Channel: Hamza Tzortzis
Hamza spoke about how Islam influenced the West in three key areas: the presumption of innocence, scientific progress and tolerance. He continued to articulate a case for God’s existence and the miraculous nature of the Qur’an.
Bismillah al Rahman al Rahim
al hamdu Lillah wa Salatu was Salam ala rasulillah.
Brothers and sisters, I greet you with the warmest Islamic greetings of peace. Assalamu alaykum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.
For those who don't know any Arabic, that basically means, may the peace and blessings of God be upon every single one of you.
Even if you don't believe God exists,
even if you don't believe Allah exists, and there are people in this room, who don't care, who have suspended those questions, or don't even believe in a day to the divine, they don't believe full stop, period. I don't want to know.
But even if you don't believe you must all think Allah.
Why am I saying this? 100 dude is crazy. That's true. That's a different topic.
Why is God saying even if you don't believe in the divine, you must think the divine. Even if you don't believe in Allah, you must think Allah. Why am I saying this? Well, the reason I'm saying this, is because Allah as a result of Islam, gave us three important pillars of Western civilization. And without them, we wouldn't be a civilization.
the presumption of innocence. Number two,
tolerance. Number three, scientific progress, the scientific revolution in the 15th and 16th century.
You know, believe me D.
Well, let me tell you why.
Islam is no just a religion. It's what we call a Deen in Arabic, which means a way of life. It's a comprehensive idea, concept. And from it emanates various concepts and values, to live our life and to form a unique, successful civilization. This is why Adam Smith, who is a very funny looking guy at the back of your 20 pound note, who's the 18th century founder of modern economics, he said that if it wasn't for the tranquility, of the caliphate, the Islamic governance, the principles of Islam, with regards to social political context, if it wasn't for those things, we would never have people within that society, to look into the interconnecting principles of nature, and develop and
facilitate the Renaissance, Adam Smith,
even Thomas Arnold, a famous historian, he writes, it was Islamic Spain. That was the key milestone for the facilitation of the Renaissance, the facilitation for the scientific revolution.
So your iPad, your iPhone, was a stupid thing. The iPad is in between an iPhone and a laptop. We never really needed it, but they gave it to us, right? consumerism. That's what consumerism is. It says you have too many needs, and we know which needs they are. And by the way, we have a product for you. That's consumerism. Anyway, different topic. But the point is brothers, sisters of friends,
Islam facility in the Renaissance, because of Islamic Spain, as per the words of Professor Thomas Arnold
is unexplained when it was taken over after by the Christians, particularly Toledo, many of the Western scholars, they traveled to Islamic Spain or what was Islamic Spain. And what did they find? They found libraries, they found literature, they found analytic material, they found scholarship,
which resulted from the socio political principles that Islam taught its rulers so they can apply within that environment so they could produce these works.
And we have,
for instance, at the lead of bar
and Daniel of Mali, two amazing English scholars of which traveled to Toledo, to the Arabic manuscripts.
That came as a result of the Islamic principles develop that amazing environment for the cultivation of the sciences, and they took it back to England and what did they form people
Oxford University, your first choice, by the way.
And many of Western scholars, they traveled to Islamic Spain to translate this works. And hence it form the basis for chemistry, for astronomy, for geology in all these different sciences.
So the Renaissance was as a result of Islam, which is as a result of Allah. So thank Allah, even if you don't believe in him.
The second point that I'd like to mention is the presumption of innocence. Every single one of you can walk into a call and say, I am not guilty. You have to prove me wrong.
I didn't take that spliff.
It wasn't me.
It wasn't me.
I thought it was herbal medicine. Yeah. The student outcry.
You could walk into any court and assume innocence before you proven guilty.
And this was a direct inference from the Islamic tradition. King Louie the night he is well known to establish the principle of the presumption of innocence. You're innocent before proven guilty. But before King Louie the ninth when he took you from the Muslims, and I'm gonna explain how before he did that, to prove your innocence, you have to fight in a duel. For you be burnt alive and if you survived, you pronounce non guilty, not guilty.
King reason I met a monk and this monk, read the Quran was the book of the Muslims and also read the prophetic traditions attribute to the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam upon whom bpce and he directly quotes a prophetic tradition with regards to justice. And we know for from a justice perspective, Islam was the first civilization that actually had a very strong element of justice and the presumption of innocence is in our tradition.
This is why Richard W. bullae. a historian in his publication, the case of the Islamic Christian civilization, says that justice was meted out impartially, irrespective of religious and status.
This will have the likes of Jewish historians like Alan Cohen, in his book, A World Within he says that although the Jews had the choice to go to the rabbinical court, they didn't want to go, they went to the kadhi, which means the Islamic judge, to the point if you read some of these records, women would go to the Islamic judge and complain, they're not getting enough money. We want more nefer. Karnataka is an Islamic concept of maintenance for the woman, for her clothes for her makeup.
She doesn't have to pay for that, by the way. It's economic liberty for you. Education, her house. And if the man can't afford it, the government does say that to David Cameron with the 90,000, almost homeless in Britain.
So if you read the works of the academic muscle boy Assad, and his article essay,
called the political influence of Islam, on the presumption of innocence, you see in detail how Islam facilitate the most important maximum Western legal theory, which is you must be innocent, before proven guilty.
The next point is tolerance. We live in a secular society that preaches tolerance, it says you must tolerate the minority you must tolerate tolerate each other, which is good, which is excellent.
But the historian say like Christopher Walker in his book, Islam in the West, this is a direct result of the Islamic tradition because if you look into European history, what happened people you had religion saying to people, no, you can't say that. Oh, you gotta stop was a huge slap because they had the 80 was the 30 year was the massacre in St. Bartholomew's day, Europe had an issue with religion, particularly an interpretation of the Catholic tradition.
Now, what I'm saying is therefore, the Catholic school No, but there was a reality between religion and the thinkers and the masses and people who wanted to break away from this. And as a result of this environment, you have the likes of Locke, Hume, Hobbes, he co wrote here, some you profundo
and many others, who basically want you to look and look into natural law in an individualistic sense, which basically
means to divorce a way from God's perceived rule for society. They said, religious, the working goes not working. Let's look at natural law and human rights and what is the self and individualized says an atomized sense because therefore you don't need religion anymore because there's something inherent in an individual that transcends religious doctrine, which is fair enough from that perspective, and Locke,
he was attribute to right treaties and tolerance and his book on civil governance. He was directly influenced by Islamic philosophy and thinking. His main teacher, who he writes about this teacher that he loves to send his lectures was Edward pokok. Edward pokok was the 17th century orientalist. He was called the orientalist, the first orientalist. And he traveled to places like the east and took the Islamic manuscripts and he was a lecturer of Islamic Studies, Islamic Studies at Oxford University, and john Locke would sit at his lectures and learn and acquire knowledge, especially on concepts of tolerance.
And that's amazing. Now, if you read john Locke's work on civil governance, he mentioned that leadership is that divine trust, a vise currency? What does that mean in the Islamic tradition, the hillaire for
the soltanieh directly almost taken from Islamic theology. So I like to mention this because it breaks the ice has nothing to do with the topic, of course, but the reason I like mentioning this is because everyone's shocked, Islam gave us these things. So Islam is on any it's not an enemy anymore. It's not a foe, it's a friend. The Islamic tradition is a friend, not official, because it gave us the presumption of innocence. Thank Allah, it gave us tolerance, thank Allah. It gave us the scientific revolution, the 15th and 16th century they were in a zone.
So even if you don't believe in Allah, you must think him.
Right? Because we got all these nice things from this imaginary
So let's go to the topic.
I just came back from an amazing trip. Well just relatively just came back from an amazing trip in Pakistan. Or as my son says, per second,
per second, per second. So yes, I went to pasa con.
So in March of imposter con.
I had an amazing journey two weeks of, I can't describe it was very spiritual. It was amazing. I connect with human beings in a way that I've never connected before. And I connected with my own stomach in ways I never connected before. I had a chapli kebab. You know what chapli kebab is, basically means a slipper kebabs. And it was made of slippers people, because my stomach, I had some don't get into the detail.
the main point I'm trying to say is that as a result, I learned about Pakistan culture, Pakistani culture, from a philosophical perspective. And they have an amazing man in their history called Dr. Mohammed Escobar. Also known as the point of the East alemannic bed, Who's heard of him, you probably learn his point is when your children he's an amazing character. And I just read recently, one of his amazing gems that made me speechless. And he said, and I'm paraphrasing, but in the east, our philosophy and thinking has been consumed has been consumed by the question, Does God Exist?
But then he says and asserts, I want to give everybody a new question. One that's relatively new, especially for the east. And not question is does man exists?
saying in my head on end
now the shadow amongst us who say, obviously we exist?
Okay, maybe we just really get a ton of thinking out of your mind at the moment who's wash it away for a bit? Yeah.
But why is Mohammed Iqbal trying to say, forget the question, Does God Exist? I have a new question for you. Do you exist? Does man exist? The most profound question we don't even ask ourselves always externally looking all the time. But what is the Quranic discourse say? Well, we own pasta coma fella tipsy rune, and in themselves, do they not see? I want me to
see him. Do they not reflect within themselves, the inner physiological
psychological and spiritual dimensions of man. But it's even further. And there is an even further question here, which relates to the question, Who are you?
Do you really exist the sense of self you?
Are you you? Who are you? But these are profound questions about anyone in this room who you are. How are you gonna answer that question? You're gonna say, Oh, I'm Pakistani, or passie, corny. I'm Pakistani, I'm Indian. I'm Greek. That looks Pakistani.
I'm a student, I'm a Muslim. I'm a Christian. I'm a human, all these abstract terms that we don't really internalize, and we don't know what's going on. Because in reality, our sense of self is just a reaction. Because we're just a reaction to our upbringing. I'm my parents. I'm my DNA. I'm my apology on my social political circumstance. I'm from the west. I'm a Westerner, I'm from the east, I came to the west. So I'm a Westerner. God knows what I am. Identity Crisis, confusion.
So who are you, but these are profound questions, people? Who are you? And he reminds him of a famous American writer that I once wrote, that once wrote, being born, is like being kidnapped and sold into slavery.
Because we're all slaves to these things, people, and you think you're special? You think a unique? With a quiz on the left? Come on, man.
Are we unique?
Surely Some people say we're just matter, right? If we're just not, and it doesn't really matter.
Does it matter the universe existed? Does it really matter? If it didn't exist? Or it exists?
We're gonna become one buffet anyway, one day, right? Who cares?
Does it make any difference? What is the sentimentalism going on here?
is why being so sentimental for you just to be original molecules? That's it, who cares? Why attribute anything profound to yourself, like morality, or good and bad makes no difference?
When there's a killing in Iraq is not an innocent person dying, it's just a rearrangement of molecules.
So what is the safety these things aren't the people where does the slave only
but you don't like to think like that. d. You're gonna be a slave to these material, blind deterministic processes. But I'm just a reaction to my society, to my upbringing to my DNA to social biological context.
This guy is gonna leave England one day.
Because he must have such bravery to hold possibly like, my lecture
with his hood on.
So are we just a reaction to these things people by No, you don't want to think like that. And I believe you, because I believe our reaction to these things. But how are we going to free ourselves from these things? People? How do we free ourselves from these things? Because we're always slaves. Your whole concept of freedom, there's probably a secular society in this campus or a liberal society what God knows what, and freedom is such a divine thing for them. It's like gospel truth. You must be free liberty, freedom of speech, are free to do what I want. As long as there's a harmony one.
These concepts are very religious these days.
But the just Buck was
from the Pakistani perspective, the buck buck means, like, chatter, right.
But it's true. It is, philosophically they have no basis. Don't get me wrong. I like these principles that Islamic principles, especially freedom of speech, which I'm so misquoted about, that freedom of speech or liberty to express yourself actually came from the ninth century in Islamic tradition. Many people attribute liberty to express yourself from the Islamic tradition. So it's part of our heritage.
But philosophically, from an absolutist perspective, we're all slaves, and the three times of slavery in the Islamic tradition, save to the lowest self to your desires, to the knifes to the ego, slave to social processes, as the Quran says, Are you going to follow your forefathers? Even if they were based on falsehood, very existential question. You're just going to react to them. Who are you?
Or your slave to God?
Am I being too similar to the divine? You free yourself from these things?
So in our pursuit of happiness, and a pursuit for freedom,
the light at the end of the tunnel is the divine from this perspective, and I challenge anybody from an existential point of view what it means to exist.
If they could challenge this process,
you're the slave to yourself, to, to others for to the divine.
So I think Mohammed had a very good point.
But let's get straight to the topic.
Does God Exist? I think it's good to speak about these things in the beginning, because it just breaks the ice, it shows that religion or Islam or law is not a concept that has not benefited mankind. And also, it makes us think within ourselves, so we know that this topic is not just an abstract philosophical discussion, because I'm not into intellectual gymnastics, okay.
Or any other type of gymnastics obviously, yeah.
110 kilos a bit harder. You know, those rope things there, whatever they do. Yeah.
does God exists? This is the perennial question is a very important question.
Fundamentally, you don't really have to prove it. Why do you? Why do you have to prove that God exists? Why, from the Islamic tradition, there's an argument that we believe this is innate,
which means fit for the fitrah is a concept from our tradition from the Quran, and the prophetic tradition that gives us this axiom. It's a universal premise that we take that we build a whole worldview, God exists, there is no argument.
And this is what you call in philosophy as a properly basic belief, a belief that is required to shape what other beliefs just like in scientism, which says that everything must be verified or proven scientifically to be true. And the basis for that is based on faith.
But you didn't know that?
Does the robot exist?
Does it exist? does exist? Prove it?
