Mohammad Hijab BLUNDERS in our debate

Ajouté : 2026-05-05

[00:00:00]P1, Islam claims that all moral truths ultimately depend on Allah.

[00:00:05]P2, either Allah's commands determine what is morally right or they express pre-existing moral facts that are grounded in Allah's nature.

[00:00:15]Also it's grounded [clears throat] in scripture.

[00:00:17]In scripture, this is an implicit premise. It's just saying that Islamic paradigm would understand the Quran as a bi-condition with Islam. So, if either or are false, then the other would also be false necessarily.

[00:00:31]P3, if Allah's commands determine what is right, morality becomes arbitrary.

[00:00:36]P4, if Allah's commands express pre-existing moral facts grounded in his nature, his nature must consist with the moral phenomenon that we realize as well as the phenomenon within scriptures, at least the epistemic bindings. P5, the moral Because the Quran is going to at the bare minimum, regardless of how you might cash out like Allah's nature, the Quran sees is a epistemic binding on the consciousness. So, rather you think that his commands are literally the moral features or that they're just representing his nature that is morality.

[00:01:11]>> Yeah, yeah. Yeah, the Quran is the way you know that.

[00:01:14]>> let's let's take it step by step because you know, you've presented this as an Islamic sort of position, right? But the fact is in Islam you have different positions on this.

[00:01:25]Um just like in Christianity you have different positions on this, right? So, on the one hand, the Ash'ari school of thought [clears throat] believe that things are right and wrong due to God making them so, God speaking them in the scripture.

[00:01:41]Whereas for example, the Athari and the Hanbali, etc. have quite similar view to Aquinas actually and uh Augustine, which is that it's something to do with being linked to the goodness of God.

[00:01:57]And their theology of privation is that goodness, where it's removed from a place, then that's where evil is.

[00:02:07]And so, look, there is no uniform view in Islam about what you're talking about. Just like there's no uniform view in Christianity either.

[00:02:17]I think this affects all views. Any any sort of paradigm, whether you're Sunni, Ash'ari, Athari, whatever you might be, this would still be applicable.

[00:02:26]I've just explained to you that there's different views on there's different views in theodicy in different schools of thought.

[00:02:35]There's different ones. There's different ideas in Islam about this.

[00:02:40]Okay. Well, I'm I'm curious how this is going to correspond with my argument.

[00:02:47]Okay, so you you started off P1 something like all moral truths depend on Allah, yeah?

[00:02:53]>> Mhm, under the Islamic under the Islamic paradigm, yeah. So, what do you mean by that? Do you mean that they depend on him commanding them to be so?

[00:03:02]Ultimately, all moral facts are known from Allah, regardless of how you cash it out. So, you can say that they're from Allah via the Quran. The Quran again is an epistemic binding on the consciousness. And you could say they could be known through >> So, is that an ontological claim?

[00:03:20]What, the moral truths ultimately depend on Allah?

[00:03:23]Yeah. No, they're epistemic or ontological. It depends on the Islamic view.

[00:03:28]I'm asking you, is it Do you think that ontologically that all moral truths depend on Allah commanding them, let's put that more specifically, is an ontological fact?

[00:03:41]This would sort of I mean, I'm confused.

[00:03:43]This would kind of be burden shifting because what this argument is supposed to is supposed to present is that whatever Islamic paradigm is going to be sort of attributed to relegate these moral truths to Allah, that's what I'm questioning. Whether I personally believe it's ontological or epistemological isn't really up for debate.

[00:04:02]No, I'm saying when you said P1 that all moral truths depend on Allah, are you making are you saying that we know them to be the case like that or that they are like that as a matter of ontological reality?

[00:04:16]Either or. I said they can be ontological or epistemic. All all moral facts ultimately depend on some form of epistemology through moral cognition.

[00:04:24]That's that can be granted, yeah.

[00:04:27]No, because what it is is that if all human beings didn't exist and there's nobody that existed, you can still have morality, right?

[00:04:35]You can still you can still conceptually have objective morality without the existence of any human being on the earth, without any cognition or But what I'm asking you is that in your first premise, are you suggesting that the Islamic view is that things are right and wrong because God says them to be so?

[00:04:55]I'm just saying that moral truths ultimately depend on Allah, rather that what >> mean by that then? That's what the following premises are supposed to suppose, depending on your answer. On my answer.

[00:05:06]Yeah, but do you believe that is Do you believe that the Islamic view is that they all moral truths depend on Allah because Allah said that they are moral truths?

