The difference between us and them!

The difference between us and them! Note: This article is from the book (Islam and Science) for more please review the book. He forgave a nine-year-old whose mother complained about him because he was too lazy to get up early to go to school. When Sameh’s mother failed to get him to get up early and go to school without delay, she went to the classroom school to help her. The veteran school with its long educational experience gathered all the students in the classroom and told them: I will tell you the story of a little bird, this bird was sleeping in its little nest; the cute bird got up early from its sleep and flew off with its two little wings, and while it was also a little worm glanced at the tree and went down to eat it, and was very happy because it got up early and flew in the sky early and ate its breakfast early, and returned at the end of the day to its small nest and was all happy and cheerful. After the expert school finished her story, I went to Sameh and asked him: Tell me, Sameh, what lesson did I learn from this story? He replied, “I learned that when the worm woke up early, the bird ate it.” ... Surely, dear reader, when you read this story, you learned something completely different from the lesson that Sameh learned from the same story; presumably in this story, it develops the meaning of getting up early from sleep and going to work or school, which is confirmed by the Prophet's Hadith: (God bless my nation in Bukhara).[1] But Sameh deduced from the story the exact opposite meaning, but Sameh had a different point of view, although he heard the same story with the same details. This is the difference between us and them; the perspective or the point of view. We usually receive the same data, but our perspective is different, and a lot of misunderstanding arises because of this, the difference of view between us and them, they say: There is no Creator and no God and no occultism, while we believe in the Creator, wise and expert. This fundamental difference is the basis of the conflict between us and these. Before we answer this question, it is necessary to identify a very dangerous term, materialist philosophy. Materialist philosophy means in short that there is no then but matter, that there is no god, no creator, and no occultism, and that this visible world, the world of testimony, is a closed system that has nothing behind it or outside it, and there is no occultism. In materialist philosophy, there is no place for God, His creation, and His actions. In short, it is pure atheism. Thus, if science is faithful to material philosophy, it makes sense that all its outputs come in favor of the Creator's denial and support of chance and randomness, and the "scientific" explanations will then be faithful and faithful to the mechanisms or mechanisms of random materialism, and the best "scientific" explanation is the best explanation employs random physical mechanisms. Physical science (and allow me to use this term) in our case presupposes that there is no God, no creator, and no mastermind. Let’s take a look at this situation! Material science (and allow me to use this term again) and its institutions follow in the footsteps of material philosophy, in the sense that their starting point is not the question or neutrality, but the answer, they have a prior answer to the question of the existence of the Creator, in fact it is not only a prior answer but a firm belief. This principled position makes it really not a search for truth, but in order to justify and justify atheism, science in this case is about the best "material" explanation and the best "evitical" mechanism. This is where the term “justification” comes into mind; justification is a search for evidence, not an impartial search for passion or a sincere quest for truth, but to begin with the ready answer to reach it itself in the end. In short, it is not a search for truth, but a search for what supports your preconceived convictions. Evidence in the case of justification is not an objective neutral thing, but a very carefully chosen guide to lead people to the preconceive idea. Of course, if you start with the ready answer as one of the inputs to the scientific process, the process of processing these inputs will be a synthesis of the good evidence or justification to convince people of this ready answer that they will find in the outputs of the scientific process. In this way, physical science (and allow me to use this term for the third time) that places among its inputs atheism and denial of the Creator’s existence, all its outputs and results will be in favor of atheism and denial of the Creator’s. This is why atheists are good at exploiting material science (and allow me for the last time to use this term) to call for atheism and spread it and promote it, and they establish themselves as priests of science who speak in the name of science and the tongue of science, and the fact that science is innocent of them and their crooked ways, the science that they are raising is the one that has been tainted by material philosophy and smeared with its ideas and theses, while science that deals with facts objectively and without bias has no place between them. Let us think a little about this question: how can atheists convince people of atheism and the lack of a creator when everything in the universe, its order, its precision, the earth, the land, the sea, man, animals, plants, and even germs and insects indicate the existence of a creator who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omniscient? I was once told that there is no evidence in this world that can convince an atheist of the existence of God. In fact, this is largely true, because the problem is not in the evidence, but in the atheistic mind, in the mental system that lays down as a principle that there is no god, no creator, and no occultism! In this case, the evidence is outside the scope of the debate, and the entire dialogue about the philosophy that has reduced everything to matter, which has been excluded from the beginning. That is why many people wonder, and perhaps you are one of them dear reader of these lines: How scientists differ blatantly when the scientific data have all one is not different? The honest honest answer to explain this gap between scientists believers and atheists are: Atheism or the world that seeks to promote atheism begins its analysis of scientific data with a preconceived premise or a preconceived belief that there is no God, and therefore the scientific outlet that gives it or the scientific result that provides must be agreed upon. Are we aware of everything in the world and have completed our science in all fields? Or is the bulk of science and knowledge still hidden from us and we continue to discover new ones every day in all branches of science without exception? If this is the case, what guarantees that there are no facts beyond this material world of which we know nothing? If our science in this material world is extremely deficient, how can we say that there is nothing beyond this material world itself? There are many things in this physical world that we do not realize except through auxiliary machines such as telescopes and microscopes, and many other things we know from their effects such as electricity, magnetism and gravity. If this is the case with the existence of things that we do not realize only by means, why is it unreasonable to perceive the existence of things that we do not realize even without a medium and where we need to have other senses? Fairness requires us to acknowledge our lack of knowledge and the existence of many facts we do not know for this shortcoming and our way of knowing them is still missing. If this is so, let us realize that our refusal to exist beyond this physical world is a form of control and abuse without evidence. The point of natural science is that we have no evidence of existence beyond this world and we have no evidence of non-existence, but that lack of evidence does not mean that there is nothing. What is the evidence that there is only matter, but is there any scientific or rational evidence that this hypothesis is true? He said: “If they hadn’t given their consent it (the launch) would’ve been deferred out of respect. If he is a liar, then how can he be a liar if he does not know? This is the difference between us and them; not about science as data and observations and experiments, but about the point of origin itself; the material mentality that explains these observations and experiments. We as Muslims believe in God and his qualities and actions do not look at science and his data the same view as the materialists, so we must be aware of the difference between us and them, and we know that it is not a marginal issue, but it is at the heart of science and benefit, especially if the results of science are promoted by the Muslims. The poor have been deceived by the ornaments of falsehood and its adornment, and Allah has the command before and after. [1] Reported by Abu Dawud, Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Nasa’i, Ibn Majah and Ibn Hibban in his Sahih. Al-Tirmidhi classified it as a good (hasan) hadith. Al-Targhib wa Al-Tarhib by Al-Mundhiri, edited by Mustafa Muhammad Imarah, Dar Ihya Al-Turath Al-Arabi, Beirut, third edition, 1388 AH / 1968 CE, volume 2, page 529. [2] Ibn Taymiyyah, The Question of the Event of the World, The Investigation of Yusuf bin Mohammed Marwan al-Uzbek al-Maqdisi, Dar al-Basheer al-Islamiyya, Beirut, First Edition 2012, p.65. - Dr. Hisham Azmi — Source: Brahin Center website - Published 2019-07-02 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/science-scientism/الفرق-بيننا-وبينهم