Because you're clever guy, you know, you can't prove the rule that exists. How can you because then I could play with maybe your brain is on Mars and the two probes in there. And that Aiden is making you think the way you think, the matrix
I know kung fu
that's when you need the weed bro, that time for a crazy film, to advocate using weed, of course.
So the point is,
from this basic perspective is a properly basic belief. I don't need to prove it. You can't prove the basis of your knowledge. Why should that be the basis of mine.
But I'm going to show you some evidence anyway. But I like just thought this way, because it creates an interesting paradigm because people always think that the religious people have to be on the backfoot. We have all the proving to do.
Well, you prove your basis of your perspective. Everything needs an axiom. Everything requires a universal principle that you can't prove, but you require to build the rest of your worldview. That's philosophy for you. But Richard Dawkins doesn't want you to think philosophically. I was in Ireland a few months ago, actually last year, and I attended the world atheist convention. And someone asked him a question, Richard Dawkins said, Professor, shall I study the philosophy of science? And he said, No, just do the science. The ultimate question I interviewed him and said, Richard Dawkins, thank you very much for your presentation. I'd like to ask you a question. Why did
you tell people not to say the philosophy of science, he didn't really reply. And I think I know why. Cuz as a result of reading something small about the philosophy of science, you see that it's not the gospel truth anymore.
Because Richard Dawkins advocates a particular view on science, his epistemological thesis, which basically means his view, on how we can attain knowledge is the following. You must
prove everything scientifically. Everything that you must believe in must be proven scientifically. Well, let's analyze that.
The statement itself is self annihilating, self defeating, because the statement, everything that you need to believe in must be proven scientifically, can't be proven scientifically.
So kills itself from the onset shoot yourself in the foot back.
Also, scientism requires logically necessary truths like mathematics, one plus one is equal to two. These are logically necessary that don't require affirmation in the empirical world.
And scientism requires mathematics and logically necessary truths before you can even have science in the first place.
To argue the other way around, it's like shooting yourself in the foot or rather, a dog trying to catch his tail.
So scientism has a limited scope people. It's not the only way to knowledge,
donate people, the white coats the new religion, I call them the white coats, and then all like that only the very extreme
for the only the new white codes blind your mind and stop your conceptual thinking, thinking this is the only way to true.
Because it's not true even philosophically. Also, scientism can't prove morality. Although there hasn't been attempt by the one of the four horsemen, the atheist, Sam Harris, in his book,
The moral landscape when he said, science can prove morality, and we call it well being. And he calls it the peaks and the troughs of well being. And on the peaks, you have people who are, have well being in on the troughs, you have people who don't have any well being.
And there you go, science can prove moronic for his on a big mistake, which he mentioned as well at the end of his book, that he's conflating well being with morality, because someone who has well being
can also be immoral, like a thief, or a pedophile.
So his philosophy breaks down. Also, on a more humorous level, it doesn't work practically imagine going to your wife imagines his Pakistani you do. And you say to her, Mary, john,
my life so No, my darling. Yeah, I love you.
She could just slap wake up betta
is only chemicals in your brain, your Yeah. Imagine that. Imagine we reduce everything and we try to verify it from a scientism perspective. It doesn't make sense. It's a sentimentalism, why aren't these things just being sentimental? grew up? It has a plus b, therefore C can last
passed by Nietzsche. He was for me a very true atheist. I take my hat off in for him. I do. I honor him from that perspective, because he was honest, because he knew the logical consequence of not having the divine read his works the fascinating.
We've discussed that now let's go to the argue for the existence of God.
One of the biggest questions in western Eastern philosophy is Does God Exist? For example, a question referring to this, from the British philosopher, Derek parfit. He said, we should ask the question, why does something exists rather than nothing? Also, you had the German polymath, live minutes, he said, the first question that must be asked and answered is why does something exist? Rather than nothing? Why are we hear? What is the structure of the universe? How do you become to be? Why?
And these are profound questions. Typically, in response to this atheist have asserted, especially Bertrand Russell, in a radio program in the 1960s is a almost like the godfather of modern atheism. From a philosophical perspective, he said, The universe is a brute fact, it's just there. It says that people it's a brute fact, didn't begin, won't end. It's just this in your face. So don't even think about it. Even added to think about it, get you depressed, just live your life
in this self delusional way.
Now who reflect upon this conclusion, I would argue that it is irrational. Why? Because if the universe never had a beginning, and never had an end, it implies that the past is infinite. Think about it. If there is no beginning no end implies the past is infinite, that the universe has an infinite history of past events. Think about this carefully. The universe has an infinite history of past events. But I want to ask you a question. Can the infinite exist in the real world? Can it exist?
exist in mathematics? Based on actions and conventions? It may exist because we think the divine isn't infinite. But that type of infinite is the quantitative infinite, not the infinite of discrete parts. So can the infinite with discrete parts and segments actually exist? In the real world? No. This is what the philosophers say there is no ontological export, there's no export of the concept into the real world. Let me give an example. Say we had an infinite number of
bottles in this room.
If I take five bottles away, how many bottles? Do I have left?
infinity, infinity minus five. I don't know what the hell's going on.
Yeah, exactly. It leads to paradoxes and confusion.
Let me give you another example. Say we had 100 bottles in this room. And at every possible moment, I add another bottle, or 201. But 202 103 for 2,000,001, very complex nursery rhyme. He said, the next round five green bottles.
You don't have any nieces or nephews.
You were a kid once as well, you know?
would I ever reach a number of bottles? I could describe as infinite? No, because what about n plus one, I could add another one all the time. So the potential from this perspective, rather than infinite from this perspective is potential is never actualized. That's why Aristotle said that the infinite is this potential is never actualized.
So if we apply this to the history of the universe, the universe must have a beginning because the history of the universe is real. They are real things past events.
So therefore, the universe must have a beginning.
So what I'm saying is that the universe must have a beginning, either from a scientific perspective, and this is a supporting argument is not gospel truth, because science changes and evolves. But our current understanding of cosmology indicates there is a spatial temporal boundary, which means that the universe is almost like a finite object. It began to exist. t is equal to zero time is equal to zero.
And we've heard of things like the Big Bang, Who's heard of the Big Bang?
So the thing that happens after too many curries, okay.
going all in shorting ham. in Nottingham is good reputation for being shocking, isn't it? Big Bang?
Innocent folk command
from Hackney in London very dangerous place. Okay. Who said Hackney before?
Good. Well, you heard about it.
It's the worst place in London. Good.
Just meet me outside.
So the big bang theory,
or is various interpretations such as the oscillating model, the quantum fluctuation model and others. I don't want to
baffle you with technicalities here. But these models all necessitate beginning in time, due to concepts like the second law of thermodynamics, for instance, a causal fine tuning, meta stability and all these other things that we could, that we could discuss in the q&a. But the point is, from an astrophysical perspective, there's a beginning in time. This is why one of the leading theoretical cosmologists Alexander vilenkin, in 2006, he said, we can't run away from a beginning of the universe now. So always saying here's the universe began to exist, it came into being the universe came into being. So from this perspective, there are only some possible explanations. There
are only some possible explanation these explanations are three. If you could find any other explanation, please let me know. But the logical possible explanations are, the universe came from nothing. The universe created itself or the universe was created. And interestingly, these are the principles that the Quran the book of the Muslims, tell us about the creation of the human being. And from an exegetical perspective, understanding the Quran, these principles can be applied to everything that begins to exist, everything that comes into creation.
So the universe began to exist, which which we've shown for the software Klee and scientifically it began to exist. But how did it come from nothing? Did he create itself? Or was it created? These are the logical possibilities and let's work together? Let's discuss the first point can the universe come from nothing?
No, it can't. How can the universe come from it because out of nothing, what comes people?
As the Pakistanis say, there's actually a famous saying in Pakistan, it's called which snake the snake. If you don't have a mustache, you have nothing.
There's another thing I learned about Lahore is a big city in Pakistan and they say,
if you've never been to the hole you've never been born.
But why did I go then? I feel like dying.
Crazy place. There is no sense of traffic in that country. Every car looks like it's been hammered by big guy.
with a sledgehammer, because you hear we had about four accidents, some guys nearly went left field. Yeah, honestly, it was crazy on a motorbike. Anyway, this my experiences of my Pakistan trip
have nothing nothing calm. This is why PJ's walk in his publication about time said, if there is anything that we can find inconceivable people is that something could arise from nothing. And that's so true. But there is a contention to this. Some physicists say no, you can have things coming out of nothing. And they talk about the quantum vacuum. They say particles emerged from the quantum vacuum, out of nothing. But there's a problem with language here, within the universe began to exist.
So matter, the sum of matters, all mass came into being from where there was no math proceeding, it says absolutely nothing.
But the quantum physicists are saying the quantum field, which is not nothing, it's something because the quantum field has a rich structure. It's a sea of fluctuating energy and obeys the laws of the universe. This is why the Christian philosopher of science, john polkinghorne, he says the universe is not nothing is actually something, it has this rich structure. So that contention is not a valid contention.
So the next point, since we know out of nothing, nothing comes. For instance, if I had a box with nothing in it, then all of a sudden, I gave you a teddy bear. He was like, That's impossible. He did the trick. This way, when we walked when we watch magic tricks, and we see things coming in a hologram.
Another great Man in the audience,
we see things coming from a hat like a rabbit, or a bunch of flowers, we know is this the trick?
So something cannot come from nothing. The second option?
Can it create itself? Can the universe create itself?
Can it create itself?
No idea? Who knows? Yes, it already has to exist. To create yourself it would already have to exist a logician in the room stand up and
sit down young man.
Obedience, you see that? He doesn't know me from Adam and Eve, that says that you prefer to stand up here.
Because implies that something exists and doesn't exist at the same time. That doesn't make any sense. Let me make it very easy for you. Can your mother give birth to herself?
It would be very messy, right?
Don't even imagine it.
However, there is another contention. Here comes Stephen Hawking from left field. He writes in his new book, The grand design,
which funnily enough, in his introduction, he says, philosophy is dead. And when you read the book, it's full of philosophy. Interestingly, it's full of his philosophical interpretations of physics. The irony, anyway, he says, that because of the concept of gravity, the universe can self create.
This may be coherent mathematically.
But the mathematics has in physics has various interpretations in the real world.
So the issue is, is he right?
But philosophically, I think he's done wrong. Not from an arrogant perspective. But what is the law of gravity is the force of attraction between two masses, so you need math before you have mass? That's what he's saying. Anyway, so you have the universe before you have the universe. Now, frankly, all he's really saying is the quantum field with gravity than the universe emerged. But all he's doing is is expanding the scope of the universe because the quantum field is part of the universe.
So that's not a very healthy contention.
So we've dealt with
the universe can come and nothing we've dealt with the universe cannot self create. So what's the last possible explanation that the universe was created or in a philosophical terms, whatever begins to exist has a cause whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Small bang, because of my hand, Big Bang,
because of the Divine hand, that you know,
you see the point? No to anthropomorphize the situation, yeah. So this is what whatever begins to exist has a cause. Now there is a contention here and the reason I'm mentioning contentions because I want to move away from
Some outdated atheist cliches and have a dialogue and have a discussion. Okay.
Now the final contention to discuss here is that the quantum field again, that there are subatomic events that happen without no prior causes, apparently. Now, this isn't necessarily true, because what we see without any philosophical interpretation is things happening. And we just can't see a course, it doesn't you can't infer that there is no course. And this is why there are two interpretations of physics, you have the indeterministic interpretation, which says these things happen with no causes. Or you have the deterministic interpretation, which says, These things have causes and the both epistemologically valid, which basically means terms of the theory of knowledge,
they're both valid.
But if you're a wise man with everything in human experience, when they begin to exist to have causes, why would you negate that with the quantum perspective, it will be irrational to do so even a manual can the famous philosopher, he even argued that you'd for you to disagree with causality, because of experience is actually denying your own experiences. Imagine that it's self defeating. To deny causality, because of your perceptions or experiences, is denying a very perspective in the first place. And he gave the example of ordering your perceptions. Let me give an example. I have the ability to see this martial avena, handsome young man,
to see this young man with the blue top to see oil at the back and see the gentleman with the beard.
I can order my own perceptions. But if someone ran across this auditorium, I can only see his front before I see his back. And in mind, you can said that the reason that we know when we can old our own perceptions or not, is because of the innate concept of causality. So to even attempt to say experience denied, because it is the equivalent of denying your experience in the first place. So you're nowhere.
So we have a cause people, we have a cause for the whole universe, which we could have mentioned very easily in five seconds. But we wanted to work through it. Talk about reality. Do you know why? Because another atheist contingent is God of the gaps. You don't know what's going on in the university to squeeze God in as an explanation.
But I think my discussion has shown is no good of the gaps, because we've worked with reality and had a discussion with using rational thinking logic and astrophysical evidence. So we know there is a cause for what is the nature of this course? Well, upon conceptual analysis, which basically means thinking deeply about this course, taking hard being a critical thinker.
What can we conclude? Well, if this course created the physical universe, it must be a physical as the Quran says, Lisa cometh Lee Shea, there is nothing like unto him, he is transcendent, outside of the universe, LASIK admittedly he shaved. Why?
Because if he was just physical causes, then we'll have the absurdity of the infinite regress. Because if the physical universe was as a result of physical cause, as a non physical cause was as a result of a physical cause. And that was caused as a result of physical cause and non physical causes as a result of physical cause. Will we ever have the universe? No, let me give an example. Say I want to give this gentleman who is typing his bottle, a big kiss in the void. Yeah. But before I do that, I have to ask permission from the very generous brother on the right.
And then he says he has to ask permission. And then the other brother has to ask permission. If that goes on forever. Am I going to give him a smooch?
Unfortunately, bro, yeah, yeah, is he I won't kiss him, right.
And this is why necessitates that this cool is a physical which also means and therefore eternal, because of the absurdity of infinite regress not the Infinity itself, but the infinite regress.
Also, this cause must be intelligent, because it created the universe and the universe has laws,
physical laws within the universe, like gravity, who's gonna deny that people, no one, and it was as fine tuning and constants like the gravitational constant, constant and other constants. So law giver implies someone has intelligence.
Finally, this cause, must have a will, must be able to choose why.
Because if it's eternal, and it brought into existence, the universe think about these people, if this cause is eternal, and it brought into existence the universe, which has which is finite, and must have chosen the universe to come into existence, because physical causes always exist with their effect.
Like 100 degrees in boiling water 100 degrees that all of a sudden is boiling water.
For since we've established, this code is eternal, and the effect is finite, must have chosen the universe to come into existence. So what have we done?
We've just explained what the unexplained 1400 years ago and 112 chapter out to be lady ministry Tanya regime. Bismillah R Rahman r Rahim who Allahu I had a lot of summit. Let me read William, you let me akula who Khufu went ahead, say he's God. He's uniquely one, he is eternal. He begets not, nor was he begotten, there is nothing like going to him. His divine is eternal, he has a will which is implied in this in this verse in this chapter. And also, he is intelligent, which is also implied in this chapter. So look what we've done just by using basic logic using our minds, universe began to exist. Yeah, they came from nothing. It created itself. Or it was created then thinking a little
bit deeply about some of the basic attributes of this creator, you come to the conclusion that we have good reasons to believe that the divine exists. simples. Right? wasn't that hard? Was it? Who could just summarize it again? Who could in few seconds, universe began to exist? Did it come from nothing, no video created, so no, must have been created? There you go.
The biggest question of humanity is resolved in a few seconds.
But that's what Muslims believe it's such an innate concept to have to deal with this philosophy and gymnastics. I do this purposely because I don't know. Your students. You like hearing people who think they think they know something. Yeah.
Oh, for the people who really want to have more deep thought about this perspective, and reality is so intuitive. It's so real, it's slapping you in the face.
Now, I don't want to be an abstract philosopher and have intellectual gymnastics. I want to give you one more argument. In the final 10 minutes on why I believe
God exists based upon the miraculous nature of the Quranic discourse. How can a book prove the divine?
Well, the book can prove the divine from this perspective is because we can't find naturalistic explanation for the Quranic discourse impossible. We can't find a logical natural explanation for the emergence of this book.
And let me start by giving you a note and understanding about the Quran. The Quran, according to Eastern and Western scholarship, has been described as an intrusive text. It was to engage and impose itself on the inner dimensions of man with his achillea his after his intellect, with his nasiha with his internal disposition, it was imposed itself Yes, this book,
but in a positive way people and the way it does it in a positive way is by asking you profound questions.
Asking you profound questions about man life and the universe. A filet on Luna lol Ebola case of wholecut Have you not seen the camel and how it was created? And as I mentioned before, Wolfie on fusi comb FLR tube soon, and in themselves, do they not see? What can they can do fasudil at the calming effect, and thus, do explain our signs and evidences in detail. For those who reflect for those who reflect people the word yet affect your own for those who reflect comes from the Arabic trial to stem fair care raw, which means in the classical dictionaries, that the thing that you're reflecting upon, you must inquire deeply about the implications of that thing. The CRAN makes
mankind to think because we've been diluted with our immersive environments, with the iPhone, with alcohol, with TV, with drugs, with excessive entertainment. I'm not saying these things are bad for the drugs, maybe, unless it's for medicine.
All these things have blinded us from the questions that we must ask ourselves, who are we? Why are we who's all we? These are important questions that we just forget about just leave your life, mate. That's what we say. Don't we have a conversation with the typical cab driver in London? I saw Bo. Anyway. Yeah, beep Yeah. So bullcrapping a just a life mate. You want to point
i'm not belittling him. But we all suffer from this Xbox immersive environment. I remember when I used to play cos x is picked Cossacks on PC before for massive pay. I love you, man. I mean, you have a connection that no one else
Now, honestly, I'll play that game and I used to work for the police IT organization by being disbanded now, it was a government organization. I was a project manager and one of the senior police officers said we play this game to develop our strategic thinking. So I boy, and I start at 10 in the morning, and I see my watch. It's seven o'clock at night. Have you had that before? You just own that game for hours? It's an amazing game, you take over everything, always to choose the Was it the Ottomans? Well, no, the Algerian, right, you know, being a Muslim army and everything. Yeah. take over the world. Yeah, you had all these tanks and not Tangier these like medieval guns,
and it was really funny.
Anyway, but the point is, it was an immersive environment, it stops you thinking these critical questions. And this is why psychologists have a term called self annihilation ism, which means you self annihilate you self destroy, which basically essentially means you don't like your sense of self. So you always have something to drink. You always have some drugs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning or actually, I'm not saying this is intrinsically wrong about people who may have a pint Now then, or may do whatever the things they want to do. But the point is when these things are excessive, itself, annihilationism even music itself has that power. Do you know that? I was
discussing this today with a gentleman? And I said, Look, if you don't believe music has power, then dance with no music?
Yeah, you can only act like a fool. When you have music, right? Press pause one of the YouTube clips when people are dancing, don't stupid. Don't they look stupid? It isn't it because only music has that ability. And if you look at sports physiology, when someone has like excessively kind of like violent or aggressive or passionate or motivational music, they always do better. They can alter your state. Imagine if it's things like I'm going to kill you rape you, you know, those kind of crazy music. And that's what they did with the Marines. And they, they, when they were shooting, whoever they were shooting, not to get political here. They had like burn and kill them and then
killing them. Yeah, well, that rock and he creates that environment changes your state. Anyway, so we forget about this questions with the CRAN. The attorno book from this perspective, makes us question why you will use all you think about reality. But the crime goes even further than this and challenges the whole of mankind with regards to his authorship. As it says in the second chapter in the 23rd verse, we're in quantum theory, the amendment is in
fact to be Sugata Mitra, he was the Shahada coming to Neela he couldn't solve the pain. And if you are in doubt, people took it to everybody who doubts
about this book, which we have sent down to our servant referring to the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, upon whom bpce then bring Lynch up to like it. And corn, your witnesses, and your supporters and your scholars and your philosophers and academics and your thinkers and your scientists, besides God, in kuntum saw the pain if you are truthful in your claim. Now we know this has something to do with the literary uniqueness of the Quranic discourse, but we don't have time. And it's another topic maybe for another time.
But let me just give you some interesting features of the Quranic discourse, which is not part of this discussion, but it's to open your mind to give you the window of opportunity to analyze and critically analyze this book.
No cryin has an amazing numerical consonants which means basically means he has numerical coherence. This book was revealed of a 23 year period pay a 23 year period for specific times in places one book.
And this book was compiled together to have a coherence, a literary and numerical coherence in each chapter.
Let me give an example. The term seven heavens is mentioned seven times in the Quran.
dunya the world and aka the Hereafter, I mentioned the same time
Surah Baqarah. The second chapter of the Quran is 286 verses was revealed of a nine year period for specific times and places were brought together, brought together as a coherent piece is lifted coherent. From the perspective if you read the book, discovering the Quran, a contemporary approach to vote text, Professor Neil Robertson, he goes verse by verse of the second chapter and links every verse rationally. Eve is a different themes. He links them together as a rationally coherent literary piece. Although revealed over a nine year period for different times and places. What does it say about the author must have knew the future.
But from a numerical perspective, cut the chapter in half. Wow. Yeah. And you have the 100 and 43rd verse, and within the verse, what would you find? middle
Chopra in the middle, you find the word middle
In the third chapter, the Quran mentions the likeness of Jesus in the sight of God. And Allah is like the likeness of Adam.
They both mentioned 25 times each in the Quran and up to this verse, The both mentioned seven times
let me not make an inference for you, but if it was a route of a 23 year period for specific times and places and has this numerical coherence, that should make you think.
Also, the Quranic discourse, as I just mentioned before, is a literary unique piece.
The Quranic discourse,
although has ascetic reception is amazing, but I don't talk about that, because it can be seen as subjective, but the structural features of the Arabic in the crime discourse, the scope the Arabic language, because in the Arabic tradition, when you express yourself, you could always express yourself in prose or poetry. And prose has two sub categories generally, these sub categories are such as writing prose, muscle, straightforward speech, poetry,
has to be in accordance with 16 rhythmical patterns called the L Bihar. The word Bihar coming from the word see,
like the waves on the sea
and these 16 mizuko patterns make up Arabic poetry. The Quranic discourse doesn't belong to any of these categories. But everyone any source text producer human being speaking Arabic writing Arabic, always falls into one of these known categories, but the Quran de scopes the Arabic language various technical reasons, and you can find these reasons out on the website, the inimitable Qur'an dot com, or, for more popular perspective on the eloquence of the Quran, go to albania.com for them from a minimum and amazing individual kosha nouman Ali Khan.
This is why agrp the famous British translation of the Quran, and his Quran is still used by academics today. He said the Quran is a unique fusion of prose and poetry. This is where Professor Bruce Lawrence and his book the Quranic biography, on page number eight, he said, as tangible science. Quranic verses are expressible in a global truth, they signify meaning later than meaning light upon light miracle after miracle. Professor Martin Zammit from the Netherlands he said the Quran is the most eminent written manifestation of the Arabic language.
And the Quran came to challenge those best placed to understand the language which was the creation the Arabs of the time revelation, but they fail. This is why the famous linguist of the time, while it even al mahira is a by God This can come from a human being. So again, an illiterate man from an illiterate people unlearn it in the sciences of eloquence,
to come out with a blazing new style, a new literary form of Arabic that hasn't been emulated today, as
Professor Arbuthnot says, although several attempts have been made to change the Quran, none have yet succeeded. This should raise questions. And finally
norick Not only is the CRAN a literary coherent piece, not only a numerically coherent piece, not only is a unique literary form, but also
it is a book that agrees with reality.
The words of chef or professor Muhammad Ali in his book, The Quran of the orientalist and the orientalist, he makes me he makes an amazing point. And he says, The Quran is not contingent on a seventh century worldview on the understanding of reality. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't agree with some of the Muslim apologists view that the Quran predates science because it doesn't, how could it because you're always gonna do a backward interpretation logically doesn't make sense. I disagree with that fundamentally, and also assume that scientism is the only way. epistemologically, science is the only way to form conclusions about your life. And we've discussed this already, until
by reality, he established fact. Why is the Quran not reflective on seventh century Arabia, it's not a reflection of seventh century Arabia, it actually reflects reality.
And one way to establish this is actually the sequence of the developing human embryo, which can be found in sort of mommy noon verses 12 to 15. Chapter 23 verses 12 to 15. And the crime matches certain keywords and the keywords are not for
aloka motiva is on LACMA.
Let me quickly we don't have much time, and maybe another day another topic, but the word mudfur from the Arabic perspective is something that is
Mixed when we refer to other verses, but the note four is a mixed substance. And grammatically he points to the view that it's a single substance made from two other single substances. And we know in the prophetic tradition that the netvault which means they drop liquid semen sperm comes from the mother and the father. And we know from the Quranic perspective, this word mudfur is from the semen so it's not a synonym, synonym for semen. As we see the Quran says, not 14 min money in the nude further drop is from the semen. And also we have another Quranic verse that says to lella, it's an extract of a fluid.
So which means something's particularly about this drop, that is essential. So this was the first time in human understanding. And the classical scholars had this view, the first time in human understanding when we understood a concept that resembles the sperm that's contained with liquid Cosima. The Western world only had this understanding the 17th century.
So NetFlow is a mixed substance from the male and the female, which are extracts of a particular substance. So the egg and the sperm
which come together to form the zygote. And the zygote then develops further with an outer shell and you have the blastocyst and the blastocyst where does it go people after six or seven days after fertilization who's the medic here? Apart from my good friend, your medic what is the bestest go sister fertilization implementation right? And it sinks into the you train
your train wall and it sinks deeper and deeper and there is a fibrin clot over it right and it's secure. This is in line with the width Korean McCain which means to place family to fix family.
So now after from this stage, you have anaka Allah Quran the Arabic language according to the Sonata, which is an Arabic text, classical Arabic text, and Edward Blaine's lexicon, which is an academic text for Arabic. alchemists is hanging or suspended. It means a leech like substance, we mean something sticky that could clean.
Let's take these meanings. JOHN Allen and Beverly Kramer.
In the book, which I believe is an introduction to human embryology, and Robin Sharma and many others more than embryologist. They say that the embryo is connected to what the connecting Stoke
and these were young girl to just use the word hanging and suspended the role of the connecting stalk is to hang in suspend the embryo. What does that mean? Hang in suspend.
Also, we have the Allah katomina worm or leech like like substance, if you go around day 20 to 25 you have to process happening. These processes are called neural relation and the folding of the embryo you have the neural folds and you have to generate new folding with the head and the toe are brought together closer. The combination of these two processes makes it look like a leech. The inverted is called a cylindrical cylindrical structure. But other embryologist have called it and hear this. They've said when all they've said Leach they've said these things independently switch off your phone or you get a big car. As I say in Pakistan. Yeah, there's a Punjabi saying it's
called Sanjana de la hora de la basically means the black. The Goldsmith goes tap, tap, tap, and the blacksmith goes tall. Yeah. Are you kidding? No. Yeah, I won't do that. So it looks like Leach. And from the mood of a mandala means according to the classical dictionaries and Lane's lexicon, something that's a chewed piece of me a morsel of flesh, something which the teeth have left marks on it. I'm telling you go to the stage, go to the photos, the scantrons
the graphs, when there's so much information, and then they go and travel to the moat noto code, and they form sclera tomes. What does it look like? Something's bitten something. Yeah, by anything me. They chewing gum your skin, whatever you want. If you're Tyson, someone else's ear.
Tyson. Yeah, whatever it would look like Santa has been bitten Medusa and also the Quran also affirms elsewhere, that the word Mandala is something that's been formed and unformed, which can refer to the organ or genetic period, and at this stage is about five weeks or four weeks that the organs have started to develop are not fully formed.
After the motto, you have his arm, his arm basically means bones, or specifically limb bones, and we have the formation of the limbo
The katolik cartilaginous models of the bones after that what happens?
LACMA for casona which means that then we close the Yvonne the bones with LACMA it is hidden we created the the muscles over the bones. It says then we closed the bones of flesh.
Now the myoblast, which are the precursor cells for muscle formation, they migrate distally clothing to encase to close these, the word focus on them is to close in case to cover. they migrate distally and they activate over the bones for muscles that someone says why does it mention LACMA muscle? What is it mentioned meat because Latin actually means meeting muscle. And why does it mention the Arabic word outlet which means muscle?
Because according to john and a very famous embryologist, they say it's not only muscle that formed at this stage, it's also other connective tissue like tendons and me, encompasses not only muscle, but if you have a good show automa
you'd have tendons in there too.
So, this is a very brief one on one on embryology. But look, he agrees with reality. The only claim against a crying narrative is you copied the Greeks Galen Aristotle well let's go to gain a restore that to do that in the original Greek by the way our to gain and what does he what mentioned he mentioned the what spare tomatoes, spare tomatoes in the Greek language. At the second century understanding actually meant just the physical fluid, nothing specific from it. But the word newspaper is something that's an extract as we said, it's a singular substance. It's from the semen, not the semen itself. So from this onset, the two words don't marry because the genetic
understanding which is the whole semen in general, but the Quranic understanding is not for and semen in Arabic is not for as many as many Armenian This is what we have all the prophetic traditions like Buhari, the major Muslim, etc. The collections of these prophetic traditions actually state that Ayesha for instance, or the love and the wife of the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam wash the many of the Manian from the close of the Prophet. Never use the word mudfur.
So NetFlow is not a synonym for for semen which means spirometers in Greek, so the two terms don't even marry.
Let me give another example gaylin he says sperm comes from blood. Then he says the two seam is Mix, mix then after that is mixed with menstrual blood.
The Quran doesn't mention any of this. So the Quran knew or the Prophet sallallahu I think some knew what was right and left what was wrong. What does that imply? is supposed a thesis? What about Aristotle? Aristotle had the ridiculous idea that the semen mix with menstrual blood, masturbate Arabic is not aloka it actually means it's Hey,
The Quran doesn't mention it. The Quran doesn't mention this. Also, Aristotle had a bizarre view that depending on the embryo is, is going to be a male, female, if it's on the left is either male or if it's on the right, so the female
who could do a greater analysis of the situation, but the point is, the sympathetic understanding was a Greek understanding. And they weren't even similar to claim that the Prophet knew what was wrong upon whom the peace and kept what was right, actually opens a huge can of worms. It means he knew what was right, even though he was in the seventh century. So that should be some questions. And the reasons that this is a sign of the Divine, because if you can't find a naturalistic explanation, it's a sign to the transcendent to God, to Allah subhana wa to Allah Subhana Allah whom will be humbucker he had when he lay the answer was stuff will occur to Blake Solomonic.
Rahmatullah. Thank you very much, and your patience for listening. I think we have 10 minutes for questions. So just take the questions straight away. Sure. Here's some questions. Yes.
who created God? Did God created himself in my opinion?
if we assume that this question is correct, it also leads to infinity, which is Yes, correct.
God is beyond the cause and effect it just existed. I just want to know your opinion. Okay. You may have come come late, because we mentioned this in the presentation. And we said that could the universe be as a result something else physical and we said, If that's the case, you have the absurdity of the infinite regress. And I gave some examples of the kissing the man on his forehead. If I have to ask permission forever, in the form of an infinite amount of time, an infinite regress of permissions I will never end up kissing him. So to even claim that who say who created God
is the equivalent of denying our very existence because you would ever have created in the first place. Something we already mentioned the presentation. Thank you for the
questions. Yes, sister.
But how do we use basic principles?
That's a very good question. See my humble view. There's two ways of doing this. If not, am Rahim Allah, the I think it was a 14th century theologian and scholar. He said, the whole universe is an interplay of divine attributes. Okay? But you need a sound psychology and mind to actually get them out. Because if you're really depressed, and all you see is depression, it depends what glasses you see in the world. Like if I have you know, glasses, I see the world as yellow. If you have blue glasses, blue, or green, yellow, blue, you know, blue, blue, yellow, and then no one's understanding each other. Just take the glasses off.
But if we have a sound disposition, then we can see into the one we see beauty. We know God is beautiful. That's one of his names and attributes.
But however, I think the strongest view is the way to know who God is from this perspective, is to go straight to the CRAN. Because if you think about it, there's like a knocking on the door, okay?
We don't know who's there. He's uninvited or she's uninvited it's uninvited it's nine o'clock at night, you're having a hot chocolate? How you going to find out who is?
Who is it?
He or she tells you. So he has to come externally. This is why it's an evidence for external revelation. And what I've just discussed in the end of my presentation, alludes to the fact why Muslims humbly believe that the Quran is this revelation. So if you could attribute to the transcendent you could attribute to the divine, then what it says it by itself isn't necessarily true. For instance, if it says it's all loving, is loving, if he says most of us will merciful, but also we could see this in reality, too, you could break down these names and attributes and actually see the mercy of God. For example, reflect upon the love that your mother has for you. Just reflect
on that love, reflect on the concept of human love. If you believe in the divine, if you believe in a creator, the creator created that love.
So what is it say about the Creator
is loving. That's why Allah says his elbow dude, which means the excess be loving, loving this one, we have the prophetic traditions that say that God loves you more than your mother does.
And this is not anthropomorphism. This is saying, Do you know the greater love than the love of a mother? No, I don't. So but God loves you more than that.
So I would say has to be Quranic has to be based on revelation as well. And when we do that, then we see the purpose for evil, then we see the purpose for good. And we see that actually, we're here just to have fun when I hit to have a book and have a nice time. We're here as a test. The major chapters of the Quran say that life is here as a test,
to see who is best in good deeds to get this divine
gift that God wants to give us, which is eternal bliss with him.
So is your choice.
Take it or leave it. Yes, brother. Does that satisfy someone? If you if you want to say if you have another perspective, please say
you have other perspective. Okay.
What was it?
Our theological standpoint with regards to the names and attributes of God, as per the mainstream book could hate it, how we Yeah. Which is the fundamentals of Facebook, appreciated by all schools of the theological spectrum.
Those ones and those ones, yeah, everybody is that God? Was you guys His names and attributes. He has those attributes, even though he may not manifest them. That's our view on God because he's not needy. For example, if God is loving,
he doesn't need something else to show that he's loving. That is what you call an act of dependence. And this is why we have problems with the Christian tradition. Because this is a I'm not saying I'm assuming a Christian, but it's a Christian argument that if God is loving and healing someone to love, which was God himself again, which was Jesus, so God love God, right? So wasn't he's not necessarily then if God is loving God, right. But the point is, that's our view, a theological view. I hope that helps.
Is this Yes? And then we can find them to one particular? Anyone? Yes.
And if someone speaks anything out of that,
don't you think the biggest last one is? You know, confining his powers is infinite?
I don't know.
You're a human being right? Can you think like an elephant?
Kind of cat think like a rat.
Kind of dolphin think like a chimpanzee?
Exactly. There's also the question.
So if I said to you, without His revelation that you could show His revelation, who is God to
claim because the finite is infinite? The finite mind is infinite. The question itself,
you're saying, why do we go to a book? Yes.
And isn't that blasphemous to say anything outside of that book? is blasphemy? I'm saying No, I'm saying.
Because the example is, we've never
been right, because we're finite is infinite, because maybe have a limited, limited understanding, or comprehension.
Just like the cat company, like the rat, or the elephant, thing like the dolphin, because the two different paradigms were different paradigms to go, right. So all we can claim is, the humbling position is if we do find a book that we can attribute to the divine because of its miraculous nature, then the most humbling thing to do and the most wise and rational thing to do is to combine yourself with that interpretation.
Because you notice come from the infinite now, outside of that, is this your finite mind?
Do you see the point rather?
Do you get that point?
Isn't God now as the human being, you know, someone?
a religious leader?
Yes. How do they get?
How can we justify planning for blasphemy? Yes.
Well, how do you justify the punishment for every country?
It's from the perspective
is that right? Yeah. So women, say six months in prison for Latin America? Is that what they do in this country?
Is that what women say? Do you think any woman in this room would say someone who raped me? Can you get six months? Please? They were
tortured to death. It's not that's not the way you go. The reason I asked your question back, is because if you don't understand the way it will happen in the first place, you will never understand what I'm going to say to you by this. I mean,
do you see? So do you know who is coming into this country?
Do you know?
Okay, shall I tell you?
he does, he does know here.
Kids face the father how.
Now, when it comes to law, generally,
you have a social consensus almost. So you give power to people to allow you to allow that you allow them to create laws. So social consensus. This is why Ken Clark, he announced in Parliament that he was to lower the crime rate for about a year to six months, okay, and type of rate.
So it's based on social consensus. Now, from a design perspective, we say social consensus is philosophically problematic.
Because we have 20 dumb acids giving you all
the words of Muhammad Baba poet was what he said. And that's what he said. It's a very I'm not gonna say I agree with me, but made an amazing point about democracy, which is which, which resonates what Plato said in his Republic, Mohammed Iqbal said,
I once met a white man that told me about the system of governance called democracy and democracy, the system of governance, where
it counts, man. It doesn't weigh him.
So it was quite profound coming from such a great poet. I'm not saying I agree with him, but the punishment is there also
So couple issues with consensus, because 10 years ago, there was a law that we agree with, and in 20 years time to be because there's a lot that we don't agree with, for example, say, maybe to get my degrees, I have to be around 12 or 13. In Spain, it's 12. In America, some states, it's 20 watts, some states 18. Some states, it's 16, in Britain is 16. Do you see? So from a human perspective,
this is problematic because what is more, just based on social consensus, and social consensus is the biggest for more than in 1940. Germany, we should be killing Jews, because that was the social consensus. We all think is wrong, right? Don't we think we know.
Everything we know is going to be our basis below is the divine and that's why it started. So with regards to how you explain people giving verdicts, awards, and lastly, other things, then
we have some of this philosophical or sound is coming from the divine
or this human social consensus. Don't get me wrong, you have human agents and interpretation which can lead to disasters as well. But if you look at the history 1000 years ago, to see some very positive things, like I mentioned about the Jewish historian saying that Jews wants to live under the sun and go to the party, the Islamic Courts, rather than the rabbinical courts. So when we ask questions about the share that people background reading on what is in the first place, because it's easy to point the finger, look what you guys say, you guys want to kill the apostate? Was Jerry not true anyway?
Because he was worried about, you know, the conditions for the, for the punishment of many of the so called house punishment in Islam, do we read about the conditions? We have a fox news news narrative on on other traditions on a 1400 year old, developed system, we have a fox news narrative, what is Fox News say? It is a pizza character driven ecosystem. It says, you know, there's a man with a beard up to his navel. And there's a woman covered, what do you see is one eye, and she has a sword and a cloak. There's a poor white kid wanting to test goes to get a cookie, because he's hungry. And the guy has a checksum of his beard. And the woman is coming up on closer, so gets the sources.
That's the caricature all of the things that maybe you've been reading, or that really, and shame on us, shame on us. You know, I've traveled all across Europe in the world. And when I discuss these issues, intellectual like professors, and academics and activists, they can't do the same trash. And I wanted to know how your questions, you know why you haven't even bothered to Google it.
Shame on you, because you just hate. What does it say about you as a human being and you come here, just to have a nice discussion. When I discuss about morality, I just I go into Maquis Professor Mackey, the late atheist professor, I read his works. Professor Thompson
was a normal reading and because they asked if you want to create a straw man of someone else's tradition, but that's what we do. All the time. You guys killed adultery, you do this, you do that?
To say, I'm not condemning you for that.
Okay, so now, I have a wider agenda here. And my white agenda is that we as human beings, when we approach any tradition, and even Muslims, Buddhists, Muslims, right, they will say democracy is crap, rubbish, intellectually backward, and they've never even read anything about democracy. Anyone know anything about it? You know, we may say thing, liberalism is the source of social diseases. There might be another occasion like that, whatever the case may be, have you been to john Stuart Mill, even in a book, or even an article online, now that we find the same all the time, but when you put the finger there's always three fingers pointing back at something the Muslims got it wrong
as well. And the other side is very wrong. The way to demystify it is not to come with any intellectual emotional baggage and then superimpose it on the narrative. We come with a blank canvas, right? I said this about you guys. Is that true? Well, I haven't bothered to learn
it here has an ever basic textbook. And the reason I get passionate about this is because it's time now people, especially your age, us to act like this. to not use intellectual emotional baggage or personal experience and superimpose on someone else. Because I guarantee fast and Muslim in this room.
atheist and what do you think some of you be like this called abstract, not spiritual?
reduction is arrogant. I've asked this question before I did it on Saturday. And I got those answers and I said shame on
the VPS when he met someone else he asked me when they don't speak to me about them at all. I want to come as a blank canvas with this
to really engage with them how they should be engaged with. So no wonder when we talk to atheists to people, other traditions, we never engage with them. You know why? Because we're always talking to the judgment that we have in our mind. Whenever told me to the human being,
and we want people to engage with Muslims. When they find them in that way. Maybe we could enroll them and
unfortunately, I can't wait to finish