If you deny the evil eye, why do you cite scholars who believed in it?

not like these other people whether it's going back to kufa or going back to a different city or like some going back to [Laughter] the worst of places just a barren desert right so it's not going back this going back to the city of the prophet so that's why i'm a maliki you know i had um um i mean i i feel this is is fine to say um it's it's not in any negative light but i had um

send me a message in which was um parts of it were reasonably polite and parts of it were quite challenging in saying look you know you uh um he was saying that look on certain things i could make sense like let's say but why is it i deny the evil eye and then if that's the case and i think this is an interesting question because many people may ask this why is it if i deny the evil eye then i still associate and allude to scholars like ibn ashur or imam malik

in the past who may have accepted the evil eye so and i answered him by saying look first of all i answer this in my video but fair enough if you still you know if it didn't make sense to you there you see the evil eye was something that was the science of the day and age and you can watch my video i explain how people thought the i worked they they believed in extra mission so to them this was how biology works this was how the eye works they thought the eye shoots out rays

now actually it's only very recently we've discovered that actually the eye works through intermission or and and hence his story lie because the biology and science if we want to call it science science simply means the way the understanding of how the world works and how biology works they believed that was how eyes work so it wasn't about religion to them because the evil eye is not mentioned anywhere in the quran it was that this is how biology works this is how the eye works so now you know that's not the case so

for example many people in the past thought that you know if you went a thousand years ago or you know and even pre-islam and into early islam i'm not speaking about the prophet but scholars and just medical doctors of that day and age or philosophers believe that the heart was what you thought with that the thinking didn't happen up there it happened in the heart now that's you know that was how they thought the biology of the day and age worked some scholars back then didn't believe in that they believed that the brain was the seat of cognition but

a common perception biological perception was that the heart was the seat of of cognition so it's not about you know like one could say like if you found let's say a quote from imam malik thinking that the heart was the seat of cognition that that's where thinking took place that doesn't mean oh my god you know this is now an islamic viewpoint it's just how their understanding of biology was in that day and age this was a common understanding in the world where even if you're a non-muslim many you know you would have believed things like that so you don't take your science

from them how does the i work is extra mission information you don't need to take that from imam bukhari or imam malik or something so yeah i hope that's a you know that answers that question for many people cool let's go on aura um multiple eighth your views on influential people in history that could be prophets uh eg socrates plato buddha yeah i believe these people could have been prophets i mean not all of them but i believe like the buddha

could have been a prophet i believe socrates could have been a prophet in fact his whole thing is quite prophetic uh confucius could have been um i don't what i'm saying is that we just don't know zarathustra could have been a prophet um yeah we just don't know many hindu um you know figures could have they could have been prophets i mean we just obviously islam just doesn't mention