Tough Questions – Voice of Islam Live
Date:
Channel: Wasim Kempson
File Size: 46.34MB
AI Generated Transcript ©
The 100 was salam ala Rasulillah Salam alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh. And welcome back to this voice of Islam platform Saturday night or depending on where you are. It could be early in the morning. It could be any time in the world. In fact, if you're an America like Fahad Tasleem is Sheikh Fahad, how are you? Salam aleikum. Wa Alaikum salam Wa Rahmatullah in Ladakh, yeah. Eid Mubarak couple love and when when minimum encoding? I mean,
how's everything over there? Maybe it is to answer your question. It's about two to 20 over here in the afternoon. 220 in the afternoon. That's good. And it is now 8:20pm. My time and Jim shade in Wales in
what state is 818 here as an hour.
So this means we can actually tell chef ahead the future because we are six eyes in the future, we can tell him what's going to happen. Excuse me, excuse me in New Zealand in the future.
20 I am so we can tell you. I'll tell you something interesting when I was in New Zealand, and I'll make this really quick. I know, you said wants to get on with the introductions. Well, we were in New Zealand. I was in we were on our way somewhere. I forgot. I think we were going to Scott which was town we're going to we're in the in the in the van. And my son called me. And he said, he said something about like, oh, I want to fast tomorrow or something like that. And I said okay, but you know, but you already missed the train. He said, What do you mean? I'm like, well, it's already Friday, because we'll be here. It's Thursday.
Or I think it was like Thursday and then Wednesday, so and I was like no, no, no, but you have to wait until tomorrow but we're in the future. Yeah. And then he said something like, well, it's already Muslim. So then it for me and you is still the same day. So he was very quick on the whole difference between like the Gregorian calendar and the lunar calendar. Anyway, you know, New Zealand is far in the future than all of us, I think. So we've got also shake this up. Let's hear from that explanation of your timezone in America and we're going to be hearing a little bit, probably about Zane is going to say, yes, we'll see my can hear us and I'm calling from Rocky tilava. Catherine,
can you hear me?
Can you
Okay, guys? We're trying we're trying to get live with everyone from around the different parts of the world that they live in. Zaid, of course is a time traveler.
I believe that that's where they're where this discussion came from.
Quantum Chronicles
so I bet you're getting in the neck over that still.
Okay,
we'll see. Is he with us? Or is the with the Woodridge?
You would only understand that if you were Jim shake.
Didn't want that as
well.
It's an old shop. It used to have an advert. You're either with us or you're with the village.
Anyway, okay.
Okay, guys, so this will.
Okay, there's a lot of, you know, issues that we're going to try and deal with today. And I guess it's probably going to get beyond one or two on the list. Okay. The first one, as is this, the nature of this show is to deal with questions that people are struggling with, that people are maybe having this causing dissension with conversations between mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters, neighbors, work colleagues, etc. So, you know, there are a lot of things we can deal with the number one on my list was science and the
science in the Quran. Now we're seeing capsule can you hear us?
No hiccups, okay. Okay, so science in the Quran was the issue that we were going to deal with today. First of all, what does science mean? So, you know, because a lot of people are baffled by terminology, by language, by genre, by universities and, you know, maths and science and technology and so on and so forth. And there's a massive jargon that comes with it. So first of all, Fahad, what is science essentially from an Islamic perspective, or from a human perspective? What do you think science is? Sure. Bismillah R Rahman Rahim. So I mean science from as its colloquially understood in the in the English
Language is basically the endeavor to find out the truth about the created world, I guess that's maybe not closely Well, that's more Islamic, right? So in the sense that you have certain phenomena that happened within the natural world. And in order to find out the how those systems work, what is the reality of those systems, you use the tool of science, right. And perhaps more specifically, you would say that there's a certain method that you use to reach those conclusions when it comes to the natural world.
That system that you use to reach those conclusions about the truth about the natural world is called science. So within that, it's a way to understand the truth. It's a tool that you use to understand truth within the natural world. But you'll notice I kind of I'm stressing on the idea of within the natural world, because that is one of the wild, it is a amazing tool to get us to understand certain truths about our natural world. But that is also its limitation. So for instance, things within the realm, some things which are outside of the realm of science, are things like meaning. So meaning is not a scientific question. Right? That's what you might call a more of a
metaphysical question, as opposed to a physical question, right? What does it all mean? Similarly, science is a moral, meaning there's no moral judgments in science, science that tell you about morality, etc. So again, it is an endeavor to understand the physical, natural world that we live in. And there is a specific method by which it does that. So that's what we would call science.
