The Modernist Movement Part 3

share this pageShare Page
Jamal Zarabozo

Channel: Jamal Zarabozo

Series:

Episode Notes

Episode Transcript

© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.


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

Before I begin the lecture today, I think there's some

00:00:11--> 00:00:17

important points. inshallah, I would like to make first, some of these points I mentioned in the earlier lectures,

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

more or less,

00:00:21--> 00:00:22

some things

00:00:24--> 00:00:25

just now,

00:00:26--> 00:00:33

first of all, with respect to this lecture tonight, actually, I wanted to be able to kind of rewrite the whole lecture as I have some new material,

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

original sources, the last time I gave this lecture,

00:00:39--> 00:00:44

he was not willing to give me another week or two to prepare

00:00:46--> 00:00:46

tonight, so,

00:00:52--> 00:01:03

as I said before, beginning shala, there's one point, I would like to make the Terminator two. And it would happen at the end of last lecture and what's been some of the comments that have been made. And he says,

00:01:06--> 00:01:07

Well, first of all, some brothers

00:01:08--> 00:01:11

a little bit upset that, Danny, we have lots of problems

00:01:12--> 00:01:23

and the Muslim Ummah, and therefore, we should not be discussing this problem now, or this kind of situation or this kind of moment. Because our problems with respect to the performance of

00:01:24--> 00:01:30

this guy, they are more important than this internal difference between some of the some of the Muslim,

00:01:32--> 00:01:35

and I would leave, I would leave this point getting to discuss it in more detail later.

00:01:37--> 00:01:39

But I'll just mention now that, in fact,

00:01:41--> 00:01:42

as I

00:01:45--> 00:01:57

mentioned, a number of reasons why the numbers are why the victory from all this kind of data rather than one representative data, one of the reasons why it is delayed, rather than kind of a data is not supportive, and give us victory at this time.

00:01:59--> 00:02:18

Well, one of these, one of these reasons is the fact that the Muslims themselves, and they have not freed themselves from throwing the football. And it is not free themselves from the idea that what they prefer to have is good. And therefore any we should try to, to follow them and try to take some of what they have, and mix it with Islam.

00:02:20--> 00:02:34

Well, this is what as I said, one of the reasons why this kind of data as delayed, but not sort of victory for us is a major support to us. And in fact, this is a characteristic of this room, and is that they are looking towards the performance, and they are not getting completely slammed in their

00:02:36--> 00:02:58

in their way of looking at things and their beliefs and their thoughts. And as I said, Danny, as long as this group was among us, and he has put the point over to talk about this group in particular, but then he makes the general point. And as long as this group was among us, and we do not do anything, any to correct them, then in fact, the method will never come will always be any support, and will also always be any

00:02:59--> 00:03:03

Juniper. And also, as we'll discuss tomorrow, inshallah.

00:03:04--> 00:03:11

And is this the only way back, this would really be united in the hearts and our hearts will come together, if we come together.

00:03:12--> 00:03:26

And according to what is said in the form sooner, and it will come together on any other basis. And he would come in together would be like the coming together of the product, I'd love to kind of walk out of the slides and withdrawn, that it looks like we are in fact to get a better effect. Our hearts

00:03:28--> 00:03:29

are against one another.

00:03:30--> 00:03:38

And it's one point, and this is related to what has been said since the last lecture. Danny, this is not the proper time to discussing this issue.

00:03:39--> 00:03:43

But another point that many people have have said, as stated

00:03:45--> 00:04:07

since that time, which I think also should should be corrected. And I'm not making this statement to make anyone happy to appease anyone, but can you because this is the truth. Some people will take these lectures as an effect as an attack on that one's to me. And I've heard some brothers Kingsmead since that time saying this, and what you're saying you're trying to attack.

00:04:08--> 00:04:36

And he was the first one this is a very strange statement. And it because in fact happened to Ben was one of the first Muslims and he was aware of this moment. And it refuted the idea of Mohammed Abdullah in Russia during his time. And in fact, most of the most of the references that I was using the strongest references, talking about the attorney amendments and refuting the ronnie amendment or from people from this one, that one of the books

00:04:37--> 00:04:40

written by us is going on. The introduction is written by

00:04:42--> 00:04:59

an American study and that introduction and it makes things much much stronger than the Stevenson and he even dealt the intentions of the Civil War. As I said, many we're not going to talk about intentions, the any of these people, but because some of the people that we're talking about, some of them used to be from the one they're no longer from this one.

00:05:00--> 00:05:09

Some of them have never been from the farm, but people confuse them with the one and never go from that one. But instead of one itself, they're criticizing the one and they're being criticized by the other members.

00:05:10--> 00:05:11

And so this

00:05:12--> 00:05:14

is not normal,

00:05:15--> 00:05:23

and is the same woman. In fact, many of the leaders of the former muslimeen are fighting also against the Afghani movement

00:05:24--> 00:05:25

in the same way that

00:05:26--> 00:05:29

they say, and in the same way that we are doing in these lectures here.

00:05:31--> 00:05:31

So finally, again,

00:05:32--> 00:05:37

based on what happened in the last lecture, or maybe during the last lecture,

00:05:38--> 00:05:43

and in particular, were upset at me for quoting, some statements that some people made.

00:05:45--> 00:05:51

And the strange thing was, I thought that people were upset with me for putting these statements that are definitely incorrect.

00:05:52--> 00:05:55

But they did not show their displeasure for the ones who made the statement.

00:05:57--> 00:06:02

That in from my point of view, and who we should have loyalty to who we should have learned.

00:06:03--> 00:06:10

And if someone makes a statement that goes against the Quran was enough, we should oppose that person as mentioned in the introduction.

00:06:12--> 00:06:16

And we didn't, we didn't have to put them just because we like that person. But if he said something wrong, we have.

00:06:17--> 00:06:27

As I said, the strangest thing with that song, Danny was listen to what I was saying, I was just quoting them, but they didn't find anyone upset with them, especially for just defending them and trying to say anything.

00:06:31--> 00:06:36

And it was like killing the messenger of someone. And if the king gives you a message, and

00:06:37--> 00:06:44

he's not going to give you any money, or he's going to kill you, or something like that, you're the one who gives you the message, the message instead of killing the one who sent the message.

00:06:45--> 00:06:52

And just conveying what they said, if you don't like what they said, or what they said is wrong, and it's not natural.

00:06:55--> 00:06:57

But, again, as I mentioned earlier,

00:06:59--> 00:07:05

they made these statements, and they are people of influence, and they're influencing others. And it's through the

00:07:07--> 00:07:08

learning process to discuss

00:07:09--> 00:07:17

what is there influencing others and making these kind of statements then it's obligatory upon us, as I mentioned, in the in the last lecture, which I talked about the danger of

00:07:20--> 00:07:26

it is our our obligation effectual for them to fight them, as you see currently in the development

00:07:29--> 00:07:31

as well as in less than July This lecture

00:07:33--> 00:07:35

will be about a critique

00:07:36--> 00:07:37

of the modernist movement.

00:07:44--> 00:08:06

meet you. And he will discuss their their points of view, and discuss what is their rationale and what is the response to their, to their rationale. As I mentioned, less than any mistakes can come many to many ways. One of them as I said, lesson is if you do not have the right intention to find the truth, then of course, then you will end up with the wrong conclusion.

00:08:07--> 00:08:13

And as I mentioned last time, and we're not going to say that any of these people who are discussing facts has the wrong intention

00:08:15--> 00:08:15

to move people away

00:08:17--> 00:08:18

from Islam. But

00:08:20--> 00:08:41

as I mentioned, also, last time, that there's three basic ways that you could make mistakes of discussing these lectures. Number one is that the basic premise is that the fundamental assumptions upon which you're basing your theories or making your conclusions are incorrect, then also most likely, your conclusions would be incorrect. Secondly, if your methodology is not proper,

00:08:43--> 00:08:49

and if you're using the wrong way to get from point A to point B, then chances are you will not reach point B.

00:08:52--> 00:08:57

And thirdly, and if you do not use the right specific arguments for specific points also you will have

00:08:59--> 00:09:11

any will also come to the wrong conclusion. Now, actually our planning originally to discuss really each one, separately, perhaps even each one with a separate lecture because and each of these three areas has its own,

00:09:13--> 00:09:15

and has got a bit of material related to it.

00:09:17--> 00:09:19

Because as I said, rather than rushing into this,

00:09:21--> 00:09:24

we might be able to cover two or three of these aspects

00:09:25--> 00:09:26

today

00:09:28--> 00:09:30

and the basic, the basic premise

00:09:31--> 00:09:48

by which the modernist movement, and again, as I mentioned in the first lecture, the modernist movement exists not only in Islam, but also in Christianity and Judaism. And these points that I'm going to mention really are valid for all three moments, whether we're talking about the Center for the Christian or the Jewish moment.

00:09:50--> 00:09:55

But the basic premise behind all all of these moments in modern Islamic civilization

00:09:57--> 00:09:58

and knowledge has progressed.

00:10:00--> 00:10:18

And they're also their ideas of material science or what is the proven best science is something and if we have to abide by something that we have to look back, as I mentioned last time, Eon is Rania moment. Basically it says the old apollonia rushes

00:10:20--> 00:10:21

included with some conspiracy theory.

00:10:24--> 00:10:25

So basically what they're saying

00:10:27--> 00:10:29

is that the scientific knowledge of today's

00:10:30--> 00:10:36

is such that it requires a new look at religion, and a reinterpretation of a

00:10:37--> 00:10:39

nother Wordsworth what they're basically what they're arguing is that

00:10:40--> 00:10:57

the present time and the purpose of urbanization are different, when the earlier days, but we know nowadays is different from what we knew before. So therefore, anything that comes from other days has to be reinterpreted in the light of modern times than in the light of modern science and so forth.

00:10:58--> 00:11:01

And and as they apply this,

00:11:03--> 00:11:06

they apply this idea also to religion.

00:11:08--> 00:11:35

Applied not only to science, what they used to blue, the science logos is conservative nowadays, will be applied to all aspects of life, whether it's his philosophy or religion, and so forth. So, the question that arises, is different from before and what should we do about religion, however, we reinterpret religion in such a way, that it is compatible with what is happening today, with what is the news today and what is civilization

00:11:36--> 00:11:40

today, now the modernist as opposed to the purely second list,

00:11:42--> 00:11:46

the modernist claim managed to stick to the religion they do not want to abandon religion,

00:11:47--> 00:11:56

as opposed to the second lesson as we talked about before, and it is basically a subset of the modernist movement

00:11:57--> 00:12:10

of the modernist movement. And the the modernist wants to keep religion was just still farming, or fishing or Judo or whatever, but wants to change the religion, according to according to what he sees, as

00:12:11--> 00:12:13

in modern times, when the

00:12:15--> 00:12:21

times are different now than they were before is based on certain assumptions, or has certain components.

00:12:22--> 00:12:25

The first of these components Is this our present situation

00:12:26--> 00:12:38

is an advanced developed situation, which is much different from the situation when the Prophet was scammed. And you can hear this many many times before many, many people are here

00:12:39--> 00:12:50

talking about things related to the deen related to exam related to religion, fitness Mark should be wearing things that the Muslim community should be doing, that he wrote this about this is a 20th century This is not the seventh century.

00:12:53--> 00:12:57

And you can hear this statement a lot, even some people who come to the mosque and pray five times a day.

00:12:59--> 00:13:06

Now, what does it mean exactly by the statement? That's the first big question. inshallah we'll get to that point.

00:13:07--> 00:13:13

Later. The second aspect, second important aspect of this basic assumption or basic hypothesis

00:13:14--> 00:13:15

is that religion is

00:13:17--> 00:13:18

related to

00:13:20--> 00:13:22

the level of noise and circumstances.

00:13:24--> 00:13:45

And in the area in which it was revealed. In other words, basically, they look at even they even look at religion from a materialistic point of view. And consider religion as coming from a panel of data that are left behind without a whole nother pen could reveal something 14 years ago, that is equally valid today. And he didn't want to accept that. This is his religion.

00:13:46--> 00:13:58

And he like everything else religion is relative to the time in which it came. religion itself is determined by the circumstances and by the cook cultural society, are the social conditions upon which it came.

00:13:59--> 00:14:00

So even

00:14:02--> 00:14:11

from hundreds of them, he came 1400 years ago. So the realities of Islam were valid at that time. But they may not be valid today.

00:14:12--> 00:14:17

And in other words, what is true even if it's related to religion, what was true at that time, may no longer be true.

00:14:19--> 00:14:26

Today, so virtual reality, the reality is a game or relative. And it there's no such thing as truth reality, which is permanent.

00:14:28--> 00:14:51

Even the realities of things related to gain things related to Apple that they think is relative. And what was true 1400 years ago, may not necessarily be true today, between the two about what should be done nowadays and how things change. And the last three sentences of the article was can either one person as a person then you're saying that everything changes even value

00:14:52--> 00:14:55

and even what is considered murder which is considered valid.

00:14:56--> 00:14:59

And the other person, the other person, normal assets with everything gene

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

is exceptional.

00:15:02--> 00:15:07

And in other words, even the only the truth is some of the fraud, or even the truths that come from the, from the editor.

00:15:09--> 00:15:19

And even these things change, the only thing that doesn't change that magazine, which has no Unfortunately, many women read nowadays, and even minimum,

00:15:20--> 00:15:27

anything in itself anything that everything changes that you believe everything has changed, except

00:15:29--> 00:16:03

when the end the chaplains office well, or I was working anything. The chaplain the chaplain supposed to be a religious person, this person is supposed to be a minister. And he has the right to preach the Christian religion, he had a small role which I took down, by the way from the government. That is no little sign in his office saying that, that is a virtue, today's vice, maybe tomorrow, virtue. And he This is a Christian man who believes in religion, the thing and he was around today might be the best thing to do tomorrow, because it was with us.

00:16:05--> 00:16:05

And it

00:16:07--> 00:16:08

might be tomorrow.

00:16:09--> 00:16:12

And after I took the process down, that was the first thing I took out

00:16:13--> 00:16:13

from this world.

00:16:15--> 00:16:23

Now that these ideas, basically these ideas that civilization is changing, and is progressing.

00:16:24--> 00:16:48

And this is the fact this is a result of Western Western philosophies, the theory of evolution, that things get better over time, as civilization progresses, for example, the Acadian theory, that you have a civilization and is challenged by something, and the result will be, and in taking the best of both. And this idea that civilization continues to

00:16:51--> 00:16:56

the completely Western philosophy, it has nothing to do with Islam. And in fact, if we look to the prophets I

00:16:58--> 00:17:04

mentioned later, and also to the for our clients. In fact, this isn't, this isn't true. Also, relative to this

00:17:07--> 00:17:14

idea that what is true for one area may not be true for another area. This is also based on Western philosophy of the last 200 years.

00:17:16--> 00:17:17

And also the

00:17:23--> 00:17:24

elimination, he concludes.

00:17:43--> 00:17:52

These are the principles that I've been talking about, that are based on Western philosophical theories of evolution

00:17:53--> 00:17:55

of relativism, or

00:18:04--> 00:18:05

is a school of philosophy.

00:18:06--> 00:18:09

And if it's what's true for me, it may not be true for you.

00:18:11--> 00:18:32

And even your sociology of knowledge, that knowledge is based on the surrounding environment can even apply this also to Revelation. And if that revelation also is a product of the environment around that's why most Christians today, and in the modern, this movement has affected the Christians today to such an extent that except except for the fundamentalist people like

00:18:34--> 00:18:53

and Jimmy Swaggart, people like that. These are actually very small minority of Christians today. The majority of the vast majority of Christians believe that the other thing God or the gospel or whatever, they want to refer to that, and it was revealed at a specific time. And it was according to the level of knowledge.

