Earn On-Going Rewards Now
Islam & Science Part 1
Channel: Bilal Philips
File Size: 14.53MB
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.
Allah Allah He will be he or men tend to be submitted by only being
offered due to a law and the law of Peace and blessings uniclass prophet muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and allow those who follow the path of righteousness until the last day.
As the brother said, the topic of this evening's presentation is that of Islam and science.
And this topic is of particular relevance to us.
When we consider Historically, the relationship between science and religion,
science is generally presented as being
a system which deals with facts, reality,
whereas religion is presented as
a system dealing with
ideas and faith in these ideas.
if we're to look at science,
in depth, to really understand what science is,
and we are to look at religion
as understood in Islam,
we will actually conclude that there is
no contradiction or no or there are no discrepancies between Islam and science, it is basically what I will try to develop and present you this evening.
the word science itself comes from a Latin word,
which means, knowledge
and science has been defined
as the sum of human knowledge of the universe.
It is claimed that it deals with facts
and with the relations between these facts.
scientists according to those who define science in this fashion
are guided by General by a general philosophy.
There are certain assumptions which underlie all scientific investigation,
one of natural phenomena can be understood by asking the right questions and by doing appropriate experiments
there is in general a link between cause and effect.
Three, nature is consistent in time and space and experiments repeated under identical conditions should give the same results.
And the people who gave this definition is from encyclopedia stated at the end of that, without these assumptions, science would find it impossible to discover patterns and predict outcomes.
So, what we have here, when we look at this definition of science, lo, it says dealing with facts and the relations between these facts,
we see that there is a philosophy
It is not something which is just
tangible that you can touch put your finger on every single part of it, no, there is a philosophy there's a concept and idea which is behind it. Among those ideas is that natural phenomena can be understood by asking the right questions.
In other words, it is possible for human beings to understand everything.
What it's implying, it is possible, there is nothing
in this world, which the human mind cannot understand, which is from what they call natural phenomena.
Your brain how it works.
Tell us how they work,
the rain, right fall,
We, in Islam,
believe that there are laws behind all these things.
we don't believe that we can understand everything
there will be limits to our ability to understand. However, science,
as it is understood today is based on the premise that it is possible to understand everything, everything of natural phenomena, everything connected with nature,
how the universe was created,
the Big Bang that tracks you know, tracking different aspects of the stars and the dust between the stars, etc, trying to find this and they tell you very clearly what is looking for the beginning of the universe, if you if they ask the right questions, conducted right experiments, they will eventually be able to discover how the universe came into being.
And they're spending some billions of dollars to build a machine got a big long name from Cyclops something or the other, you know, which, which runs for like miles to conference where they will accelerate certain particles which make up
matter, and cause them to collide to try to reproduce. In the experiment. They said they believe everything is consistent that if you are able to do something experimentally, now you can assume that that is what happened in the first place. So they're going to collide these particles to try to find out what is in the absence of matching what is matter meetup.
They do not believe that there are any limits
any limits to man's understanding.
And towards that end, they will spend they're prepared to spend
billions of dollars
to discover these
around the Earth
This is something very, very important,
maybe some kind of
paper that can be put there, so that the door
priority is given to
science has taken on a certain
position in the mind, of
what we know, what we could call Western civilization has taken on a certain position where it becomes more important than human life.
Huge amounts of money will be spent to research to find these, you know, very philosophical, very fine point,
while people are starving, while people are living in the streets,
in the same
which have no ads there,
and huge amounts of wealth, they have the extremely poor there who will live and die in.
And yet at the same time, they will spend these monies on such experiments.
Because there's a philosophy
for people to do that, it must be very, very important, something very, very important to them.
The idea of the origin of things,
because the position of God
within the system, you know, has been sort of shifted to the side now, man has to have an explanation why people believe in God, belief in God has to do with, you know, an understanding of one's position on the earth, why you're here and gives you some kind of guidance and direction. So now if you put that
aspect aside revelation and what revelation brought. Now you have to fill that gap, you have to substitute something else for it. And this is what so called modern sciences bent on doing to be able to explain the beginning of things
why we're here, where we're headed. All these questions are seeking to understand these philosophical questions.
When you look into the history of science,
and according to Western philosophy, science began with the Greek,
the Greek were
in contact with Egyptians and Babylonians, and brought together what
experimental facts they had gathered and explained in a particular way. And they
develop, what we
are what Western society has referred to as being the beginnings of time. However,
if you look at the goal
in the first period, which is known as the pre Socratic period, as between the seventh and the fifth century BC, and Greek history of Greek philosophy, if you look at their goal, in that first period,
we see that it was
to discover the basic elements of the universe,
ie the circle,
it was philosophy that
this was the beginning of Greek philosophy, their goal was to discover the basic elements of
modern science today, as we just talked about, their goal is to find out those elements of the unit
mashing the atom etc, to try to find out what is everything
then it will call philosophy.
So, we can see actually, that
the understanding of philosophy and science is something which is very, you know, very shady when you actually go in or if you take, leave the general presentations given in the science books, you know, for students read that general explanation, like as I gave you initially of what science was, then you go into the in depth studies at the philosophy of science etc, you see, what these people say, you start to find that science is something which is, it is virtually philosophy to something, which is how philosophy, how facts, it is not so clear, not so, clear cut that you can say, just dealing with facts.
In fact, what you find is that,
in that period, that early period, there was no distinction made between science and philosophy.
Later, science came to be regarded as a component of philosophy.
This is like during the period of Plato or Aristotle, etc.
it became referred to as a set of disciplines, which were separate from philosophy.
So, it went through different stages.
in the early stage, when it was, in fact, philosophy, just how the people looked at it, for what it was,
as the justification
in a way, which would be, which would build confidence in people.
It is presented as being factual, today, dealing with the fact
you can be sure about it, because it's something tangible. However, we said when we really look into what you're doing, we see it really there's philosophy involved here.
In any case,
what we found during the time of Plato, which was
around the fourth century BC, and he was a student of Socrates.
He had at that time, that it was more mobile and dignified to seek answers by reasoning than by experiment.
What this means, it means that
he felt that the human mind through reflection,
the period of time,
through reflection on nature, etc. We'll be able to understand
The workings of nature. And it was better to understand and do that way than to go and do simple experiments. So what you found is that they
concluded in that period, that if you drop
a heavy ball, and the light ball,
the heavy ball will hit the ground, before the light ball because it was heavier than the light ball.
That leaves it. And nobody ever tried it.
From that time, in the fourth century, BCE, all the way until the middle ages wasn't until you know, the beginning of what's known as the Renaissance is the 15th century.
After the time of Christ, this is when this experiment was actually challenged at experiments that we done. And it was shown that, in fact, if you drop a heavy ball and the light ball, both of them will hit the ground at the same time.
So we see, the essence is the basis of Western science, being there in philosophy.
And these ideas
were adapted or adopted by the Roman Catholic Church.
And they use it
to form or to support
And what happened is that as scientists
increased their knowledge,
they found that some of these earlier views were no longer
actually factual, but they were based on these reasons, and they were not based on experiments. And they started to challenge
the church, which had accepted these as being true. Now felt itself challenged.
So they set up what is known as Inquisition court,
wherein people who propose any ideas, scientific ideas, which contradicted those ones, which had been accepted by the church, which are the custodian of statistics as concilium ideas, anyone who propose any ideas which contradicted these were considered to be a heretic.
And you had, for example, Copernicus is all the way now into the 15th century,
who finished a sun centered theory. In other words, actually, from Plato's time, they held that the Earth was the center of the universe, everything was moving around the Earth. So Copernicus, in the
15th 16th century, proposed the idea that the sun was the center of the universe. But he wrote a paper on this book in 1529, but he didn't publish it until 1543, just before he died,
for fear that church would
take him to task
and create a lot of problems for him.
