Instilling Yaqeen – Lesson #9 – The Underlying Errors of Common Allegations
Channel: Kamil Ahmad
Series: Kamil Ahmad - Instilling Yaqeen
File Size: 45.59MB
Bismillah al Rahman al Rahim al hamdu Lillahi Rabbil alameen wa Salatu was Salam at a man in Accra Melanie Allah. Hi, Kayla. Hiya, Jermaine. Well, Allie, he was a busy woman. We had he was tending to be sunette de la yummy Dean, and dad Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.
In all of our previous classes, what we've been doing is basically laying the foundation upon which Muslims belief rests upon
such a strong, solid, concise foundation that basically instills your claim.
it instills conviction in our hearts, that you know what this religion is definitely, without a shadow without a shadow of a doubt. It is from Allah, the Lord of the worlds.
And so in a sense, what we did is we went on the offensive.
And so in the world of doubts and allegations and accusations against Islam,
the Muslim, the very first thing he should do is not try to take those accusations
and try to confront them, answer them,
refute them and deal with,
you know, these opponents directly.
But rather, the very first thing that a Muslim should do is sit down and learn the basics of his Deen
learn what Islam teaches us concerning our beliefs. What does Allah subhanho wa Taala tell us concerning himself?
What do I have to know about Allah and believe about Allah?
What do I have to learn about this Deen that Allah has sent? And what do I have to believe about it? The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam the Quran?
What is the Muslims belief, and what will help me to instill certainty and conviction in my heart concerning these beliefs, that is basically what we have been doing through throughout all of the previous classes.
Now what we want to do is,
we want to now address
these doubts, these allegations, these attacks, these accusations against Islam.
Now, we want to go on the defensive.
And this is the correct methodology to take.
The Muslim should not have a defeatist mentality.
You should not always be on the defensive,
taking on these accusations and these doubts,
and confusing his mind with these doubts,
and just focusing on them, without first establishing a foundation for himself, a strong solid foundation. Once you've done that, once you've established that strong, solid foundation, now you're ready to go out and confront the opponents when they come and they make these allegations and these accusations against us.
So now what we want to do is we want to take a look at the doubts that come in the minds of some Muslims concerning this theme,
or some of the common allegations
that the enemies of Islam throw at us.
And we want to deconstruct
it. And the way we want to do this is we first want to identify some of the common underlying errors
that many of these doubts and these allegations are based upon.
Or in other words, we want to identify the errors in many of their arguments.
And how these doubts and these allegations are really based on something that is not solid, something that is not concise. What we want to show is how
these claims and these allegations against Islam, how basically they don't hold any water. That is what we
Want to do today? And so when we look at many of the doubts and the allegations against Islam, we find
that the line of argument used in each, it varies
in terms of its strength.
And so, some of these doubts and some of these allegations, can easily be dismissed by even your average Muslim.
For example, doubts concerning the existence of Allah,
your average Muslim can easily easily dismiss these doubts.
But then there are some other doubts and allegations that require more analysis.
Because now the opponents are bringing proof
So, now, you need to know, how should I deal with these proofs? How should I deal with these, suppose it evidences.
And so, the accusations and the doubts and their arguments, they differ, not all of them are the same, not all of them are the same.
And so, the following steps will help us be able to identify the underlying errors in many
of the common doubts and allegations against Islam.
And these steps, they are arranged in order. Meaning that
when you're unable to identify the error in the first step,
then you move on to the second step.
And then on to the third step, and so on, until you arrive at the final step.
And so basically, what we want to do is we want to have
a map in front of us
that when we hear
an allegation made against Islam,
how do we go about dealing with it? How do we go about dealing with it? these five steps in sha Allah Tada, they will help you
to deal with each allegation and each Shobha each doubts concerning the Dean of Alyssa.
