Dr Javad T. Hashmi | Axis of Morality & Archetypal Myths in the Quran | MindTrap 46 |Mufti Abu Layth

Guys once again let me present to you right Dr. Javad Hashimi [snorts] from Harvard people. You have to say that with like an like almost with the word hazat before it. Hazat Harvard Sharif. [laughter] It is there so much prestige I have to say in saying uh you know from Harvard.

It's like wow. Welcome to Mind Trap Doc. [laughter] Thank you so much for having me. Right. It's an honor. If if you're cutting out the previous part, I got to repeat the statements. Go for it. It's an honor to be on the Muslim Joe Rogan podcast. So, thank you. [laughter] Wah and they embarrassed me. So, Doc, those of uh those uh of the viewers that are not so familiar with your journey, you've you're from the States, born and raised in California, which just sounds like

such a cool place. Anyway, just the name California. And then you know your journey your interest in Islam graduating from Harvard such a you know such prestige and that too in the department of religion in addition to being a medical doctor what is all of this about give us a bit of an overview about yourself doc. Sure I appreciate that. So just like any dy I had two options study engineering or medicine.

I first studied engineering. Uh I hated it. Switched to medicine and to be honest I hated it too. But I was too far in now to quit. So I uh finished my residency and uh decided immediately to go back to the university. So I went back to get a bachelor's in Arabic and Islamic studies from UC Berkeley, a master's from Harvard in uh Islamic studies and now I'm actually in my PhD for Islamic studies, the study of religion as you said.

Um so I I did eventually choose to study Islam in the academic environment in the Western University. Um so that's that's the short and long of it. And in between I also did a fellowship in medical ethics that kind of bridges my medical side to my interest in religion. So I still do practice as a physician part-time but my primary gig so to speak is my PhD. And so I'm I'm currently in the middle of my PhD. Weren't you um did you not get some of the comments that look now that you're you see a doctor the the medical do the medical the real doctor there were people say you know no I meant a real doctor those uh that's

like up there in the desi world as prestige you know mashallah doctor so when from that you thought you know I want to study religion I mean is this not a bit of an odd you know people say yeah he wants to be a mulvi what what the hell's wrong with this guy, you know? Yeah. Did you not get any of that from people? Of course. Of course I did. My parents were not the happiest initially when I decided to do this.

Uh, you know, at this point in time, I should just buy a nice house, some nice cars, settle down. Um, but instead, I've chosen this path, which is a lot more difficult. But, uh, really, I got married while I was a doctor and then I quickly told my wife, you know what, I'm going to go study religion. So, but I was already married. So, [laughter] So it's I I think in life you got to do what you love and uh I feel like I was meant to study what I'm studying now and so I absolutely love it.

It's not like it's not difficult for me. I enjoy it. So people sometimes ask me how many more years of the PhD you have left and when they hear they're like oh my god for no for me that's it's the journey is just wonderful. So wow. Uh that's awesome. this by by the way this whole thing of wanting to study Islam or deepen your knowledge on Islam um and then Harvard cuz it's not even though it's amazing in terms of you know these places when you think of Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard uh you don't really think of Islam you know

you don't really think I I want to learn Islam I I know let's go to Harvard. Uh how how is how is that? Because um I mean your thoughts on that just uh because that just almost seems as a a kind of like an oxymoron to some extent or a dichotomy in saying well Islam and Harvard or you know shouldn't you go to a madrasa or shouldn't you go to alazar?

Yeah. So uh once I finished my residency I had to make the choice whether or not I was going to study Islam in the traditional environment. uh and actually alar was the one that I had in mind or uh studying in the western university. So really you can think of it as alazar versus Harvard in my mind and to be honest I actually did study two years of the alazar Arabic Islamic studies program uh through their online program that they offer uh and it was beneficial to me but ultimately I decided that um I wanted to go the critical scholarly route.

So, in my mind, and this is a big debate, I was just watching another podcast, one of your competitors, actually. Uh, nowhere near your state, though, of course. [laughter] But, uh, they were saying, "Oh, they were saying this person's just a PhD from Georgetown. Uh, that's not a real Islamic scholar." But for me, I actually think I've come to the conclusion that I think the academic study of Islam in my mind is superior to the Madrasa route.

Um but I don't say that the Madrasa route has no benefits. Um it definitely does. You you you acquire all sorts of great skills from that route which is why I studied it for those two years that I did. Um but ultimately and that was and that was at what place the where you did the traditional? So I studied I I audited some course in Madrasa in Pakistan and then I also uh audited classes uh I took uh this is through Alazhar University.

They have the online Arabic and Islamic studies program. So I did two years of their curriculum there. Uh and it definitely helped me to understand the traditional view and all of this stuff and it also gives you good language skills for sure. Yeah, definitely. So so it's it's very useful but I think the best is to combine both and that's what I've been trying to do. So I always study do some traditional Islamic studies but my primary gig of course is in the academy.

So I think doing both is the best best route and I think you're you're obviously someone who does the same too cuz you trained in the traditional route and now you also read academic stuff. So I I think that combination is the best. Wow. You know just a quick question before uh moving on to something else. People ask me sometimes that uh look I I want to enhance my knowledge of Islam.

Uh what should I do? Uh should I uh in fact I had a message from somebody just last week about uh should I go to Medina University? Should I go to uh and I get asked this a lot by people. Alhamdulillah it reflects people are interested in enhancing their knowledge. Would you recommend I I'm just curious what you'd recommend and would it be a western university or would it be something? I'm just curious.

Um that's one I think it depends on the person themselves what their religious views are. If you are an open-minded critical thinking kind of person then I don't think a traditional madrasa is the place for you to go. Uh I think first of all there's it's a pre-selective process. So I actually applied to the University of Medina many many years ago uh more than a decade ago and I actually got rejected.

Uh, meanwhile they accept Are you glad now that you Of course I'm of course I'm [laughter] glad. But but I think about they als they accept people straight out of high school. So how could they not have accepted me? Um I mean that's a little bit super sillious of me to say but uh you know I I was saying that's ridiculous how I didn't get accepted. Um but so there's a pre-selective process part of a divine plan. It's part of plan. Well, they decided they obviously don't want somebody who is going to be a freeth thinker who's going to think for themselves.

So, there's first a pre-selective process. Then once you get into the univers the Madrasa system, you have to study there for 5 to 10 years. Yeah. And during those 5 to 10 years, they're going to program you. And if you start thinking differently, one of two things is going to happen. Either you're gonna get kicked out or [laughter] or you're going to change your views to conform to them. you're going to do some sort of takya like uh you know just go along with everything but ultimately if you're and actually you had a good talk on this I remember about the problem with studying in a madrasa you become very isolated from the entire world and you don't even realize the discourses that are going on and it's not just by the way in the

geopolitics and you know what's going on sociologically it's actually you don't even know what's going on in the western academy what's the latest Islamic studies scholarship so I don't think a average moola can deal with much of the stuff that's coming out of the western academy. Um, now there are exceptions. There are some that are fantastic and wonderful, but for the most part that's not the case. And that's why even somebody like Sheh Yaser Kadi decided to do a PhD at Yale.

Now Yale is no Harvard. No, I'm just kid. That's just a joke. We have a rivalry with Harvard. Um but uh that shows you that he did find something of use in the western academy and I I I believe in that. So sorry the mic just slightly jumped in for a little while but uh uh right. Yep. So and you know just [clears throat] to to share on that um my my view as well very similarly is that I do feel that there's uh a lot of uh I mean there is a lot of good in what a madrasa can provide.

However the madrasa currently is in my the madrasa phenomenon I'm not speaking about a specific madrasa is defunct. It's dysfunctional and it's producing malfunctioning people. So, um if it was improved, worked on in a way where it taught and promoted critical thought, it would be brilliant.

Uh it still provides you a lot of uh it provides you the raw materials, but it dumbs you down so much in the process. I don't know if that raw material would be any good by the time you've left. I and and so I I think it's not only a pre-selective process. So there's that. Then it's the while you're doing the Madrasa training that there's a problem there where they either weed you out or you conform.

And then even if you let's say you figure out a way to graduate and you did, right? you graduated and you went on then there's also a post uh weaning process where you could be 15 20 years out but if all and I I give your example so I remember 15 20 years ago I don't know if it's 20 years ago 15 years ago 10 15 years ago you were the great MU striking terror in the hearts of Salafis and you were the shining light of the ash the asharis and the matis and the sufis and wow and and and if you had stayed along that traditionalist line of thinking today,

you would be a grand muti right now. But because you've now deviated from the thoughts, now suddenly you're a nothing. You're a nobody. They've they've disassociated themselves from you. So even though you had the madrasa training and all this they tried to say to the masses that value that training that no he doesn't count because to be a scholar you have to have certain associations which he no longer has. So the point I'm trying to make is that when I was making this decision I said what's the point of me to study there if the people who value that sort of training are going to kick me out of the gang anyways.

So that's the reason why I decided against it and that's I think one of the ways they control orthodoxy. Yeah. It it becomes a cult and what happens is you also your opportunities get incredibly you limited. You become strong armed. There's there's a kind of non it's not in your face but there is a kind of bullying that takes place.

you start to a mafioso kind of approach where listen you're not allowed to say this you know you'll get people calling you you'll get people telling you your ads are now upset with you uh this kind of stuff you know this guilt tripping um if you're looking to speak get involved in local Islamic communities or centers or masids they will start boycotting you if you start becoming different yeah it's a it is an a very look at this look at this like Daniel Hakeiku he himself now I think he's crazy and nuts and one step away from strapping himself with bombs and blowing himself up.

But he's fun he's fun to watch though nonetheless and uh you know he himself said something that I said you know what you're quite right about that he he used to be called they used to call him ad as soon as he attack you know changed his viewpoints then they said he doesn't even know Arabic he's this he's that he's he's stupid and then he himself said so I went from ad to like nothing and I don't think he should have been called But the point is, I think, valid that he makes, which is that uh if you deviate from the orthodoxy or the what's considered the main group, they're going

to blackball you. And so that's why I think going to a Madrasa I I think if you're going to if you if you're going to do anything, I think studying a few years traditionally is a good idea and then combine that study. Yes, that's my private jet. [laughter] All right. Uh actually somebody had asked that because your your mic thing has slightly changed if you could maybe just replplug it.

Uh it might kind of uh I'll tell my pilot as well. Not at this hour. [laughter] No, you're right. Again, there you go. That's right there. It came for a moment. Okay. Okay. So, let uh please whoever's watching, please do let us know cuz I think I think it kind of if you if you do that again because it came for a moment and it's gone it's gone back to that kind of uh distant stereo thing.

So, just Yes. So, I I'll just just telling the uh viewers to you you do that. Yeah, I totally agree that uh it's a difficult thing when people ask uh us about the madrasa to advise because you know you look at the end product and you think yeah we could do without that is that is that okay uh yeah I changed it back um it just because of the headphones for some reason it keeps it keeps changing back and forth that's epic right yeah now this intellectual history this Islamic first of all the intellectual side and this legacy of Islam is something that's always been very attractive to you and

you know you've uh in invested a lot in learning and promoting this. Tell us a bit about a bit about this and your interest in it. Uh do yeah so I haven't really put anything out publicly much yet other than I did teach a series on Islamic intellectual history which maybe some people would uh uh know of me from that. Um, but that is one of my interests is Islamic intellectual history. And it's precisely because, and this is a problem with the Madrasa traditional Islamic learning system, is that I think they're gaslighting us.

Um, they are they call themselves traditionalists, but in reality, they only value a small part of the tradition, a very narrow understanding of what tradition is. So what I tried to do in the course that I taught is to expand our minds to see the great diversity of the true Islamic tradition so that we can value it and know what we have back in it. Um so for example they don't teach anything about the great Islamic philosophers.

We're talking about Iben Rush Iban Cena Aarois Avisa um Ibn Tufel. They don't teach us about you know they don't tell us about these people at all. uh we don't know anything other than very negative stereotypical things about the we don't know anything about them uh we don't know about the early theological groups the kadis for example the kadrites were the first theological group and from them came the mutazlies they were the orthodoxy back then they were the first orthodoxy of Islam so we but they don't tell you that they don't tell you that the usher system came much later even the hanbali system came later

much later and that we had this great diversity of thought and why do we constrain ourselves to one sliver of the tradition. So, and even why do we not look at non-Sni groups as well? So, look at different Shia groups, the ismileies. Um, they had some great philosophers as well. We should look at this entire tradition and value it. Um, and so that's what I tried to um promote in the course that I taught.

So, that's available on YouTube. uh and I thank the Gandhi center for uh letting me teach that course. Um so that's my interest in Islamic intellectual history and I also think that um in order to solve the problems of today we like for example issues like religion and science I didn't find the answers in the the two groups of Islamic orthodoxy today which is the usher and the hanbal instead I found the answer in ibush that's where I found the answer so I think uh you relying on all of these resources will help us deal with modernity in a much better fashion.

And then on my last point, I would say I also wanted to teach on um Islamic modernism which I think is a much maligned group. Um and so I wanted to say let's take these thinkers seriously as well in the modern period. So in the past I'm looking at these other groups like the Islamic philosophers and then all and even non-orthodox Sufis and then and non-sni groups and then in the present I'm looking at Islamic modernists and other groups even the Ahmedis etc.

So I'm trying to expand our mind and expand what we think of as a Muslim and not view just to towards orthodoxy. You see, but people would say um the reason uh we're not teaching um who I often speak about and promote or we're not speaking about uh whether it's going to be ki or farabi or we're not going to speak about these people or whatever is because these people are they are misgu guided and upon dalala

upon misguidance and if um if we start promoting them people will become misguided this is the the kind of response given when you I mean what what do you what do you think of that what do you make of that because that's the response usually given isn't it yeah well I would say sarcastically and ironically I would say I would want people then to be misguided if [laughter] if if if being on guidance is following what the traditionalists and quote unquote orthodoxy is doing today.

If that's guidance, then I want to be misguided because what they are promoting today is reactionary conservatism and ext fundamentalism and extremism. And I'm not saying that they're the same as the extremists who go and blow themselves up, but there's a it's not a coincidence. For example, so for example, I come from I'm I'm from a South Asian background. the the traditional the traditionalist ama of South Asia the quintessential ones are the Diabundies.

Now if you look and you go through the different terrorist groups uh the majority of them are Dioi or Diabundi inspired or the other group of orthodoxy the Salafies the hadith they are the other group or not if not those two then a minority will also be BVI which is another shade of orthodoxy. So my question is what are these people teaching that it's so easy to mutate into the Taliban?

