Abdulrahman Grilled by the “#Philosophy is #Kufr” Camp (2022-09-22) #

0:00:00 rooms is refuting claims without
0:00:02 mentioning names and keeping things
0:00:04 academic and not personal because this
0:00:05 is Dean issues there's nothing like this
0:00:06 so there's no need to bring up names and
0:00:08 this and that but there are people that
0:00:10 even
0:00:11 become her father of the Quran and this
0:00:13 and they studied this and they went into
0:00:14 animal and yet still they fall into the
0:00:16 traps of the shaytan
0:00:17 so it is a very dangerous methodology to
0:00:20 philosophize about the labor very
0:00:22 dangerous we got some new brothers on
0:00:24 the panel we got abdulrahman welcome to
0:00:26 Japan
0:00:30 yeah so um I agree with a lot of what's
0:00:33 being said in fact I wouldn't limit it
0:00:35 philosophy I mean um in any any field
0:00:37 you get into it requires certain like
0:00:39 prerequisites right even what you're
0:00:40 talking about right now in your
0:00:41 critiquing of philosophy that requires
0:00:44 certain prerequisites
0:00:45 um in in your you know making a certain
0:00:48 uh um you know claims about the
0:00:50 legitimacy or non-legitimacy of studying
0:00:52 philosophy that requires certain
0:00:53 credentials as well and requires certain
0:00:54 backgrounds so I don't think any
0:00:56 reasonable person would uh disagree with
0:00:57 that but uh like as the brother just
0:00:58 said I mean it's not really memorizing
0:00:59 the wrong because you memorize the Quran
0:01:01 still fall into these problems the idea
0:01:02 is having a solid grounding in uh and in
0:01:05 your understanding of Sunnah before you
0:01:07 delve into something that might you know
0:01:10 um that has has a certain aspect of it
0:01:12 that could Lead You astray but I want to
0:01:14 ask brother Sammy because he went up on
0:01:15 the stage when Maher Amir was talking
0:01:16 and he asked him about his usage of uh
0:01:19 kalami arguments arguments and it seemed
0:01:22 like brother Sammy's claim was that you
0:01:24 know in his conversations with other
0:01:25 people he tried to tell them that
0:01:26 imitania only referenced kalami
0:01:28 arguments in order to refute and in my I
0:01:31 mean his response he explicitly negated
0:01:33 that and he said ignatania he addressed
0:01:35 first of all he said that the the
0:01:36 arguments
0:01:37 use our Broad and vast and diverse and
0:01:40 you can't just put them all in a single
0:01:41 basket I'm just paraphrasing very
0:01:42 roughly and he also said that if
0:01:43 nathania he affirmed whatever was
0:01:46 correct in the meanings of arguments of
0:01:47 the motor Calamine and he rejected what
0:01:49 was incorrect and in fact he added and
0:01:51 said that uh even criticized some of
0:01:54 Hadith for not accepting some of the
0:01:56 arguments of them that were sound and
0:01:59 not just that quranic like straight from
0:02:01 the Quran in terms of the substance and
0:02:02 the meaning so that was my muse response
0:02:03 and he even said that some of it can be
0:02:05 even sourced with the philosopher
0:02:06 because we see the Haku wherever the is
0:02:08 right so if
0:02:09 um for example right they they
0:02:11 um
0:02:12 and and the brothers leaning to the
0:02:14 athletic school they say that about
0:02:17 morality they uh for whoever know this
0:02:20 they are similar in this to the
0:02:22 matazilla now just just because the
0:02:24 matazida says something that's not
0:02:25 exactly the same but similar to Alison
0:02:27 it doesn't mean that all of a sudden
0:02:28 this point is needs to be thrown out the
0:02:30 window so because it's about the
0:02:31 substance and the meaning so I'd like
0:02:32 brothers to elaborate on that because
0:02:33 response was quite straightforward and
0:02:35 explicit and it seemed like a lot of
0:02:38 what's being said here is still in
0:02:39 opposition to that thank you
0:02:42 Dave were you here from the beginning of
0:02:44 the room no no
0:02:45 problem I mentioned the quotation from
0:02:48 Islam that the animal and in general
0:02:52 philosophy in general uh he's he said
0:02:54 that it's similar to Bida he likened it
0:02:56 and he gave a parable he said that was
0:02:58 pure evil people would not would never
0:03:00 touch it would never go near it and if
0:03:02 beta was pure then it would
0:03:04 automatically be from the kitab and
0:03:06 Sunnah because anything which is
0:03:07 absolute happening then by necessity it
0:03:09 exists
0:03:16 I did not leave a single thing that will
0:03:18 bring you closer to Allah take you away
0:03:20 from Jannah except that I have commanded
0:03:22 you with now uh to equate this with uh
0:03:25 and to use Islam as Yani as
0:03:28 substantiation for this then this would
0:03:30 be dangerous because Islam himself when
0:03:32 he spoke about Yani uh these arguments
0:03:35 in these people he says and I quote he
0:03:37 says that the NBA and the Muslim the
0:03:38 prophets and The Messengers never
0:03:40 commanded anybody to delve into this uh
0:03:42 science and he says if knowledge was
0:03:45 fixed upon something like this then it
0:03:48 would become logic and at the minimum if
0:03:50 knowledge of Allah was by necessity
0:03:52 founded on or based on this then this
0:03:54 would have been at least if not he says
0:03:56 it's going to be Muslim
0:03:57 if it's not right it says if it's
0:04:02 commanded it would have made it
0:04:05 would have narrated it they would have
0:04:07 said yeah now we have to go into uh but
0:04:10 to make to make things short because uh
0:04:11 I think you have more issues more more
0:04:13 questions
0:04:23 okay thank you so um so so just like how
0:04:26 you answered in the beginning so the
0:04:27 term angle Commons is is very um it's
0:04:29 quite vacant it depends on what context
0:04:31 you use it so for example you quoted uh
0:04:33 you said that you go to matamia uh
0:04:34 saying that it is and of course himself
0:04:38 he's a contextualist so it's important
0:04:39 to read him as a contextualist because
0:04:40 uh when he says here he means a
0:04:44 particular thing of course that we would
0:04:46 agree uh is incorrect and is which is
0:04:49 the metaphysical and epistemic
0:04:51 foundations that they rely on in order
0:04:52 to uh um basically make knowledge Queens
0:04:56 about Allah right so that of course
0:04:57 however if anything in other places he
0:05:00 Praises he praises the shadow for
0:05:02 example for how they stood up against uh
0:05:04 the jahmir and the philosopher and he
0:05:06 Praises them in other avenues of of the
0:05:08 Deen that they benefited and he affirms
0:05:10 more importantly he affirms some of
0:05:12 their arguments that you would classify
0:05:14 as a kalami argument right so the point
0:05:15 is not that it's not just to make a
0:05:17 broad general you know sweeping
0:05:19 statement that would uh you know put an
0:05:21 end to the discussion that's not the
0:05:22 point now did that
0:05:27 you're describing nor did he nor did
0:05:30 they engage in refuting a philosophy
0:05:31 because they weren't around nor did they
0:05:33 have to engage in re-expressing some of
0:05:35 the terminologies in the Quran in
0:05:36 different more you know philosophical
0:05:38 language as in attenuated and aslayum
0:05:41 affirmed I just read uh I just put a
0:05:42 quote from him because they weren't in
0:05:44 that situation now what do we need to
0:05:45 take from the salaf is the foundations