So let's have a look at the steps and inshallah hota. We're just going to go over these steps today, and mention a few examples for each and then in the coming classes, will go more in depth concerning the examples. So some of the common
doubts shubho had concerning Islam, or concerning a loss of Hannah who with Allah and His existence, or, for example, concerning the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam concerning the Quran, concerning certain legislations of Islam. And why has Islam legislated certain things, and adults concerning those legislations of Allah subhana wa. So in the coming classes, we'll look at each of those in more detail. But today, we just want to cover these steps and mention a few examples
So the very, very first step
that you should take, when you hear of a doubt or an allegation against Islam, is
that you verify that this allegation does not go contrary
to the reality of what we believe to be true.
So the very first step, you make sure that the allegation that is being made, it does not go contrary to the reality of what we Muslims believe to be true.
And being cautious of the straw man fallacy.
being cautious of the straw man fallacy, which we'll explain later.
So many allegations against Islam
are actually based on fabrications.
They're based on lives that are associated with Islam, to the point where people start believing that you know what this is, what Islam truly represents.
And usually those who believe in these allegations are those who don't really have
any access to Muslims to ask them
You know, they simply believe
in what they're told, without asking for proof.
these allegations, what we can say is that, in reality, they are not an attack on Islam.
But rather, they are attack on what is claimed to represent Islam.
And so how should we deal with such allegations?
By simply not spending too much time and energy in responding to them?
But simply pointing out how these are false allegations, and their Islam in no way whatsoever?
In no way whatsoever does Islam represent?
What is being claimed here?
And there are many examples of this. There are many examples of how certain allegations certain shubo hat, they are simply
claims that are made,
and that are associated with Islam
that are associated with Islam. But in reality, Islam has nothing to do with these allegations. There are simply false fabricated allegations that have been made against Islam.
And so, simple examples of this, for example, those who claim that Islam is a pagan religion.
a pagan religion.
So Islam is like Hinduism.
And these other religions where people worship idols.
Where do they get that from?
They say, we have this caliber, this structure in Mecca.
And they see us praying towards it,
and bowing down to it, they consider to it. So they say we worship the cabinet.
And we worship the black stone, he kisses.
this is one example.
Another example is that Muslims worship the moon God
that Muslims worship the moon God.
Because we have a lunar calendar, and we look for, we look for the moon, the new moon at the beginning of each month.
Or, for example, that Islam is a religion that was only sent for the Arabs.
It's a religion that was only sent for the Arabs.
And only if you're an Arab, or you speak Arabic, only then are you a Muslim?
And so these are some examples of
allegations that really don't hold any water. So how do we respond to these allegations? by clarifying that none of these allegations are true to begin with. That's all it's as simple as that.
And that they are actually based on twisting facts and are perfect examples of the straw man fallacy.
So these are examples, perfect examples of the straw man fallacy. So what is a straw man fallacy?
the straw man fallacy
is a form of argument based on giving the impression of refuting the opponent's argument while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by the opponent to begin with.
So, the straw man fallacy is a form of argument that our opponents use
based on giving the impression
our arguments while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by us to begin with.
the Muslim he has to pay attention to such fallacies.
He has to pay attention to such fallacies and not engage with the opponent by presenting counter arguments and evidences before assessing how true the allegation even is.
So before moving any further,
verify, check is this allegation even true? And your average Muslim can easily detect that such
allegations are not true to begin with.
So this is the first step to verify.
Does this allegation represent what we believe in? Or not? So you don't even have to go into
trying to disprove the allegation you simply say, all you say is that, for example, Muslims, we don't worship the cabinet.
This allegation is unfounded.
It is not true to begin with.
But rather we Muslims, we worship, the loss of Hannah, who went ahead
and asked where the cabinet, it is only the direction
of prayer that we have. And what proves that we don't actually worship the cabinet is, for example, these days where
there is nobody
by the Kava
or if there was ever a time when the cabinet is destroyed, we would still be facing that direction. Even if the cabinet did not exist as a structure where it is, let's say, it was destroyed.
And it no longer exists there. We Muslims would still face that direction. So the direction so the Kava is only a means of worshipping Allah is it is a direction that Allah has commanded us to prepare.
So this is the first step.
This is the first step in dealing with
these who had these doubts and these allegations, moving on to the second step,
making sure that there is evidence to back the doubts,
or the allegation, and that it's not simply an accusation that is made without supporting evidence.
we need to look,
is there evidence for this claim?
Is there evidence for this claim?
And so all doubts and allegations against Islam,
or against some of the foundations of Islam, come under two kinds.
The first is an accusation that is spread around without citing any evidence. And the second is an accusation or an allegation that is supported by some kind of proof. They mentioned, you know, this is our proof.
So how do we deal with the first kind,
we asked our opponent, prove the validity of your allegation, you've made a claim,
now prove what you are claiming. So if our opponent cannot bring forwards proof,
then the allegation that he is making is worthless.
And thus, it falls apart.
The reason for this is because if we accept claims,
that are made without asking for proof and evidence, then the defendant can also can also make a claim without backing it by any proof.
So our opponent makes a claim,
and he doesn't bring any evidence, then I could also make a claim and not say any evidence. And in this way, what will happen is that there will be no meaningful proof and evidence.
There would remain no meaning or value for something called proof and evidence. And thus, we can never arrive at the truth about anything.
If we were to, you know, continue in this way. So the very, very first thing that we have to do is asked for proof. Don't just take it for granted. That all you know
this is what Islam says.
And this is what you guys believe in.
And now you take it and you start to refute that accusation.
And this is the mistake that some Muslims make is that we rush to counter some of these allegations, with our own proofs, that will refute the claims being made.
But without asking for proof in the first place. And so this is not the right way of approaching some such notes. Because
the golden rule in any debate
That the onus of proof or the burden of proof lies upon the claimant, not upon the defendant.
you know, they make a claim.
And you rush to refute that claim by bringing your own evidences
without even having asked for his evidence.
in our own traditional Islamic scholarship, when talking about
debates and debating methods, our scholars, they refer to the claimant not bringing
if he can't back his claim with proof, then they refer to this as if ham.
This is an IF ham, if ham basically means a striking blow to the opponent,
silencing the opponent.
And they say that this is enough to end the debate.
So the opponent makes a claim, he doesn't back it with evidence, you asked him, What is your evidence? He can't produce any evidence, the debate is over.
The debate is over, and you've won the debate.
So what are some examples of this step?
There are many examples of this, for example, the claim that
Islam is a violent, bloodthirsty religion.
And they say this without giving any evidence,
or that Islam oppresses women,
or that Islam encourages slavery,
or that there's no way to prove the validity of
our howdy scriptures
had these texts
that are claimed to be 1400 years old.
So these are claims that they make, and usually they don't, they don't give evidence.
They don't give evidence with these claims. So how do we respond to the to these allegations? And these chahat, we don't start by trying to prove these allegations wrong.
So pay attention. Don't start by trying to prove that these allegations are wrong with counter arguments, or proofs.
So for example, we don't start by saying that, you know what? So So basically, our opponent, he says,
It's Islam is a violent, bloodthirsty religion.
It can't be the truth. It cannot be the true religion of God. It's a bloodthirsty religion, it's violent, and so on, so forth. Maybe he'll say I mentioned, you know, examples from what we see around us today.
And base his allegation on that. So now, what do you do?
It's wrong for you now to say, No, you know what? Islam is a peaceful religion. Islam is a tolerant religion.
And this is a common way of responding that many Muslims, they take,
but it's wrong.
And then you say, here are all the proofs that Islam is tolerant and peaceful and this and that.
Instead, what we should do is we should ask the opponent, what is your proof
that Islam is a violent, bloodthirsty religion?
ask them what's your proof.
And when we say proof, we don't mean what we see around us today.
Because you don't judge something
by the actions of the followers, but rather you judge it by what it teaches.
So you don't judge Islam based on the actions of Muslims, but rather you judge Islam based on what Islam actually teaches. So asking for evidence from the teachings of Islam, from the sources of Islam, from the Quran, from the Sunnah.
And usually, usually such people.
This is how their silence that's it
they can't they can't see you any, any proof, any evidence.
Now, if somebody does give you evidence, he says, Okay, let's look at the Koran.
Let's look, then we move on to the next step. But now we're talking about someone who can't cite any evidence, any proof for you.
So if he can't, then his allegation is worthless, and it falls apart.
So now we move on to the third step. So now, he comes with evidence. So this is now where we move on to the third step. So what is the third step?
The third step is verifying the validity of the proof that an allegation is based upon.
at both the proof and the conclusion,
looking at both the proof and the conclusion that is being made from that proof.
So if the opponent who makes an allegation against Islam comes with proof, to back his claim, what we have to do is, the first thing we have to do is we have to separate the proof from the conclusion.
As well as looking at how he went about using this proof to arrive at his conclusion,
then we take a look at the proof to see how valid it is.
We do this through different ways.
This is done through different ways.
The first is by looking at the authenticity of the evidence.
The second is, was the evidence understood properly,
irrespective of whether it leads to the conclusion or not. Was the evidence understood properly?
Third, was it selected properly, meaning
you're talking about a particular issue. And you have a wide range of evidences.
But the opponent,
he chooses only one evidence that suits
that suits what he's trying to do.
And he ignores all the other evidences on that particular topic. So was it selected properly? And for three? Is it a valid proof?
For the one using
the opponent? Does he even consider this to be valid evidence? Or is he just using it to serve his own agenda to serve his own purpose?
let's look at each one of these ways.
So firstly, we said how authentic is there evidence.
And so many doubts and allegations are based on inauthentic evidences.
And example, the claim that
our Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam,
he wanted to commit suicide by
attempting to jump off of one of the mountains.
And this was because the way the revelation had discontinued, and so early on, when the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam, received revelation from jabril.
He was receiving revelation and then there came a period of time when the washing is stopped.
And this discontinuation is authentic, it is true, it did happen.
And then after that long period of time, even though the whole system was saddened, he was
you know, he was in grief.
Because the cool photo of koresh they were seeing look at how his Lord has abandoned him. They were making fun of him.
So then Allah subhanho wa Taala, sent surah to Buddha. And in it, Allah said, Your Lord has not abandoned you.
this story of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam attempting to commit suicide, although it is mentioned in Sahar, yes,
it is mentioned there, but
it is not authentic.
Now you may be wondering, in astonishment, how can you say that? Something mentioned insufferable. haughty is not authentic.
So how do we respond to this? Let's say you
Our opponent, he cites this example knowing
the status of Sahil Buhari, according to us that it is the most authentic source for us Muslims after the Quran. So he says, Look, it's insoluble.
So how do you respond? We respond by saying yes, it is mentioned in Sohail Buhari, but emammal Buhari only mentioned it
to show how weak it is.
And so, when we go to the explanation, the commentary of the scholar
we go for example, to fetch Halle Berry by Eben hedger, Rahim Allah, he mentions
that emammal Buhari. First what he did is, he mentioned this hadith.
He mentioned this Hadith, according to the authentic narration.
And in the authentic narration of this Hadith, there is no mention of this story of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam wanting to commit suicide.
After that Imam Al Bukhari mentioned this verse, the second version of the Hadith, where it mentions the story to show that the second version is not authentic. And that the first version that did not mention the story that was authentic.
And this is the way of a hurry. For the one who knows the science of Hadith and has studied Hadith methodology and the sciences of Hadith. And knows how interminable Hari authored his and compiled his book, he would know that this is a methodology of humanity.
So the point was that this story is not authentic. So the first thing we do is we look at the authenticity.
There are other examples as well, for example,
those howdy that appear to contradict modern science.
And, you know, they say, look at what your Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam says. And this contradicts modern science, for example, there's a hadith that
the that we should not eat cow meat because it contains disease, and modern science, that it proves that there's no disease in cows, and we can eat it, there's no problem. So when we go back to that Hadeeth, we find that it is an inauthentic, weak hiding, and so on and so forth. So the very first thing we do is we ask about the authenticity of the proof. The second thing, what did we say,
we look at was the proof understood correctly, or not?
Even if an allegation is based on a proof that is authentic, it could be that
the opponent did not understand the proof correctly,
either based on the language,
so he didn't understand the language, maybe the translation into English was off.
Or he went to the Arabic And he understood it incorrectly. Or it was not based on the correct context, it was taken out of context, or other things that give the wrong understanding.
And so for this, we have examples, for example,
those who take the idea where Allah subhana wa tada says, Look, I'm Dino Kamala D.
In surah, two interferon, Allah says at the very end, for you is your religion. And for me is mine. Those who use this to try to prove that those who follow other religions
and these are the modern is Muslims today.
The modernist Muslims today, the progressives,
we should not call these people kuffaar.
We should not call them disbelievers because the law says here, commanding his processor or the processor, let me say, Look, I'm Dino camaleon. You have your religion, I have mine, we can peacefully coexist. Or
you know, we don't have to
give data to Islam. We shouldn't say you have to enter Islam, otherwise, you're going to be doomed. And so on and so forth.
Using as evidence This is
so how do we respond? We respond by saying that you have understood this evidence incorrectly. You took it out of context. And so if you
Go to the beginning of the surah you find the very first thing What does the law say? Cool? Yeah, a Ul caffi rule. Oh, you disbelieve all kuffaar all caffi rule.
right from the get go, oh calls them kuffaar calls them disbelief.
So it was taken out of context. Another example and this is a common example.
Those ayat in the Quran where Allah says,
Welcome to Lu, whom hate to walk or to loo, whom hate to talk with to
kill them, wherever you find them, kill them, wherever you find them. And so the enemies of Islam, they often use this
idea in the Quran to show how Islam is violent and bloodthirsty.
So how do you respond to this, you say that the verse is, is not understood properly by you.
And you've taken it out of context. So let's take an example, if you were to tell her in the fifth verse, Allah says this,
kill them wherever you find them.
what we need to do is we need to now go to Surah Toba
and read it from the beginning.
And so when you read it from the beginning, it says, basically, that there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Muslims of Mecca.
And this treaty, it was violated by them.
And a period of four months was given for them
to make amends, otherwise, war would be declared against them.
And then this verse comes the fifth verse, where Allah says, kill them, wherever you find them. So now we understand that this verse is quoted
in the context of battle,
it's quoted in the context of a battle, you're in the middle of a battle with these people, you're in the middle of a war.
The language is Stern, yes, the language is very, very, very heavy.
very fierce. But why? Because of the context, in the state of war, you use such words, to boost the morale of the fighter.
And so if today, you know, let's say, the Army General of
a certain country, he says to his soldiers, while they're in a in a state of battle, they're about to go in fight against the enemy. He says, wherever you find them, kill them.
Now, if you take that out of context, you don't mention that, you know, this was mentioned in a state of battle, then you will make him sound like a savage. Which is exactly what the enemies of Islam tried to do with the Quran.
The third, the third point, what did we say
was this evidence selected properly from among all of the proofs on that given subject, and so, sometimes the proof can be authentic, it could even be understood correctly, but the one who is using it is being selective.
Ignoring the many, many other proofs
under that same topic
giving this unbalanced picture.
So when you gather all of the evidences on a particular given topic,
if you gather all the evidences, then you'll be able to come with a balanced conclusion. But when you are selective and you take only those evidences that suit your agenda,
then obviously, obviously, you're gonna you know, give this unbalanced picture of Islam.
And there are many examples of this.
One example is
how Allah subhanho wa Taala says,
Laurie crawl Heavy D, there is no compulsion. In religion. There is no compulsion in religion.
They use this
Can the modernist Muslims, so called progressive Muslims today they use this
to prove freedom of religion.
And, like we said concerning the other
local Indian community to say that we shouldn't tell people that they're doomed if they don't accept Islam,
because Allah says here. Now, having been there is no compulsion in religion, meaning you don't have to accept Islam. It's okay you can remain a Catholic.
And so they use this to cite or they use this
as as evidence to say that Islam promotes freedom of religion, freedom of religion. So how do we respond to this, Shobha to this doubt, we respond by bringing all of those other proofs that show the obligation of accepting Islam. So, what we tell this person is you are being selective.
You are choosing only those evidences that suit your perspective on this issue. Let's bring all of the evidences. So when we bring all of the evidences that talk about accepting Islam,
and entering into the deen of Islam,
and the punishment for those who don't tend to enter into Islam in the era, what we find by gathering all the evidences, we find that there's, you know, without a shadow of doubt,
that Islam is obligatory upon each and every single human being to accept.
There's no doubt about it.
And that those who do not accept Islam, and they die
in a state of Kufa and they die as far or as mostly cool, then they are destined for the Hellfire almost has to believe in this because of the many, many, many evidences in the Quran and Sunnah, that prove that.
And then if you want, you can explain what this actually refers to. Again, it's taken out of context.
And they're being selected. So this is Larry Crawford Dean, there is no compulsion in religion, what it refers to is
in the Islamic State,
in a Muslim country,
the disbeliever he can remain upon his religion, he can remain on his on his religion, without accepting Islam, in exchange for jizya in exchange for jizya, which is the tax that he has to pay, in order for him to free practice is deep.
Another example of being selective is those who claim that we have no free will
by citing all of those evidences from the Quran, and Sunnah that show, that Allah has decreed everything
and nothing is outside of the corridor, and the machine, the will of Allah subhanahu wa Tada.
So, how do we respond to that? To say that, no, we human beings also have free will, we say you are being selective, you are only choosing those evidences that suit your perspective.
If we were to gather all of the lawsuits, all the texts of the court and so now on the topic of the color of Allah and his machine, his will, what do we find? We find that we can take a balanced approach, and that is to say, yes, Allah has decreed everything, and everything is by the will of Allah. But on the other hand, Allah has also given human beings free will.
The fourth, the fourth point, is to ask,
Is this a valid proof for the one who is using it?
there are those who will make allegations against Islam by citing proofs
that may be authentic and understood correctly, fine.
these people, they don't even believe in the validity of this proof to begin with.
And so this shows their inconsistency. How can you use this as evidence
When you don't even believe in the validity of this evidence to begin with.
And so, an example of this, it doesn't only have to be evidence from the Quran and Sunnah. For example, it can be, you know, the atheists, those atheists who believe that the only source of evidence is material scientific evidence. And we spoke about this.
when we spoke about scientism, and how many atheists have today, they believe in scientism, which is the belief that
realities can only be proven through the scientific method, and through no other method. And this comes under the study of epistemology.
What is considered evidence, what is not considered evidence, so these atheists, they believe that the only way to arrive at the reality of something to prove something is through science. So
these atheists, they don't even believe in logical arguments,
or philosophical arguments.
They they don't, they don't believe in any of that.
And when you bring them logical evidence, for example, for the existence of a lot,
they try to deconstruct it, and they try to refute these evidences.
And one of their common methods of refuting it is by saying, you can bring whatever logical evidence you want. In the end of the day.
Science has not proven the existence of a law of God. So there's no way we can believe in it.
the same atheists, the same atheists, you will find them
you will find them sometimes,
when it comes to try to disprove the existence of a law, when it comes to try to prove that no, no God exists, they will sometimes resort to logical arguments.
Sometimes we find that they resort to logical arguments, philosophical arguments. So this is where we, we should catch them and say, You don't believe in logical arguments, logical reasoning. So why are you using this as a form of evidence? Another example is
Christian theologians. In medieval times.
They tried to discredit Islam by saying that although the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was indeed a true prophet from from God, he was only sent to the Arabs and not to all of mankind.
And this was mentioned by scheffel Islam, Ibn taymiyyah Rahim Allah
in his book in Java, so here, the man bed della demon, see
the correct response to the one who changed the religion of intimacy.
And this book of his was his refutation of Christianity. And here he had a debate with a Christian theology
in which the Christian theology and this is what he said. He said, You know what?
Your prophet muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam? Yes, based on the evidence that you have shown us, he is approved. He is a true prophet from Allah. He is a true messenger. The Quran seems to be
authentic. And it seems to be from Allah subhanho wa Taala. Yes, no problem, we accept it. But
he was only sent to the Arabs, he was not sent to all of mankind. So, here we respond by saying that if you agree in the Qur'an being from Allah subhanahu wa Tada. Then in the Quran, Allah clearly states that he sent Muhammad for all of mankind.
So you cannot use the Quran
you cannot use the Quran in your favor.
You cannot say yes, the Quran is true.
But it was only sent to the Arabs because you don't consider the Quran to be proof
You don't consider the Quran to be proof and even taymiyah he
use this way of refuting this particular argument.
So this was the third step, we now move on to the fourth step,
the fourth step. So
the fourth step is basically looking at the proof once again, but looking at the relation between the proof and the conclusion that is being made, looking at the relation and the link between the proof and the allegation that is being made against Islam, the conclusion of the proof. And then this discrediting discrediting what is not considered a necessary conclusion, discrediting what is not considered a necessary conclusion.
And so, after verifying that, the allegation is backed by proof,
and the proof is authentic, and then making sure that we follow the steps to ascertain the validity of the proof, the next step is to look at the relation between the proof
that is being used, and the conclusion that is being made by the opponent.
And so, if the proof gives the necessary conclusion that is being made,
if the proof is giving the necessary conclusion that is being made, that this is the necessary conclusion of this proof
that, you know, here is our proof. And by necessity, it proves this conclusion, this allegation,
then, in this case, we move on to the next step, we say, okay,
we say, okay, we move on.
Otherwise, if there is no necessary conclusion between the proof and the allegation, then the argument falls apart, the argument falls apart.
And within example,
This step will be made much, much more clearer.
So, an example is those atheists who try to use the theory of evolution, to prove that God does not exist.
And so we respond by saying that this is not a necessary conclusion.
This is not a necessary conclusion.
It's not necessary, that if, if the evolution theory is correct,
it doesn't flow.
The conclusion that you are making that God does not exist because the theory of evolution is true, this is not a necessary conclusion.
It's not a necessary conclusion. Because, how can we explain this? We say because, the theory of evolution,
first of all, it only deals with
it only deals with life forms.
It only deals with life forms,
whether it be human beings or other life forms, that they evolve over a period of time.
Does the theory of evolution deal with non life forms?
The answer is no. And so, we have in this massive universe,
things that are not living planets, stars,
and all these other things that are considered nonliving
that are considered nonliving.
You cannot deny the existence of Allah subhanho wa Taala on the basis of explaining how only
living creatures came into existence,
into this does not show a necessary conclusion because we have all of these other non living creatures.
So the theory of evolution only deals with life.
How can you use that?
To say that God did not create the planets or the sun or the stars?
And so, we say,
we say that this is
a non binding, non binding conclusion or it is not a necessary conclusion of the proof. And this is obviously, if we say for argument's sake, that the theory of evolution is even valid.
atheists who try to use the problem of evil, the problem of evil, to deny the existence of Allah once again, once again, we respond by saying that the existence of evil and suffering, it does not disprove
the existence of Allah.
The only thing that maybe it improves, it is that an All Merciful,
God does not exist, but it does not disprove the existence of a creator
for the heavens and earth.
So, they cannot use this, because it is not a necessary conclusion. It is not a necessary conclusion, the problem of evil is not a necessary conclusion, to say that a lot does not exist. And
we can turn it back on to atheist by saying that
you can't use the problem of evil unless you actually believe
in God to begin with.
You have to affirm that a god exists in order to say that, you know, the problem of evil
disproves the existence of God.
Because as we said, it does not disprove the existence of God.
