Islam vs Atheism How to Defeat Atheism & Prove Islamic Theism + the Quranic Argument for God
Date:
Channel: Hamza Tzortzis
File Size: 66.21MB
Related
- Mohammad Elshinawy – A Short Trip To Treasure Island
- Abu Bakr Zoud – Morning & Evening Athkaar #12 – Upon Entering The Morning
- Adnan Rashid – How was the Quran Preserved
- Haifaa Younis – Prophet Muhammad’s Family & The Importance of Gratitude Islamic Teachings
- Hasan Ali – Focus In Salaah – Important Islamic Reminder
- Yasir Qadhi – The Ties of Kinship – The Story of Aishah R.A & Her Nephew Ibn Zubayr R.A
- Omar Suleiman – Asad Ibn Zurara (ra) The First Convert of Madinah – The Firsts – Shorts
AI Generated Summary ©
The segment discusses the definition of union in the Islamic culture and how it can be reduced through technology and the use of individual words. The speakers stress the importance of understanding individual words and emotions in evaluating human value and the potential for reducing the value through technology. They also discuss the concept of "immoralized behavior" and how it can be explained by individual actions. The segment concludes with a discussion of the concept of "will" and how it can be used to make decisions.AI Generated Transcript ©
The first ism that we're going to be talking about my dear brothers and sisters is ill had
atheism which is very interesting because in the Islamic tradition it had
comes from the word or shares the same route as Allah had. If you study the Sunnah of Janaza, the Sunnah of burials, you know what Allah had is anyone know what Allah had is?
The lahad is the side pocket. So you have the main hole that is dug in the grave, and then you have the side pocket that is called the lot, which is interesting because it's like a deviation from the main hole that is dug. And it had doesn't linguistically mean atheism, it linguistically means deviation or godlessness.
And that's quite interesting because in the Islamic tradition, atheism, is considered as shirk. And this is important to understand, because sometimes we say and it's a false argument, oh, atheists are halfway there, because they say La Ilaha. They just have to say, Allah Allah. This is nonsense with all due respect.
Because atheism is a denial of the names and attributes of Allah and of the Rubia of Allah. Allah has creative agency and power, a key part of Tao heed, a key part of the Oneness of Allah subhanho wa taala. A key aspect, a key understanding of the Oneness of Allah subhanho wa Taala is the Tao heat of Rubia, the Tao head of Allah's creative agency, that he is the sole creator, mense, maintainer, sustainer owner, master of everything that exists.
Atheists deny that and the lmsc a denial
of this aspect of Tao Hido Allah's names and attributes, His Lordship, his creative agency is actually shook Association ism, in what way it's a form of shidduch Association ism. Because if you deny the fact that Allah is alcoholic, he is the creator or he is a HELOC, or he is the perpetually creating
inadvertently or consciously, you'd have to take the attribute and give it to something else.
Like in the material universe itself, it created itself.
So this is the aspect of association is an aspect of Schick in atheism.
Also, atheism in Islamic tradition is considered unnatural. We know this in the Quran, chapter 30, verse 31, does Allah say adhere to the fitrah to the natural way of Allah.
He created you on this natural way. And this echoes the Hadith in Sahih Muslim where the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said, Every child is born in a state of fitrah. Every child is born in a state of fitrah, photogra Photron, Fatah Rahu, there is something that is created within us to acknowledge Allah subhanho wa taala. Or there is an affinity to acknowledge Allah there are two main opinions in the classical tradition concerning the fitrah. One opinion, which is the lesser opinion in my view, is that the fitrah contains some form of primary knowledge. But the fitrah gets clouded. You can use that metaphor based on this hadith.
And our job is to uncloudy the fitrah to awaken the truth within
the mainstream opinion, which is the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah even the opinion of Allah Ghazali may Allah have mercy on them both
is that the fitrah doesn't really have knowledge, but it's like a vehicle it's like a car, if its windscreen is clear, is driving itself to destination HAC, destination truth by if the windscreen is clouded because of so many different reasons, then it won't be able to drive itself towards the truth. So every child is born in the state of fitrah.
And one would also argue innate to goodness as well.
So the fitrah can be really translated as the primordial disposition, the innate to dis
Position the natural disposition, the original normative disposition
so atheism is unnatural from that perspective. Atheism, atheism is also foolish, is unwise is imprudent. In other words, atheism is totally full of backwards. It's nonsense, like with a chicken's buck, but it's all nonsense.
Don't be too polite by the way.
Okay, we're not British we're Pakistanis. Yeah.
Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.
Allah says Only a fool will reject the way of Abraham.
So again, from a linguistic perspective, from a theological perspective, that atheism is
unnatural. Atheism is a deviation. Atheism is foolish.
And atheism is based on uncertainties as Allah says in the Quran, in chapter 52, verses 35 to 36. But you can own indeed you do not have any certainty.
Is this clear with regards to the Islamic definition of atheism?
So do not consider atheism as your equal intellectual partner or your equal intellectual interlocutor. Atheism is baseless, you need to start from that position.
Don't assume as if we have anything to prove.
Because they are the ones who have the burden of proof, because they are going against a self evident truth, they are going against something that is innate part of your fitrah part of nature.
From an intellectual, spiritual and existential perspective,
is this clear.
Now,
atheism as a definition, is hard to define in academia.
There is one academic reference that says there is no consensus, there is no edge ban on actually what atheism means.
But generally speaking, I like to use the Richard Dawkins understanding of atheism, because that is the kind of mainstream understanding that you will find in academia and in the popular masses, although there are exceptions.
But we can't do with all the exceptions today, because of time.
So the type of atheism that we want to be attacking today is what you would call metaphysical naturalism,
or philosophical naturalism big word. Let me explain what it means. It means three things. Number one, they believe that there are no gods or God, no intervening gods or a god. There's no divine.
Number two,
there is no supernatural. In other words, there is no non physical.
Number three, everything old phenomena can be explained by physical stuff or physical processes in some way, in a reductive or a non reductive sense. So let me repeat, philosophical naturalism is a metaphysic. It's a worldview.
It's a lens that you put on your eyes in order to understand yourself in reality, and this lens basically says, There is no divine
there is no God.
There is no non physical, no supernatural, and everything can be explained in reference to physical stuff or physical processes.
As Dawkins says in his fiction book, The God Delusion, he says, I think on page 14, that atheists believe there is nothing outside of the physical world.
Is this clear?
So, let me just repeat metaphysical or philosophical naturalism is the view, there is no God. There is no non physical there is no supernatural, and everything can be explained in a reductive or a non reductive sense
to physical processes of physical stuff.
Now, as
He's generally speaking and human beings in general. Do not like labels. I wouldn't call people your philosophical naturalist. Sometimes you just have to ask them questions. Do you believe in God? They're gonna say no. Do you believe in the supernatural? No. Do you believe most things are all phenomena can be explained in reference to the physical stuff or physical processes? Yes,
there is a philosophical naturalist. And if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.
Now, don't get me wrong. There are studies to show statistically that many atheists do believe in a great higher power. There are many atheists who believe in the supernatural. So we have to be careful with terms because people understand terms in different ways. And many atheists actually want to believe in God, but they don't like religion. That's what they mean by atheism. I'm not religious, by believing a powerful source.
So sometimes when it comes to individual Dawa individual discourse, you have to understand what they really mean by the terms that they're using. Don't impose your own terms on them. Because the art of Dawa is to listen with the intention to understand is to listen to the meaning not just to the wording, because words are vehicles to meaning. So I don't want you to use these general
definitions and impose them on individuals because the Sunnah of Dawa from an individual perspective is to individualize the person to understand what is the context? What did what do they mean by these words? Where are they coming from?
These emotional, intelligent nuances that you have to unpack because as a Muslim, whether they're mushriks, whether they're atheists, at the end of the day, we must be committed to the goodness and guidance and well being of all people.
We must love for them.
I'm not saying you must love of them, there's a difference. We do not love cover. We do not love disbelief. But you love for people in Islam is so profound. It has a very deep understanding of what love is different types of love. And he makes a distinction between love
and love for
and he also makes a distinction between natural love and acquired love.
Obviously, we're not talking about love as an ism today. Alhamdulillah if that was our Islam, we wouldn't have a problem. Right?
This is why the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said, narrated in Tahrir al Kabir by Buhari and some earlier might have said this authentic hadith. Love For Humanity will you love for yourself? The Arabic is love for Lin s love for the people love for humanity we love for yourself. And this echoes the famous Hadith, in the hadith of anova. We
in the Arbaeen in the 40 hadith is the 13th Hadith in the collection. The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said, lay you know I had the combat that you hit, but yeah, he he may you have been enough. So he, you won't truly believe unless you love for your brother, what you love for yourself. And now we said this means Muslim Brotherhood. But it can also mean humanity in general. From what perspective that you're committed to the goodness and the guidance. This is a very important side point. Because I don't want you taking thin things that we're talking about today and impose on absolutely everybody. These are generalities that you have to learn to use in an individual sense,
once you understand the individual, because you need to be sincere to humanity. And when you're dealing with an individual to understand who they are, where they're coming from, what's their context, and how they understand certain terms that they use. Is this clear. This is very important part of prophetic emotional intelligence.
But not withstanding, we're going to be focusing on philosophical naturalism.
So the first thing I want to empower you with with regards to philosophical naturalism, which is the Metaphysic of many atheists, if you like the lenses that many atheists place on their faces on their eyes in order to understand themselves and reality is that with all due respect, with all due respect,
there is no ultimate human value.
Humans do not have our ultimate value
You under this worldview under this ism, I would challenge anyone on this planet and any conscious creature in the universe with regards to this point, because if there is no divine if there is no non physical and specifically if everything can be reduced to in some way, or explained by in some way to physical processes, then how on earth can we have ultimate and fundamental value as a human being? Because what are physical processes according to philosophical naturalism, physical processes are blind, non rational called
we can and chon them with anything supernatural, specific or transcendent. That's not the physicalist discourse. That is not the discourse of the philosophical naturalist.
You, my brother, you, my sister, your child that you're playing with, is fundamentally explained by blind called non rational physical processes.
You can see from a different perspective, we're just different arrangements of carbon.
So if I had a snowman, which is not a very good cultural reference, because we live in Pakistan
What's another thing that you guys build and use?
Actually, let's not go there. The stick to the snowman, everyone knows what snowman is Hamdulillah. So imagine I build a snowman with no eyes, don't worry.
And then I took the AK 47 that we saw outside from one of the gods.
And I took the AK 47.
And I shoot the snowman.
snow everywhere.
And then I take the AK 47 And I shoot myself.
Blood guts brain everywhere. According to philosophical naturalism, is there a difference? Is there a fundamental difference?
How can they be a difference? We're just different arrangements of physical stuff, different arrangements of carbon, different arrangements of
physical things. Why is there any fundamental difference? Why do I have more value than a snowman? Why are we sentimental about the issue?
Ah, Hamza is dead. So what?
So what?
Fundamentally, is it any different from the snowman being blasted by an AK 47?
One would argue Of course, Hamza, because you're human. What does that mean? According to philosophical naturalism, that's just a word that emerges from neurochemical firings in the brain that can be reduced to electron electrons whizzing around.
You just being sentimental about this fundamentally, is there any difference?
hump that you had, you have feelings you have pain and pleasure. So what what is pain and pleasure according to the philosophical naturalist is fundamentally reduced to chemicals firing, or neuro chemicals firing, or some kind of neurological and physical interaction that can be further reduced to blind code, physical processes or random electrons whizzing around.
fundamentally why why is that giving you some form of value? You're being sentimental about it?
Oh, Hamza, but you have consciousness or Hunter, you have rights. What is rights according to this worldview? I think Bentham during Bentham, he called it nonsense on stilts. Back was on stilts, that's what it is. Because fundamentally, you don't really have an ontological Foundation. In other words, the source and nature of so called Rights is based on what brain code non rational physical processes, you don't have a foundation
so I want to know what the difference is.
Because saying I have feelings, saying I have consciousness saying I have rights. All of these things are constrained.
In all of these things are just
neurochemical firings in the brain that can be further reduced to random electrons or physical processes that are blind called the non rational.
So how can you explain this strong, strong
in a innate natural feeling that human beings have ultimate value?
You can't according to philosophical naturalism, but if you believe in Allah, you believe in Islamic theism, you believe that there is a Creator who transcends the universe
that has told us in the Quran that he has honored the people of Adam.
We have been honored.
We have a value that transcends our own limitations and contingencies. We have ultimate value because our source
is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, the eternal being.
Who is a hawk, who is the truth, who's arrived man, the Merciful, who is allowed to do the loving, who is Al Hakim, the wise who's al Aleem the knowing who is the source of goodness, the greatest benefactor
who is the old living, they're all aware
and through his era and Qudra, and through his will empower.
He created the human being.
And he made the universal moral claim, the human beings have value. Human beings have been honored.
We can make that claim, because our foundation is Allah, our foundation is not blind, cold, non rational, physical processes. Is this clear?
So this is why when they talk about human rights, when they talk about human
individual rights, and they claim as if it's come from the heavens, that there is a Moses tablets of liberal human rights, and they claim this is universal and absolute. Do not let them get away with this say with all due respect, my friends, where is your foundation for this? Because if you're an atheist or philosophical naturalist, or a liberal, or a secularist, that denies the divine, where is your foundation to make such a claim about human rights and human values? It is nonsense on stilts as Jeremy Bentham said, by class on the Burj Khalifa.
It is backless?
Don't be shy.
Just say it's because embrace the term
is totally backwards.
Is this clear so far on human value?
Good.
Second point
with regards to atheism or philosophical naturalism.
How can we claim any objectivity with regards to moral values?
How can we make such a claim?
Oh, Islam is barbaric. Ah, Islam is backward. Islam oppresses women.
Muslim women oppress Muslim men.
Especially in Pakistan. Yeah. Poor guys. They could only marry once now villa. What's happened? You can't have more than one. What's wrong with you sisters? Come on. Love for others where you love for yourself. So pot Allah, Who is this as the orphan Pakistan is very I don't like it in all due respect. We need to revive this amazing practice that solves the problem of Zina that solves the problem of social fragmentation and decay that solves many social issues.
Well, we could talk about that another time. When we talk about feminism. Yeah, that's the feminist frame. Isn't it? Now, only one.
Now the biller or is wrong with the brothers in the room? They've lost their masculine frame. Yeah, I've talked to I've spoken to some of these brothers. They fear their wives.
We have to change that fear to the fear of Allah subhanho wa Taala I heard a beautiful story about a brother who got married to another wife.
and many of his friends weren't allowed to go to the walima because though he their wife said, you can't go to the walima. I was like, What is this nonsense story? That's the feminist frame. So Paula going to eliminate the right of the brother. Fine, empathize with the sister be compassionate. I understand where you're coming from. But at the end of the day, shut your mouth. I'm following Allah and His Messenger, not you. Yeah. Let's move on. Because I don't want to create fitna in Pakistan.
So we're weary. You could remember where we were. He was attentive moral values. Absolutely.
So when we talk about more values
from an Islamic perspective, we're talking about moral realism.
theistic moral realism. In other words, that we believe there, there are some moral values. We don't have to say all of them. They are objective. What do we mean by objective? Let me give you this thought experiment. Imagine my dear brothers and sisters, there was a five year old child right here, I take out my sword i behead the child.
Is that morally wrong? Yes or No? Put your hand up. Is it morally wrong?
Okay, put your hand back down. Another question is the objectively morally wrong? Put your hand up?
What do we mean by objective though, it's not just about feeling. Objective means it is a mind independent.
Which means if the whole universe and every living creature in the universe, every sentient being in the universe, said, that is actually morally good to murder a five year old in this way.
It will still be wrong, irrespective of human opinion. This is what objectivity means. From a more realist perspective, it is mind independent, for example, just like mathematical mathematical truths, one plus one is equal to
one plus one equal to two would always equal to two, even if there were no human beings on this world.
Yes or no. Same with some moral values or moral facts, for example, is surely morally wrong.
Don't be in doubt about such an easy thing. Yeah, if one and a hot shake is morally wrong, if there were no human beings on the planet Earth, would should it still be morally wrong? It's mine in the independent.
That's an objective truth for us. I know there are differences of opinion with regards to these nuances amongst the Usher era, and the Moto EDS and the arteries. But put that aside for one moment, because this discourse not many people would disagree with.
So we believe there are some moral values that are mind independent, if the moral fact of value and we're not saying what this value is.
We're not saying what it is yet. If you believe as a human being, there are some moral values that are mind independent, then you have to answer to moral ontological questions, very hard word. What does that mean? You have to answer where it came from, and you to explain how its mind independent.
Atheist cannot explain the objectivity of moral values.
Atheists can't do that, specifically for a software naturalist, because
it's never going to be mind independent.
The whole world is reduced to physical stuff. physical processes are explained by them in some way. It doesn't have to be reductive. It could be non reductive,
but a physical process of blind code and non rational
How can you explain where that moral value came from? And how do you explain his mind independent? You can't because you're saying it came from the mind. That's the physicalist discourse. So it's no objective. You can't explain objective moral facts and values under philosophical naturalism.
It can only be explained by the commands of Allah subhana wa ATOD.
Allah's commands are the basis for more values and truths, to explain the objectivity to explain that they are mind independent. Where did they come from Allah's commands? How would you explain the mind independent it came from Allah and Allah is external to the universe.
Laser committed he che, there is nothing like him. We explain the more ontological questions, where did that more value come from? And how and why is it mind independent? We have a basis for objective morals. They don't have a basis for objective morals. Is this clear? Now they may argue, yeah, Hamza, social pressure, your
social pressure. That's what the humanists would say, social pressure. Humans come together. And we decide on what these moral values are, and they make them objective. No, no, no, no, no, I'm not letting you get away with this.
If you study social pressure and social changes over time, what is considered to be objectively moral changes as a result of the ideological constructs change as a result of the shower, the blameworthy desires of a particular community change as a result of the power structures in a particular community. This is why we had social pressure in Nazi Germany in the 1940s. And they were the cause I can see consensus that it was okay to massacre the Jewish community.
social pressure does not formulate a basis for objective moral values. It doesn't answer why it's mind independent. And he doesn't answer where they came from.
Because all they could say is it came from collective human beings. But that doesn't make your mind independent, therefore, it's not objective.
It doesn't consider social changes, ideological constructs, powerful structures in society, and the language that is using particular societies to perpetuate these moral norms. Is this clear?
Second point, fine is not social pressure, Hamza, it's biology.
Darwinism. The Darwinian mechanism to explain biological change can explain objective moral values. No. They say natural selection explains objective moral values. No, it doesn't. It only explains our ability to formulate ethical rules. It doesn't explain how more values are mind independent.
There is a difference.
Because they will never came his mind independent because it came from our own biology.
And it could never be objective, because what does that mean? It means that our moral values were developed and formulated as a result of a lengthy biological process. Based on certain environmental conditions, it loses all of its moral meaning,
or more meaning is last. Why? Because if it's just based on a lengthy biological process based on environmental conditions, selective pressures, then if we were reared under precisely the same conditions, as the hive bees,
we will think it's okay to kill our fertile daughters.
Because that's what they do. And this will actually Darwin said,
he mentioned this detraction. Also, if we read under precisely the same biological conditions as the nurse shark, and according to National Geographic, the nurse shark
forces itself on its mate wrestles and bites the fin. We would think that raping women is completely fine.
So biology doesn't make sense. Well, then they may argue, okay, Hamza, let's argue for moral realism, a secular moral realism, which basically argues that morality is objective, because it just is. With all due respect, that's not an explanation. And the door swings both ways. If morality is objective, because it just is, then Islam is true, because it just is. And the commands of Allah are true, because they just are. The door swings both ways. It's a cop out. And when you talk about more realism or morality, moral values are owed. moral duties are owed. We ought to be moral, we ought to be compassionate. We ought to be just behind Does that make sense under a secular, more realism, you
know, owing duties, you know, owing more duties to anyone because there's
is nothing to owe them to.
But under theism we owe Allah we are duty bound to Allah. So objective moral values and duties that are owed to Allah make sense if Allah exists and make sense of Allah's commands, but under a secular atheistic ethic, you owe them to no one. Morality doesn't make sense under that paradigm.
Now, there is one major contention you to deal with
one major contention.
And this is called you three false dilemma.
Or Plato's dilemma with regards to moral values. There was a okay Hamza and I had this recently in South Africa during a debate, they referred to this dilemma.
And it's a challenge, according to them,
they say okay, Hamza, if it's based on the commands of Allah, then is it good because Allah commanded it? Or is it good because the commands of Allah are good?
Which one is it the two horns of the dilemma? The first horn, according to them would say that more values become arbitrary, if it's just Allah's commands, and that's what makes it good. Well, Therefore Allah could have commanded that you should kill everyone above the age of 60. And if he commanded that, then it's good.
And that also means that there's nothing in this cosmos that we should even recognize as objectively good or wrong. shirk cannot be recognized as objectively good or wrong.
The other horns of the dilemma is well,
the commands of Allah are good. But the problem is, you are judging Allah's commands with an external standard. You already know what good is. And you're saying his commands are good. So that defeats the whole argument. Because it means that we don't need good we don't need Allah for good.
So how do you deal with this dilemma?
Well, brothers and sisters, we stand on the shoulders of giants, our lemma of the past our classical tradition. Our thinkers are polymaths we stand on the shoulders, and there is a beautiful argument that has been derived from the work of Shah Wali, Allah, Allah definitely.
From his conclusive argument for God.
And I like this argument because you don't have to follow any school of creed.
And it's a good argument.
That you may argue Hamza, why you is mentioning this trying to be creed neutral? Because I'm not an idiot. That's why, because I haven't, I'm not going to solve these problems. And nor are you. And the LMR plus didn't solve these problems, either. The OMA have had these discussions for centuries. If you think you're arrogant enough to feel that everyone's gonna have one position. Then with all due respect, you shouldn't be in the dollar because you'd like hikma.
I'm just telling you straight? Yes, I have my positions, of course. But when it comes to bigger enemies, that these ideological construct with all due respect, I rather want one Muslim to be one of the schools of creed than for them to be an atheist. And if you don't like that, then there's something wrong with you. You're a sectarian beggar and you shouldn't be in this room. Does that go ahead? Yeah, if you disagree with me, we'll have a debate during lunch, no problem.
And if you win, I'll accept your view. Because I believe I'll follow inshallah follow the truth. But we have to have Hickman when it comes to these issues. Yes, we have our positions, of course, and will articulate them in the right space. But when it comes to doubt, try and be as universal as possible. Try, because what is hikma? And this is a good side point. He come up is obviously the son of the Prophet sallallahu ala he was suddenly Okay, that's where Hickman is. But hikma also means especially in the context of Tao, because Allah says, Oh, Dr. Elizabeth robic cool to the wave you load with what hikma he commit is you have a goal, that is Allah centric, that Allah is pleased
with. And you apply your in in a particular context to achieve that goal. That's hikma. In the context of Dawa, the most pleasing thing is to save someone's emaan
irrespective of the position that they may take, bring them into the house of Islam. That's the better goal or the primary goal. So use your in and apply in in a particular context to achieve that goal.
This is very important to understand what he meant is this doesn't mean you're giving up your own views. No, it means you just following the Quranic paradigm and the Sunnah.
of actually prioritizing certain things within certain contexts. And we know that Hickman is different from him. Because Allah says in Surah Yusuf, and we gave him wise judgment and n. And that's how we reward the doers of good. There is a distinction between wise judgment and Ellen Hickman is the application of element in particular context to achieve a goal that Allah is pleased with this clear.
Good.
I hope I don't have to justify myself any further.
If we do, then we could discuss it after no problem. So where were we? Shall we Allah He makes a beautiful point. Beautiful point I actually learned this from Shaq. Abdurrahman mirik.
spent an hour on the phone with him and I was really, really impressed with this argument.
And he comes from a classical tradition, one of the scholars of the subcontinent as well hamdulillah Shah Wali, Allah definitely.
So he argues,
we believe is good, because Allah commanded it. He accepts one owner of a dilemma. But he says essentially, we totally categorically reject. That is arbitrary. Start arbitrary. Why is an arbitrary? Well, number one, Allah has names and attributes.
When Allah commands something, it's in line with his names and attributes.
He is above the source of goodness, he is Al Hakim, he is a Rahman, he's Aleem and so on and so forth. But also he argues, how could it be arbitrary because when you look at the commands of Allah, expressed in the Quran and the Sunnah, and when you apply them when an individual's social and political perspective, there is a functioning society.
It increases the well being of society not well being from a moral perspective. But you see it's functioning. How is the arbitrary
the commands of Allah, a like key, a key that goes into a lock that opens the door to human flourishing and functioning on an individual social and political perspective? How is the arbitrary
a key is designed for a lock
to claim the commands of Allah arbitrary is the equivalent of saying that something could come from nothing or a key was randomly designed to fit into a specific lock to open the door to human flourishing. So beautiful response.
turns the tables Yeah, we accept it is the commands of Allah. But Allah has a nature because that horn assumes that Allah's commands are dislocated away from his nature, His names and attributes. And it also assumes that the commands of Allah are arbitrary when you see them manifested in the Human Sphere. Is this clear?
So this is the moral argument.
How long do I have left for the first session to complete?
10 minutes Perfect, perfect timing. Alhamdulillah Alhamdulillah, masha Allah. Okay. So final thing to empower you with regards to atheism, brothers and sisters, I've been involved in data for a long time, I've made many mistakes, many mistakes or for you to learn Alhamdulillah and I've been in academia for nine years, I have three postgrads in philosophy. I did a postgraduate certificate philosophy. I did a master's in philosophy, I did a master's in research and philosophy. And now I'm doing a PhD on the Quran Alhamdulillah for theology and Islamic thought, and two of my supervisors, both of them the primary and secondary, actually qualified scholars, even though I'm in a secular
institution, so Allah has really preserved me from that perspective. And throughout my journey, and I really believe this Wallahi throughout my journey, I have learned that the best arguments are from Allah colors.
The best arguments are from the Quran and the Sunnah. We just have to learn how to do to double properly, we have to learn the meaning of the ayat and how to apply them in the content contemporary sphere. The best arguments are from Allah on so many different issues.
We deserve to learn how to use the Quran and apply it in a contemporary context. That is our challenge. That is the crisis of our knowledge today. We have aroma of the past aroma Today we stand on the shoulders. The issue is is the gap the language, the language gap, the framing gap, the knowledge gap between the classical tradition, orthodoxy, and the
In temporary world,
that's and that's how we see ourselves that say as at Sapiens Institute, we see ourselves as translators.
We want to take people of knowledge and take them on that journey to say look, you already have what it takes. His what this language means in today's you know, what is liberalism?
Right from a Quran and Sunnah perspective, liberalism, what is this? What does it mean? What's the implications? How do we bring it back to the Quran?
And once you empower them a little bit with that kind of contemporary knowledge. That's it, they're ready to roll. So the point is, the Quranic arguments are the best arguments. And what's very interesting is the Quran hardly talks about atheism.
Hardly. The greatest question is what? Who is worthy of worship? That's the greatest question.
Which indicates what I doubt should be focused on. But many brothers that always focus on atheism all the time. Yeah. And as if it's the biggest thing, no, the biggest problem is who is worthy of worship.
But in saying that the Quran in one or two verses mentions atheism directly, just one or two verses,
and then the most powerful verses, because I've used them in my debates, and the so called academics and big thinkers have not been able to challenge this argument from a undercutting defeating perspective, meaning they have an undercut the argument in its totality. They may have raised some questions here and there, but fundamentally, they haven't addressed it.
And this is based on the Quran in chapter 52, verses 35 to 36. What does Allah subhanaw taala say? Allah says, In the Quran, did you come from nothing? Or the other opinion is that you come by nothing?
Did you create yourself? Did you the created thing, create the heavens and earth and other creative thing? Indeed, you have no certainty Wallahi in these questions and statements, you could unpack one of the most powerful universal arguments for the existence of God.
Are you ready to do this? And by the way, this is not my understanding. This is the understanding of the classical scholars like Abu Salim and Bobby, for example, and many others, they unpack this argument in this way.
Even even Tamia use this argument as well.
So Allah says unholy cool.
And way, the creative thing the thing that is my hook, the thing that is more than worth the thing that came into existence the human being, did it come from nothing or buy nothing?
Now we can extend this to anything that is MacCulloch that anything that came into existence? Because that's the implication here. Because Allah is saying you the created thing, did you come from Obi nothing, which can be applied to a chair, a door, a donkey? A human being an animal? Or the whole universe? If the whole universe is back, look, he came into existence? Same question applies? Did it come from nothing? Or buy nothing? Is this clear? That's the first question to answer.
The second
did you create yourself? In other words, did the created thing create itself? Did the universe create itself? Did the human create itself? Did the brick create itself? Did the dog crate itself? Did this auditorium crate itself? Clear?
Third one. This is a little bit more complicated. But listen very carefully.
Did you the human being that is created create the heavens and the earth which are created. So the logic behind this is did a created thing was that created thing created by another created thing ultimately?
Was that created thing created by another thing ultimately?
And then Allah says builder you can own indeed you don't have any certainty which basically says,
You don't know what you're talking about. There is an uncreated Creator.
So let's raise these questions to the universe and get answers. But before we do that, we have to establish that the universe is actually my clock, because some people may argue that the universe is eternal. So you can't really apply these questions. Well, you can from the argument of contingency which is part of the books of aqidah. You have notions such as mumkin mumkin, elude YG ballyhooed, necessarily existing, possibly existing, but we're not going to talk about the contingency argument.
Which by the way, all the schools of Crete talk about
for example, if you study acredita Hevea and you read the X
bination have
I forgot his name now?
A Ben Ali Al is a Hanafi, for example, who was an athlete, he came from an athletic background. Although he was the Hanafi
fold the honeys Hanafi school of jurisprudence, he mentions mungkin elude YG ballyhooed. And you have this in other schools as well. Anyway, we don't have to address that for now. But the easiest way to show that the universe had a beginning is to think about it from a first principle perspective.
And let me give you an argument. Imagine in my right hand right now, there is a rock.
And I present this rock to every single one of you. He is a rock brothers and sisters, this rock is a channel
what would you say to me? What would you say to me?
How do you know it's not? It is eternal? You didn't see its beginning?
Why, just by mere observation, this rock is not eternal.
Q
Why?
You didn't see it starting point. It's in my hand.
Ah, Mashallah. Did you hear what the brother just said?
It has limited physical qualities.
Things with limited physical qualities don't give rise to the own limitations. For example.
Look at his mobile phone, the Samsung 22.
It has a certain shape, size, volume, temperature, even smell
density.
And the limited in some way did this phone give rise to his own limitations.
So things with limited physical qualities
had some prior causal conditions, or something prior to it, or prior set of factors that give rise to its limitations? Yes or no.
So when we look at the universe,
the universe could be pretty big. But the universe has limited physical qualities.
The fundamental building blocks of the universe have limited physical qualities.
And things with limited physical qualities would always, in totality, have limited physical qualities.
And this is not fallacious reasoning, because it's about qualities. Because when we look at a brick wall, and we say the individual parts of a brick wall are hard bricks, and that's the quality of hard, we can say, therefore,
the brick wall is hard.
Some people claim that this is the fallacy of composition. But this fallacy has to be applied to certain scenarios. It can't be applied to the issue of dependency or limited physical qualities. Because things were limited physical qualities will always give rise to things with limited physical qualities. It's like the principle of dependency dependent parts will always give rise to dependent wholes. There is nothing conceptually incoherent about that. And the onus of proof is on someone to deny this principle dependent parts will always give rise to dependent holes.
Dependent pots can never give rise to necessary holes.
So the universe fundamentally is made up of limited physical qualities, and the universe is therefore finite, because things are limited physical qualities that didn't give rise to the own limitations, there must have been something prior to it, that gave rise to its limitations. That's one easy way of showing the finer tude of the universe. There are other ways which we don't we can't unpack right now.
