Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
New Debate Video: Islam or Atheism? With the President of American Atheists
Speaking Engagements & Contact
Popular Posts
Blog Contents List
- Events and Media Appearances (172)
- Philosophy and Theology (51)
- Exploring the Qur'an (44)
- Audio and Visual (39)
- Comments on Current Affairs (29)
- Debates and Symposiums (28)
- Sociology and Psychology (16)
- International Events (10)
- Islamic History (7)
- Lectures and Presentations (4)
Debate Video: Can We Live Better Lives Without Religion? With Best-Selling Author
Debate Video: God - Delusion or Truth? With the Editor of the Philosophy Now Magazine
New Article: The Dawkins Delusion - A Response to Richard Dawkins
New Answers: God's Power & Will - Answers to Common Questions
Lecture: The Literary & Linguistic Miracle of the Qur'an
Lecture: Islamic Law: Barbaric or Misunderstood?
Debate: Islam or Secular Liberalism? With the Head of the Philosophy Department at AUB
Debate: Islam or Liberalism - Which is the Way Forward? With Dr. Alan Sked
Debate: Does God Exist? With Humanist Spokesperson
Contact Me
Recommended Posts
- The Dawkins Delusion: A Response to Richard Dawkins
- Reflections on the Self
- A Philosophical & Theological Response to the 'Problem of Evil'
- The God Debate with Rick Lewis & the Cosmological Argument
- The Cambridge Union Debate: Prof. Blackburn, Causality & Design
- God's Power & Will: Answers to Common Questions
- The God Debate, Evolution & 'Who Designed the Designer?'
- The Debate on Religion & the Logic of Submission
- Liberalism & its Effect on Society: Philosophical, Practical & Social Research Perspectives
- Sarkozy's Values & the Honour of Women
- Assisted Suicide & Subjective Morality
- Three Lines that Changed the World
- A Philosophical Perspective on the Literary Miracle of the Qur'an
- The Unique Literary Form of the Qur'an
- Is the Linguistic & Literary Challenge of the Qur'an Subjective?
- What is Islamic Spirituality?
- Is Jihad Terrorism?
- A Note on Understanding Islam...
Debate & Lecture Topics
Subscribe to Hamza's Blog
Posts
Comments
Receive Automatic Email Updates
International Engagements
Recent Comments
32 comments:
Masha'Allah in the face of such hostility, ignorant responses and bad language - you have shown great patience and admirable etiquettes. These atheists lacked basic moral behaviour and were arrogant and dismissive: signs of hypocrites.
The dude with the long hair, who looks like Captain Pugwash, had a good question:
"Why does God need to punish the unbelievers for just not believing?"
I had the same question put forth to me recently; simple answer - God punishes crimes and injustices: denying the absolute truth, God himself, is the ultimate crime and injustice. To deny God is akin to denying your own father, saying your father is not your real father but somebody else is, or most absurdly and irrationally, denying the existence of a father in totality (so in this sense, they must have "popped into existence" into their mother's belly - why do you need a father? - it can be spontaneous and its more simpler than the complex way of how two humans need to do some mating and wasting a lot of time to make the mother conceive... in the line of Richard Dawkins lines of thinking:] )
So.. this person went into denial when they were given convincing and irrefutable proofs from different sources, for e.g. testimony from their mother and offsprings, testimony of other people, DNA proof to confirm their father (that it is their real father): with such irrefutale evidence, they persist in denying and rejecting their father. If such a person was punished by their father; this father who looked after him and gave him everything he ever wanted - would you blame the father?
Similarly, why blame God for rightfully and justly punishing his creation, the human being, for taking a such a stance? If God punishes you - he will do so with justice. If you feel punishing unbelievers like that is unjust, or think as to why is he's interested in punishing and telling us what to do - then you fail to see what the purpose He created us for. If one understands their purpose in life (and what God wants), i.e. the overall jigsaw of life, then the rest of the pieces can be put into place and will make complete sense.
Finally, if the above is not a satisfactory enough answer for non-theists or they don't see good enough reasons' - then my favourite answer from the Quran will render them silent...
"He (God)is the Doer of whatsoever He intends or wills" [Quran 85:16]
God created you and he can choose to do whatever he wants - at the end of the day you are just a "toy" and he is your maker and creator- he can do whatever He likes with his toy, right? - throw it around or bash it up etc. etc. In this scenario, would we expect the toy to turn round and complain to its maker: "Why are you doing this to me?"??
The fitrah (human's innate disposition) already has the embedded instinct to recognize its Creator. The job for us all then is to truly know who the Creator is, and not to totally deny Him, nor give up on that search because of our own whims, desires, agenda or lack of understanding.
Any chance that Richard Dawkins or the other 2 atheists want to have a proper debate organized with you.I would really like to see you debating with Richard Dawkins....hopefully in the near future...
I see seriously that these people need Islam. At least they will learn etiquette on how to talk and not lie ....
Question:
The thesis of your discussion with Pr. Meyers was that there is knowledge in the Koran that Muhammad could not have had unless he had Divine Enlightenment, testifying to the veracity and divine nature of the Koran.
The first iteration of your proof is that the Koran appears to describe a sequential development of bone and then flesh , and use a passage from Kieth's textbook that says exactly that to prove the Koran's statement is correct.
However, when Pr. Meyer's informs you that the development of bone and flesh is parallel, not sequential, you say that is what the Koran says.
Can you explain how the Koran can mean both "sequential" and "parallel" at the same time, or how the meaning of its words changed so suddenly?
Thank you for posting the video. The 'debate' would have been really interesting, if the the atheists had talked in a more appropriate and open-minded way. I just watched half of the video, but the atheists responds were 'No', 'Not correct', 'Nonsense' etc. It is funny to see, how those 'intellectuals' violate their often propagated way of debating with each other.
You did pretty well, brother Hamza.
May Allah increase your Eman and give your strength for your next debates and projects.
Zachary, save the amateur therapists' sales pitch. Br Hamza and his partner were intelligent and enthusiastic presenters of Islam and had a far better demeanor and approach than either Myers or Dawkins, neither of whom could utter a sentence without including a few choice condescending insults and in Dawkins' case, swear words. I think you ought to help them out with their 'suffering' first.
I also suggest you go through some of Hamza's posts and debates on this site, which are nearly always more substantive than the brief impropmptu talks shown in the video.
That good humor can be seen on all sides is an important sign that they really are engaging in good faith efforts to communicate -- even if Myers and Dawkins are not persuaded that Tzortzis is using persuasive methods of reasoning, and even if Tzortzis is walking into the discussion with the assumption that Dawkins and Myers have been misled by their assumption of methodological naturalism.
If you can laugh along with your disputant, without feeling as though you're the butt of the joke, then you're doing well.
@ ex-Muslim
Not a single miracle in the Quran? How do explain Muhammad's (pbuh), an illiterate man living in arabia 14 centuries ago, ability to accurately describe the formation of the embryo, the water cycle, the structure and purpose of mountains, the difference between the moon and the sun (their orbits and light source), the expansion of the universe and the big bang, the difference between the pharaoh during Moses's time and the king during Joseph's, the statement that pharaoh's corpse will be preserved for humanity to see, and much more.
Having attended in person I have to say the conversation between Hamza's group and the conference-goers was overwhelmingly polite and good-natured, including jokes swapped and hands shaked. I had some questions on Halal slaughter and female doctors treating male patients to which I received good answers.
I was also encouraged to see how open Muslims were to borrowing their arguments (word for word!) from American Christian creationists like Lee Strobel and Michael Behe. It really spoke of open-mindedness.
aah God, the Four Horseman need a 5th one to help them! lol
Salams
As far as I'm aware from my reserach about the bone and muscle development of the embryo, the cells thats form the bone and the muscle (called the scelerotome and dermotome I think!) develop in the mesoderm att he same time however the limb skeleton i.e the cartilage that will later ossify into bones develops first and then the muscles form fairly rapidly after that around the bone growth. As far as I understand from the Quranic words used in this context the Quran says this stage of development in the embryo happens in quick succession so I don't see how this contradicts the Quran. I think there needs to be more reserach done before one side or the other claims the other is incorrect. In my opinion when PZ Myers says the bones and muscles grow simultaneoudly he is referring to the cells in the mesoderm for the bones and muscles which do develop at the same time but the actual cartilage and bone itself develops first and then the muscles quickly after that. I have done a lot of reading about this and I think there needs to be more research becuase I couldn't find a clear cut answer.
Hope this helps.
Lolli
Asalam ailakum
To Seeker
I think what PZ Myers was talking about when he said the bone and muscle in the embryo grow in a parallel fashion was gastrulation the cell diffrentiation in the embryo, which is different from the the bone and muscle actually growing physically.
As far as I have read limb development is a good example, as cartilage (which later ossifies into bone) develops in the limb buds of the embryo first and then very quickly afterwards muscles start to form around the bone formations.
For example in regards to vertebrae development in the embryo I found this from a science clarified article 'Extensive neural (nerve) and cardiac (heart) development takes place this week. Early bone formations, that will later be the vertebrae, appear along the neural tube. Nerves, muscle, and connective tissues emerge around the primitive bone formations.
Read more: Embryo and Embryonic Development - humans, body, used, water, process, life, plants, type, chemical, characteristics, form, animals, system, oxygen, cells, parts, plant, surface, part http://www.scienceclarified.com/El-Ex/Embryo-and-Embryonic-Development.html#ixzz1R94PTJxK
Therefore PZ Myers was not wrong whne he said the scelerotome and the dermomyotome form at the same time in the mesoderm of the embryo but I have not found anything whcih says that the physcial growth of the bones and muscles is exactly at the same time and rate although I could be wrong.
Either way as far as my understanding of the Arabic in the Quran the word used to describe the formation of the bones and muscles in the embryo means very quick rapid actions; interconnectedness of the development of the skeletomuscular system which is what we see.
I think because embryology is so complex the 2 people in this video ended up talking past each other. I don't know if anyone else has any other ideas about this?
Thanks
Wasalam
Lolli
I would like to pose a completing comment about the "clothing of bones with muscles" in the Quran (since atheists like Myers and missionaries use this against muslims).
While watching a video on youtube with Keit Moore about embryologi in the Quran, he didn't say the bones were "created" after the bones (according to the Quran), but "attached" to the bones according to the Quran.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKGurZJO3hM&feature=related (2:53 minutes)
If we think about it it's correct. Allah used the word "WA kasayna" (AND we clothed/wa kasayna) and not "thumma" then we created/khalaqna the muscles".
For exemple, If a person puts his clothes on, the clothes of course already exist, as the muscles must exist to be "clothed" to the bones. There is of course a reason why Allah chose the word "kasayna" (clothed).
i.e. Keith Moores comment the muscles are then "clothed" to the muscles means that according to the Quran the muscles are attached to the bones, not that they are created after the bones. The Quran doesn't tell when the muscles are formed. only they are in place when clothed to the bones. /Yusuf
Salam Brother Hamza. i have been a fan of your work and lectures ever since i met you at your appearance at Birmingham university during the israel debate with norman finkelstein a few years ago.
I really applaud your work as being able to talk 'toe to toe' in a manner with atheists using philosophical and epistemological viewpoints is Alhamdullilah excellent. The ummah needs more high level critical thinking muslims that emphasise the seeking of truth over merely just winning an argument.
I had a very fierce discussion with an atheist friend of mine about this video of yours regarding the discussions with Dawkins and PZ myers etc.
At the end of the discussion he asked me to watch the video again and see if you were committing the straw man fallacy. That is to say from my understanding, using the words of the other person and interpreting them in such a way as too misrepresent their viewpoint and then attack, i.e. creating a straw man to attack.
I watched it and kind of think thats what you did. That makes me sad as usually you are so quickly able to find when lecture opponents commit the straw man fallacy against you (as they often do, the president of the american atheists society being one such example) but this time i feel you may have commited that fallacy yourself.
My view is that in discussions with non-believers our imperative is to speak the truth and seek the truth, even if it goes against ourselves, rather than trying to 'win' the debate.
Could you please elaborate on why this debate seemed different?
And please forgive me brother, i think you are doing an excellent work here, but we must argue with the truth, and win thoroughly with the truth or not at all, rather than trying to score points by accidentally misrepresenting these people and win that way, what do you think?
Once again i say that you are an excellent speaker, on par i believe with Zakir Naik in eloquence of speech and message deliverance, but i can only support you if you speak the truth unflinchingly and never resort to the kind of fallacious tactics the atheists and non-believers routinely use against our beautiful religion.
Jazakallah Khair, Allah forgive me if i have offended anyone that was sincerely not my intention.
Sadiq
Salaam Sadiq, jazakAllahkhair for your email. May Allah bless you! You need to give me a link or write what I said so I can understand what you are saying. Much love, Hamza.
Post a Comment