Hamza Tzortzis – Abraham – How to Rationally Find God

Hamza Tzortzis
AI: Summary © The speakers discuss the self-funded truth of Islam, emphasizing the need for training and guidance on thinking differently and proving evidence of God's presence in disputes. They stress the importance of understanding the universe as a result of something independent, not just a linear one, and emphasize the importance of worship and the Bible. They also discuss the history of the title and its relation to their own life, highlighting the need for more training and guidance.
AI: Transcript ©
00:00:00 --> 00:00:12

Bismillah R Rahman r Rahim al hamdu Lillah wa Salatu was Salam ala rasulillah. Brothers, sisters, elders, respected guests. I greet you with the warmest

00:00:13 --> 00:00:17

Islamic greetings of peace. Assalamu alaykum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.

00:00:20 --> 00:00:26

As you all know, that means May the peace and blessings of Allah subhanho wa Taala of God be upon you all.

00:00:27 --> 00:00:39

So, what are the two main aspects of Abraham Ibrahim Alayhi Salam that I want to focus on today? The first aspect is that Abraham has Alayhi Salam

00:00:41 --> 00:01:19

expressed the self evident truth that Allah exists and that he deserves to be worshipped. Let me repeat, Ibrahim Alayhi, salaam, Abraham expressed just like all the messengers and the prophets, that there is no deity worthy of worship, but the deity but Allah. Okay, this was very, very important for us to understand this is very important for us to understand. So Abraham, Abraham upon him bpce expressed the self evident truth, that there is a creator and he deserves to be worshipped. Here's my proof from the Islamic point of view.

00:01:22 --> 00:01:25

Allah says, God says in the Quran in chapter 14, verses nine to 10

00:01:26 --> 00:02:18

has the not reached to the news of those before you, the people of Noah, and ad and for mood and those after them, no one knows them but Allah and listen to this very important point, then messengers brought them clear proofs, but they return their hands to their mouths and said, Indeed, we disbelieve in that with which you had been sent. And indeed We are about that to which you invite us in disquieting doubt. So the polytheists when their messengers came to teach them about the self evident truth that Allah exists, and he deserves to be worshipped, they said, We are in doubt about what you're saying. And Allah says, what the messengers were saying. Then messengers answered, can

00:02:18 --> 00:02:59

there be any doubt about God, Allah, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, He called you to him in order to forgive you your sins, and let you enjoy your life into the appointed hour. So the messages and the prophets what what they're saying, is there any doubt in the Creator of the heavens and the earth, almost like Ballater, A, which means rhetoric, a rhetorical ploy to see, is there really any doubt? I was not asking you a question. He's not saying that the prophets asked the question, oh, is there a doubt in God and that he in the fact that he deserves to be worshipped? No, it's a rhetorical ploy. Is there any doubt?

00:03:00 --> 00:03:12

Is there any doubt in God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth? He deserves to be worshipped. So Allah, what is God saying to us? He's saying that the prophets had this self evident, unquestionable

00:03:15 --> 00:03:32

awakening, that Allah exists, and he deserves to be worshipped. This is so important, because it teaches us that our tradition does not start with doubts. It doesn't start with doubt. In actual fact, if you start with doubt, you'll never have knowledge. Because if your foundation is doubt, you're always going to end up in doubt.

00:03:34 --> 00:03:40

So from this perspective, a lie saying the messengers, and by extension, the prophets,

00:03:41 --> 00:04:09

and all of them, they had this self evident conviction that there's no doubt about the existence of Allah. And there's no doubt that he deserves to be worshipped. This was a key feature of the teachings of Abraham Alayhi Salam of Abraham upon him bpce. So that's the first aspect of his life, self evident truth that God exists and that he deserves worship. second aspect that we're going to elaborate on.

00:04:11 --> 00:04:41

Ibrahim Alayhi Salam had intellectual rhetoric. Ibrahim alayhi salam, Abraham had a form of intellectual rhetoric, meaning he was able to formulate arguments in a way to convince others about the doubt that they're really in doubt. There's nothing set in about denying Allah and to give into others that ally exists and he deserves to be worshipped. We all know this famous story.

00:04:44 --> 00:04:59

And I'm gonna say what the Quran says right now. When the night covered him over, he saw a star. He said, This is my Lord. But when it said he said, I love not those that set

00:05:00 --> 00:05:50

When he saw the moon rising in splendor, he said, This is my Lord. But when the moon set when it disappeared, he said, unless my lord guide me, I shall surely be among those who go astray. When he saw the sun rising in splendor, he said, This is my lord, this is the greatest of all. But when the sunset he said, All my people, I am indeed free from your guilt of giving partners with a lot of associating partners with a lot. For me, I have set my face firmly and truly towards him who created the heavens and the earth, and never shall I give partners to Allah. Some people misunderstand these verses. They think that Abraham was in doubt. They think that Abraham was actually questioning

00:05:50 --> 00:05:57

whether Allah existed and questioning to what thing he should worship, should he worship the sun, the moon or the star?

00:05:59 --> 00:06:49

Abraham, he was not in doubt, because if you read the verses before you see Abraham challenging polytheism, challenging the denial of Allah. Many of the earlier men, many of our scholars say that these verses was Abraham's rhetorical, intellectual response to the polytheists, putting himself in the position saying, Well, you know, the sun is so amazing on worship the sun, no it How can I do that it's such a silly thing, because it sets, things that set are contingent, they're dependent, they have limited physical features, the Creator of the heavens and the earth is not contingent, is not dependent. He is independent, he is necessary. Right? So from this point of view, Abraham did I

00:06:49 --> 00:07:19

have done I don't you think, Oh, you know, the prophets have Tao. And he, he was convincing himself. That is not the position that many of them take, the position they take, if you look at all the verses, surrounding these verses, is that Abraham was using this as a rhetorical intellectual ploy to basically convince them that you're on the wrong path, which is you are worshipping, limited dependent things. Whereas you should be worshiping the one who is independent, free of all need.

00:07:20 --> 00:07:25

So these are the two aspects of Abraham that we can use and develop further today.

00:07:26 --> 00:07:28

In order for us to basically

00:07:30 --> 00:07:56

learn the right tools to articulate Islam to others and also to ourselves. So let's start with the first aspect that there is no doubt the messengers including Abraham, the prophets, including Abraham Ibrahim Alayhi, Salam upon him bpce had no doubt in the existence of Allah and the fact that he deserves to be worshipped. To the point, Allah rhetorically tells us that the messenger said,

00:07:57 --> 00:08:42

Is there a doubt in the Creator of the heavens and the meaning is unquestionable? It's unquestionable. It's self evidently true. And what we mean by self evident means true by default, true by default. So why I want to show you now is that when someone says to you, Does God Exist, you don't jump? And say, let me give you all of this evidence. You teach them that they're asking the wrong question. We need to learn to turn the tables. Why do you think intellectually you have to be on the backfoot all the time, just like a boxer, he's on the, on the ropes, right? And he has to defend himself? No, we stay in the middle of the ring, and we keep our intellectual ground. Because

00:08:42 --> 00:09:26

we have the correct basis, we have the correct set of ideas, we have the correct worldview. And this is very significant for us to understand, we always quickly see is answered the question, bro, he said, Where's your evidence for God? Hold on a second. We have lots of evidence. But we need to teach people how to think. And this is a very important strategy in how to articulate Islam to human beings. Because sometimes you want to give people answers all the time. It's like a form of ego, isn't it? I've got the answer, bro. Let me give it to him. No, sometimes we have to use our spiritual insight and wisdom. Sometimes the best thing you can do to your fellow human being, is to

00:09:26 --> 00:09:59

get them to think. Don't give them answers all the time. Just like you know, the villages are very, very poor. Don't give them fish, teach them how to fish. If you give them fish, then you're going to run out of fish because you can't answer the questions right? But if you teach them how to fish, from our point of view, teach them how to think then whatever question comes along at least a bit, but to answer it, and by Allah, this is a Quranic strategy. How many times in the Quran do we find questions and we don't find answers.

00:10:00 --> 00:10:01

How many times in the Quran?

00:10:02 --> 00:10:06

For example, Chapter 52? Verse 35, to 36?

00:10:09 --> 00:10:23

Did you come from nothing? Did you create yourself? Did you create the heavens and the earth? Indeed, they have no certainty was the answer. There is no direct answer. Allies teaching us you, you ask these questions.

00:10:24 --> 00:11:06

And if you're sincere, inevitably, it would lead to the right answer. So from a Quranic point of view, what's very deep and profound is the crime teaches us how to think by asking these questions even in a rhetorical way. So a awakens within us this idea that, okay, this is a new question, let me think about it. So it's very important for us not to be on the intellectual backfoot. So let me start with a story. Now, by the way, this is not a shameless plug, where it might be, but everything I'm saying is from chapter four and six from my book called The Divine reality, God, Islam and the mirage of atheism. Okay, so I want to start this part, this aspect of the life of Abraham,

00:11:06 --> 00:11:20

concerning self evident truths with a little bit of a scenario, a little bit of a story. I'm going to read it from my book, it's only one or two paragraphs, and then I'm going to explain what is meant by this. So this is from chapter four. I know you guys love stories, so listen to this.

00:11:21 --> 00:12:12

Imagine one evening, you receive a quote from David, one of your old school friends you used to sit next to during science lessons. You haven't spoken to him for years. But you remember the weird questions he used to ask you. Although you found him pleasant, you are not a fan of his ideas. Reluctantly, you answer the phone. After brief exchange of Greetings, he invites you to have lunch with him. You half heartedly accept his invitation. During lunch, he asks, Can I tell you something, you reply positively. And he begins to express to you something that you haven't heard before. You know, the past, like what you did yesterday, last year, and all the way back to your birth didn't

00:12:12 --> 00:12:23

really happen. It's just an illusion in your head. So my question to you is, do you believe the past exists?

00:12:24 --> 00:12:51

As a rational person, you do not agree with his assertion? And you reply, what evidence do you have to prove that the past does not exist? Now rewind the conversation. And imagine you spent the whole meal trying to prove that the past is something that really happened? Which scenario do you prefer? The first scenario or the second scenario?

00:12:53 --> 00:12:53

Give me an answer.

00:12:56 --> 00:13:00

Do you prefer the scenario where I respond to his claim?

00:13:01 --> 00:13:17

by basically saying, What evidence do you have to prove that the past never existed? Or do you prefer the scenario where I spend my whole lunch with him trying to prove that the past did exist? Which scenario is more intellectually sound for you?

00:13:19 --> 00:13:20

First one, right.

00:13:22 --> 00:13:29

So why do we sit with some atheists and spend months and years and decades debating with them about the existence of Allah subhanho wa Taala?

00:13:31 --> 00:13:36

Is the existence of God less certain than the existence of the past?

00:13:39 --> 00:13:40

Do you see the point I'm trying to make here?

00:13:42 --> 00:14:02

The point I'm trying to make here is, David in this story was challenging something that was true by default, meaning it was self evidently true. From our psychological intuitions we know the past existed five minutes ago existed. It was once real. Five days ago, once existed.

00:14:03 --> 00:14:07

Many of us have white beards in this room, we know the past existed, right?

00:14:09 --> 00:14:12

And may Your white beards be shining lights on the day of judgment?

00:14:13 --> 00:14:31

So from that point of view, we know intuitively there is temporal depth, meaning there is time it happened The past is real. But David is saying to me, no, it's not real. The Universe was this created five minutes ago, for example, with all of your ideas and memories

00:14:32 --> 00:14:41

built into you. You're not going to accept that because he's going against a self evident truth. So the onus of proof is on me or David.

00:14:43 --> 00:14:49

It's on David. David has to prove his assertion that the past was a rule never existed.

00:14:52 --> 00:14:59

It will be absurd for me to sit there and to prove to him that actually let me give you some evidence why the past existed.

00:15:00 --> 00:15:37

This is no different, no different from the discussion about God's existence. And I'm going to explain why. But before I do that, let me just give you a little few more concepts about what I mean by self evident truths. So we said a self evident truth is something that is true by default. Now, it doesn't mean self evident truths are always going to be the same. They may change. I'm up. I'm up to that kind of scenario, right? self evident truths may change over time. However, the default position is, when something is true by default, you accept it, unless there's direct evidence to challenge it. Okay?

00:15:38 --> 00:16:30

Now, one may ask hunters making this up, man, he's making this up. He's playing trickery, carrying this idea of self evident truth in order to fudge God into the equation, right? Who is self evident truth, he's making it up, just so he could create some kind of fake confidence in Muslims. Hold on a second, let's turn down the arrogance knob a little bit. self evident truths permeate every single field of philosophy, science, mathematics, Western thought, let me repeat, the idea of things being true by default, things, being self evidently true, permeate all aspects of thinking, even science itself. I know. I just finished studying to postgraduate degrees in philosophy, and we did

00:16:30 --> 00:17:01

philosophy of science, we did philosophy of psychology, we did the philosophy of language, we did all of these things. And I'm telling you realize that there are things that are considered true by default, that don't need any proof that they start with, in order to develop their knowledge further, Take, for example, my specialist module called the idea of freedom, it was political philosophy. And we had a post graduate discussion in the seminar period, you have discussions with your fellow post grads, and you have a bit of a debate and a discussion.

00:17:02 --> 00:17:08

And the discussion was on the idea of career freedom, right. And

00:17:09 --> 00:17:33

there was two opinions, that freedom is intrinsic, meaning it doesn't need you don't need any evidence that freedom is like a virtue, something that we should work towards. But other said no, freedom is only good because it's instrumental. It's a means to an end. So some philosophers would argue freedom is an ends, others would argue it's a means to an end. And I asked the question,

00:17:35 --> 00:18:02

because the majority of them believe that freedom is, is has intrinsic value, meaning it's an end, it's not just a means. And I and therefore he doesn't really need proof from that point of view, because it's intrinsically valuable. So I said to them, Well, how do you know? Well, he said, Well, for me to start to prove it means that freedom is not intrinsically valuable anymore as a kid, but you must have the basis for this. And this is what the professor that academic said.

00:18:03 --> 00:18:17

He said, it's based on our intuitions. And then I said to him, really? And he replied, what else do we have? his intuition,

00:18:19 --> 00:18:50

his intuition, fair enough. But the point I'm trying to say, even in political philosophy, things like freedom and other concepts and ideas are based on what they would consider true by default, that trusting your intuition is true by default, from from this point of view. Take for example, things in the philosophy of science, if you study the philosophy of science, for some conceptions of the scientific method, you have to have something that you believe to be true by default, what is that thing

00:18:52 --> 00:19:04

that the real world exists, this bottle really exists is outside of my head, this boat is always an idea here is outside of my head. I'm touching it and I'm feeling it.

00:19:05 --> 00:19:44

You have to start with that position. Because after all, there is no rule proof that this bottle was external to my brain. But you'd be like, I can see it, bro. And you can touch it and feel it fair enough. But it could just be old an idea in my head, maybe my mind is on planet Mars. And there are metal probes in my brain. And there's an alien making me think and feel what I'm thinking and feeling. Now. I don't know if you guys ever watched the film The Matrix, Navy, we're in the matrix, right? We're going to take the blue pill or the red pill. The point I'm trying to say here is they have to work with that true by default assumption, the self evident truth of the external world

00:19:44 --> 00:19:51

exists. Not only that, in the philosophy of science, and you could read this for yourself.

00:19:52 --> 00:19:59

A true by default self evident truth is that external causal connections exist.

00:20:00 --> 00:20:04

So there are things that happen in the world and they're causally connected.

00:20:05 --> 00:20:23

Another true by default assumption or self evident truth in the philosophy of science is that nature is uniform. Nature is uniform. Like if you see a certain pattern, it's more likely to repeat itself across reality.

00:20:26 --> 00:20:51

So the point is, there are self evident truths in philosophy of politics, in philosophy of science. Also, even in metaphysics, the idea that we have minds. Do you have a mind, bro? Do you have a mind? You think so? Well, the minute you say, I think you have a mind. All right, you must have a mind. So this guy has a mind. I want him to prove to us he has a mind.

00:20:53 --> 00:20:56

How do we know you know this zombie, bro that you've been programmed biologically at this

00:20:58 --> 00:20:58


00:21:00 --> 00:21:05

I think they fought therefore I am. But maybe you've been programmed to say I think before I am.

00:21:09 --> 00:21:11

Do I have another one? Do I have a mind?

00:21:14 --> 00:21:30

The point is, we all believe that we will have minds right? But we don't have any what you would call absolute proof that this guy is really a human being being with another mind. He may be just a biological zombie. And I'm the only one with the mind this could solipsism right?

00:21:32 --> 00:21:40

The point I'm trying to say here is we use that as an assumption in metaphysics when you're studying consciousness, right? You assume everyone has minds.

00:21:42 --> 00:22:18

And you take that as true by default. So the point I'm trying to say here is brothers and sisters is that this idea self evident truth. This idea of being true by default, is not something I've made up exists everywhere, everywhere in science, in politics, in philosophy in mathematics, even if you study, for example, the philosophy of mathematics in when they do set theory or calculus, there is an assumption that they believe is true by default. What's that assumption? infinity exists, no evidence, they just say exists. They have to start with that in order to have their mathematical knowledge.

00:22:20 --> 00:22:31

So don't think this is Muslims trying to grasp our intellectual straws exists everywhere, self evident truths, things being true by default things having assumptions exist everywhere.

00:22:33 --> 00:22:34


00:22:36 --> 00:23:17

when someone challenges that there are human beings with no minds, and they are the only ones with a mind, they're challenging a self evident truth. So they have to give us evidence. If someone for example, challenges that the real world exists, and it's external to our minds, we're not going to sit there trying to prove that the real world actually does exist, we're going to ask them, where is the evidence. So when someone challenges a self evident truth, the onus of proof is on them. Now, there are four characteristics of self evident truths, listen to this very carefully, four characteristics. Characteristic number one, it is universal.

00:23:19 --> 00:23:47

It is not a product of a particular culture. And it is cross cultural. For example, the idea that the past was once the present, the idea that the past existed is not a product of one culture. For example, you don't find a tribe in say, Kenya, only having this idea and the origin is just from that tribe. And everyone else disagrees with them, or they borrowed knowledge just from that tribe.

00:23:48 --> 00:24:06

When we look cross culturally, we understand that there is pattern going on, that people actually believe that the past did exist, is not based on a specific culture. It doesn't mean everyone has to agree with this. Of course not. But it's for it's not from a particular culture is cross cultural,

00:24:07 --> 00:24:10

characteristic of a self evident truth number two.

00:24:11 --> 00:24:21

It's not based on information transfer. It's not acquired via knowledge external to your introspection, and external to your senses.

00:24:23 --> 00:24:29

For example, I believe the past was once the present. I believe the past was real.

00:24:30 --> 00:24:32

I never learned this at home.

00:24:33 --> 00:24:59

I never learned this at school. When was the last time you went into school, primary school, secondary school, college, university, whatever. And you sit down and the teacher says to you, Hamza, today's lesson is going to be on that yesterday. was real. Yesterday once happened Hamza two weeks ago, once happened, it was real. It was once the present.

00:25:00 --> 00:25:52

Right, you don't learn that a school do you? Who knows a school? Nobody. Because it's true by default, you acquire it by your own senses and your own introspection. So things being true by default, things being self evidently true, or not based on information transfer, no one teaches to it to you, you don't acquire this externally. Rather, rather, you acquire it within yourself introspection and your senses. The third characteristic of a self evident truth, it is natural, it is formed due to the natural functioning of the human psyche, meaning, it is the most kind of direct appreciation of reality, our psychological disposition almost immediately appreciates it.

00:25:54 --> 00:26:39

The fourth, the fourth, and final characteristic of a self evident truth is that it is intuitive. What do I mean by this? I mean, it is the easiest, most simple and comprehensive explanation, I repeat. The fourth characteristic of things being self evidently true, is that there are intuitive, they are the easiest, most simple and comprehensive explanation of reality. For example, when someone denies the past that he never existed, we just were created five minutes ago with all of these memories. That is not a simple explanation of reality, right? It is not the easiest explanation of reality. And it's not the most comprehensive Why? Because it raises far more

00:26:39 --> 00:27:17

questions than you can solve. Because you now have to deny your own psychological disposition, you have to deny your own personal and social experiences, you have to deny all of these memories that you have in your head. So it being intuitive, as self evident truth has to be intuitive from the point of view, that is the most easiest, simple and comprehensive explanation of reality, because things that deny self evident truths. They're not simple, they create far more questions, right? If I were to say, I'm the only one with a mind in this room, that's not an easy, simple and comprehensive explanation. Because now I have to justify why you don't have a mind and you don't

00:27:17 --> 00:27:39

have a mind and you don't have a mind. It creates far more problems than it solves. So those are the four key characteristics of self evident truths. Let's apply these four key characteristics on the existence of a creator. Let's see if it works. Let's see, if a creator, the idea of a creator is a self evident truth, it's true by default. And by the way,

00:27:40 --> 00:28:27

when I say a creator here, I mean that basic underlying concept of a creator, the basic, underlying concept of a creator that things require causal conditions, things require prior causal conditions. I'm not talking about God, and his name is Allah, and one of his name is Allah will do, man, no, we need revelation for this, right? We need revelation for this. What I'm talking about is the basic underlying concept of a creator that things require causal conditions prior cause a condition. So let's apply this idea of self evident truths, the four characteristics of self evident truths to God Himself, the underlying basic concept of God. Number one, is the Creator of the heavens and the

00:28:27 --> 00:28:31

earth, a creator a universal truth.

00:28:33 --> 00:28:33

Yes or no?

00:28:35 --> 00:29:01

Of course it is. I don't care if there's half a billion atheists in the world, or a billion atheists in the world. This is not a consensus, right? It's not a popularity vote. When we talk about something being universal. We're not saying every single human being agrees with this. No, we already defined it was saying it's not the product of one specific culture, the existence of a creator. And even the idea of things requiring causes

00:29:02 --> 00:29:03

is everywhere.

00:29:04 --> 00:29:44

It's cross cultural, things requiring prior causal conditions, things requiring a creator or something coming into effect as a result of a causal condition or creative power. This idea is cross cultural, it doesn't belong to the Chinese. It doesn't belong to the Arabs. It doesn't belong to the Scandinavian people. It doesn't belong to us Brits. It's cross cultural. So so far, so good one out for a second characteristic, this applies to God. The basic underlying concept of God untaught is the basic underlying concept of God as we just discussed untaught

00:29:46 --> 00:29:56

of course, is I'm telling you, I never went to school, college or university. And one of the teachers, professors or academics came up to me and said, Hamza

00:29:58 --> 00:29:59

when you push this bottle,

00:30:00 --> 00:30:03

gonna move or fall, because

00:30:04 --> 00:30:33

there is such a thing as cause and effect, for to fall, there must have been the prior cause or condition, the prior causal condition of your hand moving that causal connection, right? wasn't taught to me. It was based on my introspection and my experiences as a human being, when I had a noise, I know is as a result of something, either someone knocking something down, the wind moving, something happened for there to be a noise.

00:30:34 --> 00:30:51

When we hear knocks on the door, as children, we know it's as a result of someone knocking the door, something knocking your door or an accident, or someone throwing a pebble, wherever the case may be, we know that is based on prior calls or conditions, that affect required some type of cause.

00:30:52 --> 00:31:14

And when we see things come into existence that we've never seen before, we immediately say that that had some kind of creative power behind it, I passed a few roundabouts coming to Cambridge. And if I saw an arrangement of flowers that said, I love you, I'm going to, obviously come to the conclusion, there must be some kind of creative power.

00:31:16 --> 00:31:52

It could have been been the wind, let's even say it could have been, you know, some kind of random hypothesis, like, you know, it was the wind doing it, which is obviously ridiculous. But it was something. The idea here is there is some kind of in a logical formula in our minds that when we see things come into existence, or things have some kind of formulation, that we know there are prior causal conditions or prior causal power, prior creative power. We don't learn this at school. It's based on our introspection and our direct experiences. So it's not based on external knowledge.

00:31:53 --> 00:32:13

To our four so far, let's go to the third one, it's natural. It the basic idea of a creator is based on the normal functioning psychology of a human being, right. So the underlying basic concept of a creator things requiring causes is based on the natural function of a human being our psychology

00:32:14 --> 00:32:42

accepts this, it's a direct appreciation of reality. And here's the proof. When you study philosophy, and people even deny causality, they have to write a * of a law and have to be very convincing. That's the proof that it's not a natural product of the human being, you have to really do some intellectual gymnastics to try and prove, well, that's not really cause and effect, because there are some who believe that cause and effect doesn't really exist. Right?

00:32:44 --> 00:32:59

You know, it doesn't really exist. This is a huge topic in metaphysics, in actual fact, they haven't solved the problem on causality, right? But the underlying concept is there. The underlying concept is there. So you know, it's a natural product is a product of a natural,

00:33:01 --> 00:33:04

a natural functioning of the human psyche.

00:33:05 --> 00:33:20

So I would say, believing in causes and effects, things require prior causal conditions, prior creative power, this is part of a natural functioning human psyche. So three out of four, last one, intuitive.

00:33:21 --> 00:33:48

is a creator, a cause a prior creative power, the most simple, easiest and comprehensive explanation for reality. Absolutely. Think about it. If I said there was a creator that create the whole universe, right? It's simple, one creator, right? Create the whole universe simple. It's easy to understand, yes, there was a prior creative power. And it's very comprehensive, the answers the questions, for example, why are we here?

00:33:49 --> 00:34:06

Why is reality the way that it is? Why is this something rather than nothing? If you remove the creator of the equation out of the equation, you have so many questions you can't answer, because you have to fall back on another position, which is with this whole universe came from nothing.

00:34:07 --> 00:34:07


00:34:09 --> 00:34:12

which creates far more problems than it solves.

00:34:14 --> 00:34:30

So what you should understand by now brothers and sisters and friends, is that the existence of God the underlying concept of a creator is a self evident truth, which means is true by default. So when someone wants to challenge a self evident truth,

00:34:31 --> 00:34:33

when someone wants to challenge the self evident truth,

00:34:34 --> 00:34:36

who has to bring the proof?

00:34:38 --> 00:34:44

The one who's challenging a self evident truth, or the one who's listening to the challenge.

00:34:45 --> 00:34:59

So who has to bring the proof? The one who challenges a self evident truth. So the next time you hear on YouTube, that you hear on Google will see on Google that you hear at school, university or you read in the popular magazines and books that

00:35:00 --> 00:35:25

question Does God Exist? know for sure that that is not the default position, the default position is that the creator exists. If you deny this, you're denying a self evident truth, and the one who denies a self evident truth, the onus of proof is on them, you're turning the tables. This doesn't mean we don't have evidence, of course, we have evidence. But it shows that we have the strongest intellectual position of starting with certainty.

00:35:26 --> 00:35:41

And the strongest intellectual position that our ideas and concepts are true By default, the self evidently true. So to challenge them, the one who's making the challenge needs to bring the evidence that this makes sense.

00:35:42 --> 00:35:53

Please apply this in your life, personally, to resolve any doubts, and also socially when you articulate a compassionate and intelligent case for Islam to the wider community.

00:35:55 --> 00:36:10

Because one of our biggest problems when it comes to the atheist and skeptic movement, is that we fall for the trap. Oh, my God, I need to bring all this evidence. Hold on a second question, the question, question the question, asked them.

00:36:11 --> 00:36:13

That's a valid question.

00:36:14 --> 00:36:18

But let me humbly ask you this.

00:36:21 --> 00:36:26

If you challenge a self evident truth, and there are many self evident truths in mathematics and philosophy and science,

00:36:28 --> 00:36:58

who do you think should be providing the evidence you making the challenge? Or the one who's listening to the challenge is obviously you making the challenge because you're challenging something that is true by default? Your question about God is no different. Because that basic underlying concept of a creator or prior creative power cause is actually true by default. So the onus of proof is on you. This doesn't mean I don't have evidence I do. But I would like to ask you what evidence do you have to deny the divine

00:37:00 --> 00:37:05

and this is a stronger position, much stronger position. So they get it gets them to think Yeah, why am I denying the divine?

00:37:06 --> 00:37:19

Because Don't forget, we believe in the Islamic tradition, that the concept of God believing in Allah subhana wa Tada, and believing that he deserves to be praised and worshiped, is part of who you are, is ingrained in your fitrah

00:37:20 --> 00:37:24

famous Hadith in the authentic narrations of Muslim

00:37:25 --> 00:38:00

where the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said that every human being is born on a state of fitrah upon fidra, Fatah, photron Fatah who something has been created within us to acknowledge the divine and worship Him. And then the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam told us, however people become Christians and other religions because of their parents. So it's the external sources that affect the fitrah becomes clouded. Our job is to awaken the fitrah when we give Dawa, which means when you talk to people and engage with them, so they could see the truth of Islam.

00:38:01 --> 00:38:07

Our job is to awaken that truth within. We are here to awaken the truth within.

00:38:09 --> 00:38:35

This is why even taymiyah said the affirmation of a creator is firmly rooted in the hearts of all people. It is from the binding necessities of their creation, also, the famous scholar, the famous scholar, and as for Hani, he said, the knowledge about law is firmly rooted in the soul. Allah ghazali also said that the concept of God is part of our nature, part of our natural disposition.

00:38:37 --> 00:39:00

And this is why he, towards the end of his life, he made a beautiful point, he basically said that you only give these intellectual ideas and philosophy to someone who's already sick. You don't give medicine to someone who's okay, because if you take medicine, and you know how you don't have an illness, it can make you sick. Right? So he said, you know, you use this type of stuff, where, where necessary.

00:39:02 --> 00:39:27

So, from this point of view, brothers and sisters and friends, I think we can conclude that the underlying concept of God is a self evident truth, truth is true by default. And if someone basically asked the question, to turn the tables and make them understand that if the challenging is self evident truth, the onus of proof is on them and make them realize that the underlying concept of God is a self evident truth based on the four characteristics of self evident truths.

00:39:28 --> 00:39:59

So finally, the second aspect of Ibraheem alehissalaam the life of Abraham, which was he had intellectual rhetoric, not only was there that we had a self evident truth that Allah exists, right, that Abraham was coming across like all the messengers and prophets, is there any doubt in the Creator of the heavens in the earth? Not only did he come across with this self evident truth, with conviction and certainty, but he also had a very powerful argument. He had a very powerful argument and if you remember, it was about

00:40:00 --> 00:40:10

Setting the stars sets, the moon sets, the sun sets. These are limited and contingent and dependent. That's not my Lord, my lord is independent.

00:40:12 --> 00:40:33

And this is a summary really of what you called the argument from dependency or also known in the West as the argument from contingency. Why do I like this argument? I love this argument, because it is islamically. neutral. So in Islam, there are different schools of creed. Okay.

00:40:34 --> 00:40:59

And all schools of Creed's appreciate this argument, for example, if you study the works of study arcaded where the creative book of the howey, there are different explanations of that book from different schools of creed. If you look into those books, you would see that they refer to this argument in some way. It's a neutral Islamic argument, right? And it's very powerful.

00:41:00 --> 00:41:06

The other reason why I love this argument, because you don't have to know anything about science, which is great.

00:41:07 --> 00:41:47

We love science, obviously, as Muslims, but if you study the philosophy of science, you know, science changes. Because no one has an infinite number of observations, we may have a feature observation, that is against our previous generalizations. We see this in the history of science all the time, things are changing. theories are confirmed or rejected. theories are improved or tweaked. It happens all the time. If someone has studied the Darwinian mechanism, Darwinian evolution you would see throughout its history, although it stayed relatively the same. It's being tweaked here and there, right, because of new findings and new observations, even concerning the beginning of the

00:41:47 --> 00:42:27

beginning of the universe, cosmology, the Big Bang, as we hear, it gets tweaked all the time. In actual fact, if you study the academia, forget the magazines, there are 17 different models to explain the Big Bang 17. And I believe all of them disagree with each other, they contract, those models are in contradiction with each other. And yet, they have the same weight. This is called in the philosophy of science, under determination, you have some data, and there are 17 ways of explaining the same data. And that's how we have to learn and read will lie brothers and sisters by God, because many of us would go onto the streets, and we're going to YouTube, and we're going to

00:42:27 --> 00:42:31

these places, and we think the big bang is like revelation is hot.

00:42:33 --> 00:42:49

You know, there's no other way of looking at reality, the Big Bang, bro, did you hear Dr. sardo? spoke about this right? And if he said it must be true. And look the crimes, is it true? The crimes is it as well, it must be the same. We can't have this anymore. We live in a globalized world, the internet is very, very

00:42:51 --> 00:43:29

open for everybody to see. And people will see what you're saying. And they would say you don't know what you're talking about. And we don't unfortunately, don't superimpose science on to the book of Allah subhanho wa Taala. Especially we don't know the science. And when you go into the science, it's not even based on anything absolute. As we said, The Big Bang, there are 17 competing different models to explain the same data. But why do we go out there in the public realm. And we basically portray ourselves as saying, this big bang, this version is absolutely true. And my interpretation of these verses absolutely true, both is wrong, both is wrong. And we just have to become more

00:43:29 --> 00:43:35

intellectually and spiritually mature. In order to understand that I did those mistakes, too. I've gone through this journey.

00:43:37 --> 00:44:11

So we have to consult our early ama, our scholars consult a classical tradition, because they were always very wary. When people were superimposing science from the book of Allah subhanho wa Taala. Because Science is limited knowledge, the Book of Allah, the knowledge of Allah is unlimited. From that point of view, Allah has the picture, we just have a pixel. Think of a jigsaw puzzles all together, Allah sees the whole picture, we just have one piece. And we think for my arrogance, that that piece is everything. We need to relax.

00:44:12 --> 00:44:52

And I always say just like the LMS said, and Allah knows best, okay, and we have to learn from the mistakes of our predecessors and the mistakes of, of my mistakes and other mistakes that people have had. And we progress and learn together. And we need to realize when we take something scientific, really understand what it means accurately, know something from YouTube, not in a popular magazine. And when you read the verses of the Quran, understand them properly. And then you could do your own, your own pondering, not Tafseer we're not qualified, but you could do your own pondering. And when you do that, say Allah knows best don't come across as this is the only thing you could hold on to

00:44:52 --> 00:45:00

to prove your religion. This is totally false, based on what I've just said, science changes. So one of the reasons I like this argument is you

00:45:00 --> 00:45:29

You don't need science. It's based on a metaphysical concepts meaning, it's the way you see the world. Right? You don't have to know how the world works. It's before that is based on first principles. It's a very, very powerful argument. So let me start by again, going to chapter six of my book and reading your little story to summarize this argument, then we'll spend the next 10 minutes just breaking it down, and then we'll end inshallah God willing.

00:45:31 --> 00:46:20

Imagine you walk out of your house and you end sorry, imagine you walk out of your house and on your street, you find a row of dominoes that stretch far beyond what your eyes can see, you start to hear noise that gets slightly louder as time passes. This noise is familiar to you. As you used to play with dominoes as a child, it is the sound of them falling. Eventually, you see this amazing display of falling dominoes approaching you. You greatly admire how the basic laws of physics can produce such a remarkable spectacle. However, you're also saddened because the last Domino has now fallen a few inches away from your feet. still excited about what has just happened. You decide to walk down

00:46:20 --> 00:46:30

the street to find the first domino hoping to meet the person responsible for producing this wonderful experience.

00:46:31 --> 00:46:45

Keeping the above scenario in mind, I want to ask you a few questions. As you walk down your street, will you eventually reach with a chain of dominoes began? Or will you keep on walking forever?

00:46:46 --> 00:47:35

The obvious response is that you will eventually find the last Domino rather sorry the first domino. However, I want to ask you why. The reason you know that you will find the first domino is because you understand that if the domino chain went on forever, the last Domino that fell by your feet would have never fallen. An infinite number of dominoes will have to fall would have to fall before the last Domino could fall. Yet, an infinite amount of falling dominoes would take an infinite amount of time to fall. In other words, the last Domino would never fall. putting this in simple terms, you know that in order for the last Domino to fall, the domino behind must fall prior to it.

00:47:35 --> 00:47:56

And for that Domino to fall, the domino behind it must fall prior to it. If this went on forever, the domino would never fall. Sticking with this analogy, I want to ask you another question. Let's say walking down the street, you finally come across the first domino, which led to the falling of the entire chain.

00:47:58 --> 00:48:46

What would your thoughts be about the first domino? Would you think that this Domino fell by itself? In other words, do you think the falling of the domino can somehow be explained without referring to anything external to it? Of course not. Clearly not. that runs against the grain of our basic intuition about reality. nothing really happens on its own. Everything requires an explanation of some sort. So the first dominoes fall had to be triggered by something else, a person, the wind, or a thing hitting it, etc. Whatever this something else is, it has to form a part of our explanation of falling dominoes. So to sum up our reflections thus far, neither could the chain of dominoes

00:48:46 --> 00:49:05

contain an infinite number of items, nor could the first dominoes start, for no reason whatsoever. This above analogy is a summary of the argument from dependency the universe is somewhat like a row of dominoes. And let me explain further why.

00:49:08 --> 00:49:12

Here is the basic argument brothers and sisters and friends. Number one,

00:49:13 --> 00:49:20

the universe and everything that we perceive is either independent,

00:49:22 --> 00:49:31

dependent on something else dependent or dependent on something independent. Okay.

00:49:33 --> 00:49:59

Number two, the universe and all that we perceive cannot be independent, or dependent on something else dependent. Number three, therefore, the universe and all that we perceive depends on something independent. And if this thing is independent, it has to be eternal, which I'm going to explain later. Then you may think, Oh, my God, too many dependent independent. This guy's wrapping it

00:50:00 --> 00:50:23

Like a philosophical wrap, let me explain this further to you. The way to understand this is first to define what we mean by dependent. And it's not really in line with the kind of popular use of the term, there is a sense specific understanding of the word dependent in the Islamic classical tradition, and also in Western philosophy.

00:50:24 --> 00:50:49

The first defining aspect of dependent is that it is not necessary, it is not necessary. Now, you may be arguing, or what does necessary mean, when necessary means it was impossible for it to have not existed, something being necessary means it was impossible for it to have not existed.

00:50:50 --> 00:51:00

So things that are not necessary did not have to exist. This is what we mean by dependent. For example, look at this book, is this book necessary?

00:51:01 --> 00:51:05

Was it impossible for it to have not existed?

00:51:09 --> 00:51:16

It was possible that it couldn't have been written at all right. There's nothing necessary about the existence of this book.

00:51:18 --> 00:51:23

So what we're saying is, this book is not necessary, it didn't have to exist, for example,

00:51:24 --> 00:51:40

maybe it could have not been written, or I could have forgot it at home, you know, this book that I have right now, there could be a number of different explanations for its existence. So the point here is there is nothing necessary about this book.

00:51:42 --> 00:52:10

What we perceive about this book, is that it could have not existed, when we perceive this book, we don't come to the conclusion that it was impossible for it to have not existed, there is nothing necessary about this book. Let me give you another example. Imagine you really hungry at night, and you go downstairs to the kitchen, and you open the fridge. And inside the fridge, you have an egg box. And on top of the egg box, you find a pen.

00:52:12 --> 00:52:16

Now, let me ask you a question about this egg box and the pen on top of it.

00:52:19 --> 00:52:23

Was it impossible for it to have not existed this way?

00:52:25 --> 00:52:25

Of course, no.

00:52:27 --> 00:52:46

It is possible for you to have not existed at all. In actual fact, it could have been arranged in a different way. Why was the pen on top of the Xbox and not in the Xbox? Right? Why was the pen on top of the elbow egg box? Not underneath the egg box? In actual fact, why is the pen there at all? In actual fact, why is the inbox there at all?

00:52:47 --> 00:53:30

Well, we perceive about the pen on top of the egg box is that it didn't have to be there. And therefore it requires an explanation, how did the pen get there, there is an explanation for why the pen is there, there is an explanation for why the egg box is there. So from this point of view, something being dependent means it is not necessary, it is not necessary. It is not necessary, from the point of view that it did not have to exist, the pen didn't have to exist on top of the egg box. And the egg books didn't have to exist, it could have been there in a different way, or it didn't have to be there at all. So first basic definition of what it means to be dependent is that it is

00:53:30 --> 00:53:38

not necessary. It could have been otherwise, there is nothing necessary about the existence of these things. They could have not existed at all.

00:53:40 --> 00:53:42

second definition of dependent.

00:53:43 --> 00:54:23

The basic components, the basic components, or building blocks of something could have been arranged in a different way. So the basic components of building blocks of something could have been arranged in a totally different way. Let me give an example. Back to the same analogy I gave you previously. Imagine I'm driving, and I'm driving past a roundabout, and on the roundabout is all grass. And there's an arrangement of flowers and the flowers say, I love you. I love you. Okay, now those arrangement of flowers, could they have been arranged in a different way?

00:54:25 --> 00:54:34

Of course they could they could have been arranged. I adore you. Right? Oh, the Greek says, I love you. Or the French.

00:54:36 --> 00:54:47

I love you, right? Oh, the Turkish seney save your room. I love you, whatever it could have been in a different language. It could have been arranged in a different way. There is nothing necessary about that particular arrangement.

00:54:48 --> 00:54:58

And so what's very interesting here is since it could have been arranged in a different way, there must have been something external to the arrangement that gave rise to the arrangement.

00:55:00 --> 00:55:41

There must be something external to the arrangement that gave rise to that arrangement, because there's always some kind of choice or there is no alternative option to arrange those flowers in, I love you to arrange those flowers in a bow into arrange those flowers in sunny, severe room, or to arrange those flowers in jet em, or to arrange those flowers into I hate you, instead of I love you, that could have been a possibility, it could have been arranged in a different way. So it means there must have been something external, prior to that arrangement that gave rise to that specific arrangement. So that's the second definition of dependent, its components are fundamental building

00:55:41 --> 00:55:44

blocks could have been arranged in a different way.

00:55:46 --> 00:55:54

Third, definition of dependent and this is the most easiest one, because this is the natural intuitive understanding of dependent

00:55:56 --> 00:56:14

that something relies on something outside of itself for its existence. Take, for example, a cat, a cat can, can only survive if he eats food. So he relies on something external food in order to stay alive, right? Just like me, I need food, right?

00:56:15 --> 00:56:22

Absolutely, I need something external to myself in order to exist. That's a very basic definition of dependency.

00:56:25 --> 00:56:30

The other defining feature of what it means to be dependent is the final point.

00:56:31 --> 00:56:56

Dependent things have limited physical qualities. Dependent things have limited physical qualities, take this book, for example. It has a certain shape, certain size, color, even temperature, right? It's not that cold, right? So it has a limited shape, size, dimension,

00:56:58 --> 00:57:04

volume, color, temperature, it has limited physical qualities.

00:57:06 --> 00:57:09

Now, if something has limited physical qualities,

00:57:10 --> 00:57:32

it can't really give rise to his own limitations. Did this book give rise to his own limitations? Did this book give it itself the color? Did this book give itself its size? this thick this book give it itself? its temperature? Does this did this book give itself its dimensions? know, its limited physical qualities

00:57:33 --> 00:58:18

as a result of something external to it? Because you can always ask the question, why is it this size? And one other size? Why is it this color? And another color? Why is it this temperature and not another temperature? We we need to explain the limited physical qualities of this book. It doesn't explain itself. Because this book didn't give rise to his own limited physical qualities, there must be something external to it, in order to give rise to its limited physical qualities, even this bottle, did this bottle give rise to his own limitations? limited physical qualities? Did this bottle give rise to a certain dimension? volume, color, shape, size temperature? Today? No.

00:58:19 --> 00:58:36

Therefore there must be something external to it that gave rise to its limited physical qualities. Does that make sense? And that you can apply to anything that has limited physical qualities, whether it's a bus, a planet, an atom, a cork, a quantum field,

00:58:37 --> 00:58:54

anything physical has limited physical qualities, therefore there must be something external to it. That gave rise to its limitations, because it cannot give itself those limitations. Carlos. Mic drop as they say, Yeah. Do you know what that means? Mic drop? No, it means you made a point that no one can refute.

00:58:55 --> 00:59:08

Anyway, that's a huge thing. So let's apply the definition of dependence that we just discussed, to the universe. Okay. So let's go back to the argument again, number one, the universe and all that we perceive,

00:59:09 --> 00:59:32

actually would even address this, so let's apply it to the universe. Yeah. Number one. Here's an option. The universe and all that we perceive are eternal, necessary and independent. That's one option. Second option, the universe and all that we perceive depends for its existence on something else, which is also dependent. That's an option.

00:59:33 --> 00:59:59

Number three, the final option, the universe and all that we perceive is dependent for its existence, on something else that exists by its own nature that is accordingly eternal and independent. let's address each of these options. Number one, the universe and all that we perceive are eternal, necessary and independent. what you've learned about the word dependent now is this true why

01:00:04 --> 01:00:28

Exactly brilliant, a could have been different. And we even know this in science speak to any cosmologists, anyone studying the universe, the universe could have been different. It could have been arranged in a different way. It could have had even different physical nodes. Hey, there's nothing necessary about the universe itself. There is nothing necessary about the universe itself.

01:00:30 --> 01:01:07

And this is very important for us to understand. There is nothing necessary about the universe, it could have been arranged in a different ways. Therefore, the universe requires an explanation. Why is the universe the way that it is in actual fact? This is the key question in cosmology, a key key question in philosophy, the famous polymath Liberians, he said, why is this something rather than nothing? Absolutely. So the universe is not independent, because it's dependent, because it's not necessary. Also, the universe is dependent, because the fundamental fundamental building blocks of the universe, whether you think is a quantum field, or quantum energy, or quantum Hayes, wherever

01:01:07 --> 01:01:16

the science is irrelevant. But if you bring something physical into it, it has a particular arrangement, the fundamental building blocks of the universe have particular arrangements,

01:01:17 --> 01:01:26

those arrangements didn't give rise to themselves, there must have been something external to the arrangement that specified the arrangement. It's simple. So again, the universe is dependent.

01:01:28 --> 01:01:30

The universe is dependent from that point of view.

01:01:31 --> 01:01:59

The universe has limited physical qualities. Even the fundamental building blocks of the universe has limited physical qualities, whether it's a planet, or a quantum field, they have limited physical qualities. And as we discussed, things with limited physical qualities can give give them give themselves these limitations, there must be something external to them that gave rise to those limitations. So the universe is definitely not independent, it's definitely not necessary from that point of view.

01:02:00 --> 01:02:04

So the first option is not an intellectual option. Second option,

01:02:05 --> 01:02:14

the universe of all that we perceive depends for its existence on something else, which is also dependent. Why is this not a rational explanation?

01:02:20 --> 01:02:22

So let me repeat the potential option here.

01:02:24 --> 01:02:35

The universe, all that we perceive depends for its existence on something else, which is also dependent. Why is this not a feasible intellectual option solution?

01:02:38 --> 01:02:39

Well, think about it.

01:02:40 --> 01:03:02

Seeing if this universe was dependent on another universe, and that universe was dependent on another universe, and that universe was also dependent on something dependent, which is another universe, and that went on forever, we have an infinite regress of dependencies, will we ever have our universe?

01:03:05 --> 01:03:06

Think about it.

01:03:07 --> 01:03:10

If there is an infinite regress of dependencies,

01:03:12 --> 01:03:49

we will never have our universe. If I said to this brother, can you please help me hold this book is too heavy, right. But before he holds the book, he has to ask his dad for permission, he is dependent on his father's permission. But before his father can give his son permission, his father also has to ask his father for permission. If that goes on forever, Will he ever helped me hold this book? No. Similarly, with the universe, if this universe is dependent on other universe, which is also dependent on the universe, and that goes on forever, you have an infinite regress of dependencies. You never had the universe in the first place.

01:03:50 --> 01:04:21

So it basically is impossible that the universe is dependent on something else dependent forever. Now, you may argue, well, it could be that the universe is dependent on something else dependent, and then it stops somewhere fine. We don't have a problem with this even in Islamic theology. Some interpretations of Islamic theology before the cosmos and the universe, there was smoke. So there was something that the universe was dependent on, we don't have a problem on that. What we're saying is, it stops at something independent.

01:04:22 --> 01:04:36

The ultimate explanation cannot be that the universe was ultimately dependent on something dependent, no. Somewhere along the line, there must have been something that is independent. So

01:04:38 --> 01:04:47

the only way brothers and sisters and friends to explain things that are dependent is by referring to something that is not dependent and therefore necessary.

01:04:49 --> 01:04:59

So what's very important is this. What's very important is this, that it leads to the conclusion that the universe is as a result of something that's independent. Not only

01:05:01 --> 01:05:24

Is the universe explained by something independent, that is dependent on something independent, but that independent thing has to be eternal? Because if it wasn't eternal, it's finite. If something is finite, it requires an explanation. Therefore, it's not independent anymore. So you have an independent, eternal thing that the universe is dependent on.

01:05:25 --> 01:05:41

Even if the universe was eternal, no problem. The argument still works. Even if you just say, Yeah, but the universe is eternal, no problem. Something could be eternal, but still be dependent. Take, for example, and the eternal chain of

01:05:43 --> 01:06:20

parents, and children. There's an eternal chain of parents, children, parents, children, parents, children, eternal chain, it's eternal. There's nothing independent about that chain. Because you can go to each part of the chain and ask, how did that child come into existence? Why is that child there? What's that mother doing there? Why is that Father there? Could that Father been another father, could it be, there's nothing necessary about his fatherhood, there's nothing necessary about motherhood, there's nothing necessary about this child being born in this chain in this eternal chain of family. Right. Also, they have limited physical qualities, they didn't give rise to those

01:06:20 --> 01:06:24

limitations themselves, there must be something external to them that gave rise to those limitations.

01:06:26 --> 01:06:46

So even if that chain was eternal, there are aspects of that chain, that still give us really good reason to believe that is dependent. So whether the universe is eternal or not, is irrelevant. The fact that is the fact is that even if it was eternal, it is still dependent. So

01:06:47 --> 01:07:21

all that we send and receive depends for its existence, or something else that exists on its own nature that is independent, and it is eternal. Let me explain why again, number one, it has to be independent, because if it were dependent, it would also require an explanation. And we're going back to the same problem. Number two, it has to be eternal, because if it was not eternal, it's finite. And we know finite things are dependent because finite things, things that begin things have finite limitations. They require an explanation.

01:07:24 --> 01:08:11

This is in line with what Allah subhanho wa Taala says about himself in the Quran. When Allah says Allah is independent of all that exists, Allah, God is independent of all that exists. A lot also says in the Quran, all mankind, it is used and in need of a law, whereas He alone is self sufficient and irony, he is rich, independent, the one who all praises do not even consider the classical commentator, he said, they need him in all that they do, but he has no need of them at all. He is unique in his being free of all needs, and has no partner or associate. And this is very important for us to understand. Brothers and sisters and friends, also the famous surah in the Quran, when

01:08:11 --> 01:08:21

Allah says, Who Allahu Ahad, Allah say Allah is uniquely one, uniquely one, a lot of Samad and he is

01:08:23 --> 01:08:24

self sufficient.

01:08:25 --> 01:09:07

This word self sufficient is a very profound word in the Arabic language. Not only does it mean self sufficient, not only does it have connotations of God being independent, but also God being indivisible, free of any need being necessary existing. That one word is a summary of everything that we said. Now, finally, before we end, there are some contentions from our beloved brothers and sisters in humanity when we talk about this argument. And the first contention is, well, maybe the universe exists independently, the universe is necessary. Well, this is not a valid contingent, we know this, because when we understand what the word dependent means, in this context, and we apply

01:09:07 --> 01:09:21

it to the universe, we know the universe could have been different, it could have not existed, and it could have existed in a totally different way. The fundamental building blocks of the universe have a specific arrangement in some form, that must mean something that specified that arrangement.

01:09:22 --> 01:09:41

The universe is full of limited dependent things. The universe is full of things that have limited physical qualities, those things can't give rise to the own limitations. Therefore, there must have been an external set of factors that gave rise to those limitations. So we see that the universe doesn't exist independently from that point of view.

01:09:43 --> 01:10:00

The second contention is a contention that you hear from the 1960s, I believe, from the grandfather of new atheism, Bertrand Russell, I think it was on a radio debate and program on the BBC. He said, Get over it. The universe is a brute fact you'd have no experience.

01:10:00 --> 01:10:06

ignore it. And the minute you ignore it, you'll have a better life. I'm just summarizing the kind of

01:10:07 --> 01:10:15

understanding here. That's false. Because think about this. Imagine we are, we go to the park, what's the nearest park here?

01:10:17 --> 01:10:18

Cambridge Park,

01:10:19 --> 01:10:20

Kelsey Park.

01:10:22 --> 01:10:42

Pocket spaces code. That's an interesting name for a park pocket space. So we've got two pocket space, and we're playing. And all of a sudden, we see a hovering green ball is hovering. There's a hovering green ball. Do you look at the ball? And we say, Yeah, because our hovering greenbone exists independently. It's necessarily existing.

01:10:45 --> 01:11:24

its existence explains itself. Is that what we say? No. What do we say? How do you How is that happening? We need an explanation for this hovering greenbone. Because it has limited physical qualities, it requires an explanation. There's nothing necessary about that existence, it could have been arranged in a different way. It didn't have to be there at all. So we're applying this understanding of dependency on the hovering greenbone. Right? rightly so. Okay, get that bone. Now make it to the size of Jupiter. Same questions apply right? Now get that ball, make it to the size of the universe. Same questions apply, right? So how can you say the universe is a brute fact?

01:11:27 --> 01:11:43

And what's very interesting for you to say this, you undermine science? Because there's a whole field of science trying to answer the question, why is the universe away is the way that it is. It's called cosmology. That contention is absurd, because if you apply it consistently, give up your science, give up your philosophy.

01:11:46 --> 01:11:55

Third, contention. The final one, and you always hear this. Hamza, this is a typical theist argument

01:11:56 --> 01:12:11

is called God of the gaps. You don't know about the science of the universe, you're primitive in your understanding or were primitive and understanding. There is a gap in scientific knowledge. So you squeeze God in there as an explanation.

01:12:13 --> 01:12:18

You hear this all the time is the most overused, outdated, atheist cliche all the time.

01:12:19 --> 01:12:21

It's so overused.

01:12:22 --> 01:13:04

This has nothing to do with science. This argument love science. It says Alan wasa Helen, welcome science, you can bring anything, say there are 50 universities say there are a million universities say there are multiverses, many, many universities, we don't have a problem. say there are different laws of physics, say whatever you want. But the minute you bring science is the minute that this arguments do absorbs it. Why? Because anything you bring scientifically, is always going to be dependent. In actual fact, science can never discover something independent by the nature of the method of science, because as Professor Eliot, sober, an atheist,

01:13:05 --> 01:13:19

philosopher of science, he's a philosopher of science, he says, scientists are restricted to the observations they have at hand, one of the key methodological restrictions of science is what observation, if you observe something,

01:13:20 --> 01:13:28

what you observe is going to be independent, or dependent. It's going to be dependent, because anything you observe is gonna have limited physical qualities.

01:13:29 --> 01:13:42

It's impossible, from our limited senses to observe something that doesn't have limited physical qualities. So that's the point. So any science you bring, you could you could couch in any scientific language, use any complex terms,

01:13:43 --> 01:13:47

multiverse, many worlds model, whatever you want

01:13:48 --> 01:14:03

our arguments to stance, because those things will still be dependent, by the definition that we just discussed. So it's not God of the gaps at all. It's prior to science, bring any science involved, we don't have a problem. We don't have any problem.

01:14:05 --> 01:14:10

We will still require an explanation for what you will bring. Is it dependent or independent?

01:14:11 --> 01:14:14

is dependent? How do you explain that dependency,

01:14:16 --> 01:14:24

we've just discussed is ultimately is explained by an independent and eternal being. And that's best explained by Allah subhanho wa Taala.

01:14:26 --> 01:14:59

Now, finally, I want to make this a little bit more spiritual, obviously. And I want to read you the final story. It's going to take two three minutes. And it really summarizes once we understand this intellectual gymnastics, it has to profoundly affect our hearts. Because when you study the book of Allah subhanho wa Taala when Allah talks about man life in the universe, and the material physical world and the cosmos and the creatures, these aspects of his robia these aspects of his creative power

01:15:00 --> 01:15:02

Are there for us to conclude what

01:15:03 --> 01:15:51

To conclude, as he Bader to conclude that Allah deserves worship. This is so important for us to understand that from understanding the creative power, the creative divine power in the universe, it has to now make us understand Allah's exclusivity concerning His divinity. Allah's exclusivity concerning His divinity that he did, he deserves all worship. This is important if you don't get this at the end, what I've said is rubbish. What I've said is trash. You have to understand that logical link, the minute we understand a lie is a self evident truth. The minimum understand that a lie, is the explanation for everything dependent, he's an independent being an eternal, the minute

01:15:51 --> 01:16:01

you understand this, therefore, you should worship him. Why? Because everything that you do is dependent on whom? Allah subhanho wa Taala

01:16:02 --> 01:16:15

therefore he deserves our gratitude and gratitude is an expression of worship, study the Quran Surah Al Fatiha the seven verses the middle of the book.

01:16:16 --> 01:16:22

The LMS a Surah Al Fatiha explains the whole of the Quran. Why is the pillar of the Quran tauheed.

01:16:24 --> 01:16:26

singling out Allah subhanho wa Taala for worship.

01:16:29 --> 01:16:49

And what's the first line of Surah Al Fatiha? What does Allah say? And hamdu Lillahi Rabbil alameen all perfect, exclusive gratitude belongs to Allah subhanho wa Taala. Why? Why? Well, let's read this story that links to the argument I've just spoken about. And this story is by day eaten.

01:16:51 --> 01:17:29

One day, I set out to tend my fields, accompanied by my little dog, sown enemy of the monkeys, which ravaged the plantations. It was the season of The Great heats my dog and I was so hot that we could scarcely breathe. I began to think that one or other of us would soon fall in a faint, then, thank God, I saw a tea tree, the branches of which presented a vote of refreshing greenery. My dog gave literal cries of joy, and turned towards this blessed shade.

01:17:31 --> 01:18:29

When he had reached the shade, instead of staying where he was, he came back to me his tongue out, seeing how his flanks were palpitating. I realized how completely exhausted he was. I walked towards the shade. My dog was full of joy. Then for a moment, I pretended to continue on my way. The poor beast groaned plaintively, but followed me, nonetheless, his tail between his legs. He was obviously in despair, but determined to follow me, whatever might come of it. This fidelity moved me profoundly. How could one fully appreciate the readiness of this animal to follow me even to death, although he was under no constraint to do so. He was devoted to me, as I said to myself, because he

01:18:29 --> 01:19:27

regards me as his master. So he risks his life simply to stay beside me. Oh, my Lord, I cried, heels, my troubled soul, my fidelity, like that of this being whom I call contemptuously a dog. Give me as you have given him, the strength, to master my life, so that I may accomplish your will and follow without asking, Where am I going? The path upon which you guide me, I am not the creator of this dog, yet he follows me in disability at the cost of 1000 sufferings. It is you Lord has gifted him with this virtue. Give all my Lord to all who asked of you as I do the virtue of love, and the courage of charity. Then I retrace my steps, and took refuge in the shade, full of joy. My little

01:19:27 --> 01:19:35

companion lay down facing me, so that his eyes were turned to mine, as though he wished to speak seriously to me.

01:19:36 --> 01:19:41

Brothers and sisters and friends, our master is Allah subhanho wa Taala.

01:19:42 --> 01:19:49

But do we act as the dog acts to his own owner that considers that it considers its monster,

01:19:51 --> 01:19:57

the dog and the owner and everything else is dependent solely on loss of Hannah water either

01:19:58 --> 01:19:59

and therefore, our whole being

01:20:00 --> 01:20:03

should be attached to Allah and be grateful to him.

01:20:04 --> 01:20:40

And this gratitude is not him giving you a house. And this gratitude is not him giving you a car or more children. These are bonuses. We have become so ungrateful that we think only to be grateful if I pass my exams. I'm only grateful if he gives me food. I'm only grateful if he gives me a little bit more money. I'm only grateful if it gives me a house and a wife and a child. This is not this is a bonus. This is a bonus. One lie he brothers and sisters, this is a bonus, reflect on the book of Allah subhana wa Tada. When Allah says you cannot enumerate, you cannot count the blessings of Allah, you cannot count them.

01:20:41 --> 01:20:46

And I wanted to find an example for people who are sad, suffering or even happy for everybody.

01:20:47 --> 01:21:13

And who is this blessing, it's life itself. It's so priceless and precious, we don't own it. We don't earn it. We don't deserve it. But we receive every moment of our existence for free. And it's priceless. We receive this gift of life, that even if you are a multi billionaire, and you had 10 minutes left to live, and if I said to give me all of your wealth for 10 more years, you will give me all of your wealth.

01:21:14 --> 01:21:19

Ask any millionaire who's Brian, they would say I'll give you all my wealth just to see my mother.

01:21:22 --> 01:21:24

We're ungrateful people.

01:21:25 --> 01:21:27

We are and become ungrateful.

01:21:28 --> 01:21:31

And the basis of our life from a physical point of view is the heartbeat.

01:21:33 --> 01:22:04

This harpy brothers and sisters is the ASVAB is the suburb is the cause that Allah has created in order to keep us alive, your heartbeat, that you're not even conscious of just listen to your heartbeat, tell it to stop, it won't stop. To go fast, they won't go faster, is independent of your conscious control. If this hobby were to stop, you won't have life anymore, it's finished. If I said to you had 100 heartbeats left. And in order to get another 1000 heartbeats, you give me a million pounds, you would do whatever it takes to find that money.

01:22:06 --> 01:22:19

Here's the challenge the challenge from the Quran. You cannot enumerate count Allah's blessings. And I dare you try and compete with this challenge. count all the heartbeats you've had so far.

01:22:21 --> 01:23:03

It's physically impossible. For the first three years you don't even know how to count, you got three years backlog. When you're sleeping, you have backlog. In actual fact, it is physically impossible for a human being to count and enumerate every single heartbeat that have in their lifetime. So it's true. You can never count the blessings of Allah. And this is the one smooth blessing, which is the physical reason Allah has given us for your own life and existence, the heartbeat, imagine anything else. And that's why I say to my family, anything above a heartbeat is a bonus. Oxygen beloved by Allah, if you had this mindset, you would never be sad. They believe they

01:23:03 --> 01:23:14

would never be sad if they had this mindset. They would always wake up and be grateful for life. Because it's not theirs. It's a gift. They're always be grateful for this hobby that they can't even count on.

Share Page

Related Episodes