00:18:55--> 00:19:09

And most Christians believe that that's why you find that most Christians don't apply the flood, because they believe that we are advanced now, we no longer have to apply what was meant for some time ago, any anywhere they take these theories. And as I said, these

00:19:11--> 00:19:30

two components are the same. Those experiences that the modernist in the Muslim world are acting upon. And the the idea of evolution that things are, any society is living in better better today than they were before. And this one you can find very clearly in reference, writings dating back to 1972. The idea of relativism,

00:19:31--> 00:19:48

especially when it comes to the headaches and problems, we'll discuss, and especially the heaviest performance as they consider it, the idea is something that was relative to that time, and it was an inflated sense. And also the idea again, the revelation, or the sociology of knowledge where revelation was,

00:19:49--> 00:19:50

at a certain time.

00:19:51--> 00:19:53

How to critique this idea of

00:19:55--> 00:19:58

these concepts. First of all, we must

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

critique them

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

The idea of

00:20:03--> 00:20:19

any proposal or development to progress, and the idea that the things are better now, or somehow human beings are smarter now, or the society or civilization is better now than it was 1400 years ago or 1200 years ago or whatever. And this

00:20:20--> 00:20:21

this idea

00:20:22--> 00:20:34

is the Marxian that comes from Karl Marx and Hegel. And it is the alien idea that times are things improve over time. Well, this goes against.

00:20:36--> 00:20:37

And this also goes against the

00:20:39--> 00:20:46

many headaches and problems a phenom, he describes how things get worse. And he describes times in which the people are getting worse and worse.

00:20:47--> 00:20:51

Also, not the kind of a Goddess is in the learning mode, the foreman has the weight of money and booking.

00:20:53--> 00:21:22

Without and without, it does not change the conditional people until they change what is in the bill. What if you read the fear of this verse, and you from the earning capacity in from them and that person does not have in the domain and so on, Dan is talking about, not the way that most people use this verse today, does not talk about going from a situation of bad to being good. But it is almost 100 without emissions, and another person when I look at what data gives NEMA to before blesses the people, and he does not take that NEMA blessing away until they change.

00:21:23--> 00:21:28

And so in other words, Allah subhana wa tada is describing a situation here, world of data takes people from good

00:21:29--> 00:21:49

to evil. So the idea and the idea that the modernist one of the ideas that the modernists are basing their basic theory on is the things that progress Genesis design of the problem. And so therefore, them as suggests, according to this progression, and he they have to prove, first of all, that there has been progression,

00:21:50--> 00:21:56

that there has been, somehow civilization today is better than it was, for example, during the sound department,

00:21:57--> 00:22:00

which is the first thing that they have to prove, because this is one of their

00:22:01--> 00:22:09

one of their first claims. So that gives you that then that leads you now to what is the definition of development, what is the definition of progress and

00:22:10--> 00:22:53

other brothers in studies, economics, economic development, but it was in the back end. And it can discuss this issue in great, great detail, that, for example, the any of the providers abroad have not been able to come up with a good definition of development of progress and civilization. So if you mean for nothing, what happened in Iran during the time of the sharp show during the time of the Shah, they are the economists considered one of the greatest examples of economic development, because GNP rose so fast, in one decade, it rose any faster than almost any other nation. But at the same time, and of course, we bought lots of things in from the west. But at the same time, the

00:22:53--> 00:23:04

income distribution got much worse. And many more people were living in poverty, and basically the only people who benefited from it, were the upper class. The question is, is this development or not?

00:23:05--> 00:23:06

As I mentioned last time,

00:23:08--> 00:23:32

we call the United States, the most advanced civilization or the greatest civilization. And he's talking about the United States, the West. Nowadays, this is the most advanced civilization. And this again, brings us back to a question what is an advanced civilization? What is it Danny, from an Islamic point of view, an advanced civilization, according from an Islamic point of view, is just a people as a country with a society component, if

00:23:34--> 00:23:40

they increase their taqwa, they apply them better than status, and better, then you can say their events.

00:23:41--> 00:23:44

So from this definition, there's no society that is more advanced than

00:23:46--> 00:24:24

then even the Society of the of the Sahaba. From this point of view, and you cannot say that this position now is better than it was during the time from them. So we have to adjust them to do the newest division. But at the same time, and even if you look at this civilization and the things that they are doing, and calling themselves advancing, but this is a progressive civilization. And if you, if you look at the things, the things they're doing, they're doing the exact same things that the people used to do a long time before the film was in a month and different properties based on a set up, and it was done before January. And if there

00:24:26--> 00:24:28

were regarding the actions of the people.

00:24:29--> 00:24:33

And homosexuality is an action of the people and their thing that they are in events. And

00:24:34--> 00:24:59

we're gonna actually this civilization is based upon the Greek and Roman culture, which occurred that existed before the time of the Prophet data. They were reviving all of this anti freedom and sexual practices, and all of that, but even what they call democracy, all of these things actually are coming from the time of the Greeks and the Romans. Before even the Prophet is airlifted out, and they're claiming that they are civilized and they are

00:25:00--> 00:25:21

In fact, even the claim that the society is the best, and we should judge religion or especially against Islam according to this advanced and progressive civilization, and it has no proof. And this is one of the basic premises that society has advanced, the scientific knowledge is such that we know much more now than we knew before. And so therefore, we have to judge them

00:25:22--> 00:25:26

on the basis of this new society and of this new new civilization.

00:25:28--> 00:25:30

Well, this takes me also to the next point.

00:25:31--> 00:25:38

And that is neither these many of these modernists any they tried to present themselves as people of science.

00:25:40--> 00:25:50

You always need people saying that Islam as a scientific religion, or an Islam is a logical religion. And there's nothing in Islam or Islam, there's nothing Islam that goes against science.

00:25:51--> 00:26:15

And obviously, that's true, as I mentioned before, and it's now in this world come from the same sort of habitat. And there's no contradiction between. The problem is what do you mean by science? What is their definition of thing? If we're talking about modern science today, for example, in the West, and we should judge Islam, according to modern science today in the West. And this is a different situation completely. Because first of all,

00:26:18--> 00:26:19

one thing we should keep in mind,

00:26:21--> 00:26:23

one thing we should consider is that when we look to the west,

00:26:24--> 00:26:35

and this is the problem that many modernists have, many of the people don't offer any amendments, they have this problem, that they think that what is done in the West, everything that is done in the West is based on science.

00:26:39--> 00:27:03

Not everything that you see in this culture. Not everything that you see in this advanced civilization is based on science, was based on scientific evidence. I've lived up to my means to go back a little bit earlier, customer me, and he stated clearly the woman in Islam or the Muslim woman, and he said, the reason the Europeans do what they do with respect to women and the women freedom is because it's based on science.

00:27:05--> 00:27:07

If it wasn't based on science, they weren't the best.

00:27:12--> 00:27:25

And we have to realize that much of what you see in this society, especially any giveaway from the physical sciences, going out to the social side. And much of what you see in the society is not really based on science.

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

And if, for example, this modernists, they want to change the position of the woman's left.

00:27:32--> 00:27:42

And they say it should be the case that the woman says almost essentially, that she should be allowed to go out and work. There's nothing wrong with it, and it's good for society, and then they point to the situation at a place.

00:27:44--> 00:27:50

And if you really think that women are working here in the United States, because the scientific group, that there's nothing wrong with women work,

00:27:52--> 00:27:53

has nothing to do it

00:27:54--> 00:28:08

has nothing to do with it whatsoever. like you'd have to do basically with the fact that isn't the capitalist system, for example of a river of interest that I've heard many, many people argue, unfortunately, it goes to some of the most

00:28:10--> 00:28:11

social scientists.

00:28:12--> 00:28:20

meetings, you'll hear this argument from many people that you cannot have a strong economy without interest.

00:28:21--> 00:28:23

library from any Muslim

00:28:24--> 00:28:27

scholar, the suit and tie in their PhD doctorate

00:28:31--> 00:28:35

degree in some of them are even economists. And if they weren't economists, I can see you know, they.

00:28:38--> 00:28:52

And it makes sense, the only way that we can have a strong economy and build up society and have economic development is if we have banks that are built on interest, because these banks, and what is the role of banks, you know, what the job of a banker is,

00:28:53--> 00:28:57

the job of the bank has to be a financial intermediary,

00:28:58--> 00:29:04

to take money from someone who has money like this, and to give it to someone who doesn't have money, like these Algerians brothers over here.

00:29:08--> 00:29:32

And also the job of the bank is to take money from him, and to give it to them. What are they going to do with it. And he's not not that they don't have money. He says that they are more enterprising. They know how to make money from money. So take it from him, pay him a little bit. Give it to them. Because next year that they think more than you pay him, otherwise, you'd be losing money, and don't give them money, make money. That's all are the job of the bank.

00:29:34--> 00:29:37

You need a bank based on interest for that. You don't need a bank.

00:29:39--> 00:29:53

And in many countries now throughout the world, even here, they have credit unions and such that are based on the idea of profit sharing. These people get together and give us their money. And we give that money to those people who will make money with it. They get a return on it and they get a return on

00:29:54--> 00:29:57

but even the idea of rebirth the idea of interest

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

because

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

I must have never been able to prove it. I'm talking now about the economist with the Kufa,

00:30:06--> 00:30:09

economists have never been able to build that interest is needed for society.

00:30:11--> 00:30:14

They have never even been able to prove that interest is beneficial for society.

00:30:16--> 00:30:18

That interest is beneficial for a strong country

00:30:22--> 00:30:24

in the 1940s, in the 1950s,

00:30:27--> 00:30:28

or getting back

00:30:36--> 00:30:36

in the 1940s.

00:30:43--> 00:30:43

Point,

00:30:44--> 00:30:45

zero,

00:31:12--> 00:31:14

I believe the points I was going to make

00:31:15--> 00:31:16

are the late 1940s.

00:31:18--> 00:31:19

And the 1940s and 1950s,

00:31:21--> 00:31:28

the economist, and he tried to come up with a good theory on explaining why we have interest and why there is a need for interest.

00:31:30--> 00:31:31

And they came up with many, many

00:31:35--> 00:31:38

widening and deepening or whatever capital. You remember, these days.

00:31:40--> 00:31:44

Johnny, every three they came up with was not satisfactory, and everyone else criticizing them.

00:31:46--> 00:31:48

So we got a very clever group of people.

00:31:49--> 00:31:53

Over anyone, they found that they cannot give any proof for why they haven't.

00:31:54--> 00:32:02

They just said, Well, why don't we not discuss that anymore? And in fact, since the 50s, and when we haven't discussed anymore, and let's just discuss what determines the rate of interest?

00:32:03--> 00:32:08

In other words, as economists are thought through, let's assume we have interests. And now let's just

00:32:09--> 00:32:22

lift the weight of it. And my point is that, for those people who say, No, we're living in a new society now, and things have changed. And we should look at look at Islam or look at religion in the light of this new society.

00:32:23--> 00:32:38

Any of this is the society you're talking about, where things are not based on even the irrational, there's no rationale for what they're doing, for example, alcohol, all the scientists, all the doctors in the United States agree that alcohol is harmful. But at the same time, it's legal.

00:32:40--> 00:32:55

And it has no rationale. So if you're going to judge Islam, we're just looking in the light of what you call modern civilization, modern societal progress, progress, any advanced knowledge, and it does not suggest to keep in mind first of all, that much of what you see here, and is not based on

00:32:56--> 00:33:02

first start saying that any man or society or Muslims, anyone needs to be but as

00:33:03--> 00:33:06

I was mentioning, any reason in the lecture, and this

00:33:07--> 00:33:09

is a paradox, because even as I said,

00:33:11--> 00:33:23

we cannot judge Islam based on based on this data concerning this society, as I mentioned, the not everything. Not everything in modern civilization, not everything is based on science is based on something.

00:33:25--> 00:33:25

Secondly,

00:33:29--> 00:33:34

not everything of today's science is based on established and certain facts, none of this cannot be questioned.

00:33:35--> 00:33:43

And it looks another point. This morning, not everything that the scientists say or that you're going to spend in school is actually bad.

00:33:44--> 00:33:48

But most of most the business hypotheses, and hypotheses.

00:33:50--> 00:33:54

And then the whole lecture, this must be the first thing that's in here.

00:33:58--> 00:34:05

Most of us is based on hypotheses, or most of us, most of us are hypotheses. And of course, one of that hypothesis or

00:34:06--> 00:34:08

hypotheses is the most important.

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

In other words, the effect is the fact that hypotheses.

00:34:14--> 00:34:20

So then you're not going to study most of what you study are not facts. They're hypotheses, which must be falsifiable.

00:34:21--> 00:34:23

This is especially true in

00:34:24--> 00:34:40

physical science. Some brothers don't realize that they think Jenny This is there's plenty of physical science, Danny, that is brilliant, what they're studying, in fact, and especially when they're talking about way out and out of things, and they come up with this theory, and they start seeing any different scientific facts. And you have to wonder about

00:34:45--> 00:34:48

the hypothesis and make it look good according to the data that they have.

00:34:50--> 00:34:56

But that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Going back to economics. Again. This is not economic bashing.

00:34:58--> 00:35:00

You know, my background just happened to be an accident.

00:35:00--> 00:35:04

Liking. I can talk about economics more in economics, as

00:35:07--> 00:35:13

you come up with a model, that hopefully, this model describes what is happening in reality.

00:35:15--> 00:35:17

And you come up with a model, this is what most people

00:35:19--> 00:35:30

come up with a model explaining what happened. And this model matches, what actually happens in society will definitely increase the stock of money, what's going to happen through interest rates, we'll come up with this model. But

00:35:31--> 00:35:32

what's going to happen to this

00:35:34--> 00:35:35

that's not a fact.

00:35:36--> 00:35:39

That's a hypothesis. And that hypothesis is based on what

00:35:41--> 00:35:42

is not given based on the data.

00:35:48--> 00:35:51

Most models are determined by the assumptions behind the model.

00:35:53--> 00:36:09

Then, in other words, if you increase the money supply, and these assumptions don't hold true, then you probably want an increase decrease in the industry. And they're determined by the assumptions behind. And this leads me to Friedman, Milton Friedman, one of the

00:36:10--> 00:36:16

leading firms, and he came up with the hypothesis, of the relevancy of the assumption,

00:36:19--> 00:36:20

economic

00:36:21--> 00:36:30

hypothesis, the relevancy of the assumption that is, if the model works. And the model explains reality, don't worry about whether the assumptions are true.

00:36:32--> 00:36:37

That sometimes that is the least the less realistic assumption, the better the model. And that's what you should be looking at.

00:36:40--> 00:36:43

One of the social sciences, I'm sure if you go to education,

00:36:46--> 00:37:02

then you will find this similar kind of thing. And it is what is happening for science is not really, science. And in other words, not really facts, there's not really something that is going to be the revelation from other data, you're going to judge according to the science.

00:37:03--> 00:37:05

And this is what the modernist movement is about.

00:37:06--> 00:37:09

I needed to bring the Quran in judging according to this.

00:37:10--> 00:37:24

So that's the second point. Yeah, these are not everything that's actually the same is actually actually scientific fact. And the third point that we have to realize is that every science whether we know it or not, whether it is a physical or social science has its own philosophy.

00:37:26--> 00:37:31

Any there's a philosophy behind everything. And in fact, there's a science called the philosophy of science.

00:37:32--> 00:37:33

And this science has gone.

00:37:35--> 00:37:43

And whether you realize it or not, there's some some philosophy underlying the whole science that you said, whether it's the physical science, or social.

00:37:45--> 00:37:50

And you have to be aware of this velocity, because it's going to affect the conclusions made in the sense.

00:37:51--> 00:37:52

For example.

00:37:55--> 00:37:59

And, for example, in physics, and other material science, you have basic fundamental law,

00:38:00--> 00:38:04

like the laws of matter can be neither created nor destroyed.

00:38:05--> 00:38:07

It's one of the fundamental laws principle,

00:38:10--> 00:38:12

or one of the fundamental

00:38:13--> 00:38:15

aspects of the philosophy of physical

00:38:16--> 00:38:21

phenomena as part of the philosophy of physics. Of course, this idea that

00:38:23--> 00:38:29

the world cannot be created or distributed matter cannot be created or destroyed. It simply moves from one form to another.

00:38:32--> 00:38:33

And it was

00:38:34--> 00:38:45

economics, economics, also, for example, capitalism, capitalism for a second, capitalism yonni, leading to the best of all possible worlds, as they always are constantly.

00:38:46--> 00:38:49

Anti capitalism is based on the idea that if everyone acts

00:38:50--> 00:38:53

on his own self interest in some senses,

00:38:54--> 00:38:56

which will lead to the best of all possible worlds.

00:38:57--> 00:39:02

That's what capitalism is capitalism is all about, that if everyone behaves according to his own self interest.

00:39:04--> 00:39:10

given some assumptions, one leads to the best of all possible worlds. So this is actually this is a philosophy, philosophical statement.

00:39:11--> 00:39:14

Because this is stating something about the nature of mankind action,

00:39:15--> 00:39:23

because they're assuming that mankind is not going to behave in such a way to break the laws of society to try to cheat.

00:39:24--> 00:39:47

And what happened, of course, is they found that their assumptions were not met because as soon as they gave this free freedom, two people started combining monopolies they started trying to control the market and so forth. And the result, of course, is what we've seen in the past is Resource Economics. But the third aspect is not even the science, which is insane, that it has its own philosophy

00:39:48--> 00:39:55

has its own philosophy that and we have to be aware of that, because the basic idea is the philosophy behind it will lead to specific conclusions.

00:39:57--> 00:39:59

So these basic axioms are against

00:40:00--> 00:40:06

It's never against what Allah subhanaw taala revealed, you can be pretty certain that some of the conclusions are going to be against what the Quran is.

00:40:08--> 00:40:19

So again, we're not going to judge the Quran and the length of this thing, because the fundamental axioms and philosophies are underlying both are different ways again, if we want to talk

00:40:21--> 00:40:29

about modern society about even if even if we accept the idea that somehow this is an advanced society, give us this doesn't mean that we have to.

00:40:42--> 00:40:45

Sometimes I recorded lectures with the recording and

00:40:47--> 00:40:48

when it was

00:41:05--> 00:41:08

begin the remember the beginning of this lecture

00:41:16--> 00:41:53

that will begin actually with the basic or fundamental ideas behind, there are plenty of moments. And basically the religion that any society has advanced science has advanced in this time, or is necessary to look at religion, whatever religion that is mentioned, whether it's Christianity, or Islam, to look at religion in the light of modern developments in this modern science, and therefore, we're going to have to accept from religion what is compatible with modern science, and monitor the position and reject from religion, what is incompatible with modern science, and modern civilization, we have moved on from there

00:41:54--> 00:41:56

to try to critique, critique this fundamental.

00:41:59--> 00:42:02

If we've got called hypothesis of the Apollonian movement,

00:42:03--> 00:42:08

number one, we critique the idea of there being brought up progress, or this is an advanced

00:42:09--> 00:42:23

civilization. Secondly, we predict actually the level of knowledge of the society, or what the science here but being that not everything in this society is based on science, it can be not everything that passes on science as a fact, status back and thirdly,

00:42:24--> 00:42:32

science, not the same thing as a pure science science has behind its own philosophy. And in the next point, that we have to discuss

00:42:34--> 00:42:36

is the third point that they made was a good point that is,

00:42:39--> 00:42:49

any dinner is related to their visit hypothesis. And that is the sector or the way of thinking of a society that is based on the conditions for the environment as

00:42:51--> 00:43:05

well. Also, again, they apply this to religion. And we declare this also to religion, saying that any religion, any religion, regardless of which religion you're discussing, is the product of that environment

00:43:07--> 00:43:12

is the product of that environment. And as I said earlier, and what this tool does, and may not be true, necessarily.

00:43:14--> 00:43:18

Although one of the aspects By the way, that's one of the reasons why I made this lecture.

00:43:19--> 00:43:27

Danny wants to go through some books that I had to get any quotes from Muslim writers who are part of this movement, with

00:43:30--> 00:43:33

basically backing up what I'm saying is part of their

00:43:34--> 00:43:37

economic potential to do with.

00:43:39--> 00:43:49

But I hope you realize this, what they're saying here is that basically, they have the idea that most of religion is from human sources, and not from, not from nothing.

00:43:50--> 00:43:55

And we're saying that Islam or any religion is a product of the environment from which

00:43:57--> 00:44:05

it was related to that environment, and it is, it is the right leader environment, or latest position to judge that position.

00:44:07--> 00:44:20

And again, as I said earlier, any we have to look at religion, especially now from a different point of view, that anti Islam sense comes from a left hand with data, and the knowledge of what data is not limited to any culture or any time or any space or anything.

00:44:21--> 00:44:26

So therefore, data reveals something for all of mankind into the date judgments.

00:44:27--> 00:44:41

And if it's an acceptable for us to come later and say that this was revealed at a specific time, and it is conditioned by that time, and it is related to their environment, what they're saying here again, Well, again, as I mentioned earlier, especially with respect to the headaches of the problem, and

00:44:42--> 00:44:55

then in many cases, getting the argument that the practices and the sooner the problems that were related to that time, and a product of that time and are no longer relevant to us today. And inshallah when we get into a reputation

00:44:57--> 00:44:59

specific points of this specific points of it

00:45:00--> 00:45:02

With respect to the sort of narrower the surface,

00:45:03--> 00:45:06

or with respect to the shutting them up and so forth with

00:45:07--> 00:45:09

more detail, we're also

00:45:11--> 00:45:15

and again, they say that the religious truth is something relative

00:45:17--> 00:45:21

to that, really, it can be true for one area, but not true for another

00:45:24--> 00:45:26

can be true for one area, but not true for another area or True.

00:45:28--> 00:45:35

True. Another thing? Well, if you remember, for example, the one lesson we talked about Mohammed acid,

00:45:37--> 00:45:38

and recorded some of his quotes

00:45:39--> 00:46:17

from the subsea from his commentary, and you'll see that she believes in that, and he did, some things may have been true at that time, or may have been considered true, because there's no such thing as absolute truth. Why now, it is no longer true, will no longer be considered true. And included in that, as we mentioned last time, all of the stories of the prophets, for example, the story of prophets to the man and a son. And he said, Yanis is not a true story, but it was considered true. So nowadays, we know that is no longer true. But the point again, is that any there's no proof for this, for this very innocent hypothesis, there's no proof will hypothesis, this

00:46:17--> 00:46:18

religious truth or relative,

00:46:19--> 00:46:22

and that what am I even showed one time is no longer true

00:46:23--> 00:46:25

with respect to religion, and

00:46:26--> 00:46:45

they have to bring some kind of proof. And from Islamic point of view, of course, this idea goes against the idea of the Quran and goes against the idea of the center, in which we know that Allah subhanho wa Taala, has revealed this book and first of all, was handled down at the top, everything in the in the book was taught, and his tours.

00:46:46--> 00:46:50

And in some of these things, if they are no longer true today, in fact, they were never.

00:46:51--> 00:46:56

And it's one of the statements is almost kind of a doubt. I mean, if in fact, we say that they're not true today, we're affecting

00:46:58--> 00:46:59

this idea that they have given

00:47:00--> 00:47:05

some of these readings, they wrote that even the day of judgment was,

00:47:06--> 00:47:26

was an idea at that time, it had its validity, because the people were at such a level, that the only way they would good, do good deeds, if you tell them that they'll be punished if you don't do good deeds, if you do good deeds, but nowadays, it's no longer needed, it's no longer valid, because we are smart enough to know we should do good deeds for the sake of doing good deeds. And

00:47:28--> 00:47:31

this kind of this kind of idea, and it is the basic premises

00:47:32--> 00:47:34

underlying the afternoon. Now, as I said,

00:47:36--> 00:47:52

any, there are basically four ways that you will lead yourself to mistakes. One of these ways is if your basic premises are incorrect, if your basic premises are incorrect, then whatever you build upon that incorrect premise, will most likely also be incorrect. And I think this is a good time to,

00:47:55--> 00:48:18

to stop. And before we get into their methodology, because as I said, therefore, the four ways one is to have the wrong extension, which as I said, we'll discuss number one, number two is to have the wrong premises. Number three is to have the wrong methodology. And number four is to have any missing the detailed evidences concerning a specific point. So now we have to discuss their premises.

00:48:20--> 00:48:33

And I think from Shall we have any kind of level of premises to the ground, and what the basic idea is one, next, we'll move on to the methodology. And then after that, we'll discuss any specific points.

00:48:38--> 00:48:39

Little points of

00:48:44--> 00:48:46

recorded relating to

00:48:49--> 00:48:56

whether or not Danny as many of them say that they want, he had an easier route, not just for also,

00:48:57--> 00:49:18

what aspects of considered to share what aspects is not sensitive to the more modern it, the more modern as they consider it, most of us are not as non sensitive, and we'll discuss their proofs for that, there are going to end up and then other smaller details we might, we might get into.

00:49:19--> 00:49:24

So that will be into the methodology and specific points, and then we'll compare this to

00:49:25--> 00:49:34

or to the beliefs and the practices and the terminology. And then we'll discuss Danny, the danger of this, or only the conclusions concerning this.

00:49:36--> 00:49:37

And then shall I think we'll be finished with

00:49:42--> 00:49:46

the relationship between the mother and the queen in the proportion.

00:49:47--> 00:49:48

At the present time, I don't have enough

00:49:50--> 00:49:52

data to make a complete lecture.

00:50:42--> 00:50:43

I wish she had focus

00:50:55--> 00:50:56

focus

00:50:59--> 00:50:59

of your thoughts

00:51:09--> 00:51:10

on the fundamental premise

00:51:13--> 00:51:30

is this idea and present scientific knowledge in society requires a new religion and religion has to be re re evaluated in the lives of what we know now our life the market position, that is the basis for all modern Christian

00:51:32--> 00:51:33

some basic premises.

00:51:35--> 00:51:36

So, we spent the whole time attacking

00:51:38--> 00:51:42

and seeing whether or not I have my own opinion about it, let's get back to

00:51:44--> 00:51:45

my question

00:51:47--> 00:51:52

it seems to me that you basically take statements

00:51:53--> 00:52:02

instead of making them take into account the context when you talk about a metaphor when it says not created.

00:52:07--> 00:52:08

Okay.

00:52:11--> 00:52:14

But the other main reason, he gave me this

00:52:17--> 00:52:21

reaction. So, everybody can hear this

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

this

00:52:29--> 00:52:29

question

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

is nothing.

00:52:32--> 00:52:33

But we don't take it.

00:52:36--> 00:52:39

Of course, we take it for granted.

00:52:40--> 00:52:41

But if you take it for

00:52:42--> 00:52:43

granted,

00:52:44--> 00:52:49

because whenever you come here, you're either working or not.

00:52:55--> 00:52:59

So, I want to stand out How could you always say that

00:53:05--> 00:53:08

without spending time for work, it means something else.

00:53:10--> 00:53:11

Okay. And I feel

00:53:13--> 00:53:16

that this is, this is a theory

00:53:18--> 00:53:21

underlying This is the philosophy of the horse that

00:53:22--> 00:53:24

was one of the conclusions of this.

00:53:26--> 00:53:29

Can you believe that God created the heavens and the earth

00:53:31--> 00:53:31

and

00:53:32--> 00:53:34

created human beings

00:53:35--> 00:53:36

can you cannot This

00:53:38--> 00:53:42

is absolutely important. So, this is one of the things that led to that

00:53:47--> 00:53:57

is the underlying philosophy behind the science. And you have to realize that some of the conclusions of the science may be based on this fact, which is not completely acceptable.

00:54:05--> 00:54:09

Given that you can explain, or you can print depending on what

00:54:13--> 00:54:16

level given the fact that

00:54:21--> 00:54:23

there are many things

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

that I give up, I give this to

00:54:27--> 00:54:32

my point. My point is, if you take this, which is an underlying cannae

00:54:34--> 00:54:36

underlying principle using different sizes,

00:54:38--> 00:54:44

and different sizes, this will lead you to the conclusion. My point is that both inclusions are going to be considered

00:54:46--> 00:54:52

not only by this point in particular, I'm just giving this an example. But based on that theory,

00:54:53--> 00:54:55

you're going to come to some conclusions.

00:54:56--> 00:54:59

conclusions are going to be called science by everyone who studies that

00:55:03--> 00:55:04

But that fact,

00:55:06--> 00:55:09

is based on the philosophy of that site.

00:55:12--> 00:55:18

And Dan is a blog that's nice as long as something wrong is that that gluten could be wrong.

00:55:19--> 00:55:25

You know, you may twist this, whichever way you want, and say, okay, after I've created everything, there's no no

00:55:28--> 00:55:28

shame about it

00:55:30--> 00:55:32

was actually somebody was thinking about how

00:55:33--> 00:55:34

it was

00:55:36--> 00:55:36

worked out

00:55:37--> 00:55:39

forever, like forever.

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

Even if

00:55:42--> 00:55:44

they say, they say that we're just

00:55:47--> 00:55:50

getting exposed, which they believe in because the pressure underneath,

00:55:51--> 00:55:53

they believe that someday The purpose was to

00:55:55--> 00:55:59

win this cursor slows the matter, and everything is gonna have to continue

00:56:00--> 00:56:02

until they have the theory, but what will happen?

00:56:05--> 00:56:06

Okay, this

00:56:10--> 00:56:18

is actually because of this, because of this, because of this idea that everything that is there is all the energy and all the letters

00:56:20--> 00:56:21

must have existed before.

00:56:23--> 00:56:23

But

00:56:24--> 00:56:25

you're missing my point.

00:56:29--> 00:56:30

Here's the idea.

00:56:32--> 00:56:33

Think.

00:56:38--> 00:56:45

I think the idea is, okay, you have what you need. Right. Okay.

00:56:47--> 00:56:49

And, as you said,

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

Okay.

00:57:08--> 00:57:09

But I can actually

00:57:10--> 00:57:12

do that by saying that,

00:57:16--> 00:57:20

because you're taking this thing at face value, not actually.

00:57:21--> 00:57:22

When you say, Well,

00:57:24--> 00:57:26

you know, people say that

00:57:27--> 00:57:29

nothing gets lost money, guess

00:57:32--> 00:57:34

what, I can take my truth, because

00:57:38--> 00:57:41

if you change them, okay, Jesus is the Son of God.

00:57:43--> 00:57:46

And then summarizing the creation of Guardians.

00:57:47--> 00:57:47

And you're

00:57:48--> 00:57:49

sure

00:57:50--> 00:57:51

they will

00:57:53--> 00:57:53

condition to it.

00:57:57--> 00:58:01

What the people like going mean, based on this kind of idea,

00:58:03--> 00:58:05

because it denies the creation

00:58:13--> 00:58:14

in that particular example,

00:58:16--> 00:58:17

from a Muslim point of view,

00:58:21--> 00:58:21

if you want

00:58:26--> 00:58:26

to work with it,

00:58:35--> 00:58:39

they take these statements apply

00:58:40--> 00:58:43

out of context or in context,

00:58:44--> 00:58:48

because they don't, they don't put it in a more comprehensive way.

00:58:49--> 00:58:51

We have to work the

00:58:54--> 00:58:56

underlining conditions except by

00:59:03--> 00:59:04

the end of the universe.

00:59:08--> 00:59:12

According to the according to the universal defense

00:59:13--> 00:59:14

spending.

00:59:17--> 00:59:18

Okay, based on

00:59:27--> 00:59:27

what

00:59:31--> 00:59:32

you just transformation or however,

00:59:35--> 00:59:37

I don't want to be

00:59:39--> 00:59:41

me This is the basis for many.

00:59:43--> 00:59:43

And

00:59:46--> 00:59:47

scientists when they

00:59:48--> 00:59:52

apply that condition is not a condition.

00:59:54--> 00:59:59

So therefore, they're going to come to conclusion. They're going to court science and other people will come along

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

We don't know what the philosophy behind that conclusion they're going to take, they're going to take it and say what

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

we have to know.

