Open Q and A #1 - Bring Your Questions (non Muslims preferred) (2022-09-04)

is a live stream in which Muslims answer questions from non-Muslims about Islam. The questions raised range from beliefs in Islam to specific rulings in the Quran. Some non-Muslim viewers express concerns and ask questions, while others simply enjoy watching.

00:00:00 is a live stream in which a group of Muslims answering questions from non-Muslims. The questions raised range from beliefs in Islam to specific rulings in the Quran. Some non-Muslim viewers express concerns and ask questions, while others simply enjoy watching.

00:05:00 The atheist argument that the scriptures are written by a man because it sounds like a man and it doesn't sound like it's from a god is popular, but is refuted by the Qur'an's Verse "There is nothing comparable or like unto Allah."
00:10:00 responds to a question about the contingency argument, which they find convincing. They ask if there is any rebuttal, to which the speaker responds that there isn't one as the argument is adding to the stream of evidence.
00:15:00 JOSEPH STEWART discusses the necessary being argument. He notes that there are several contentions raised about the argument, and he responds to each. One contention is that the psr, or principle of sufficient reason, is necessary for the argument to work. Another is that necessitarianism results from a strong view of the psr. Stewart responds by saying that we do not need a strong psr to explain contingent facts; we can say that some things have no explanation, like free will. He also argues that we cannot understand why god chose a particular creation, or why he chose this universe, but this does not negate the fact that there is a necessary being.
*00:20:00 Discusses some of their personal beliefs and explains that they do not believe in free will as it is only something that we experience.
00:25:00 This man discusses the topic of free will and determinism in Islam, and how different muslim scholars approach the topic. He also talks about how some Islamic texts try to reconcile these concepts, and how atheists seem to struggle with the concept of free will.
00:30:00 an imam discusses the issue of human beings creating actions. He states that within a human's capability, they are able to create actions. However, certain discussions within Islam are from the root of the archaea, while other discussions are from the periphery. He puts this discussion about those human beings creating actions under the branches, and it is an important article of faith.
*00:35:00 Discusses a theological view on free will and creation, explaining that from an absolutist standpoint, allah wanted a world where he desired and willed that most of his creation would suffer in hellfire. They go on to say that from a subjective standpoint, we feel free and have free will, but from a metaphysical standpoint, allah created everything including our free will.
00:40:00 begins by apologizing for forgetting the name of Allah's actual name. He goes on to say that while Allah is open about his desire for most people to go to Hell, his morals and criteria do not apply in the grand scheme of things. then asks the audience to consider a hypothetical situation in which a person is forced to do something he/she does not want to do. asks the audience if this individual is morally accountable for their actions. Many in the audience believe that this individual is morally accountable, and the speaker agrees. then asks the audience if we are morally accountable for our actions when we are not under duress. Many in the audience believe that we are not morally accountable for our actions in this situation. concludes by saying that while we may have different opinions on the matter, we are all agreed that Allah is just and that he will know what is best for us.
*00:45:00 Discusses the concept of free will and its relationship to justice. He notes that while in the physical world, we see examples of free will, in the metaphysical realm, all actions are predetermined by God. He recommends using one's understanding of the physical world to better understand metaphysical reality.
00:50:00 Yusuf establishes that there are positions within Islam that attempt to reconcile the idea of all creations going to hellfire with the idea that some people may not deserve it. He then gives a question to Muhammad to answer. Muhammad says that it is Islamically acceptable, but not recommended, to hold the position.
00:55:00 the speaker explains that who is responsible for an action is a question of where the action subsists. For example, when the speaker speaks, the speech subsists in the speaker, and when the speaker reads the Quran, the Quran subsists in the speaker. also explains that all actions belong to hidden mind, which belongs to the speaker. On the day of judgment, what the speaker does will be held accountable, and what anyone else does will be held accountable before.

01:00:00 - 02:00:00

discusses the concept of consciousness, and how it cannot be explained by materialism. It goes on to say that there might be another force or part of the universe which is not yet clear to us which could explain consciousness.

*01:00:00 Discusses how some Muslims believe that if someone is already in hell for neglecting Islam, they don't deserve a second chance. argues that this is not true, as someone can still have free will even if they are in hell.

*01:05:00 Discusses how mercy does not mean that he will be merciful towards those who deserve to go to hell, but instead that it is a given from within their theology that Allah does not judge people unjustly. then argues that it is becoming less and less interesting for them to entertain some of these contentions, because they are just 1-dimensional.
*01:10:00 Discusses the concept of mercy, and how it applies to the Islamic faith. They say that all mercy comes from God, and that He is the most just. Because of this, people who are evil will be punished eternally, even if they have done no wrong in this life. The meta-ethical framework of the problem of evil is not explored in depth, but it is assumed that it is a necessary part of any discussion of mercy.
01:15:00 asks a question about consciousness and soul, and discusses the Islamic concept of a soul. They say that consciousness can exist without a soul, but that a soul is necessary for a being to have a higher level of consciousness. concludes that if animals have some sort of soul, they must have a lower level of consciousness than humans.
01:20:00 , a Muslim man explains why he has doubts about materialism and whether or not humans have free will. He also discusses how consciousness can be explained under a materialistic paradigm, and how the issue of free will is relevant to the discussion.
*01:25:00 Discusses the concept of consciousness, and how it cannot be explained by materialism. It goes on to say that there might be another force or part of the universe which is not yet clear to us which could explain consciousness.
01:30:00 Einstein's theory of relativity explains the observed law-like behavior of objects in space-time by stating that it is not a force, but rather the space-time itself that is bending. This is done by positing the existence of a necessary being that is not contingent upon anything else to explain itself. From this, it is argued that there must be something that is not dependent upon anything else for its existence, and this is what is referred to as a "necessary being."
01:35:00 The argument revolves around the difficulty of understanding consciousness and how it arises from non-conscious things. The presenter argues that because of the subjective experience that cannot be measured or understood by science, the hard problem of consciousness remains an "epistemic gap."
*01:40:00 Discusses the differences between the Islamic perspective on consciousness, which does not provide a direct explanation of where consciousness resides, and the theistic perspective, which suggests that consciousness arises in the soul.
01:45:00 asks a Muslim man if he can give him a direct proof that allah or the god of islam is the creator. The man responds that there are rational arguments and revelation itself for believing in the prophethood of muhammad. then asks the man if he can do the same thing with his gun. The man responds that he doesn't trust that the speaker can do that, but that before that, there was no seven days or before there was a god, there was no meaning to the seven day cycle.
*01:50:00 Discusses two arguments for the claim that Jesus is sovereign over all nations--one based on the authorship of Scripture, and the other based on the predicted universal implementation of the seven-day week. He argues that both propositions are true, and therefore Jesus is sovereign over all nations.
*01:55:00 Discusses the origins of the seven-day week, which is based on the moon. The narrator points out that no nation has ever kept a recurring seven-day cycle, and that even if one did, it would still not be a true example of the practice. He goes on to say that the evidence indicates that the Jews borrowed the idea from other cultures, and that Christianity is not necessarily true because it does not rely on evidence from the original sources.

02:00:00 - 03:00:00

discusses the contingency argument and how it does not rely on whether something begins to exist. It also discusses different ways of responding to the argument. argues that there must be some limitations to the power of God, otherwise it would be arbitrary.

02:00:00 The presenter discusses why some Muslims do not believe in the previous scriptures, such as the Gospel and Torah, citing that they're "corrupted" and "changed" over time. Abdul Rahman, a Muslim, then talks about his own religious beliefs and how they're based on the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad's teachings. He says that while some prophecies may have been fulfilled in the past, others still have the potential to be.

02:05:00 starts by discussing the fact that there are various scriptures used by Muslims and Christians, and how these scriptures have been preserved. He goes on to say that, even though the Quran makes it easier to understand, it is not the entirety of the old and new testament that was revealed. then discusses the idea that, even though one may interpret the Quran correctly, this does not mean that their interpretation is the correct one. He finishes the talk by saying that, even though the Quran is easy to understand, it is still correct.
02:10:00 explains that there are some aspects of the Old Testament which Christians accept and others which they reject based on Islamic ethics.
*02:15:00 Discusses different concepts related to quranic interpretation, includinghadith and morsels hadith. He states that while one can take or leave quranic interpretation, studying the topic thoroughly is important. then provides an example of a verse where the word "min" (translated as "will") is used. He goes on to say that one should trust translations based on testimony, and compares two nations.
*02:20:00 Discusses the different translations of a Quranic verse that discusses washing one's face, arms, and feet. The translator explains that, based on the verse's language, there are two possible interpretations: individual obligation or sufficiency. If the individual obligation interpretation is accepted, then every Muslim is required to follow all of the verses' instructions. If the sufficiency interpretation is accepted, then a part of the group can do the deed and the rest are free from sin.
*02:25:00 Discusses the meaning of the Quran and the importance of following the instructions of the Prophet Muhammad and his companions. They explain that there are grammatical indicators which help to understand the verb and noun relationships in the Quran. points out that if a person is following the Quran correctly, they should be able to understand what it means to wash their feet.
02:30:00 explains that when reading a text, Muslims are reading based on the intent of the author. The reason why the verse about Sonia Sotomayor is relevant is that it provides a basic understanding of the wording, but further understanding is required to extract rules from it. agrees that Islam is not just open to anyone, and that there are multiple layers of meaning to the Quran.
02:35:00 Sam explains that translations of the Quran can only give a basic idea of the meaning without explaining all the grammar and syntax. He goes on to say that if a person reads different translations, they will get different understandings of the meaning.
*02:40:00 Discusses the contingency argument and how it does not rely on whether something begins to exist. It also discusses different ways of responding to the argument.
02:45:00 a question is raised about the existence of an unlimited God. discusses how the reasoning behind this existence can be found in the contingency argument.
*02:50:00 Discusses how an independent being's limitations can be arbitrary and limited. He explains that size, power, and mass are all potentially arbitrary limitations.
02:55:00 argues that there must be some limitations to the power of God, otherwise it would be arbitrary. He argues that this is most evident in the case of logical impossibility and impossibility.

03:00:00 - 04:00:00

features a Muslim speaker discussing various topics related to the Islamic faith, including the existence of God, predestination, free will, and apostasy. provides explanations for why certain things are forbidden in Islam, and also recommends a resource for those interested in learning more about the Islamic faith.

03:00:00 Abdul Rahman argues that questions about the limits of a necessary being are not precise enough and require looking at specific attributes in that being. He also argues that the theistic theory is superior to naturalistic theories in explaining our experience and consciousness.

*03:05:00 Discusses the two types of arguments for the existence of God - the first is a stage one argument which gets you to the conclusion that a necessary being exists, and the second is a stage two argument which says that some of the attributes of a necessary being, like will and intentionality, are self-awareness. points out that it is not just a technicality that a necessary being entails a reality, but is instead an important conclusion that requires a deeper explanation. argues that if one tries to turn this into an analytic truth, existence exists and cannot exist, then they are in for a problem as it leads to incoherence.
*03:10:00 Discusses the concept of predestination and how it applies to people who pray for a loved one who may not be able to be saved. They explain that if the person is destined to die, then their prayer may not have been answered, but if they are saved, their prayer may have been answered.
03:15:00 According to this Muslim, it is possible that Allah has already predetermined someone's death, based on their intentions in prayer.
*03:20:00 Discusses how some people believe that free will exists, while others believe it does not. They go on to say that free will is not necessitated by certain events or occurrences in a person's past, but instead is based on non-necessitating influences.
*03:25:00 Discusses how choices in Islam are not necessitated, and that humans are morally responsible for their actions regardless of their intellect. He then goes on to discuss how a believer might go about determining whether or not they are fit for salvation.
*03:30:00 Discusses apostasy in Islam, explaining that apostasy is a serious offense and can lead to harsh punishments, such as death. He goes on to say that there is some disagreement amongst Islamic scholars about whether apostasy is a capital offense, but that the general view is that it is.
03:35:00 provides a brief explanation as to why there are had punishments in Islam, including examples such as alcohol consumption and fornication. He also discusses the importance of having laws to prevent harmful behaviors from becoming normalized. He concludes by saying that racism is not a valid rational idea to be worried about, because there are more effective ways to address it.
*03:40:00 Discusses two examples of things that are impossible, one being the creation of a new god, and the other being the creation of a four-sided triangle. He clarifies that these are impossible logically, not because the universe cannot support them, but because there is no possible world in which they could exist.
03:45:00 Abdul Rahman discusses the difference between analytic and synthetic propositions and how one can be true by definition but still be impossible. He provides an example of a synthetic proposition, water boiling at a lower temperature at a lower altitude, that is still true even if it is not within the definition of water.
03:50:00 asks a question about how to start understanding philosophical concepts, and explains that some theological schools of thought try to explain the complexities of theology in a way that is not meant to be easily understood by the average Muslim. recommends looking into the evidence course on Thought Adventure Podcast, which he has already watched half of.
*03:55:00 Discusses the different types of debates that Muslims might engage in, focusing on philosophical discussions around the nature of Allah. The last guest, Murtaza, will be added to the live stream.

04:00:00 - 04:20:00

the speaker discusses how the apparent meaning of yad, or "God has two hands," is affirmed by various scholars across the board. The difference of opinion is going to be in what constitutes the "standards" of that meaning. also discusses how knowledge is similar for humans and gods, and how this similarity does not entail that gods are identical to humans in all regards.

04:00:00 the speaker discusses how the apparent meaning of yad, or "God has two hands," is affirmed by various scholars across the board. The difference of opinion is going to be in what constitutes the "standards" of that meaning.

04:05:00 Hypnotamia defines knowledge as being able to understand words in a specific way, which is analogous to understanding concepts in a specific way. For Muslims, this knowledge of god comes from understanding the Qur'an and hadith.
04:10:00 discuss how knowledge is similar for humans and gods, affirming that gods have knowledge in a similar way to humans. argues that this similarity does not entail that gods are identical to humans in all regards, as there are physical differences between the two.
*04:15:00 Discusses the various arguments surrounding the idea of knowledge, and how different people might approach the concept. He points out that knowledge is not limited to a single dimension, and that it can be applied to many different situations. He also mentions Imam Khazali's book, "Al-Faisal Tafrika," which deals with the topic of knowledge and its limits.
*04:20:00 Discusses a question and answer session with non-Muslims preferred. Zach joins the discussion, and discusses his background in philosophy and religion. One of the top philosophers of religion from the past few decades is expected to come on soon, as well as another academic. There is a possibility of future streams with Josh. Jake is busy with family business and won't be joining, but he will be joining future streams.

