Reply to Pseudo-Salafi Critique of Contingency Argument in Dawah (2022-04-09) ​

0:00:00 [Music]
0:00:10 some of you both looking at me looking
0:00:12 at the champion thinking why is the
0:00:13 champ wearing
0:00:14 why is he wearing a long hat this is a
0:00:16 nigerian i've just come back from
0:00:18 nigeria i like the hat i like the
0:00:20 clothes i like the food i like the
0:00:22 country so i thought i'd bring some of
0:00:24 it back with me and present it to the
0:00:26 people but today we're not going to be
0:00:28 talking about west africa in particular
0:00:30 those are very interesting topic history
0:00:32 the geography the people the climate and
0:00:34 so on we're going to be talking about
0:00:36 uh using philosophy in particular the
0:00:38 contingency argument in dawa now why am
0:00:41 i even bringing this up obviously i've
0:00:43 written a book on the contingency
0:00:45 argument many of you may have purchased
0:00:47 it many of you may not have purchased it
0:00:49 if you haven't this is the book here
0:00:51 it's called
0:00:53 it's uh published the sapiens institute
0:00:56 actually you can get it free of charge
0:00:58 sapiens institute we uh publish these
0:01:00 things free of charge but the the
0:01:03 paperback version you're gonna have to
0:01:04 pay for the materials
0:01:06 uh but you can get it free of charge now
0:01:07 i'm doing my phd also on the contingency
0:01:09 argument so obviously something which is
0:01:10 very interesting to me
0:01:13 uh so recently some individuals who
0:01:16 self-proclaimed salafis
0:01:18 have come out and critiqued the use of
0:01:20 the contingency argument in the first
0:01:21 place so you should be using this
0:01:23 uh this is not what the people of the
0:01:25 salaf did it's not people of you know
0:01:28 did and so on
0:01:30 the three people and so this is wrong
0:01:32 and so today what we're going to be
0:01:33 doing is just looking at some things i
0:01:36 have already made a video about using
0:01:37 kalam
0:01:38 and i've mentioned in particular the
0:01:40 positions of ebentamia and you can see
0:01:42 the video of that um somewhere else
0:01:44 maybe i'll put it in the description box
0:01:46 but i'll start off with just reading
0:01:47 something that even tamiya wrote in his
0:01:49 book
0:01:50 and today is going to be an exposition
0:01:53 of what even tamiya said because the the
0:01:55 point is this if eben said me as someone
0:01:56 who's trustworthy
0:01:58 their perspective if you consider him to
0:02:00 be
0:02:01 the majed and the things that obviously
0:02:03 we consider him to be
0:02:06 a great figure of the history of islam
0:02:08 he knows the qidah of the athar and so
0:02:11 on then in that case obviously
0:02:14 you wouldn't consider him a deviant
0:02:16 you wouldn't consider his perspectives
0:02:17 deviant ones my perspectives may be
0:02:20 deviant perspectives his perspective
0:02:22 that person but even tamil let's start
0:02:24 with what he says in his
0:02:27 i've presented this one before but
0:02:29 i've got some things today which i've
0:02:30 never presented in public he says
0:02:56 we've already kind of said this one
0:02:58 before he says that some people
0:03:01 some individuals
0:03:02 every time that the dele was or the
0:03:05 evidence was more sophisticated and more
0:03:08 hidden if you like and has more premises
0:03:10 and it was longer to elaborate then it
0:03:13 was
0:03:14 better for that individual because his
0:03:16 self has
0:03:17 gotten used to that kind of thing
0:03:24 was only a few premises
0:03:27 very obvious
0:03:30 he wasn't going to be happy with that
0:03:42 like this
0:03:45 uh and he goes on and he actually even
0:03:48 mentioned some benefits
0:03:56 doing this will strengthen the sharpen
0:03:59 the mind and so on
0:04:00 but interestingly with the contingency
0:04:03 so this is the first thing the first
0:04:04 thing is when it comes to using kalam
0:04:07 mantec whatever eben tamiya himself
0:04:10 is saying that with some people you need
0:04:12 to use those kinds of arguments that is
0:04:14 what he is saying in his book one of the
0:04:16 last books that he's published but what
0:04:18 about the contingency argument itself
0:04:20 one very central aspect of the
0:04:22 contingency argument is of course
0:04:24 the in
0:04:25 the infinity or
0:04:27 uh the set of infinite things effect of
0:04:29 self-finite things et cetera
0:04:31 and this is in a kitab called minheja
0:04:34 sunnah pages
0:04:35 436-437 i'm going to put the screenshot
0:04:37 on the screen
0:04:40 and where this is what he says he said
0:04:41 what
0:04:43 he says that
0:04:44 infinite regress is of two types
0:04:54 he basically says infinite regressors of
0:04:56 two types and one type is
0:04:58 uh the infinite rigors of inefficient
0:04:59 causes and this is impossible yeah with
0:05:01 the
0:05:03 fact with the agreement of all the
0:05:05 rational people
0:05:08 willing
0:05:20 as if to say for example this originated
0:05:22 thing has an originator and this