01:00:13--> 01:00:14

Because

01:00:16--> 01:00:16

given

01:00:25--> 01:00:26

working,

01:00:29--> 01:00:33

the problem is that someone came to the front and effect

01:00:36--> 01:00:39

this century, in which they're trying to prove evolution from a

01:00:40--> 01:00:41

sense of evolution,

01:00:44--> 01:00:47

that we know that better is not going to be great or destroyed.

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

And

01:00:52--> 01:00:54

so therefore, they go through the

01:00:55--> 01:00:55

evolution.

01:00:57--> 01:00:59

This is the kind of thing that

01:01:04--> 01:01:06

actually evolved. It's not something that

01:01:07--> 01:01:08

exists.

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

Today was

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

a fuse fuse.

01:01:31--> 01:01:32

What I'm saying is,

01:01:33--> 01:01:34

I'm not going to get

01:01:35--> 01:01:36

on the basis.

01:02:08--> 01:02:08

I have

01:02:22--> 01:02:23

to distinguish.

01:02:28--> 01:02:28

I don't disagree.

01:02:30--> 01:02:32

I agree with all of your

01:02:35--> 01:02:36

lesson I have I have.

01:02:40--> 01:02:41

The thing is,

01:02:43--> 01:02:44

in what do you have

01:02:46--> 01:02:47

for conditions,

01:02:49--> 01:02:50

relative

01:02:51--> 01:02:52

movement?

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

examples.

01:03:06--> 01:03:12

You cited some examples, which I'm not saying that that is incorrect. But

01:03:14--> 01:03:19

with what you said, I think leads to an incorrect result.

01:03:35--> 01:03:35

For

01:03:36--> 01:03:39

now, we're living in the 20th century. So we have to reevaluate

01:03:42--> 01:03:45

especially in the light of modern day science.

01:03:47--> 01:03:48

That's what they say.

01:03:49--> 01:03:50

And then they wait.

01:03:51--> 01:03:53

What is this idea?

01:04:06--> 01:04:07

Today

01:04:15--> 01:04:17

give you an idea of how how

01:04:19--> 01:04:19

contaminated

01:04:22--> 01:04:23

I don't know if you consider

01:04:26--> 01:04:27

that person

01:04:29--> 01:04:30

in the likes of without

01:04:35--> 01:04:35

any

01:04:37--> 01:04:38

contradiction with

01:04:42--> 01:04:45

I remember from the last lecture.

01:04:48--> 01:04:49

I know that everybody

01:04:51--> 01:04:57

he has his way of resisting things and things, but I would not put him in the

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

past.

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

Know

01:05:03--> 01:05:04

that that's

01:05:07--> 01:05:08

nothing

01:05:10--> 01:05:12

but the person with the

01:05:17--> 01:05:18

mistaken idea.

01:05:20--> 01:05:24

I don't agree with some of what you said that that person said.

01:05:26--> 01:05:30

I agree that this is wrong. But what I disagree with?

01:05:32--> 01:05:44

The point is, is this right, I mentioned some people in their writing, they are showing that they are changing their opinions or changing things. Because what they do today

01:05:56--> 01:06:00

if someone shows me that you've come up with a new opinion,

01:06:01--> 01:06:11

because he is basically saying that things are different now than they were before, we have to look at a different way, which is what this approach is saying to us.

01:06:14--> 01:06:15

And he is playing and we have to read

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

that

01:06:21--> 01:06:22

regardless of how extreme

01:06:27--> 01:06:29

but if that's his approach,

01:06:30--> 01:06:31

then I

01:06:42--> 01:06:46

want to say that he's evaluating things in this way

01:06:53--> 01:06:55

means that you you're mature

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

we have to define what is

01:07:10--> 01:07:14

not going to find what what what I'm saying is maybe he has

01:07:15--> 01:07:18

in collectiveness maybe he has incorrect

01:07:21--> 01:07:22

or something is not

01:07:23--> 01:07:25

how did he gets it even though it

01:07:27--> 01:07:28

is incumbent

01:07:30--> 01:07:31

on you to put

01:07:35--> 01:07:35

out

01:07:45--> 01:07:46

i don't think

01:07:52--> 01:07:54

that that could be you know,

01:07:59--> 01:08:01

what, I would have

01:08:23--> 01:08:25

rejected except for

01:08:27--> 01:08:28

likely that he

01:08:30--> 01:08:30

does not

01:08:32--> 01:08:34

need this kind of

01:08:35--> 01:08:36

job.

01:08:37--> 01:08:39

That was that was it.

01:08:41--> 01:08:43

I didn't have too many

01:09:03--> 01:09:07

The thing I want to do, when we should consider someone

01:09:10--> 01:09:10

views

01:09:15--> 01:09:16

thing,

01:09:17--> 01:09:18

I want to show you this methodology.

01:09:28--> 01:09:33

Okay. That is my guess is that if you love

01:09:37--> 01:09:38

people, that means

01:09:42--> 01:09:43

that I have

01:09:47--> 01:09:50

to say this mistake in a way

01:09:56--> 01:09:56

I know

01:09:59--> 01:09:59

the price

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

The point is that we are not

01:10:15--> 01:10:16

very good at the money

01:10:21--> 01:10:22

way of looking at it

01:10:24--> 01:10:26

we're looking at now you can take that to

01:10:27--> 01:10:29

mean you can take that to extreme which is

01:10:30--> 01:10:33

what the problem is the danger is the way the dangerous

01:10:36--> 01:10:37

pet danger

01:10:44--> 01:10:52

can if anyone starts taking surfboards and is now related to women or related to river related to whatever

01:10:54--> 01:10:57

this light is showing that this is supposed to be

01:11:00--> 01:11:04

this is supposed to be this approach is that dangerous is supposed to serve my people

01:11:14--> 01:11:15

This approach has

01:11:19--> 01:11:19

approached

01:11:26--> 01:11:27

me in many groups

01:11:28--> 01:11:30

because I was one of them

01:11:34--> 01:11:37

even if that's not my word

01:11:39--> 01:11:44

I mean what it is different spread and how we have to be aware when not to look in the same way

01:12:47--> 01:12:48

Good luck

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

very big influence

01:13:55--> 01:13:56

thing

01:13:57--> 01:13:57

mentioned

01:14:05--> 01:14:07

that has made a distinction

01:14:10--> 01:14:12

of working for the sake of Allah

01:14:13--> 01:14:19

at those actually without the thought there's nothing official but there was

01:14:26--> 01:14:28

a journey to get people before including the hero

01:14:37--> 01:14:38

Okay, okay.

01:14:42--> 01:14:44

This person is working for a snack

01:14:49--> 01:14:52

bar. Many people may make mistakes, okay.

01:14:55--> 01:14:56

That was even

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

and we

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

The reason

01:15:05--> 01:15:06

we say no

01:15:18--> 01:15:18

to women

01:15:20--> 01:15:22

but those do not actually make so much

01:15:27--> 01:15:28

wealth

01:15:33--> 01:15:36

when it comes to some of the color that needs to be with you

01:15:38--> 01:15:38

we know

01:15:43--> 01:15:43

that

01:15:45--> 01:15:46

a lot of good

01:15:53--> 01:15:54

luck

01:15:56--> 01:15:59

methodology this summer for example

01:16:00--> 01:16:03

takes precedence over everything and judges everything

01:16:07--> 01:16:09

and our system is similar to that

01:16:10--> 01:16:14

the methodology is not specific for your detection

01:16:17--> 01:16:17

methodology

01:16:20--> 01:16:21

but someone comes up with

01:16:22--> 01:16:23

as

01:16:24--> 01:16:25

you said because nowadays

01:16:29--> 01:16:30

I can feel

01:16:31--> 01:16:36

nowadays they're not ready so, therefore, we do not have to make

01:16:37--> 01:16:38

that

01:16:39--> 01:16:40

change because

01:16:42--> 01:16:45

that was the methodology but if someone

01:16:46--> 01:16:46

comes along

01:16:52--> 01:16:55

or nothing was going on or anything

01:16:58--> 01:16:58

because

01:17:03--> 01:17:06

they are saying that nowadays we have to look

01:17:07--> 01:17:09

into different okay

01:17:10--> 01:17:11

do you think this

01:17:12--> 01:17:13

would actually

01:17:15--> 01:17:17

give me an answer yes or no

01:17:20--> 01:17:22

okay this guy has been working out for

01:17:23--> 01:17:25

15 years okay.

01:17:26--> 01:17:27

He may

01:17:36--> 01:17:37

as I mentioned in the first lecture

01:17:42--> 01:17:42

for example,

01:17:43--> 01:17:44

because

01:17:45--> 01:17:47

what he did practically destroyed

01:17:51--> 01:17:51

before

01:17:55--> 01:17:57

but the book is presented

01:18:01--> 01:18:08

measure your defect there is a reason why some people can for the

01:18:11--> 01:18:12

same

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

reason

01:18:22--> 01:18:23

How can you

01:18:29--> 01:18:29

How can I

01:18:31--> 01:18:32

How can I don't

01:18:35--> 01:18:40

forget his mistake with what he's doing here is what he's doing wrong and the other people

01:18:51--> 01:18:53

when I'm putting this we're not getting people's attention.

01:18:55--> 01:18:56

They might be doing what

01:18:58--> 01:18:59

I'm talking about

01:19:01--> 01:19:03

how the person

01:19:13--> 01:19:15

we're trying to defend example being destroyed because

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

we finished

01:19:30--> 01:19:32

with the evil able to

01:19:33--> 01:19:35

respond to a second.

01:19:38--> 01:19:42

It's always good to be in love and talk to people, but how can you do

01:19:43--> 01:19:44

that you actually don't have

01:19:46--> 01:19:47

to publish a book.

01:19:50--> 01:19:54

But if you say I don't care how they came about with this

01:20:00--> 01:20:10

Because one of the one of the reasons they came to this methodology is because they have this idea. And I spent the whole 45 minutes or one hour, tearing apart the basic premise

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

that

01:20:16--> 01:20:17

people can

01:20:18--> 01:20:22

override, the reason the reason people become arthritis

01:20:24--> 01:20:34

is because they think that there's something new in this world. Some advancements in this world are some neutralization that we have to know go back and check for from any studies.

01:20:37--> 01:20:40

And I took that basic premise, and I just kept it for 45 minutes.

01:20:41--> 01:20:42

I don't want to take

01:20:43--> 01:20:47

as much time as we I don't mind, everything goes on.

01:20:50--> 01:20:50

And I think

01:20:52--> 01:20:53

what's

01:20:54--> 01:20:55

working?

01:20:56--> 01:20:58

I never claimed that I'm saying

01:21:03--> 01:21:05

that people are using you actually.

01:21:09--> 01:21:10

When you have.

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

Okay.

01:21:16--> 01:21:23

But who cares? What the reason? Is this along mean, if we sit down and think of it, think about instead of closeness, and we've come to the conclusion

01:21:24--> 01:21:28

that and we came to the conclusion that it's the wrong means. What should we do?

01:21:35--> 01:21:37

As you say, okay,

01:21:44--> 01:21:45

from looking

01:21:46--> 01:21:48

at people making weakness,

01:21:51--> 01:21:58

weaker or stronger, they're making a weaker, then you have to like the root of the problem, they have to provide them because they are making it weaker.

01:21:59--> 01:22:00

Don't expect me to address

01:22:05--> 01:22:08

the question is how people came about.

01:22:11--> 01:22:17

By the way, this isn't the first question about why they were influenced, in the turn of the century to become

01:22:21--> 01:22:26

the root of the problem. I said that there's three, there were three and

01:22:28--> 01:22:31

three responses to the

01:22:32--> 01:22:34

influence of Western civilization.

01:22:36--> 01:22:38

And one of the examples I gave her was,

01:22:39--> 01:22:42

was a dead man, he looked at the phone, he understood the problem.

01:22:45--> 01:22:45

And in

01:22:47--> 01:22:59

the army, there was another example another extreme that they don't take anything from the list and then appears down even anything which is more related to technology, something that there's nothing wrong for the Muslims to do even that.

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

And then the other direction, which is

01:23:25--> 01:23:25

just

01:23:36--> 01:23:36

different stuff.

01:23:54--> 01:23:55

Shadows

01:24:33--> 01:24:33

living

01:24:36--> 01:24:36

alone.

01:24:54--> 01:24:56

Any going back to your point? Yes. Is this

01:24:58--> 01:24:59

supposed to be on you're not on your movements.

01:25:00--> 01:25:02

is not the source of the problem, it is a result of another problem.

01:25:04--> 01:25:07

And it's sometimes you have to deal with both both

01:25:23--> 01:25:23

suggested

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

that one of the premises

01:25:30--> 01:25:36

one premise, based on your recent policy, maybe one of the

01:25:37--> 01:25:37

best,

01:25:39--> 01:25:48

have something that will lead you to believe that this premise that you're talking about. And I will suggest

01:25:51--> 01:25:53

any way that example would

01:25:57--> 01:25:57

notice

01:26:00--> 01:26:04

that that's an example, with the thing that

01:26:05--> 01:26:09

I read this example from a person, although

01:26:11--> 01:26:13

this person has many

01:26:18--> 01:26:18

do

01:26:20--> 01:26:22

we maybe have even have one.

01:26:24--> 01:26:25

But actually, that

01:26:28--> 01:26:33

was the basic cause of the beginning the first lecture, I know, but number one,

01:26:37--> 01:26:43

we are not we're not judging people, we might be working with them, we might have lots of good.

01:26:44--> 01:26:50

But even if they have lots of good, genuine, they get caught up in this movement, and start speaking the types of things that

01:26:51--> 01:26:52

are the same, it's very dangerous.

01:27:00--> 01:27:01

Because

01:27:02--> 01:27:03

the last two weeks,

01:27:04--> 01:27:07

I could have been able to bring them, bring me on Twitter,

01:27:08--> 01:27:11

and, and discuss them, man. Now.

01:27:12--> 01:27:27

But actually, the what what I talked about today, doesn't really need too many quotes. Besides the general culture, we mentioned that, because I just took that from the idea, the idea that any Islam

01:27:29--> 01:27:33

religion in general has to be judged according to society in the sense

01:27:35--> 01:27:36

that it can

01:27:40--> 01:27:42

give you an excuse that could be used.

01:27:43--> 01:27:49

When somebody talks about Islam has to be revived from from what is what you're talking about in the presence

01:27:51--> 01:27:52

of Muslims, is

01:27:55--> 01:27:56

definitely

01:27:58--> 01:27:59

talking about Islam.

01:28:03--> 01:28:05

If you take his book that he wrote about

01:28:07--> 01:28:09

his theory of international relations,

01:28:11--> 01:28:18

not in the back of the book, which he wrote, this book was written 10 years ago, that affects the people and events and we're not ready for it.

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

Because

01:28:23--> 01:28:28

he is showing us the newest man is such and such. So therefore, its publication has been deleted from now.

01:28:29--> 01:28:30

Even if you tell me

01:28:36--> 01:28:37

I will put them in the

01:28:39--> 01:28:41

but if you stay with fidelity,

01:28:43--> 01:28:46

established enough, but if you study the following, he is moving.

01:28:48--> 01:28:58

And he was changing a lot is changing a lot. It's like looking 20 years ago, you weren't exactly what they imagine hunger was only 20 years ago. You come up with those vegetables taking

01:29:05--> 01:29:05

something

01:29:11--> 01:29:11

from

01:29:19--> 01:29:21

is the methodology. My suggestion is

01:29:25--> 01:29:26

did you read the most recent book on

01:29:31--> 01:29:32

that emigrated

01:29:34--> 01:29:37

from two years ago given my family my senior

01:29:40--> 01:29:41

extreme

01:29:43--> 01:29:43

extreme

01:29:59--> 01:29:59

right.

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

The brothers.

01:30:04--> 01:30:04

We have to defend

01:30:25--> 01:30:29

to someone else to do remember, I just said someone in the lecture and someone

01:30:31--> 01:30:33

that said that person