Full transcript with timestamps: CLICK TO EXPAND

0:00:06 hey
0:00:28 assalamu
0:00:41 just
0:00:42 making his tea as they say in the uk
0:00:45 which for those of you who are not from
0:00:46 the uk means making their evening dinner
0:00:49 so he'll be shortly arriving and joining
0:00:52 us
0:00:52 uh in today's episode we're going to be
0:00:54 talking about or we're not actually
0:00:56 talking about what we've decided to do
0:00:58 because you know whether it's yourself
0:01:00 or myself or abdulrahman or jake we had
0:01:03 loads of people asking us questions so
0:01:05 we thought we would uh have a discussion
0:01:08 with you guys to be honest
0:01:10 um maybe if you've got questions whether
0:01:14 you're muslim or non-muslim whether
0:01:16 you've got contentions maybe you've got
0:01:18 issues that you want to critique regards
0:01:20 to islam if you're a non-muslim or if
0:01:23 you've got certain doubts that you want
0:01:24 to
0:01:25 address
0:01:26 then inshallah this stream is for you
0:01:28 guys man uh to ask your questions and if
0:01:31 possible we can answer those questions
0:01:33 and address some of those contentions if
0:01:35 you have those contentions and we will
0:01:37 in sha allah do so so that's going to be
0:01:39 today's um
0:01:41 live session today so it's not a
0:01:43 particular theme so you really can ask
0:01:44 any questions that you want
0:01:46 whether it's on
0:01:48 you know uh belief in allah whether it's
0:01:51 the quran whether
0:01:53 you know certain aspects of uh you know
0:01:55 certain rulings in islam or whether it's
0:01:57 to do with liberalism or capitalism
0:02:00 or veganism if you want to talk about
0:02:02 that so really it's an opportunity for
0:02:06 everyone to engage in and discuss i'm
0:02:09 sure we will as soon as the other
0:02:11 brothers start
0:02:12 share the link
0:02:14 uh i can't remember how to share the
0:02:15 link now actually so i'll wait for
0:02:18 yourself to join
0:02:19 you press invite at the bottom oh yeah
0:02:23 and then you copy to clipboard and then
0:02:25 paste it in the comments
0:02:27 paste it in the comments right okay
0:02:29 we're back in a second so i'm awake from
0:02:31 everyone well they come to
0:02:34 them let's see if that works now
0:02:46 oh yeah there we go i think that's it so
0:02:49 everybody on youtube now should be able
0:02:51 to see if you haven't noticed
0:02:53 charissa prop up duma
0:02:59 it's because i got you know why do you
0:03:01 use this technology
0:03:04 what button do you press
0:03:07 yeah what is because
0:03:09 i'm using a laptop for the first time on
0:03:11 these streams i normally use an ipad so
0:03:13 you don't have such a big thing to say
0:03:15 you know if you do
0:03:29 uh so we've got a few people have joined
0:03:31 us already so
0:03:33 should we invite them uh invite one at a
0:03:35 time
0:03:37 turn your camera on in the back and give
0:03:39 us a wave so you can see who you are
0:03:41 yeah you don't have to have the camera
0:03:42 when you're on the actual live stream we
0:03:44 just need to see that you're a real
0:03:45 person and not somebody who's trying to
0:03:47 troll
0:03:49 so that's for i think uh
0:03:53 uh pulau
0:03:55 if you just turn your camera on and also
0:03:57 ali so at least we know that uh nobody
0:03:59 can see if you can turn the camera on
0:04:01 now
0:04:03 and then
0:04:05 and then we can see you and then you can
0:04:07 switch it off when you want to come on
0:04:08 the stream or you can keep it on
0:04:10 whichever
0:04:14 okay we've seen alhamdulillah
0:04:22 okay
0:04:23 i don't know if you want to turn your
0:04:24 camera on
0:04:25 if you don't do it quickly we'll just
0:04:27 bring ali on until you do because you're
0:04:29 not coming on otherwise
0:04:30 oh yeah just for safety reasons because
0:04:33 obviously you get trolls and they put
0:04:35 all nasty things on sometimes some of
0:04:37 these streams
0:04:39 that you're not doing
0:04:46 i'm doing good thanks for asking yeah
0:04:48 obviously star struck you guys are
0:04:50 legends obviously it's like you know
0:04:52 glad to be in your audience so
0:04:55 um i've got a question i feel like you
0:04:57 guys
0:04:58 are the best to answer this but i'm sure
0:05:00 you've heard it before with atheists
0:05:02 saying that
0:05:03 uh
0:05:04 the god in abrahamic religions has
0:05:08 seems like
0:05:10 it seems like it sounds like a man so it
0:05:13 sounds like very human emotions and this
0:05:15 and that and like they try to dismiss uh
0:05:18 like god used to
0:05:22 very human traits i don't know if you've
0:05:23 come across this argument
0:05:26 uh but
0:05:27 yes
0:05:28 which traits in particular so so
0:05:31 basically um
0:05:33 i've seen atheists before speak about
0:05:35 how like the punishments sound very
0:05:37 human-like there's anger and there's
0:05:39 rafa and it just the argument is it did
0:05:42 they say that it sounds like the quran
0:05:44 bible whatever it sounds like it's
0:05:46 written by a man
0:05:47 and for
0:05:50 sorry
0:05:51 i'm just nervous but but yeah they say
0:05:54 the scriptures are written by man
0:05:56 because it sounds like a man and it
0:05:57 doesn't sound like it's from a god
0:05:59 basically i don't know if you already
0:06:00 heard this argument before it's pretty
0:06:01 popular
0:06:02 for you would have already heard it yeah
0:06:05 so to be honest i would just say
0:06:07 i just don't have that same experience
0:06:09 when i read the quran this is one of the
0:06:11 reasons i became a muslim it just didn't
0:06:12 strike me as a book
0:06:14 that men can write
0:06:16 um so they'd have to make reference to
0:06:18 very particular things now if they're
0:06:19 going to make reference to the fact that
0:06:21 allah loves or allah hates
0:06:23 or that allah has wrath
0:06:25 why is that something that would be
0:06:29 unthinkable for a god
0:06:31 exactly
0:06:33 i would ask them
0:06:34 i know this isn't you putting it forward
0:06:36 i'm guessing yeah
0:06:38 with people um but it's it's normally
0:06:40 just to get them to clarify and justify
0:06:42 their statements don't let them get away
0:06:43 with just saying things
0:06:45 how do you know that if there is a god
0:06:47 that god wouldn't love
0:06:49 or that god wouldn't
0:06:51 or because humans hate or because humans
0:06:52 love so what why is that something that
0:06:54 would then negate
0:06:56 this notion that allah
0:06:58 um
0:06:59 you know would
0:07:00 have these
0:07:02 uh you know attributes
0:07:04 yeah i think also ali you have to
0:07:07 understand where these guys are coming
0:07:08 from a lot of these atheists
0:07:09 particularly
0:07:10 ones off the internet
0:07:12 is
0:07:12 they come from a christian background
0:07:14 they have a very much a christianity
0:07:17 about belief in god and for them you
0:07:20 know imagery is like on the sistine
0:07:22 chapel where they have you know
0:07:24 oh man
0:07:26 yeah touching you know
0:07:27 putting it pointing down all that type
0:07:29 of thing yeah so that's the imagery that
0:07:31 they have this idea of
0:07:33 a white man on a cloud
0:07:35 a white man with a beard on a cloud here
0:07:38 so
0:07:38 within that paradigm now when they read
0:07:41 the text whether it's of the bible or
0:07:44 judaism
0:07:45 that that's the imagery that's that's in
0:07:47 there in their head and then obviously
0:07:48 then they they start to generalize that
0:07:51 for all
0:07:52 uh religions including islam but i'm
0:07:55 sure ali as you know isn't it one of the
0:07:57 key verses within the quran is the verse
0:07:59 it says
0:08:01 there is nothing comparable and there's
0:08:03 no there's no no thing like allah yeah
0:08:06 there's nothing like
0:08:09 so that's why historically within the
0:08:11 islamic paradigm we've always had this
0:08:13 understanding that even when we affirm
0:08:15 that allah loves or allah hears or
0:08:18 allah knows
0:08:19 we've always said this is nothing like
0:08:21 creation yeah or it's not like creation
0:08:24 there's no modality that you could
0:08:26 accept within uh creation in regards to
0:08:29 that
0:08:30 i think in in when you're speaking to
0:08:32 atheists sometimes what tends to happen
0:08:34 is that you have to overcome a lot of
0:08:36 their preconceived notions of what
0:08:39 theism means
0:08:40 and so
0:08:41 what i tend to do is i tend to avoid you
0:08:43 sometimes i tend to avoid using the word
0:08:46 god
0:08:46 yeah for them because uh they like i
0:08:49 said automatically in their mind is a
0:08:51 man and so i would use the word creator
0:08:54 or necessary being
0:08:56 um so that allows them to understand
0:08:58 that actually
0:09:00 this isn't far away
0:09:02 from their own understand from accepting
0:09:04 this type of conception and i've had
0:09:06 many successful discussions and debates
0:09:08 with atheists uh in which i've described
0:09:11 the evidences and arguments for the
0:09:13 existence of of a creator
0:09:15 and uh they basically said on that
0:09:17 conception i can accept it yeah so
0:09:19 there's this is going back a few years
0:09:20 ago but i had a debate at nottingham
0:09:22 trent university
0:09:23 uh with the uh philosopher uh lecturer
0:09:26 who's up at that university dr goucher i
0:09:29 think it was and even he mentioned that
0:09:30 point so
0:09:32 yeah i think you've got to be aware of
0:09:34 the preconceived notions that they have
0:09:36 and then you have to explain it from the
0:09:37 islamic perspective is that we when we
0:09:40 understand allah we understand allah
0:09:43 within this idea that there is nothing
0:09:45 like creation like allah in creation
0:09:48 yeah creation in the modalities of
0:09:51 creation are completely distinct to
0:09:52 allah yes we can know that allah exists
0:09:55 and we can know that he creates and has
0:09:57 knowledge etc and has power but how
0:10:00 those things are we don't know and so
0:10:02 we're not really asked as muslims to
0:10:05 comprehend the nature of allah we're
0:10:07 only asked to apprehend allah's
0:10:10 existence
0:10:12 fair enough good answer
0:10:14 yeah how i see it is obviously if
0:10:18 basis of communication is to be able to
0:10:21 understand it so
0:10:22 um if god was going to send us a message
0:10:25 uh
0:10:26 sorry if allah said it's a message he
0:10:28 wouldn't send it in binary he would send
0:10:30 in relevant relative terms so we could
0:10:32 understand it and that's why i believe
0:10:34 profits were sent to tribes throughout
0:10:36 the world so
0:10:37 there'd have to be some kind of
0:10:39 relativism so we understand it
0:10:40 comprehend it and
0:10:43 if we can't understand what allah is
0:10:45 saying i can't relate to it is it
0:10:48 it defeats the purpose of the scriptures
0:10:51 in my opinion but yeah thank you uh for
0:10:53 your insight um
0:10:55 great um
0:10:56 i don't know
0:10:58 because you used certain languages
0:11:01 in order to describe
0:11:03 things of the unseen
0:11:05 and by definition the unseen so we don't
0:11:07 really have the ability to comprehend in
0:11:10 human terms some
0:11:11 in a comprehensive sense that is when it
0:11:14 comes to the unseen
0:11:15 whether he's even even forget about
0:11:18 leaving inside allah or even talking
0:11:21 about janna and johanna how are we going
0:11:23 to visualize and comprehend the nature
0:11:24 of these realities
0:11:27 nature of these realities then
0:11:29 obviously when it comes to the creator
0:11:31 something different now but it's still
0:11:33 it's still something you can communicate
0:11:34 though so we can talk about like when
0:11:36 you're reading about the um
0:11:38 like the pleasures of jannah and
0:11:40 the contents of janna and there's going
0:11:42 to be mansions there etc it's not like
0:11:44 these words don't have any meaning to
0:11:45 you you understand what's being said
0:11:47 yeah despite the fact that you also
0:11:48 comprehend that whatever the experience
0:11:51 is
0:11:51 it's going to be nothing like your
0:11:53 experience here
0:11:55 so that it's going to be um
0:11:58 beyond comparison basically but there's
0:12:00 still some sort of content there
0:12:02 um which has given us enough information
0:12:04 to be able to like
0:12:06 figure out what is being said despite
0:12:07 the fact that these experiences uh
0:12:10 will only really
0:12:12 be something we'll be able to fully
0:12:14 comprehend on the day that we experience
0:12:15 them insha'allah makers among them
0:12:18 all right thank you thank you so much
0:12:19 for your answers i won't waste any more
0:12:21 of your time but great thank you so much
0:12:34 it was a bit blurry but they did add
0:12:35 them so they showed the camera she had
0:12:38 them here
0:12:39 um
0:12:41 with the g
0:12:42 the person
0:12:44 yeah and they waved a little bit but it
0:12:46 was very blurry
0:12:48 um
0:12:56 i don't know if you're muslim or
0:13:00 hi
0:13:01 uh
0:13:01 am i audible
0:13:03 yeah yeah we're just here yeah are you
0:13:04 muslim
0:13:17 something in
0:13:18 between something in between
0:13:22 as in
0:13:24 you were a muslim but you're thinking of
0:13:25 leaving or
0:13:28 yeah i mean yeah i mean since i have a
0:13:30 lot of doubt so
0:13:32 but then i don't think it would be fair
0:13:33 to call myself one right now
0:13:37 how can we help you today
0:13:41 sorry
0:13:46 thank you for taking taking me on uh
0:13:49 i thought uh
0:13:50 yeah i just turned on the camera it was
0:13:52 a bit blurry so
0:13:54 it's good that that was good for you so
0:13:56 uh thank you for taking me uh
0:13:59 i just
0:14:01 i had a question uh there are a few but
0:14:04 i'll select one and i'd like your
0:14:06 uh you know say on that
0:14:12 sorry if you uh in fact if you could
0:14:14 take me after uh if you could take
0:14:16 someone else just right now and take me
0:14:18 after uh you know just
0:14:21 five minutes that's possible
0:14:23 just yeah that's fine
0:14:25 thank you
0:14:30 imran khan i think's next uh but i'm not
0:14:33 sure if he showed his face no it's a
0:14:35 terrible
0:14:36 unable to turn on my camera uh he just
0:14:39 has one question he's written the
0:14:40 question down
0:14:41 so he says i find the contingency
0:14:43 argument
0:14:44 i have a contingent or necessary
0:14:46 existence ultimately reached to god
0:14:49 very convincing my question is is there
0:14:51 any rebuttal to this
0:14:53 i think it's adding to the stream we'll
0:14:55 add him to the stream
0:14:56 yeah he sounds since you know he's
0:14:59 asking a sincere question
0:15:01 oh he's gone
0:15:02 oh is he gone
0:15:03 yes you've brought someone awesome all
0:15:06 right
0:15:07 just as i was pressing it okay cool nope
0:15:09 that's a good question anyway uh
0:15:11 so is are there contentions to the
0:15:13 necessary uh
0:15:15 the contingency argument i think
0:15:17 actually they don't have intentions
0:15:19 but i don't think they stand like
0:15:22 fully
0:15:23 so there's the ones about um
0:15:27 typical ones in it yeah
0:15:29 the there is no necessary being there's
0:15:31 only consistent things
0:15:32 or the necessary being is creation
0:15:36 itself so the universe
0:15:39 and um
0:15:42 i think that one's it
0:15:44 yeah
0:15:46 chats they're sending the super chats
0:15:48 and to say let abdulrahman in
0:15:51 what is up door man he asked for the
0:15:54 stream link i've sent it to him so
0:15:56 inshallah but uh he's not come
0:16:01 so yeah so um
0:16:04 so if you can for my understanding
0:16:05 there's a few contentions that people
0:16:07 raise and like where joseph says that
0:16:09 you know his question is whether they
0:16:10 work or not with any argument you're
0:16:12 always going to have people who are
0:16:13 going to have contentions to it so one
0:16:15 one contention is the idea that
0:16:17 a contingency argument relies upon the
0:16:20 principle of sufficient reason so for
0:16:22 every contingent fact that requires an
0:16:25 explanation for it yeah and there's
0:16:27 different types of
0:16:28 psr as it's known by sure there's
0:16:30 different um
0:16:32 views about how the psr operates yeah
0:16:34 some have a very strong version of the
0:16:36 psr which means everything requires an
0:16:39 explanation either the explanations
0:16:41 contained within something else or it's
0:16:43 contained within itself yeah
0:16:45 it's a very strong version of the psr
0:16:47 and
0:16:48 what then maybe some people have a
0:16:50 contention with the contingency argument
0:16:52 is that that type of strong view of the
0:16:54 psr
0:16:56 results in necessitarianism so the idea
0:16:58 of a necessary being would have to have
0:17:01 an explanation as to why
0:17:03 they're necessarily being created and
0:17:05 that explanation is either contained
0:17:06 within itself or external if it's
0:17:08 external then it's no longer a necessary
0:17:10 being it's dependence it's requiring
0:17:13 something else to cause it to create but
0:17:15 if it's within its own self then it
0:17:17 means that it by by its own nature it
0:17:20 must create and because it's necessary
0:17:22 then it's creating must be out of
0:17:24 necessity as well and therefore what
0:17:26 it's creating is also necessary so
0:17:29 that's one contention that people have
0:17:30 and the arguments against that is
0:17:32 basically to say that we don't need to
0:17:34 have a strong psr we don't need to hold
0:17:36 this idea that everything requires an
0:17:39 explanation because we can say there are
0:17:41 some things that may not have an
0:17:42 explanation like free will yeah uh like
0:17:46 decisions and choices that we make so we
0:17:48 may say that allah creating is within
0:17:50 the
0:17:51 you know he creates and it's within his
0:17:54 capabilities and nature to create but it
0:17:56 wasn't necessitating for allah to create
0:17:59 he didn't have to create
0:18:01 another contention that people raise
0:18:03 is um i it's not within his he didn't
0:18:07 have to so he had will he had the
0:18:08 capability to create or not create
0:18:10 another argument that people argue
0:18:12 against is saying that every contingent
0:18:14 fight
0:18:15 abdullah assalam o alaikum
0:18:20 okay can't speak okay
0:18:23 so anyway so another argument is that
0:18:25 every contingent fact so they say okay
0:18:28 let's say only contingent propositions
0:18:31 or contingent realities require an
0:18:33 explanation and they say okay but isn't
0:18:34 god choosing to create
0:18:36 a contingent proposition and if you're
0:18:39 saying that therefore god is not
0:18:41 necessitated to create he chose to
0:18:44 create isn't there at least one
0:18:45 contingent proposition that doesn't
0:18:47 require an explanation i.e god's will
0:18:50 yeah to create
0:18:52 and if you accept that then they would
0:18:54 say then why can't i accept that there
0:18:56 are just brute contingent facts within
0:18:58 the universe why do i have to add an
0:19:00 entity called the necessary being with a
0:19:02 will
0:19:03 and so that's another argument that they
0:19:05 use against that and generally the way i
0:19:07 i answer that particular question point
0:19:10 is to say look when we come to the
0:19:12 discussion about minds and how other
0:19:14 minds exist well you know that other
0:19:15 minds exist because you have
0:19:17 non-necessitating acts that take place
0:19:20 that a human being when he when you
0:19:22 think a human being acts
0:19:24 yeah through free will he has a mind of
0:19:27 his own it's because
0:19:28 all of what he's doing
0:19:31 in terms of free will the choices that
0:19:33 he has are non-necessitating
0:19:36 they don't have to be that way they
0:19:37 could have been another way that's how
0:19:39 we can come to the conclusion now
0:19:42 why did god choose a particular creation
0:19:45 and and not create or why did he choose
0:19:48 this type of universe as opposed to
0:19:49 another type of universe is maybe
0:19:51 outside our ability to comprehend but it
0:19:53 doesn't negate the fact that
0:19:56 there are going to be none
0:19:59 there are going to be continued
0:20:01 propositions that don't require an
0:20:02 explanation or don't have an explanation
0:20:05 and those things are generally what
0:20:06 we've assigned to will
0:20:08 yeah that's how we come to the
0:20:09 conclusion that i think has a will or
0:20:12 being has a will
0:20:13 uh hopefully that's clear i don't know
0:20:15 if uh yourself wants to uh uh it's shame
0:20:18 we even got him wrong on the stream
0:20:20 actually i could have asked if he
0:20:21 understood those points
0:20:26 you could always um message again
0:20:28 um i don't think he's come back
0:20:32 there's a lot of comments coming in on
0:20:33 the comment section so i don't know he's
0:20:35 messaged on there
0:20:37 but um
0:20:38 yeah the only other thing i would stop
0:20:40 that done you know they decided
0:20:42 where they talk about the universe being
0:20:44 the necessary being
0:20:47 i ended up talking about this a little
0:20:48 bit today
0:20:50 on um my little live stream so i'm
0:20:52 reading the plato stanford thing
0:20:55 and uh
0:20:57 the question is if the universe is
0:20:58 necessary what exactly is necessary so
0:21:01 they're trying to say this so that they
0:21:02 can
0:21:03 posit that the universe is something
0:21:05 that has existed forever
0:21:08 but then
0:21:09 if you take any one
0:21:11 like if you've got this infinite
0:21:13 timeline and you take
0:21:14 say you know somewhere in the infinite
0:21:17 past
0:21:18 um
0:21:20 you take a snapshot of what the universe
0:21:22 is then
0:21:24 and then you take another snapshot at
0:21:26 another point on that timeline elsewhere
0:21:28 in the universe
0:21:29 what is the universe other than the sum
0:21:30 of all of its parts
0:21:32 the universe is is a totality of things
0:21:36 but then if
0:21:37 in that one snapshot so we'll just say
0:21:39 snapshot a
0:21:40 you have
0:21:42 a number of things and let's say that
0:21:45 everything in this first snapshot
0:21:47 perishes
0:21:48 and um
0:21:49 ends
0:21:50 and
0:21:51 something new is generated or originated
0:21:55 in a completely different snapshot of
0:21:57 the universe
0:21:59 then what is necessary here
0:22:01 because they're not identical it's not
0:22:02 even the same universe you've got
0:22:04 universe a
0:22:05 which has a list of things xyz whatever
0:22:08 it is one two three four you can list
0:22:09 them out
0:22:10 of properties and objects and things
0:22:12 that exist within it and then you have
0:22:14 another universe over here
0:22:16 which is completely unidentical to that
0:22:17 one
0:22:19 so that like they're not the same thing
0:22:21 what has existed necessarily
0:22:25 there's nothing here that has existed
0:22:27 the only thing they can fall back on is
0:22:28 they move towards this notion of energy
0:22:30 energy necessarily exists
0:22:32 yeah but then well what is energy and
0:22:34 they just move towards it's not even a
0:22:37 thing it's just an attribute
0:22:38 it's it's the potential to do work
0:22:41 that's not a thing
0:22:43 you're talking about something potential
0:22:45 here rather than something actual
0:22:47 and how is that the necessary thing like
0:22:50 how is that that which is necessary
0:22:53 and especially if it it goes through
0:22:54 processes of transformation and
0:22:57 you know like energy becomes matter and
0:22:59 matter becomes energy there's nothing
0:23:01 necessary here at all
0:23:03 it's just things transforming into other
0:23:06 things
0:23:06 and nothing exists necessarily yeah and
0:23:09 it is a really interesting one because
0:23:10 you really you you're correct in saying
0:23:13 that
0:23:14 what is it i mean
0:23:15 i think abdul rahman had the stream uh
0:23:17 with hamza's den where somebody tried to
0:23:19 argue that point
0:23:21 think of the rahman i don't know if you
0:23:22 can you can speak still
0:23:26 no okay really wrong but yeah should we
0:23:28 move on to the next guest i think uh
0:23:30 muhammad islam and then we'll go back to
0:23:32 kiyali if he's still able to
0:23:44 well thank you for having me on
0:23:46 uh i just had a few questions actually
0:23:48 i'd like to discuss with you um so
0:23:51 just the precipice that i'd like to
0:23:53 start the conversation up with is none
0:23:55 of the questions that i have are out
0:23:57 regard personally as any
0:23:59 sort of shubha to me at all
0:24:01 um so hamdillah like i don't have any
0:24:03 doubts in terms of
0:24:05 either or relief
0:24:08 but it's just i'd like to clarify a few
0:24:10 things because i feel there we do have a
0:24:12 few inconsistencies
0:24:14 um i believe in the dawah scene in terms
0:24:16 of
0:24:17 things like free will and attributes of
0:24:19 allah
0:24:22 so yeah i'd like to discuss that with
0:24:23 you if you don't mind
0:24:25 yeah
0:24:27 okay
0:24:28 um so
0:24:29 personally i
0:24:31 i believe we only have free will um
0:24:34 with a lowercase f if that makes sense
0:24:37 in the sense that
0:24:39 just like how allah subhanahu ta'ala
0:24:40 says that he
0:24:42 keeps the birds up as they fly
0:24:44 but we have naturalistic explanations
0:24:46 for how the birds fly and how they
0:24:48 descend etc
0:24:49 i believe free will is only
0:24:52 something that we experience but it's
0:24:54 not a metaphysical existence it's not
0:24:57 something that
0:24:59 like we don't create our own actions and
0:25:02 i feel like a lot of muslim scholars
0:25:03 actually
0:25:04 agree and
0:25:06 explicitly express this point
0:25:09 when they say that allah
0:25:14 creates the actions of the slaves
0:25:19 so i don't really see how we can
0:25:21 reconcile
0:25:22 this um
0:25:23 like i understand there's this notion of
0:25:25 compatibilism
0:25:27 where we can have free will and
0:25:29 determinism
0:25:31 but i feel that's a western notion i
0:25:33 don't feel like it's actually compatible
0:25:35 in the sense that we can admit that
0:25:38 there is an absolute idea of free will
0:25:41 where we create our own actions and
0:25:44 we're reconciling it with a
0:25:46 deterministic world
0:25:48 i don't think that that
0:25:50 that position is legitimate islamically
0:25:53 yeah
0:25:54 that's a good question
0:26:05 did you hear everything i had to say or
0:26:07 yeah
0:26:08 interfering
0:26:20 so yes it's a it's an interesting
0:26:22 question it's a
0:26:25 um a very long discussion uh to be had
0:26:28 actually
0:26:29 so
0:26:30 the issue is is that uh
0:26:33 there's there's a few problems that are
0:26:35 trying to be reconciled and trying to be
0:26:37 solved when we look at this question
0:26:40 one of them is a purely scriptural
0:26:42 discussion meaning that what does the
0:26:44 text indicate what does the quran and
0:26:46 the sudden indicate does the quran
0:26:48 indicate that we have free will yeah or
0:26:52 does the quran and sunnah indicate that
0:26:53 allah creates everything that we do and
0:26:56 therefore
0:26:57 as some people assume we don't have free
0:27:00 will like the jabria as an example
0:27:02 so
0:27:04 there's like
0:27:05 there's that's one issue another issue
0:27:07 is how do you reconcile the idea
0:27:09 of uh free will
0:27:11 uh interacting within a material world
0:27:14 uh so free will is something which is
0:27:17 immaterial and yet we interact in the
0:27:19 physical so how do you deal with that
0:27:20 that's more of a problem with atheists
0:27:22 to be honest to affirm some sort of free
0:27:24 will
0:27:25 another problem is basically this idea
0:27:27 of can you have an indeterminate act uh
0:27:31 is that you know
0:27:32 i enact that person chooses maybe good
0:27:35 reasons why he chooses one over the
0:27:37 other but it's non-necessitating for him
0:27:39 to choose one over the other
0:27:41 as well so there's lots of issues with
0:27:42 regards to this discussion also allah's
0:27:45 knowledge and how does that mean in
0:27:46 terms of our ability to choose etc
0:27:50 so different scholars have approached
0:27:52 this from an islamic perspective in
0:27:54 different ways
0:27:55 a lot like the sort of the the mudkali
0:27:58 moon
0:27:59 they tended to see the problem within
0:28:02 the paradigm of
0:28:04 uh you know how
0:28:06 classical sort of
0:28:08 uh you know discussions
0:28:10 islam
0:28:11 uh looked at this issue of free will and
0:28:13 determinism and then tried to
0:28:14 superimpose that
0:28:16 upon uh the islamic text
0:28:18 and so you have the martezilla who would
0:28:20 say yes human beings create their
0:28:22 actions they're free to do what they
0:28:23 want you had the jabria you were sort of
0:28:26 an offshoot as well you said no we don't
0:28:28 have any free will we're just like uh
0:28:31 leaves that float in the wind
0:28:33 and then you had like maybe the aschetti
0:28:36 who tried the a shitties who tried to
0:28:38 sort of
0:28:39 uh bring these sort of reconciliations
0:28:43 and come up with occasionalism
0:28:45 so this idea that
0:28:46 um you know human beings choose but they
0:28:49 don't actually have the ability to
0:28:50 physically manifest the action or create
0:28:52 the action rather allah in accordance
0:28:55 with it the servant's choice brings the
0:28:57 action about so that's occasionalism
0:29:00 so i think from our perspective though
0:29:03 is when we look at this topic area some
0:29:04 of it is underdetermined within the
0:29:06 islamic text in terms of the mechanism
0:29:09 by which actions take place by a human
0:29:12 being yeah rather what we have within
0:29:14 the islamic text is clearly this idea
0:29:16 that human beings are mukallif
0:29:19 yeah this idea that we are responsible
0:29:21 yeah and so certainly we talk about in
0:29:24 like
0:29:27 this idea of taklif when does a person
0:29:29 reach responsibility yeah or the age of
0:29:32 responsibility as well
0:29:34 when he becomes mahalif so there's a
0:29:36 hadith
0:29:37 that talks about the pen is lifted off
0:29:39 free the one who forgets until he
0:29:42 remembers the child
0:29:44 uh until he reaches maturity and the
0:29:46 insane until they regain sanity so
0:29:48 there's an idea that
0:29:50 there are people who don't have an
0:29:53 you don't have in mind to be able to
0:29:55 make crisis yeah yeah but i i i honestly
0:29:58 believe that's talking about um reality
0:30:01 on a completely different uh
0:30:03 plane uh if i could if i could use that
0:30:06 word like
0:30:07 i'm not talking about the physical
0:30:08 realities of like if somebody's brain is
0:30:11 mature enough or big enough to start
0:30:13 making decisions i'm talking about the
0:30:15 metaphysical reality of choices
0:30:17 because to me personally i feel like
0:30:19 it's it's it's a very simple issue where
0:30:22 i think okay is is it possible for
0:30:25 a thing to be created by other than
0:30:27 allah
0:30:29 obviously that would be [ __ ] so
0:30:31 i i
0:30:33 i believe will everything has to be
0:30:35 under that yes let me just finish my
0:30:37 point really quickly so the reason why i
0:30:40 was referring to the issue of
0:30:42 and you're saying well that's just the
0:30:43 physical world is because the way allah
0:30:46 addresses the servant he just addresses
0:30:48 the servant that he has a mind and he's
0:30:50 able to
0:30:51 choose and he's responsible for his
0:30:53 choices and he should be making the
0:30:54 correct choices yeah so that's how the
0:30:56 sharia works and the sharia obviously is
0:30:58 from allah's as we muslims believe so we
0:31:02 understand that now the discussion about
0:31:04 creating an act
0:31:06 yeah is that within a human's capability
0:31:10 or is it a lost panel that brings it up
0:31:12 is not discussed within the text and so
0:31:14 that's why i say this area is
0:31:16 underdetermined the manifestation of how
0:31:19 the action brings about what we should
0:31:21 be concerned about uh is more on the
0:31:24 level of
0:31:25 are we considered morally responsible
0:31:28 agents does that is that how islam views
0:31:30 is that
0:31:32 [Music]
0:31:36 and the answer is yes we are now is it
0:31:39 the case that like the ashidis who hold
0:31:41 occasionalism we will allah wills and
0:31:44 allah brings about physical actions of
0:31:47 the
0:31:48 will and the will is not a physical
0:31:50 thing therefore it's not under the idea
0:31:52 of creation
0:31:53 creation in that sense or is it the case
0:31:56 that creation here in terms of the
0:31:59 capacity to do enough
0:32:01 you know use my hand to steal or i could
0:32:03 use my hand to work none of those things
0:32:06 are
0:32:06 that i created but rather i are
0:32:09 operating within the system that allah
0:32:12 created and i'm just simply choosing
0:32:13 between them so now it's not not in the
0:32:16 technical sense of creating now
0:32:18 imamurazi
0:32:20 he mentions uh
0:32:22 i'd have to pick up the reference but
0:32:23 yet you mentioned certain discussions
0:32:25 certain discussions are from the root of
0:32:27 the archaea of islam and certain
0:32:29 discussions are from the periphery the
0:32:31 branches and they require each day and
0:32:33 he put this discussion about
0:32:35 those human beings do they create that
0:32:39 that under the
0:32:40 branches
0:32:41 and he said he's required and then he
0:32:43 goes on to say because if there was an
0:32:45 important discussion
0:32:47 this was an important article of faith
0:32:48 then it would have reached as brutal
0:32:50 evidences in a clear categorical manner
0:32:54 such that would dispute over it rather
0:32:56 what you're seeing is the dispute is the
0:32:58 implication what does it mean to do an
0:33:00 app does it mean that the act is a
0:33:02 created action is it you something which
0:33:05 is creating from x neglio yeah from
0:33:08 nothingness yeah or is it just the
0:33:11 attack that's operating within the
0:33:12 system that's already been created or is
0:33:15 it the case that you're making a choice
0:33:18 under an occasionalist viewpoint or is
0:33:20 it the case that you're making a choice
0:33:23 under what they term modernism as well
0:33:25 so there's different views of how to
0:33:27 reconcile this i think yeah but but
0:33:30 those two those two phenomena could be
0:33:32 mutually exclusive where you could
0:33:34 somebody could say you can create your
0:33:36 will but the physical actions are
0:33:38 determined
0:33:39 or vice versa somebody could say the
0:33:41 physical actions are created
0:33:43 and the will is determined i mean they
0:33:45 don't necessarily have to
0:33:47 mean the same thing
0:33:48 you know what i mean like
0:33:51 so the will and the act of a human being
0:33:53 so they are actually they separate the
0:33:55 will
0:33:56 and the act as two separate things they
0:33:58 said the will is not a it's not a thing
0:34:01 a shame
0:34:02 like you know okay so so a question
0:34:04 brother a question so do you personally
0:34:06 believe that our physical actions are
0:34:08 created
0:34:09 by allah or are they
0:34:11 like what do you person in terms of the
0:34:13 physical manifestations of our wills
0:34:15 like if i was to get up and start
0:34:16 walking is that that's obviously a
0:34:18 created thing right so that's completely
0:34:20 determined
0:34:21 uh well see for me i don't adopt a
0:34:24 particular position i think it's under
0:34:26 determined within the text yes we
0:34:28 believe that
0:34:29 allah but i think there's other ways
0:34:31 that you could reconcile it so then one
0:34:34 way that you could reconcile it is
0:34:36 through modernism or another way you
0:34:38 could reconcile it is to say that allah
0:34:41 created the system of the universe and
0:34:43 your capabilities and then you have the
0:34:45 choice x or y but you doing x or y
0:34:48 doesn't mean you're creating x or you're
0:34:50 creating y you're just operating within
0:34:52 those options that have been created
0:34:53 already for you
0:34:55 yeah but you're arbitrarily choosing one
0:34:57 over the other which is by definition a
0:34:59 creation right because you're bringing
0:35:00 about something that didn't exist before
0:35:03 no because this is what we say this
0:35:05 would be an uh and this wouldn't be
0:35:07 creating uh
0:35:09 you're not creating anything new
0:35:11 yeah so if i chose to stab somebody and
0:35:14 i chose to
0:35:15 you know pat somebody on the back
0:35:17 none of those acts are creating
0:35:21 yeah the act the event may not have
0:35:23 occurred and then the event occurs but
0:35:24 it's not creating in that sense the
0:35:27 creating capacity was the ability to do
0:35:30 that uh from nothingness and obviously
0:35:33 we can't do that it's not from
0:35:34 nothingness it's within the it's within
0:35:36 the options that allah has given to us
0:35:39 but i i personally my personal approach
0:35:42 was this
0:35:51 theological view on these issues yeah
0:35:53 yeah no for sure i mean
0:35:55 definitely if someone was to engage with
0:35:57 a non-muslim and to you know openly
0:35:59 explicitly say that hey i'm a jeopardy i
0:36:02 don't believe you have free will and god
0:36:04 is just going to throw you in hell
0:36:05 because he wanted to like that's not why
0:36:07 it's from a dawah perspective so i
0:36:09 definitely understand that but uh the
0:36:12 reason why i'm mentioning this is i i
0:36:14 feel like it has
0:36:15 um
0:36:17 uh it has major consequences in terms of
0:36:19 how you interpret the attributes of
0:36:22 allah subhanahu ta'alah
0:36:24 i mean there's an ay on the quran where
0:36:26 allah says
0:36:28 i can remember it correctly
0:36:37 that if allah had willed he would have
0:36:39 guided all of humanity
0:36:41 right but it was his decree that he
0:36:43 would fill hellfire with
0:36:46 people and and jin alike
0:36:48 so
0:36:50 from an absolutist standpoint like i
0:36:52 understand here on earth and our
0:36:54 subjective experiences that we have free
0:36:57 will but prior to creation the the the
0:37:00 very beginning in an absolute sense
0:37:02 allah wanted
0:37:05 a world he created a world where he
0:37:08 desired and he willed that most
0:37:11 of his creation will suffer in hellfire
0:37:14 now i'm not implying injustice here i'm
0:37:15 not going down that route
0:37:18 like some atheists do i'm not i'm not
0:37:25 how can we reconcile the attributes of
0:37:28 allah
0:37:30 with this understanding
0:37:34 so what verse was that
0:37:38 i'm sorry
0:37:39 what verse was it sorry you know
0:37:43 i don't think you recited it correctly
0:37:45 [Music]
0:37:46 are you are you able to search in arabic
0:37:49 or does that mean english
0:37:51 either whichever
0:37:53 okay can you can you search
0:37:55 i'll find the verse i know which people
0:37:57 i just don't know the reference
0:37:59 but i think your mom wants to jump in
0:38:01 okay
0:38:17 too high you turn the gain a little bit
0:38:20 turn the gain down
0:38:22 yeah
0:38:25 is this better
0:38:28 so much better yeah that's much better
0:38:30 okay great yes so it was just one word
0:38:33 like in hakka kawamini is the reset a
0:38:35 correct recitation
0:38:37 but
0:38:38 yeah i apologize for the mistake i'm not
0:38:40 i'm not getting the
0:38:41 the
0:38:42 uh
0:38:43 the problem like what what needs to be
0:38:45 reconciled the fact
0:38:46 is it the fact that god
0:38:48 is the creator of everything
0:38:51 and
0:38:52 you know you want to reconcile that with
0:38:54 our freedom
0:38:57 no no so i'll i'll tell you my personal
0:38:59 opinion i think uh
0:39:01 we have freedom only in a subjective
0:39:03 sense we feel free
0:39:06 so we have free will in that sense so
0:39:08 that's how i personally reconcile the
0:39:10 islamic text in admitting that we have
0:39:13 meshia you know
0:39:15 but um i believe metaphysically allah
0:39:18 creates everything including our will so
0:39:20 you can say i'm a jabri in the in that
0:39:22 aspect
0:39:23 so my personal opinion is
0:39:26 to to not commit shirk and to to
0:39:29 uh adhere and and to say that allah
0:39:32 created everything i have to include my
0:39:34 will in that so i believe allah created
0:39:36 everything
0:39:37 which includes my will and for most
0:39:40 people's decision to disbelieve in him
0:39:43 so
0:39:45 so this area that i mentioned
0:39:50 that allah if he had willed he would
0:39:52 have given guidance to everyone but he
0:39:55 decreed that most people will go to
0:39:57 hellfire i'm just trying to understand
0:40:01 how
0:40:02 um
0:40:03 for example one of the names of allah is
0:40:05 [Music]
0:40:06 the just which one which is in arabic uh
0:40:09 at hackam no not
0:40:12 anyways i i i apologize i forgot which
0:40:15 name exactly but we have obviously
0:40:17 yes of course
0:40:19 so does that mean a lot only within the
0:40:21 context of when he's judging people but
0:40:24 in the grand scheme of things
0:40:26 those
0:40:28 morals or those criteria don't apply to
0:40:30 allah because he is
0:40:33 openly saying that he wants most mankind
0:40:36 to be in hell fire that is his decree
0:40:39 and again i don't want you to
0:40:40 misunderstand me please i'm not here to
0:40:42 cast doubt in anyone's hearts like i i
0:40:45 believe in allah alhamdulillah but it's
0:40:46 just i'm attempting to understand these
0:40:49 texts and to reconcile the attributes of
0:40:51 allah
0:40:52 with this overall understanding that
0:40:55 allah
0:40:56 transcends these
0:40:59 moral moral judgments of right and wrong
0:41:01 and just or unjust if you understand
0:41:03 what i'm saying
0:41:07 yeah but you're you're pretty so you're
0:41:09 taking a specific position on um
0:41:12 uh you know like
0:41:14 and like you know the the the
0:41:15 creativeness of
0:41:17 uh you know our our acts and um
0:41:21 you're taking the same uh sort of
0:41:23 position on the fact that our will
0:41:27 you know is is created
0:41:29 so so if you take that position
0:41:31 and you say that uh you'd say you you
0:41:34 see it necessary to avoid check of
0:41:36 course this is a selection matter so you
0:41:37 can't say that people who take uh
0:41:39 different sure absolutely
0:41:41 okay so so so
0:41:43 but then so just certain entailments are
0:41:45 gonna follow from that on uh on you know
0:41:48 the these these meta ethical concerns
0:41:50 that you're raising about you know the
0:41:52 nature of
0:41:54 injustice and so i mean just uh i guess
0:41:57 just follow through i don't see
0:41:59 there being any issue like um just just
0:42:02 take the position and whatever follows
0:42:04 from the position
0:42:06 um is there an issue with that or is it
0:42:08 is it that is it that you accept part of
0:42:09 it but that other part you you can't
0:42:12 digest in any way shape or form okay i
0:42:15 guess i guess uh a good way of putting
0:42:17 it is this
0:42:18 um and uh
0:42:21 let me be a little explicit you know
0:42:23 because um
0:42:24 because that's the only way i can
0:42:25 express it
0:42:26 is it okay to say
0:42:29 that justice does not apply to allah in
0:42:33 this context in this context of
0:42:36 in the grand scheme of things allah will
0:42:38 know
0:42:38 allah is the trust that's absolutely see
0:42:43 yeah that's what i don't want to
0:42:45 mean i don't want to say that i want to
0:42:47 negate any of the experts
0:42:51 brother what you're doing so so you you
0:42:53 have certain starting points which is
0:42:55 like that
0:42:56 that comes from the mosque
0:43:00 [Music]
0:43:05 you know his slaves and he he
0:43:08 he is just in
0:43:10 his judgment and all of that stuff
0:43:11 that's there's no
0:43:14 uh compromise there you can't can't
0:43:15 compromise on any of that now what
0:43:17 you're doing in in this like you know
0:43:20 different dimension of like you know uh
0:43:22 philosophizing about
0:43:24 the the entailments of uh position
0:43:27 that's not uh part of the the alpeda
0:43:31 itself as in it isn't something that
0:43:34 um that that
0:43:37 that can affect
0:43:38 what you originally affirmed from the
0:43:41 text and from revelation about the world
0:43:42 you can't say oh because of this
0:43:45 specific metaphysical account of free
0:43:47 will and you know meta ethics
0:43:50 i'm going to say that in that situation
0:43:52 allah is not just i mean i don't i don't
0:43:54 think he can do that whatsoever
0:43:56 and i think that's pretty much agreed
0:43:58 upon by
0:44:00 different muslim schools yeah of course
0:44:02 like if if someone wants to come out and
0:44:04 say that i don't believe allah is just
0:44:05 of course he comes out of the fold of
0:44:07 islam so definitely you can't do that i
0:44:09 i agree with you
0:44:11 i'm just saying how how is it and that's
0:44:14 why i'm on uh i'm on here discussing
0:44:16 with with you guys because of course you
0:44:18 people mashallah you know you have a lot
0:44:20 of knowledge and i would like to learn
0:44:21 from you and understand how i can
0:44:24 reconcile
0:44:25 and have a coherent picture of
0:44:29 understanding that allah is just for
0:44:31 example and his various attributes with
0:44:35 the jeopardy approach that i mentioned
0:44:37 because it creates a kind of cognitive
0:44:39 dissonance which is fine i mean you can
0:44:41 still are you are you a compatibilist
0:44:44 sorry sorry off are you a compatibilist
0:44:46 or
0:44:47 um
0:44:48 i believe it's a semantic difference to
0:44:50 be honest uh this is this do you believe
0:44:52 we are we are morally accountable for
0:44:54 our acts do you believe we have some
0:44:56 degree of free will whatever the
0:44:58 metaphysical account of that free will
0:45:01 is
0:45:04 okay so so at face value i'm a
0:45:06 compatibilist sure you could say that
0:45:08 but uh i i have a lot to say about that
0:45:10 topic to be honest because
0:45:12 we have to define what free will means
0:45:16 there's a there's huge speculation about
0:45:17 what free will even means i can't forget
0:45:19 free will do you believe we are
0:45:20 accountable for our actions
0:45:22 do you truly believe that we will yeah
0:45:24 we we will be held accountable
0:45:27 no no i don't i don't i'm not talking
0:45:28 about
0:45:29 being held accountable i'm saying do you
0:45:31 believe that you are responsible you are
0:45:34 truly responsible for your acts as in
0:45:36 you uh uh do certain things
0:45:40 yeah
0:45:41 or do your acts belong to allah
0:45:43 not for okay so let's phrase it like
0:45:45 that because that's going to go back to
0:45:46 the createdness part yeah yeah it's just
0:45:49 from a purely subjective point of view
0:45:50 not for you
0:45:53 so so so it depends on the layer we're
0:45:55 talking about if i'm talking about
0:45:57 just my
0:45:58 physical subjective experience i am and
0:46:01 i i will be held to account and i am
0:46:03 responsible for sure
0:46:05 but
0:46:07 let's
0:46:08 let's say from allah's perspective from
0:46:10 the metaphysical perspective from an
0:46:12 absolutist perspective there is only
0:46:14 allah willing things and things
0:46:15 happening so from that perspective
0:46:17 there's no such thing as being held
0:46:19 responsible or someone was accountable
0:46:21 there was just something perspective
0:46:23 allah also told you that you are
0:46:25 responsible for your act and you and
0:46:27 that he doesn't wrong you and he and
0:46:30 that he you know yeah and that's the
0:46:32 quran that's revealed to us in this
0:46:34 dunya right so of course we can't
0:46:36 transcend this this layer of existence
0:46:38 that i keep referring to like just for
0:46:41 just like simplify like i said like
0:46:44 sorry
0:46:45 so let's not transcend it then i mean i
0:46:47 guess that's not for sure you you feel
0:46:49 accountable and you realize that that
0:46:52 allah is the creator of everything he
0:46:55 has dominion over everything and there
0:46:57 is some way that these two are
0:47:00 reconcilable it's not there's no
0:47:01 explicit contradiction here there's no
0:47:03 contradiction there's just some kind of
0:47:05 unknown maybe i mean there are accounts
0:47:07 yeah
0:47:08 let's not go into the details of the
0:47:10 possible accounts but let's say there is
0:47:12 some metaphysical account of how this is
0:47:14 made reconcilable and that's yes
0:47:18 see what you just did there is what i
0:47:20 was referring to earlier is that yours
0:47:23 the attributes of allah you're only
0:47:24 you're only ascribing them to this layer
0:47:27 one existence that i that i keep
0:47:29 referring to
0:47:30 he is just in terms of my subjective
0:47:33 experience of how i experience justice
0:47:35 in this world in this physical world
0:47:37 that i exist in there's morals but
0:47:40 from his perspective
0:47:42 he is not obligated
0:47:45 with those
0:47:46 moral right and wrongs do you understand
0:47:48 what i mean
0:47:49 like i'm sorry if i sound very vague but
0:47:51 i i hope i hope you guys on the panel
0:47:53 understand where i'm going with this is
0:47:55 that we can
0:47:57 justice means that
0:47:59 allah subhanahu ta'ala has to do the
0:48:01 right thing for example there's a
0:48:03 there's a way to measure it but when we
0:48:05 say that allah arbitrarily created a
0:48:08 world
0:48:09 where
0:48:10 he wills most if not almost all of his
0:48:13 creation will go to hell that is beyond
0:48:16 the scope of justice you can't
0:48:18 er
0:48:19 that is transcendent that is so so he's
0:48:20 not obligated well it's not necessarily
0:48:23 if the people that are going to help
0:48:27 sending them to hell is just
0:48:30 why would again again
0:48:47 you or whatever the stomach takes and
0:48:49 then what you're trying to do is you're
0:48:50 trying to then reconcile it
0:48:52 uh with other things so one of the ways
0:48:54 that you reconcile saying well
0:48:57 in this world we see exercise
0:48:59 yeah we see free will we see
0:49:05 and then you're saying okay but in the
0:49:07 metaphysical realm
0:49:09 it's different actually yeah now i think
0:49:11 i'll get money saying what you should do
0:49:13 you should go from the node
0:49:15 and use that as a basis to understand
0:49:18 things
0:49:18 rather than using the unknown or things
0:49:21 of the metaphysical reality which are
0:49:23 you know by very definite not by
0:49:25 definition but it can be beyond our
0:49:27 comprehension
0:49:28 that
0:49:37 you see what i mean so you're you're
0:49:39 using that i think that's putting the
0:49:41 cart before the horse to be honest yeah
0:49:43 so you're using all those
0:49:45 attributes and trying to understand how
0:49:47 they then interact within the world
0:49:50 i think that i agree with it as well is
0:49:52 not use what you understand from our
0:49:55 world and then
0:49:56 you need to reconcile that you reconcile
0:49:58 it
0:49:59 from our base upwards
0:50:02 that needs to be affiliation yeah but
0:50:04 you can only exactly exactly see you can
0:50:06 only go up so much until it becomes
0:50:08 impossible to reconcile
0:50:10 so again right and and
0:50:14 no no again
0:50:16 let me just let's just cut to the chase
0:50:18 let's say you're just taking somewhat of
0:50:20 an ashari position on the matter so what
0:50:22 is there to argue it's just that you're
0:50:23 just convinced with that shitty position
0:50:24 so i mean what what is i i don't get all
0:50:28 all you're doing here it seems like
0:50:30 you're just arguing for that position
0:50:31 which is fine so it's it's the position
0:50:33 you hold but then is there some problem
0:50:36 you see because um okay so so let me let
0:50:39 me give you a question to to narrow it
0:50:40 down for example
0:50:42 and
0:50:43 again
0:50:44 i'll say i believe in allah's justice
0:50:46 i'm not i'm not trying to raise any
0:50:48 doubts but
0:50:49 if someone was to say
0:50:51 allah
0:50:54 he created
0:50:55 for most of his creation to go to
0:50:57 hellfire
0:50:58 how is that just
0:50:59 [Music]
0:51:01 yes
0:51:03 someone saying this or is it yes
0:51:07 no i believe allah is just even if i
0:51:09 can't reconcile it myself i'm not gonna
0:51:11 i'm not gonna have shibuyata i'm not
0:51:13 gonna
0:51:13 disbelieve in allah but in order to have
0:51:16 a coherent philosophical outlook for for
0:51:18 myself and not have cognitive dissonance
0:51:20 how can i reconcile those two
0:51:23 so one way and again you believe it's
0:51:25 reasonable to believe and
0:51:27 you see in those two seemingly con
0:51:29 conflicting
0:51:30 yeah and i explained why i believe it's
0:51:32 reasonable i said it's it's by
0:51:35 attributing allah's attributes only to
0:51:37 our subjective
0:51:42 uh you're you're
0:51:44 playing that is it me yeah
0:51:50 yeah so so so do you believe the
0:51:52 position you're taking here
0:51:54 is a coherent one because you're you're
0:51:56 basically saying allah is transcendent
0:51:58 he transcends all these kinds of like
0:52:00 you know
0:52:01 uh
0:52:02 moral standards of right and wrong and
0:52:04 uh yeah you're taking some extreme like
0:52:07 divine command theory uh view on on on
0:52:10 morality maybe and
0:52:12 you clearly think that that's reasonable
0:52:14 so where is that if somebody comes
0:52:17 believe what you said yeah just tell
0:52:18 them that and yeah
0:52:20 yeah
0:52:21 no no i mean i mean i find it coherent
0:52:24 but i don't know if it's islamically
0:52:26 acceptable that's what i mean
0:52:28 i don't agree with what i'm saying what
0:52:29 i'm saying is
0:52:44 you follow the ashadi school
0:52:48 on this night or at least
0:52:53 can you hear me muhammad
0:52:56 muhammad if you're speaking we can't
0:52:57 hear you anymore
0:53:01 he's gone okay
0:53:03 sorry mom we're gonna have to uh
0:53:05 if you want to come back later on that's
0:53:07 fine but we've got other guests as well
0:53:09 so we're gonna have to move on but just
0:53:12 say something real quick maybe muhammad
0:53:14 can watch it later it's simple so if
0:53:16 uh muhammad saying is it islamically
0:53:18 acceptable i i don't i don't agree with
0:53:20 it but
0:53:21 there there is there are positions that
0:53:24 try to argue for some sort of similar uh
0:53:27 take on the matter so if you you if
0:53:30 that's your position
0:53:31 and there are
0:53:33 muslim scholars who hold to that
0:53:34 position then i i don't know i mean i
0:53:35 can't
0:53:37 force you out of it i don't agree with
0:53:39 it so
0:53:40 i think there are coherent ways of ask
0:53:43 answering the questions that you
0:53:44 answered i mean yusuf just gave you the
0:53:46 straightforward question because you
0:53:47 said you said something like um if he
0:53:49 willed to create with most of creation
0:53:52 being in hell which we don't know by the
0:53:53 way um that's not something we don't
0:53:55 know that most creations have but let's
0:53:56 assume that that's the case the the
0:53:58 question of justice
0:54:00 is going to be related to whether they
0:54:01 deserve it or not which is going to take
0:54:03 you action
0:54:05 is sort of irrelevant like it could be
0:54:08 one person goes to hellfire it could be
0:54:10 every person goes to hellfire the
0:54:11 question isn't about how many go to hell
0:54:14 fire the question is did they deserve it
0:54:16 or not
0:54:17 that's the issue
0:54:19 so the numbers are relevant and
0:54:21 it's i guess there's like this emotional
0:54:25 inclination when you hear most of
0:54:27 creation is going to hell fire
0:54:29 you sort of hear that and go oh
0:54:32 how is that just why is it not
0:54:35 the numbers irrelevant
0:54:36 like if
0:54:38 exactly even though that statement is
0:54:39 not true like we don't know that
0:54:41 we don't really know that most of
0:54:42 creation is yeah and if most people
0:54:45 uh who commit crimes go to prison
0:54:48 like
0:54:49 okay well did the ones that went to
0:54:52 prison is it
0:54:54 was it just to send them there and the
0:54:56 ones that were granted freedom and
0:54:57 weren't sent to prison for whatever
0:54:59 reason maybe they weren't more qualified
0:55:00 or legally responsible maybe there was
0:55:02 something going on or they had a good
0:55:04 reason
0:55:05 whatever it was those are the important
0:55:07 questions not the number
0:55:10 not how many were sent or how many were
0:55:12 not sent it's sort of irrelevant and
0:55:14 just obviously it's quite a confusing
0:55:16 topic and i'm just sort of cognizant of
0:55:18 the the viewers that were listening
0:55:20 there might have gotten a bit confused
0:55:21 for me
0:55:22 generally the way i approach this whole
0:55:24 thing is
0:55:25 it's i keep it simple
0:55:27 the question of who is responsible
0:55:31 is a question of uh where does the
0:55:34 action subsist
0:55:36 so for example when
0:55:38 i speak my speech subsists in me so that
0:55:41 the speech is mine
0:55:43 so when i'm talking even if i pass a
0:55:46 message on to abdul rahman and then he
0:55:48 tells brother sharif
0:55:49 even if he's uttering my words
0:55:52 it is recognized that these words
0:55:54 although even abdul rahman is is similar
0:55:56 for example
0:55:57 that those words are mine because the
0:55:59 the words themselves subsist in me and
0:56:01 you get this quite intuitively because
0:56:03 you don't say when anything or you hear
0:56:05 talking
0:56:06 even if you understand that allah is
0:56:09 creating the speech or he's creating the
0:56:11 sound and he's creating the environment
0:56:14 and the vibrating you know all of my
0:56:16 body he's subsisting all of this
0:56:18 even though he's creating that there's
0:56:20 there's never the question of is this
0:56:22 speech allah's or is it useless
0:56:25 no one ever asked this but the problem
0:56:26 is the same the problem is is allah zoal
0:56:29 is creating it yet you still recognize
0:56:32 that that speech is mine and not allah
0:56:33 azzawajal and vice versa that allah's
0:56:35 speech is his
0:56:37 and not mine even when i speak the quran
0:56:39 if i read the quran and the same thing
0:56:41 here is with actions so allah's action
0:56:44 is the act of creating
0:56:47 yeah
0:56:48 allah azzawajal is
0:56:50 relating to the act of creation in a
0:56:52 completely different way than we do and
0:56:54 his actions are his
0:56:56 so allah wills whatever he heals but
0:56:59 his actions subsist in him and my
0:57:02 actions subsist in me even if allah is
0:57:05 creating them so when i do something if
0:57:08 if i wronged someone allah is creating
0:57:11 everything but that action me doing
0:57:14 something just as me speaking subsists
0:57:17 in me it is mine and so therefore i am
0:57:20 responsible what i do is mine what allah
0:57:23 does is his
0:57:24 and the act of creating is not the same
0:57:26 as the act of doing
0:57:28 there's a distinction in the two and so
0:57:31 for me it's it's just i keep it as
0:57:33 simple as that
0:57:35 where who where does the act subsist
0:57:38 my act subsists in me allah's act of
0:57:41 creation subsists in him
0:57:43 my speech subsists in me allah's speech
0:57:45 subsists in him
0:57:47 and his belongs to hidden mind belongs
0:57:49 to mine and so on the day of judgment
0:57:51 what i what i do i will be held
0:57:53 accountable for and vice versa whatever
0:57:55 anyone else does they will be held
0:57:56 accountable before yeah i know so the
0:57:58 verse that he quoted that
0:58:00 there's very stiff citizen like this
0:58:02 that the verse doesn't mean that allah
0:58:04 he verses basically saying that allah
0:58:07 could have created every human being
0:58:08 without free will and that would have
0:58:10 chosen guidance
0:58:11 yeah
0:58:12 uh and then it's understood by the
0:58:14 mufasa in that actually
0:58:16 could have done that because that's
0:58:17 within allah's power but didn't do that
0:58:20 because he wanted to create this world
0:58:21 as a test meaning people have the choice
0:58:24 and then those people who do things
0:58:26 against what allah commands
0:58:29 to be done as a good act would therefore
0:58:32 be punished now i think also there's an
0:58:35 idea of cosmic will
0:58:37 uh and uh he will i think that those are
0:58:40 the terminologies so allah intends
0:58:43 for human beings
0:58:45 to follow his command but it's the
0:58:47 cosmic will that allah has given people
0:58:50 the ability to choose
0:58:52 uh what type of acts so choose whether
0:58:55 they follow the guidance or not so also
0:58:57 wants people to follow the guidance but
0:58:59 also has given the ability for people to
0:59:02 make the choice
0:59:03 yeah and so you know
0:59:06 there's various ways of reconciling that
0:59:07 particular verse it doesn't mean that
0:59:08 allah could have created uh could have
0:59:11 given guidance to all human beings and
0:59:12 then actually will some people to go to
0:59:14 hellfire or most people to go to hell by
0:59:16 i don't think any uh scholars take that
0:59:18 position maybe like the job might but i
0:59:20 don't mean from that hello son they do
0:59:22 as we go to the next uh
0:59:24 yeah uh
0:59:27 ready to come back on or
0:59:29 uh
0:59:30 i don't know if he wants to comment in
0:59:32 there if he's okay to come back on
0:59:34 i've delayed you could pop your camera
0:59:36 on um
0:59:38 yeah yeah
0:59:40 oh
0:59:42 i keep
0:59:43 are you ready to have your camera on or
0:59:45 do you want your camera off
0:59:46 it's it's all right i'll go in with my
0:59:48 camera
0:59:51 yeah it's all right uh well yeah i'm
0:59:54 happy to be here thank you guys um i
0:59:56 love the podcast i learned quite a bit
0:59:59 um i have
1:00:01 a pressing question and maybe one after
1:00:03 it i don't know if time will will allow
1:00:04 but if it doesn't that's okay
1:00:06 um but at first i just wanted to comment
1:00:08 quickly on the on the thing that you
1:00:10 guys were talking about and
1:00:12 i feel like there was a misunderstanding
1:00:14 in the reading from the brother because
1:00:15 if you read
1:00:16 uh a verse before and a verse after
1:00:19 you'll find that allah is talking
1:00:21 talking about those who are already in
1:00:22 hell for neglecting
1:00:24 uh listening to the commands of allah
1:00:27 and the message and they're asking for
1:00:28 allah to send them back because they're
1:00:30 saying hey now we've heard the
1:00:32 message
1:00:34 and allah saying well no but my command
1:00:36 is to fill those people up who did not
1:00:38 listen to my command
1:00:40 so i think that gives it a little more
1:00:41 context and i would highly recommend uh
1:00:44 it's 32 starts at 12 and it goes to 14 i
1:00:48 believe
1:00:49 um
1:00:50 and uh that gives it more context and
1:00:52 it's not just
1:00:54 exactly yeah filling people up just
1:00:56 randomly he's like hey i just created
1:00:57 these people let them let them be yeah
1:01:00 and no one questions whether or not they
1:01:02 deserved it but they they
1:01:04 they seem in every case when the quran
1:01:06 talks about it to acknowledge
1:01:08 that they are responsible and to be
1:01:10 given a second chance let me go back let
1:01:12 me make amends for i
1:01:15 and uh at that point it's cut off so
1:01:17 there's no question about whether or not
1:01:19 it was just so when you know when you
1:01:20 get the the typical
1:01:22 sort of youtube atheist it's like oh on
1:01:25 judgement day i'll point my finger at
1:01:27 god and say
1:01:29 well i'll give him a piece of my mind
1:01:31 and like no it's not going to be like
1:01:32 that at all
1:01:33 like it it's absurd to think that if
1:01:36 allah does exist on that day when you
1:01:39 have no power
1:01:40 that you would do anything other than
1:01:42 bottle it
1:01:44 that you recognize at that point point
1:01:45 that you have no power
1:01:47 arguing with a lot as a job will be
1:01:49 completely fruitless
1:01:51 and you will be held accountable for
1:01:52 what you did
1:01:53 go exactly where you deserve to go
1:01:56 and yeah so they say it now it's it's
1:01:58 like the uh you know the jack russell
1:02:00 syndrome
1:02:02 it's like
1:02:04 and then you let the lead off
1:02:06 and then it's dead quiet oh there's that
1:02:07 meme as well with the the the gates
1:02:10 and the dogs are backing to each other
1:02:13 through the gates and then when the game
1:02:14 yeah yeah yeah and they've got the
1:02:16 opportunity to do something they all
1:02:17 walk off they just
1:02:21 yeah so so my question is um and you may
1:02:25 have heard this question one uh this
1:02:26 question before it's a bit of a strange
1:02:28 one um when i heard it i'm like
1:02:29 something's is wrong about it but i just
1:02:31 couldn't place my finger on it but
1:02:33 people will say well okay you know islam
1:02:34 or some other religion say that we have
1:02:36 free will and god allows us to do
1:02:38 whatever we want but then they'll say if
1:02:40 that's true then it wouldn't be the fact
1:02:42 that there would be you know the
1:02:43 consequence of hell that's not true and
1:02:45 that's not true free will because if you
1:02:48 do something
1:02:49 uh else then you're going to go to hell
1:02:50 for that and and and so they say oh no
1:02:52 no there isn't actually a free will
1:02:58 so is there a question tied to that yeah
1:03:00 so he's saying that if you've got the
1:03:02 threat of punishment how is that free
1:03:04 will yeah yeah you have to do this yep
1:03:07 yeah that's the whole point isn't it is
1:03:09 that that doesn't deny free will
1:03:11 the ability the fact there's a threat of
1:03:13 punishment doesn't mean that now
1:03:14 somebody's physically made you into a
1:03:16 robot
1:03:17 you know if somebody puts a gun to your
1:03:18 head and says if you don't do this i'm
1:03:20 going to shoot you in the head you still
1:03:22 have free will you still have the choice
1:03:24 to take the bullet yeah yeah and people
1:03:25 even deny that the whole point here as
1:03:27 well is it's not that they just they
1:03:29 they go and well one they go and do the
1:03:31 act anyway
1:03:33 and two
1:03:35 they can deny that there is going to be
1:03:36 a punishment
1:03:39 they have that ability as well so they
1:03:40 just they they turn a blind eye to it
1:03:43 and they refuse and it's not like this
1:03:44 is inconceivable this happens in
1:03:46 politics as well where people are being
1:03:48 told listen if
1:03:49 the country continues to be run this way
1:03:52 these sort of problems are going to
1:03:53 happen
1:03:54 and they turn a blind eye to it it's
1:03:56 like they willingly refuse knowledge
1:04:00 like the consequences of what's going to
1:04:02 occur based on their actions
1:04:04 you know it happens within the dunya
1:04:07 like i know so it seems a very strange
1:04:08 argument is this like an argument that
1:04:10 non-muslims or atheists bring
1:04:12 yeah i've heard it from from them it's
1:04:14 kind of like and the way they would
1:04:16 specified is you know if i held a gun to
1:04:18 your head and i told you to do x
1:04:20 uh would that be truly free will
1:04:23 um would you be acting really freely
1:04:24 here yeah but then that's the whole
1:04:27 point though isn't it it's like okay in
1:04:29 this analogy they really believe hell
1:04:31 exists
1:04:32 so
1:04:33 what
1:04:34 you're still going to become an atheist
1:04:36 that makes no sense
1:04:38 that's very strange though because it
1:04:40 just completely
1:04:42 misses the point and like you know uh
1:04:45 misconceptualizes the idea of free will
1:04:47 okay the idea of free will has nothing
1:04:49 to do with the consequence of your free
1:04:51 choice it's just about the ability to
1:04:53 make a free choice it has nothing to do
1:04:55 with what's coming after that or whether
1:04:57 someone's threatening you or not
1:04:59 it's simply your ability to make a free
1:05:01 choice it's has nothing to do with
1:05:03 whether you're being threatened or
1:05:04 whether you know there are no
1:05:06 consequences to your act
1:05:08 so it is a yeah
1:05:10 yeah that that makes sense
1:05:12 um but my second question is kind of a
1:05:14 little bit related to to the last one uh
1:05:16 with the last guest
1:05:17 it's kind of like uh and you've probably
1:05:19 heard this one before maybe you did talk
1:05:21 about it in your free will
1:05:22 podcast i can't remember
1:05:24 but it's you know why if god is so
1:05:26 merciful why would he create people that
1:05:28 he knows
1:05:29 uh are gonna go to hell
1:05:31 um and you can amp the argument you can
1:05:34 really steal man it because i was
1:05:35 thinking about it and you could say
1:05:37 something along the lines of
1:05:38 um why couldn't god for example create
1:05:41 people
1:05:42 that maybe temporarily would go to hell
1:05:45 but then ultimately they would go to
1:05:47 heaven so they would still be punished
1:05:48 for the wrong actions but they wouldn't
1:05:49 stay there forever
1:05:51 um
1:05:52 yeah and so wouldn't that make god maybe
1:05:55 not as merciful or why would he do such
1:05:57 a thing knowing ahead of time i think
1:06:00 there's a misunderstanding of what mercy
1:06:01 is here i mean mercy doesn't mean that
1:06:03 he uh he's not going to be just in his
1:06:06 judgment the question is whether the
1:06:07 people will go to hell deserve it um the
1:06:10 the mercy part isn't really about
1:06:13 being merciful towards those who
1:06:17 deserve deserve an eternity in hell the
1:06:18 real question is whether they deserve it
1:06:20 or not and really it's it's just
1:06:22 a given from within our theology that
1:06:25 that
1:06:26 allah does not
1:06:28 judge people unjustly right so the mercy
1:06:31 part is has nothing to do with it
1:06:34 allah's mercy is not
1:06:35 uh
1:06:36 unrestricted in that sense as in it it
1:06:39 doesn't apply to
1:06:41 certain people who let's say
1:06:44 uh are cursed like the the definition of
1:06:46 like a a a a a or a curse is basically
1:06:49 to kick somebody out of the mercy of
1:06:51 allah now we don't do that
1:06:53 but when it is like when it factually
1:06:55 happens like someone like iblis
1:06:57 um are we saying that allah should be
1:06:59 merciful towards iblis
1:07:01 uh it's it's a misapplication i mean he
1:07:04 he deserves his punishment or even if
1:07:06 you if you think about it in in in human
1:07:08 terms
1:07:09 uh like you wouldn't expect a merciful
1:07:11 person to let's say be uh
1:07:14 merciful towards a rapist or whatever
1:07:17 right like like uh
1:07:19 we we understand these uh traits
1:07:22 uh contextually right so it applies in
1:07:24 certain instances and in others it would
1:07:27 actually be uh counterproductive and
1:07:29 self-defeating to
1:07:31 to to apply it uh of course some people
1:07:33 might disagree they might say that no
1:07:35 you should be merciful towards everybody
1:07:37 but um i i i don't
1:07:40 i don't see why
1:07:44 the merciful he's also the just and the
1:07:46 wise and there can be unwise
1:07:49 applications of mercy so you take the
1:07:51 christchurch killer as the perfect
1:07:53 example
1:07:54 so imagine you know you've got this man
1:07:56 who has unashamedly went and murdered a
1:07:59 lot of innocent people
1:08:01 and then he's brought before the court
1:08:03 with the families in the court he's
1:08:05 smiling he's acknowledging that he's
1:08:07 proud of what he did he shows no remorse
1:08:10 at all
1:08:11 no intention of apologizing says if he
1:08:14 was released he would do it again and
1:08:16 then the judge says
1:08:17 i will have mercy upon you
1:08:20 he's not asked for it he's not asked for
1:08:22 forgiveness
1:08:23 like he's you know
1:08:25 if if this was to occur not one atheist
1:08:28 in the room would say
1:08:30 whoa this is the most merciful person
1:08:32 i've ever seen in my life not they're
1:08:33 gonna jump on that as being a
1:08:36 misapplication of mercy because it's
1:08:38 it's it's not applied in relation to
1:08:42 other important attributes like the
1:08:44 attribute of justice the attribute of
1:08:46 wisdom this is a very unwise and unjust
1:08:50 thing to do
1:08:51 and it isn't i think where mercy is to
1:08:55 be applied at all
1:08:59 yeah and i
1:09:00 that sounds good to me but i would
1:09:02 really like to still man this argument
1:09:04 if possible so i as an atheist for
1:09:07 example i could come and say well
1:09:10 you know let's think of two possible
1:09:11 worlds one where
1:09:13 god creates some people that go to
1:09:16 uh
1:09:17 to hell maybe just temporarily so
1:09:19 they're still being punished for their
1:09:20 bad actions
1:09:21 um but no like no ultimate disbelievers
1:09:24 that completely disbelieve
1:09:26 and then
1:09:27 they after that go to heaven or in this
1:09:29 world for example where you are gonna
1:09:31 have some people that stay in hell
1:09:32 forever and then as an atheist i'm going
1:09:34 to say well
1:09:36 god here chose the wrong thing for allah
1:09:38 uh you know the other possible world
1:09:40 would have been better
1:09:44 yeah well you see i'm honestly
1:09:46 these um
1:09:48 um it's becoming much uh like less and
1:09:51 less interesting for me to actually
1:09:53 entertain some of these stuff i'd be
1:09:55 like well if you think
1:09:56 that way you could go ahead and think
1:09:57 that way because
1:09:58 a lot of these uh contentions are just
1:10:01 so artificial
1:10:02 um
1:10:04 look it you're you're assuming you know
1:10:06 what the person deserves right so you
1:10:08 can even look at it this way the fact
1:10:10 that
1:10:11 a person who's gonna uh left an eternity
1:10:14 in hell had a life here
1:10:16 and received some of the pleasures of
1:10:18 god
1:10:19 might be the greatest mercy in the world
1:10:22 given the actual uh
1:10:25 gravity of his crimes
1:10:27 you don't you just don't have access to
1:10:28 that kind of information god is the most
1:10:31 just
1:10:32 we we know that we have a solid
1:10:35 foundation for our theology
1:10:37 we don't need to have some kind of like
1:10:39 you know
1:10:42 very uh uh well laid out metaphysical
1:10:45 account of
1:10:47 what that mercy truly is in terms of you
1:10:50 know punishment x deserves
1:10:53 uh or sorry uh crimex deserves y
1:10:56 and uh
1:10:57 and and put it in that sort of like you
1:10:59 know uh mathematical form it doesn't
1:11:02 have to be that you deserve
1:11:04 a specific punishment and
1:11:07 you need to know the metaphysical
1:11:09 account of why you deserve this amount
1:11:11 of punishment for this specific crime no
1:11:13 we we
1:11:15 have it in
1:11:16 the background
1:11:18 within our belief as far as this
1:11:19 conversation is concerned that allah is
1:11:21 the most just and he doesn't punish
1:11:23 people without them deserving it he
1:11:25 overlooks most things and from his mercy
1:11:29 he delays punishments and he gives
1:11:31 people time
1:11:33 and the people who are in hell and who
1:11:35 last there for an eternity when they
1:11:38 uh allah says in the quran that if they
1:11:41 are given the choice to go back to life
1:11:44 and you know go through the test again
1:11:47 they will just do the same thing again i
1:11:48 mean so so that's that's of his he knows
1:11:51 this because he knows the unseen now i'm
1:11:53 i i can't uh
1:11:55 give you
1:11:56 uh some kind of detailed metaphysical
1:11:58 account of this neither can you neither
1:11:59 can anybody because it's it's a very uh
1:12:01 complex issue but
1:12:03 that is sufficient in that sense so if
1:12:05 you're gonna say it's it's not merciful
1:12:08 to give punishment uh x for you know
1:12:11 crime y
1:12:12 then
1:12:13 you're making a very
1:12:15 very
1:12:16 deep metaphysical claim that we simply
1:12:18 won't accept i mean
1:12:20 the person who's making the contention
1:12:22 is is free to go whatever path they want
1:12:24 to go down but it's just
1:12:27 not very impressive to be honest from
1:12:29 our perspective
1:12:30 yeah so i think maybe the assumption now
1:12:32 that i'm thinking about it would be that
1:12:34 they somehow know better than god
1:12:37 that they that the the world to the one
1:12:39 that was described would be better for
1:12:41 example than the world that we live in
1:12:44 and that
1:12:45 such a world would be more merciful or
1:12:47 or something like that which obviously
1:12:49 in this case wouldn't work because we
1:12:51 would believe
1:12:52 god is you know the most knowledgeable
1:12:54 and the most wise and and so on
1:12:56 yeah but that assumes some kind of you
1:12:58 know uh pleasure pain sort of uh
1:13:00 utilitarian account of of of
1:13:03 morality i mean
1:13:06 we can get to that
1:13:07 and uh we could talk about
1:13:10 those aspects and most of these uh most
1:13:14 formulations of
1:13:16 what they call the problem of evil
1:13:18 really um
1:13:20 does assume some kind of meta-ethical
1:13:23 view in the background and that's not
1:13:26 usually explored uh as much as it should
1:13:29 be in in in
1:13:30 a lot of these discussions
1:13:32 uh it's not that the the assumption is
1:13:34 wrong
1:13:35 it's that just applying it universally
1:13:36 like that is not
1:13:38 um
1:13:38 it's not necessarily some the most like
1:13:41 plausible or or you know uh fruitful
1:13:44 thing to do in these kinds of
1:13:45 discussions
1:13:47 and that could be explored but then
1:13:48 there is a metaphysical
1:13:50 a meta-ethical framework in the
1:13:51 background there that's at work saying
1:13:53 that oh that world will be better
1:13:56 um don't have to accept that
1:13:58 right i i see that makes sense so i
1:14:00 guess you're kind of assuming some type
1:14:02 of uh meta-ethical
1:14:04 tool or
1:14:06 something to to judge which one is
1:14:07 better than the than the other
1:14:09 um
1:14:10 exactly yeah yeah okay that makes sense
1:14:12 all right well thank you guys i don't
1:14:13 want to take any more time here uh i
1:14:15 will say that i hope you guys have in
1:14:17 the work something about maybe
1:14:19 feminism or something coming up because
1:14:21 that'd be pretty cool i've been reading
1:14:22 some stuff on my own i don't know if you
1:14:24 do but if you do
1:14:25 uh that is that would be interesting
1:14:28 anyways thank you guys so much i i
1:14:30 really appreciate that the podcast and i
1:14:32 hope you guys continue this
1:14:38 all right so
1:14:39 really says that they are ready to come
1:14:43 on so
1:14:45 we'll bring them on hello
1:14:46 hello
1:14:48 yes am i audible
1:14:50 yeah
1:14:53 so go ahead let me
1:14:55 help you today inshallah
1:14:58 okay thank you so uh i was
1:15:01 i was going to ask about uh
1:15:03 about consciousness i was actually
1:15:05 searching
1:15:06 looking into this subject
1:15:08 i wanted to understand uh some uh of the
1:15:11 islamic concepts around it particularly
1:15:14 so um
1:15:16 would you say that uh consciousness
1:15:19 uh the source of consciousness is soul
1:15:21 is is that the islamic concept or any
1:15:23 religious concept
1:15:25 or i mean so let me rephrase it can
1:15:28 there be a conscious being without soul
1:15:32 uh
1:15:34 i don't i honestly don't
1:15:36 i don't know um yeah this is important i
1:15:40 mean is the concept of a soul is
1:15:41 definitely related
1:15:43 to consciousness but is it uh like you
1:15:46 know consciousness itself depending on
1:15:47 what you mean by consciousness or is it
1:15:50 because if you define consciousness as
1:15:51 just like very simple self-awareness
1:15:54 um
1:15:55 yeah maybe you necessarily need a whole
1:15:58 new self-aware i don't know so
1:16:01 so self-awareness would be i think
1:16:04 i would call it a higher level of
1:16:06 consciousness but for example i would
1:16:08 call uh subjective experience any being
1:16:11 having a subjective experience
1:16:13 will have some sort of consciousness
1:16:16 would you agree with that
1:16:18 yeah probably
1:16:21 so for example any being which which
1:16:23 experiences pain or pleasure
1:16:26 yeah
1:16:27 and
1:16:28 yeah so i mean and in that context
1:16:31 what uh what is the islamic uh concept
1:16:34 about animals do they have souls
1:16:36 uh do they have uh
1:16:39 uh
1:16:39 this experience of pain and pleasure
1:16:42 are they conscious in that sense in a
1:16:44 very limited way having pain
1:16:46 yeah i'm sure there's a difference of
1:16:47 opinion on this and and i'm not very
1:16:50 well read on it but yeah i mean they do
1:16:52 experience pain and pleasure and in fact
1:16:54 there's like um
1:16:56 uh um
1:16:57 there's going to be like judgment
1:17:01 between them like amongst themselves and
1:17:03 on the day of judgment like uh
1:17:06 uh before
1:17:07 they are turned into dust according to
