Religion and Science
Date:
Channel: Bilal Philips
File Size: 20.29MB
Related
- Bilal Ismail – Sins of the Tongue
- Omar Suleiman – Ramadan 2022 – Judgement Day #28 Drinking From The Prophet’s Hands
- Tarek Kareem Harris – A Doctor’s Guide to Mental Health in Disasters and Emergencies. No triggers -flashing lights.
- Bilal Ismail – Weekly Arabic Class – 1
- Bilal Assad – Talking to Allah
- Navaid Aziz – How to prepare and give a khutbah
- Hatem al-Haj – FQW14b Fiqh of Worship – Menstruation and Postpartum Bleeding Continued
AI Generated Summary ©
The speakers discuss the history and use of science and religion within the Islamic world, highlighting the conflict between science and philosophy and the rise of the dark energy. They touch on the importance of culture in helping entrepreneurs understand the complexion of human beings and how they operate, emphasizing the need for a culture of cooperation between humans and their environment. The speakers use examples of The Lion King and The Lion King as examples of how human beings are structured and operate in the real world, and how the world is made up of parts and components, not a reflection of human needs and desire.AI Generated Transcript ©
Following lecture on religion and science was given at Saudi Telecom, the 23rd of January 1992.
shaped by the regime.
In
shell more than I mean, even
those who truly fear a law among servants are those with knowledge.
Chapter 35 verse 28,
handed in Robben Island, for Salatu was Salam.
O Allah, Allah he was suffering from an extended episode
of praise due to a loss, a loss of Peace and blessings, last prophet muhammad sallallahu alayhi, wa sallam, and and all those who follow the path of righteousness until the last day.
The topic, religion and science
is one which has its roots in European history.
We're in a conflict developed between the Christian church and scientific inquiry.
That conflict that's created in the western scientific mind,
in generally negative attitudes towards institutionalized religion,
that people hold,
which is a product of history
is that science is based on facts.
And religion is based on blind faith.
Therefore,
science is something which we can rely on, because it can be proven based on facts.
And religion is something
which is in some ways, irrational science being rational, because it's based on facts, we can reason with it, we can understand it, whereas religion is looked at as something irrational This is the general attitude, which we find
prevalent in the world today.
Now, this is this concept is understanding, as I said, is a product of history.
It is not something which was always held.
It was not these are not beliefs, which were always held. These are products of certain developments which took place, particularly in Europe,
where modern science as we know it
evolved out of.
And if we go back, actually to the history, to look at the origin of the science of science in general, we'll find the fact that its origin was not so much in the facts,
and the rational understanding of these facts, as we will be led to believe today,
if we take
the general definition of science, and this is what I'm quoting from, married students encyclopedia, simplified version, science is the solve human knowledge of the universe.
This definition, of course, includes everything. It includes religion, because religion provides certain knowledge about the universe, as well as what we understand to be science in general in
any field of knowledge,
which pertains in any way, shape or form to the universe would then be classified as science in this general definition.
However, the definition goes on to say it deals with facts.
And here is what it's like to say, Well, here's the difference now between science and religion,
philosophy.
Science deals with facts.
Everybody else is dealing with ideas,
which may be a product of human experience.
Human reflection.
However, that definition doesn't stop there. It says it deals with facts and with the relationships between them.
Here we now step into another field.
They said,
science deals with facts.
The problem is facts is phase two.
Observe things which are measurable etc. But then it goes on to talk about the relations between them, because it's not just the observation of these facts, but a relation is developed between them an explanation is given
to these facts is facts, a stroll together to form some story, some picture,
which is explained, now comes.
Because these facts, as in all cases,
facts,
by themselves,
do not tell us anything.
It is when you put ideas to those facts, when you string the facts in a particular form, and then you draw that relationship between the facts can now tell us something.
And when you go to make a relationship,
the idea that you're going to put this now is a reflection of your philosophy.
So, what this is telling us is that science
is based on philosophy.
It is in fact, based on philosophy.
Religion
is based on a philosophy on the understanding and an explanation.
But it also is based on certain facts, there are certain facts, widgets strings together.
And with the philosophy it produces our understanding of the universe.
Science has certain facts which is just together maybe the same facts.
And with this understanding its philosophy, it gives us another picture of the universe.
What has happened is that in history, in relationship to Christianity, these pictures have conflicted.
And because of this conflict,
modern society
has looked at religion as being irrational,
unprovable, and chosen science, as its new religion.
Because this is what is in fact, this happened. Science in modern times has become the religion of modern man. It explains, or seeks to explain why man exists,
how he exists, how he came to
all these questions when you look into the scientists who are, you know, delving into the secrets of the universe,
keeping the
Sabbath, subatomic particles etc. What are they looking for? They'll tell you, we're looking for the building blocks of nature
to be able to create,
to understand ultimately,
they believe that by asking the right questions,
doing the right experiments, you will ultimately be able to understand everything.
Man, in fact, is the god of this world.
And he
This is the philosophy is capable of not only understanding, but creating
when we look
in the past,
and the definition of science
comes from Latin scale, which means knowledge
to what Western science considers to be the origin of science.
We see
a period of time
around the seventh to the fifth century, before the time of Christ in Greece.
Or I should say at this point, it was philosophy
was geared primarily to determining the basic elements of the universe.
Philosophy of that time period in Greece was geared to determining the basic elements of the universe. They were asking the same questions that the scientists today are asking
Mission is what's considered philosophy.
Now, it's called science.
In that period, more differentiation was made between science and philosophy.
Later,
science came to be regarded as a component of philosophy, and finally, as a set of disciplines altogether separate from philosophy.
So we say that science and the concept of science went through a period of evolutionary change of change. Indeed, the same questions asked by science today was asked by the originators of science in their philosophies of the past.
And the leading figures, people like Plato,
and Aristotle, for Western science represents the major figures,
they considered
that it was more noble and dignified to seek answers, by reason, rather than by experiments.
They thought that experimentation is for the ignorance, those who had to go into play with
those who are
scholars diamines.
They understood things from the reasoning,
they looked at the universe around them, and using their minds and their logic and the reason they were able to draw
conclusions, establish principles and laws governing what existed around
as such, you find that certain concepts developed from that time, for example, that if you drop a heavy ball,
and they light ball, at the same time, you got a heavy ball in your head, you know, like a cannon ball,
and you have a small ball, you drop the two of them, every ball will hit the ground before the small ball.
This is what was reason it looked logical, this was bigger, it was heavier, it should hit the ground before, smaller, lighter. This was a principle for claim way back before the time of Christ.
And which was only experimentally checked
around the 15th century, when they finally got around to checking this idea. And they did drop the heavy ball and the light bulb, they found that both of them hit the ground at the same time.
And this is after many centuries, where people had accepted this idea of what appeared to be logical and reasonable.
But as I said,
this was the beginnings of science,
in philosophy,
and these beginnings,
actually never changed.
The philosophy has remained till today,
it has been modified.
However,
the basis of modern science today is
in philosophy.
What we found, as we went on with the history of Western science, we found that after the time of the Greeks, and the early
hundreds,
after the time of Jesus founded the Roman Empire took over.
It
brought the Greeks under their control. And with it, most of this area of the Mediterranean area.
And the Greeks, the Romans, were not as much into science into
reasoning, etc. They're more concerned with administration. So they'll find that scientific inquiry sort of went on declined during this period.
And something happened
with the spread of Christianity.
We find that around the fourth century, in this period,
that the concept of the Trinity
was adopted by the Holy Roman Emperor at the time, Constantine, and this was imposed on the rest of the Christian world.
This is in the fourth century,
a Council of Nicea 325, and a series of other houses in which this Trinitarian concept was introduced into Christianity. Prior to that the majority of Christians were Unitarians. They believe that God was one,
not three in one, but just one.
And
what we find is that after the spirit of the introduction of the concept of Trinity, we find
Europe entering with the beginning of the sixth, fifth, sixth century, enter into what came to be known as the Dark Ages.
From the sixth century, all the way up to the 11th century is referred to in European history as the Dark Ages.
This is the age This is a period of time, when knowledge which is
most of the literature, the writings, the scientific theories have the greatest force the forgotten, a few monks in monasteries maintain
some of this knowledge, but it was used basically, to serve the purpose of the church.
The church scholars would take the some of the theories of the past which seem to fit or provide some kind of room for the development of the new Christian philosophy. And they had a tight rein on any kind of scientific inquiry,
established what was to be the understanding of the wall and they wanted no competition.
During this period,
we find Islam was established in the Middle East,
the seventh eighth century.
And from there,
it spread over North Africa into Palestine and into Spain into southern Europe.
And
this is a time now, when the sciences,
the sciences of the Greeks were translated into Arabic.
And Arabic became the language of science.
What was translated was not nearly translated, and just kept and read, but was developed upon science, which was in Asia, in in India was brought over, combined, and Muslim scientists worked with this and developed science to a very high level establishing universities in valid region of Palestine and, and
that and, and Spain,
North Africa, Morocco, etc.
And during this period, we find the
Crusades beginning.
And what happened is that towards the end of this period, around the 12th century,
we find a renaissance beginning in Europe.
from European scientists, scholars going to Spain, taking information back from Palestine from the crusades, we find a revival of knowledge in Europe.
And it was during this bid that you know, some of the great philosopher scientists like
Thomas Aquinas and Roger bacon, etc, you know, develop the theories and concepts which became the basis for modern philosophy and science.
However,
after an initial spurt,
we're finding the church
trying to rein things back in to get it back under control.
And following the erotic plagues in Europe,
what is known as the the black plague a lot of people died.
The church gained sway over the situation. Scientists really couldn't explain what was happening people turn back to depend on religion and the church. establish itself again firmly. All people all scientists are scholars who are proposing ideas which are contrary to what the church had established from way back in the dark ages and fire. Were now put under scrutiny. imposition ports were set up and those were found to hold
Ideas contrary were executed. For example, one, Giordano Bruno was executed for heresy in 1600s. Because he stated that the universe was infinite in the earth only a small body in
Copernicus
published Foundation, a sun centered theory about this solar system about the universe. Prior to this, it was held that the Earth was the center. You know, according to the great philosophers which the church adopted, the earth was the center of the universe, everything else revolved around the Earth. No man was the most important being in this universe. So
the earth centered concept was attractive to the early Christian Church. So now when Copernicus, from his observations, etc, he was an astronomer, determined that in fact, the sun was the center and the earth revolved around it. He himself was so afraid for his life, he did not publish this until the year that he died.
He published his thesis on the sun sensitivity of the
solar system.
The year he died,
he'd worked it out many years before, you know, in fact, he had finished his work in 15 2009. They didn't publish it into 1543.
You know, when he died?
what was gonna happen to him from the boy he
got,
he got on Copernicus ideas he had, he accepted them and sided promote them. And the church called him up, Tried him, told him at first because, you know, he was a favorite son
of Italy. They told him at first just to pull down don't promote the Syrian or Be quiet. We don't want you know, any problems. But he insisted. And, after his insistence, you know, when he did do some writings, which supported Copernicus theories, he was himself called up tried, convicted of teaching false doctrines, and compelled to announce the Copernican theory and was imprisoned, later was changed to help house arrest where he died. But he kept on writing in any case, but this is what was happening to the scholars there in Europe.
However, the contact which had been made with Muslims in Spain, Palestine, etc, continued to bear fruit. And combined with
a reformation movement, which developed in Europe.
We have
people like Calvin and Martin Luther, challenging the Roman Catholic Church, and Martin Luther, his challenge began when he taken a pilgrimage to Rome,
to go to the spiritual center to renew his spiritual feelings to get further spiritual understanding, when he came to Rome and he found the Pope, you know, was sitting on a throne like a temporal, get across to so heavy, it couldn't even put on his head, it had to be strung up from the ceiling by you know, by wires, you know, he was shocked.
He was sitting there and, you know, stocks and sectors have such an effect of temporal
returns from and condemned what he saw
as corruption, himself and Calvin and the other side of the Reformation movement, which broke away from Roman Catholicism, and developed what is now known as the Protestant movement or Protestantism.
Besides this,
we had scientists who took advantage of this period of
wake up the spirit of rejection of the Roman Catholic Church, and started to delve into questions concerning religion in general.
And
what we found out of the Spirit, a lot of the Protestantism is atheism as a theory
as a reasoning principle.
It produced later
the Marxist dialectical materialism which is
often called scientific socialism,
where in human history is reduced to an economic struggle between the haves and the have nots.
But all social systems become an expression of the class's religion, being a tool used by the ruling class to maintain the status quo.
And God, a fictitious friend of the rich, who predestined their rule over the poor. That was
the sum total of what religion represented. On the other hand, other body of scientists
developed what is known as the Darwinian theory, where in human existence is determined to be the result of natural forces, there was no need to go to look into the supernatural to explain man's existence, why is he or where he's going, why is what he is, etc, etc, natural selection or survival of the fittest becoming the principle, which determines man's existence and where he's headed.
Now,
we have, when we look into this period,
some reasons which has led the scientists of this period to come to these conclusions.
One of them, I feel, it's fundamentally based in the Trinitarian concept,
the concept of the Trinity
is required to accept
that God is one. And at the same time, he is right.
The facts tell us that one plus one plus one equals three. But religion, from the fourth century onwards, in Europe, thought that one plus one plus one equals one
in relationship to God.
So this is something which is inextricable,
and is something which the church puts under the heading of a divine secrets,
you cannot understand, no matter what explanations you tried to give, it cannot be explained as something which goes against the nature which God created man in, when he analyzes things logical.
There's something that this is
something which is,
which doesn't seem logical to them, which they cannot express. This is why you find people like, for example, Newton, Isaac Newton, he rejected the Trinitarian God,
believe in God, that all of the scientists took this path.
You know, it was really a minority among the scientists, but they tended to be the most vocal, even today.
There's a general understanding that we have that, you know, say scientists in America,
atheists, don't believe in God, that's not really true.
of the majority of scientists in America is that some 80% of them believe in God.
They may not accept traditional religion, or the traditional understanding of God in terms of God becoming man, etc, etc, Christianity, but they believe in God.
There's only a 15 to 20%, who actually believe in God. However, this 10 or 15%, are very vocal.
You know, they're very, you know, enthusiastic and promoting the idea. So, if one were to read or to watch a television or etc, in America, you have people like Carl Sagan, you know, who, you know, is one of the best, you know, explainers of scientific theory, in layman's terms, is able to take that complex ideas of astronomy and biology and biochemistry and put it in very simple easily understood words, when this man is a confirmed atheist. He gets a lot of television time. So if one were to watch television about the scientific type things you would assume, and all these people really don't believe in God, but he is just one among a few who are actually very vocal in their
explanations.
People as I said, like Newton, for example, Isaac Newton, he believed the one God and he provided you know, what came to be the, the unifying theory of science of that period of time, but he relied on the belief in the existence of God.
And he would discuss it with some of his friends, and prove to them through, you know, reason and logic that God does exist. However, the Trinitarian god of Christianity, he did not accept
so
When we look at this process,
and then we go over to our look at
Islam and science,
we see that there is obviously a difference between the two from the very root.
One
Islamic concept of God is that God is a unit.
One, indivisible.
God is one in the purest sense.
This concept was a concept which is arrived at by the Greeks, the same Greeks, Plato and Aristotle, they use reasoning to come to this conclusion,
without revelation available to them, they use pure logical reasoning to come to the conclusion that there was one God.
So, if we use, as we said, the rational mind
without the influence of theories, etc, it will logically come to the conclusion of the existence of one gods.
So far,
there is no problem here, there is no fundamental contradiction, you know, irrationality in its concept of God.
So, there is no conflict in the base between what we say, philosophical science, because
science is not purely facts, it is there's a philosophy involved which involves reasoning, etc. This philosophical science, when it raises using the facts, it will come to that same conclusion,
the majority of the scholars, scientific scholars,
and that was, the conclusions arrived at by the origins of what is known as Western science, philosophers.
Furthermore, we find
our young brother read,
he read from the first verses, which were revealed, of the plan,
from a chapter known as an alibi for the niche like plot, blood
reference to the development of men within
women.
It begins, if
this was the first commandment given to the Prophet Mohammed made a lot of peace and blessings be upon
me,
this mirror beacon that you
read,
in the name
he created.
It goes on to say
that a lot of what you didn't know
and that a lot,
not only to read, but to write.
This is the beginning of the revelation, knowledge is there.
We find
when God commands concerning belief, he says,
I know.
No, you should have knowledge that there is no God.
Knowledge precedes faith,
the Islamic system,
knowledge precedes faith, we are required to know who God is, before we can worship Him.
Because if you don't know who God is, then you can end up with the sincerest of desires, worshipping a tree, or stone, or the stars or animal or men.
No one can question the sincerity of your worship.
But because it was not based on knowledge, you're worshiping other than God's thinking that in fact, you're worshiping God. This is what has happened to much of mankind.
So, knowledge is something
we said that science was
the totality of man's knowledge of the universe. Knowledge is something which we look at as being revealed by God to man for the service of men.
A lot of time that's when he created Adam
He taught him the names of everything.
You gave him knowledge, the ability to classify, to identify the things around him. This is what makes men part of what makes men superior to the animal. The animals may deal with their environments, but they're not able to classify it and utilize it, and to build on the knowledge that they have previously. Otherwise, what they have is what is natural to them. And they just utilize it without reflection or anything. But man's ability to classify and identify, this allows them an opportunity to reflect on the relationships between them, to build on this knowledge and to advance
with every generation.
Like an otter, for example, if you observe an otter, and otters, the sea animal found in North America,
which were built
by two downed trees and gather the pieces of the trees and make homes underwater homes, something very complex,
that
cannot build on that knowledge. If you take the otter out of that environment, and you put him on the desert, you finish, you put him in an environment that does not water
to do this type of homes, he can't survive, he's not able to transfer that knowledge he has into another environment, whereas man is able he knows how to build a home in the desert, he can transfer that knowledge adopted and build it in the jungle, and he can build it in the North Pole
is able to apply his knowledge.
We believe this is from God. So therefore, in Islam, there is no contradiction between knowledge in the truth
and the teachings of Islam. Once you find a look into
a variety of
indications,
pointers
to science,
to knowledge of the universe.
God speaks of a variety of different processes, which only in our recent times, we've been able to identify
the process of the formation of milk in the cow. The development of the embryo in the womb of the mother is identified and described described in such detail. The one of the leading embryologist, Dr. Moore from Canada, he revised his book on embryology including because prior to this, he had mentioned ways looking at the history of embryology, he had given all the different theories that were in Europe, you know, a lot of wild stuff, and showed that the you know, was the discovery of the microscope, etc, etc, that, you know, in the 19th century, 20th century, that the correct concept of the development of the embryo was understood.
Finally, he came across he was shown he was invited to a conference and the birth of the plan concerning the development of the embryo were given to him.
And to his surprise, he found a description which matched modern sizes, understanding so closely, that he amended his book, his textbook, putting in a section there that, surprisingly enough, well back in the 14th century, in the eighth century, you know, 14 years ago,
this description did exist, of the development of the embryo. At a time when there were no microscopes, there was no way that man could possibly describe the evolution of this development of the embryo.
He left it at that one with Christ in Well, there were some other steps that should be taken. This is what you followed by one embryologist from Thailand who attended the same conference after
he declared that he was a Muslim, I was enough for him.
Because this was something obviously was could not have been the product of a man.
And when you go through the crime, and there has been there are a number of references to to theories and facts, which modern science has accepted as being factors
which were way beyond their time, which are not understood in a period of time. Of course, some people may say, Well,
if we go back to the ancient philosophers of Greece, etc, we find some of them proposing concepts which have now become accepted. Scientific That's
true. However, at the same time that these scientists propose some ideas
which turned out to be fact today. They also made some colossal blunders, they made some statements, as I told you about the heavy ball and the light ball, there are many others, which are really, really outlandish, which,
you know, rejects totally.
So though they have a few instances of predictions, they had many instances of misunderstanding. Whereas when we go through the crime, we find that all of the reference
to scientific or natural phenomena match what is known by scientific practice.
It is consistent.
And this is not the normal pattern of people who prophesied or you know, just speculate.
In the secular sense, I don't mean in the religious sense, those who speculate they're not going to be consistently correct, they'll be correct sometimes, but many times they will be incorrect. So, we find the core and speaking about these various natural phenomena, we find the calling man to knowledge, calling man to learn to understand, to understand that this knowledge came from God, and that it is to be used for the benefit of men.
As such, science found in Rome in the Muslim civilization, as I mentioned, it took the great books of Greece and of India, progen, etc. that it is was developed the sciences, and scientists were held in esteem.
In the Western world, scientists were held in a seat.
They're not afraid of being,
you know, before in position for courts or are executed for heretical statements as such,
is not the case. So we find historically, science has a very
strong, established basis, within the bounds within the poles of Islam. There has been no struggle between science and Islam.
To be realistic,
we know
that there have been in the past theories proposed by Muslim scientists which have been proven wrong in these times.
So it doesn't mean that every theory produced by Muslim scientists was correct.
We also have,
in not too distant past,
some religious scholars who have made statements for example, that the earth is flat,
which contradicts what we know to be modern science. However, these statements of individuals are not considered to be Islam, per se, these are just
reflections of individuals these are not considered to be Islamic law. So now we have a challenge between science and
the individual, for example, said the earth was flat, the vision people sat with him was given up evidence, and he backed off and accepted to the earth was actually over 1000 years before that.
Maybe 800 years before, that's one of the Muslim geographers idrisi he proposed that the Earth was wrong in Muslim geography. And he laid out his reasoning, his arguments, based on the facts that he observed from traveling, seeing how land approaches when you're, you know, you're out in the sea, when you're approaching the shoreline, the land seems to increase what you see of it, if the earth were flat, you know, you would see the light even from a distance, it would just appear, you know, more clear as you got closer. But what they what he found was that the land was invisible at a distance, and became more and more visible, showing more and more it came towards us, which is seem
to imply that the Earth was in fact wrong. And so therefore, as you're coming over the horizon, the thing becomes visible. This was his line of reasoning. And also there are verses in the Quran, which
were used to support this concept.
So, what we find here is that though we may find
Muslim scholars or scientists making statements at different points in history, which may contradict what we now know to be scientific facts, these do not in and of themselves represent a conflict between religion and science. These are merely opinions, and Muslims as a whole, reject those opinions when the evidence comes to the contrary.
We have no problem, science. Islam has no problem in dealing with what we may classify as scientific facts.
But as I said,
science, within the Islamic scope is looked at as being something given by God to men to serve men.
So, historically, science within the Muslim world has been used to improve the quality of life of man. Whereas what happens
as the process of
science developed in Europe and in the West, is that science wants to divorce itself from religion.
Religion became separate science was not separate.
The moral values of religion were also removed, so science was no longer had no moralistic guidelines.
It was it became now the tool of the state or the capitalist, those who are in control of the economy.
at a state level,
it can be used to justify dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
obliterating you know
1000s of lives.
morality is taken out of the issue of survival. Now survival of the fittest, Darwin's theory comes back into play
an economic frame, you have so many scientists develop new improvements
for products, but the big companies will stop the development of these improvements until it is convenient to them.
Many of the new developments which are put in the motorcar today to improve gas
usage, etc. These are developed 2030 years ago, but the get the oil companies, the coffee production, car producers, they
hid these facts from the general public, they did not implement them, because it was it would affect the process of that time.
So when they have their maximum profits out of using the old gas guzzlers, people are not crying for something else when they introduce these new developments.
So we find science, you know, in the last days speaking, not serving the interests of men, but serving the interests of certain elements, you find people spending billions of dollars to go to the moon
in America, spending billions of dollars to go to the moon and explore Mars. And at the same time, it has nearly a million people living in the streets.
homeless.
You know, when we think of people who live and die in the streets, we think of Calcutta, you know, that's what comes to my mind. You know, you're not going in the West, what comes to my Calcutta, India is where people live and die in the streets. No, in America.
A million people are there, living in the streets without
dying when the winter comes suddenly getting frozen to death,
people dying of malnutrition.
This exists in America.
The use of science as it is understood in the West today. And the use of science, as Islam proceeds, there will be a conflict here, because Islam would be opposed to the use of science in this manner, spending billions to put a man on the moon and you get and you have people starving to death. This would be considered, you know,
sacrilege. From an accounting point of view it's sacrilegious.
denying the favor that God has given us.
Similarly, we find
in the western approach to science, that knowledge, for the sake of knowledge is something which has been
indoctrinated minds of young people growing up there. They've been indoctrinated with this
knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
This is again, the idea this is part of the philosophy of divorcing knowledge, from morality, from religion, from society, knowledge for the sake of
knowledge is for the service of man.
It is us
good as it can be applied.
So you won't find
scientists spending billions of dollars,
you know, building huge machines to split subatomic particles so that they can find out how the universe began.
This is what you find in the West,
are being spent in Europe and America now
to try to split the subatomic particles, because they say they want to find out how the universe began.
What is that going to do for us today?
Assuming you would ever be able to find out how the university gets to that kind of inquiry, the spending of huge amounts of money for that kind of inquiry, this would be considered, as I said sacrilegious.
context. No, we study the sciences, we study the
research, but with the goal to serve men to improve the quality of his life.
This is the you can say the integration of science and the
philosophy behind it being that knowledge comes from God. It is a blessing which God has given men and men have a responsibility to use that knowledge according to the principles of religion,
according to the principles, which have been defined by God,
which have to do with the betterment of men in the service of God,
one of the products
the materialist approach to science,
also, is that you have no end.
You know, because
science now is in the service of
a scientist, he knows if he's able to produce a new theory.
And this will bring him huge amounts of money and fame.
So you found some time ago, back in the 40s, and 50s, you had what was known as the Piltdown Man.
This was anthropologists, when they're trying to find the missing link between men and
one scientist, he went to some
targets in, in England, he got some bones from a chimpanzee around the time, human bones, he filed them, put some chemicals on them, stain them, and buried them in the in the
docket, that came along with another of his friends, and discovered them and found these few fragments. And individuals may call the Piltdown Man, because the name of the place where they found it, and he was supposed to be the missing link between the ape and man, this was back in the 40s.
And this remains so accepted, you know, pictures of this guy and the color of his skin, the hair on his face, everything from
this woman.
Until one scientists, you know, in the late 50s,
decided to check, you know, the carbon dating a developer decided to check some of the materials of this
man, and they found that in fact, it was a modern chimpanzee and Ranga, Tang, still few of them.
So that was thrown out, go down, that was no longer the missing link. They went searching elsewhere.
And in recent times, you have, you know, the case of what they call cold fusion. In the States last year, you know,
some scientists have developed cold fusion, the ability to bring, you know, atoms together, releasing huge amounts of energy. At room temperature. Normally, this is done very high temperature, they've done it, but it's done very high temperatures to be able to do it at room temperature, you know, means you've discovered a source of energy, you know, which could replace the public energy replace regular existing systems that we use today.
Just for water.
This was
discovered with all the newspapers everybody was
late, it was found out when they tried to repeat the experiment, that it was fake.
I just gave you
an ancient example. In a recent example, there are many in between No, no, no. And of them every year, you find scientists, doctoring their data, you know, changing the figures, you know, to produce results, which will gain them fame and money.
Because, as I said, science now
has been separated from religion, scientists
would never consider that
the idea of falsifying data.
That would be inconceivable.
So again, if we look at the modern
view of science, the materialist science would say, yes, this is in conflict with Islam.
Islam would be totally opposed to this type of approach, materialistic, atheistic approach to the utilization of science.
So in summary,
I would say that science, as we divided in the beginning, being the knowledge, human knowledge, universe, based on facts, and the relations between these facts.
This is
in harmony with Islam.
Islam, accepts utilizes such a definition
for the service of man
in the basis of Islamic understanding,
Unitarian concept of God, which is so pure in Islam, it provides a rational, reasonable basis for scientists to
go out and seek the understanding of the universe. For the service of math, it does not have fundamental concepts which may be classified as irrational
as we found in Christianity, which the imposition of which led to the arrival of the dark ages in Europe
and produced, ultimately, a reaction
which led to what is now known as modern atheism,
scientific socialism.
From an Islamic point of view,
the history or the history of Islam, in its relation to science has been one of harmony. Science has been promoted, scientists were elevated, looked at
the society
from its beginnings.
Today,
however, due to the process of colonization, and the
moving of the masses of Muslims away
from the teachings of Islam,
they have fallen behind.
And I no longer the leaders in the fields of science, except you may find particular individuals in various fields around the world, you know, leading scholars, but as a whole science is not,
has not maintained its status amongst the Muslim world as it did in the past.
And
that is due to the fact that Islam is opposed to science, but that Muslims have moved away from the abrogation of Islam correctly in their lives. So as to provide the kind of impetus for science to play a meaningful and a leading role, along with revelation in the lives of humanity.
This
presentation, we wanted to keep reasonable, reasonably short, so that
you would have an opportunity to express your questions, those which are written, we will answer those people would like merely to raise their hands and questions are also welcome to raise your hand and question there is, please
do understand there's much more that can be said on this topic. I am just trying to touch on some of the major points.
And I hope that it has been of some benefit to you.
It was really a fruitful lecture. We have very much enjoyed it.
We've got a few questions in here actually. The traditional question
many times, how did you become a Muslim?
When I saw this one, what do you want to keep it
To finish
the other questions about the same topic, but I prefer to deal with aggressive concerning the topic. If there's time at the end, you know, to go into that
very long run a trade in here that says
to Mr. Blair Phillips, please make comments on this. What is the standard of Islam or your stance on The Big Bang Theory, which has been gaining recognition on the scientific community.
The Big Bang Theory,
which proposes that
the matter of universe of universe was, at one point concentrated at a particular point
in time, and
so that point, exploded outward. And this is the
reason for the movement of the size that we observe. Now it cetera.
This theory
does not contradict
Islamic
understanding, because it doesn't really deal with the origin of things anyway.
Because even when we get to the point of, you know,
the concentration of the mass of universe in a particular point,
we still have the question whether this mass of the universe come from.
Now, those scientists who proposed the Big Bang Theory,
that matter was eternal. It had no beginning. Well, then, of course, we are both. Islam does not accept that.
Many other scientists will say, we don't deal in the beginnings we just dealing with this point in time.
Well, it's not the tail case, you were born from that point in time. This concept is not in contradiction to Islamic understanding.
The second one is that there is a cushion on the issue that mankind didn't come from a single Adam and Eve, assuming Adam and Eve, were Middle Eastern. They could be the great great grandparents of
prison, Arabs and Jews. How about the Africans, the Europeans and Asians.
As a matter of fact, a man and woman of the pygmies of Africa cannot be the child of children or children with fair skin and lungs, and with
long hair, and with ears of a common
knowledge of Europe, and vice versa, you know, the
man and a woman. Okay.
The issue of Adam and Eve, being the first man
is something which we believe, based on revelation. According to Islam, Islam teaches that the first man or woman created for Adam and Eve that man did not evolve from a an earlier life form.
It believes in general in what we call special creation,
that each species was created in and of itself. There may be development within that species
variation in that species, but not that one species becomes another species.
I do find, for example, gorillas, you find many different types of gorillas, depending on where you go in the world. You have many different types of monkeys, chimpanzees, etc.
Many different types of human beings.
This is the facts
how you put these facts together,
the scientific community
they like to string the fact that
chimpanzees became gorillas who became human beings, or gorillas became chimpanzees who became human beings.
Another look at the boxes that
arose were created as gorillas,
chimpanzees, chimpanzees and human beings as human beings.
So the question of how you interpret the facts
the fact that
there is a variety amongst mankind today
which apparently
cannot
produce the variation which exists in mankind.
That is to say,
no matter how many male and female Filipinos you married,
you're not going to produce an African
are no matter how many
Indians are married back and forth, you're not going to produce a Filipino
or personal maybe typically considered a Filipino.
This does not
exclude
the fact that
the genes for the production of the Filipino, of the African and the Indian, and European existed within other
we have seen, we know historically, that if you isolate the people,
then common genes will circulate amongst them, and they will tend to look alike in that particular area.
So, when you read them, they will produce people who look like themselves
doesn't mean that they do not have genes in them, which may produce other features. But it's just that these have now become common.
So, from an economic point of view, there's a problem scientifically, in accepting that Adam and Eve had the genes that produce the variety of insistent men come from their children, they had children of all types, and the children
settled in different parts of the world, and in settling and intermarrying amongst themselves in different parts, certain features became no problem with that.
So we do not look at the,
the existence of Adam and Eve, being the beginnings of mankind as being
in any way contradictory scientifically or to Islamic.
Furthermore,
the idea that Adam and Eve were Middle Eastern, nobody,
there was no place in the pond,
or in the teachings of the prophet may, peace and blessings, the abundance, which says that Adam and Eve were Middle Eastern. So that assumption is incorrect in and of itself.
If you're spending billions of dollars to go to the moon, what's the difference between them, and Muslims consuming billions of energy, added lights and
increasing the price of oil, while the third world is suffering from these sizes?
What we're talking about was the use of science.
The squandering of resources. This is not a this is not something peculiar to the west.
You know, the squandering of resources exists all around the world. And
Muslims are no exception. But what does Islam say about squandering resources? Islam prohibits it. It's very clear
that those who squander expensive to squander wealth, they're the brethren of the devil.
And the devil was a disbeliever in his work. So wherever you find Muslims, squandering wealth,
you have found people who have strayed away from Islam. And as I said, that is one of the reasons why I listened during the state today, that they have strayed away from applying the principles of Islam as they're taught by the prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. So of course, I in no way would justify the squandering of
resources as to increasing prices.
This is something which has to do with international politics of survival.
Or prices, though we may say, our it may appear to us that our prices are controlled by the Arabs. No, they're the ones who got this oil and they're controlling it. In fact, our prices are controlled by the oil companies, most of which are not in the hands of
when we have the embargo, you know, back in the 70s, where oil was used
as a weapon to try to force the west to
comply with certain
political necessities of the time, but also to demand some of the rights, which were due to those who are producing the oil. The Western oil companies made huge profits.
The public, they suffered, they had to pay more nothing, but to all companies that were supplying their profits increased during that period of time.
So, when you go to look at the realities, you will find that
the issue of
starving the third world about oil etc, it goes far beyond the oil producers.
And it actually falls into the lap of those who control the distribution of oil and the oil prices in the world.
on a practical level,
OPEC
operates on a certain level,
but there are levels which are above
these compare the modern concept of arbitrary movements have given the participants
and That stated,
actually, this question, I mean, this is some of the areas that, you know, I didn't go into in the lecture for the purpose of keeping it short term and giving those people who have particular questions that they would like to raise, you know,
this.
But just to just add to briefly, you know, there are references in the Bible, to the moon,
and the sun,
traveling in orbit
and traveling space.
And this has been found, in recent times,
the movement of the sun, because it was previously thought that the sun was stationary, you know, from time onwards, it was suddenly stationary. However, it is now, because the scientist of the sun does move in an orbit within the galaxy. And that the galaxy as a whole is moving in space. So it has, its rotates on its own axis one, it goes in an orbit within the galaxy. And it is the totality moving in space. And they've even calculated minister science.
philosophical science, calculated the point in time where the sun movements will end, its time coming to an end. And there is reference in the Koran, to the sun, moving to its appointed place, and time.
If anybody has any questions about direct arrays in terms of putting their hands up, especially,
I'd like to hear from
them.
Rather than humanity. We're here with us.
You know, I see some faces,
talked about a lot of different things here. I would really like to hear from some of them. These questions I can see are all from Muslims. You know, and I really like to hear something from our non Muslim brothers in humanity, if there's anybody who has any question
in relation to the topic,
for example,
okay. Islam had certain very clear, fundamental principles, which are universal, applied in every society. But there's an aspect which has to do with social and cultural norms, which are allowed, as long as they don't conflict with the basic principles. So when you go around the Muslim world, from Philippines, to India, to Africa, South and North, to Arabia, you will find a variety Indonesia, Malaysia, you will find a variety of cultural practices
which are not in conflict with Islam and which are perfectly acceptable.
But when these cultural practices conflicts with Islam in the sense that they involve either
paganistic right rites and rituals.
Then,
Islam were prohibited. What Islam says is a basic
framework, which allows variation within the framework, as long as it doesn't affect the framework itself.
You know, it's like Islam provides like the structure of this building. But how you set the glasses, and you know what type of styling you use for the floor, and whether you use aluminum doors or wooden doors, that's up to you.
So that would be like the cultural differences. But the overall structure, you know, designed by the architect, that is like the structure of Islam designed by Allah, who knows man and events needs. So he has designed for us a structure within which we can make our variations.
What is acceptable, what is not acceptable?
The ultimate arbitrator is the prime, which is the word of God, believed by Muslims. And they are the explanation given by the prophet Muhammad. For the application of the crime, he demonstrated, he explained to us the meanings of the client and how it should be applied. So it's on the basis of what this they call this, the Quran. And the Sunnah are the way of the Prophet, which is the arbitrator for what is acceptable amongst cultural variations, and what is not. It is one of the major differences between, for example, Islam and Christianity, in that in Christianity, you have, we have the Bible, however, there is no Sunnah, the way of Jesus is not an arbitrator,
people are not obliged to follow the way of Jesus in the Bible, what is in the gospels is enough, but the way of Jesus, for example, Jesus did not eat pork,
that was his way, what Christians,
amongst human beings, tolerance may vary from person to person,
if you are from another culture, and you come into this particular culture and your way is different,
those people who are more educated and more, you know, worldwide, they're more able to accept your variation than the common person was used to seeing things only one way. So, you may find these kind of variations among people, but ultimately, you know, the criterion is required. And so a person has the right,
wherever he goes, a person questions, you know, why are you doing? This is not the way you say, Okay, can you show me where it goes against the commandment of the buyer and the seller, if he cannot show you that you say you must
finish.
And that is the argument. But you see, the unifying factor, for example, the method of prayer
isn't something wherever you go, see, this
variation is not allowed here. Because for example, if the Chinese you know, you got about 40 50 million Muslims in China, if they decided to make the call to prayer in Chinese, and they lead the prayer in Chinese, a Muslim visiting that land, would never know that prayer was going on. Or if you happen to come across a mosque and join the prayer, they wouldn't know what the man was saying. They wouldn't know what to do with it being Arabic, wherever you go in the world, a Muslim, no matter what country he comes from, he can join the prayer, he can find a way to praise when it is and be a part of it. So that is that common bond,
how he dresses the Chinese dressing for prayer, he may use a different style, different colors, you know, whereas the Middle East, you may use a different style different colors, this is up to them.
And if a Middle Easterners
like what we're wearing,
is what I've learned against the
predator.
He said no,
I prefer to work when I work. Finished.
There's a mix up between the customer
actually and the
teachings actually people are mixing between the two things actually
living in here and actually living in general, they have to adhere to the customs or the people.
Well, you know, in a sense,
is in dealing with people
adhering to some degree to their customs, you know, makes life easier.
Right? Where the customs become a problem.
You know, then you have to judge you know, can I deal
It's
not required.
Because I'm sure there are some things here in Arabia, for example, which are particularly particular to the Saudi Arabia, if you go to Syria, they do it a different way. They want the Pakistan, the taxpayers will do it a different way. You know, these are the customers, when they're in Pakistan, Syria and Arabia, for ease of
dealing with people, you may want to conform to some degree to their company, this is an option that you have, and it just makes life easier, you have to deal with them on a day to day basis. But surely, Islam does not require you to do so. You know, and especially, if there are customs, which are, you know, in no way connected with the Islamic teachings, definitely, you are not required.
Important actually, in dealing with people, you know, those of you who are
living amongst Muslims, you will find these variations. You know, a Pakistani might deal with you in one way Egyptian deals the another way Saudi deals in other ways, Sudanese. Or another way, you wonder, Well, what
is one of these ways Islam or all of them Islam? Well, you know, what you can do is to seek to understand the basis of the one which, which agrees with the Quran and the Sunnah, that is Islam.
The ones which go against is against Islam. And the ones which don't go against
or don't agree with, you know, they're just in between neutral, then you can take a believer, and they fight Okay.
Okay.
Any other questions? Tomorrow?
Thank you, brother, son, we should be wrapping up, wrapping up right now.
See if we actually have some freshmen in here. And I think actually on February spare time, if someone has his own sort of a personal question, or something like that,
I think is very much welcome. Just before you close, there's one question, which is asked here, you know, is Islam democratic? Or does it accept democracy? You know, or not? This is a point which I think it's, it's good to understand that Islam, in fact,
does not accept democratic democracy as it is understood, you know, coming out of free and understood in the West today. Because what democracy says is that whatever the majority of the people agree on, becomes law becomes correct. And whatever they disagree on becomes incorrect.
So, values can change.
You know, what was right today can become wrong tomorrow. Whereas Islam recognizes certain things as being right for all time. Because the basis of Islam is revelation from God. things which are right have been defined, they've
been defined, these things are unchangeable. So there is no way that the masses of the people can come together and decide, well, no, we're no longer gonna accept this as being right. Or we're no longer gonna consider this thing to be wrong, no way. So, to that degree, there is no democracy,
that what the role of the people may have in any different
place or time is an ability to come together on a consultative basis, they call Sure, you know, where representatives of the people will make suggestions as to the application of the law, not in as to the rightness or wrongness of the law.
The law when the law is being applied, it may be applied in a gradual fashion or it may be applied, they have certain implications may be applied in one way or another way. This the people may express, you know that much of democracy comes out here in what is suited to their time and their place. But the rightness or wrongness of the law can never be changed. And the duty of government is only to oversee the application of the law for the people. And this is why for example, you will find that the issue of alcohol for example, the prohibition of alcohol is
In a Muslim country, say for example, here, it is something which is accepted by the masses of the people. So, the law that alcohol is prohibited is something followed by the masses of the people, it's not to say there are people producing,
some of them may have put them next to nothing.
Because no matter what laws you set up, there will always be those who will try to break. Okay? Now, but in general, the society as a whole has accepted that alcohol is prohibited. So the law of prohibition of alcohol functions in this society without any problems. Whereas in America, for example, there was a period of time when the leaders of the country, you know, in looking at the problems that existed produced by alcohol decided to ban alcohol.
Alcohol was prohibited in America, but because the masses of people did not accept this law, they look at it as something introduced by certain people in powerful positions for their own personal interest.
They rejected it and, you know, they produced on their own and, you know, a booming business and what they call moonshine, you know, illegal, alcohol develops, and eventually the impetus or the the the society as a whole force those laws to be repealed.
In spite of the fact that we see all the harm which comes from alcohol, how many millions of people you know, die have died over the years, from alcohol related diseases, accidents, cetera, et cetera? Yes, it cannot be banned there. Because of the fact that
democracy, the choice of the people, is the determining factor between what is right and wrong.
So all the sexuality for example, which is clearly condemned in the Bible,
penalty of death in the Bible, which was accepted at one time. Now, it's a crime for you to accuse somebody of
being homosexual or denying a job because you're homosexual. homosexuals have rights to defend themselves. They have their own churches, they have their own representatives, you know, you know, more and more for their rights.
Because it's a democracy. So what was wrong so many years ago, according to Revelation, because revelation now, religion has been separated from the state
becomes right today.
Thank you