Sunni Theological Hermeneutics with Dr David Solomon Jalajel (2022-01-17) #

0:00:01 hello everyone and uh welcome to
0:00:03 blogging theology today i am delighted
0:00:07 to talk to a doctor david solomon
0:00:10 jalagel good afternoon and you are most
0:00:12 welcome sir
0:00:14 it's my pleasure to be here with you
0:00:16 dr david uh solomon jalagel is a
0:00:19 researcher with the prince sultan
0:00:21 research institute at king saud
0:00:24 university in saudi arabia he holds a
0:00:27 phd in arabic and islamic studies from
0:00:29 the university of the western cape
0:00:33 formally he was a lecturer in islamic
0:00:35 theology and legal theory at the daraa
0:00:38 loom in cape town south africa where he
0:00:41 graduated and then received the higher
0:00:44 specialization in islamic law and the
0:00:47 higher specialization in arabic
0:00:51 david will be speaking today about sunni
0:00:54 theological hermeneutics that is he is
0:00:58 going to discuss the methodology that
0:01:00 muslim scholars in the classical sunni
0:01:02 tradition have used to interpret
0:01:05 scripture for establishing matters of
0:01:08 binding religious doctrine or akida as
0:01:12 it's known in arabic
0:01:14 so would you like to introduce us to
0:01:17 this subject david
0:01:19 thank you very much paul
0:01:20 yes i would
0:01:29 theological hermeneutics and of course
0:01:31 what i mean by hermeneutics is how we
0:01:32 derive meaning from text for a reason
0:01:35 either for law or for belief it is
0:01:38 usually used in religious or legal
0:01:39 contexts
0:01:41 my subtitle you see is theological
0:01:44 non-commitment and interpretive
0:01:46 restraint
0:01:47 these are two topics that i'm going to
0:01:49 particularly focus on though of course
0:01:51 theological hermeneutics is broader and
0:01:53 we'll cover more than that but these are
0:01:55 two topics that i will particularly
0:01:57 focus on
0:01:58 as we explore this uh field
0:02:03 to begin with we need to talk about the
0:02:05 topic of theology what is theology and
0:02:08 and what is its background in a sunni
0:02:10 perspective
0:02:12 well as far as the background is
0:02:13 concerned
0:02:14 uh the sunni theological tradition has
0:02:17 what you could say are three
0:02:18 sub-traditions within it
0:02:20 and those are ash arizona maturitism and
0:02:22 salafism
0:02:24 and each of those traditions have
0:02:26 illustrious scholars who are famous like
0:02:28 imam haram juwani
0:02:30 al-ghazali and
0:02:31 for the asha
0:02:33 and for the materials and neces
0:02:42 are the three most prominent theologians
0:02:45 and these schools are all sunni schools
0:02:47 they share much more in common in the
0:02:49 matters in which they disagree
0:02:51 but they disagree sometimes very sharply
0:02:53 on certain issues
0:02:55 and um
0:02:56 and it can cause sometimes friction
0:02:58 between them but broadly they all
0:03:00 self-identify sunni muslims
0:03:02 and they share a lot in common on that
0:03:04 basis
0:03:07 so theology we can look at different
0:03:09 kinds of questions we have god's
0:03:10 existence and god's attributes which are
0:03:12 generally referred to as
0:03:14 yet or study of god
0:03:17 and this is
0:03:18 different schools approach it
0:03:19 differently some are approach it more
0:03:21 scripturally some approach it more uh
0:03:24 rationally
0:03:25 but this is how you attribute who is
0:03:27 gone what are his attributes what is his
0:03:29 nature
0:03:31 other kind of questions relate to what
0:03:33 god did do and what he did not do
0:03:36 and these are strictly scriptural as we
0:03:38 shall see
0:03:42 first of all we're dealing with god and
0:03:44 his relationship to creation and his
0:03:46 nature and his attributes
0:03:47 this verse is of extreme importance to
0:03:49 all
0:03:50 sunni muslims
0:03:52 god is the creator of all things and he
0:03:54 is maintaining all things
0:03:58 this verse expresses relationship
0:04:00 between god and his creation
0:04:02 nothing is exempted from this ruling of
0:04:04 this verse besides god himself
0:04:06 and that is understood by
0:04:08 the straightforward understanding of
0:04:10 language if if you and i enter a room
0:04:12 together and i say i own everything in
0:04:14 this room it's implicitly understood
0:04:16 that i do not own you
0:04:18 we just walk in the room and that and so
0:04:20 that is understood by language when god
0:04:22 says he's a creator of all things it it
0:04:24 doesn't mean he creates themselves you
0:04:25 don't even have to invoke reason for
0:04:26 this
0:04:27 the language itself is enough for that
0:04:28 and normal usage of course reason would
0:04:31 also dictate that god did not create
0:04:32 himself
0:04:35 so basically it's there's no exceptions
0:04:37 that would be allowed in the language
0:04:39 everything besides god is his creation
0:04:43 another verse of extreme importance
0:04:46 is god creates what he pleases
0:04:48 indeed god is capable of all things
0:04:51 in the previous verse
0:04:53 we saw the relationship between god and
0:04:55 created things
0:04:57 this verse addresses the nature of god's
0:04:59 creative act itself
0:05:00 the creative act has two aspects as you
0:05:02 can see god's will and god's power
0:05:07 so
0:05:08 this
0:05:09 so it's also a sense also that he is not
0:05:11 compelled that he creates what he
0:05:13 pleases so
0:05:14 he has he has free will yeah he's not
0:05:17 under uh under obligation he he is he
0:05:19 has sovereignty and will supremely so
0:05:22 just to clarify that yeah yes and that
0:05:24 is very strong in the sunni uh
0:05:26 perspective the god has free will
0:05:28 and everything
0:05:30 that takes place in the universe is
0:05:31 under his power without exception
0:05:34 and that
0:05:35 that actually negates the ability of
0:05:37 reason as we shall see
0:05:39 to dictate what has to be the case in
0:05:42 the world
0:05:43 or what we would see in the world around
0:05:45 us because if god if reason and
0:05:47 revelation both attest that god is
0:05:49 capable of all things then which things
0:05:51 god actually did
0:05:54 how we're going to know about those
0:05:55 things if we can see them we see them
0:05:56 but if we can't see them we have to rely
0:05:58 on scripture
0:06:00 and this is what we are moving to now
0:06:02 what can be known only through scripture
0:06:04 the first person i will look at is an
0:06:06 ashrae theologian the same most famous
0:06:08 one abu hamid al-ghazali
0:06:11 he says
0:06:13 what is known only by way of textual
0:06:15 evidence what they call an arabic
0:06:17 sentence means something you hear
0:06:18 literally textual evidence
0:06:21 is where one of the rational
0:06:22 possibilities is actualized by god
0:06:26 since it is all permitted by reason
0:06:29 these things are only known by way of
0:06:31 revelation and inspiration
0:06:33 and we know about them from the
0:06:35 revelation that reaches us
0:06:37 like the resurrection the gathering of
0:06:38 souls reward and punishment and the life
0:06:42 so
0:06:42 you see that everything is possible
0:06:44 every reason would dictate that unicorns
0:06:47 and mars are possible and a moon made of
0:06:49 jello is possible everything
0:06:51 reason doesn't negate that god could do
0:06:53 those things
0:06:54 so
0:06:55 what was actually actualized in the real
0:06:57 world
0:06:59 can only be known by textual evidence
0:07:00 unless it's something that is visible to
0:07:02 us like if i see
0:07:04 you in front of me i know you're there i
0:07:05 don't need to look at the quran to find
0:07:07 out that you exist but for other things
0:07:09 things that are not just they're not in
0:07:10 in the empirical realm
0:07:12 i can only rely on scripture because
0:07:14 these are god's actions what he did and
0:07:16 didn't do
0:07:18 and lazada gave some examples like the
0:07:20 resurrection
0:07:21 and our gathering and the reward and
0:07:23 punishment hereafter they're all things
0:07:24 we would not know about except through
0:07:26 scripture and because they're all
0:07:28 possible for god the only way we can
0:07:30 know about them is from scripture
0:07:34 now let's see what evantamia the most
0:07:36 prominent of the salafi theology sets on
0:07:38 this matter
0:07:39 of knowledge
0:07:41 is what those who are not prophets can
0:07:44 only know by being informed by a prophet
0:07:47 their report alone being the scriptural
0:07:49 semi
0:07:50 evidence
0:07:51 like the details of the affairs of god
0:07:53 the angels the throne paradise the fire
0:07:56 and the details of what is commanded and
0:07:58 prohibited
0:07:59 so many of god's attributes can only be
0:08:02 known because god tells us about
0:08:04 and he maintains his famous we're saying
0:08:06 we
0:08:06 certainly forgot what he starts about
0:08:08 himself and we negate what he negates
0:08:10 about himself and we leave off
0:08:12 everything else
0:08:13 and then he also mentions the angels we
0:08:15 only know about them for scripture the
0:08:17 throne paradise and fire and he talks
0:08:19 about
0:08:20 things that we can only know by being
0:08:21 informed of the prophet he's talking
0:08:23 here about the unseen as opposed to
0:08:25 things that we know from experience and
0:08:28 looking around us in our daily lives
0:08:32 now we'll look at another ashrae
0:08:33 theologian a little bit later in history
0:08:35 a later ashrae theology named
0:08:38 he says the unseen oh he's talking
0:08:40 specifically about the unseen
0:08:42 the unseen is divided into what is
0:08:44 indicated by evidence and what is not
0:08:46 indicated by evidence of course the
0:08:48 evidence is scriptural what is not
0:08:50 indicated by evidence god alone knows
0:08:53 about it to the exclusion of others
0:08:55 as to what is indicated by evidence it
0:08:57 can be said that we know of the unseen
0:08:59 what the evidence indicates so whatever
0:09:01 it tells us we know only to the extent
0:09:03 that it tells us
0:09:05 there's an extent to which we know it
0:09:07 and that's the extent to which scripture
0:09:08 addresses it
0:09:09 so if it doesn't address a certain
0:09:10 detail we have no recourse to knowing
0:09:12 that detail
0:09:17 okay
0:09:19 and finally another salafi theologian
0:09:21 even though him he's a student of
0:09:23 inventania
0:09:24 he says something very specific and uh
0:09:26 insightful here
0:09:28 a claim about god's actions
0:09:31 if it is not established by him
0:09:34 declaring it about himself
0:09:36 which he means the quran or the prophet
0:09:38 declaring it about him
0:09:40 then it is a claim fabricated against
0:09:42 him without knowledge so he's
0:09:44 identifying
0:09:45 how important this is if we are to say
0:09:48 that something happened or doesn't
0:09:49 happen in the world
0:09:51 or about the unseen
0:09:53 and especially we're talking about it in
0:09:54 a theological context we're not just
0:09:56 making a claim about that thing like
0:09:58 whether this exists or that exists or
0:10:00 this happened when we make the claim
0:10:01 we're making claim for what god did so
0:10:03 we're actually talking about god's
0:10:04 actions
0:10:06 so many people don't realize the
0:10:07 seriousness of this if you say that
0:10:09 in the in the distant past
0:10:12 something happened in the world we must
0:10:13 believe this as muslims or something
0:10:15 didn't happen and we must believe that
0:10:16 as muslims
0:10:17 what are we making a claim about if
0:10:19 we're making a theological claim we're
0:10:20 making a claim about what god did we're
0:10:22 talking about god's actions so you may
0:10:24 not think you're talking directly about
0:10:25 god but you are and that's what malcolm
0:10:27 is pointing out here
0:10:32 so what can be known only through
0:10:34 scripture there are two conditions for
0:10:35 this
0:10:36 first it must be rationally possible
0:10:40 we're not talking about square circles
0:10:41 or totality or contradictions and things
0:10:44 so something which can be conceivable
0:10:46 because anything conceivable god can
0:10:48 know and second it must be unseen
0:10:52 like no one is going to debate can god
0:10:54 stop existing
0:10:55 that is rationally not possible the one
0:10:57 who has to exist will not stop existing
0:11:00 and it must be unseen we're not going to
0:11:01 debate scripturally whether uh mount
0:11:04 everest is a very tall male now you look
0:11:06 at it and you see it's there i mean
0:11:08 there's nothing to talk about so when
0:11:10 these two conditions are met
0:11:12 then we need scripture and only
0:11:13 scripture can resolve the issue which
0:11:15 includes a number of god's attributes
0:11:17 and matters of the unseen
0:11:22 the unseen includes events of the past
0:11:25 the quran itself tells us this we have
0:11:28 in the story of noah
0:11:30 that is from the news of the unseen to
0:11:32 reveal to you o muhammad you knew it not
0:11:36 neither you nor your people before this
0:11:38 the story of joseph this is from the
0:11:40 news of the unseen which we reveal to
0:11:42 you
0:11:43 and you are not with them when they put
0:11:45 together their plan while they conspire
0:11:48 the story of mary
0:11:49 this is from the news of the unseen
0:11:51 which appealed to you and you were not
0:11:53 with them when they cast their pens as
0:11:55 to which of them should be responsible
0:11:56 for mary
0:11:57 nor were you with them when they
0:11:59 disputed now what's important here is
0:12:01 none of these matters were unseen for
0:12:03 the people who were present
0:12:07 the people that cast the lots where they
0:12:09 knew what they were doing it wasn't
0:12:10 unseen for them but for prophet muhammad
0:12:12 saw like and for everybody today we have
0:12:15 no access there's no historical records
0:12:18 no
0:12:18 archaeological records for these events
0:12:21 and for us of course the history doesn't
0:12:23 exist history is not history historians
0:12:25 don't look into the past doesn't exist
0:12:27 for us it's gone it's finished or we've
0:12:29 got any artifacts that may be left but
0:12:33 these texts are saying god saw them and
0:12:35 uh he has perfect knowledge and he share
0:12:38 that knowledge with his his prophets uh
0:12:40 with muhammad upon him be peace so uh to
0:12:42 reveal that to us but for us it's unseen
0:12:45 we have no access to it anymore it's
0:12:47 gone
0:12:49 now of course the quran confirms
0:12:50 historical access it says when it tells
0:12:52 us to go to the world and look at what
0:12:54 happened to the people of the past that
0:12:56 means yes we can know about the past
0:12:58 through historical records and through
0:13:00 uh archaeological evidence
0:13:02 but that is non-existent for these
0:13:04 matters these are very particular events
0:13:06 that people had in their lives that were
0:13:08 not reported except in the scriptures
0:13:11 and we know about it from the scriptures
0:13:13 and from no other source
0:13:14 and prophet muhammad would not have
0:13:16 known about it peace be upon him except
0:13:18 through these sources for this for the
0:13:19 scripture
0:13:21 so amen tamiya makes a very important uh
0:13:24 distinction observation here
0:13:26 he observes that
0:13:28 everything that is unseen
0:13:30 that we classify as unseen even the
0:13:32 angels and jinn
0:13:35 they are possible to be seen
0:13:38 in that if god had willed he could make
0:13:40 them manifest
0:13:41 their possibility to be um perceived if
0:13:44 it's a sound it's possibly heard it's
0:13:46 not necessarily seen in the sense of the
0:13:48 eyes but whatever it is if it exists
0:13:51 it is perceivable
0:13:54 but god doesn't give us access to
0:13:57 everything
0:13:58 we know that according to all sunni
0:14:00 theologians that god himself can be seen
0:14:02 and will be seen in the hereafter though
0:14:04 we don't know the modality of that or
0:14:06 how that will be the case but it will
0:14:07 happen so there is no exception to that
0:14:10 if it exists if god created it or if it
0:14:12 exists in any way it can be seen
0:14:14 or it can be discernible to the senses
0:14:17 if god makes itself
0:14:19 so all things are unseen in some way as
0:14:21 relative it's relative to god willing us
0:14:23 to see it or not to see it or maybe
0:14:24 relative because it's in the past so
0:14:26 it's not seen by us or something happens
0:14:28 in the future if the quran tells us
0:14:30 about the events of the future it will
0:14:31 not be unseen to the people in the
0:14:32 future it's unseen to us
0:14:35 but regardless of how unseen something
0:14:37 is
0:14:39 to the extent that it is unseen
0:14:41 we can only know about it through
0:14:44 scripture yeah that's clear
0:14:49 so now we've established what aspects of
0:14:51 theology
0:14:53 are grounded only in scripture
0:14:55 and this is the case for all three
0:14:56 schools here
0:14:57 certain schools may differ about what
0:14:59 reason can ascertain develop god's
0:15:01 nature and attributes they do differ
0:15:02 about that that's one of the points of
0:15:04 difference
0:15:05 but a point of convergence between the
0:15:07 three traditions
0:15:08 is that matters that relate to god's
0:15:11 actions in the world
0:15:12 what he did and didn't do
0:15:14 if they are not
0:15:15 visible to us then we only know about
0:15:18 them by way of scripture and now that
0:15:19 means we have to apply a scriptural
0:15:22 uh hermeneutic
0:15:24 we have to know how to interpret the
0:15:25 scriptures
0:15:26 in order to understand what we must
0:15:28 believe and what is obligatory for us to
0:15:30 accept this doctrine on these matters
0:15:32 and that is of course the main topic of
0:15:34 our presentation
0:15:37 so here's four very important principles
0:15:42 in
0:15:43 sunni theological hermeneutics
0:15:45 and these principles are agreed upon by
0:15:47 all
0:15:48 three traditions
0:15:50 the first principle
0:15:52 is only authenticated
0:15:54 or inherited
0:15:56 texts
0:15:57 can establish matters of belief
0:16:00 and only firmly authenticated a text can
0:16:03 establish binding creed and binding
0:16:05 creed i mean that which a person leaves
0:16:07 islam that they don't accept
0:16:10 now this principle is accepted by all
0:16:13 three schools
0:16:14 but there
0:16:16 is difference of opinion
0:16:18 about
0:16:19 what is firmly authenticated and what is
0:16:22 not firmly authenticated
0:16:25 for instance we have what's called a
0:16:26 single narrator hadith
0:16:28 uh which is related by the prophet first
0:16:31 of all the quran is al-qaeda in its
0:16:34 being in its authentic city there is no
0:16:36 doubt about the authenticity of every
0:16:38 verse of the quran
0:16:39 within the framework of sunni islam
0:16:42 so any text of the quran we might debate
0:16:45 about understand how we understand the
0:16:46 text it is authentically god without
0:16:50 dispute and without any question
0:16:53 but then we also have a body of
0:16:54 traditions from the prophet known as
0:16:55 hadith
0:16:57 that are narrated from the prophet
0:16:59 through chains of narration
0:17:01 and there's uh and
0:17:03 there are different grades of this
0:17:04 chains of narration depending on how uh
0:17:07 how strong the chain of narration is how
0:17:09 well it's cooperated etc which is a
0:17:11 science for hadith science
0:17:13 and only authenticated texts can be
0:17:15 matters of belief they all agree that if
0:17:17 it's a if a hadith is weak
0:17:19 if it has some weakness in its
0:17:20 transmission then it cannot be used to
0:17:22 establish theology whether it can be
0:17:24 used for law or for ethics or other
0:17:26 matters is another issue altogether
0:17:28 outside of our topic today but it cannot
0:17:30 be used to establish belief
0:17:33 but then when it comes to the authentic
0:17:35 hadith there is a disagreement among the
0:17:37 three schools about which of those have
0:17:39 the higher level of authority to
0:17:41 establish binding greed
0:17:43 the salafists have the broadest
0:17:44 acceptance any hadith that is authentic
0:17:46 unless is contradicted by another hadith
0:17:48 or brought into question by something
0:17:50 else
0:17:51 can be used to establish binding grief
0:17:54 for the mataridis they have it has to be
0:17:56 what's called a famous
0:17:59 which means it could start out by one or
0:18:00 two companions narrating it but then it
0:18:02 must proliferate and become widely
0:18:03 accepted
0:18:04 the asharis have the strictest uh
0:18:06 criterion here
0:18:08 only a hadith that is because that is a
0:18:10 hadith of the general masses called
0:18:12 mutawatya
0:18:14 is acceptable for establishing binding
0:18:15 creed which means from the very
0:18:17 beginning from the first time was
0:18:18 narrated from the companions on down it
0:18:20 must be so widely dispersed that there
0:18:22 could be no possibility of error or or
0:18:25 collusion or or coincidence upon a lie
0:18:29 so these so there is so the principle
0:18:31 itself is not a point of disagreement
0:18:33 but the application of the principle
0:18:35 which is respect hadith which hadith or
0:18:37 qualify is cut
0:18:38 or strong enough to establish creed is a
0:18:40 matter of disagreement between the three
0:18:43 schools and they each have a different
0:18:44 great uh different standard for which
0:18:46 hadith are acceptable in matters of
0:18:48 establishing creed but principle itself
0:18:51 is recognized by all schools
0:18:54 the second principle
0:18:56 is that the clear law here meaning of
0:18:58 the text must be the default assumption
0:19:00 you notice i don't say literal there's
0:19:02 no such thing
0:19:03 uh
0:19:04 as literalism in sunni islam
0:19:07 everything has to be understood in the
0:19:09 context of its parent
0:19:12 so no one's going to take a single word
0:19:14 and try to say this word means this and
0:19:16 disregard it's it's function in the
0:19:19 sentence or in the passage or in the
0:19:21 context no one does that
0:19:23 not within sunni islam but there is what
0:19:25 we call the law here what is clearly
0:19:27 apparent when you read the text
0:19:29 what comes as a clear apparent meaning
0:19:31 and all the schools oblige that meaning
0:19:34 must be the default assumption which
0:19:36 means unless you have some other
0:19:37 evidence compelling evidence to show it
0:19:39 should not be on that default assumption
0:19:41 you must leave it on it
0:19:43 and
0:19:44 not it's not that it's impossible for a
0:19:46 text to be understood in some other way
0:19:48 but it can you that is not how you
0:19:50 initially approach this you don't
0:19:51 approach a text by trying to uh
0:19:54 reinterpret it
0:19:56 anesthetic maturity theologian says
0:20:00 texts are on their apparent meanings
0:20:02 that dr zany said as long as they are
0:20:04 not taking off the meaning by definitive
0:20:06 copy evidence so the only thing that can
0:20:08 remove a text from its apparent meaning
0:20:10 is something else that's stronger than
0:20:12 it is
0:20:14 okay so that is
0:20:16 now what now here is a place where some
0:20:18 scholars deliver what actually is cut
0:20:20 the evidence that can remove a text from
0:20:22 its law here
0:20:23 some would say certain rational evidence
0:20:25 can do so and depending on your on the
0:20:27 different opinions they had about the
0:20:28 nature of god's transcendence
0:20:30 you'll find selfies matridges ashraes
0:20:33 will differ on when they will take
0:20:35 certain texts off of their
0:20:37 uh apparent meaning and that goes back
0:20:40 to their theological positions on the
0:20:42 nature of god's transcendence they all
0:20:43 accept that god is transcendent but they
0:20:45 disagree on the nature of that or how
0:20:47 we're supposed to contextualize that and
0:20:49 that does lead to some disagreements in
0:20:51 interpreting
0:20:52 on this principle here
0:20:55 the next principle is
0:20:57 no interpretation is valid that
0:20:59 constitutes construing any text as a lie
0:21:01 or a deception
0:21:03 that's agreed upon
0:21:05 allah says anyone who claims of the
0:21:07 prophet lied
0:21:09 must be condemned as an unbeliever
0:21:11 even if this claim of his involves a
0:21:13 secondary issue
0:21:15 which means even if it's an issue of law
0:21:17 or an issue of anything regardless of
0:21:19 how trivial the issue itself is
0:21:22 or in our perspective
0:21:23 if
0:21:24 denying something
0:21:26 or asserting something whatever it
0:21:28 is would mean the quran is lying
0:21:33 or the prophet in an unambiguous uh
0:21:35 statement it is lie and you have to
0:21:37 believe that
0:21:38 or it implies that they are lying then
0:21:40 you that is unbelief
0:21:42 that we can take you out of the fold of
0:21:44 islam regardless of how obnoxious the
0:21:46 claim might otherwise appear
0:21:48 because
0:21:50 of the fact that by making that claim
0:21:52 you're directly contradicting the
0:21:54 scripture and the strip would have to be
0:21:55 lying for that claim to be the way you
0:21:57 say it is so that is a principle that no
0:21:59 one disagrees on
0:22:02 and the fourth principle is one we're
0:22:03 going to look at in great depths
0:22:05 because it applaud is one of the most
0:22:06 important for practical permanent
0:22:10 details left unstated
0:22:13 about these matters that can only be
0:22:15 known by scripture
0:22:17 cannot be filled in by conjecture
0:22:20 that means if something is only known by
0:22:22 scripture and scripture though it might
0:22:24 talk in depth about the topic but
0:22:26 doesn't mention any specific detail or
0:22:28 anything about it or something about it
0:22:30 and you ask what about this or is this
0:22:32 the case
0:22:33 and it's not addressed by scripture it
0:22:35 cannot be answered there's no there's no
0:22:37 room for to speculate about it you're
0:22:38 not allowed to speculate and fill in
0:22:40 those gaps at least not if you're
0:22:41 talking about a theological redisc
0:22:43 and speaking about belief and what we
0:22:45 have to believe is muslims
0:22:47 so these are four very important
0:22:49 principles
0:22:50 and the final principle we will continue
0:22:52 to look at in more detail
0:22:54 and this introduces what a principle
0:22:56 called theological non-commitment or
0:22:58 arabic to which comes from
0:23:02 and the principle is this when something
0:23:04 can only be known through the revealed
0:23:06 texts
0:23:08 it is necessary to stop at what the
0:23:10 texts explicitly say now this word
0:23:12 explicit is extremely important
0:23:15 if a question falls outside the text
0:23:17 explicit pronouncements it becomes
0:23:20 obligatory to avoid any affirmation or
0:23:22 denial and take a stance of
0:23:24 non-commitment to walk off
0:23:28 now when i say explicit it
0:23:30 is important because the person can look
0:23:32 at the quran and maybe try to tease out
0:23:35 means or like look at a bunch of birds
0:23:37 say i get a general picture like this
0:23:38 and try to interpret
0:23:41 and maybe the interpretations may even
0:23:42 be somewhat sensible themselves
0:23:45 that if you were a legal scholar they
0:23:46 would be considered acceptable if you're
0:23:47 just doing a tafsir or exegesis people
0:23:50 would say it's a reasonable
0:23:52 assumption
0:23:54 but for establishing uh matters of
0:23:55 theology
0:23:57 these are matters of unknown and unseen
0:24:00 there has to be explicit so the tricks
0:24:02 has to be directly addressing the issue
0:24:04 it can't be something that you assume
0:24:05 about the text or you tried to tease out
0:24:07 the text it did just i'm just struck
0:24:09 here by how um
0:24:12 clear and forceful a principle this is
0:24:14 when one
0:24:15 steps outside of islam just as in
0:24:17 parenthesis here looking at say
0:24:19 christianity uh it's not meant to be a
0:24:21 critical comment but just a contrasting
0:24:23 uh statement where um uh for example the
0:24:26 doctrine of the trinity is not taught
0:24:27 explicitly in the new testament that's
0:24:30 commonly accepted by christian academics
0:24:32 themselves not me being polemical it's
0:24:34 just not taught the doctrine the trinity
0:24:37 um
0:24:38 this principle of theological
0:24:40 non-commitment and
0:24:42 avoiding any affirmations uh
0:24:44 about god which are not explicitly
0:24:47 taught it's something that is not
0:24:49 accepted in other religions
0:24:50 uh it it it is very clearly accepted in
0:24:54 christianity where you can uh have
0:24:56 doctrines and ideas and theologies which
0:24:59 go way beyond
0:25:00 uh the scriptures of of other people so
0:25:04 this is a very tight
0:25:06 controlled definition presumably to
0:25:08 avoid
0:25:09 um the outgrowth and development of
0:25:12 speculations and ideas about god without
0:25:15 any scriptural warrant at all well that
0:25:17 would be my parenthetical comment by the
0:25:18 way
0:25:19 now i can't speak about the treaty
0:25:21 because i do not know on what basis
0:25:23 sacrament if it's on a rational basis or
0:25:25 what have you i can't even comment on
0:25:27 that but yes it is is it very important
0:25:30 because remember everything that you say
0:25:32 about what happens in the world
0:25:34 and if you claim about if you claim it
0:25:35 as a theological position
0:25:37 you're actually are making a claim about
0:25:39 god what he did or did not do you know
0:25:42 making claim about his action
0:25:44 as immortalia made clear
0:25:46 and that's why it's important not to do
0:25:47 so
0:25:49 because
0:25:50 any claim you make about the unseen is a
0:25:52 claim of god's actions
0:25:55 or it could be in in some cases about
0:25:57 his attributes if you're making a claim
0:25:58 about his attributes without having any
0:26:00 evidence for it
0:26:02 this principle is grounded in the quran
0:26:04 the sunnah in the practice of the
0:26:05 companions now the sun of course we get
0:26:07 from the hadith of the narrations of
0:26:09 what the prophet said
0:26:10 and we're going to see some of these
0:26:11 examples
0:26:13 now the quran establishes this principle
0:26:17 it says
0:26:19 verse 33
0:26:21 say
0:26:22 the things that my lord has indeed
0:26:24 forbidden are licentious deeds whether
0:26:26 committed openly or secretly sins of all
0:26:29 kinds unrighteous oppression joining
0:26:31 partners in worship with god which is
0:26:33 given no authority
0:26:34 and
0:26:35 saying things about god of which you
0:26:38 have no knowledge right so there are
0:26:40 four things
0:26:41 listed
0:26:43 in this verse
0:26:45 that are indeed or emphatically
0:26:47 forbidden
0:26:48 the last of which is
0:26:50 saying things about god of which you
0:26:52 have no knowledge
0:26:54 so it's one of the forbidden is one of
0:26:56 the forbidden things and it's being
0:26:57 linked to what
0:26:58 like fornication and other licentious
0:27:00 deeds
0:27:02 sins and oppression and polytheism
0:27:04 itself joining partners in worship with
0:27:06 god
0:27:09 so
0:27:09 that's
0:27:10 listed in in that category of
0:27:13 sins that are forbidden
0:27:17 another verse emphasizes this and do not
0:27:20 pursue that of which you have no
0:27:22 knowledge indeed the hearing the sight
0:27:24 and the heart all of those
0:27:26 about them one will be questioned
0:27:31 so this is very important you see there
0:27:33 are two verses lebron that warn against
0:27:35 making claims about god
0:27:38 and about religious matters without
0:27:40 knowledge
0:27:42 Music
0:27:46 now we have in the in the prophet's
0:27:49 own practice he
0:27:50 engaged in this and he was a prophet of
0:27:52 god
0:27:53 here's one perfect example
0:27:56 the prophet muhammad said i do not know
0:27:57 if ezra was a prophet or not now ezra
0:27:59 has mentioned you know but whether he
0:28:01 was a prophet
0:28:02 it wasn't a detail given about him
0:28:05 so prophet muhammad didn't know the
0:28:06 answer was he a prophet is there was he
0:28:08 just somebody that
0:28:10 was important
0:28:12 also when prophet muhammad sallam was
0:28:14 asked about certain matters of the
0:28:16 unseen he was commanded by god to
0:28:18 profess his lack of knowledge again
0:28:20 so this is not only an example of the
0:28:22 prophetess example from the quran as
0:28:23 well for instance
0:28:26 in
0:28:26 israel 8 85
0:28:29 they ask you o muhammad about the soul
0:28:32 say the soul is of the affair of my lord
0:28:34 you o people have been granted but
0:28:36 little knowledge that was his answer now
0:28:38 they this is now there's disagreement
0:28:40 among scholars of jurors of
0:28:42 um tafsir of exodus whether the soul
0:28:45 here refers to the angel gabriel or to
0:28:47 the human soul what was it was something
0:28:49 that he was asked about
0:28:51 and there's a difference opinion about
0:28:52 what he was asked about in the first
0:28:53 place
0:28:54 and but either way this is the way he
0:28:56 had to answer
0:28:59 regarding the final hour
0:29:01 and they say
0:29:03 when is this promise if you should be
0:29:04 truthful that's what they said
0:29:08 and the prophet is commanded say
0:29:10 this knowledge is only with god and i am
0:29:13 but a clear warner
0:29:15 so he's supposed to confess his own
0:29:16 ignorance of the answer yeah
0:29:19 he doesn't know when it's going to
0:29:20 happen and he can't give an answer to
0:29:21 that question
0:29:23 just like jesus in the gospels as he
0:29:24 said no one knows that they are only god
0:29:26 knows he confesses his own ignorance uh
0:29:29 jesus and the gospels as well it's the
0:29:30 same kind of thing really yeah profound
0:29:33 yes
0:29:35 and then we see the companions of the
0:29:36 prophet also practiced
0:29:38 of this principle
0:29:40 they are the people that
0:29:42 lived with him and knew him and learned
0:29:43 islam directly from the companions
0:29:47 one of them was having a past
0:29:48 a man asked ibn abbas
0:29:51 about a day the extent of which is a
0:29:54 thousand years and that is part of a
0:29:55 verse of the quran the quran refers to a
0:29:57 day the extent which is a thousand years
0:29:59 so man's asking about the verse
0:30:02 serena bass said to him
0:30:04 so what is
0:30:06 and i quote a day the extent of which is
0:30:09 50 000 years which happens to be another
0:30:11 verse of the quran there's a verse quran
0:30:12 that says mention the day the extent to
0:30:14 a thousand years so he answers with
0:30:15 another verse what do you have to say
0:30:16 for the day the extent which is fifty
0:30:18 thousand years
0:30:19 now the poor man
0:30:21 he was not both he came to evan abbas
0:30:23 was one of the most knowledgeable
0:30:24 companions about the quran with an
0:30:27 honest question and he got this kind of
0:30:29 cheeky answer
0:30:31 so the man said i only asked you so you
0:30:33 relate something to me
0:30:35 he wanted to learn
0:30:37 servant abbas said there are two days
0:30:39 that god mentions his book
0:30:42 and god knows best about them
0:30:46 i hate to say something about god's book
0:30:48 that i do not know
0:30:50 wow
0:30:51 so that is him one of the most
0:30:53 authoritative companions in the quran
0:30:55 saying he doesn't know he doesn't want
0:30:56 to mention anything about
0:31:01 now we look at this
0:31:03 as a doctrinal commitment
0:31:06 now
0:31:07 i want to give some background about the
0:31:08 appeal
0:31:11 was one of the uh scholars from the
0:31:14 traditional tradition
0:31:17 that
0:31:18 was active in the very early days
0:31:20 when the sunnis began codifying books
0:31:24 and statements of theology
0:31:26 themselves they began compiling complete
0:31:28 books before that you had mainly little
0:31:30 treaties about one topic or another but
0:31:32 at this time this is the same that the
0:31:34 howie was contemporary with three other
0:31:36 scholars that were known to do the same
0:31:37 thing at tabori al-matridi and al-ashari
0:31:41 atahawi was in that time period and he
0:31:44 composed a creed a treaty it's a very
0:31:46 short treaty some creed with many points
0:31:48 each one a point of belief
0:31:50 and tahawi's intention
0:31:52 was not to create a manifesto for any
0:31:55 particular
0:31:56 tendency within sunni thought but to
0:31:59 create a creed that was very very
0:32:01 comprehensive of all sunni thought it
0:32:03 was carefully written
0:32:05 right and for that reason
0:32:06 it is generally accepted by all three
0:32:10 sunni traditions right as being
0:32:12 representative of
0:32:15 sunni belief
0:32:16 there are a couple caveats here and
0:32:18 sometimes you'll find that if it's an
0:32:20 ashrae uh commentary or a celebrity
0:32:22 commentary or maturity commentary on the
0:32:24 tahawi's creed and they all write
0:32:26 commentaries on the screen but sometimes
0:32:28 they interpret tahawi's statement a bit
0:32:30 differently and sometimes they have
0:32:32 certain reservations but in general it's
0:32:34 accepted by all
0:32:35 three
0:32:36 schools right
0:32:39 and so this is what the hawaii himself
0:32:42 in his very brief treaties
0:32:44 knowledge is of two types
0:32:48 the humanly accessible
0:32:50 and humanly inaccessible
0:32:53 to either deny
0:32:54 accessible knowledge
0:32:56 or to claim the inaccessible
0:32:59 is disbelief
0:33:02 faith is not sound
0:33:04 unless accessible knowledge is embraced
0:33:07 and the pursuit of the inaccessible is
0:33:09 abandoned
0:33:11 now this is important if you deny
0:33:12 something that's explicitly stated
0:33:15 in the scriptures that's unbelievable
0:33:17 we've already discussed that
0:33:22 but
0:33:22 to claim the inaccessible that which
0:33:25 cannot be known
0:33:27 to claim to know it
0:33:29 is unbelief
0:33:31 now remember
0:33:32 here or theological non-commitment is a
0:33:35 hermeneutical strategy
0:33:37 or a method related to interpreting and
0:33:40 understanding scripture
0:33:42 why is it being mentioned here as one of
0:33:44 the
0:33:44 bulleted he like almost bullets and
0:33:46 numbers doctrinal points as a matter of
0:33:48 belief itself he's not saying this is
0:33:50 just an approach to interpreting
0:33:52 scripture he's making this particular
0:33:54 approach a matter of belief and making
0:33:57 the abandonment of this particular
0:33:59 approach
0:34:00 in itself
0:34:02 unbelief
0:34:04 he says faith is not sound unless
0:34:07 successful knowledge is embraced in the
0:34:09 pursuit of the inaccessible is abandoned
0:34:11 so to pursue that which you cannot know
0:34:14 which of course is what the quran tells
0:34:15 you not to do
0:34:16 is not just sinful it's unbelief
0:34:19 now we're going to explore why this is
0:34:21 the case by looking at three different
0:34:23 commentaries on the tahalia one for each
0:34:26 of the three traditions
0:34:28 and also we're going to see is this one
0:34:30 of those places where there's some
0:34:31 disagreement between the three
0:34:33 traditions one of those few capyats i
0:34:35 mentioned earlier or is this something
0:34:37 that all three traditions are
0:34:38 unanimously agreed upon
0:34:41 so let us begin
0:34:43 we're going to do a suraj
0:34:46 and his commentary is a majority
0:34:48 commentary
0:34:49 on a tahawi's creed what does he say
0:34:53 as for the inaccessible knowledge
0:34:56 it is knowledge of what god conceals
0:34:58 from his creatures
0:35:00 like knowledge of the unseen which he
0:35:01 keeps to himself
0:35:03 and like knowledge of fate and divine
0:35:05 decree
0:35:06 and when the final hour will be
0:35:08 it is as god says
0:35:11 say no one in the heavens and earth
0:35:14 knows the unseen except god
0:35:17 and another quote from the quran he
0:35:19 alone will reveal it when the time
0:35:22 so claiming and seeking such knowledge
0:35:24 is likewise unbelief
0:35:27 and he gives the reason why now since it
0:35:29 is a claim to share with god what he has
0:35:31 kept himself
0:35:34 so if you claim to know something of the
0:35:35 unseen
0:35:37 whatever it is
0:35:39 and you don't have scriptural authority
0:35:40 for doing so you are competing with god
0:35:42 you're saying that you know something
0:35:44 that god has kept to himself that you
0:35:46 have that knowledge that you cannot
0:35:47 otherwise have
0:35:50 and it's interesting that we see
0:35:51 parallels we've been telling you said
0:35:52 earlier about how everything could be
0:35:54 perceived if god wanted it to be we see
0:35:56 that here in uh al-khashnami's
0:35:58 commentary
0:35:59 that the unseen is what god has chosen
0:36:02 not to make see
0:36:04 not what has to be rationally unseen
0:36:06 there's nothing of that nature
0:36:10 now we'll deal with an ash atti uh
0:36:12 commentary and this one happens to be
0:36:14 from saint faulda who is a living ashrae
0:36:15 scholar today a very famous living
0:36:17 actually scholar okay there's a
0:36:19 contemporary commentary
0:36:22 the inaccessible knowledge is the unseen
0:36:25 so identify as inaccessible with the
0:36:27 unseen here
0:36:29 like the knowledge of some finer details
0:36:31 and the true nature of the divine
0:36:32 essence and when the final hour will be
0:36:34 among other facts
0:36:36 claiming to know such things is likewise
0:36:38 unbelief
0:36:40 knowledge is either possible for human
0:36:42 being to attain or impulsive
0:36:44 when it is possible then it is either
0:36:46 something that all people know or some
0:36:48 of them
0:36:49 so claiming knowledge that is
0:36:50 categorically absent under all
0:36:52 possibilities as something condemnable
0:36:55 and the condemnation is more severe when
0:36:57 it's saying it is impossible to know
0:36:59 this becomes an infringement and
0:37:02 transgression against knowledge god has
0:37:04 kept especially for himself
0:37:06 it is like associating oneself with
0:37:08 god's exclusive knowledge like
0:37:10 polytheism here
0:37:12 this is why that tahoe points out that
0:37:14 it's forbidden to make such a claim so
0:37:16 he's saying it's a form of polytheism
0:37:18 but you're claiming to have god's
0:37:19 exclusive knowledge if it's something
0:37:21 god has not revealed and you're going to
0:37:23 say that you know it then you're
0:37:25 it's very similar to what
0:37:26 we said
0:37:28 now let us look at ibn abraham who wrote
0:37:30 what is now in today's time the most
0:37:32 famous and widespread and widely read
0:37:35 commentary on the tahavi it's a
0:37:37 celebrity commentary it's in translation
0:37:40 in english and it's very widely
0:37:41 available all over the world
0:37:43 it's
0:37:45 uh
0:37:45 commentary
0:37:47 now what does he say
0:37:49 he means by inaccessible knowledge the
0:37:51 knowledge of god's decree which god has
0:37:53 kept from his creatures and forbidden
0:37:55 them from seeking
0:37:56 by accessible knowledge he means the
0:37:58 knowledge of the sharia his general
0:38:00 principles and particular rulings
0:38:02 whoever claims knowledge of the unsee
0:38:05 is among the unbelievers
0:38:06 so again he mentions the unseen and
0:38:08 mentions unbelief to claim such
0:38:10 knowledge
0:38:12 so this is again something that all
0:38:14 three schools agree upon they all agree
0:38:16 with the hollywood there's no caveats
0:38:18 there's no disagreement on the matter
0:38:21 i i find this very uh impressive and and
0:38:24 and convey a very good thing that
0:38:26 everyone agrees on this so there's
0:38:28 there's there is no
0:38:29 like in some other religions where you
0:38:30 had these big theological schools and
0:38:32 they're completely different on
0:38:33 fundamental matters of theology here
0:38:35 there is consensus uh on this
0:38:38 fundamental uh doctrinal commitment and
0:38:40 that that's impressive i think
0:38:42 yes and i'm saying in truth though i'm
0:38:44 not going to in any way shape or form
0:38:48 play down the differences between these
0:38:50 three schools
0:38:52 and where they differ
0:38:54 at the same time
0:38:56 they agree on more than they differ
0:38:58 and they definitely agree on this
0:38:59 hermeneutical principle
0:39:01 so this is one of the points where they
0:39:03 are definitely in agreement when it
0:39:04 comes to matters the unseen
0:39:07 particularly matters of the unseen we
0:39:09 only know about them what god reveals
0:39:11 and you will see that they all say it is
0:39:13 to claim to have such knowledge is
0:39:15 tantamount to unbelief so this is
0:39:17 definitely something upon which they all
0:39:18 are on the same page
0:39:24 now here's something interesting now
0:39:25 we're going to get some very very
0:39:27 somewhat unique not completely unique
0:39:29 but somewhat unique to the salafists
0:39:31 and this is tawakov and exegesis that is
0:39:34 tapsir
0:39:36 now tafsir is a different genre we're
0:39:37 not this is not the genre of theology
0:39:39 the genre of tafsir is where you take
0:39:41 the quran and you make commentary on it
0:39:44 often looking at what the different
0:39:45 companions and
0:39:47 said and what the
0:39:48 successor said and all their opinions
0:39:51 and that is called tapsir by narration
0:39:54 then you have other mufasirin that allow
0:39:56 other opinions and have syria by grammar
0:39:58 and many different ways to look and
0:40:00 comprehend all the possible meanings and
0:40:02 what is possible what is likely what is
0:40:04 unlikely in the quran
0:40:05 and this is a place where there's often
0:40:07 more scope if you read up here some of
0:40:09 these same topics of the unseen you will
0:40:12 see different opinions narrated from
0:40:14 different people and sometimes some will
0:40:15 say well these are the different
0:40:16 opinions and i think this is more likely
0:40:18 or i think that is unlikely or without
0:40:21 saying this one's an unbeliever and that
0:40:22 one's an unbeliever not taking you to
0:40:24 the point of theology you'll see that in
0:40:26 that genre there's a level of tolerance
0:40:29 for discussing these matters
0:40:32 as long as you don't take it to the
0:40:33 point of you know this is doctrine if
0:40:35 you don't believe it you're you're
0:40:36 condemned now as long as you keep it on
0:40:38 the level of you know this is uncertain
0:40:40 but we can explore the possibilities
0:40:42 there was a great tolerance for that
0:40:45 in practice in the majority of works in
0:40:48 this field
0:40:50 but him in tamiya
0:40:52 had something else to say he wrote an
0:40:54 entire book on what he calls the
0:40:55 principle's introduction to the
0:40:57 principles of tafsir which is a great
0:40:59 book to read
0:41:00 and he describes when exegesis becomes
0:41:02 and i quote
0:41:04 a useless endeavor and frivolous speech
0:41:07 and here's what he describes
0:41:09 examples of things where discussion
0:41:11 brings no benefit and where there is no
0:41:14 sound evidence one way or the other are
0:41:16 as follows
0:41:17 differences concerning very details
0:41:19 about the story of the boys in the cave
0:41:21 there was a boys in the cave and they
0:41:23 were there for
0:41:24 they went to sleep for many many years
0:41:26 and came out again
0:41:28 which portion of the cow moses used to
0:41:30 strike the murder victim's force
0:41:32 that's where he was they were told to
0:41:34 slaughter a cow and a murder victim he
0:41:35 struck the corpse and the corpse spoke
0:41:37 stood up and mentioned who the murderer
0:41:39 was
0:41:40 the size of the ark built by noah and
0:41:42 what kind of wood it was built from
0:41:45 the name of the young man killed by
0:41:47 elephants these are all
0:41:48 stories mentioned in the quran but
0:41:50 detail is not given
0:41:52 in the scripture
0:41:53 so he gives jesus examples things that
0:41:55 the quran talks about but doesn't give
0:41:56 those details
0:41:58 and he explains why this is problematic
0:42:00 in the next paragraph
0:42:02 the only possible route
0:42:05 to the knowledge of any of these
0:42:06 questions is through a narration from
0:42:08 the property
0:42:10 anything in these areas which has been
0:42:12 narrated directly from the prophet with
0:42:14 an authenticated chain of transmission
0:42:16 is known and accepted
0:42:18 that which does not meet these crimea is
0:42:20 not a legitimate source of knowledge
0:42:22 remember in the cell if you believe all
0:42:24 sahih hadith are acceptable for
0:42:26 even their individual narrator and he's
0:42:27 mentioning that here as well but in the
0:42:29 absence of that in the absence of a
0:42:30 verse of quran or sahih
0:42:32 no talking
0:42:34 and his book is exceedingly critical of
0:42:36 the tafseer of his day he's not critical
0:42:39 of here as a genre not at all
0:42:42 but what he saw around him he was very
0:42:44 unhappy
0:42:46 because of the tendency i described
0:42:48 earlier he was not pleased with that
0:42:50 tendency at all
0:42:51 and his book is extremely critical of
0:42:54 the state of exegesis in his
0:42:56 time many people today uh when they read
0:42:59 this book uh
0:43:01 because it's a very sensible sounding
0:43:03 book they think he's describing the
0:43:05 field of tafsir as it is so many people
0:43:08 today
0:43:09 when they read his introduction
0:43:10 principles of sierra think he's
0:43:11 describing
0:43:13 how tafsir is done so when they go and
0:43:14 read some other tips here that's on the
0:43:16 market they're reading something no
0:43:18 that's not what he was doing he was his
0:43:20 book is how kepsier should be done
0:43:23 he was actually not happy at all with
0:43:25 how it was being done he was his book is
0:43:27 how it's supposed to be done
0:43:30 and so this shows that for salafis and
0:43:32 we're going to see there might be other
0:43:33 examples that were not celebrities where
0:43:35 people had this attitude but clearly he
0:43:37 had this message
0:43:39 it's an attitude that even when you're
0:43:41 dealing with something
0:43:42 when you're not
0:43:43 describing it as doctrine when you're
0:43:45 just talking on a on a general level of
0:43:47 possibilities you should
0:43:49 you should really be quiet
0:43:51 and so that is uh an interesting point
0:43:54 to make as well
0:43:58 now we have to define terms because
0:44:00 people get confused
0:44:02 by what we mean by
0:44:03 for theological non-commitment because
0:44:05 there are other terms that sometimes
0:44:07 might be confused with it so it's very
0:44:09 important for us to distinguish them
0:44:11 within theology there are two different
0:44:13 and distinctive concepts one is known as
0:44:15 tequila and one is known as
0:44:19 tef wheel is deferment of interpretation
0:44:22 when you say when you look at verse say
0:44:24 i am going to not interpret this i'm not
0:44:26 going to go into the interpretation i'm
0:44:27 going to defer the knowledge of what
0:44:29 this verse means to god
0:44:32 where theological non-commitment is
0:44:33 something else i don't you ask me a
0:44:35 question i don't have an answer because
0:44:36 i cannot find a text that addresses it
0:44:38 and there's a big distinction between
0:44:40 these two uh topics it's scope of
0:44:42 application is different
0:44:45 if we deal with ambiguous or conflicting
0:44:48 evidence on a theological matter you see
0:44:50 different verses seem to say different
0:44:51 things you can't reconcile them
0:44:54 or on a theological matter or there's
0:44:56 ambiguity in what a word might mean or
0:44:58 how it's to be applied
0:45:00 or in its or in the nature or the
0:45:02 modality or how it should be understood
0:45:06 in these cases different theologians
0:45:08 will say i'm deferring this
0:45:10 knowledge to god it's not that the verse
0:45:12 isn't saying something it's not that the
0:45:14 verse isn't there it's that i cannot
0:45:16 give a firm interpretation so i have to
0:45:18 say i don't know
0:45:20 because i can't interpret it or
0:45:22 understand all aspects of what it is
0:45:23 saying
0:45:24 now there are some aspects of tahui that
0:45:26 all three schools agree upon and others
0:45:28 that they don't
0:45:29 where they agree
0:45:31 is what's called
0:45:32 uh the deferment of interpreting the
0:45:34 modality or the how of something
0:45:37 for example when it comes to seeing god
0:45:39 in the hereafter
0:45:41 all theological schools affirm that
0:45:44 and all theological schools affirm that
0:45:46 the nature of the exact understanding of
0:45:48 how that is going to be for us is not
0:45:50 known we will know it when it happens of
0:45:51 course but right now it's not known we
0:45:53 can't
0:45:54 discuss the nature
0:45:56 the kefir it's called in
0:45:58 ours now
0:46:00 for ashraes and matariti's because of
0:46:03 their understanding of transcendence
0:46:04 they apply to wheat often to things like
0:46:07 what it says allah's hand is above their
0:46:08 hands they say that's called
0:46:11 or the you're doing you're deferring the
0:46:13 interpretation of the very meaning you
0:46:14 say
0:46:15 i know god says his hand is above their
0:46:17 hands but what is meant by hand i don't
0:46:20 i affirm it but i don't know what it
0:46:22 means
0:46:24 even tamiya rejects this kind of of weed
0:46:27 he says you must know what it means
0:46:29 now the nature of the application or the
0:46:31 modality the how
0:46:34 of it the exact nature of what it what
0:46:36 god's hand is is going to be very
0:46:39 different than our understanding of hand
0:46:40 for ourselves so we we will make defer
0:46:43 the understanding of that but we have to
0:46:45 affirm what he calls the attributes
0:46:47 itself
0:46:48 so there is a difference here between
0:46:50 the schools with regard to
0:46:51 uh how much or how often you will apply
0:46:55 this uh concept of deferment
0:46:58 but one and so that is a point of
0:46:59 disagreement and it refers back off
0:47:01 actually to a different agreement
0:47:03 regarding how to understand
0:47:05 god's transcendence
0:47:09 they're not about matters of the unseen
0:47:11 in other matters
0:47:13 but what i'm trying to show here is that
0:47:14 it's not the same as theological
0:47:16 non-commitment
0:47:18 now the walk off has many different
0:47:19 meanings there's political meanings for
0:47:21 it there's meanings relating to the
0:47:23 status of an individual person's belief
0:47:25 whether you call that person
0:47:26 unbelievable so there's many different
0:47:27 uses
0:47:28 our concern here is how it's used in
0:47:30 theological interpretation of scripture
0:47:33 so it's a terminology with a specific
0:47:35 usage when it's used in theology
0:47:39 is when you have a topic or a detail of
0:47:41 a topic that is unknown if someone asks
0:47:43 you
0:47:44 do the angels have wings
0:47:48 you can only know that from scripture
0:47:49 you can't you don't see an angel neither
0:47:51 have i i mean
0:47:52 with with firm knowledge
0:47:54 so what you have to say is what does
0:47:56 scripture say well the scripture says
0:47:57 they do have wings
0:47:59 so you're affirmative
0:48:02 now someone were to ask you
0:48:03 are the angels wings feathered do they
0:48:06 have feathers we have to do the same
0:48:08 thing
0:48:09 go back to scripture
0:48:10 and what you say is there is no
0:48:12 scripture and scripture is limited even
0:48:14 though there's lots of verses
0:48:16 they come to an end it's not an infinite
0:48:19 series it's a finite series of texts it
0:48:22 doesn't say this at all
0:48:24 so you make a firm statement at this
0:48:26 point it's not a it's not ambiguous it's
0:48:28 not deferring things it's a firm
0:48:30 statement we don't know the answer to
0:48:32 this question we cannot know the answer
0:48:34 to this question and furthermore if you
0:48:36 claim to have an answer you are
0:48:37 committing a sin and may even be falling
0:48:39 into disbelief so keep quiet about it
0:48:41 that is
0:48:43 not that i can't interpret the scripture
0:48:45 i can't understand it i'm going to defer
0:48:47 it's there is no scripture
0:48:49 the scripture that says anything about
0:48:51 feathers on wings does not exist
0:48:55 so to freedom to walk up or different in
0:48:57 that the weed is carried out after being
0:48:59 confronted by a verse
0:49:03 you have a verse and your mind is having
0:49:04 difficulty interpreting
0:49:06 so you're in either
0:49:08 totality or in its modality or it's how
0:49:11 how it's applied
0:49:13 and so you have the verse and you're
0:49:14 challenged by it and you decide i will
0:49:16 defer interpretations the knowledge of
0:49:18 its meaning i diverted it
0:49:21 okay to walk off you have already have a
0:49:23 question in mind
0:49:25 you start out with a question and then
0:49:27 you seek the information in scripture
0:49:29 and realize it isn't there
0:49:31 so that's another distinction between
0:49:32 these terms so what matters here is not
0:49:34 to get confused between these two
0:49:36 discussions both of which are held in
0:49:38 theological writings and this causes
0:49:41 confusion for people they don't know the
0:49:42 difference then we're talking about
0:49:43 tuakka for not talking about
0:49:45 not at all
0:49:47 another important distinction where
0:49:49 people get confused is to walk off in
0:49:51 theology versus the same word not the
0:49:54 same meaning but the same word when used
0:49:56 in islamic law or in hadith criticism
0:49:59 they used to walk off in both of those
0:50:00 fields with a completely different
0:50:02 meaning
0:50:05 in the meaning of in theology is
0:50:07 theological non-commitment i don't know
0:50:09 we don't know not only don't we know we
0:50:11 cannot know it cannot be known
0:50:14 fifth is suspension of judgment for
0:50:16 example you see two hadith or two verses
0:50:18 of quran and you they seem to say
0:50:20 contradictory things about a certain
0:50:22 legal issue
0:50:23 and you can't reconcile them they seem
0:50:26 to be equally weighted both both
0:50:27 opinions whether it's lawful or unlawful
0:50:30 or necessary or unnecessary you can't
0:50:32 decide
0:50:33 so you make suspension of judgment you
0:50:36 say until i get more information or i
0:50:38 can uh weigh the evidence in favor of
0:50:40 one ruling or another i will suspend
0:50:42 judgment i will say i don't know
0:50:45 and the scope of application is
0:50:46 different
0:50:48 for theology we already mentioned it no
0:50:50 evidence whatsoever there is no text
0:50:52 that says we need to say
0:50:54 for fifth is whether it's ambiguity or
0:50:56 conflicting or insufficient evidence now
0:50:58 islamic law has a totally different
0:51:00 permanent a totally different uh
0:51:02 interpretive strategy because islamic
0:51:05 law is a practical application where you
0:51:06 have to act something is either lawful
0:51:09 or unlawful when you pray
0:51:10 if i break my wu-lu in prayer what do i
0:51:12 do you have to know what you're going to
0:51:14 do you have to find an answer you can't
0:51:15 just say we don't know it and stop you
0:51:17 need an answer so fifth is all about
0:51:20 when there is uncertainty how do we
0:51:22 weigh the evidence to get what's called
0:51:24 the preponderance of evidence for the
0:51:25 rajish
0:51:26 to determine what is stronger and more
0:51:28 likely and then adopt that ruling
0:51:31 in law which includes both civil law and
0:51:34 you know criminal law and marriage law
0:51:36 as well as religious practice law
0:51:38 they're all combined together in islamic
0:51:40 organization
0:51:42 in law you have to practice even if the
0:51:44 evidence is not certain you're still you
0:51:46 just can't just stop and say well is
0:51:48 this person going to jail or not well we
0:51:49 don't know we'll just leave him in the
0:51:51 court foot room forever
0:51:53 he can't go to jail he can't go free no
0:51:55 you have to decide what you're going to
0:51:56 do
0:51:57 so you need to navigate uncertainty so
0:52:00 the hermeneutics of law just like the
0:52:02 hermeneutics of seer
0:52:04 maybe for some not reminding me as more
0:52:06 lenient the roman rooks of law is
0:52:08 different it navigates uncertainty and
0:52:11 looks for weighing evidence
0:52:14 okay and when they can't do that they
0:52:16 make
0:52:17 or suspension of judgment it's a
0:52:18 temporary stop-gap measure like when
0:52:20 malik malek was famously asked many
0:52:22 questions a man traveled from another
0:52:24 city from another country and came to it
0:52:26 and asked him a long list of questions
0:52:28 some would she answer many of which he
0:52:30 said
0:52:31 i don't know
0:52:33 and the man said you i came all this way
0:52:35 and the people are waiting for answers
0:52:36 from the great email what am i supposed
0:52:38 to tell them he said tell them that i
0:52:40 said i don't know
0:52:42 that doesn't mean these rulings have not
0:52:43 been addressed by the malady school they
0:52:45 have of course
0:52:46 because they had to be addressed but at
0:52:48 that point in time when put on the spot
0:52:50 he didn't have an answer he wasn't
0:52:51 saying the answer is unknowable or
0:52:52 cannot be known or should not be
0:52:54 addressed he's just saying he doesn't
0:52:56 have an answer that's suspension of
0:52:58 judgment i'm just really impressed with
0:52:59 that story because here we have one of
0:53:01 the great titans of uh islamic
0:53:04 scholarship hadith you know he knew
0:53:05 medina really well the eponymous founder
0:53:08 of the maleki school saying i don't know
0:53:10 and how how different that is to many of
0:53:12 us today who have an opinion on
0:53:14 everything at the drop of a hat usually
0:53:16 without much knowledge uh i mean anybody
0:53:19 here's a great example of uh of
0:53:21 intellectual humility and indeed courage
0:53:24 to say this in fact of a man who said
0:53:26 i've come all this distance and you're
0:53:28 still saying you don't know you know uh
0:53:30 it takes a bit of guts to actually say i
0:53:32 don't know and stick by that so i mean
0:53:34 he's a great model of um integrity and
0:53:36 courage i think for all of us
0:53:38 yes i think integrity
0:53:40 courage humility are all very important
0:53:43 aspects of all of these things we're
0:53:44 discussing here
0:53:45 and one of that fear of god is the
0:53:47 overriding overarching gospel that's
0:53:49 true so the point is yes it is still a
0:53:51 good virtue to have but it's different
0:53:54 than it is for theology because it
0:53:56 cannot be a permanent situation
0:53:59 somewhere sooner or later it has to be
0:54:01 addressed
0:54:02 depending on the needs of society and
0:54:04 the needs of worship you have to answer
0:54:05 the question
0:54:07 and so that's why an entire body of
0:54:10 knowledge called us
0:54:11 or jurisprudence came about in order to
0:54:14 navigate the scriptural hermeneutics for
0:54:16 the permanent dictionary this means
0:54:18 interpretation for for an applied
0:54:20 purpose you interpret for discerning law
0:54:23 or belief or something so how to
0:54:25 interpret scripture to derive certain
0:54:27 types of meaning
0:54:30 is about how to do that
0:54:31 to weigh evidence to derive legal
0:54:34 meaning
0:54:35 when you have uncertainty it's called hd
0:54:37 head
0:54:38 hd head or exerting effort
0:54:40 you know issue that is is when you're
0:54:43 dealing with uncertainty and trying to
0:54:44 get an answer anywhere
0:54:46 and you have to expend your utmost
0:54:48 effort
0:54:49 and you know there's a famous hadith
0:54:51 that says if a jurist expands his effort
0:54:53 and he gets it right he gets a double
0:54:54 reward and he gets wrong he's a single
0:54:56 people very famous which shows that
0:54:58 these things it's not sinful to do this
0:55:00 you have to do it you have to expend
0:55:02 effort you have to try to get an answer
0:55:04 but you can't be put on the spot and not
0:55:06 expend the effort that's what malek was
0:55:07 really i'm going to do he's not saying
0:55:09 he didn't say you're wrong for asking
0:55:11 this question he sometimes did say that
0:55:12 on theological matters
0:55:14 when someone said to him for instance
0:55:16 this is just contrasted
0:55:18 he said
0:55:22 it says in the quran the beneficent has
0:55:24 mounted the throne how did he mount it
0:55:28 angry
0:55:30 and he said the meaning is known the
0:55:32 modality the kefia he's making
0:55:34 it here okay it's my true it's unknown
0:55:38 and he says i see here is nothing but an
0:55:39 innovation he didn't say you know
0:55:41 there's no such thing as a bad question
0:55:43 he wasn't saying that
0:55:45 i think that is a bad question because
0:55:46 it implies something wrong with your
0:55:48 head
0:55:49 that's exactly what he said at that
0:55:50 point so that is very different than the
0:55:52 answer he gave his first and long list
0:55:53 of legal questions he says i don't know
0:55:56 because there's a difference here
0:55:58 it's not that it's unknowable or
0:55:59 shouldn't be known to this bad question
0:56:01 or i wish i or not i really wish i could
0:56:03 answer the question and said i just
0:56:05 can't i haven't done the excerpt of the
0:56:07 effort done the issue you had necessary
0:56:09 so i can give you an answer with
0:56:11 confidence and responsibility
0:56:13 if suspension of judgment same thing in
0:56:15 hadith terminology suspension of
0:56:17 judgment in that case is like you don't
0:56:19 know if a narrator is that reliable or
0:56:21 not reliable and you say i make two from
0:56:24 this narrate and sometimes there's
0:56:26 different narrative different versions
0:56:27 of the same hadith seem to indicate
0:56:29 different things so they both have
0:56:30 strong chains of transmission you make
0:56:32 the lock which one is more more
0:56:33 authentic
0:56:35 these are all kinds of colloquial is
0:56:37 used for these matters but in these
0:56:39 cases suspension of judgment you're
0:56:40 waiting for better evidence or to
0:56:42 realize something that gives you uh
0:56:45 allows you to weigh the issue and come
0:56:47 with an answer it doesn't mean
0:56:49 it's not a claim about the unknowability
0:56:51 of the topic where the theology is a
0:56:53 claim of
0:56:55 unknowability it's not i don't know is
0:56:57 that it's unknowable
0:57:00 it's much more firm yeah and it happens
0:57:02 which thing there is actually no
0:57:04 evidence explicit evidence to actually
0:57:06 affirm this piece of knowledge so it
0:57:08 cannot be known
0:57:09 i'm sorry it takes so long on that but
0:57:11 this is a this if this is not understood
0:57:13 people get confused because people are
0:57:15 used to tafsir they have a different
0:57:17 attitude they are used to fit have a
0:57:18 different attitude than people that are
0:57:20 looking at these issues from a
0:57:21 theological lens and using and so to
0:57:24 summarize we see that if you look at
0:57:26 this table
0:57:27 the left hand column is what all of
0:57:29 these three approaches have in common
0:57:31 the left-hand box
0:57:33 formally saying in a formal sense you
0:57:35 say i don't know
0:57:38 so this is what causes the confusion
0:57:40 because the end result of each one of
0:57:42 these
0:57:42 terms is a person saying i don't know
0:57:47 in law and hadith narrations it's
0:57:49 provisional suspension of judgment i
0:57:51 don't know right now but it should be
0:57:53 looked into
0:57:55 in theology you have tough weed which is
0:57:58 i don't know how to interpret this so
0:58:00 i'm going to defer its interpretation to
0:58:02 god either completely or in its modality
0:58:04 only okay but you're saying i don't know
0:58:07 it's unknowable nothing is talking about
0:58:09 it we must keep our mouths shut
0:58:12 very different the only thing these
0:58:14 three things have in common is the i
0:58:15 don't know result but they're very
0:58:17 different uses of the very different
0:58:19 concepts
0:58:20 otherwise it just it just struck me to
0:58:23 state the obvious that one of the
0:58:24 important uh takeaways for me on this is
0:58:26 that uh thinking about islamic theology
0:58:29 and fear can and jurisprudence and so on
0:58:32 really needs to be left to the experts
0:58:33 and people of knowledge and and not to
0:58:36 anyone uh with a twitter account on
0:58:38 youtube you know i mean it's it's a
0:58:40 specialized
0:58:42 you need to be trained you've got to
0:58:44 understand these concepts it's for the
0:58:46 experts and not just for anyone who
0:58:48 feels they can just have a go and i
0:58:51 think because that that way leads to
0:58:53 disaster for the reasons you outlined i
0:58:56 think
0:58:57 yes but at the same time i want to
0:58:58 empower everybody
0:59:00 this practice of saying i don't know is
0:59:02 something everybody can do yes
0:59:07 everybody say we should all say i don't
0:59:10 know that'd be so easy
0:59:13 yeah even if it turns out to be
0:59:15 something that happens something a
0:59:16 muslim is obligated to know if you at
0:59:18 the present moment don't know it and
0:59:20 someone asked you about it you could say
0:59:21 i don't know but maybe i should know yes
0:59:27 those three words unfortunately have
0:59:29 never ever been uttered at speaker's
0:59:30 corner by the way by anyone
0:59:33 no one ever says
0:59:35 in islam traditions it is said that i
0:59:38 don't know is half of knowledge
0:59:41 and that is a very rich and deep
0:59:43 statement has many different ways that
0:59:44 you can benefit from it about how it is
0:59:47 half of knowledge but that is that's
0:59:49 just a very wise statement
0:59:52 and it's part of the islamic traditional
0:59:53 statements
0:59:55 let's revive it now we're going to look
0:59:56 at we've discussed now the first of our
0:59:58 two topics or two in-depth topics the
1:00:00 one is
1:00:02 now we're gonna look at our theological
1:00:04 non-commitment now we'll look at
1:00:05 examples from theologians of of course
1:00:07 all three uh
1:00:09 uh traditions within sunni uh theology
1:00:12 of practical examples of where they made
1:00:16 the first we're going to deal with the
1:00:17 selfie example
1:00:19 is
1:00:20 do pious people enjoy a higher spiritual
1:00:23 status than the angels
1:00:25 and this comes from his commentary on
1:00:27 the tahoe
1:00:28 again
1:00:30 he says
1:00:32 our duty is to believe in the angels and
1:00:35 the prophets
1:00:36 not to believe one group is better
1:00:39 had that been our duty
1:00:41 there would be a text making that clear
1:00:43 to us
1:00:44 god said today i have completed for you
1:00:47 your religion
1:00:48 and he said your lord does not forget
1:00:52 it is authentically related
1:00:54 god has obligated obligated
1:00:56 things so do not neglect this from the
1:00:58 prophet
1:00:59 god has obligated things so do not
1:01:00 neglect them he has set limits you do
1:01:02 not break them he has remained silent
1:01:05 about things as a mercy to you not out
1:01:07 of forgetfulness so do not ask about
1:01:09 them
1:01:10 then even even happily discontinues
1:01:13 so silence and asserting or negating
1:01:15 something about the matter is best
1:01:18 and he also says the evidence that we
1:01:19 have because he discusses evidence that
1:01:21 does exist that people have discussed on
1:01:23 this matter people discuss this matter
1:01:25 in great depth actually
1:01:26 and he says the efficient the evidence
1:01:28 for this matter actually indicates honor
1:01:30 not preference
1:01:33 now it's interesting because remember i
1:01:35 said after how he was very unique in
1:01:37 writing a creed that all sunnis could
1:01:38 get on board with to a greater extent
1:01:42 and what he did is he didn't mention
1:01:43 this issue
1:01:45 so what even is explaining here he's not
1:01:48 commenting on one of the things to how
1:01:49 we mentioned he's commenting on
1:01:50 something neglected to mention and why
1:01:53 to hawaii did not mention
1:01:55 he said
1:01:56 so he says this at tahoe is excuse
1:01:58 explaining why he does not mention this
1:02:00 topic by affirming or denying anything
1:02:03 and he says for example he taught adam
1:02:05 the names all of them
1:02:07 because the story where adam was taught
1:02:09 all the names and allah says to the
1:02:10 angels you know tell me the names if you
1:02:13 know and the angels were incapable and
1:02:14 adam was capable some people say this
1:02:16 shows that adam and humans are
1:02:18 preferable to the angels he says wait a
1:02:20 minute this is evidence for
1:02:22 god's grace on somebody not that they
1:02:25 are superior to the other
1:02:27 neither adam nor the angel knew anything
1:02:29 except what god taught them
1:02:31 likewise
1:02:32 is not better than moses moses once
1:02:34 wanted to see somebody who
1:02:37 knew things that he did not know and he
1:02:38 was sent to hidden did some strange
1:02:40 things based on his knowledge that god
1:02:42 had revealed to him or given to him in
1:02:44 some way or another that moses didn't
1:02:46 have access to so it doesn't make hitler
1:02:48 better than moses because peter knew
1:02:49 something moses did not know
1:02:52 and and ibnapolis discusses this again
1:02:54 he says
1:02:55 some people cite this verse
1:02:58 what prevents you he's talking god is
1:02:59 talking to satan what prevents you from
1:03:01 prostrating to the one i created with my
1:03:03 two hands
1:03:05 and he says again this is this is
1:03:07 evidence for god's grace
1:03:09 and his honoring of someone not that
1:03:12 that person is superior
1:03:14 inherently otherwise that would make
1:03:17 adam preferential to muhammad himself
1:03:21 and if you say well muhammad is from his
1:03:23 descendants then so is every pious
1:03:25 person in cinder sinner from adam's
1:03:27 descendants
1:03:28 and everything and even those that go on
1:03:30 the fire from adam's descendants so that
1:03:32 makes adam superior to the angels and
1:03:34 that would include for this reason alone
1:03:36 that would have to include everybody
1:03:38 yeah
1:03:39 and or everybody will be equally
1:03:41 superior to the angels or they go to
1:03:42 hell or heaven or
1:03:44 adam will have to be superior to
1:03:45 everybody else including prophet
1:03:46 muhammad so that cannot show inherent
1:03:48 superiority and he discusses these
1:03:50 issues and this could be a topic in and
1:03:51 of itself so what he's saying is you
1:03:54 don't have this information who is
1:03:56 inherently superior to who
1:03:58 so you shouldn't be talking about it
1:04:01 now of course this also reflected in
1:04:02 tamiya was saying earlier that extra
1:04:05 rigorousness even when it comes to
1:04:06 matters of commentary of the quran on
1:04:08 these matters you don't discuss
1:04:13 here's another good example
1:04:15 who is
1:04:17 is our example here
1:04:20 was god seen directly at the night of
1:04:22 the prophetic ascension we know about
1:04:23 the
1:04:25 where the prophet saws was taken from
1:04:27 mecca up to jerusalem that ascended and
1:04:30 was in the presence of god
1:04:32 there was a debate whether he actually
1:04:33 saw god at that time or not there's no
1:04:35 debate that god can be seen if god wants
1:04:37 to be seen and we don't know the nature
1:04:40 of that but that's agreed upon but did
1:04:42 it actually occur not what could have
1:04:44 occurred what did occur is a matter of
1:04:47 debate
1:04:48 that report to be uh says
1:04:50 a group of scholars adopted a position
1:04:52 of non-commitment
1:04:53 uses a word
1:04:55 arguing that there is no decisive
1:04:57 evidence to affirm or deny its
1:04:59 occurrence so its occurrence is a
1:05:01 rational possibility this is the correct
1:05:04 stance
1:05:05 now you see again the theme of neither
1:05:08 affirm nor deny you'll hear that a lot
1:05:10 when it comes to talk of neither affirm
1:05:11 nor deny both are possible actions for
1:05:14 god god didn't say what action he did
1:05:16 you don't say god did it you don't say
1:05:17 god did not do it you just leave it
1:05:19 alone
1:05:20 it's a rational possibility again god
1:05:22 can do all things as long as reason is
1:05:24 not going to help you here
1:05:27 reason cannot tell you what happened
1:05:29 because both are possible
1:05:32 it doesn't mean when we say something is
1:05:34 it can is rationally possible doesn't
1:05:36 mean okay you're free to have an opinion
1:05:38 you need you're not freed
1:05:40 if something is rationally necessary
1:05:42 like god must exist then you have an
1:05:44 opinion god exists
1:05:45 if you're saying it's rationally
1:05:46 impossible that god can stop existing
1:05:48 then you have to deny it
1:05:50 when it's rationally possible though it
1:05:52 means reason can't help you anymore
1:05:55 reason cannot tell you what happened
1:05:57 because yes it could be a good bb reason
1:05:59 cannot help you here
1:06:00 so you can only use scripture so
1:06:03 rationally possible doesn't open doors
1:06:04 it closes for us it means reason is
1:06:06 impotent
1:06:07 to answer this question
1:06:10 reason because it could be or it could
1:06:12 otherwise be something else
1:06:15 so here
1:06:16 if you don't have a direct textual
1:06:18 evidence you must keep silent
1:06:22 do animals have rational souls this is
1:06:25 faculty narazi a later ashrae scholar
1:06:27 and he says
1:06:29 to give either a positive or negative
1:06:31 verdict on this matter is to make a
1:06:32 pronouncement about the unseen
1:06:34 and no one knows the unseen except
1:06:36 thought this is our final word about the
1:06:38 souls of animals now that when he says
1:06:40 final word it means there's like
1:06:42 eight eight pages before this
1:06:45 final word
1:06:46 most of which he is an animal rights ad
1:06:48 he talks about how great animals are how
1:06:50 clever they are how in some ways animals
1:06:53 exhibit rational powers in certain
1:06:55 limited spheres that exceed human beings
1:06:58 he goes for it all even mention some
1:06:59 verses of the quran that some people
1:07:01 might use to argue this point
1:07:03 but says at the end
1:07:05 you know you you think oh this is he's
1:07:07 championing the animals animal reason
1:07:09 animals have higher level reason not
1:07:11 like humans but they do have it to some
1:07:13 extent at least someone is clear what
1:07:15 he's going to say at the end he says
1:07:16 this
1:07:19 obviously he likes animals and he wants
1:07:21 to think they have reason it's obvious
1:07:23 from the text but he won't do it
1:07:27 so the rational
1:07:29 they have a soul they have an animal
1:07:31 soul soul that animates the body that
1:07:33 they believe that in their day that all
1:07:34 that the body is only animated by the
1:07:36 soul but then only but a higher rational
1:07:38 faculty is absent in animals that was a
1:07:40 common belief and other people contested
1:07:42 it and he's saying well guess what
1:07:44 unless god tells us about their rational
1:07:46 status we don't know
1:07:50 so um
1:07:51 and that's in his final work on theology
1:07:57 are the virtuous jinn admitted into
1:07:59 paradise in hereafter
1:08:01 this is one of the most painful examples
1:08:02 i've seen
1:08:05 abu hanifa took a non-chemical stance
1:08:08 as to whether the jinn are rewarded and
1:08:10 granted eternal bliss
1:08:12 he said
1:08:14 the servant is not entitled to anything
1:08:16 from god
1:08:17 and only receives what is promised
1:08:20 and nothing is promised with respect to
1:08:21 the jinn except forgiveness and
1:08:23 protection from punishment
1:08:25 as for the bliss of paradise i claim
1:08:27 requires evidence
1:08:31 a later maturity scholar
1:08:34 said
1:08:35 nessafi said the disbelieving jinn will
1:08:38 be punished in the fire because we have
1:08:40 explicit texts in the quran you don't
1:08:41 make talk of when you have a text no
1:08:44 we must take a non-committal status
1:08:47 about the type of reward they will
1:08:49 receive now you see a slight difference
1:08:51 between what is related from apple honey
1:08:52 for himself and what is related from
1:08:55 necessity and that's where he says it is
1:08:57 interpreting
1:08:58 says we talk about the type of reward
1:09:02 so there's even here a disagreement
1:09:04 about how far you need to go
1:09:06 likewise of course to be quotes of
1:09:08 course you're saying
1:09:09 the correct position is that this
1:09:11 question is one would be certain nothing
1:09:13 with certainty
1:09:14 knowledge on this matter is of god alone
1:09:16 now
1:09:17 anybody who reads
1:09:18 al-rahman is going to have a very
1:09:20 difficult time not thinking that the
1:09:22 general in paradise people could even
1:09:24 invoke god's fairness
1:09:26 and i don't think anyone in their heart
1:09:29 thinks otherwise
1:09:31 but
1:09:33 are you going to stake your mortal soul
1:09:34 on this by stating something about what
1:09:36 god will or will not do with his actions
1:09:38 when he didn't explicitly say it
1:09:43 one argument that the jinn will be in
1:09:44 paradise is in sword or man we will turn
1:09:47 our full attention to your awaiting ones
1:09:49 then which of the favors of your lord
1:09:51 will you deny
1:09:52 so he's talking about the favors of the
1:09:54 lord type of power he describes paradise
1:09:56 and tells of jin and men which of god's
1:09:58 favors will you do not
1:10:00 and we know that the jinn said we
1:10:01 already believe in god's guidance it
1:10:03 talks in the crime of jin that heard the
1:10:04 guidance
1:10:06 and
1:10:07 then that the deviant will be fuel for
1:10:08 hell but it doesn't ever say that they
1:10:10 will get paradise
1:10:12 now ima maturity student arusha fannie
1:10:14 had this to say
1:10:16 he understood for this way he said
1:10:19 his position is that we do not pass
1:10:20 judgment that the believing of a portion
1:10:22 of the paradise promised for unions
1:10:24 since god does not make that clear in
1:10:26 the quran
1:10:27 and he has a good reason for saying this
1:10:29 actually the human's reward is to
1:10:31 benefit from their garden to take shade
1:10:33 in their trees like they used to do in
1:10:34 their worldly lives by staying in
1:10:36 gardens and taking shade under trees
1:10:39 so it's the same in the hereafter
1:10:41 for this we can rely on comparing the
1:10:43 visible world we live in in our
1:10:45 experiences to the unseen world of
1:10:47 paradise
1:10:48 but god does not clarify the jinn's
1:10:50 reward in the past
1:10:52 we know for certain here's what he says
1:10:54 we know for certain that their faith
1:10:56 will not be wasted which is similar to
1:10:58 nested
1:11:00 and he will give them whatever he wishes
1:11:02 he knows what that is
1:11:03 we do not know about the jinn
1:11:05 so you see some take us to the point
1:11:07 where they can't even they can't even
1:11:09 say for sure that god is going to give
1:11:11 them any reward even though they are
1:11:12 liable to be punished and then others
1:11:14 say no this is not really how that's
1:11:16 understood we have enough evidence to
1:11:18 say that they will their faith will not
1:11:20 be brought to loss they will be given
1:11:21 something but we can't say what it is
1:11:24 but it just shows how seriously they
1:11:26 took this matter of not claiming
1:11:28 something about god without direct and
1:11:30 explicit evidence there is a there is
1:11:31 evidence even if you read through the
1:11:33 rahman it seems like they should even be
1:11:35 getting paradise like us
1:11:37 but there's not explicit enough for
1:11:38 theology
1:11:41 so this just shows how strict and
1:11:42 cautious scholars could become
1:11:46 is arabic the language of the here
1:11:48 africa
1:11:49 this is of course they've been tamiya
1:11:50 from all of itself
1:11:52 so uh theologian it is unknown what
1:11:56 language people speak at that time
1:11:58 or what language they will hear the lord
1:12:00 speak
1:12:01 because neither god nor his messenger
1:12:03 have told us anything about
1:12:06 it is not correct that persian is a
1:12:07 language of the tennessees of hell
1:12:10 i think that was possibly motivated i
1:12:12 was messing with that
1:12:15 thing to say persian might actually be
1:12:18 the only language of hell but anyway
1:12:19 yeah
1:12:20 but i'm telling
1:12:25 people were saying it's not making this
1:12:26 up
1:12:27 okay because neither god nor his
1:12:29 messenger have told us anything about it
1:12:31 is not correct that purging this
1:12:33 language is
1:12:34 hell nor that arabic is the language of
1:12:36 the people of eternal bliss very
1:12:37 commonly assumed
1:12:40 the companions never argued about it it
1:12:42 wasn't an issue for them
1:12:45 they all refrained from doing so since
1:12:47 it's a surprise discussion
1:12:49 sure enough
1:12:52 are animals recompensed for the
1:12:54 suffering they undergo in life
1:12:58 said
1:13:00 whatever is not found in scripture like
1:13:02 the recompense for animals for their
1:13:04 pain we do not assert that it takes
1:13:06 place even if we allow for irrational
1:13:08 you know again reason says they could be
1:13:10 rewarded and punished or rewarded for
1:13:13 what they suffered in life or they might
1:13:14 not be if god is capable of both so it
1:13:17 means reason is impotent you cannot help
1:13:19 you
1:13:20 you need scripture scripture is absent
1:13:22 now this doesn't contradict with hadith
1:13:23 that says that the animals be
1:13:24 resurrected and take retribution from
1:13:26 each other yeah i was thinking about
1:13:28 that because i was just thinking of that
1:13:30 different
1:13:32 that's different that's animals doing
1:13:34 things to each other
1:13:35 and getting compensatory justice but if
1:13:38 an animal breaks its leg and suffers for
1:13:40 six weeks and dies right there's no
1:13:43 animal that's going to recompense it
1:13:44 just broke its leg running okay this is
1:13:46 what this is talking about right
1:13:49 and ibrahim by the way
1:13:52 is um
1:13:54 um he's a material theologian
1:14:03 what types of fruit
1:14:05 did the tree in the garden bear this is
1:14:07 the tree of you know the tree that adam
1:14:09 and eve ate from and got them in trouble
1:14:12 now this is abu mansour matridi himself
1:14:14 he wrote an interesting commentary of
1:14:16 the quran
1:14:18 uh it was one of the early commentaries
1:14:20 that came soon after a tabori's
1:14:22 commentary which is one of the first
1:14:24 full-length commentaries and this is
1:14:25 also full length so it's very early and
1:14:28 it's a totally different approach
1:14:30 and abu mansour maturity the epitome
1:14:33 founder of the madrid school says
1:14:36 the principle
1:14:38 is that this type of knowledge is known
1:14:39 only through being informed by the
1:14:42 knower of the unseen
1:14:44 and we have no need to know the correct
1:14:46 answer
1:14:47 all we need to know
1:14:49 is the degree of the sin
1:14:51 that adam and eve committed and seek
1:14:53 strength in god to avoid it avoid doing
1:14:55 things like that that's the lesson we're
1:14:57 supposed to take now matt really does
1:14:59 this throughout his steps here if you
1:15:00 want to if you want one place to find
1:15:02 examples of dwarf combine examples of
1:15:04 theological non-commitment it's mad 3d
1:15:06 steps here and even though evan taymir
1:15:08 would disagree with material in a lot of
1:15:10 his theological positions where they
1:15:12 just where they disagree
1:15:13 i think he'd appreciate this aspect of
1:15:16 him
1:15:17 because this he just he is i was he does
1:15:19 not
1:15:20 remember tafseera's genre was still
1:15:22 developing his approach was if it isn't
1:15:24 suspension
1:15:25 you don't know what he often does three
1:15:27 things he first mentions it's not
1:15:29 mentioned so you cannot know it
1:15:30 and then he tells you with a little bit
1:15:32 of a little bit of anger you don't need
1:15:34 to know what it's none of your business
1:15:36 and then often he also volunteers what
1:15:38 you're supposed to be taking from this
1:15:40 verse and not being distracted by these
1:15:42 nonsensical questions
1:15:44 i was surprised to read this because i i
1:15:46 associate perhaps wrongly the material
1:15:48 school with a slightly more rationalist
1:15:51 emphasis and perhaps some other scores
1:15:53 and so you know perhaps they were given
1:15:54 more to uh speculation and filling in
1:15:57 the gaps but the eponymous founder of
1:15:59 the uh of that school is certainly uh
1:16:01 not endorsing uh speculation of at all
1:16:04 this is about remember this is about
1:16:06 that matters that these are matters that
1:16:07 see everyone agrees that these are
1:16:09 rationally possible
1:16:11 did god create unicorns and mars just
1:16:13 give you a really crazy example
1:16:15 ashrae's mad treaties and celebrities
1:16:17 agree if god wanted to do so and give
1:16:19 them and let them breathe as well and be
1:16:20 happy he could do it rationally
1:16:23 yeah so they all agree reason does not
1:16:25 help here when it's rationally possible
1:16:28 it doesn't open the door it closes
1:16:30 rationally possibly reason cannot help
1:16:32 reason can only help you if you're
1:16:35 dealing with something that's rationally
1:16:36 impossible so you can declare it didn't
1:16:38 happen
1:16:40 or rationally necessary assuming there
1:16:42 had to happen now yes celebi's matrix
1:16:44 and ashley's this is not scriptural
1:16:45 hermeneutics anymore this is uh earlier
1:16:47 this is rational uh
1:16:49 metaphysics and theology in that field
1:16:52 actually mad treaties and celebrities
1:16:53 differ about what reason can help you
1:16:55 with
1:16:56 with regard to god's nature and
1:16:57 attributes and things like that why they
1:16:59 disagree on the hand because they say
1:17:02 there's certain rational necessities
1:17:04 about the nature of god which this verse
1:17:06 is not compatible with if it's taken on
1:17:08 this meaning so you must understand it
1:17:09 differently or make the and there's
1:17:11 differences opinions which are very
1:17:13 serious but that's not what we're
1:17:14 talking about here in scriptural
1:17:16 hermeneutics this is a point of
1:17:17 agreement right and reason tells you
1:17:20 reason dictates that reason is increased
1:17:22 right okay thanks reason itself
1:17:25 dictates that reason is impotent to
1:17:26 handle these issues
1:17:28 and matariti definitely took this i
1:17:30 think in tafsir
1:17:32 further than anybody else unfortunately
1:17:36 i don't see this tendency in the genre
1:17:38 of pepsi to be carried to the same
1:17:39 extent by anybody after him
1:17:42 not even kathir or those who are
1:17:44 influenced by maintainment
1:17:46 he was
1:17:47 and no one does it the way he does with
1:17:49 those three different things you don't
1:17:51 know it you shouldn't worry about it and
1:17:53 here's what you should be worrying about
1:17:54 instead and that was his style
1:17:57 wonderful love it love it
1:18:00 now without giving kamiah will moses be
1:18:03 spared the general death when the trump
1:18:04 and his bone on the day of resurrection
1:18:06 now this is a bit difficult to unpack
1:18:08 because what happens on the day of
1:18:10 resurrection the trump will be blown
1:18:11 multiple times and people soon and
1:18:13 people will be resurrected
1:18:15 but the prophet said he will see moses
1:18:17 now the question is did moses die with
1:18:20 the trumpet blast
1:18:21 whether everybody will be everybody is
1:18:23 it's time resurrection it's not the time
1:18:25 we're talking about today so that's the
1:18:27 context of this uh discussion
1:18:30 but it's a brilliant discussion so
1:18:31 that's why even though it's a difficult
1:18:32 one to conceptualize i want to discuss
1:18:34 it even tamiya says the prophet took a
1:18:37 non-chemical stance to work with about
1:18:39 moses here's another example from the
1:18:40 prophet
1:18:42 whether or not he was among those
1:18:44 exempted by god
1:18:47 it is certainly not possible for us to
1:18:49 assert something about it
1:18:51 this becomes like knowledge of the time
1:18:53 of the hour the identity of all the
1:18:56 prophets and similar things that have
1:18:58 not been revealed
1:18:59 such knowledge can only be attained
1:19:01 through revelation
1:19:02 so it's brilliant because it's also
1:19:03 where the prophet himself says i don't
1:19:05 know if moses is going to be exempted
1:19:07 from the swoon of the trumpet class
1:19:10 and even tamiya is confirming this so
1:19:11 it's an example for him as well
1:19:15 was adam's garden in heaven or earth
1:19:18 this is something tafseer book spindle
1:19:20 still a lot of injury
1:19:23 now maturity of course you know what
1:19:26 he's going to say yeah he says
1:19:28 it is unknown what the garden is which
1:19:31 adam and eve were commanded to be in and
1:19:33 reside
1:19:35 is it the pr is it the guardian promise
1:19:37 to the god fearing in the hereafter or a
1:19:39 garden on earth
1:19:40 since the verse is not to clarify this
1:19:43 he says when he repeats this in another
1:19:45 verse when he gets occasion to do so
1:19:47 again he says we do not know what that
1:19:49 garden is and there is no need for us to
1:19:51 know about that card
1:19:54 he's getting a little bit cheeky here
1:19:56 the only thing needed is what is
1:19:57 mentioned of the trials you know the
1:19:59 trials that happened at me that's what
1:20:00 you're supposed to be focusing on
1:20:03 again very strict
1:20:05 at razzie who's an ashrae theologian
1:20:07 said the fourth opinion expressed he
1:20:09 discusses all three opinions that
1:20:10 everybody else has then he concludes the
1:20:13 fourth opinion expressed in this matter
1:20:15 is that all opinions are possible again
1:20:18 rational possibility
1:20:20 and the scriptural evidence is weak and
1:20:21 contradict at best
1:20:23 so non-commitment to is mandatory
1:20:31 our final example
1:20:32 and i highlighted some things in in
1:20:34 yellow that are important
1:20:36 is any unspecified sin major minor now
1:20:38 before anybody tries to read all this
1:20:40 text here
1:20:42 um if you want to pause the video later
1:20:44 on to do so it's fine um the issue here
1:20:47 is we have major sins and minors and
1:20:48 sometimes they're designated if i commit
1:20:51 adultery is in a major cinema if i do
1:20:53 this is it a major sin or minor sin
1:20:57 he says
1:20:58 whether something is sinful or not is
1:20:59 known through scripture that's not the
1:21:01 question because that is a matter of
1:21:02 islamic law as well is it sinful did god
1:21:05 forbid it
1:21:06 but whether something is a major or
1:21:08 minor sin he explains has to do with
1:21:11 what
1:21:12 whether your prayers whether praying in
1:21:13 your five daily prayers without even
1:21:15 asking for forgiveness
1:21:18 will remove the sin
1:21:21 if it does that's a minor sin
1:21:23 any sin
1:21:25 it's not humanly in human power to
1:21:26 commit is sin that is not forgivable
1:21:29 if you
1:21:30 rep if you're asking even if you've got
1:21:32 polytheism
1:21:33 return to monotheism and return to islam
1:21:35 and fake a lot of forgive you god
1:21:37 promises forgiveness
1:21:39 but will your
1:21:41 prayers automatically
1:21:43 wipe away the sin even if you don't even
1:21:45 repent for it
1:21:47 that is the matter of the unseen dealing
1:21:49 with the hereafter it doesn't deal with
1:21:50 whether it's a sin or not so that you
1:21:52 cannot know about any first yellow
1:21:54 highlight the only way to remove this
1:21:56 doubt of whether you're going to be
1:21:58 you have to have to formally beg
1:22:00 forgiveness remember god can still
1:22:02 forgive you if you don't break reduce
1:22:03 whether you're guaranteed forgiveness
1:22:05 even as long as you pray and are
1:22:06 steadfast
1:22:08 the only way to remove this doubt is
1:22:10 with textual evidence from the quran or
1:22:11 sunni and since that cannot be obtained
1:22:14 it is impossible to try to dispel that
1:22:16 note
1:22:18 and again let's read what's in yellow
1:22:20 the ruling that something is a major sin
1:22:22 is precisely that performing the five
1:22:24 prayers does not atone for it
1:22:27 that you can't atone for it just by
1:22:29 praying your five daily prayers
1:22:31 this pertains to the hereafter and
1:22:33 here's where it's brilliant
1:22:35 and obscurity is better for it
1:22:39 so people be scrupulous and cautious now
1:22:41 this is a reputation for all those who
1:22:43 say
1:22:44 if was not mentioned in the quran so i'm
1:22:47 going to not believe in this
1:22:49 that god has didn't mention this detail
1:22:51 on the quran so i'm going to actually
1:22:52 volunteer the detail myself he says no
1:22:55 there could be a wisdom why god doesn't
1:22:57 want to mention the detail god there's a
1:22:59 lot of things in all the stories and
1:23:01 everything that god does not tell us and
1:23:02 it may be in our interest that he
1:23:04 doesn't tell us remember we already
1:23:07 heard that god does not forget
1:23:09 wherever is was talking about that he
1:23:11 doesn't forget if he doesn't tell you
1:23:13 something he doesn't want to tell you
1:23:15 and he says there's wisdom in this and
1:23:17 he says otherwise they would commit
1:23:19 minor sins and rely on their prayers so
1:23:21 if you knew what the minor sins are you
1:23:24 know i pray five times a day
1:23:26 i don't care
1:23:27 but you don't know
1:23:30 so you're going to be cautious and ask
1:23:32 forgiveness and avoid those sins
1:23:35 so this is again we can never use the
1:23:37 argument i didn't see it in the quran so
1:23:39 i don't believe it exists or i believe
1:23:40 it happened some other way or sometimes
1:23:42 i'd say france i'm going to make my own
1:23:44 opinion and then and insist upon which
1:23:46 people do as well he's saying no when
1:23:47 it's i think there's a reason for it and
1:23:49 in some cases you can even understand
1:23:51 why it's better that god kept it to
1:23:54 himself
1:23:56 and with that i will conclude the
1:23:58 section on
1:23:59 theological non-commitment and we'll
1:24:01 move to the second
1:24:03 important topic
1:24:05 interpretive restraint
1:24:07 now there's overlap between this and
1:24:09 theological non-commitment interpretive
1:24:11 restraint is a hermeneutic strategy to
1:24:13 determine what scripture is not saying
1:24:16 now of course the scripture is not
1:24:17 saying something you may talk about so
1:24:18 there's a relationship
1:24:20 uh in many cases unless you have some
1:24:22 other evidence which we'll see as well
1:24:24 sometimes you may have rational evidence
1:24:26 or some other doctrinal evidence for
1:24:28 asserting a position but then you want
1:24:30 to know does scripture confirm that
1:24:31 position or not
1:24:32 so determining what scripture is not
1:24:34 saying now we've heard of something
1:24:36 called scriptural gymnastics people love
1:24:38 to talk about that especially when
1:24:40 somebody else has an opinion which we
1:24:41 disagree with they call us
1:24:42 cryptogymnastics
1:24:44 this is anti-gymnastics
1:24:48 this is scriptural restraint this is
1:24:50 a case where you have a verse of the
1:24:52 quran or hadith
1:24:54 and you have something someone is
1:24:55 claiming about the claim has to be there
1:24:57 in order to do this you have the verse
1:24:59 and you have the claim
1:25:01 the verse is not explicitly stating if
1:25:03 the claim is god can do what he pleases
1:25:05 and the verse says god can know what he
1:25:07 pleases well there's nothing to discuss
1:25:09 here
1:25:10 the first and the claim are identical
1:25:13 when the verse says something and
1:25:14 someone says this verse means this or
1:25:16 implies this or entails something else
1:25:19 you have to get from point a what the
1:25:20 verse is saying to point b what the
1:25:23 person is claiming about
1:25:24 now interpretive restraint is where you
1:25:27 examine all the unspoken unwritten and
1:25:29 sometimes unfolding assumptions that you
1:25:33 are projecting onto the verse or
1:25:34 understanding to get from point a to
1:25:36 point now we all have we cannot
1:25:39 understand language without certain
1:25:40 assumptions so we're not saying the
1:25:41 assumptions are necessarily wrong or bad
1:25:44 but we have to examine them if the
1:25:46 assumption is extremely strong then it's
1:25:48 still the law here of the verse we'll
1:25:50 keep it if it's weak well then we can't
1:25:51 establish theology with if the
1:25:53 assumption is false we have to negate
1:25:55 the thing so
1:25:56 when you look at a verse and you're
1:25:58 making an interpretation what are the
1:26:00 assumptions someone had to use all the
1:26:02 assumptions they are not saying that get
1:26:04 them from the verse to the
1:26:06 interpretation and then we examine and
1:26:08 expose those assumptions often and what
1:26:11 can lead to is to the
1:26:12 non-interpretation of the verbs to
1:26:14 negate that interpretation or say
1:26:15 interpretation is not certain or it's
1:26:17 not strong
1:26:19 so it is
1:26:20 interpretive restraint
1:26:22 it is to pull back it's moving back not
1:26:24 trying to we're not taking a verse and
1:26:26 trying to get to an interpretation we're
1:26:28 looking at interpretation and examining
1:26:30 this fault
1:26:33 our first example is coming from that
1:26:34 same book i mentioned
1:26:36 the quran
1:26:38 abu mansur mataris
1:26:40 early
1:26:41 and very extensive commentary on the
1:26:43 koran force it's from the maturity
1:26:45 school because it's alma trilli himself
1:26:48 and the question we're going to explore
1:26:49 along with matrid looking at all the
1:26:51 different evidence how we examined it
1:26:53 is was satan and angel
1:26:59 so
1:27:00 the first example he gives the first
1:27:02 verse we're going to look at is when we
1:27:04 said to the angels prostrate to adam
1:27:08 and they prostrated except satan
1:27:11 he was one of the jinn so he rebelled
1:27:14 against his lord's command
1:27:16 the interpretation that is given
1:27:19 is satan is agent knee so he was not an
1:27:21 angel now the part of the portion of the
1:27:23 verse we're looking at here is he was
1:27:25 one of the jinns now for people that
1:27:27 would be cut and dry this is not only
1:27:30 law here it's
1:27:34 what is your problem why are we having
1:27:36 this discussion
1:27:37 okay
1:27:38 if my treaty points out there's an
1:27:40 assumption you're making here
1:27:43 angels cannot be jinn
1:27:48 and this is a highly uncertain
1:27:49 assumption nowhere does it say in the
1:27:52 angels in junior party unseen right and
1:27:54 nowhere does it say in the quran angels
1:27:55 cannot be or become
1:27:58 it doesn't say that
1:28:00 no way
1:28:03 i need to discuss the jinn could be an
1:28:05 alternative name for angels and uses
1:28:06 linguistic arguments for this um a group
1:28:09 of angels or because jinn can mean to be
1:28:11 shielded from our sight and so angels
1:28:13 refer to gin in the sense that they are
1:28:15 snorted from our sight that's one of the
1:28:16 meanings of the word etymology and the
1:28:18 language is going to be used in any
1:28:20 interpretation if you interpret the word
1:28:22 if i said the cat is on the map you
1:28:24 interpret based on what it means to be a
1:28:25 catholic what it means to be a matter
1:28:26 what it means beyond something so yes
1:28:28 you can use language
1:28:29 so the gym could be an alternative name
1:28:31 for angels a group of angels
1:28:33 or what satan became upon his
1:28:35 disobedience because satan disobeyed he
1:28:38 became one of the jews
1:28:40 he's saying i'm not arguing these points
1:28:42 i'm not speculating about these
1:28:44 what i'm saying is that your assumption
1:28:46 is we
1:28:48 see so here's an important point because
1:28:50 sometimes when i have to discuss certain
1:28:51 issues i have to show what alternative
1:28:53 possibilities could be imagined i'm not
1:28:57 entertaining those possibilities
1:28:59 i'm just showing you that you're
1:29:00 entertaining them in the negative or
1:29:01 you're entertaining the opposite of
1:29:03 those possibilities and you can't do
1:29:05 that either
1:29:06 you are projecting an assumption on the
1:29:08 verse of verses no words this verse says
1:29:10 if the verse added
1:29:14 then there would be no question that in
1:29:16 english
1:29:17 that means and satan was not one of the
1:29:19 angels that would end the discussion you
1:29:22 don't make tawakpuff when there's a
1:29:24 clear statement
1:29:25 you affirm it when there's a clear
1:29:27 statement
1:29:28 if the quran negates something satan was
1:29:30 not an angel you negate it if the quran
1:29:32 says satan was an angel you affirm it
1:29:34 and you have no business to say anything
1:29:36 else would be tantamount to lying about
1:29:38 the quran and we already discussed that
1:29:39 as an agreed upon position in all three
1:29:41 permanents if you lie about the quran
1:29:43 you become an unbeliever it's not
1:29:44 allowed
1:29:45 if you say the quran is lying
1:29:48 but here the quran isn't saying that
1:29:49 you're interpreting it you think the
1:29:51 verse is saying that he's not saying
1:29:53 that
1:29:54 so that's my treaty on that verse
1:29:57 the second verse
1:29:59 god said and he's speaking to satan
1:30:01 after satan refuses to vow
1:30:04 god said what prevented you from
1:30:06 prostrating when i commanded you
1:30:08 satan said i am better than him you
1:30:11 created me from fire and created him
1:30:14 from clay now again
1:30:15 what is the interpretation satan was not
1:30:17 an angel because he is made of fire
1:30:20 so the verse never says satan is an
1:30:22 angel it never says satan is not an
1:30:24 angel so the verse is what the verse is
1:30:26 saying is what it's saying your
1:30:27 interpretation satan is not an angel you
1:30:29 have to get from point a to point b and
1:30:31 a matrix identifies
1:30:33 how you do so now here's something i
1:30:35 want to make clear i should make for the
1:30:36 beginning my bulleted statements
1:30:38 interpretation assumption verdict and
1:30:40 reason are not given like that
1:30:42 he just writes it all out and discusses
1:30:44 i am presenting it in this tabulated
1:30:46 form for ease of discussion yeah no he
1:30:49 doesn't have these things involved in
1:30:51 his steps no he doesn't discuss it in
1:30:53 this formal way
1:30:55 so the interpretation is satan was not
1:30:57 an angel and the reason is because he
1:30:59 made a file the unspoken assumption here
1:31:02 is angels cannot be made of fire
1:31:06 highly uncertain assumption and of
1:31:08 course why
1:31:09 nowhere does it say angels cannot
1:31:10 believe
1:31:13 as for angels being made of light
1:31:15 alma treaty points out that the
1:31:17 interpretation as jin there's one
1:31:19 interpretations are made up of flame
1:31:20 chips of fire and marriage
1:31:23 now the marriage could be the flame the
1:31:25 light essence of fire that is completely
1:31:26 divorced of the fuel and the smoke just
1:31:29 the light aspect of it
1:31:30 marriage can also mean a mixture some
1:31:32 say a quintessence of flames you'll see
1:31:34 different interpretations using that
1:31:35 some say it's a smokeless fire or
1:31:37 quintessence of flame whether they
1:31:39 understand is a mixture or a
1:31:41 light essence of fun
1:31:43 so that's one thing you cannot argue you
1:31:45 cannot deny
1:31:47 he incidentally he uh points out that
1:31:50 they ought to have to make to walk up on
1:31:52 that issue as well on whether it's a
1:31:53 quintessence or a smokeless
1:31:56 uh fire because you can't you can't
1:31:58 resolve that issue either that's an
1:32:00 incidental thing
1:32:02 but even if light and fire are
1:32:04 distinguished you say light is light and
1:32:06 fire is fine
1:32:08 even if you're going to argue that
1:32:09 matrix continues
1:32:10 some angels may be made upon
1:32:13 yeah
1:32:14 there is no proof in the quran or sunnah
1:32:16 that all angels without exception are
1:32:18 made only from light and never from
1:32:19 anything else remember they're from the
1:32:21 unseen you don't know except what god
1:32:23 says so god says angels are made of
1:32:25 light that means there are at least some
1:32:27 of them but you can't generalize and you
1:32:28 can't say it's absolutely the case
1:32:30 it's that everything god calls an angel
1:32:32 is made of life so he makes it clear
1:32:34 that you're assuming things that
1:32:36 linguistically that based on scripture
1:32:38 even and it does not hold you're over
1:32:42 interpreting the verbs and all these
1:32:44 cases are cases when you when you're
1:32:45 backing off like this you're claiming
1:32:47 that someone is over in term not that
1:32:48 someone is is playing wrong with the
1:32:50 verse necessary but they're over
1:32:52 interpreting it and over interpretation
1:32:54 happens when you project an assumption
1:32:55 which you may not even realize
1:32:57 yeah on to the verse and a driver
1:32:59 conclusion which isn't actually stated
1:33:01 by the verse
1:33:08 now let's look at verse 3
1:33:10 all believers
1:33:12 protect yourselves and your families
1:33:14 from a fire whose fuel is people and
1:33:16 stones
1:33:17 overseen by formidable and severe angels
1:33:21 will never disobey what god orders
1:33:23 always doing is commanded
1:33:26 and this is not the only verse there's a
1:33:28 couple others we need to mention
1:33:31 this also an enviou 26-27
1:33:34 and they say the beneficient has taken
1:33:37 himself a son
1:33:39 be he glorified nay they are about
1:33:41 honored servants
1:33:43 who do not speak until he has spoken
1:33:46 acting at his command
1:33:48 um
1:33:49 we also have in fusilla uh verse 38
1:33:54 but they if they are arrogant
1:33:57 then know that those who are near your
1:33:58 lord exalt him by night and day and they
1:34:01 do not become weird
1:34:04 so the interpretation
1:34:06 satan was not an angel because he
1:34:09 disobeyed god now again
1:34:10 none of these verses mention oh by the
1:34:12 way satan is not in it no they don't say
1:34:14 that so you have to get from the verse
1:34:16 to the conclusion so what's the
1:34:18 assumption the angels cannot
1:34:21 disobey god
1:34:25 otherwise the whole argument fails yeah
1:34:27 if you don't have that assumption
1:34:29 your argument satan cannot be an angel
1:34:31 or was not an angel because he disobeyed
1:34:32 god you have the underlying assumption
1:34:35 that angels are incapable of disobeying
1:34:37 god
1:34:39 verdict highly uncertain assumption
1:34:41 nowhere does it say angels cannot
1:34:43 disobey god
1:34:45 in all three examples you have
1:34:47 descriptions of angels obeying god
1:34:51 they're being praised actually for
1:34:53 obeying him
1:34:54 and for not disobeying him the guardians
1:34:56 of hell do not disobey god they never do
1:35:02 the ones who are near to him are
1:35:03 exalting him by night and day and they
1:35:05 do not become weird
1:35:07 then he talks about the honored servants
1:35:10 do not speak until he has spoken and
1:35:12 acting on his command
1:35:15 and that treaty actually you says that
1:35:16 there are other people that use these
1:35:18 very same verses
1:35:20 to prove
1:35:22 they try to
1:35:23 prove
1:35:25 that angels are capable of surveying god
1:35:27 and what is their argument
1:35:29 he doesn't accept their argument either
1:35:30 but what is their argument
1:35:32 he says that they argue that the verses
1:35:34 praise the angels for their obedience
1:35:37 and there is no point in praising
1:35:38 someone if they don't have the ability
1:35:40 to say if i praise you for your
1:35:41 obedience it means that something good
1:35:43 that you've done something praiseworthy
1:35:45 i would not phrase
1:35:47 i'm created a robot
1:35:49 and it did what i said i wouldn't praise
1:35:50 the robot and say
1:35:52 robot i'm very happy you're a great
1:35:54 robot you always do what i say it
1:35:55 doesn't even know it exists it has no
1:35:57 self-awareness it's just a machine i
1:35:59 program
1:36:01 so there's no point in praising it if it
1:36:02 cannot disobey it saying there's a big
1:36:05 difference how much 3d is pointing out
1:36:06 between saying you
1:36:08 can or cannot disobey god who did or did
1:36:10 not visit
1:36:11 so satan was an angel who could have
1:36:13 been in it could have been he's not
1:36:14 saying he was his whole point of view
1:36:16 don't delve into this question
1:36:18 but because of all the discussion around
1:36:20 it he goes verse by verse and points out
1:36:23 why you should be shutting up
1:36:25 his opinion you should shut up but he's
1:36:26 going to go tell you specifically why
1:36:28 you should be shutting up
1:36:30 about this issue
1:36:32 so the angels cannot disobey god that's
1:36:34 an assumption you're projecting on the
1:36:35 verse then receiving the uh output
1:36:41 based on your assumption not based on
1:36:42 what the verses say
1:36:47 now the next verse
1:36:49 when we said to the angels prostrate to
1:36:51 adam they prostrated except for satan
1:36:55 the interpretation
1:36:57 satan is an angel or was an angel at
1:37:00 least at the time because he was counted
1:37:02 among them
1:37:05 no one can be with the angels and accept
1:37:07 it from the angels unless he wasn't in
1:37:10 verdict highly uncertain assumption
1:37:13 being in the company of a group and
1:37:15 addressed or being addressed along with
1:37:16 the group
1:37:17 does not make you the same class of the
1:37:19 group and be a cat among the dogs and i
1:37:22 could say talk to them and you know it
1:37:24 doesn't matter i mean
1:37:25 it doesn't imply that
1:37:27 and he uses a linguistic argument here
1:37:29 he says you see the exception being made
1:37:31 an exception can be made of someone who
1:37:33 does not share the attributes of the
1:37:35 larger group
1:37:36 and he gives an example an example that
1:37:39 is a linguist example that everybody
1:37:40 agrees with
1:37:41 the people from the city of kufa enter
1:37:43 the building except for a man
1:37:46 from medina
1:37:48 now this is the case if a bunch of
1:37:49 people are always known together guys
1:37:51 from hoover there are five guys from
1:37:52 goof and one man they all go together
1:37:54 and you say did they enter the building
1:37:56 you say the people from
1:37:57 entered the building except for the man
1:37:59 from
1:38:00 you're just telling the guy from medina
1:38:02 that's usually with them didn't enter
1:38:03 it's valid linguistic
1:38:05 you're allowed in arabic grammar to make
1:38:07 an exception of something which is not
1:38:09 does not share all the
1:38:10 principles of the group so this is again
1:38:12 an assertion which is not linguistically
1:38:14 valid nor is it stated in the text satan
1:38:17 was among the angels that it was satan
1:38:19 among the angels you don't make a
1:38:21 he wasn't
1:38:22 makes it clear was he commanded to
1:38:24 prostrate of course because he wouldn't
1:38:25 be in trouble for not prostrating those
1:38:27 things are are clear
1:38:29 but was he an angel at the time or not
1:38:31 an angel of god the first isn't telling
1:38:33 you that in any way shape or form
1:38:39 now he mentions also a general argument
1:38:42 this is he does this not a verse being
1:38:44 quoted but an argument being given
1:38:46 he was one of the angels
1:38:48 is the argument this is because in none
1:38:50 of the accounts
1:38:53 in spite that they're being repeated
1:38:54 many many times in the cross and the
1:38:56 previous scriptures as well
1:38:58 is it ever mentioned that he was not an
1:39:01 angel
1:39:02 and there is nothing in the verse to say
1:39:04 that he was not one of them now
1:39:06 this is
1:39:08 only to be mentioned because so many
1:39:09 people are making these kinds of
1:39:10 arguments in the past and in the
1:39:12 presence
1:39:14 why is he an angel because it doesn't
1:39:15 say he wasn't
1:39:17 and allah could have said he wasn't an
1:39:18 angel of evil of course you would
1:39:19 reverse this entire argument do the
1:39:21 opposite
1:39:22 it would be just as unreasonable or
1:39:23 reasonable if you did but this is what
1:39:25 people do and he mentions this
1:39:28 and this is saying if the quran is
1:39:29 trying to detail we default to what we
1:39:31 think is obvious because some people
1:39:32 could default the opposite direction for
1:39:34 the same reason
1:39:35 it's a false assumption
1:39:37 god's silence on a detail does not mean
1:39:40 we decide on institutions
1:39:42 that's the abs opposite of what you're
1:39:45 supposed to do
1:39:49 now the conclusion
1:39:51 and that treaty says what he is used to
1:39:53 saying we have no need to know whether
1:39:55 satan was one of the angels or something
1:39:57 else
1:39:58 the only thing we need to know
1:40:00 is that he is our enemy so you don't
1:40:03 have an opinion about it
1:40:04 you shouldn't be worried about it it's
1:40:06 not your business and finally this is a
1:40:09 style
1:40:10 what you actually need to know is that
1:40:11 he's your enemy that's what's important
1:40:13 here
1:40:14 that's what matters to you and your face
1:40:16 and so that is at mad tree's conclusion
1:40:19 and his exploration of this topic now
1:40:21 interestingly
1:40:23 who was
1:40:24 almost his contemporary slightly older
1:40:26 died a few years earlier who also wrote
1:40:28 the major tests here was also one of the
1:40:30 few scholars of the time that was one of
1:40:32 the pioneers in writing a theological
1:40:33 treatise along with the ashrae
1:40:40 the same time
1:40:42 very different part of the world he was
1:40:43 like in iraq and this and uh um i'm not
1:40:46 sure he was in uzbekistan what's the
1:40:48 date uzbekistani they were far from each
1:40:49 other
1:40:50 and so it's very unlikely that they read
1:40:52 each other's step smoothly
1:40:53 as almost impossible because materials
1:40:55 here was dictated to his students and
1:40:57 they read it back to him i discussed
1:40:59 this with an expert on maturity himself
1:41:01 so that deficier is by not even
1:41:02 completed until after uh october uh
1:41:06 toughery's death may allah have mercy on
1:41:08 both of them
1:41:09 and uh so they probably did not have
1:41:11 accidental chefs here but today
1:41:12 discusses this issue as well mentions
1:41:14 very similar arguments very similar same
1:41:17 kind of arguments are mentioned both of
1:41:18 scares because they were these arguments
1:41:20 were then must have been in general
1:41:21 circulation at the time that's why i
1:41:23 hope them discussed it
1:41:24 but
1:41:25 though he doesn't make a theological
1:41:27 doctrine
1:41:28 he writes on a tafsir register most of
1:41:30 the time
1:41:31 he is willing to weigh the evidence and
1:41:33 look at it and in his opinion and he is
1:41:36 a grand great granddaddy of course he is
1:41:38 like the big
1:41:40 tafsir scholar the man who is considered
1:41:41 the foundation of comprehensive full
1:41:43 length of sheer works with discussion
1:41:46 and he says he thinks
1:41:49 that the most apparent position is that
1:41:51 satan was in fact an angel
1:41:53 because he was with them and he was in
1:41:55 their company
1:41:57 he was there with him so he was and he
1:41:59 disobeyed so he was an angel that's
1:42:01 that's his opinion he never says this is
1:42:02 doctor no i mean if he was talking about
1:42:05 a theological register he would never
1:42:06 say anything
1:42:08 because he was also a theologian but
1:42:09 he's writing into and he accepted that
1:42:11 you're allowed to in many cases look at
1:42:14 the evidence and say
1:42:15 these are the different arguments
1:42:16 different companions different uh
1:42:18 successors the successors the students
1:42:20 the companions so they had they were the
1:42:22 students of the prophet students that
1:42:24 you can look at they disagree you can
1:42:26 decide which one is more likely etcetera
1:42:28 and maturity in his steps here always
1:42:30 stays on a theological verse he's he's
1:42:33 giving theological lessons through chefs
1:42:34 here he's not giving kafsir through tips
1:42:36 here he's talking as a theologian so he
1:42:39 stays on the theological register and
1:42:41 says you cannot know this you cannot
1:42:43 know that you must shut up about this he
1:42:45 doesn't come and say well i'm gonna he
1:42:46 doesn't give himself the
1:42:48 right to say well in my heart and he
1:42:50 probably has an opinion
1:42:52 he died with that opinion we will never
1:42:53 know it and here's why you probably has
1:42:55 suspected what he thinks is more
1:42:57 accurate we're human we're going to have
1:42:59 our
1:43:00 our meanings but he didn't think he had
1:43:02 the right to articulate that he said
1:43:04 you have no need to know this it's none
1:43:06 of our business that's what he
1:43:07 articulated
1:43:08 a
1:43:10 did the same exploration the same
1:43:12 journey he took and said i think
1:43:15 that he was an angel
1:43:16 he doesn't say it's a matter of doctrine
1:43:19 so there agreed that it's not a matter
1:43:21 of doctrine but he was willing in his
1:43:23 stepsir and his commentary of the quran
1:43:24 to give his a personal opinion
1:43:27 about what he thinks is more likely
1:43:29 so that shows a comparison and
1:43:31 contrasting between two contemporary
1:43:33 scholars of tafsir and theology
1:43:35 and that's which is interesting
1:43:37 our second and final example is time
1:43:40 eternal
1:43:42 by fakir dino
1:43:43 now this is an interesting example
1:43:45 because there's a vested interest
1:43:46 involved
1:43:48 faculty rasi has a theologian as an
1:43:50 asteroid theologian believed
1:43:52 that time and the universe had a finite
1:43:55 starting point
1:43:57 that you will go back to a point in time
1:43:59 before which there is no time
1:44:01 that the universe is or occurring not
1:44:04 just the things in the universe you
1:44:06 don't say that all like all items in the
1:44:08 universe are occurring but the universe
1:44:09 could go on to keep creating it the
1:44:12 universe itself is a current it has a
1:44:14 beginning time itself as a beginning
1:44:17 and he believed that as a theological
1:44:19 principle and he believed that because
1:44:21 of issues are not related to scripture
1:44:23 as much as they related to
1:44:25 uh god's transcendence and his
1:44:27 attributes
1:44:28 the attribute of his free will is
1:44:30 established by the prophet we already
1:44:32 saw that
1:44:34 he does what he wants and according to
1:44:36 razi he could not reconcile the idea of
1:44:38 a god that has free will
1:44:40 with the universe that goes on without
1:44:42 beginning
1:44:43 because god has to decide to begin the
1:44:46 universe that is a decision we must
1:44:47 leave for god and would entail the
1:44:49 universe as beginning now other people
1:44:50 would argue
1:44:52 god would be free to do otherwise as
1:44:53 well but that was his personal stance
1:44:55 and the stance of most nationality
1:44:57 theologians the very majority of astro
1:44:59 theologians saw an irreconcilable
1:45:02 problem
1:45:03 between god's free will on the one hand
1:45:05 and a pre-eternal universe and it says
1:45:07 not that any object is pre-eternal but
1:45:09 the universe itself has no temporal
1:45:11 beginning that god's creative act
1:45:12 continues
1:45:14 for an eternity in the past so that it
1:45:16 so he doesn't he's not making too up
1:45:18 here what he is asking is this is a
1:45:20 position i have based on god's free will
1:45:22 which is established by reason and by
1:45:24 revelation
1:45:25 but can i support this with the quran
1:45:27 because there were competing people
1:45:29 there was the evincing who said the
1:45:30 universe is eternal and probably
1:45:32 compromised god's free will in doing sin
1:45:34 he did compromise his understanding of
1:45:36 god's will is very different there were
1:45:38 also other scholars who said god freely
1:45:40 creates return because god is eternal
1:45:41 and he's constantly created and that's
1:45:43 another theological event
1:45:46 as well yeah yeah some would argue that
1:45:48 so
1:45:49 this position was held by even some
1:45:51 sunni muslims
1:45:52 so this was a debate
1:45:54 and important he had a stake in this so
1:45:55 we're not here
1:45:57 i'm using example that isolates
1:45:59 the what we're talking about here which
1:46:01 is a kind of conservatism uh
1:46:03 hermeneutical restraint or interpretive
1:46:04 restraint
1:46:06 even when you have an opinion so you're
1:46:08 not even making to walk off here like
1:46:10 matt reedy's position was about the
1:46:12 unseen
1:46:13 so he had to make uh to walk off when he
1:46:15 couldn't
1:46:16 when the scriptures were silent here
1:46:18 we're gonna look does scripture support
1:46:20 or refute me in what i'm arguing
1:46:23 and he takes this journey and we're
1:46:25 going to take this journey with him
1:46:29 so the first verse that he says is
1:46:30 sighted to show that the universe has a
1:46:32 beginning
1:46:34 praise be to god lord of the worlds
1:46:37 the interpretation of the world is
1:46:38 brought into temporal existence by its
1:46:41 lord if you have a lord the lord has to
1:46:43 uh nurture you and bring you about
1:46:47 the assumption here is lordship entails
1:46:49 temporal origination
1:46:52 highly uncertain how rosie would argue
1:46:54 now these arguments a little bit harder
1:46:56 to follow than maturity's arguments
1:46:58 he says it does not follow from being a
1:47:00 lord
1:47:01 in arabic
1:47:03 that you temporarily originate its
1:47:06 constituents and entities the one who
1:47:08 nurtures europe
1:47:10 nurtures and maintains and sustains
1:47:14 is one what tends directly to its
1:47:15 flourishing in its circumstances
1:47:18 which would be the case whether
1:47:19 gold was creating the universe in
1:47:21 perpetuity
1:47:23 or if he hadn't created it with a finite
1:47:25 starting point so this verse cannot be
1:47:27 used
1:47:28 to argue that the universe has ace that
1:47:30 god created the starting point from
1:47:32 humans in time
1:47:35 praise be to god creator of the heavens
1:47:37 and the earth so call it creator
1:47:39 the interpretation here
1:47:41 god created the world so it has a finite
1:47:44 past something created creator he
1:47:46 created it at the beginning obvious come
1:47:48 on rosie
1:47:49 highly uncertain assumption
1:47:53 creation is determination and decree
1:47:55 rosie argues
1:47:57 proof for this from another verse he
1:47:59 created him from dust talking about adam
1:48:03 and said to him be and he was
1:48:05 so you can see clearly from this verse
1:48:08 that creation precedes what's called
1:48:09 extension or tech mean
1:48:12 to be taking or extension
1:48:16 so creation precedes extensions
1:48:19 god could determine forms in past
1:48:21 divinity
1:48:22 so the world could exist by his
1:48:23 determination composition of it within
1:48:26 as its creator
1:48:27 and he extensions each thing in its time
1:48:30 yes
1:48:30 no question when something's extensioned
1:48:33 but because god is eternally the creator
1:48:35 there's no reason why the creation of
1:48:37 the heavens and the earth entails that
1:48:40 heavens and the earth didn't exist and
1:48:42 suddenly they
1:48:43 as long as he's
1:48:44 created he could create them from his
1:48:45 pre-eternity and almost instantiates
1:48:47 everything in time that could go on
1:48:49 forever why not
1:48:51 based on the language of the verse
1:48:54 remember this is not his opinion
1:48:56 his name would like to be able to argue
1:48:58 this
1:48:59 he just says i can't do so
1:49:02 praise be to god the renderer
1:49:05 the renderer of the heavens amir sword
1:49:07 falter
1:49:09 god created the world so it is a finite
1:49:10 caste again
1:49:12 he says rendering something requires
1:49:14 past finite origination is the
1:49:16 assumption so if i render something that
1:49:18 has to start some
1:49:19 highly uncertain it explains rendering
1:49:21 means to cleave something apart
1:49:23 if it is assumed that the constituents
1:49:25 are passed even that that that god can
1:49:28 create things in past infinity the
1:49:30 constituents of what we see
1:49:34 some can just and brought forth some
1:49:36 constituents from others
1:49:38 and compose this world from them this is
1:49:40 what is expressed by rendering so the
1:49:41 verse is talking about taking
1:49:42 constituents and splitting them apart
1:49:44 and composing them
1:49:46 which could be the case that god could
1:49:48 do that through eternity or with a
1:49:50 finite starting point so you cannot use
1:49:51 this
1:49:53 to uh to argue that the universe is a
1:49:54 finite starting point
1:49:57 here's another interesting verse god is
1:49:59 independent and all of you are dependent
1:50:02 the world needs god
1:50:04 so it has a finite past
1:50:07 because that which is dependent its own
1:50:09 existence requires someone to give it
1:50:11 that existence and so
1:50:14 it has to start somewhere he says this
1:50:15 is also very uncertain based on the
1:50:17 verse the world needs god to bring about
1:50:19 its particular qualities and modes of
1:50:21 existence
1:50:22 and this is the extent of what is
1:50:24 expressed by dependency
1:50:26 and he says even an infant universe
1:50:29 infinite in time would still depend on
1:50:31 god
1:50:32 people understand that all entities are
1:50:33 only possible you could exist you might
1:50:35 not exist and all depends on god
1:50:38 they're all contingent in themselves
1:50:40 they're necessitated only by the one who
1:50:43 causes them
1:50:44 and this is enough to show dependence
1:50:46 so even if god created universe and gave
1:50:48 it eternal time every single item in
1:50:51 that universe would still depend on
1:50:56 he is the first and the last the
1:50:58 manifest and the hidden well here's some
1:51:01 people saying since god was before the
1:51:02 world he's the first
1:51:04 he's the first it must start after him
1:51:08 so
1:51:09 the assumption here is that being
1:51:10 precedent
1:51:12 being precedent is strictly temporal at
1:51:14 least must be understood in a time frame
1:51:18 highly uncertain assumption he says for
1:51:20 god to be the first before everything
1:51:22 else
1:51:23 the world is contingent in itself it it
1:51:25 it can't exist on its own
1:51:28 it's necessitated only by its cause
1:51:31 and its cause precedes its
1:51:33 effect in effectiveness and in essence
1:51:36 so god precedes everything other than
1:51:38 himself in this way he is its cause
1:51:41 everything depends on him
1:51:43 everything is its effect so that is
1:51:45 precedence it doesn't necessarily have
1:51:47 to be in time
1:51:49 especially if you understand god is
1:51:50 creating time
1:51:52 it doesn't necessarily have to mean the
1:51:53 time itself is created itself and yeah
1:51:55 time be present into time you would
1:51:57 argue
1:51:58 so saying none of these verses are
1:51:59 actually stating that the universe has a
1:52:01 starting point in time it has a starting
1:52:03 point with god yes the goal goes back to
1:52:05 him and he's its creator
1:52:07 and it depends on him but the verse
1:52:09 themselves are not explicitly saying god
1:52:11 created a first moment in
1:52:14 time the last thing he mentions our
1:52:17 command for a thing
1:52:19 if we want it to be is to say be and it
1:52:22 is
1:52:23 the world has a finite beginning because
1:52:25 it comes after god's command
1:52:28 he says be and it is it isn't before he
1:52:31 says me you see that's what the argument
1:52:33 is
1:52:34 the assumption is god's command
1:52:36 temporarily initiates the outcome the
1:52:39 command is happening in time and the
1:52:41 outcome comes after in time and the
1:52:43 world and the objects are the outcome of
1:52:46 the command
1:52:47 this is the assumption you're making
1:52:49 highly uncertain the command be merely
1:52:52 indicates the execution of power and
1:52:54 will that's what indicates god is
1:52:56 commanding he's commanding its existence
1:52:59 so it indicates that god is actualizing
1:53:02 these things in this power he says be
1:53:04 it shows that whatever god wants to
1:53:06 actualize comes developed in this way
1:53:08 where is it saying that there's a first
1:53:09 moment in time god had to do with that
1:53:11 yeah it's not in the verse
1:53:14 so what is his conclusion on this
1:53:18 the divine scriptures do not explicitly
1:53:20 state that the universe is temporarily
1:53:22 originated that doesn't explicitly state
1:53:24 where the universe goes on forever in
1:53:25 the past and god is constantly creating
1:53:27 it
1:53:28 it doesn't explicitly say that god gave
1:53:30 it a first moment now this is again a
1:53:33 very good example
1:53:35 of theological
1:53:37 of logical interpretive restraint
1:53:39 because rosi would really like it to be
1:53:41 some other way he's not saying this he's
1:53:43 not going through all these arguments to
1:53:45 prove a point
1:53:46 he's one of the arguments saying can i
1:53:48 prove my point this answer i cannot do
1:53:51 i have other reasons from scripture as
1:53:53 well god is pat will and my and from
1:53:57 my understanding of god's attributes of
1:53:58 will that i don't think i don't
1:54:01 personally think that this can be the
1:54:02 case
1:54:03 but i can't project this understanding
1:54:06 onto these verses when these verses
1:54:08 aren't saying people are arguing if you
1:54:09 didn't make these verses up he gave you
1:54:11 but people argue on the basis of all six
1:54:13 of these verses
1:54:14 people argued that the universe has a
1:54:17 finite starting point from the strength
1:54:18 of those verses well guess what you
1:54:19 can't
1:54:21 just because you're convinced and you
1:54:23 know this is the case from your
1:54:24 theological position you cannot project
1:54:26 this understanding onto these verses and
1:54:28 then have them break back out to you
1:54:31 you cannot make a verse say what it is
1:54:32 not saying
1:54:34 and that shows integrity because it's
1:54:36 not that he doesn't want this to be the
1:54:37 case is that he cannot make the argument
1:54:40 and he refuses to project onto a verse a
1:54:42 meaning the verse is not explicitly
1:54:44 saying
1:54:44 and that is a lesson of integrity for
1:54:47 all of us
1:54:48 thank you very much
1:54:50 well thank you uh it was a astonishing
1:54:53 uh absolutely fascinating it reminds me
1:54:55 of having studied philosophy at
1:54:57 university there's a certain
1:54:58 philosophical rigor and methodology um
1:55:01 in
1:55:02 this whole approach which um
1:55:04 i i appreciate uh even though it's
1:55:06 theology uh has a kind of philosophical
1:55:08 character to it
1:55:09 um
1:55:10 now this is not just an
1:55:12 active academic exercise or there is
1:55:14 this but there is also the question of
1:55:17 um
1:55:18 the relevance
1:55:20 of these questions for today and i
1:55:22 certainly don't intend to get into this
1:55:23 now at all um but nevertheless as
1:55:27 anticipating perhaps a further time
1:55:29 when you can
1:55:31 talk about the relevance of these
1:55:32 questions for pressing issues facing
1:55:35 muslims today
1:55:36 in terms of um
1:55:38 theological restraint
1:55:40 theological non-commitment
1:55:42 what the text actually really says and
1:55:44 not reading to not doing not doing
1:55:46 easter jesus rather than exegesis
1:55:49 um
1:55:50 so perhaps on another occasion you'll be
1:55:52 good enough david to
1:55:54 um
1:55:55 talk about how these uh uh methodologies
1:55:58 his insights these lessons
1:56:00 can be um relevant uh to questions that
1:56:03 we have today
1:56:04 if you'll be but that we we can uh you
1:56:07 can address those on another
1:56:10 occasion of course
1:56:12 certainly and one thing i'd point out
1:56:14 here is that um
1:56:16 you just mentioned philosophical rigor
1:56:18 the rigor here the strictness here is
1:56:20 less philosophical and more pious it's
1:56:22 more out of fear of god
1:56:24 the great motivation for saying i don't
1:56:26 know without a fear of god and the rigor
1:56:28 here is because of that we're not
1:56:30 talking skepticism here
1:56:32 there's no skepticism whatsoever and no
1:56:34 this is true yeah it doesn't have that
1:56:36 temper about it
1:56:37 that grief
1:56:38 he could be quite skeptical in its
1:56:40 methodology it's true yeah this is not
1:56:42 about skepticism about what we can know
1:56:44 it's about asserting what we know we
1:56:46 cannot know
1:56:47 yeah when a person makes the local if
1:56:49 they're not being skeptical they're not
1:56:50 being vacillating they're not
1:56:52 reserving judgment just because they
1:56:55 don't think they can understand they're
1:56:56 saying this is something we are
1:56:58 incapable knowing because we can only
1:56:59 know about it if god tells us and he did
1:57:01 not tell us it's a very affirmative a
1:57:03 very assertive position to hold i'm
1:57:06 saying god didn't tell us this so i'm
1:57:08 saying we must shut up
1:57:11 and i believe that we can definitely
1:57:12 talk more about this with regard to
1:57:14 modern issues today so many things are
1:57:16 happening in the sciences
1:57:18 in the social life we're having in every
1:57:20 aspect we're being challenged by new and
1:57:22 unprecedented issues
1:57:24 and we have to go back to the quran
1:57:26 especially on even theological issues
1:57:27 where we're being challenged
1:57:30 we have to go back to the quran to deal
1:57:32 with these new and unprecedented issues
1:57:34 whether it is biological science or
1:57:36 extraterrestrials or a.i
1:57:38 and artificial intelligence all these
1:57:39 things are
1:57:40 throwing questions at us we've never
1:57:42 anticipated before
1:57:44 and it's very tempting to go to the
1:57:46 quran and read it like you would read a
1:57:47 tafsir and start arguing about these
1:57:49 things
1:57:50 or to uh try to navigate the
1:57:52 uncertainties and weigh evidence
1:57:55 but if that leads to disagreement
1:57:57 discord people accusing each other
1:57:59 unbelief because they have different
1:58:01 opinions and each one is convinced the
1:58:02 quran is telling them they hold
1:58:05 and we see it happening today
1:58:07 so i believe yes the relevance of this
1:58:08 phrase is extremely high
1:58:10 and i believe that is why it's important
1:58:12 people understand these principles
1:58:14 and know them and i said it's a very
1:58:16 easy principle to apply you don't have
1:58:17 to be a scholar to say
1:58:19 i don't know
1:58:22 yes
1:58:23 indeed but the these foundations so this
1:58:25 this whole exercise this incredible
1:58:26 exercise is laying uh epistemological
1:58:29 theological principles foundations uh
1:58:32 which then uh have relevance to the kind
1:58:34 of questions we we have today um so it's
1:58:37 not just an academic exercise it's of
1:58:39 great relevance um for us uh and david's
1:58:42 kindly as you can see on the screen here
1:58:44 put up his email address uh if you have
1:58:46 any questions you can find them at that
1:58:49 email address so thank you very much
1:58:52 indeed david for your um your
1:58:54 presentation your time your intellectual
1:58:56 labors and your effort
1:58:58 uh and your intelligence in uh making
1:59:01 all this very clear hopefully to
1:59:03 everyone
1:59:04 what the issues are at stake and god
1:59:07 willing um next time you will come back
1:59:09 and we can look at some of these other
1:59:11 issues of contemporary relevance that
1:59:13 are pressing on us uh whether we like it
1:59:16 or not and how to approach these
1:59:17 questions with this this rigor um and
1:59:20 this theological sobriety even if i can
1:59:23 use that expression um that you have you
1:59:25 have um outlined here so thank you very
1:59:27 much indeed david for your time thank
1:59:29 you for having me and it's an honor to
1:59:31 be on your show and thank you for making
1:59:33 uh this information accessible to others
1:59:36 i really appreciate it
1:59:38 okay
1:59:39 till next time thank you