So easy to mutate into ISIS. So I'm not saying they're the same. There's a huge difference and there's even some reformed traditionalists who I respect and think they're pushing back against it. Ultimately I think reformed traditionalism is a failed project. But I myself am trying to promote an alternative vision which is I want to channel the spirit of the Islamic philosophers and the multazles uh as well as uh the Islamic modernists.

And I think we need another alternative. And I think the only reason why it hasn't had success is because they kill you or they run you out of the country. But sad for them, they can't do that in the United States. So I can teach my course and there's nothing they can do. Um, so I understand why in Muslim countries it's difficult to um be more radical in your way of thinking, but now so can't sorry your mic kind of thing just bounced a bit there and I and I totally agree that this whole thing of you get certain groups who they they may not themselves

be uh kind of they they're not terrorists or promoting terrorism or extreme extremism, violent extremism. However, they create an atmosphere that can be a springboard to that. Um, like you're mentioning that some I'm not saying all these for example are like that, but yes, the atmosphere can serve as a springboard into that uh as well as Salifi kind of thought kind of.

So, my audio keeps cutting out. Um, it's the gym. It's the gin that I see. I'm hearing my voice back there. I took off my head to see if that will help. No, I think No, that won't help. Let me try. [snorts] Try [laughter] medical. Just do the doctor's advice. If it doesn't work, just take it out and put it back in. [laughter] Okay.

How's it? Good now, right? Good. Uh, yep. Good. Uh, I think if you do that setting or whatever because it's it's it's good, but it's just gone slightly lower. Whatever it was, is it not? But it's on the right setting now though. Is it okay? I think that's actually working a bit better. So, it might actually be your closeness to it.

Uh, as as you are a bit closer, move it closer. Yes. So, yep. Um, yeah. So this thing that you you were saying doc is it not a do you not you see I've always found it an such a a mind-boggling paradox that on one hand people say you see ina to believe in God you cannot blind follow because they say that you know the hadith teaches that in the grave you will be asked and those people who said look I saw such and such saying to believe this so I believed it and they you know so I didn't really think for

myself. But yet the schools of like you mentioned the Ashis or the Hambies they say it's haram to follow any of the point to not follow any of their points. So you have to blindfollow like if they say look we've got these 165 points. If you disagree if you say well you know 163 on the list I'm not really convinced.

No, no, no. You have to blindfollow it. But simultaneously, they'll tell you that actually it's you're not meant to blindfollow in faith in faith. Faith. Uh I I don't know. I've always found this quite paradoxical. Well, let's look at the consequences of this idea that they have. Let's take a manual effect. Sorry, it's awful. [laughter] It's no problem. It's It's all good.

I don't know why it keeps defaulting to this. All right. Yeah, that's So, let's let's look at the It's It's just gone. No, it's gone off. It did get better, but it just switched off as you said it. Oh my god. It's It's saying that it's on the right setting now. Okay. So, Okay. So, let's look at the consequences of this belief. Yeah. Um, if you look at Reliance of the Traveler, a manual effect, right?

It act It switched off again. Is it Is it the Skype thing? I'm I'm getting very frustrated with my computer. [laughter] We'll have to get [laughter] to the screen. We go. This is a seminar about patience. And then we're like smashing the screen. [laughter] Okay. How is this is this good? Is this okay?

You see the the only problem with this it'll it'll feed back my uh thing. Yeah. Wolfy sub. Is there the feedback better or I think it No, you don't. No, I think it'll keep uh I think it was all right the way it was to to be fair. It's us. Why is it that you're moving away and it's pulling out? That's not the issue. It's it's nothing that I do. It's it's good right now. Uh okay.

Okay. Let's try again. So if we look at the consequences of this belief on basically what they're saying is you need to use reason in order to arrive at God and the necessity for a prophet once you establish that then you take your you take your uh r human reason and you take it and you throw it in the garbage can after that all you need it is to get to that belief and then after that then it's just a fiestic belief that is you just trust the text and the revelation.

Now, of course, they still use reason, but they use it instrumentally, but they don't. So, they're instrumental um rationalists, not rational, sorry, they use reason in an instrumental fashion. I don't consider that rationalism. I don't consider that very rational. Rather I think uh that's why I say we need to look at other groups in history like the mazes who put reason and revelation at the same level or the Islamic philosophers who even gave reason precedence over revelation.

I think we need to consider these other options and value human reason. I will say that today like no other time in history because of modernity you have reactionary conservatives especially who will say that reason is a bad thing that this is just they equate reason with your whims and your desires and that I was always taught growing up that religion is against whims and desires which is your human rationality.

So you should throw your human rationality in the garbage can. Now what's the consequence of this belief? The consequence of this belief is like I said open up and now I know my mic is not going to like this and it's going to cut out probably but [laughter] it's a fan I think my mic is a fan of Reliance of the Traveler but if you open if you open this manual of juristprudence of Islamic juristprudence you go to the very beginning and it says something quite shocking.

It says if you live on an island isolated region and you have never heard of the revelation then you are not uh religion is not oblity is obligated upon you. You're not held accountable for anything you do because you haven't reached revelation. So the consequence of that is you can go murder, rape, kill, you can kill babies, eat babies, and then once you get the revelation, you can just become Muslim and everything you did was forgiven without even seeking repentance for what you did.

That's an absurd belief. So we need to think about this. Is this a reasonable belief system to have? And here's what else I'll say. You don't just need reason to arrive at the truth of revelation. Reason is an ongoing tool that you use in engagement with revelation. So for example, let's say I'm convinced that the Quran is from Allah, right? Yeah. It's not just a one step that I did that at one point in time in my life and after that I never needed reason again.

No, every time I visit the Quran, I am using my human reason. And secondly, if I find a verse that I never knew about before. For example, let's say, and this is, God forbid, I'm just giving up an giving an example, but let's say I found Oh, I didn't see this verse. This verse actually says that humans come from an alien race of donkey uh Martians, right?

Once I let's say let's say I never had seen this verse before. Well, then even though I had at one point in time been convinced with my human rationality that this Quran is from Allah, now once I see this verse, my reason would say, "Wait a second, it might not be." I'm not trying to say that the Quran is something that we should not believe in. But what I'm saying is that we we we have to use reason continuously. Reason is not something that we just use to arrive at revelation and then stop.

And so that's that's my my way of thinking. And I'm inspired by the Islamic philosophers, the Mesazi and other uh freeth thinkers of the past as well as many Islamic modernists of the present. But people will say, doc um and they ask they say this to me all the time, but just putting it to you, they will say yes, but reason is very subjective. You know, using your reason, where do you draw the line?

because uh you know today you certain things are deemed reasonable which were not deemed reasonable 500 years ago and so on and so forth you know like whose reason this is often uh a question which of is is hurled at many people who as you know who advocate the voice of reason so what is your response to that absolutely so what I would say is actually the usheries are and the quote unquote orthodoxy they are more moral relativists than anyone else.

In fact, if you read and I respect Imam Ghazali a lot. I think he was a great intellectual but he was actually he would argue for cultural relativism. He argued very voseiferously for cultural relativism. On the other hand, it was the Islamic rationalists, the Mazalis and now the modernists who argued for universal morality which says that there is a belief that it's not subject to human desire whether or not something for example killing baby raping and killing babies is not okay in some cultures and not okay in others.

So in fact what we see today is this strange alliance between postmodernists in the academy and the uh traditionalists who follow this kind of moral relativist argument. So they actually and this goes back to the euthiferral problem right where they say are things good because God says they're good or does God say they're good because they are good? They are good. Yeah. Right. So I think this is a false dilemma.

I think uh there's the modified uh divine command theory which states things are good because of God's very nature. So it flows from God's nature what is good. So it's not subjective and neither is there these categories that exist before God. Rather good flows naturally from God. But the point I'm trying to say is once you have this ethical relativism it's called volunt uh ethical volunteerism.

That's what the usheries believe. That's actually more relativist than what [clears throat] than what I'm saying and what many Islamic modernist rationalists are saying, which is precisely that we have universal moral values which we should come to. Now, we might disagree what those are. Yeah. But we believe that they exist and we can say that there are at least some that we can agree on and some maybe there's disagreement on.

But it's so so I would I would throw this argue this accusation back against the traditionalists. Sure. So just just to just to unpack that a bit. So I mean the Asharis they their thing on this by the way I completely I I find it uh that element absurd that they say there is no no such thing as good and bad. It's just whatever God said do becomes good translates as good.

Whatever God said don't do translates as bad. Uh complete nonsense. As opposed to people like Imam Abuhanifh opposed that and as did uh some of the other earlier theologians. Coming to you, do you believe that uh there is uh I mean what how do you believe morality to be? I know recently there was a discussion between u Muhammad hijab and um apostate prophet which they kept it it was Daniel Hakikachu right?

Oh no also Muhammad hijab right? Yes. So there there was one also with the apostate prophet and I think it was uh facilitated by uh I've forgotten his name now the other Salah uh Adam Salah. So now on this he kept hijab kept saying uh do you believe in absolute morality or you know what what morality do you believe in and so uh he was arguing from a religious viewpoint that we have absolute morality himself.

Who who who was arguing that? Muhammad hijab. Uh yes. So he's saying that we have morals given to us and because you don't have morals. So is incest okay? Is this okay? Is that okay? And if you say we have morals then his point is where do you get these morals from? So um how how do you see because I see it entirely different. I don't see the morality debate like that and I've given my perspective before and I'll go into it but I'm just curious how you see uh this topic.

Thank you so much. So what I will say is this. I'm an academic and I study the academic philosophy. All right. Uh Muhammad hijab and these kind of folks they are honestly acting as oneeyed you know the oneeyed man is king in the land of the blind. M so he has this cursory knowledge of western liberalism and philosophy and then he uses that to bash in the head someone like apostate prophets who doesn't know anything.

So apostate prophets is completely he's a complete ignoramus. Okay. So here here's the issue. Sorry it just did that. [laughter] We've got a gin over there people but it's all uh sorry. Yeah. So no. tell you. Okay, so here's let me let me break down how I understand this. Now, keep in mind, I'm not a PhD in philosophy. I'm a PhD in the study of religion.

And I should clarify, I'm in the middle of my PhD right now. I Yeah, but here it goes again. This This is so annoying for people. I apologize. Do is is it the actual setting on the on on the Skype? Is it? Yeah. Do Do you want to uh shut it? You think by closing it and starting it again, it might make it easier or I I don't know.

I think if it keeps doing it. Okay. Sure. Okay. Yeah. But it's okay now. You can carry on. So So here's how I It is. Damn it. It is. Uh Okay. Hold on one sec. Sure. Okay. If you want to uh do that, you can. And I'll just uh explain my perspective whilst you if you want to reset it, you can do okay.

You want to do Okay, here we go. Okay, cool. If it keeps The problem is I think this is going to happen again and it might be something to do with my mic. I apologize. Um but sure, go for it. Yeah. Okay, so here's the issue. My worldview is very theistic. I root my morality in my theistic worldview.

So I am an Abrahamic believer. Um I believe in God. The source of my morality, it's called moral realism. Moral realism in western philosophy is now considered very p. It's not considered very respectable anymore. Why? Because in the western academy, in philosophy departments, they've kind of distanced God. You can no longer really invoke God. But in reality, you need God to rest your morality upon.

You need So I am a moral realist and I'm also a scientific realist. Either a critical realist or um or at least a common sense realist or at least a critical realist. The same thing realism I show when it comes to morality. Now what what has been going on recently on YouTube is that you have these people who have studied who are Islamic traditionalists who have studied the philosophy of science. That's what they've done.

They've studied philosophy of science and now they feel like the oneeyed man in a land of the blind. And what I would say is the people that they debate with are just people who don't know philosophy. So they actually Joe Rogan had the um he's brilliant himself. Uh the he's the MMA trainer who's Muslim. Um he he studied philosophy in undergrad. Um and he had a debate on philosophy of science.

And let me just say Ferras Feras Ferras. And I like that guy. I don't I have messaged him to to get him on Mine Trap. Let's see. So, so even though I completely disagreed with his overall viewpoints, I do find him brilliant and well read. Okay. But the fact is that it wasn't a fair debate. You're talking to a Joe Rogan and you're having a debate. Of course, it's going to be a one-sided affair. M anyways coming back to the point I do think apostate prophets has no standing when he as an atheist says that he believes in moral realism.

Where do you gr ground your morality in? If you just believe in evolution and biology, there's no reason to believe in universal morality. However, as a theist, I have every right to justify my moral realism in God. The traditionalist is not a moral realist in the sense that um well they believe in ethical volunteerism. They believe in uh the idea that God is the one who declares what's good and bad.

But they don't exist indeping and raping and killing babies is okay then that's okay. And they do believe this. We could uh this is a long long debate. Um, no, absolutely. I mean, my my perspective on this, by the way, on um on morality, I feel that what it is is that Allah has created a fra.

The fra is a kind of morality instinct. It's a morality base. It's something very raw. Um, it's like the the language instinct we have. It's kind of hardwired but it's hardwired in a way that yes we are prone for language as you know Chsky would say L or uh but the but for us so there is this universal grammar there's this universal morality which is very simple as in [snorts] it the components are one we

recognize harm we can recognize hurt and then there's empathy So these two kind of core components what they do is they allow like when we recognize hurt and suffering there's an element of empathy that kind of makes us think oh like because we can empathize with it we don't want to afflict it now we then add the rest the way we build the way we learn a language we add the rest onto it so I feel that uh so That's the fra that there is this core kind of

uh compound but it's built upon in our environment and our age and we kind of and I suppose I will kind of also argue and I suppose people would disagree with this that there is this kind of collective consciousness of the age that does uh [laughter] I do feel in a I believe in a kind of collective consciousness which kind of also adds tweaks our understanding of things but uh that's how I see But yes, so it's I I mean I agree I agree with a lot of what you said.

Um what I well I think at least it's it's plausible. Um but I what I would just say is that I think you can very confidently say that we ground our morality in God because God is the source of our morality and God would not uh you know put in us these instruments for us to be misguided. uh why would we have this intellect and this uh conscious this feeling of moral consciousness if we weren't supposed to follow it?

So uh you can feel rest assured that this idea of moral realism is very much justified in our belief in God. And this idea of uh problematizing it based on this cultural relativism in my mind is the zeitgeist of the age of atheism that now these traditionalists are using which is quite sad actually. This is the most irreligious in order to counter rationalists believers.

They're using the most irreligious kind of arguments from postmodernists and using it to hit rationalist thinkers over the head with. So I think that's quite problematic. So that's that's what I would say on that. But would you feel that the morality uh is god-given as in the whole not I'm not just talking like how I said a base but the actual um so let's say uh do not steal do not um do these things like God has given us that like taught us that are you saying God has taught us or he's just told us or how do we recognize

these things to be wrong I'm saying that these ideals exist in that kind of in this kind of metaphys, you know, they Oh my god. [laughter] I don't even know how you're going. And now it's it's it's all the only other option I have is No, it's it's good right now. It's good.

I think it just tries to uh pick it up. So um what I'm saying is that the ideals that u of morality they exist in this kind of metaphysical space out there somewhere idealize in God in the godhead in the mind of God so to speak. We only appro can ever approximate those ideals of morality and we try to approximate them as best as we can.

There's some ages in which we approximate it more than other ages based on certain factors. So the quintessential example for example is the idea of slavery, right? So somebody could say if you if morality is universal, why is it that only up until very recently society said slavery is wrong and bad? And that is kind of used as the Trump argument for moral relativists, cultural relativists.

I would argue that historically people have always known that slavery is bad and it's not a good thing. Muslims knew that. They knew that slavery was bad. Why? Why do we know that? Because they were against Muslims from being taken as slaves. It wasn't the issue that they didn't recognize that slavery is bad. It's that they didn't recognize the full humanity of the people they denied that ethical ideal to. So they didn't recognize non-Muslims as fully human.

So therefore they didn't extend this courtesy to non-Muslims. So for example, if you study the ethics of war and peace, which is what my dissertation is on, um you will find that Muslims actually got it very much right when they were talking about intramuslim uh war. They did say that you shouldn't take them as slaves and this kind of thing. So they just didn't recognize the other and that blinded them to the fact that we should extend this to other people.

But so they did recognize that slavery is bad and and they didn't want it for themselves. So I think that's enough indication to say that yes they did recognize it but they were blinded to it. Are you stating doc like let's say now let's take something as um let's say fornication or drinking alcohol. Mhm. Now, are we saying is this, if I understood this correct, this is a a moral ideal?

Each one of these is I don't think drinking I don't think drinking alcohol is a moral ideal necessarily. It may it may not be. Um, so where are these because when we're saying cuz when you're saying these morals are in the mind of God or they exist with God. So what what do you I take it do you mean by that like there's a whole long list of uh dos and don'ts.

So so what I would say is like eating pork for example Yeah. in my mind is not violating a moral universal moral norm. That is a specific ritual practice of the Muslim ummah. Yeah. that our prophet legislated that uh or the Quran legislated that is uh not a moral univer that's not a universal moral ideal. So if you are a non-Muslim in my mind I don't think that God will hold you to account for eating pork if it's not in your religious uh belief system I don't think you'll be held liable to that.

Meanwhile I think that's radically different than going out and raping and killing babies. we can all agree that that is uh morally wrong even if you have no religion or you have a different religion. So I think we need to differentiate between ritual ritual law and moral law but natural law but let's say natural law sure but let's say uh uh robbing people.

Yeah. Now like this tribe goes and robs that tribe and brings their goods. Um this is obviously something you know many pre-ivilization is something essential as a survival tactic now right is this when you're told okay don't do certain things do you think this is something uh human beings are learning picking up is this something god has because the issue comes here that god has legislated different things for different prophets so is god's morality then changing with time.

So I So first I just want to clarify I'm not a moral philosopher. So I don't want to get too deep in the woods here. But what I would say but what I would say is um I don't think morality changes in the sense of um I'll give you an example. So in the Quranic story of um Moses and his people, they're being persecuted um by the Egyptians and the Pharaoh.

Yeah. In the Bible, what we have is then they flee Egypt and they go to the promised land, which is a different land. And and no, just carry on. It's picked it's picked you back up as you as you speak. Yeah. So, so in the in the biblical story, they go and conquer uh another people and kill all the women and children.

That's how it's narrated in the story. In the Quran, the Quran changes that and says that no, it implies, it seems to imply that in fact the land that they acquire is actually the land of Egypt, the same land in which they were persecuted. Mhm. The reason is the Quran is correcting this ethical ideal and saying that no, it violates God's law that you can kill innocent human beings and aggress against neutral third party people.

So the Quran is rearticulating the story. My point is that yeah, I think they got it wrong, the biblical story, but I don't think God himself would ever have allowed for people to go and kill innocent people. So that I don't think can change. Morality cannot change from these universal moral values. But what can change is like ritual laws can change with time. And we could also reach closer to the ideal, approximate that ideal, moral ideal.

We can get closer to acquiring it. That's that's what we can do. I mean, sure. I mean, that's uh and and and you've highlighted that this is not generally, you know, you're not this is not you're not uh uh philosophy of morality is not something you normally um delve into too much. Uh so just I mean just to I know some of the people had said in the comments that my perspective on it is that these things are very fundamental as in because we see in animals as well.

We see in primates that they have a sense of justice. Uh there is this thing of the virtue of justice. You can read up the studies amongst primates in primatology and you'll see that they sense like things like taking revenge and they will take revenge for siblings and family members from other uh within the same tribe when monkeys violate uh each other. So for so there's been studies.

So for example, this uh female monkey went and after an x amount of time went and and attacked one of those monkeys who had then previously uh attacked her brother. And there was but that it there'd been a time lapse and it was a sense of revenge because they felt justice and and there's other things as well when monkeys feel that they're being treated uh unfavorably when a particular monkey is being given.

saw the study where they were giving one monkey grapes and they were giving the other one first they were giving them the same and then the other monkey gets grapes and he just gets I I forgotten what they were feeding him but he sensed it was inferior so the monkey would refuse to eat until it also gets what the other monkey eats so I I would have thought that when Allah says about fra that he has built in a these core very raw fundamentals and we then obviously we have it slightly we have it more elevated than how primates have it like monkeys, but we then just build upon it within our environment and so on.

But yeah, that's just to uh yeah clarify. I I I think you're on to something. What I would only caution against is the idea that what someone could easily say in response to that is that monkeys and animals, they do all sorts of other things like kill the runt of the litter, they rape, uh they do all sorts of things. Um so also what this would indicate is actually that our morality is based on the evolutionary process.

Yeah. And that and that therefore um you can't really arrive at this theistic idea. But what I would say is I agree with you. I think that our morality may have evolved in an evolutionary manner from a mechanistic standpoint. But what religion does for us, it allows us to say we actually believe this is how God intended it to and we use these this language of symbols, metaphors and parables to understand this phenomenon and say that from a theological standpoint we believe that our morality is rooted in God.

And that's I think the necessary step that you need to make which is saying that our morality is rooted in God because otherwise it's just through evolution because so that's that's the only thing I because my my thing would be that obvious unquestionably humans have come a long way from even from an evolutionary point. So even if they share commonalities of concepts of let's say ethics or not ethics but some morality in primates human morality would be so much more developed.

It wouldn't be just and but I feel this morality thing even with primates or animals it comes down to this thing of I think there's two key those two key components that one is we can discern what hurting is and harm as in pain and we can then empathize uh because we then have a greater empathy. Now what happens is I feel with humans over you know millennia there's at times it's not that we can't empathize but our empathy hasn't like when we don't care uh there's because

the other needs the instinct for power the instinct for other things override our empathy. So it's not about raping that people wouldn't know. Like let's say a woman is crying. They would sense the empathy, but the instinct at the time would override it. So they they just wouldn't care. They'll block it out and they'll just do what they want to do. Or if you were saying about killing someone, if you said about killing children, it's not that the cries of the child, they don't register it, but they would just block it out and just just go ahead with the attack.

So I feel over time and the other component that I add which I suppose is a bit u maybe a bit woohoo to people is uh is the fact that I because I believe consciousness is the ru I feel that there is this kind of uh like a connectedness and as societies evolve over time uh there's a kind of even though it's very low level but a kind of like a feedback of the feel the kind of zeitgeist that you were saying that you know in a day and age people's like it's interesting how today racism in the west now is uh even though

it's unfortunately still there in in in several places in some places more than others but it's considered like horrible and even people you know even people who sometimes let's say in the west if they've done something they will take offense to even if it has stemmed from racism but if you said to them oh you're racist. They would find disgust at racist like oh my god like I'm not racist.

And whereas let's say in the '9s or the 80s this wasn't there. Now has is this just simply a result of one is it a result of just more advertising and propaganda and raising awareness or is it so just telling people it's information saying this is wrong don't do it. Or is it that as with the last few decades the kind of consciousness what I would feel is that the the feel has changed and so people have now it's not that they've read so much about it but they just feel that that's wrong.

Um and I obviously that part is really difficult to explain because the first part is obviously I can use evolutionary studies and I can use psychology but this is just my but yeah I I mean that was just saying if you wanted to say something about that but I also wanted to tap into uh you'd mentioned Quran the story of Israel and I wanted to come to that but yes sure uh yeah so I'll just say I'll end with one point which is I do agree with you that I think we can understand spirit as probably a it's the symbolic word for consciousness.

I think religion is describing consciousness. So I agree with you there. That's that's a probably a good theory uh that I agree with um that I lean towards. I don't know for sure but but I believe that the only point I would say is as far as this shared consciousness, I'm not [laughter] well I'm not I'm not discarding this idea completely. But what I would say is the problem you would run into is um then how come in let's say in North Korea where those ideas don't reach through mediums you don't have that change in cultural views.

So I think you have true but uh but in any case I I just just toal sure just to get I'm going to get in trouble. I don't know. I'm not an expert of moral. No, sure. I just wanted to uh Yeah, absolutely. But there was just this verse which I wanted to say before and that was it really ties in so well there and it sums that up is that when Allah says that really all God is commanding towards is justice and a compassion.

And it's interesting that the justice isn't expanded upon. It's kind of just said justice as though you will just know what justice is. enjoy the good and forbid the evil. Uh you know there's no mention it's like what is known as good. So uh this is this is a very good point that you've raised and this points us in the direction of hey maybe we should look at what these early Islamic rationalists these muzzes what they're saying. So what what I taught in my when I was teaching my course I do it in a more neutral way.

Now of course you can read between the lines and you can tell where I lean. And this is like behind the scenes where I'm actually giving you my views. But in my in my class, I didn't, you know, I took a step back. Sure. But what I what I think a lot of students realized was, hey, I kind of agree with the Muzzlies. Their views are not that crazy on these issues. It just makes common sense. Um, so I I think that's why we need to go back. I think I want to move away from Sure. Sure. Sure. I mean, it's okay.

You know, this thing on uh stories uh because you mentioned the whole the Bunnel they were, you know, trapped in the uh or sorry, they weren't they were whether they were enslaved or not, but they were being kind of tortured socially u within Egypt. They escape, they go to the Middle. This whole thing, the narratives within the Quran. Now you have an interesting uh perspective and research on this and it ties into two things which I wanted to kind of discuss and we can come to the other point uh because with ban is the story of them going there and then waging a holy war

and you know regaining this land this uh of Canaan this whole ardul madasa this sacred territory it ties it taps into the topic of jihad and that's also an area that you uh have an incredible uh wealth of knowledge in so these two things I mean first of all the stories in the Quran um tell us about that doc what's your take on it so those are two uh topics I'd love to speak on thank you for that so because my dissertation topic is actually on jihad in the Quran and the formative period but actually the side project

that I'm working on right now uh I'm working on that with another fellow PhD candidates at Harvard Azie Gundus um was an amazing guy and I'm really grateful to work with him. But uh we're actually going through Muhammad Khalafah's Khalafah's book. Um he was a uh Egyptian Islamic modernist who wrote his dissertation called the literary art in the Quran of the Quran.

uh and he tried to uh submit this as his dissertation uh and he was blocked from doing so and his dissertation he was not allowed to publish it like that or or submit it. What what was the reason he was not allowed? It's just too controversial or too too controversial. So actually what uh me and him have been doing is we've been going through the entire text. We're almost done with it. We've been translating it and uh we're going to do a close reading of it.

We're not going to do a word for word translation of all of it. It's it's a very big book. Here I have it right here. So it's an Arabic book. Um and uh it's quite a wonderful what's what's it called in Arabic? Uh it's Alan Alasi uh hold on let's see the exact let me the Arabic titles are very fancy. So uh Phil Quran. So, I think it might have even been a longer title, but um I mean, so yeah, and I'm surprised that that anything is prohibited in academia to kind of like you said is this is the Islamic world.

I mean, come on. Uh you can you get persecuted all the time. So, this had this happened in Egypt. Oh, in Egypt. Sorry. Okay. Okay. Okay. I thought you meant the Western academic. No, no, no, no. [laughter] So, I was kind of shocked for a moment. I thought, whoa. Okay. So, so what I'm try, what I'm trying to do, so he is um Azie who is my colleague, he's uh more into Arab literature and so that's his interest in my interest.

There we go. We're back. Uh my interest in the topic is from an Islamic academic theological perspective. So I Islamic academic which Islamic academic theology is the idea that we take the insights the critical scholarly insights of the western academy and we apply those to our theology our Islamic religion and c does it change our views at all so what I'm trying to do is uh anyways that's something else but uh we're through this book and what this author is arguing I think he has hit the nail on its head Okay.

He has said that the Quran should not be read as a book of history or science rather it should be read as a book of literature and it's a sacred literature but it's literature and prophets and the Quran the Quran is a manifestation of this divine art this uh literary art. So these stories, we should not understand them as literal historical events.

Like I'll give you an example and I and I actually taught this in my class. I thought I thought I would get banned but surprisingly I got away with it. [laughter] But that's that's thanks to the Gambi Center for their openness. But um let's take the story of the people of the cave. Okay, if you actually YouTube, you can find a quote unquote documentary on the supposed site of the cave and then you go inside and they're actually they show the the objects that these uh uh people of the cave supposedly had the sleepers, the seven sleepers as they say.

Yeah. And so they take it very literally. They say what city did it happen in? Where was the cave? What were the names? But the Quran itself actually says don't worry about how many people were in the cave. Don't worry about and the Quran also and so these are the arguments that the author is raising that I agree with. Uh sure the book that I'm going through um he says the Quran specifically obscures much information because its intent is not its intent is rhetorical in nature.

It's to make a religious argument. So what the Quran is engaged in is religious and theological discourse. So it's not important to know how many men were in this cave, how long they stayed in. And furthermore, we have indications that these are legendary stories. Now legendary story does not mean that it didn't happen at all necessarily. That's a possibility that we leave open.

