Channel: Mohammed Hijab
Series: Mohammed Hijab - Modern Trends
© 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.
Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah here, what I care to how you guys doing, you're welcome to another session, where we're going to be discussing some of the modern trends. And some of the modern interrogations in the academy, especially the western Academy relating to Islam, and Muslims. Today, we're gonna be talking about Islam and science. And no, we're not gonna be mentioning, necessarily all the eight and the Hadith. That's a different kind of inquiry, which claimed to have scientific meaning or, or something like that. We've in fact done a series on this before 27 part series, responding to some of the Shovelhead surrounding that, in fact, today, we're going to be talking
about the history of Islamic science, some of the key things that we should know as a group, especially as it pertains to one particular interrogation, which is made and has been made by the New Atheists,
which is simple as this New Atheists claim, okay, they claim that religion inhibits science. That is the claim is, it's really as simple as that. Religion inhibits science.
So meaning that if you are a religious person, or Islam or Christianity or whatever,
science as an enterprise is less likely to flourish is more likely to be inhibited. And you can add as a, you know, in addition to that, if you don't have religion, therefore, science will prosper. And the establishment or the institution, the scientific institutions will do much better. So I'm going to read something from grayling, AC grayling, who is many will not know, but he's actually a new atheist himself. And academically, he's probably one of the top New Atheists. We all know about the Four Horsemen of new Atheism, who are who is just getting people involved to other so called Four Horsemen of new Atheism.
Sam Sam Harris, yes. Not Stephen Hawkins, not Dawkins, Richard Dawkins yesterday, Christopher Hitchens and who was Daniel Dennett. So these are the four right, and they added to it funny enough, Richard Dawkins, if we're going to add another person to it.
It will be the fight at the fifth horse lady of new Atheism. Who was it going to be?
Yeah, they said, if we're gonna add a fifth person into this mix, who's going to be
It was I in Hirsi Ali. No way. Yeah, he said, if we're going to add a fifth person is going to be Ayaan Hirsi of the 14th. Or the full was a quota maybe, because she's black and she's a woman, then this is something you know, so it's not all white men, you know? So it's like tokenistic, however, another uacs, who's really like, you know, he praises the other guys from where is AC grayling. Now he's in the University of Cambridge. I think he's still lectures there. He's written books against religion and stuff like that. And of one of the main things that he tries to push is this narrative. So this is what he says. He says, whatever, whatever, whatever else, one might think about the
checkered history of the relation between science and religion, at least one thing is clear that they do indeed compete for truth about the origins of the universe, and the nature of human beings, and whether the universe manifests evidence of Intelligent Design. So what has he done here? If someone could just break it down? What was what is AC grayling trying to say?
Yes, there's a tension between religion and science. They both they're both trying to speak about this, or he's saying anything? Yeah. They're both trying to speak about the same things. And so when they end up with conflicting conclusions, or answers to these questions about, you know, the origin of the universe, for example, yeah, then there's exactly. So the way he's positioning it, he's saying, Look, you have two ways of explaining the origins of the universe, you have science on the one hand, and you have religion on the other.
And these two things are not necessarily in harmony with each other. In fact, they're in opposition to each other. These are two separate ways. And to caricature this maybe a little bit or to put this in simple terms, the way that they would put it and say, for example, back in the days, they used to think that there was a God for rain and a god for lightning and whatever. Now we know that rain is done through evaporation condensation, water cycle, wherever. So now we have a better explanation to the superstitious and religious explanations that still persist in our world today. This is the kind of so before it used to be like this, or this was the way that witches and magic and this was the
way to explain the world. Now the way we explain the world is through science, and so we don't need therefore, the a
mention of religion is a superfluous one. This is unnecessary because we know exactly how
things are happening. You know, this is classic new atheist argumentation. Okay, this is classic, new atheist argumentation, and you will see this trickle down to lower level people who copy the New Atheists is the kind of thing for example, you'll see some of them say, Well, we know now that the meteorites are like this and how can they help
devils, and how can they help devils when we know blah, blah, blah?
You see the same kind of arguments being made. We know now where it comes from. It's a new atheist argument. And AC railing is a is a philosopher, actually, he's one of the most qualified New Atheists there are. But this is the level of his argumentation.
Now the question is,
how would you answer this before we move forward, like cannot? So if someone says there's a tension between religion on the one hand and science on the other, and both of them are separate ways of trying to explain the origins of the universe? For example, how would you? How would if you're confronted with that, how would you answer this? Maddie Johnson?
I would say that their purposes are different. So the purpose of science is to uncover and understand the natural world. Whereas the purpose of religion for the most part, is more existential than that. It's looking at our purpose, looking at what we're here for an afterlife, if you know, the said religion believes in that. So I would say the purposes are different. Yeah, I think that's right. The way I would put it is this is that this is a category mistake fallacy. Okay.
It's a category mistake fallacy, because,
as you mentioned, this is correct. It's like, you know, when we're looking at science, we're looking at what
or what, what is there?
And how is it there? You know, what is that? How is it there?
But when we when we're looking at more religious notions, sometimes we're thinking about why Why has God done this, you know, that why is not something which the scientific method is actually capable of even investigating. The only way you can claim that there is a contradiction here is in situations where both religion and science are talking about what will how that there is a clear difference. And here we have to start talking about the philosophy of science and SOCO? How sure are we have set theory?
Like how if we're talking about a physics theory, or we're talking about, like, things have what you call different epistemic weightings. Like, for example, things which are observable are different to the explanation of the observables. If I drop a vase, if I drop this one, okay, on the floor, okay, we can all observe it falling onto the floor. But the way scientists will explain that is going to be different has been different actually. Now, the explanation of that is theoretical.
And the observance, or me observing the falling phone, that's something which is not necessarily as theoretical at all any. So then you start thinking about what in philosophy of science, these notions, which you should all be aware of very much. It's just, for example, the problem of induction. Everyone should know the point of induction, something called theory laziness, which is the idea that you're bringing your own theory and pushing it on to the observable reality.
So it's laden with your own theory, something called underdetermination.
So once again, this idea that you have not enough evidence, or you have some, you know, part of the puzzle and you're making a generalization of some sorts. These are all issues which philosophers of science have spoken about. Once we've established that the thing in question the scientific, whatever is in question is of a high epistemic value.
We have to explain, we have to explain and justify why is high. First of all, what level is it? Then we can discuss whether or not is in contradiction with science. Let me give you some, maybe some life examples.
In America, you have a group called a young age creationists. Okay. Now, what do they believe? Does anyone know what they believe?
was created six literal 24 hour periods? Yeah. And how long is it how old sowed seeds Okay, so I believe that the the age of the universe is 6000 years.
They get that directly from the Bible and the literalistic reading of the Bible. Why? Because if you look at Genesis one, it says that the Earth was created in six days. Yeah. Then they add Genesis four, which basically, Genesis four tells you the lineages, from people from Adam to basically our times, and so lots of people have said, Okay, if you add it all up for 6000 years, yeah, the Jewish calendar 6000 5000 Something that Orthodox Jews believe that the universe is 6000 years old.
Okay. Now, they say that, that I'm not saying all Christians believe that they are old illustrations, of course, but this is a theory on the literal reading of the Bible. This is what you come with. Yeah. And Orthodox Jews believe in the same thing. Most of them
In the university 6000 years. Now, if I come and say, Well, I've got good justification
on many different disciplines, archaeology, paleontology, cosmology, physics, all these things to show the universe is not 6000 is much longer than we have, in fact, civilizational remnants, which are longer than 6000 years.
This is a very strong argument you're making against the old young age creationist Do you see? So now it becomes problematic, and there is a tension here.
So if you believe in something which there's so much triangulated evidence against, because there's triangulated evidence is more than one fealty. And now you have to justify, there is a tension. Well, why if I don't believe the Earth is six out universe, 6000 years old, I don't have the same issues.
So it depends on what we're talking about. If you want to talk about
the expanding universe, once again, how much volatility is there, in believing in the redshift and expanding universe? There's so much volatility here, like Penrose, I remember 10 years ago, 15 years ago, he was one of the biggest proponents. He's recently Roger Penrose, made a study a paper saying that he doesn't believe in that. This is in his own lifetime, he's changed his mind on something so fundamental as the origins of the universe, and the functionality of it. So I'm saying is that there are some things which change quite often, and some things which don't. And so we have to first assess what we're talking about. So unless one is coming with, okay,
that we have to be talking about the same category, we're talking about how and what on this site and how and what on the site. Once we've assessed that this is the same category that we see is their attention on attention.
But if we're saying God puts down rain, so can teach us a lesson. So that's explanation of why it sends down rain, or they can give us who so that we can be grateful, for example, this is more as you mentioned, it's more of a purpose. It's more teleological. So if you try and juxtapose a teleology, which is a y with a one, there's no contradiction, because it's a different category. So you have to be very careful as to exactly what they're saying. If they're saying there's something in your Quran and the Sunnah, or in the Bible, wherever it may be, that contradicts with modern science. We have to assess how strong the thing is in modern science, that you're talking about how
epistemic epistemic ly justifiably is and then talk about well, this is there is a tension, there's not a tension, that's where the discussion is, if it's not the case as a category mistake fallacy.
So, these New Atheists haven't really laid out the situation like that. They've simplified it and hyper caricatured it by saying, look, it's there's an issue here, there's an issue here, both of them are separate nation. Does this make sense so far? Yes.
I think a lot of times, and it's not just even on this question, even last week with the secularism question, whatever the term religion has mentioned, what people really mean by that is really Christianity. Because that's the paradigm that they're coming from. That's what they've been interacting with this whole narrative or conflict between, you know, Church and State last week this year, religion and science. Yeah, a lot of these are very Christian controversies that are sort of just exactly. And that's why most of their arguments like you'll see most of their arguments is like all of religion, believing young Nutritionism that if you if you read new age, new atheists, it's as
if they've they've now blanket blanketed, all of religion with okay, you all believe in this thing.
New Atheists are atheists. Yeah, that's what they make it seem as if we all believe the universe. 6000 years, yeah, math. But that's what they do. A lot of people do that. Sometimes a lot of Christians I speak to that have left Christianity, they would print the same brush that Islam with your exam would know. And they'd be making the same mistake, you know, you can see they just think, Oh, these people even if you think of actually Islam is against these kinds of, you know, that you said, the God of Rain, this is actually a tool because it's shield is made to us now. But for us, we have angels, for example, the angels in charge of the mountain. So they'll say that's one
explanation, we have another scientific summation. Yeah, we're saying for instance, those two things don't contradict because this you're looking at things physically, but the metaphysical realm is a separate category, which is undetectable by the scientific method. So this is this the kind of things that we need to bear in mind. Okay, we're gonna go to the next thing here, which is Islamic science itself. Now, obviously, one of the best and strongest arguments against the fact that religion inhibits, after we've laid the groundwork, as we just have here, so you can lay the groundwork and almost assigned a philosophical way, which as we just have broken down how and what
and this and that whether you can also show history historically, was what's happened.
Alma del L, he, he also he answers the question, what caused the decline of Islamic science? He's one of the historians of science now in in history, you have sub a, you know, obviously categories. One of them is called history of science. So they, these historians, they just focus on how science has changed. Yeah. Amendola is one of the top guys in especially Islamic science. Another guy
What we're going to cover is a guy called George Saliba. You should know this guy's name is he's actually not a Muslim Salib is crucifixion brigantia Saliba, almost Salah boo hamaca and he will Mercato masala boho like it should be haram, you know, Salah boo hoo Salim so he's a Christian. But despite him being a Christian, he's very fair minded when it comes to approaching Islamic history and stuff like that. And his stuff is actually very, very, very good. Like in terms of the English, I think is the best one. Like in terms of the English speaking historians of science, he's probably the best, because he will. He will scour in English and Arabic and all these other languages, I
think he's got access to at least two or three other languages,
all of the manuscripts, and so reading him will save you a lot of heartache. If you're like me, it's better than reading a primary source material on a specific issue. So let's see what atma della says First, on what caused decline in the Islamic insights, he says that there is no single reason.
No single reason dictate scientific decline the Muslim world rather, it is attributed to a variety of civilizational factors, including military confrontations with Europe at a time of rapid colonial expansion.
If you think about this, let me preamble this by saying there is a controversy within historians of science as to when the decline begin. When was the golden age of Islamic science? And when did the decline actually begin? Like we all know that best period? Okay, fine, there was a golden age here. You know, the there were there was a golden age that lasted 1213 until the 13th 13th century. But a lot of like, for example, I read the guy who wrote the history of Western
I think the book is here somewhere.
I think it might be interesting numbers here. He argues. Ross numbers, he argues that it happened. This is a misconception. He says that actually, it's not the top centuries 15th century. And it continued up until the Ottoman times that scientific enterprise and stuff continued up until the 15th 16th century, then you had the decline, which is why the left here is saying confrontations with Europe because confrontations of Europe was more so with the Ottoman Empire than was who the Abbasids for example, ibises didn't really have these kinds of conversations. The Ottomans really engaged with Europe, you know, so if you if you consider,
you know, 14th one was the 1453, the great conquest of Constantinople. Yeah. And then after that, there were scientific operations and Ottoman Empire, after there was a decline in the 16th 17th century of the Ottoman Empire, most of the 17th 18th century, like, they called the Ottoman Empire, the sick man of Europe.
That is because the Ottomans didn't
couldn't keep up with the Europeans. For a variety of reasons, which we've discussed before. Do you remember some of those reasons? What did the Europeans do now? Considering the colonization and stuff like that? discovered America, they discovered America, I'm going to put it lightly you're not the English from call the English found coal and what did that lead to? Industrial Industrial Revolution. Okay, what else happen?
Is transportation for them? Problem is transportation for them, though, of course, yeah. What else happened? Colonialism, okay, and what kind of colonialism
in South America and in Africa, okay. India, what other revolution took place in the West?
What was more specific to this situation here in the 15th 16th century?
What the scientific revolution the Scientific Revolution why this revisionary place
we discussed this
what what initiated the scientific revolution in your religion organizations, both Renaissance two plus one century before
and then the clearly there was a link but there's there's something particular that
why did the English for example, start the scientific attack? Why did they have such an interest now and was then not Yeah, revolution 19th century
the interaction, what did they want to do? Built? What did they want to invent? What are they trying to do?
As engineering thing.
why do you think that these universities now they have newly found scientific,
you know, departments, and what were they why were they putting so much money into this thing now? It's 15/16 16th century in the UK in Britain from now.
While they're trying to get from doing science
Okay, so it was it was to do ballistic?
Yes, like weaponry.
So two guns.
So obviously, we said before that natural philosophy was all one subject, there's a book that could we showed it to you man's book. It was natural philosophy Philosophia these to put everything inside imagine like you have optics and you have, you have everything in one book. And then they start breaking it down and special super specializing afterwards. One of the main reasons is because they, they realize that they need to know how to use guns, and they wanted to like engineer guns and stuff like that. So it was it made sense from a governmental perspective for them to put money into this thing.
So you've mentioned some really key points here, which I think it's worth summarizing.
In the 14th century had the Renaissance, very important movement, although it wasn't specifically scientific.
You it still had scientific traits, some, you know, critical traits 15th 16th century and the scientific revolution. 18th 19th century had the Industrial Revolution, which because they found coal and so on.
And then afterwards, you had world wars and colonialism was expanded, and all this other things, as you know, all of that put the West in a privileged position. Now, when it comes to science, and they started to overtake the Muslim world, specifically the Ottomans, obviously, the Ottomans at that time, were the most notable Islamic
governance at that time.
And they started losing wars. Now the ultimate side losing wars against them, the Westerners, the Russians, and so on, who are not specifically Westerners, when they couldn't keep up with their tech them technologically.
weaponry and stuff like that. So weapons did
change the game, really scientific revolution changed the game,
the new the new world that they found, imagine they found a new world now, you know, they've occupied an entire hemisphere. That changed the game.
The world was never the same again after that.
So this was centuries and centuries. So what the amygdala saying is that on the one hand, these guys are discovering new places, and colonizing the world and doing revolutions and the Muslims are not, they're not keeping up with them. So that's why this shift took place where you have now the Western is going this direction, and the Muslims not keeping up with them.
So it's not because Oh, Islam inhibited them, or because it's not because it's just the circumstantial factors that were at play. A lot of them was like, okay, you've discovered oil, you've discovered the thorium coals, you've discovered this, you've discovered new continents.
It just wasn't afforded to the Muslims at that particular time. Well, what about?
Yeah, when he made that cannon, yeah. Now, can we not say there was there was technology. So there was why did they not advance it from their cause? Was this before we will send you more than 53? Since 15th century, so this is way before they even discovered it. So what happened that they can come to that levels where he made the one with the biggest cannon or something? Yeah, that cannons and stuff and I myself, I'm like, taking the chips on the on land, literally. So the thing is, why did they not pursue it?
This is it's not necessarily they didn't pursue it. There was this, there's a theory to be made that okay, like with certain things like the printing press, and they had a more cautious and conservative attitude. They were afraid of it. There is an argument to be made of that. But the stronger argument is not to do with how badly the Muslims were operating. It's to do with how well the where the West was operating, is to do what they found. Do you know I'm trying to say it's like, if two people having a fight, and one of them does really well, on round six. It's not because this guy is now he's just done really well. These people have just found stuff. They're colonizing,
they're doing these things. So economically, they're going to do better. You know, and the relations was actually if you look at a Thomas Arnold Walker, who wrote the preaching of Islam, he actually says, The renascence was, as a result of the West finding information from the Islamic world, they took all the information of the Islamic world, and then they translate it as major translation movement.
That's why you'll find in the Renaissance thinkers, they have a lot of commonalities with the Golden Age, Islamic thinkers, they clearly read their works. They clearly like Russia, for example. They use the sky, they proper, and he because he was seen as the commentator of Aristotle, and so on. So they use it in Russia, they use it in Siena, they used glass alley. That's why you'll find like Rene Carr, his meditation is very similar to his books. So there was a clear Islamic influence. But they took
just like the Muslims took the Greek stuff and translated in the third century, which is called the Greek translation movement. The Western is took the Islamic stuff and translated in the 14th century, and they used it. So it's always cultural borrowing, cultural borrowing, and there is something to be said about the fact with where everything is geographically placed. The countries which
done the best are those which had the most interaction with other civilizations.
And that's just strategic placement.
A lot of it is just to do with where they are geographically, what access to they have? Do you see what I'm trying to say? So that's there is there is something to be said about that as well.
Are you saying that the reason the
Islamic empire didn't progress is because of the
is because not because
they were bad, but because of the advancements and tactical placement and chants of the West? Yeah, I mean, what the law saying is that basically, there's a variety of circumstances that would like of which I've just mentioned, some of which might show, you know,
lack of action from the Muslims. But what I think more of them show just a set of very favorable circumstances for the West. But couldn't you say,
if we're seeing it from an Islamic perspective, that the whole the sole reason for this is because of a wedding that has infected the Muslims ie they just became too relaxed and comfortable in their life that they had become the superpower hollows? We don't need to do jihad anymore. We don't need to expand. We don't need this. Yeah, and this is what's the Hadith? Yeah. And this is this is what I was doing set up for doing. Interestingly, he wrote a book room Kadima. I'm not sure if you guys it's like one of the most important books and probably in Arabic, and more Kadima. And he said that the rise and fall of empires a book called the rise and fall of empires by by Givens as I think
we've got it here. And they basically they will say the same thing, which is that, as you've just mentioned, when that when when they civilization has reached an apex,
when it's achieved, so much becomes complacent. People become lavish. They start relaxing now, they start becoming gluttonous, they start becoming desirous of worldly things, and so on, like, you just remember when, and so on, like you just mentioned. So as a result of that, what you've just done all these victories, like, you know, a 1453, the biggest victory, one of the hugest victories in human history, undoubtedly, like so the end of the Roman Empire, which is one of the longest lasting empires of all human beings.
And, you know, there's a hadith on it, they just wanted these kinds of things. It's no surprise, that after such great heights, there was a decline. Because that goes in line with that kind of theory, which is even harder when and Edward Gibbons and stuff like that, which is that there's a rise and fall of empires. And you you fall most when you've written the highest. That's usually what happens.
You want to say someone mentioned something, you know, when a historical point, actually, yeah. When we contextualize it, the Ottomans were not actually as wealthy as the morals. And when you look at Britain, because directly relevant Britain, one of the country's main countries that they colonized and directly benefit from was India, Mughal Indian, and being one of the wealthiest if not the wealthiest nation at the time, globally, right.
Like in terms of economy, in the I think, to the global economy contribute 25%. Right? So very large percentage. So now imagine one small country like, Great Britain, one small, you know, piece of land colonizes that over the space of over a few 100 years. Yeah, it's gonna give them immense power, immense wealth. Yes. And that's just one example. The slave trade comes in transit, the, you know, the whole triangular route, etc, all of this stuff comes in. And then that argument is given a lot of strength. Yeah, because Britain then became very, very significant power, even compared to the other European countries that are around. Yes, I think this is really important. And I think that's
exactly right. And when you consider, we've mentioned this point before,
but I'll mention again, because sometimes it's important to re mentioned these things, when Islam expands, or when it has expanded, you know, and this is what this gives us credit shall be one of those guys who's actually helped us here, professor at the University of Oxford, or lecture that he made this point. It's stuck with me, it's very powerful point, said when Islam expanded, it's not like the resources moved from everywhere else and went to Mecca.
But when the West expanded, it was the case that the resources moved from everywhere else and came back to London, for example.
So now it's I find that one of the most pathetic of ironies like, well, let me give you an example. I speak to Jordan Peterson for the first time. And he's mentioning so what kind of countries are in the top 10 of GDP per capita, or whatever it may be from the Muslim countries? And I mentioned four countries, which is good enough, right? You should be considering that Muslims. I want 1/3 of the less than 1/3 of the world's population. And he said, I don't I mentioned three oil rich countries, you know, the UAE, you know, Saudi Arabia, Qatar? And he said, No, I don't know why. I don't know why you mentioning those is that oh, by the way, I wouldn't include them. But my question, maybe I
don't get the opportunity to say this. I'll say it now is why why do we have a problem with mentioning countries which are Muslim countries.
are being oil rich countries when they have extracted their own resources and we have no problem with the West extracting other people's results and taking Islam
Do you see the point? It's like okay, so you're you have a problem with me adding into the list countries which they take their own oil and use it. But you don't have a problem was me putting on to list countries which took human beings and put them in
prison the thief and then having the having a go out the one who only with his own hands. Exactly. And so the if you look at the WHY ARE THE STREETS cleaner and the buildings higher in the West?
And actually that's the second part I've just mentioned is questionable, because most high rises. I mean, the UK is not even in top 10 of high rises.
Just to let you know, they don't have high rises, the most countries that high rises. Actually Dubai is in the fourth number four, the UAE is number four. What do you call it?
And other places in the top 10 is
Singapore's I know, but they've got a lot of like China's got high rises, Japan have goal of high rises. But the point is, is this, the streets are cleaner and there's more facilities in Western Europe than many parts of the Muslim world. Why? Well, it's because of this legacy here. And I mentioned this point, I want you to remember these things because they're very important.
It's no coincidence that the Middle East and Latin America have a very similar economy.
It is no coincidence because both of them have had the same colonial treatment.
So once again, it says this narrative can easily be dismissed. And it was going back to the point
when you when you when you understand the history behind it,
we can easily answer these questions. And Allah mentioned the Quran
you know, where till kill am muda will happen unless these are the things which we alternate between the people. It's like it's not as if Islam is saying that you're always going to be rich, or you're always going to be powerful knows, there's going to be days when these ones are going to be more powerful on these to test you to see who's you know, so it's very interesting because Allah He, you will be surprised. This is one of the biggest obstacles for some people accepting Islam, especially people of the middle class, high echelons of the socio economic standing because they feel like why should I? And as mentioned the Quran actually
cannot forget about it. Sorry.
Yeah, that one for your frown. Yeah, but I was thinking about the one where Allah subhanaw taala mentions about
when Israel mentioning say that if it was any good in it, we would have done it first and half.
Mess up Hakuna Illa Yeah.
Mo Locanda Hieronymous La La Yeah. Would you call it we'll call it like Xena Cafaro Lulu, Xena, Emma, no lo Cana Hiram Mesaba Kona LA. The disbelievers said to the believers, if there's any good and this thing they would these guys would not have. Have come to it first.
Yeah, yeah. But the first part of the show had the part these guys, what would you mean these guys? These guys were lower than us? Do you get it? And this is why there's a verse in Quran as well, which is unsalted Montana, or bene letter, Jalna, fifth net and Lilith in a Coverdell. Very interesting, because as I look at the feeling this do not make us a trial and tribulation for the disbelievers.
I think, a topper he mentions that one of the ways you can become a trial for this believers, is by losing and water them, because they will think to themselves, how can we adopt the religion of the losers? So this idea of being winning and losing, it's a big thing.
It's difficult for individuals who think they're better than you to accept your way of life. It's really as simple as that. I got more money than him, why should I follow him? We're living in clean environment, why should I follow that? You're gonna go to their country go to my Why Why should I follow these guys?
is to say, it should have come to us. If and why did it come to? Because they have this insecurity? Complete complex. In fact, you should have come to us why is it coming to someone like,
and that's why the professor sallam said in the very simple, very famous Hadith, and I'm Holly, the majority of people that will come to Islam or the other working class,
because they don't have that spirit of complex. So the majority of people are the working class. And her Oculus asked, what what is the problem Hudson's following? Is it is it higher class people? Or is the upper class or is it the working class?
And I've also found said it was the working class and he recognized through that, that he was a true prophet, because he realizes that this is the kind of movement where the majority of people are going to like the working class people accept it, but the top 5% If you like the high value, so called whatever they feel like they
Don't need it on a practical level, and I'm going on a bit with this. But if you if we do down on the streets and we take, you know, a thing aside speaking to the people, the areas which we do the best thing is are the working class areas, Kilburn, this place that place if we go to King, King, sorry I'm Knightsbridge.
Started doing that whether or in a place which is a Chelsea? Well, like you'll get the worst results, you will get the worst results. It's very difficult. They feel like they're better than you.
And is a thing which is part of the human experience. That's why there's police brutality because police people below them believe that they're above the law. They think that they've got extra power as a fitna in itself, but that's why we make the fief on them. We ask Allah to make the fitna go less. That's why in debates and discussions in hobby versus con and these kinds of things. It's important that we win. I'll be honest, because it's a fitna for these guys to see if they're on the truth. Why are they why are they winning? Why are we winning? Is a fifth is actually a fitna. So I love the New Atheists, I made a whole argument about it. So look at these guys, the science is not
as good as our science. It's why should we follow them?
Now Jerusalem was something on the classical narrative and the classical narrative is
there was a decline in the attempt to Tov century of Islamic sciences. And he's saying, No, it's not like that. So he says, The following says, I won't read this, because I feel like I'm reading too much.
Read it. Yeah. Can you guys think, through your Salah on the classical narrative,
Just tell me when to stop. And I'll just read the whole thing. So the classical narrative goes on to postulate that from then on Europe had no need for Arabic scientific material, and that the Islamic scientific tradition was beginning to decline under the onslaught of the works of Brazil, of Brazil. And this was no longer deemed important by other cultures. In this in the grand scheme of things, the European Renaissance was then characterized as a deliberate attempt to bypass the Islamic scientific material, in other in another act of appropriation, so, so to speak, and to reconnect directly with the Greco Roman legacy, where almost all science and philosophy began. And where the
European Renaissance could find its wellsprings. Okay. So this is the classical narrative. We heard that with this
deGrasse Tyson. Do you remember the grass Tyson? I made the reputational video against him. But he got it from here. You see, you see what now we know where everyone's getting their stuff. He got it from this. So they believe that the beginning of the end was obviously the finale, when When did he die?
Now in Gregorian
you can not forget this day 1111.
That's 11111. Okay, so this is what then fourth century, right. So they're saying, like I said that the top century doesn't decline. And they attribute it to a to have the philosopher thinkers of the philosophers, because they're saying, look, as early he came out, he was attacking Montek, and philosopher and all these things.
And they bring these obscure quotes and stuff like that and say, That's really when the Islamic thing started, this site was stopped caring about science, because there was a religious attack on it.
Now, obviously, before we get to it, what are some of the problems with this idea?
Does it make sense when he was just refuting philosophy, a certain type of philosophy, so it's not really science anyway. Okay. So give me more.
Give me here's probably an you could argue that he was even an advocate of science, I guess, how? Because he org. I mean, he
postulated that people should like advocate, like, reason and thinking and stuff like that. And like,
explore? I don't know, so I don't really see how it correlates to a decline. Him being the decline in science. I didn't receive the correlation. Yeah, I mean, first of all, it says material itself. Yeah.
You'll find this obscure quotes of him saying that you shouldn't say mathematics or stuff like that. But that is all contextual. He said, You shouldn't study mathematics in the context of from these guys who are going to try and bring it to atheism.
But clearly, it was it was engaging in philosophy himself. Clearly, it was that he believed in I mean, he's formed a shadow school. He believed in you know, engaging critically, I mean, gosh, I still believe in I will never, I will worship Allah McAuliffe is another.
So it's kind of ridiculous to say him as the example. You know, which is that they believe that the critical inquiry is the first thing you have to do as a wedge. You have to see all the other worldviews and see which one's true and response false. So this idea that
that's the first issue, there's not there in his writings.
The second thing is that this is what run on numbers mentioned, and remembers, it's called the history of Western civilization. It's the book and I've just remembered it. So red book is an important one.
It's called the history of Western civilization or the history of western science. Yeah. And he, there's a whole section that you mentioned, like Islamic sciences and stuff like that. And he says, The misconception is that, and I think you'll mention it, George Shala, because he mentioned the same thing that Islamic science ended and half century, what we know. And he mentioned as examples, the observatories in sight, like the observatories continued, 13th 14th century 15th centuries on that Islamic science continued up until the 15th 16th century to operate a very high level. So that's the first thing is like, if this was such a turning point, then why did Islamic science
continue? afterwards? Le?
That's a very glaring question. So the idea that it's something is all centering in the first place is problematic.
And other problems, which I think George Oliver mentions.
He mentioned in the case of the beginning of the classical narrative creates the impression that the birth of Islamic science took place, the early period of that best of times, mainly during the latter period, eighth century and the early period ninth ninth, and as a result, one of the Morphling processes of transformation
that he's continued when we examine that translation movement. So basically,
the question is, there was a translation movement that took place in the eighth century, to 300 years of the problem, how's our salah,
which basically this translation who knows about translation movement, what is this translation?
Greek translation? Yeah, what happened there? Was it the library
that I think at the time of the Khalifa, Khalid, I forgot to khalifa does basically, a big transition from Greek works to Arabic. Okay, so a lot of Aristotle's work complete, his work was translated into Arabic. And then that led to the Muslims reading them, and obviously being avid readers, a lot of them read them and adopted loads of the views. So as theologically, who really was influenced by them, we might as sort of martyrs level very much to be quite to be quite honest, the ASHA is to a lesser extent as well. And later on in Russia very much like, you know, advocate of that. Yeah. In fact, he was staunch against those who attacked the Argentinian method. Even Russia
does a very close connection between the Russian and Potamia by the way, John Hoover writes a paper on it.
I'm not sure if you know this, but if you look at some of the ideas have been rushed. Some of the things he believes in like even told me a clear and he praised him very highly. Even even say me, it says he's the awful philosopher. He's the best one.
Why? Because he attacks obviously, as you know, who does he attack who's even Rasta track?
To have to have
you had to have the philosopher thinkers of the philosophers and LaRoche wrote half of the half, what was the incoherence of the incoherence?
So obviously, they found common ground there. But there's, there's more there's like a lot of the arguments, for example, the the issue of kennela Let me share my who can I shall met and all these things that they had a very similar opinion on on that. Anyway, point is
soluble, says, the question festivals, why did the Romans and Persians not do with the translated texts, what the Islamic civilization did? Because what they're saying is this. They're saying, you've got this Greek translation movement in Greek is Greece as part of the West. So all of your success, this is another argument. Now, all of your success is based on the Greeks, because the Greeks they gave you Aristotle, they give you Plato and the utopian when you start doing what you want with them, you know, you Pythagoras and this one and that one. So the first question is, if it was so intuitive, okay, to develop these Greek translated texts, and why did not the Persians and
the Romans do with those translated works? What the Islamic States did, the Muslims did at that particular time? So that's the first question.
The second question, which is very important, I think you need to remember this one.
But this is what your syllabus says. This is when we examine the translation we find translated such as lunine
Searching, searching for classical Greek scientific texts all over the Byzantium domain, and sometimes failing to find what was needed under such conditions. When books were not taught or used in wide circulation. How could contact have produced any positive effects or transfer of knowledge? In other words, just because there was translation movement doesn't mean everything was translated? There are some things which will not translate it. Yeah. Then he continues, says, Where did his usual collaborate Jacobian Talak learn his astronomy so that he could produce
together with Fossati, a translation of Sanskrit, which was complete during the caliphate of a month or
so he's saying here once again is an issue. If you say it's all about translations of why how could it be the case that you have? He gives examples. Yeah, Holden Thorac. Learn his own astronomy. So I can produce together with
fuzzle or Fazal a translation of Sanskrit
whatever it is, is called here, which completed, which is completed during the caliphate over months or
now he continues.
And this is I think there's just two arguments. Yeah, your answer?
Two arguments. Number one, he's saying this things are not translated. Number two, there were things which were translated from elsewhere. Number three,
can someone read this one, because as long
as you don't wait too long, I think it was
just really as hard as me, because this one's a very good one was alpha is me.
During the same early period, that is during the same party period, that is during the reign of element one. We also witnessed the creation of the new discipline of algebra by Mohammed Mohammed Musa. How, how is me?
Already in a virtual format, treating, for example, the field of second degree equations in its most general form, this happened before the translation of the work of dye furnaces and other Greek sources. So this is very important. Okay, how old is it, there's clear evidence that Muhammad did most of Horus, me. He that he was engaged in independent knowledge production, because the translation of the works of the Greeks in the same field, were not there. And moreover, you can even argue that he he didn't take even with those translations, what how was we brought forward in terms of algebra was completely different anyway. It was new. So Muhammad Musa Howard is me, who was so
instrumental, because from him, you have algorithms, you have algebra, you have all these things, like this camera now is being used. And this phone No, all of it is based on how this MS works. Basically, you have a simplified one that is one of the greatest minds when it comes to mathematics, but had nothing to do. He couldn't you couldn't say it was taken from the Greeks because it was independent knowledge production. And moreover, the Greeks works hadn't even been translated yet. This is a very powerful argument.
Because what are we responding to him respond to the fact that they're saying, well, actually, the only the only way you can do good is if you take from our guys. We're saying, well, actually, no, that's not the case. Because my muzzleloaders me is one of the best examples of someone who's done well. And you didn't think anything of your guys.
Would you say that your guys can do well, by taking our guys? Yeah, and that's the mature approach. They're mature approach is that we admit there's been cultural borrowing. We admit this, but you have to admit it as well. You admit this as just as you guys did it in the Renaissance, we did it in the second third century, ah, or eighth, ninth century Gregorian calendar, it happened. But there's two things to say that
there's no independent knowledge production, that all we need is your religion and your culture and your civilization. This is where we can now fight back with these examples of independent knowledge production. So George, George, I was fighting back with it, you know.
So, Robert Merton, he says, in this direct fashion, religion sanction science raising, so this is another Merton, very famous sociologist, and this is now we're coming into the modern age.
He's actually he believes that religion facilitated and sanctioned scientific discovery. So he says that, in this direct fashion, religion, sanction science, raising the social estimation of those pursued scientific investigations, with the associated intensification and spread of interest in such pursuits.
He's saying that like, and the example I think he uses from what I remember, he uses the Protestant Reformation.
Here's the Protestant Reformation. So he says that plus the Reformation and you will know Max Faber has written a book, very famous and important one to know, which is called the Protestant Ethic. And the whole thesis of that book, Max fig Bay was seen as one of the founding fathers of sociology in the Western world.
And his, the whole book was the Protestant Ethic. The whole idea of it was the Protestant Reformation. Do you know when it took place? Anyone?
16th century. So for example, Martin Luther not Mr. King, Martin Luther, who's the German Martin Luther. He wrote a book called 95 C thesis in the 1517. So we're talking about it
16th century here. And basically just Just a quick one. What happened was you What did you have what what institution? Was he critical of?
Yeah, the Catholic Church and so on. What kind of criticisms? Did he have?
The corruption and stuff like that. Yeah, indulgences. The money indulgences. Yeah. And all these kind of things. Yeah. And he was accusing, you know, the Pope and stuff of corruption, as you mentioned, what did that lead to? Reformation? The Reformation? What else did it lead to?
Especially for England, here in England, and other churches elsewhere in Western Europe. And that led to war. One of the biggest wars in European history that no one wants to speak about. Do you know what's called
the 30 year war? And this, by the way, I thought it was a great example. Especially when detractors of Islam they come and say, Well, you guys have she hasn't Sunnis attacking each other killing.
Catholics and Protestants were killing each other 30 year war on a skill that has never been recorded ever in Islamic history is one of the biggest wars that have ever taken place in human history. I don't even know what the death toll is, but is one of the biggest if you Google today, the 30 year wars worth googling.
What is the 30 year one that you see the Protestant and Catholic killing each other on the basis of these things, things like in a 95 thesis corruption indulgences, the Pope and isn't an independent, so they want from the from from the Catholic Church.
So, anyway, the point is, is that Max Faber is see what he's saying here is that when the Protestant Reformation took place, and people were no longer confined to the Catholic Church, then people started to have a different attitude towards religion. He says that they started to try and raise money, make money,
make money, so that they can fund their religion. So they had a religious incentive.
The theory goes, and it's a very famous theory, one of the most famous in sociology. They're trying to raise money for their religious institutions. So that he says, was actually the beginning of capitalism.
He says, capitalism started here.
This triggered capitalism.
So this is his theory. This is theory. And there's a big discussion. If you compare Karl Marx and Vabre, there's a lot of interesting, interesting discovery there too. There are two theories, which you should you should study in conjunction with each other.
Because if you look at the sociological theories of Karl, Karl Marx, obviously, there's surplus value. We talked about Marxism, stuff like that. But Vabre says there's a different kind of exploitation going on as well, which was the exploitation of relationships.
He called the capitalist system, an iron cage, very interesting, you should watch, you should read some of his stuff. Anyway, the point is, is that the reason why I'm bringing this to your attention in relation to science is because there's an opposite theory, to the theory of religion inhibits inhibit science, the opposite theories. In fact, Robert Merton is saying, religion gives people the incentive to to engage in industry and create science. And it's no, he would say, I'm not so well. Yeah, I'm not saying I agree with disagree. You say it's no coincidence, that after the Reformation you had the scientific revolution, having a second century
says, Why is it if you know, if you're saying that the Catholic because what they bring, especially on the other side, is what do you think what what is the most notable Christian example?
Beginning with GE?
Yeah, Galileo, this, they bring Galileo, he wasn't killed. He was put in prison. Yeah. And there was a book called Galileo goes to trial. I think once again, Ross, because there was run on numbers. And I forget, I forget the other, but it's a book called Galileo goes to trial. Okay. And the, the arguments I think, that run on numbers is making is that actually, this is this is not representative of the entire because we can easily caricature it. We can say, the argument that making that Christianity and invalid science, the credit, there was a big tension between the Christian church and science, Robert Merton is saying, but if that's the case, why did the
scientific revolution happen after the personal information? Number one,
it's true to say, okay, that there was a decline in church membership, let's say and Christianity and religious religiosity, Christian religiosity at the same time as the enlightenment when did when did the Enlightenment happen?
17th 18th century Yeah, so it started in the 17th century but what else happened the alignment of what was now in the atmosphere which wasn't there before?
No no relations 14th century enlightenment 17th century
you had empire but what was there what what did the Enlightenment produce?
Thinkers, thinkers, but what did they produce works?
Now we went that way. This is after the scientific revolution now liberalism. Yes, there you have it. Okay. So, liberalism, you know, you had these ideologies count
about like, communism wasn't a thing before Karl Marx really came into the equation, he formalized, you know, all these kinds of ideologies from 17th century onwards, then you have all these competing theories. So you can easily say, religion is thought to be substituted with them, this became the substitute for the morality of religion. So, it's difficult to align a causation with this particular thing.
Basically, I'll conclude with this we finished almost I know, it's been quite long today.
Another thing which is very important is Zoan. Okay. Darwinism, obviously, they use him as an example over and over again.
When did you write his book in November?
18 century 19th century
18th at 1854. That was against, but it was he wrote was Origins of Species is the same. Yeah, I think that Heinz started as a company.
You catch up as an always trivial fact. But
But so, Darwin is used used by New Atheists. And he's used because he, he was there's, there's parts of this written works, where he talks about being a disbeliever. But if you really see why he became a disbeliever, it's not because of this science stuff.
It's because of the Odyssey. Yes, it's because of the problem of evil, which we mentioned, we have to do a whole session about the problem of evil. He believes he has, I think, a disabled child or something like that. So he was like, How could God allow this to happen? He has a traumatic experience. And he I think he left face or something, whether he stayed as disbelief or not, is something contested, but what I will read is
Brooke mentions, I think his name is I forget, I forget his first names guy, but he writes overall numbers. Yeah.
He wrote eventually, Darwin turned 40 in 1849, long after developing his theory of evolution by natural selection. And Brooker agrees that the main reason Darwin gave for his unbelief derived not from his role he gave to natural causes in explaining the origin of species. Like other Victorian thinkers, Darwin reacted strongly against evangelical Christian preaching on heaven and hell.
This is what Brooke is saying. And Brooke is a top tier historian of science in the West.
Richard Dawkins, AC grayling, Daniel Dennett, are not these people are not any of that stuff. So he's a authority
writing in a book, and he's saying the reason why he's his conclusion, because there's controversy I'm saying his conclusion is not my conclusion. His conclusion is that he didn't do it because the evolution theory
now, I think there's another argument you can make, which is the argument I make. And I've written this in the book that I've written called the scientific delusions of the New Atheists, which is free of charge in the Sapiens
website, get it? Is that new Atheism itself inhibit science.
Because maybe the argument they make is religion to emphasize, but you can argue that new Atheism in a bit science and I'll tell you why.
Okay, so I'm not gonna read all that. But basically, let me explain.
Especially in the field of biology, Darwinian theory of evolution has become almost a religion. Okay.
As a result, now, scientists who have not got a dog in the fight, they're not interested in religion, they're not even believers. Yeah. They feel intimidated. And these are postulations. Out. These are assertions I'm making, but I'm going to back them up. They feel intimidated to engage scientifically and undermine known Darwinian assumptions.
I'll give you one, I think the best example I can give. The best example I can give is this website that has been cited by
who is seen as a foremost biologist in the University of Oxford, Dr. Denison,
and James Shapiro, not not Ben Shapiro, that's a different person, James Shapiro. Okay. Both of them started this website called Third Way evolution.com. Now, this website is peer reviewed. For all people who are basically saying, look, you've got the first way which is creationism, the idea of creationism like God created everything simultaneously. You have the second way we should Darwinian evolution, we're looking for the third way. And they explicitly mentioned the homepage. They say, we're, we're not involved in this religion discussion, blah, blah, blah, blah. Why did they feel the need to say any of that? Because they felt intimidated by the propaganda of the Darwinian new
So you'll find on that website people like Eugene Kuhn, Dr. Eugene Kuhn, who explicitly says he says things that his peer reviewed paper, which are clearly against our own evolution,
who now propose new theories, as someone will tell you,
which are not in line with Darwinian evolution, for example, evolution by genetic engineering, and natural engineering, or a NEO Lamarckian evolution, or these kinds of things. Yeah.
Which are not there did not agree with Darwinian evolution, these guys are putting their stuff on there. It doesn't have as much publicity. Nevertheless, these are the top guys in the industry. They're in the hundreds putting things which they disturb the theory of evolution, they're putting cast aspersions on this so called
iron clad theory, which is meant to be According to Richard Dawkins as as good epistemic ly as the heliocentric model.
So, these guys are all casting aspersions on the matter.
And so the point is why Why am I saying this? I'm saying this because I'm I am claiming that new Atheism itself has produced an environment where you can't even challenge science which is meant to be the cornerstone of scientific discovery is meant to be challenged falsification, you come with different information. You can't even do that without being accused labeled in Academy humiliated, dejected, take it to court, whatever it is because you're so called denying a fact.
Belinsky who wrote the Dow which called Dawkins delusion? Yeah, should read a book very interesting. The guy's an atheist. And he's I remember him saying this and I wasn't videos of his, his I find it incredulous that you can have a instead of evolution. You have like whales and cat cow, like creatures are in the same bracket of same family. i He goes, I find it incredulous that something like a whale can become something I'd go, how many transformations must take place? Is it easy to see things how many transformations any
respiratory system has to change, this has to change that has to change? Oh, I'm not even saying Islam goes against any of that. Because there's nothing in the Quran that says that we'll do some changes to account for them. I'm just saying that is what bilinski is saying. bilinski was an atheist has written against Dawkins and so on. He finds it hard to believe that something like a whale can become something like a cow.
Because it does take a jump of faith or leap of faith or whatever it is leap of faith. You can have something like a single big whale coming into a cup
says no, he says I find out to believe
We will conclude I hope. just summarize, we've spoken today about the category mistake fallacy that some of these New Atheists brought to the table when they
when they conflict between teleology, teleology, or purpose or why something is a certain way or metaphysics and the physical world. We then spoke about, at length, the reasons why the West has taken over the Muslim world in terms of science, when the Muslim world was doing well, whether or not it's fair to say that the Muslim world took everything from the Greeks, independent knowledge production, the Muslim world. And then we spoke about the decline. And we spoke about some New Atheists narratives, all of which now we're fully armed with and hopefully that does what we need it to do, which is educate all of us. So I want to come back to the Llobregat