Hard Questions to Hamza Tzortzis

Mohammed Hijab

Channel: Mohammed Hijab

Episode Notes

share this pageShare Page

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.

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

Salam Alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuhu Welcome to a new episode with our blessed guests.

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

Al Hamdulillah

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

Hamza sorceress is an international speaker and author of this book here, the divine reality, which I've read, I'm giving you feedback on, obviously, and benefited from myself. hamdulillah. It's a book, which is what is online is how can people buy this book, they can basically go to Amazon, on Google type in the divine reality and come to their house. Yeah.

00:00:38--> 00:01:17

What we're talking about today, guys, I wanted to speak to Hamza about a few issues, some issues that he actually has, has become popular for his you could say, especially in the western dour, he's been responsible for changing, you could say some perceptions in regards to some of the commonly used things in dow like, for example, science. And he's used and employed the philosophy of science to do that. So he's delved into that field he's doing now he's post, you're doing a PhD in that now as you go, you should be starting in October, john Lasseter, doing that. The point being here is, I want to ask you a few questions. First and foremost, some people would have already known your view

00:01:17--> 00:01:27

would have heard what you had to say before and other channels and whatnot and discussions. But in a nutshell, what is the problem with believing that science is?

00:01:29--> 00:01:44

Well, of course, it depends on mean by certain Yeah. Now, if one means by certain, it's absolutely true. His conclusions are absolutely true. or scientific theories are absolutely true. The problem with that is that it basically is very unscientific, and it is

00:01:45--> 00:02:29

in congruent, it goes against mainstream consensus concerning the philosophy of science, because science changes, right, based upon understanding its method on a basic level, because it's based primarily on observations as Professor Elliot sober, who's an atheist by philosopher of science, a philosophy of biology, if you like, he says, scientists are limited to the observations they have at hand. So your your observations will always be limited. Yeah. So the question is, is there a possibility that you can have another observation that contradicts previous observations? Can you have a new observation that contradicts your conclusions? Your current conclusions based on limited

00:02:29--> 00:02:52

observations? Of course, you can just like for example, you know, if I observe 1000, white sheep, I may conclude, therefore, all sheep are white, fine. That's my inference, but it's probabilistic is based on a probability. So this is the induction, yeah, I can have an observation of a grey sheep or a black sheep. And in actual fact, black sheeps do exist. Now, let me You're the black sheep in the family.

00:02:54--> 00:03:04

That's right. I mean, they always put me in the black sheep. I was gonna ask you now, here, you've outlined the problem of induction. And you're very cute black sheep. We know our movies that movies to watch, you don't know.

00:03:07--> 00:03:27

Let me let me ask you a question. Right. In your book, you discuss some of the things some of the premises like how to prove God exists in a sense or argument for God's existence, not to prove her arguments for God's existence, and you and you become much more Quranic you could say, then maybe in your in your previous life, everyone's on a journey. Right? And I'll ask you now that a lot of your premises

00:03:29--> 00:03:56

are actually based on that, which is inductive, in a sense, you could argue. So in some of the arguments, yeah, all of them. So we could want to argue that, because here like empiricism is a needed was a necessary evil, that you cannot escape what I'm calling an evil, but I see. Okay, well, okay. empiricism is something which is a necessary part of epistemological building. Knowledge Building. Yep. If I say that, if we say that, well, there's the problem of induction.

00:03:58--> 00:04:33

Well, I mean, that would render a lot of the things that you have to say in terms of arguments. Okay. We can just say, well, there's no certainty in that either. Yeah, absolutely. So there are a few things to say fesi. Some of the arguments are metaphysical arguments for the argument from dependency, also known as the argument from contingency is a metaphysical one, it doesn't rest on understanding that you're going to have limited observations, right? It's based on first principles is based upon how you see the world how you see reality. So that's a different discussion. So some arguments are metaphysical in nature, not based on the problems of induction or the problems of

00:04:33--> 00:04:59

empiricism? Yeah. And other arguments. Yes, they have inductive premises, meaning that your premises can change based on new insights. Absolutely. However, if you read the book, you'll understand that in the first few chapters, I really focused on the Islamic epistemology, right from the point of view of the team and approach I would even go through here and I would even argue it's the gaze alien approach, if that makes sense as well. So what that approach is, is that we already know

00:05:00--> 00:05:36

So we have a form of proto knowledge. So we don't start with doubt. But we start with some kind of strong foundation, which is that we have proto knowledge, primary knowledge. Now in the Islamic tradition, as per the Hadith of the Prophet sallallahu, it was something else and yet in the Quran, in this particular Hadith in Sahih, Muslim, you see that every child is born in a state of fitrah. koulamallah? Yeah, so fatter and fatter and fatter who something has been created within us to acknowledge Allah, according to the lemma to have an affinity to worship him or to praise him, right. And some early MSA basic morality, right. Okay, standing of ethical rules, right. So this is

00:05:36--> 00:05:42

interesting, you're saying that your your first premise here is not based on empirical reasoning is based on

00:05:43--> 00:06:21

the first principle, this is my career, this is my metaphysic, okay? And it's not mine, I'm standing on the shoulders of giants, right? The trilemma, right? basically say this is our metaphysic, which is further the first principle the lenses that you have in order to see the world if you don't have lenses, you can't see the world. So what lenses are you going to put on the lens I'm going to put on are that there is a human being the human reality. And he has a fitrah. Whether it's part of the solenoid as it is, it's a, it's a discussion amongst our scholarship. So we have a fitrah that acknowledges God wants to worship Him. Right, and wants to praise him. Yeah, that's the starting

00:06:21--> 00:07:01

point. So therefore, these arguments, yes, I know, ends they become means, right? There's a subtle, subtle, but big difference here. Right? They are means to awaken that truth within, okay. They're not ends in themselves, right. And that's a very important understanding the Dow itself because when you study philosophy, on a more academic level, and I've handled it, I had the opportunity to do that, you see that? There is no absolutes when you're using this type of framework, philosophical framework, because you could spend years and I'm talking about 40 years, discussing definitions. Like, for example, this idea called physicalism. And philosophy. physicalism, is the worldview or

00:07:01--> 00:07:20

the view, if you like, that says that everything can be reduced to physical processes can be explained physically, and not necessarily bits of matter, but at least physical processes, right? It's quite similar to naturalism. Yes, they don't even know how to define the property. There's even like, academic essays and journals on what is the physical.

00:07:21--> 00:07:53

Right, right. Because they say they used to say is because what is the physical is what the physicists say. But if you go into quantum theory, you got problems, right? Because why is the physical becomes Oh, cause I in ghostly, right, up here, Nick up over there, then you could have basically the same particle in two places at the same time. paradoxical one, you're tickling the other. Yeah. And they don't know what's going on here. So what is the physical so there is a discussion on what is the physical that's why in reality, when you have discussions with these physically see physicalism is you study the topic, define your terms, right. Some of them

00:07:53--> 00:07:55

unfortunately can misspell the word anyway.