But usually what a legend is is a it's a dram a dramatized there could be a historical figure. There may or may not be a historical figure or events and then it's dramatized in a certain way in order to universalize that event and to uh get certain religious uh teachings out of that. And so this is what the Quran is engaging in. So when we look at it as historical tr literal historical and scientific um stories we are actually misreading the Quran.

God says in the Quran that he strikes parables. These are these are parabolic stories. These are so the and this is where I go back to my uh thing about Islamic intellectual history. The [clears throat] is I do think that the Islamic philosophers were correct that re Yep. Carry on. Sorry. It should pick you up as you speak.

Religion and revelation use the language of symbols, metaphors, parables, simileies, poetic language. This is the language that religion uses. I mean, so we should not understand it in a literal, scientific, and historical manner that unfortunately our traditionalists today understand it. And they look quite silly. So, I'm I'm going to end on I'm sorry I'm going on a rant, but No, no, no, no.

I mean, I'm in the Western Academy now, and we have certain Muslim colleagues of mine who are very intelligent and everything, but I mean, if you believe in the literal occurrence of many of these stories and and you take the stories so literally, I mean, what can I say? you look kind of silly when you do that to to believe in after we have all this evidence now that these stories first of all where they come from how the Quran rearticulates them and how they couldn't have happened that way for example the flood the flood could not have happened and the way it's now somebody now what has been happening recently is that uh we have moved in this scientistic

direction where we say okay well the flood was not universal and actually A very respected scholar who I like said, "Who told you that the flood was universal? It was localized." And I [clears throat] agree this is the overwhelming argument that many reasonable people are making nowadays. But I would push back and I would say I would take Iban Rush's view. Iben Rush was actually a literalist when it came to this the metaphors and symbols and parables and stories of of of revelation.

He said to be uh yeah no car carry on you should pick you up. I'm sorry. So so they are not meant to be taken as metaphors rather they are meant to be understood in this way but that doesn't mean that that's because that's the vehicle that religion uses. So it's a it's a story that so for I'll give you an example. So if you read the Quran, you cannot but fail to come to the idea that it does seem to be depicting Quran in sorry depicting Allah God in a somewhat anthropomorphic way, right?

Okay. You you have to use all these mechanisms. So even though I'm a rationalist believer, yeah, I actually would say maybe what these usher and even these mutazalies are doing by reinter like saying no no this is a symbol for this. But actually somebody like Iban Rush would say he would actually say no no no the Quran intended for this anthropomorphic image so that the masses could relate to this unknowable god that's now Ib would say that's not the reality we we know that so actually Ibena Avisa he says that the Quran likens the the revelation likens

God to a king why because it's not that God is literally a king but it does want the average person to think of God as a king because that's something that they aam the masses can understand the vulner especially in that day and age. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And yeah, of course, I would say even today to some extent. But what I'm saying is um how that's just a a symbolic language that speaks to a higher truth which is the idea that God is transcendent and different than uh and then what what IB Rush would add is that the Quran itself in includes the hint the Dala in it of this higher

truth. So for example the Quranic verse that says there is nothing like unto him. So I think this is a more sophisticated way and it's a more systematic way of understanding Quranic stories, the ideas of miracles and all of these things that we now know in our scientific day and age we can no longer believe in. This will allow us to make what I call a Boltmanian leap. Rudolph Baltman was a Christian theologian who had to argue that we have to dethize the Bible in order to understand it for our today day and age.

I think we need to make a similar leap today. And it's a systematic leap. You just have to bite a bullet. Yeah. Once you bite the bullet, then you no longer need to have this what I consider ad hoc constant need to say, well, what is this? So, what is what do we do with this miracle? What do we do with this issue? what do we do with this? We're constantly having to face these issues. Put the whole thing as a literary piece like put it as understand it as a literary uh art and a sacred literary art and understand that uh religion and revelation use the language of uh

symbolism, parables, metaphors, legends. This is precisely the language of religion and this is a beautiful thing. We should not minimize this. Yeah. And last would say truth. This is a higher truth than scientific truths. Have so actually have this inferiority complex where we think oh my god evolution and Darwin and science these are true and re and and now we have to make the Quran reconcile it with that.

Now I of course wholeheartedly believe in evolution as a scientific fact is scientific facts are actually inferior to religious truths metaphorical truths deeper truths. So uh if we and that's what religion does. So if if and I would just close on this for example human evolution is based on the idea that we came from a common ancestor and that it was just random chance and mutations and natural selection and then human humanity was created and it was even created it could be multiple uh forerunners like it it may not have been from the same human being

that we came to. Well if you believe in that idea which there's your private jet again is it? Oh, yep. It is that's that's what's catching the mic. I got to tell that pilot to stop taking [laughter] joy ride. I know. So So So what I would say is and I and I'll close on this. I'm sorry for going off, but um even though I believe that historically and scientifically evolution is the way humans were put on this earth, if we just leave it at that, then we're left with a very uh anemic moral worldview.

What the Quran is and and that's where social Darwinism comes from. So after Darwinis, after evolution, you had social Darwinism. If you just believe in evolution and no religion, then you would say, uh, why would you believe in human rights? You would just believe that the the strong should kill the weak because it's natural selection and I need to increase my progeny and that's it. Now, what religion does, it gives us those higher moral and religious truths and it voices them in the in the language of uh symbolism and parables and etc.

And then we and then that and that gives us the basis for human rights and these things that we value today that unfortunately atheistic secularism secular atheism is getting rid of underneath our feet and then we'll be left with nothing but nihilism and this bleak moral worldview. So that's how I understand uh these stories. I me see just to kind of uh just um kind of my my because I'm just hearing that and and where I stand from.

So I so several things you've said like uh the Quran obviously Rush somebody I'm definitely in line with his way of thinking and that the Quran speaks in symbols it speaks in metaphors it speaks in uh all these things I totally agree and everything you've said about God uh this kind of anything anthropomorphic or things like that it's not that these things were accidentally said but it's because humans could relate to it especially I would feel especially the people of the day and age and by extension others as well from different uh times.

Um right now and the stories thing is as Uvel Harrari has kind of like made very clear in his book as well and I totally loved his book Sapiens that look human beings what distinguishes us is stories and I totally agree that that is true because the stories they they carry much more than what people think when when we say stories sounds like like a bedtime story but it means myths and psychosocial narratives and everything entities like that and and I love the example he gives where he says um he says you know if you put a uh in one of his interviews he says if you put a monkey on an island

and you put a human on an island and you had to bet on who would survive uh he says I would bet on the monkey the monkey would outs survive the the human but if you put a thousand men on an island and a thousand monkeys the thousand men would outs survive the you know they would accomplish all sorts and he says and why is that it's not just because of the number because it's the power of stories the power of myth now [snorts] uh okay so with that in mind coming to this you see so the stories in the Quran and and I have said by the way in my Monday nights with mui and repetitively

that scripture is more kind of art in many ways I I've said that that I do agree with that understanding and Karen Armstrong speaks of the art of scripture. So, but when we're saying like the flood of Noah or let's say Abraham or Moses or Jesus or Adam or Adam or Adam or Adam, are we saying these are entirely fictitious events uh and and people?

Is this what we're is this what you're uh purporting? Is this or just to be clear on where you stand on it? Okay. So in my class I actually someone asked me a very good question. They said I was now I was using the Islamic philosophers. I didn't say this was my view but sure. Okay. But no this is my this is my now we're behind the scenes and cuz it's [laughter] just it's just me and you here. There's no audience or anything.

Right. There's unfortunately a live audience. It's not going live. Oh my god. No. I'm just kidding. [laughter] You're like wait Miy isn't this the the pre discussion? Yeah. No no no. In my class, I had to as a teacher, I had to create some distance. So, I was only sharing the Islamic philosophers's view, but I agree with their view and I use their view to understand modern science and the issue of religion and science, the conflicts.

And Iban Rush is my uh starting point with that. Now what I would say is um one of the students in my class asked me they were like they were very open-minded and they said you're very this is very convincing stuff but what what about the danger of just thinking of everything as metaphor and then wouldn't you destroy all of religion in that way?

Was there that fear? M and what my response was was that um the opponents of the Islamic philosophers, they said that's exactly what these philosophers are doing. So it's not like it was a theoretical thing. They did accuse the Islamic philosophers of destroying all of religion in this way. I disagree. So even though I acknowledge that fear, I would respond as I rushed said.

So let's take a very standard example. the descriptions and we have to work our need answers. No, just carry on. It'll pick you up. It'll pick you up. Okay. So, we have to work our way through this. So, let's start with something that maybe we can get more buy in from an average Muslim. Yeah. Let's talk about the descriptions of paradise and hell in the Quran. Now, no. The reason the reason I was going to say that is because the the thing of paradise and the afterlife, I've already in much detail said that look, the afterlife is all symbolic because the texts say we can never fathom.

So, that part I I'm, you know, very clear on. Let me let me do my buildup so that I can sure. Okay. Sure. Land land the plane where I want to. So, so, so, so Iben Rush, so Gazali in his book, the incoherence of the philosophers with he wrote um he accused the Islamic philosophers of kufur on three points and one of those three points was the fact that they disbelieved in the corporeal uh rewards and punishments of paradise and hell.

M Iben Rush responded to uh Ghazali and even though I think Gazali is brilliant, I do think Iben Rush's um uh response was superior. And what there's your there's your plane now. Oh, is it? Oh, bloody hell. I'm going to sack that pilot. [laughter] So, getting carried away with me being lenient about my private jet.

Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Um so what Iben Rush said the only thing that defines belief and unbelief is that we believe in paradise and the afterlife not how we believe in the details of the afterlife. And he even pointed out that Gazali himself has said that some of the Sufis disbelieve in the corporeal.

They think these are symbolic punishments and rewards. And we [clears throat] know that and we can just go through the text and understand that these are symbolic because is it just a coincidence that all of the descriptions appeal to people who live in the desert? Are we saying that that's exactly what people who live in Scandinavia they're going to that's what they get even though for them they would for them if they imagine paradise they would want beaches and sun and you know getting nice suntans that's how they would imagine whereas for an Arab person living in the desert it would be cool breeze that's the kind of thing you know gardens under which rivers flow

that's what they would imagine so so okay so now we have buyin that yes those I mean those things I think would be and I think that's by the way for people who are open to interpretations that's s I think that's quite simply palatable because once you say look the afterlife is something which is beyond human comprehension then obviously you the the fact that the Quran will give some form of of an imagery approximation to entice people just makes sense but stories are something of this world.

Yes. Okay. I get that. So yeah, what? Okay, so first of all, it's important to keep in mind they're not literally of this world. They're part of sacred time and sacred place. That is different than historical time that we live in now. Okay? So if you look at the Quranic stories, they don't give us any detail about what uh century they occurred in. Um they don't give us many they don't give us geographical details.

They exist in an ahistorical sacred time and sacred place. Why? Why sacred? Because so this is terms that uh scholars in the study of religion use. Okay. Um but what it means to say it's not normal time in the sense that what is normal time? Normal time in normal place means that so you're in a normal place right now. You have something flying above you, right?

In like like that wasn't ideal, right? when you had that plane fly above your your your private jet that interfered that interfered in our conversation. Now I have a question. If you were telling us it might be it might be angels actually think [laughter] so we don't have to talk about that too but all right so now let's say you are telling if the Quran is telling a story of a past prophets do you think it would just give a detail of a plain flu you even hypothetically speaking that some it wouldn't give these useless details that don't help with the uh the moral of the story this is what we mean by a sacred time

and a sacred face. All right. Uh the rules are different. In regular time and place, uh things just happen one damn thing after another. That's what regular time is. In sacred time and sacred place, it's different rules. It's special. So if we look at the uh stories of the Quran, what do we notice? We notice that they all follow certain archetypal patterns.

For example, we have these punishment stories. All of the stories are the exact same kind of arc. There was a prophet that was sent to the people. The people mocked the prophet, disbelieved in him and rejected him. That prophet would be distressed by the disbelief of his people and their rejection. God would come and give that prophet solace and then finally he would destroy those people.

Right? This story repeats itself over and over and over again. Why? Because what is the Quran actually doing when it's narrating these stories? This is archetypal because it's place it's actually talking about the prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him. Okay? It's actually talking about the prophet and that's why the same story can actually be narrated in different ways even though it's talking about the same character and the same event.

So for example, in the story of Lot, the story is narrated in two different ways at least. In one in one story, the angels actually inform Lot beforehand that they're angels sent from God. In the others, they don't do that and he's surprised and he and he's surprised by that fact. Now, if you were an orientalist or you were somebody trying to a missionary, Christian missionary, you would say, look at this discrepancy. The Quran is just uh has these contradictions in it.

These are not contradictions. Neither should we seek to reconcile them like many traditionalists do to say, "Oh, we can explain this away and use certain textual acrobatics and move this away." No. What we say is these two stories were revealed at two different times in the prophetic in the prophet's life and they were sent for a different purpose due to the contingencies of the prophet's own time. So for example, there's a story in the Quran about when the Israelites worshiped the golden calf and they were uh and that story is narrated in one of the versions of the story.

The the story ends with God's mercy and forgiveness where God turns in mercy and forgiveness to the people the uh bunny is in another version of this story. The story ends with punishment and it doesn't have anything about the doors of mercy being open. Why is that? that's based on the relationship of the prophet at that specific time with the people of the book in his time.

So what the Quran is actually doing in a literary way, it's talking about the uh these past figures and talking about the present. Now I know I've beaten around the bush a little bit, but are you so let's note I was going to say that beating around the bush. So I the Israelites, let's take them as an example since you've mentioned them now. Were they because somebody would ask that do you feel that they are uh fictitious the Israelites or were they a real is this real stories that have been dramatized or are they fictitious events?

So so you're calling me out that I am kind of beating around the bush but I'm actually building up to it. So now I'm going to directly answer that question. Sure. So when they when uh certain traditionalists argue that the Islamic philosophers were destroying all of religion, I would say that they're not. And I actually scandalized my own wife when I told her my views. And she says, "Wait, do you even believe that the prophet Muhammad existed?" And I said, "No, of course I do." So at [laughter] least you began that sentence by saying, "No." And then I I thought, [laughter] "No, of course I do." Okay.

So, so let's start with what I know for sure as an academic. Sure. And as a believer and I don't find any contradiction between an academic and a believer. I'm an academic. I'm somebody interested in doing academic theology. So, as an academic, I know that Prophet Muhammad existed. There's only a minority of fringed scholars who believe that he didn't exist and they're not taken seriously. We know that Prophet Muhammad existed.

So, I believe in that. True. I also believe that Jesus existed and that Jesus was crucified. Okay. So, I believe in that. Now, the question now is do I believe, what you're asking me, do I believe in all of the past prophets and all of these events have some basis in some historical kernel. What I will answer, what I will answer is first as an academic and then as a believer. So, let me answer as an academic.

Academic hat on first. Go for it. Yes. As an academic, I would say the further back you go, the less and less we can be sure that they existed. So, as a responsible academic, we can believe that Prophet Muhammad existed and we can believe that Jesus existed. Only fringe scholars believe otherwise. But that's just just to kind of like uh anchor that in that. But that's simply saying the reason I mean I'm not just restricting this to academics but historians or anthropologists because they're saying well there's no evidence like we don't have uh I don't know a coin or we don't have anything

with Moses uh on it or we don't have anything of of his not with somebody having written it about him but we don't have something of Abraham we don't have something but had we had it we would have then believed but there's absence of evidence. Well, well, what I would say is that you get into the fog of history because after a certain before a certain time, you don't have written history. So, it's very hard to penetrate that.

And so, then you get into So, but before I answer the direct I have to I'm sorry. I just have to work my way to it. So, so I I've already told you I I but I'm making progress though, right? No, you are. You are. So, we know that we know that Prophet Muhammad existed. We knew that Prophet Jesus existed. Okay, we can say that for certain now, but the Quran does mention stories of Jesus. So that's a point as well to to Okay, so then so then let me respond to that then and say that even though I agree that the historical Jesus existed, the stories in the Quran about prophet Jesus are definitely dramatized and they're told in a literary way.

Now the author, the book that I'm reading, the author um he says um he he he brings up a very good point. The Quran mentions that um baby the infant Jesus spoke in the cradle. And yet the Christians deny this. Right? And then he says something. He says, "And yet the Christians we know are the most who exaggerate in the miracles and and and actions of Jesus." So if they didn't relate it, that's a pretty good argument that it didn't happen.

Okay? And if and then let's just think about this a little critically. If Jesus really did speak in the grave in in the cradle, don't you think people would then have believed him? I think we should take a stance of uh common sense here and say that if he spoke in the cradle Mhm.

people would believe in him. Now you now people are going to here's where I'm going to get pronouncements of kufur that are going to be No, before you get to that because there was the point that like what I've said is that no actual clear verse of the Quran states that Jesus spoke in the cradle. It's us inferring, reading between the lines that here's here's what I think. I think that that is engaging in textual acrobatics.

True. And and so I'm trying to give So so when I and I'm just telling you how I view it and you can disagree. No, of course. So So when I I've listened to your past videos on these things and I'm like this guy's on the right. I feel keep You're 70% there. [laughter] 70%'s a pass, isn't it? It's a good pass.

I'm gonna get you 100%. Right. So, so that's arrogant of me to say. [laughter] Okay. So, let me let me narrow this down. Um, let's talk about miracles first because these past stories are about miracles. So, we have to talk about miracles. Now, the traditionalist view, do you feel the past stories are actually the central theme is miracles?

Okay. So, let me get to that please. So, Um, sorry. I didn't mean to be rude. Was I? No. No. No. It's not rude. Of course not. [laughter] That's not rude. You should see how people interact with me normally. Okay. Okay. So, so, uh, traditionalists argue that miracles are obligatory to be sent to prove the prophethood of a prophet.

That is the purpose of miracles. Okay? Theologically, that's the purpose. In order to be a prophet, you have to make a claim of prophecy. And it has to be confirmed with a miracle. That is the traditionalist view. Yeah. Now, if you read Okay, let's take that view. If you Yeah. I mean, we don't I mean, we're in agreement that view is crazy, but Yeah. Yeah. But we're going to hypothetically take that. Sure. Sure. Sure. Sure. Explain it. Yeah. Yeah.

Now, you take a look at the Quran. The Quran itself seems in multiple places to imply clearly that the prophet did not carry out any miracles. And they have to in fact it says that the infidel pagans they said bring us from make a ladder to the sky to the heavens and bring us a miracle down. And and the Quran says that you know what pe it it goes it gives all sorts of rhetorical arguments saying that even if we did that first of all the first theological claim of the Quran is if we did that the matter would

be done. Yeah. then there's no purpose of belief after that and God does not compel people to believe. So it links miracle to compulsion. So if God brought down an angel and a he that would be compel and and we know that if for example uh angel Gabriel came down to me right now if me and you are talking right now and all of a sudden angel Gabriel came down here and said and and we both saw him and he had wings 70 wings and all this stuff then I would be like oh I'm totally wrong on my view right like there would be [laughter] I'd be like damn those mushrooms kicked in quick

They kicked in before I even took them. [laughter] The point the point is that the debate would be done. Correct? The time for belief would be done. So God says is making a theological claim that you are asking for miracles. We're warning you of the punishments and if we bring you those what you're asking for, the time is done for you. Now this is the theological argument that the Quran is making. What the traditionalists have to do is they have to use textual ac acrobatics to read in miracles in the Quran for the prophet Muhammad.

What they do is they say the splitting of the moon and then they use their hadith literature and in the hadith literature there's tons of miracles. You have the prophet walking and the plants are turning to shading him and there's he has no shadow. Think common sense. If the prophet actually did any of those things, don't you think his infidel pagan uh enemies would say, "Oh, yeah, that guy is a prophet." Yeah.

And and why would then if that if those things actually happened, why would the Quran have all this dialogue about they're asking you for miracles and tell them that if there's no point of sending you a miracle, right? So yeah, the point is we can say that the traditionalists with their theology have created a big problem. And by the way, Jay Smith and all of these Christian uh missionaries, they actually used this to hit us over the head with they say that Prophet Muhammad didn't do any miracles and we can prove it from the Quran.

And they're right. They're right about that. So instead of insisting on this silly theological belief, we should actually try to understand what the Quran is doing. So what the Quran is doing, what Fazer Rahman said, Professor Fazman, in the Quran, it seems as if miracles are out of fashion in the Quran. Okay. So now I still haven't answered your question about past prophets.

I'm getting there. I'm really getting [laughter] this this is the the straightforward response. Wait till we get to the other the complex response. [laughter] So, I'm going to say one more point. No, go for it. Go for it. Go for it. The only miracle that we could actually think about when it comes to the prophet that's mentioned in the Quran is the idea of the angels coming down on the battlefield of Badr.

Okay, that's interesting. Right now, our author Muhammad Sal, he talks about this. He says, he actually quotes the classical scholars to prove his arguments that many of them actually recognized that either these angels can be seen by you and me when they they could be seen by the prophet and the believers and uh the the enemies or they were not seen and they were unseen.

Yeah. In either case though in either case if they were first of all he says why did I don't know I forget how many angels it mentions. I think sometimes 7,000 sometimes 70,000 I don't remember exactly. He says why do they even need to send why did God need to send down thousands of angels? One angel could have done the job. Remember in the story angel Jab Gabri uh Gabriel Gabriel says that if you want I can destroy them all for you.

Right? So he says why does it say multiple angels? We only needed one angel. Secondly, he said, "We know we know who killed we have the names of the people who killed the [clears throat] infidel the chiefs of the infidels." So, so the point that Yeah. Go ahead. Sorry. No, I was going to say carry on just saying I'm just getting uh this thing for my throat. It's just right here. But carry on. But I put you up here so people are just hearing you. Do do proceed. Just one one second.

I can wait for you. It's okay. I'll wait. Uh no, no, carry on because people can just see you anyway. Okay. Okay. Okay. I got you. So what he is arguing is that um clearly this is rhetorical literary language that's being used to convey the idea that God is strengthening the hearts of the believers and it's using literary artistic language to do that which is the idea of sending down angels on the battlefield.

That doesn't mean that literally angels came down on the battlefield. It means that God strengthened the hearts of the believers. So now that we've understood that the Quran does describe something that's a miracle in the lifetime, something not it may not be a technical uh uh miracle in the technical Islamic sense, but it is a kind of supernatural event in the Quran that the angels are coming down. Um and we can see that there it's using a literary description and that it's not something to understand literally.

We can now use that to apply that to uh the stories of the past prophets. Their multiple stories. I got a question. Were you listening to me or did you miss that? Miyft, did you miss what I just said? Uh, you did tell me. That [laughter] was that was the crux of my argument. Oh, you gave the You answered it all. God damn.

So, I'm gonna I'm gonna repeat very quickly. No, just Yeah. The only thing that we can say that is supernatural described in the prophetic mission in the Quran, one of the only things is the angels coming down on the battlefield. However, we have the reports of the Muslims who killed the chiefs of the of the infidels. We don't have any. First of all, if they saw them with their own eyes, they would have just fled. We don't have that.

Instead, we know who killed who. And so even the classical exites many of them recognized that this didn't literally happen but instead what was happening was this is a and now this is our my author speaking this is a literary artistic description of God strengthening the hearts of the believers. So it's not that literally angels came down to the to the um uh to the ground and fought the infidels.

It's that the Quran is using a description like this to describe God sending down resolve in the heart believers. [clears throat] Therefore, this is ex we can apply this same this understanding to the stories of past prophets. Just a little footnote there that uh I do have a clip. It's quite a very um it's not your average kind of response on this thing about the angels at the battlefield of Badrar which is mentioned in the Quran.

Now I do explain that yes I go in line with what you're saying when Allah says we sent angels to reinforce uh this is more it's not something which is a physical you know it's something which is more about meaningful and this kind of strength and the that kind of vigor and the whole thing but when people said that they saw these these you know they said we saw for example these people with this particular green cladding they were on these horses and that, you know, they would they were just just chopping through the enemies and doing all of this.

I have this uh I've gone I found interesting this theory [snorts] that they were uh that it's likely that this was a particular that they were particular knights that had been brought it through via Salman Al Farci, the knights of the house of of Karan and that they were people who were often described with these same descriptions and they had appeared through other historians you see at other battles especially around the the where the uh the Sassinids were fighting off certain people and they had come they were not

part of the Sassinids per se but they um and I've been quite intrigued by that perspective yeah that 30% where we disagree I I think that's where I would go back to Iben Rush and I would say no no let's take a literal understanding of the story, but understand it in a that it's a literary uh language that's being used. And let's not mess that up because what you're doing is you're actually taking something that's sacred and making it profane.

So, you're actually belittling the language of the Quran by saying that it this is my view and you can No, no, sure. Sure, sure. Say the same. I'm saying that and then it's also ad hoc and you're constantly having to reinterpret every single and and it I prefer that biting the bullet and it's more systematic and it's saying that this is just a literary description that's talking about strengthening the hearts of the believers and if God had actually sent angels down and I know you're not saying that but if they had sent literal angels down then what is the what is the great thing that the believers did they the whole purpose is that they risked their lives lives in

battle uh to defend their freedom of belief. That is what the story is about. That is what the historical event is about. So you actually deny them that when you take a literal understanding of scripture. So now finally now I [laughter] hope I'm getting it. Somebody said the the Karens are unstoppable. [laughter] What does that mean? What are the No, because I had said I know what Karens are. No, but cuz I had said from the the house of although it's spelled like that Karen, it's not a fe a feminine name in Persian where it was it was just the name of the the household.

So the same about the angel story that I said the knights from the house of uh Karin. So how how am I doing as far as audience? Are they are they uh hating it or are they they it's all good. I mean people are finding it uh intriguing and some people finding it interesting and some people finding it as you'll get the normal questions. [laughter] Okay. So, so now to come to the meat of the issue.

Okay. I would I would answer as professor Fuzler Rahman did. Now he's the University of Chicago professor not Molana Diesel as some people might can be confused with. So, professor Fazer Rahman who was the quintessential Islamic modernist and by the way I identify openly as an Islamic modernist and I take pride in that and we can talk about that later but um he said that it's a very brief passage but I highlighted it and I starred it and one of his books he wrote believers need to stop worrying about the historical uh and archaeological uh enterprises that are going on right

now because they're so fearful that it will disprove the historical truths the historical reality of some of the events that are mentioned for example the exodus so uh we are so worried that if [laughter] the exodus gets proven historically not true then our belief goes down the drain what I am arguing is we don't know what we know for certain is that prophet Muhammad existed that Jesus existed and that with Jesus he had uh the the the way the Quran deals with the story is in a literary way

and it actually is we should focus on what the Quran is doing as opposed to just what it is saying. So for example, when it talks about miracles, what the Quran is doing is actually saying it's rearticulating the story for a theological ends, not to narrate history. It's saying that yes, Jesus may have done all of these things in your uh sacred uh stories, but really it's reattributing them to God that they did it with the God's permission.

So if you take a literary um lens, you no longer have to say that this is historically uh what the prophet is doing and the Quran is doing. It's rearticulating these stories in different ways. Are they just stories? So yes, it's it's a legend and legends are usually not always but usually based on actual historical figures but certain things are dramatized.

So I don't think that he actually uh uh spoke in the cradle or uh per you know rose these things are literary just like we say we're okay with saying that with angels coming down on the battle of bad we're okay with that just as we're okay with saying that the descriptions of paradise and hell are symbols and metaphor what about the Israelites I mean they're still the Jewish people today are still let's say alleged descendants of the Israelites and the 12 tribes so so so one thing that I think we can say for certain is that let's go one step above that to um the human creation story in the Quran.

[clears throat] So that the Adamic creation story I definitely do not take literally and nor do I move toward a scientistic understanding of it. Now I think from what I see is that 70% of the time you are doing what I'm doing and then 30% of the time this is where I I want to move in that direction. I think 30% of the time you're doing the scientistic explanation which is that this actually means this and this is no no I'm taking the story literally but as literature as a story as a story.

So, and I'm not the first to say this, of course, Muhammad Muhammadbal said it, who's a great Islamic modernist, um, and, uh, this author that we're reading is saying the same thing. And what the Quran is doing when we try to, and here's my criticism of the 30%. We're actually belittling the Quranic story because we have an inferiority complex. We are actually so impressed by Western science and Darwinian evolution.

So even though I'm the one who believes in Darwinian evolution but somebody like that guy Darwin delusions guy you know he doesn't believe in it. Um in fact they are so these traditionalists are so impressed by western science that they have to uh you know reconcile thing they're so busy in doing this that because they're so impressed by science. Now what I will tell you is the actual scientific story of humanity leaves us morally um bankrupt.

If we and that's what I said about evolution. I believe in human evolution but if we leave it at that that's a very um empty story. We have no reason to say that human beings are uh endowed with um sanctity of life for example. The Quranic story meanwhile and that's where I agree with what you said about stories is what makes us human beings and that's the most meaningful and the Quran itself describes the story doesn't describe these as history by the way.

If that's the case then you see couldn't these stories like let's say they are for the most part all fictitious if that that's the argu no I'm not saying that they're fictitious I'm saying that I I'm saying that um okay so let's define terms okay so I I I am saying that stories of past prophets uh are generally sacred legends okay legends means that they can not always but they can be based on a true historical figure.

Okay. But the and and possibly a true event which is dramatized. Okay. In order and why is it dramatized? It's dramatized to give it meaning and to universalize it. No, I mean that part I don't that part I would agree with to the extent that uh I mean not exactly. I I would agree in the sense that I feel that these were people and these were the events but in the relaying of a story you're obviously going to portray in a way that has the appeal of people listening.

So naturally yeah and that's actually the more important part Mhm. is that narrative redescription of it. The why the Quran the Quran offiscates it. The reason why Quran doesn't tell you the historic though the reason why the Quran doesn't tell you that where the uh people of the cave where that was the reason is that's what's least important that's important it in fact uh that's why I'm saying that our modern uh like these traditionalist viewpoints that are the fundamentalism this is why we're missing the essence of

the Quran instead of focusing on uh the meaning of these stories, the moral meaning of these stories. We're focusing on the historical factuality and literalness. So I'll give you an example when it comes to the Adamic creation story. Mhm. Which technically by an academic standpoint is considered under the category of myth. Now the Quran has myth in it. There's from an academic standpoint, not from so No, sure.

It's No, of course. Just for viewers, I want to clarify. I know that you know this, but academically whether you're a even if you're the most traditionalist Muslim, you have to acknowledge that myth exists in the Quran from an academic standpoint. Myth is merely a uh his is a story that describes um cosmology and like uh beginnings whether it actually happened or not it would still come under the category of myth.

So, so um my point here was that traditionalist fundamentalists are missing the point because they're so busy talking about human evolution and Darwinianism. They actually miss the point that the Quran, the whole purpose of the Quranic Adamic creation story, which is like literally the most beautiful story. It's about God's spirit being breathed into the first human being which from which we all come in a [snorts] literary manner.

Maybe not it's questionable whether that's a literal reality but it's a deeper metaphorical reality. So thereby the Quran is all of a sudden raising the status of all human beings above that of all other creation. That is the theological heavy work that the Quranic story is doing. And we know that the biblical creation story, we know the origins of the biblical like what it was responding to.

We know the Mesopotamian and Babylonian creation stories, the what's it called the Enuma Elish story. We know that the that's when the biblical creation story hap was created. And what was it doing? It was rearticulating because the Mesopotamian and Babylonian one was actually saying that human beings were created as um lowly scum of the earth.

They were guilty of uh being beaten by this mongering uh god like deity who was waring against other gods. And then the human beings were created in order to be uh like the noer the servants not like we believe the servants of Allah but as like you know lowly like we serve like on a platter we serve gods that's what we do.

So then the biblical creation story came and it elevated the status of human beings on this deeper metaphorical then the Quranic creation story came and it rearticulated the biblical story and said and it improved it. Why? because it actually said stuff like for example the the bib the Quranic story says more optimistic about human beings. It goes away original sin. It goes away from blaming the woman.

It go and it instills us in this human egalitarianism. That is what the Quranic story is doing above the biblical story. So once we understand what the Quran is doing and stop taking it in a literal scientific manner, we actually are able to understand what the Quran is doing. And then lastly, and I know I'm going on, [laughter] but it's all part of the story. It's all part of the story.

So like, so like if you look at the classical exites, I work on jihad in the Quran. That's my dissertation topic. They did not recognize that the Quran actually says that all human souls are sacred, are sanctified. They actually believe that only some souls are san sacrosan and other souls are not. And so they believe that in warfare you can uh the people who are Muslims or dimmis and people who have contractual agreements those are now off limits but everyone else in har they're free they're free game now you can't target women and children there's certain but the re from

a onlogical standpoint people don't start out the the default position for all human beings according to the Quran is sacrosanct you are sacred as a human being and that's the basis of our human rights culture. We are all created equal. We were all created equal. What does that mean? Created by who? By God. That's the basis of our western enlightenment values of of human rights.

And that's what the Quranic creation story is doing. And that's how we should understand it. And if we don't understand if we understand it as literal history, we're going to misread uh the Quran. That that so that's my kind of No, I get that. And I As far as this point is, I totally agree that uh and I feel that the way in history Muslim scholars the they were dominated and geared towards there needs to be a shift where the scholars move away from that kind of uh uh theme to one of ethics.

Absolutely. So the the current one should be a preoccupation with ethics and I feel in some way our disconnect with because most of is now out of sync. So if you read the fick books they are like a couple of hundred years old like as in the even though they're modern books but the the fick in them is out of date. So the and maybe that's actually a blessing in disguise that it can kind of allow us or force strong armors to jump genres and move more towards ethics and focus on ethics.

That's just a side point, you know, latching on to what you're saying. You're you're absolutely right. And I would even go one step further and say that um we miss out the part of the Quran that is affirmed. It affirms this of the Bible that uh the Quran takes a very anti-clerical view. So it actually affirms the view of Jesus where Jesus is saying that you clerics, you've misunderstood, you've bastardized the religion.

this legal this legalistic way bastardized the this this this myopic uh way of legalistically viewing the religion is missing the entire point of religion and it is bastardizing the religion and so I think we should actually take hint of that in the Quran itself that the Quran is affirming the anti-clerical stance so this whole um that's a very good point it definitely is that's the nature of the Quran you know these stories um this thing.

So just right cuz this is how I I understand I I understand this and I've explained it that the stories in the Quran first of all the miracles that you've uh mentioned I've obviously said on almost all of these it's never actually said it's just understood like people kind of read between the lines and so for example the story of the table descending for Jesus the Quran never said that it was actually sent down it just said they asked for it and then they were threatened that are you sure you really want this because it's you know if you really want categorical proof then it's game over if you don't uh and then mus it doesn't say anymore

so here people assumed it then was it descended but it never actually said it's it's descended now similarly with all the miracles I've explained that it's on most of them this is what what's happening people are reading between the lines because it's being presented as a story now however ever. These were uh real people. These were uh real events.

They may not be how people today assume them because we've got a lot of baggage. So when we're reading something about Jesus, you know, we've got a lot of baggage from Western societies, from Christianity, from maybe it wasn't like that because what was a person, you know, maybe there was it looked slightly different, but it wasn't like I've also argued that perhaps Moses was Aranatan.

But put these things aside, these were real people. The events when they're portrayed, I agree that that Allah is not trying to teach you geography. He's not trying to teach you history whilst he's doing it. He's not trying to teach these things. So it's just presented as a key theme so you can take a moral from the story. So let me then let me ask you this question. Um so I'm going to start with one comment and one question. So the comment is I actually and I know that many reformists and even modernists have gone in the direction of saying this is all baggage from Christianity.

That's the words you used and we need to go away from it and say that no the Quran itself is not affirming any of this. I actually am of the view because I I you know I'm in Quranic studies. I'm actually of the view that we are actually living in an exciting time in which we can understand intertextuality where in order to understand the Quran we actually have to look at the sources the Quran is engaging. No, I'm agreeing that's not what I was saying.

No, I I get it. But just one more one more question. Sure. Just just for that comment when I said Christian baggage. So what I I didn't mean that we need to divorce our understanding from what Christianity has taught us. What I meant was certain. So let's say as an example there is an understanding that Jesus never married. Mhm. Now this has never been taught to us. We just have this understanding.

Common sense would tell us any man in that day and age who had reached the age of 30 would have been married. So where do you get this understanding from that Jesus never married because he comes to Jerusalem at the age of 30? Now this is a developed understanding through an institutionalized faith worldview today that we have does the Quran say about anything about Jesus getting married?

No, it doesn't. So my but my my my point when I was saying baggage I was referring to the extra add-ons that we've put on through institutionalization not the stories of the Bible per se. I get it. But I'm actually moving in the opposite direction a little bit in the sense that if the Quran so what so in Quranic studies today uh historically Quranic western Quranic studies scholars many of them have come from Christian and Jewish backgrounds and they have said that the Quran is just derivative and then used the Bible as a standard to judge the Quran with and and then they said look the Quran gets this wrong gets this wrong gets this wrong it's a garbage derivative

book that's what they have said now we have moved away from that view and many Christians scholars are now engaged in the academy who are doing great work um and what and what they're arguing is now that's no longer a respectable view to have anymore now what they're arguing and I agree with this view and it's not just Christians and Jews who have this view Muslims and and and non-believers have this view as well is that the Quran was revealed in a certain millu in which certain discourses were taking place yeah of course and the Quran is aware of these discourses and then it rearticulates them for theological purposes.

Exactly. Therefore, what I would argue is whether or not Jesus was married or not. I don't think that's relevant if the Quran is not rearticulating it. Um, if the Quran had rearticulated, it would probably do it not for historical reality but for theological purpose. Yeah. So that that was that was just a a poor example of me just giving a a you see just making a point that when we say prophetic stories we have the story but then we have a profile.

So now that profile may be from the biblical sources but it may actually just be from centuries of institutionalization. So we have to make that distinction. But I think the Quran is interacting with So the Quran is interacting with that institutionalization as you put it. That is to say, the Quran is engaging with the discourses of the time which include I agree with that. Which include the um not just the Bible understood in some ahistorical space, but rather as the understandings developed over time, the Quran is then uh engaging with.

So let me just ask you one question. Sure. And I think it's a hot topic so we can discuss it of course. What do you take of uh Vulcarnain? Okay. How do you understand the story of Vulcarnain and we know and you can give the background of why that's a hot topic nowadays. Okay. Uh okay. Um I mean uh if you'd like you don't have to. Right. No, I'm not sure why it's a hot uh Well, you know, she Yaser Kadi got in trouble for his statements about zombies.

Oh, right. Yes, of course. [laughter] I believe that Dul Carnain was most likely Cyrus the Great. Um, that's who the Quran was referring to. I've mentioned that I think recently as well on my Monday nights with MUI. Um, and the reason being, you see, to me, the stories of the Quran, I agree with you on this part absolutely that look, the stories of the Quran, yes, obviously there's the moral aspect.

I'm taking a moral from the story, but they then other stories could have been mentioned. Why just biblical ones? They're being mentioned because when the prophet is giving his dawa in Arabia the so you've got obviously the the middle Arabia with the prophet is and you've got the southern kingdoms and the northern kingdoms of Arabia. The learned and advanced people were really the Christians and the Jews.

They were seen as kind of like the academics of the day and age. So when the people of Makkah, it's surprisingly only the hij that was still quite pagan. the rest of Arabia, whether it was down south, the southern the Axomite kingdoms or the northern uh Petrian kind of Arabia, it was still heavily Christian and with Jews. So when people were bringing uh debaters, you know, these people to challenge the prophet, they would often be rabbis or uh people learned in in biblical stuff.

So the Quran especially Jews they were being brought hence the Quran is addressing them quite a bit and their stories they ask you about yeah like this is a prime example like yes but how my question and that's a key point because we'll get to that but my question to you is it's not just the historical event that happened in the past the Quran seems to say that there are these people Gog and Magog how do you understand Gog and Magog And well that story how do you understand that?

Yeah. So that that's a a good one. I've understood and major and major name of a that's being expressed. So but there's there's analog. There's a story of God. Yeah. There's a story. Exactly. So but I'm just saying the term.

So I've understood this to be a fluid term referring to a specific people but it's in that time but in essence it's talking about people that or forces that run havoc that that kind of like wreak havoc and and in that particular time yach sorry is kind of setting them straight but there will be later on before the end of time it mentions later on which I actually feel was the colonial period that there will be certain forces that once again once once they unleash on the world it will change the face of the world as it's known.

Yes. So, so and that is a view that has been expressed by a couple other scholars as well. Uh Jave Ahmed Rami who I respect deeply has a similar sort of view. Does he say that as well? Okay. He he he he says that it [snorts] refers to the different I I don't want to misrepresent his yeah I don't want to misrepresent his view but he does take the view that it's talking about a certain nation that will come from a certain so and and I think he thinks it means the west so it's a very similar view so um my response to this and I'm relying on this author again to

yes is notice that You always [laughter] so notice which means disagreeing with Allah. I'm joking. That's funny. Uh you you've already been forced to use this is what he would say. You've already been forced to use the literary methods to reinterpret the story. So, and he says just understand it in the beginning like that because in the end you'll be forced to it anyways and then when you do it you're going to be haphazard and ad hoc.

Have you noticed that how many different things that you have to on an ad hoc basis respond to and it's always oh this word is not clear this could mean this. Well, it doesn't explicitly say this. Look how many stories you have to do that. But does that not just just saying but does that not add because I would argue that adds the element of mystery which reflects the dynamism in human uh cognition.

But what I would say is it wasn't a mystery for the people at the time at which this was revealed because we know as western scholars have found we not only know uh what they were talking about we know when that legend was created. So that legend was I believe it was um a scholar professor Sydney Griffith I believe he has written on this uh I might be mistaken on the name of the I might might have been another scholar but um he basically says and he's proved actually that uh we can say with pretty good certainty that the or first of all that number and number two

sorry say number one again sorry it just went actually there no carry it's good yeah Okay. So, so this scholar has shown that we can say with some certainty that this story actually refers to Alexander in its original to its original audience and we know that because we know where this uh story originated from. So we know that this story originated using historical critical method and certain other uh uh critical historical uh scholarly tools.

We know that this story originated in Byzantium around the time of the prophets and that it was it it had already penetrated into the Arabian milu and the story was a little bit different than the one that the Quran narrates but that doesn't make sense much does it because because the people asking are Jewish yes so now what what what relevance does Alexander have to the Jewish people okay so first let me just tell you what the story was and then we'll get to that if you don't mind.

Sure. So, so the the initial story was a Christian story in which um it was uh a tale of how it was supposed to explain how Bzantium would triumph and and and usher in this end end time of peace and prosperity. So they had Gog and Magog in this story which they had taken from previous stories and they put it in this story and said that Alexander had put locked them up made a wall uh put them to the exact same Quranic story and that he had traveled across the globe.

same exact story. He built this wall and then near the end times this wall would collapse and these tribes would come and invade and they also described them as savages and barbarians who barely looked human like human. Why? Because this was how they were describing the uh kind of people from that Mongolian descent sort of uh that they like they you can think I'm not talking historically here but historically like when the Mongols came down people thought this was an aab from God, right?

This was like um these didn't look like human beings, right? It because I I don't believe that but they believed that, right? Mhm. Was the story and it ended with the fact that Bzantium would then usher in this Christian age of peace and prosperity. Basically our story that Islamic traditionalists say about the Mdi and the coming. So this is the story and it was meant to reassert the primacy of the Byzantium Empire which had suffered losses against the Persian Empire.

But if that's the case, if that's the case, right? Then first of all, if Allah is mentioning the story just because it's let's say it's just a legend and you're going to take some lesson from it, right? Because this person is grateful to God and it's Alexander. Why are the stories then ambiguous? Why not just tell the story as it is as the legend is? Why even use a such an ambiguous term like for example?

So that's where I'm saying that I I disagree with you that it's uh ambiguous. So what I'm saying is and western scholars in Quranic studies agree with this and this is the recent turn is it's ambiguous to mus later Muslims because they divorced because of a theological imperative they divorced the Quran and the Islamic stories from the pre-Quranic Christian and Jewish stories and the millu in which that existed and because of that they no longse things became unknown to them and then they had to rethink these things but at that time it was not

ambiguous and that's and okay and that comes to your question about why the story was narrated in the Quran it says they ask you about it was people of the book who asked him about do you know about and they were and and the reason is and and now going back to this author he says that the Jews of that time and the people of the book of that time they used the criterion of differentiating between a true prophet and a false prophet knowledge of these sacred stories because they thought they were a scriptured people and and they should

have knowledge and and they differentiated that from the let's let's say it is a story that is to do that it's this sacred story in that case you take the story of Dulain to be honest for a story. It's, you know, it's not all that because it's not, it doesn't actually give you, in fact, it's very vague. Like, it keeps saying he goes here and he keeps going and it uses words like it doesn't say he follows a path.

It says he follows a suburb. Now, it doesn't explain what that means. So, so um that's actually a point in the opposite direction I think because the way that Quran uses concise language, it doesn't narrate full stories because I don't mean I don't mean just I don't mean like so one is like just to be clear on the question one is to say look uh so for example the story of Moses is mentioned on many occasions in some suras it's just going to be one verse two verses that's it so That's just elliptic.

No, that's not what I mean. That's not what I mean. No, but what I'm saying is the vast majority of stories that's fine. Not narrated. Sure. Not to digress here. So this question of this story is just mentioned once. It's not like so it's not about an ellipses in the story. The story actually uses words which the Quran never uses ever again. Okay. To so it says things like so which the scholars say means here the say he means he took a path that the two-horned one.

Yeah. No no not his name. Sorry the the verse it mentions that like he sets off but it uses a word which Arabs don't normally use. They don't say and it never uses again ever in the Quran but it uses this repetitively every time this and it mentions certain junctions like he does something he does something for he does and and and the story in its parts is not very you know as far as stories go apart from the part of Matuj at the end the other parts don't seem to really like there's not much to take away from it

so so let me let Let me let me say this is my view. Um the re what western Quranic studies scholars say is the reason why all of these early Muslim exedites said that these ver these words are ambiguous unclear we don't know what they mean is precisely because they are based on a Syriak subtext that is that the so the origin is from these other stories that now because but it's in Arabic though but it's a but but they were known at that time so it wasn't unknown to the people of that time.

So, okay, but let me just let me just give me one second here. So, it says they ask you about because they you they were using that as a criterion to differentiate a true from a false prophet. So, all the Quran was doing at this point was trying to show that the prophet knew the story from God and that his source was from stories of the Quran. the the the the uh pagans used to say that these stories you've met someone has told you these stories but the Quran is showing that no God is the one who gave the prophet the knowledge of these and so the Quran is

just giving them in if if your audience already knows the story you don't need to repeat it in great detail so but if it's going to reveal like let's say oh wait wait wait just just one second one second one second cuz so so it would be very cursive The other thing is the main point is that the Quran theologically rearticulates the story. So remember I told you that the Bzantium story ended with a Christian environment and a Christian background.

It said that at the end then this Christian empire would rule and there would be peace. The Quran eliminates that in its theological rearticulation. So so the Quran achieves two things by narrating the story. Number one, it affirms that the prophet uh knew the story when the Jews when the sorry the people of the book and the pagans were trying to catch him off guard that you don't know the story and that you're a false prophet. And number two is not only does it show that he knows the story, he theologically the Quran theologically rearticulates the story to to remove the Christian um uh uh the the sectarian Christian nature to it and say

and and make it universal because the Quran is going against uh sectarianism, religious sectarianism and this is what the Quran so basically then what it says is that this Gog and Magog are going to come at the end of times and it's just another symbolic end of I'm just saying that look you've got right so let's say now this this I think is a very good uh kind of litmos test this surah like the fact that it's kind of come up now uh and this story of surah of karnain because look I agree that the people of the book were trying

to test the prophet yes alakarnain so here Allah is demonstrating that look you know about this that's fine. So in doing so let's not repeat it again. No. So yeah and but in doing so Allah reveals a story. Right. Right. He doesn't just say well they ask him do you know the story. So that's why he's narrating the story in in in concise form because he doesn't need to go they already know the story.

But the story that is revealed right is incredibly vague. But it's not the words the words that they use that you're saying that are gay. Yeah. Like if we like just one second like if we like look it's it's not that right it's not that Allah doesn't address the issue of yatj and matooj he does.

So, but what he does on top of that, he mentions so much more. So, and then that too's so vague. So you think to yourself, well, if if this was to be a story, why not present it in a way that it would um that it would kind of because if the purpose of the story is simply uh to kind of represent the legend, uh then it should either let's say dramatize it in a way that actually makes sense to the readers.

So, so what I'm saying is it did make sense to the original audience because they knew those stories in that Syria. So, let's say it starts verse 82 and they ask you about tell them I should I will recite on to you a kind of mention of him. Yes.

Now, we established him in the earth. Now this it starts here getting vague already like it says that we established him in the earth but we gave him a suburb a means. Now in English a means sounds quite normal but in Arabic there's a Christian sorry there is a western Quranic studies scholar who's written an article that mentions this word and says that it is actually uh because it's it's the same uh origin the etmological the origin is from the Syriak subtext that the Quran is responding to.

So the only no but the word suburb is an Arabic word which just means cause but but that's why it's saying that in this context it's actually coming from I'd have to so let's just just so here it mentions look and we gave him from everything a cause now this cause doesn't mean like in English a cause it means more like uh a a means to something a something a precursor this this is it so if I was to say and we gave him for for everything a precursor.

Now, the way that sounds weird in English, that's how it sounds in Arabic. Can you tell me can you tell me the verse number by the way? Yes. So, this is 80. It starts in 82. Uh, sorry, 83. And this is now 84. And then it'll say, "And then he followed a precursor." Now, the way precursor sounds odd. If I was to say in English to someone, you know, and by the way, he he followed a precursor. Now, you're going to think, well, what do you exactly mean?

He said, uh, what what verse again? I'm sorry. Can you give me the verse again? 83. 83 what? And 83 surahul kaf um and and going into 84 there it mentions about we gave him from everything a precursor and then he followed a precursor. The next that and that's it. That's one verse. He followed a precursor. Then the next verse he he reaches this thing about the sun where people say oh the sunset into a uh muddy uh they use that.

So here that is uh it's that verse about he reaches uh a place he saw the sunset it says and he found a people and and they said either you punish or you take you know you you either take a good route so he says so and he goes on to mention look people who do good and then we will punish them and they go back and and then the next verse he goes on now rather than just reading the entire verses here what I'm

trying to say then it will say then he followed another precursor verse on its own and it says until he reaches the sun and it sets on a people we had not given them a uh a covering once again a very strange uh way of using that it's not commonly used and then the verse says Once again a strange wording. Now it goes on and then it says again he followed a precursor until he reached.

Now here about Yatj or Matj the story starts. Now my point is that this you know if this is simply to uh rearticulate a legend then it's not I'm just saying if that's the sole purpose it's not being done in a very effective way because it's it's very vague. So, so I'm saying that if you read this story before reading this story, if you read the legend of Alexander, if you read that first and then you wait, so so they already knew that story.

So you are the one who's having it. But are how are you are you not sure that you're not like people are not superimposing that story onto this because of some similarities? But the similarities like yes, that's a possibility as a scholar. You have to think about that. But the story similarities are too many. Like the the similarities between the legend that the Syriak the the the Byzantine the one that's in Bzantium.

You can look there's a there's a good article that I can give you. I'm seeing if I have that book here. Um the that the similarities between the two when they get too many then you have to conclude as a reasonable person as a scholar that one preceded the other. Yes. because the language they came from the same millu either they came from the same uh progenitor or one came from the other this comes back to the baggage point because this is what I'm saying the verses of the Quran about this are actually so vague that there isn't much detail about this kind of like the Alexander thing

something's happened to the mic oh I think it's back I think it's I start to repeat. No, I think this is where we disagree and we may not come to a resolution. Uh, is that Wait, there we're slightly. Let me try. Is it? Yeah, I think that's back. Wait. No, it's not. Is it not? Uh, okay. Here. Now it should be. Yeah, now it's back. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

So, I think we may not reach a resolution. We may have a difference of opinion. Sure. That's exactly where I say no. We actually need what you're calling the Christian baggage. without that so-called Christian baggage, we cannot properly understand what the Quran is doing. So, I'm actually saying that we need to look at what's sometimes called the Christian subtext of the Quran. We've moved away from using the word subtext, but uh the point is that we need that in order to understand the Quran.

And if we don't have that, then those verses become vague and unstandable. And then you can have a multiplicity of interpretations. And then I think you're actually that's where I'm saying that you're actually doing more justice to the Quran when you take the approach that I'm arguing for which is actually in some ways a more literal approach uh but a literary one. You're actually doing more justice to the Quran when you're taking this approach as opposed to saying no it refers to the Mongols.

No, it refers to uh Western colonialism. No, it refers to the Soviet Union. No, it refers to my you know somebody might say it refers to my ex-wife. you know, you could say anything, you know. Um, so so I that's but but we may disagree here. Um, and that's, you know, that's from my Quranic studies and as a from as a western academic that's what it's kind of pushed me in this direction. And then I also read the Islamic philosophers of the past and and I think that this is consistent with I just feel that there's like several people.

So for example there is a story of uh the story of Musa Alisam and the story of Adam which and the story of Joseph which are kind of mentioned with uh in great elaborate detail and they're kind of repetitive some of them like Moses and Adam but like you will get mention of people like let's say John now take this book hold on to it what the scripture hold on to it doesn't really mention mention much about him like it doesn't go into the story.

So what's the purpose then if this is all okay cuz why not just mention a nice little story that people could take away. So one of the criticisms of orientalists of the 19th and early 20th century was precisely that they found the Quran to be um haphazard and repetitive confusing jumbled up and they said it's not like other books we've read even scripture that we've read where you start from Genesis and then you say these are the historical genealogies and you go in this orderly chronological fact stories

In fact, in fact, uh if you look at, you know, those books like Iben Kafir has written stories of the prophets, they have to take the Quran and reorder all the verses and fill them in with details that they get from the hadith. And really those are from this the bunn is you know um that the isat sorry that's where he has to fill it in from.

Um so the point is if you just take the Quran and suppose that it should stand by itself without any backgrounds understanding these Quranic stories is impossible and the Quran then is a is not a good literary book then it does not do a good job of I agree with you that some of the the prophet's stories are repeated multiple times but even there a critic could say the stories are repeated in different ways the conversation between God and the prophet would differ.

So in in in when he when God is talking to Moses in one story, the conversation is different than in another story. So, so the the historical criticism against the Quran was precisely that it doesn't do a good job of conveying these stories in a I I would you see my point is that it would then see that's my point in saying that if it was like if the purpose was to just express a like uh rearticulate reexpress sorry a a legend in very uh in revelatory form.

That's not the purpose though. The purpose is to convey something that the prophet needed at that specific moment. Sure. No, sure. I get that. But let's say if the story is a story, then in that sense it would I think that theory could hold weight if the way you have surah Ysef which is a story just about Joseph and which is an exception.

Yeah. Which is an which is an elaborate story. Uh if you had stories like that every time a prophet was being mentioned, I could think that okay, this theory could hold some weight in saying interesting because I'm taking it the other way around. You see, because then it would be a detailed legend to take away. But if you're going to mention that's if you're taking it as historical reality, you would expect a fuller detailed story, but you would you would at least expect a story to be able to take some moral from it.

But they are. No, but when when you have people like let's say John Yah being mentioned or you're going to have there isn't really much mentioned about these prophets or when you're going to mention like let's say uh is mentioned in the Quran that oh his children are asking him or you know who should we worship and so on and there isn't like there isn't a story like there there's just a little thing being mentioned but it's not a story to really I mean one could say obviously you take any meaning from any verse of the Quran.

But what I'm trying to say is if the purpose is to really uh present a story then it's not really ticking that box with only it is with some like okay with Adam with Musa Alisam with one could uh you know with with Ysef Alisam maybe with Ibraim but and maybe with Jes but it mentions several other prophets where it doesn't really give much about them.

Uh so so let me give you an example. Um and Tamud the stories of Ad and Tamud and you had Sal and you had sometimes the sometimes uh who and sometimes the pro the Quran doesn't even mention the name of the prophets. It simply says they were a people and um and they were destroyed. Yet all of these story in fact I get the opposite conclusion of you and it's not just me who gets the opposite conclusion.

it's western uh Quranic studies scholars who actually have now shown that almost all of these stories are archetypal stories that follow the same u general pattern because the purpose of these stories for example a huge but is that not the but [laughter] is that not the nature of stories generally so like if I'm the purpose the purpose of a story in the Quran is not for entertainment the purpose of the Quranic story is for a moral lesson on a specific point that has to do with a specific moment in the prophetic mission.

So it has to do many of the stories have to do with the same point which is prophet oh prophet Muhammad do not be so distressed that your people have turned against you take heart and solace in the fact that this happened to all of these previous prophets and then it names them and that seems like it's just cursory. it it barely mentions them because because those people already knew those stories and so it's saying remember the story recall the story the mention of the story this is because they were already known so the purpose of the Quran is different than the purpose of even the Bible

no I get that but what I'm saying is that look it's like a bit like I suppose how Leo to Toltoy said that look all great stories begin with uh a man going on a journey or a strange comes into town. Now that's like an archetype. Yeah. Now the point is that if you were to narrate a story about let's say an event in your life at some point you would narrate it in a way that stories are often expressed like you would say you know I on this one time I set off I went to Boston.

Now that is I suppose how Toltoy is saying look all great stories either you know a stranger comes into town. Now just because or a man goes off on a journey now you're saying hey I went off to Boston now because you're fitting the archetype that doesn't lead to the conclusion that because it has an archetype therefore it is invented because stories are invented based on archetypes.

So I'm not saying so I'm not saying not invent not invented sorry but fictitious as in non realistic based on the archetype argument. Well, I'm taking them as sacred legends which could be based in historical events or it could be might not be but it could be and uh it's dramatized in a certain way and um it's rearticulated in a certain way.

Um let me give you le let's go to a side issue that might shed light on this. Let and then well let's talk about jin. Jyn is a big issue. So, [laughter] so okay. And I and before I get to Jyn, I want to say that my my explanation of dul carain um is in response to I made it in response to um what Dr.

Yaser Kadi said which he [snorts] many many years ago he took the the story very literally and said the the hadith says it the Quran says it end of story you don't have any freedom to believe and if you say otherwise I mean he has that kind of dogmatic style that he does that he then denies by the way um which this is my only I I love Dr.

Kadi actually I I used to actually So do I. He's one of my beloveds. I mean honestly I I used to consider him my sheh. I didn't know him personally at that time but I just uh like really follow this is like we're talking about 15 years ago. But um the criticism I have the the the criticism I have is the dogmatic style. So for example when he recently responded to Daniel Bubacer and you you had a video on it.

Yes. Yes. Yes. the the the tone of voice, the style, and he says, "I never do that." Well, you honestly always do that. Um, and whenever he talks to somebody who he thinks is beyond the pale, he talks to them very roughly. Um, so even when he had the debate with Osama Hassan on evolution, he talked to him like he was gar like Osama Hassan was garbage. And even even his arguments against Daniel Bubacher, honestly, so I'm critical of Daniel Daniel, sorry, Daniel, I'm saying as if he's a Muslim.

Daniel Breubacher is that my criticism of him is that he is the audience that he has, the venues that he speaks at, he has an agenda that's Breubaker, he is very courteous. I I post comments on his thing and honestly he responded back with great great courtesy and I just in the sense that was such a nice guy.

Yeah, he should he should Oh, you see if he if he was such a nice guy, he wouldn't be pinging around with such hateful uh Christian pmicists who are like you said rightfully in your podcast in your uh video. They're just the Muhammad hijabs. They're the equivalent of them basically. That's what they are. So if he really was such a nice guy, he would but any but at least he has that kind, courteous, respectful style.

Meanwhile, calling people those names that he called them, the ignoramises, fools. And by the way, many of the mistakes that he pointed to, I have to be very honest. Yeah, sure. A graduate student can make those mistakes easily. Even a even a doctoral, even a a professor can make many of them. Of course, of course. Of course. This is just between, you know, trying to make the person invalidate their arguments by pointing to I what was the term a ultra crepidarian?

Ultra crepidarian. [laughter] You ultra crepidarians. And what's this always mentioning the GRE and SAT? I I don't understand this nonsense. But in any case, the point I'm trying to make [laughter] is that um okay, so so initially prof Dr. Gadi had said that um you have to take this literally and then later he came out and said um well I think they might be zombies and he didn't use the word zombies and and he was trying to distance himself but you could clearly tell I don't know did you watch the video of him with the zombies he he does say zombies he actually uses the word zombies and he says I think he said you you you know what

I'm talking about dot dot dot pretty much he didn't say the word zombie on no in in one he actually says that in one he says that somebody said to me that uh it's zombies and he uses the word and then he says I laughed originally but then when I thought about it I did think actually it ticks all the boxes. Yes. And he says that let's be clear he believes that and he at the time that he said it he believed it and he was hiding behind he was hiding I want to have whatever he's having.

[laughter] So, so now my question is what would lead a Yale I know it's not Harvard but Yale educated professor to come up with this idea of zombies coming in the Quran and and [snorts] this kind of thing. Now probably computer games or now coming back coming back then to the Adamic creation story he professor Kadi Dr.

speak so dogmatically about how believing in humans came from evolution is kufur so dogmatically instead of saying you know what this is what I believe I'm not sure no he pretty much says it's kufur to to to believe that and then he goes and debates people and speaks in these audiences where he talks now uh what compel he says that uh maybe god created this domino theory have you heard is domino theory of like domino basically it's that maybe god because we have this evidence that humans did come from evolution in our DNA you know way

oh yes yes yes the usual jamalani that that just Adam wasn't divine intention yes exactly exactly so what we're seeing is that everything he's turning on its head to fit with so even this uh the story of cararnain he'll just say oh they got it from us right And the reason why I'm mentioning this with Jyn is he says that uh well people believe in ghosts and goblins and all of these things in all cultures.

The reason why they believe in ghosts and goblins and witches and all this stuff is because it's actually reflecting a common human reality which we get right which is jin and they are hinting at it. They don't know what to call it but it's really jin and that's what they're talking about. This is the see what he says. This is this is so he's actually using ghosts and goblins as proof for the existence of jin.

And he even takes he does he did jin exorcisms where he says that he talked to gins. He says that say that. Yeah. Yeah. He said that he wrestled a jin. Oh no. You have to send me that clip. He says he he said that there's a whole a conference they have called bewitched in which they talked about this. Seriously. Damn. Why why has nobody sent me this stuff? Come on man. You guys know I need stuff for the masala. And he and he says, you know, I I see this with my own eyes. How can I deny it?

And all the things that he mentions, the vast majority of them, for example, he says this 5 foot something woman had to be restrained by seven men. Uh and the only way Well, we know that jin are equal to seven men and that's why uh it took seven men. This is proof. You know, either that or the gin and tonic he's speaking. I I work in the ER. I know that it often takes five plus people to restrain a combative woman if you don't want to harm her.

Like if you just knock her out, it'll take one man. If you want to uh consrain her without hurting her, we call the police and we the the point I'm trying to make is that we have this rational explanation that makes so much more sense. But he jumps to jin. Now the question is okay the Quran does mention jin. What to do about that? Right? Um now I'm not going towards a I I could be accused of you're just a materialist.

You're denying anything outside of the material existence. I am not a materialist like you. I have acknowledged that there's thing called consciousness and that that is probably what Ru is talking about. I believe in the afterlife, right? I believe in God. Um, and I do think that there could be things that are unseen like dark matter, etc. Things that, but why do I not believe in literal gins and angels like they do because their descriptions are too crude?

It's not that I'm a materialist. No, I I think that's absolute sense. There's no I think that's an absolutely rational response because if I'm understanding you that look the jin are the jin just simply means in Arabic the unseen. It's something of the unseen. It doesn't mean as in the unseen but something that is hidden from you being able to see it. It's called jin in Arabic.

Now I my view my view is a little different but if you want me to elaborate on I thought that's what you meant but yeah so so my view is that we need to see what the Quran is doing and focus on that and then we can know what it is saying. So if we look and in order to do that we need to contextualize the Quran. So um in order to contextualize the Quran you need to understand the Quran as a text that arrived in the late antique period and it was in a certain millu in which people believed in certain things and we need to know what those things

are to realize what the Quran is doing. So at that time the pagans used to believe that they could uh propitiate the jin and have their needs fulfilled. That's a new word, propitiate. I'm have to check that one out. Yes. [laughter] Ultra ultraarians. Yeah.

So, so uh they would not only propitiate the jin, but they would also um believe that the jin had knowledge of the unseen and that they would give this knowledge to the uh prophetess, the um uh the oracle. Sorry. They believe that they give the knowledge to the oracle and to the poets. So actually I get some help from my author Muhammad but he says what the Quran is doing and this is now me putting it in my own wow to sorry to win or regain the favor of a god or a spirit by doing something that pleases them propitiate

sounds like a you've got a lisp [laughter] propish pish I'm going to take a pish sorry sorry I got distracted [laughter] that's the gin enemy. Sorry. Yeah, you are a jin by the way. Look at you. Look at your belt. You're a jin. So, um, yeah, what the Quran is doing is moving the is theologically rearticulating the belief system of that environment.

And what it slowly did over time is make all of them subservient to God and block any means of committing shik in these means of propitiating them or believing in their knowledge of the unseen. So therefore what the Quran what the Quran did is it first or it it moved in a stepwise fashion to rearticulate this belief because you can't just get rid of this belief of jin they believe in it.

So what it is doing is it's just revelation is revealed for the environment in those in that world view but what's we need to dethize it in order to re understand it for our time but without saying belittling what it's doing what it's actually doing is quite profound so that's we need to do so I don't believe that that is a very interesting interesting point I don't believe I can say this with certainty because this is a matter of the unseen but I no I don't literally believe in jin So I believe it's also a mythological belief that they had at that time and that the Quran is theologically rearticulating it so that

everything is under God and minimizing the belief in jin. Meanwhile, what Dr. Uh my criticism of uh Sheikh uh Yaser is is that he actually in a recent uh video said that we can actually prove God and the Quran is truth by the fact that jin exists and that we know jin exists from all these stories of poltergeists and all these kind of thing.

This is proof that our belief is true. So now are you arguing that jin are the proof miracle of the prophets? This is crazy. This is this is I mean theologically this is horrible to believe. The Quran is actually moving us away from a reliance and belief on in their pre-Islamic belief in jin. It's moving us in a different direction and rearticulating it. So um that is that is how I take that and I think it's a symbol like Shayan and these are symbols.

It's personifying and objectifying human evil, our innate evil so that we can understand the struggle within us. Why? Satan whispers to us. It objectifies and personifies it so that we can understand it as a battle and that has useful for our practical purposes. So that is what the Quran is doing in my opinion. Yeah. No, that that's very I that part I totally uh you know that resonates with me that there are uh there are aspects to us um insinuations precognitive cognition uh which we don't

understand where it comes from. these things being personified as good forces or bad forces uh is absolutely is what I've said is one of the interpretations which I actually am in line with when it comes to things like the uh you know people say we we have with us the shaitan and we have an angel and so on and so forth these things are just personifying I know we've been going on so much doc and I know you've uh you've really this is and prior to this we were trying to set up and I've had doc sitting there for so long uh going on with all this, but it's been so amazing.

So much uh information. We never got round to discussing the jihad aspect and there's a few other things as well. So inshallah maybe I'd love to uh get you on again and get uh inshallah your whole take on that because that's very interesting as well and that's what your thesis uh was. Uh are there certain things you're doing currently if people want to connect with you or they should tune in to certain things that you're doing any any projects to be very so the project that I'm working on right now is the side project which is what I've been talking about this entire time which is translating this uh and going through this book and

so I do hope that to publish an article with my colleague Azie um in hopefully within six months but you never know the academic world is very slow I have all sorts of PhD requirements. Um, and then eventually the hope is to write a book as well on this topic um that we've been discussing today. I've pretty much laid out my all my arguments.

I'm going to do it in a little bit more systematic fashion. Uh, it will be my main interlocutor will be uh Yaser Kadi. And I say that uh not I I don't mean to put him down in that way. That's actually an honor that you pick. You want to pick a good interlocutor, an intelligent interlocutor. So, I want to do him that honor and I hope that he can reciprocate in a respectful manner. But, um, that's all I hope for. Or ignore me.

That's probably what's going to happen. I'm not I'm a nobody. But, um, the point is that uh that's that's in the short term my plan. So, I'm not very active on social media, unfortunately, right now. Uh, I do have a YouTube um channel that you can subscribe to. I occasionally put things up there. Um, but at at the current moment I'm working on my academic stuff. I think it'll take me at least a year or more before I really do anything public facing.

And so just stay tuned is all I can say. And I and that's why I'm very grateful that you even had me on because I haven't had anything public. So it's amazing. It's quite nice that you had me on before I even I mean right now these things are just in my mind. They haven't Yeah. And I I I I really enjoyed the the perspectives, the discussion, the um and being able to then you see the great thing is being able to I suppose ask you to unpack certain things as you're expressing them as opposed to if I just read it somewhere and then I wouldn't be sure well does the person mean this?

Do they mean that? And it's been amazing. I think this it's always refreshing to see something different whether you agree with it or not. I mean, even though I'm not on board with the whole uh legend story, but I I do appreciate it as a theory and I think that Okay, that's interesting that you know and you're working on that. Okay, that that's good stuff. I I'll put up a a link if you like uh in the description to your YouTube channel.

I appreciate that. Yeah. And people do if the man the myth people Dr. Javad Hashmi do reach it. Can I can I just say one last little thing? I just need to make a disclaimer. So the disclaimer is that I do want to affirm that I believe that the Quran is divine revelation inspired to him by God and that uh I am a believing and practicing Muslim. Um and I do not think that these views that I have articulated which really is just my own rearticulation of a previous scholar who's rearticulating um a long tradition of these kind of thoughts from the Islamic philosophers.

they were all believing Muslims and this is a valid and legitimate viewpoint to have uh and I believe um that we should have the open-mindedness to consider these and these will serve as a uh as uh it's but it will serve as a means of blocking us from the attacks of many of the orientalists and uh Islamophobes and Christian missionaries who are attacking us on these points.

100% what I have articulated is one means I think it's a convincing uh theory have to take you have to bite a big bullet to to do it but I think it's a systematic way of understanding religion that is a way of being a more sophisticated believer in a time of rampant unbelief thanks yeah no shukran and I think that's very important that look it is important for people to you see if if they have especially since you have a very learned opinion.

If people have opinions, especially when they learn it, not just, you know, somebody having an opinion on something, it is important that people have a safe place to be able to express them. And there's many people that it will resonate with and it will bring comfort to them about the dean even if the opinions are not held by. I mean, I I I come up with opinions. I explain them. I'm sure many people think I don't agree with what MUI is saying but to other people it may give them some solace.

It is not. Nobody has the authority to try to shut people down by saying you know oh my god this is misguidance or you're a kafir or you're uh that's ne you know that is not the authority that Allah gives people although that's why your platform is so amazing and what you're doing um you're providing that platform on mind track so uh god bless you for that and I hope you continue your show is a big hit and you're definitely on the way to be the Muslim from Joe Rogan.

So, [laughter] you got the muscles for us. I'm going to get that one. Say that again. [laughter] Again. I said you have a better than Joe Rogan. Right. Well, I'm going to send one of my private jets to bring you in next time, inshallah. Take and shook. And once again, people, I'm going to put up the exit page. If you haven't already liked, subscribed, uh then you know some of those gins, we're going to be sending them your way people.

So [laughter] do like, do share, do spread the love and the f and as I say much love, have an awesome day wherever you are. So,