[00:05:19]Like you you throw you throw the dilemma. You're trying to create something like that.

[00:05:24]That's that's part of like the dilemma.

[00:05:27]Yeah, there's like two avenues you could go, but what I'm supposing with P1 is under the univocality of Islamic paradigms, it would assume that in some way moral truths are ultimately dependent on Allah. And again, as I previously explained, by ultimately dependent would be that moral truths are somehow relegated to Allah, whether they're ontological or purely epistemological.

[00:05:48]In what sense are they that they go back to Allah in the sense that he says them and then they be or in the sense that he they're connected to one of his attributes or in what what sense?

[00:05:58]That's what my question is supposing, yeah. That's what the argument is >> is this is the the answer is that it depends on the school of thought. I mean, there's there's different ideas within Islam about that. As I mentioned, some people believe in like a privation theory of moral ontology and some other people believe in for example, a divine command theory.

[00:06:21]Well, I think the context would be we'd probably just sort of relegate this to whatever your view is since you suppose, I would assume maybe Sunni Islam would be the the correct application of Islam.

[00:06:36]Yeah, yeah, of course, but what I'm saying is even the claimants of Sunni Islam have differed on this.

[00:06:41]People who claim to be Sunni Islam, Sunni Muslims, different thinkers in Islamic and Christian and Jewish history have had different ideas about how to solve these sort of dilemmas.

[00:06:53]So, there isn't one uniform view on that on this.

[00:06:58]But so, I mean, I don't see how this is any different from any other religion either. I don't see how you you can't make the same argument for Christianity or Judaism or Well, this this this could be used in those aspects, but that's not what the argument is supposing. The argument is supposing that whoever I am speaking to, regardless of whatever whatever their Islamic paradigm is, I'm supposing that you're going to answer based on those background commitments.

[00:07:22]How is this argument not relevant to your religion?

[00:07:26]Because the argument is directed towards the Islamic paradigm as P1 states. Well, that's what I'm saying is there's not one there's not one view in Islam about this.

[00:07:36]That's what I'm just supposing that you're using whatever view that you hold to.

[00:07:43]As I said, I mean, there's there's many different views in Islam about theodicy.

[00:07:47]And there's different theodicies in Islam.

[00:07:50]And so, it's it's not an argument against Islam at all. There are Put it this way, right? There are some Muslim there are some Muslim thinkers who are more aligned with Christian thinkers than other Put it that way.

[00:08:07]Do you see what I'm saying?

[00:08:08]>> Are you I'm confused. Are you saying that because there might be specific like schools of thought within Islamic paradigm that could reconcile this in one manner over another, that this argument somehow doesn't like hold any water? Is that what you're claiming?

[00:08:22]Okay, why does that Why does that follow?

[00:08:25]Because it's not there's no uniform view on Islam or Christianity or Judaism on on these matters or where morality comes from.

[00:08:33]Does it come from the essence of God? Is it an extension of the goodness of God?

[00:08:36]Is it Is it because God said it? There's different views in Christianity and Judaism and Islam on that. And like I said, that like Aquinas and Ibn Taymiyyah are quite similar in their views.

[00:08:48]As an example, right? They're from two different religions, but they have a they have a different view to the Ash'ari to a divine command theorists, for example. All right? And there are some other divine command theorists in Christianity.

[00:09:00]So, are you appealing to sophistry?

[00:09:04]No, I'm not. I'm I'm saying that this is this is a there is not one uniform Islamic opinion on this. But let me ask you this. Are you you're a Christian, right? Yeah.

[00:09:17]So, is Jesus fully God? This sounds like a non sequitur. What's wrong with the first argument that we were given? Or your argument.

[00:09:25]As I said, it's not applicable to Islam.

[00:09:27]It's It's an argument >> Yeah, I asked you for the inference. Why is it not applicable? How does it follow? Just because there is different schools of thought does not mean that it's not relegated to having some sort of moral absurdities. You have to give me a reason or justification for why that is. No, no, I'm saying you've Look, there are different schools of thought on moral epistemology and moral ontology in Islam. Just like there are moral different schools of thought in Christianity. Okay? There are divine command theorists. There are privation theorists. That that exists within Christianity, that exists within Islam.

[00:09:59]So, you're the misnomer that you've made the mistake in thinking that Islam has a uniform position. In fact, the Mutakallimun or the people of Kalam or systematic theology in Islam, they refer to this issue as mas'alat al-taqbih wa al-tahsin or the issue of knowing how something is true or false.

[00:10:19]And the Mu'tazilites had a view, the Ash'arites had a view, the Atharis had a view. They all, you know, had different views and within them within these schools they even have different views.

[00:10:31]I still need justification for why it follows. Just because there's a sect of Islam that believes something different than another sect that that doesn't mean that this argument's applicable. I've yet to see a justification for that.

[00:10:41]>> that I'm I'm saying there are some Muslim thinkers who believe in a pri- Let me Let me put it this way, right?

[00:10:46]You asked where does what you were saying is you're you're talking about the morality coming from the goodness of God or something, right?

[00:10:53]I have a light shining at me right now, yeah?

[00:10:56]You might see it, okay?

[00:10:58]So, Ibn Taymiyyah makes the argument that look, that good bad evil things don't actually exist in the real world.

[00:11:05]They don't actually exist.

[00:11:07]Okay?

[00:11:08]And they he said the way he reckoned it is you've got morality which is an extension of the goodness of God. The goodness of God, like many Christians say God is good, right?

[00:11:21]So, morality is an extension of the goodness of God.

[00:11:25]If you remove the goodness of God from the equation, okay?

[00:11:30]Then you then goodness is no longer there. That's where evil is. It's a privation theory. Privation theory is you remove the goodness and you're left with darkness. You remove the light and you're left with darkness. So, this light, if I turn it off, it's the equivalent in this analogy of good and evil. Do you get what I mean?

[00:11:47]So, that's one That's one school of thought. That's one group of scholars in Islam that they That's how they talk about morality and its ontological and epistemological um sort of uh derivations, okay?

[00:12:03]Another school of thought have a different idea. They say, "No, God Something is true or false because God said it."

[00:12:09]So, what I'm trying to say to you is this is not an Islam does not have a uniform position on this matter. And just like, for example, Christianity does not have. I know that as well. This This argument's still applicable to all sects. Like every single Islamic paradigm.

[00:12:25]>> as well, then?

[00:12:27]No, the argument is directed specifically to Islam.

[00:12:30]>> Let me ask you this. Why is it not applicable to Christianity? In virtue of what the argument is.

[00:12:35]What is the argument? What What's the argument?

[00:12:37]>> The argument is given Islamic paradigms and specific aspects of Islam in the Quran, then we make an argument that there are is a moral incoherency given the propositions are true.

[00:12:49]Can I just have a little crack at this?

[00:12:51]When I looked at your argument all you simply did is you took >> going to pray.

[00:12:57]Yeah, my friend is going to take over for a bit. I have to pray.

[00:13:00]Uh the the Maghrib prayer, sunset prayer. Cuz uh it's uh I'm late for it.

[00:13:05]So, my first question to you, my friend, is the way that you described the argument you talked about it as if it was a new argument, but you simply just gave Plato's dilemma.

[00:13:17]>> [clears throat] >> What do you mean?

[00:13:21]You You You No, the Euthyphro dilemma is included, but that's not the totality of the argument. Yeah, but all you simply did is you put in the Quran there when you could have put any other text. I don't see how this is a particular argument against Islam.

[00:13:34]That's Wait, hold on. That's not That doesn't matter. The relegation of what the argument is going to suppose does not matter about my background commitments or anything else.

[00:13:42]What's What's the inference for that?

[00:13:44]No, because you said this is an argument for Islam's incoherency.

[00:13:50]Islam's moral incoherency.

[00:13:52]>> Yes, cuz it's using Islamic paradigms and aspects. Firstly Firstly, just to clarify, there's nothing about this that is unique to Islam in terms of the formulation of the argument.

[00:14:03]>> It sounds like a non sequitur. I don't I fail to see how this attacks You've You've You've You've just inserted Islam when you could have inserted Mormonism and the Pearl of Great Price or Christianity or Judaism or something else.

[00:14:16]>> Is there a proposition you disagree with?

[00:14:19]No, no, no, but the point I'm trying to make to you is it Firstly, you you have a particular argument that you want to publish. And you said that this is something you want to put forward and you said this is an argument against Islam's moral coherence. Didn't you say that? Yes, it's specifically addressing Islam.

[00:14:39]>> That's a false statement. That is actually a false and misleading statement.

[00:14:43]>> How is that a false statement? I I don't I don't see what inference you're using here to come to that conclusion. You do see. You You actually do see. I think you're a smart guy and you got caught out. So, let me repeat again. Can you replace in those propositions Islam for Christianity and the Quran for the Bible, yes or no?

[00:15:03]No, not necessarily.

[00:15:05]No, no, no. Can you take, for example, we have the argument can you replace in those premises, can you whether it's coherent or not coherent, is deductive, is whatever, is sound or valid, we're leaving that aside, can you take the propositions and insert rather than Islam Christianity and rather than the Quran the Bible, yes or no?

[00:15:30]Um no.

[00:15:32]Why can't you do that? Uh cuz one of the sorts of aspects of the paradigm is going to be the nature of the Quran, for example. I couldn't put the Bible in there cuz the Bible doesn't follow the same ontological or epistemic aspects as the Christianity does.

[00:15:46]>> That's That's irrelevant. That's irrelevant. So, let's let's go to Let's go to Wait wait wait. Let's go to >> I Did you understand what I said? I I'm Yes, I did. Yes, I did. I fully understood and you in particular in the beginning, the statement that you made is categorically false. This is not an argument in particular against Islam. It can be used against any system. So, are there not different views of the Bible?

[00:16:11]Some people literally believe the Bible is the absolute word of God.

[00:16:15]Yes or no? This sounds like a tu quoque.

[00:16:18]Why do I care? No, no, no, no. What's happened here is you came forward with your unfinished paper and your argument was I have an Islamic I have an argument which is to show Islam's moral incoherence.

[00:16:32]>> [clears throat] >> You used those three terms together. All I'm simply doing is I'm saying that was a categorically false statement. All you've done is you've made a half-hearted attempt which can simply be refuted by taking away the word Islam, putting the word Christianity, taking away the Quran, putting the word Bible, and you don't want to do that cuz that's the same argument you're going to have to address. Well, one, even if I were to concede that that does not engage with the argument whatsoever. No, it doesn't and I didn't say I'm engaging with the argument. We can engage with the argument later. The point I'm trying to get you and you've half conceded it now is this is not an argument that's particular to Islam. It's particular in the sense it deals with specific aspects of the paradigm, yes. And I already explained that with the Bible and the Quran.

[00:17:18]>> You're just repeating yourself. You're literally just repeating yourself.

[00:17:21]>> I I have to cuz it does doesn't sound like you're giving me any valid inference or justification for your position. I You're not justifying the very first point that you made. I did justify it. I justified that Islam claims that all moral truths ultimately depend on Allah.

[00:17:35]>> conceded the point that I was making which is that this is in no way, shape or form, a unique argument against Islam. Why is that relevant even if that were true?

[00:17:45]Oh, wait wait wait. One second. Now you've conceded even more ground. You said, "Why is that relevant?" I want you to substantiate your initial statement.

[00:17:53]No, wait wait. One second. You said, "I have an argument against Islam's moral incoherence." Okay? Stick to that point.

[00:18:04]>> Is it Wait, I have a question. Is this not an argument that is directed and aimed towards Islam?

[00:18:10]That's not my question. You're answering a question I didn't ask. No, I'm asking you. Do you Do you think that's what this is?

[00:18:17]All right.

[00:18:19]Look, you're not making any sense. I'm going to get rid of you because I've asked you a very simple question. If you answer it, then I'll go down to your argument happily. So, I'm going to ask you once more. Your initial statement that you have a moral argument against Islam's coherency I'm categorically saying that is false because the same argument can be used against Christianity by replacing Islam with Christianity, the Quran with the Bible.

[00:18:48]Yes or no? Am I correct in my understanding?

[00:18:51]And I already explained this twice, not necessarily.

[00:18:54]And I And I explained that even if it were true, it doesn't it doesn't mean anything for the debate.

[00:18:58]>> You're not answering the question.

[00:18:59]You're weaseling around. I'm answering you directly. I don't think you understand anything I'm saying. Yes or no? Can that be done?

[00:19:07]It Not necessarily, no.

[00:19:10]No, no, no.

[00:19:12]No, no. We're We're just going around in circles. So, let me let me just Let me just tell you something, right? If you're going to come here and you're going to make a claim, we're going to hold you to account to that claim. Your initial claim is patently false.

[00:19:25]Goodbye. Get rid of this guy. No you didn't make a concession.

[00:19:30]This guy These guys Oh my goodness.

[00:19:33]>> friend. How you doing? Didn't understand a single thing. Oh my goodness.