← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah, dear brothers.
Since the launch of the Journey of Certainty, it has had wide-reaching echoes. Many have commented that it was the reason for their return to Islam, by the grace of Allah the Almighty. Many episodes of the journey were dedicated to clarifying the fallacies of pseudo-science and the theory of evolution as a model, with my repeated emphasis that the main issue is the claim that organisms appear through random evolution without the will of a conscious creator who knows what He does.
I explained that this is a form of intellectual suicide and extreme foolishness, and I detailed how this foolishness is promoted among the children of Muslims. Notably, these episodes provoked many, who began to respond to them. From time to time, there are those who demand that I respond to those who criticize my talks about the myth of random evolution: "Doctor Iyad, so-and-so is responding to you, go ahead and respond to him! So-and-so is responding to you, go ahead and respond to him!"
Know, dear brothers, that those who have issued series or groups of episodes or articles in response to what we mentioned in the Journey of Certainty have, as far as I know, reached seven parties so far, between atheists or those infatuated with Western scientists who claimed. I looked into some of these responses and found that most of them contain only verbal evasions or repetition of doubts that we have already addressed in detail, praise be to Allah.
I am pleased with the abundance of those responding to the series, because this indicates the extent of the shock that the episodes have caused in these individuals, praise be to Allah, especially when they see the collapse of their credibility among their followers, who have long heard from them the glorification of the myth of evolution.
Well, dear ones, my methodology is to investigate and scrutinize and exert great effort in ensuring the accuracy of what I issue in terms of episodes, and I present the sources and evidence during my speech as a form of documentation. Then, after that, do not expect me to respond to everyone who claims to be responding to the episodes, otherwise, the time will be lost in explaining what is already clear and repeating what is already repeated, and we will not be able to move forward in the series even one step.
And your brother has his preoccupations, his teaching, his research, and his scientific contributions, and he is not dedicated to responding to everyone who is concerned about issuing a clip or an article in response to the episodes.
Among the latest in this regard is a series of articles by one of the writers. I read the first article of it, and I would like to present to you some excerpts from his article, then you judge whether there is a need to complete reading his other articles in the Journey of Certainty - which he talks about in the Journey of Certainty - or not?
The aforementioned brother accuses the poor servant Iyad of lying about the methodology of the opponent. Okay, let's see the lie. I will bring you the texts from his speech and from Darwin's speech.
The writer says: "What about the conclusion presented by Dr. Qanibi in his explanation of the alleged pillars of Darwin's theory that living organisms originated without intention or will from a willing, choosing creator who knows what He does? This conclusion does not pertain to Darwin's theory or Darwin's books in which he explained his theory."
For the writer says: "This conclusion that the universe or creation came without will or intention does not pertain to Darwin's theory or Darwin's books in which he explained his theory, but it pertains to Dr. Qanibi." Until the writer says: "Darwin did not speak about his observations in nature, another person can bring his faith into understanding what Darwin said positively or negatively, but it is not fair to mix our conclusions with the theory. It is not fair to mix our conclusions with the theory."
Well, then Darwin did not say that living organisms originated without intention or will, but these are Iyad's conclusions that he mixed with Darwin's speech, otherwise Darwin did not say this in any of his books. Excellent excellent! If the brother's speech is correct, then I should apologize for lying about Darwin, and if the brother's speech is incorrect, then we can ask whether it is ignorance or deliberate distortion?
I do not really know whether the brother watched my episode that he criticizes from the beginning? If he watched it, did he see the statements that I presented alongside from Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" starting from one minute and thirty-two seconds, meaning after one and a half minutes from the beginning of the video?
At this point, I said: "The most important thing in the subject is that Darwin assumed that living organisms resulted from these changes by chance, meaning without intention, and in his words, there was no plan for creation in finding these numerous species, which he confirmed in many places in his writings."
Here, dear brothers, I presented alongside five quotes from Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" indicating randomness and denying intention in creation alongside me while I say this sentence. Two of these quotes are from Chapter Fourteen entitled "Conclusions" (Conclusions). So Darwin will give you his conclusions, his conclusions, not Iyad's conclusions.
Well, let's listen to Darwin's conclusions: "Community of descent is the unhidden bond which naturalists have been unconsciously seeking and not some unknown plan of creation or the enunciation of general propositions." Meaning: "The unity of origin is the hidden bond that naturalists have been unconsciously seeking, not an unknown plan of creation, not a plan of creation or the presentation of general propositions."
I also presented his other statement in the conclusions chapter (Conclusions): "Nothing is more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity of pattern in members of the same class by the doctrine of final causes." Meaning: "There is nothing more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity of pattern in members of the same class by the doctrine of final causes." Meaning: a desperate, hopeless attempt to convince us that there is a purpose in this creation.
Until Darwin says: "For on the ordinary view of each organism having been independently created, we can say that the Creator must have willed that all animals and plants in each great class should be formed on a uniform plan, but this is not a scientific explanation." Meaning: "Based on the usual view of each organism having been independently created, we can say that the Creator must have willed that all animals and plants in each great class should be formed on a uniform plan, but this is not a scientific explanation."
Of course, dear brothers, our issue here is not whether it is an independent creation or not, but the point is that he denies the existence of what he calls "a plan for creation." This speech is Darwin's speech in the conclusions chapter of his book "The Origin of Species" in which he explained his theory. Nevertheless, the aforementioned writer says: "This conclusion that there is no intention in the creation of organisms and that these organisms came by chance does not pertain to Darwin's theory or Darwin's books in which he explained his theory, but it pertains to Dr. Qanibi," and accuses Qanibi of lying about the methodology of the opponent.
After presenting my speech about natural selection, in which I stated that Darwin claimed that this selection is blind and does not reflect the will of the Creator, the brother said: "Unfortunately, this is not what natural selection means in its original version at least. Darwin's theory does not treat natural selection as blind or knowing or not knowing. All of these are interpretations and projections based on our understanding of it and our preconceived position towards the theory."
So, "Unfortunately, this is not what natural selection means." We say: Unfortunately, it seems that the person in question does not know Darwin's theory nor has he reviewed the episodes in which we quote Darwin himself about natural selection, and yet he comes to deny and accuse others of lying.
In the episode "Why do some followers of Adnan Ibrahim apostatize?" which is a very important episode, I explained in detail and with documented references how Darwin gradually convinced people that there is no relation between creatures and the Creator, how he gradually removed the will of the Creator from natural selection, and how Darwin mentioned that many naturalists consider nature a manifestation of the Creator's plan, and considered that this assumption adds nothing to our knowledge. I will not bore you, go back to the episode and you will find documentation and pictures from Darwin's book "The Origin of Species."
We also mentioned how Darwin was angry when Alfred Wallace wrote that "it seems there is a force that directed evolution towards specific directions for certain purposes," and Wallace used the phrase "a higher intelligence guided evolution towards nobler purposes." Darwin was angry and wrote next to Wallace's phrase "No" in large letters with exclamation marks, and sent to Wallace saying: "I fear you are killing my child and your child completely." Meaning the theory of evolution.
Both he and Wallace were at the same time talking about the landmarks of what is called the theory of evolution. Wallace was saying: "There is something that directs this evolution towards nobler purposes, there is a higher intelligence." Darwin completely objected and said: "You are thus killing our common child." As if he is saying: "Who directs, whose purposes, whose intelligence, understand Wallace, this is what I want to completely deny, the whole goal of my theory is to deny creation," as clearly appeared from his correspondences. As if he is saying to Wallace: "You by pointing to the intervention of the Creator are demolishing the theory from its foundation, and canceling what I created for it."
And how Darwin insisted on defending the idea that the eye arose by chance and that the precision of its structure does not indicate intention and will from a Creator? And with all this, the mentioned writer says: "Darwin did not talk about the Creator or the origin of creation, but he talked about his observations in nature."
Excuse me, Mr. the kind writer of the article in which you criticize Iyad and Iyad's series, are you a reader of Darwin? Have you read anything by Darwin? Or have you reviewed Iyad's episodes? Or have you even reviewed the episode from which you took excerpts and then came to attack it? Is it reasonable that you skipped the first minute and a half of it, in which I present the evidence that Darwin...
"Automatic birth from inanimate objects, nature acquires new traits, acquired traits are inherited, nature selects and assembles complex systems." These are the pillars mentioned for Darwin's theory. The writer says: "Darwin himself, Darwin himself summarizes his theory by saying." Then he came with the English speech attributed to Darwin and translated by the writer and said: "Darwin himself summarizes or abbreviates his theory by saying: variation is a natural trait within species, and every species produces offspring more than the environment can support. As a result of the increase in offspring, individuals with better inherited traits will produce individuals who are more successful in surviving in this environment. The resulting generation will represent individuals with traits more suitable for the environment. The species as a whole will evolve." Then the writer says: "These are the pillars of Darwin's theory according to Darwin himself."
Ah, first of all, where did Darwin name these things pillars? As a university doctor, I know the foundations of scientific writing and I have dozens of publications in peer-reviewed journals thanks to God, I put a source for every quote in my episodes as I do in my research. Mr. the respected writer, where did you get this statement from Darwin in the first place? I searched a lot and did not find it neither in "The Origin of Species" nor in any book by Darwin, but I found this statement in some websites after the phrase "Darwin was quoted to say" (Darwin was quoted to say), meaning "Darwin was quoted or said to have said." And there are those who deny its attribution to Darwin altogether. So, if the respected writer allows, he will show us where Darwin said this statement.
Whoever reads Darwin knows that he rambles and gets distracted in a tedious way, and I have not come across any place where he says that these are the pillars of his theory. Okay, with that, come to Darwin's statement attributed to him, which the writer opposes with my episode.
First: variation, according to this statement attributed to Darwin by the writer: "variation is a natural trait within species." And God, brothers, this is a fact known to children in the streets and the elderly in the houses, meaning it is not hidden from anyone, Darwin did not bring anything new in it if the attribution to him is correct.
Okay, he says to you: "And every species produces offspring more than the environment can support." This is also a known thing that does not require much intelligence that the environment may sometimes become narrow and its conditions may become harsh.
Third: "As a result of the increase in offspring, individuals with better inherited traits will produce individuals who are more successful in surviving in this environment." This is also a visible and known thing before Darwin and after Darwin, there is nothing new in it.
And then you say to these pillars, an unknown quote whose attribution to Darwin is not known, there is nothing new in it that opposes our scientific presentation. We, gentlemen, when we say pillars, we care about how Darwin explained the existence of these creatures with this variation. You call them pillars, you call them supports, you call them concepts, pillars of the theory, pillars of his explanation for the existence of creatures, regardless of the name. If you allow yourself to deduce such statements, allow me to deduce that I put a framework, that I put a framework.
In the end, when Darwin wanted to explain the existence of creatures, imagine yourself in a dialogue with Darwin, and he has denied the existence of intention and will or what he called "a plan for the Creator." We have the right to ask him: So, Darwin, how do you explain the existence of these creatures with this variation, integration, and creativity? This is what we did in the episode that the writer criticizes "Darwin's Theory with Fairness." We had a conversation with Darwin and interrogated him to understand his point of view, and we said the first pillar according to you, Darwin: "A living being is born in some way from inanimate objects."
Of course, the mentioned writer says: "Darwin never mentioned anything about the birth of a living being from inanimate objects in any of his books, but he mentioned something similar but not at all identical in a personal letter to a friend, which was referred to by Dr. Qunaybi."
Okay, what does Darwin say in this letter that we say Darwin did not say that you, Darwin, say and believe in the emergence of living creatures from inanimate objects? Darwin literally says - of course, not my translation -: "If we can imagine a small warm pond with different types of ammonia and phosphorus salts, light, heat, and electricity, a protein compound will form and can undergo further complex changes." Of course, he said all this in the context that it may be an explanation for the origin of the first creature.
Now, a question, brothers: ammonia and phosphorus to the end, are these inanimate objects or not? Meaning, let's wrap it up and think, in the end, Darwin points to the possibility of the formation of the first creature from inanimate objects. This is the conclusion of his speech, this is the conclusion of his speech.
When I spoke about "nature acquiring new traits," the mentioned writer said, "This theory predates Darwin; it is part of Lamarck's theory of inheritance." By God, do you mean to say that you are here to teach me what I might have learned in sixth or fifth grade? We know that this is Lamarck's idea, and that in this aspect, he agrees with Lamarck.
In the fifth chapter of his book - which I have translated for brevity, meaning I do not need to read everything in English and translate, you can refer to the episode to see the English texts and match them with the Arabic translation - what did Darwin say? He said, "I think there is no doubt that the use of certain organs in domesticated animals strengthens certain members of them, and the lack of use of the members weakens them, and that these modifications are inherited." "And that these modifications are inherited."