In an okay, okay, that's a good starting positions. So we're talking about science. Do we have talking of science? Do we have Waseem with us? Is he listening? Can you hear us
know the science?
But yes, because time is related to of course, science is really same, and our ability to observe the natural world, isn't it? Five?
Yeah. So So I mean, the comment that you have that SR Hibiya has their science as a source of science, Quran is the source of science, knowledge, wisdom.
I don't know if it's exactly correct. Meaning, so obviously, the natural world is how we how we go about scientific, you know, with the scientific method, now, the Quran, you could say, maybe the inspiration for pursuing certain scientific endeavors, right? So when Allah subhanaw taala, says, in the whole customer, well, it will work the laffy Layli when the heart in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alteration of the night in day are indeed signs. So this may be a,
this may be an inspiration, to now go towards the natural world and go, you know, and understand like how the natural world works. So it may be a motivation towards science, but the Quran itself, you know, as this, it's almost like, it's almost cliche now, but the Quran itself is not a book of science. It's a book of signs, right? We always say that, right? It's not a book that's going to tell you about specifically the scientific method or something like that. Rather, it is a book that's going to be pointing you towards signs, let's say within the natural world, will eventually point you towards signs of Allah subhanaw taala. So there's a little bit of a distinction. Now, she
continued and said, it's a source of knowledge through its source of wisdom. Absolutely true. We totally agree with that. But at some of the science, we need to be a little more airtight with our definition. Because there's a lot of confusion that arises when we talk about science, and how the Quran is related to that, because people are using those terms liberally and interchangeably with the Quran, causing some confusion. Whereas I, I understand that the Quran is a book of ayat of
not science.
So this is one of the points that we want to start with Jim shady, you want to add in
radical Islam?
No, not really. I think everything's been said really, fundamentally, it's just to understand that science, as Schaeffer mentioned, is literally it's not a thing. It's just a methodology by which you can understand the natural world ie that which is physical that which is observable.
And whilst it is a very good process to do that, we just have to recognize that it has its limitations. And it's just a mess. I can I can hear myself Sorry, sorry.
You had
an not only that, you also have to recognize that science is not the only way that we can come to truth. So the so to use the term that Scheffer
to us last week epistemology like how do we know anything? We know things because of yes, we because of science, but we can also deduce things from logic. And science relies upon logic, first and foremost, from our own personal experiences, from testimony what other people tell us from sensory perception. So there's a lot of different mechanisms by which we can come to know anything, science is just only a small part of that. And it's when we move science out of that and make it the be all and end all of everything, do we start to encounter problems because that maxim which is, for example, if you only have a hammer, then everything looks like nails, if you only resort to just
looking at things from a scientific perspective, and I'm going to come back to this because I think this is going to come back and one of the questions afterwards. But if you only look at things from a scientific perspective, then it means you force yourself to have to come up with some kind of a naturalistic conclusion to any question. And that's fundamentally impossible. In some cases, it just can't be done. So you just
have to recognize that yes, while science is definitely a very, very useful and proper process, it has its limitations, and it needs to be used correctly and in the right place. Good talking about limitations then, Fahad, if we go and look at the what a science does an actual a scientist, a person who observes fundamentally observed observation of the natural world in a sort of structured way. Okay. Is it possible that they can come to conclusions which are absolute? In science? No. So this is one of the things that we you know, and then as Jim shares, as mentioned earlier, that if we make the assumption that science is your only epistemic tool, mean, that is the only tool you can
get to you the only tool you can use scuze me to arrive to truth, this becomes problematic because science cannot get you to 100% True or certain. Right. And this becomes a bit, you know, and people kind of they may suddenly say, Hold on a second, we understand we have observation, there's certain things that we observe, and we know them for sure. But there's a difference here, when we're talking about observation, there's certain things that you observe and you know, for sure, so we're not talking about that. We're talking about something that comes under the,
the the empirical method by which you come to truth, right, that science relies upon. So method has to do with testing, right? So there's observation. There's the hypothesis, what you're going to say about the particular phenomena, and then there's testing involved. The process of science, and this is really important. When it comes to science, we have to understand that it works. One of its limitations we can say is that it works with what we call, it doesn't give you deductive conclusions. It works on an inductive methodology. Okay, what does that mean? What it means is, is that, let's say that you observe 10,000 Black Rose. Okay, so you have a limited sample set, and you
make a general conclusion. All right, so 10, I've observed 10,000, Black Crows, therefore, crows are black. Okay. But it doesn't mean that you will never, ever, ever find a pink robe.
So you can come to a very high level of certainty, but you can never come to 100% certainty, right? Because the what that would mean is that you have observed everything in the past and everything in the future and every single corner of the world. Right, right, every single corner of the universe, we get the world. And that is an impossibility. So science, because it works with the process of induction as opposed to deduction, right. So when we have a deductive method, you have premises, and then you have conclusion. So if I said, for instance, that all presidents you got you have, let's say two premises, number one, all presidents of the United States are men or woman. Okay. Donald
Trump, you know, premise number two, Donald Trump is the president united states conclusion Donald Trump is a man. This is a deductive way by which you're coming to a conclusion as long as premises one is correct. And premises two is correct. And you know, that for sure. Premise three AI deduction has to be true. Science does not work like that it works via an inductive method, you have a limited sample set and you make a generalization and therefore cannot come to 100% you cannot come to 100% certainty, right. 100% Yep. Via science.
Okay, okay, that gives us a position. First of all, when you're talking about science and the Quran, one has to first understand what is science and what do you understand from science and its connectivity with the Quran? I just add one point to that, please. Yes. Yeah, just just in response to what you were talking about the question Can
In science leads to 100%. Truth. It's also important to recognize the semantic issue of what is truth here, right? Because the context of 100% truth matters. Now, a very simple example. What temperature does water boil it? We're taught that water boils at 100 degrees centigrade, right? Is that 100%? True? It's not. Because if you change the atmospheric conditions, so for example, if you go higher up in the atmosphere, whether it's less atmospheric pressure, or I'm sure if there are substances that you can put into into the water, that changes its boiling point. So
still, you know, from one perspective, it's still 100%. True to say water was 100. But that's not the whole story, you can still fine tune what is the actual rule for what well, and you also get like multiple different ways to explain the same thing. But certain semantic differences as well, that become important when you start to reach what's known as the boundary conditions. So for example, we can say, find water was 100% 100 degrees, which is true, we could also say water boils at the when the temperature of the water reaches such that it breaks free of the atmospheric restrictions, which is a little bit more complicated. But again, that's a different explanation. But
it works with a variety of other situations as well. So we have to be careful not to ground ourselves just because someone has come up with a particular way of explaining one thing that doesn't make it the be all and end all for that thing in every single situation. And every single circumstance of that makes sense. Okay, thanks very much for that Jim shade. Yes, we understand that. And essentially, basically where this conversation started out what is around nine teams, probably in history, it's happened before maybe it may have happened. But as far as we understand, Morris, Dr. Morris book, Kyle, calling was working with the Saudis in the 70s and came up with this
whole concept of science and the Quran. And then it was popularized through a number of two ads around the world. Like, you know, ACMA did that Dr. Zakir Naik, so on and so forth. And then it became popularized, and it became mainstream started off as a mainstream thing that Muslims saying, Yeah, but I can prove that, you know, Islam is scientific, in every aspect, because the Quran says this, this, this and this, and the scientists say this. And so what happened was, the doctor was Morris McCauley got a collection of sciences together, you put them in front of, you know, on a live audience, and he got them to say certain things about science and relating it to verses in the
Quran. So the question is, is this the correct approach, as we understand that, the most Mufasa being the people who decipher the ayat of the Quran, had not looked at the Quran hitherto, before that, in this way. So, let's move to Farhat and then try and analyze this breakdown and see where where do we lie in this situation as practicing Muslims? Okay, so. So I think this discussion needs to, you know, after we've understood science, we understood that, you know, I mean, Jim shared mentioned, and I think I was mentioning that it's going to have certain limitations, right. So even when we come to the idea of certainty, it's going to have limitations. Now, those limitations, in
fact, are one of the beauties of science itself, right? Because one of the things we that is beautiful about science,
of, you know, observing the natural world is that there's so much to discover. And there's so much yet to discover. So therefore, science is not like a monolithic block that you either have or you don't have, there's always new discoveries to happen, right? And the reason why is because science is mutable. Right? There can be an observation that you have, let's say, five years from now, that completely contradicts the conclusions that are reached to today. Right? Because one of the limitations of science is observation, right? You could develop tools in the future that give us the ability to observe areas that we were never able to observe before. Right, just speaking about one
of the limitations of science. So science as an epistemic endeavor, as an endeavor to reach truth is mutable. In other words, it is changing. Now, one of the problems is when you take this mutable endeavor to reach truth, and you compare it to something like the Quran, which we say is not mutable. Okay? We see a certain problem. You have a mutable endeavor, and you're saying we're gonna use this mutable tool to show that this apps
The loot thing is true.
The issue is known, right? You have an absolute thing, which is the Quran, you have a mutable endeavor, and you're saying I'm going to use this changeable mutable epistemic tool to show that the Quran is true. Why does this become problematic is because as science discovers more things, we get into more realms, then those connections that were made in the past, if they're made in a way that's absolute, that is going to have a serious, there's gonna have serious ramifications on someone's Iman, if the assumption is the Quran is always scientifically accurate. Because if it's always scientifically accurate, the assumption science never changes. What happens when it is right? What
does that mean about the Quran? Just to give you a practical example, okay. We had, we had some young people that came to me after, you know, they were, you know, when I was when I was studying at UT Austin, and, and they came to me and they said, you know, we went to our geology professor. And we told them that the Quran is scientifically accurate, right? And the Quran says, Well, gee, Bala, oh, tada, right that the mountains are like, pegs. So the geology professor told these young people and said, Wait a minute, whoa, you know, I mean, that may be may make some sense, but it's actually dated science. Because now we understand, you know, the formation, the geological formations having
more to do with tech plates. And so really, the mountains being pegs, it just, it seems like your book is archaic and outdated. The science in your book is wrong. Now imagine what that means to those young people come to me and say like, well, now what is what do we do? Right? I mean, this guy has a PhD in geology, you know, he's got it from Harvard, and all this. And so it comes down to methodology, right? We do not. And this is why it's very dangerous to say that, that the Quran is scientific miracles. Because what we're, again, the hidden assumption, or the assumption we're making is that science doesn't change. And you can come to absolute conclusions within science. That
is very flawed. And so yeah, yeah. So So basically, a scientist will arrive at a particular understanding of what the mountain does, and how it stabilizes, or so on and so forth, and how it forms the geology and helps to support that geology. And then later on, they then may change their position, because somebody else observes another group of scientists observed something else, and said, No, we're reverting back to our previous understanding of the Lord's understanding, or a new understanding, right? And the thing is, anyone that is a practitioner of science, even on a practical level, like you as doctors, right, and doctors understand this, like, immediately,
because, you know, they're, they're, they're bombarded by new research every day, right? A particular medicine it has, you know, it's gone through some trials, they've done some tests, and, you know, it's effective in XYZ group. And then, you know, sometime comes along, they do other trials, and all of a sudden, well, this drug is, you know, it has these particular limitations, we didn't know about it. And so now we're discovering something new. So practitioners of science, and this is something you'll notice.
They're very careful when they use terms like scientific fact. Right? In fact, you'll find it's very rare. They say, this is a this is, this is a scientific fact, what they'll say is that this is what we know, this is what our current knowledge points towards, or this is what the research shows. And so based on our studies, these are the conclusions we can reach. They're very careful in how they phrase those things. Because they understand science is a mutable endeavor. And that's what makes science beautiful, at its core anyways, that it's something we are constantly and you're discovering more and more about the natural world. So constantly in a learning environment that linear in the
nature, absolutely. The world around you. Yep. And of course, they haven't gone even a tiny percentage of the oceans, let alone save the universe. So they can't make absolute statements about it. What I'd like to say though, is okay, so what about the obvious signs that are written about the mountains, the oceans, about the, about the bees, about the planets, about the Earth, about the moon, so on and so for all of these signs that we see in the Quran, and there are hundreds and probably probably getting to 1000s, but we haven't found them for you. Okay. Now, how does? I mean, and this is a question for Jim shade, as well as sorry, I don't want to totally go to America for
all the answers. I know we're doing that constantly as British. But you know, how can we use those signs in
Are dalawa discussions?
That to me is really the way forward, go go.
Okay, right.
Let me write to answer that question. Let me go back a very, very little bit. Just to go back over the phrase that the Quran is not a book of science, but it's a book of science. Now, what do I know a lot of people say this, but I feel that a lot of people, especially people who aspire to become to add, don't understand what this actually means. So when we say the Quran is not a book of science, the Quran is what the Quran is Allah subhanaw taala speech to mankind is all US monitors. As one very famous, they put Allah's love letter to mankind, to be placing simply inviting us to know Allah subhanaw taala, to worship Him, and to know things around us. And Allah subhanaw taala never talks
about scientific things like oh, you will discover that water is made out of hydrogen and oxygen and this that near that I just wanted to just make statements like this, he doesn't he doesn't give you recipes for scientific calculations and things like that. So it's not a book of science, in that respect. It's a book of science will always want to talks about the nature of reality. And when those things are being mentioned, it's been mentioned, in many polls, majority of the cases with respect to the magnificence of Allah subhanaw taala. But those statements conformed. So our position is those statements conform to what reality is, even though in some cases, they may contradict what
was perceived to be the reality at the time. So but the problem is, and I know I'm speaking very abstract, I'm going to make this a concrete example shortly. The problem is when we take those statements, and we form one perspective of oh, this is what it means. And then we try to apply that onto a scientific discovery. And then when one thing or the other shifts, then we have a problem, because we anchored it to something that I shouldn't have been anchored to. Now, the way that we should, the way that I prefer to do this, to answer to your question specifically,
is, and this is this has worked for me on a couple of occasions, I actually asked people, you know, if, if, imagine that you were authoring the Quran, you were speaking to mankind, and you wanted to emphasize that you were going to resurrect people exactly as they were right down to the last detail. Right? You're gonna, and you're talking to people, you know, from 14 Centuries ago, but you also want this to be relevant for every person, every nation every generation, since How would you? How would you make that statement? What kind of a statement would you come up with? And I've had various responses to this, you know, people saying, Oh, well, you know, I'll say we'll resurrect you
right down to every hair on your head and this that neither. But there's problems with those statements in that? Well, Mike is I'm going bald, that the amount of hair that you have changes the amount of cells that you have changes, the amount of a lot of different things change all the time, only one person actually has ever given me the correct answer, which is to say, your fingerprints have gotten me into it. Now. We can still hear us. I can hear
you.
We can hear you.
You're transmitting as well. Well, let me let me get used to some stuff anyway.
So only one person has actually ever given me the correct statement, which is to say that, well actually, the best thing would be to reference the fingertips to reference your fingerprints, because your fingerprints uniquely identify you. And they don't change. And lo and behold, you just show them the opening of sort of Okayama which were Allah smart Allah mentioned, that will resurrect them right down to the very fingertips now, for a person 14 centuries ago in the middle of the, you know, the Arab nation, you know, that would make sense to them that okay, right, almost one of those talking about, okay, right down to the fingertips that the smallest thing that they would consider,
oh, we're losing everybody.
Whereas in our day and age now we recognize through the scientific process, that fingertips are unique to everyone. So we can appreciate this in a lot more detail. The problem is when people now start to say, Oh, well, that's a scientifically accurate statement. And this, I mean, we've already established this, but what you should do is recognize the statement for what it is Allah subhanaw taala is talking about your resurrection, you know, right down to the last detail and be focused on that, that look, your life has a purpose here and your life will come to an intimate with your resurrection efforts. Don't focus on well, should it have been the fingertips or shouldn't have been
here on the head or should have been this now? Because you're completely missing the point. And I think that's what a lot of dogs get stuck in that you completely missed the point of what's being said, and then you judge the Quran and based on an idea that was constructed solely in your own mind, and then you tried to
Link it to something else. Whilst I think
Mike just said something to me, I'm still still here.
I think my understanding is that, yes, some of these things in the Quran is to make us think, to contemplate, to look at these things, do not take them take that as verbatim. But just get the mind, you know, the mind to start looking at these things in look and delve into it deeply. Yes, the fingerprints, one hasn't changed. But some of the other ones might like you said, they're here. And you're here because I've even got less here than you search words covered up, keep me warm. But other things because some say I use because talks about the lying sinful forelock, they say this is the part of the brain where
is that part of that is where those sort of thoughts come from or actions. So but to take those as verbatim, I think it's more to get the mind because I was created the mind, the human mind, so vast that it's so powerful that we can contemplate because look at how much man has
gone in its
development over the 1000s and 1000s and 1000s of years, and especially the last couple of 100 years how fonts develop. And I think it's all day, like you said, the crown is like Shrek five saying, the crown is static, it's there, it's 100%. And the other things are changing. So the what's in the crown is to, I think, to get us to look at those things, and then see how far it goes. But you know, when when something is the crime is zero, there's nothing like like said science is changing all the time. So the crime is not so we just have to look at those things in just, you know, research and study and then say, Look, this is so wonderful creation, Allah's creation, and then be thankful and
gratitude and show bow to His power and mercy and submit as Muslim. That's my understanding. Yeah, I mean, the power essentially there is that in the statements, they all conform to what is established reality? Yes, the statements were not made there for you to start investigating those things and check the accuracy. It's more of a case of particularly for our time, if you want to go into the scientific miracles, what you can say is that look, any of the statements that the Quran makes about reality that we have confirmed, they all match whereas you would not expect those particular statements to have been made 14 centuries ago because they simply didn't have the knowledge. Can I
just read it one story, very famous incident of where actually science did change awareness did affect the Muslims on the Quran.
So everyone, obviously, we all know Professor Albert Einstein,
there is a very famous story about what he considers to be the greatest blunder of his life. Now, the Quran mentions that the universe is expanding the popular, you know, almost what I was talking about, you know, we created the heavens of the earth, and we continue to, to expand the vastness. Again, you can infer that to say, Well, okay, yeah, the university suspended and you could be forgiven for inferring that. But again, Allah's model is not making this as a scientific statement. But still, we'll take it as that for the moment. The popular thinking at the time, in the 1900s, was that the universe was static. And this was so such a strong idea that when Albert Einstein came up
with his theory of general relativity, which deals with gravity, and mass, and all these other kinds of things, he accidentally discovered that the universe was expanding, because if you consider everything that has mass, and it has gravity, everything should be
attracting each other together, right. But the fact that the universe hasn't imploded means that either gravity is not there, but it is definitely we know that from other experimentation, or the things are moving away as to counteract the force of gravity, which must mean there for expansion of the universe. So we accidentally discovered this. But because that, and I'm paraphrasing the story here, there's a lot more nuance to it. But essentially, because that also contradicted the normal idea. He came up with this thing called the cosmological constant, which tweaked his formula slightly so that the, the balance of the universe was on a knife edge where gravity did exist, but
everything was positions just so that they wouldn't attract each other, nor were they moving away. So everything was just like, you know, can you imagine when you stacked everything really exactly right. And it's just balanced? Exactly. That's what this did. And it wasn't until about 15 or so years later, when Professor Edwin Hubble famous for the Hubble telescope, discovered through observation, a phenomenon known as the redshift, which is when the light from distant galaxies tends towards red because it's been stretched, and basically proved and determined through observation that the universe must be expanding. That's the only possible explanation for this. At that point.
Then did Einstein realize his mistake that he had actually discovered this 15 or so years prior, but because of this consensus within the scientific community?
That was so strong at the university setting, it just basically got covered up. And at the time before this happened, you know, the scientists were pointing at the muscles Oh, your Quran says the universe is expanding, but it's static this that near the blob, we've got equations proving it. And lo and behold through observation now, because we can see the redshift, and you can't give any other explanation for that, lo and behold, the scientists had to completely reverse their position to say, Well, yeah, the universe is not only expanding, but even more recently, that the rate of expansion is even increasing. And look, the point being that we as was when I say that, Oh, look, it's a
scientific miracle. You were saying that? Well, unless one of them has mentioned in terms of that the heavens of the earth have been created, and they are being expended. It conforms to reality that's been established, but don't take those statements and, and start looking for science to support those statements. Because you're going backwards about it. That's, that's not why I lost my thought I was talking about those things. I think we've lost everyone here was it was a bad thing. Yes.
I need to retire from this thing.
So yeah, like, handle this, this sort of thing is like, it's very good subject. And I think we need to bring this out, because even eyes sort of start to sort of think, yeah, you sort of see all these things coming out all these other people that use was talking about earlier, making it the sort of things that miracles, Koran and you know, you sort of get
caught up in all of it.
And then to look at it because like the one night I sort of, had a little bit of trying to understand is like whether they'd sit the two C's meet, but they don't mix?
Because it seems that yes, in certain areas, but they I don't think they continue totally unmixed forever. Yeah, it seems. So I think it's the concepts to sort of think we'll look at this, this because the talking about one is I think saltwater and freshwater, there's like different weights and things like that, or different sort of composition. So that sort of they tend to stay a little bit part of that, and that sort of thing. So I think the it's like I said before, it's like to get us to contemplate and research and just look at the magnificence of the Creator having how he does things. I think so can I just respond to this comment here that the issue is how each person takes
to science prove the Quran Right? Or does the Quran put the science right? I think anyone who's comparing the two you're comparing apples and oranges. And that's fundamentally it the Quran is not like, we keep saying, it's not a book of science, the Quran makes statements that conform to establish reality. And if there is a statement that contradicts what apparently science is saying today, then as Muslims our certainty and our trust is placed within the Quran, because of you know, the authorship sorry. You said we can't hear anything you say, Yeah, because the Quran is from Allah, where everything else is from human beings, which is created by Allah. If I got time, can I
just also give you an example of a limitation of science? Right? So here's, here's a limitation that I tend to use it when I'm doing training and stuff. So here's the limitation of science guys, I want you to listen. And ladies, because I'm saying guys as mankind, generally.
Right? Can you prove scientifically, that your great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather was not a virgin.
Right. And I would put it to you that it is impossible to prove that now we know that he must have existed. And he must have obviously had a relationship because obviously, we are the result of that progeny. Because if there was no relationship there, especially at that time, you would never have a child and therefore you would never be part of our lineage in the first place. But that's magick. That's literally logic, which is a separate branch of epistemology, we're talking about purely scientifically, which is to experiment with the natural world. So you would have to basically dig up the remains of this individual, if you can find one, because bear in mind, at that level, you've got
about 1024 potential grandfather's, so you have to find one of these 1024 graves, dig them up and see if there is anything there. And then what are you going to do try and compare DNA? Okay, fine. Even if you managed to extract some DNA there, that's only so that's really from the male lineage as well. Don't forget you have the female lineage. So this person is only one of 2000 contributors to your DNA, which is such a ridiculously small sample set of your DNA that's, you know, below the margin of error. So you can't use DNA to prove it. You can't see any remains in this if the skeleton still remains. You can't see any remains on this skeleton to see did they actually managed to father
a child? Because there's no there's okay, you can probably tell whether they hit the age of puberty, but you have no way to
to know, whether they actually, you know,
you know, when any emissions managed to actually reach an egg and have the egg reach maturity showed sorry, the question should have actually been fathered a child. Well.
But do you see the problem here? You've got the scientific limitations here. Because when you're looking at the natural world, even this smallest
me, yes, we can handle that you're backing backing, you can't do that, from purely a naturalistic perspective, you have to rely upon logic to fill in the gaps. And that's,
that's where a lot of people fall down is when they just rely on science on its own. And they forget the other aspects of epistemology, you can't come to truth, just from just that one. One perspective.
Thank you. I've had my monologue I've I've had
my Oh, it's gone.
The Grim Lindsey here, I think we're going to find another virus, another virus to tackle with.
The other guys give it up.
It's mainly you because it's a little bit out of my depth.
So how much time do we have? So Oh, okay. So let me we're kind of coming up to nine o'clock this time, as well. Anyway, let me just very, very quickly talk about the topic of evolution, right, because I think evolution really sums up this topic very, very nicely. So evolution is the whole big thing. Now, it's the whole thing that everybody is jumping on the bandwagon off. Now, I want you guys to listen to me very, very carefully. And not to cut me off in terms of interpret what I say before I finished, I believe in evolution. And I accept the scientific x. These are two separate statements. Number one, I believe in evolution. Number two, I accept the scientific explanation of
evolution as scientifically valid, okay, as a Muslim, and this, this doesn't contradict my faith at all. But let me explain what things mean. Number one, I believe in evolution. So we have to understand the semantics. Now, what exactly is evolution, evolution is just basically, progressive change. That's it, I believe, in progressive change of everything you can have, you know, software evolves, you know, your hardware, your phones evolve, you know, research evolves, people can make changes. And here's the biggest proof that you can see, even just between the two of us, there is a clear biological difference between us, we are all from from an Islamic perspective, we are all the
children of Adam and Eve, yet, you have a look at the people of the world. And we are pretty much every single color, you know, all the way from the whitest of white to the blackest of black, and every single shade in between shape, size, shape, size, hair color, and things of that variation comes from somewhere. Okay, so believing that we as human beings have changed, and can change and have this have this methodology. That nothing in that contradicts my belief. In fact, actually, that offends my belief, because the last month I mentioned that, you know, we've created you with different tribes that you can get to know one another. Okay? So there's nothing wrong with that the
problem comes down to if someone takes my seat and say, I believe in evolution, to infer that I'm saying that I believe in the scientific method of evolution known as Darwinism, which is a completely different thing, where that calls for life to be spontaneously created just because of certain chemicals mix, that I don't believe it that I don't believe in, but that the idea of progressive change, that's fine. Now to come to the second point that I accept the scientific
explanation of evolution to be scientifically valid. This is because again, science is confined itself only to a naturalistic explanation. And they've kind of painted themselves into a corner here where we know from scientific experimentation, experimentation that by an biology and things like that the organisms evolve, let's just put it for one to another phrase micro evolution right. When you rewind the clock back then there is a question that comes into play as to what where did the first cell come from and this is one that scientists can't answer. But the methodology of science which requires a natural explanation forces them to come up with some kind of a natural explanation
which is just to say well okay, there was no organic method it somehow it must have just mixed together and became become okay obviously, as Muslims will say that no, this was the power of Allah smart Allah breathing life into creating this in one go, but of course, that's outside the boundaries of science within science, the only thing you can come up with is a natural explanation. So which is why I accept and it this way, I said it very carefully, that the scientific explanation of evolution I accept that as scientifically valid because if you confine yourself to these rules, that is the only conclusion
then you can come up with the problem is not that they came up with the wrong conclusion within the rules. The problem is that these rules prohibit the science, the rules in the methodology of science prohibit, from you from being able to look at anything outside of the naturalistic world. And it presumes a position of atheism to begin with. So only when we actually understand what is being talked about what is being discussed, and where we can draw our where we can accept certain things and where we can draw our differences, only then can we really have progressive discussions with people who,
who, you know, adopt these ideas. So for example, if so, if some, you know, when I'm talking to, for example, an atheist who believes in evolution, and in his head, he's seen micro evolution, again, we use them back to that term where biology has progressive changes this idea that, if I just said to him, Well, I don't believe in evolution, full stop, he's going to look at me like, I'm nuts, because there's things that can be observed. But if I just say, look, I accept all of that, but I do not accept that looks on life spontaneously created itself no, you know, did certain species, you know, branch off and become other things?
We can have a discussion there, because science only speculates about those things, because it's forced to there is no specific scientific evidence that actually says that this is exactly what happened. And even the thing that they speculate to happen that all of these chemicals came together just magically made the the magical set of proteins required for life, they still can't produce that they, you know, through, and believe me, they've tried, they still can't replicate that. So the very origins of life in whatever they've speculate, it speculation, they can't reproduce it.
And therein is the problem, the limitation with defeat, and again, with certain blocks that try to combat this issue of scientism, a lot of it comes down to semantics and actually understanding what the issue is, rather than relying on buzzwords and things like that. So, you know, we need to step up our game in terms of understanding what they're talking about. And also making it clear, let's not rely on these buzzwords and labels and things that we need to define very, very carefully. What exactly is it that we're talking about here? When we're talking about
just the sites in something, it's like some of the people's talk about like a tornado goes through a junkyard and all of a sudden, you're like a, ata, or is the latest jet comes out the other end, you know, from all the bits of junk got together and, and all of a sudden, jet engine comes out? plane comes out the other side? So you rationally thinking you can't hold? That doesn't happen? What Yeah, I mean, the atheists will believe that of the origin of the universe, because you know, there's this, you know, stupidly small, ridiculous odds of it coming together by chance, because the scientific methodology forces them to come to that, you know, to leave only that conclusion open.
Because because they got the blinkers because, well, because they're only looking at the natural effect. They can't consider the supernatural. They can't say, Okay, so here's the point. If you go to that junkyard, and you see that chip there, right, someone would say, Well, okay, that was a supernatural entity that obviously, you know, ordered, it created this that mirror, but from the scientific methodology alone, and it's the problem, when you put it in its own box, and you don't allow any of the things to, to permeate that box, you can only come up with a natural explanation, what's the only explanation alternative explanation you can come up with, but it must have just fell
together by itself. If nobody else did it, it must have just happened by itself. And that's their problem, that they put themselves in this box, and then they don't recognize that they've put themselves in this box. So one of the strengths that I actually promoted in doubt is to open their eyes to for them to recognize that they've put themselves in this box that doesn't adequately explain every aspect and facet of reality. And therein is the problem. Yeah.
I think
I'm glad I was very good explanation. And I think that we've sort of done our time and I think we've lost our crew.
I think it's probably time to,
I think finish off and thank everyone for coming along. Those of our guests who sort of were in and out and appreciate brother Jamshed for
putting a very good explanation as some of the people saying good explanation evolution that's it's the only way really can look at it.
So, I don't want to hear but if anyone so I've written a number of posts about this I'm not famous on Facebook or things like that because I hate the idea of just writing stuff for the sake of being popular. I prefer to let the work speak for itself. But I do have a Facebook page called Dawa with Jamshed so D aw H with JMJ Msh Edie, I have a number of old
posts on there that go into this and explain various different aspects of this stuff. So feel free to check any of that out or if you want to just drop me a message there. I'm happy to respond. But otherwise I will see you again in Sharla. Next time. Maybe we can continue this discussion shall definitely Yep, thank you very much for listening and we'll see you next time to the clock here. Psych