1:17:09 one hadith but it's it's probably um an
1:17:12 issue that where there's a lot more to
1:17:13 say about i don't know if yusuf uh
1:17:15 is more well right on the topic i
1:17:17 personally yeah so
1:17:18 i would say it
1:17:20 because even the quran talks about you
1:17:22 know how they commune with each other
1:17:24 and things like that and the certain
1:17:25 miracles that are expressed
1:17:26 um with the the prophets where they can
1:17:29 hear what they're saying and talking so
1:17:31 the quran definitely suggests a certain
1:17:34 level of consciousness
1:17:35 um i think it's a matter of degree
1:17:38 so maybe you could say some beings are
1:17:40 more conscious than others
1:17:42 um
1:17:43 but yeah there's definitely a
1:17:44 recognition that animals do suffer and
1:17:46 feel pain
1:17:48 um as well because that the whole point
1:17:50 of the um halal slaughter for example is
1:17:53 to minimize that
1:17:54 um like for example making sure that the
1:17:56 the blade is sharp
1:17:58 um and yes it is
1:18:00 caught with a blunt blade etc um and you
1:18:03 know even the
1:18:05 prophet muhammad there's accounts of him
1:18:08 having guards posted by
1:18:10 um dogs and things like that that were
1:18:12 giving birth to keep them protected and
1:18:14 stuff like that so there's a the mission
1:18:16 that they
1:18:17 are conscious that they have rights that
1:18:18 they commune
1:18:20 they worship allah azzawajal they
1:18:22 recognize the creator
1:18:25 it's but
1:18:27 for obvious reasons i would say that it
1:18:28 would be to a lesser degree
1:18:31 than say the human conscience
1:18:34 but i don't know how that is and
1:18:36 we've not got any information yeah so
1:18:38 now
1:18:39 yeah so so i'll come back to my original
1:18:42 you know
1:18:43 question then uh
1:18:44 so and that was would you relate and
1:18:48 would you say that
1:18:49 consciousness can exist without without
1:18:52 a supernatural so uh
1:18:54 can a consciousness would you say
1:18:55 consciousness is
1:18:57 uh you know it's something uh
1:19:00 immaterial
1:19:02 and if it is immaterial
1:19:04 there's no reason just sorry to cut you
1:19:06 off because i want to know what the
1:19:08 like what the
1:19:10 what your your point is because there's
1:19:11 no there isn't one position on these
1:19:13 questions
1:19:14 whether you're asking from an islamic or
1:19:16 non-islamic viewpoint this um
1:19:19 this yeah
1:19:27 if consciousness is something that is uh
1:19:30 that can only exist
1:19:32 when there is a soul
1:19:34 um in that case if if we take into
1:19:38 account that animals
1:19:40 also have some sort of consciousness
1:19:42 uh particularly since they can feel pain
1:19:44 or pleasure
1:19:46 uh
1:19:47 do they have some sort of soul
1:19:49 and the whole point of the soul
1:19:52 at least from my point of view is
1:19:54 is that it it is a being it is a
1:19:56 supernatural part of one's being
1:19:59 uh which eternally exists because
1:20:02 there's there's going to be some sort of
1:20:04 uh
1:20:05 an accountability now if there's an
1:20:08 accountability of animals as well
1:20:11 that then we'll come back to the
1:20:13 question do they have free will
1:20:15 so do you get my money
1:20:20 when you first came on
1:20:22 oh i had to go bit by the way before but
1:20:24 when you first came on you mentioned
1:20:26 that you had doubts
1:20:27 is this related to your demons
1:20:30 yeah i have a lot of doubt so i just
1:20:32 wonder what is this particular point
1:20:34 related to your doubt
1:20:36 is this a reason why you have
1:20:38 considering leaving islam
1:20:42 uh
1:20:43 i wouldn't say it is a very big one it's
1:20:44 just one question that i have because
1:20:46 it's something that uh the
1:20:49 uh the religious
1:20:50 uh that the teased
1:20:52 what should i say uh the the religious
1:20:55 point of view is quite different
1:20:57 they say that consciousness
1:20:58 is is something that is that's that can
1:21:01 probably not be
1:21:02 or most likely it cannot be uh
1:21:05 something that can be sourced or be
1:21:07 based on the materialism yeah that's
1:21:09 funny i was just discussing that
1:21:12 but if
1:21:27 because it doesn't because logically
1:21:29 speaking either that makes sense for
1:21:30 leaving something based on this yeah
1:21:32 so just as a as a general point here so
1:21:36 when it comes to the issue of
1:21:37 consciousness this discussion about the
1:21:39 hard problem of consciousness you're
1:21:40 mixing two things together the idea of
1:21:42 where does the consciousness arise from
1:21:44 if it's not material is it the soul what
1:21:46 does that soul mean etc etc that's
1:21:49 irrelevant to be honest
1:21:51 a large part of this
1:21:53 the main discussion is this
1:21:55 that under materialism can you give a
1:21:58 good account of why human beings
1:22:01 are conscious or why there are conscious
1:22:03 agents upon the earth can you explain
1:22:05 quality and intentionality and also free
1:22:08 will under a materialistic paradigm
1:22:10 that's the issue now the problem that a
1:22:12 lot of materialists have is that they
1:22:14 cannot explain
1:22:16 consciousness to when they say well
1:22:18 consciousness is just brain states the
1:22:21 mind is just brain states it's identical
1:22:23 to the two if people argue like that
1:22:26 then they cannot explain why you have
1:22:28 consciousness as opposed to being a
1:22:31 you know a robot yeah where or
1:22:33 philosophical zombie dead inside just
1:22:35 doing acts appear to be alive here
1:22:38 that's the issue so that's what you need
1:22:40 to focus upon now the only reason why
1:22:42 people bring in discussion of the soul
1:22:45 is because if then we conclude that
1:22:48 consciousness cannot be grounded
1:22:50 grounded under materialistic
1:22:52 paradigm
1:22:53 then the question then becomes well
1:22:55 do theists or do people who don't
1:22:57 believe in materialism do they have an
1:22:59 alternative
1:23:00 and they may say well we believe in a
1:23:02 soul but the reason why we believe in a
1:23:03 soul is because of the islamic texts for
1:23:05 muslims and so because we have this we
1:23:08 have now a paradigm by which we can
1:23:10 interpret where consciousness may reside
1:23:12 in yeah or why we have consciousness
1:23:14 because we have quote-unquote the soul
1:23:16 within a human being but that's really
1:23:19 that's not relevant because even if
1:23:20 people want to deny that consciousness
1:23:22 resides in the soul the issue is is that
1:23:25 can consciousness be explained by
1:23:27 materialism if it cannot be explained by
1:23:29 materialism then there are things within
1:23:31 the universe that exist
1:23:33 that are not material
1:23:35 that's the issue so not everything is
1:23:37 reduced back to physical matter
1:23:40 yes so yeah uh thank you for clearing
1:23:43 that up uh so that is where i think uh i
1:23:46 was thinking about this question
1:23:49 so i just want to say salaam because i i
1:23:51 need to start getting ready for a better
1:23:52 time
1:23:53 and
1:23:54 i've already sort of surpassed my eight
1:23:56 o'clock limit that i usually try to set
1:23:59 on myself
1:24:09 [Music]
1:24:19 so now
1:24:20 now we understand where the roots of the
1:24:21 discussion the roots of the discussion
1:24:23 is cancer yes exactly explained by
1:24:24 materialism
1:24:26 yes so
1:24:30 i would say is uh there's a valid
1:24:33 question but
1:24:34 uh what um
1:24:36 it comes down to is
1:24:37 if this is an argument
1:24:40 from the from the theistic side that
1:24:43 since
1:24:44 you cannot
1:24:46 uh explain consciousness
1:24:48 uh
1:24:49 you know
1:24:50 through materialism
1:24:52 and that is also currently maybe nobody
1:24:55 says that we can never maybe we can some
1:24:58 do say some do say that we can never
1:25:00 explain it but uh then the question is
1:25:03 okay if
1:25:04 uh if we assume that we can never
1:25:06 explain it
1:25:08 then what is the answer ah he's giving
1:25:10 that and if they are giving an answer
1:25:13 that answers would be coherent that
1:25:15 should be internally consistent
1:25:18 and that is why i was asking these
1:25:19 questions because i was trying to
1:25:21 understand this easter point of view
1:25:23 if soul if it's a consciousness and i
1:25:25 would separate consciousness from free
1:25:27 will although then we'll have to discuss
1:25:29 free will uh because of some other uh
1:25:33 concepts in islam but i wouldn't say
1:25:35 consciousness entails free will because
1:25:37 i would say just an example from right
1:25:41 so donald trump
1:25:42 donald hoffman explains
1:25:45 three aspects professor donald hoffman
1:25:47 is professor in neuroscience he explains
1:25:49 us three aspects of consciousness
1:25:51 qualia intentionality and free will so
1:25:53 he inc he does include free will other
1:25:56 philosophers of science of the mind they
1:25:58 generally just include quality
1:26:00 intentionality as the discussion
1:26:02 about free will
1:26:04 now what does it what's the conclusion
1:26:06 if your conclusion is that materialism
1:26:08 cannot explain the the how consciousness
1:26:12 arise what's the conclusion the
1:26:14 conclusion is simply that materialism is
1:26:17 not foundational to everything that
1:26:18 exists that's all it concludes
1:26:21 we're not going in further or what do
1:26:24 how do we explain consciousness then
1:26:25 does this prove god exists or we're not
1:26:27 going into that all we're showing is
1:26:29 that
1:26:30 materialism is not foundational for
1:26:32 everything within the universe which is
1:26:34 what a lot of atheists try to present
1:26:37 an argument that everything is reducible
1:26:39 to the physical so we can accept now
1:26:42 that there are things that exist which
1:26:43 are not physical
1:26:45 where those non-physical things exist
1:26:47 and how they come into being is a whole
1:26:49 separate discussion
1:26:51 yeah and in islam we don't really go
1:26:53 into details about these types of
1:26:55 discussions because the text is not
1:26:57 categorical on any of these issues
1:26:59 it affirms that we are conscious because
1:27:02 the way allah addresses human beings as
1:27:04 conscious beings
1:27:06 and talks about them having a mind you
1:27:09 know having an apple
1:27:10 so ex so allah is talking
1:27:13 implicitly uh acknowledging the
1:27:16 conscious ability awareness and ability
1:27:18 of human beings but does not describe
1:27:21 how consciousness comes about in human
1:27:23 beings
1:27:25 so uh i mean um i i get that so and it's
1:27:28 good that you clarify that at the end we
1:27:30 don't uh if using this argument if we
1:27:34 are not concluding with a god exists or
1:27:36 not
1:27:37 um or any other uh
1:27:39 such thesis intention but then uh
1:27:43 just
1:27:44 thinking about it if i say that the the
1:27:47 the current uh the physics
1:27:50 uh
1:27:51 understanding that we have we also don't
1:27:53 have uh an understanding of gravity
1:27:56 we feel its effects
1:27:58 just like we feel the consciousness
1:28:01 so what we can say is
1:28:03 uh there is something
1:28:05 we can feel it we cannot explain it just
1:28:07 as yet just right now
1:28:09 but possibly we can
1:28:11 so similar to gravity uh why can't we
1:28:14 assume that consciousness might be
1:28:16 explained
1:28:17 might be something that we can
1:28:19 understand or maybe maybe we cannot it's
1:28:21 not necessary of course so the word
1:28:23 materialism if it means everything every
1:28:25 effect that we understand and every at
1:28:27 the material world as we understand it
1:28:29 right now
1:28:30 yes it doesn't explain but maybe some
1:28:33 other uh
1:28:35 forces or any other uh part of this
1:28:37 universe which is not yet clear to us
1:28:39 which is which you don't yet understand
1:28:41 could possibly explain it just like we
1:28:43 don't understand gravity right now so
1:28:44 what what would be the
1:28:47 you know uh disagreement over there then
1:28:50 so what we have to understand is how
1:28:52 scientific theories they arise and and
1:28:55 what they're what they're seeking to do
1:28:56 yeah like the the theory of gravity what
1:28:58 does it seek to do
1:29:00 generally science when it develops a
1:29:03 theory and when i say theory i don't
1:29:04 mean hypothesis i'm saying a working
1:29:07 model of how the universe is
1:29:09 so a theory is this you take a set of
1:29:12 observations
1:29:14 you assume an underlying pattern
1:29:16 to explain the set of observations and
1:29:19 you try to work out a coherent narrative
1:29:22 that allows you to explain the
1:29:25 observations that you're seeing
1:29:27 yeah now if the if the narrative is
1:29:29 coherent is able to explain all of the
1:29:32 data
1:29:32 then we take it as a theory yeah we say
1:29:35 it's justified so long as we've you know
1:29:38 not missed a particular variable and you
1:29:41 know not understood certain hidden
1:29:42 variables etc within within the process
1:29:45 then we take it so the idea of gravity
1:29:49 when it came about firstly well not came
1:29:52 about when isaac knew newton talked
1:29:54 about gravity he talked about it as a
1:29:56 force so that was his narrative
1:29:59 yeah his narrative was to assume that
1:30:01 objects with mass attract each other so
1:30:03 he saw it as a force
1:30:05 and then he used that as a way to then
1:30:08 explain you know the inverse square law
1:30:10 of gravity
1:30:12 you know uh of how mass uh how
1:30:14 particular mass attracts other masses
1:30:16 and is inversely proportional to its
1:30:19 distance except square of its distance
1:30:21 you know
1:30:23 then einstein comes along and he says no
1:30:24 there's a better narrative
1:30:26 to explain these phenomena of objects
1:30:29 coming together and he says it's not a
1:30:31 force but rather the space-time bending
1:30:34 itself so this is the way to understand
1:30:37 reality in that particular way
1:30:39 now what what you find and this is
1:30:42 really interesting about epistemology
1:30:44 generally but science in particular
1:30:46 is these theories
1:30:48 are theories as a way of storytelling
1:30:53 their ways of being able to understand
1:30:55 the universe because we understand
1:30:58 fundamentally the universe must operate
1:31:00 according to certain patterns observable
1:31:02 patterns so the question then becomes
1:31:04 what are those observable patterns what
1:31:06 story can we invent and create that
1:31:10 matches the data and then we can talk
1:31:12 about it in that way like for example um
1:31:15 standard model of particle physics you
1:31:18 know is a story about the fundamental
1:31:20 particles or fundamental building blocks
1:31:22 of the universe but even then
1:31:24 many physicists don't really think of uh
1:31:27 you know particles anymore as discrete
1:31:30 particles they think of them as waves
1:31:33 they bring them in a different way so
1:31:35 this is a way of visualizing the
1:31:37 observations within the universe giving
1:31:40 it a story which is coherent in order to
1:31:42 try to understand the underlying pattern
1:31:44 and then explain that so from my
1:31:46 perspective when we look at anything
1:31:48 within the universe
1:31:50 and we see law-like behavior law-like
1:31:52 behavior requires an explanation of why
1:31:54 it's that particular way as opposed to
1:31:56 another way and so these things like
1:31:58 gravity or energy or
1:32:01 the various laws of thermodynamics they
1:32:03 all point to the existence of a
1:32:04 necessary being because all of these are
1:32:06 contingent facts they're contingent
1:32:08 realities
1:32:09 yeah they they behave in a particular
1:32:11 way which is not necessitated they
1:32:13 didn't have to behave that particular
1:32:15 way
1:32:17 you understand
1:32:19 yeah i understand that so i would say
1:32:21 that i mean they have a spec they have a
1:32:23 specification and then who specified
1:32:25 that
1:32:26 i think no specification it's the fact
1:32:28 that you see um see look why why would a
1:32:30 person think a falling apple the
1:32:33 rotation or the orbit of the moon around
1:32:35 the earth or the orbit of the earth and
1:32:37 the planets around the sun why would he
1:32:38 assume that there would be and
1:32:42 that there would be a force of gravity
1:32:44 why would he assume that
1:32:47 i mean if he could see a similar pattern
1:32:49 and he could all he could
1:32:52 form uh a simple explanation
1:32:55 uh which works for both of these events
1:32:59 you know so if you think about what he's
1:33:01 done now he said he said i've seen a
1:33:02 possible event
1:33:04 there must be an explanation so
1:33:06 he's now coming he's prior to the ex
1:33:09 prior to he's developing the theory he's
1:33:10 saying there's
1:33:11 an explanation that needs to be there's
1:33:13 a phenomenon that requires an
1:33:15 explanation
1:33:16 yeah that's the first thing the second
1:33:18 thing that he's doing he's saying
1:33:20 the explanation has a repeatable pattern
1:33:24 there's an underlying pattern
1:33:25 within nature
1:33:27 that provides this explanation
1:33:29 so then all i have to do is to develop a
1:33:32 theory that has a pattern repeatable
1:33:36 pattern and that provides an explanation
1:33:39 to the phenomena that i see
1:33:42 yeah so he's assuming things like
1:33:44 explanation he's assuming things like
1:33:46 patterns
1:33:47 of behavior and then he's applying that
1:33:50 to observations
1:33:52 yes absolutely science is just a
1:33:54 modeling of this universe so i
1:33:57 understand that it's just a model it's
1:33:58 it's the
1:34:01 it's a sort of
1:34:03 and understanding it is
1:34:05 of how identifying the patterns so i
1:34:07 understand that
1:34:08 those patterns are not necessitating are
1:34:10 they they don't have to be the way they
1:34:12 are
1:34:13 yes of course
1:34:15 so they can be any any other way yeah so
1:34:17 therefore the contingent
1:34:21 they're possible the contingent or
1:34:23 contingent they're dependent upon
1:34:25 something else to explain itself
1:34:29 there or they require an explanation to
1:34:31 explain itself why it's that particular
1:34:32 pattern as opposed to another pattern
1:34:37 yes and this this
1:34:39 would prove a necessary being
1:34:42 this leads to discussion that there must
1:34:44 be something that's uh not contingent
1:34:48 that is necessary and that gives an
1:34:50 explanation to non-necessary things
1:34:55 yes i understand so i mean yeah that
1:34:58 would be the uh
1:34:59 i understand the
1:35:00 the argument
1:35:02 so now when we apply this to
1:35:03 consciousness
1:35:05 now we apply this back to consciousness
1:35:07 when you have people who are
1:35:08 materialists
1:35:09 and they talk about
1:35:11 science
1:35:12 in a very much these are material facts
1:35:15 they're not material facts that's the
1:35:17 point
1:35:19 gravity
1:35:20 theory of particle physics or the
1:35:22 standard model of particle physics all
1:35:24 of these things are sort of abstractions
1:35:27 or abductions
1:35:29 to explain patterns within nature
1:35:32 yeah
1:35:32 so
1:35:34 even this idea of what is material what
1:35:36 is nature what is naturalism becomes
1:35:40 very hard for either materialist or
1:35:42 naturalist to define
1:35:44 and then when you add in the discussion
1:35:46 of consciousness and saying can
1:35:47 consciousness arrive from non-conscious
1:35:50 things
1:35:51 the answer generally is it's very hard
1:35:54 to explain how consciousness arises from
1:35:56 non-conscious things and now you've got
1:35:58 this other line of argument that says
1:36:00 well you have a necessary being and you
1:36:02 have another line of argument says that
1:36:03 consciousness does not arise from
1:36:05 non-consciousness that not everything is
1:36:08 reducible to the physical material even
1:36:10 defining what the material is and what
1:36:12 materialism is is very hard to do so now
1:36:14 to accept
1:36:16 a belief that a necessary being is
1:36:18 conscious and gave rise to consciousness
1:36:21 is not a big leap now
1:36:24 i believe in a god
1:36:29 i mean yeah again again uh the the just
1:36:32 the issue that i would have with that
1:36:33 line of argumentation is
1:36:35 just because we we cannot understand it
1:36:38 right now
1:36:39 i guess it's a hard that that's why it's
1:36:41 called the heart problem of
1:36:42 consciousness but just because we cannot
1:36:44 explain it right now
1:36:46 why would we come up uh with the
1:36:48 conclusion that since we cannot
1:36:50 understand it therefore
1:36:53 we have to continue
1:36:56 sorry maybe i wasn't very clear the
1:36:58 reason why i gave the discussion went
1:36:59 into a bit of a discussion about gravity
1:37:01 is because what i was trying to explain
1:37:02 about gravity is that gravity even if
1:37:07 they develop a theory of why objects
1:37:10 attract each other it's not an
1:37:12 explanation that's foundational
1:37:14 necessitating explanation
1:37:16 even if they come up with an explanation
1:37:18 about consciousness
1:37:21 yeah and how it arises it's not
1:37:23 necessitating it's still possibility it
1:37:26 still requires an explanation as to why
1:37:29 those particular patterns of behavior
1:37:32 yeah or patterns of particles whatever
1:37:34 it is that they want to say gives rise
1:37:37 to this phenomena why should mass and
1:37:40 space time yeah
1:37:42 why should you know uh the
1:37:45 the smallest unit of energy be the
1:37:47 plank's constant
1:37:48 none of these things are not necessary
1:37:51 okay and and so then what you're saying
1:37:53 is that uh we'll probably move
1:37:56 uh away from this argument of
1:37:58 or this discussion of consciousness we
1:38:01 move away from it and we move towards
1:38:03 the main argument which is uh why is it
1:38:06 why does that does this have this
1:38:08 potential and ultimately we'll go back
1:38:10 to the necessary yeah so yeah there's
1:38:12 two that's one way and also the other
1:38:14 point which is this which directly
1:38:16 dealing with your particular question is
1:38:18 that look when it comes to the
1:38:19 discussion of the hard problem of
1:38:20 consciousness the whole problem of
1:38:21 consciousness is not a problem
1:38:23 of
1:38:24 you know we don't have the physical
1:38:25 tools yet in science the hard problem of
1:38:28 consciousness is that science cannot
1:38:30 answer this particular question it's
1:38:32 impossible to answer this particular
1:38:33 question there's an epistemic gap
1:38:36 between being able to answer the
1:38:38 question and the tools of science in
1:38:40 answering this question
1:38:42 and that that gap is the fact
1:38:47 yes i was saying i guess that's because
1:38:49 of the subjective experience and that is
1:38:52 something that
1:38:53 uh this i mean the scientific method
1:38:56 cannot capture
1:38:57 yeah and cannot directly detect
1:39:00 yeah
1:39:02 because i i would say that there uh
1:39:05 a scientific method would would have no
1:39:07 exact way to differentiate from a
1:39:09 biological robot to from someone having
1:39:13 a subjective experience yeah so let me
1:39:15 give you an example and something
1:39:17 yeah let me give you a very brief
1:39:18 example imagine if somebody never
1:39:20 learned most code
1:39:22 yeah he doesn't know most code you know
1:39:23 dots and dashes yeah
1:39:25 and so
1:39:26 i understand but he's the most world
1:39:28 famous scientist
1:39:29 yeah
1:39:31 you give him a sheet of paper with dots
1:39:33 and dashes which is in most code
1:39:35 and he does all the experiments but he
1:39:37 doesn't know anything about most code by
1:39:38 the way he does all the experiments that
1:39:40 are possible could would he be able to
1:39:42 decipher its meaning
1:39:45 no no
1:39:46 no
1:39:47 language yeah exactly so you
1:39:50 it's like hieroglyphs isn't it back in
1:39:51 the day
1:39:53 became a dead language they didn't know
1:39:55 how to interpret hieroglyphs chiroglyphs
1:39:58 until they found the rosetta stone and
1:39:59 then they had ancient greek uh a
1:40:02 hieroglyph egyptian hieroglyphs and i
1:40:05 think some other languages and they were
1:40:07 able to and they said
1:40:09 they sort of understood it was a
1:40:10 translation and therefore they were able
1:40:12 to correspond between the ancient greek
1:40:14 which they knew with the hieroglyphs and
1:40:17 they developed language from that yeah
1:40:19 so they they had meaning so just having
1:40:22 hieroglyphs though they couldn't discern
1:40:24 the meaning so the point being is this
1:40:27 is that yeah
1:40:28 somebody can turn around and say but in
1:40:30 the future maybe somebody might build a
1:40:32 technology that's able to decipher most
1:40:34 cold even if nobody knows most code but
1:40:37 there seems to be an in principle
1:40:39 unbridgeable problem in a being able to
1:40:42 do that without having any basic
1:40:44 knowledge of most code
1:40:47 of the meaning of most code
1:40:55 so that's the level of problem that
1:40:56 conscious consciousness has when we talk
1:40:59 about the hard problem of consciousness
1:41:01 when it comes to trying to explain it
1:41:03 under materialism
1:41:07 so yeah so if i summarize it this just
1:41:09 uh before i leave that uh it's a br it's
1:41:12 a problem and one of the reasons it's a
1:41:14 problem because
1:41:16 there is no way science can actually
1:41:19 detect it with certainty
1:41:21 pointing it out that yeah this is
1:41:23 exactly where uh consciousness is but
1:41:26 they'll never be sure of it whether it
1:41:28 actually is so it's
1:41:30 something that they cannot detect and
1:41:32 that's why
1:41:33 yeah so consciousness is a first person
1:41:36 subjective experience
1:41:38 science is a third person objective
1:41:41 analysis
1:41:42 and science cannot capture the first
1:41:44 person subjective experience
1:41:46 so for example science can't understand
1:41:49 why a person sees green the way it sees
1:41:53 why he sees green the way he sees green
1:41:55 it can't can't explain that
1:41:58 you can describe for example i could
1:42:00 describe
1:42:02 science
1:42:03 uh mathematically yeah i don't need to
1:42:06 have experienced
1:42:07 seeing an atom
1:42:09 yeah or an electron or a wave function
1:42:12 in order to not in order to understand
1:42:16 it from a third person objective
1:42:18 analysis for an equation so it's
1:42:20 describable
1:42:22 but first person subjective experience
1:42:24 are indescribable so if you've never
1:42:26 seen green grass you're not going to be
1:42:28 able to explain to somebody or somebody
1:42:30 can't explain to you
1:42:32 what the color green is
1:42:34 if you've never seen green
1:42:36 yeah so that's why there's an
1:42:38 unbridgeable gap between the two and
1:42:41 that that demonstrates one the
1:42:43 limitations of science it also
1:42:45 demonstrates the fact that consciousness
1:42:47 seems to be this phenomena that exists
1:42:50 uh
1:42:51 which cannot be reduced to the material
1:42:53 and is not identical to the material
1:42:55 which is the brain
1:42:56 and so it leaves
1:42:58 this option open that there are
1:43:00 immaterial things that exist and these
1:43:02 immaterial things are real because we
1:43:04 experience them yeah we can't deny our
1:43:06 experience yeah unless you're what they
1:43:08 call it eliminated materialist yeah but
1:43:11 if you're going to deny that you're
1:43:12 going down a bit of a rabbit hole the
1:43:14 point being is that you're going to have
1:43:16 to accept that there is this and then we
1:43:18 have independent arguments as well
1:43:20 can be connected but also independently
1:43:22 to a necessary being and so when you
1:43:24 bring this together these are just
1:43:26 two ways of looking we've not gone into
1:43:28 too much detail but these are two ways
1:43:30 of looking why the word why belief in a
1:43:32 creator seems rational and reasonable
1:43:38 okay yeah
1:43:39 thank you
1:43:40 yeah thank you very much
1:43:42 we've done two streams on consciousness
1:43:44 so if you you know want to look at it in
1:43:46 more detail you can go back to those
1:43:48 streams i have
1:43:50 i have actually watched one of them i
1:43:52 didn't know and i uh i thought i think
1:43:54 this was the second one because in the
1:43:56 beginning someone was referring to the
1:43:57 first one so i was like okay i have to
1:43:59 look for that
1:44:00 and that is why i was sort of uh i've
1:44:03 sort of started with this
1:44:05 question because you had already
1:44:06 discussed that yes and that's why i was
1:44:08 i had this particular question because i
1:44:10 don't think that was particularly
1:44:11 addressed in the second one and i wanted
1:44:13 to understand whether that
1:44:14 if consciousness resides in the soul and
1:44:16 again understanding the religious and
1:44:18 this particularly the islamic
1:44:21 perspective of consciousness
1:44:23 yeah so thank you very much
1:44:26 thank you very much
1:44:28 no yes i'm here oh no i'm just going to
1:44:30 say just so just to repeat summarize the
1:44:32 point islam does not give
1:44:34 a direct explanation of where does
1:44:36 consciousness reside yeah there is
1:44:39 uh you know abductions from people of
1:44:42 theists including muslims that say yeah
1:44:45 we have this thing called the soul which
1:44:47 seems immaterial
1:44:49 and allah mentions that we have this and
1:44:51 we have this other immaterial thing
1:44:52 called consciousness so they make the uh
1:44:55 the suggestion
1:44:57 that consciousness arises in the soul or
1:45:00 is you know comes from the soul sits in
1:45:01 the soul
1:45:03 both of which are created by allah so
1:45:06 that's but nothing is direct within the
1:45:08 islam islamic texts about any of these
1:45:10 things
1:45:20 referring to something about animals
1:45:22 being tested as well so i that's
1:45:24 something not agreed upon right
1:45:26 i don't know he didn't say test it he
1:45:28 said
1:45:33 yeah it's not that they're tested but
1:45:34 that's a separate point that's more to
1:45:36 do with like it's like uh it's like a
1:45:37 meta name to say yeah i guess because
1:45:40 that's that
1:45:42 yeah
1:45:43 on that day no nothing okay so i'll
1:45:45 discuss this and another day probably
1:45:48 yeah thank you very much for the time
1:45:54 okay so we've got uh sir delicious
1:45:57 should we uh
1:45:58 should we add him abdul rahman
1:46:02 um yeah yeah i mean if he turned his
1:46:04 camera on
1:46:07 okay
1:46:10 oh hey
1:46:12 this is all yours abdurfund
1:46:15 uh i'll i'll leave it for you
1:46:17 hey sir delicious happy to have you on
1:46:20 is that your real name by the way i mean
1:46:21 i don't you don't have to say a real
1:46:22 name but we can't hear you
1:46:25 uh maybe you didn't
1:46:27 yeah
1:46:29 you could call me terry
1:46:31 can you hear me now
1:46:34 can you hear me now
1:46:36 can you hear me now
1:46:38 yeah yeah
1:46:39 uh okay how are you doing
1:46:41 i'm doing great you could call me terry
1:46:42 so
1:46:43 okay yeah so yeah so uh i will take so
1:46:46 much my question yeah i'm gonna ask you
1:46:48 a simple question i'm a christian you
1:46:49 guys are muslims all right and there's a
1:46:51 lot of arguments you guys like to use
1:46:54 the contingency argument
1:46:55 fine-tuning argument etc etc um my
1:46:58 question to you is um can you give me
1:47:01 your explanatory process by which you
1:47:04 can determine your god is that creator
1:47:06 uh in other words what's your best proof
1:47:08 that allah or the god of islam is the
1:47:10 creator
1:47:12 no you've got rational arguments and
1:47:14 you've got revelation itself
1:47:16 so so
1:47:19 evidence for the prophethood of muhammad
1:47:23 would be an easy path
1:47:26 as well as
1:47:27 you know
1:47:28 internal coherence if
1:47:30 you compare
1:47:31 our conception of god to yours for
1:47:33 example
1:47:34 um
1:47:36 that comparison can be meaningful but
1:47:38 it's just many ways it's just a very
1:47:40 broad question so okay that's why i said
1:47:42 your best uh your best uh proof uh me
1:47:45 you suspect i don't i don't go by that
1:47:46 best proof thing it's a cumulative case
1:47:48 i mean it's just it's not give you one
1:47:50 argument and exactly no no no no no
1:47:53 yeah how about i give you my best proof
1:47:55 something that was revealed because you
1:47:56 spoke about revelation so i have
1:47:58 revelation for me by the way means like
1:48:00 revelation to a messenger like as in
1:48:03 scriptural revelation yeah well i have a
1:48:05 revelation that was given to
1:48:08 the prophets in the hebrew scriptures
1:48:10 and it was explained to me specifically
1:48:12 so it's something that's an argument
1:48:14 that's exclusive to me and i would like
1:48:16 to test it out because i never did it
1:48:17 with you guys so it's based on
1:48:19 it's based on two propositions number
1:48:21 one uh the god of the hebrews is the
1:48:23 author of the seven day cycle and
1:48:25 proposition number two he predicted the
1:48:27 universal implementation of the seven
1:48:29 day cycle as a sign of his authority
1:48:31 over all nations so we can see jesus
1:48:33 christ that he is lord of the sabbath
1:48:35 yet 2000 years ago he said he was lord
1:48:37 of the sabbath therefore whatever does a
1:48:39 seven day cycle since the seventh-day
1:48:41 cycle is directly associated to the
1:48:42 sabbath there is despair of his
1:48:45 influence so we see two thousand years
1:48:46 ago only one nation kept the seven day
1:48:48 cycle and we see through uh throughout
1:48:51 history the domino effect the last uh
1:48:53 nation to be submitted was the ussr in
1:48:55 the 1940s so by that he has established
1:48:58 his kingdom since isaiah 66 23
1:49:00 stipulates from sabbath to sabbath for
1:49:02 all nation come to worship me now i
1:49:04 didn't come to prove that he is lord
1:49:06 because he could be lord without your
1:49:08 worship but in order for this prophecy
1:49:10 to be fulfilled he has to submit all
1:49:13 nations to a seven day week in order for
1:49:15 all nations to keep come worship him
1:49:18 from sabbath to savage so i give a
1:49:20 tangible
1:49:22 direct proof
1:49:24 that demonstrates the reality we're
1:49:26 living in
1:49:27 uh and by that showing that he has uh
1:49:30 power over our reality can you do the
1:49:32 same thing with your gun
1:49:34 uh yeah i mean um i i don't trust that
1:49:37 you did that but uh
1:49:39 okay so before that okay
1:49:42 if you're talking about like the the the
1:49:44 idea of writing
1:49:46 sorry really quickly so you're saying
1:49:49 that before
1:49:50 before jesus there was no seven days or
1:49:53 before
1:49:54 there was
1:49:57 no no what i said is the the 2000 years
1:50:00 ago only one nation kept the seven days
1:50:02 it was israel that's his that's
1:50:03 historically uh supported uh but
1:50:06 my argument is based on two propositions
1:50:08 and i like abdul uh to so because he
1:50:10 said he doesn't accept my proposition i
1:50:13 would like to know why
1:50:15 i don't know i i don't know that you did
1:50:16 that and let me just give a quick answer
1:50:18 and then show you they go bro i i i i
1:50:22 i i don't i don't have enough
1:50:24 information to assess what you're saying
1:50:26 i need to look at the scriptures i need
1:50:28 to look uh uh you know uh so many
1:50:31 different factors that would affect this
1:50:33 this argument you're making and and and
1:50:35 affect our assessment of it and i just
1:50:37 can't do that but
1:50:38 cool fine uh maybe i'll rewatch what you
1:50:41 said and look into it but honestly i i
1:50:43 probably won't but maybe sure if sharif
1:50:44 wants to comment you can comment
1:50:47 before before
1:50:48 before terry i'm trying to understand
1:50:49 let me try and understand your argument
1:50:51 so what you're trying to say is
1:50:54 that
1:50:55 the israel israelites they had seven
1:50:57 days
1:50:59 and today we have seven days
1:51:02 uh no let me restipulate because maybe
1:51:04 it's because you don't understand my
1:51:06 argument
1:51:06 terry one second before you answer that
1:51:08 i'm very sorry i just want to tell
1:51:10 people because a few people have been
1:51:11 asking about jake jake has some like
1:51:13 family commitment today so he couldn't
1:51:15 join
1:51:16 uh but inshallah he'll he'll be on in
1:51:19 the future streams okay carry on thank
1:51:22 you so here's my argument it's based on
1:51:24 two propositions number one authorship
1:51:26 in other words you'll find no other
1:51:29 uh nation or or um making claims to a
1:51:32 seven day week recurrent week so that's
1:51:34 specifically he break and god says that
1:51:37 is the sign of his authority ezekiel
1:51:38 2012 ezekiel 20 20 says i will make my
1:51:42 sabbath a sign between me and israel
1:51:44 that i am yahweh creator and that i
1:51:47 sanctify you so he said i will make it
1:51:50 he says he it is the the sign in ezekiel
1:51:53 2012 it will be his the sign while they
1:51:56 were in exile so there weren't a nation
1:51:58 during that time so they can't keep the
1:51:59 seven day cycle
1:52:01 two thousand years ago jesus christ
1:52:02 reaffirms this prophecy so the argument
1:52:05 is based on the fact that is he is the
1:52:08 author and that he predicted
1:52:10 the universal implementation of the
1:52:13 seventy cycle uh uh week as a sign
1:52:17 because he says it's his sign isaiah 66
1:52:19 23
1:52:21 that i am lord he is the lord of the
1:52:23 sabbage so you don't have to do much
1:52:25 research um to figure out what my
1:52:28 argument entails so if if both
1:52:30 proposition is true then i believe i
1:52:32 have demonstrated that jesus is
1:52:34 sovereign over all nations why because
1:52:36 our reality is subjugated to the power
1:52:39 of his word something that is exclusive
1:52:41 to him
1:52:42 and i challenge you to do the same thing
1:52:45 with allah show me universal
1:52:47 power
1:52:49 let me try and understand your argument
1:52:51 again
1:52:52 yeah so you're saying that 2 000 years
1:52:54 ago jesus said that there are seven days
1:52:57 he is lord of the sabbath well
1:53:00 he said uh he is lord of the sabbath
1:53:02 sovereignty
1:53:03 which is what days are sorry sabbath
1:53:05 what day is that uh it's the seventh day
1:53:07 but uh the sabbath is intrinsically
1:53:09 associated to the seven day week so when
1:53:11 he says i'm lord of the sabbath he's
1:53:12 basically saying he is the creator since
1:53:14 he created in six days and he's sabbath
1:53:16 on the seventh that's genesis one which
1:53:18 is what's it was the seventh day and
1:53:21 when this friday is friday evening to
1:53:23 saturday evening but that's irrelevant
1:53:25 whether it's friday evening
1:53:27 it's assembly cycle that's the argument
1:53:30 christians don't hold on to the idea of
1:53:31 the sabbath i am a christian i do
1:53:34 yeah christians majority protestants
1:53:37 that i've met catholics ethanol
1:53:41 okay that's fine so the other the other
1:53:43 so that's we've clarified that they're
1:53:45 not christians that's good so the other
1:53:46 thing terry is this is i'm trying to
1:53:47 understand is that
1:53:49 you're saying that jesus said
1:53:51 i'm gonna be lord over seven days
1:53:55 no he is the lord of the seven days and
1:53:56 he will subjugate all nations
1:53:59 okay okay i'm trying to understand
1:54:00 so he i am the lord of seven days
1:54:03 and everybody else will follow seven
1:54:05 days
1:54:07 and therefore
1:54:09 he is lord over seven days and therefore
1:54:12 seven days therefore
1:54:13 therefore therefore he's sovereign over
1:54:14 all nations since all nations keep the
1:54:16 seven days as he predicted if you want
1:54:18 to go simplistically to that point we
1:54:20 could do it that way it's really based
1:54:22 on first of all authorship that's first
1:54:23 proposition second proposition is the
1:54:25 predicted part of it the universality uh
1:54:28 and the fact that it says it would be
1:54:29 the sign of his authority he says this
1:54:31 is the sign of my authority two thousand
1:54:33 two thousand years ago is reaffirmed by
1:54:35 jesus christ but it's all throughout
1:54:36 scripture exodus 31 13 uh ezekiel 2012
1:54:40 ezekiel 20 20 and isaiah 66 23 good
1:54:43 enough four verses
1:54:45 so is that not sufficient
1:54:47 um
1:54:55 the seven days or the sabbath which is
1:54:57 intrinsically associated to the same
1:54:58 days is the sign from the hebrew word
1:55:01 oath which means the marker or the
1:55:03 signature that he is sovereign over all
1:55:05 nations you know what was interesting
1:55:06 actually just a few days ago i was
1:55:08 watching a video that popped up on my
1:55:10 youtube facebook which talked about why
1:55:12 there are seven days of a week because
1:55:14 seven seems a very odd number
1:55:17 and what's interesting is they didn't
1:55:18 mention about
1:55:19 the fact that it's because the bible
1:55:21 they said that this it was to do with
1:55:23 the fact that there was
1:55:25 seven seven heavenly bodies
1:55:28 and that therefore the seven heavenly
1:55:29 bodies they used to rotate around the uh
1:55:32 they used to move the planets used to
1:55:33 move
1:55:35 uh and the sun and star the moon and so
1:55:37 as a result
1:55:39 they would mark time based upon the
1:55:40 movement through the 12 constellations
1:55:43 the seven
1:55:44 and that's the reason why
1:55:46 i uh has it his issue uh because i want
1:55:48 to keep it awesome that's why you have
1:55:49 monday moon day i know i know i know i
1:55:52 know saturn day they're not universal
1:55:55 they're not universal like the 70 cycles
1:55:56 so that's irrelevant but here's the
1:55:58 thing
1:56:02 i know exactly what you're talking about
1:56:04 um like i said it's exclusive this is my
1:56:06 argument and i've been using this so i'm
1:56:07 even doing my rounds and i'm going to be
1:56:09 debating a historian this friday on this
1:56:11 very specific issue but i have multiple
1:56:13 videos on my channel
1:56:15 refuting this this false claim here's
1:56:17 the issue even if i would accept that
1:56:18 let's say i would accept that that the
1:56:19 70 cycle is the uh because you are going
1:56:22 to get the authorship you're still which
1:56:24 is a false it's totally false because my
1:56:26 bible refers to the seven-day cycle all
1:56:28 throughout scripture it is mine it is
1:56:30 associated to my work and the fact that
1:56:33 i am god over creation you will not find
1:56:35 that with any other culture so the seven
1:56:37 luminaries of the seven stars that is
1:56:39 very far-fetched as opposed so this is
1:56:41 my sabbath this is my sign making claims
1:56:44 i'm just saying even if i were i did
1:56:46 that it was something specific to the
1:56:48 israelites
1:56:50 if other nations had seven days because
1:56:52 they used seven
1:56:53 uh heavenly bodies that could be seen by
1:56:55 the naked eye
1:56:57 and they use that to mark the various 12
1:56:59 constellations the movement
1:57:02 no no no nation
1:57:03 no nation no nation never kept us yeah
1:57:06 go ahead yeah i'm just saying if that's
1:57:08 the case then that would refute refute
1:57:10 your problem but
1:57:11 yeah yeah i understand what you're
1:57:12 saying
1:57:13 yeah it would it would it would in the
1:57:15 some sense let me tell you why number
1:57:17 one no nation ever kept a seventh day
1:57:19 recurrent cycle babylon kept the lunar
1:57:21 cycle and they would add an extra day on
1:57:22 the last
1:57:23 last week uh extra one or two days in
1:57:25 the last week that's not a recurring
1:57:26 seven day cycle it's a lunar cycle no
1:57:28 lunar every ancient civilization kept
1:57:30 the lunar cycle a lunar cycle is based
1:57:32 on the moon and it's not a recurrent
1:57:34 seven day week so i understand what
1:57:36 you're saying but i'm really uh i have
1:57:39 exhaustive uh studies on my channel
1:57:41 refuting because i know this is the
1:57:43 claim that people make but even if you
1:57:44 would go to that we can assuredly go
1:57:46 2000 years ago and know that only one
1:57:48 nation kept a 70 cycle a syria didn't
1:57:51 exist 2000 years ago all in syria
1:57:53 babylon doesn't it didn't exist two
1:57:54 thousand years ago and uh
1:57:56 and uh uh samaria didn't exist 2000
1:57:59 years ago so even if you want if i were
1:58:01 to concede the first point which is
1:58:02 totally false
1:58:04 it still wouldn't militate against my
1:58:05 argument since only one nation kept it
1:58:07 2000 years ago you don't have to do much
1:58:09 research for that and exclusively i mean
1:58:12 exclusively one nation exclusively kept
1:58:14 the 70 cycle and only one scripture
1:58:17 predicts its universal implementation
1:58:19 and we see the effects of that today so
1:58:21 that's cool number one how can we argue
1:58:23 against that
1:58:24 okay yeah so i was just checking
1:58:26 britannica encyclopedia and it says
1:58:29 evidence indicates however that the jews
1:58:31 may have borrowed the idea of the wheat
1:58:33 for mesopotamia
1:58:34 for the sumerians and the babylonians
1:58:36 divided the year into weeks and out of
1:58:38 seven days each or one of which they
1:58:41 designated a day of recreation yeah a
1:58:44 day of rest
1:58:45 so
1:58:47 you know maybe it's the case that israel
1:58:49 was unique amongst all the different
1:58:51 nations
1:58:52 um
1:58:53 and maybe that was revealed by god
1:58:56 uh i don't think it necessarily proves
1:58:58 christianity is true i think it just
1:59:00 simply proves that
1:59:02 the uh the
1:59:04 origin of the seven days was something
1:59:06 divinely ordained and as muslims we're
1:59:08 fine with that we're not problem with
1:59:10 that because we believe in seven days as
1:59:12 well well here's my issue number one you
1:59:14 went to encyclopedia uh i would refer
1:59:16 you to the simplic encyclopedia of
1:59:18 religion and ethics because you didn't
1:59:19 really read the quotation accurately
1:59:21 because i know that's what they're
1:59:22 saying but basically
1:59:24 i i know i know but in encyclopedia of
1:59:26 religion and ethics tj pinches
1:59:29 uh 1919 says it's not a recurrent
1:59:32 seven-day cycle and if you go to the
1:59:33 primary source historically
1:59:36 yeah but you can't
1:59:37 read it correctly if i'm not reading
1:59:39 your reference and i'm reading oh no no
1:59:42 i i understand but what you're i didn't
1:59:44 mean it that way i'm what i'm saying is
1:59:45 what you're trying to suggest when it
1:59:47 says they may is there there's a reason
1:59:50 why they said it may have came or it
1:59:53 might have been influenced i'm giving
1:59:54 you the reason why they're saying that
1:59:56 because when you go to the primary
1:59:57 sources the babylonian resources we see
1:59:59 as a lunar cycle so basically what
2:00:00 they're saying is they copy the lunar
2:00:02 cycle uh from the babylonians i totally
2:00:06 disagree with that because the lunar
2:00:07 cycle is not a recurrent seven day week
2:00:08 so that's irrelevant already there and
2:00:10 as far as the uh uh muslim keep a seven
2:00:12 day week no nation
2:00:15 arabian nation kept the seventy cycle
2:00:17 before the hebrews number one the uh the
2:00:19 uh the god of islam does nothing
2:00:22 we i know i know but that came later on
2:00:24 but his issue number one uh there's no
2:00:27 prediction of this the universality of
2:00:29 the 70 cycle in the quran and number two
2:00:31 number two um you guys don't keep this
2:00:33 happen so just somehow try to
2:00:36 ascribe this prophecy for yourself while
2:00:38 you don't recognize the sabbath
2:00:41 obviously
2:00:42 we're just saying i'm just simply saying
2:00:44 i'm just saying my god is not your god
2:00:46 that's that's the point because my god
2:00:47 is the lord
2:00:49 yeah no no terry no i appreciate your
2:00:51 point but all i'm just simply saying is
2:00:53 that even if i accept that the seven-day
2:00:56 cycle was something divinely ordained
2:00:59 seven day week
2:01:01 then i could say yeah fine because
2:01:02 obviously as muslims we believe that
2:01:04 prophets were sent like moses abraham
2:01:08 uh jacob
2:01:10 etc uh and that they were given
2:01:12 revelation and if that revelation was to
2:01:14 say that you have a seven day week we're
2:01:15 fine with that
2:01:17 okay so basically
2:01:19 and the fact that jesus christ reaffirms
2:01:21 this prophecy 2000 years ago when only
2:01:23 one nation kept it because the point i'm
2:01:25 trying to establish
2:01:27 but that nation for us is the nation
2:01:28 that received guidance from prophets so
2:01:30 yeah
2:01:31 jesus was uh
2:01:33 as well but the fact that he describes
2:01:35 the title lord of the sabbath means that
2:01:38 number one he ascribed that title when
2:01:40 it was not popular for him to do that
2:01:42 number two that shows he had he's able
2:01:44 to tell the future and number three that
2:01:46 shows that he is god because if he's
2:01:47 loaded sabbath then that shows he is the
2:01:49 lord of creation
2:01:50 well that's how you interpret it i
2:01:54 appreciate it
2:01:55 okay no bro no problem i i appreciate it
2:01:57 maybe next time maybe next time you guys
2:01:59 could explain to me a proof that you
2:02:01 have that has universal effects like
2:02:03 what i just did with you guys because i
2:02:05 think that was quite uh
2:02:07 conclusive
2:02:08 terry i could say a bunch of stuff right
2:02:10 now
2:02:11 that you know uh uh would look like some
2:02:14 amazing prophecy and you wouldn't have
2:02:17 the tools to deal with it
2:02:18 i think this whole conversation to be
2:02:19 honest is meaningless i think even if
2:02:21 what you're saying is true it doesn't
2:02:23 really establish the deity of christ we
2:02:25 believe there are prophecies that are
2:02:26 true that did occur
2:02:28 in
2:02:29 you know the scriptures that's not the
2:02:31 point and we were muslims we acknowledge
2:02:32 previous scriptures we don't acknowledge
2:02:34 you know the ones you have that's the
2:02:36 point that's not the point i was making
2:02:37 the disappointment yeah yeah you're
2:02:39 saying he's the lord no no no no i'm not
2:02:41 even talking about jesus i'm talking
2:02:42 about this revelation because you said
2:02:44 one of the proof is revelation and my
2:02:45 point was i have something in my
2:02:46 revelation that you cannot do on your on
2:02:48 your end
2:02:50 uh
2:02:51 no you can't no i know but it's not
2:02:52 understanding we don't have any
2:02:54 prophecies in our in our revolution
2:02:55 universal impact universal yeah your
2:02:58 prophecy doesn't have an impact on my
2:03:00 life but mines have an impact on yours
2:03:02 have a good life terry have a good life
2:03:04 thank you thank you bye-bye
2:03:10 okay we'll go to um
2:03:12 has no name shown his face no name i
2:03:15 just need to show your face before i put
2:03:16 you on
2:03:19 just to make sure
2:03:24 but while the uh
2:03:25 i think uh mansoor modern is showing his
2:03:28 face so whoever shows his face
2:03:30 in the line we have to go to him first i
2:03:33 think sam uk is also showing his face we
2:03:35 might go to him as well
2:03:37 um
2:03:37 but yeah so we'll add sam on
2:03:40 um because he's a bit further up the
2:03:42 line
2:03:44 but just uh before we introduce sam just
2:03:46 wanted to say that uh i still can't
2:03:48 don't quite understand his argument
2:03:50 terry's argument
2:03:54 anyway i didn't bother trying to
2:03:56 understand it to be fully honest but um
2:03:59 i think when he ex communicated the vast
2:04:01 majority of christians i think that's
2:04:02 when you sort of think i'm not sure man
2:04:05 you know when somebody stands on his own
2:04:07 uh uh in absence of the whole of his
2:04:09 tradition it seems something a bit funny
2:04:12 going on very sam uh appreciate you
2:04:14 coming on um
2:04:16 open q a if you've got any questions or
2:04:18 points that you wanted to race we've got
2:04:20 abdul rahman here to uh to be able to
2:04:22 answer
2:04:22 them can you hear me yeah i can hear you
2:04:26 yeah um
2:04:27 the question was uh why do muslims
2:04:30 believe in the
2:04:32 in the previous scriptures like the the
2:04:34 gospels and
2:04:36 the torah and well the
2:04:38 the books of moses
2:04:41 why don't we believe in them
2:04:43 yeah i know the argument you give you is
2:04:45 that
2:04:46 you believe that they were given books
2:04:48 but the books that they have now is not
2:04:50 the same
2:04:51 yeah it's not identical because it's
2:04:53 been corrupted that's what muslim
2:04:55 narrative is that's been corrupted
2:04:56 changed
2:04:58 all the time
2:04:59 the actual gospel writings the new
2:05:01 testament
2:05:02 is actually
2:05:05 an amalgamation of various unknown
2:05:07 eyewitnesses and also letters of paul
2:05:10 and also books like the book of hebrews
2:05:12 where the author is not known and they
2:05:14 describe that as having sort of
2:05:16 revelatory authority
2:05:18 um
2:05:19 so uh
2:05:21 i think the way you're measuring whether
2:05:22 that is true or not is whether they've
2:05:24 got like you know
2:05:25 a chain generation going back all the
2:05:26 way down to jesus i think that's what
2:05:28 you guys are looking for
2:05:30 something uh you know
2:05:32 well we're looking for the fact that
2:05:34 there's some sort of method that we can
2:05:36 say
2:05:36 that these things are preserved as they
2:05:39 first were revealed
2:05:42 yeah well then
2:05:43 why is there many verses in crimea which
2:05:45 says you know
2:05:47 uh you know as muslims we need to
2:05:49 believe in the previous scriptures and
2:05:51 uh the verses that tell the
2:05:54 the uh
2:05:55 the jews to you know
2:05:57 just buy their books if
2:05:59 if the quran is saying that does that
2:06:01 not confirm that whatever scriptures the
2:06:04 the jews and christians have is
2:06:06 is scriptures are you know what you
2:06:07 believe in
2:06:08 when i say i believe in the scripture
2:06:09 there
2:06:10 i don't mean you gotta follow the
2:06:11 scriptures of the
2:06:13 that yeah
2:06:14 you have to believe we have to believe
2:06:17 that there is a torah that was revealed
2:06:19 and that there was no you know i i don't
2:06:21 know what i'm saying
2:06:23 the quran says
2:06:24 if we really the scriptures that the
2:06:27 jews and christians have
2:06:29 then they're not corrupt that's what
2:06:31 when you read the verses that's what
2:06:32 no and then none of the abilities say
2:06:34 that none of the verses say whatever the
2:06:36 jews and christians have today is not
2:06:37 corrupt in fact the complete opposite is
2:06:39 mentioned
2:06:40 about okay i'll say i'll say a verse
2:06:46 where it talks about
2:06:48 the people of the scripture
2:06:50 you know refer to your uh scripture etc
2:06:52 etc
2:06:53 if you look at the tafsir the
2:06:54 explanation within the quran they're
2:06:56 talking about very specific incidences
2:06:58 so it's referring to a specific issue
2:07:00 and so what the quran is affirming is
2:07:02 that what is the quran saying at this
2:07:05 moment
2:07:06 is confirmed by what
2:07:10 what they have
2:07:11 of the original revelation
2:07:13 uh sorry i disagree i mean
2:07:16 let's look at surah al baqarah
2:07:19 verse 44
2:07:21 it says
2:07:22 do you enjoy right conduct on the people
2:07:25 and forget to practice yourselves and
2:07:26 yet you study the scripture would you
2:07:29 not understand
2:07:31 so it's referring to you know
2:07:33 in the present tense you know it's
2:07:35 telling the
2:07:37 uh i believe to the to the jews you know
2:07:40 you you're telling other people to uh
2:07:43 be right and right conduct but you're
2:07:45 not doing yourself and you're stood in
2:07:46 the script to yourself
2:07:49 so have you known
2:07:50 you're missing a point that the present
2:07:52 tense here is basically the past tense
2:07:54 for you that's first of all so you don't
2:07:55 know what um
2:07:57 book the the the arab jews and
2:07:59 christians of seventh century arabia had
2:08:01 there's no evidence you have for that
2:08:03 and second of all
2:08:05 okay
2:08:06 second point wait when it says when
2:08:09 you're reading the book it doesn't have
2:08:10 to mean that the entirety of the book is
2:08:14 uh um was preserved it we do acknowledge
2:08:18 that uh chunks and chunks of
2:08:21 the the the old and new testament as we
2:08:23 have them today uh are probably uh
2:08:26 sourced in revelation uh and
2:08:28 there are many uh um
2:08:31 uh things that the jews and the
2:08:32 christians read that are rightfully
2:08:34 revelation and do have within them true
2:08:36 messages so because it reads the book it
2:08:38 doesn't mean that oh the book has been
2:08:40 preserved that's just a jump and you
2:08:41 need to know a lot about you know um
2:08:44 about you know the hermeneutical aspects
2:08:46 of of the quran and you know just texts
2:08:49 in general they don't work like that in
2:08:51 order to to to to assess this in a
2:08:54 better way
2:08:55 oh so the quran has been very easy to
2:08:56 understand i mean to me
2:09:00 god said the quran made it easier to
2:09:02 easy i think understand
2:09:03 wrong and i think it's easy and my
2:09:06 interpretation is right you see the fact
2:09:08 that you're misinterpreting it doesn't
2:09:09 mean it's not easy you're wrong
2:09:12 for the first point you made was so what
2:09:14 the first one you made that
2:09:17 the
2:09:18 sam can i ask you a question do you know
2:09:20 the new testament
2:09:22 yeah yeah
2:09:25 do you know what the new testament is
2:09:28 yeah there's four gospels and there's
2:09:30 books after that now written by
2:09:32 i believe the followers
2:09:34 you know the early christians paul's
2:09:36 writings paul's letter yeah i i don't
2:09:38 believe in paul's i mean i believe in
2:09:39 the gospels so
2:09:41 so here we go sam so the point being now
2:09:44 is you've got the new testament which
2:09:48 the christians today
2:09:50 believe is revelation
2:09:52 paul's writings is part of this new
2:09:54 testament but you're now saying that i
2:09:57 don't believe the new testament
2:09:59 or the paul's writings is actually the
2:10:01 original that's been corrupted
2:10:03 i know i'm not i'm not i'm saying paul
2:10:05 wasn't isn't wasn't a
2:10:08 some prophet or he didn't get any
2:10:09 revelation that's what i'm saying and
2:10:10 that's what christians believe
2:10:12 yeah you sound like you're from up north
2:10:15 and you sound like you're sort of asian
2:10:17 pakistani
2:10:18 uh so i assume you're muslim
2:10:21 sam uh
2:10:22 but sam the point i'm trying to explain
2:10:25 is even you're you're you're basically
2:10:27 saying today what the jews what the
2:10:29 christians believe of their new
2:10:30 testament is not the new testament it's
2:10:34 not the truth
2:10:35 i'm talking about the gospels see you've
2:10:37 got the gospel yeah
2:10:40 it's not talking about when we talk
2:10:42 about new testament yeah when you talk
2:10:44 about previous scripture
2:10:46 yeah you're talking about what they
2:10:48 consider the previous scripture yeah i
2:10:50 understand what they're considered but
2:10:52 i'm i'm talking what i consider
2:10:54 oh and that's what we're saying sam is
2:10:58 that what god considers previous
2:10:59 scripture is what was originally
2:11:01 revealed to the prophets
2:11:04 yeah so the prophet of the the time the
2:11:06 christians there was the one on the time
2:11:08 of christian but
2:11:09 so if
2:11:10 the christians read
2:11:12 and they said oh look this means that i
2:11:14 can refer to paul's writings would they
2:11:16 be right or wrong if they read in the
2:11:18 quran that says judge between them by
2:11:20 what allah is revealed
2:11:21 and you know in certain verses says and
2:11:23 judged by
2:11:24 and judged by the injil would they they
2:11:27 may they would have read that and
2:11:28 understood that to also inc include
2:11:31 certain christians today would look at
2:11:33 that and think that also includes paul's
2:11:35 writings
2:11:37 right
2:11:38 so not all of what
2:11:40 so what the quran is talking about is
2:11:42 very specific it's not talking about
2:11:44 just what
2:11:45 and the christians claim today yeah but
2:11:48 what the jews have here the old
2:11:49 testament yeah is
2:11:52 this it's not like the way god the new
2:11:54 testament where you got the gospel and
2:11:55 some other books
2:11:56 written after after jesus but the old
2:11:58 testament yeah you can believe in
2:12:00 all the old testament
2:12:03 there are things who wrote the old
2:12:05 testament i don't know
2:12:08 who who who is it revealed to
2:12:11 uh well there were five books with moses
2:12:13 and though some uh books uh of joshua
2:12:17 revealed after moses and the other
2:12:19 prophets like jeremiah and isaiah so
2:12:21 those i don't know who wrote them but
2:12:23 it mentions all these uh you know
2:12:25 stories i mentioned the prophets but who
2:12:27 i'm saying which books were revealed to
2:12:29 if you're going to say the book of like
2:12:31 for example the book of daniel which is
2:12:32 part of the old testament is that was
2:12:34 that revealed to prophet daniel
2:12:38 well it's a story about the prophet
2:12:40 diagnosis i don't think
2:12:41 it was revealed who was it revealed to i
2:12:43 don't know
2:12:44 see just like so you have to be careful
2:12:47 because you
2:12:48 because this there's going to be
2:12:50 situations where they're going to be
2:12:51 things within the old testament
2:12:53 which are not going to be verifiable
2:12:56 that it's actually verifiable but yeah
2:12:58 that's what the point is
2:13:00 like for example the new testament you
2:13:01 just said the new testament which
2:13:03 includes the writings of paul according
2:13:05 to the christians
2:13:07 you would not accept it you don't
2:13:08 believe that's what the quran is
2:13:10 referring to so when the quran is
2:13:12 referring to the altar he said you're
2:13:13 not refers to all of the old testament
2:13:14 but then you're going to say okay what
2:13:16 aspects of the old testament is it
2:13:18 referring to all the books including the
2:13:20 ones where we don't know who is revealed
2:13:22 to yeah
2:13:24 i mean
2:13:26 i i read all of it and uh
2:13:29 i try to understand the best they can
2:13:31 yeah there are some certain things in
2:13:33 the old testament which which aren't
2:13:34 great
2:13:35 but you know them sort of things i'll
2:13:38 kind of leave it to the side but those
2:13:40 things that i do so like
2:13:41 uh maybe
2:13:43 things that contradict sort of your
2:13:44 islamic ethics
2:13:46 that therefore you think doesn't exist
2:13:49 uh it wasn't really originally
2:13:51 revelation it was something maybe
2:13:52 corrupted later on
2:13:54 so i said again
2:13:56 there's some things that basically what
2:13:57 you're saying is that there are some
2:13:58 things in the old testament that you
2:14:00 don't agree with because it disagrees
2:14:01 with your islamic ethics and therefore
2:14:04 you put it to the side because you have
2:14:06 doubt over whether this is revelation or
2:14:08 not
2:14:09 yeah yeah
2:14:10 right okay so your position is not a
2:14:13 million miles away from what we were
2:14:14 saying originally then oh you know what
2:14:16 i'm saying most people don't they don't
2:14:17 even read the bible
2:14:18 yeah and they just completely reject it
2:14:21 they say right you know that's just not
2:14:22 it's not a complete rejection see look
2:14:28 the way classical scholars have
2:14:30 explained the issue of the the previous
2:14:32 scriptures they said of what we have
2:14:34 today they said that those verses within
2:14:37 the previous scripture which conf
2:14:39 conforms to what the quran revealed if
2:14:41 it conforms we accept it yeah
2:14:44 if it contradicts then obviously we
2:14:47 reject it and if it says something which
2:14:49 the quran is silent upon
2:14:52 then we neither say it's false nor do we
2:14:54 say it is
2:14:56 true we're agnostic about it
2:14:59 that's the general position now for us
2:15:01 we believe that the quran is the final
2:15:03 revelation and the complete revelation
2:15:06 and that we don't need to refer to as
2:15:07 muslims refer to anything outside of the
2:15:09 complete revelation now it's abrogated
2:15:12 all of the previous books and scriptures
2:15:14 well where do you say the when the quran
2:15:17 did say the previous books have been
2:15:19 obligated now the currently revealed
2:15:22 well it does mention that the quran
2:15:24 islam
2:15:25 is a complete deen
2:15:26 and to intent oh yeah but where did they
2:15:28 say the previous scripture has been
2:15:29 applicable
2:15:31 i'd have to check the particularly
2:15:34 if you're talking about the fact that we
2:15:36 are not in need of other scriptures
2:15:39 which might be sufficient that's
2:15:41 available on the hadith do you accept
2:15:42 that no i don't
2:15:44 know what it is anyway
2:15:46 yeah i see that's the thing so if you
2:15:48 see for me no disrespect but the quran
2:15:51 only position
2:15:52 um i i don't know i'd rather talk to an
2:15:55 atheist to be honest like because i
2:15:56 don't know why is that you see whenever
2:15:58 it comes to talking to the uh you know
2:16:00 someone who
2:16:01 you know follows mostly the quran yeah
2:16:03 you guys you run away you don't want to
2:16:05 talk because yeah we don't think they're
2:16:06 scared yeah
2:16:10 sam we've had two streams are talking to
2:16:12 about eight yeah
2:16:14 yeah and uh
2:16:16 somebody wrote
2:16:21 you don't know my point of view yeah i
2:16:22 know some hadith rejected yeah they're
2:16:23 really kind of like extreme yeah
2:16:26 they don't believe in the salat and they
2:16:28 don't believe in her just i don't know
2:16:30 i i think that's too extreme but i'm in
2:16:33 the in where you know kind of like uh i
2:16:35 would say
2:16:36 more of a quran centric
2:16:38 uh believer where you know
2:16:40 the quran is a is the uh you know the
2:16:43 the the main source
2:16:45 and if there's any adhesive support the
2:16:47 ground yeah i'll accept it any ideas you
2:16:50 know i don't agree with or you know
2:16:52 don't make sense you know i reject it or
2:16:54 you know i'll wait until i maybe
2:16:56 understand later on but i'm not going to
2:16:58 blindly follow an ideas just because
2:17:00 you know 99 of muslims do it
2:17:03 and yes i think what i would advise you
2:17:06 to do
2:17:07 is
2:17:09 study these things in more depth and
2:17:10 study
2:17:13 okay financial question what's the
2:17:15 difference between a man
2:17:17 hadith and a morsel hadith
2:17:19 i don't know
2:17:21 do you haven't studied it in depth but i
2:17:23 don't know i i look at he said he's you
2:17:25 know based on what he says i don't have
2:17:27 to look at okay uh what kind of
2:17:30 generation there is i mean
2:17:32 is he hustling or see or whatever yeah i
2:17:34 don't
2:17:35 i look at what the idea says
2:17:38 yeah but
2:17:39 you just said you studied it in depth
2:17:42 and i'm saying you haven't studied it in
2:17:43 depth and i asked you a basic question i
2:17:45 understand all this thinking about all
2:17:47 these chain indonesian stuff
2:17:49 okay so do you understand the difference
2:17:51 between
2:17:52 aziz and harib well i don't need to
2:17:57 i just did before
2:17:59 i look i look at what the content of the
2:18:01 date is
2:18:02 so you look at the mutton
2:18:05 yeah whatever it says i look at the
2:18:07 content
2:18:08 so you don't you you disregard so do you
2:18:10 disregard the mutton or not
2:18:12 well i don't know what button is okay
2:18:15 so
2:18:18 so what
2:18:19 my personal opinion
2:18:21 is um you can take it or leave it it's
2:18:23 up to you yeah
2:18:25 but just just before you reject
2:18:27 something study it properly
2:18:29 when i say studying properly i just said
2:18:32 read a few articles on in english and we
2:18:35 read a few hadith in english and then
2:18:37 say oh does it make sense with the
2:18:39 verses
2:18:40 yeah why not that's how i stood the
2:18:42 quran
2:18:43 i didn't i didn't rely on the law of
2:18:45 scholars to tell me what it means you
2:18:47 know
2:18:50 why should i is it
2:18:53 complex let me give you an example yeah
2:18:55 let me give you an example
2:18:56 there's a verse in
2:18:58 imran i think it's verse 104 where it
2:19:01 says
2:19:04 yeah so it says let there arise from
2:19:06 amongst you
2:19:08 a ummah that calls to all that's good
2:19:11 yeah
2:19:12 how do you understand the word min
2:19:13 that's operating in that verse
2:19:16 well look at where the transitions are
2:19:18 and see what
2:19:20 so the word min translates if you look
2:19:22 at electrons it would be the translation
2:19:24 will be from
2:19:26 right
2:19:27 right so how do you understand how the
2:19:29 word min is operating in that then from
2:19:32 is operating in that verse
2:19:34 i look at the translation yeah and try
2:19:36 and get the whole meaning of the verse
2:19:40 how do you trust the translation
2:19:44 based on you know
2:19:45 what a uh what
2:19:50 testimony stuff like that you know like
2:19:52 the sort of things that you know they're
2:19:53 transmission
2:19:55 um
2:19:57 you've got number two nations you can
2:19:58 compare them
2:20:03 but you can't refer to hadith right so
2:20:05 you can trust the translations based on
2:20:08 you know the the the authority of
2:20:12 testimony
2:20:13 but you can't accept the hadith that
2:20:15 tells you what the verse means based on
2:20:19 you saying that for every verse in the
2:20:21 quran here there's a there's a meaning
2:20:22 in the least
2:20:24 what no no
2:20:25 he didn't say that so he's talking about
2:20:28 trust sam the reason why i asked that
2:20:31 specific question about that specific
2:20:32 verse is because in the arabic language
2:20:35 the word min
2:20:37 yeah has two different connotations one
2:20:39 is minitab
2:20:41 and one is min albayan
2:20:43 means partial mean
2:20:45 so if you look at the verse it could
2:20:47 mean
2:20:48 let there rise part of you
2:20:51 and umma and here uma wouldn't mean
2:20:54 nation now it would be linguistically
2:20:56 referring to a group so that we let
2:20:58 there arise from amongst you i all of
2:21:01 you
2:21:02 a part of you
2:21:04 as a group that calls to al-kher
2:21:07 yeah
2:21:08 and another understanding of the word
2:21:10 min which is minal bayan would mean that
2:21:13 it's mean of everyone so let there arise
2:21:15 from you
2:21:17 a whole nation that calls to al-qaeda
2:21:20 yeah
2:21:21 now that has an important implication
2:21:23 because that's to do with what is what
2:21:25 is floored
2:21:27 you know because the verse is talking
2:21:28 about obligations here so is it
2:21:30 referring to every single individual
2:21:32 that that it's
2:21:34 obligation every individual to do this
2:21:36 act or is it a federal key fire such
2:21:39 that if a group does it it's sufficient
2:21:42 for the whole of the umma
2:21:44 now you know
2:21:45 from a translation are you
2:21:47 why not they always translate in here
2:21:49 they're going to decide here okay what
2:21:51 does this mean in this context because
2:21:52 translation is very
2:21:54 yeah
2:21:55 later you know abdul rahman actually
2:21:57 translates arabic into english yeah
2:21:59 so
2:22:00 he will explain to you even better but
2:22:02 when it comes to the quran
2:22:04 translation is
2:22:06 a particular there's a particular aim
2:22:09 yeah of translation like for example
2:22:11 tafsir there's a particular aim of
2:22:12 tafseer yeah exegesis and there's
2:22:15 different types of aims within
2:22:18 exegesis as well yeah so within the
2:22:20 translation all translators do is give a
2:22:24 very basic
2:22:25 outward meaning
2:22:27 yeah right of the verse without going
2:22:30 into any details or the subtleties or
2:22:33 the implications of what the verses
2:22:35 actually mean
2:22:36 you can't get that from a translation
2:22:38 you'd have to get
2:22:40 book yeah that goes in
2:22:43 why
2:22:45 why don't you go to that much detail
2:22:47 because that because of just this verse
2:22:49 indicates either its obligation on
2:22:52 individual obligation of sufficiency
2:22:54 yeah
2:22:55 and you need to know because you're
2:22:57 going to be if you believe it's
2:22:59 obligation of individual then you have
2:23:00 to do everything that's mentioned in
2:23:02 that verse if you believe it's an
2:23:03 obligation of sufficiency it means only
2:23:05 a part of your group of you can do it
2:23:07 and the rest of the the people are free
2:23:10 from sin and that's just one example
2:23:12 there's numerous examples that if you
2:23:13 don't know the subtleties of the arabic
2:23:15 language and the depth of the arabic
2:23:16 language you're not allowed to get
2:23:18 involved in
2:23:19 just the translation like for example
2:23:21 there's a famous one i think it's sort
2:23:23 of admired of the six where it talks
2:23:24 about
2:23:25 uh the word you know the the rules of
2:23:27 bordeaux
2:23:28 yeah
2:23:30 so if you read the verse in in chapter
2:23:33 five verse six sam
2:23:35 sorry which is that
2:23:37 chapter five verse six it goes through
2:23:40 you wash your face wash your arms wipe
2:23:42 your head
2:23:45 oh uh your feet so there's
2:23:47 i've read about either we can either
2:23:49 wipe if you wash your feet but what what
2:23:51 does the verse say
2:23:53 well the translation i read let me see
2:23:56 what yeah
2:24:02 one second there was a chapter five
2:24:05 verse
2:24:05 i think verse six
2:24:08 verse six
2:24:10 says uh
2:24:12 the meridiola
2:24:14 just the last part you can just read the
2:24:16 last one if you want which the whether
2:24:18 you used to do with washing or wiping
2:24:21 uh
2:24:24 rub your heads with water and wash your
2:24:26 feet to the ankles right why did why is
2:24:29 it washed why is the translator put as
2:24:31 wash
2:24:32 i know his opinion was he was washed
2:24:36 his opinion was he was washing
2:24:39 he's not gonna because
2:24:41 you know he knew arabic yeah and uh
2:24:44 madonna for whatever reason yeah he
2:24:46 decided to support uh washing his
2:24:47 personal preference and so all the other
2:24:49 translations will put wipe
2:24:51 but why do they put one so just one
2:24:53 question just quick comment in the
2:24:54 middle right there so so you're basing
2:24:57 so so when someone gives you a hadith
2:24:59 you you accept it if it is in accordance
2:25:02 with the meaning of the quran but the
2:25:03 meaning of the quran
2:25:05 you get from you know the opinion of
2:25:07 some translator
2:25:08 but why don't you just get it from the
2:25:11 uh tafsir of
2:25:13 the set of the companions of the prophet
2:25:15 and the prophet himself
2:25:16 it's like why this circle you're going
2:25:18 through so so you trust
2:25:20 you trust the testimony of a translator
2:25:22 because that's his opinion
2:25:23 now why not trust the transmission of a
2:25:25 hadith that just directly tells you what
2:25:27 it means
2:25:28 without saying because
2:25:33 if you're all good about the complaint
2:25:34 yeah they they
2:25:36 kind of like honestly themselves
2:25:38 so it's up to them to decide yeah does
2:25:40 it mean wash your wipe so they'll go
2:25:42 through the same process or the the
2:25:44 translated how would they how some how
2:25:46 would they have worked it out whether it
2:25:47 was wash or white the companions
2:25:49 i don't know
2:25:50 they're probably just uh they may have
2:25:52 asked the prophet you know clarified you
2:25:54 know is he or just followed what he did
2:25:56 okay so
2:25:58 let me explain sam
2:25:59 what it is it's to do with grammatical
2:26:01 indicator you know the um
2:26:06 yeah you know the
2:26:08 no i don't know i'm not you know the
2:26:09 accent marks
2:26:11 right
2:26:13 you say in urdu you say the
2:26:16 i can't remember what it is in urdu yeah
2:26:18 but basically the diacritical marks when
2:26:21 you say ah
2:26:23 right okay yeah
2:26:25 so it's through grammatical indicators
2:26:27 so
2:26:28 the way arabic works
2:26:30 is in order to understand
2:26:33 how the verb and the nouns operate with
2:26:36 one another
2:26:37 is to do with the grammar grammatical
2:26:39 indicators which is through the endings
2:26:41 of words
2:26:42 yeah
2:26:43 so when you look at you'll see a word it
2:26:45 has a particular
2:26:46 way of saying it is it
2:26:48 in uh
2:26:49 is it
2:26:51 with a dhamma with a kasura
2:26:53 uh with the fatter here is an ah
2:26:56 or e
2:26:57 sound yeah well
2:26:59 it doesn't matter because in the end you
2:27:01 know the prophet you know he did the
2:27:03 buddha yeah and the
2:27:05 companions followed it
2:27:07 agreed yes
2:27:09 so this is the thing about grammatically
2:27:10 is really not not really not relevant it
2:27:13 is relevant oh my god
2:27:18 you know
2:27:18 you can just ask because you see how the
2:27:20 dinner will do
2:27:21 no it's really relevant it's really our
2:27:23 whole arabic grammar issue is really
2:27:25 relevant
2:27:26 when the verses came down to the prophet
2:27:29 and you know
2:27:31 because because the verse could not have
2:27:33 contradicted what the point southern was
2:27:35 doing because the person's following the
2:27:36 quran
2:27:37 right
2:27:40 for that to occur
2:27:41 so the grammatical indicators do this
2:27:44 they tell me how the how the noun is
2:27:47 operating within the text generally yeah
2:27:50 so if i want to know whether it's
2:27:53 connected to the washing or the wiping i
2:27:55 have to look at the grammatical
2:27:56 indicator upon the noun
2:27:58 now in that particular text the
2:28:00 grammatical indicator of the word feet
2:28:03 the noun of the word feet is connected
2:28:05 to the verb to wash
2:28:07 not
2:28:08 to the previous point which was to wipe
2:28:11 yeah it's just language this is how
2:28:12 rules of language we have our rules of
2:28:14 language like for example in english in
2:28:16 order to understand uh
2:28:18 who the subject is who the object is and
2:28:20 who the verb is you have subject the
2:28:22 object yeah we have to have it in a very
2:28:23 strict order so if
2:28:35 the translated wipe
2:28:37 i don't know which translations you're
2:28:39 looking at in terms of that the only way
2:28:40 that i could explain why they would say
2:28:42 that is if they're using the worsh
2:28:45 because the worshiper art uses a word uh
2:28:48 to use the grammatical indicator to wipe
2:28:51 so i'm saying it comes down to you know
2:28:53 the person translating really
2:28:55 but even in this case yeah
2:28:58 does it matter if it's if you wash your
2:28:59 wiper yeah it does because the wiping is
2:29:02 not washing and if you don't if you're
2:29:04 not following it correctly then you're
2:29:06 going to make a mistake the reason so
2:29:08 you're saying so you're saying god yeah
2:29:09 it's going to get really strict and so
2:29:10 if you just wipe your feet because
2:29:12 that's what you understood yeah your
2:29:13 words don't count
2:29:15 yeah
2:29:15 because
2:29:17 i disagree with that
2:29:19 i don't think god is going to be like
2:29:20 that yes said okay you know well we
2:29:22 can't say
2:29:23 we can't say
2:29:25 whether we think god will forgive us or
2:29:27 not we can just follow it generally will
2:29:29 he wish you wash your way because quite
2:29:31 frank that's what a lot of other people
2:29:33 in their religions do they pick up the
2:29:34 book they read it and they go i think it
2:29:37 means this like we had that guy before
2:29:39 terry and he's basically saying all
2:29:40 christians are wrong i'm the only one
2:29:42 that's correct because oh i'm the one
2:29:44 that's correct orthodox catholics
2:29:47 protestants are all wrong because when i
2:29:48 read it i believe we should have pulled
2:29:50 the sabbath i'm not saying whether he's
2:29:52 right or wrong i'm just saying he's just
2:29:54 very and if i go to another christian
2:29:55 i'm going to get him to give him his own
2:29:57 interpretation from his own mind yeah
2:29:59 so that's fine because god guys
2:30:02 because when we look at exam when we
2:30:04 read a text we're reading based on the
2:30:08 intent of the author yeah that's what
2:30:10 we're reading we're reading because we
2:30:12 want to know what allah means by these
2:30:15 verses the reason why i give the verse
2:30:17 about sotomayor verse 6 is because
2:30:21 just by understanding a very basic
2:30:22 understanding of the wording
2:30:24 yeah in the translation in english won't
2:30:27 actually explain to me what the actual
2:30:29 meaning is because i need to understand
2:30:33 that
2:30:34 as a scholar would have to know if i'm
2:30:36 extracting rules i need to understand
2:30:37 the grammatical indicators and what
2:30:39 makes it even more important to
2:30:40 understand the quran is the fact that
2:30:42 the quran comes down in different art
2:30:44 yeah different recitals and so we have
2:30:47 in the house version
2:30:49 it's connected to washing feet needs to
2:30:52 be washed and in the wash version it's
2:30:54 connected to wiping as well yeah so i'm
2:30:58 saying is that look islam is not
2:31:00 any um
2:31:02 islam is not just that open for anyone
2:31:04 who you know has
2:31:06 you know no knowledge just to open up
2:31:08 and get the whatever meaning and then
2:31:10 make up their own religion
2:31:11 islam how do you say that
2:31:19 do you agree that god made the quran
2:31:20 easy to read and understand
2:31:23 so the quran is easy when it comes to
2:31:26 understanding the basic theology
2:31:29 but when it comes to understanding the
2:31:31 rulings then you know
2:31:33 yeah without that
2:31:34 yeah i know the arabic language if i
2:31:37 know the arabic language in-depth in the
2:31:39 quran is easy
2:31:41 but if i don't know the arabic language
2:31:42 in depth then i'm not going to be able
2:31:44 to read the quran yeah i'm going to read
2:31:47 human nature later the translator would
2:31:49 know the arabic language in depth would
2:31:51 you not
2:31:51 but translation like i explained before
2:31:54 sam yeah
2:31:56 are not
2:31:58 for the purposes of deriving law that's
2:32:00 not why they write translations if they
2:32:02 do they'd be writing volumes on the
2:32:05 quran
2:32:06 not just you know a very spaces like for
2:32:09 example that when i talked about sort of
2:32:11 sort of imran verse 104 and how the min
2:32:14 uses they would have to go into the
2:32:16 depth of how the mean and that
2:32:18 particular verse
2:32:21 over complicating it you know you're
2:32:23 trying to make it only scholars know
2:32:25 this year so you're like whatever
2:32:26 scholarship that's where you gotta
2:32:28 believe you know that's that's not what
2:32:29 the quran says do the quran say yet the
2:32:31 quran is easy we each read understand
2:32:33 the quran also in arabic quran yeah
2:32:57 yeah you know they're more complex
2:32:59 yeah they require the product because
2:33:01 the crown doesn't say no no
2:33:03 yeah
2:33:10 it does right so the basic proposition
2:33:12 or the basic premise is you need to know
2:33:14 arabic
2:33:16 yeah i agree
2:33:17 that's unique
2:33:18 no in the
2:33:19 do you need to know modern standard
2:33:21 arabic or do you need to know arabic
2:33:22 which arabic do you need to know i don't
2:33:24 know but i'm saying whatever arabic the
2:33:27 crime written in yeah
2:33:28 whoever translates the quran we'll know
2:33:30 arabic one there
2:33:32 so you need to know fuso arabic
2:33:34 yeah yeah but i'm saying it doesn't
2:33:36 matter and whoever translates the quran
2:33:38 you'd expect them to have knowledge of
2:33:39 arabic and then they'll translate it if
2:33:41 you trust them one
2:33:43 secondly
2:33:45 is they don't intend to resolve when
2:33:47 they when they
2:33:49 write a translation of the quran they
2:33:51 don't intend to put all of the meanings
2:33:53 of the quran
2:33:55 and yes
2:33:58 what do you mean all of the meanings
2:34:00 because the because the quran is
2:34:03 has multiple layers of meaning they're
2:34:05 not going to give you all the meanings
2:34:06 why why would the quran have multiple
2:34:08 layers of meaning
2:34:09 the meanings that god wants
2:34:11 i'll give you an example let me give you
2:34:13 another basic example yeah the word you
2:34:16 know sort of a class 112th chapter of
2:34:19 the quran
2:34:22 uh no
2:34:24 okay so he says
2:34:27 yeah and then he uses another word allah
2:34:29 yeah which
2:34:31 just very simple
2:34:33 translation i don't know if you want to
2:34:34 check it 112 what does the what does
2:34:36 allah summa the second verse in that
2:34:39 do you want to just have a look at it
2:34:41 now uh second verse it says the eternal
2:34:43 absolute
2:34:44 right
2:34:45 that's not the full meaning of the word
2:34:48 you know that
2:34:49 no
2:34:50 well it isn't i'm telling you it isn't
2:34:53 because asa murd means complete means
2:34:55 whole
2:34:56 means uh that which is self-sufficient
2:34:59 that which is independent that which
2:35:01 things that depend upon for their
2:35:02 existence depends upon this thing which
2:35:04 is independent
2:35:06 so when when a translator is translating
2:35:08 the verses he's not going to give you
2:35:10 the full meaning of the verse all he's
2:35:13 going to give you is a very basic
2:35:15 outward meaning that's how translations
2:35:16 work of the quran that's why
2:35:19 what you just said it kind of comply
2:35:21 with this translation
2:35:22 no because you don't
2:35:24 the first thing you don't get is you
2:35:26 don't get this idea that assam ad refers
2:35:28 to those things which are dependent upon
2:35:31 this thing that's not what it says in
2:35:34 that translation
2:35:36 i'm saying it says
2:35:37 allah the eternal the absolute so that's
2:35:40 it that's what he says they turn on
2:35:41 absolutely it doesn't say that those
2:35:43 things which are limited and dependent
2:35:44 depend upon this thing
2:35:46 depends upon allah doesn't say that in
2:35:48 that verse that you just
2:35:50 i know it doesn't say in your in your
2:35:51 exact words
2:35:52 but the meaning of it
2:35:56 you just said absolute incomplete
2:35:58 no it says allah the eternal absolute
2:36:01 okay eternal absolute how does that in
2:36:03 any way
2:36:05 allow me to understand that everything
2:36:06 is dependent upon allah in in those two
2:36:10 words that you just said eternally
2:36:13 yeah well in this issue but i'm saying
2:36:15 i'm guessing okay
2:36:17 yeah that's my point my point
2:36:20 sam the very fact at the beginning you
2:36:21 said you look at a range of translation
2:36:23 you're implying in that that each
2:36:26 translation in itself will not be
2:36:28 complete so you have to look up more
2:36:29 than one yeah and all i'm saying is that
2:36:32 actually all translations of the quran
2:36:35 even the translation i'm saying the
2:36:37 translators saying it themselves
2:36:42 you can you can say you can speak to
2:36:44 living translators today professor abdul
2:36:46 haleem is one ask them
2:36:49 how you tr why what is the aim of
2:36:51 translation to the quran what are you
2:36:53 trying to do what are the translators
2:36:55 trying to do yeah
2:36:57 and then they will explain that all they
2:37:00 give is a very basic
2:37:03 idea of what the quran is communicating
2:37:05 but the depth of it cannot be understood
2:37:08 through translation
2:37:10 yeah on the same way saying but still
2:37:14 the meaning i get from the foundation
2:37:15 yeah i think is sufficient i don't think
2:37:17 i need to go
2:37:19 into exactly you know all the
2:37:21 grammatical stuff here like i said you
2:37:23 know i will read at range translations
2:37:24 and
2:37:26 sam
2:37:27 that's the problem we're not willing to
2:37:29 put the effort and the work in
2:37:31 and i think that's what you need to do
2:37:32 but i say if you read the any
2:37:34 translation yeah you get the you know
2:37:37 the meaning that you know god is
2:37:38 intending to uh
2:37:40 you know give you're gonna get all the
2:37:41 full meaning are you sam you've admitted
2:37:43 that i've explained it numerous ways i'm
2:37:46 saying you know in all cases you don't
2:37:48 need the full meaning
2:37:49 you need you know
2:37:51 the basic knowledge
2:37:53 and you know that that can be uh
2:37:55 sufficient
2:37:56 okay and anything else you know it's up
2:37:58 to god to to uh guide you and uh explain
2:38:02 he has guided you sam he's guided you by
2:38:04 giving you a quran and he's asked you to
2:38:06 put effort into learning the quran yeah
2:38:08 and you're not going to have left
2:38:11 you're not you're not you're not you're
2:38:13 not even reading it from its original
2:38:15 language the original revelation was in
2:38:17 arabic right yeah
2:38:20 quran itself says that it's an arabic
2:38:22 quran and you're not willing to listen
2:38:25 and do they say yeah and does it say
2:38:28 yeah i need to learn arabic to
2:38:29 understand it
2:38:31 the very fact that he says in arabic
2:38:33 quran implies clearly you need to know
2:38:36 arabic in order to i don't know
2:38:39 that's your that's your uh you know
2:38:40 interpretation that's your you know i
2:38:42 love you
2:38:44 i get it okay then i think we've
2:38:46 exhausted this one
2:38:48 but appreciate you coming on yeah thanks
2:38:51 for having me
2:38:56 that was sam uh hopefully abdulrahman's
2:38:59 still here uh
2:39:01 let me just see who else
2:39:03 abdulrahman are you uh are you admin as
2:39:05 well
2:39:07 no
2:39:08 all right okay then uh
2:39:11 i can only see one other person who's
2:39:13 put his picture up but
2:39:16 for some reason i can't scroll down to
2:39:17 him
2:39:19 oh hold on maybe i can
2:39:22 no that's not helped
2:39:30 uh
2:39:31 i think i'm gonna have to kick somebody
2:39:33 from the studio and that might help
2:39:55 i think i accidentally kicked myself
2:39:58 from the studios
2:40:00 right uh i'm gonna try my hardest to try
2:40:03 and bring somebody up
2:40:05 this is why
2:40:06 i say to the brothers don't ever leave
2:40:08 me alone on the streams
2:40:12 but yeah
2:40:14 why can't i add this person on
2:40:20 okay let me ask really quickly monsoon
2:40:22 modernity can you just put your uh
2:40:25 your um
2:40:27 camera on just before we add you on to
2:40:28 the stream okay cool we're gonna add uh
2:40:30 bonsour at uh modernity
2:40:44 so i've been watching you guys for a
2:40:46 while now learned a lot of stuff from
2:40:48 you guys
2:40:52 for watching this
2:40:54 hopefully you you guys can invite uh
2:40:56 cosmic skeptic uh
2:40:58 uh i also like to watch his videos um
2:41:02 just like guys like like listening to
2:41:04 atheists stuff i like to listen to
2:41:07 cosmic skeptic and gran graham opie
2:41:09 i think
2:41:10 they're very well known in the in the
2:41:12 atheist scene right now so it'd be
2:41:14 interesting for for you guys to have a
2:41:16 discussion with those guys
2:41:18 uh sometime in the future
2:41:20 yeah inshallah i think the idea would be
2:41:23 i think we are thinking of getting there
2:41:25 maybe not cosmic skeptic we haven't
2:41:27 spoke about that but i think graham opie
2:41:29 to come on i know abdulrahman wants to
2:41:31 debate him
2:41:32 he's not right i'll give him only joking
2:41:34 don't want to debate him he wants to
2:41:35 have a discussion with him
2:41:37 um
2:41:39 so yeah
2:41:40 what's it called i know you guys covered
2:41:41 this before but i just wanted to see if
2:41:43 you could briefly
2:41:45 re-explain um
2:41:46 if
2:41:47 some of the atheists
2:41:49 say as a
2:41:51 argument against the contingency
2:41:52 argument that the
2:41:54 like hypothetically speaking if the
2:41:56 universe is eternal
2:41:58 would that somehow uh affect the
2:42:01 contingency argument or if the universe
2:42:03 did not have a beginning like i just had
2:42:04 an example would that affect the
2:42:07 contingency argument and how would we as
2:42:09 like these or muslims reply to to that
2:42:14 statement or
2:42:16 from the
2:42:17 side that if they say okay if the
2:42:19 universe is eternal then what what's
2:42:21 your evidence for a creator for example
2:42:23 so how would you respond to that
2:42:25 so there's
2:42:26 different ways of responding to that but
2:42:28 even from a just purely from a
2:42:30 contingency argument point of view it
2:42:31 doesn't really affect the argument
2:42:33 because the argument is not resting upon
2:42:35 whether something actually begins to
2:42:38 exist but rather whether something is a
2:42:40 possible existence or not yeah now if
2:42:43 there's if it's a possible existence
2:42:45 what it's basically saying is that is
2:42:47 this thing could it have been another
2:42:48 way
2:42:49 does it require an explanation as to why
2:42:51 it's the way it is so irrespective
2:42:53 whether i've seen it begin or not begin
2:42:55 if i see something which could have been
2:42:57 another way then i'm going to ask the
2:42:59 question
2:43:00 what is it dependent upon yeah for its
2:43:03 explanation or for why it is the way it
2:43:04 is
2:43:05 yeah
2:43:06 so it doesn't it doesn't affect it in
2:43:08 that sense
2:43:11 okay
2:43:12 i don't know
2:43:13 answer that one as well that's one way
2:43:15 by the way one so that's one way there
2:43:17 are other ways but that's just one way
2:43:19 abdulrahman
2:43:22 uh yeah so um
2:43:25 an eternal
2:43:27 uh series of past events doesn't
2:43:29 necessarily um you know
2:43:32 um
2:43:33 refute anything to do with the
2:43:35 cosmological argument
2:43:36 but maybe it would
2:43:38 uh like some formulations of it would
2:43:40 would would have a problem but
2:43:42 either way i mean there's really no
2:43:44 reason to accept
2:43:45 specifically in terms of like
2:43:47 causal a causal series there's
2:43:51 i think a lot of reason to uh to to hold
2:43:54 to the position that
2:43:56 it's called causal financing where
2:43:58 for any causal chain there's a finite
2:44:00 number of members where that any
2:44:02 particular event or object
2:44:05 cannot be
2:44:06 uh
2:44:07 directly or indirectly impacted by an
2:44:10 infinite uh
2:44:11 number of past objects or events so um
2:44:15 there's a lot to say i mean just you
2:44:16 don't have to just accept that there's
2:44:18 an infinite series but of course there
2:44:20 could be a question about the infinite
2:44:21 series and whether there's an
2:44:22 explanation to it because
2:44:24 when you talk about contingency of
2:44:26 course when you say you can think of it
2:44:27 in another way
2:44:29 we were talking about conceivability as
2:44:30 in you can conceive of it differently
2:44:32 there has to be some restriction there
2:44:34 so it's not just um you know some
2:44:36 unrestricted usage of conceivability but
2:44:40 but when you talk specifically about
2:44:42 contingency right
2:44:45 in the arabic terminology in khan and
2:44:47 natamiya talks about this and and
2:44:50 so he mentions that that that look if
2:44:52 you have um
2:44:53 if you have an infinite series
2:44:56 in terms of its temporality right
2:44:58 what applies to the part doesn't have to
2:45:00 apply to the whole right because
2:45:02 the the the property of being let's say
2:45:06 having a beginning
2:45:07 is something that is more relational
2:45:11 and that means that the whole series it
2:45:14 doesn't have to have the property of the
2:45:16 part
2:45:17 or it just necessarily does not have it
2:45:19 because as you increase the temporal
2:45:22 sequence
2:45:23 add infant item right then you by
2:45:26 definition have something that's
2:45:27 infinite but the same doesn't apply to
2:45:30 the in can part or the contingency part
2:45:33 why because
2:45:34 if something is possible
2:45:37 and
2:45:38 something else is possible and then you
2:45:40 add to it a series of possible things
2:45:44 these things are still possible in
2:45:46 themselves or they require another to
2:45:48 explain them however you're going to
2:45:49 explain the contingency as in they
2:45:51 didn't have to exist so thus you know
2:45:53 based on some psr they have an
2:45:54 explanation now that doesn't change
2:45:57 uh
2:45:58 whenever you add like if you keep adding
2:46:01 contingent things
2:46:02 well they're contingent things i mean
2:46:04 they're not simply not going to do the
2:46:05 explaining it's still going to need it
2:46:07 and someone here is saying hume's
2:46:09 fallacy of composition too
2:46:11 um i mean hume's argument would be that
2:46:14 every if everything has
2:46:16 everything in the series is already
2:46:17 explained why are you asking for an
2:46:19 explanation of the whole series
2:46:21 the answer is because we have a reason
2:46:22 to ask for it it's because if they are
2:46:24 if everything in the series
2:46:26 requires an explanation outside of
2:46:29 itself and is insufficient for its own
2:46:31 existence
2:46:32 then
2:46:33 that applies to simply every single one
2:46:36 in the series and the reason it's not a
2:46:37 composition fallacy is because here the
2:46:40 fact that this thing is in its essence
2:46:43 uh
2:46:44 uh using that word with a bit of like
2:46:45 i'm careful but it and ev everything in
2:46:48 the series in its essence is contingent
2:46:51 as it requires an external explanation
2:46:53 or it did not have to exist
2:46:56 so
2:46:57 here
2:46:58 there's there's a good case
2:47:00 for why
2:47:01 um
2:47:02 the the property is
2:47:05 transferred to the whole
2:47:08 just as it is in the parts
2:47:09 so there's a lot to say there
2:47:12 okay
2:47:13 also is it uh another argument could be
2:47:15 uh
2:47:16 that uh it didn't have to exist and even
2:47:19 like the laws of physics didn't have to
2:47:20 be the way it is so like
2:47:23 the earth didn't have to have the mass
2:47:24 that it has for example and the sun
2:47:26 doesn't have to have the mass that it
2:47:28 has so could that also be an argument to
2:47:30 defend the continent
2:47:32 that's that's that's basically the
2:47:34 argument that's what we're saying we're
2:47:34 saying if everything is possible but
2:47:36 then of course when you're saying it
2:47:37 didn't have to be the way it was
2:47:40 here um i have some reservations against
2:47:43 using just
2:47:44 an unrestricted
2:47:46 uh principle of conceivability as in
2:47:48 just because you can imagine
2:47:51 it being different than it had to be no
2:47:53 so there are different accounts of this
2:47:55 and there are different ways of using it
2:47:58 but it doesn't have to be unrestricted
2:48:00 but the general idea is correct because
2:48:02 if it could have
2:48:03 failed to exist or if it could have been
2:48:06 otherwise then that particular thing
2:48:08 is contingent right
2:48:09 so so that's true but then now how
2:48:11 you're going to
2:48:13 you know provide some kind of account
2:48:15 for what determines
2:48:17 [Music]
2:48:19 contingent versus non-contingent things
2:48:21 that's a different story
2:48:22 but what your what you said is correct
2:48:24 as far as like us agreeing with it
2:48:25 obviously it would apply to
2:48:27 the laws of nature and physical reality
2:48:31 as a whole
2:48:32 um
2:48:33 and and we could even say that on an
2:48:35 empirical basis like it doesn't have to
2:48:37 be a purely like rationalist approach to
2:48:39 modality
2:48:42 okay yeah it's clear yeah that that that
2:48:45 was the only question i had to be honest
2:48:47 uh
2:48:48 for now so thanks a lot
2:48:50 thank you thank you very much guys thank
2:48:51 you clearly
2:48:53 thank you more son
2:48:56 cool
2:48:59 so uh we have uh if we're going through
2:49:02 order we have moosa
2:49:04 uh but you need to put your camera on
2:49:07 uh or we have oh musa has put his camera
2:49:09 wicked so we'll add
2:49:20 so i have
2:49:22 a question
2:49:24 so from
2:49:25 which is uh actually
2:49:27 related to the
2:49:29 to the last
2:49:32 speaker
2:49:33 um
2:49:35 from the contingency argument
2:49:38 we we arrive
2:49:40 at the
2:49:43 from the reasoning that there must be an
2:49:46 independent entity okay
2:49:49 but then
2:49:51 how
2:49:52 uh
2:49:52 if uh
2:49:54 if we have to decide if this entity is
2:49:57 limited or
2:49:58 or unlimited okay
2:50:01 uh
2:50:02 what would be your
2:50:04 your method of uh i mean
2:50:06 how do you choose
2:50:09 how do you
2:50:10 uh what argumentation would you use what
2:50:13 do you mean by limited though sorry
2:50:15 brother what do you mean by limited
2:50:18 and what's that
2:50:19 that has limited physical properties i
2:50:22 don't know uh
2:50:23 specific specific properties i mean uh
2:50:26 for example this this is uh okay so okay
2:50:29 okay so one of the ways you can say is
2:50:31 that it doesn't have arbitrary limits
2:50:33 meaning that
2:50:34 um it doesn't have unexplained limits so
2:50:37 so for example um um god
2:50:39 uh
2:50:40 god's power not attaching to logical
2:50:42 impossibilities
2:50:44 is a limit it's just not an arbitrary
2:50:46 limit right
2:50:47 so
2:50:48 as in there's there's a reason
2:50:50 why why called power doesn't attach to
2:50:52 logical impossibilities so that's just
2:50:54 an example yes so the reason is
2:50:57 sorry go ahead no because i this is
2:50:59 actually the point that graham opp makes
2:51:02 that this independent being is
2:51:05 a kind of natural state the initial
2:51:09 state of the universe as i understand it
2:51:11 what do you mean by natural because
2:51:12 grandma is quite clear about that i
2:51:14 think he's one of the clearest i mean
2:51:17 if you say natural as in doesn't have
2:51:19 any intelligence no consciousness
2:51:20 whatever then
2:51:21 we could talk about philosophy mind and
2:51:23 consciousness and you know uh
2:51:25 as i already understand as i understand
2:51:28 it
2:51:28 as i understand him
2:51:31 his position is that
2:51:32 this in independent or necessary being
2:51:35 is the initial stage of the universe as
2:51:38 i understand it maybe i'm wrong i don't
2:51:41 i don't know
2:51:42 but if you have uh
2:51:45 yeah i mean you can express it like that
2:51:47 right but the the the point is that
2:51:49 there is
2:51:50 uh something
2:51:52 necessary and you want to label that
2:51:54 necessary thing as natural so maybe
2:51:57 natural for him can mean just simply
2:51:59 something um
2:52:02 the word physical is ambiguous but uh
2:52:04 let's say uh i i think he's quite clear
2:52:06 in saying that for him consciousness is
2:52:08 like causally downstream so it wouldn't
2:52:10 be consciousness and have intelligence
2:52:12 and all of those other properties
2:52:14 now it wouldn't be arbitrarily limited
2:52:17 because it would be necessary and it
2:52:18 would contain let's say
2:52:20 the power to actualize whatever possible
2:52:22 worlds there are right and i think he i
2:52:25 believe he takes like an aristotelian
2:52:27 view of modality
2:52:28 uh
2:52:29 so
2:52:30 uh really there's a question of like um
2:52:34 whether that's
2:52:35 a very meaningful distinction maybe it
2:52:38 is the whole limitation thing
2:52:41 i'm not sure it's clear to be honest uh
2:52:45 i'm honestly i'm not sure it's clear
2:52:46 because he because i've seen him argue
2:52:48 in the past as well that he could argue
2:52:50 for
2:52:50 an unbounded limitless natural
2:52:53 uh sort of like physical or like
2:52:55 non-physical but like in in in a sense
2:52:58 uh sort of like the grounds of
2:53:00 materiality he can you can argue for
2:53:02 that kind of reality as a necessary
2:53:04 foundation and it's the problem is
2:53:06 materiality like the the ontology of it
2:53:09 right what we really mean by something
2:53:11 to be material
2:53:13 isn't really clear i mean we've even
2:53:15 seen physicists talk about this right
2:53:17 um so there's this mysterious notion of
2:53:19 like what what what material really is
2:53:23 um so
2:53:25 so
2:53:25 i'm not sure that's a very meaningful
2:53:28 distinction it's really going to get
2:53:30 down to
2:53:31 uh
2:53:32 talking about like the powers like you
2:53:33 know right so having the power over all
2:53:36 things
2:53:37 uh what the scope of those things are
2:53:39 like the scope of possible worlds as
2:53:41 well as consciousness
2:53:44 intelligence
2:53:45 and over there you have arguments like
2:53:48 second stage arguments it doesn't have
2:53:49 to stay stick to this you know these
2:53:52 just mere causal considerations you can
2:53:54 talk about teleological arguments and
2:53:57 you can talk about uh arguments from
2:53:59 morality revelation
2:54:01 uh
2:54:03 a whole a whole lot of things that would
2:54:06 give you a a basis to make inferences
2:54:08 about the necessary foundation that led
2:54:11 to these things or that caused these
2:54:12 things
2:54:15 my understanding was that if you if you
2:54:17 posit that the independent being has
2:54:20 limited physical properties then you
2:54:22 have the problem of uh arbitrary
2:54:24 limitations
2:54:26 the question is what what what what's
2:54:28 what makes it arbitrary limited physical
2:54:31 properties here is that still not clear
2:54:32 to me what it's always meant to be let's
2:54:34 say it needs some kind of specific
2:54:35 fundamental mass a specific density a
2:54:38 specific dimension i don't know a
2:54:40 specific property
2:54:42 yeah so
2:54:43 basically
2:54:44 size or specific power
2:54:47 amount of power
2:54:48 99 yeah
2:54:50 yeah
2:54:51 yeah so that's that's that's going to be
2:54:52 arbitrary in in in what sense in the
2:54:54 sense that
2:54:56 it is unexplained i mean it is
2:54:57 unexplained and therefore because there
2:54:59 is no explanation there i mean why this
2:55:01 value not necessarily look so what does
2:55:03 it need to explain so
2:55:05 so
2:55:06 so when we're talking about contingency
2:55:07 and necessity let's say there's some
2:55:09 scope of possible worlds right
2:55:12 now
2:55:12 when you talk about something like
2:55:14 theistically omnipotence what does that
2:55:17 mean really especially within an islamic
2:55:18 perspective just allah's power over all
2:55:21 things you do
2:55:23 so it's just power over all
2:55:25 possibilities right
2:55:27 now
2:55:28 you want to say if it has specific
2:55:32 dimensions that requires an explanation
2:55:35 i
2:55:37 probably of course but then i just don't
2:55:39 the problem is when you see when you
2:55:40 start talking about dimensions
2:55:42 my my mind goes straight to like the
2:55:44 metaphysics of space and time which is
2:55:45 something that's very complex and i
2:55:47 don't know i can't conceive of the
2:55:50 ultimate edge of spatial reality in any
2:55:53 meaningful sense in the same way i can
2:55:54 conceive of you as a spatial being
2:55:57 i can't conceive of
2:55:59 this sort of space
2:56:01 my point maybe is more simple is simply
2:56:04 that look i have my phone for example
2:56:06 and it has a specific mass okay
2:56:08 0.29 kilograms for example okay but if i
2:56:12 okay look so if your point is that any
2:56:14 kind of specification requires an
2:56:16 explanation i disagree no
2:56:18 i i believe there's there are things
2:56:20 there are specifications that can be
2:56:22 found in the necessary being the
2:56:24 creation creator i'm not talking about
2:56:26 anything physical saying there are
2:56:27 specifications
2:56:29 that
2:56:30 that wouldn't
2:56:31 arbitrarily in that case they are
2:56:34 explained by
2:56:36 uh in the case of god i mean they are
2:56:38 explained by the nature of uh
2:56:40 by god's nature but if you have a
2:56:42 material entity
2:56:44 they are
2:56:46 simply unexplained i mean they are
2:56:47 simply material sorry sorry repeat that
2:56:49 last part if you have i don't know a
2:56:51 specific particle or specific no
2:56:54 some some somewhat that that for example
2:56:57 has a mass of
2:56:59 35 kilograms
2:57:00 i mean
2:57:02 that would be
2:57:04 simply unexplained why 35 not 34
2:57:08 why not 36 or 40.
2:57:16 okay sorry this kid is giving me a bit
2:57:18 of choice
2:57:19 so so
2:57:21 so you're talking about the masses right
2:57:22 again
2:57:23 so
2:57:24 uh any kind of property i mean um
2:57:26 physical property not look i mean are
2:57:28 you using the mask so let me try to
2:57:30 understand you right is
2:57:31 are you saying that
2:57:33 um
2:57:34 let me let me try to steal man arguments
2:57:36 let's just put it in the form of like
2:57:38 some kind of like uh argument
2:57:40 that that if god has any kinds of
2:57:43 specifications right specifications as
2:57:46 in if he is not boundless in every
2:57:49 single sense including the sense i just
2:57:50 mentioned about like yeah you know uh
2:57:53 his his power over impossibilities and
2:57:55 stuff like that
2:57:56 then
2:57:57 there's some kind some kind of
2:57:59 limitation
2:58:00 and if that if there can be a limitation
2:58:03 that's not arbitrary there then the phys
2:58:05 physical reality can have a limitation
2:58:06 too is that
2:58:08 that can have a limitation that's not
2:58:09 arbitrary and it can be the necessary
2:58:11 my point was simply that uh
2:58:13 if you achieve the point that there must
2:58:15 be an independent being how can we
2:58:18 decide
2:58:19 if he has limitations or if he has if he
2:58:22 is an unbounded entity okay
2:58:25 how can we decide between the two
2:58:28 options
2:58:29 i i i don't it's not it's not um it's
2:58:31 not important the question is not no no
2:58:33 i'm not saying it's not important
2:58:35 i'm saying so so we say god is boundless
2:58:37 but that has a context right because if
2:58:39 some if you tell somebody that okay god
2:58:42 has no limitations and then
2:58:45 then a person asks you
2:58:47 um
2:58:48 can he create a merry bachelor
2:58:51 you'll be like no that doesn't count but
2:58:53 that's not an arbitrary limitation right
2:58:55 now the point is how do you know what is
2:58:57 an arbitrary or a not
2:58:59 limitation right so an arbitrary
2:59:01 limitation is a limitation that has an
2:59:03 explanation as in it must be that way
2:59:06 because of a particular explanation
2:59:08 you know what i'm saying like the
2:59:09 logical impossibilities example
2:59:12 now so so when you ask
2:59:15 when we're trying to determine whether
2:59:17 the necessary being is limited or
2:59:18 unlimited that's too
2:59:20 broad and general a question because of
2:59:24 for example this consideration i just
2:59:25 brought up about omnipotence it's going
2:59:27 to have to be applied to specific
2:59:29 instances and specific questions
2:59:32 for me it's just too too general of a
2:59:33 question
2:59:35 because everybody's going to have to
2:59:36 apply some limitation of some sort
2:59:39 whether they like it or not and whether
2:59:40 they know it or not i know a lot of
2:59:41 people think that
2:59:43 um
2:59:44 they're free of that but everybody's
2:59:45 gonna have to apply some limitations of
2:59:47 some sort at least for example what i
2:59:48 just mentioned about logical possibility
2:59:50 and impossibility
2:59:52 right um
2:59:54 if
2:59:55 if he's non-spatial right
2:59:57 he can't be a special being well is that
2:59:59 a limitation
3:00:00 it's an arbitrary limitation
3:00:02 it's not an arbitrary limitation of
3:00:03 course but it's some kind of logical
3:00:06 limitation of what so so i i think just
3:00:09 asking these questions very
3:00:12 vaguely like this is just not very
3:00:13 helpful it's it's it's useful in in
3:00:16 certain like polemical circles where you
3:00:18 try to score some point
3:00:20 against your opponent by making them say
3:00:22 something that people generally uh you
3:00:24 know uh find off-putting but it's not
3:00:27 really meaningful unless you just get to
3:00:30 the you really need to if you're talking
3:00:31 metaphysics and stuff you need to get to
3:00:33 the nitty-gritty of it and really
3:00:35 specify what you're talking about and
3:00:37 and
3:00:38 and i think that um
3:00:40 it's really going to come down to
3:00:42 physical reality as we know it
3:00:45 uh clearly having other possibilities
3:00:47 could have been otherwise
3:00:49 clearly being contingent even according
3:00:51 to like many atheist philosophers
3:00:54 and it requiring some kind of ultimate
3:00:55 explanation
3:00:57 um
3:00:58 if the contingency argument works and
3:01:00 now
3:01:01 that ultimate explanation you have many
3:01:03 paths
3:01:05 towards arriving at
3:01:06 the the the um
3:01:08 the properties of this necessary being
3:01:12 firstly you get power
3:01:13 and you know
3:01:15 clearly unlimited power
3:01:17 based on on on your scope of possibility
3:01:20 as and you have to have power over all
3:01:21 possible things the ground of all
3:01:23 possibilities and
3:01:25 then you talk about something like
3:01:27 intentionality or or or
3:01:30 or free will
3:01:32 there are many uh
3:01:34 things you can say about that in terms
3:01:36 of it being the foundation of reality
3:01:37 and it
3:01:38 having the capacity to initiate action
3:01:40 and
3:01:41 and being only like internally
3:01:43 determined
3:01:45 you can link that to our experience
3:01:46 directly and then you can take it to to
3:01:49 to what you were saying about
3:01:51 uh limitations uh uh of course using the
3:01:55 the principle of conceivability in in in
3:01:58 a limited way as a guide
3:01:59 to modality and you can talk about uh
3:02:02 teleology moral aspects our intuitions
3:02:06 revelation you know purpose
3:02:09 compare this then you look at the theory
3:02:11 overall compare it to like a
3:02:12 naturalistic theory and
3:02:15 i think the theistic theory is far
3:02:17 superior in explaining all of this
3:02:18 together including our own consciousness
3:02:21 and our own experience of reality
3:02:23 and uh and whatnot
3:02:25 so um it's it's it's a more
3:02:28 it's a far more expansive discussion
3:02:30 than answering a simple question very
3:02:34 superficially i'll be back
3:02:36 also does that help basically i think uh
3:02:38 to summarize abdul rahman's point
3:02:41 uh he's just basically saying that maybe
3:02:44 if we if we just simply ask the question
3:02:46 does this necessary be is it limit
3:02:48 limited or limitless
3:02:49 is not a precise enough question
3:02:52 rather we need to look at maybe a
3:02:54 specific discussion a specific attribute
3:02:58 in that so maybe the issue of power
3:03:01 and then you're able to discern whether
3:03:03 what we're talking about when something
3:03:05 is limited
3:03:06 uh in in terms of power then you can
3:03:09 bring arbitrary limits and then for
3:03:11 example
3:03:13 for with the power if once for example
3:03:16 if it is limited in that case i don't
3:03:19 know that he has a specific capacity
3:03:22 yeah
3:03:23 is it more probable to say this more i
3:03:25 mean
3:03:26 what is the better option here to say
3:03:29 that he is limited or unlimited in the
3:03:31 case of power yeah you say unlimited
3:03:34 yeah
3:03:35 because of arbitrary limitations this is
3:03:37 the reason okay yeah
3:03:40 that's right
3:03:42 because arbitrage
3:03:43 only to
3:03:44 to understand
3:03:46 your your argumentation i mean this is
3:03:49 my but is it unlimited in the sense that
3:03:51 god can do logical impossibilities
3:03:55 no um what i mean by unlimited is uh
3:03:58 unbound there is nothing that uh that
3:04:01 constrain it to do anything or or
3:04:04 train it to have a specific property or
3:04:07 i don't know to have a specific
3:04:10 interest node
3:04:11 mass or
3:04:12 whatever this is what problem
3:04:15 okay so i would agree with everything
3:04:16 you're saying but that's not the point
3:04:17 is right now
3:04:19 you need to separate those questions so
3:04:20 when you talk about limited ability
3:04:22 you're talking about power so i don't
3:04:23 know why you're bringing mass into it
3:04:25 i'll agree with the mass part two but
3:04:27 it's just i think the different
3:04:28 different questions right now
3:04:30 my the only issue the only thing i'm
3:04:32 saying really is that is that you can't
3:04:35 use this uh uh
3:04:37 principle in an unrestricted manner
3:04:39 because of this simply a question i just
3:04:41 asked you about logical impossibilities
3:04:44 um that can god do can god create
3:04:46 world's
3:04:47 evil world can god do evil
3:04:51 so i i think uh
3:04:53 limitation it's not arbitrary right so
3:04:56 yeah so i think musa i think uh
3:04:59 simply explaining the point which is
3:05:00 just is this the precision in terms of
3:05:03 when we when we talk about this but yeah
3:05:05 generally we'd say that a necessary
3:05:07 being can't be limited arbitrarily
3:05:10 arbitrary limits is how we sort of
3:05:12 identify and and seek out a question of
3:05:15 explanations
3:05:16 we're looking for an explanation when we
3:05:18 see something's arbitrarily limited and
3:05:20 if we've got an option between a neso
3:05:22 being that's arbitrary limited and
3:05:24 necessary being that's not
3:05:26 arbitrary arbitrarily limited then we
3:05:29 would take the latter of them because it
3:05:31 gives you better explanatory power it's
3:05:33 more complete as an explanation
3:05:35 than the first one
3:05:38 okay
3:05:39 yeah but then i think abdul rahman's all
3:05:41 saying go movie that's like a stage one
3:05:43 argument you've got stage one
3:05:45 contingency or cosmological argument and
3:05:47 you have a stage two stage one gets you
3:05:50 to something that's necessary
3:05:52 eternal independent yeah a stage two
3:05:55 argument is now saying some of the the
3:05:58 attributes
3:06:00 like will and intentionality and
3:06:03 consciousness you're all self-awareness
3:06:06 maybe a better word yeah
3:06:08 so that's a stage two argument because a
3:06:11 lot of atheists today will accept the
3:06:13 stage one argument
3:06:14 even some of the stubborn internet
3:06:16 atheists generally accept an in stage
3:06:18 one argument they just apply it to
3:06:21 energy or to the universe they say oh
3:06:23 these things are necessary they're
3:06:25 eternal so basically the necessary
3:06:27 existence
3:06:29 um but a stage two argument is uh
3:06:33 uh where they differ upon and stage two
3:06:36 argument is basically um as abdullah
3:06:40 mentioned there's many different aspects
3:06:42 to it you've got there are many
3:06:43 different arguments that can be used in
3:06:46 order to justify why believing in a
3:06:48 creator that has is consciously aware in
3:06:51 creating the universe
3:06:53 is a better explanation than rather than
3:06:56 just some sort of necessary physical
3:06:58 thing
3:07:00 or necessary unconscious thing
3:07:03 just just a quick point because this is
3:07:06 important it's not just a technicality
3:07:07 right i know i tend to complicate stuff
3:07:09 sometimes but this is not just a
3:07:10 technicality it's very important because
3:07:12 you know some people don't realize the
3:07:15 the the entailments of of of uh you know
3:07:18 this thing that's popular said that if
3:07:19 you can conceive of it otherwise then it
3:07:21 is contingent
3:07:22 um using that in an unrestricted way i
3:07:25 don't think any of us does but some
3:07:27 people think sometimes that we do use it
3:07:29 in a restricted way now what that leads
3:07:31 to is i think complete incoherence it's
3:07:33 like just a radical form of divine
3:07:35 simplicity that's just complete
3:07:36 meaninglessness and i i think
3:07:40 so what some people try to do because of
3:07:41 this thing that you know um
3:07:44 because of
3:07:45 trying to provide an account
3:07:48 a metaphysical account for the necessity
3:07:50 of god is that uh they try to turn it
3:07:53 into some kind of analytic truth right
3:07:57 that god is existence and existence
3:07:59 cannot exist
3:08:00 something like that right as in there he
3:08:02 just he's just existence period it's
3:08:04 just like boundless pure existence right
3:08:07 and
3:08:08 that really doesn't make sense i mean
3:08:10 i've
3:08:11 noticed respect of course anybody holds
3:08:12 to the position but i've i've had
3:08:15 several conversations and i've read on
3:08:17 this quite a bit but
3:08:19 when i
3:08:20 try to ask some people how
3:08:22 they conceive of this
3:08:24 you know reference they call existence
3:08:26 it's just uh
3:08:28 i i don't get a really meaningful answer
3:08:31 it's
3:08:32 just describing an existent
3:08:34 that necessarily exists
3:08:36 but the idea is that hey if i just make
3:08:38 turn into some kind of analytic truth
3:08:40 existence exists and cannot exist then
3:08:42 hey i solve the problem god's existence
3:08:44 is some kind of analytic truth and
3:08:46 logical necessity
3:08:48 and there you go so just try to take an
3:08:50 easy way out although when you try to
3:08:52 deconstruct it it doesn't really make
3:08:53 sense and this this i think this comes
3:08:56 from the problem of trying to provide
3:08:58 some kind of ontological account for
3:09:00 the metaphysical necessity of god
3:09:03 which whatever path you try to take in
3:09:04 doing this
3:09:06 you're gonna you really have the same
3:09:07 questions so why does why does the
3:09:09 necessary being's existence entail this
3:09:11 reality
3:09:13 um
3:09:14 is that some kind of limitation
3:09:17 right or or
3:09:19 you see so there's really no escaping it
3:09:21 unless you get to some kind of radical
3:09:23 form of uh
3:09:25 simplicity where there's just complete
3:09:26 meaninglessness you're just not even
3:09:28 referring to anything right
3:09:30 which is what
3:09:33 some extreme positions do
3:09:35 so uh
3:09:37 so there's no reason why we need to hold
3:09:38 to this
3:09:39 unrestricted view of conceivability
3:09:42 uh in order to use conceivability as a
3:09:45 guide for for mortality and there's no
3:09:48 reason really i think you need to
3:09:50 actually provide an ontological account
3:09:52 for the metaphysical necessity of god
3:09:54 in order to hold that god is
3:09:55 metaphysically necessary because that
3:09:57 can be inferred from other stuff
3:09:59 i'm not saying you can't provide an
3:10:00 account i'm just saying it's not
3:10:01 necessary so i think it's an important
3:10:03 point because some people don't
3:10:05 really see
3:10:07 where it could lead you and a lot of the
3:10:09 guys who watched us in the past some of
3:10:11 the some of the guys who hold to like
3:10:12 divine simplicity and stuff they
3:10:14 completely
3:10:15 you know
3:10:16 misunderstood what uh what we meant by
3:10:18 conceivability i mean the whole just
3:10:20 went right over their head
3:10:22 okay i don't think when i when i told
3:10:25 the limitations maybe i mean
3:10:27 maybe what i what i want and what i
3:10:29 think of is kind of imposed properties
3:10:33 kind of imposed
3:10:35 okay that
3:10:36 yeah nobody believes that we don't
3:10:38 believe
3:10:39 we don't believe god is not anything is
3:10:41 imposed on god or god is restricted by
3:10:43 anything or nobody
3:10:45 muslims just as a whole they just reject
3:10:47 that no nobody believes that anything is
3:10:49 imposed on god
3:10:51 yes i understand but if you have for
3:10:53 example a materialistic position in that
3:10:56 case you will have some kind of imposed
3:10:59 properties uh that what do you mean by
3:11:01 materialistic position because we're not
3:11:02 we're not materialists about god i mean
3:11:08 from that point of view he's not saying
3:11:10 from himself
3:11:12 i'm saying
3:11:13 an 80s that a materialist doesn't
3:11:15 believe in god but he accepts the first
3:11:17 stage of the contingency
3:11:19 he can
3:11:20 achieve this uh independent being and it
3:11:23 could
3:11:24 but in that case it would have to
3:11:27 i mean
3:11:28 specified with some kind of property
3:11:31 which is unexplained as some kind of i
3:11:33 don't know
3:11:34 um
3:11:38 and they are arbitrary because they are
3:11:40 unexplained and this is what i'm trying
3:11:42 to say that they don't have to do that
3:11:43 like a quantum form doesn't have to have
3:11:45 any like mass or kind of like spatial
3:11:47 reality or something and there's a lot
3:11:49 of interpretations of quantum mechanics
3:11:50 these days that talk about a non-spatial
3:11:52 material reality so they really don't
3:11:54 have to now what i'm saying is that what
3:11:57 you put there so you have this like um
3:12:00 placeholder for the material as this
3:12:02 material necessary being for whatever is
3:12:05 going to fill that position i mean just
3:12:06 unknown right now what i'm saying is
3:12:08 basically is that okay so
3:12:10 since the concepts are vague what we're
3:12:12 basically agreeing upon is that there is
3:12:14 this necessary entity right
3:12:17 now the stage two arguments follow
3:12:20 either way regardless of what you want
3:12:21 to call it
3:12:22 uh whether you want to call it material
3:12:24 or not because i don't think these terms
3:12:25 are clear i don't i don't think i don't
3:12:27 think they like for example opi is not
3:12:29 gonna necessarily specify some kind of
3:12:31 mass or spatial dimension or stuff you
3:12:33 don't have to do that as a materialist
3:12:35 which is a bit mysterious i get i get
3:12:37 that but my point is that
3:12:40 regardless of these
3:12:41 words we're using
3:12:43 the stage two arguments are just going
3:12:45 to follow in my opinion
3:12:48 okay
3:12:51 is that helpful musa
3:12:54 yes yes i i understand
3:12:57 i understand your point
3:12:59 okay thank you and uh
3:13:01 maybe we will see again yeah salaam
3:13:04 aleikum
3:13:05 thank you
3:13:11 okay we will go on to our next one uh
3:13:15 tani
3:13:16 i don't know if tony can just show their
3:13:18 face
3:13:19 yeah cool they can if you want to stay
3:13:21 on you can stay on uh
3:13:24 you know your video if you want this
3:13:25 video to stay on that's fine okay tony
3:13:27 so uh
3:13:28 how are you muslim non-muslim
3:13:31 ah
3:13:32 call me muslim uh with some doubts
3:13:37 so um
3:13:39 i think i've got a quite overly
3:13:41 simplistic question that you guys
3:13:43 can pull apart from me
3:13:44 so um if i paint the scenario and then
3:13:47 you can tell me
3:13:48 uh where i'm going wrong that'd be
3:13:50 appreciated
3:13:52 so uh imagine a person of uh sincere
3:13:56 faith
3:13:57 and they have a family member or loved
3:13:59 one who's
3:14:01 let's say
3:14:02 very
3:14:03 ill and the doctors are saying that they
3:14:06 might not be able to be saved
3:14:08 so um they pray
3:14:11 and i guess this is where my question
3:14:13 comes from in terms of qatar and the
3:14:16 answer of prayers
3:14:18 if if that person is destined to die
3:14:21 are we saying that the
3:14:23 obviously the prayer did not get
3:14:24 answered
3:14:25 but if they were saved then did the
3:14:28 prayer get answered how does that work
3:14:30 in terms of
3:14:32 predestination
3:14:36 is that clear sorry if it's not clear
3:14:38 so you so your question is basically
3:14:41 i've always got to jump in then so your
3:14:43 question is basically
3:14:45 um if somebody makes prayer
3:14:49 something to happen
3:14:50 and it doesn't happen what does that say
3:14:52 about predestination
3:14:54 yeah well specifically
3:14:58 i understand and correct me if i'm wrong
3:15:00 that your time of death is already
3:15:02 written predetermined yeah from islamic
3:15:04 yeah
3:15:05 so
3:15:06 in this case is um if the prayer you
3:15:09 know someone's sincerely asking for
3:15:11 something then
3:15:13 uh it's irrelevant because the person is
3:15:15 going to die anyway
3:15:16 but if they
3:15:18 are to be saved then and were they saved
3:15:20 by the prayer then so is it
3:15:22 predetermined that they would be saved
3:15:23 by the prayer
3:15:25 yeah so tony really quickly um
3:15:28 so this is not necessarily the uh
3:15:30 really quickly to you can you just uh in
3:15:32 the middle somewhere when you get the
3:15:33 chance check your whatsapp messages all
3:15:35 right okay cool
3:15:36 uh
3:15:38 so yeah um so
3:15:40 uh any uh
3:15:42 what was gonna say
3:15:44 so really quickly um
3:15:47 oh let me just bring somebody on one
3:15:49 second
3:15:58 okay
3:16:01 let me explain really let me explain as
3:16:03 briefly and as concisely as i possibly
3:16:04 can so one
3:16:07 uh when we look at the issue of prayer
3:16:09 and
3:16:09 we try to understand how that interacts
3:16:11 with other
3:16:12 yeah or predestination we need to
3:16:15 understand and appreciate that allah
3:16:17 already knows that you're going to make
3:16:18 the dua so it can be the case and again
3:16:20 i'm not saying this is the case but it
3:16:22 can be the case that allah has made the
3:16:25 predetermination already knowing that
3:16:27 the person has made the dua that he
3:16:29 doesn't want to die at this state but at
3:16:31 a later date and therefore makes that a
3:16:33 later date
3:16:34 so it's not like allah is changing your
3:16:37 predestination is that allah has already
3:16:40 knew what you were going to do in your
3:16:42 free will and therefore had you know
3:16:44 made the decision based upon that
3:16:47 so in the course okay
3:16:50 i think i've heard this before but it's
3:16:51 probably just my lack of understanding
3:16:53 and yeah not really really getting the
3:16:55 concept around that in that case then is
3:16:57 the person so it was destined that that
3:16:59 person
3:17:00 would be making that prayer
3:17:02 it's no it's not that he's destined that
3:17:04 he'd be making that praise that it's
3:17:05 that allah knew he was going to make
3:17:07 that prayer
3:17:10 i guess that's where my confusion lies
3:17:13 yeah so i'll just
3:17:14 if if there's a chain of events
3:17:16 yeah at any point and
3:17:19 i'll be honest i don't really believe in
3:17:22 uh
3:17:23 true free will
3:17:25 so um i i believe in this you know this
3:17:28 optionality in our decision making and
3:17:31 some of those even that is outside our
3:17:33 conscious control anyway
3:17:35 so that this is the thing that perplexes
3:17:37 me is you know some people are raised in
3:17:40 certain
3:17:40 in certain uh households etc and some
3:17:43 people have certain levels of faith
3:17:45 so
3:17:47 it almost seems to me that it's all it's
3:17:49 already judged that that person is going
3:17:51 to make that prayer because there is no
3:17:53 other way of that person not making that
3:17:54 prayer yeah you're saying that they've
3:17:56 made it through their
3:17:57 own
3:17:58 choices in life which is fine
3:18:00 but there's certain choices which they
3:18:02 never made in the start right so they
3:18:04 had to be put into that
3:18:05 faith one way or another if it was born
3:18:07 in a
3:18:08 a muslim household they never made that
3:18:11 choice to be born in that muslim
3:18:12 household
3:18:13 yeah
3:18:14 yeah so tony
3:18:16 we have to understand and appreciate is
3:18:17 that
3:18:18 we're trying to understand what it means
3:18:21 to think about and having knowledge of
3:18:22 things
3:18:24 in a a temporal sense in a timeless
3:18:27 sense while we as human beings have only
3:18:29 knowledge through a temporal sense
3:18:31 through chronology
3:18:33 yeah so we're trying to do something
3:18:35 which is very very difficult if not
3:18:36 impossible for us to do as human beings
3:18:39 so all i'm saying is this is that i'm
3:18:40 saying that if a person
3:18:42 predetermines an event x to happen
3:18:46 and he knows that a person will make the
3:18:48 choice why he might take that into
3:18:51 consideration when pre-determining x
3:18:54 now all of what i'm saying is all
3:18:56 temporal language that's part of the
3:18:58 problem
3:18:59 yeah because we are temporal creatures
3:19:02 so
3:19:02 well so it's saying that allah
3:19:04 determined this day because he knew at
3:19:08 this date you were gonna
3:19:09 but with allah this type of knowledge is
3:19:11 not like temporal knowledge like we have
3:19:14 like he's knowing past present and
3:19:16 future and things he's becoming aware of
3:19:18 certain things
3:19:19 of what you're going to do
3:19:21 rather allah already knows that
3:19:23 knowledge which is it is something very
3:19:25 hard to grasp because we don't think in
3:19:28 that way yeah but i'm saying there's no
3:19:30 logical problem that's the issue there's
3:19:32 no logical problem in saying do i will
3:19:36 help grant you certain things
3:19:38 yeah while the same sign also believing
3:19:41 that allah has determined some of these
3:19:44 things as well so the fact is is that
3:19:47 allah may have determined them before
3:19:49 you were born what was knowledge knew
3:19:52 what you were going to do while you were
3:19:54 alive
3:19:56 including that that you were going to
3:19:57 make but allah
3:20:05 is not causally necessary for when you
3:20:08 have to die that if you died at x time
3:20:11 it's because allah calls you to do a
3:20:13 door out to say i don't want to die but
3:20:15 at this time no no not you personally
3:20:17 i'm talking about a third party because
3:20:19 it's the first party's making the dua
3:20:21 so you know a loved one or whatever so
3:20:24 so i'll
3:20:25 knew the person's going to make the dua
3:20:27 and then
3:20:28 based on all those panels this decision
3:20:30 may have granted them their desired
3:20:33 prayer to be fulfilled that's fine so
3:20:36 but then that was already judged before
3:20:37 that that person was going to make the
3:20:39 dua yeah yeah
3:20:40 but no but you think it's the point is
3:20:42 that it's already judged not because
3:20:44 allah made the decision and then came to
3:20:48 know
3:20:48 the person's going to make dua
3:20:50 he's not going to come to know after no
3:20:53 yeah i understand that because otherwise
3:20:54 only students wouldn't work right i
3:20:56 understand it but
3:20:58 can you understand what difficulty in in
3:21:00 because to me the way i understand the
3:21:03 time and the arrow of time the fact that
3:21:06 you know it's uh to do with entropy and
3:21:08 that you if you were to reverse
3:21:10 everything back then you'd come back to
3:21:11 the choice
3:21:12 issue of free will i think because
3:21:15 if you uh because
3:21:17 how i understand is you're made up of
3:21:19 your experiences that's why i don't
3:21:21 believe in absolute free will because
3:21:22 you know if you want to turn into a to
3:21:25 elephant or whatever yeah you don't have
3:21:26 to use people yeah yeah so you have
3:21:29 choices you have bounded optionality in
3:21:32 in
3:21:33 the laws of physics and the laws of
3:21:36 how god made made the world etc
3:21:38 but that's what that's all trying to
3:21:40 so that's the difference
3:21:42 wrestle with is
3:21:44 if that person then had the choice of
3:21:46 making the um
3:21:48 the prayer then it would have been
3:21:51 due to all the past experiences and
3:21:53 their belief that's cool no problem
3:21:56 but that's what i'm saying is then it
3:21:57 had to be that
3:21:59 all those
3:22:00 everything in the past had to bring
3:22:03 bring that point
3:22:05 had to make that event occur right
3:22:08 yeah but see and and that's like
3:22:10 multitudes and multitudes because every
3:22:13 person comes from
3:22:14 yeah
3:22:15 no matter how how many ways you arrange
3:22:17 a range it has to come to that point
3:22:19 right and then but tani tani just so
3:22:21 quickly the issue is in terms of the
3:22:24 choice
3:22:25 so you coming to know that you should
3:22:27 make dua there may be certain events
3:22:29 that have taken place outside of your
3:22:31 knowledge so or certain outside of your
3:22:34 choices so let's say a person
3:22:37 you know there's certain things that so
3:22:38 once he comes to know
3:22:41 that he needs to make dua yeah or prayer
3:22:44 uh
3:22:46 then at that moment he has a choice he
3:22:48 can choose to do it to act upon his
3:22:50 knowledge or choose not to do it
3:22:52 okay so can i ask you a question then do
3:22:54 you make your choices
3:22:57 if you were to go back and any choices
3:23:00 you could make him as arbitrary as not
3:23:02 not important as possible
3:23:04 do you think you could have made any
3:23:05 other choice
3:23:07 so there's different views about what
3:23:10 what it means to have free will one
3:23:12 view is you the possibility to do an uh
3:23:15 something else
3:23:17 or to do another option yeah so if you
3:23:19 go back in time yeah go back to that
3:23:22 point of making a choice you could have
3:23:24 done another choice and that's what some
3:23:26 people believe
3:23:27 refers to as free will and other people
3:23:30 say well no even if you can't make any
3:23:33 other choice except the choice that you
3:23:34 made
3:23:36 then it doesn't matter because you made
3:23:37 that choice
3:23:39 yeah so i understand that's how our
3:23:41 systems
3:23:42 works in that you have an entity that
3:23:44 you ascribe
3:23:46 volition to an agency to and
3:23:48 that you have to have this to work in
3:23:50 our social structure but to me
3:23:53 if you were to rewind the clock
3:23:55 you wouldn't have a choice so well
3:23:58 there's no way
3:23:59 tania that's the problem probably
3:24:00 there's no way of testing that there's
3:24:02 no way of being able to say
3:24:04 you know could we have done otherwise
3:24:06 all you have is different philosophical
3:24:08 positions
3:24:09 what we're saying is this or what i'm
3:24:11 specifically saying is that there are
3:24:12 non-necessitating reasons why you make
3:24:15 choices non-necessitating
3:24:18 so yes there are influences i don't
3:24:19 understand that not necessarily sorry
3:24:21 would you so
3:24:23 so for example if i had a cake
3:24:26 strawberry cake and chocolate cake in
3:24:28 front of me yeah then
3:24:30 there may be lots of experiences in my
3:24:32 past
3:24:33 where i've always enjoyed
3:24:35 chocolate cake
3:24:36 yeah but all of those experiences do not
3:24:39 culminate in necessitating me choosing
3:24:42 the chocolate cake i still could choose
3:24:43 the strawberry cake
3:24:46 yeah so you're saying
3:24:47 non-necessitating so that's there are
3:24:49 influences there's environmental things
3:24:52 that might influence my uh you know
3:24:55 whatever biological issues in terms of
3:24:57 my taste buds but all of those things
3:24:59 are non-necessitating means i could
3:25:02 still do otherwise
3:25:04 i don't agree with that sorry
3:25:06 that's fine you don't have to agree with
3:25:07 it or disagree with it i'm just saying
3:25:09 that's an explanation and there's no way
3:25:12 of testing this that's the problem so
3:25:15 what people do is they take
3:25:16 philosophical positions
3:25:18 yeah and so
3:25:20 some people say no every choice has an
3:25:22 explanation
3:25:24 yeah but then like i said on what basis
3:25:27 are they making that position are they
3:25:29 making that position based upon some
3:25:32 empirical data well there is no
3:25:34 empirical data you can verify on this
3:25:35 issue
3:25:36 is it based on certain philosophical
3:25:39 notions that it's logically impossible
3:25:41 there is no thing that you can point to
3:25:43 sex logically impossible to have
3:25:45 non-necessitating choices so
3:25:48 i you have to you have to basically
3:25:51 adopt a particular position now in islam
3:25:54 the position that we take when it comes
3:25:57 and it's about the beginning of the
3:25:58 stream i was like trying to explain it
3:25:59 to the person who came on before
3:26:01 is is that look islam looks at choices
3:26:05 and makes human beings morally
3:26:06 responsible
3:26:08 by looking at things like the idea of
3:26:10 who is
3:26:12 mean who's responsible and placing
3:26:14 things like if you are
3:26:17 you know forgetful until you remember or
3:26:19 if you oversleep until you wake up that
3:26:22 you're not responsible or if you're
3:26:24 insane and you regain sanity during a
3:26:27 period of insanity you're not
3:26:29 responsible for what you're doing your
3:26:30 choices yeah you're not morally
3:26:32 responsible so islam seems to push a
3:26:35 very clear idea that human beings are
3:26:37 morally responsible for the choices that
3:26:39 they make that they make
3:26:41 irrespective of the influences of the
3:26:44 environment
3:26:45 yeah so
3:26:46 in terms of that morally responsible
3:26:50 um
3:26:51 if you if you want back
3:26:53 when you said that um no sorry it was
3:26:55 not necessarily yeah non-necessary
3:26:58 choices
3:26:59 so the earlier they would be only more
3:27:02 more responsible for non-necessitating
3:27:04 choices is that correct
3:27:05 no i'm not saying that i'm just saying
3:27:07 that there's
3:27:08 when you're saying that it's impossible
3:27:11 to have non-necessitating choices oh
3:27:13 that's not the case i'm saying there's
3:27:15 no way of being able to test that
3:27:17 yeah
3:27:18 the second issue is to do it
3:27:20 are we morally responsible do we have
3:27:23 the ability to choose
3:27:25 and i'm saying within the quranic text
3:27:27 and within the son of the prophet
3:27:30 we are responsible to act according to
3:27:32 the sharia
3:27:34 yeah
3:27:34 and we are held responsible on the day
3:27:37 of judgment based on the decisions we
3:27:39 made
3:27:40 yeah that's how it is if you're a child
3:27:43 you're not responsible before the sharia
3:27:45 because you're you're not considered
3:27:47 your uncle your mind is not considered
3:27:49 mature enough to be able to make morally
3:27:51 responsible choices
3:27:53 yeah so
3:27:54 let's say let's take my example if i'm
3:27:56 not intellectually
3:27:58 competent enough to understand or
3:28:01 if that causes me issues
3:28:04 am i still morally responsible if my
3:28:06 intellect isn't there yeah so
3:28:08 this is to do is maybe the issue of
3:28:10 salvation isn't it in terms of who is
3:28:13 responsible uh before allah and there's
3:28:17 lots of
3:28:18 on this type of issue but as a general
3:28:20 position the issue is is that you're
3:28:23 responsible based upon the knowledge you
3:28:25 have
3:28:26 yeah so based upon the knowledge you
3:28:27 have are you going to act in accordance
3:28:30 to what you believe is true
3:28:32 or you're going to reject it or you're
3:28:34 going to be stubborn or arrogant or
3:28:35 whatever it is and not follow that
3:28:37 knowledge so if you're ignorant so if
3:28:40 you're ignorant upon an issue and maybe
3:28:42 that ignorance might be because you're
3:28:44 mentally [ __ ] or whatever it is or
3:28:46 you haven't heard a message from the
3:28:48 messenger or you've been so totally
3:28:50 confused because of the environment that
3:28:52 you're in then allah will judge you
3:28:55 accordingly on that perspective as well
3:28:59 so
3:29:00 i guess it's a good question i mean you
3:29:02 could be sincerely
3:29:10 well
3:29:11 there's no way to test this again so
3:29:13 i think there might be a movement yeah
3:29:14 so
3:29:15 if you believe if you believe in your
3:29:17 heart or if you believe in your
3:29:19 general awareness or your knowledge that
3:29:21 things don't make sense or you're not
3:29:23 aware how they can make sense
3:29:26 then and that you honestly believe that
3:29:27 then
3:29:29 what would that mean
3:29:31 well look
3:29:33 you i i can't judge whether somebody's
3:29:35 not i don't think no no i'm not saying
3:29:37 no i'm i i know i know you're not saying
3:29:39 that tell me i'm just saying i can't do
3:29:41 that no human being can do that but the
3:29:43 creator can
3:29:44 so that so allah is the one that's gonna
3:29:46 judge you now
3:29:48 uh
3:29:49 this seems
3:29:50 to
3:29:51 without with a specific
3:29:53 example there's a very abstract
3:29:55 discussion yeah so that's why i'm only
3:29:57 giving you a very general point and the
3:30:00 general point is this is you're
3:30:02 accountable based on the knowledge you
3:30:04 have and whether you acted according to
3:30:05 that knowledge that's the general point
3:30:07 and you have sound mind and sound
3:30:09 reasoning
3:30:10 yeah if you have those things then
3:30:13 you're accountable now where that
3:30:15 actually applies to a specific
3:30:17 individual a specific moment so this
3:30:20 individual he sincerely believes in you
3:30:23 know some
3:30:24 religion that's not islam
3:30:27 uh but because he's not received the
3:30:29 message of islam because he doesn't know
3:30:31 anything better
3:30:33 etcetera etcetera etcetera is he going
3:30:35 to get punished now there's there's
3:30:37 differences of opinion amongst the
3:30:38 scholars about this like imam ghazali
3:30:40 took a very liberal approach and he
3:30:42 basically said that most human beings
3:30:44 are not going to get punished you know
3:30:46 in hell fire because most human beings
3:30:48 are ignorant yeah or they
3:30:50 heard the message in a distorted way
3:30:52 islam in a distorted way
3:30:54 and so
3:30:55 he said those who are assigned to
3:30:57 hellfire forever are very few in number
3:30:59 yeah they are the ones that knew the
3:31:01 message heard it
3:31:03 understood it to be true or understood
3:31:05 the evidences and proofs for it but
3:31:07 still rejected it yeah so
3:31:10 you know he had he had a very
3:31:12 uh you know broad view regards to this
3:31:15 and he said that most people that
3:31:16 punishment is just facing the day of
3:31:18 judgment you know
3:31:20 you know in in that in and of itself is
3:31:22 a is going to be a punishment for people
3:31:24 having to be judged and having the
3:31:26 anxiety and the difficulties on that day
3:31:28 so
3:31:29 um there's like i said there's
3:31:31 on this particular issue because the
3:31:34 like i said the quran is
3:31:35 talks about the generalities
3:31:38 talks about the idea of coffer coffer
3:31:41 meaning some you know linguistically
3:31:42 comes from the word meaning ungrateful
3:31:45 yeah meaning he recognizes something but
3:31:47 he's ungrateful
3:31:49 yeah for it for it uh so
3:31:52 uh yeah so without any specific specific
3:31:55 examples i can only give you a very
3:31:57 broad explanation
3:31:59 okay thanks i guess uh
3:32:02 yeah
3:32:03 i'll see what i can understand a bit
3:32:04 more about the determinism and because
3:32:06 yeah that
3:32:08 nobody needs to
3:32:10 uh it's difficult but thanks for it
3:32:11 thanks for your time thank you for the
3:32:12 answer yeah thanks appreciate going on
3:32:14 thanks so much michael
3:32:18 hey exactly icon
3:32:36 i'm just glad to be around back like the
3:32:39 old days yeah
3:32:41 yeah yeah yeah yeah
3:32:42 yeah it's been quite a while we should
3:32:44 bring those days back inshallah
3:32:48 so i'm just kind of here listening uh
3:32:51 it's good to see your all faces and be
3:32:52 able to interact
3:32:54 yeah i'm like
3:32:56 participate with the with the speed with
3:32:58 the questions inshallah
3:32:59 there's something that
3:33:01 that's exactly
3:33:04 you're going to say that
3:33:06 i was just saying if there's something
3:33:08 that you know uh
3:33:10 that i have to add you you all do a
3:33:12 better job than than i do so
3:33:15 i'm just kind of listening but if
3:33:16 there's something i feel that might be
3:33:17 beneficial at it for sure otherwise i'm
3:33:19 just kind of here
3:33:21 yeah i think we've got maybe two
3:33:23 or three guests so we might have to
3:33:25 steam through this because we've been
3:33:26 here for a while and abdulrahman's
3:33:29 getting tired now
3:33:30 so we've got uh armor
3:33:32 i'm sorry abdulrahman it's it's earlier
3:33:34 he is than where i am and you know i'm
3:33:36 the lady no i'm okay don't worry about
3:33:38 me
3:33:40 he finally fell asleep so he's not
3:33:42 annoying me anymore
3:33:47 uh
3:33:49 yeah so okay alhamdulillah ahmed has put
3:33:52 his um
3:33:54 camera on so bring him on uh assalamu
3:33:57 alaykum
3:34:12 have you got a question or comment or
3:34:14 contention no doubt i
3:34:16 i didn't have one two questions i have a
3:34:18 muslim but there were some one two
3:34:19 things that were troubling me that i
3:34:21 can't seem to be able to understand
3:34:25 okay so
3:34:26 we're gonna have to go through these
3:34:27 questions quickly as well by the way uh
3:34:29 uh yeah i'm saying to the other brothers
3:34:31 as well so go on go for armor what's
3:34:33 your first one
3:34:34 okay so
3:34:36 in terms of apostasy what is the islamic
3:34:38 stance on the constitution and i just i
3:34:41 can't understand why there would be like
3:34:42 capital punishment for it
3:34:45 so it's a big topic the issue of
3:34:47 apostasy
3:34:48 um so generally isn't it
3:34:51 uh like apostasy law is something that's
3:34:54 not just somebody who somebody simply
3:34:56 says i or i'm not gonna believe anymore
3:34:58 or he simply decides not to believe but
3:35:01 rather he's vocal about it
3:35:04 it's within an islamic environment
3:35:05 within islamic society uh
3:35:08 state
3:35:09 uh and obviously there's a context that
3:35:12 has influence
3:35:14 within other people and based upon that
3:35:16 there is like uh what we call a hud
3:35:18 punishment for this
3:35:20 why that exists
3:35:22 uh well
3:35:23 there's two things that we have to ask
3:35:25 is that
3:35:26 when we say why
3:35:28 uh we need to understand
3:35:31 is this why because of
3:35:33 we're trying to understand the reasoning
3:35:34 behind what all those panels are giving
3:35:36 it yeah i is a an explanation that allah
3:35:40 himself says this is the reason why or
3:35:43 are we trying to understand what may be
3:35:45 some of the outward benefits of having
3:35:47 these types of rules and regulations
3:35:50 um so obviously there are no specific
3:35:53 explanations as to why there are certain
3:35:56 had punishments but what we can do is we
3:35:58 can observe
3:36:00 uh some of the um
3:36:02 the outcomes that these have like for
3:36:04 example
3:36:05 the had punishments on drinking alcohol
3:36:09 uh
3:36:09 or i had punishments on fornication and
3:36:12 things like that and i don't know if you
3:36:14 come across a hadith of the boat hadifa
3:36:16 the safina
3:36:18 armour i
3:36:25 i'm just going to paraphrase it but he
3:36:27 explained as the parable of those people
3:36:30 keep allah's limit
3:36:32 either of allah and those who do not
3:36:34 keep allah's limit
3:36:36 is like the parable of a boat who's got
3:36:38 a top deck and a bottom deck
3:36:40 and if the people on the bottom deck
3:36:42 decide to decide to drill a hole
3:36:45 in the bottom of the ship and oh yes
3:36:48 water
3:36:49 so they don't disturb the people on the
3:36:51 top deck and if the people in the top
3:36:53 deck don't stop them then what's going
3:36:55 to happen is the whole boat's going to
3:36:57 sink
3:36:58 yeah so the proxima is explaining a
3:36:59 point and what he's trying to explain is
3:37:02 that we as individuals we may do an act
3:37:06 but if the act is done publicly
3:37:08 then it has an influence on the society
3:37:11 at large yeah whether that's changing
3:37:14 public opinion making people feel uh any
3:37:18 less shame about the act making people
3:37:21 feel like
3:37:22 it's normalized and once you start doing
3:37:25 that then it affects other people's
3:37:27 behaviors as well because we're social
3:37:29 creatures
3:37:30 so in order to prevent
3:37:32 some things from occurring within
3:37:34 society some things which are considered
3:37:36 criminal
3:37:37 then the best way to do that is to
3:37:40 have certain laws and so what happens is
3:37:43 that person for example
3:37:45 a person fornicates and he keeps it
3:37:47 private then the the harm that he's
3:37:50 causing
3:37:51 fundamentally is between him the person
3:37:53 he's fornicating with and he's gonna be
3:37:56 responsible before allah
3:37:58 but if a person does that public or
3:38:00 makes it known that he's doing these
3:38:01 things publicly then the harm that he's
3:38:04 affecting is not just between him and
3:38:05 the person he's doing it with but rather
3:38:08 it becomes between him and society at
3:38:11 large because he's normalizing something
3:38:13 which is criminal yeah and i think all
3:38:15 societies have these types of red lines
3:38:18 within societies for example
3:38:21 you don't find in this society
3:38:24 that much they do it a little bit but
3:38:26 you know if you've got some drug taking
3:38:29 uh on on films like there's shooting up
3:38:32 heroin
3:38:34 and that you find them showing them that
3:38:36 they're really enjoying gear it's the
3:38:38 best feeling either promoting it
3:38:41 and if it do in fact from my
3:38:42 understanding they would be banned
3:38:44 if they would present shooting up heroin
3:38:47 and promoting as though it's a really
3:38:49 good thing on film because they know
3:38:52 that can affect people's psyche and
3:38:53 mentality in the same way they think
3:38:56 like child pornography and other things
3:38:58 like that even cartoon childlike
3:39:00 pornography where there's no actual
3:39:02 victims as well because they're not
3:39:03 effective behaviors and mentalities
3:39:13 is that you don't want it to become
3:39:15 normalized within society that's okay it
3:39:17 becomes a trend it's a fashion things
3:39:19 like that because people are not people
3:39:21 are emotional the same way in this
3:39:22 society people ban racism
3:39:24 yeah it's not fact that they are worried
3:39:27 that it's not the fact that they think
3:39:28 racism is a valid rational idea that
3:39:31 they're scared of because they don't
3:39:33 have good options against it it's
3:39:35 because they know the nature of human
3:39:36 beings and how virus uh how how certain
3:39:40 ideas are like viruses that infect
3:39:43 people's souls and so it's better to
3:39:45 protect the society at large
3:39:48 by
3:39:48 uh prohibiting certain ideas like racism
3:39:53 yeah yeah okay yeah
3:39:55 for the explanation well yeah
3:39:58 would it be okay
3:40:00 yeah yeah go for it oh yeah
3:40:02 um
3:40:04 knows
3:40:06 the thick probably better than i do but
3:40:08 um there is this is one of the uh
3:40:11 few
3:40:12 issues where there is
3:40:13 on
3:40:14 the the nature of had four
3:40:17 you know for for ear to daughter
3:40:20 perhaps even
3:40:21 um at least among
3:40:24 the
3:40:25 the woman
3:40:26 who leaves islam
3:40:28 is not
3:40:29 subject to the hard punishment she would
3:40:32 be punished traditionally but it would
3:40:34 not be a punishment of death
3:40:37 uh whereas
3:40:39 man would and the this what this gets
3:40:42 into is when you look into some of the
3:40:44 things is that the hamafi's looked at uh
3:40:46 looked at the it wasn't the the uh
3:40:50 the the
3:40:51 actual not having faith or not having
3:40:54 belief that was the trigger for the
3:40:56 punishment
3:40:57 the punishment it was the notion of
3:40:59 hirab or
3:41:00 how could we translate that into english
3:41:03 um sedition so
3:41:06 and
3:41:07 they
3:41:08 they
3:41:09 ruled that the men
3:41:13 and women they had a different quality
3:41:15 and so a woman when she left islam it
3:41:18 was an issue of belief with no sedition
3:41:21 and that a man
3:41:24 he his leaving the faith
3:41:26 implied
3:41:28 or entailed
3:41:29 sedition and they also went a step
3:41:31 further and said potential sedition is
3:41:34 equal to sedition in men so that if a
3:41:36 woman were to actually pick up a sword
3:41:39 and start fighting
3:41:40 he would also be subject to the uh
3:41:43 to
3:41:44 to the death penalty let's just put up
3:41:46 that
3:41:47 in that sense
3:41:48 so there's a lot of nuances in it some
3:41:51 could i want
3:41:52 i i don't like to translate
3:41:55 this necessarily as apostasy because in
3:41:59 the english sense that actually it's a
3:42:02 leaving of a belief paradigm whereas
3:42:05 it's
3:42:06 also
3:42:07 possible to
3:42:08 understand that this is more of a
3:42:10 treason or an act of sedition uh
3:42:13 then it is an act of um
3:42:16 of disbelief and i don't know maybe that
3:42:19 what would you say on that uh brother
3:42:21 sheriff
3:42:22 yeah yeah i know the hanafi's have a
3:42:24 position and imam sarkozy sort of gives
3:42:27 the analogy between the reason why
3:42:30 this there's a difference when uh the
3:42:32 hud is not applied upon the woman as
3:42:34 opposed to the man and sort of gives the
3:42:36 indication about hit arbor and sedition
3:42:39 and warfare
3:42:41 etc
3:42:42 oh yeah
3:42:44 so is that that's okay yeah i'm just
3:42:46 gonna i'm gonna have to
3:42:48 go to the next uh
3:42:51 speaking sure
3:42:53 no worries
3:42:54 yeah yeah
3:42:55 absolutely
3:43:05 okay we're going to add yeah here to the
3:43:06 stream
3:43:08 assalamu alaikum
3:43:11 brothers how are you
3:43:13 alhamdulillah good are you calling from
3:43:14 the uk or are you calling from india
3:43:17 uh i'm i'm indiana i'm currently in
3:43:19 canada so i'm calling from canada
3:43:22 i was just i saw the patel name yeah
3:43:24 patel so
3:43:25 oh you guys
3:43:27 yeah i'm from gujarat okay
3:43:30 okay so uh my question my questions are
3:43:33 actually two but if you don't have too
3:43:34 much too much time you can just answer
3:43:36 one so
3:43:37 my first question was
3:43:39 you know uh
3:43:40 we say that there are some things that
3:43:41 are impossible for us
3:43:44 like you know creating another god
3:43:46 that's something that i can understand
3:43:47 that okay this is impossible but
3:43:50 the the other things too which are which
3:43:52 would be considered impossible like for
3:43:54 example a four-sided triangle
3:43:57 making a four-sided triangle so
3:43:59 where those limits
3:44:01 already existent from pre-eternity over
3:44:04 there something that were placed later
3:44:08 okay i don't know if abdulrahman wants
3:44:10 to briefly concisely answer that one
3:44:14 because both of these examples are quite
3:44:16 it's just obvious why that's impossible
3:44:17 i mean it's quite
3:44:19 um
3:44:20 it's sort of by definition you know so
3:44:23 it's a four-sided triangle it doesn't
3:44:25 even make sense so
3:44:26 yeah
3:44:28 it's impossible as in there is no
3:44:30 possible world where a force by the
3:44:32 triangle
3:44:34 it can exist so so it doesn't make sense
3:44:36 to say that it was possible then became
3:44:38 impossible
3:44:39 because it's just
3:44:41 you know the the
3:44:42 the impossibility here is just uh
3:44:45 you know
3:44:46 analytically yeah
3:44:48 you know you know
3:44:49 i think what it is is that when people
3:44:50 think of impossible impossible
3:44:52 they it's like for example maybe yahya
3:44:54 can correct me but it's like people
3:44:56 think is it impossible for
3:44:59 us to travel faster than the speed of
3:45:01 light
3:45:02 yeah anything
3:45:03 and then people look at that
3:45:06 which is like an
3:45:07 empirical impossibility and then think
3:45:10 about you know four-sided triangles in
3:45:13 the same sense that it's some sort of
3:45:15 law of nature
3:45:17 yeah
3:45:18 yeah basically
3:45:20 the way to make the distinction is like
3:45:22 one is analytic and the other is
3:45:23 synthetic in that so the analytic one
3:45:26 you have
3:45:28 you know
3:45:29 the the the possibility or the necessity
3:45:32 or the impossibility is going to be
3:45:34 right there within the sentence as in
3:45:36 the the
3:45:37 subject is going to be contained within
3:45:39 the predicate and vice versa yeah you
3:45:42 understand what analytic and synthetic
3:45:44 possibilities or impossibilities are not
3:45:47 not quite
3:45:48 not what so an analytic analytic is
3:45:51 going to be something that's
3:45:52 yeah yeah maybe sure if you can explain
3:45:54 it because i'm just gonna give another
3:45:55 compliment
3:45:58 so all it means is is that where the
3:46:02 where the predicate is contained in the
3:46:04 subject i'll explain yeah so when i say
3:46:07 a three-sided triangle yeah
3:46:10 all i'm saying is that a triangle has
3:46:12 three sides so that's just its
3:46:13 definition isn't it it's true by
3:46:16 definition
3:46:17 yeah the attribute of three sides is
3:46:20 contained in the very subject of what it
3:46:22 means to be a triangle
3:46:23 yeah
3:46:25 so what abdul rahman is saying because
3:46:28 uh i'm his interpreter he's he he's just
3:46:31 simply saying this he's saying that look
3:46:34 when somebody makes a sentence
3:46:36 is the sentence does it have any meaning
3:46:40 for it to have meaning
3:46:41 you can't have it making
3:46:44 no sense
3:46:46 because like for example if i say can
3:46:48 god create a four-sided triangle
3:46:51 makes no sense
3:46:53 because by definition a triangle is
3:46:55 three sides
3:46:57 yeah and by definition if it's no no
3:46:59 longer if a shape is no longer three
3:47:01 sides it's not a triangle
3:47:03 so the sentence doesn't make any sense
3:47:05 it's gibberish
3:47:07 yeah
3:47:08 so that's like an analytic
3:47:11 uh proposition yeah now synthetic one is
3:47:14 just basically saying
3:47:16 well
3:47:17 you know what's the boiling point of
3:47:19 water i don't know is it contained in
3:47:22 the definition of the word water
3:47:24 no
3:47:25 yeah so i have to do an experiment i
3:47:28 have to see what it's like
3:47:30 yeah so that means that i'm going to see
3:47:32 all right balls at 100 degrees celsius
3:47:34 under normal green conditions so
3:47:36 therefore that's what it is that's a
3:47:38 synthetic proposition
3:47:40 yeah so something like synthetic
3:47:42 proposition can change
3:47:44 there's no
3:47:45 it's not impossible
3:47:46 for allah subhanahu dala to make water
3:47:48 boil at 110 degrees
3:47:51 because it will still be water
3:47:53 it just boils at 110 degrees
3:47:55 i live on my i live a mile high water
3:47:58 doesn't boil at 100 degrees celsius
3:48:00 right now
3:48:01 when the atmosphere is less than water
3:48:03 boils uh at a lower temperature
3:48:06 yeah so it's not within the definition
3:48:08 of water
3:48:09 yeah or it's a boil 100 degrees celsius
3:48:12 so
3:48:13 these things when we talk about allah
3:48:15 cannot create a squared circle it's not
3:48:18 because it's limiting allah and it's not
3:48:21 because this is some law of nature it's
3:48:23 just because that sentence doesn't make
3:48:25 any sense i could just be saying
3:48:27 gibberish
3:48:29 yeah so
3:48:30 another way to say it is that it's
3:48:31 impossible in itself it's not impossible
3:48:34 through another as in there's not
3:48:36 something external to the sentence
3:48:39 that makes it impossible for example
3:48:41 it's not that god just chooses not to
3:48:44 create a four-sided triangle therefore
3:48:46 it's impossible for it to exist because
3:48:47 of course if god says he won't create it
3:48:49 then he won't no but no it's impossible
3:48:51 in itself as in the proposition itself
3:48:54 accounts for its own impossibility
3:48:56 you don't need to look for it anywhere
3:48:58 else right
3:48:59 okay so the reason why i said i said
3:49:01 this example is because
3:49:03 i thought came to my mind that triangle
3:49:05 is a creation so the concept of triangle
3:49:08 could be a creation so it seems like the
3:49:11 limit has to be placed later that's why
3:49:14 i was asking this question
3:49:16 yeah i understand
3:49:20 questions as human beings
3:49:22 we're asking questions which are meant
3:49:24 to be meaningful to us
3:49:27 yeah
3:49:28 and so we're using words and meanings
3:49:30 that have certain connotations
3:49:32 so when i say a married bachelor is
3:49:35 impossible
3:49:36 it's not because um
3:49:39 it's because
3:49:41 our understanding our comprehension of
3:49:43 it
3:49:44 is meaningless
3:49:45 yeah i could literally be saying
3:49:48 gobbledygook
3:49:51 nothing i can say nothing yeah
3:49:54 and that's this exact same equivalent to
3:49:56 what i'm talking about when i'm saying a
3:49:58 married bachelor it's not it's it's
3:50:00 literally nothing
3:50:02 yeah not because
3:50:04 it's predetermined to be nothing
3:50:06 but it's because as a human being it has
3:50:09 no meaning in my mind
3:50:11 yeah a four-sided triangle has no
3:50:13 meaning in my mind
3:50:14 it's not like i can't conceive of it
3:50:17 like you know i can't conceive of aliens
3:50:20 in space no it's like literally there's
3:50:23 nothing in my mind because it's not a
3:50:25 sentence it's not it's not a word yeah
3:50:27 you see this this has to do with with
3:50:29 like
3:50:30 non-contradiction and how
3:50:31 non-contradiction is just one thing
3:50:33 that's so
3:50:34 essential and natural it's like
3:50:36 whenever you make a statement whenever
3:50:38 you say something yeah yeah right so if
3:50:40 you say
3:50:41 it is raining outside
3:50:43 then included within what you're saying
3:50:46 implicitly
3:50:47 is that you're negating the opposite of
3:50:49 that as in your your b you're saying
3:50:51 it's not not raining
3:50:54 you're negating the fact that it's not
3:50:56 raining right so
3:50:58 in the same way when you say triangle so
3:51:01 four-sided triangle
3:51:03 now when you're saying triangle
3:51:05 you're negating that what you're
3:51:07 referring to is anything but a
3:51:09 three-sided shape
3:51:11 so when you say four-sided you're just
3:51:14 contradicting yourself if by the word
3:51:16 triangle you mean what we all mean maybe
3:51:19 there's a different language where the
3:51:21 word triangle is some different shape
3:51:23 okay that's a different story but then
3:51:25 if you mean what we mean by triangle
3:51:26 then you can't just say hey i mean
3:51:29 three-sided but at the same time it
3:51:31 needs to be four-sided your sentence
3:51:34 just doesn't even make sense
3:51:35 get it okay
3:51:37 yeah i i i get that i get that
3:51:40 so uh can i ask just one more question
3:51:42 and yeah i hope hopefully this will be
3:51:44 short so the thing is that
3:51:46 and in my teenage years i actually you
3:51:48 know felt a little agnostic at some time
3:51:51 and i didn't know how to like
3:51:53 i know that there has to be god but i i
3:51:56 didn't had atheistic thought because
3:51:58 that didn't make any sense to me but i
3:52:00 was very confused that okay now what i
3:52:02 have some questions and i don't know how
3:52:04 to go how to solve them and
3:52:07 at that time because
3:52:09 people around me you know they
3:52:11 looked up to science so i i used to you
3:52:13 know
3:52:15 open youtube and look up to scientific
3:52:16 videos but it didn't help me it's now
3:52:19 that i'm
3:52:21 trying to you know you know
3:52:23 uh hear about rational discussions about
3:52:26 the topic of god that it makes much more
3:52:28 sense to me
3:52:29 and
3:52:31 it has content in my heart
3:52:33 but the thing is that these discussions
3:52:35 are somewhat philosophical
3:52:37 like these sometimes the words that i
3:52:39 used here are a bit philosophic
3:52:42 okay
3:52:45 and i want to
3:52:48 know that
3:52:50 we are here breaking up so i started
3:52:53 learn
3:52:55 i start so my basic question is that
3:52:57 word
3:52:58 so you know a little bit then what was
3:53:00 the hello question again sorry about i
3:53:03 know you mentioned about how some of the
3:53:04 discussions were philosophical
3:53:09 yeah so my question was that where do i
3:53:11 start to understand some philosophical
3:53:13 concepts and philosophical ideas because
3:53:15 when i search on internet there are
3:53:18 there's way more material that i could
3:53:20 go through and when i search in youtube
3:53:21 there is you know material from
3:53:23 different types of people and different
3:53:25 people from different backgrounds and
3:53:26 different ideas so where should i start
3:53:28 to learn more about it
3:53:30 okay so i've just really quickly so
3:53:34 on i don't know if you come across it
3:53:35 but on thought adventure podcast we have
3:53:37 a series a course called the evidence
3:53:39 course
3:53:40 so yeah yeah
3:53:41 you can have a look at that
3:53:43 i watched half of that you know uh but
3:53:46 again like some uh i was told by someone
3:53:49 to get the book of imam sanosi
3:53:52 and they told me that it's the basic
3:53:54 ashari shari creed so i got that but
3:53:58 in there you know there are some words
3:54:00 and some
3:54:01 some passages that just gone from top of
3:54:04 my mind even to that
3:54:05 basic book like for example i didn't
3:54:08 know what the word accident and
3:54:09 substances mean
3:54:11 i had to go through a lot of a lot of
3:54:14 text to understand okay this is what it
3:54:16 means so
3:54:19 do you know to be able to read text like
3:54:21 these i need something some some sort of
3:54:24 you know reference where i can go
3:54:26 through and understand these in these
3:54:28 basic topics
3:54:30 so why
3:54:31 caution you up on uh a little bit is
3:54:34 that some of the theological schools of
3:54:36 thought
3:54:37 they are trying to understand some of
3:54:39 the complexities in the theology yeah so
3:54:42 that they're not meant to be necessarily
3:54:45 for an average muslim
3:54:47 to read through and understand some of
3:54:49 these complexities yeah
3:54:51 uh
3:54:52 so so just be aware that there's two
3:54:55 aspects when it comes to understanding
3:54:56 belief one aspect is creating that
3:54:59 certainty and assuredness within our
3:55:02 within our iman yeah
3:55:05 and some of that requires maybe some
3:55:07 discussion around philosophy today
3:55:10 because of the way atheism is and its
3:55:12 attacks against islam so you have to go
3:55:14 into some details on these types of
3:55:16 discussions but most of it's quite you
3:55:18 know
3:55:19 simplified or it it sounds complicated
3:55:22 but when you break it down it's quite
3:55:23 simplified yeah in your own mind when
3:55:25 you break it down you realize that it's
3:55:26 not as complicated as people make it out
3:55:28 to be
3:55:29 um
3:55:30 so there's so i'm just saying that so
3:55:33 there's those types of discussions and
3:55:34 those to me are more important than some
3:55:37 of the discussions around the
3:55:39 theological type debates about
3:55:42 you know the names and attributes of
3:55:44 allah they're taking literal non-literal
3:55:47 uh you know
3:55:49 what does it mean that all this panel
3:55:50 does attributes are they identical to
3:55:53 the essence or not these types of
3:55:55 discussions although obviously we don't
3:55:57 believe in absolute divine simplicity
3:56:00 these types of discussions are secondary
3:56:03 to us yeah
3:56:04 primary is to build that base
3:56:07 and from that base you build the
3:56:09 understanding of the quran is the word
3:56:10 of allah and then you take what the
3:56:12 quran says as now your foundation of
3:56:15 your belief system yeah and how you
3:56:17 understand allah
3:56:20 and
3:56:21 if then
3:56:22 later on some things come which are
3:56:25 complicated or you want to delve in some
3:56:27 of these complexities then
3:56:30 you know you have the opportunity to
3:56:32 look at and study different schools of
3:56:34 theology yeah but i wouldn't stop uh as
3:56:38 a somebody who's young
3:56:40 uh i would start with some of the more
3:56:42 the base not basic science but more the
3:56:44 fundamental sciences like science of
3:56:46 tafsir as an example yeah or
3:56:49 tajweed or you know learning the fifth
3:56:52 yeah of how to live your life
3:56:54 uh
3:56:56 these things are more fundamental and
3:56:57 the more impactful upon a person's
3:56:59 behavior and actions then learning
3:57:01 abstract ideas around
3:57:04 occasionalism or
3:57:06 you know the different
3:57:08 you know
3:57:09 theological positions within the same
3:57:12 years a thirty and school of thought or
3:57:15 anything like that so just be careful
3:57:17 because people get into these types of
3:57:18 discussions and then they become the
3:57:21 main discussion that they have and they
3:57:23 lose the bigger picture you know when
3:57:25 i'm do when i'm discussing some of these
3:57:26 topics and
3:57:28 especially with atheists i'm not really
3:57:30 concerned with this person's going to
3:57:32 land on absolute divine simplicity or
3:57:34 not because all i want him to become is
3:57:37 away from atheism once he becomes the
3:57:39 theist yeah we can have a different
3:57:41 discussion when it comes to the
3:57:43 authority of the text from what this
3:57:44 text indicates the quran yeah and the
3:57:46 sun indicate
3:57:48 um so
3:57:49 yeah so i'll just be wary of those types
3:57:51 of things build the the core
3:57:53 understanding up and build really more
3:57:56 importantly
3:57:57 if you want to get into more of the
3:57:59 details look at what are the debates
3:58:01 today
3:58:02 the debates are not really the debates
3:58:04 of a thousand years ago
3:58:06 yeah about you know certain
3:58:09 you know debates around the nature of
3:58:12 allah is it double negative theology
3:58:14 things like that like the israelis have
3:58:16 those are not the debates today the
3:58:18 debates today are more with like you
3:58:20 said science
3:58:21 and the role of the mind and the role of
3:58:24 science and discerning truths and is it
3:58:26 absolutely the only science that can do
3:58:28 that those are more the debates the
3:58:30 topic areas that need to be studied and
3:58:32 understood more than these are the areas
3:58:35 yeah
3:58:36 i can throw out at least one work um
3:58:39 yeah a good place to start then would be
3:58:42 side nursing
3:58:44 because we're talking about the truths
3:58:46 of belief as opposed to like the deaths
3:58:49 of
3:58:50 akida
3:58:51 so
3:58:52 and brother sharif he actually does
3:58:55 go into one of the works on the
3:58:58 establishing the proof of the
3:58:59 prophethood through nurses uh one of his
3:59:02 treaties on that
3:59:03 so it's it's a comprehensive work that
3:59:05 might be a good place to start so you
3:59:07 know syed norsie was the name of the
3:59:10 author um
3:59:15 yeah
3:59:18 cool
3:59:19 yeah you've got any other questions or
3:59:21 points no no no no
3:59:23 these are my conditions that i had right
3:59:25 now no problem continue to follow
3:59:27 subscribe and share and share our work
3:59:30 and join any of the streams that we have
3:59:32 in future as well in charlotte
3:59:34 we'll check it out
3:59:35 so that's now it's not gonna come
3:59:40 all right we've got our last guest which
3:59:42 is murtaza so much as if you could uh
3:59:44 show us your face
3:59:46 in the back channel and then we'll add
3:59:48 you on cool yeah so we'll add you on to
3:59:50 the stream
3:59:52 assalamu
4:00:00 yeah yeah we can hear you perfectly good
4:00:02 i wanted to inquire about a facebook
4:00:04 post that abdulrahman made a couple
4:00:06 weeks ago um it's about um his
4:00:10 discussion on
4:00:12 can can you affirm god having two hands
4:00:15 i just wanted to ask like a question
4:00:16 about that yeah go ahead and ask a
4:00:18 question
4:00:19 um so you said you state that um
4:00:23 that the apparent meaning of yad is as
4:00:25 the taymeen understands it within
4:00:27 scripture at least in certain instances
4:00:30 is affirmed by numerous scholars across
4:00:31 the board even among the mutagen who opt
4:00:34 for reinterpretation
4:00:35 so what is that understanding because i
4:00:38 don't know what it what that is
4:00:41 well what that means is the the
4:00:44 meaning that
4:00:45 for example the ashari wants to do that
4:00:48 we love
4:00:50 you know a real yet
4:00:52 is affirmed as the
4:00:55 or the apparent in some verses that's
4:00:56 all it means as in he doesn't say that
4:00:58 that's what it is
4:01:00 that we love it
4:01:01 but it is affirmed as
4:01:03 the apparent meaning
4:01:05 in certain instances in the quran and
4:01:08 sunnah
4:01:09 that's all it means
4:01:11 so would the apparent meaning entail in
4:01:13 any sort of physicality like three
4:01:15 dimensions
4:01:16 well you see
4:01:18 see that's that's the thing
4:01:20 you see the
4:01:22 so part of what i was trying to say in
4:01:23 that post
4:01:24 is that uh uh um
4:01:27 the the person who does that wheel sees
4:01:29 this uh
4:01:31 meaning as entailing certain things that
4:01:34 are not befitting of god so he's like no
4:01:36 i have to
4:01:37 do the wheel of it and and and
4:01:40 uh uh
4:01:41 give some kind of
4:01:42 metaphorical or figurative account of
4:01:44 what the verse is trying to say and take
4:01:46 that other meaning right now um
4:01:50 the the where where the
4:01:53 common ground comes in is that both like
4:01:56 everybody agrees
4:01:57 that what is
4:01:59 not appropriate
4:02:00 or what implies any kind of deficiency
4:02:02 must be negated of god
4:02:05 and and
4:02:06 clearly tashbi
4:02:08 is
4:02:10 just unacceptable there's no compromise
4:02:11 there
4:02:12 now
4:02:13 the different the difference of opinion
4:02:15 is going to be
4:02:16 where like what are the what are the
4:02:18 standards
4:02:19 of
4:02:20 that like what's the criteria that
4:02:22 determines
4:02:23 you're doing to me
4:02:25 and this is where there's gonna be the
4:02:26 positions all the way from
4:02:28 like let's say like the the the mujasima
4:02:32 like the karamiya right all the way to
4:02:35 the bottom of this
4:02:38 everybody's accusing everybody else of
4:02:40 such team in one way or another right so
4:02:43 so the the the the let's say basically
4:02:45 the smiley supposedly is telling the um
4:02:50 or the
4:02:51 the philosopher that they're doing to
4:02:53 see by even making negations of god
4:02:55 and the same thing is being told like so
4:02:57 between the material and the jehomiah
4:02:59 right that the jehomiah would tell them
4:03:01 why are you affirming names
4:03:03 we like you know you only know
4:03:05 that that names are are are
4:03:07 are applied to create to creations or
4:03:10 some kind of tashbee
4:03:11 and then the the
4:03:13 denies that of course and then they make
4:03:14 the same accusations of that shady and
4:03:16 that's how they make the same accession
4:03:17 to that
4:03:18 now what's not now the
4:03:20 question here is
4:03:21 um
4:03:22 what is it that implies b
4:03:25 is it
4:03:26 any
4:03:27 notion of similarity any notion of
4:03:30 commonality
4:03:31 well if if that if that's what it is not
4:03:33 similarity here i i
4:03:35 you know it requires qualification so
4:03:37 don't take it too literally but the the
4:03:40 the point is if that's what implies hb
4:03:42 then you have to you can only equivocate
4:03:45 when you're predicate of god what
4:03:46 equivocation means is that you use a
4:03:49 term
4:03:51 but it's that that term is
4:03:53 it's it just has a completely different
4:03:55 meaning
4:03:56 than the way we use it right
4:03:58 so uh
4:03:59 basically you say
4:04:02 let's go has knowledge
4:04:04 but then
4:04:06 the meaning of knowledge that applies to
4:04:08 god is just completely unlike any
4:04:10 meaning that applies to create creation
4:04:12 and you can just do that with everything
4:04:13 you predicate of god right
4:04:15 now if if that's the case then really
4:04:18 you're not really saying anything about
4:04:19 god because those words just become
4:04:21 completely meaningless as far as we're
4:04:23 concerned
4:04:24 and there's no notion of like you know
4:04:26 there's there's no way to
4:04:28 uh predicate anything of him
4:04:29 intelligibly right
4:04:31 uh now uh so so you're saying you're
4:04:33 talking about tamiya in position now
4:04:34 netanyahu says well there's it's
4:04:36 impossible for
4:04:38 any two
4:04:39 existence
4:04:41 any two realities to not have anything
4:04:44 in common
4:04:45 at least
4:04:47 they both exist
4:04:48 is true
4:04:50 right and and
4:04:53 to say to say that there's touch b of
4:04:55 course relies on several metaphysical
4:04:58 commitments that
4:04:59 can be discussed i mean i wouldn't
4:05:01 accept them but
4:05:03 there's there's uh um some assumptions
4:05:05 of let's say like realism of properties
4:05:08 and you know that there are actual
4:05:09 shared properties
4:05:11 and and uh
4:05:13 other things that don't really need to
4:05:14 be accepted and what
4:05:16 don't really need to be accepted
4:05:17 according to hypnotamia what national
4:05:19 says is that you know the way to go
4:05:22 about this is really analogical
4:05:23 predication because these things that we
4:05:25 do
4:05:26 attribute even of creation right
4:05:29 nothing is applied
4:05:31 in a sense that you know is univocal
4:05:33 between completely different categories
4:05:36 it's just stated by an analogy in the
4:05:38 sense that there's some notion
4:05:40 of similarity
4:05:42 that accounts for
4:05:45 our ability to predicate the same term
4:05:47 to different realities but then in terms
4:05:50 of the um
4:05:51 cafe
4:05:53 like what what that implies and what it
4:05:55 entails
4:05:56 uh that's that's not going to uh be
4:05:59 something that that that uh
4:06:01 is shared between different levels of
4:06:03 reality it can be shared between like
4:06:05 humans we say i'm a human you're a human
4:06:07 there's clearly something that's
4:06:09 shared there but of course for a
4:06:11 conceptual it's like epithelia that's
4:06:12 going to be like a concept that's shared
4:06:14 right
4:06:15 now
4:06:16 um
4:06:16 just to cut it a bit short yeah
4:06:18 nathaniel was somewhat of a nominalist
4:06:20 or conceptualist
4:06:22 you could say moderate nominalist
4:06:24 and and uh the the idea is the same the
4:06:28 the samia utilizes this principle just
4:06:30 across the board so it's he simply says
4:06:32 that look guys if we're doing this then
4:06:34 then then what's really going to judge
4:06:36 since we're predicating things of allah
4:06:39 and you use it you create knowledge of
4:06:41 god
4:06:42 and somebody can come to you and say
4:06:43 well and then they do like other schools
4:06:45 and say well look knowledge implies such
4:06:47 and such such and such and that's not
4:06:49 appropriate to predict of god and you
4:06:50 say no
4:06:51 the knowledge that i predict of god is
4:06:53 not something that entails those things
4:06:55 it is knowledge that befits his majesty
4:06:58 even if that's completely inconceivable
4:06:59 in the sense that you can only think of
4:07:01 knowledge in a certain way right so so
4:07:03 let's say let's say that you define
4:07:05 knowledge as access to some kind of
4:07:06 knowables or the
4:07:09 etheree or the team you would say that
4:07:10 uh yet is
4:07:12 uh that which you know uh
4:07:14 grasps or has the capacity to grasp
4:07:17 now here these two meanings they can be
4:07:20 predicated and we can just stop there
4:07:21 but no you're going to dig for deeper
4:07:23 layers and once you do you're going to
4:07:24 realize that even in knowledge
4:07:26 you're going to deny any kind of kaifiya
4:07:28 that is associated with our experience
4:07:31 of what knowledge is
4:07:32 and then you read the post i think and
4:07:34 it goes further into like even the way
4:07:36 muslims across the board not necessarily
4:07:39 across the board but like
4:07:40 at least sunnis uh the the way they see
4:07:43 the pleasures of jannah and how
4:07:45 they utilize this this principle of
4:07:47 analogical product predication and that
4:07:49 and how they know
4:07:50 about things in general with with uh uh
4:07:53 by by calling them specific names
4:07:56 not in an equivocal fashion but in an
4:07:58 analogical fashion by
4:08:00 while at the same time denying any
4:08:02 knowledge of kafir like like you
4:08:04 couldn't give me like the definition
4:08:06 that's
4:08:07 universally applicable to let's say an
4:08:09 apple
4:08:10 that is in dunya and in jannah you
4:08:11 couldn't do that because whatever
4:08:13 we we must affirm
4:08:16 our ignorance of the kaifiya
4:08:18 the hadith
4:08:19 you know what no
4:08:21 eye has seen no ear has heard and
4:08:24 hasn't crossed the mind uh of men it's
4:08:27 it's just hasn't been conceived of
4:08:29 so so this that's generally the idea
4:08:32 and and
4:08:33 and of course there's a lot of back and
4:08:35 forth that can go with that
4:08:38 so the question i have is how do you
4:08:40 know when you're
4:08:42 or how do you know if you're equivocally
4:08:44 predicating or you're analogically
4:08:45 predicating so here's an example so
4:08:47 allah has hands right
4:08:49 right uh wait let's give an example
4:08:52 uh example doesn't come to my mind but
4:08:53 if you say hand is being interpreted as
4:08:55 power in some context right how would
4:08:57 you know if that's really a
4:09:00 like equival um universal if it's
4:09:02 analogical if it if if hands are being
4:09:04 used as a tool as such and you could say
4:09:06 that could be quite the literal
4:09:08 definition
4:09:09 so would that be like an applicable
4:09:10 would that be
4:09:11 so i didn't understand what you said
4:09:13 about tool can you repeat that part
4:09:15 so if i ask you like what is what is a
4:09:17 hand
4:09:18 it's not you can't really give a clear
4:09:20 definition anyway like even in humans we
4:09:21 just have this sort of conceptual
4:09:23 understanding by looking at loads of
4:09:24 hands and just kind of like using
4:09:26 conventions to use that term so i'm
4:09:29 saying
4:09:29 the way that we use hand as like a tool
4:09:32 like
4:09:33 we do things with hands so we can
4:09:34 understand hand as a tool and then we
4:09:36 can use that as the analogy the basis
4:09:37 for the analogy between humans and gods
4:09:40 and to understand what god means by hand
4:09:42 so will that be like a fair way of
4:09:43 understanding things
4:09:45 in your opinion yeah i mean
4:09:47 provided you're denying any kind of
4:09:49 knowledge of kaifi yeah right
4:09:51 right
4:09:52 so so you have you you have not you have
4:09:54 this knowledge of what
4:09:56 hands are
4:09:58 right but you you clearly
4:10:01 wouldn't
4:10:03 say that god's attribute of yet
4:10:06 is anything like
4:10:07 the human attribute of yet in the same
4:10:10 way you can do that with other and and
4:10:13 there's a good paper called um
4:10:16 i forgot what it's called but it's by
4:10:18 daniel bonovac but it's about theories
4:10:20 of analogical predication and he talks
4:10:22 about how we do this even in science i
4:10:23 mean you can't you can't get
4:10:26 you can't get rid of analogical
4:10:29 propagation of pertication altogether
4:10:31 because you basically we have this
4:10:33 ability to
4:10:34 predicate
4:10:36 uh things of specific objects in an
4:10:40 analogical way
4:10:41 that we we we um
4:10:44 we just you know we don't necessarily
4:10:46 have like a metaphysical account of how
4:10:48 we do that like if you look at the
4:10:50 what weigenstein and what he thought
4:10:52 what he says about games right right so
4:10:54 so like we look at all these games
4:10:56 this is a game that's a game that's a
4:10:58 game now give me some universal
4:11:00 definition
4:11:02 that would be applicable to what a game
4:11:04 is and you couldn't do that because i
4:11:06 mean every
4:11:07 sort of definition you try to give
4:11:09 that's universally applicable you're
4:11:10 going to find an exception to that it
4:11:11 has to be multiplayer no they're they're
4:11:13 pl
4:11:14 they're games with like a single player
4:11:17 has to be competitive no they're games
4:11:19 that are not competitive whatever you
4:11:20 give there's going to be exception and
4:11:21 then he's like look we have this ability
4:11:23 just look at these things
4:11:25 and call them all games and we you don't
4:11:28 need that you know that one thing that's
4:11:31 in common between all these things now
4:11:33 that's a rough example but in the same
4:11:35 way
4:11:37 it can be applied to what i'm saying
4:11:38 here as in
4:11:40 so so including what you think is like
4:11:42 an entailment of affirming the attribute
4:11:44 right
4:11:45 so
4:11:47 whatever you think about the entailments
4:11:48 i mean it's really going to be the same
4:11:49 thing if not then like like why doesn't
4:11:51 it apply to the other attributes that's
4:11:53 a question like i really haven't seen a
4:11:55 convincing answer to it might be out
4:11:57 there i mean like since i put that post
4:11:59 out nobody has really given me a
4:12:01 convincing answer of how we do it in
4:12:03 those other attributes then right
4:12:05 it's sort of just
4:12:06 like no that's a different one
4:12:08 how's it different
4:12:10 so for example you bring mercy and you
4:12:12 say that whatever someone says about
4:12:14 hands you can make a similar counter
4:12:15 argument using mercy
4:12:17 but it feels like any attribute
4:12:19 regarding consciousness so knowledge
4:12:22 seeing hearing i can easily be
4:12:25 analogically predicated because well
4:12:27 especially if you're like a journalist
4:12:28 or an idealist there's already this
4:12:31 non-physical
4:12:32 um sort of substratum to the to the
4:12:34 thing anyway so we're not making there's
4:12:36 not like um so you don't have a problem
4:12:39 that so it could go so so our knowledge
4:12:42 the way we have knowledge is similar is
4:12:44 right so we have knowledge and a saint
4:12:45 in this is sort of the same way
4:12:47 right you could apply that meaning to
4:12:48 god universally too so god has knowledge
4:12:51 in the same way you don't have a problem
4:12:52 with that simply because it's a meaning
4:12:54 is that yeah is that what you're saying
4:12:55 i don't have a problem with that yeah
4:12:56 i'll be okay with that
4:12:58 so you so but then so how is that not
4:13:00 touch be then i mean how how are you not
4:13:02 how are you not saying that
4:13:05 uh how is you saying that god's
4:13:07 knowledge
4:13:08 is the same in terms of its mortality in
4:13:10 the in terms of its cafe in terms of
4:13:13 access to that which is noble it's the
4:13:15 same as human knowledge
4:13:17 not yet fully the same like for example
4:13:19 if you ask me like 79 times 50 take me
4:13:22 like
4:13:23 five 15 seconds to figure that out
4:13:25 whereas god just has like immediate
4:13:26 knowledge so it's not exactly the same
4:13:28 but i'm saying it's similar enough to
4:13:30 like
4:13:31 so it's similar enough okay so so you
4:13:33 affirm your firm similarity right
4:13:36 yeah so what okay so what's the problem
4:13:38 you have with the with the with the
4:13:40 effort
4:13:41 yeah because when it comes to like more
4:13:43 physical known attributes like hands
4:13:45 legs even laughter no but about physical
4:13:48 i'm gonna say it's not the same as well
4:13:49 so you're saying there's some notion of
4:13:50 sameness but i'm just not gonna say it's
4:13:52 the same thing let's assume let's assume
4:13:54 there's physicality that's entailed of
4:13:55 course i'm not granting you that but
4:13:56 then it's assuming that's the case i'm
4:13:58 just going to say the same thing you're
4:13:59 saying right now so there's some notion
4:14:01 of similarity you're just talking about
4:14:03 it being analogically predictable where
4:14:05 there's some notion of similarity so
4:14:07 it's not but it's not what the
4:14:08 physically understood as having three
4:14:10 dimensions that's the big thing why why
4:14:12 why why why is that an entailment i mean
4:14:14 really i mean not even even like even
4:14:16 according to like the sciences and
4:14:18 physicists these days they nobody would
4:14:20 be so confident and talking about uh
4:14:22 space like that eliza so for for let's
4:14:25 say for the ethere who says that
4:14:27 uh or the the same is that
4:14:30 everything that exists can be pointed at
4:14:32 either directly or indirectly right
4:14:34 allah would be like unidirectional i
4:14:36 mean right so it's like god is not bound
4:14:39 by any kind of space right now we you
4:14:41 can't conceive of that so you see when i
4:14:43 say that you're a spatial being
4:14:45 there is a mental image i have in mind
4:14:47 it's not specifically you but i know
4:14:49 what that is now can you conceive of
4:14:51 what i'm just describing about this
4:14:53 unidirectional being you can't you can't
4:14:55 conceive of it so how can you make that
4:14:57 kind of pokemon how can you make that
4:14:58 judgment
4:15:00 that it entails this kind of
4:15:01 three-dimensionality or limitation in
4:15:03 this in the way you're thinking about it
4:15:05 it's it's so it's the same way i can't
4:15:07 conceive of whatever
4:15:09 knowledge is for allah like right now
4:15:11 allah knows the discussion that we're
4:15:13 having at the same time he can hear
4:15:15 everybody else i mean i simply i just
4:15:17 can't conceive of that
4:15:19 i can describe it i just can't conceive
4:15:20 of it now um
4:15:22 but i can still call it call it
4:15:24 knowledge right
4:15:25 now atheists sometimes they're atheist
4:15:27 philosophers i've seen who who make
4:15:29 arguments against this and say look you
4:15:30 have this conception of knowledge about
4:15:31 god that's really weird and i've seen
4:15:33 i've heard alex malpass tell somebody
4:15:35 well that's not knowledge that's
4:15:36 schmalage right he's it's this weird
4:15:39 concept that's not really knowledge but
4:15:41 then of course i don't agree with him
4:15:44 but then
4:15:45 by that same line of reasoning i mean
4:15:47 you could apply it to the timing
4:15:48 position really the same would apply i
4:15:50 don't see why
4:15:51 this this this what the idea you have of
4:15:53 physicality and spatiality if it's if
4:15:56 it's implied or entailed but yet i don't
4:15:58 see why that form or idea you have in
4:16:01 mind
4:16:03 must be the kaifiya of of of the creator
4:16:05 when we deny that of allah for all the
4:16:08 attributes
4:16:10 yeah i think i understand now
4:16:41 i i saw the number of comments i wrote
4:16:43 it in two hours
4:16:45 uh like on off but i just like said okay
4:16:48 look i've been saying i'm gonna write it
4:16:49 so i just sat there and wrote it one
4:16:51 shot yeah so hang on
4:16:53 the comments and the questions and the
4:16:55 accusations and the misinterpretations
4:16:58 afterwards
4:17:00 no i don't mean this i mean this
4:17:04 yeah yeah that's why i came to clarify
4:17:05 yeah no i'm that's good it's good yeah
4:17:08 it's a complicated subject area and uh
4:17:11 i think at the beginning abdul rahman
4:17:12 made a really nice point which and which
4:17:14 is actually echoed by imam khazali
4:17:16 because imam khazali wrote a book called
4:17:18 al faisal tafrika
4:17:20 i don't know if you come across that
4:17:21 murtaza
4:17:22 no okay he's basically uh it was a
4:17:25 response to an ashrae who was accusing
4:17:28 uh
4:17:29 the humbly the humble lights basically
4:17:32 of
4:17:32 making uh
4:17:34 uh allah like creation and basically
4:17:36 making took fear of them
4:17:38 and so he wrote this book uh as a
4:17:41 response to basically talking about
4:17:44 uh where the difference uh what what it
4:17:47 means what where the limits are within
4:17:50 islamic theology and islamic theological
4:17:52 discourse
4:17:54 and he just makes the point that
4:17:56 what
4:17:57 what happens what what the actual
4:18:01 foreign discussions is
4:18:05 is the brush is the proposition that's
4:18:07 mentioned within the quran about the
4:18:09 names and attributes of allah
4:18:12 do they require
4:18:13 a rational or is there a rational
4:18:15 indicator to indicate it away from its
4:18:18 apparent literal meaning or not yeah and
4:18:20 then he remembers his eyes basically
4:18:22 saying that look
4:18:24 they did they differ upon what the
4:18:26 rational indicator is or why
4:18:28 what it entails i mean that's the key
4:18:31 point
4:18:31 what certain things where you're
4:18:33 affirming what it would entail or not so
4:18:37 the ashiti's are accusing the humble
4:18:39 ease of saying well if you adopt this
4:18:41 this and this this entails this and what
4:18:44 imam ghazali says says that in response
4:18:46 to humbly saying we believe this this
4:18:48 and this and we believe that it does not
4:18:50 entail this
4:18:51 so the debate was never about actually
4:18:54 yes we can affirm that allah is like
4:18:56 creation or not it was a case definition
4:19:00 yeah it was well the implication
4:19:02 yeah the right the logical connection
4:19:04 yeah yeah is it is an implication is
4:19:06 there a logical necessary implication to
4:19:09 adopt a particular position
4:19:12 on things like the uh
4:19:13 yeah
4:19:15 so i think that that's where that's
4:19:17 where the um any the discussion was
4:19:20 uh but you know i
4:19:22 these are centuries-old debates and
4:19:25 um
4:19:27 yeah abdul rahman's facebook post
4:19:42 so i
4:19:43 think inshallah that's it now no more
4:19:45 guess
4:19:47 four hours 20 minutes not bad
4:19:50 yeah yeah it was it was an ice cream i
4:19:52 liked it
4:19:53 i was quite i you know what i was
4:19:56 today i was thinking we're not going to
4:19:58 get anybody coming on who's going to
4:20:00 come on for a general q a it's going to
4:20:02 be boring we're just going to be and i
4:20:04 was thinking i'm going to think of
4:20:06 questions to ask you guys
4:20:08 no there were so there were some
4:20:09 interesting questions i was i was
4:20:11 pleasantly surprised as well
4:20:13 yeah yeah
4:20:14 zach joining us was
4:20:16 the highlight of it
4:20:20 yeah
4:20:21 it was good and i don't make any
4:20:23 announcements about any
4:20:25 doing whatever uh like abdulrahman's got
4:20:28 his course that is finishing off are you
4:20:31 oh yeah i'm finishing that up okay
4:20:32 epistemology and even time here
4:20:35 yeah
4:20:36 yeah
4:20:37 that'll come sometime sometime in the in
4:20:40 the future inshallah
4:20:42 so that course means to keep you keep
4:20:44 your
4:20:45 audience members to keep your eyes out
4:20:46 for that course insha'allah that i
4:20:48 should be coming to you
4:20:50 uh
4:20:51 this side of 2022 or or the 2020s
4:20:55 hopefully hopefully hopefully
4:20:58 2022 hopefully
4:21:02 and then
4:21:05 yeah we're planning a few stuff
4:21:06 inshallah but i think we'll update
4:21:08 everybody
4:21:09 yeah
4:21:10 [Laughter]
4:21:13 okay
4:21:14 once yeah
4:21:18 it's pretty funny but yeah like us
4:21:20 because we do have a few stuff coming up
4:21:23 and uh yeah just a reminder about jake
4:21:25 he's just
4:21:26 occupied with family business today
4:21:29 that's why he didn't join but inshallah
4:21:31 he'll be joining uh future streams
4:21:34 and we might have a few um
4:21:37 interesting names i'm not gonna announce
4:21:38 it yet until i
4:21:40 uh
4:21:41 like completely
4:21:42 uh finalize it but
4:21:44 big names
4:21:45 uh
4:21:46 coming on
4:21:48 like already made contact some major uh
4:21:51 philosophers
4:21:53 you know let's just put it this way huh
4:21:55 no
4:21:56 i'm saying let's put it this way one of
4:21:58 the like
4:21:59 top philosophers of religion over the
4:22:01 past i don't know a couple of decades
4:22:02 maybe no exaggeration so that might be
4:22:04 coming up very soon
4:22:06 as well as um
4:22:08 another academic
4:22:10 you know
4:22:11 so
4:22:12 yes so it should be announced soon once
4:22:14 it's finalized inshallah
4:22:16 you know who i want to come bring back
4:22:17 on because i wasn't part of the stream
4:22:20 uh joshua rasmussen
4:22:23 oh yeah there's definitely
4:22:26 yeah i could have like a stream every
4:22:28 day with with with
4:22:30 josh like really is it isn't it yeah
4:22:32 there needs to be there needs to be a
4:22:33 part to it yeah yeah i think we need to
4:22:36 bring him back on each other let's not
4:22:37 pass as well because that was a great
4:22:38 discussion we should we should we might
4:22:40 we might plan something
4:22:42 yeah yeah maybe yeah i'll let you and
4:22:45 jake deal with that one again yeah maybe
4:22:47 i'll be sometime soon
4:22:48 yeah yeah sure
4:22:50 yeah cool
4:22:55 zach for coming on as well
4:22:57 appreciate martial long time no see
4:23:02 we'll be uh we'll see you again soon
4:23:04 inshallah uh and maybe uh
4:23:08 on another platform as well maybe we'll
4:23:11 we'll get one of those calls going again
4:23:13 inshallah i'm planning to get back on
4:23:14 facebook if you're all on it so then we
4:23:17 may start up those discussions that
4:23:19 we're having on our own
4:23:21 yeah
4:23:23 okay
4:23:24 i'm gonna go to an outro
4:23:26 hopefully ensure that this all works

Open Q and A #1 - Bring Your Questions (non Muslims preferred) (2022-09-04) ​

Description ​

Summary of Open Q and A #1 - Bring Your Questions (non Muslims preferred) ​

00:00:00 - 01:00:00 ​

01:00:00 - 02:00:00 ​

02:00:00 - 03:00:00 ​

03:00:00 - 04:00:00 ​

04:00:00 - 04:20:00 ​

Full transcript with timestamps: CLICK TO EXPAND

Open Q and A #1 - Bring Your Questions (non Muslims preferred) (2022-09-04)

Description

Summary of Open Q and A #1 - Bring Your Questions (non Muslims preferred)

00:00:00 - 01:00:00

01:00:00 - 02:00:00

02:00:00 - 03:00:00

03:00:00 - 04:00:00

04:00:00 - 04:20:00