One of these are the people who are living in this period of time.
was killed a little later, but was born in his same period. His name was
Dr. Daniel Bruno. He was executed for heresy in the 16th in 1600. Because he stated that the universe was infinite and the earth only a small body. He was like,
who is sort of looked at as being the father of modern astronomy.
He himself supported the Copernican theory and was taken before Inquisition court.
And during this court, the trial, the Copernican theory was declared to be heretical, and Galileo will stop preaching it, don't support it anymore. Galileo, you know, some years later, went ahead both
2028 years later, went ahead and published a work on it anyway. At that time, he was again called up. He was tried and convicted of teaching false doctrine. Even though he had, you know, developed this telescope, it was developed in Holland and he took the telescope and, you know,
increased the power of the telescope was able to look at the moon.
In the sun and Tolstoy and he had done experiments to show us to support the Copernican theory. However, these were rejected. And he was convicted of teaching false doctrine
and compelled to renounce the Copernican theory publicly. And he was imprisoned, which was led to, you know,
change to just house arrest, but he spent the rest of his days under house arrest.
This is what happened to the scientists of Europe
as they develop
their scientific theories,
which were based on more and more on experiments.
And what this led to, because there was a revolt amongst scientists, as well as a vote developing in this period of time, amongst church people we had this was a period when Martin Luther also came to Rome and found the Pope, looking like a king.
You know, he had a crown, which was so heavy, you couldn't see on his head, they have these wires from the ceiling, which is hold the crown above his head, you know, he had robes and gold and you know, Martin Luther, he came there, seeking spiritual inspiration, he came across the Pope, he was shocked, he went back and, you know, wrote some papers against the Roman Catholic system. And he began what is known as the Protestant movement. So they protected against the, the
excesses, which Roman Roman Catholicism had developed, they tried to go back to pure, the pure teachings or the early teachings of Christianity.
So they were involved in rebelling on a religious level, and the pain family scientists were rebelling, you know, on a, you could say, philosophical level. What happened with this, is that the scientists,
many of them are a number of them, went all the way out to actually
denying the existence of God
rejecting religion, because religion has taken a position which has now been shown to be wrong.
And when you go back into the Old Testament, you look at the description of the creation
of the world,
it's totally against
what can be shown scientifically and logically talking about life before the sun was created,
you know, let there be light, light before, you know, serve water before when it's known in the formation of, of the of the planet that it was in a gaseous state before it hardened before water came, but what it talks about before, you know, so what you find is that the descriptions in the Bible actually have the creation on scientists.
And the beliefs that were held by the scientists, you know, we're constantly coming in, in conflict with those held by the church.
So you found people looking for some other alternative,
another way of explaining men,
and out of that came the Darwinian theory, which was now up into the 1900s, late 1800s.
an explanation of how men came about without having to resort to the idea of creation was put forth as a substitute.
Man evolved from faith.
And, of course, this went through a period of trouble with the church.
But eventually, much of the church, Western churches submitted,
they had certain debates which took place in the United States and in England, and those who supported the positions of the church were defeated in these debates. And as such, the idea of evolution became widespread.
So now, when we talk about religion, and
in a Western sense, this
an expression of conflict.
The church, what it represented
as opposed to the
What size represents,
when we look
from an Islamic perspective,
of human mind, reasoning, understanding
what exists around him.
At the same time, it identifies revelation as another
channel for understanding what is beyond nature to say, the supernatural,
these two are not in conflict with each other. Because what man discovers of the factual laws of nature, will be recognized as being
the laws of God.
Even the term the laws of nature, this was a term used to substitute for the laws of God.
When you think of the laws of nature, you're thinking of something which is a driving force, which is something which is not
something which is not
a being that you would have to be responsible for, to, to question what does nature want from us, nature is a grind. When you say God, then you have to, there's got to be something this is an intellectual and intelligent force. Therefore, there is purpose, there is reason, with nature, this is just accidental, combination of natural
forces, or magic.
it looks at
science, what is factual, as being been perfectly valid. And what we find historically, is that,
after the Greeks had developed, what they because science, to a certain point, and the Romans became the rulers of the region. Romans were not particularly concerned with
science, philosophy, they were more concerned with administration rules. So you find science was going to decline. There were a few of that time, you know, who are scientists who did produce something, but there's nothing like in comparison to the kind of the Greeks. And then after the time of the Romans with the fall of the Roman Empire, you find the whole of Europe falling into a state of what they call the Dark Ages.
Dark Ages, the ages of ignorance.
Where the church now had a stranglehold on the masses of the people, minds were crushed, nobody could question or argue or discuss.
During this period, known as the dark ages and the early Middle Ages, we find this is a time when Islam can
centuries of learning in Baghdad. And in Spain, we have the Caliph and mamoun, he had set up what was known as beta hikma
or the house of wisdom,
he had a library and observatory connected to it. People were paid to translate the Greek word
work to throw out the written and searay in Persian. In Sanskrit, you're being translated into Arabic. And this knowledge was there was then utilized for the development of the sciences, the various fields of medicine, geography, etc. Amongst the Muslim
scholars of that time alone, there were religious and at the same time, they had knowledge in the various areas.
There were some
went beyond the bounds themselves,
in that their concept of the religion itself was distorted some of the big names that are normally quoted as the major Muslim scientists, like you know, the Siena and others. These guys were in fact, mostly from amongst
I know in certain extreme branches like smileys who have
views which were
against mainstream Islam, they did not submit to the commandments
of Islam in the sense that the Smiley's generally speaking, look at
and religion as being symbolic
and interpretable possible to interpret. So, to their interpretations they interpret the interpreted away the various,
interpreted away the various commandments of Islam.
interpreted away the various commandments of Islam,
as well as
responsibilities that were outlined, even in the crime itself, crime became just set the symbol and
life and existence also became a symbol.
So we find amongst those who held such belief that they deviated from mainstream of the noise, mainstream Islam. However,
in the mainstream science was respected. The Islamic state supported the development of the sciences, because this was the base of hikma This was paid for from the public Treasury. So the Islamic system supported
as long as it stayed within the bounds of
the material world, and did not
seek to enter into a region which was the bounds of God,
which has to do with the supernatural, that of the supernatural and the what is behind what we can see touch and feel, that we have to trust
in Revelation, sciences of Revelation, sciences and religion,
because this also, because we said science means ultimately knowledge. So, we have these two bodies, we have a body of what we could call human knowledge.
And we have a body of what we could call divine knowledge, that which has been revealed by God
is according to the traditional definition of science or pseudoscience, as well as that which man has discovered through this experimentation etc.
And in fact, you know, what has been known as the,
the scientific method
supposedly developed by you know, Roger bacon.
This actually, what we find was a result of the contact between the British and the French with Muslim scientists in Spain. And much of the ideas which they developed were already in practice there. Although you have been presenting
Francis Bacon, Roger bacon, etc. and their contributions to the so called scientific method, they usually don't even mention Spain and the contributions of Spain in the book
are translated into Latin etc.
it was the Islamic centers of learning which provided the basis for what was later became known as the renaissance in
the development in religion as well as in the science.
having said that,
suppose, that which is
as to the theories of science.
we enter into an area of philosophy and this is where the challenges can come.
The theory of evolution, which is looked at as being a fact today
is in fact the theory.
And what it proposes is in conflict with what Islam teaches about the origin of men
and the creation.
In the Koran there are many references, which I'm sure you're familiar with is a book written by Maurice Wilcox.
called the Bible climate science, which is lifted many of the verses in the Quran, which points to what is now known as scientific, the common scientific theory of facts.
Now, believe them now, from embryology, to astronomy,
geology, etc, this can be found in the Quran. However,
the crime is not looked at as being a science.
Allah has put certain references in there
as Signs for those who reflect
this book is not the product of Mohammed
avena This is a book which was founded, because there are things in that book
which the Prophet Muhammad wa sallam could not have understood.