It does not disprove the existence of Allah. So this is the fourth step, we now move on to the final step, the fifth step,
and that is to make sure that the conclusion does not oppose another fact that is stronger.
To make sure that the conclusion does not oppose. Another fact that is stronger, that it's evidence is stronger. So some of our opponents, they may use what they consider to be authentic proof.
So we don't consider it to be authentic, but let's say for argument's sake, okay, this is an authentic proof. We move on to the next step.
They claim that the proof is understood correctly, okay. Maybe it's not understood correctly, we say, Okay.
for argument's sake, let's move on.
They say even establishes a necessary conclusion of the proof. So there is, you know, a necessary conclusion there is a relation between the proof and the conclusion, linking the two.
Okay, for argument's sake, let's say yes.
Then we find that the conclusion goes contrary
to something else.
Another fact that is stronger in evidence. It's so in this case, we have to put forward
the fact that is stronger.
The reality and the fact that is backed by a more solid
and stronger evidence.
And this is after we give in to their claims for argument's sake,
not because we actually believe that their proofs hold any water. So, we come to this, this last step.
We come to this last and final step to basically wipe them out.
Because they are insisting No, you know, for example,
you know, the theory of evolution.
You tell them no, it's it's only a theory. It's not a fact. The answer is no. It's a fact.
And you know, they you go on with them and they insist no
argument holds water and
you know, this is a strong very, very strong proof that we have. So now you come to this final step to basically wipe them out. How
we say okay,
the examples there are many examples of theories of theory.
That are claimed as scientific fact by atheists
to try to prove that God does not exist.
So, they use these theories that they have, whether it be the theory of evolution, whether it be how the universe came into being the Big Bang Theory, whatever it be, they use these theories, to try to say that God does not exist, they use scientific theories to say that God does not exist. So, this is how we respond, this is how we respond, we say, these theories are not established, they are not established scientific facts, there are simply theories based on certain hypotheses.
This is number one, number two, we say, there is a missing link between the theories
and using them as proof for God not existed. So, there is no necessary conclusion, as we said,
we'll show them how this proof is not a necessary conclusion that you are arriving at to say that God does not exist.
The third point,
these theories go against
what proofs that we have
that are more probable in proving the existence of Allah like logical arguments. So, now, we say, let us look at your theories and compare them to our evidences that we have for the existence of Allah Subhana Houma data.
And so, we say that these logical arguments that we have,
and you know, these logical arguments, we we discussed them, when we were talking about the evidences for existence. So, we say these logical arguments are, they are perfectly certain
And they go contrary to these theories that are not 100% certain.
They go contrary to these theories that are not 100% certain,
and science, it is always developing and evolving today, they come up with a theory, and you think that it is a fact. And then tomorrow, they discover something else that goes contrary to that theory. And that's why there is no,
that's why these theories that they come up with, they are simply theories. They are simply theories and not scientific facts. Yes. We're not saying that, you know, every theory is false, or is not a fact, there are certain theories that are facts, that today we've discovered that you know, what, this is a scientific fact, based on this theory, that's fine. But what we're talking about here are those theories, that until today, they are still evolving, and they have not arrived at, you know, the conclusion that these are facts that you have to accept. And so in this way, in this way, we have basically learned
through these five steps, how to deal with
these common doubts, the Shu heart, these common allegations that are made against Islam, by whether it be the enemies of Islam, or by certain groups of Muslims, like the modernist Muslims, so called progressive Muslims, this is how we can deal with these with these allegations. And so, now you have a map in front of you use this use this to deconstruct their shoe had their doubts and their allegations. In the coming
We will look at some of the more common
For example, concerning the existence of a law for example, the problem of evil.
some of the common
shoe had concerning whether it be the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam or the Quran or some of the legislations of Islam such as
the Hadoop in
Islam, the punishments, why are they so barbaric? and so on and so forth? Or
you know other legislations of Islam? We'll look at these shewhart in more detail be, isn't it?
So with that we come to the conclusion of this class. So Hannah Golan will be Hambrick. How do I allow
myself to be late was Salam Alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh