Dr. Malik gives a very good explanation of what many argue, there is no conflict between science and Revelation from Allah. One point I'd like to make is that the Islamic caliphate was dissolved with the assassination of Ali ibn Abi Talib in 661 A.D.
0:00 Intro 0:28 Dr.'s Background 2:22 What is Theology? 3:50 Science & Religion 6:34 What is Evolution? 15:22 Challenges in Evolution 21:04 Reconciling Islam & Evolution 25:44 Why is Evolution Controversial 30:54 Are humans different ? 33:06 What is New Atheism? 35:10 Can Darwinism Negate Design? 39:46 God's Existence 40:30 Conclusion
Sir, Genesis has come from Judaism/Old Testament which is believed in Judaism,Christianity, and Islam,and yet only Islam has issues with science. Is it because it is more dogmatic and absolute than the other two ?
If we believe that god can do anything, we can't believe anything, not even a single law. And we can't live either, because nothing we believe will be regularly predicted.
24:54 Do these human-like entities that humans could have bred with in the past also belong to Bani Adam or not? Coz I cant think of a human breeding with non-humans be it in the past.
There Y chromosome never severe just homo sapein if homo sapein man marrried with Neanderthal man they gave bbaby if Neanderthals man marry with homosapein women it’s not serve they was just 100 thousand people
@@karimb972 dinsovine human and Neanderthals human was pre Adam of humans we bani Adam Adam mingel with them bani Adam man married with Neanderthals women and dinsovine women if Neanderthals man married with bani Adam women there pregnancy never services just Adam linge if Neanderthals man married with bani Adam women if they linge servve so there will never b bani Adam linge hope so you clear just bani Adam married other hominids preaadamic
I like to think of it as diffrent ethnicies you have people in africa with elongated skull eskimos with diffrent shape of eyes pygmy people height all of this
Salam brother , please make a video about Dr Kashif Khan. He claiming new version of Quran transfer which he invalid Salah, Hajj, fasting and zakat. His followers are all academics. Please 🙏
This erroneous and ad hoc approach is known as the Quranist approach Its been debunked my many scholars Go to the thought adventure podcast and look 2 videos titled- Quranists
Quote from Dr. Malik during interview. "" This is something I say quite openly.If people want to refute evolution. Do it. You will get a Nobel Prize if you do it."". My advice to Muhammad Ali at Muslim lantern is to present his findings to scientists and collect his Nobel Prize.
@@charlievaughan1308 if you're believing in something only becuase "NoBeL pRiZe", then you're just a blind follower. You know Obama got a Nobel Prize too! Watch the video with an open mind and you'll find for yourself, it's all based on assumptions and speculations.
@@charlievaughan1308😂😂 i love muslim lantern but his understanding of subjects outside of Islam, although more knowledgeable than laymen, are laughable to the experts of those fields. Any expert of evolution would unfortunately destroy his arguments, which is to be expected from someone who is not an evolutionary biologist.
@@nob8503 Thank you for your reply. One thing I notice about Muslim apologists is that Muslims who are devout practising Muslims and who are ph.d scientists in their fields completly disagree with The Muslim lantern on biological evolution. I can name 3 University ph.d Professors of biology in various universities who are devout Muslims to support my views. One of them, Professor Fatima Jackson was awarded. The Charles R. Darwin lifetime achievement award in 2020 by athe American Anthropological Association. She is a devout Muslim. The other 2 are Professor Rana Dijani and Professor Ehad Abouf. Professor Dijani has lectured at Cambridge University U.K. Professor Ebouf is Professir of biology McGill University Canada. His research has been published in " Science"" magazine.if you want to know their actual quotes I can supply them. As for myself, I'm agnostic as far as religion is concerned. However, I wish you well on your spiritual journey.
That's how hypocrates cherry pick or choose a way around science to stick to their scriptural bullshit. When they can't, they play "Allahu Alam" card 😂
Not all facts are based on empirical validated data. Some are established through philosophy i.e. reason and logic. God is it only the best explanation for existence: it's the only explanation for existence. God cannot be proven empirically because he transcends matter. He is the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. The idea that you can measure God is nonsensical because the minute you measure him you limit him and deny him. Whatever you can measure is not God because He, by definition, has no limits.
@@karimb972 i believe in a blue elephant that cannot be proven to exist, because it is outside matter and energy it is outside space and time also, it is the creator of the universe, it was begotten from the stomach of a big spider that builds a web the size of the universe, this web has no limits, this is a philosophical fact that cannot be denied because it is not empirical
The Existence of God is not an assumption nor an hypothesis. Its a self-evident truth On the contrary this regurgitated claim “The existence of God is not a fact is an assumption” is actually the assumption thats been debunked again and again. The concept the basic idea of God is cross cultural(universal), intuitive, untaught and natural. These features indicate its a (properly) basic belief which implies its the default position of mankind. In this light, the right question to ask is not: Does God exist? The right question should be: Why do you reject God's existence? This way you will have turned the tables and rightly so; atheism is unnatural. The onus of proof is on someone who challenges a self-evident truth. (Do some reading in these topics for further clarity) When someone claims that the past is an illusion or that other people do not have minds, he or she would have to shoulder the burden of proof. Atheists are no different. They have to justify their rejection of a cause or creator for the universe.
Some atheists and sceptics object by saying : 'What about the great pumpkin, or the spaghetti monster?' Or ‘the great blue elephant?’ They highlight that if God is a self-evident truth, if God is axiomatic, then why can't the spaghetti monster, or the great pumpkin be self-evident truths as well? There are many ways of dealing with this false contention: 1. A Cross Cultural Belief The 'spaghetti monster' or 'the flying teapot' are not natural tendencies. There is not a broad natural tendency to believe in a 'spaghetti monster' or 'Thor'. These are not natural tendencies, they are culturally bound. For example, if I believe in a spaghetti monster, I would have to have been brought up in a culture in which you are taught about spaghetti and monsters. However, the idea of God, the basic underlying idea of a creator, of a supernatural cause for the universe, is cross-cultural. It is not contingent on culture but transcends it, just like the belief in causality and the existence of other minds. 2. An Innate Belief Properly basic beliefs, axiomatic beliefs, and self-evident truths, do not require information transfer. For me to understand what a spaghetti monster is, I require information to be transferred to me. For example, I require knowledge of western cuisine and Italian culture. But when it comes to the idea of God's existence as the creator of the universe, you do not require any information transfer, whether from culture, or education. This is why sociologists and anthropologists argue that even if atheist children were stranded on a desert island, they would come to believe that something created the desert island. 3. A Foundational Belief The third point is that basic and axiomatic beliefs are foundational: they provide a basis for a coherent world view. They answer questions and facilitate knowledge. For example, God's existence, explains conscious emergence, the fact that we have consciousness within a material world. It answers the questions for which we have no answer for example the reliability of our reasoning, consciousness, language acquisition, applicability of mathematics, order, objectivity morality, beauty and contingency God's existence provides a foundation for a coherent world view, facilitates knowledge and answers key fundamental questions. A belief in the spaghetti monster or the belief in ‘THE GREAT BLUE ELEPHANT’, only provides the foundation for a few laughs.
@@incisivethoughts4416 i) the philosophical problem of god’s existence has been debated for centuries, and no conclusion has been reached, it has NOT been settled ii) even though truth cannot be decided by a majority vote, something to think about is that 70 percent of philosophers are atheists iii) one of the reasons for that number is that there is NOT an irrefutable evidence for god’s existence, and as you may know science and philosophy look for evidence, a condition that is not very important in politics and/or religion iv) if you want to find self evident truths you need to look for them in the laws of logic or in the axioms of geometry, the last place where you can find them is in politics and, of course, religion v) intuition is not a very reliable source of knowledge, it is often wrong, not long ago 99.9 percent of people believed the earth was flat vi) atheists do not reject the idea that the universe probably has a physical cause, what sceptics like me reject is the assumption that the only possible explanation for the origin of the universe is god (or gods)
0:00 Intro 0:28 Dr.'s Background 2:22 What is Theology? 3:50 Science & Religion 6:34 What is Evolution? 15:22 Challenges in Evolution 21:04 Reconciling Islam & Evolution 25:44 Why is Evolution Controversial 30:54 Are We Honoured? 33:06 What is New Atheism? 35:10 Can Darwinism Negate Design? 39:46 God's Existence 40:30 Conclusion
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | นางเอกหมอลำเงินล้าน "อุ๋งอิ๋ง เพชรบ้านแพง" & ไฮโซสาวสุดฮอต "ลิลลี่ เหงียน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jPxQS_EgrJ4/mqdefault.jpg)
Awesome talk!
May you please share this video conversation from your community tab ? , it would be very beneficial, in Sha Allah,
Jazaak Allahu khairan
Lol..... Yip, he's getting good, fluent and confident at explaining it.....
Alhamdulilah
No matter how many times I see it, It inspires me more and more👏🏻👏🏻
Impeccable Quality
Brilliantly explained
Ma Sha Allah , jazaak Allahu khairan 👍👍👍
Keep up the good work! 🙌🏻
Science and technology related to Quran and Islam
Allahumma Barik!
Masha allah ❤❤.
Mashallah😍
Wa alaikum assalam wa rahmatouLLAHI wa barakatouHOU
Buahahahahaahhaahhahahaa
W channel
Insightful 🥰
🙌🏻❤️
MashaAllah..brilliant talk..
Love your work my brother. Could not get my head around random in relation to Allah. He being the all knowing the all wise
💯👍🏻
Dr. Malik gives a very good explanation of what many argue, there is no conflict between science and Revelation from Allah. One point I'd like to make is that the Islamic caliphate was dissolved with the assassination of Ali ibn Abi Talib in 661 A.D.
science disagree with quran so..
0:00 Intro
0:28 Dr.'s Background
2:22 What is Theology?
3:50 Science & Religion
6:34 What is Evolution?
15:22 Challenges in Evolution
21:04 Reconciling Islam & Evolution
25:44 Why is Evolution Controversial
30:54 Are humans different ?
33:06 What is New Atheism?
35:10 Can Darwinism Negate Design?
39:46 God's Existence
40:30 Conclusion
Sir, Genesis has come from Judaism/Old Testament which is believed in Judaism,Christianity, and Islam,and yet only Islam has issues with science. Is it because it is more dogmatic and absolute than the other two ?
If we believe that god can do anything, we can't believe anything, not even a single law. And we can't live either, because nothing we believe will be regularly predicted.
👍🏽🙌🏽🫶🏽🤝🏽👏🏽
Science
24:54 Do these human-like entities that humans could have bred with in the past also belong to Bani Adam or not? Coz I cant think of a human breeding with non-humans be it in the past.
There Y chromosome never severe just homo sapein if homo sapein man marrried with Neanderthal man they gave bbaby if Neanderthals man marry with homosapein women it’s not serve they was just 100 thousand people
@@MamaMama-sv3bplease rewrite this with clear English
@@karimb972 dinsovine human and Neanderthals human was pre Adam of humans we bani Adam Adam mingel with them bani Adam man married with Neanderthals women and dinsovine women if Neanderthals man married with bani Adam women there pregnancy never services just Adam linge if Neanderthals man married with bani Adam women if they linge servve so there will never b bani Adam linge hope so you clear just bani Adam married other hominids preaadamic
There were preadmic people they mingel with bani Adam
I like to think of it as diffrent ethnicies you have people in africa with elongated skull eskimos with diffrent shape of eyes pygmy people height all of this
Salam brother , please make a video about Dr Kashif Khan. He claiming new version of Quran transfer which he invalid Salah, Hajj, fasting and zakat. His followers are all academics. Please 🙏
This erroneous and ad hoc approach is known as the Quranist approach
Its been debunked my many scholars
Go to the thought adventure podcast and look 2 videos titled- Quranists
Muhammad Ali at "The Muslim Lantern", has a great video debunking the bullsh*t of evolution.
Quote from Dr. Malik during interview.
"" This is something I say quite openly.If people want to refute evolution. Do it. You will get a Nobel Prize if you do it."".
My advice to Muhammad Ali at Muslim lantern is to present his findings to scientists and collect his Nobel Prize.
@@charlievaughan1308 if you're believing in something only becuase "NoBeL pRiZe", then you're just a blind follower. You know Obama got a Nobel Prize too!
Watch the video with an open mind and you'll find for yourself, it's all based on assumptions and speculations.
@@charlievaughan1308😂😂 i love muslim lantern but his understanding of subjects outside of Islam, although more knowledgeable than laymen, are laughable to the experts of those fields. Any expert of evolution would unfortunately destroy his arguments, which is to be expected from someone who is not an evolutionary biologist.
@@nob8503 Thank you for your reply.
One thing I notice about Muslim apologists is that Muslims who are devout practising Muslims and who are ph.d scientists in their fields completly disagree with The Muslim lantern on biological evolution. I can name 3
University ph.d Professors of biology in various universities who are devout Muslims to support my views. One of them, Professor Fatima Jackson was awarded. The Charles R. Darwin lifetime achievement award in 2020 by athe American Anthropological Association.
She is a devout Muslim.
The other 2 are Professor Rana Dijani and Professor Ehad Abouf.
Professor Dijani has lectured at Cambridge University U.K.
Professor Ebouf is Professir of biology
McGill University Canada. His research has been published in " Science"" magazine.if you want to know their actual quotes I can supply them.
As for myself, I'm agnostic as far as religion is concerned. However, I wish you well on your spiritual journey.
That's how hypocrates cherry pick or choose a way around science to stick to their scriptural bullshit. When they can't, they play "Allahu Alam" card 😂
🗿⚰️🔪
the existence of god is NOT a fact is an assumption, if you are a scientist you must treat god’s existence as hypothesis
Not all facts are based on empirical validated data. Some are established through philosophy i.e. reason and logic. God is it only the best explanation for existence: it's the only explanation for existence. God cannot be proven empirically because he transcends matter. He is the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. The idea that you can measure God is nonsensical because the minute you measure him you limit him and deny him. Whatever you can measure is not God because He, by definition, has no limits.
@@karimb972 i believe in a blue elephant that cannot be proven to exist, because it is outside matter and energy it is outside space and time also, it is the creator of the universe, it was begotten from the stomach of a big spider that builds a web the size of the universe, this web has no limits, this is a philosophical fact that cannot be denied because it is not empirical
The Existence of God is not an assumption nor an hypothesis.
Its a self-evident truth
On the contrary this regurgitated claim “The existence of God is not a fact is an assumption” is actually the assumption thats been debunked again and again.
The concept the basic idea of God is cross cultural(universal), intuitive, untaught and natural. These features indicate its a (properly) basic belief which implies its the default position of mankind.
In this light, the right question to ask is not: Does God exist? The right question should be: Why do you reject God's existence?
This way you will have turned the tables and rightly so; atheism is unnatural. The onus of proof is on someone who challenges a self-evident truth. (Do some reading in these topics for further clarity)
When someone claims that the past is an illusion or that other people do not have minds, he or she would have to shoulder the burden of proof. Atheists are no different. They have to justify their rejection of a cause or creator for the universe.
Some atheists and sceptics object by saying : 'What about the great pumpkin, or the spaghetti monster?' Or ‘the great blue elephant?’
They highlight that if God is a self-evident truth, if God is axiomatic, then why can't the spaghetti monster, or the great pumpkin be self-evident truths as well?
There are many ways of dealing with this false contention:
1. A Cross Cultural Belief
The 'spaghetti monster' or 'the flying teapot' are not natural tendencies. There is not a broad natural tendency to believe in a 'spaghetti monster' or 'Thor'. These are not natural tendencies, they are culturally bound. For example, if I believe in a spaghetti monster, I would have to have been brought up in a culture in which you are taught about spaghetti and monsters. However, the idea of God, the basic underlying idea of a creator, of a supernatural cause for the universe, is cross-cultural. It is not contingent on culture but transcends it, just like the belief in causality and the existence of other minds.
2. An Innate Belief
Properly basic beliefs, axiomatic beliefs, and self-evident truths, do not require information transfer.
For me to understand what a spaghetti monster is, I require information to be transferred to me. For example, I require knowledge of western cuisine and Italian culture. But when it comes to the idea of God's existence as the creator of the universe, you do not require any information transfer, whether from culture, or education. This is why sociologists and anthropologists argue that even if atheist children were stranded on a desert island, they would come to believe that something created the desert island.
3. A Foundational Belief
The third point is that basic and axiomatic beliefs are foundational: they provide a basis for a coherent world view. They answer questions and facilitate knowledge.
For example, God's existence, explains conscious emergence, the fact that we have consciousness within a material world. It answers the questions for which we have no answer for example the reliability of our reasoning, consciousness, language acquisition, applicability of mathematics, order, objectivity morality, beauty and contingency
God's existence provides a foundation for a coherent world view, facilitates knowledge and answers key fundamental questions. A belief in the spaghetti monster or the belief in ‘THE GREAT BLUE ELEPHANT’, only provides the foundation for a few laughs.
@@incisivethoughts4416 i) the philosophical problem of god’s existence has been debated for centuries, and no conclusion has been reached, it has NOT been settled
ii) even though truth cannot be decided by a majority vote, something to think about is that 70 percent of philosophers are atheists
iii) one of the reasons for that number is that there is NOT an irrefutable evidence for god’s existence, and as you may know science and philosophy look for evidence, a condition that is not very important in politics and/or religion
iv) if you want to find self evident truths you need to look for them in the laws of logic or in the axioms of geometry, the last place where you can find them is in politics and, of course, religion
v) intuition is not a very reliable source of knowledge, it is often wrong, not long ago 99.9 percent of people believed the earth was flat
vi) atheists do not reject the idea that the universe probably has a physical cause, what sceptics like me reject is the assumption that the only possible explanation for the origin of the universe is god (or gods)
Atheism is another wind 😂 aka a fart
call it what you want: atheism is the only honest stance.
Random Is surely only relevant to the human condition. Being prisoners of time and space
Simple as that!
0:00 Intro
0:28 Dr.'s Background
2:22 What is Theology?
3:50 Science & Religion
6:34 What is Evolution?
15:22 Challenges in Evolution
21:04 Reconciling Islam & Evolution
25:44 Why is Evolution Controversial
30:54 Are We Honoured?
33:06 What is New Atheism?
35:10 Can Darwinism Negate Design?
39:46 God's Existence
40:30 Conclusion
This is Really helpful ❤❤❤