0:05:47 upon which they build their office
0:05:50 now does that mean that that's that's it
0:05:53 that you can't engage in any further
0:05:54 Avenues of knowledge and you can't uh
0:05:56 explore Arguments for the existence of
0:05:57 God and based on the Quran Sunnah affirm
0:05:59 what is correct of them and reject what
0:06:00 is incorrect I don't know that doesn't
0:06:01 mean that and here this is what I put in
0:06:03 the chat I don't think um so
0:06:18 um here I'm thinking just because I
0:06:20 heard you mentioned earlier but you know
0:06:21 you can't call Allah this or say Allah
0:06:22 is that foreign
0:06:46 but the language you use to inform about
0:06:50 Allah does not necessarily have to be
0:06:51 but its meaning has to be correct and
0:06:54 even if we affirm that the meaning of
0:06:57 legible and has uh so I don't think
0:07:01 these sweeping generalizations are
0:07:03 really beneficial uh and and I think the
0:07:06 main question that that I came up for
0:07:08 along alongside this this point I just
0:07:09 made about is that stance that you had
0:07:12 Brothers I mean because you again I did
0:07:13 ask brother Amir assuming that only used
0:07:17 kalami arguments in the context of
0:07:19 negating them and never affirm affirming
0:07:20 them now that's that's unequivocally
0:07:22 false because he affirms whatever is
0:07:25 correct in terms of the meaning among
0:07:27 the the Calamity content he actually
0:07:30 emphasized on this several times he even
0:07:32 said it could be from the philosophy if
0:07:33 I forget like this right so I just uh I
0:07:36 mean alongside the other points if you
0:07:37 could just elaborate on this point
0:07:38 related to the discussion that would be
0:07:40 a very beneficial foreign
0:07:43 no problem I just wanted to give you a
0:07:45 quotation from Islam I'm going to read
0:07:47 it in Arabic inshallah I think you'll
0:07:49 get it and then if there's any we can
0:07:51 translate
0:07:53 uh concerning the academy he says
0:08:45 yeah so I don't know I think maybe we're
0:08:46 speaking on different like wavelengths
0:08:47 here no no I want you to yeah let's just
0:08:50 ask you a question about what you just
0:08:51 read do you think that what you just
0:08:52 read the word uh yeah was mentioned do
0:08:54 you think that why this code in Italian
0:08:55 is doing like Tech fear of mean yeah but
0:08:59 but I'm going to give you one better
0:09:00 is
0:09:05 no but then that's some of that of
0:09:07 course so so right here in the question
0:09:08 is context what was said
0:09:10 so I'm going to make it easier I'm gonna
0:09:12 make it easier just to put things into
0:09:13 perspective
0:09:15 don't have any weight when it comes to
0:09:18 uh
0:09:19 what I mean by this is an offshoot of
0:09:22 and this is not me speaking uh says
0:09:27 there are the shemales
0:09:31 and you cross a philosopher with a
0:09:33 Muslim you cross
0:09:37 so even in the categorization
0:09:39 classification
0:09:41 they are simply copying their self which
0:09:44 are al-jamin they didn't bring anything
0:09:46 new by the way all of the arguments the
0:09:47 speech 99 of it is from the Jamie and
0:09:51 this is
0:09:53 all they're using the words the the idea
0:09:57 that is created this came from the Jamia
0:09:59 the idea that Allah does not speak this
0:10:01 game from the Jamia the idea that Allah
0:10:03 is not above his throne this came from
0:10:04 the Jamie all these
0:10:06 so there's no way any patents with a
0:10:08 child but even if we go to the level of
0:10:10 that there are certain people that may
0:10:12 take fear of certainly did not make
0:10:14 income he did not say no this is wrong
0:10:15 he simply avoided the the issue because
0:10:16 he does not believe he has a different
0:10:19 take on the on the issue are not the the
0:10:21 main issue here I'm more focused on
0:10:24 Elmwood which is not even Muslim but go
0:10:28 ahead
0:10:29 yeah well again no so nobody's going to
0:10:31 disagree that the fear has been made of
0:10:33 people within the circle available
0:10:34 that's not really like even even people
0:10:36 who uh you know affiliate with them
0:10:38 itself as like
0:10:39 um I wouldn't deny that right right so
0:10:42 the point is not whether there's
0:10:43 anything wrong in what they say I think
0:10:45 from the beginning you know from from
0:10:46 the point I started talking I was very
0:10:48 clear about being you know more careful
0:10:50 in contextualizing what we're saying is
0:10:52 incorrecting what we're saying is
0:10:53 correct so I was never saying that there
0:10:54 is no wrong and there was no deviants
0:10:56 right so that's not not the point
0:10:58 um and in other places I've been telling
0:11:00 me again he Praises many of the people
0:11:02 from these products right so so the
0:11:03 point is himself like he was like Muslim
0:11:06 in that sense and back to the code that
0:11:07 you read he was critiquing like uh
0:11:09 Academy which is a specific disease and
0:11:11 that's exactly the point specificity so
0:11:13 right so if you're going to mention
0:11:14 specific aspects of Hadith that IBN
0:11:17 Tamia negated and he proposed proposed
0:11:19 Alternatives right and uh and say that
0:11:22 that's backing up what you're saying in
0:11:24 terms of generally throwing the
0:11:25 substance of the content of Kalam you
0:11:27 know just out the window all together
0:11:28 that's not gonna help you because
0:11:30 there's there's specificity in the
0:11:32 culture you're referring to and in other
0:11:33 places and I'm sure you're aware I can
0:11:35 read them if you want where he affirms
0:11:36 uh arguments and parts of arguments and
0:11:39 meanings that they affirmed and Praises
0:11:40 them and so so the point is my point
0:11:43 isn't that there isn't anything wrong in
0:11:44 what they say and he hasn't uh
0:11:45 criticized them the point is as if
0:11:47 clarified that there is the correct
0:11:50 there is the sound that is in accordance
0:11:51 with the Quran in fact the way I
0:11:54 described it is is straight from the
0:11:55 Quran Sunnah and actually a reject a
0:11:58 rejection of it is something that's
0:11:59 condemnable and there's there's the bid
0:12:01 date that's the point so so um I guess
0:12:03 in terms of substance and you also
0:12:04 mentioned the Greeks and the
0:12:05 philosophical stuff again it's about the
0:12:06 meaning if if the Greeks are going to uh
0:12:09 for example affirm the existence of one
0:12:11 God and some other civilization is like
0:12:13 an atheistic civilization then that part
0:12:14 of what the Greeks say although of
0:12:16 course it's not going to be uh the
0:12:18 correct but that part of that meaning is
0:12:19 closer to us than others just because
0:12:21 it's from the Greeks it doesn't mean you
0:12:22 know all of a sudden it's satanic or
0:12:23 something so that's that's called the
0:12:24 genetic policy and and that's something
0:12:26 that has recognize which is why I
0:12:27 mentioned earlier that there is for
0:12:28 example uh agreement with the monetize
0:12:30 it on certain points on many actually so
0:12:34 so that was the broader point I'm making
0:12:35 and maybe this will help clarify the
0:12:38 issue are you saying that all kalami
0:12:41 arguments in with other meanings and
0:12:43 whatever is within them like you know
0:12:45 the subcategories everything's just
0:12:46 wrong I think we should as in using it
0:12:47 is Haram pure is that what you're saying
0:12:49 or because maybe I'm misunderstanding
0:12:50 you
0:12:53 um
0:12:54 uh the words
0:12:58 as a knowledge as a science as a tool uh
0:13:01 what the Lord might say about it is
0:13:02 Crystal Clear I don't think I need to
0:13:04 repeat it but for the sake of argument
0:13:08 he was very explicit concerned not only
0:13:12 that but he said my ruling on the people
0:13:15 of is that they are whipped and beaten
0:13:17 with branches of palm trees and with
0:13:20 shoes
0:13:21 and that they operated in the tribes and
0:13:23 the Gatherings of people and markets and
0:13:25 that it is announced upon their heads
0:13:26 that this is the punishment of the one
0:13:28 who leaves and goes into Edward that's
0:13:32 the first thing so this is
0:13:34 with all due respect to everybody else
0:13:36 uh same thing same thing the other
0:13:39 animals
0:13:41 and it's a something that nobody has an
0:13:43 issue of knowing yet I think we all
0:13:44 agree on that some people will say that
0:13:46 that the arguments and intellectual
0:13:48 arguments are the part that we're going
0:13:51 to use now no problem let's let's say
0:13:53 let's take that for the sake of argument
0:13:54 I'm asking a very simple question
0:13:56 which argument of the arguments that
0:13:58 people use today news was used and
0:14:01 utilized by rasulullah is
0:14:04 the first three generations
0:14:07 but I mean I think the problem is so you
0:14:10 first of all you talk about and use them
0:14:11 as an authority and then right now when
0:14:13 uh we're trying to talk about it
0:14:15 no sorry I remember something because
0:14:17 you said that the code that I gave you
0:14:18 was specifically speaking about the
0:14:20 people that have an issue with verbal
0:14:23 and literally
0:14:24 and uh
0:14:28 yeah that's essentially what you're
0:14:29 saying yeah
0:14:30 yes the same person you quoted it no no
0:14:34 problem no problem now the quotation
0:14:36 that I gave you he was referring to in
0:14:38 general he said
0:14:39 whoever comes after that
0:14:41 going into it he's speaking about that
0:14:44 now if you're going to make a
0:14:46 distinction yeah I want you to give me
0:14:47 somebody who should Islam praised that
0:14:49 does not believe in the Quran being in
0:14:52 Allah not being above his throne does
0:14:53 not make it better
0:14:56 Islam spoke in good terms of does not
0:14:58 believe in these archives
0:15:01 um no I mean uh it's so when we're
0:15:03 talking about like an iron right
0:15:04 specific people
0:15:06 whether it's about the filter or about a
0:15:08 specific person he Praises him where
0:15:10 Praises do you anything doesn't work
0:15:11 condemnation is you and many places
0:15:12 you'll see that this is the way of Allah
0:15:14 and that for example there are certain
0:15:15 people in the middle of like you know in
0:15:18 a bit of a gray Zone when it comes to
0:15:19 Mass Effect uh and maybe there's some
0:15:20 issues that that you know they they're
0:15:22 questionable right uh like and now
0:15:24 always one of those names no no you're
0:15:25 not gonna just completely throw no way
0:15:26 out the window right uh
0:15:28 that's what I'm saying I'm saying there
0:15:30 are issues and certain questions about
0:15:31 some stances he has almost
0:15:33 okay okay just just to be to be on point
0:15:36 and I'm referring to the people of
0:15:38 moon from you know them
0:15:45 which one of them the check of Islam say
0:15:47 but yeah now this guy's okay we're going
0:15:49 to use what he has uh but does not
0:15:50 believe in this apart
0:16:11 this is something else okay that's fine
0:16:13 that's fine that's fine yeah okay uh um
0:16:15 but of course I mean there's other
0:16:16 details like for example you'll see like
0:16:17 a family for example spoke about how uh
0:16:20 for example well let's not go for why
0:16:22 because the language can actually
0:16:23 Encompass it even though it's wrong
0:16:25 however uh doing what for example and
0:16:28 doing double negation with it that's
0:16:29 that's cool so there's also a bit of
0:16:30 it's not all in the same basket but the
0:16:32 point here is that I'm I'm not
0:16:34 discussing names I'm discussing the
0:16:35 substance of the arguments because
0:16:36 that's what we are concerned with in our
0:16:38 circles today because oh you see you're
0:16:39 making claims about the validity of
0:16:41 using certain arguments or not using
0:16:42 them now all I'm saying regarding the
0:16:44 authorities you're bringing forward is
0:16:45 that they had a more nuanced
0:16:46 comprehensive stance on the usage of
0:16:49 philosophy in uh in our teeth or
0:16:51 improving the existence of God and
0:16:52 whatnot of course it can be used as a
0:16:53 basis for your Althea depending of
0:16:55 course on how broad your understanding
0:16:56 of philosophy is but then it's it's not
0:16:57 uh it's not black and white in the way
0:17:00 sometimes people make it seem so the
0:17:01 point is whether who those specific
0:17:02 people are yeah
0:17:05 if you remember my question I asked you
0:17:08 which argument was used by the
0:17:09 properties which is a fair question yeah
0:17:11 forget the people the proponents the
0:17:13 names the argument itself the substance
0:17:14 as you say which one of them
0:17:17 um so uh for example um you've got
0:17:20 um
0:17:24 he used certain arguments in his
0:17:26 response to certain like the Jeremiah
0:17:28 that weren't used by the prophet and
0:17:31 weren't uh
0:17:32 wrong I mean I I don't understand no
0:17:35 problem
0:17:37 right now in terms of in terms of what
0:17:39 the prophet used as an argument
0:17:40 obviously I don't think you mean whether
0:17:42 the prophet used in terms of like
0:17:43 premise premise conclusion and then had
0:17:44 a debate because obviously if you want
0:17:45 that that would that would be strange
0:17:47 but it was not strange it's not strange
0:17:49 why I'm gonna explain this this is the
0:17:51 the core of what we're discussing right
0:17:53 now because when people say that this is
0:17:55 now from Sunnah and there's there's
0:17:57 Merit in this foundation for this we
0:17:58 need to see this
0:18:00 okay but then now we need to take the
0:18:01 discussion a step back because then now
0:18:02 I don't think I think you need to like
0:18:03 take back your usage of maintaining as
0:18:05 an authority because then these
0:18:06 questions are gonna apply to him too so
0:18:07 why did imitate me provide arguments why
0:18:08 didn't they need to do that before for
0:18:10 example or delete
0:18:13 did the prophet use that so right now
0:18:15 your criticism of me is going to apply
0:18:16 to an Italian yeah so I mean that's all
0:18:17 that's fine however I don't think the
0:18:19 time is not Authority for you anymore
0:18:20 then is that what you're saying are you
0:18:21 gonna defer
0:18:21 I mean that's just strange
0:18:26 in his books where did he use these
0:18:30 arguments
0:18:31 every time I used them all over his book
0:18:34 so I'm giving you an example you have to
0:18:36 pay attention to my question in his
0:18:37 books
0:18:40 um that doesn't that doesn't look so
0:18:41 right now I'm let's say I'm talking I'm
0:18:43 giving an argument right he mentioned
0:18:44 the argument and affirmed it in a book
0:18:45 that he didn't call a book about why
0:18:47 does that matter the point is
0:18:49 this is very simple
0:18:51 we have a book that is written for the
0:18:53 masses and these are these are going to
0:18:55 be the general books that are written by
0:18:56 Jacob has over 300 books he has these
0:18:58 books and then he has books of
0:18:59 refutation
0:19:01 the reputation books are not for the
0:19:02 masses they are for the Allah
0:19:05 only they're not for the public masters
0:19:07 of thumbs to me and I think you know the
0:19:09 difference so I'm asking a fair question
0:19:10 in which book of Akiva where epidemia is
0:19:12 establishing Allah existence of Allah
0:19:15 these things in which book does he use
0:19:17 this
0:19:17 no obviously I can't get that for you
0:19:19 off the top of my head but however let's
0:19:20 just I'm just gonna grant for you
0:19:21 whatever you want me to Grant but then
0:19:22 look so all you're saying is that your
0:19:24 apida can't be based on these matters
0:19:26 because first of all I mean it's
0:19:28 Sunnah and second of all it's not
0:19:30 required for the masses it's required
0:19:32 for deviance
0:19:33 um I might agree with you in one part
0:19:34 but then when you say it's only required
0:19:36 for deviance that's incredible for
0:19:37 example he he yes he's he affirmed them
0:19:39 of course I agree wholeheartedly that
0:19:41 these arguments are not required for a
0:19:43 rational person to ascend to the belief
0:19:45 in Allah they're not required in the
0:19:46 sense that there is a more obvious
0:19:48 Foundation however she said that not all
0:19:50 people are alike he was a pluralist
0:19:52 because he said these meanings are
0:19:54 correct and are beneficial and can be
0:19:55 used by some and some people require
0:19:57 them others don't now does everybody who
0:19:59 requires it you know have to be a
0:20:01 deviant by that label not necessarily so
0:20:03 it's just about the federal being
0:20:04 clouded and you know maybe a specific
0:20:07 person within a specific person a circle
0:20:08 requires it expressed in that
0:20:10 syllogistic manner now the imitania
0:20:11 critique the usefulness of the syllogism
0:20:13 itself yes but does he also use it yes
0:20:15 because he doesn't believe it's
0:20:16 incorrect he just doesn't believe this
0:20:17 foundational that's a different argument
0:20:18 from you saying as you've been saying in
0:20:20 the whole room that this is bidet stuff
0:20:21 you're saying it's incorrect so there's
0:20:22 a difference between between saying it's
0:20:23 secondary and saying it's incorrect so
0:20:26 if you're saying it's secondary I will
0:20:27 agree with you but if you're saying it's
0:20:28 incorrect which you have been saying in
0:20:29 the room then that's just false so
0:20:32 that's that's the point
0:20:34 no problem but uh that was a long answer
0:20:37 and it's a very simple question
0:20:39 in which GitHub Islam in none of them
0:20:44 like now there's a reason for that and
0:20:46 this is very valid
0:20:48 what I said at the beginning is people
0:20:49 misunderstanding
0:20:52 not only that but they are using his
0:20:54 name and this is where the problem is we
0:20:55 you know we have no issue for Islam is
0:20:57 an individual he's a Muslim that's all
0:20:58 he is
0:21:04 but at the end of the day
0:21:07 to go ahead and use Jacob Islam as a
0:21:09 point of reference for now legitimizing
0:21:11 something prohibited
0:21:13 this is a problem and the only reason
0:21:15 we're discussing him is because we want
0:21:17 to defend his honor because people now
0:21:19 are are using his name or abusing his
0:21:21 name to show that he himself was a
0:21:22 philosopher he had no problem with this
0:21:24 in fact he used it he advised again to
0:21:26 use it there's nothing wrong with it so
0:21:28 essentially he's going against each and
0:21:29 every single statement
0:21:31 and apparently he knew something did not
0:21:34 know which doesn't make any sense that
0:21:35 the simple Muslim will be questioning
0:21:37 this they'll say hold on a second this
0:21:39 does not fit in this does not work and
0:21:40 it's very simple
0:21:42 when you bring Islam in his refutational
0:21:44 Works targeting specific people and use
0:21:47 it now to say that this is what is upon
0:21:50 this is his name this is how he gave
0:21:52 down to Allah this is a
0:21:53 misrepresentation and this is at the
0:21:55 service and this is lack of integrity
0:21:56 and by the way the very same lack of
0:21:58 Integrity is when people use delirium
0:22:00 the contingency argument to try and
0:22:02 establish how the necessary existence is
0:22:03 Allah azzawajal but when they reach a
0:22:05 certain point they will make a jump and
0:22:07 they will not inform the atheist in
0:22:08 front of them that this whole argument
0:22:09 does not necessarily prove Eliza it
0:22:11 simply proves that's her existence this
0:22:14 form of lack of Integrity is prevalent
0:22:16 in the proponent of philosophy and this
0:22:19 is why I understand that they have a
0:22:20 problem with this Allah says that when
0:22:22 you make a statement when you give
0:22:23 witness when you give testimony you have
0:22:25 to say the truth even if it's against
0:22:26 yourself and I say this is my my take
0:22:29 and this is not only me there's a lot of
0:22:30 her I'm not saying this Islam is Muslim
0:22:32 he's been wrongfully accused of being a
0:22:34 philosopher while the Poor Man spent a
0:22:36 lot of his life refuting these people
0:22:38 and speaking against them not only that
0:22:40 but people will now actually go ahead
0:22:41 and say as you have said I mean shortly
0:22:44 before that is
0:22:46 so what are people going to take away
0:22:47 now there's nothing wrong with
0:22:50 its problem solved so all these books
0:22:53 that he wrote and all these refutations
0:22:54 and he had no reason for all this he
0:22:55 made a mistake you shouldn't have done
0:22:57 all this
0:22:57 this I say brothers and sisters is not
0:22:59 inside if you have if you have to go
0:23:00 within soft take philosophy run with it
0:23:02 use it but do not use the names
0:23:06 and please stop saying that epidemia is
0:23:09 the reason and justification because
0:23:10 Allah
0:23:12 the brothers and sisters they're not
0:23:14 apart and we both know that they do not
0:23:16 agree with him in many things and in
0:23:17 many issues and his criticism is very
0:23:19 own criticism if you don't mind just so
0:23:20 I don't forget that because you've been
0:23:21 gone for a while yeah so the problem is
0:23:23 so what you said towards the end maybe
0:23:24 might be helpful
0:23:25 um first of all his also were correct
0:23:28 and that's a requirement well obviously
0:23:30 of course so so nobody's saying that you
0:23:31 know if a Buddhist uses these arguments
0:23:33 he's upon the correct nobody thinks that
0:23:34 right so that's first of all uh second
0:23:36 of all you see summary of what you said
0:23:38 is that uh
0:23:40 a summary part of it is that basically
0:23:42 implicit in what you're saying is that
0:23:43 ignatamia didn't make didn't make
0:23:45 positive arguments and cases for the
0:23:48 existence of God using some of these
0:23:49 terminologies he only used it to refute
0:23:52 other deviant sects amongst Muslims is
0:23:54 that am I understanding correctly
0:23:59 another thing I just want to highlight
0:24:00 and highlight the point that I think
0:24:02 abdahman would agree upon because he
0:24:03 said someone has to be firm upon the
0:24:05 guitar and the Sunnah before it might
0:24:07 even be my crew for them to go into
