So wait! Similiarities between the species means Darwinism is true?

[Scimitar]

Assalaamu Alaikum dear brothers and sisters in Islam & humanity!

Our dear brother Subboor Ahmad, explains in this short video how similarities between the species does not mean Darwinism is true.



If you like this video, please hit the like button and subscribe to Dawah Digital,

Jazakum Allahu Khair

[Muhaba]

Are there similarities between inanimate things, like planets? Does that mean they evolved from each other?

[ahmed.younes]

Why do you use such a title which causes doubts to enter into peoples hearts? May Allah guide you.

[keiv]

Our dear brother Subboor Ahmad, explains in this short video how similarities between the species does not mean Darwinism is true.

Why do you use such a title which causes doubts to enter into peoples hearts? May Allah guide you.

The opening statement in the OP was pretty self explanitory. If the title causes the slightest doubt in your faith in Islam, then you iman is clearly weak. If there are people doubting their faith over this, it should be the darwinists, not Muslims.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[ahmed.younes]

The opening statement in the OP was pretty self explanitory. If the title causes the slightest doubt in your faith in Islam, then you iman is clearly weak. If there are people doubting their faith over this, it should be the darwinists, not Muslims.

Barakalufeek this goes to show your ignorance, and your carelessness regarding the religion of Allah. You're right, I might have weak faith, but matter of fact is that there are many people on this forum with weak faith, so are we going to drive them away by imposing modern philosophical ideologies, or are we going to give them a safe haven, where they can come here and ask questions to inquire about their newly found faith? We are living at time of large fitna, where it is difficult to maintain a high level of iman, and muslims are at a time of crisis. So you saying that I having weak faith like it is a new phenomenon, is you being delusional. So fear Allah and don't speak without knowledge. Barakalahufeek.

[keiv]

Barakalufeek this goes to show your ignorance, and your carelessness regarding the religion of Allah. You're right, I might have weak faith, but matter of fact is that there are many people on this forum with weak faith, so are we going to drive them away by imposing modern philosophical ideologies, or are we going to give them a safe haven, where they can come here and ask questions to inquire about their newly found faith? We are living at time of large fitna, where it is difficult to maintain a high level of iman, and muslims are at a time of crisis. So you saying that I having weak faith like it is a new phenomenon, is you being delusional. So fear Allah and don't speak without knowledge. Barakalahufeek.

How on Earth would this thread cause a Muslim to doubt their faith? Did you watch the video? Do you understand what the thread is about?? Delusional? Careless? Speaking without knowledge? Anything else you want to add? Here's my word of the day, irony



I'll requote the opening sentence in the OP again in case you missed it the second time, bold words included free of charge.

Our dear brother Subboor Ahmad, explains in this short video how similarities between the species does not mean Darwinism is true.

[Zzz_]

Why do you use such a title which causes doubts to enter into peoples hearts? May Allah guide you.

It's called 'click bait' and it's a very cheap trick people you on YT being desperate and begging people to visit their video so they can make a few cents of it.

[Scimitar]

Our dear brother Subboor Ahmad himself gave me this title!

The title of this topic and the title of the video are like a question and answer.

I think that went over the heads of the complainers, and the fact that the video itself is not being discussed is reflecting a classical case of ignorance. Bruce Lee was right - focusing on the finger means you lose all the heavenly glory!

Now... does anyone actually have anything to say about the video itself?

[ahmed.younes]

May allah guide you. I am going to stop arguing, because both of you are ignorant of the reality of the matter...

• We are living at times where we are at the pinnacle of philosophy and doubtful matters like the world has never seen before. And Muslims are already as weak as they are, with all the war, and disunity amongst one another. So why are you even posting this video here, let alone giving it such a precarious title? Being asked questions which one does not know how to answer, can cause a doubt to enter the heart very easily. There are many more other important subjects that one should be focusing on; like Tawheed and the oneness of Allah swt. Even if one was to benefit from your doubt-insinuating video, the least you can do is change this title to something more assuring.

[Scimitar]

May allah guide you.

In one breath and then in the next, an ad hominem...

I am going to stop arguing, because both of you are ignorant of the reality of the matter...

Wow bro :D calling people ignorant when you don't understand nor are discussing the actual content of the video, is rich!!! Hypocrite much? Your argumentum ad ignorantium only exposes your own weaknesses!

However, I'll humour the rest of your brain fart!

We are living at times where we are at the pinnacle of philosophy and doubtful matters like the world has never seen before.

Rubbish. Study history to see how these very same arguments were regurgitated ad nauseam!

And Muslims are already as weak as they are, with all the war, and disunity amongst one another.

Now you're making emotional appeals... how weak minded are you, really?

So why are you even posting this video here, let alone giving it such a precarious title?

see my last post before this one ;) nothing precarious about it, as explained by myself and others!

Being asked questions which one does not know how to answer, can cause a doubt to enter the heart very easily.

Bingo! You have weak imaan, I knew it!!! Well, WATCH THE VIDEO THEN - and learn that Muslims have the intellectual know how to combat such doubtful narratives... you know what makes me laugh? How you called us ignorant when in fact it is you who is fearing that which he doesn't understand.

There are many more other important subjects that one should be focusing on; like Tawheed and the oneness of Allah swt.

This video releases in a few weeks - but just for you, here:

Even if one was to benefit from your doubt-insinuating video, the least you can do is change this title to something more assuring.

You really are a weak sauce! Man up!

[Ümit]

Our dear brother Subboor Ahmad himself gave me this title!

The title of this topic and the title of the video are like a question and answer.

I think that went over the heads of the complainers, and the fact that the video itself is not being discussed is reflecting a classical case of ignorance. Bruce Lee was right - focusing on the finger means you lose all the heavenly glory!

Now... does anyone actually have anything to say about the video itself?

anything about the video:
This guy is saying that evolution cannot be called a fact. it is a provability at most...but no one claims that. The ones that claim that evolution is a fact, do not understand how science works.
Einstein does not claim that his relativity theory is a fact...nor did Bohr about his Bohr model, or whatever. it is just an approximation of reality ans just offers a logical possible explanation. but despite of that, their theory and model are still highly usable. evolution theory is the same...it offers a possible logical explanation...nothing more...

[Scimitar]

anything about the video:
This guy is saying that evolution cannot be called a fact. it is a provability at most...but no one claims that. The ones that claim that evolution is a fact, do not understand how science works.
Einstein does not claim that his relativity theory is a fact...nor did Bohr about his Bohr model, or whatever. it is just an approximation of reality ans just offers a logical possible explanation. but despite of that, their theory and model are still highly usable. evolution theory is the same...it offers a possible logical explanation...nothing more...

precisely!!!

more of subboor's videos here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...suyjDBMZg5mcug

and here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRk...Gmz36qGgXnZHjQ

[Ümit]

precisely!!!

more of subboor's videos here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...suyjDBMZg5mcug

and here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRk...Gmz36qGgXnZHjQ

Yes, but that is exactly what I am saying in every post here about this subject.
I do support evolution. because every clue we find point towards that direction.
over a decade we might find different clues and conclude that evolution was just a silly idea...or, we might have even more clues which also confirm evolution.
we just do not know.

What I find strange in the video however, is that if someone is saying, "I assume there is a common ancestor" then this person should be left alone but if one says "no, it is a fact..." then that is a reason for discussion.

What I would say...it is the other way around. the person saying "evolution is a fact, common ancertory is true" should be left alone because he obviously did not understand how it works and you can not have a discussion on level with this person...in the same cagegory are people who are saying "evolution is not true, that totally goes against religion" neither havethese people understood what it is truely about in science, and that for a healthy religion, it is neccessary that science is in perfect harmony with religion.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you umie;

it is neccessary that science is in perfect harmony with religion.

Once all the species have been created by Allah, I think the theory of evolution is a good explanation as to how we all adapt to our ever changing surroundings. I do not believe that the ToE can be used to extrapolate back a few billion years to single cell life, and then show how we have evolved from this single cell life.

If science is at odds with religion, then I see this as a problem for science and not for religion.

In the spirit of trusting in our creator,

Eric

[Scimitar]

Yes, but that is exactly what I am saying in every post here about this subject.
I do support evolution. because every clue we find point towards that direction.
over a decade we might find different clues and conclude that evolution was just a silly idea...or, we might have even more clues which also confirm evolution.
we just do not know.

What I find strange in the video however, is that if someone is saying, "I assume there is a common ancestor" then this person should be left alone but if one says "no, it is a fact..." then that is a reason for discussion.

What I would say...it is the other way around. the person saying "evolution is a fact, common ancertory is true" should be left alone because he obviously did not understand how it works and you can not have a discussion on level with this person...in the same cagegory are people who are saying "evolution is not true, that totally goes against religion" neither havethese people understood what it is truely about in science, and that for a healthy religion, it is neccessary that science is in perfect harmony with religion.

Science is never in harmony with religion, these are very romantic meanderings you are wishfully entertaining. Scientists may promulgate theories which attempt to explain phenomena based on empirical methodology, but this has its limitations. And just because some theory appeals to you, doesn’t make it true. Take for example the theory of phlogiston. It seemed like a done deal. A factual theory. However that turned out to be false and instead the element which was eventually discovered became known as nitrogen and theory of phlogiston died and got buried.

Nitrogen, is a fact. Phlogiston was a theory. Evolution is still just a factual theory which is problematic and still being developed into various models, each contradicting the last - without ascertaining any truth!

there you go, breadcrumbs for the brain - or if you prefer, food for thought!

Peace!

[Ümit]

Science is never in harmony with religion, these are very romantic meanderings you are wishfully entertaining. Scientists may promulgate theories which attempt to explain phenomena based on empirical methodology, but this has its limitations.

Sorry Bushwack but you are disappointing me. clearly you have written this statement without giving it much thought.
when we speak about religion in general, you could almost be right. but we are speaking about Islam...the one true religion.

If you truely believe that:
Allah has created the universe, the stars and galaxies, the Earth and all living creatures, the laws of nature

and science is nothing more than a human tool to try to understand the world around us...then there is no other option than that science HAS TO BE in harmony with religion. there is no other way. Allah will not create the world in one way, but teach us something totally different. that makes no sense.

Islam is the absolute truth. no doubt about it. science is an approximation. there are multiple examples where science adopted a law and later on turned out to be wrong or inaccurate...this is normal...we learn and develop. this however does not say that science and religion are not in harmony with each other.

you are talking about theories. this is exactly what subboor is saying. He does not have any problem with the probability of a theory to be true. it only becomes a problem if one claims a theory to be a fact (which is not right). But no real scientist would claim a theory to be a fact.

And just because some theory appeals to you, doesn’t make it true.

it has nothing to do with appeal. it is about logic...

Take for example the theory of phlogiston. It seemed like a done deal. A factual theory. However that turned out to be false and instead the element which was eventually discovered became known as nitrogen and theory of phlogiston died and got buried.

Nitrogen, is a fact. Phlogiston was a theory. Evolution is still just a factual theory which is problematic and still being developed into various models, each contradicting the last - without ascertaining any truth!

a perfect example of investigation and development. as said science is not absolute...it is an approximation of the truth. it can be wrong sometimes but it gets corrected when proven wrong.
Exactly what your friend subboor says. back in that time the probability that the theory of plostigons was correct sounded logical. Subboor does not have problems with this...He only has a problem with the claim that the existence of phlogistons is true...which is not!. later on this was proven untrue and the whole theory was dumped and corrected.

Evolution is exactly the same.

there you go, breadcrumbs for the brain - or if you prefer, food for thought!

Peace!

wanna share the breadcrumbs?

[Scimitar]

Sorry Bushwack but you are disappointing me. clearly you have written this statement without giving it much thought.
when we speak about religion in general, you could almost be right. but we are speaking about Islam...the one true religion.

You believe that science validates Islam?

If you truely believe that:
Allah has created the universe, the stars and galaxies, the Earth and all living creatures, the laws of nature

and science is nothing more than a human tool to try to understand the world around us...then there is no other option than that science HAS TO BE in harmony with religion. there is no other way. Allah will not create the world in one way, but teach us something totally different. that makes no sense.

Science constantly shifts platforms and I gave you an example of this earlier but you are not thinking things through properly... my turn to be disappointed ;) I htink i'm wasting my time with you.

Islam is the absolute truth. no doubt about it. science is an approximation. there are multiple examples where science adopted a law and later on turned out to be wrong or inaccurate...this is normal...we learn and develop. this however does not say that science and religion are not in harmony with each other.

Maybe i'm not so disappointed after all... keep going!

you are talking about theories. this is exactly what subboor is saying. He does not have any problem with the probability of a theory to be true. it only becomes a problem if one claims a theory to be a fact (which is not right). But no real scientist would claim a theory to be a fact.

This is exactly what I was saying lol in my previous post. What did you think I was saying? Why else did I give you the story of phlogiston?

I sat and filmed Subboor, and discussed this idea with him so I know more what Subboor is saying than you do Umie.

it has nothing to do with appeal. it is about logic...

Nope, appeal and you proved this with your statement "science is in perfect harmony with religion." It isn't. Science is just a method based on empiricism which relies solely on observation, and assumptions. A bit of a one trick pony. Qur'an is absolute. The Qur'an, Islam validates scientific enquiry, but science does not validate the Qur'an or Islam - if it did, proving God exists empirically wouldn't be such a problem, now would it?

a perfect example of investigation and development. as said science is not absolute...it is an approximation of the truth. it can be wrong sometimes but it gets corrected when proven wrong.
Exactly what your friend subboor says. back in that time the probability that the theory of plostigons was correct sounded logical. Subboor does not have problems with this...He only has a problem with the claim that the existence of phlogistons is true...which is not!. later on this was proven untrue and the whole theory was dumped and corrected.

Evolution is exactly the same.

Yet you say science is in perfect harmony with religion and support evolution because of some emotional appeal you thinly disguise as "logic"... interesting.

wanna share the breadcrumbs?

open your mouth, i'll feed you ;)

[Zafran]

salaam

My two cents Islam deals with issues like existential meaning, moral anchorage, life after death, salvation. The nature of the universe is contingent so the scientific project is bound to have models that work for some things and not for other situations Newtons law and Einsteins theory of relativity are great examples. You can still use Newtons scientific paradigm and get a man to the moon but it fails to explain the nature of time. We also have to remember that there is a distinction of epistemological branches here - Hukm aqli (pure reason) adi (empirical based on habit and custom) and shariah (based on Revelation and prophet hood).

You also have to remember that people believed that the Universe was eternal, this was the major understanding of naturalism in the past. The theologian argued for ex Nihlo through the Kalam cosmological argument. Right now due to the Bing bang theory it seems science and the theologians comes to the similar understanding but this is not always the case.

[Ümit]

You believe that science validates Islam?

Islam does not need validation, but yes...science DOES validate Islam. It would be strange if it wouldn't...think about it...seeing all creation around you in such perfection...doesn't that validate Islam? what science does is just trying to explain how that creation works...trying to find the mechanism behind it...that is all.

Science constantly shifts platforms and I gave you an example of this earlier but you are not thinking things through properly... my turn to be disappointed ;) I htink i'm wasting my time with you.

Of course science constantly shifts platforms...you think you are the first one who thought that out? science shifts because we learn and develop...we understand stuff better and sometimes we find proof that one formula was wrong and so we dump that formula or theory and find a better one.

Would you rather have science not shifting platforms? that it stays stubborn on one platform whether right or wrong? just like other religions?
It is not that scientists get regular divine relevations about theories and formulas. they just have their observations and measurements...sometimes they take the wrong conclusions...but that because of the lack of information about the case...and in time it gets corrected...nothing wrong with that.

So again, what is it that I am not thinking through properly? please explain.

Maybe i'm not so disappointed after all... keep going!

This is exactly what I was saying lol in my previous post. What did you think I was saying? Why else did I give you the story of phlogiston?

I sat and filmed Subboor, and discussed this idea with him so I know more what Subboor is saying than you do Umie.

Yeah...you know Subboor better than I...so, you are the Master! you think you and Subboor are the first people who came up with this idea?
No one knew this before you guys right?

and why DID you give the story of the phlogiston actually? to show us how science shifts platforms? we did not know about scientists back then once spoke about a flat earth right?
Or how about the galilean relativity that you can add up speeds like Vtotal = V1 + V2 (if the direction is equal)...we used this formula for years...but then at some point Einstein came along and stated that this formula was not accurate enough for higher speeds.

therefore the actual formula was something like Vtotal = (V1 + V2)/((1 + (V1V2/C²))

However this formula is way too complex for daily use, so for smaller speeds we still use the Galilean formula.

Nope, appeal and you proved this with your statement "science is in perfect harmony with religion." It isn't. Science is just a method based on empiricism which relies solely on observation, and assumptions. A bit of a one trick pony. Qur'an is absolute.

no one is claiming otherwise. Science has to make assumptions on things which are yet unknown...with research and testing those assumptions we get results that either prove or disapprove these assumptions, so we might shift platforms...but with that shift we removed an extra assumption and we get closer and closer to the truth...that is how it works.

Again...scientists do not get relevations...so, somewhere they must make assumptions to be able to explain an unknown phenomenon.

The Qur'an, Islam validates scientific enquiry, but science does not validate the Qur'an or Islam - if it did, proving God exists empirically wouldn't be such a problem, now would it?

this is a worthless statement. God is unreachable...if we could prove the existence of God, our stay on Earth would be useless wouldn't it?

Yet you say science is in perfect harmony with religion and support evolution because of some emotional appeal you thinly disguise as "logic"... interesting.

I already explained why I said science is in harmony with religion. again...and please give me an answer on this question and do not ignore it this time:
Why would God create one thing, but teach us something different in his Holy Book?

Science is just based on facts and observations about Gods creation...so, why would that contradict Islam? (of course, other than the assumptions made in science about some yet unknown phenomenon...but evet that eventually gets corrected in time)

So, why are you so violently against science? I do not understand that.

open your mouth, i'll feed you ;)

no thanks...your breadcrumbs have a funny taste...

[Scimitar]

You’ve lost the plot Umie. You’ve basically just admitted that you need science to validate Islam. In other words, you measure and hold science above Islam and not the other way round.

Now, for those breadcrumbs, the reason they taste funny is because medicine usually does!

[Ümit]

You’ve lost the plot Umie. You’ve basically just admitted that you need science to validate Islam. In other words, you measure and hold science above Islam and not the other way round.

Now, for those breadcrumbs, the reason they taste funny is because medicine usually does!

That is all you have concluded from this whole discussion? I hold science above Islam? Really?

You know what dude...nevermind...

[ChosenTCO]

Im not sure but i think you two are arguing about two different things in the end ...
Suggesting that science is inferior to the Quran just because one is absolute and the other is not is not a fair comparison in the slightest.
A more fair comparison would be between our understanding of the Quran and our understanding of how the universe works (ie science). Both are NOT absolute.
Or if you wanna compare absolutes, you would be comparing Quran with the way the universe actually works (which we dont know yet).

Science is very essential to understand the Quran and the miracles that lay within it, thus somewhat validating it. Its because it shapes our understanding of things mentioned in the Quran. Take for example the ayaa about the creation of the heavens and earth in 6 days (Quran 50:38). We know from empirical evidence that there is almost no way this could happen in our earthly 6 days, yet through science, we are able to understand that time isnt a constant and can be relative. So the 6 days that God refers to in the Quran may be 6 million years to us. Without science and the understanding of relativity, we would not have been able to understand that.

Suggesting that our understanding of the Quran trumps science and empirical evidence is like asking us to turn our backs our senses and ability to observe and reason. Doing that is like turning our backs on the very tools we use to conclude that this is the true religion, thus bringing us back to why we believed in islam in the first place.

[Scimitar]

Suggesting that our understanding of the Quran trumps science and empirical evidence is like...

Qur'an is objectively true, while science is subjective. Now try saying that again :)

[Zafran]

Qur'an is objectively true, while science is subjective. Now try saying that again :)

You can only know that by using reason. Razi argued that the only way we know revelation is because reason acknowledges Revelation and then extracts meaning from it by using reason. I wouldn't go down the whole subjective/objective route because we establish the Quran and sunnah on fitra (natural disposition) and tawattur (mass transmitted/corroborated knowledge) - which is the same way we believe in scientific Knowledge - the mass transmitted knowledge of the scientist.

The big difference is that God is absolute so is the Judgement and the afterlife that God has willed -

whilst the empirical universe is contingent so its bound to have paradigm shifts.

Revelation itself is absolute but interpreting it in specific time and place will entail difference of opinion expect on the absolutes eg God.

PS - I dont know why you and Ummie are fighting when your basically saying the same thing.

[Ümit]

You can only know that by using reason. Razi argued that the only way we know revelation is because reason acknowledges Revelation and then extracts meaning from it by using reason. I wouldn't go down the whole subjective/objective route because we establish the Quran and sunnah on fitra (natural disposition) and tawattur (mass transmitted/corroborated knowledge) - which is the same way we believe in scientific Knowledge - the mass transmitted knowledge of the scientist.

The big difference is that God is absolute so is the Judgement and the afterlife that God has willed -

whilst the empirical universe is contingent so its bound to have paradigm shifts.

Revelation itself is absolute but interpreting it in specific time and place will entail difference of opinion expect on the absolutes eg God.

PS - I dont know why you and Ummie are fighting when your basically saying the same thing.

I'm done with the fighting. It has no use.

The argument is about the relation between science and Islam.
according to Bushwack science is the opposite of Islam. They occupie the same "space"...so they can't coexist...where there is Islam, can't be science...just like water and air...where there is water, there cannot be air.
furthermore, Islam is objective, therefore science must be subjective...
Science uses assumptions, therefore it is not the truth...it cannot be trusted...
Science is bad...it is evil...etc.

unfortunately, a lot of people think like this...as if science is the opposite of religion.
it's really not...time and time again I am trying to make that clear...that science and religion have a whole different function...they do not occupie the same space.

I'm going to be a bit technical here...but I'm sure you can follow me.

think of a black box with multiple inputs and multiple outputs.
for the ones who do not know what a black box is:
definition of black box in wikipedia:
"In science, computing, and engineering, a black box is a device, system or object which can be viewed in terms of its inputs and outputs (or transfer characteristics), without any knowledge of its internal workings. Its implementation is "opaque" (black). Almost anything might be referred to as a black box: a transistor, an algorithm, or the human brain."

So, we have this black box...it has multiple inputs and multiple outputs.
We do not know how this box looks like from the inside and how does it work.
we have also a users manual of it which describes what the device can do and how to operate it...but it does not show what is inside the box.
we can read the instruction manual the get some clues of what might be inside the box, or we can choose not to.

so, in order to find out what is inside the black box we can give the box a defined input, measure the output and analyze the results...and this will give us a slight impression of its content.

the outcome of this will lead to a certain conclusion with some possible assumption like:
the input is xxxxx....the output is yyyyy....therefore, there must be a zzzzzz somewhere in it.

This automatically leads to the next step where you test the assumption:
if there is a zzzzzz in it, the output should be aaaaaa if the input is a bbbbbbb

and depending on the measurement of the output, this assumption can be true or false.
either way, with every attempt you learn more and more stuff about the black box, and you get a better impression of what is inside.
but you are never absolutely sure what is inside exactly.


now to show you why I am telling this.
This black box is the analogy for a creature, world, the universe or all creation
the users manual is the Divine revelation.
you never doubt the correctness of the users manual, because it comes from the maker of the black box. you trust it...it does not need any validation....but during your tests on the black box, you see that the outcome matches with what the users manual describes, and therefore that is still a validation of the users manual.

the testing and measuring part is science.

you see, that religion is more focussed on how to use the black box in a proper way.
science focus is pointed towards learning more about the black box how it works, or maybe to find out extra features or extra functions of it.

they do not fullfill the same...but do have a contact area somewhere.

but you can also see that science HAS to make assumptions on a certain level...but it continuously strives to test these assumptions and with each step, the assumptions get smaller and smaller.

I do not know if this was clear enough for everyone...I hope you guys could follow me.

Kind regards,