But that's one easy way of dealing with it.
And also the also from a cosmological perspective, this is not very controversial. Although in cosmology, there are 17 different models that explain the Big Bang data. And those models have the same equal value. This is called underdetermination. In the, in the philosophy of science, there is no one particular view. And some of those views argue that there is a past eternal universe, but others argue there is a spatial temporal boundary. Others argue that the universe is finite. But nevertheless, the point here is we don't have to adopt the astrophysical evidence because it's Vanie in nature. Okay.
So the universe had a beginning. It is my look from that perspective. It's finite. So we were supposed to break it up. I'm just going to extend for fun
I have five more minutes so we complete this session.
So let's answer the question. Could the universe come from nothing?
Why?
Because could they plus Cushnie plus Cushnie? Is good stay?
Zero plus zero plus zero is colorless? And what do we mean by nothing here what we mean is no property, no prior causal condition, no thing at all.
So, from that state nothing can arise unless you have prior causal condition, unless you have some type of property.
Is this clear? Now, some atheists would argue, no Hamza, we have the quantum vacuum, because you could remove time and space as physical constructs. And what remains is like this quantum reality, what is a quantum reality? Imagine you had a cosmic vacuum cleaner, and you sucked away all of
the particles in the universe, what remains is what they call a quantum reality.
And they say that is nothing but you have particles emerging from this quantum reality. So, therefore, something comes from nothing who could address his argument?
Who could address his argument?
Yes.
Yes, well done. My brother, the brother is saying, well, the quantum reality is actually something. It has a rich structure, it obeys the laws of the universe is a sea of fluctuating energy. It is something all the arguing is something came from something, okay, just luck, I have
another contention in this issue. They may argue, well, hands up, you argue that something cannot come from nothing. But Allah created the universe from nothing, confer your Kuhn you contradict yourself?
Is this a contradiction?
Think about it.
Think about languages and how it's used. It's not a contradiction. Because the first nothing we're talking about is the absence of any thing, no property, no prior cause of condition, condition, nothing at all, then nothing that we're using in a theological context doesn't mean no thing at all.
It means Allah did not require anything apart from himself to create.
But Allah's era and Qudra Allah's will empower are those things that were required to bring the universe into existence? It's not the case of the nothing that we're referring to in the beginning. So they misplacing the word, nothing. From a conceptual context that we're talking about to a theological one, there is no contradiction. It's just the use of the term nothing has a particular context. In theology, it means that there was something there. In other words, Allah was there his era and Qudra were the prior cause or conditions that brought the universe into existence.
So there's no contradiction.
So suddenly couldn't come from nothing? What was the next
part of the art?
No, did they create itself?
Who could argue against this? If someone says the universe created itself? What would you say?
Sorry,
could your mother give birth to herself? No, it's a logical contradiction, because when someone says something created itself, it means that it was in existence before it was in existence, because it has to be in existence to create itself if it was in existence. In other words, it had to be existing or not existing at the same time.
Can I exist or not exist at the same time?
Not only that, my dear brothers and sisters and elders,
an interesting statement by Abu Sulayman al katabi, he makes a really good point. He was like, well, in order for it to be created, it means in order for it to be self created, it must have had power before existed,
which is a very smart way of dealing with the question.
So self creation is impossible. What was the next option?
Did the human being created the heavens and the earth? In other words, did a created thing like the human being create the heavens and the earth that are created? So ultimately, was this universe created by something else created?
No, that's not an ultimate explanation. Because if we even entertain that question, then we have something called the absurdity of the infinite regress. Let me explain.
If this universe that is created, was created by another universe that was also created, then we could ask the question, what created this universe? Then we say, another universe that was created. Okay, what created this universe, another universe that was created. If this goes on forever, would we have our Universe Today?
Be because this universe would have to wait for the Forever chain of causes in order for it to come into existence, but forever, never ends. The very fact that we have the universe, there must have been an uncaused cause in the words of Al Ghazali, but we like to use the word an uncreated Creator, that transcends the chain in order for a universe to exist in the first place.
And I know in the schools of creed, there's difference of opinion on the, on the types of infinity.
For example, infinite regress of events, and so on and so forth. But this has nothing to do with that this what I'm saying is agreed upon by all schools, because it's about causes, not events themselves.
So the infinite regress is impossible. Let me give you another example. To make sense of this. Imagine I had a water pistol, and I want to shoot this young brother in the face with the water. But before I shoot him with a water pistol, this uncle has to give him permission. But before he does that, this young man has to give him permission. But before he could do that, the other young man has to give him permission. If that goes on forever, I'm ever going to shoot him in the face with the water.
similar scenario with the universe, there must have been an uncreated Creator.
And then when we think about this uncreated Creator, we know this uncreated Creator must be transcendent. Lisa, Timothy Shea, why?
Because he created the universe. If I created this lectern
I don't become the lectern. I am distinct and destroyed from this lectern, correct. By greater reason, we don't make analogies with Allah. This is by greater reason.
Allah subhanho wa Taala is not of the universe, He created the universe as even Taymiyah said that creation is distinct and disjoint from the Creator.
So he's transcendent.
Number two, this uncreated Creator must be powerful. How could the uncreated Creator create the universe? If he didn't have any power?
Take one atom in the universe and split it what happens? You have this huge explosion, right? The potential energy and power in this universe is phenomenal. The Creator used his era and Qudra his will and power to bring the universe into existence. And all of this universe has this power, imagine the
maximal power of the Creator.