0:24:08 these fields you agreed upon that point
0:24:10 right
0:24:11 of course and that's the answer I guess
0:24:12 to anybody who asks me you know for
0:24:13 advice about studying philosophy
0:24:15 a little bit also the purpose of the
0:24:17 room is also to reach out to the Layman
0:24:18 because you you agree upon the principle
0:24:20 upon closing the door upon Haram and if
0:24:22 there's a thing that can lead to go for
0:24:24 and better and these things like you're
0:24:25 from the
0:24:26 quoted before then it is especially for
0:24:29 the Layman that that door becomes shut
0:24:30 clean they become Haram for them to go
0:24:32 into it if they do not uh firmness it is
0:24:37 Haram because this can lead them outside
0:24:38 the fold of Islam because of this
0:24:39 philosophy because if they do not know
0:24:41 the usur they're going to grow into
0:24:42 places where Islam does not the fold of
0:24:45 Islam does not cover anymore so from
0:24:47 that aspect I think we all agree upon
0:24:48 this aspect that first and foremost
0:24:50 about the Layman now the question is for
0:24:52 the student of knowledge right that I've
0:24:54 reached the prerequisites and I think
0:24:56 even there we agree but even then some
0:24:58 people might still slip into the Haram
0:24:59 and my app is glitching very much now so
0:25:01 I'm going to restart the thing but we
0:25:03 just to make it clear to the people we
0:25:04 all agree upon this uh
0:25:06 yes of course I mean you need and and
0:25:08 again of course this is specifically you
0:25:10 know or especially important that's the
0:25:12 most important thing but this really
0:25:14 applies to just common sense of course
0:25:15 any Avenue knowledge right there's
0:25:16 certain prerequisites for you to get
0:25:17 into certain areas right and now the
0:25:19 matter of concerns you're looking at
0:25:19 your asset and when this specific Avenue
0:25:22 is known for you know uh many uh uh
0:25:25 deviant opinions and a lot of
0:25:26 speculative metaphysics that leads
0:25:28 people's prey and isn't clear in its
0:25:30 method of reasoning and stuff like that
0:25:31 and of course it's even more a reason
0:25:32 for you to stay away from it if you
0:25:34 don't have the necessary prerequisites
0:25:35 and this just applies to any everybody
0:25:36 and everybody thinks like this uh I mean
0:25:38 people reasonable people think like this
0:25:39 whether they're Muslims or not to be
0:25:40 honest uh so so that's yeah so we're an
0:25:42 argument there now I think the question
0:25:44 asked for this is important because if
0:25:45 implicit in what he's saying which is
0:25:47 the crucial Point really that was Set uh
0:25:49 in the middle of what he said a while
0:25:50 ago is that anytime you only use these
0:25:52 arguments as a refutation of certain
0:25:53 Union sets that's that's not true so I
0:25:55 mean I don't know if you want to ask me
0:25:57 a question but maybe I could take both
0:25:58 points together because then you
0:25:59 mentioned the contingency people who use
0:26:00 the contingency argument and don't
0:26:02 honestly tell their interlocutors that
0:26:04 this only takes you to a necessary being
0:26:05 who is not necessarily Allah this is
0:26:07 like word for word I mean in terms of
0:26:09 substance like paraphrase what imitania
0:26:11 says about the argument but then I won't
0:26:12 ask Brothers I mean if he knows what
0:26:14 hypnotamia goes on to say from that
0:26:16 point onwards like like he affirms the
0:26:19 correctness the soundness of the
0:26:21 argument in the Cena's argument let me
0:26:23 just say let's ask the questions he
0:26:24 affirms the soundness have you seen this
0:26:25 argument but says it's pointless because
0:26:26 it just gives you this abstract
0:26:28 necessity that's obviously correct as
0:26:29 the structure of you know the way you
0:26:31 represented it and then he says it
0:26:32 doesn't particularize and give and
0:26:35 describe Allah by his so he's basically
0:26:37 saying well there's more work to do
0:26:39 right it's of course it's a bit more
0:26:40 complex than that because it also has to
0:26:41 do with like you know
0:26:42 um the the how
0:26:44 um they see universals and stuff like
0:26:46 that and Abstract stuff but that's that
0:26:47 side the point is if nathania goes on
0:26:49 from there and the firm's meaning within
0:26:51 the contingency argument and uses the
0:26:53 concept of contingency and in fact
0:26:55 explicitly says that this meaning and
0:26:57 you know what in fact I have it right
0:26:58 here he explicitly says
0:27:00 um
0:27:14 he's not doing this to respond to the uh
0:27:18 so to a deviant and say look he's not a
0:27:19 necessary being he's using it to say
0:27:20 look that's correct but then in order
0:27:22 for it to be upon sound reason which is
0:27:24 basically what the Quran is you have to
0:27:27 make these adjustments to it and he goes
0:27:28 on and makes the adjustments that's the
0:27:29 point it's not that he's just so so
0:27:31 that's that's what that's because you
0:27:32 because I know you're trying to ask
0:27:32 yourself the contingency
0:27:39 himself he you know uh uh makes
0:27:43 adjustments to it that we should already
0:27:45 tell you that by the word contingency
0:27:46 argument right now is going to be a bit
0:27:47 ambiguous because well you know which
0:27:48 one you're referring to there are
0:27:49 formulations of specific arguments that
0:27:50 lead you to a correct meaning and others
0:27:52 that lead you to a false one now when
0:27:53 you're asking about the prophet if they
0:27:55 used it uh I mean there's an issue of
0:27:57 course right where are you going to draw
0:27:58 the line I mean are you gonna say that
0:27:59 we can't use any words that they didn't
0:28:00 use then well then we're all in trouble
0:28:02 then um we can't use it about Allah was
0:28:05 wrong when he made that distinction
0:28:06 between
0:28:08 right which is the second the latter
0:28:10 being broader as in you can form about
0:28:11 him using the terminologies that aren't
0:28:13 necessarily uh explicitly mentioned in
0:28:15 the Quran
0:28:17 and then we keep going on where are we
0:28:19 gonna draw the line well where we draw
0:28:20 the line is clear and that's clear from
0:28:21 The Works of imitania the clarity is
0:28:23 what the clarity is the meaning the
0:28:24 substance of what's being said not the
0:28:26 you know or the linguistic expression of
0:28:28 how it was said and what you know Tony
0:28:30 was it that's not the point or where a
0:28:32 certain idea came from the point is is
0:28:34 the meaning in accordance to the Quran
0:28:35 this is how Allah you know they they
0:28:38 even answer questions you look at you
0:28:39 watch videos whenever they're answering
0:28:42 questions about you know is this meaning
0:28:43 can I say this meaning about Allah or
0:28:44 something say this they don't just give
0:28:45 you an answer they don't just say oh no
0:28:46 they say what does he mean by this if he
0:28:50 means that he's wrong if he means then
0:28:52 he's correct if he means that we reject
0:28:53 it if he needs this we affirm it they
0:28:54 don't just make blanket statements and
0:28:56 in relation to that because you said
0:28:57 that I said you know I've been saying
0:28:58 that praise them and that's going to
0:28:59 make people think blah blah no I don't
0:29:00 think that's accurate given the way the
0:29:02 discussion went I was very specific in
0:29:03 putting it in a specific context and
0:29:04 contextualizing it and telling you that
0:29:06 the blanket statements are wrong because
0:29:07 just as you don't want people following
0:29:09 certain sex in certain wrong beliefs you
0:29:10 don't want people people wrongfully uh
0:29:12 you know making blanket statements and
0:29:14 uh doing just outright
0:29:17 of Muslims without restriction you want
0:29:19 them to contextualize it and you don't
0:29:20 want people even the Layman to just
0:29:22 reject the good that comes from someone
0:29:23 who may have some wrong these stances
0:29:26 that's the way they even say that well
0:29:28 they are among Allah in what they agreed
0:29:30 with and I mean some some of us say this
0:29:33 so this is the this is the way to look
0:29:34 at it and in fact this is like if you're
0:29:35 a concernable delay man this is the way
0:29:37 to present it to the Layman not in this
0:29:38 just broad sweeping generalization to
0:29:40 everybody in one basket and simplify
0:29:41 things I think the the details and the
0:29:43 nuances are very important
0:29:49 foreign
0:29:57 statements one of the reasons for
0:29:59 example
0:30:00 even if he had a problem with the
0:30:02 connection
0:30:04 continue
0:30:07 okay sorry sorry but I have to leave
0:30:08 this whole time for me and um
0:30:21 I hear something about that
0:30:34 they were specific yeah let me just
0:30:37 answer this question very quickly and
0:30:38 then I'm gonna mute I'm just I was just
0:30:39 saying they're specific in in praising
0:30:41 what needs to be praised and condemning
0:30:42 what needs to be condemned right now
0:30:44 that doesn't mean they weren't very
0:30:45 harsh in their condemnation but it means
0:30:46 they were fair right that was the point
0:30:47 I was making and uh as for like you want
0:30:50 to give you some Pokemon I'm not really
0:30:52 qualified to do that so um
0:30:55 you want to ask a question uh because I
0:30:57 was listening and my internet was going
0:30:58 out uh you mentioned the continuous
0:31:00 argument you mentioned the surface it's
0:31:01 an honest question I mean no need to go
0:31:03 into details uh does the contingency
0:31:05 argument uh in both versions
0:31:08 does it arrive in all honesty with that
0:31:13 we know about in the Quran Minnesota
0:31:16 okay um
0:31:18 um but that's that's a good question so
0:31:20 far between I will say no of course
0:31:21 right and now from the questions for
0:31:22 mutemia from Tamia what he says is well
0:31:24 basically what we call in contemporary
0:31:25 philosophical terms he discusses stage
0:31:27 two cosmological or contingency ideas
0:31:29 right where he says well we need to look
0:31:30 at like the data right what the world is
0:31:31 like and infer the characteristics of
0:31:33 the maker right so that's very simple
0:31:34 like and and the idea is do you have to
0:31:36 like come to so there are there are so
0:31:37 fat that are like you know that we won't
0:31:39 know without scripture right so they're
0:31:41 still flat but you can use the lately to
0:31:43 come to but does that mean that when
0:31:44 you're when the Quran for example tells
0:31:45 you to reason and to ponder upon
0:31:47 creation and you know the the the
0:31:48 wonders of creation and infer the
0:31:50 greatness of the Creator is that
0:31:52 informing you about every single sifa of
0:31:53 Allah no so so the question would still
0:31:56 arrive like it would apply to you so
0:31:57 well in that kind of line of reason that
0:31:58 the Quran uh basically Praises is it
0:32:00 tell you about Allah will yes but I mean
0:32:01 the idea isn't the idea is that when
0:32:03 you're if I'm saying if I want to
0:32:04 describe you I'm not going to say every
0:32:06 single detail about your life right so
0:32:07 you describe certain aspects and you
0:32:08 know that might suffice in describing uh
0:32:10 the person of course and here when we
0:32:13 infer certain attributes god well that's
0:32:15 where you're particularizing you're
0:32:16 saying what he's liked does that mean
0:32:17 that you're doing like Hustler and
0:32:18 you're just by saying everything about
0:32:20 God I mean do you say everything well
0:32:21 you can't because there are stuff like
0:32:23 somebody that you couldn't know without
0:32:24 a revelation and the rest of the fact
0:32:25 that what I'm all about that it's very
0:32:27 simple uh give me the contingency
0:32:29 argument that you believe is correct
0:32:32 yeah the version that you think is
0:32:33 correct just explain it in simple
0:32:34 English
0:32:36 so since you've been coding ibrahimia so
0:32:38 I'll just refer you to him and basically
0:32:41 um if netanyah talks about that leave
0:32:44 everything out of it you know just what
0:32:46 you believe but you want simple English
0:32:47 so if you want me to there's some
0:32:48 terminologies I can use from like you
0:32:49 know contemporary analytic philosophy if
0:32:51 I talk about possible worlds and
0:32:52 modality well you know the meaning of
0:32:53 that to know whether it's okay or not
0:32:54 right my question is very simple in
0:32:56 simple English I'm somebody who've never
0:32:57 heard of the contingency argument in a
0:32:59 state in a sentence or two without going
0:33:00 into any lengthy explanation what
0:33:02 essentially is the contingency argument
0:33:04 in a sentence for two you're here that's
0:33:06 quite a challenge but okay maybe maybe
0:33:07 I'm all for it but uh let me just try to
0:33:08 be very quick because I need to leave uh
0:33:09 so again I think if you want it
0:33:11 Simplicity I'm going to refer to
0:33:12 continue because I think that's simple
0:33:13 meaning that something is possible and
0:33:17 you know from we as humans know that
0:33:19 this is a possible being by the fact
0:33:20 that it begins to exist right and uh uh
0:33:23 a possible being is basically a being
0:33:25 that doesn't have to exist what that
0:33:26 essentially means if you want to
0:33:27 simplify for you is that in order for me
0:33:28 to exist something must make me exist
0:33:30 basically Allah must create me as in I
0:33:32 am not sufficient for my own existence I
0:33:33 am insufficient right Allah is only
0:33:35 self-sufficient being and what the
0:33:36 contingency argument means it does is it
0:33:37 moves from these possible beings which
0:33:39 basically require external factors to uh
0:33:43 that to make them exist and arrives at a
0:33:45 self-sufficient necessary being and what
0:33:46 necessary being means is that he doesn't
0:33:48 require anything external to him to make
0:33:49 him exist he's self-sufficient and he
0:33:50 exists by necessity of his own Essence
0:33:52 right and that's you'll find all these
0:33:54 things whatsoever with any of these
0:33:57 meetings so that's the gist of it now I
0:33:58 don't know if I met the challenge but uh
0:33:59 there's a lot more to say of course no
0:34:00 it's not a challenge it's a simple
0:34:02 discussion
0:34:04 today
0:34:05 yeah how many necessary beings are there
0:34:08 in existence
0:34:10 don't answer me as a Muslim answer me as
0:34:13 somebody who's into philosophy no I
0:34:14 never answer as not a Muslim what do you
0:34:16 mean there's one thing as a Muslim let
0:34:19 me explain if you answer as a Muslim
0:34:20 then you believe in Allah you believe in
0:34:23 the attributes of Allah above his throne
0:34:25 We Believe Allah speaks and these are
0:34:27 things that philosophers
0:34:33 no problem so so the first stage the
0:34:36 first stage this is essentially the
0:34:37 answer to my previous question you do
0:34:39 agree that the contingency argument on
0:34:40 its own is incapable of establishing
0:34:42 Allah
0:34:43 that's that's a that's a vague question
0:34:44 and I won't give it a yes no answer
0:34:46 because I gave you the reason earlier
0:34:47 I'm not sure if you if you yeah
0:34:50 it's not it's not it's not so so I I
0:34:52 respect the fact that you see it as a
0:34:53 simple question but let me explain to
0:34:54 you why I don't think it is because
0:34:55 right now if I ask you right now right
0:34:57 if I ask you like the when the Quran
0:34:58 tells you to ponder on creation
0:34:59 basically what we call like design
0:35:00 arguments when you tell people look
0:35:01 around you who made uh you know your
0:35:03 your your uh who made your body who made
0:35:05 your faculties who gave you these
0:35:06 faculties and all that stuff can I give
0:35:07 an example you're basically yes I'm
0:35:08 giving an example yeah
0:35:12 one second one second one by one
0:35:15 can you use the word help when talking
0:35:17 to a philosopher
0:35:19 what do you mean on creation I've used
0:35:20 it several times no you know what I mean
0:35:23 several questions
0:35:25 no it is a translation but my question
0:35:27 is
0:35:28 if you speak to a philosopher worth then
0:35:30 will you be able to say creation the
0:35:33 word creation
0:35:34 I'm afraid again right now I don't know
0:35:36 you mean okay so creation right now are
0:35:38 you so right now you're focusing on
0:35:39 right
0:35:41 this is this is uh Foundation
0:35:46 philosophical Circle does it contain
0:35:49 that meaning or not is the point and the
0:35:50 reason for that is well I can ask you
0:35:51 are are you going to use the Arabic word
0:35:53 help you're gonna be like not
0:35:54 necessarily because creation gives him
0:35:55 the meaning well I'm saying the same
0:35:56 thing I'm saying the other world word
0:35:59 for me then why was it okay for you to
0:36:01 translate English let me explain a
0:36:03 philosopher will not entertain the mere
0:36:05 idea of a creation of a Creator he might
0:36:09 discuss with you whether there's a
0:36:10 necessary existence or not and how the
0:36:12 world came from nothing but for you to
0:36:13 make a jump and say that there is a
0:36:15 Creator out there who created the world
0:36:16 this is something philosophy will not
0:36:18 accept and you know that
0:36:19 okay first of all uh I don't really care
0:36:22 what a person believes the substance
0:36:24 second of all second of all what do you
0:36:25 mean by the philosopher we are
0:36:27 generalizing are you saying that there's
0:36:27 no muslim or Christian philosopher that
0:36:30 believes in the concept of creation
0:36:34 there's no muslim philosopher there's a
0:36:36 philosopher Muslim and philosophy they
0:36:39 don't go together you either are a
0:36:40 philosopher or a Muslim a Muslim is
0:36:42 somebody who deals with the world in
0:36:43 Revelation
0:36:44 a philosopher
0:36:47 a philosopher is somebody that will use
0:36:49 his intellect his reasoning to delve
0:36:51 into the Unseen
0:36:53 and these two are not synonymous that's
0:36:55 why philosophy is philosophy which is
0:36:57 the section of philosophy dealing with
0:36:59 the things that are beyond our knowledge
0:37:03 human knowledge it is hard to delve into
0:37:04 that with your head you cannot use your
0:37:06 head sorry for interrupting I don't like
0:37:07 interrupting but I'm in a rush but now
0:37:08 you're doing you say a lot of stuff and
0:37:10 then you're doing at the end you're
0:37:11 saying that part of philosophy that I
0:37:13 would already agree with you in but then
0:37:14 what we were talking about the general
0:37:15 terms
0:37:16 can I just do a discussion by one second
0:37:18 let me just say this I have a link to
0:37:19 this question if you want to watch it
0:37:20 where someone's saying the same thing
0:37:22 about that it's simpler than that if you
0:37:24 remember
0:37:32 which philosopher this is how it becomes
0:37:36 simple which philosopher believes that
0:37:38 Allah has hands two hands has feet two
0:37:40 feet speaks with voice and letter and is
0:37:42 above his throne which philosopher
0:37:44 Muslim philosopher believes in the
0:37:46 things I just said
0:37:47 you know that you cannot call
0:37:49 immunothermia Floss I don't think even
0:37:50 your Muslim uh so many brothers will
0:37:52 accept that to say that is a philosopher
0:37:55 that's extremely loud that's extreme
0:38:04 who else
0:38:16 Brothers uh am I audible yeah
0:38:19 Abraham I think your mic is off
0:38:22 Houston we have a problem
0:38:32 uh first of all I want to affirm a lot
0:38:34 of what everybody's saying in terms of
0:38:36 the uh
0:38:38 Superior uh being the best way to
0:38:41 express something us you know being
0:38:43 incapable of matching with Allah in any
0:38:45 way be it in a philosophical or non
0:38:47 philosophical discourse in fact actually
0:38:48 what you're expressing right now in
0:38:50 terms of sticking to what Allah says
0:38:51 Allah expresses better but you're still
0:38:53 expressing it right if you thought that
0:38:55 what you were saying was Superior to
0:38:56 what is in the Quran that would be cool
0:38:57 for anybody and just go straight before
0:38:59 right so let's just agree on that and
0:39:00 Muhammad has this this that method yes
0:39:06 makes mistakes and I disagree with
0:39:08 Muhammad the way he uses arguments the
0:39:10 the the the point here is that uh really
0:39:13 since we've been talking this whole
0:39:15 while uh in terms of substance I don't
0:39:17 see how you responded to anything I said
0:39:20 that would make it basically that would
0:39:21 favor the kind of stance that you're
0:39:22 trying to put forward like um for
0:39:24 example what before my battery died
0:39:26 that's the laughing right you're saying
0:39:27 philosophers and you're arguing with me
0:39:28 about whether philosopher can be Muslim
0:39:29 well you know that you know and of
0:39:31 course this maximum has its conditions
0:39:33 but then the whole point I was making
0:39:34 was it depends on what you mean by
0:39:35 philosopher clearly if you're going to
0:39:37 Define philosopher as someone who holds
0:39:38 true metaphysical principles then who is
0:39:40 going to disagree with you there's no
0:39:41 philosopher is a Muslim the point is the
0:39:44 usage of the word philosophy has a
0:39:45 historical usage and has a contemporary
0:39:48 usage that developed that historical
0:39:49 usage is still significant in the sense
0:39:51 that when we refer to felt within
0:39:52 Islamic circles in the Islamic tradition
0:39:53 we mean a specific effect so clearly
0:39:55 when we're saying philosophers in
0:39:56 contemporary settings we don't mean
0:39:58 those sects that hold to necessarily Go
0:39:59 free beliefs now whether I betania is a
0:40:01 philosopher or not you were asking
0:40:02 before I left and I told you that she
0:40:03 might have discussion right in front of
0:40:04 me and it's recorded if you want it
0:40:05 where this was the point he was like
0:40:07 well look it depends on what you mean if
0:40:08 you mean that somebody who uses reason
0:40:09 evidence to infer conclusions to who
0:40:12 organizes thought in a logical way then
0:40:14 will better phosphor then a lot of us
