Suleiman Hani – Respond To Athiests With This Regarding Miracles

			Do you believe that Mohammed split the moon into Do you believe that Muhammad flew to heaven on a
winged horse? For example, I pay you the compliment of assuming that dude that you don't know I do.
I believe in Murray believe that, yes, you believe that Muhammad went to heaven on a winged horse. I
believe in God, I believe in miracles, I believe in Revelation. Unfortunately, there are a lot of
really problematic beliefs that people have about philosophy, theology, and science that are very
common in everyday conversations and YouTube videos and all types of discourse. And I want you to
see an example of this. And to be fair, I will play the video itself so you can hear it directly
		

			from the source. This is from an interview between Maddie Hasson, the journalist who has done
tremendous work, and Richard Dawkins, a self identified new atheist who is commonly known for his
attacks on religion amongst other things. But I want you to listen to this and see, can you point
out where the mistakes are in terms of reasoning, and this is to demonstrate for the sake of
progressing our conversations. Listen to this yourself and see what you think. I mean, do you
actually believe in your Muslim faith? Do you believe that Mohammed split the moon in two? Do you
believe that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse? For example, I pay you the compliment of
		

			assuming that dude that you don't know I do. I believe in Murray believe that, yes. You believe that
Muhammad went to heaven on a winged horse.
		

			I want you to pay attention to the way the Dawkins framed his question when he started off by
saying, I pay you the compliment. So is implying that, you know, if you're a wise intelligent
person, as I assume you are, then you likely don't believe that such an such thing happened. You
don't believe in miracles you don't believe in anything that happened that science today cannot
explain. I pay you the compliment. Meaning what if you if you actually believe in those things, and
it's a problem, right, here's where there's a tangent, and Dawkins demonstrate some bias against
religion. He's attacking religion constantly. But it was a really good interview actually about a
		

			different topic, which is, is religion, good or evil? And this topic came up and notice how he
framed the question. Mockery is very common in this in this kind of discourse in these kinds of
circles, unfortunately, a mockery with condescending attitude. And do you see an equivalence between
the idea of God and the idea of a fairy and a leprechaun, the evidence for both is equally poor.
		

			Do you actually believe the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him ascended on a winged horse to heaven?
This is the way that he's framing the question. Now notice, generally speaking, when someone says,
That doesn't make any sense, this is nonsensical belief in God that's nonsensical belief in miracles
nonsensical. Usually, this is a really, really recent discourse. And it's a very modern type of
attack from a lot of anti theist. There's a lot of contradiction with philosophy, philosophy of
religion, philosophy of science, you can't claim that this is irrational, you cannot claim this is
nonsensical. So Dawkins believes in a world that came from nothing. And nothing here is defined a
		

			very specific way beyond the scope of this particular video. But notice when he asks him about
belief in a winged horse, and obviously, for those who are Muslim, you know that it's not a winged
horse to wing the animal. And then he asks later, well, why couldn't it be something else, and I
want you to pay attention to how Madison responds. I mean, Mandy has done a tremendous job. And he
is well known for his articulation, his debates, his focus on logic, as well. But there were
actually some, perhaps improvements that could be made in the response. And this is for the sake of
learning. And obviously, this is a very subjective Notice if we fast forward to continue the
		

			conversation where he says, why not acknowledge, for example, the good things that Williams do
accept that religion has done good things, despite all of our mad beliefs and our miracle, accept
that individual religious people have done an enormous number of good thing not driven by religion?
		

			Well, I mean, who knows? I mean, you don't give any credit to somebody like
		

			Martin Luther King, for example, Reverend Martin Luther King, yes.
		

			Obviously, he was a he was a cleric. So So I imagine that that fed into the good things that he did
plenty of other things did he was a great admirer of Gandhi. And he was a great admirer of
nonviolence. He was a brilliant and wonderful, great man. Would you disconnect, MLK days, non
violence and Gandhi's non violence from their very strongly held religious beliefs? They didn't?
Well,
		

			I think that's it's not a thing that I really care about, actually. I mean, I think they will care
about it. Richard was saying that people carry out violence in the name of God. And I cite through
an example of very famous people who have done good and non violence in the name of God and you say,
I'm not interested. If God doesn't exist, then doing something good in his name is great. It's great
that something good gets done, but there's no
		

			evidence at all, that believing in God makes you more likely to do good things. I can't see any
noble, logical connection between being religious and doing good things. So a couple of mistakes
already, kind of actually from both ends here first.
		

			Madison is trying to bring the conversation previously back to the main point about religion and
people of religion that do good. And Richard Dawkins doesn't want to admit, people are driven by
their religious beliefs to do good in this world. He says, Yes, they've done it on an individual
level. But now because of the religious teachings, he'll focus on the things that people take out of
the context of religion and do the wrong things, to attack religion. But the good thing is not these
things don't don't come from religious teachings. So he wants to remove religion from society and
keep it as private within the home as possible and don't let it affect society. But that's actually
		

			not the limit, in some cases, a pernicious distraction from true education, which I'm which I love
and value of the way you value love your God, can you not do both? Well, so long as they don't
divide rich, predict each other. But but if you if you if you actually believe that Mohammed flew to
heaven on a winged horse, that's an anti scientific belief. And that could be wrong, but valuable
Israel, but that doesn't. How do you know it's wrong? Oh, come on. You're a man of the 21st century.
I'm just asking this comes back to my original question that the Russian opposition to the agnostic
here, Russia, their mission is the agnostic position out there. Anyways, the problem here is he
		

			says, that's an anti scientific belief. And if you know anything at all, if you have taken a single
course, on the philosophy of science, you know that that statement is very problematic. Science has
limitations. Look at his mockery. He says, Why up there, he asks this question, the Russian
opposition, I didn't say that I didn't pick up. Why would a winged horse be that be the way to get
to heaven? Because not up there? I asked. I asked, I asked a question about you asked about proof.
I'm all for saying I can't prove it. But can you prove he didn't do? I mean, this is
		

			flight of heaven. I'm just asking on your criteria. I'm just asking, you know, I can't prove it. And
I can't prove it. It wasn't a golden unit, fascinated that you'd rather I'm fascinated, you'd rather
talk about what animals the Prophet may or may not have used 1400 years ago, rather than talk about
what Muslims or Islam is doing in the world today, good or bad? Well, that seems to be the target.
So this is this is the gist of it, that here's the response here. Here's what we want to point out
and break down. First of all, the mockery, this, unfortunately, betrays an intention betrays a
perspective, this is not an intellectual way to analyze and assess an argument. The second is when
		

			he claimed that to believe in a miracle, regardless of what the miracle is that it is anti
scientific, this is very problematic. First of all, science has limitations. It's not anti
scientific, it's beyond the realm of what science can explore and discover and observe, because it
is metaphysical because it is based on other branches of knowledge. And so if you take a basic
philosophy of science course, you understand what what is science and what is beyond the realm of
science. Now many people and it's very, very common, unfortunately, in the publications of many
atheists to attack religion. They take science beyond the realm of science and add to it
		

			philosophical baggage philosophical interpretation, that oftentimes the science is not seeing, or
they will use science is one tool of discovery. That's one tool that we Muslims believe is extremely
important, and that God gave us the faculties to be able to explore through, they want to use the
tool of science for everything, that there is no other tool of knowledge. So this is a problem of
philosophy, not a problem of science itself. Science is a tool, and it's extremely useful. And
Muslims have advanced many of the sciences and we continue to, but you take a step back and ask what
else is possibly true? What other knowledge can you have about the world that science cannot
		

			possibly know or science cannot comment on or cannot observe that it is not empirical. And so the
marker here is very problematic, the sense of confidence, this is anti, this is not anti scientific.
In fact, this is beyond the realm of science. This is a very basic philosophical principle is beyond
the realm of science. Now, we are talking about philosophy, we're talking about the proofs that
extend beyond the empirical. Now, you may not be following along and wondering, well, what is the
proper response? The first point again, this is beyond the realm of science. The second is the
mockery is not needed when you analyze and assess an argument. The third is the mistake that Madea
		

			hasn't made, which is to say I can't prove it or that the default position is is agnostic, or can
you prove it didn't happen? That's very problematic, because if you're saying prove it didn't
happen, I can come up with any claim like Richard Dawkins gave this example or why not? What if you
claim
		

			It was a unicorn, what if you claimed it was, you know, something else? So how do you know how do I
disprove something like this, you're the one who believes in it. So they are claiming this case, the
burden of proof is on you that a miracle took place. But that it is, according to Richard Dawkins,
that it is anti scientific. Now, you are supposed to actually respond and say, first, this is beyond
the realm of science. Second, I can prove that something like this took place. But the proof itself
needs to be analyzed, meaning what, it's not proof on just one term, it's not proof only according
to the empirical, what other types of proofs exist in the world for you to know something is true.
		

			There is a rationalism. And there is testimony, you believe in many things that happen in many peer
reviewed studies. And these peer reviewed studies, if you believe they are coming from a credible,
authentic, trustworthy outlet or publication or a university, you tend to have a strong belief,
maybe there's a high likelihood that something did take place, a study that is coming from an honest
person, a person of integrity, a university that has very rigorous standards, and it has to be
reviewed by so many people, and so on and so forth. Well, that's called testimony, you believe in
certain things, you have knowledge of certain things based on testimony. So rationalism and
		

			testimony are two branches of knowledge. And these extend beyond the empirical empiricism or science
here, sense experiences and other. So Richard Dawkins, like many other New Atheists, unfortunately,
they've removed any kind of intellectual humility, when it comes to using philosophy appropriately.
And he mocks the notion, the concept of a miracle that someone believes in with a rational proof and
justification. So you believe in the Quran, with a proof for why the Quran is true, that's beyond
the realm of what I have to discuss now. But you have a rational justification. The Quran is
miraculous. So I believe in God, and I can prove that this message is from God, it's not manmade.
		

			And I believe in Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. And I can prove he is truly a prophet of God
for many reasons. And there are very powerful rational arguments. And so the conclusion is the
information within is true. Now, that information will include things that we can experience and
things we cannot experience. And it unfortunately, it's a type of pride, a type of arrogance, to
claim that you have access to all of the things that are happening in the universe, or all of the
things happening behind the scenes or that you can comment on things like miracles, why? The reason
he marked miracles is because it contradicts what normally happens in nature. So the idea of an
		

			animal that Prophet Muhammad rode on in this miracle where he ascended in the night journey at a
Surat when Miraj, he ascended to the heavens, there is a rational justification for this. But yes,
of course, this violates the laws of nature. And it is not an odd thing from a philosophical
perspective. Why, because although it is not the norm for there to be a winged animal that travels
very quickly with Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him like other prophets, and the miracles given to
them, the God who created the universe, and the laws of nature, can change those laws of nature, He
is all powerful. So he created laws that allowed the universe and nature to operate in a specific
		

			way. And he's able to change these laws for a specific reason, like a an event and incident of
wisdom and something that had to happen with a previous prophet or messenger. And so you use the
laws of nature, to discover to survive to explore the natural world that God created. And that same
creator has the power to change the laws of nature, it is a violation of laws of nature, from our
perspective, a change, that we cannot, in fact, replicate. That's a proof that's in fact, one
component of what a miracle is, in Islamic theology. There's a purpose behind it. So it is not anti
scientific, first of all, is beyond the realm of science, this is a mistake. Second of all, there is
		

			a rational proof, a rational justification for it, and it is that the source of information is true,
it is that the empirical facets of the Quran is miraculous nature can be studied. So this is all
following from another source of information is all following a logical sequence here. And so it is
it is a type of mockery, to be very condescending, and to insult not just the journalist Matthew
Hudson, but you talk about it in a very condescending way as though this is what science actually
says as though this is the rational position. Unfortunately, this demonstrates that there's a lot of
pride. There's a type of superiority complex for anyone who does not rely on only one tool and that
		

			is a tool of science, and also misunderstands the realm and the scope of that tool and what is
beyond it, what is philosophy of science, and this is a very common mistake we see. And many
scientists have pointed out in the books and the literature of many New Atheists, unfortunately, and
it has misguided and hurt and harmed a lot of people in the pursuit of what is true in the pursuit
of what is good in society. And so many people become upset many people become emotional. Many
people might become sensitive or angry with
		

			These topics. At the end of the day, let's focus on the argument itself. The claims of Richard
Dawkins here are proven false. Now, I do believe that Madison could have had a stronger response,
but he was perhaps trying to bring the conversation back to the main topic. And also, this is a
matter of philosophy and philosophy of science, it extended a little bit beyond maybe what was
prepared for in the topic of religion being good or evil. So this is all a distraction in a way that
Richard Dawkins keeps focusing on although he claims that that is not what he's concerned with. He's
concerned with truth. So truth will require some understanding of philosophy of science and not just
		

			exaggerating what science is. Let's take the tools of knowledge and apply them appropriately and
correctly, so that we are not deceiving ourselves and other people.