Facing Disbelief – Introduction – Reasons for disbelief, common fallacies & sources of eman
Channel: Adnan Rajeh
Series: Adnan Rajeh - Facing Disbelief
File Size: 58.12MB
Episode Transcript ©
Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate and at times crude. We are considering building a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system. No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever.
From guerrilla hero Bill Alameen, Allahumma Salli wa Sallim wa Barik, ala sayyidina. Muhammad are early he was certainly he, as you may know, but it may not be the best place under the speaker in
may have to move a little bit forward because the speaker is because right there, let me move over here.
Okay, because going to go back a little bit
this, I started doing these seven episode series, I think, maybe five, four or five years ago. And within Ramadan, I always choose the worst time to do it within the last 10 Nights. Only because it's the time that I have all that's what I end up doing. Every year I choose a topic and I kind of go through an explanation of the of the topic and some degree of detail or lack of deep detail depending on the topic. And this, what I'm gonna talk about this year is something I was I was hoping to talk about actually a few years ago, and every year I just planted postponed it and put it off and did something different. Because talking about is a little bit it can it can be sometimes a
little bit, I say boring but
and dry. Talking about issues of Eman talking about facing the reality of disbelief in the modern context. scholars of Islam historically did this very, very well, within the context of their time, meaning the books of Chicago that we have are very well tuned to people who are living in a certain era very well. I don't find that to be the case for people who are living maybe in the last 200 years where, where a lot of change has occurred in terms of how we view faith in general or religion or Iman. And, and a lot of that comes from the amazing scientific advancements that we've made. And then the lack of kind of understanding the difference between certain disciplines of thought. And I
feel as Muslims, it's important that we have a very good grasp on that. And that you have, you have the tools that will allow you to deal with some of these arguments that you may face, whether high school level, university or even beyond that.
And what I'm going to do today is I'm gonna give you a bit of an introduction, and kind of point out in a kind of today's important because if you don't hear what I'm gonna talk about today, then honestly, the next few days, you won't understand almost anything I'll talk about because I'm gonna refer to a lot of the fallacies I'll explain to you today. And some of the basic misconceptions that exist. The sources that I use for this are a couple
there is the book by Hamza sources, which is Islam and atheism.
You know, and it says, this book, if you look it up, it's as basic book six numbers is another book by Martin risks, it's definitely worth reading. It's not it's not a book of theology, but it's definitely a book worth reading, if you want to understand how the universe works by us, book called, it's an Arabic book written by Dr. McClendon Ahmed, he's got monopoly that was a part of actually helping, I need a forum that actually helped this book be written initially, and a number of other sources and some of my own material that I've been working on for a number of years. So it's always a mix. It's a mix of all of that. I will depend heavily on some of these sources more
than others, depending on the episode or depending on the session that I'm giving you what I'm talking about, but altogether in Sharla, I'll try to paint a picture for you or give you the tools that you require Inshallah, to Allah to deal with some of these challenges that we may face. So we'll start off by I want to point out what the common reasons for disbelief. I'm not gonna use the word atheism because I think the word atheism is just a part of a of a lot of other problems, like, atheism, agnosticism, and then there's all these other subgroups and subtypes. And it's not worth going to explaining all them they don't really doesn't really matter. It's just say disbelief, if
you either you accept Allah subhanaw, Taala and believer, you don't. So what are the reasons for disbelief, and there are six main reasons.
The number one reason is simplistically bad behavior, bad behavior of those who take on faith. And this is not a problem I can fix. And I'm not that's not the point of this set at the sessions. But it is the leading problem. If you take some of it, you take the statistics, and the surveys that are put out, European Institute has a couple of them that you can actually access the number, the leading reason for people to lose their faith or for them to walk away from belief is just the bad examples that they see in front of them. And I'm not talking to anything severe. I'm just talking dishonesty, from someone who should be honest, or the lack of commitment to faith from someone who's
preaching the faith. And just a disclaimer, this session or this series is not designed for someone who doesn't believe in God at all, already made up their mind, this is not for them. If you already made up your mind, do what you want to do. This is not for you. This is for those who either believe in Allah subhanaw taala but struggle or someone who's somewhere in the middle who's kind of falling back and forth is not can't seem to figure things out and the gray zone, those who don't believe in Allah subhanaw taala through my like those were completely not even made up their mind in one direction or the other. In my experience, no matter what you talk about. It doesn't really go
anywhere. It's just a waste of time, but this is this series will offer some arguments, some thoughts, things
to reflect upon that will allow someone maybe to go back. Because really, if you've made your decision in one way or the other, if you didn't make it based on on logic or rationale, then there's really no point of view of any discussion actually occurring. But this is for those who actually are looking for something and have questions and, and actually want to follow something that makes sense to them knowing that they're following a rationale and logic, that is sound.
That's the number one reason it's bad behavior. I can't fix that. That's not what we're going to talk about. But just to let you understand that that's the number one reason that's the leading reason of people losing their faith. It's bad behavior, it's apparent that tells us a child to do something, and they do the opposite, is an imam who stands up and explains something, just something and then they practice something different, is someone who stands in the first blank and tells people to come and pray. But then he is not honest and trustworthy when it comes to money. This is the leading problem amongst people. Is it correct? No, that's not what I'm arguing here today. I'm
not saying it's right. I'm saying if they're the leading problem, I'm not here to argue whether it's correct, no, obviously it's wrong for for someone to do that. But it is the leading problem. There are two ways to go by a problem. Either we can complain about it, or we can acknowledge that it's there and try to you know, affect it. Number two cognitive dissonance
is when cognitive dissonance means it's a very important concept you need to understand, it's when your inherited beliefs or belief that you hold on to or you have is challenged by as a fact, a truth that you didn't have before. This truth that came to you this fact this is very clear, and
undeniable, indisputable truth that came to you is going against the inherited beliefs that you carry. And that moment, you go into something called cognitive dissonance, where you believe something or you've been believing something for a long time where you've been living based on a specific Maxim for a long time. And now you're presented with something that does not fit with it. And this thing that is presenting itself is very, it's very convincing. It's a fact that you can't it's a truth is a reality that you cannot deny. So people go by different different ways by going, but people have different approaches to go to deal with this. Some people will drop their inherited
belief and take what the fact that they have. And that's what a Muslim should do. A true Muslim will always do that journalism, always follow whatever is hot, whatever it is, no matter how hard no matter how difficult it is to follow up. Other people will look for ways to maybe put them together. Sometimes there are ways to put the inherited belief that you have, and the truth that you're faced with by revising your inherited belief or understanding the truth a little bit better, and then you find out, okay, they don't actually do it, they don't actually contradict there is a way for both of them to exist together. And then there's a third way where you just ignore the truth, you just
Jonnie just you just kind of
wherever it moves, you just kind of make sure you don't look at it, don't think about it, you just put a little bit of barrier and you hold on to inherited belief, which is the act of a catheter basically, in the Quran, when Allah Subhan does referring to me because they are a guy that he is referring to someone who does that, who has reason to believe there's something obvious but you don't want to listen to it, you don't want to hear it. And that's the example is the story of Ibrahim to man up so Allah was even explained it a couple of nights ago until it before telawi.
That's number two. So bad behavior. Cognitive dissonance. Number three, is politicizing
religious texts. politicizing meaning giving an agenda, meaning using text to achieve a certain goal. This is a little bit worse than bait, bad behavior, bad behavior, just someone who who just doesn't. There's a lack of there's a bit of hypocrisy in there in how they're going by stuff they're saying one thing doing the other sees no associate Dini, which is the actual wording in Arabic at least, is basically political is taking text, and then trying to interpret it or use it in a way that serves a personal goal. Something that you want some you want people to believe a certain thing or behave in a certain way, or to join a certain group. Or you want to wait to control them. You
want to wait for them to submit to you or you want to wait for them to be loyal to you. So you use text to achieve that. There's something personal.
Anytime you use the book of Allah or the Prophet, Allah Islam has words for a personal gain, you're corrupt. Anytime you do that doesn't matter, the moment you use it for something aside from from guidance, and in helping others, then you've already entered the realm of correction. And this has happened historically for a very long time. And this is why it's an important reason for how do we study history you'll find this happened a lot has happened not only to Muslims happened to non Muslims and happened almost all throughout history where we're at political leaders will use will bring people of Islamic knowledge but a nice big a moment on their head and say this and say that
and use this piece of evidence and ignore that one never read that one never even bring that up and find another way to interpret that so it has no effect on people at all. This is a reason for people to lose belief because they can even identify that hypocrisy and it causes them to kind of step away. Number four.
Number four is the BS or the fourth reason of why people lose their faith or disbelieve in Allah subhanaw taala is volume and oppression is oppression is torture. It's horrific occurrences that that happened to people. When you when you're faced with with brutality, when you're faced with some of the worst behavior when you're faced with people being horrifically transgressed against and oppressed. Sometimes if you don't have the proper if you don't have the proper psychological stress
During the proper theological background, you can lose your faith really quickly. And this is why I put that there. And by the way, these six reasons I didn't make them up and emphasize, these are reasons that are actually need. There are a lot of agencies in the world that do that survey people, not just Muslim agencies, like non Muslim agencies and agencies in the in the Western Europe. And these are the reasons for people not to believe in God, not just in Allah subhanaw taala for all faiths, and this specific reason that I'm sharing with you skyrocketed this fourth reason, after after 2010
in the Middle East, after the what was called the Arab Spring. This this reason became wasn't wasn't on the it wasn't on the map, and it became it went right up, because people saw an amount of oppression, and torture and killing and, and just brutality amongst human beings, that it caused them to lose their faith because they had they had, they weren't prepared for what was going to come even though historically, it has always been a part of the world, nature is very brutal, nature itself is extremely, it's animalistic. That's why we call them animals, because that's how they behave. That's how the nature works. And human beings, when they lose their ethics, they will, they
will just basically follow whatever animalistic
tendencies they have in them, and they'll behave that way. So it's actually the fourth reason. The fifth reason is ISIS and all of its sisters and brothers, all those who are similar to it is this is not a phenomenon that exists on its own. It exists, it has existed for a long time, it started with the holidays back in the times I saved that eliminated him. And it may continuously existed where people go, they hijack Islamic or rigid religious texts. And then we can say, well, that's the same thing as politicize, you know. So when they politicize the text, they're just trying to explain, they're trying to change the mentality trying to get you to believe something that is not accurate
from Islamic perspective, Dinesh or ISIS, they just start killing people. It's not bad behavior. Bad behavior was simple bad behavior is just someone who's not you know, showing a bit of hypocrisy, someone who's saying something, do something different, someone who's making it difficult for you to to accept what they teach you. But ISIS is a group of people that are that will go and take religious text, the pieces that really matter to them, and then they will use it to actually start chopping heads off and killing people in the hundreds and the 1000s. And definitely, as a phenomenon. They are one of the leading reasons for people to lose their face and I and the last
two, I've witnessed myself like the last two I saw, I saw with my own eyes, I watched people walk away because of certain things that occurred in the sixth and final one are specific mentalities, specific ways of thought, I'm going to have to unpack that one a little bit. So number six, I'm going to I'm gonna give you four ways of thought that will lead to disbelief. Again, I'm telling you about the reasons why people disbelieve, I'm not saying that they're right. I'm not defending them. This is what they are. When bad behavior and the name of religion happens. People tend to disbelieve, when there's cognitive dissonance when you're faced with the truth and your inherited
belief does not fit it, you lose your faith, you understand what I'm trying to say this is these are the reasons why people will lose, it will lose their faith, when you use religious text, or an agenda. And people pick up on the fact that you're doing it for a personal reason, they lose their faith, when when horrific oppression and horrific torture happens in front of you, you lose your faith. These are just reasons that happened. I'm not defending them. But that's what happens. And we'll talk about that we'll unpack them slowly throughout the series and show them but the sixth reason which is certainly mentalities
are ways of thought. There's four ways of thought specific, there's a lot of ways but these four personality traits are very important because they, I see them a lot in our, in our Muslim community. And I'm always worried about a person who shows one of these four ways of thought. So number one, those are mechanistic. Me, the only the only see things through mechanisms mean I like they call it some philosophers call it the denial of the intuition. So there's an intuitive mind, and then there is the materialistic mind, that is going to only see things through formulas and numbers. But then there's the there's intuition. If you only see things through materialistic
measures, that's all the only way you can understand anything, the only way you'll acknowledge anything to be real, then there's a lot of boat life that you're not, you can't see, and you can't feel you can experience. And people and those who have that way of thought, they don't only disbelieve in God, they end up having a lot of problems with their relationships. Because when it comes to emotion, and feelings and love, and thoughts, they don't, they can't really, they're not good at really identifying with that they end up losing their connection to it. And the funny thing is that the scientific method, which is what people who are very mechanistic in the way they think
they hide behind the scientific method. The funny thing about the scientific method is that the scientific method, most of it is based on intuition, all of research, not some of it. All of research is based on intuition. You have to have a hypothesis ever heard of that? You have to have? What's the hypothesis is intuition. I think this will affect that. Why? I don't know I'm going to try and do a trial to see if it's true or not, but it's based on intuition, every major invention in history. And there's not just a medicine within my field, but in every other
discipline was based on intuition. It was something that the person, your subconsciousness is really good at absorbing everything and then giving you a hunch. It's a hunch. It's a feeling this, this probably these two things work. You can't prove it yet. But later you try and you go, but you wouldn't. How would you go by actually putting these two things together? How would you go by actually figuring out that insulin can? What would that the scientific method does not give you an approach to how to do it, the scientific method tells you how you're going to actually properly measure it, you're going to take, you're going to take someone who has diabetes and and try insulin,
and you're gonna see if it's actually going to work, that scientific method teaches you how to do that. But where do you come up with the hypothesis that that may even work?
Science doesn't give you that science doesn't have that tool is the intuitions to human intuition that allows us so anyone who kind of completely denies that piece in life, they don't end up denying it everywhere. They only deny it regarding God, but but it leads to at HUD, it leads to a certain degree of disbelief. That's the first one. Number two
is the problem of metaphor. Blindness is what they call it. An Arabic Alfia is where you can only understand things that literally nothing, there's no metaphor in your life, there's no figure of speech, and anything that is being said. And whenever a figure of speech is given and make it doesn't make any sense to the person listening to it, metaphor, blindness is definitely one of the mentalities that will lead to disbelief. And historically, in Islam, there has always been a bit of a debate on this, the majority of scholars obviously believe in something called Majelis, which is metaphors or figure of speeches, figures of speech. But there are a group of Muslims who stopped
doing that. And it
dealt with the VA, he was the the first person to come up with this, and later on his students even has nobody who didn't do it fully. But did maybe 60% of it started, they came up with this hypothesis are saying that, that no, the Quran is only literal, there is no there is no metaphor at all. And I'll give you an example of how far that can go and how crazy that will sound to you. The Hadith of the Prophet alayhi salatu was talking about marriage for the for in order for it to be married.
Follow Israel decree some to her. That's the Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim and others. And the permission that a virgin young lady will give for marriage is when she when she, when she's bashful, and she's quiet, she doesn't say anything, right? That they took this literally to the point where if she said, I accept, it doesn't account.
If you said I accept, no, she asked me quite an order, because it's literal. And you're saying, that's insane. Like you're using me that you're laughing? This is so stupid, yes. But literal mind will fail to be able to understand the metaphor. And what he said earlier, you saw to say that sometimes she'll be bashful. She won't want to see to her father in her face. Yes, I want for them, you'll find out a little bit too difficult, social, social, just kind of be quiet. And it'll be understood that she's accepting this. He's not saying because she doesn't want it. She'll say no. So the Prophet Allah Islam, metaphorically is explaining something. And then you understand it
literally. If she says, yes, yeah, Bob, I want him then that means no, because you didn't, you weren't quiet at the time. No one accepts that. But not no one. There are people who do think in that manner. So metaphor, a blindness is a reason it's a it's a mentality, it's a way of thought that can lead to lack of disbelief. Number three, that everything or nothing problem, they call it.
Uncertainty avoidance, this is what the again, these are, these are philosophical terms. If you go study, you can Google all these terms I'm giving you and you'll find like Wikipedia pages that will explain them in detail. Or if not Wikipedia pages, you'll find philosophical space, we'll talk about these things, and uncertainty avoidance, alright, this is a big problem. I see this all the time. I see this with people who, sorry, it's been something in my tongue since I got in here.
That's not gonna make it any better.
It's no you can't do to feather of some sorts, something's
here or something.
And uncertainty avoidance is when it's when you can't accept that not everything is 100%. Clear. And Muslims who have that problem, I watched them, I watched them enter Islam, and I watched them become radicalized. And I watched them follow three or four different very specific types of thought, ways of thought that, and then I watched them leave Islam altogether. Because when you cannot accept that some things do not have full certainty, you can't deal with life. In Islam, there's a lot of things that do have full certainty. And then we have a lot of stuff that that are probabilistic, that I just have a lot high probabilities of low probabilities. This happens to me in the cancer world all
the time. When patients come in, and I don't have certainty, I can't tell them. If they're 100% going to be cured of this, they can't wrap their heads around it, they get upset, they get physically upset, they become combative, and they don't want you anymore as if you want someone else because you explain to them that the prognosis of this of your disease is this much percent, and the chance of this working is wrong. 75% And if we do this, then it'll become 85%. It looks like you know, when you're talking about, either I'm going to be cured or not. No, I don't have that. Like I don't I can't say I can't say for sure. And that's not acceptable, and that and that and that
We have thought either everything or nothing. If you take that and you apply it to faith or to religion, or to science or to anything, it can cause a lot of problems just have faith, the science will just cause you to fight with scientists and doctors and hate them and then become an anti Vaxxer or something like that. But for for a Muslim, it causes you to leave Islam altogether. Because because there are things in the deen that are designed not to be certain to be to have some ambiguity, he that's what he wanted to point out. That's how you put it there. But some people don't accept that. Not all pieces of evidence have 100% authenticity, people who don't understand that
will either say the Hadith, I mean, it's equal to the Quran or his wife, and it needs to be thrown away. And they don't know how to deal with anything in between which most most pieces of evidence outside of the Quran are like that there's somewhere in between. So they need a mind that is capable of seeing the gray area to see something that is percentage based, not necessarily 100%, or zero. And a lot of Muslims today, that's how they're, you know, they see the car thing that I think goes this way or that way, there's nothing in the middle. No, you have to have that ability to come somewhere in the fourth mentality way or thought process is called the Nirvana fallacy, or the
perfect or the ideal catalog, different names. And I'm using it here known as a fallacy, because it's actually a way of thought is where,
sorry, I'll give you example of where this actually becomes a problem. So those who say God is merciful.
So he, they have to see acts of mercy all times, in all across the board for everything. And if one act of one out is not merciful than then they don't believe in God anymore. The problem with that is that who told you who told you that Allah subhanaw taala is going to show is going to be showing compassion at every single moment, and who said that the standard of compassion is something that you get to put, Who allowed you to say this is the standard of compassion, he has to meet the standard, this is the ideal standard that I believe is correct. So God has either meet this standard, or I don't believe in Him. And that is basically the Nirvana problem or fallacy where
where you set the standard, you set the expectation, and if the God that you're being told to believe in does not meet that expectation, you refuse the god, well, that's not a problem of Allah subhanaw taala, the problem of your expectations, who, who, who gave you the right to make these expectations, who gave you the right to make the definitions to begin with. So that's the Nirvana fallacy and happens a lot as well. Probably the Everything or Nothing is more common amongst Muslims. But this is also common amongst Muslims, unfortunately, where they, where they set an expectation of God. And if and if Allah does not meet their expectation, then they don't want to
believe in Allah subhanaw taala anymore. And that's very, very, very dangerous. So those are the four ways of thought. So just know that know them, just so you can think about them. People who understand things only literally, they have, they have metaphor, blindness, they're not able to see anything else. Those who are mechanistic, they can only see things through a materialistic, they don't believe in the intuitive mind at all. Those who either all in or all out, they call that the uncertainty avoidance way of thought, and then the Nirvana fallacy. These ways of thought are problematic. They do lead commonly to people leaving the faith. And this is again, this is this is
data that I'm pulling from different data sources. It's not just Islamic, this is something that happens outside of Islam.
So it's important for you to kind of watch out for personality traits in yourself, if you like that kind of figured out why.
So those are the six major reasons for why people leave, disbelieve in Allah subhanaw taala, we're gonna unpack all of them by talking about how to actually gain belief in Allah subhanaw taala appropriately, but knowing them upfront is just for you to have a little bit of a map. The other thing I need you to know today are eight common fallacies. You know, what a fallacy is? It's a trick. It's a logical trick that is used to fool someone to think something is correct when it isn't. It it's called a fallacy for a reason. And this is this is an all of these fallacies, by the way are not built by Islamic scholars, even though there are parallels within Islamic literature for
them, but I'm not going to pull them from that I'm going to pull them actually just from from, from modern day philosophy, there's a lot of fallacies, but I'm going to point out eight of them that are going to be important for us, they're gonna affect they're gonna affect a lot of these discussions that we're going to have we're going to have over the next few days. So the number one fallacy is something called the argumentum ad hominem. And this means when you're arguing something, instead of arguing the point, the argue the person. This is done by both non disbelievers and believers, and it's mostly seen in politics. Someone's bringing a point, instead of arguing the point will argue
the person will say that this person is this this person is that and we start pointing out the flaws of character of the person who's making the argument instead of actually listening to the argument. And that happens a lot. That's a big problem. For example, I'll give I'll give you
an example of that.
Someone a scholar who's making a very good argument about something it makes a lot of sense, but then they go into his past and they found out one point he said this or he behaved like that, where he had a second marriage and then he divorced the wife or something then we what we do we discredit everything. That's
person ever said, or we find that at some point politically he was well on this side and not on the right side, we discredit the point he made based on his character, which is a fallacy. That's not philosophically that's not acceptable. Forget about being haram or No, no, I mean, this is understand from a logical perspective, logically, that's not okay. You don't have to like the person, the person can be a complete garbage can. But the point they're making is worthy of making that we have to argue the points. So that's the first one ad hominem they call that number two,
the straw man fallacy. straw man fallacy, which I'm going to give a look a big example for it tomorrow, maybe today if I have time. But the straw man fallacy is where you don't want to argue the other person's point you're going to make you're going to explain his point in a flawed way, and then argue the flaws in the way that you've explained his point. So instead of actually arguing with Islam, the way I'm going to do with Islam, no, you're going to paint a flawed, horrible picture of Islam. And then you're gonna point you're gonna poke hole poke holes, and in the actual painting that you've made, instead of actually saying, what, what is it? What is Islam, here's what it's not
is and then point and poke points at that, or poke holes into that or argue the points within Islam? No, that's too difficult. Let's just paint a flawed Miss conceptual Miss Miss conceptual picture of Islam. And then we can point it, we can point out flaws, because we put the flaws in there. So it's easy for us to point them out. It's not a problem anymore. And that is one of the most common policies by far, not only used against Islam, but used by Muslims as well. This is, every follow up fallacy I'm going to give you goes both ways. Not religious people use it and religious people use it to, like, we are just as bad if we use these fallacies all the time to argue against certain
points that are being made. If an atheist is standing and making a point. You go back and look at it. Look how many relationships he has six children outside of marriage, he's a he's been he was a dragon for this life. What does that have to do with the point he's making? I understand he had a, you know, made some bad choices. But how does that affect the actual point, and people don't a lot of people understand it's a, it's a very use, you know, that part of ours is very problematic. The straw man fallacy is where we don't want to actually see something for the way it is, we want to make our own understanding of it. Let's make up our own story of it. And then we'll poke holes on
that story. And people will be very happy might sit here and tell you let me talk to you about the problems of faith X. And I'm not I don't know much about this faith. But I'll paint a picture, a picture that is filled with flaws to the point where I don't even need to point out the flaws. You're already picking up as I tell you about the faith. But the problem is that this picture I painted is not the truthful representation of that faith. That's called the straw man fallacy. Remember that because it's gonna come up a lot with us, it's going to come up time and time again, where a lot of the problems that we have with believing in Allah subhanaw taala in history, and it
comes from the straw man fallacy where someone is just painting or building a picture that is not the right is not true. It's not true. Of course, you're gonna find 100 flaws because it's not true. It's very simple. Number three, the red herring fallacy or fallacy, red herring, it's a type of a fissure and all it means I don't care. I don't care about where it came from. Just know what it is because it's important red herring fallacy is when we're arguing a point. And instead of arguing the point, we do a destruction. Something is trying to Red Herring is a red fish. So you're like you're looking at the fish because it's red. And then you forget what you're actually looking at to begin
with. So it's when we distract an argument with something different. So I'm starting talking to you about why Allah subhanaw taala is a fact of the universe and we're talking about the importance of Allah has nothing to do like, Well, why did the Prophet marry it when she was young? What does that have to do with this? Has nothing to do but this is a good distractor Oh, yeah. Why didn't Why do you have all these wives? Yeah, well, what does that have to do with the existence of God? Nothing has nothing to do with it. But it's a good distractor is very powerful. It will make everyone yeah, I forgot about that. Yeah. Why is that and then you come in, you ask the question, and then we've
lost track of what we're doing anymore. And
that's why I hate when I have to have these conversations. When someone says, Oh, my son or my daughter needs to talk to you. They're losing their faith. I'm like, God, it's only 15 minutes. I'm like, No, it's like 15 hours. It's not 15 minutes. I'm not doing it from above, because not 15 minutes, it's not 15 minutes, I know what this is, it's going to be it's going to be I'm going to be running around. Like it's like a circus, like don't run around. Because to get the person just to focus on one thing. Look, you're not believe in God, okay? We'll talk about that. Don't Don't, don't bring me other stuff. Because that's not good. That's not that's not relevant to the argument. But
every time they lose the argument, or they feel they're losing luggage, it's called the Red Herring fallacy. Herring fallacy is very important. Number four, I hope you remember all of them, because they're important is called the Argumentum. ad populum, which is the opposite or different than the ad hominem. The ad populum is when you state something to be true, just because a lot of people agreed to it. Just because a lot of common people agreed to it and it must be true. Meaning you draw the strength of your argument, not through the logic of your argument, but through numbers. There's a lot of people who agree in something and that's never been the case. Islamic Lee we don't believe
that ever, like it's not a part of our deen.
Obviously, it goes against all revolutionary movements. So historically, but it's very well used. And it's an IT and
is a very powerful tool. If you say, look, the number of people who believe in something, as Muslims are strength isn't God, there's 2 billion Muslims, nothing to do with that. Because they're facing say, Oh, we have two and a half billion. Does that make us more correct? What about the Prophet alayhi salam had barely had a couple of people at the fit for 13 years. And I mean that it makes them less correct. No. So numbers don't matter here. But it's a very common fallacy that is going to be based on numbers. The opposite of that is called the snob approach fallacy. Where they flipped it the table is flipped in terms of the fallacy itself saying no, no, it's correct. Because only a
specific a small number,
agree with this, or it's only a small number, believe in it. That's why it must be correct. Muslims do this more than non Muslims. Muslims do this by saying they use a hadith like that as if atonement Almighty Allah Hey, you know that there will always be a small group of Muslims that will stand by. So they'll say, Well, I'm a part of a small group. So first, I must be correct. Because all the rest of the Muslims don't stand by this group. So they must be. And then the other people are like, Well, you're a part of a small group, we're a part of the big group to work correct. So each group is claiming being correct just based on numbers. One is saying because that's not approach, the small
group, they must be right, or a small group of scientists all believe this, that must be the right thing, because there's a small group of them, and everyone else is corrupt, and everyone else's is brainwashed. And these are the people who know it. These are not appropriate ways to argue logical points. Logical points aren't argued through these fallacies. They're argued through logic through rationale, which is what we're going to try to do and Joe are going to do Inshallah, tada. Definitely not through a fallacy. But these two fallacies are the opposite. But they're very important because they happen all the time. And we tend to find comfort in them. We tend to find
comfort and other large numbers or small numbers, as peoples who people who adhere to these fallacies in their mind end up actually losing their faith, once they are outnumbered. And right, people who just go by numbers will lose their faith. If they're sitting in there. If they're striking minority, they'll end up losing their faith, or vice versa. People who don't like to be a part of the bigger group, they don't like being part of a group that's big, they want to be part of a very elite snob group. So they look for that. And they like, oh, you believe in that? Do they lose interest in that belief, they want to find something that is very elite. And so these are problems
that actually exist in the mentality of people.
But how many have done those 3456. So there's a six, you have two more or three more actually, those five. So the one is appealing to emotion, the appealing to emotion fallacy. We do this more than non Muslims by far like believers with this more than displeased by far, where you're talking to someone instead of arguing the points of belief in Allah subhanaw taala. You tell them what about no. And what about gender and you start emotionally, this actually backfires. Someone who's logical will will will immediately be repelled by that argument, if they're trying to argue a logical point. And you start to insert emotion into your arguments, and you stop actually arguing the point logically
and rationally. You insert emotion you repel them, they start they because that is a sign of a weak argument. An argument that requires a loud voice, or requires appealing to emotion is an argument that does not have a lot of merits an argument that makes sense that a sound does not require any of that it will generate later on emotion. Totally. A sound argument will later generate genuine emotion. But you can't build an argument based on emotion. So appealing to motion is one of the mistakes that many Muslim speakers have been making for the last 150 years.
I tend to avoid it on the member, it's not hard to stand and recite the verses that are going to make people cry, not very difficult, it's actually very easy. And the majority of people will love it. And you'll become very famous and very popular very quickly. Because you just appeal to the right feelings that people have, whether it's love or fear or whatever it may be. But you don't build your build a sound foundation of faith by doing that, because my emotion can be swayed when they swayed this way, or they will be swayed that way. And I grew up in a in an environment where that was what was happening and never, never, never made sense to me never liked it. Because the
artificial aspect of it was too clear was too obvious. Because there was a weakness in the foundation of belief. So we're just going to ignore that and just going to make people emotional about things, tell them stories that will fill them with either pride or fill them with
motivation because of someone who said this or did that. And that doesn't last very long. It can work for a while doesn't last very long. Appealing to motion is very, very, very dangerous fallacy that we are very guilty of committing to the point after that. It's called the historians fallacy. The historian fallacy is where we hold historic
figures or historic people to standards that we just came up with now.
This is a big, big one. So I'll give you example of it.
Poverty of slavery, slavery. Slavery is not a good thing. Obviously, no one's disagreeing that even back then didn't disagree with that. But there was a system back in the day that allowed it to exist in a system that where people own enslaved own slaves.
is especially in Arabia, by the way, slaves weren't of a specific race or color. in Arabia, slaves were everybody. Arabs were enslaved Romans were enslaved everyone is the same, it was like an open source for everybody. Everyone could be enslaved. And so when I look back at the historic events or historical figures that existed 1000 or 2000 years ago, and I judged them based on how we see slavery today, that's a fallacy because not fair, because they didn't have the same context that we have. Nor do we have the same context that they had, maybe we don't understand what it means to live in a specific time and a specific place we don't understand. So we can't hold them to our standard,
just like, they can't hold us to their standards. And to give you something, it can make you think a little bit 500 years from now, 500 years from now, if you're if humanity doesn't kill itself, and we still didn't fly this planet completely, we will look back, people will look back at our generation, and say they drove cars,
drove cars, they put fuel, and then they burned fuel and sent it into the into the completely fry the ozone layer. And that's why we can't get out of our houses anymore. And they'll look at us as evil as idiots as existed. But that's not fair. That's not fair. Maybe we're wrong. We could easily say, Yeah, I'm probably wrong. Like, we probably shouldn't be burning all this, this coal, we can agree to that. But are we evil for doing it? You're saying what I'm saying that historian fallacy is a problem. They can't judge us. Basically, they're not in the part of our context. There's so much here that they don't understand there's so many details that they can't, because they're not here,
just like we can't judge them. And that's, that's important when you look at historical eras, judging people based on standards or values or principles that you came up with, or is clear to you. Now, that wasn't clear back then. Or there was a different context to it back then is not fair. And that happens a lot and a lot of science, scientific papers, and scholars of sociology and psychology and other will use it quite often that you'll find it very well widespread in papers. And it's a it's a very, it's a very simple fallacy that you can pick up on if you just understand that it's there. And the final one, the eighth one is the complex question fallacy
is an important one, because it's going to come up a couple of times. Here's, here's what I say if I if I
You're not married, right? You're not married? So if I say yes or no answer the question, how do you beat your wife? You slap or punch her in the face? Yes or no? Yes or no? You know, you can't answer the question because you're not even married. And if you were married, you would hit your wife. So there's so many wrong things in this question like this question cannot be answered like it's not proper. So if I ask this question to a married person, or someone with a child telling me how do you discipline you beat your child? Do you throw your youth slamming into the wall? Or do you step on their foot? What you do? Yes or no? Yes or no? There's, you can answer this question. What do you
mean yes or no, I don't I don't do that at all. There's no complex question fallacy, where you make a question complex, and then you you force a type of answer, and there's no way to answer it. This happens also in religion.
Can God create a rock you can't move? Yes or no? Can you create a god? What are you doing? It's this question doesn't make any sense. You understood what the word create means. Create mean, when you create something that means it's under you, is below you is beneath you. That's what create means for you.
For you to create something that you can't control that that does not creation anymore. That's something else. That's development. Human beings, we develop stuff that can be stronger than us. We can't create no one has created anything from no human being has made nothingness to something that's never happened. So the word created very specific. So this question is by is, in his essence, not a question that can be answered. It's a philosophical fallacy. It will start philosophers have no disproves for a very long time. Like I'm talking 6000 7000 years ago, Aristotle talks about these things. Socrates talked about these things. None of this is new. This is the weird part, that
nothing nothing I've I've shared with you so far, is actually in any form or manner new, all very, very ancient and old as a part of understanding what philosophy is.
But because it's these tricks are fun. The I got you to say no, it's just, it's a fun trick. It's a fun trick, it's really easy trick, because because if you don't know the trick, you'll fall into it. You know, all of these fallacies are tricks that work, people will, will will fall to them. Just because they didn't study appropriately didn't tell you logic, logic, if you if you how many of you have taken logic in school 12345 He's not mandatory. A lot of people didn't take logic in school, which is, to me the most insane thing ever. How do you not study some degree of philosophy to understand how to actually critically think about things and how to pick up on stuff on these type
of mistakes? Because these aren't mistakes are real. The straw man fallacy fallacy happens all the time in your life, all the time.
Mothers and fathers who are divorced do it to their children all the time. They paint an ugly picture of the spouse and then they point to it and they poke holes at it. The book is like this omit was like this. They're not. But if you if they're like that, then it's easier for me to actually prove that they're not good anymore. But I'm not going to paint the actual picture of the person because then I'm going to end up not being able to show as many flaws and my argument kind of
feels it happens all the time. Like it's a part of everyday life, we do it all the time. We do it all the time friends do it to each other do demonstrate all the time. So if you learn a little bit of this, how there's and when you have debates, red herring fallacy happens all the time to when someone's losing. If they're skilled, they have in their back pocket a red herring. And once they're losing the argument, they'll throw it out, forgive me, sisters, you're really good at that. You're really good at that I've been married for 12 years, it's really good at that. And whenever you're getting cornered into arguments, you always have a secret weapon.
Always have something ready in case the arguments not gonna go your way, you'll throw that out, then I had to deal with that piece. But that had nothing to do with the point. And now we're all distracted. And now everyone's upset. And now we have to just apologize and move on. So it's a really good, it's a very good way. But it's a fallacy. It's fine in marriages, honestly, because that's what keeps people together. But it's not okay with logic and belief in God. And that stuff. It's not, it's a very unhealthy thing. Okay. With that being said, I'll say this.
Looking for God, within science is like fishing in a swimming pool. The swimming pool is really cool. It's really cool. It has all these technology stuff. It's like a Jacuzzi. It's clean water is what, but there's no fish in there. When you search for God and science, you're not going to find him. Because Allah subhanaw taala, the concept of God, and this is not just how we understand is all those who will actually take their faith seriously enough to define a deity or supreme power, as in not being something that is contained within spacetime. It can't. Because it spacetime is, is nothing but a creation. If science was to ever come up with an equation of physical proof of God,
and whatever science is proving, or whatever is on the other side of that equation, by default isn't God. If you're able to prove it scientifically, then it's not God. So those who are looking for a god in science,
not only are you never going to find God there, if you find something that you think is God, just by the fact that you found it, it's not God anymore, because it's content because science does not have reach outside of spacetime. It can't. Science is only only interested in the observable universe, it doesn't care about anything outside of that science is very, very specific. in its in its in his focus. On the other hand, philosophy is what allows us to think outside of the realms of existence that we actually are able to look at. And that's why you have to look for God in the right place, if you're looking in science. So what is it? What's the point of science offers you the signs, it
offers you the arrows, you're not going to have physical, scientific proof, you're gonna have the equations of God. I know some people don't like that, by the way, people get very offended when you hear that, but this is the truth of the matter. Honestly, walking again, that goes back to the the mentality of thought, right, that first one, where the intuitive mind doesn't exist, it has to be mechanistic. And Muslims who think that way? No, there's going to be there's proof of God is definitely No, there isn't. If there were, then whatever science is proving is not God, like it's actually it's actually a conundrum, it doesn't work. That way you cannot prove, you cannot prove
within the universe, the existence of something that doesn't exist in the universe. And that's it, there's no sense that there's no sense in that at all. But if you have a mechanistic mindset or mentality or perspective, then this is gonna be very difficult for you're going to struggle with that. If you look for Allah subhanaw taala, outside of that in philosophy, but what science does is science provides all of the signs and the arrows, meaning everything is pointing in the same direction. If you have enough elements pointing in the same direction, then you know that what it is that you believe in is is the correct thing. And that and that's what that's why the Quran doesn't
talk about proof of God, it talks about yet. I mean, signs, there's a difference between the two things. The Quran is very, very, very accurate and precise with the wording that uses when it talks about stuff talks about yet, it will be many, and we'll talk about then we'll explain how that works for you. And the sources of faith. There are four major sources of faith, which will we'll be unpacking over the next six days. And kind of going through all of the common Shewhart, or many intellectual challenges that exist in some of the arguments that are out there and how to deal with them in sha Allah, I can't go through everything. Obviously, it's a huge topic, but I'll try to go
through the ones that are most common that you hear, you're going to hear almost all the time, if you're going to school or university or you're working or you just watching TV these days, everyone talks about everyone finds no problem, mocking any religious beliefs and saying so. So some of the arguments that are used are just very simple stuff that you just need to understand where it's coming from and how to deal with there are four major sources. Number one, the universe, meaning existence in itself. Number two, life, life specifically, the existence of life. Number three, history. And number four, the intuition or the personal experiences of the human being meaning
yourself something on the inside. These are the four
are sources of Eman that exists in the Quran, what you're gonna find in all four sources that all four of them are pointing directly in the exact same direction. And when all four point in the same direction you end up with what Iman is going to be the man is when you have a lot of evidence or something, you don't have proof, but you have a lot of evidence, overwhelming evidence. But without proof, you have to believe in what the evidence is pointing at based on faith. That's what Eman is, is your is using your mind to say I don't have a, I don't have something in my hand. I don't have something I didn't I wasn't there. I didn't witness the actual thing itself. But I have enough
evidence that what I'm talking about it and this happens all the time in courts of law all the time, all the time someone has murdered. Sometimes you don't have proof, as in footage of the person doing it or admission or, but they have a lot of evidence, you have motives and they have someone existing a specific time with someone saw someone at a specific hour, all these enough arrows pointing at the same person is enough to get someone with full conviction, almost with 100% certainty and one of the in these cases and when it comes to belief in Allah sometimes because it's the same thing. It's the same thing, which is why he call it Iman. The why doesn't just make it okay, we'll talk about why
and just make it there would be no point of view man to begin with. What's the point of view? There's no point, there's no point of this whole existence? If Allah subhanaw taala is going to present themselves with it. Here it is, then what's the point? We're just like, the minute you get, there's no point of this whole journey that we're going to be on as human beings laminitic are there with God, they don't have to believe in God.
Not to believe they right there. They point out to you in the Quran. How
rarely does Allah ever use the concept of iman with melodica? It's only once in a specific context I'll show you. But otherwise, why would they they they have they're like they're there in that realm. But you and I aren't. So we have to have Iman, email is not gonna be based on, on on fallacies, it's not gonna be based on on whims or desires, it's gonna be based on evidence. So you based on signs that are overwhelming that all points if one sign was pointing in the opposite direction, we wouldn't have to believe if one side was good was pointing in the opposite direction. That is, there is no God that we will have to believe but all of them are pointing exact same
direction. And we'll go through and show all of these points. Starting tomorrow, we'll start with talking about the universe inshallah Tada, it will cover it up the ones after which I'll try to make it a bit shorter than this and show it I don't I don't know what time they start. What time do they start? I don't know what time was it after six, I was a little bit long. So I'll try to keep it maybe around 4540 to 45 minutes to show the data.
So I can Yeah, okay, I can I'll yeah.
This is what I think we should do. I think you should you should let me get through maybe two or three episodes of this before you start asking me a million questions, because a lot of the questions you can ask me I will cover like, you'll find a lot of them will be covered. Just because this took me this is a lot of preparation for this.
But after the third lesson, if there's questions about this specific concept that we talked about, there still isn't there. I'll answer. And if there's any questions about what I just talked about, then you're welcome to answer not questions outside of what I talked about. Don't bring me something that we haven't
approached yet or are titled yet. But anything about the fallacies or the reasons for disbelief, or the sources of belief in general. And you're welcome to ask any of those questions. You have something yourself. Go ahead now.
Yeah. And then and then no, you ascend beyond that. You start there, you start with that with just you're just looking, you're just looking at all that is around you, you're taking your faith from the sources that are available to you, the universe life, your personal experiences, history. And then when you actually develop a relationship with Allah subhanaw taala, you go way beyond that, meaning you're no longer stuck within that little realm of just basing it on, on, on the evidence that you saw you actually basing it on something much more personal to you. So you can extend that by far, you can go from your theme or enemy opinion to happier being with ALLAH SubhanA, which is
what we'll talk about Inshallah, as well, yeah, as we come closer to the end of this
series, will point that out. But then again, that comes from the same fallacy or the same mentality I was talking about, which is the mechanistic one, if the only reason you can believe in something 100% is if there is materialistic proof of it, or a mechanistic description of it, then that not only will you not be able to believe in God, but you will be able to believe in a lot of other things. Because there's a lot of other things that don't follow that rule. There's, there's like a ton of things in life that don't follow that rule that don't have proof. Love is one of them, for example. And that's why today that more time moves forward, you find that this narrative is
increasing. It wasn't as loud as it was today. It's not the majority, but it's the increasing narrative of love not being real anymore. That is just it's just, it's just attraction and sex and nothing else matters. And the only love that is realized is between like maybe a parent and a
Childhood, everything else is all made up. And it's not. There's no There's no essence to is not genuine. And that comes from basically this mentality. So you have thought that you can't prove it, there's nothing you can I can't hold it. I don't know what it there's no, there's no need equation to explain what love is. So it must not be real. Right? The freedom of choice is another example of that. Today, a lot of neuroscientists, especially those who follow any philosophically and atheist approach, are coming out and saying that there is no such thing as a choice. We're just the collective.
The collective reactive reactions are our of our neurological system predispositions and genetic backgrounds. They were just, we're just a collective, a mesh of all those things where we don't even make any choices. I remember one of the I don't like doing debates, and I haven't done in a long time, and I don't I don't plan to go back and doing them again. It's just a waste of life and time. And I feel like I usually just do just wasting time doing them. But I had I had a discussion with one or one of one of those who had this, it was a PhD in neurosciences. And we're having this this discussion, and he was trying to prove. So at the end of the discussion, I actually have it still on
my phone somewhere because they get sent me this message at the end, like we had talked, and then he texts me back and forth. It's like years ago, and he told me, Well, I feel like you're so you're so it seems so intelligent to what why is it that you, you still believe in God? I told him because I have freedom of choice. That's why you didn't get the point here. It's, it's an argument with me that there's no freedom of choice in the world. And like, Yeah, well, the reason I don't have it is because I have freedom of choice. Maybe you don't. And that's why you don't want to believe in God. But it was an argument that the only difference ended I think, a certain degree, sorry, the joke
when he was trying to prove that you didn't have champion of choice like or like, well, they don't have freedom of choice, and why you're talking to me? What's the point of this discussion? Like there's no freedom of choice? I'm gonna believe what I believe and you're gonna believe it, or you're gonna leave it, why are we gonna keep on doing this? If you think it's weird that I don't believe in something, it's because I do have insha Allah freedom of choice, and I identify that in myself, and maybe you don't have to do it yourself. Yes, collective groups of people will behave in certain ways. And you can predict it. And that's why we have Yanni, epidemiology and statistics, and
we have that as a as a science that doesn't, that doesn't predict how each and every individual will behave. It doesn't tell us how each what every each and every person will choose, collective behavior is there and that's something even the Quran talks about, that's fine. That's why we perform Darwin. That's why we have laws, the point of having a law is because you predict a collective behavior will occur unless you have a law that will prevent it from happening. So law is only exists because collective behavior is a thing, it doesn't mean that people don't have freedom of choice. And I'm just giving you examples of where we're a mechanistic approach, which is similar
to what Mohammed was asking about, will make it impossible for you to build and God like if I don't have proof, I can never be certain. That's not true. That that's not true. That's not That's not true. There's a lot in life that exists that we fully believe in, we fully accept that we don't have
materialistic proof for this totally fine. A lot of life is like that. And that's, that's not a problem. But you have a lot of evidence. How do you think science works? Science is not based, most of the time, it lacks that proof, but it has evidence as evidence of things that were tried and then affect cause and effect and consequence and repeated number of times you see a pattern, we still don't know how it works, we still don't exactly understand exactly what's happening, but we can see the content, there a repetition of the same thing. So we have evidence that evidence is is enough for us to make a drug and and allow it to be a manufacturer then we give it to human beings. And
what is it it's leaking?
Is that a sign or?
Any more questions?
Just go ahead.
There's not there's an approach. snob is now a fallacy, which is where we just we believe in something be correct, if a very small group elite group is the opposite of that, and and both groups by the way, both people are both fallacies are amazing to watch them argue. Because because they they're both very, very certain about their beliefs just based on the opposite fallacy. One is certain because they're a part of the bigger group. And when a certain because a small part of the small group and neither of them are arguing the point neither of them are actually arguing the point that needs to be argued and you know, is debating the evidence regarding this point. They're just
arguing they're arguing they're they're fallacy so it's a really interesting thing. I've witnessed it a few times and within Islamic unfortunately many realms where people do that. Any other questions again, but just about this stuff, do go to them
yes, yes. Yes.
Yeah. So so this is called the complicated term policy. And this happens a lot I didn't talk about it was not as common for us but you're correct is where you just use big words. Use really big words and very complex terms. And you make something that is very simple seem very, very complex to the person who put
I had no idea what to say because they feel stupid. They feel like, oh, I should know all these words, but I don't understand what they mean. So I must be wrong, and there was a person who's just playing around. And doctors are really good at that. We do that we come into the office, we give you a lot of mumbo jumbo, there's a lot of scientific stuff. And because we don't want to ask less questions, so we can get through the day, a good physician, we'll try to break it down in something very simple, so you can understand it, and then you can ask the question that you want to ask, but if they don't, if it's six o'clock, and I want to go home, so I just give you a lot of mumbo jumbo,
and you'll be sitting there like, okay, you know, best doctor, and then we move on with stuff. That's not that's not a good, but that's a good example. And I think the slavery piece will, that's going to be talked about maybe at the last, I guess the the fifth or sixth, sixth or seventh session, we'll talk about some historic some of the things that happened historically that need to be unpacked, and I'll talk about in more detail. But just given an example, for certain types of fallacies, where the historian, the historian fallacy is used there a lot when it comes to slavery, because we don't understand exactly what it is. We don't understand the context, we understand why
it occurred, what was it based on, and then understand why it was acceptable for a short period of time. We're just going to judge people based on the fact that now we think it's fully wrong, which is correct, it is wrong. It's bad. It's an evil thing. No one's even remotely debating that. But what existed at a time, you need to understand the context for that before you judge everybody. Doesn't it sound really weird to judge a full population or to judge all of human race during a certain period of time? Or something? I think that's a little bit. You know, I don't think that's appropriate. I don't think that's a smart thing to do. We can do it. You can try. And but it's not
it's not it's not appropriate. Anything else? Yes.
Leave to start, I don't, I didn't follow up. Yeah.
So you don't start there. You never start there. And we should all talk about tomorrow. So you never start with with, with emotion or intuition. You always start with the basics with the evidence, you start with the forest sources, you start with you start with in this in this sequence, you'll start with Universal Life, history, and then personal experiences, you have to start in that sequence in order for things to work for you. So if you start in the wrong sequence, you say, Okay, your personal life. But what if you had a really crappy life? A lot of people do. A lot of people have, you know, difficult, you know, difficult stories, they grew up, they were orphaned at a young age,
they went through a lot of difficulty, they were abused. Does that mean they don't believe in God? No, no, that means something different, it means something that does not what they're going to take from that. So you have to go through the right sequence of things, you have to start from the right. Starting point. Yeah.
Yes, there's no one else.
I mean, so So very simply, just to make it really easy for you, what is the narrative that the West puts out of Islam?
Is it what Islam is?
So I'm saying like the way that they draw or explain, or I need to
paint a picture of Islam? Is it what actually Islam is? Or is it what they want it to be?
And you're saying, I'm trying to say, so they don't actually explain this to them to their public or through their media, of what Islam is not objective, understand, they don't actually tell what the Prophet of Islam did. They'll just choose pieces out of context that will suit their ability or allow them to say that it's not a good thing. That's the straw man fallacy. Make a weak straw man is basically instead of fighting an appeal, man, make a straw man, that's weak. So you can punch him as many times and act like you'd beat him. Right? Instead of actually fighting the guy who is probably stronger than you, you will make a straw man out of straw so that you can punch him he won't punch
back because he's a, he's a, he's not the real thing. He's a, he's a bad duplicate of something that was much better than that. Right. So and I'll give you this fallacy specifically, we'll have like a couple of examples. So don't worry, you'll hear like, I'll give you a very clear examples of that in Charlottetown. Yeah.
So that that comes back to the same problem. So mechanistic way of thought, that's what they say. But that's not truthful. That's a fallacy in its in its of itself by saying that no, if there's no materialistic proof, I'm not saying there's no proof. There's no materialistic proof, then it's not true. That's not That's not that it's not there's not righteous or it's not, it's not the truth. That is not correct. That is wrong, that it's actually that's a fallacy. It's in of itself. And that's why it's a problem today, because people now have been worshipping at the tomb of science for so long, that anything that science is not going to tell us that we don't we can't accept anymore,
forgetting that there's a lot more to life than just what science has offered us and who we are as human beings and what we experienced in the world and how we see things and how we build perspectives and how we go by so science obviously offers a lot and that's fine, but it does not it cannot substitute philosophy and philosophy has been has been bullied for the last maybe couple of centuries when fully
leads like down to the ground. One of the most important
disciplines of science or disciplines of thought that exists for the human race was philosophy. It's really what allows civilizations to become what they became thinkers only became like intelligence was built through philosophy. If you remove it altogether as a discipline, it doesn't exist or it's not important anymore, which is what scientists is. scientism is their science in the scientism, which is different, which is, which is basically denying any any use or benefit of philosophy itself. So when they come and say that no, it is not. There's no physical proof that it's not that it couldn't be wrong. Who told you that? That's not true that that was never true, that has never
been true. That's not how that's not how we actually go by our life. That's not how the legal system works. That's not how science works. That's not how science works. Like even science doesn't work that way. Like if science worked that way, by the way, you would only have maybe 10 drugs in the world. That's it. You have 10 drugs, and the rest, everything is not there's no physical proof. We just have patterns. We just have evidence. Patterns is what I mean, by evidence, you have something that's happening time and time again, pointing in the same direction seems to give this this happens, because this this happens does have 50 times, then now we're you know, we that's what
evidence means. Yeah.
yeah. And that's, that's physical proof. And that's physical proof. That's, they're saying there's no physical proof. Yeah, but you understand research then because there's always there's always a chance that what you this is a false voltage negative or false positive, is always said there's 0.05, that this is a false positive every 20 every 20 studies, one of them is a false, false positive, that is following the 0.05 P value of 20 studies, one of them is a false positive. So maybe you're overestimating even what you're doing anything when it comes to physical proof. And I find that signs and evidence that are overwhelming that do not lack any of any of the actual sources
is much more meaningful, like it means more because in physical proof, you'll have like 10 studies that say this is right and then one that says that we just ignore the one that says that I'm telling you out of all the sources of belief if one of them says something different. Forget about the whole thing might tell you about sources of belief and evidence if one of them is saying this is not the right thing. This is not the most probable thing. This is not the most simple and clear explanation forget about everything will close up and leave and we don't have to do this anymore.
physical proof doesn't even follow that. I come to patient all the time and like yeah, there's one study that said this worked, but there's like 10 That doesn't work and I'm not going to go by that one study and go by this
is a fallacy in of itself and it'll come up and that's why I don't want it because it will come up Yanina in two days or so when we talk about
theory of evolution, but we'll leave it until then inshallah Tada. Any other final questions. Okay, he's not gonna look at it. So Bancolombia Hunter, just tells people to relate or sell Allahu wa sallim wa barik ala Nabina. Muhammad Ali's Lakshmi Baraka Luffy said I want to grow up late. I don't want to go