0:05:23 originated the originator has an
0:05:25 originator and this
0:05:26 uh infinitely regressive backwards what
0:05:28 does this sound like ladies and
0:05:29 gentlemen this is philosophizing ibm
0:05:31 tamiya here is philosophizing he is
0:05:33 using the which is not in the quran and
0:05:35 the sunnah this infinite regress calam
0:05:37 he is speaking of it himself he's using
0:05:40 it himself
0:05:41 now i want to know what is your response
0:05:43 to this how do you feel about if i were
0:05:45 to say these things maybe it's a deviant
0:05:46 position but even tamiya is saying it
0:05:48 himself him and how just on that page
0:05:50 436 436-437
0:06:00 he says because this is the second page
0:06:02 now
0:06:03 second page here we go it says because
0:06:05 every muh death every originated thing
0:06:08 that cannot originate itself
0:06:12 so it is not
0:06:14 it's not uh it is uh absent
0:06:18 with regard to itself
0:06:21 and it's contingent now let's talk about
0:06:22 contingency is he
0:06:24 is he thought yes he is yes
0:06:26 yes
0:06:26 yes he is he says
0:06:30 it says contingent with regard to itself
0:06:36 so if it's something which is
0:06:37 understood
0:06:39 uh two infinite
0:06:41 infinite regressive proportions
0:06:46 this particular set of things
0:06:49 or
0:06:50 this particular set of things
0:06:52 uh is and it could not be
0:06:55 self-sufficient or in existence because
0:06:58 of itself in the imam
0:07:09 the fact that you have contingent things
0:07:11 contingent upon contingent things
0:07:14 that does not mean that that entire set
0:07:17 is not itself contingent on some agency
0:07:20 outside of itself
0:07:27 in fact the more you add contingent
0:07:30 things to contingent things
0:07:32 the more you'll require
0:07:34 um
0:07:36 the more it will depend on the agent
0:07:39 the ultimate agent
0:07:42 is too
0:07:47 so for example two contingent things
0:07:50 or two originated things or two
0:07:51 contingent things is even more dependent
0:07:54 than one of them
0:07:56 yeah on the agent
0:08:11 this doesn't mean that the contingent
0:08:12 thing will at one point there'll be a
0:08:14 threshold where it stops being
0:08:15 contingent in fact it continues being
0:08:17 even more
0:08:18 uh contingent
0:08:21 so this is the first thing clearly he's
0:08:23 speaking about contingencies clearly
0:08:24 he's making the argument clearly he's
0:08:26 agreeing with the argument clearly he
0:08:27 doesn't agree with those individuals who
0:08:29 say that you can't use the argument he
0:08:31 does not agree with that he's in fact
0:08:32 using the argument
0:08:34 himself
0:08:35 he is using the argument himself
0:08:39 and he uses it even more in this kitab
0:08:41 here which is once again
0:08:45 and you can look in fact the whole
0:08:47 section page 426-432
0:08:49 is very interesting the discussion
0:08:50 because he anticipates the cosmological
0:08:52 fallacy
0:08:53 much like you know the bertrand
0:08:54 russellian compositional fallacy that
0:08:56 just because this there is some kind of
0:08:59 description in the part doesn't mean
0:09:01 that that will be generalized to the
0:09:02 whole
0:09:04 well then he responds and this is a long
0:09:05 discussion i can't show all
0:09:29 so he's saying here that if you put
0:09:31 together things which are non-existent
0:09:34 yes it does not uh
0:09:39 which are contingent it doesn't make it
0:09:41 existent
0:09:47 when you put these particular
0:09:49 instantiations of contingent things
0:09:51 together
0:09:52 in fact it doesn't change its um quality
0:09:55 he states
0:09:56 uh if you even if you put it together
0:10:00 it still remains
0:10:01 dependent
0:10:06 i spoke about this in another segment
0:10:08 someone may argue actually he has a
0:10:10 serious problem and he did have a
0:10:12 serious problem
0:10:14 with
0:10:14 um
0:10:16 some of the way the philosopher like ibn
0:10:17 cena and farabi and kindly and so on
0:10:19 they use this argument
0:10:21 to do nephew of this effect
0:10:24 to
0:10:24 to negate some of the attributes of god
0:10:26 and yes you can see this for example in
0:10:28 the quotation above and suffer
0:10:31 when his kitab called the safari from
0:10:32 page number 104 to 111
0:10:35 but what he says
0:10:38 is really interesting as i'll show he
0:10:40 says it elsewhere is that it really
0:10:42 depends on how you define a part in a
0:10:43 whole for example allah
0:11:00 for example if you can separate these
0:11:02 things together
0:11:03 like for example there are the
0:11:04 appendages of a human being then uh or
0:11:07 that you can you shall elay for example
0:11:10 kashmir falak
0:11:12 then these things are not what are
0:11:14 intended by composite parts
0:11:17 he says
0:11:23 now he's attacking the philosopher he's
0:11:26 saying that if we're talking about
0:11:28 attributes and that the establishment
0:11:31 a composition
0:11:34 meaning these two examples
0:11:38 he's saying that each of the suffix of
0:11:40 allah are necessary so the attributes of