0:40:15 engage a false would be somebody who
0:40:16 does that who does that as a specialty
0:40:17 or who is more you know engaged in it as
0:40:19 an expert well yeah you can go on the
0:40:21 philosopher the point is the Mana that's
0:40:22 fasted from the word we're not going to
0:40:24 take that and apply to him but of course
0:40:25 we don't have to disagree if you want to
0:40:27 say that by philosophy you mean people
0:40:28 who hold to such and such beliefs okay
0:40:29 fine yeah no philosophers that's just
0:40:31 trivial that's the point the point is
0:40:32 you want people to understand what
0:40:33 you're saying people today generally
0:40:34 speaking at least in the west of course
0:40:35 they don't use the term philosopher in
0:40:37 the way that you're restricting it
0:40:38 within an Islamic traditional sense
0:40:39 right and Isola has developed through
0:40:41 Islamic history I mean the cell of
0:40:42 themselves were wrong by your lights if
0:40:44 you know if any kind of uh evolution is
0:40:47 prohibited you and yourself are wrong
0:40:48 you're expressing yourself in a specific
0:40:49 language right now that's not explicitly
0:40:51 for anik not word for word quranic now
0:40:53 the point is where do you draw the line
0:40:54 what's appropriate what's not
0:40:55 appropriate there we say it's about the
0:40:57 substance the meaning now can I express
0:40:59 an argument in a way better than the
0:41:00 foreign
0:41:18 and you're saying that right now
0:41:20 philosophical language so you're using
0:41:21 it to look smart well you can use
0:41:22 religious language and a shiny language
0:41:24 to try and look smart which is even more
0:41:25 dangerous but then I wouldn't say that
0:41:27 about you because I want to have
0:41:28 hospital this this very reductive
0:41:30 shallow approach I think is dangerous
0:41:32 for that if your concern is that one
0:41:33 isn't this very narrow outlook on
0:41:36 something that's very expensive very
0:41:38 expensive and something that is quite
0:41:39 significant these days we need to have
0:41:41 an educated take on it not this very
0:41:42 simplistic uh you know a rhetoric that
0:41:44 we use in order to back one position or
0:41:46 another no worry about the substance
0:41:47 worry about the substance and uh look at
0:41:50 what the people are saying and what it
0:41:52 implies and then judge whether it's
0:41:53 right or wrong the label is only there
0:41:55 the label the label is only there
0:41:57 because of the substance if the
0:41:58 substance changes the substance is not
0:42:00 the day that's the whole point so
0:42:01 sticking to this is the law and
0:42:03 appealing to you know traditional usages
0:42:05 of specific terms in order to make your
0:42:07 point is really not helpful and I think
0:42:09 clearly I think from this discussion
0:42:11 it's been quite reasonably established
0:42:13 what in the 10 years take on these
0:42:14 matters are and what his approach to it
0:42:16 is and how he takes a more comprehensive
0:42:18 look on it and how Alison in general are
0:42:20 fair in their assessment of uh other
0:42:22 people and they don't just generalize in
0:42:24 everything that's my last comments
0:42:29 I'm not gonna be able to respond so I'm
0:42:31 going to listen to what you have to say
0:42:32 to them well I have you I have a
0:42:33 question if you don't mind just only one
0:42:34 question
0:42:36 foreign
0:42:57 it's not it's only a difference of
0:43:00 wordings terms terminology but the
0:43:02 essence or the substance within is
0:43:03 inshallah any solid and it's good and
0:43:06 that's why if uh if anybody remembers I
0:43:08 asked which argument from the kalami
0:43:10 argument is from
0:43:12 and the example given was the
0:43:14 contingency argument and the evidence
0:43:15 for that uh obviously and there was no
0:43:17 offense without the money he said okay I
0:43:19 didn't say that I'm sorry before you go
0:43:20 on and on I didn't say this the last
0:43:21 part wasn't really into arguments
0:43:22 brother and uh the contingency argument
0:43:23 wasn't a response to your question but I
0:43:25 in fact read verbatim from instantaneous
0:43:27 him saying that the meaning of the
0:43:28 contingency argument and its conclusion
0:43:30 of a necessary being is so okay if
0:43:32 you're disagreeing with him and me I
0:43:33 mean like if you can disagree with him
0:43:34 he's not a prophet but then
0:43:35 it's very simple did he say necessary
0:43:38 existence or did he say Allah
0:43:50 earlier if you remember you want me to
0:43:52 reread it
0:44:24 for several reasons first of all if you
0:44:27 mean it as like uh if you mean if you
0:44:28 mean it in um in a sense that it's uh
0:44:31 you never asked me what I meant you said
0:44:33 no you dismissed it do you know what
0:44:35 abutemius theory of language and meaning
0:44:36 is it's contextualism basically if you
0:44:37 ask him he's gonna ask what you mean by
0:44:39 it so if you're saying something
0:44:40 attention
0:44:43 in any context in any context referring
0:44:46 to Allah using Bob or just is it okay
0:44:48 okay so if you mean if you mean that uh
0:44:51 in the sense that Allah foreign
0:45:11 I'm essentially saying it depends on
0:45:13 what you mean and there are particular
0:45:14 contexts where the meaning is not
0:45:15 problematic because basically you would
0:45:16 be meaning that Allah has these multiple
0:45:18 attributes Allah is his Essence and
0:45:20 attributes and he has these multiple
0:45:21 acts if you mean that then you tell me
0:45:22 if it's a problem if you're saying that
0:45:24 we can only use words from the Quran
0:45:25 tell me why you're speaking English if
0:45:26 you're saying that it's only okay for
0:45:27 translation then you tell me where we
0:45:29 draw the line because right now you're
0:45:30 not just translating the words of the
0:45:31 Quran you're also expressing your
0:45:33 opinion about the meanings of the Quran
0:45:35 positions using language that's not
0:45:37 foreign
0:45:45 but uh all I'm establishing is you're
0:45:48 not able to give a clear answer if you
0:45:50 ask anybody who's a selfie he will say
0:45:51 no under no circumstances can you use
0:45:53 these words concerning Allah you cannot
0:45:55 use them what do you mean by the way
0:45:58 you gave your answers
0:46:05 no problem is it not okay that's my
0:46:07 question to you so here maybe he knows
0:46:10 better than me
0:46:12 what is expressed of him in terms
0:46:29 just
0:46:33 so who's okay so right now here okay so
0:46:35 so right now does the profit refer to
0:46:37 Allah no so why would it maintain you do
0:46:39 that so the point is you can stick to
0:46:41 your criteria but then you have to go
0:46:42 back to the process don't appeal to the
0:46:43 scholars as authorities because they use
0:46:45 terms
0:46:47 it's okay for you hold to your criteria
0:46:49 but be consistent and right now you're
0:46:51 not just against me against my ears
0:46:54 if you remember earlier I asked you
0:46:56 which
0:46:57 use this use these things in which book
0:47:00 of his did he say Allah we already
0:47:03 discussed that I said I agree with you
0:47:04 that okay this is not to be expressed of
0:47:06 Allah in a sense that it is amongst
0:47:07 that's why it's not Foundation about but
0:47:09 can you use in ordinary language these
0:47:12 words to inform of him if the meaning is
0:47:13 correct yes if you disagree you disagree
0:47:15 with
0:47:22 foreign