Of course, it later became clear that what Darwin did not doubt was completely wrong. Therefore, part of the explanatory model that Darwin drew for the origin of organisms is a belief in... which fell later, fell later.
I, my brothers, do not want to prolong the speech more than that, I will inform you of the truth of the noon prayer if God wills, otherwise, if you stand with word by word of the brother's article, it will become clear what ignorance or neglect is in it. And I hope that ignorance is more than neglect, deception, and distortion, because ignorance can be treated, especially if the ignorant admits his ignorance. And I ask this brother to admit his ignorance, otherwise, we will have to suspect. So whether the brother is speaking about what he does not know or intentionally lying and deceiving, he does not deserve that I waste more of my time with him. And do not expect me to waste my life in reporting what is already decided, clarifying what is already clear, and repeating what is already repeated.
Of course, here is the usual complaint. Someone will say, "Brother, why don't you talk among yourselves and advise each other among yourselves as preachers or leaders or celebrities, etc.? Brother, do not confuse these differences in public, go and discuss among yourselves and then return to us with the result."
By God, my brothers, this question is not directed at me, for I have done so myself. I reviewed this brother and previously for years. The mentioned writer, for example, whom we are talking about, had started publishing a series on the basis that it was anti-atheism, and the great flaw in it became apparent from the beginning. I contacted my brother Dr. Abdul Rahman Zakaria Al-Hashimi and said to him, "Do you see, O Abdul Rahman, what so-and-so is doing?" He said, "Yes." I said to him, "I want to advise him and know that there is a relationship between you, can you, O brother Abdul Rahman, give me the phone number of so-and-so?" Dr. Abdul Rahman gave me the phone number of the mentioned person. So I sent him a very kind message: "Brother Dr. So-and-so, peace be upon you and the mercy of God, I followed the publication of your episodes in a series, may God reward you and bless you. I have comments, do you allow me to communicate with you for a discussion that I think will benefit you?" The brother did not respond. I sent him again and he did not respond. And I informed Dr. Abdul Rahman of what happened, and he said that the same thing happened to him. Dr. Abdul Rahman is present and I have his permission to say these details.
I wanted to respond to the major problems in this writer's presentation. So I published an episode from the Journey of Certainty entitled: "Is God Unseen Does That Mean His Existence Is Uncertain?" In this episode, I responded to the writer's statements such as faith is believing in something without having all the decisive evidence for it, and that faith requires a courageous leap into the void, and it needs such dangerous talk that indicates the writer's ignorance of the meaning of faith itself.
Then I was surprised that my brother Ahmad Dadoosh had published an episode with the same content, so I thought he had seen my episode, but it turned out he had not seen my episode, he published an episode warning against this dangerous talk. I did not mention the intended person in my episode because the goal is to correct concepts and I do not like to talk about people unless there is no other choice.
After that, when my daughter died, may God have mercy on her, the mentioned brother himself, the writer, sent me a condolence message, so I appreciated it from him and responded to him thankfully and accepting his condolences and may God bless you and reward you for us with good. After a while, I offered him to discuss and he did not respond. Then, recently, he published articles in response to the Journey of Certainty.
So do not ask me, dear, why do you defend the Journey of Certainty, but ask those who avoid discussion, then exert their efforts in trying to undermine this journey that God has guided many people with it by His grace, mercy, and generosity, and tries to undermine it in any way, even by ignorance, deception, and lying. Ask him, not me, why do you defend your series.
And for those who say, "Doctor, there are those who hint at you from an intellectual point of view and accuse you of this and that," I say to him, I do not waste my time responding to hints that one does not know who is intended by them and who is intended by them, for I, by God, my brothers, do not have time to read them, let alone respond to them. And I have clarified my methodology and political positions in the word "Revealing the Truths," write on YouTube "Qanbi Revealing the Truths" and contemplate. Then, whoever has the courage to criticize my thought or methodology, let him confront me by name with what I have said in its text and let him bring the evidence, and at that time, you have the right to respond to what satisfies your hearts if God wills.
In conclusion, I ask God the Great, the Lord of the Great Throne, to guide us all to what He loves and is pleased with, and peace be upon you and the mercy of God and His blessings.