Some people will say, well,
Plato predicted certain things,
which turned out to be true later on. So really,
predicted reading, education. However, when you actually go and look at what Plato and Aristotle was saying, they did predict certain things concerning nature, which we have found out 1000s of years later, but at the same time, both of these and other thinkers of their time, also made some colossal blunders, and made some statements which were just totally out too much. So, they had a few points, which turned out to be fantastic, great, but they had many points, which were incorrect. Whereas when we look at the plan, and we look at the various points that I mentioned there, we find them consistently correct.
They agree with what is known in terms of scientific facts,
This is not the workings of a man predicting because the worst thing the man predicting will not be 100% you will have some right and much wrong.
to there are some things mentioned in the choir, which
say, modern science, there are theories out there, which is something which may not be provable at this point in time.
You know, for example, I mentioned that everything from everything that she created is credited in Paris.
according to biologists, we have certain animals like the Amoeba, which
are divided into two pieces. So they're located you don't have a male and female Amoeba, as far as I know. But that's the point. As far as he's known, it doesn't mean that some time from now 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, it may be found, because it's a personal observation, that in fact, the Amoeba also exists in.
So what happens is that there may be some points in which
science at this point in time, due to its limited level of information, may question, or the vast majority of what is in the Quran has been
described in accordance with what we know, today as practice.
And Allah has said these various things in the Quran, as I said, as assigned to the people in the various centuries to come. Because people retirement problems are gone. They were able to witness him
and witness miracles which he did, witness, his lifestyle, the way he treated people, et cetera, and be convinced. However, in our time, we do not have the Salama monster,
what we have is the client
and this one,
and this now provides for us the
understanding or the conviction, that in fact, Muhammad was a prophet of Allah, because the farm will remain until the last day
as a group
and as a way of life for mankind. So that mankind is responsible
to be protected by life, his farming
and there will be in the class
not only on a historical basis, but on a
on every level in math development, science with
We'll show him that this
is definitely from Allah.
as we have certain theories among
scientists like that of evolution,
which lowest is accepted by the general masses as being fact
the Koran and the teachings of Islam rejected
and actually when you go and look at the position of the leading scholars
today, they do admit
that evolution as it was understood at the time of Darwin and following Darwin, what they call the new you know, Darwinian theory is not in fact true. Because what Darwinism proposes is that
ultimately, life began from
which accidentally came together for me
special precursor molecules.
And from that, early cells developed cells
evolve into life forms.
And the life form gradually evolved into higher and more complex life forms as time went on, until eventually you ended up with man peak of evolution.
However, this theory as it is presented, when you go to look at the the fossil record, you find that it is not supported by the fossil record, what you find there in the fossil record is that there are various
creatures appearing on the fossil record, very complex,
with no precursors, no one before them that will let complex to evolve into.
So, really what the software record supports is what we call special creations, that these were created by God.
Sure, ma'am, scientifically recognizes development.
We breed dogs,
and produce dogs capable of doing certain things, horses, animals, we see development
species of dogs, which may not be fast running, we can breed with some other species, which is has some qualities of fast running and produce a species which is fast.
But this is development, no matter how we develop this dog. We work with them, we breed them with other animals, he doesn't become anything but a dog. They'll find him all of a sudden becoming a small thing all the time.
So, the process of development within species we recognize
that one piece is becoming another species that we don't recognize.
these various species were created by God.
On the other hand, we find
who have made statements
which have proven to be scientifically
we had a major scholar
here, who held some years ago, 20 odd years ago that the Earth was flat
and brought evidence from the choir,
which seemed to imply that the Earth was flat.
However, this is what we call HDR,
a reasonable conclusion made by an individual from Quranic text or text from the Hadees, which may be right or maybe wrong. We're not obliged to accept that as the effect. If evidence is the factual evidence proves otherwise then we don't have to.
one cannot hold up this individual ruling as being an evidence that Islam is contradictory to science
because when sufficient facts were brought to this individual
gave up the ruling. And he now holds that the earth is no.
So we can see here though he was a religious scholar of, you know, great repute, etc, the fact that he held this position when he got enough evidence to change it. So he is not here fighting against science, I mean, he is seeking the truth, to the best ability that he could.
He didn't have
much scientific background, he grew up in religious schools, etc, etc, the Jewish conclusions just based on what the evidence appeared,
as it could possibly be interpreted, in required, etc. So
if we find out the instances of this,
and this is why Also, many scholars
discouraged from taking the Koran as a scientific textbook and trying to find scientific theories and all the rest of them require because, you know, you run into problems,
you start, you find people trying to make interpretation of it, versus twisting them to try to fit some kind of theory that exists now, and 10 years from now, that theory may be thrown up.
So we are not encouraged to do this.
When certain factual pieces of information come up, if we find something in the cloud that seems to confirm that definitely didn't feel it was good. But now to take the Quranic verses, and just try to match it up with all the existing theories.
Man discovers something which exists, is not created. He's only discovered
what he discovered, which is, in fact, real, this is from Allah. And revelation naturally should not be in conflict with it, because it is also from Allah.
So with that, we could
sum up the
this presentation is that
a way of life
which has been revealed by God
which is a look at the other religions around the world. This is what it is, in fact,
it will naturally not contradict what is scientifically sound.
However, those other systems because of the fact that they're the product of human reason,
not necessarily based in fact,
when the facts come out, we'll find them in contradiction to these other religions.
And that's the reality when we look at Christianity
is Christianity what was wrought by Prophet Jesus Allah tala.
The early Christians were referred to as the Judeo Christian.
They continued to practice
the ways Jewish practices of evolution before prayer prayer times of the day, circumcising cells, not drinking blood, not eating pork, you know, all these things they continue to track.
And it is not really until the
Roman Empire the neater Constantine adopts Christianity, that that philosophical Trinitarian concept
of Jesus and
evolution of teachings into
cultural practices and norms which existed in Greece and Rome. Blending these all together, is not until that time that this system new system, which evolved, was now pushed on the rest of the
world, the Christian world, much of this in the east, in Alexandria, Syria, etc. They held that God was one and that Jesus was a prophet.
got until that period of time what is known as the fourth century, that these ideas now are pushed on to the rest of Christianity.
Trinitarian concepts became foremost, and we find the role of Christianity taking this term based on human reasoning, gathering, you know, adaptations, adding custom here and there and ideas to support from Greek philosophy, etc, that naturally is going to run afoul with reality
that was found by scientists, those who have
gathered certain facts and
showed these relationships between these facts have shown that
much of the philosophy of Christianity is opposed to scientific facts, because it's not revealed from about a lot. It is a product of mine, which is going to be in conflict with what is revealed by a law,
the laws of
so called laws of nature, these were, and are a product of God,
they will be in conflict with the minds of men,
what men put together for himself, whereas Islam, which is a way of life, and that narrative philosophy built up over a period of time,
based on revelation from a law of God would naturally be consistent with what may be termed today as science.
So, we can conclude that Islam
is not opposed to scientific facts, that may oppose fiction, which is known as theory.
At the same time, it is important for us, when you look at science to understand that there is an aspect of it that is truly science. And there is another aspect of it, which is philosophy, which is an idea,
seeking to explain man's existence in another way without having to deal with God.
And wherever this appears,
we have to stand our ground.
For example, we have what is known as the
Einstein's theory of relativity, equals mc squared, energy equals mass, times the square of the speed of light.
crafted into normal terms, they're saying energy can neither be created, nor destroyed,
or mass can neither be created nor destroyed. It's just math evolves into energy, energy goes
back and forth. And the basis of this is the optimum and everything.
However, we have looked them do not accept that theory.
Because it is in contradiction to our concept of loss.
Because everything which exists, which is not God was created,
and it will be destroyed.
So matter and energy were created, and they will be destroyed.
We can say,
matter evolves into energy, energy, can evolve into matter,
as in relationship to man,
and that man cannot produce energy.
He cannot create matters.
This is something which existed you love back and forth, men cannot.
But God can.
whatever, we have a science, we have to keep it in relationship to
the science that we received a revelation where we understand who God is, and we understand man's limitations. We have to look at science within these bounds.
That basically is the sum of this presentation. Actually, the topic
could be gone into much more detail. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to really get into certain other aspects of it. But if you'd like to ask for questions now, concerning
Islam and science, you are perfectly
Life in other planets, Islam does not deny the possibility.
mean, if it was tied up and dogmatically says there is no life around the planet,
he is speaking about authority.
He's speaking from his assumption, he is making certain assumptions.
So we cannot deny,
ultimate, we will not say there is either.
Because we don't have evidence for that.
I mean, there are certain ways in which you may be interpreted.
However, this is human interpretation, when you try to apply it to reality, it may be wrong. So, this position is a thinking makes the most difference, we don't know, a lot of we find like,
the greatness of a lot we don't find in life.
It is not an issue.
Of course, Maurice is bent on finding that line, because they don't really believe it is that accurate. So this accidentally happened and it should be able to accurately have a template there too. So we got to find the parameters, you know, it is key for supporting their own philosophy
that all this came about by accident.
But for us,
we would not spend billions of dollars researching, you know, with these micro, you know, these telescopes and listening in on the heavens trying to hear some, you know, alien from, you know, Alpha Omega, you know, sending messages.
Because it's not relevant to us here. What is relevant to us here is to utilize the resources which Allah has given us, for the benefit of man.
The knowledge for us, is to be utilized for man's benefits. We are utilitarian in our approach to knowledge, you don't believe in is knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
Don't believe in it. Knowledge is useful in as much as it's applicable means something that affects our lives, just knowledge and sit and contemplate, you know, meditate on
Islam will promote this.
To believe that.
Yes, I mean, there are verses, you know, which point in that direction, and it may be interpreted in that light. But whether it is interpreted in the light or not, factually,
we have some people going through, of course, you know, you have looked into this thing where, you know, they interpreted the verse in another way, which didn't imply this man, why they concerned man cannot leave the planet. And, you know, what the Americans and the Russians did is just, you know, to make movies, they make these movies, and you know, you were
so it could all have been just too big.
Yeah, that people were that position.
Next, Next, I don't believe it.
myself personally. Because, you know, having gone through, you know, scientific studies myself, you know, my major was, you know, biochemistry in university.
I've done basic experiments with rockets and things like this. I mean, it is not beyond, it is not inconceivable, that, you know, men could, you know, go beyond this point. So, to me, it is something that the likelihood of the whole planet, you know, conspiring the Russians and the Americans to create this folks are the best in the world. I find it quite smart, especially, you know, since we have had a movement, although, you know, growing up and, you know, play around, also, you know,
you know, I would say that this is, you know, it's people who
positions, which I've thought again,
know the Islamic approach, which is that knowledge is only in a particular area where
A lot comes up and I said, you know, seeking knowledge is compulsory and every human, you know, and every Muslim, that this was referring only to religious knowledge.
That is all that we can judge or understand anything by.
When he created Adam, he taught him
I mean, if it were only religious knowledge that was important, like teaching the names of the
naming process of classification, that vacation involved, understanding, etc, then it would not be necessary.
So we believe that alarm given us the ability to utilize, he said he created the creation for our use for men. And like, there is knowledge there that he can gain from understanding the function of allows creation.
But I realize there's one minute in the in noccalula, we've only given you a small amount.
We're not going to understand everything.
And as a Muslim, we would not waste billions of dollars trying to understand the elements for which the universe was made,
determining the time when the Big Bang first took place.
the wastage of Human Resources time money.
the Islamic approach is much more human oriented
concern with men,
whereas, the western, so called scientific approach
concerned more with
in justices to his fellow man ultimate, because, when you got out of the picture,
what you have is what is known as survival of the fittest
the law of the jungle