00:07:57--> 00:07:57

I was gonna

00:07:59--> 00:08:18

say awaken the truth. And I'm gonna give me a nice example. And that's the role of actors or that role of it is to awaken the truth within a role of translator for assigns evidences also they are verses in the Quran. They're there to awaken the truth within rational arguments are there to awaken the truth, the truth within spiritual experiences. And, and it's

00:08:20--> 00:08:28

nice analogy. I'm walking to my mom's basement. I'm kidding. My mom's basement I'm 37 years old. Actually. I'm 37 Today I'm gonna go and say bro

00:08:32--> 00:08:36

you're extremely nice handsome guy. So the thing is, um

00:08:39--> 00:08:40

27 allow

00:08:43--> 00:09:03

lottery will get you everywhere with me getting abroad. So the point is stereo mother's basement and I'm 37 years old he turned 18 our cleaning up all the dust cobwebs in a car old school bag open the school but what do I find? A plastic Donald Duck? Can I select my toy class Donald Duck when around five years old? Are you giving the people your life story? Yeah, so I don't

00:09:05--> 00:09:12

know. But I don't remember anything about that toy. Right. But the minute I see the toy what happens? You're recollecting Yes. Oh, yeah. So you're saying?

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


00:09:20--> 00:09:21

sneeze like him.

00:09:22--> 00:09:29

Anyway, so the point is, you get to have had too many dates today. No, I mean, like, you know, the fruit date? Yeah.

00:09:31--> 00:10:00

Stuck feudal law. Anyway, the point is, bro, yes. You can have dates with one woman and you can have many days I'm happily married. That's why I met your wife, obviously. Absolutely. So I I have a woken the truth within myself by experiencing that toy. Yeah, I forgot all about it by walking the truth within. Similarly, I add verses in the Quran, prophetic tradition, spiritual experiences, negative experiences in life and also rational arguments. They are there as a means to a world

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

Connect truth with zebra not the end of themselves. Okay. Now what I want to what I want to put to you is as follows. You do have in your book sections on say fine tuning and things like that. Yes. Which which you have to kind of admit here. This is inductively reasoned. Absolutely, yeah. So, what we don't I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, what you're not saying is induction is a is a is a bad method is a no, of course, you're saying it has its limitation? Yes. We use it in in Islamic jurisprudence as well. Yeah. So so is your position on induction that Yeah, it does have its limitations. Yeah. In fact, it is a method which it can weaken the truth within. Okay. Now, the only

00:10:37--> 00:11:12

reason we stopped looking at induction from a kind of Thiele philosophical point of view and saying, hold on a second, you can't compare apples and pears here is when you're saying something like, you're going to compare a metaphysical point. Yeah, with an inductive point. That's the problem. And that's what we're saying. So when we scrutinize things like, you know, the Quran when you're scrutinizing, MoMA scrutinizing even like the Darwinian mechanism or rejecting Darwinism, yeah, we're saying Hold your horses. Yeah, it's inductive in nature is probabilistic. It has assumptions. It has disputes. Yeah. A simple says really nicely, you know, pad, I remember that as pad

00:11:12--> 00:11:41

probabilistic assumptions and has to speed right. So if you want to academia, you see this, that don't be evangelical with it. So we say, Okay, and what we're saying to Muslims and religious folk, well, you shouldn't now therefore, doubt your own tradition, because of saying that has that is based on probabilities. It has assumptions, and is based on disputes. And that's the point. Because if you do believe in your metaphysic, which is not based on induction is something more solid, then you shouldn't have a problem. That's the issue, I guess, with probability is not so much the probability.

00:11:43--> 00:11:48

It might just be, how probable is it based on the evidences. Look, I want I want to ask you,

00:11:49--> 00:12:23

basically, what I want to ask you here segwaying on to a different thing, which I think you yourself went into, like you're saying a spiritual journey. In the beginning, you were talking about, like science in the Quran. And you had, in the beginning, I actually rejected that. In the beginning, I had the view that you can't use science to prove religion. Okay. You can't use science to prove things like the Quran was supposed to be for you like absolutely, in essence, right. Okay. At least from a spiritual point, what's your position? And then I changed? So what is your What is your position now on it? Like, for example, now we have kind of an old cliche this and say there's two

00:12:23--> 00:12:36

extremes or, or any kinds of extreme, but we're just saying you have different approaches. Within our within even scholarship, there's different discussions now, scholars are having on these kind of things. In regards to kind of approaching Islam, or the Quran,

00:12:38--> 00:12:42

or let's say, a Western audience in particular, or even just an Eastern audience or any audience.

00:12:43--> 00:13:16

Let me ask you, to what extent do you think is the legitimate recourse to say, well, Islam, there's a corroborating evidence base that Islam is true. In so much as x y Zed scientific theory corresponds of x y, Zed verse. Yeah, I wouldn't rest my belief in Islam, based on science, especially when there is a consensus in academia, amongst the scientists in the philosophers of science, that science can change. Okay, let me ask you that. Let me kind of play devil's advocate a little bit with you here.

00:13:18--> 00:13:29

Do you agree that there are some parts of this? Or are there some sciences or there's some science which is stronger than other sciences? Like, for example, observational science is stronger than

00:13:30--> 00:14:07

you could say, theoretical science or speculative science? Well, yeah, well, in a sense, yeah. We could go into the whole topic of things like theory laden nurse and go into topic of, you know, the limitations of observation, and but there's no point but I see what he's saying. is one theory better than another. Now, what I'm saying is that there's only tools in the flesh of science to assess that. Yeah. Unless, for example, very small book introduction to philosophy of science by summit, Okasha. Yeah. He said that when he saw that wasn't on our postcard reading list, oh, boy, was it? No, no. Yeah. Well, it's quite nice. Yeah, I've seen it's very good. Yeah. And basically was

00:14:07--> 00:14:46

someone to understand what's going on. That's good. And he really interests. He really interesting to put points out that for example, you will some basis Yeah. If you drop 10 raises, and you see vases, depending on how you pronounce it, guys. Yeah, you drop 10 vases or 100 vases and all of them drop in Smash, right? That's a kind of induction that you're looking at. Now, the vase dropping is an induction you're looking at it, you're seeing it. The explanation, the explanatory mechanism of why is that the vases is falling? Is the theory like the theory of your Einsteinian versus Newtonian explanations, for example, in this particular regard, that is more Would you agree that that's more

00:14:46--> 00:14:59

changeable. The theory behind the scenes, I think you've completed two things that you can play it inductive reasoning with inductive arguments and there is a difference. Okay, so me seeing the vases of vases dropping

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

raking. That's inductive reasoning, because I use my senses to reason what's happening. Now what I'm saying is that inductive argument is, is basically the inference of the conclusion you make to explain phenomena what you've observed. Okay? Yeah. So what I'm saying, Yeah, this is exactly correct here. So I'm saying that all sheep are white. That hasn't explained, whatever that that's explained, what I've observed was explaining the unknown as well. Are you saying all sheep are white? So this example to the 100? sheep say 1000? sheep? Yeah. 1000 sheep are white. Therefore, all inductive reasoning I'm using so I'm using my observations I've seen 123 up to 1000. sheep. Ah, why,

00:15:39--> 00:15:40

therefore all sheep are right. Yeah. So

00:15:42--> 00:16:20

therefore, is the inductive argument. Right. So my reasoning is, I've seen and observed 1000 white sheep. Yeah, the argument is making that logical leap saying all sheep are white, which explains your data. It does. Absolutely. But is it the only explanation we take? No. And is it the truth? One, we don't know. Because we haven't observed every single instance of Russia. But would you accept for example, if I say, Yeah, you've got inductive reasoning versus inductive argumentation? Yes. And what you're saying is that inductive reasoning is the observance like you're actually using your senses, right. Okay. So, well guess what I'm asking you is would you accept that observation or

00:16:20--> 00:16:23

inductive reasoning is a higher or has a higher epistemological

00:16:24--> 00:17:05

is stronger epistemologically, than inductive argumentation? Yes, because yeah, if I've, if I've observed x, yes. And all I'm saying is x, right, then that has a higher epistemic value unless you save them. I've been saying I've observed x and therefore y. Yes. Because Because the therefore y is the inductive leap. Right, right argument. And that's why even mentioned this in the book. Yes, they see Well, hold on a second. Islam use inductive arguments. No, it's some use inductive reasoning. So for example, when the Sahaba Companion of the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu, Alayhi, wa sallam upon MVPs basically heard, for example, put who Allahu Ahad say God is uniquely wonky about the Quran.

00:17:05--> 00:17:42

Yes, he didn't now infer make the inductive argument, which therefore, and he said, therefore la flair meme, which is a different part of the Quran. When he said, I heard could who Allahu Ahad therefore, could have Allahu Ahad. Okay, that's the point. They didn't make these, these these these leaps of what you gave the example of 1000 sheep. Yeah, let's be completely, like, honest here. If I give you an example of something with a billion examples, like, for instance, if I said to you that we have a million people that have smoked, and we've looked at longitudinal studies of their behavior, and it seems like

00:17:44--> 00:18:20

they are basically deteriorating in their health as a result of smoking. Yeah, you're making an inductive argument with that. And with that, it's an inference. Yeah, yes. And inference, but it's also you can say, an inductive argument, because you're saying 100 here, or 1000, or a million, or whatever it is. And based on that we infer the arguments sometimes used as synonyms. So yeah, you're inferring and you're explaining or inference to the best explanation as you put in your book, one of your one of your reasons why the Prophet is a prophet. But having said this, I'm saying so you get a million people, all of which are the signs of smoking. Yep. deteriorates the health. Yep. Muslim

00:18:20--> 00:19:00

jurists now are convinced that okay, smoking is haram, for the most part. Why? Because they say, Well, actually, that's enough evidence for us. So induction, unless it goes against the Quran is something for us. We don't have a problem with that sound reasonable? Yes. To some degree. Absolutely. I'm not rejecting the fact that you don't reject scientific correlations? Of course not. Okay. So as I said, what we're doing is when it goes against something that we believe to be of high epistemic value, that's the problem. Yeah. So like, if you metaphysic Yeah, whatever it is, is on a certain epistemic value, why would you take something that's lower? That you know, can potentially

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

change? Yes, yes, you basically challenge your metaphysics. That's my problem, right? Why would it challenge your first principles? Even Emmanuel Kant made a really good example concerning causality. He was like, Well, you can't read it. Because only because you need the causal lenses in order to understand your experiences, if you didn't have causal understanding, that a priori knowledge that there is some kind of understanding before you experience anything, that things have causal connection. Yes. How can you understand your experiences, your experience would be just like meaningless, right? Even the order of things, if there was a boat going down the Thames, you know,

00:19:35--> 00:20:00

you see the front before you could see the back. How do you know you could only see the front if you see the back because there is some kind of cool zoological connection somehow. Yeah, it's applied to those experiences and you understand it and if you didn't have that understanding, yes. How on earth are you gonna even understand the spirit? So the thing is, that's my point. There are things that you have that are right a priori, the metaphysically true going back to the base on first principle, I want to show if that is what you would

00:20:00--> 00:20:35

Call absolutely right. Then why would you take something that is of less epistemic value? Try and challenge that. Right. Does that make sense? Let me ask you a question. But at the same time, it doesn't mean you reject the conclusions practically. Yeah. 100% I think Darwin is was a good good good example here. Yes, check can change. This is based on probabilities, induction assumptions and disputes. So you know, saying I totally reject it, or throw the baby out with the bathwater. No, what we're saying is, yeah, I accept it, because it's the best that we have at the moment. Yes. And I accept it practically. But do I take into my creed? No, because if some of it somehow challenges

00:20:35--> 00:20:43

what I think is more absolute than I don't have to write, I don't I don't become a unscientific I don't reject the whole thing. Yeah. But I just, I give it its proper

00:20:45--> 00:21:12

status. Okay. Just like most philosophers of science, and most scientists say, it can change. It's probabilistic based on assumptions, yeah, disputes, going back to kind of levels of different scientific inquiry because I'm doing a project now I was doing it with with Medina graduate, we're together doing this kind of project on the discourse of studying the flesh of science, not only he studied, that's why we got you on the show. So what philosophy of science do you get when you dig down? Yeah. But he's more.

00:21:14--> 00:21:17

But what I'm saying we need to move forward that we have the theologians.

00:21:18--> 00:21:54

theology, that theologians understand the reality that talking about it. Yeah. So having said that, the project we're doing is kind of assessing the scientific narrative and stuff like that, right. Now, in my kind of discovery of this and trying to close the bridge, as you say, between the theologians and people to interpret Islamic texts, with the philosophy of science, we've had to explore these different themes. So one of the things that seem to be prominent in our discoveries, or in our assessments is the fact that, for example, and this is going to be controversial to some flat earthers out there, but the fact that the earth is around, we would say is has a higher

00:21:54--> 00:22:31

epistemological value than art. Yeah, that is true that relies on some testimonies, and some pitches and whatnot. But for the most for the majority of people of mankind, they'll say it has a high epistemological value than say, for instance, you know, some string theory? Yeah, because it's something which can be observed with the naked eye is something which there's evidence for, and the evidence is triangulated. Geometric evidence in addition to your senses more directly, right? So if we were going back to the science in the Quran narrative form, this is one thing I do use, and I'll be honest with you here, and you can obviously scrutinize my approach as well. I'm open to that

00:22:31--> 00:22:35

completely, with things like that with things like for example, the earth being round.

00:22:37--> 00:22:53

One of the arguments I put forward to you when I say to, let's say a Christian or non Muslim audience, I say to them, the fact that the earth is round, Islam is the only religion which has scholars predating the the classical period, like say, for example, I haven't been humbled to 41

00:22:54--> 00:23:16

who died to 41. He mentioned that the earth is round in accordance with because of his reading of the Quran. Yes, yes, some of us are different. Now, if you compare this with the biblical narrative in Job chapter nine, verse six, for example, you'll find that there's no way you can interpret the Old Testament biblical narrative as meaning that the earth is round. There's no way of doing it. This is just something I've kind of I've tested this with lost Christian theologians.

00:23:18--> 00:23:54

Now is a legitimate argument for me to put forward and say, Listen, if this is a conditional sentence, if you believe that, for example, the Earth is round, then Islam is more closely correlated to science than any other ancient world religion, including Christianity, based on evidence is a bit of a logical fallacy. They're gone, because only if you assume that the whole of science is that the world is round. It's no, no, I'm not saying anything about science now. Okay. No, but what you're saying was conditioning said if blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yes. More, according to science now has it would be credit to science, the whole of science was not obviously

00:23:54--> 00:24:02

science. So if you're brave enough to debate now, you don't need a hug to pointing I'm sorry. I'm sorry. If

00:24:04--> 00:24:05

this is very difficult,

00:24:07--> 00:24:43

because I don't want to become inductive. inductive. Give me your principle against Okay, so it's a conditional sentence. I'm saying, if you believe the earth is round, then Islam is the most closely correlated religion, which, to that reality of the earth being round. Okay. Just statements. Cool. So, yeah. So both if you believe the Oh, because there's another problem going because you have to imagine origin, you have to assume that ancient world religions didn't believe the world was. That's not my assumption. I'm just saying that if you believe the earth is round, you're just you. I'm sorry. But if you believe the earth is round, yeah, and the sun does, which is great. There's a

00:24:43--> 00:24:59

correlation. I agree. Good. Earth is round. Yeah, answers. Earth is round. But I'm not saying Well, okay, say Bible doesn't. But what about all the other religions? Have you studied those? Yeah, I'm just saying like ancient world religions, but have you studied all of the ones that are existing? They've never said that it's because the Jewish faith and the obviously the Christian faith

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

When we talk about job, we're talking about the Old Testament anyways, about the Buddhist tradition. What about the Buddhist tradition? The Hindu tradition is to be honest with you, I'm not going to lie and say I've studied it in depth. Okay, say they say the word is wrong. What would you say that? Okay, I preface what caveat, or what conditions? I'll make it. So you conditional statement becomes very conditional, right? Yes. We've heard over the heads and shoulders. Well, okay. Then I'll just say out of Christianity of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Yeah, you get it. But then that's an argument then see, see this, I think this is the problem with that approach. I think we need to be

00:25:30--> 00:25:38

comprehensive and coherent. Yeah. Yeah. But that's fair enough. Of the six major major religions, one of them is is not ancient, which is Sikhism.

00:25:39--> 00:25:39

Okay, yeah.

00:25:40--> 00:26:15

Obviously, if we talk about Chinese folk religion, that's not that don't want you to only talk about religion, because that again is a bit neither here or there because you have enough talking start talking about what about other traditions or ways of life that actually said that the world was round? No, but you see that there was a cross, there was a fertilized fertilization of knowledge because cross cultural, right, so you may have had the Greeks or the Hellenic period, or whatever the case may be that they they probably thought that that the objects around Yeah, so and religious, were part of that culture, that human culture. Yeah. So free to ice just to the religions, I think

00:26:15--> 00:26:46

is also misplaced, not holistic. And okay, let me let me counter that. But I think there's nothing here. There's no split hairs. What's your approach then with this? What what is what I'm trying to say here? And I'll give you my nuance, right. And the nuance is as follows. Yeah, you said that this there are other civilizations, I believe, like pre Islamic civilizations, like the Hellenistic Greeks or whatever that might have believed the earth as well. And not all of the Greeks By the way, some of them might have some of them might not have shown, just like some scholars say that as is flat. Yeah, some scholars say the other slap but what what I say is that it's the only that's why it

00:26:46--> 00:27:11

was correlated. There are some people that say that, like even to me, and it'll do any and, and others, it hasn't to this age now, which is that? Is there a consensus that there is a consensus? That's a good question, and this goes back to the sword? Was he believed? Is it Yeah, carbon these things? Absolutely. But the question here is, the point I'm making here is going back to the parable that you gave of not throwing the baby with the bathwater. Yeah.

00:27:13--> 00:27:18

What I'm saying is that this is an example most of humanity will agree that the earth is round. Okay, so does that

00:27:19--> 00:27:58

mean God? No, I'm not saying that. This is he, you see, this is not the this is not the approach. So I want to know your approach. So give me give me the approach in summary. So the approach in summary is, is a conditional approach, depending upon the background of the person. And once again, that's why I start the sentence. If so, if someone believes that the earth is round, for instance, Islam is the most closely correlated ancient world religion that basically upholds that reality. Yeah. Some scholars may have said that the earth is flat. But yeah, tabula rasa, which means that at least there is scope for disagreement or agreement. Whereas in the Christian faith, there is no scope. Or

00:27:58--> 00:28:29

in the Jewish faith, there is no scope, there's actually only one answered that the earth is flat and has got pillars. Okay. See, my problem with this is as follows. Right? And by the way, I'm not saying as a result, therefore, I'm not using I'm not saying here, therefore, the Quran is from God. Yeah. Because this knowledge couldn't have been known at the time, I understand that there are some people before that could have had that knowledge. But what I'm saying is, if you're a true seeker, and you're looking at all of the different religions, and you realize that one of those religions has this ability for you to interpret its verses like this, and all the other religions don't have

00:28:29--> 00:28:50

that ability. So for the true seeker, it's okay, as soon as it becomes a question of, if I believe the earth is flat, I can't be a Christian or a Jew, almost, it almost becomes like that. So if I believe the earth is round, I will be doing it. Yes. The only problem with this is more psychological. Okay with someone, you have to presume that science is still a method of establishing

00:28:52--> 00:29:27

your worldview, which I don't think that's the case because of its inductive nature. Okay, so if someone says yes, you know, I like science. Yeah. And the Quran seems to be one of the only ancient religion that seems to correlate with scientists science. Yeah, yes. But the only problem with that is, is when we apply to other spheres of science, then it might not work. That's why what what can follow logically this there'll be a fine, you know, the Quran somehow says that the moon is neuron, it has a borrowed light, which is one of the interpretations of the word neuron, right? It's a borrowed light, and no one knew this at the time. No, he knew this at the time. Therefore, the Quran

00:29:27--> 00:29:38

is close to science within you to do a bit more reading we think, Oh my god, 500 years prior to the Common Era, the before the Common Era, you had an accelerace the Greek or phallus, right, yes. Or

00:29:40--> 00:29:59

something of samosa some other Greek guy right here. They believe I agree. Yeah, they believe that the sun the moon didn't have its own light, right? This the moon brought the light from the sun, it was reflective light. So by that logic, they should say, well, the closest to science was the Greek thinking right? What was what was summer supporting the guy

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

Something from any staff was of some or something. What was the phallus on? What was an sagaris? On? Oh, there was stoics I'm gonna become a stoic now. And they they invented conditionals as well.

00:30:13--> 00:30:48

But the point is, what I say to you is, it becomes a little bit inconsistent that way right now, when we look at all the stuff in the crime Take for example, yes. And we create the heavens and the earth, and we split them asunder, right? People say the Big Bang, and this is where my we have, we do have yet your right to say, but yeah, my question is this, we have video on this, people believe that the Big Bang is a fact. Right? They have zero study in the philosophy of science. Yes, there are 17 different models that explain the same data, right? It's called unded, underdetermination, where you have some data with background radiation and all that stuff. And you have seven different

00:30:48--> 00:31:24

17 different models that explain the same data. And these 17 different models, they disagree with each other, and they have very deep the same epistemic wait. So how can you even say it's a fact you have a popularized version of science understanding not only that, you're assuming the Quran is gives details about one of the models of the of the Big Bang, which is incorrect. In actual fact, there is Sumerian literature, which is called The Epic of Gilgamesh, which is way before Quranic revelation. You just closed? The Quran is the closest word closest was the Quran? I'm not saying the copied or the No, wait, I'm not saying that. Yes, what I'm saying is, we need a robust approach that

00:31:24--> 00:31:29

can explain all of these discrepancies. We need a robust approach that explains things that

00:31:30--> 00:32:04

may it'll make sense in scientific terms today. So I think, though, with the exact Look, I mean, I agree with you my approach, I think, is very robust. Yes. Give me exactly yeah. I just have conditional was not if and it's not based on certain individuals. And it's what I think is more comprehensive. Yeah. Tell me, let me let me tell you what, so so this is I call it the multiverse. Lee is the classical approach, in my view, right? If you look at the tafsir, if you look at the x, they didn't really even use to go into this narrative of Sciences one thing and therefore the Quran has to match what science says whatever the case may be, right? Okay. Because they knew the

00:32:04--> 00:32:17

epistemic way of science even for example, a shot TV he has a famous quote that actually deals with this issue, right? Anyway, to cut long story short, the Quran uses words when it refers to natural phenomena

00:32:18--> 00:32:20

and allows creative power, okay.

00:32:21--> 00:33:02

And these words have many layers of meaning. Within a scope, classical scope, right? They have their multi layered many layers, meaning Yes, and they address different levels of understanding. So they're multi leveled. So multi layered, and multi leveled. Yes. And you could take this and apply this to any word in the Quran refers to natural phenomena. Okay? For example, let's take the word Allah. Okay. Of course, the classical tradition, the word Allah has five major meanings. Blood in a general sense, a blood clot, clay that sticks to the hand, something that clings and the leech or worm, these are the five minutes anything else other than that, would it because of the classical

00:33:02--> 00:33:37

understanding of that word, right? Now, you could take each layer of that meaning and apply to different levels of understanding. So let's take the seven central understanding, okay, it is probabilistic, based on inductive reasoning, and arguments if you like that, at the time of Revelation, the seventh century they adopted a galenic view on embryology. Right. What gave him was the second century Greek physician in his book, disseminate uses Greek words like Sadko EDS, and Mr. Das, I read the Greek myself. And it basically means a blood filled fleshy thing, right. So this is not a miracle, because you can see what the observed with direct observation with a naked eye

00:33:37--> 00:33:56

because when you see natural abortions, which are called miscarriages, you look like a blood fleshy thing a blood clot. So you can use a basic understanding of the word which means blood clot correlated to the service as your understanding, and you still have the objective that's met because what is the what's the role of an hire? what's the

00:33:58--> 00:34:36

what's the role of the verse, addressing natural phenomenon, the role of a verse addressing natural phenomenon is to take you from God's creative power, yes. To the fact that he deserves worship divinity. Yes, yeah. So therefore, you're looking at, say, a Muslim century guy. Yeah, I believe the human baby begins a blood clot, right? Or at one stage is a blood clot. That's my belief. Yes. I'm, I'm looking at the reality as well. Yes. And I'm like, Oh, my God, I came from a blood clot. So then you think, how and who and who created the physical causes in the universe? In order for me to emerge or be developed from a blood clot? There must be a divine wisdom and power. Do you see my

00:34:36--> 00:34:59

point? So he's moving me from understanding God's creative power and wisdom to the fact that he deserves worship or praise, or whatever the case may be. Now, so that's one layer. Now you could do another layer, go to the 15th century, you discover the microscope and when you look at the microscope, you look at the embryo. Some doctors, some academics have described it as a worm, Dr. Dale layman in anatomy demystified, described it as a worm. So if you look at it looks like a worm. So you

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

may say and I'm not saying this is this is different, you may say they could refer to the external appearance of the embryo. And also that even fast forward more Yeah, we're assuming refers to science, you may not even have nothing to do with science, it may be about the relationship with the, with the embryo in the womb, because the embryo has a parasitic type of relationship just like the leech. If you refer to the works of Dr. Robert, with Western from Imperial universities, and emeritus professor of fertility studies, he basically says the leech and the embryo, they act very similar. from the get go, it's all about themselves. And the leaf sucks the blood from its host. And

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

what the Emperor does, it reads the mother's resources from her bloodstream. And it takes from her literally just like a parasite. So maybe I like seeing you and your behavior was like a leech, you were a parasite. Your mother willingly and willfully gave her resources to you so low, you will have humility and be loving and compassionate to your mother. So you could have a non scientific paradigm. The finally just to make a more comprehensive, yes, it may, it may not even make sense scientifically to us, that there are some things that make make no sense scientifically. For example, yeah, yeah, it doesn't mean the Quran is wrong. It may mean two things. Number one, it

00:36:09--> 00:36:42

allows us to investigate further, because the Quran is all about wanting us to learn about ourselves, the physical world and spirituality. And it may mean that there may be a future future observation of future scientific understanding that can maybe make us make us elucidate what's happening with this verse, right. But at the end of the day, yes, we have to appreciate what is the role of an ayah, concerning natural, the role of the idea is to move from God's creative power to the fact that he deserves worship. And if you don't, if you have a primitive understanding of the how, yeah, it makes no difference. The first question based on your reading, because it's good. So

00:36:42--> 00:36:46

this makes it comprehensive. Yeah, I want to ask you as a Greek speaker as well, because this is a good thing that we have,

00:36:48--> 00:37:23

as a resource, really, as someone who can show the cipher they kind of the Greek language. What I was gonna say to you is that when you're reading of Gulen, because this is something that orientalist I'm sure you're aware use as a counter to the whole. And by the way, I'll be honest with you, I'm completely I don't buy this argument from the orientalist. Well, this thing where they whereby they say okay with a with a prophet Mohammed Hassan, he had ability to take from Greek sources via let's say, people who would have who would have who would have learned Greek and maybe translated, not least because obviously in the Quran, it refutes this itself. I mean, apologist?

00:37:23--> 00:37:30

Well, in a way, you know, Hola, Camila, mon. It says they say that you have gone and studied and that will make this the fact that this is not the case.

00:37:31--> 00:37:42

clear to people that don't know that no, this is an arm and other other verses. But apart from this reality where the Quran refutes it directly.

00:37:43--> 00:38:07

This was alaka. Now Hey, you said that gallon and I read it in English. But what he in his treatise, he mentions blood. Yeah, it's a blood. It's a it's a it's a soft, fleshy, blood filled thing. What's the other ingredients? So the Mr. Dawson means blood? Okay, so this means fleshy. Okay, good. Now, the Arabic word Allah ha, yeah, as you mentioned correctly now encompasses, let's say, five different meanings.

00:38:09--> 00:38:30

In this instance of Allah, how do you know of anyone before the Messiah solo? Who came and said, not only is it something which is, let's say, a clot, like bloody thing, but also that that clot, like bloody thing had the propensity or the ability to attach itself to, to anything and act like a blood sucker? Yes. The Greeks actually said leeches. Well.

00:38:31--> 00:38:43

I have the paper I have to give it to you, but it's part of the process on them. Yeah. Okay. See here. This is really interesting, because i t i t i, t y, this, which which of the groups because what I remember from Aristotle, yeah. As

00:38:44--> 00:39:16

a non agitating source here, yeah. This is the point here, for me, the refutation of the fact that the first time I even tried to borrow anything, yes. is the fact that the Quranic language doesn't represent a language of the summit century. Yeah. Because the language of the 10th century will give you some essential understanding only, yes. But what's unique about the crime, which I'm telling you right now, is that because it's multi layered, it can address different understandings over time. And that, for me, is its timeless nature doesn't mean it's a scientific miracle. No, but doesn't mean has the ability to address different understands across time. Yeah, using a language as

00:39:16--> 00:39:39

understood by the seventh century and the 15th century and the 13th century. Yes. Okay. And that's the unique thing about the crime discourse. And the reason you're finding problems out with your maybe conditional approach is because of the fact that you still presuming that there must be some kind of the way I put it, the correlation, none of what I say is that look, although if you did the 19th century, you wouldn't be having this argument. Now. Let me tell you,

00:39:40--> 00:39:57

to the scientists, if the universe had a beginning, it's not steady state theory in the 19th century, but they believe there's no beginning to you know, accept that there's no consideration. What I'm saying is that, like we said before, there are different levels of scientific science basically. So as we say, scientifically, that's very post hoc. It was

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

not new.

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

This is logical fallacy. Whereas now you know what the science is. Now you know what the epistemic weight of the science that you understand. But at that time they fought the steady state theory was one of them. I'm putting myself in the 21st century not and that seems to be missing the point that I'm trying to say is you can't now compare the steady state theory and say, oh, but that has a less epistemic corner. Because you only know that now. But if you're in the 17th, if you're in the 19th century, yeah, you've already showed us a theory is gonna have less epistemic weight than any observation, isn't it?

00:40:30--> 00:41:04

So the fact that the earth is round is an observation, isn't it? Yep. Okay, so what I mean is that now using the earth being round as something we can physically see also using when you observe, like natural form, like like an embryo, for example, yes. Okay, good. But there is a problem here. No problem is that there's a few things from just follow suit of zero point influence. Oh, yeah. So it was really tough. Sarah, do you know much better than me? When it comes to words, when it comes to words that refer to natural phenomena that ambiguous in nature, right, but don't do not have a prophetic tradition that will be explained in detail, per se. And you have to rely on the classical

00:41:04--> 00:41:23

understanding of the language? Or you said, there's got more than one sometimes Yeah, all you have to say is word x may mean why you can't say what x definitely means. Why? Because you are assuming that that is the intention of the author, Allah subhanho wa Taala. His word that's the intention of of,

00:41:24--> 00:41:58

of the, of the expression of that of that? Yeah, yeah. linguistic item, that word. Yeah. And you have to assume that this is exactly the size is never going to change. We could never say those things. So all you can be is with the approach is very probabilistic, by Okay, XP, meanwhile, just like I have been with a multi layered approach, it's more of a double pondering approach, rather than conclusively saying, therefore, it must be from the divine. That's my point. Yeah. So you also say so may mean, why this is good, because it kind of feeds on to I don't think there's a contradiction, by the way, by your approach. My approach sounds a bit similar. No, no, because I'll

00:41:58--> 00:42:32

tell you why. Because the multilayered understandings by having these I agree with the multi layered approach, by the way, I think is a good approach. Because you're saying what you're effectively saying is that people of today can interpret the Quran in a certain way, which the language allows, and which they allow, and people yesterday can interpret it in another way, which the language allows them. And there's a third point, or they may interpret, interpreted in a way that they may have no scientific understanding, would encourage more learning. Yes, so that's what so you need to say yes, but with the premise was a very important point, because we missed this about the book of

00:42:32--> 00:43:05

Allah Subhana, WA, tada, we read into the crowd, or allow the crowd to read to us. And that's the problem we bring to the Quran. We don't allow the Quran to bring to us, which is that the role of AI act, what is the role of a verse in the Quran is a natural phenomena, it's to move you from understanding God's creative power to the fact that he deserves to be worshipped. And you see this Yeah, in most of the ayah, that talks about the the celestial objects, the creation is always the conclusion therefore, worship God, there is only one, there's only one day to worthy of worship. So that's always the kind of relationship between these verses and what the conclusion is, which is a

00:43:05--> 00:43:19

spiritual conclusion here, and therefore God doesn't, therefore is telling you, you have to know all the nitty gritties Behind the Science. No, he's saying whatever your knowledge is, it could be even primitive, right? Whatever you notice, and this is the timeless nature

00:43:20--> 00:43:23

is primitive. Yes. You're going to conclude there's a divine power and

00:43:24--> 00:43:41

maybe give one more example. Yes, but I'm gonna write a lie saying that the sun and the moon, they are swimming right now. In the seventh century does the Arab is looking looks like it's swimming in the ocean of space. No miracle here, bro. But what he can say does revolve, spinning but listen to this.

00:43:42--> 00:44:20

He's looking to the ocean of space thinking, what kind of power did this? what's the what's the wisdom of the divine wisdom? Allah deserves glorification. Yeah, fast forward 21st century, we now know celestial mechanics, right? They are looking like they're swimming in in space, and they're orbiting. So it's in line with a more modern understanding to now do this stuff. What about the sun? This is the sun's doing an orbit. At that time they believe the sun was going around the Earth, which is not true. Is it true? Well, now according to NACA to understanding, right, so it's not true. But lots of people had that understanding, especially some scholars, even even scholars today,

00:44:20--> 00:44:55

right? Yeah, yeah. So the point they were believing and some do believe that the sun goes on Earth. That's right. Even if you believe that, you're still gonna conclude Allah deserves worship. How does that happen? Wow. The Divine Power who deserves glorification, and also an interesting though, multi layered, multi level model. The sun does have an orbit, it orbits the Milky Way at 220. On his own axis, but the point that's the point is what basically interpret to find you're gonna find interpretations here. Then you find counter interpretations. Yeah, the point right, you can find the model that I'm using now is a robust model to the point where you throw any accusations at

00:44:55--> 00:45:00

photocopying acquisition. So the acquisition of it's not scientific. Well, that acquisition

00:45:00--> 00:45:32

than the other. Yeah, it is. It comes out very clean hands that I'm asking a question. Absolutely. And we got to find more information on this go to my new YouTube channel, which is called hums address to this, okay, definitely weapon on these issues quite like 100% put down the description. I don't want to blow my trumpet, but I'm just I'm just wary of the factory thinks they're gonna do, they're gonna get this. So they're gonna subscribe to that channel, and they can't afford the book, a lot of the main chapters already free on my website in Sharla. I was gonna ask you now, what do you think of I know it's gonna sound tangential, but this is going to come back to the whole

00:45:33--> 00:45:55

historical move using the word historical miracles, linguistic miracles of the Quran. Yeah. What do you see historical stuff is also based on what you would call some kind of inductive premise as well. Okay, because we don't have the full understanding. We haven't historically observed everything that you want to use the term right. Okay. Look, as I said, these are things to awaken the fitter to awaken the truth within, would you would you have a problem with using that term?

00:45:57--> 00:46:16

historical miracle? Yeah. Yeah, maybe. Okay. Would you have a problem with using the linguistic one, I think is far more robust. You could you could get a deductive argument, you have a problem with using the two. I'm not saying by the way that I advocate using the term scientific miracle. Yeah, sure. But I'm saying would you have a problem with using the word prophetic miracle in the sense that it's a prophecy

00:46:19--> 00:46:36

and built in terms of one thing, and understanding the terms or another? Okay, what I mean by is like, as well, what we try and do now is we say things like, isn't this interesting? Isn't this, doesn't this point to something? Isn't this more likely, if I said this a week in the truth within that God deserves worship?

00:46:37--> 00:47:12

I agree. But if I say as a from $1 perspective, is there a problem for me to say, look, there's a miracle in the sense that the Prophet Mohammed Salah predicted x, y, Zed, and these things happened, if you have a robust argument, and you can conclude that Why not? What couldn't that couldn't that be a contradiction? In your reasoning? Never say what only be a conviction in the reasoning if your reasoning wasn't strong enough to claim miracle. Now, let me tell you why. If I say this, let me say why. A few reasons good enough to conclude that why not let me say, Well, let me let me try reasoning. Never say why. Say for example, we say that there's a miracle. And by the way, I believe

00:47:13--> 00:47:27

is a book called noble wet. And I just look around for a walk back and forth from even Tamia. All of the knees. Back in it, right? Yeah. And Bucky Lani. From my humble view. It doesn't really show this America nano

00:47:29--> 00:47:37

across this kind of schools of thought that came to be suddenly within Islam. All of them kind of cool. This stuff. Miracles, it will say miracles miracle.

00:47:39--> 00:47:49

just crazy. Yeah. Mostly, they also means amazing. Yeah, I just means incapacitated, doesn't it? Well, it could mean like lava when he uses it. He definitely means it in that and I told you.

00:47:51--> 00:47:57

Okay, back to the future. You got the flux capacitor you put into the car and you went back and you spoke to even Damien told you.

00:47:58--> 00:48:19

It's clear in the context. Okay, so yeah, fair enough. Do you see what I'm saying? So the classical scholarship of goodness. Yeah, jazzy. Okay. Can some classical scholarship in areas of Etihad and Tao be wrong? Yeah, of course, not. What I'm saying now, if prophetic miracles are jazzy by I would almost call it a consensus by the way.

00:48:20--> 00:48:30

As Akashi has a book called soul, or soul Quran, Kareem bohan. has lost. Most of the scholars I don't know of one scholar that has not called the fact that, for example.

00:48:33--> 00:48:59

Allah has predicted certain things that could come in the future and they materialized, they haven't called the agenzia in the sense that it's miraculous. However, if we use the same inductive argument, we could say, well, hold on. We know that history, our perception of it can change. So this historical event, our perception of it, that can also change. Yeah, but you're assuming that you see there. Can you see the point? Maybe the argument was deductive maybe they they claim that they saw all historical events?

00:49:02--> 00:49:11

Because the linguistic argument, you could produce a deductive version of it, but how can you have deduction without premises that are inductive? Of course, you can know in this in this instance, I'm talking about

00:49:12--> 00:49:52

empirical see a deductive argument? Yeah. Does it mean that your premises inductive? Okay, this No, this? No, I'm saying that your premises are based on inductive type reasoning. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So like you have a deductive, historical deductive argument a deductive argument is Yeah, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Yes. Yes. So there is a logical connection or link, a necessary logical link between the conclusion and the premises right. The premises may be inductive, yeah. Right. But if premise one and two are true, yeah. Therefore, three follows perhaps I can I can only think of two or three different things

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

which could enable for that to be a premise which is deductive and is metaphysical and not inductive at all.

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

And that's mathematics in formal logic, that's fine. So if it's not agreement if it's not mathematically doesn't mean deductive arguments are not necessarily true because the premises are inductive. That's never the case. Yeah. So what I'm saying is like now, if the scholars agree that for example calling the prophecies of, of Islam okay. miraculous, but what's your point? My point is this is still based on inductive type reasoning which can change Okay, so I'm what I'm saying here is that Yeah, but they may have had the metaphysic of the fitrah approach and if they said they're miraculous because what they didn't know what you saying is a non sequitur because you pining and a

00:50:39--> 00:51:06

whole lot of assumptions here but I had a I have a son and assumptions, bro. He's uncle assumption aunty assumption, the whole family man, you got the triplets coming as Oh, that's full of assumptions in what you're saying. Because you have to now ask the question to these scholars. What do you mean by jazz? What do you mean by it's miraculous? They may say like, and I'm very close to saying go if even Tamia Allah, Allah goes on. He was he

00:51:08--> 00:51:09

will live may Allah have mercy on them?

00:51:10--> 00:51:14

Obviously bigger and better than us, right? standing on the shoulders. Yeah. What

00:51:16--> 00:51:17

do you think he

00:51:21--> 00:51:25

is? Yeah, my problem is ask them what do you mean by inches? And and if

00:51:27--> 00:51:57

you say to them, Do you mean that these things are very rational to the point that they can awaken the truth within? Or do you mean that the end of themselves and by understanding them? Yeah, they will give you the truth. They will never say that, in my humble view. The intellectual philosophical backdrop, I just feel philosophical on this issue, be these things are to awaken the truth within and that's why Yeah, okay. Fair enough. If they like as well, it's really interesting. You say that? They agree with me.

00:51:59--> 00:52:10

It's no, it's no disagreement. No, I believe that look, a lot of hypotheses word address. As far as I remember, there's only use that word one or two times and hold on. Well, I can remember sort of my these are just to an economist.

00:52:12--> 00:52:24

So he was talking about fastball hammer and met him and managed a delicate kitten, chapter five, verse 31, where he says that I just I couldn't even be like this crow. I just to an academic level.

00:52:25--> 00:53:01

I couldn't be like this crow. And he used to work at jazz. Hey, somebody was telling me how intelligent crows are. They're very intelligent and everything looks. But the point is, you know what the Jews means old woman in Arabic. But the point i'm saying is that linguistically, it means incapacitated. Old, feeble, unable, but it's the law when it came from that from my from my reading came from my Tesla's Yeah, my Tesla's introduced it, but it's not to say that just because they introduced the term is wrong, because the Moto moto Moto Z is introduced moto is that as well, would you use? Yeah, we'll use the word moto Western with good things and everything. Right. So the

00:53:01--> 00:53:10

monsters that he uses are just to suggest that there's something extraordinary about this, which is coming from the Quran, whether it be the law, the language, whether it be,

00:53:11--> 00:53:28

I would argue, for example, take even taymiyah for example, he would argue this extraordinary to the point, that it's enough, if understood, to awaken the truth within, it's not extraordinary to the point that if understood, enter in of itself, by virtue of its own argumentation, that it would lead to the truth. There is a subtle difference.

00:53:30--> 00:53:35

I see your point of view, I get that yet is what you've described. Yeah. And that's

00:53:36--> 00:53:43

also been translated as miracles. Right? Yeah. Miracle so that, you know, so from that point of view, there's things I just took a weekend. Yeah. 100%. No, there's no.

00:53:45--> 00:53:46


00:53:47--> 00:54:27

And I've learned this the hard way, if people know about my life is transformed. And you know, as my friend, sorry, refined, and refined or could be worse. Allah knows. Yeah. But the point is, I try to keep on improving keeping, helping the Dow Right. Yeah. From this point of view, we have to understand something. The dogs have this fetish, right. Yeah. Yeah. This they over fetishize argumentation. True. Yeah. Especially when Allah says, you know, the son of the man is a contentious fellow. Yeah. You see this blue say, no, it's green. And you say it's green. It's not pink. Either. We debates about everything. Yes. We have to understand that he their guidance is a gift from Allah

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

subhana wa, through his Muslim wisdom. And it's not based on any kind of rational algorithm.

00:54:33--> 00:54:59

So we have to understand if you have this fitri approach to the human being, you will know when to stop arguing, for example, I've discussed with atheists so many times, and I've got a little bit a little bit of experience on when I know when to not use arguments anymore. And sometimes I my ego says, refute him boy. And I could, yeah, some of them they pretend to know philosophy. They don't know anything, right? Honestly, right. Even when it comes things like emergent materialism. Some guy was saying oh, you misunderstood.

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

So now you have because weak measure materialism really assumes reductive physicalism. And materialism doesn't go there, bro. Anyway, so the point is you could do that, but not so why when they go to nitty gritty and they split the intellectual hair? Yeah. What does it say to me psychologically? Number one, it says to me,

00:55:19--> 00:55:24

this argument is him in the face. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Number two.

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

It says to me that his problem is not intellectual anymore. It's an emotional psychological problem, or spiritual problem. I really feel that sometimes. Yeah. So what I say to them is they go to that nitty gritty and I you know, what, again, retired bro, maybe we could talk next week. But you know, I would really love to take you to dinner, engage with the guy and then you may find out one lie, you may find out that his main problem was because his mom passed away when he was three years old. But you've been spending five weeks as I'm talking about because Banerji philosophy, you're pretending to be someone that you're not. And you haven't engaged with his core problem. All right,

00:55:55--> 00:56:29

and psychological. We have a lot and this is and I'm learning from my own mistakes. We have a lot of spiritual and intellectual immaturity. And I see this Hyde Park videos debating the nitty gritty stuff, bro, if he's debating the most stupidest question, and he's raising them as stupid as argument that should be assigned to you that it has nothing to do with rationality and everything to do about who he is, how he's been brought up, and who the hell you are. So be a human being connected with the guy. And that's what we've neglected I think the kind of psychological interaction of the process on the empathy the human nature, I was I was in my town as soon as I saw

00:56:29--> 00:57:02

the debate of crossbow done, and I can move on since then. Right. And, and he said, Bob said an atheist. He was an apostate of Southern atheists. I said, You know what, fair enough, though, by the way, how's your parents having Alright? And he stood there, I think about 510 minutes telling me about his problems with his parents. Wow. Saying that, you know, I saw him was really dark for me because, you know, the Association of my parents because they had a very kind of dark view. Do you see my point? Yes. So he's issue now. Is psychodynamic is not cognitive? Yeah, yes, yes. We will never know. I had a debate with Professor Ken jeans, perfect Ken jeans. Because in my friend, he's,

00:57:02--> 00:57:18

he's a scholar is a Nietzschean scholar. I mean, I had lunch with him recently. And I had anything years ago, bro. And it was one of the rare debates where I wasn't that arrogant. Yeah. Because before I was an arrogant idiot, yeah, I still am. But May Allah guide and protect us. But you know, we will try to improve. So the point is,

00:57:19--> 00:57:47

it was really nice. And Kenji said to me, Look, it's not about deductive arguments for me and stuff like that. My son's disabled. Right. Wow. And in who's saying this publicly with me? Yeah. You know, that's why I'm finding it very hard to reconcile the issue. So Charles Darwin, yeah. So from the point is, the point of view is this. And from that discussion, that's how I got into my I did to postgrads. And now I'm, inshallah going to start a PhD, just because it was from his discretion. Wow. Yeah. It's called Long Story Short.

00:57:48--> 00:58:03

I had lunch with him, right. And we connected in such a human way. And he was saying Hamza, don't let the Muslim community react to these new atheists. No, atheists aren't the same. What does the law say about people? Yeah, people are not the same. Yeah. And even in

00:58:05--> 00:58:37

the upright and just people. So there's bad Muslims, there's good Muslims is bad Christians, there's good, there's good atheists as bad atheists, right. But what we do, because we react to online narratives, and to the loudest voices, we use them as baggage to, to engage with people. So we're giving to our to our judgments, we're not giving down to the human being himself. And that is a big issue, psychological social problem we're facing in our community now, because we can't engage with the likes of preference genes, and have a sincere discussion with him. But now hopefully, um, you know, 37, out of mature to better we had a great two hour lunch. And he was saying, he doesn't like

00:58:37--> 00:59:10

the new atheists. He says, He will say, oh, we're going to do videos against them. Well, he doesn't like the new atheist because he believes that, you know, if you really do deny God, you can't have any metaphysical grounding for your moral values or for your or for any deep meaning in your life. And that's the problem of atheism. He said, he admits it. He's honest, he's a Nietzschean scholar who would say that a lot, right? And he says, I don't like the likes of Krauss and Dawkins, because they want to they want to deny God but they keeping religion Yes, they they bring religion in the back door by saying, oh, there's aesthetics and objective morals and objective meaning and value. He

00:59:10--> 00:59:28

understands that problem. So the point is, how can we geek people like him? We're missing the silent majority. And that's and that's a big problem for us. So when it comes to these little nitty gritty arguments, you know, when he said to me was, you know, I gave a really good argument. He said, what was God doing for eternity before we create us? I was like, what

00:59:30--> 00:59:31

was I doing? 36 years

00:59:32--> 00:59:33

not knowing why.

00:59:36--> 00:59:46

You would have forced everything in there. Yes, because you want to and that's why sometimes the best and I mentioned this in the book Yes. The best question to ask them sometimes is if God did exist, would you worship Him? I'm telling you, bro, majority of people say no.

00:59:48--> 01:00:00

Would they will say no. So the question is not really awkward. The question is more arrogant is to do with psychology, stupid. their perception perception of who God is. Yes. How many times do we say who Allah is we say great to exist. The

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

Prophet Mohammed opponent bs is, is the final prophet in the Quran is from God. But we're in that discourse do we say who Allah subhana wa tada is, and that's what they need because they're thinking guy in the sky, big beard hates everybody hates everyone is not merciful. And even if you prove them all these things, it's very abstract not connecting with their soul and who they are. What is a line, that discussion?

01:00:21--> 01:00:57

Now, if you were to say, No, God is merciful. God doesn't want to send you to hell. God wants people to connect with him. That's why he sent you a message. God is a man that intensity merciful, he's an evil dude, he's got boundless love, would the loving that is giving, if you talk to them who are lost apana, whatever it is, I'm telling you, you will have probably more powerful effect than talking about the Kalam cosmological argument, talking about prophecies and all of this stuff, in my view. Now, obviously, I'm being a bit passionate here. But what I'm gonna show to people is us both have a balance. Yeah, I agree with that. Don't do that, bro. And that's why these discussions are

01:00:57--> 01:01:36

happening in the coming to fruition now. Yeah, is because they've seen the problem with that approach of being rational robots. Yes. And to be honest, I'm gonna be very honest with you. Yeah. It's all ego, bro. Not for everybody. But for all of them. Yes, yeah. And I'm on some of these private WhatsApp groups. lets you shoot him, bro. I haven't seen a supplication from one of these brothers, or law, please guide so and so? Because Because I won't good for him. I've never seen that, bro. Yeah, I haven't seen that. Where is it? Oh, do you see this aggression? This kind of Alter Ego is a microcosm of the macrocosm. It's a small example of this happening in the era. So we

01:01:36--> 01:01:42

have to be very balanced. From that point of view, I want us to come together. And that's why these conversations are beautiful. Do you think to round up here? Because this is

01:01:43--> 01:01:53

we're kind of running, running late with this. To kind of run up with this. I just wanted to say so do you think now I do agree that maybe using the term miracle

01:01:54--> 01:01:55

might be a bit now.

01:01:56--> 01:02:15

It's got connotations, which are a bit cliche, if anything, if anything, really to be honest with you, if a non religious per 1000 non religious person, oh, well, I've got these miracles and is is a cliche for me. It's, it's cheesy, if anything. So putting that term away, when you're talking about things like science, correlating science with the Quran,

01:02:17--> 01:02:36

history of the Quran, prophecies of the crime. Would you agree also that, that doesn't mean to say we should throw the baby with the bathwater? No, of course. And that's why I tried to articulate the multi level, multi level multi layered approach with my additional approaches in conjunction with that very similar, but the thing is, what I would argue is, is this listen to my webinar on my channel.

01:02:37--> 01:03:13

Be thoroughly convinced, I am already convinced, yeah, no, you don't need to. But this is very important. We should have this discussion. So I always believe when people have frank discussion like this, they will just refine themselves. Yeah. and refine the ideas. And we have to push Islam to the whole world with compassion and intelligence. Absolutely. That's what we need. We need people have compassion now. And people have sound reason jazak Allah, Allah bless you, bro. Sorry, excellent guys, that that was his resources. Were very fruitful discussion. It's always a pleasure having him around the speaking term, and really kind of not only testing my cognitive abilities, but

01:03:13--> 01:03:53

also my, my, my emotional side as well, he brings out to me brings out from everything, and also the spiritual side. That's something that's I believe, is part of your Tao, and I'll pop your repertoire. And it's coming out more and more the spiritual side of that, and I hope to be able to develop that myself. So guys, make sure you read this book. It's a really interesting book and I read it myself. Really, really interesting. It will give you an introduction to the majority of proper arguments for God's existence, in addition to the Quranic argumentation, being a part of that, so he's always quoting the Quran. I think it's a really, really good read from that angle. And

01:03:53--> 01:03:54

also subscribe to your new channel.

01:03:56--> 01:04:02

And subscribe to this channel. And we'll see you later was Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah.