Mohammed Hijab – Muslim schools Neil deGrasse

			islaam rows again after this period didn't have science associated with it. No new inventions in
math.
		

			You look at the period of Islam and Spain, the period where the great Alondra was built, there is no
attendant science going on there, it's done, it's gone. This is now gonna be in the public sphere
for people to ridicule you. And to remind you of your incompetence. Every time they see your face,
they'll be reminded of your academic incompetence on these fields.
		

			Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi Castle, how you guys doing? So I came across a clip by a new atheist
academic called Neil deGrasse. Now this individual is put forward in a lot of the kind of debates
and public discussions and he gets millions of views. And he represents the kind of new atheism from
as much as I can understand from his polemics. And really, when I watched this clip, I thought to
myself, should I dignify? Should I dignify these comments with the response? And at the end of that
I have to because this is such a ridiculous showing of academic incompetence that I thought it must
be answered. So let's take a look at this clip and dissect it piece by piece.
		

			At this point, Islam is maybe just a few 100 years old. So the first thing he says he says, Islam is
just a few 100 years old. Now, I don't know how he defines a few by the time because early Islam is
around 500 years, which is half, half a millennium. So this is already showing us precursors to the
bigger areas are going to come people are reading the Quran and interpreting it however, they sort
of want to and feel like it. There's not a coherence to the practice of Islam until he comes around.
He says something here, which I don't understand what he means by because he says, before his early,
there was no coherence to the practice of Islam. Now, I don't understand what he means by this
		

			because from a jurisprudential perspective, the four EMA or the four M's major imams of Sunni Islam,
and by the way, also, the major branch of Shia Islam, were all established. I mean, you had, you
know, the form of a Have you had a sort of fifth being established by the book of a chef and he
wrote every Salah one of the most early commentaries, or explications of all the principles of
jurisprudence, you have the codification of all of the major Hadeeth books, including Bukhari and
Muslim and so on. So I don't really understand what he means, but by the fact that there was no
coherence to the practice of Islam, especially because as Allah Himself was positioned, or was from
		

			the school of thought of the share phase, and he was from the school of thought from either
spectrums or shadows. So he was part of the discourse, but he was not in any way, you know, making
his own school of thought. I mean, there were practices that were already codified from a
jurisprudential credo, and Hadith perspective. So I didn't understand really what he meant by this,
but let's go on and see what he says next, people are reading the Quran and interpreting it however,
they sort of want to and feel like it, there's not a coherence to the practice of Islam until he
comes around. Now, he says that Muslims were interpreting the Quran in whatever way they wanted to.
		

			But this is false, because there were principles of a steam bot, as mentioned in the Quran, you
know, laulima, who lives in a system between home and home is the Quran says the those who are able
to do extrapolation would be able to do so. And this extrapolation is a method right? So it's
called, you know, Tafseer method or the exegetical method. This was already laid down. Well, before,
you know, Allah has early October, he had his magnum opus or his compendious or voluminous or
encyclopedic
		

			to see it, and this was well known and, and many of our professors or exegetical works were made
thereafter. So this idea that people were haphazardly, hap hazard Li, you know, interpreting the
Quran in the way that they wanted to, is far from the theological truth. And this shows that this
man is weak academically in his presentation, and codifies the behavior of a good Muslim.
		

			in much the same way, St. Augustine, in his book cities of God codified what it is to be a good
Christian. And he says that Augustine codified what it is to be a good Christian as if he was, you
know, in the, in the fifth century, as he came along. He was the one who did so and there was not a
patristic backdrop to his existence. I mean, many of the Church Fathers predated or gustan by
hundreds of years and you have Justin Marty have origin of Alexandria, you have all of these big
names, and you have the so called ecumenical councils that, you know, calcitonin and nicea and all
of these things. I mean, was was there not a Christian community before gustan came along? This
		

			shows you that his patristic understanding or understanding of patristic scholarship is as
		

			weak or even probably weaker than his historical knowledge and or theological knowledge as it
relates to Islam. So let's go on the assertion that the manipulation of numbers is the work of the
devil. All right, so here he makes this big claim. It says that Allah has Allah mentions that it's
the manipulation of numbers or the work of the devil, assuming or presupposing that Allah has alley
of all people he could have chosen. And this is ridiculous, because of his alley of all that for
anyone who knows just a little bit of either the philosophy of religion or intellectual history,
they would know who else has alius for all the people in the Islamic world you decided to choose,
		

			you chose Allah has led to say that he was against science and mathematics. And what's worse is that
the quote that he mentioned, is nowhere to be found in his compendious works.
		

			The closest thing I found was something in his alamuddin, which is a book is huge book made many
volumes, voluminous. And in in his kuttabul aim, he mentioned that people who go far in excesses
when it comes to not just mathematics, but in other fields in Kalam and otherwise, that they would
be damaging themselves. But he actually mentioned in the same book, by the way, this book is
translated into English. And you can pick up an English translation by Kenneth Horner camp, and
you'll find them page 38. That'll has, it says the opposite of what you're saying that he said,
Allah has Allah mentions that as far as QA, that it's a communal obligation for people to learn the
		

			praised sciences, as he calls them of medicine and of mathematics. You see, this is the distortion
that the new atheists have to resort to, in order to try and attack religious narratives, absolute
distortions, and they should be ashamed of themselves, that they're coming forward and speaking in
this way, without the academic competence, the academic competence of checking their work, I mean,
if this was done in another context, with other fields, they would be all over us and attacking us,
but this is historical information, which has been distorted. And how dare you mentioned of roselli
of all the scholars, you could have mentioned an individual who had a method which was systematic,
		

			and if you really look at Rene Descartes, who was the father of rationalism in the West, and his
book, The meditations, where he went through systematic doubt, in order to, to come to Cogito ergo
sum, which is I think, therefore, I am, you realize that in a Lucas mill, Bala Island, and the books
have to have to philosopher and all of those books, that the same method of systematic doubt, well,
before Rene Descartes came along with it was exhibited and presented by the works of kasali, where
he done exactly the same thing a systematic doubt, a skeptical approach. And then the Kalam method,
and the arguments from Kalam, which are all over the academic world now. popularized by the likes of
		

			William Lane, Craig and others, in atheist discussions were taken from La zanni. Why, if he is
somebody who is averse to the logical process, or averse to mathematics are averse to
		

			medicine and science, in his book, almost duskpaw, which is one of the most elaborative books on the
topic of the principles of jurisprudence. He starts this book with a discussion on epistemology. And
he started a tradition of doing that, such that even Hannah Bella who are more conservative and
reserved, especially when it came to Kalam, the systematic theology, someone like him know, Kodama
in his book and his book, which he which which was really at a copyright of a template of his alley,
he also did the same thing in the first manuscript that you find. So he started a tradition of a
discussion about epistemology and about these philosophical matters, how dare you attribute to him
		

			of all people in the Muslim world that he was averse to? And against science, mathematics and
technology, you should be ashamed of yourself. And this is you actually, you should come out and
apologize. You should come out and apologize to the Muslim community and to the academic committee,
not just the Muslim to the academic community for distorting this intellectual history of the
medieval period in such a way you should come out and apologize. I want to see an apology on your
Twitter or wherever it is you use. Yes, because how dare you come out and live flagrantly blatantly
and often
		

			asleep lie about something which you didn't have the common decency to double check.
		

			You make me sick, you make me sick. And this is what the new atheist movement has to resort to
flagrant and obvious lies in order to distort the public narrative, and to try and bring people away
from religion, you have failed, and you should be ashamed of yourself to actions that you see in
nature
		

			are the will of our
		

			Well, if you drop a stone in it false that Allah will that he's talking about philosophy, and then
he makes a bigger blunder, he says, you see all the actions from the will of Allah and he is
referring to occasional ism, occasional ism, which is a an ashari doctrine. And by the way that has
Allah if you really read his books, he didn't believe in it in as much the same way as many of his
predecessors does. It did, as many of the scholars even in the in the West now have spoken about. He
believes in a second order causation. But anyway, this is aside the point you wouldn't even
understand what I'm talking about what is important here, because you're full, with all due respect,
		

			and you're ignorant of these things. So I'm going to speak and you're not going to understand, but
what you should know is what's really funny and ironic is people that you have had interviews with
on this topic of determinism and freewill. Like Sam Harris, who brought wrote a book called freewill
believe in determinism, and so they don't believe. So you're saying here the will of God. So this
stops curiosity and stops our kind of motivation or incentives disincentivize us from doing things.
If that's your explanation, your curiosity stops. But determinists, even if they're an atheist, who
believes in an uninterrupted causal chain, will have exactly the same philosophical baggage. So when
		

			you are seated in front of your friend, Sam Harris, who wrote a book called freewill, and he wrote
at the bottom of it, Sam Harris, but actually, he should have wrote, he shouldn't have put his name
there because it wasn't Sam Harris with his freewill that wrote that book. But it was a set of
determined uninterrupted events caused events that wrote that book, you should have inquired about
that. about why Could it be the case? Well, could it be the case that a deterministic worldview will
interrupt someone's incentive to do things because otherwise, every everyone's a puppet, everyone's
doing things without free will. So if you're arguing that this disincentivizes people from or makes
		

			them less curious from doing things like science, then this argument can be made on the worldview of
determinism? Hey, you've shot yourself in the foot because of your lack of knowledge, not just in
theology and history, but also in philosophy, philosophy of religion, and other other than that, so
you should be ashamed of yourself once again, and you're embarrassing yourself. You are absolutely
embarrassing yourself. The more you talk, the more you make blunders. And you get an call out. And
no longer is the Muslim community or even any religious community are going to sit idly by watching
individuals, like you talk rubbish and make mistakes and blunders, and and just leave you to do what
		

			you want to do. And maybe some of our youth will listen to what you have to say, and be convinced
No, we're gonna hold you to account to academic account, not just on a peer reviewed journal that
only a few elites Can, can can look at, no, this is now going to be in the public sphere for people
to ridicule you. And to remind you of your incompetence, every time they see your face, they'll be
reminded of your academic and competence on these fields. Islam rose again after this period, didn't
have science associated with it. And look at this claim that he makes it says Islam rose again after
the spirit. But I didn't have science, oh my god. Now you've just now you've humiliated yourself
		

			with all due respect to you that you don't actually deserve. You've humiliated yourself. How have
you humiliated yourself? You humiliated yourself, completely humiliated yourself. So let me give you
a few names in a piece. When did he die? it been a feast one of the greatest figures of the medieval
period. And in the Arab world in the Islamic a period 1213 1213 This is how many years after Allah
Casali died maybe about 200 years, in fact, exactly. 202 years? Yes. 102 years. So what even a feast
was not. He was brainwashed by law sadly, somehow, the works of Allah has actually stopped everyone
from doing science. Does this even sound rational to you? I mean, your irrationality, your new
		

			atheist irrationality is so limited, that you can't even understand one book isn't really going to
change the way everyone operates in the entire Islamic period.
		

			Even the feasts When did he die? I mean, didn't even want to dignify yourself by checking these
things up. I mean, some of the contemporaries, although his early were doing mathematics are more
high end. He died, like a couple of couple of dozen years after he died some years after his le.
		

			I mean, oh, he was a mathematician. Well, I didn't he stopped doing maths. Um, this is ridiculous.
I'll address he will address the geographer. Wait a minute. What about a to see a to see who
Copernicus references? Yes, he references in his book. And obviously Copernicus, you know, is the
figurehead of the scientific revolution in the 16th century.
		

			And they will batani is the only Islamic astronomer Copernicus actually names recent detective work
has uncovered clues that Copernicus based many of his ideas on the work of other Islamic scholars,
the clearest example is Copernicus his use of a mathematical idea devised by the 13th century
Islamic astronomer L. Dorsey. You have never read the works of capex because if you did, you know,
it's not just a to see that he references, but he also References aliquots G. Now, Ali, g was an
ottoman into the 15th or 15th or 16th century
		

			well off that'll has led, he was an ottoman, but he was instrumental. He was absolutely instrumental
in influencing the Copernican revolution, or the scientific revolution, which is probably the
biggest paradigm shift to use the term of Thomas Kuhn that the Western world has ever had in terms
of scientific enterprise, only to be compared possibly within the movement from Newtonian physics.
How dare you stand in front of people
		

			and teach them false information? How dare you do that?
		

			How dare you stand there, and say the things that you've said without even having the dignity and
the self respect of checking those things out? And look what he says after that,
		

			he says, Is 1.3 billion Muslims?
		

			The secular, he says is 1.3 billion Muslims. And how many Muslims won the Nobel Prize? And he says,
equals is the best measure. There is 1.3 billion Muslims in the world today who are not participants
on the frontier scientific discovery. What's the best measure this way to check out the Nobel
Prizes?
		

			I tally them okay. How many Jews have won the Nobel Prize?
		

			in the sciences Here they go.
		

			The best measure wait a minute so he's the argument here is something inherently in Islam because of
Casali In other words, everyone, every Muslim now is influenced by themselves. So even the Shia
eyes, or even the Han Abdullah, who are not influenced by him or other other variable, other people,
everyone's influenced by all of us, Allah, and Allah has Allah is influenced them to drop by science
and technology and mathematics. And so everyone, because they, they needed to tell them that they
dropped everyone dropped science and technology, even though even though some of which had the one
of the biggest, and most influential observatories of the Muslim world, was actually established
		

			some centuries after his death. Even I mean, I'm shocked as a physicist that you don't know about
the history of physics. You're an ignorant person. And now you're making the claim that of a 1.3
billion Actually, this must be a an old statistic, because there's way more than 1.3 billion
according to Pew, another mistake 1.8 billion, let's say Muslims in the world, and he says, Look,
how many people won Nobel Prizes? Well, okay, let me ask you a question. How many black people have
won global prices? It must be a question how many black people? Now, if I say that to you, and you
say, Well, that's because of poverty and slavery and all of those things, and colonialism, okay. All
		

			of those excuses can be afforded to the Muslim world, most much of which have been colonized,
especially after the Ottoman fall.
		

			So disenfranchised enfranchisement and poverty and all those things. And, yeah, I mean, you can make
the same excuses. And then he compares us with Jewish people, which is a false comparison. I don't
know why he does that. Because obviously, and the Nobel Prize, I mean, let's be honest, the Nobel
Prize. And this is this just shows me how much of an Uncle Tom, you are with all due respect? Yes,
because you respect the white man so much, that when the white man and his institutions, they decide
who wins the Nobel Prize, because it's obviously ideologically linked right, to the Western post
enlightenment experience.
		

			decide who wins Nobel prizes. You think that's somehow a measure of objective scientific
		

			discovery and enterprise and so on. And that's why you could never ever debate a Muslim who knows
just a little bit of Islam a little bit of history, you would never step forward and put yourself
your neck on the academic chopping board because you know what would happen?
		

			What would happen is the people would see
		

			an intellectual decapitation.
		

			So you roll back into the hole that you came from, and if you don't offer the apology, then you got
to live with the humiliation. Salaam Alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh