simple
1:04:36 non-technical they're not abstract
1:04:38 whereas
1:04:39 we know philosophical arguments can be
1:04:40 complex and
1:04:42 technical and abstract we know that um
1:04:45 but here's one that's very unique in
1:04:47 quranic argumentation
1:04:48 the quran has come to agitate the fitra
1:04:54 the quran has come to agitate now
1:04:58 often it does that by generating
1:05:00 vulnerability in us
1:05:02 reminding us of our limitedness how
1:05:04 needy we are how weak
1:05:05 how finite we are so that vulnerability
1:05:09 gets us to think
1:05:10 well something greater than me i'm so
1:05:13 i'm so weak and powerless
1:05:15 so there must be something greater than
1:05:16 me and yeah the occult camp player
1:05:18 plays a role in telling us what is now
1:05:20 the word object worthy of worship
1:05:22 but the quran has come to hit that fit
1:05:24 and to ignite it awake
1:05:27 because it could be dormant for most of
1:05:29 us it could be you know for a lot of
1:05:30 people it's dormant
1:05:31 needs agitating philosophers don't do
1:05:33 that
1:05:35 philosophical arguments don't hit your
1:05:37 fit i mean i i
1:05:38 you know you've studied philosophy
1:05:40 you've you know you've read philosophy
1:05:42 books back to front
1:05:43 i mean how many of them sort of really
1:05:46 when they're formal and technical
1:05:48 banger i don't know
1:05:52 yeah they're not transformative they
1:05:54 don't agitate
1:05:55 pedagogical yeah yeah they absolutely
1:05:58 the the and that's the power of the
1:06:01 quran
1:06:03 the arguments are simple yet profound
1:06:05 yeah
1:06:07 it's formative so we're not saying logic
1:06:11 doesn't have we just mentioned the
1:06:12 importance of logic
1:06:13 earlier but we're saying that the
1:06:15 methodology of the quran is different
1:06:17 because it's about idea now um
1:06:20 but the logic is the tool um that can
1:06:22 help passing uncovering
1:06:24 in some formal ways or with clarity what
1:06:27 is already within the chronic discourse
1:06:29 and there are other differences but i
1:06:30 thought i mentioned those um yeah
1:06:32 so anyone who feels they don't get logic
1:06:34 or they're not studying it not to feel
1:06:37 that they can't access the quranic
1:06:39 message
1:06:41 the best arguments are fundamentally the
1:06:43 arguments of the book of allah subhanahu
1:06:45 wa ta'ala
1:06:46 so that is a given i think another thing
1:06:48 which is very interesting is always
1:06:50 the quran and you mentioned that earlier
1:06:52 the quran uses premises
1:06:55 that are not for example abstract and
1:06:57 cannot be
1:06:59 justified whereas the quran uses
1:07:02 premises that can be offensible they can
1:07:05 be sensed and they can be
1:07:06 easily unpacked or easily understood
1:07:10 whereas in philosophical language or in
1:07:12 philosophical arguments
1:07:14 you may need certain premises you need
1:07:17 another thousand arguments just to
1:07:19 justify your premise
1:07:22 so yeah absolutely imagine imagine if
1:07:25 you say to someone
1:07:26 in some possible world p there is some
1:07:29 person who lives there and he eats
1:07:31 vegetables and already you've lost them
1:07:34 that is an abstract possible word it's
1:07:35 got nothing to do with anyone we don't
1:07:37 even know how that world is it's just a
1:07:38 mere
1:07:40 you know it reminds me of the
1:07:43 zombie argument uh when they talk about
1:07:46 the philosophy of the mind
1:07:48 yeah you imagine yeah
1:07:52 so yeah hamdulillah so we've
1:07:56 done i think more than an hour now so
1:07:57 final question what is your
1:07:59 word advice to the active to those who
1:08:02 engage in islamic outreach those who
1:08:04 want to intellectually academically uh
1:08:08 share islam and defenders
1:08:12 first of all the advice is to myself uh
1:08:14 before it's to anyone and i'm i'm
1:08:16 lying i say this uh if anyone knows me
1:08:19 i'm the one who need
1:08:20 most of advice i would say this um
1:08:24 in the context of what we've just been
1:08:25 talking about we need to check
1:08:27 our sincerity that's the first thing our
1:08:30 iklas
1:08:30 where is it so on our last meetup where
1:08:33 are we
1:08:34 what's up you know we want we want a
1:08:36 good taqwa footprint
1:08:38 so we need to check our icloud
1:08:41 am i debating am i discussing what is it
1:08:44 for is it
1:08:44 because you know the audience are going
1:08:48 to like me
1:08:49 the audience is what the audience want
1:08:51 um is it because
1:08:53 it makes me feel good and gratified you
1:08:56 know
1:08:56 i like to humiliate people whatever
1:08:58 whatever it is i'm not making
1:08:59 accusations against anyone i'm just
1:09:01 saying generically
1:09:03 if our intentions are not right if it's
1:09:05 not purely
1:09:06 to to seek the truth as a as a
1:09:10 as a means and seek the truth into means
1:09:11 of drawing nearer to allah
1:09:13 then we're probably not debating on the
1:09:16 right grounds or discussing or
1:09:18 arguing on the right grounds so
1:09:22 how is must be put in place
1:09:25 the other thing i would say is um
1:09:30 we should avoid debating um unless we
1:09:34 have to
1:09:36 we should avoid debating debating
1:09:38 shouldn't be a habit
1:09:40 um it shouldn't be something we clock up
1:09:44 like we got debate mileage
1:09:47 it it should be part of our data
1:09:50 our program and used where necessary
1:09:53 yes because that's how we're going to
1:09:54 deliver the truth obviously with the
1:09:56 best possible decorum but deliver it
1:09:58 through argumentation dialogue
1:10:00 discussion and so on doesn't have to
1:10:01 just be argument but dialogue and
1:10:02 discussion as well
1:10:04 so we need to avoid it unless we need to
1:10:07 employ it
1:10:08 in our strategy of da'wah to show the
1:10:10 intellectual
1:10:11 side of islam the strength of the
1:10:13 islamic
1:10:14 soul um the final piece of advice i'd
1:10:18 say is
1:10:19 if we are going to be debating and
1:10:21 discussing and dialoguing
1:10:23 not to turn it inwards in a in a in a
1:10:27 in a detrimental way what i seem to
1:10:29 sense now me personally is that we're
1:10:31 going inwards
1:10:33 destructively destructively
1:10:37 and and the worst thing is it's for
1:10:40 everyone to see
1:10:42 i know you've made some comments about
1:10:44 something before and i think you know
1:10:47 advice from yourself is going to be
1:10:49 important for
1:10:50 thousands and thousands of people who
1:10:51 are probably want to pick up a camera
1:10:55 and go somewhere and debate and record
1:10:57 it and show it to someone
1:10:59 and you know get gratified by it
1:11:01 whatever it is
1:11:03 but we seem to be turning inwards
1:11:04 without within ourselves and without any
1:11:07 adap yes we're shooting
1:11:11 we're firing at each other we're
1:11:13 scattering bullets at each other without
1:11:15 any adam
1:11:17 so that needs to that i think we need to
1:11:19 pull the brakes on that
1:11:21 um because we're insulting each other
1:11:24 we're attacking each other we're making
1:11:25 it personal we're insulting
1:11:27 we're breaking all the ada
1:11:31 so i would so reminded to myself we need
1:11:33 to check our sincerity
1:11:35 are we doing it to seek the truth and
1:11:36 draw nearer to allah is
1:11:38 it part of our strategy to take islam
1:11:42 intellectually to the people but with
1:11:44 the best decorum
1:11:46 and are we avoiding are we doing
1:11:48 debating
1:11:50 you know by lobbying grenades within our
1:11:52 each of our camps
1:11:54 um you know we're we're we're imploding
1:11:57 internally within ourselves
1:11:59 and that's destructive that's actually
1:12:02 in the book
1:12:03 i mention examples of that is
1:12:16 and this is why they should read it and
1:12:17 study it because
1:12:19 it would solve a lot of our issues
1:12:21 online offline
1:12:23 and it will be closer to the islamic
1:12:24 tradition and how we should basically
1:12:26 engage in monarch in debates and
1:12:28 discussions
1:12:30 it has to be done with sincerity and
1:12:32 with rahma
1:12:33 and really being committed to the
1:12:35 well-being of other people so that's
1:12:36 very very important just luckily
1:12:38 doctor obviously we could spend
1:12:41 on each of the chapters and unpack them
1:12:44 this was an introductory kind of live
1:12:46 stream maybe
1:12:47 in the future we could actually unpack
1:12:49 certain key concepts together
1:12:51 but it was a huge it's like an aid for
1:12:54 me today
1:12:55 for her that you were able to stay here
1:12:57 with me
1:12:58 a huge inspiration and a huge
1:13:00 inspiration
1:13:02 in so many ways in my dollar that you've
1:13:04 affected like there was a video that
1:13:06 went viral
1:13:07 when there was this fitna from channel 4
1:13:09 documentary i believe
1:13:10 it was about the luxembourg hypothesis
1:13:15 yeah and you did this private academic
1:13:18 pdf that no one knows that i'm probably
1:13:20 the only guy who read it
1:13:22 and i used that video and it went viral
1:13:24 and it solved a lot of people's doubt
1:13:26 yeah and people think it's me actually
1:13:29 it was
1:13:29 you i just basically
1:13:35 and that's why people should follow your
1:13:36 work they should follow dr suffolk
1:13:38 chowdhury
1:13:39 he has a blog as well check on his blog
1:13:41 if you get the book all the details are
1:13:42 there as well i think his blog is called
1:13:44 nicosia yeah yeah that's been quite
1:13:47 dormant for some time but inshallah
1:13:48 we'll revamp it we'll revamp it
1:13:51 and you know what just for your time
1:13:53 brothers and sisters
1:13:56 anything from this just a panic
1:13:59 methodology for now the prophetic
1:14:00 methodology but also know the tool
1:14:02 of logic to be able to basically
1:14:04 navigate this intellectual space in the
1:14:06 contemporary world
1:14:07 may allah bless you and our blessed
1:14:08 doctor
1:14:10 his family and god in this life
1:14:14 bless everybody