0:11:42 god are necessary whereas a part of the
0:11:44 thing that can be taken away and put
0:11:45 into that's not necessary that is not
0:11:48 necessary even tell me they're telling
0:11:49 you this it's not me that's telling you
0:11:51 this it's even telling me that's telling
0:11:52 you this and he says it again
0:11:54 in
0:11:55 page 91 so if you look at the two just
0:11:58 that they are separate from each other
0:12:02 so that uh amore puts them together
0:12:06 a moroccan puts them together so here
0:12:09 he's saying he's showing you the problem
0:12:11 that he has with the compositional
0:12:13 argument that even cena makes
0:12:15 he's saying that basically they are
0:12:17 conflating between an attribute and
0:12:19 a part he's saying basically it's
0:12:21 something like he gives two examples for
0:12:23 example a ship that has lots of planks
0:12:26 yeah
0:12:27 these are the parts that can be put in
0:12:29 or taken out or food that is made up of
0:12:31 many different ingredients
0:12:33 these are the kinds of parts that is
0:12:35 impossible for hakilah
0:12:40 therefore in tamiya he tweaks the
0:12:42 contingency argument
0:12:43 because even cena and the philosopher
0:12:45 don't really make this distinction they
0:12:47 conflate between the attribute
0:12:49 and
0:12:50 the part
0:12:51 so the question is how do in my book
0:12:54 i've actually accounted for this so you
0:12:55 can see
0:12:57 in how i describe a uh a part we've
0:13:00 described it in english as a piece
0:13:02 because the word piece in english
0:13:03 language
0:13:04 it has already the denotation that it
0:13:07 can only be put in or taken out and that
0:13:09 is impossible with allah for example we
0:13:10 say a piece of cake
0:13:12 whereas the word part in myriology you
0:13:14 can say a part of his personality
0:13:16 like part of his personality or the
0:13:17 attributes of god has got many different
0:13:19 attributes so the word part is confusing
0:13:22 from that perspective so in order to
0:13:25 eliminate the confusion i use the word
0:13:26 peace and we can't say allah has pieces
0:13:28 so having all of these things bearing
0:13:30 all these things in mind
0:13:32 there should be if someone is saying
0:13:34 there's a problem with using the
0:13:35 contingency argument
0:13:37 and they are making that claim now your
0:13:39 problem is no longer with muhammad hijab
0:13:42 let me sorry to
0:13:44 say this your problem is no longer
0:13:46 with muhammad hijab your problem is with
0:13:49 ibn tamiya himself now all of your
0:13:51 refutations in your pdfs please write
0:13:54 them with the title refuting ibntamia
0:13:57 because this is very clear i've given
0:13:59 you more than three or four references
0:14:05 that's four references four different
0:14:07 books where ebony is saying things
0:14:09 now you can say well he's saying these
0:14:10 things out of context i'm giving you the
0:14:12 entire reference i've shown it to you on
0:14:13 the screen
0:14:14 i've read it out to you in the arabic
0:14:16 and translated it to you in english
0:14:17 maybe
0:14:19 maybe you don't understand this with all
0:14:20 due respect maybe you don't understand
0:14:22 what's going on here but just because
0:14:23 you don't understand something it
0:14:25 doesn't mean now you have a right to
0:14:26 block people from doing dawah to
0:14:28 atheists because you're not doing dawah
0:14:30 to atheists you cannot do that show us
0:14:32 how to do dawah demonstrate to us how
0:14:34 you can do dao to atheists without using
0:14:37 first principle methods
0:14:38 so anyway i mean i don't want to waste
0:14:40 my time too much but the point is is
0:14:42 that we just want people to know who
0:14:43 allah is
0:14:45 and we just want people to understand
0:14:47 that you can use these arguments in
0:14:49 islam and islam is a rational religion
0:14:51 that's why even himself wrote
0:14:55 this lack of contradiction between the
0:14:57 knuckle or the textual evidence as an
0:14:59 article i hope with all of this evidence
0:15:01 i'm no longer going to receive
0:15:03 questions from the
0:15:04 hammer the general public and whatever
0:15:07 and other people
0:15:08 videos being made and so on about the
0:15:10 contingency argument unless these
0:15:12 quotations are dealt with
0:15:14 if you deal with these quotations
0:15:17 please i would love to see how these
0:15:19 quotations are wrong so i can amend my
0:15:21 thesis my phd thesis so i can speak to
0:15:23 my friends
0:15:25 so so we can improve our knowledge
0:15:27 together otherwise
0:15:29 it's just going to be name calling and
0:15:32 uh
0:15:33 and blocking the way of dao with all due
0:15:35 respect so instead of blocking the way
0:15:37 of dao and name calling let's stick to
0:15:39 the academia let's stick to the
0:15:40 references if you cannot deal with these
0:15:42 references and you cannot respond to
0:15:43 them just it's no it's not a shame to
0:15:46 say you know i was wrong on the matter
0:15:47 was
0:16:00 you