Third point,
this creator must have a will.
Why?
Because the universe came into existence in a point in time, and this creator is an eternal Creator. As we said, an uncreated Creator means he's eternal, because he was uncreated.
And if an eternal Creator created the universe and a point in time, he must have chosen the universe to come into existence. And choice indicates era indicates a will.
Also, you have al Ghazali is very powerful argument of the argument of particularization, which basically means we have a certain universe with a certain physical arrangement, there is nothing necessary about the physical arrangement, it could have been arranged in a different way. Since there are different potentials of arranging the universe in a physical way. There was one potential that was chosen over another, and a choice indicates a will, because Allah particularized the universe in a particular way over other particularization ins, it's a very smart argument. So this uncreated Creator has a will.
This uncreated Creator must have an ill knowledge. Because when you look at the universe, you have natural laws, physical laws.
And the law giver implies
knowledge there are even if you consider them to be disease patterns, even if you think they are just inductive generalizations of patterns we perceive in the universe. It's still a pattern there.
Some form of design this to some form of consistency that implies in.
And finally,
this uncreated Creator must be one
must be one.
Because how can you have
two powerful knowing
creators of the heavens and the earth, there will be chaos,
complete chaos,
there will be a conflict of wills. And if you assume that they always will the same thing, then there's only one wheel anyway.
And this is called the argument from exclusion.
Because if you claim there is more than one wheel more than one God,
and they want to say, for example, move a stone, one who may want to move it to the left the other to the right, so they're gonna cancel each other out. That's not an option, because we actually have the universe now, there is no cancelling out we have creation in effect. The other option is
that
they always agree to move the stone towards the right.
If they always agree to move the stone towards the right, then how many walls are they in reality is one will
buy vape powerful argument by Allah Ghazali. In his in his to have the philosopher very powerful argument. I call this the argument from conceptualization.
And the argument is very simple.
In order to understand multiplicity, there must be something in place to be able for you to be able to make distinctions. I know there's more than one chain in this room. Why?
Why do I know there's more than one chair in the room.
Because there is a concept that I have, that I can apply to that physical reality, that gives me those distinctions. It could be shape, size, geographical placement, color, there must be something in place that allows me to make the distinction. If I had two water bottles on this table, I know there are two because of the spatial temporal difference, maybe not temporal, but spatial difference, shape, color, size, volume,
there is something in place that I can understand there is more than one.
If you claim this more than one God more than one eternal God,
what concept have you used to make that distinction?
If you're using a concept to make a distinction, then those two things are different in some way. Therefore, one of them is not God. Because God's supposed to be all powerful, all knowing, all wise has a will.
So if there is a difference between them, then one of them is not going to be God.
So what we conclude here
is that there's an eternal, uncreated Creator, that is transcendent, has a will, is knowing is powerful.
And is one
and this is basically the arcade of Islam.
Allah is One Who Allahu Ahad,
Allah is One his powerful, his knowing he has a will. And this is like the basic definition if you like, of, sort of a class because if you study a sort of a class, Allah says, Kulu, Allahu Ahad, say Allah, the day to Allah is uniquely one, which includes transcendent see here. He's transcendent, and he's one
who Allah who had a low Summit, Allah is absolutely independent.
Everything depends on him. He wasn't born nor does he give birth, and there's no equal to Him. And implied in that especially in the name Allah called who Allah Who Had Allah encompasses all the names and attributes of Allah subhana wa taala, which includes that He is powerful, he has a Will he is knowing.
So this has a Quranic grounding as well. So this argument is one of the most powerful arguments and is derived from the book of Allah subhanho wa taala. So just to end this session atheism, what did we start off with in the beginning?
He remembers very quickly.
Philosophical doctrines, knucklehead, what is philosophical naturalism is the belief that there is no God. There is no divine there is no non physical there is no supernatural, everything can be reduced to in some way or explained by physical processes. If that is when we talk about the Islamic definition of atheism
Eat had is unnatural against nature, it's foolish is imprudent, it's unwise, it should work.
And then we spoke about that there is no ultimate value for human life. If you are a philosophical naturalist, we also explained there is no objective moral truths and moral values, and we explain them we respond to certain detractions and also the main detraction of the three false dilemma. Then we went to the Quranic argument for God's existence, which is one of the most powerful arguments, chapter 52, verses 35 to 36, where we concluded there must be in an uncreated Creator, because the universe couldn't come from nothing, it couldn't create itself, it can't be ultimately explained by something else created, it must be explained by an uncreated Creator. And this uncreated Creator
must be one, have a will powerful, be knowing
and must be transcendent,
which makes sense of the god of Islamic theism.
Hope, hopefully, of planting the seeds in your heart and mind with regards to the theistic aspect of this session. So you continue your journey, go to the learning platform of Sapiens Institute, go to the full blown course on atheism, download the very relevant literature, go to other Institute's as well and other organizations that have very good work on this issue. And hopefully, I've planted the seed in your heart and mind to understand that is Islamic theism is true, and atheism is imprudent, foolish, unwise, and unnatural. The next session is going to be on
liberalism. We're going to talk about secular ethics, liberal ethics.
And it really builds on nicely from the moral argument that we made and the final session of today would be LGBTQ plus.
Have a good break. Please be back on time we have a lot to go through. May Allah bless every single one of you before you leave, listen to the moderator. He's gonna give you a shorter time for a break. May Allah bless every single one of you said Alec Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh