Debating Tawhid: Athari Creed vs Ismaili Neoplatonism (2022-06-16)

In the "Debating Tawhid: Athari Creed vs Ismaili Neoplatonism" YouTube video, Khalil Ismail and Jake Brancatella debate the two competing creeds of tawhid. The Athari Creed is based on the belief that Allah is a simple, eternal, uncreated entity, while the Ismaili Neoplatonism teaches that Allah has some attributes that resemble his creation, exists within time, and has two hands, two feet, and a . Ismail argues that the Athari Creed results in a Zeus-like god which is deeply disturbing, while Brancatella claims that the Ismaili Neoplatonism is based on a fear of other scholars and a lack of understanding of Islamic doctrine.

00:00:00 The two debaters, Jake Brancatella and Khaliandani, debate their respective Tawhid creeds. The format is 20 minutes of opening statements followed by 20 minutes of rebuttals and cross examinations, with 5-minute rebuttals and 15 minutes of closing statements.

00:05:00 The ethical creed, which Abdul Rahman is defending, affirms the oneness of Allah as found in Surah Akhlas. It goes on to say that Allah is the one who depends on nothing, and everything depends on Him. This is an easy to understand creed, and it is important to be familiar with the Qur'an and Sunnah in order to understand it.
00:10:00 Khalil's first argument is that reason can prove the existence of God, but classical Ismaili texts say that God cannot be proven by the intellect alone. His second argument is that knowledge of God is by his command, not by reason. Well-respected scholar Wilfred Madlong makes similar points in his essay "Khalil Gibran and the Philosophy of Ismaili Neoplatonism." If Khalil can't defend his positions on these key issues, he will fail to defend his position in this debate.
00:15:00 In this debate, Nasro cholesterol and knowledge states that there are two notable ontological doctrines in the work- one is a radical development of the neoplatonic idea that existence cannot be attributed to god, and the other is a development of the avicenna tradition that the necessary existent is the universal intellect. Ashraesthani in his texts dedicated to refuting ibn Cena and whoever follows him, have been seen as states. The method of demonstration for ibn Cena and whoever follows him, comes apart because division does not apply to the equivocal. Ismaili theology expressly denies against the philosophic tradition that god is the first cause. The basic error of ibn Cena and his followers in this question is that they view the world as an emanation from god which is necessitated by his essence or that thus they describe god in relation to the universe primarily as its necessitator. The world then appears as an accidental unintentional consequence of his essence. God is however in relation to the world primarily it's giver of existence, not of necessity. Revelation describes his acting towards it with terms like option, creation, command, amir, and reign. So, once again, khalil follows the necessitarianism of ibn Cena and the philosophers or the view
00:20:00 In this debate, Khalil argues that the god of the philosophers and Tesla, who believes in multiple attributes and creature equality, is not the same god as Allah, the creator of the heavens and the earth in the Quran. He also argues that the god of the ismailis cannot be known and worshipped, as they believe that god does not exist.
00:25:00 a debate is held between two Muslim philosophers over the concept of "Tawhid," or the absolute oneness of God. Khalil argues that Islam upholds the absolute oneness of God, while the author of the creed, Jake, claims that Islam does not. Khalil goes on to argue that ismaili philosophy fully upholds the view of tawhid while the author's creed utterly fails at it.
00:30:00 "Debating Tawhid: Athari Creed vs Ismaili Neoplatonism" reviews the two competing creeds of tawhid, the Sunni Athari Creed and the Ismaili Neoplatonism. The Athari Creed is based on the belief that Allah is a simple, eternal, uncreated entity, while the Ismaili Neoplatonism teaches that Allah has some attributes that resemble his creation, exists within time, and has two hands, two feet, and a . The Neoplatonism taught by Islamic philosophers is widespread and accepted by both Sunni and Shia Muslims. Ahmed bin Hanbal, the imam of the Hanbali authority creed, is known for his anthropomorphism of Allah, and the other creed, the Athari Creed, forbids philosophical and logical arguments, meaning that a true believer in Islam would be unable to use reason to support their beliefs. If Jake follows the author of the Athari Creed, he should withdraw from the debate.
*00:35:00 Discusses the differences between the Athari Creed and Ismaili Neoplatonism, and argues that the Athari Creed results in a Zeus-like god which is deeply disturbing. The academic Dr. Wesley Williams has said that Ahmed ibn Humble wasn't anthropomorphous, and believed that the divine does have human-like features. The hadith which describes Allah in the form of a young man with curly hair comes from Christianity, and isn't from the Quran or Sunnah. The tough wheat position of the authorities is completely incoherent, and if Jake finds a way to get past the logical problem of the other e, he has another problem. The Quranic verse surat al-iklas means "The Spider," and refers to a spider who spun a web between heaven and earth.
00:40:00 of the video argues that the doctrine of real distinct attributes, which is held by some Muslims, is a Christian doctrine that was adapted and transformed by Muslims. Reasoning based on logic and the law of the excluded middle proves that this doctrine cannot be supported.
00:45:00 Khalil argues that the Athari creed is based on a fear of other scholars and a lack of understanding of Islamic doctrine. He also claims that all Muslims believe the same things that Khalil does, which is not true. He also argues that the first intellect is called the will by which God creates all things.
00:50:00 In this debate, Anthony Creed and Ismaili Neoplatonism are compared. Creed argues that tawhid must be acknowledged without reinterpretation or tet wheel, while Neoplatonism believes that it is the settling of his ipsaidy that above the throne not in the form of sitting and touching as the corporealists and caramites have said, not in the form of high status and greatness as the ashari's have said, or seizing as the tesla have said. It is clear that both positions have widespread consensus amongst the sufis and the ismailis, but Creed claims that his position is more expansive and held by virtually everyone except Neoplatonism's group. Nasram himself, a master of the truth and the true monotheists, rejects talk lead as leading to the discernment of deeper truth, and it is through talk lead that one reaches god's oneness and a grasp of the truth. This refutes the mock tesla, who believed in rational argumentation, but did not hold Neoplatonism's belief that talk lead is true.
00:55:00 , Dr. Khalil Ismail discusses the charge of anthropomorphism against those who believe in God as a knowing or aware being. He argues that anyone who holds this belief is guilty of shirk, or worshipping a creature rather than God Himself.

01:00:00 - 02:00:00

, two Muslims debate the difference between the Athari Creed and Islamic philosophy. The Athari Creed is a view that states that there is one God who is the uncreated creator of the universe. Islamic philosophy, on the other hand, includes a variety of views about God, some of which are incompatible with the Athari Creed. Jake does not offer any arguments in support of the Athari Creed, instead focusing on his opponent's arguments against the creed.

01:00:00 , two debaters discuss the difference between the Athari Creed and Islamic philosophy. The Athari Creed is a view that states that there is one God who is the uncreated creator of the universe. Islamic philosophy, on the other hand, includes a variety of views about God, some of which are incompatible with the Athari Creed. Jake does not offer any arguments in support of the Athari Creed, instead focusing on his opponent's arguments against the creed. The debate is about the positions on tawhid, or the belief in the oneness of God.

01:05:00 Jake starts by saying that the ismaili belief in contingent beings (such as people) is incompatible with neoplatonic thought. He then goes on to say that, historically, people who have held both beliefs have existed. He finishes his argument by saying that, even if falsafa and ismaili thought are incompatible, this does not mean that the philosopher must apostatize from ismailism.
01:10:00 a debate between the Athari creed and Ismaili Neoplatonism is presented. While both positions have some similarities, Ibn Cena's position that "god is above existence" is actually the same as the Ismaili position that "creation became necessary in that creation as the first intellect." Additionally, the position that "the meaning of the essence and the attributes being identical is not the same as what the mothas allah mean," is also shared by the Ismaili. Finally, while the Sunni philosopher, Abhari, believes that "God's will does not choose among opposing alternatives," the Ismaili position is that "God's will is absolutely undivided."
01:15:00 Khalil challenges Jake's belief that all necessary attributes of God are always present and eternally exist, and argues that this is not supported by the Islamic scripture. Jake responds that the attributes of God are necessary in the sense that Allah exists always with them. Khalil then argues that there are multiple necessary attributes, which Jake rejects. Jake concludes the debate by saying that Khalil has already given up the debate.
01:20:00 Jake argues that Ismaili Neoplatonism does not offer logical proofs for the existence of God, and that the Athari Creed, which he himself follows, prohibits such proofs. He references Sheikh Yusuf bin Sadik and Suyuti as examples of Athari thinkers who condemn logic. Ibentamia, the creed Jake follows, also maintains that speculative theology is prohibited. If Jake wanted to adhere to the Athari Creed and argue using its tenets, he would need to renounce logic. This is a double standard, as Jake is allowed to use logic when discussing his own creed, but other Athari thinkers are not.
01:25:00 The two debaters discuss the meaning of "tawhid," or "belief in one God." Jake argues that tawhid is only known through talk, while Kahlil insists that it can be partly known through the intellect. Jake sets a timer for 15 minutes, at which point Kahlil will begin cross-examining him.
01:30:00 Shahrasthani argues that tawhid is incomplete without knowledge of the imam of the time. He also argues that the universal intellect is a necessary being, and that it is not wajib al-wujud. Nasir Khusrau never says that the intellect is that.
01:35:00 , a debate is held between two Ismaili philosophers, Athari Creed and Nasser Kusuru, regarding the existence of God. Creed argues that God is a necessary being, while Kusuru argues that God is not a necessary being, but rather a bestower of existence. Sidjasthani, another Ismaili philosopher, also argues against the notion of divine will being entirely self-determined.
01:40:00 , a debater discusses the differences between the creed of tawhid and the philosophy of ismaili astani. The debater argues that, according to ismaili philosophy, the god worshipped by some philosophers is not the true god, while the creed of tawhid maintains that God is the only true deity.
01:45:00 , Khalil Dhani debates Jake the Muslim philosopher on the issue of whether or not attributes of God, such as existence and power, are dependent on his essence. Dhani argues that the attributes are not dependent on his essence, but rather that they exist independently of it.
*01:50:00 Discusses the difference between the Athari creed and the Ismaili Neoplatonism of Tawhid. The Athari creed attributes are contingent, while the Ismaili Neoplatonism of Tawhid believes that the essence and the attributes are not identical. This difference in belief leads to a conflict with Islam, as the quran and the authentic sunna teach that God has free will and that creation is not necessitated by his essence.
01:55:00 , two Muslims debate the view that God's will is always "any other way" than what is necessary, or "tawheed." Dr. David Duvet, a Muslim scholar, argues that Muhammad hijab, a scholar who has the same view, should not be considered a valid authority on the topic of tawheed. Khalil Gibran, another Muslim scholar, argues that Muhammad hijab's view should be accepted because it is in line with the Islamic Creed. ends with a discussion about how to proceed with the cross examination.

02:00:00 - 02:25:00

two Muslim men debate the validity of the Islamic belief in Tawhid, or monotheism. Jake, who believes in Tawhid, argues that it is an important belief and that anyone who affirms the shahada is a Muslim. Abdulrahman, who believes in Ismaili Neoplatonism, argues that Tawhid is a misguided belief, and that all interpretations of Islam other than his own are equally valid endeavors to practice the faith. Jake and Abdulrahman thank each other for their discussion and conclude the video.

*02:00:00 Discusses a debate between two Islamic scholars, Khalil and Jake. Khalil admits that he is losing the debate and that Jake has exposed him as a charlatan.

02:05:00 Khalil argues that, although the necessary being is not God, certain aspects of God's nature can be known through reason. However, he has later apostasized from the Ismaili faith and probably why he refused to debate under the of Ismaili faith. His opponent, Asagestani, offers a rebuttal to the rule of one, which Khalil does not seem to be able to answer.
02:10:00 a debater named Jake Um debates Dr. Andana Pradhan on the issue of divine simplicity. Dr. Pradhan supports the doctrine of divine simplicity, while Jake Um argues that the doctrine is internally contradictory and cannot be defended. Dr. Pradhan argues that all Muslims, regardless of their beliefs on divine simplicity, should support Ibn Cena's contingency argument.
*02:15:00 Discusses a debate between two creeds, Ismaili Neoplatonism and Sunni Islam, and discusses how Jake, the Muslim metaphysician, tries to isolate the beliefs of Ismaili Neoplatonism while also claiming that they are not actually Ismaili Neoplatonism. Jake responds by explaining the world view he is defending, which is a variant of Neoplatonism that goes beyond the Ismaili Neoplatonism of Ibn Cenan.
*02:20:00 Discusses the relationship between tawhid (the oneness of God) and various Islamic doctrines. According to the speaker, there are two competing visions of tawhid, one which is based on Islamic philosophy and the other which is based on mysticism and religious tradition. He argues that the Islamic philosophy version is simpler and more logical, and that those who accept it are in a logical contradiction. He also argues that ismaili texts are full of rational arguments when it comes to metaphysics and says that ismaili tariqas are part of the Islamic diversity.
02:25:00 , two Muslim men debate the validity of the Islamic belief in Tawhid, or monotheism. Jake, who believes in Tawhid, argues that it is an important belief and that anyone who affirms the shahada is a Muslim. Abdulrahman, who believes in Ismaili Neoplatonism, argues that Tawhid is a misguided belief, and that all interpretations of Islam other than his own are equally valid endeavors to practice the faith. Jake and Abdulrahman thank each other for their discussion and conclude the video.

Full transcript with timestamps: CLICK TO EXPAND

0:00:05Music 0:00:07 i am
0:00:32 welcome guys to another
0:00:34 um stream from the thought adventure
0:00:37 podcast today we have a special one
0:00:40 where
0:00:40 um
0:00:41 we are going to be seeing jake
0:00:44 brancatella and khaliandani debate
0:00:48 their positions or their creedal
0:00:50 positions
0:00:52 and
0:00:54 and basically try to defend it against
0:00:56 one another so um
0:00:59 we first want to thank uh
0:01:01 sorry uh muzzybuzz for his super chat
0:01:04 thank you very much uh appreciate it
0:01:07 and
0:01:08 let me
0:01:10 first begin by introducing jake and then
0:01:12 i'll tell you what the format of the
0:01:14 debate is gonna be and then i'll pass it
0:01:16 on to dr
0:01:17 javad who's
0:01:18 uh the second moderator today and then
0:01:21 we'll get right into it so um
0:01:24 yep so
0:01:26 give me one second
0:01:29 all right so
0:01:30 uh
0:01:31 jake brancatella is a former catholic
0:01:33 and he's a convert to islam he has a ba
0:01:35 in philosophy
0:01:36 and his study and his research revolves
0:01:39 around epistemology and metaphysics
0:01:43 and christian doctrines like the core of
0:01:46 christian doctrines like the trinity and
0:01:47 the incarnation as well as inter and
0:01:50 intra-creedal discussions which is of
0:01:52 course closely related to today's uh
0:01:54 debate and he has a youtube channel you
0:01:56 guys can check it out it's called the
0:01:58 muslim metaphysician he's quite known so
0:02:00 um
0:02:01 this intro is just a formality and i'm
0:02:03 gonna pass it on right now to dr uh
0:02:05 javad and then we'll start with the
0:02:08 debate inshallah
0:02:12 all right thank you uh dr khalid landani
0:02:14 is an intellectual historian and
0:02:16 philosopher of islam specializing in
0:02:18 quranic studies islamic theology and
0:02:20 philosophy sufism and ismailism he holds
0:02:23 two master's degrees and a phd in
0:02:24 islamic studies from harvard university
0:02:26 he is currently an assistant professor
0:02:28 of religion at augustana college dr
0:02:30 andani's dissertation on the concept of
0:02:32 revelation in sunni and shia islam was
0:02:34 awarded the best phd dissertation award
0:02:36 by the foundation for iranian studies he
0:02:38 is currently converting this into his
0:02:40 first book dr andani has published
0:02:43 numerous peer-reviewed articles in
0:02:44 several islamic studies journals and
0:02:46 volumes he also maintains an active
0:02:48 social media presence on twitter youtube
0:02:50 and clubhouse where he focuses on public
0:02:52 education about islam
0:02:55 before we proceed any further can we
0:02:57 just make sure
0:02:58 i think there was an issue about the
0:03:00 youtube comments can we open them up
0:03:01 make sure they're open to everyone not
0:03:02 just subscribers
0:03:07 uh as far as i know they are
0:03:12 it's um
0:03:14 you're muted
0:03:17 so i don't know about the
0:03:18 like i think this subscribers thing has
0:03:20 been going on for a while right um wait
0:03:22 has this issue been broadened up because
0:03:24 that because i'm just hearing it right
0:03:25 now but basically all you need to do is
0:03:27 yeah all you need to do is
0:03:29 it's always been like that all you do is
0:03:30 subscribe and then
0:03:31 five minutes or ten minutes i don't know
0:03:33 what the exact amount of time is after
0:03:36 that you can start commenting so i think
0:03:37 that's always been uh
0:03:39 on the channel but i don't know did
0:03:40 somebody do somebody bring this up
0:03:42 because i'm not aware of it no i don't
0:03:44 know but then that's that's it's always
0:03:45 been like that on the channel so um
0:03:48 uh
0:03:49 so who anybody can comment doesn't
0:03:51 anybody can just press the subscribe
0:03:52 button and then just start commenting
0:03:53 commenting
0:03:54 on subscribe afterwards i guess yeah
0:03:56 exactly and you then you can unsubscribe
0:03:58 if you don't want to say stay subscribed
0:04:00 but it's it's a new feature on
0:04:02 relatively new feature on youtube and a
0:04:04 lot of people have been doing it so um
0:04:06 so yeah i think people anybody who wants
0:04:08 to subscribe can subscribe i just want
0:04:10 to
0:04:11 tell you guys about the format of
0:04:13 today's debate
0:04:15 so um there's going to be 20 minute
0:04:17 openings from each side jake is starting
0:04:19 and then they're going to be 20 minute
0:04:21 rebuttals
0:04:22 on each side as well and then 5-minute
0:04:24 rebuttals followed by 15 minutes of
0:04:26 cross examinations each
0:04:29 and then 10 minutes closing each so
0:04:32 that's the format
0:04:33 and since jake is starting jake once
0:04:35 you're ready i am going to start my
0:04:38 timer right here and you just um
0:04:42 i got a question for you about is there
0:04:43 any way that you can open it up right
0:04:45 now for comments only because it's
0:04:47 already going to be
0:04:48 your audience um so it is another
0:04:51 disincentive for somebody to comment um
0:04:54 so if you could open up i don't know i
0:04:56 mean i can't make that decision like on
0:04:57 my own but then uh i don't i don't see
0:04:59 that i don't i don't care i just don't
0:05:01 know how to do it
0:05:02 i i don't i don't know how to do it
0:05:04 either like
0:05:05 if you're ready if you're hearing us
0:05:06 right now you can do it yeah i
0:05:13 as in in the sense that like all the
0:05:16 the streams we've had we've had
0:05:18 all sides commenting because people
0:05:19 simply subscribe and comment and whoever
0:05:21 wants to unsubscribe later on subscribe
0:05:23 i didn't even know if it was a thing to
0:05:24 be honest yeah yeah i mean it's it's
0:05:27 recent but
0:05:28 um but we can try to uh like reach out
0:05:32 right now and we can
0:05:33 remove it um
0:05:42 okay so how about we start and i'll be
0:05:45 working on this as i'll try to reach out
0:05:47 but jake um
0:05:49 uh
0:05:50 as long as it's not a distraction you
0:05:51 let me know when you're ready and i can
0:05:53 start the timer
0:05:55 yeah hold on
0:05:56 do you want to take care of this first
0:05:59 i don't care i don't know anything about
0:06:01 this issue so it's up to hallelujah
0:06:04 if he feels uncomfortable then we'll
0:06:06 wait i mean i don't know okay okay it's
0:06:07 done it's done it's already done okay so
0:06:09 we can we can we can go ahead right now
0:06:11 okay okay all right let me see if i can
0:06:14 share my screen here
0:06:20 so
0:06:31 okay you guys able to do that
0:06:43 so guys
0:06:46 when i move it it moves with the
0:06:49 as well correct you see the title now
0:06:52 yes yes okay
0:06:54 okay so one last thing for the people in
0:06:56 the chat please keep it respectful
0:06:58 because it there's already already been
0:07:00 comments that um that are like
0:07:03 inappropriate we want to keep it civil
0:07:04 both like in the discussion itself and
0:07:07 in the chat and we
0:07:09 will
0:07:10 ban
0:07:11 or block or you know time out anybody on
0:07:14 any side who is disrespect disrespectful
0:07:16 in the way they're commenting so um i
0:07:18 mean to the best of our ability so uh
0:07:21 yeah please keep it respectful jake
0:07:22 whenever you're ready
0:07:26 okay i'm ready
0:07:30 abdulrahman just make sure you mute
0:07:31 yourself bro because i can yeah yep um
0:07:34 yep
0:07:36 all right hey go ahead jake
0:07:38 bismillah
0:07:40 alhamdulillah
0:07:52 the subject of today's debate is tawheed
0:07:55 and the oneness of allah
0:07:57 i will be defending the ethity position
0:07:59 and mr anderson will be defending
0:08:01 islamic philosophy and more specifically
0:08:04 the ismaili neoplatonic model however as
0:08:07 you soon will see khalil's position is
0:08:09 not only false but there is nothing
0:08:11 islamic about it
0:08:12 now let me explain the structure of my
0:08:14 opening statement i will start by
0:08:16 outlining what the ethical creed is and
0:08:18 the reasons for holding to it and next i
0:08:20 will provide and explain what khalil's
0:08:22 position is and provide reasons for
0:08:24 rejecting it so what is ethere creed
0:08:28 well
0:08:28 we affirm what the quran and sunnah
0:08:30 affirm for allah and we do not attempt
0:08:33 to go further we accept what has come to
0:08:35 us in the quran and the authentic sunnah
0:08:37 without rejecting the texts without
0:08:39 touch seem or making allah like his
0:08:41 creation nor do we create esoteric
0:08:43 interpretations of the text that no
0:08:45 sensible person could derive from the
0:08:47 text alone we do not seek to use alien
0:08:50 philosophies and metaphysical notions
0:08:52 that are not derived from the text in
0:08:54 order to derive our interpretations of
0:08:56 the text itself
0:08:58 this is primarily because we are certain
0:09:00 in our belief that allah subhanahu wa
0:09:02 ta'ala exists and that he has sent the
0:09:04 prophet muhammad ali
0:09:07 with the quran and the authentic sunnah
0:09:09 of the prophet which is obligatory to
0:09:11 affirm and to follow we have no doubt
0:09:14 about the truthfulness of the guidance
0:09:15 that has reached us and so we accept it
0:09:17 as it comes
0:09:19 we seek to have our beliefs and creedal
0:09:21 affirmations in line with what the
0:09:23 prophet saw
0:09:24 has taught and what he has brought and
0:09:26 taught to his command companions and
0:09:29 what the righteous from the earliest
0:09:30 generations affirmed and taught as well
0:09:32 this is quite simple straightforward and
0:09:34 easy to understand however in order to
0:09:37 understand the creed you must be
0:09:38 familiar with the text of the quran and
0:09:40 the sunnah so let's take a look at some
0:09:43 examples
0:09:44 starting with to understand tawheed
0:09:46 let's start with surah akhlas in the
0:09:48 quran chapter 112 verses 1-4
0:09:53 say he allah is one allah
0:09:56 allah is the one who depends on nothing
0:09:58 but everything depends on him
0:10:01 he begets not nor is he begotten
0:10:07 and there is none equivalent to him so
0:10:10 allah is one independent does not beget
0:10:13 nor is he begotten and there is none
0:10:15 equivalent to him but that's not all
0:10:18 allah is the one without any partners
0:10:20 children or anything else that you can
0:10:21 think of
0:10:22 as he has not in need of anyone or
0:10:25 anything
0:10:26 again in the quran chapter 59 verses 22
0:10:29 to 24 he is allah other than whom there
0:10:32 is no deity nowhere of the unseen and
0:10:35 the witness he is the entirely merciful
0:10:37 the especially merciful he is allah
0:10:40 other than whom there is no deed the
0:10:42 sovereign the pure the perfection the
0:10:44 bestower of faith the overseer the
0:10:46 exalted in might the compeller the
0:10:48 superior exalted is allah above whatever
0:10:50 they associate with him he is allah the
0:10:54 creator the inventor the fashioner to
0:10:55 him belong to best names whatever is in
0:10:58 the heavens and earth is exalting him
0:11:00 and he is the exalted in might the wise
0:11:03 notice that to allah subhanahu wa that
0:11:05 belong to best names the creator and the
0:11:07 one who knows all things
0:11:09 we believe allah when he states in the
0:11:11 quran that he created adam al-ahi
0:11:14 with his own hands and that he is above
0:11:15 the throne
0:11:17 however this does not mean that we
0:11:18 believe allah has physical limbs nor do
0:11:21 we say that he is encompassed by space
0:11:23 we affirm these texts on their apparent
0:11:25 meanings and that it is obligatory to
0:11:27 believe in them not seeking to reject
0:11:29 them without making tet wield or seeking
0:11:31 false interpretations while at the same
0:11:33 time not liking in the law to his
0:11:35 creation
0:11:37 at the same time we are not anti-reason
0:11:40 we believe that reason is a gift from
0:11:42 allah to mankind and that using it is
0:11:44 properly using it properly is
0:11:46 praiseworthy we do not believe that the
0:11:48 texts of the quran and the sunnah can or
0:11:50 do contradict reason however we are
0:11:53 highly skeptical of metaphysical
0:11:55 principles that are alien to the quran
0:11:57 and sunnah or even contradict them and
0:11:59 at times are used to construct
0:12:01 theologies that are not in agreement
0:12:02 with the text
0:12:04 on the other hand
0:12:05 reason can be employed as an apologetic
0:12:08 as an apologetic tool in defense of the
0:12:10 quran and sunnah this includes rational
0:12:12 argumentation for the existence of god
0:12:14 that is derived from the text itself
0:12:17 we can speak more about these issues in
0:12:19 detail later if need be
0:12:22 i will now turn to my opponent's
0:12:24 position and present three main
0:12:26 arguments against it my first argument
0:12:29 is meant to establish an internal
0:12:31 inconsistency both in khalil's
0:12:33 methodology in specific theological
0:12:35 positions he is claiming to defend
0:12:38 islamic philosophy in the debate title
0:12:40 and adopts the methodology of the
0:12:42 philosophers in several key positions
0:12:44 that they hold to however
0:12:46 he is simultaneously claiming to defend
0:12:48 ismaili neoplatonism conceived of by
0:12:51 such figures as abu yakuba
0:12:54 and nasral the problem is that the
0:12:56 methodology and position of the
0:12:58 philosophers such as ibn cena is
0:13:00 diametrically opposed to that of
0:13:02 classical ismaili theology my examples
0:13:05 are aimed at demonstrating this fact
0:13:07 with the intention of exhorting khalil
0:13:08 to take a stand on these key issues as
0:13:11 to absolve himself from these
0:13:12 contradictions if he cannot do so he
0:13:15 will fail to defend his position in this
0:13:16 debate
0:13:17 as his position currently constructed is
0:13:20 contradictory
0:13:22 first example can the existence of god
0:13:24 be proven through reason alone khalil
0:13:26 says yes and he will probably give some
0:13:28 form of the contingency argument in his
0:13:30 opening statement to support this
0:13:32 however
0:13:33 his classical ismaili texts say that god
0:13:35 cannot be proven by the intellect alone
0:13:38 for example nasra dina tusi states in
0:13:40 his text paradise of submission and i
0:13:42 quote as for proving the existence of
0:13:45 god almighty human beings cannot
0:13:47 establish such a proof because he the
0:13:49 exalted one is in reality the founder of
0:13:52 all established things anyone including
0:13:55 khalil who says he can prove his
0:13:57 existence therefore claims to have
0:13:58 comprehended the reality of the identity
0:14:01 of the transcendent being but such
0:14:03 comprehension by created beings is a
0:14:05 supreme form of absurdity and since
0:14:07 comprehension of him is impossible the
0:14:10 proof which they wish to establish is
0:14:12 equally impossible close quote
0:14:14 the famous hajja are proof of the imam
0:14:16 nasral states in his text between reason
0:14:18 and revelation and i quote the doc the
0:14:21 true doctrine of oneness lies in
0:14:23 interpretation of the book in the sacred
0:14:25 law not in some dark interior of the
0:14:27 community as this group claims and as we
0:14:30 find in their pronouncements for this
0:14:32 reason the emissary of god calls people
0:14:34 to god's oneness by god's command not by
0:14:37 the command of the intellect they accept
0:14:40 religion as a matter of individual
0:14:41 opinion so that they may practice
0:14:43 speculation thus god says say it is
0:14:46 revealed to me that your god is one god
0:14:48 are you going to surrender close quote
0:14:50 notice that knowledge of god is by his
0:14:53 command not by reason
0:14:58 well-respected scholar wilfred madlong
0:15:00 in his article entitled the prophetic
0:15:01 chain and the god beyond being states
0:15:03 and i quote
0:15:05 characteristically ismaili theology did
0:15:07 not attempt to offer a proof of god that
0:15:10 first concern of any rational theology a
0:15:13 rational proof of what is beyond reason
0:15:15 and being was evidently futile nor was
0:15:18 there any need for it for god abu yakub
0:15:20 affirmed is more certain than everything
0:15:22 certain this was a certainty which
0:15:24 becomes evident to the human mind only
0:15:27 by revelation close quote so is khalil
0:15:30 an ismaili that rejects the position of
0:15:32 the scholars he is claiming to defend or
0:15:34 has he in fact left his religion to
0:15:36 follow ibn cena
0:15:38 is god the necessary being classical
0:15:41 ismaili texts say no but khalil says yes
0:15:44 nasro cholesterol and knowledge and
0:15:46 in liberation states and i quote under
0:15:49 it there are the necessary existent
0:15:52 which is the universal intellect not god
0:15:55 and the contingent existent that is the
0:15:57 universal soul which is under the
0:15:58 intellect close quote
0:16:00 so the necessary being is clearly
0:16:03 identified as a universal intellect
0:16:05 commenting on this passage in an ismaili
0:16:07 publication parvez morwedge says and i
0:16:10 quote
0:16:11 nor is he
0:16:13 a follower of ibn sina for whom god is
0:16:15 the necessary existent whereas nasser
0:16:18 places god above the necessary existence
0:16:21 presents two remarkable ontological
0:16:23 doctrines in this work one is a radical
0:16:26 development of the neoplatonic idea that
0:16:29 existence cannot be attributed to god
0:16:31 and that unlike the avicenna tradition
0:16:33 the necessary existent is the universal
0:16:36 intellect and not the ultimate being
0:16:38 analogous to the god of monotheism close
0:16:40 quote
0:16:41 ashraesthani in his texts dedicated to
0:16:44 refuting have been seen as states and i
0:16:45 quote the method of demonstration for
0:16:48 ibn cena and whoever follows him
0:16:50 including khalil comes apart because
0:16:53 division does not apply to the equivocal
0:16:55 on the other hand the procedure of the
0:16:57 prophets upon them be peace is in
0:16:59 accordance with what we will report so
0:17:01 we say
0:17:03 the creator exalted as he is too well
0:17:05 known for his existence to be pointed to
0:17:07 by anything and the recognition of him
0:17:10 exalted as he is through innate
0:17:12 predisposition fitra close quote once
0:17:15 again is god the necessary being proven
0:17:18 by the contingency argument as conceived
0:17:20 of by ibn cena or is he beyond the
0:17:22 necessary being and only known through
0:17:24 the fitra or the imam as the ismaili's
0:17:27 claim khalil needs to decide whether or
0:17:29 not he is an isma'ili in this debate or
0:17:31 a follower of the philosophers in order
0:17:33 to even have a chance in this debate
0:17:35 because as it stands his position is
0:17:37 contradictory
0:17:39 is creation a necessary consequence of
0:17:41 god's essence or is it a free act of god
0:17:44 classical ismaili texts say that it is a
0:17:46 free act of god and khalil says that it
0:17:48 is necessary asajjustani in the 15th
0:17:52 the wellspring title then i quote that
0:17:54 asking why god created the world is
0:17:56 impossible and absurd states
0:17:58 the rule has been handed down to us that
0:18:01 is impossible and absurd to inquire into
0:18:04 the reason of something the very manner
0:18:06 of whose being is incomprehensible
0:18:09 however it is generally agreed that no
0:18:11 one has ever understood the manner by
0:18:13 which the maker brought the universe
0:18:15 into being although some scholars did
0:18:17 insist that how the maker brought it
0:18:19 into being is by command they did not
0:18:22 understand the manner of that command
0:18:23 itself but since their views are in
0:18:25 agreement that the comprehension of the
0:18:27 manner by which the universe has its
0:18:29 being is outside the realm of
0:18:31 possibility inquiring into the reason of
0:18:34 its existence is even more absurd and
0:18:36 even further beyond inference perhaps
0:18:38 the reason of it lies within the
0:18:40 question of its manner and thus
0:18:42 understanding the reason is difficult
0:18:44 because its manner is hidden close quote
0:18:47 mad long confirms this in the same
0:18:49 article cited earlier when he states and
0:18:51 i quote more significantly however these
0:18:54 changes reflected the volitional nature
0:18:56 the liberty of the act of creation as
0:18:59 conceived in the holy quran and islamic
0:19:01 tradition in contrast to the emanational
0:19:04 doctrine of the philosophers with the
0:19:06 same motive ismaili theology expressly
0:19:09 denied against the philosophic tradition
0:19:12 that god is the first cause the basic
0:19:15 error of ibn cena and his followers in
0:19:17 this question is that they view the
0:19:19 world as an emanation from god which is
0:19:21 necessitated by his essence or that thus
0:19:24 they describe god in relation to the
0:19:26 universe primarily as its necessitator
0:19:29 the world then appears as an accidental
0:19:32 unintentional consequence of his essence
0:19:35 god is however in relation to the world
0:19:37 primarily it's giver of existence not of
0:19:40 necessity and revealed scripture
0:19:41 describes his acting towards it with
0:19:43 terms like option
0:19:46 creation hulk command amir and reign
0:19:49 mulk
0:19:50 close quote so once again is khalil
0:19:53 following the necessitarianism of ibn
0:19:55 cena and the philosophers or the view
0:19:57 that creation is a free act of god as
0:19:59 the ismaili's claim
0:20:01 khalil needs to get himself out of this
0:20:02 contradictory position to even have a
0:20:04 chance in this debate
0:20:06 is the god of the philosophers and mock
0:20:08 tesla the same god of ismaili theology
0:20:11 it is clear that they aren't but khalil
0:20:13 tries to make it seem like their notion
0:20:15 of divine simplicity is the same even
0:20:17 though it clearly isn't nasrol khusral
0:20:20 states and i quote deposit one essence
0:20:23 with six different attributes is not
0:20:25 true taheed
0:20:26 quite the opposite it is deposit of
0:20:28 multiplicity nor can it be true tauhid
0:20:31 to ascribe creature equality's god on
0:20:33 the contrary that is anthropomorphism
0:20:36 this group never sees anything better
0:20:38 than themselves and indeed fancy
0:20:41 themselves to be god that is extreme
0:20:43 error close quote
0:20:45 khalil himself in a published academic
0:20:47 article commenting on his passion states
0:20:49 and i quote nasser concludes his
0:20:51 critique of the montezolites by accusing
0:20:54 them of the very anthropomorphism that
0:20:57 they sought to avoid
0:20:58 khalil himself admits that hospital
0:21:01 views the the position of those who
0:21:03 believe god has multiple attributes
0:21:06 identical to his essence as shirk which
0:21:08 includes the tesla and his so-called
0:21:10 philosopher friends
0:21:12 in fact nasra dean attusi says the
0:21:14 philosophers are fuel for hell and his
0:21:16 work contemplation in action he states
0:21:18 and i quote firstly as the philosophers
0:21:21 have explained absolute certainty cannot
0:21:23 be achieved by reasoning from effective
0:21:25 cause but since the highest of not state
0:21:28 of knowledge for the speculative
0:21:29 rationalists is to know cause from
0:21:31 effect no rationalist can come to know
0:21:34 god surely you and that which you
0:21:36 worship apart from god are fuel for hell
0:21:39 you shall go down to it such as the
0:21:41 ultimate stage the rationalist reaches
0:21:43 in his quest for perfection close quote
0:21:46 so has khalil left the ismaili faith and
0:21:49 is now following the methodology and
0:21:51 theology of the philosophers or is he
0:21:53 going to condemn the philosophers and
0:21:54 say that they are anthropomorphists that
0:21:56 cannot know god and are fueled for hell
0:21:58 these are questions that need answers to
0:22:02 khalil's view and my second argument is
0:22:05 that khalil's god is not the god of the
0:22:07 quran
0:22:08 khalil does not believe that allah is
0:22:10 the direct creator of the heavens and
0:22:12 the earth he does not believe that allah
0:22:14 is all-knowing all-powerful and perfect
0:22:16 in fact his books state that to ascribe
0:22:18 such names and attributes to god as
0:22:20 shirk and anthropomorphism nasrol dina
0:22:23 tusi describes the smiley god as and i
0:22:25 quote he cannot be attributed with cause
0:22:28 or effect existence or non-existence
0:22:30 temporality or eternity necessity or
0:22:32 contingency nor any of the other kinds
0:22:35 of opposition he is beyond any attribute
0:22:37 by which something could be qualified
0:22:39 whether it be non-existent or existent
0:22:41 negative or positive relative or
0:22:44 absolute verbal or in meaning he is
0:22:46 beyond all this and also beyond the
0:22:48 beyond and so forth close quote
0:22:51 nasrall claims it is polytheism to
0:22:54 ascribe knowledge and power to allah
0:22:56 when he states and i quote it is wrong
0:22:58 to ascribe the opposites of such
0:23:00 attributes such as knowledge and power
0:23:02 to him glory be to him he is exalted on
0:23:05 the grounds that these two are
0:23:06 creatually
0:23:07 qualities the so-called theologians of
0:23:09 this community have plunged into
0:23:11 grievous error in their inquiry in
0:23:13 ascribing their own fine qualities to
0:23:15 god and in declaring him devoid of their
0:23:17 bad qualities and for this very reason
0:23:20 they have fallen into polytheism close
0:23:22 quote so anyone in the audience if
0:23:24 you're listening who thinks that allah
0:23:26 subhanahu wa'ta'ala or god is
0:23:28 all-knowing and all-powerful is a
0:23:30 polytheist according to khalil and
0:23:32 ismaili theology cleo would like us to
0:23:35 believe that when allah tells us in the
0:23:37 quran that he is all-knowing
0:23:38 all-powerful and the creator of all
0:23:40 things us muslims have just simply
0:23:42 always misunderstood these verses
0:23:45 my third and final argument is that
0:23:46 khalil's concept of god contradicts
0:23:49 reason his god cannot be known and
0:23:51 therefore cannot be worshipped remember
0:23:53 that the ismailis cannot prove their god
0:23:55 exists
0:23:56 this is because they believe god does
0:23:58 not exist and is beyond reason paul
0:24:01 walker in his book on the ismaili hudja
0:24:03 al-karmani describes the problem as such
0:24:06 and i quote
0:24:07 languages cannot signify god as he
0:24:09 really is since the signifier must have
0:24:12 a referent that exists and can be known
0:24:14 god however is unknown one cannot
0:24:17 signify with language or with
0:24:19 abstractions in the mind something that
0:24:21 is unknown therefore one simply cannot
0:24:24 speak about god close quote so listen
0:24:27 closely every single time that khalil
0:24:30 opens his mouth to speak about god in
0:24:32 this debate i will remind him of the
0:24:34 fact that nothing he does actually
0:24:37 refers to god at all
0:24:38 this debate is already over folks khalil
0:24:41 should simply leave his mic on mute as
0:24:43 he cannot even speak about god
0:24:45 whatsoever
0:24:46 paul walker again states and i quote
0:24:49 those who have proposed such an absolute
0:24:51 view of god as for example to say with
0:24:54 the neo-platonists that he is beyond
0:24:56 both knowledge and being have been
0:24:58 regarded almost necessarily as mystics
0:25:00 at least in theology indeed it has been
0:25:02 hard to discover a rational and
0:25:04 non-mystical yet religiously satisfying
0:25:07 explanation for such a paradox as human
0:25:09 worship of an unknown god it should be
0:25:12 clear that asagistani offers no new
0:25:14 method for knowing the unknowable god he
0:25:17 never really concerned himself with a
0:25:18 demonstration of how he knows the
0:25:20 unknown god to exist this problem which
0:25:23 really has no logical solution of course
0:25:26 was for him secondary close quote so
0:25:29 khalil's god does not exist cannot be
0:25:32 known and cannot be worshipped on this
0:25:34 basis alone his position doesn't even
0:25:36 get off the ground and really shouldn't
0:25:39 even be considered so
0:25:41 khulil needs to explain to us whether or
0:25:43 not he is still in ismaili or has he
0:25:46 apostasized in favor of the creed of the
0:25:48 philosophers
0:25:49 secondly
0:25:50 he needs to explain to us
0:25:52 why we should reject the plain reading
0:25:55 of the quran
0:25:56 and the fact that allah subhanahu wa
0:25:58 ta'ala is the creator all-knowing and
0:26:00 all-powerful lastly khalil must explain
0:26:04 to us how we can know and worship an
0:26:06 unintelligible god beyond existence and
0:26:09 intellect khalil believes that allah is
0:26:12 not the creator of the world he is not
0:26:15 all-powerful he is not all-knowing he is
0:26:18 not perfect he is not all wise and that
0:26:21 he only has the ability to perform one
0:26:24 action imagine that allah
0:26:27 only has the ability to perform one
0:26:29 action he couldn't do anything else even
0:26:32 if he wanted to
0:26:34 instead he attributes all of the
0:26:36 beautiful names and attributes to two
0:26:39 other eternal beings known as the
0:26:41 universal intellect and the universal
0:26:44 soul and get this they aren't even
0:26:47 mentioned in the quran
0:26:49 simply and straightforwardly this is not
0:26:52 islam
0:27:05 thank you very much and i look forward
0:27:06 to hearing from khalil
0:27:11 okay thank you jake for that opening um
0:27:16 so right now
0:27:17 are you ready
0:27:18 um uh jake can you uh
0:27:21 you're you're muted
0:27:25 here
0:27:26 i'm just trying i'm just sharing can you
0:27:28 put my screen on this on the screen and
0:27:30 then i'll i'll run yeah
0:27:32 jake are you able to
0:27:34 switch yourself and dr khalil uh the the
0:27:37 on the screen yeah okay perfect all
0:27:39 right great
0:27:41 okay so uh whenever you're
0:27:43 one second
0:27:45 um yeah okay so whenever you're ready
0:27:47 khalil you can just uh give me the show
0:27:51 okay
0:27:53 another mind if you could go to mute as
0:27:55 well please yeah
0:28:06 thank you to jake and our host for
0:28:08 inviting me to be honest i'm not a
0:28:10 debater i'm an academic intellectual
0:28:12 historian
0:28:13 but for this occasion i've made an
0:28:15 exception because my opponent has a
0:28:16 habit of misconstruing and take fearing
0:28:19 any muslim who holds to certain beliefs
0:28:21 including many sunnis twelvers ismaili
0:28:24 sufis and philosopher now he's text
0:28:26 feared me out of my own community which
0:28:29 is an interesting move to make so uh
0:28:31 today i will defend the tawheed of
0:28:34 islamic philosophy including the tau
0:28:37 heat of the ismaili tradition and my
0:28:39 defense will include a critique of
0:28:41 jake's authority beliefs
0:28:43 without fearing the authorities out of
0:28:45 islam
0:28:47 now tauhid means that god is absolutely
0:28:49 one and absolutely unique god is the
0:28:52 independent necessary reality he is
0:28:55 unique eternal timeless and the creator
0:28:57 of everything that is other than him i
0:28:59 will show that islamic philosophy fully
0:29:01 upholds this view of tawhid while the
0:29:03 authority creed utterly fails at tawheed
0:29:05 now in islamic philosophy ismaili's
0:29:08 included we maintain that allah is
0:29:10 absolutely one simple without any parts
0:29:12 or multiple aspects within him
0:29:14 and that he is timeless and immaterial
0:29:17 and that god has no similarity to his
0:29:19 creation
0:29:20 and god is a creator of everything
0:29:23 through a created hierarchy of
0:29:25 intermediaries beginning with the first
0:29:27 creation of allah known as the first
0:29:29 intellect the pan or the nour of
0:29:31 muhammad and then through the second
0:29:32 creation of allah known as the universal
0:29:34 soul the second intellect or the guarded
0:29:36 tablet and through the mediation of the
0:29:38 first creation and the second creation
0:29:40 allah creates and sustains our universe
0:29:43 thus islamic philosophy maintains that
0:29:45 allah is absolutely one absolutely
0:29:47 unique and absolutely dissimilar to his
0:29:49 creation on the other hand my other
0:29:51 opponent jake does not affirm pierre
0:29:53 tauheed he believes that allah contains
0:29:56 multiple distinct entities of attributes
0:29:58 that are not identical to himself so in
0:30:00 the other review allah is composed of
0:30:03 numerous uncreated finite entities like
0:30:05 you see on this circle pie chart diagram
0:30:08 furthermore the other is believed that
0:30:10 allah has attributes that do resemble
0:30:12 his creation in some respect he exists
0:30:14 within time he has two hands two feet
0:30:17 fingers he's above a throne he comes
0:30:19 down every night he even appears in
0:30:21 human form so you see ladies and
0:30:22 gentlemen the authority creed will fail
0:30:24 to register as tawhid
0:30:28 now islamic philosophy is a broad
0:30:30 tradition known inside islam as hikmah
0:30:33 known in the west as islamic
0:30:34 neoplatonism and in the world view of
0:30:37 islamic philosophy allah who is
0:30:39 absolutely simple and eternal creates
0:30:41 and sustains everything through the
0:30:43 first intellect the first creation now
0:30:45 this particular world view is widespread
0:30:48 in the history of islam across sunni and
0:30:50 shia traditions despite all their other
0:30:52 differences you have a big tent of
0:30:55 muslims who believe in this neoplatonic
0:30:57 world view these include sunnis in the
0:31:00 ibencina tradition persian sufis like
0:31:02 gazali and rumi the iban arabi tradition
0:31:05 south asian sunnis there are even some
0:31:07 hanbali sunnis that believe in this
0:31:08 neoplatonic worldview so this is not an
0:31:10 exclusively ismaili thing despite what
0:31:12 my opponent says the greatest islamic
0:31:15 metaphysicians held to a neoplatonic
0:31:18 worldview or hikmah worldview of reality
0:31:20 meanwhile the other recruit that jake is
0:31:23 defending is actually the most
0:31:24 anti-rational and the most
0:31:26 anti-metaphysical creed in the very
0:31:28 history of islam
0:31:30 now my opponent has said for example
0:31:32 that if you hold to this neoplatonism
0:31:34 that i've described that you're not a
0:31:36 sunni he said that now this is patently
0:31:38 false it doesn't even pass the test of
0:31:40 history let me give you guys one example
0:31:42 of how widespread islamic neoplatonism
0:31:44 is we have a text called hidayat
0:31:46 by al-abhari this text teaches that
0:31:49 allah is absolutely simple he has no
0:31:52 parts or real attributes and that allah
0:31:55 is the creator of the eternal first
0:31:57 intellect and 10 other intellects now
0:31:59 this text hidayat hikmah was taught
0:32:01 across the islamic madrasa system in the
0:32:04 ottoman safavid qajar mogul empires for
0:32:07 the past 700 years and 200 muslim
0:32:09 scholars sunni and shia wrote
0:32:11 commentaries on this text so when jake
0:32:14 has said that if you have these
0:32:15 neoplatonic beliefs you're a kafir and a
0:32:17 mushrik i want jake to tell us whether
0:32:19 he thinks that madras says for 700 years
0:32:21 we're teaching kuffar to muslims and
0:32:23 whether 200 muslim scholars have been
0:32:25 writing commentaries on kofir and shirk
0:32:27 for the past 700 years
0:32:29 now in this opening statement i will
0:32:31 offer 10 arguments to show that the
0:32:34 tawheed of islamic philosophy is
0:32:36 included is established by reason and
0:32:38 revelation while the other recreed is
0:32:40 surely not my first five arguments will
0:32:43 target the logical incoherence and
0:32:44 anthropomorphism of the athirihanvali
0:32:47 creed and my next five arguments will
0:32:49 show the truth of the position of
0:32:50 islamic philosophy which entails the
0:32:52 falsity of the authority now what are
0:32:54 our criteria for true tau heat firstly
0:32:57 the correct tau heed must be proven
0:32:59 rationally and it must be logically
0:33:01 coherent and metaphysically coherent so
0:33:04 it has to be demonstrated it cannot be
0:33:06 asserted second the true tauhid must be
0:33:09 consistent with the correct
0:33:10 understanding of the holy quran and
0:33:12 sunnah the correct understanding which
0:33:14 is not the same as a personal
0:33:16 understanding from jake or the salaf or
0:33:18 whoever it is because the prophet sunni
0:33:21 and shia sources said that the book of
0:33:23 god the correct understanding of the
0:33:25 quran is only with his family the akhobe
0:33:27 argument one the hanbali authori creed
0:33:31 forbids philosophical and logical
0:33:33 arguments it's completely forbidden we
0:33:36 have a contemporary hanbali authority
0:33:38 sheikh yusuf bin savik who has said that
0:33:41 logical proofs is prohibited and kalam
0:33:44 is prohibited in the hanbali madhhab
0:33:46 which the other recreate comes from
0:33:51 that ahmadinej is rejected and forbidden
0:33:53 that means you cannot use reason to
0:33:55 prove the existence of god and you
0:33:56 cannot use reason to attack anybody else
0:33:59 so jake by just coming to a debate has
0:34:01 violated the authority creed and if he
0:34:04 really follows the author recreate he
0:34:06 should withdraw from the debate right
0:34:07 now so if you are a true blue uthery you
0:34:10 should refrain from any sort of
0:34:12 arguments that you're bringing in the
0:34:14 debate uh because by making any argument
0:34:16 against anyone else's position the
0:34:18 othery has refuted themselves and you
0:34:21 should just back out of the debate and
0:34:22 withdraw immediately
0:34:24 argument two
0:34:25 ahmed bin hanbal the imam of the hanbali
0:34:28 authority creed is a known
0:34:30 anthropomorphist we know this because we
0:34:32 have the creeds of ahmed from hanbali
0:34:34 sources in this creed he says that allah
0:34:37 has two feet that allah laughs he has
0:34:40 fingers he comes down from the heaven he
0:34:42 puts his foot in the fire all of these
0:34:45 statements from ahmed including that god
0:34:47 has a loin come from sunni hadith that
0:34:50 the authorities have to take in the
0:34:52 apparent meaning and ahmed himself says
0:34:54 we take all the hadith according to the
0:34:56 apparent meaning well guess what the
0:34:58 apparent meaning of all of these hadith
0:35:00 and creedal statements results in a
0:35:02 zeus-like god which quite frankly is
0:35:05 deeply disturbing i don't know how
0:35:06 anybody thinks this passes for tawheed
0:35:08 and this is not just my opinion the
0:35:10 academic dr wesley williams has said
0:35:12 that ahmed ibn humble wasn't
0:35:14 anthropomorphous and he believed that
0:35:16 the divine does have human-like features
0:35:19 that i've put on the slide now let me
0:35:21 give you an example of how crass this
0:35:23 anthropomorphism is you have a hadith
0:35:25 that the hanbilis were famous for
0:35:27 narrating and believing in hadith is
0:35:29 part of the athari creed so this hadith
0:35:31 the prophet allegedly says that he saw
0:35:34 allah in the form of a young man with
0:35:37 curly hair this is what the hadith says
0:35:39 and the hanbali's believe in this hadith
0:35:42 and the others have to affirm this
0:35:44 hadith here are the receipts
0:35:47 according to multiple witnesses
0:35:49 validated this hadith as true the humbly
0:35:52 authorities like qadhi abu yala
0:35:54 darakutni said the hadith is true even
0:35:57 tamiya said this hadith so jake if you
0:35:59 follow the other recreate fine i want
0:36:01 you to admit that you believe that allah
0:36:04 has the form of a young man who is
0:36:06 beardless and who has curly hair just
0:36:08 admit it if you're really an uttery
0:36:10 otherwise you should denounce the athari
0:36:12 creed immediately
0:36:13 now just to be clear this belief that
0:36:16 allah is a young man with with without a
0:36:19 beard this comes from christianity it
0:36:21 does not come from the quran and sunnah
0:36:23 and this is what the research has shown
0:36:24 so the other review of tawheed and some
0:36:26 of these hadith that it's based on is
0:36:28 not from the quran and sunnah it's from
0:36:30 other religions
0:36:32 argument three now my opponent already
0:36:35 has to affirm the apparent meaning of
0:36:38 everything all the bullet points that i
0:36:39 see that you see here because this is
0:36:40 what the sunni hadith say okay if he
0:36:43 does not want to affirm the apparent
0:36:44 meaning he can be like the rest of athol
0:36:47 sunnah and do tawil that is affirm a
0:36:49 metaphorical meaning the non-zahiri
0:36:51 meaning
0:36:52 the problem with this is that the other
0:36:55 books are very clear ibn kudama says
0:36:57 multiple times we do not interpret
0:36:59 anything with a tau wheel that opposes
0:37:01 the apparent meaning so metaphorical
0:37:03 interpretation of god's eyes god's face
0:37:06 god's beardless human form god's foot
0:37:09 that is not an option for the othery so
0:37:12 jake must either affirm the apparent
0:37:13 meaning of all these things in which
0:37:15 cases tawheed fails or what jake is
0:37:18 going to do i'm predicting is he's going
0:37:19 to do something called tough wheat he's
0:37:21 going to reject the apparent meaning and
0:37:23 he's going to reject the ta wheel and
0:37:25 this is known as tafuid al-mahna the
0:37:27 problem with tafwid al-mahna is that it
0:37:29 leads to a clear contradiction when you
0:37:31 do tafweed al-mahna you deny the
0:37:34 apparent meaning and then you deny the
0:37:35 opposite of the apparent meaning and
0:37:37 this is a clear logical contradiction
0:37:39 and it means that the tough weed
0:37:41 position of the authorities is
0:37:42 completely incoherent now if jake finds
0:37:44 a way to get past the logical problem of
0:37:46 the other e which is what this is called
0:37:48 then he has another problem
0:37:50 so if you say that you do tough weed and
0:37:53 you don't know the meaning of god coming
0:37:55 down at night you don't know the meaning
0:37:56 of his two hands what you're basically
0:37:58 saying is that there is no meaning to
0:38:00 these statements in the quran and the
0:38:02 sunnah that are accessible to humans and
0:38:04 that turns parts of the quran and sunnah
0:38:06 into gibberish something that has no
0:38:08 truth value okay now the problem with
0:38:10 this is according to arabic grammarians
0:38:13 a statement only counts as kalam or
0:38:16 speech if it is mufid if it is
0:38:18 meaningful something that is not
0:38:20 meaningful to people that is not kalam
0:38:22 so when the authority does tafweed
0:38:24 al-mahna what they are doing is they are
0:38:27 saying that the quran and the hadith are
0:38:29 not kalam which is a form of disbelief
0:38:32 in the quran as the kalam allah if
0:38:34 something is not kalama cannot be kalam
0:38:36 allah and this is why other hanbali
0:38:38 scholars like khatma hajj have come out
0:38:40 against this tough wheat al mahna which
0:38:42 my opponent is probably going to do
0:38:44 because it would mean that the prophet
0:38:46 said all these things and the prophet
0:38:47 himself doesn't even know what god's two
0:38:49 hands are and the prophet doesn't know
0:38:51 what god coming down at night means
0:38:53 next argument if the authority comes and
0:38:56 says either tough weed al-mahna which i
0:38:59 which is we don't know what it means or
0:39:00 if the authority says we affirm it but
0:39:03 we don't know how which is bila caif and
0:39:05 only god knows how well this is an
0:39:07 appeal to mystery okay the uttary creed
0:39:09 is an appeal to mystery now this is fine
0:39:12 if you want to appeal to mystery but
0:39:14 then jake if you are a true blue uttery
0:39:17 and you do tough with al mahna or tafwid
0:39:19 al-qaif fine you should stop debating
0:39:21 with christians because the christian
0:39:23 trinitarians they do this tough weed al
0:39:26 mahna and tough weed
0:39:27 professor wilmer says regarding the
0:39:29 trinity we don't know why there could be
0:39:32 or how there could be three persons in
0:39:34 one god and stephen david says the
0:39:36 trinity is a mystery to us but it's not
0:39:37 a mystery to god this is just a
0:39:39 christian form of tough weed so if the
0:39:41 other is gonna do tough weed fine but
0:39:43 then you need to cancel your debating
0:39:44 career against the christians because
0:39:46 they can do exactly the same thing
0:39:48 now my opponent has made mention about
0:39:50 the quran and what the quran says well
0:39:51 let's see what the quran actually says
0:39:53 okay let's begin with surat al-iklas
0:39:59 what does this mean well what does ahad
0:40:01 mean according to the widely held view
0:40:04 in sunni tafsir as reported by professor
0:40:06 lombard the meaning of ahad and the
0:40:09 meaning of ahadiyyah is a absolute
0:40:11 oneness that is unique and cannot be
0:40:13 divided that means allah is absolutely
0:40:16 simple which is what the islamic
0:40:17 philosophers believe the atharis do not
0:40:20 believe that allah is absolutely simple
0:40:21 they believe that allah has real
0:40:23 distinct attributes that are different
0:40:24 from one another and different from
0:40:26 allah's essence and although jake didn't
0:40:27 say it in his slides he said it on his
0:40:30 youtube videos multiple times so the god
0:40:32 that the atheris believe in is not ahad
0:40:34 because ahad means absolute simplicity
0:40:37 it's the same thing with samad what does
0:40:39 samad mean well according to the sunni
0:40:41 tafsir tradition from tabari and others
0:40:44 samad refers to that reality which is
0:40:47 one solid unchangeable and monolithic a
0:40:50 monolithic reality is an absolutely
0:40:52 simple reality but the others don't
0:40:54 believe that the islamic philosophers
0:40:56 believe is that god is absolutely simple
0:40:58 but the others have this weird thing
0:41:00 they say allah's essence is uncreated
0:41:02 but it's not it's not the same as
0:41:04 allah's uncreated foot which is not the
0:41:06 same as allah's uncreated power so the
0:41:08 other god doesn't even meet the
0:41:10 definition of ahad or
0:41:13 furthermore the quran actually clearly
0:41:16 teaches that god is absolutely simple
0:41:18 and that god has no multiplicity within
0:41:20 himself how do we know this well the
0:41:22 quran says that god is the creator of
0:41:24 everything every shay the quran says
0:41:27 that every shay has been created as a
0:41:30 pair so every creative thing contains
0:41:32 zauzya or duality the quran says god is
0:41:36 nothing like his creation lesaka
0:41:39 un so god is absolutely dissimilar to
0:41:42 everything in creation and if everything
0:41:44 in creation has duality it means god
0:41:45 cannot have any duality but when the
0:41:47 authority comes and says that god has
0:41:50 real entities of sifat that are distinct
0:41:53 from his essence the authority has
0:41:54 created duality within god because asifa
0:41:57 and mousuf are not identical they're
0:41:59 co-dependent on one another and this is
0:42:01 the same teaching that imam ali the
0:42:03 first imam and the fourth caliph of
0:42:05 sunnis teaches he says you have to deny
0:42:08 god attributes that is real distinct
0:42:10 attributes
0:42:11 now the quran actually nowhere teaches
0:42:14 the uttary doctrine that god has real
0:42:16 distinct attributes that are additional
0:42:18 or distinct from his essence what the
0:42:20 quran does talk about is the names of
0:42:22 allah the descriptions and the relations
0:42:25 but names descriptions and relations are
0:42:27 not the same as ontological attributes
0:42:30 there is an uthery ta wheel going on
0:42:32 here that they're not admitting to so
0:42:34 where does the doctrine of real distinct
0:42:36 attributes comes from which again jake
0:42:38 holds to this doctrine it actually comes
0:42:40 from the christian doctrine of the
0:42:41 trinity this is the finding of harvard
0:42:43 professor henry austin wilson and in
0:42:45 fact we can go into detail on this we
0:42:47 can show you according to many many
0:42:49 sources we know that the christian arabs
0:42:51 defined the son of god and the holy
0:42:53 spirit as two eternal divine attributes
0:42:56 such as life and knowledge or knowledge
0:42:58 and power and the early
0:43:00 proto-authorities like ibn kulab learned
0:43:02 this doctrine from the christians and
0:43:04 they transformed the christian son of
0:43:06 god and holy spirit into allah's
0:43:08 uncreated attribute of x and y so the
0:43:11 other reposition on attributes doesn't
0:43:13 come from the quran and sunnah it comes
0:43:15 from the christian trinity now even if
0:43:17 we apply reason to the authority
0:43:19 doctrine of attributes of real distinct
0:43:21 attributes this entire doctrine is going
0:43:23 to collapse firstly the authorities say
0:43:25 the attributes are not identical to god
0:43:27 and they're not other than god this
0:43:28 violates logic it violates the law of
0:43:30 the excluded middle but even if you get
0:43:32 past that logical problem the question
0:43:34 we ask is this if god's essence and his
0:43:36 attributes are all mutually distinct
0:43:38 which is what jake believes and what the
0:43:39 authorities believe we ask is the
0:43:41 essence and each attribute necessary in
0:43:44 itself or dependent in itself now here
0:43:47 are the options if you answer that the
0:43:49 essence is dependent and the attributes
0:43:51 are independent you believe in multiple
0:43:53 necessary beings polytheism if you say
0:43:55 the attributes depend on the essence the
0:43:58 attributes are dependent the essence is
0:43:59 independent well that is divine
0:44:01 simplicity there's only one necessary
0:44:03 independent reality which is god so
0:44:05 that's our position if you say the
0:44:07 essence and attributes are all
0:44:08 independent necessary beings that's more
0:44:10 polytheism and if you say they're all
0:44:12 dependent contingent things that's
0:44:14 atheism so the othery position on
0:44:16 taoheed is going to collapse into one of
0:44:18 these four and therefore this view of
0:44:20 taoheed you know cannot stand the this
0:44:22 test of reason
0:44:23 furthermore when the authorities say
0:44:26 that god's attributes are distinct from
0:44:28 one another and god's essence what they
0:44:30 are saying is that each divine attribute
0:44:32 in being different from others is finite
0:44:34 okay something is finite if it is
0:44:36 limited and it excludes things that are
0:44:38 different from itself
0:44:39 so to say that god is infinite but he's
0:44:43 comprised of multiple finite attributes
0:44:45 is a logical contradiction you cannot
0:44:47 have divine infinity composed of finite
0:44:49 attributes furthermore the authories
0:44:51 affirm that god has two yachts whatever
0:44:54 yad means he has two yachts well guess
0:44:56 what two is a quantitative arbitrary
0:45:00 limit why does he have two odds why
0:45:01 can't we have seven yards or a thousand
0:45:03 yachts so when the authorities affirm in
0:45:05 their creed that god has two hands or
0:45:07 two yards they're giving an arbitrary
0:45:09 limit to god and according to the
0:45:10 thought adventure podcast that i've
0:45:12 watched anything with arbitrary limits
0:45:14 is contingent not necessary so the
0:45:16 authority concept of how he deposits a
0:45:18 contingent god now what is our position
0:45:20 on attributes here's the thing if
0:45:23 attributes refer to distinct finite
0:45:26 realities which is what the others
0:45:28 believe then yes of course god is beyond
0:45:31 attributes because god is one and
0:45:32 infinite so these finite distinct
0:45:35 attributes like knowledge power life and
0:45:37 justice these belong in creation okay
0:45:40 when the quran refers to god as
0:45:42 all-knowing or all-living or
0:45:44 all-powerful we can affirm that that he
0:45:46 is but the meaning of that is that god
0:45:49 is the creator of life knowledge and
0:45:51 power not that god is the bearer of life
0:45:54 knowledge and power and there's a
0:45:55 consensus between the philosophers the
0:45:57 sufis and the ismailis on this point
0:46:00 there's actually consensus on this
0:46:02 now
0:46:02 uh we talked a little bit about creation
0:46:04 so in our view
0:46:06 god is the creator of everything he is
0:46:08 not limited by anything but everything
0:46:11 god does in accordance with his own
0:46:13 essence or his own nature so because god
0:46:16 is absolutely simple he creates one
0:46:18 direct creation all the other creations
0:46:21 are from him but indirectly and that one
0:46:24 direct creation is called the first
0:46:25 intellect and the reason why is because
0:46:27 if god has multiple aspects then he
0:46:29 would create multiple things because god
0:46:31 is simple he creates one thing directly
0:46:34 and this first creation must be eternal
0:46:36 because god is eternal god is not in
0:46:38 time i know jake believes god is in time
0:46:40 but god is actually not in time so god
0:46:42 is always eternally creating the first
0:46:44 intellect in the first intellect depends
0:46:46 upon god so it is if it is a creation
0:46:48 and it's an eternal creation and in the
0:46:51 islamic tradition and in the quran and
0:46:52 the sunnah the first intellect is
0:46:54 affirmed the first intellect is called
0:46:56 the will by which god creates all things
0:46:58 in shia hadid the first intellect is
0:47:00 called the umar the kun fayakun
0:47:03 mentioned in the quran in the hadith
0:47:05 literature the first intellect is called
0:47:07 the pen says the first thing god created
0:47:09 was the pen
0:47:10 and then he told the pen to write
0:47:12 everything in creation that's literally
0:47:14 an intermediary before anything is
0:47:17 created in its physical reality it is
0:47:19 written by the pen so god does create
0:47:22 everything through the pen or the first
0:47:25 intellect
0:47:26 and and these hadiths are in the sunni
0:47:27 and the shia corpus okay
0:47:30 so this is very clear then
0:47:32 i have launched today ten arguments
0:47:35 against the athari creed and each of
0:47:38 these arguments that i've given is fatal
0:47:40 to the authority crete so if jake wants
0:47:42 to stand a chance in this debate i
0:47:44 expect him to number one refute all ten
0:47:47 of my arguments and number two you have
0:47:49 to give some rational demonstration for
0:47:51 the authority creed which we haven't
0:47:52 seen as for the the the things that jake
0:47:54 said i will be rebutting all of his
0:47:57 misstatements in my first rebuttal thank
0:48:00 you
0:48:08 right on the buzzer
0:48:10 abdulrahman are you there
0:48:19 jake are you there i i apologize i
0:48:21 apologize um
0:48:24 are you are you ready for your first
0:48:27 rebuttal
0:48:28 um just one second
0:48:34 okay
0:48:36 okay so this section guys is going to be
0:48:38 a 10 minute rebuttals where jake is
0:48:40 going to start and then allele is going
0:48:42 to have 10 minutes
0:48:44 of his own so um
0:48:53 yeah i'm ready just okay
0:48:56 uh okay
0:48:59 okay one second let me just get my timer
0:49:03 okay
0:49:05 all right so that was a very interesting
0:49:07 presentation from khalil uh he claims
0:49:10 that he provided 10 arguments so let's
0:49:13 see what i could do in this this 10
0:49:14 minutes to answer as much as i possibly
0:49:16 can even though his you know apparent
0:49:19 machine gun tactics show that he's is
0:49:22 classically put at an amateur debater
0:49:25 now
0:49:26 he says that i have to tuck fear all
0:49:28 these other scholars because everyone
0:49:30 believes exact same thing that khalil
0:49:32 does no and he also i believe mentioned
0:49:37 let me let me read for you what he
0:49:38 actually said
0:49:40 he said we believe that allah constricts
0:49:43 expands rejoices loves dislikes becomes
0:49:46 pleased becomes angry and abhors he has
0:49:49 two hands and both of his hands are
0:49:50 right the hearts of his servants are
0:49:52 between two of his fingers and he is in
0:49:55 the direction of olu
0:49:57 and he is established on the throne and
0:50:00 is encompassing the prophet alaihis
0:50:03 salaam approved the belief of the girl
0:50:05 when he asked her where is allah and she
0:50:08 pointed to the heavens the attribute of
0:50:10 istiwa
0:50:11 must be acknowledged without
0:50:13 reinterpretation or tet wheel
0:50:15 it is the settling of his ipsaidy that
0:50:17 above the throne not in the form of
0:50:19 sitting and touching as the
0:50:20 corporealists and caramites have said
0:50:23 not in the form of high status and
0:50:25 greatness as the ashari's have said and
0:50:27 not in the form of seizing as the tesla
0:50:29 have said so i don't know where you're
0:50:31 getting this idea but he's clearly this
0:50:33 sounds like anthony creed to me not this
0:50:35 uh garbage that we've just heard for the
0:50:37 past 20 minutes and most of the time he
0:50:40 he couldn't what didn't even spend it uh
0:50:42 actually explaining his position in
0:50:44 detail but what we're going to see quite
0:50:45 clearly is
0:50:47 the fact of the matter is
0:50:49 everyone on this debate is going to be
0:50:51 on my cycle not yours why because you
0:50:54 are actually tech fearing everyone in
0:50:56 your own text saying that we are all
0:50:58 guilty of kufrin shirk if we apply the
0:51:01 title of all knowing and all powerful to
0:51:03 god you believe that it actually refers
0:51:06 to the intellect or in equivocal terms
0:51:08 that it must mean in the sense of god
0:51:10 creating knowledge and anyone else who
0:51:12 believes otherwise which you told me and
0:51:15 you just said in your opening statement
0:51:16 actually which i find very amusing that
0:51:18 there's consensus on this point amongst
0:51:20 the sufis and the ismailis and the
0:51:23 philosophers
0:51:24 wow i wonder why if that is the case
0:51:27 that asha stanley and you compared my
0:51:31 composition or or understanding of
0:51:33 tauhid
0:51:34 explanation of tawheed to um the trinity
0:51:37 but in fact that's what your very
0:51:40 scholars did about ibn cena let's see
0:51:43 from asia
0:51:44 himself who wrote a whole entire text
0:51:47 refuting ibn cena what did he say i say
0:51:50 you stipulated three considerations in
0:51:53 the essence of the necessary existence
0:51:55 and glossed over each consideration with
0:51:57 a proper meaning each of which is not to
0:52:00 be understood from the other
0:52:02 that is patent trinitarianism
0:52:05 and exalted be god above the third of
0:52:08 three this is not in slander but the
0:52:10 absurd implication of multiplicity in
0:52:12 his essence in respect of one
0:52:13 consideration and another so
0:52:16 ibn cena is being accused by asha
0:52:20 hastani who you affirm as an ismaili
0:52:22 scholar as saying that he is guilty of
0:52:25 affirming a trinity now it's interesting
0:52:29 that you would say that they have the
0:52:31 exact same position now is this only
0:52:33 jake's uh understanding of the text well
0:52:37 we see that not no it's not just jake's
0:52:40 understanding of the text
0:52:42 because we have an article from frank
0:52:45 griffel himself or i'm sorry frank
0:52:47 griffel from mad lung himself where he
0:52:49 says
0:52:50 it been seen as doctrine that god is in
0:52:52 essence under three aspects intelligence
0:52:55 intellecting and intelligible is equally
0:52:58 repudiated by asha hastani as implying a
0:53:01 trinity in god similar to the trinity
0:53:04 affirmed by the christians so what
0:53:06 khalil wants to do is he wants to make
0:53:09 it seem like my position is very
0:53:12 restricted and only held by a limited
0:53:15 few people
0:53:16 and that his view is very expansive and
0:53:19 held by virtually everyone except my
0:53:22 group it's exactly the opposite my
0:53:25 friend when it comes to sunnis
0:53:27 when it comes to the fact that we have
0:53:29 the athitis and the mataridis and the
0:53:32 ashari's they all agree unanimously on
0:53:36 the fact that your belief is kufr
0:53:39 why not only because of your divine
0:53:42 simplicity but because of your divine
0:53:44 agnosticism you can't even attribute
0:53:46 existence or being to god okay and you
0:53:50 try to provide and say you have rational
0:53:52 argumentations for the existence of god
0:53:54 you know this is very amusing to me cleo
0:53:57 that you think that you have rational
0:53:59 argumentation for god
0:54:01 well let's let's look further besides
0:54:04 the text that i gave
0:54:05 what about takli who's the one that does
0:54:07 talk lead in this situation is it me or
0:54:09 khalil well let's listen to nasram
0:54:12 himself
0:54:13 the masters of the truth and the true
0:54:15 monotheists are themselves gathered
0:54:17 among such believers by convention by
0:54:20 taklid
0:54:21 he who rejects talk lead
0:54:24 never arrives at the discernment of
0:54:26 deeper truth it is by the way of talk
0:54:29 lead that one arrives at god's oneness
0:54:31 and a grasp of the truth talk lead is
0:54:34 true not false and this is in reference
0:54:37 to a refutation of the mock tesla who
0:54:39 believed unlike khalil even though he
0:54:41 wants to present himself and his ismaili
0:54:44 creed as such as believers in rational
0:54:46 argumentation they don't believe in
0:54:47 rational argumentation in fact
0:54:50 khalil himself has an article published
0:54:52 by oxford in which he comments on this
0:54:55 very same passage and he says he hussral
0:54:57 also proudly declares that no one has
0:55:00 been able to uh to critique the
0:55:03 tesolites apart from his group the
0:55:05 people of spiritual inspiration nasser
0:55:07 begins his critique by first attacking
0:55:10 the mocktails of light claim that belief
0:55:12 in tawheed should not be based on talk
0:55:15 lead so he's critiquing the idea that
0:55:17 they say it shouldn't be based on talk
0:55:18 lead he doesn't does so by accusing the
0:55:21 mock tesolites of confusing genuine talk
0:55:24 lead which he believes of is of his imam
0:55:26 with familiarity and habit okay so you
0:55:30 believe in making tuck lead as your only
0:55:32 way to come and actually know god you
0:55:34 cannot know god through rational
0:55:36 argumentation
0:55:38 on the other hand my friend i can
0:55:40 actually show you that not only does
0:55:43 ebentania allow for rational
0:55:45 argumentation but the very same person
0:55:47 who you quoted which is dr
0:55:50 hatman hajj or shahada hajj in this very
0:55:53 text actually mentions this exact same
0:55:55 point
0:55:56 so in this text he says and i quote
0:55:59 ibn tamiya did not belittle did not
0:56:01 attempt to belittle the office of reason
0:56:03 or deny its importance in grounding our
0:56:06 faith in the revelation he argued that
0:56:08 reason is not one undifferentiated
0:56:10 category of of conclusive rational input
0:56:14 okay and he goes on further in this text
0:56:17 right so let me let me show you when he
0:56:19 goes on further he says iben tamiya then
0:56:22 came at a time when the intellectual
0:56:24 idiom of the scholarly community and
0:56:26 even of the public space has been
0:56:29 saturated with kalam so he and he
0:56:31 decided to engage with it thus the
0:56:33 notion of him being a muttaq
0:56:36 however he did not do that in the way
0:56:39 contemporaneous speculative theologians
0:56:41 did but rather to defend the ethere
0:56:44 creed which found their strongest
0:56:46 patronage amongst the hanbilis he even
0:56:48 explicitly permitted rational
0:56:51 theological argumentation at some level
0:56:53 and showed that it has first be employed
0:56:56 by the quran so very clearly most of
0:56:59 your arguments and critiques were straw
0:57:01 man now let's get to this issue of
0:57:02 anthropomorphism i want to remind
0:57:05 everyone okay you guys can listen to
0:57:08 what he says about accusations of
0:57:10 anthropomorphism do you know that khalil
0:57:12 himself as i have already stated
0:57:15 believes that anyone who believes that
0:57:19 god is knowing or has knowledge is an
0:57:22 anthropomorphist and guilty of shirk
0:57:25 this is what he believes so forget about
0:57:27 me that i believe that allah subhana
0:57:29 with allah has a yed and he has this and
0:57:31 he has that if you even believe that god
0:57:34 is perfect or a cause or any of these
0:57:36 categories whatsoever that can be
0:57:39 applied to god you are guilty of shirk
0:57:42 for example this is from nasram self in
0:57:45 the same text that i mentioned which
0:57:46 khalil has an article on and i quote if
0:57:49 these theologians speaking of the mock
0:57:51 tesla who believed in divine simplicity
0:57:53 listen to what he says about other
0:57:54 people who believe in divine simplicity
0:57:57 if these theologians the montezuma have
0:57:59 established that god is knowing
0:58:01 god too calls certain of his servants
0:58:03 knowing as in the verse only those of
0:58:05 god's servants who have some knowledge
0:58:07 fear him thus it is clear to call god
0:58:10 praise be to him
0:58:11 knowing is polytheism shirk and if these
0:58:14 theologians assert that god is powerful
0:58:17 god too calls his own servants powerful
0:58:19 as in this verse they went early
0:58:21 determined on their purpose this too is
0:58:24 polytheism and if these theologians say
0:58:26 that god is living god too calls his own
0:58:29 servants living as in the sense and he
0:58:31 goes on and on with this and he says
0:58:33 this is a heresy which this group has
0:58:35 invented in their ignorance they have
0:58:38 imposed these names on god no friend the
0:58:41 tesla even though we don't agree with
0:58:42 them they did not impose these names on
0:58:45 god so this is not a debate over divine
0:58:47 simplicity versus divine simplicity this
0:58:50 is against khalil ismailism against the
0:58:53 entire rest of the muslim community
0:58:55 where he says to even say that god is
0:58:57 perfect or all-knowing you are guilty of
0:58:59 shirk so we must reject this false
0:59:02 doctrine that he's bringing forward
0:59:03 thank you
0:59:08 okay thank you for that jake um
0:59:12 dr khalil are you there
0:59:15 yeah sorry give me one second and just
0:59:17 have to share the screen again
0:59:26 so we're gonna have 10 minutes right now
0:59:28 from uh dr khalil and then we're gonna
0:59:30 have uh
0:59:33 a second round of
0:59:34 five minute rebuttals and then we'll get
0:59:36 into the cross examination
0:59:38 uh reminder to everybody in the chat to
0:59:40 keep it respectful
0:59:42 our mods are trying to keep up with the
0:59:44 chat but um
0:59:46 i can't really get
0:59:48 everyone so please again keep it
0:59:50 respectful and try to listen to what's
0:59:52 being said in the debate instead of like
0:59:54 you know
0:59:55 pointlessly arguing with each other
0:59:57 um
0:59:58 dr clay whenever ready you can go
1:00:00 okay
1:00:05 okay uh thank you uh jake uh for the
1:00:08 opening and for the rebuttal um i just
1:00:10 want to make it clear the topic is
1:00:11 debating tauhid atari creed vs islamic
1:00:14 philosophy and even if you want to say
1:00:16 ismaili philosophy which is included
1:00:18 that's fine but the debate is not other
1:00:20 creed versus khalil and dhani's views
1:00:22 over the past 10 years so let's keep
1:00:24 this thing
1:00:25 on topic all right
1:00:27 now
1:00:28 i gave in my opening statement 10
1:00:31 arguments that completely invalidate the
1:00:34 uttary creed five of which positively
1:00:36 prove the tawheed that i believe in
1:00:39 whether you want to call it a smiley or
1:00:40 falsify really doesn't matter i have i
1:00:42 have given positive arguments for my
1:00:44 position and arguments against jake's
1:00:46 authory position and jake has only
1:00:48 attempted to answer the first argument
1:00:51 that i gave he hasn't really answered
1:00:52 anything else and he hasn't even given a
1:00:54 positive i want a positive case for why
1:00:56 we should believe in the other recreate
1:00:58 that is completely missing
1:01:00 now i could find four arguments that
1:01:03 jake gave against my position
1:01:05 and i'm going to try to go through them
1:01:06 okay first ismaili philosophy is
1:01:08 incompatible with falsafa all right
1:01:11 let's talk about this uh well
1:01:13 before that let me do a different order
1:01:14 let's go let's start with argument three
1:01:16 khalil's view contradicts reason in
1:01:18 other words you can't say anything about
1:01:19 god and that you can't use reason to
1:01:21 prove god j that's what jake said first
1:01:24 okay this is actually false uh you are
1:01:26 quoting wilfred madelung that article is
1:01:28 from 1977 that's like over uh that's
1:01:32 like 40 years old okay once we've
1:01:35 actually read ismaili primary sources
1:01:41 in the same book you quoted tusi gave an
1:01:44 argument for god so kirmani khusro tusi
1:01:47 and even shahrasthani in his refutation
1:01:49 of ibm cena they have all used a
1:01:52 contingency or dependency argument to
1:01:54 prove the reality of god so this is
1:01:56 completely fine in ismaili thought to
1:01:59 prove god
1:02:00 we do do that it's in our primary text
1:02:03 if madeleine wrote that we don't offer
1:02:04 an argument madeline is simply wrong and
1:02:06 that article is outdated and i say this
1:02:08 as an expert who reads the primary
1:02:10 sources and it follows from the fact
1:02:12 that dependent realities require an
1:02:15 absolutely independent originator in
1:02:18 order to exist this is how we know there
1:02:21 is god and once we know there is god we
1:02:24 further know that this independent
1:02:26 absolutely uh uncaused originator must
1:02:29 be simple eternal transcending all the
1:02:31 attributes of creation so when we do
1:02:33 negation we don't mean to say you can't
1:02:35 say anything about about god karmani
1:02:37 never actually says that uh what kermani
1:02:40 says is that you have to negate all the
1:02:43 attributes of creation from god that is
1:02:46 what you have to do this is not a
1:02:47 uniquely a smiley thing ibn cena
1:02:49 actually does the same thing okay ibn
1:02:51 cena says that every positive statement
1:02:53 about god
1:02:54 refers either to a negation or a
1:02:57 relation
1:02:58 and a relation simply means that
1:03:00 something in creation has been created
1:03:03 by god are you sharing slides khalil i'm
1:03:05 sorry to interrupt you because we're not
1:03:07 seeing slides apologies for the
1:03:08 interruption
1:03:09 yeah
1:03:10 are you guys not putting my slides up or
1:03:12 what
1:03:16 they haven't you guys haven't put my
1:03:17 slides up
1:03:19 um in your in your opening and you're
1:03:21 opening where you're sliding pause the
1:03:22 timer i'm going to pause the timer yeah
1:03:24 you haven't i
1:03:26 in your opening your slides are up so
1:03:28 are these like a different set of slides
1:03:30 no no is this in here yeah yeah yeah
1:03:33Music 1:03:34 so did you so you do you wanna do you
1:03:36 wanna i don't you wanna start over yeah
1:03:38 i would appreciate that because i
1:03:40 thought there was okay slide showing
1:03:41 okay okay so so um
1:03:44 uh dr javad if you don't mind you can
1:03:46 restart the timer because i don't really
1:03:48 have access to that right now
1:03:50 okay okay that sounds good go ahead i'll
1:03:52 restart the timer okay ready begin yeah
1:03:55 okay so as i said um this debate is
1:03:59 about tawheed it's about positions on
1:04:01 tawheed the uttary position versus
1:04:03 islamic philosophy even if jake wants to
1:04:06 substitute islamic philosophy for the
1:04:08 ismaili form of it fine but we are
1:04:10 debating positions we are not debating
1:04:13 whether i personally hold to x or y okay
1:04:16 if you see any modern debate uh
1:04:18 competitions many people have to defend
1:04:20 positions that they don't exactly hold
1:04:21 to so that's what the debate is about my
1:04:23 opponent's comments about what my
1:04:25 personal beliefs are really irrelevant
1:04:27 to this debate next thing i gave ten
1:04:30 arguments five are positive arguments
1:04:32 for my position and ten in total are
1:04:35 arguments against the authority position
1:04:37 jake has not given any arguments for the
1:04:39 authority position so there's no reason
1:04:41 to be an uthery so far
1:04:43 and furthermore jake has not dealt with
1:04:45 my ten arguments he's tried to deal with
1:04:47 argument one about logic but i'm going
1:04:49 to come back to him on that in my second
1:04:51 rebuttal the point is you can't just now
1:04:53 suddenly appeal to ibentamia okay you
1:04:56 when we exchange texts before this
1:04:58 debate
1:04:59 i asked jake who which others do you
1:05:01 follow he told me ibn kudama and ibn
1:05:04 hamdan who summarized in balbani i'll
1:05:06 show the facebook messages i asked jake
1:05:08 whether he takes from ibn tamiya for
1:05:10 this debate he said no okay now jake is
1:05:12 appealing to inventamia because i've
1:05:14 caught him flat-footed
1:05:16 now i found four arguments from jake so
1:05:19 i'm gonna go through them uh not in this
1:05:21 order so the first thing jake said is
1:05:23 that ismailis are not allowed to offer
1:05:25 an argument from for god and he relied
1:05:27 on a 1977 article from wilford madeleine
1:05:30 that article is wrong i have read the
1:05:32 primary sources myself kirmani proves
1:05:35 god's reality khusro proves god's
1:05:38 reality to see in the same book that
1:05:40 jake quoted 2c gives ibn cena's
1:05:43 contingency argument to prove the
1:05:44 reality of god so we smileys we are
1:05:47 allowed to do this okay and we do use a
1:05:49 contingency argument and we logically
1:05:51 follow that contingency argument with
1:05:54 the absolute negation of all creaturely
1:05:57 contingent attributes from god
1:05:59 okay that is what our double negation is
1:06:02 based on and according to john martin
1:06:05 who's a scholar of the neoplatonic
1:06:07 tradition this type of hyper negation
1:06:10 that you do for god it is logically
1:06:13 meaningful it is not confused and it is
1:06:15 not contradictory this is the academic
1:06:18 opinion about ismaili and neoplatonic
1:06:21 thought generally it is not logically
1:06:22 contradictory now another thing jake
1:06:25 said is that ismailism i'm sorry to uh
1:06:28 interrupt again abdul rahman i'm being
1:06:30 told that the stream is not working
1:06:31 properly
1:06:33 okay
1:06:35 and i've paused
1:06:36 sorry sorry what do you mean by stream
1:06:38 are you talking about the comments
1:06:40 no the stream itself is what i'm being
1:06:42 told
1:06:44 okay it's back now
1:06:46 i guess it's cutting back and forth
1:06:48 all right shall i continue
1:06:50 yeah i think you should continue i'm not
1:06:52 gonna start over i just paused my own
1:06:53 timer so so yeah i paused the time or
1:06:55 two okay so um
1:06:57 yeah so they're saying that the youtube
1:06:59 went down for for 90 seconds but okay
1:07:01 for 90 seconds yes that's what i'm being
1:07:04 told
1:07:05 um okay
1:07:06 then we're gonna need to confirm that
1:07:07 because if it's 90 seconds then that's a
1:07:08 significant part of the
1:07:10 i mean it's live for me i'm i'm looking
1:07:13 at but i'm looking at the stream yard so
1:07:16 um
1:07:16 can we can we confirm from the comments
1:07:18 or something that it went off for 90 90
1:07:20 seconds or because maybe if it's from
1:07:22 one person maybe it's the person's
1:07:24 connection okay one second i'm
1:07:27 looking into that so um
1:07:32 yeah i
1:07:32 i look fine for my end so i don't know
1:07:35 what the issue but on stream yard i mean
1:07:36 could it be like fine on stream yard and
1:07:38 then like out on youtube i have no idea
1:07:41 i mean it's on youtube that people are
1:07:43 saying that
1:07:45 yes yes yes uh i i received a few
1:07:48 messages as well
1:07:50 yeah so um if you don't mind uh dr
1:07:53 khalil sorry um if you could so that's
1:07:55 90 seconds about two minutes if
1:07:58 yeah but is it we have to confirm is it
1:07:59 working right now
1:08:01 right now it's working
1:08:04 um
1:08:05 sorry it's working
1:08:08 i think it is it wasn't 90 some
1:08:09 somebody's telling me it wasn't 90
1:08:10 seconds it was 20 or 30 seconds for them
1:08:12 so um
1:08:14 i i i
1:08:15 i don't know because uh i mean we've got
1:08:18 so we do we have the recording on on on
1:08:20 on stream yard as long as it's been good
1:08:22 for us because we've been hearing
1:08:23 everything i'll i'll just i can just
1:08:25 start again i don't know what else to do
1:08:26 like i don't i don't think you should
1:08:27 start all over okay i'm just gonna
1:08:29 continue i'm just gonna continue if
1:08:31 that's okay all right okay yeah okay
1:08:33 okay so as i said i made 10 arguments uh
1:08:35 we are we have not got to respond to
1:08:37 these 10 arguments yet from jake but i'm
1:08:39 gonna uh rebut every single thing he
1:08:41 said about me so the first rebuttal is
1:08:44 is smiley primary sources do prove god
1:08:47 they do if madelung said that they don't
1:08:50 then madelung is wrong and this is why
1:08:52 you should not be quoting 1977 articles
1:08:55 you should go to the primary sources in
1:08:56 persian and arabic read them yourself
1:08:58 and you will clearly find in karma's
1:09:02 you will clearly find it in zad
1:09:03 al-musafir you'll find it in the same
1:09:05 toothy text that you already quoted
1:09:08 somehow against me
1:09:10 okay you uh jake you also said that
1:09:12 falsafa and ismaili thought are just
1:09:15 incompatible they cannot be brought
1:09:17 together and that i have to apostate
1:09:20 from ismailism if i hold any position in
1:09:22 philosophy and you gave some examples
1:09:24 which i appreciate so firstly it is a
1:09:26 historical fact that nasser then tusi as
1:09:29 a committed nizari ismaili muslim
1:09:33 was also
1:09:34 a failsouf he also followed ibm cena and
1:09:37 toby meyer writes in an article that
1:09:40 tuthi was responsible for the expert
1:09:42 coordination of nizari and avasanan
1:09:44 thought
1:09:46 which was done under the imamit of the
1:09:48 imam allah then muhammad and alamut and
1:09:50 tusi says there's an underlying harmony
1:09:52 of the system so i've given an encounter
1:09:54 example so this argument doesn't stand
1:09:56 anymore overall that falsified smileyism
1:09:58 are incompatible because they were
1:10:00 compatible for nassar foreign
1:10:02 furthermore i have a quote on my slide
1:10:04 from ibn cena what ibn cena says here is
1:10:07 exactly what the ismaili say he first
1:10:09 says that god can only be described by
1:10:11 negating all similarities from him we
1:10:13 believe this god has nothing in common
1:10:15 with creation ismailis believe this then
1:10:18 evan cena says god's essence is not the
1:10:21 same as existence okay and that god's
1:10:24 essence
1:10:25 should be regarded as above existence
1:10:28 okay folk al-wujud so ibn cena's
1:10:31 position that god is above existence is
1:10:34 actually the same as the ismaili
1:10:36 position
1:10:37 now regarding the word necessary being
1:10:40 the term necessary being is an ambiguous
1:10:42 term okay we can talk about logical
1:10:44 necessity ontological necessity
1:10:46 aristotle has five definitions of
1:10:48 necessity so when nasser khosrow uses
1:10:51 the term necessary existent which he
1:10:54 does you have to read the whole passage
1:10:56 of what what he means by necessary
1:10:57 existence cusro uses necessary existence
1:11:00 to mean a being that is eternal and
1:11:03 imperishable okay when he says necessary
1:11:06 existence he doesn't say necessary
1:11:08 existence through itself the the terms
1:11:10 be that he are not present in nasir
1:11:12 khusral's text so he's using the term
1:11:14 necessary being the way thomas aquinas
1:11:16 uses the term because these terms have
1:11:18 different meanings within different
1:11:20 systems now you said that i believe that
1:11:22 creation is necessary and the ismailis
1:11:25 believe it is a free free will act of
1:11:28 god uh firstly this is not accurate uh
1:11:30 number one nasir than two see in his
1:11:33 ismaili text which i know you've read so
1:11:35 you clearly omitted this fact nasser
1:11:37 then two c says as an ismaili two
1:11:39 ismailis that creation became necessary
1:11:43 in that creation as the first intellect
1:11:45 so you can be in a smiley and you can
1:11:47 believe that creation is logically
1:11:50 necessary furthermore despite what
1:11:53 madelung and whoever says there is no
1:11:55 ismaili text that says god has
1:11:57 libertarian free will in the sense that
1:12:00 god could have done otherwise in fact
1:12:02 siddhisthani in a text that you haven't
1:12:04 read because you can't read arabic text
1:12:07 says very clearly
1:12:08 that the will of god is absolutely
1:12:10 undivided and furthermore sigistani says
1:12:13 that god's will does not choose among
1:12:17 opposing alternatives and if you relate
1:12:18 god's will to choosing among
1:12:20 alternatives you've lied against god
1:12:22 rather god's will is pure goodness with
1:12:24 the manifestation of wisdom it says he
1:12:26 does not decide among opposing
1:12:28 alternatives god will god's will is
1:12:31 united with what he wills so for
1:12:32 siddhisthani god's will only has one
1:12:35 position that's what he says in the last
1:12:36 line here a perfect well will with a
1:12:38 single position so the ismailies do not
1:12:40 believe in libertarian free will and
1:12:42 they do believe that although god wills
1:12:44 creation god could not have willed
1:12:47 otherwise so there is an agreement on
1:12:48 this point now you said that according
1:12:52 to the ismailis the statement the
1:12:54 essence and the attributes are identical
1:12:56 uh it's shirk or something firstly
1:12:58 khusral is talking about minor shark not
1:13:00 major shark and it's shark it's not
1:13:02 shirk
1:13:03 secondly
1:13:05 the philosophers say that the meaning of
1:13:07 the essence and the attributes being
1:13:09 identical it's not the same as what the
1:13:11 mothas allah mean the mutasa meant
1:13:12 something different but the philosophers
1:13:14 here i'm quoting a sunni philosopher
1:13:16 abhari and mabudi say that that the
1:13:19 meaning of this is that the necessary
1:13:21 existence alone
1:13:23 okay produces effects that other things
1:13:26 require an attribute to produce and he
1:13:28 says at the end here this is based on
1:13:30 the denial of the attributes along with
1:13:33 the affirmation of their effects so this
1:13:34 is exactly what the ismaili position is
1:13:37 now the only thing close to an argument
1:13:40 that jake gave for the other creed was
1:13:42 by saying oh the quran has many names
1:13:44 for god and therefore god must have
1:13:47 multiple attributes here's the problem
1:13:49 your method that every descriptionism
1:13:51 was
1:13:53 of god is a real distinct attribute
1:13:55 within god this does not follow from the
1:13:57 quran okay this is a hermeneutical
1:13:59 assumption that you have not justified
1:14:01 uh it not even mainstream sunnis follow
1:14:04 this this is like the jakey method of
1:14:06 reading the quran even like ashari's
1:14:08 maturities don't believe in this if you
1:14:10 do apply the jaikie method if every
1:14:12 description in the quran refers to a
1:14:14 real attribute in god i expect you to
1:14:16 tell us that you believe that blowing is
1:14:19 a attribute of god you should tell us
1:14:21 that spirit is an attribute of god anger
1:14:24 loin human form all of these should be
1:14:27 real distinct eternal attributes of god
1:14:29 and if you deny that blowing is an
1:14:31 attribute of god then your entire
1:14:33 line of argument frankly uh goes out the
1:14:35 window
1:14:36 now regarding attributes what when you
1:14:39 said oh you guys don't you can't say god
1:14:41 is all-knowing and so on well here's the
1:14:43 here's the problem okay and i already
1:14:45 talked about the first part of the slide
1:14:47 the quran has these predications allah
1:14:50 is called alim right
1:14:52 allahu al-amon that we can affirm but
1:14:55 allahu allah moon does not necessarily
1:14:58 mean allahu lahu ilmun that god has
1:15:01 antitate of knowledge so we don't affirm
1:15:03 the second part we interpret allahu
1:15:06 alamun or allahu khadirun and like
1:15:09 statements we interpret as follows a we
1:15:12 affirm that this is god's reality be god
1:15:15 is not ignorant if anything and c god is
1:15:17 the originator of all knowledge and
1:15:19 knowledge is his creation or effect this
1:15:21 is not a violation of logic there's a
1:15:23 type of literary speech in arabic known
1:15:26 as metonymic speech okay in metonymic
1:15:29 speech you can describe
1:15:32 the giver or the agent you can describe
1:15:35 an agent by means of something that the
1:15:38 agent creates and you can attribute what
1:15:40 the agent creates to himself okay it's
1:15:43 like when you have a king who orders an
1:15:46 army to conquer a city we would say the
1:15:47 king conquered the city but the king
1:15:49 didn't personally conquer the city the
1:15:51 army under his command did it this is
1:15:53 how we interpret the attributes uh
1:15:55 statements about god that the intellect
1:15:58 and the soul execute god's command but
1:16:00 what the intellect and the soul effect
1:16:02 can still be attributed to god verbally
1:16:04 because the intellect and the soul act
1:16:06 by god's command and the quran is full
1:16:08 of these examples the quran says god
1:16:10 takes souls at death but it's the angel
1:16:13 of death who takes souls that death the
1:16:15 quran says god is the guide but muhammad
1:16:17 is a guide the quran says god sent down
1:16:19 the quran but it's actually gabriel who
1:16:21 brought down the quran so this is called
1:16:22 matanemic speech and this is how we can
1:16:24 interpret everything in the quran which
1:16:26 from which does your belief does not
1:16:28 follow clearly it's time now okay is
1:16:30 that good you got your last comment okay
1:16:32 great
1:16:36 okay thank you for that and right now
1:16:39 we are going to um
1:16:42 we're going to go to i believe it is the
1:16:45 15-minute cross-examinations right
1:16:48 um
1:16:49 and uh
1:16:50 sorry five-minute rebuttals i apologize
1:16:52 so it's five minutes for jake yeah two
1:16:54 rounds of five-minute rebuttals
1:16:58 yeah each of us gets five more minutes
1:17:00 it's five minutes right the second one
1:17:02 yeah yeah yes and i've just confirmed
1:17:04 that the stream is going to be okay as
1:17:06 long as everything was here on our like
1:17:09 on stream yard because nothing happened
1:17:10 here we
1:17:12 were all live together so uh that means
1:17:14 that it is going to be recorded so um if
1:17:17 anybody lost anything right now they'd
1:17:19 be able to see it in the recording
1:17:21 um so jake whenever you're ready you can
1:17:23 you can start
1:17:26 okay
1:17:27 one second
1:17:29 jake please let us know if you have
1:17:30 slides because you didn't have them last
1:17:33 time
1:17:34 no no no i don't have slides okay okay
1:17:36 i'm gonna i'm gonna start now
1:17:39 okay bismillah um
1:17:41 unfortunately folks i think for khalil
1:17:43 he's already
1:17:45 given up the debate why because when i'm
1:17:47 attacking his position his response is
1:17:50 my personal beliefs are relevant to the
1:17:53 debate khalil has said that his own
1:17:55 personal beliefs are irrelevant to the
1:17:57 debate well i wonder who am i actually
1:18:00 debating here am i debating
1:18:02 some guy named joe down the street or am
1:18:05 i debating khalil and danny i thought i
1:18:07 was debating cleoland danny last time i
1:18:09 checked so if your beliefs are not
1:18:12 relevant to the debate then have a nice
1:18:14 day so i don't know what you showed up
1:18:16 for the debate you've already lost the
1:18:17 debate
1:18:18 now he's attacking mad lum and saying
1:18:21 that this is an outdated thing well let
1:18:23 me tell you something this is not just
1:18:25 mad lung who who is making this
1:18:26 statement and by the way i have a
1:18:28 document full of all of these references
1:18:31 if anyone is interested in it after the
1:18:33 debate i will make it publicly available
1:18:36 with a link and you can read them
1:18:37 yourself and see who is actually
1:18:39 accurately representing ismaili theology
1:18:42 and the philosophers is it jake or mr
1:18:45 leondani and you guys can be the judge
1:18:47 of that i think you'll see very clearly
1:18:49 even by khalil's own words in his
1:18:51 written articles and statements on
1:18:53 youtube that he is doing a bit of takia
1:18:55 here but i mean what can i say i mean
1:18:58 it's par for the course with the person
1:18:59 that i'm debating now now
1:19:02 he says that his like i said he's
1:19:04 already given up the debate by saying
1:19:05 his
1:19:06 position or his beliefs are irrelevant
1:19:09 now let me try to respond to because he
1:19:11 did this um machine gun tactic i'll try
1:19:14 to respond to another one of his
1:19:15 arguments he asked about the attributes
1:19:17 of allah are they necessary or are they
1:19:21 this or they that we believe that
1:19:23 they're necessary in the sense that
1:19:25 allah subhanahu wa'ta'ala exists always
1:19:27 with them eternally he always exists
1:19:29 with his attributes and there's not a
1:19:31 possibility in which doesn't exist
1:19:32 without his attributes and you can ask
1:19:34 me more questions about that in the
1:19:36 future and you can go on and say oh well
1:19:38 that means that there are multiple
1:19:39 necessary beans well no it doesn't mean
1:19:41 that they're multisitting multiple
1:19:43 necessary beans we don't say that there
1:19:45 are multiple humans in uh that jake is
1:19:48 multiple humans just because i have
1:19:51 multiplicity within me i'm still one
1:19:53 being we don't say that there are
1:19:55 multiple uh beings within jake that's
1:19:57 this is not the language that we use and
1:19:59 this is the whole point you're saying
1:20:00 that i didn't give an argument i did
1:20:02 give an argument my my argument is quite
1:20:04 simple just read the quran for the first
1:20:06 part
1:20:07 read it and see
1:20:08 is anybody going to come to the
1:20:10 conclusion that the universal intellect
1:20:13 and all these other beings that exist
1:20:16 are eternal and they have these
1:20:18 attributes and god doesn't and he's
1:20:19 actually not knowing he's not perfect no
1:20:21 they wouldn't and by your own admission
1:20:23 the self didn't actually believe in it
1:20:25 only a small version of people actually
1:20:27 believed in it which you tried to hint
1:20:29 to in the beginning of your opening
1:20:31 statement now this on this issue of
1:20:32 proving god's existence he's saying he's
1:20:34 doing it by a contingency argument let
1:20:36 me read from you from khalil's own
1:20:38 statement about god he says
1:20:41 listen the ismailis find that idea too
1:20:44 limited god is beyond existence so so
1:20:48 the ismailis will say that you cannot
1:20:50 say god is the necessary existent that's
1:20:54 khalil's own words you cannot say and as
1:20:57 it as an ismaili that god is the
1:21:00 necessary being or the necessary uh
1:21:02 existence
1:21:04 now again is this only jake saying this
1:21:07 now he's saying that al karmani adopts
1:21:09 this uh position well let's see what al
1:21:12 carmani actually says and he's he says
1:21:14 well i'm just quoting mad lung well
1:21:16 sorry uh
1:21:17 mr khalil but i trust him a lot more
1:21:19 than you and you keep talking about
1:21:21 arabic but you can't even pronounce
1:21:22 basic words which i find to be quite
1:21:25 shocking
1:21:26 now
1:21:27 he says here humans do not and cannot
1:21:30 know god except as the quasi-divine
1:21:34 intellectual image present in the mind
1:21:36 and it is not god yet this very notion
1:21:39 of god as an ultimate first being of or
1:21:42 first cause is the doctrine of the
1:21:44 philosophers it should be abundantly
1:21:47 clear that al carmani rejected the
1:21:50 philosophical concept of god as totally
1:21:53 inadequate god is beyond the cosmic
1:21:55 system that he brought into being it
1:21:57 shares nothing within him nothing at all
1:22:00 the god known to humans is the universal
1:22:03 intellect the cause of all causes the
1:22:05 unmoved mover and the necessary being so
1:22:09 al carmani's god is not the god of the
1:22:11 philosophers according to paul walker
1:22:14 himself now do you want to throw paul
1:22:16 walker under the bus and say that his
1:22:17 scholarship is out of date too when you
1:22:19 just had him on your youtube channel
1:22:21 less than a couple months ago in which
1:22:23 you hosted and so i don't understand
1:22:26 these are your ismaili scholars that are
1:22:28 translating your texts and doing
1:22:30 commentaries on them but apparently none
1:22:32 of them know anything except mr khalil
1:22:33 and danny so he's throwing his entire
1:22:36 theology under the bus it's quite
1:22:38 unfortunate
1:22:41 right on the dot
1:22:49 other mine you're on mute
1:22:52 oh sorry so yeah uh thanks jake so uh
1:22:56 uh dr cleo you can go ahead whenever
1:22:58 you're ready
1:22:59 and if you have slides i guess let jake
1:23:01 know
1:23:07 yeah i've just i've shared the screen if
1:23:09 we can get that up first and then i'll
1:23:10 run the slideshow your camera's off too
1:23:12 yeah you're your camera
1:23:15 there we go yeah so okay i have five
1:23:17 minutes
1:23:19 yep yes
1:23:20 yeah you have five minutes
1:23:24 okay uh thank you if everyone could mute
1:23:26 okay thanks i'll start the timer now all
1:23:28 right uh so um
1:23:30 what jake did is that he appealed to
1:23:32 ibentamia to answer my first argument
1:23:35 that the other recruit prohibits logical
1:23:37 proofs now according now iben tamiya of
1:23:40 course is not the mainstream uttari
1:23:42 position okay it maintain me as an
1:23:44 outlier even sheikh yusuf bin sadik who
1:23:47 i quoted who wasn't a humble authority
1:23:49 authority authority he said that now
1:23:50 here's the thing i have no problem with
1:23:52 jake wants to use it then tamiya but
1:23:54 then when we planned the debate i
1:23:56 explicitly asked jake
1:23:58 are you going to use ebentamia are you
1:23:59 going to use other creeds and jake gave
1:24:01 me the creed of ibn kudama
1:24:03 so here's the thing if you follow ibn
1:24:05 kudama
1:24:06 which you say you do well ibn kudama
1:24:08 says that all speculative theology all
1:24:11 kalam whether it's ashrae or not is
1:24:13 completely prohibited so you cannot use
1:24:16 any form of kalam logical rational
1:24:19 arguments against me in this debate nor
1:24:22 can you use it to prop up your own creed
1:24:24 so your creed cannot be proven by reason
1:24:26 and the debate is over okay because
1:24:27 debate is for people who are allowed to
1:24:29 use logic and reason which you're not
1:24:31 allowed to do
1:24:32 furthermore in your atari tradition
1:24:35 there seems to be a pandemic against
1:24:38 logic you have all these other scholars
1:24:40 like suyuti
1:24:42 passing fat was condemning logic and ibn
1:24:45 salah passing who's the head of daryl
1:24:48 hadith in damascus he condemns logic as
1:24:50 haram so if you want to commit to the
1:24:52 other recreate fine but then don't go
1:24:54 around using logic because this is this
1:24:56 is a gross uh double standard basically
1:25:00 all right
1:25:01 now attributes again i'm repeating
1:25:04 myself here
1:25:05 we can say
1:25:07 that god is powerful if god is powerful
1:25:11 means god is the giver of power same for
1:25:14 all these other attributes the
1:25:16 attributes as finite realities as
1:25:19 distinct realities they only exist in
1:25:21 creation and again even cena agrees with
1:25:23 this ibn cena believes god is simple and
1:25:25 i already showed evidence so even if
1:25:27 this debate is about my personal beliefs
1:25:29 which it is not every assertion that
1:25:32 jake made about ibn cena contradicting
1:25:35 ismaili views the views i'm defending
1:25:37 today are all in in concordance between
1:25:40 even cena ibn arby and the ismail they
1:25:42 differ on other things they do but those
1:25:44 are not the points that i'm defending
1:25:46 today now jake's notion of attributes he
1:25:49 said now that the attributes are
1:25:51 necessary but he didn't specify what he
1:25:53 means by necessary so here's what his
1:25:55 own creed says now this book of ibn
1:25:57 hamdan is in arabic it hasn't been
1:25:59 translated and jake gave me a
1:26:01 translation of a mukdasar a summary of
1:26:03 the creed so i don't know if jake has
1:26:05 actually read ibn hamdan but he's very
1:26:07 clear god is powerful through his power
1:26:10 he's willing through his will so for the
1:26:12 other reason god needs these attributes
1:26:15 and they're all uncreated and all these
1:26:17 attributes have causal power so for the
1:26:19 other ease okay the attributes sort of
1:26:21 have to join together to form allah and
1:26:24 frankly the what comes to mind with your
1:26:26 other ethiology is basically captain
1:26:28 planet where all the powers have to come
1:26:30 together to form captain planet now you
1:26:33 may think about ismail's are not allowed
1:26:35 to say god exists what you don't what
1:26:37 you have not done because you didn't
1:26:38 read karmani in the primary source you
1:26:40 haven't read any primary sources that
1:26:42 are not translated kermani and others
1:26:45 who say that god is beyond existence
1:26:47 they actually define what existence is
1:26:50 let me give you some examples okay and
1:26:52 you need to tell us what existence also
1:26:54 means jake i want to hear your answer
1:26:56 how do you define woujut
1:26:58 or ace
1:26:59 now if exists is a genus
1:27:02 under which you have substances and
1:27:04 accidents then exists is a created
1:27:06 category and god transcends existence
1:27:09 okay and everybody agrees with that god
1:27:10 does not possess existence god
1:27:13 transcends existence if existence is a
1:27:15 created genus number two if existence is
1:27:17 a non-constitutive accident or arad
1:27:20 which ibn sina says and which kermani
1:27:22 says then also god is beyond existence
1:27:24 and i already showed ivancina saying
1:27:26 that if existence is predicated
1:27:28 analogically through what is called a
1:27:30 relative analogy then the term god
1:27:32 exists simply means god is the source or
1:27:35 the ground of existence and this is a
1:27:36 position that ismailies do affirm
1:27:38 finally if you're using exists in the
1:27:40 sense of analytic theology or analytic
1:27:42 philosophy which my opponent seems to
1:27:44 like despite its non-compatibility with
1:27:47 otherism in analytic theology x exists
1:27:51 is just a quantifier it's not an
1:27:53 attribute so in a normal layman or
1:27:56 analytic speech i have no problem saying
1:27:58 god exists and i have written you you
1:28:00 say you want to make this about my
1:28:01 beliefs but i have an article where i do
1:28:04 it's actually called like the strongest
1:28:06 argument for the existence of god so if
1:28:08 existence is a real predicate or an
1:28:10 attribute then i say god is beyond
1:28:12 existence but if existence is a
1:28:15 analogical term for the source of
1:28:17 existence or is just a quantifier then i
1:28:19 can say that god exists no problem
1:28:25 i think that's five minutes
1:28:29 yesterday
1:28:31 yes that's five minutes and uh uh
1:28:34 dr provide if you could take over the
1:28:36 moderating for a few minutes because i'm
1:28:38 gonna switch to my phone so yeah yeah
1:28:40 all right so um if you just take over
1:28:42 okay no problem okay so we've done the
1:28:45 uh intros we've done the 10-minute
1:28:47 rebuttals and now we've done the
1:28:48 five-minute rebuttals so now we're
1:28:50 moving into the 15-minute
1:28:51 cross-examination
1:28:53 um where each side will give the other
1:28:55 side at least a minute to answer without
1:28:57 interruption and then after that it's
1:28:58 left up to them um and then after we
1:29:01 finish that then we'll do the 10 minute
1:29:02 closing so we're going to start now with
1:29:04 the cross examination i believe that
1:29:06 jake and i'd like both of your cameras
1:29:08 on okay fantastic uh can we stop sharing
1:29:11 the screen khalil
1:29:12 oh uh yes one second
1:29:15 okay i just removed it
1:29:18 okay your uh mic sounds a little
1:29:20 different jake can you say it again what
1:29:22 you just said uh yeah check check okay i
1:29:26 guess it's fine now it's a little bit on
1:29:27 the loud side but that's fine okay um
1:29:30 and jake you're the one who's gonna
1:29:31 start off with the cross-examination is
1:29:32 that correct
1:29:35 correct yeah okay all right so i'm going
1:29:37 to put on the timer for
1:29:40 15 minutes i'll tell you when you can
1:29:42 start just give me one second all right
1:29:45 we're going to start now
1:29:47 okay khalil so is true tauhid known only
1:29:50 through talk lead of the amount or
1:29:52 through the intellect alone
1:29:55 well it can be partly known through the
1:29:57 intellect
1:29:58 but to make sure that you get it
1:30:00 correctly without ascribing created
1:30:02 attributes to god
1:30:04 you may need the guidance of the imams
1:30:09 okay so let me give you a quote here
1:30:12 uh fro from from your own text here
1:30:15 this is from an intro to asha hastani's
1:30:18 creation command he says therefore god
1:30:21 is utterly inaccessible except through
1:30:23 knowledge of the imam of the time
1:30:26 thus it is only through the imam of the
1:30:28 time who is the manifestation of god's
1:30:30 command that people can find a way to
1:30:32 his knowledge the formula was now
1:30:34 straightforward knowledge of and
1:30:36 practice of faith in the one true god
1:30:38 tauhid relies exclusively on knowledge
1:30:41 and submission to the imam in short
1:30:43 tawheed is incomplete without knowledge
1:30:46 of the imam of the time true and pure
1:30:48 tawheed is the one which is subject to
1:30:51 the instruction and guidance of the imam
1:30:52 of the time so this text says that you
1:30:54 cannot know that it's exclusively based
1:30:57 on the imam so what's your response
1:30:59 well there's a difference between an
1:31:01 ismaili thought between ilm and marifa
1:31:05 okay
1:31:08 is what you call the science of tawheed
1:31:10 and this is what we're actually debating
1:31:12 right now how to properly talk about
1:31:15 tawheed that's ilm of tawhid okay but
1:31:19 when shahrasthani says this or when
1:31:21 tuthi says this that you need to go
1:31:22 through the imam that is talking about
1:31:25 marifa of tawhid marifa is a more
1:31:28 intimate type of knowledge that goes
1:31:32 beyond it is a sort of super discursive
1:31:34 kind of knowledge that's recognized in
1:31:37 the ismaili tradition and in the evasion
1:31:39 and tradition and in the sufi tradition
1:31:41 so these authors are talking about the
1:31:43 marifa of tawheed they're not talking
1:31:45 about the ilmaf tahiti the illness
1:31:47 tauhid is like all over ismaili books
1:31:49 that's literally the discussion that you
1:31:52 and i are having right now so you need
1:31:54 to differentiate between those two
1:31:56 things
1:31:57 okay so why does shahraztani himself in
1:32:00 his refutation of ibn sina say that god
1:32:03 is not known through the intellect he's
1:32:05 known through the fitra and rejects his
1:32:08 contingency argument
1:32:10 well that's only one part of it if you
1:32:12 keep reading that same text shahrasthani
1:32:15 does say that contingent things do exist
1:32:18 and that they require a muraji a
1:32:21 preponderator and that's how he
1:32:24 establishes the reality of god
1:32:26 so sharasthani is not against the
1:32:28 contingency argument what sharasthani is
1:32:30 against if you read the text very
1:32:32 closely is ascribing wujud or existence
1:32:37 as a univocal
1:32:39 accident or attribute or genius to god
1:32:43 that is what shah hastani is against and
1:32:45 insofar as anybody does that and i
1:32:47 believe you do that then shahrasthani is
1:32:49 correct but if evan sina or ibn arabi do
1:32:52 not think of wujud when they talk about
1:32:54 wajibal with jude if they don't think of
1:32:56 wujud as an attribute or a univocal
1:32:59 genus then sharasthani's case would not
1:33:02 register against them
1:33:05 so is is
1:33:07 making a false argument was he incorrect
1:33:11 shahrasthani is fine because he assumes
1:33:13 that wujud is a one-to-one univocal
1:33:17 genus term so but everybody agrees with
1:33:19 him i showed you a quote of ibn sina
1:33:21 where he said ibn cena said on my slide
1:33:24 right god does not possess nafs al-wujud
1:33:29 the mujud that is common to created
1:33:31 things even cena said god doesn't have
1:33:33 that with jude and that's exactly what
1:33:34 shah rastani is saying
1:33:37 okay so
1:33:39 move on to the next point here so is the
1:33:41 universal intellect the necessary being
1:33:45 the universal intellect is a is
1:33:47 necessary being in two ways okay number
1:33:50 one the universal intellect is what
1:33:52 analytic philosophers call a modally
1:33:55 necessary being a being that merely
1:33:57 exists in all possible worlds is what we
1:34:00 call a modally necessary being so the
1:34:01 universal intellect is that the
1:34:03 universal intellect is as necessary
1:34:04 being in a second sense because the term
1:34:06 necessary being means you know what sort
1:34:09 of has to exist it cannot be any other
1:34:12 way and it cannot change that meaning of
1:34:14 necessary being also applies to a
1:34:16 universal intellect just like thomas
1:34:17 aquinas refers to the angels and other
1:34:20 creations of god as necessary beings
1:34:22 what the universal intellect is not is
1:34:24 it is not wajib al-wujud
1:34:29 nasir khusro never says the intellect is
1:34:36 that
1:34:37 those those terms in itself are not
1:34:40 present in nassar kosovo's text so you
1:34:42 when you're looking at terminology from
1:34:44 one intellectual tradition and another
1:34:46 intellectual tradition and even modern
1:34:48 analytic philosophy you have to properly
1:34:51 unpack what those terms mean and then
1:34:53 map them
1:34:54 against each other properly
1:34:56 okay so when you say in your youtube
1:34:59 video that god is beyond existence the
1:35:01 ismailis will say that you cannot say
1:35:03 god is the necessary existent what do
1:35:05 you mean
1:35:07 i mean it the way shah rastani meant it
1:35:10 and in the way if necessary being refers
1:35:13 to something that possesses wujud as an
1:35:17 accident and karmani defines wujud as an
1:35:20 accident shahrasthani defines wujud as a
1:35:23 genus nasser kusuru defines wujud as a
1:35:25 genus so if those are the meanings of
1:35:28 wujud then surely you cannot call god a
1:35:30 necessary being because being is an
1:35:32 attribute there and ibn cena agrees with
1:35:35 us on this and so does ibn arabi if
1:35:37 wujud has a different meaning if it only
1:35:40 has a negative meaning that which does
1:35:42 not accept uh adam non-existence if
1:35:45 that's what would means then you can say
1:35:48 god exists and in fact kirmani in his
1:35:50 own text
1:35:52 actually says it is permissible to refer
1:35:55 to god as wujud or mojud as long as you
1:35:58 realize that you are not ascribing a
1:36:01 real attribute to him he says this in
1:36:03 rahat al-akhal
1:36:05 yeah in that same text
1:36:08 he is he actually has a section
1:36:10 critiquing the philosopher's conception
1:36:12 of creation
1:36:13 and he says on its existence being from
1:36:16 the most high may he be sanctified not
1:36:19 by way of emanation as the philosophers
1:36:21 maintain but by way of innovation and
1:36:23 that seeking to comprehend the manner of
1:36:26 its coming to exist is impossible
1:36:29 likewise you just brought up the point
1:36:31 before about the preponderator that god
1:36:34 is a preponderator of existence well in
1:36:37 that same section stani says
1:36:40 consequently the preponderator is a
1:36:42 preponderator of of existence over
1:36:44 non-existence
1:36:46 not a preponderator of necessity over
1:36:48 contingency and it is a bestower of
1:36:51 existence not a bestower of necessity so
1:36:54 how do you defend these quotes in light
1:36:56 of your motor collapse position
1:36:59 okay so the first quote regarding
1:37:02 emanation so firstly i i don't know what
1:37:05 the purp what you're really asking me to
1:37:07 defend um kirmani has a very uh
1:37:11 restricted notion of emanation which is
1:37:13 a material process by which the cause is
1:37:15 only perfected if it emanates its effect
1:37:18 that's how kirmani talks about emanation
1:37:20 obviously i reject that notion of
1:37:22 emanation and so does everybody else
1:37:23 kiramani says creation of the first
1:37:25 intellect is by ibdah which is
1:37:27 origination well the ibn sina tradition
1:37:31 also refers to god's creation of the
1:37:33 first intellect as ibdah so remember
1:37:35 even cena died in 1037 kirmani died in
1:37:39 10 20. there's no way kiramani is
1:37:41 refuting ibn cena because they've been
1:37:43 cena like hasn't even written his major
1:37:45 works when karmani is writing kiramani
1:37:47 is most likely referring to a
1:37:49 pre-abyssannan falsafa tradition and
1:37:52 there were philosophers who believe that
1:37:55 god creates uh without any volition so
1:37:58 obviously we reject that now modal
1:38:00 collapse by modal collapse you mean that
1:38:04 god could not have willed otherwise
1:38:06 right is that what you mean but can you
1:38:08 tell us what modal collapse means
1:38:09 because the audience doesn't really know
1:38:11 yes
1:38:13 what you just said
1:38:14 that god cannot will otherwise that's
1:38:16 motor collapse
1:38:18 yes
1:38:19 yeah there's no problem with that
1:38:21 sidjasthani says this
1:38:23 sidjasthani believes god can only have
1:38:25 one will and one choice
1:38:27 so this is our this has always been the
1:38:29 ismaili position i showed you this on my
1:38:31 slide
1:38:32 god is not a libertarian free agent in
1:38:35 the ismaili conception you have to be
1:38:37 careful and not ascribe the asharite
1:38:39 notion of a divine will that is entirely
1:38:42 self-determined that that just randomly
1:38:44 picks from a possibility leading to
1:38:46 brute contingency that's the usher right
1:38:48 view of divine will and that's the other
1:38:50 review of divine will this is not what
1:38:51 any of the ismaili philosophers believe
1:38:53 in the difference if any between the
1:38:56 ismaili view and the absent in view
1:38:58 is how they articulate the fact that
1:39:00 creation could not have been otherwise
1:39:02 and again modal collapse is not a
1:39:04 problem for us even if everything other
1:39:06 than god is mortally necessary
1:39:08 everything other than god is still
1:39:09 dependent because as you said everything
1:39:12 in and of itself lacks preponderation
1:39:15 for its existence so god is the
1:39:18 preponderater as charistani says so even
1:39:21 if god preponderates the existence of
1:39:24 everything such that everything is
1:39:25 morally necessary everything is still
1:39:27 dependent on god so modal collapse
1:39:29 really does not touch my world view the
1:39:32 smiley world view or the abyssinian
1:39:34 world okay so
1:39:36 um question so
1:39:37 does natural nasral accuse the montezula
1:39:41 who believed in divine simplicity of
1:39:44 shirk based on the proposition that they
1:39:46 attribute knowledge or knowing to the
1:39:49 divine essence
1:39:51 okay so number one you see i'm assuming
1:39:54 you read the text
1:39:55 does he tell you which share he's
1:39:57 talking about
1:40:00 well you can't respond with a question
1:40:02 well that means are you aware or you can
1:40:04 answer yes or no are you aware you're
1:40:06 not supposed to respond with a question
1:40:09 okay fine
1:40:10 as you said i'm the amateur debater
1:40:12 right it's fine so let me tell you then
1:40:15 okay because i don't think you know at
1:40:17 least you would have mentioned it
1:40:19 so
1:40:19 he first talks about a hadith where the
1:40:22 prophet says that the presence of shark
1:40:25 in my community
1:40:27 is more hidden than an ant walking like
1:40:30 on a rock in the middle of the night so
1:40:32 this is talking about
1:40:34 khafi
1:40:37 there are two different kinds of shirt
1:40:39 shark jali is when you explicitly
1:40:42 worship idols okay like what the mek and
1:40:44 mushrikeen were doing
1:40:48 is a shark that is a problem with creed
1:40:50 or doctrine so nasser khusral does say
1:40:53 that if you believe in multiple eternal
1:40:56 uncreated attributes that are distinct
1:40:58 from allah's essence you are committing
1:41:02 because he quotes this hadith right
1:41:03 before he makes the accusation so he
1:41:04 does say that and he does say that about
1:41:06 the more tesla but for some reason you
1:41:08 ascribe the muthazura position that
1:41:10 nasser critiques you ascribed it to the
1:41:13 philosopher but it's not the position of
1:41:15 the philosopher in that text when nasir
1:41:17 khasrew gave the tawheed of the
1:41:19 philosopher he actually never said
1:41:21 anything bad about it in fact you're
1:41:23 quoting from a work called jami
1:41:25 al-hikmatine the reconciliation or the
1:41:28 harmonization of the two hikmas hikmat
1:41:32 al nabua and hikmat al philosopher
1:41:36 that's what nasser kosovo's entire book
1:41:38 is about saying there is no conflict
1:41:40 between ismaili hikmah which is
1:41:42 prophetic hikmah and falsafi hikma so i
1:41:45 don't know how you can quote a book
1:41:47 whose main thesis is the compatibility
1:41:49 of ismaili philosophy and falsafa and
1:41:52 use that as evidence to say that they're
1:41:54 not compatible
1:41:56 okay if if
1:41:58 creation did not exist would god exist
1:42:02 i mean like logically speaking or what
1:42:05 yeah
1:42:07 well
1:42:07 it would be proper to say that if
1:42:10 creation did not exist
1:42:12 okay
1:42:13 god would not exist but
1:42:15 if if creation does not exist
1:42:18 it would have to assume the
1:42:20 non-existence of god
1:42:23 so god is dependent upon creation no not
1:42:26 at all
1:42:27 god you said he he couldn't exist
1:42:28 without creation
1:42:30 i didn't say he couldn't exist without
1:42:31 creation
1:42:33 you just said i said creation could not
1:42:35 exist without god
1:42:37 yeah but is it the other way around
1:42:39 could god exist without creation
1:42:42 god exists through himself two-minute
1:42:45 warning and creation exists through god
1:42:48 okay so um you also mentioned earlier
1:42:51 that i was quoting an old article but
1:42:53 let me quote you an article from frank
1:42:55 griffel who was actually
1:42:57 part of the same text that your article
1:43:00 was published in the oxford text he says
1:43:02 given that god is unknowable and this is
1:43:04 a commentary on chatterstani
1:43:07 given that god is unknowable the first
1:43:09 intel this first intellect is the
1:43:11 highest being to which humans can relate
1:43:13 it is the being that the quran refers to
1:43:16 as god allah
1:43:17 the god of revelation is not a real
1:43:20 deity but rather the true god's first
1:43:22 creation additionally this is the being
1:43:24 the philosophers and theologians refer
1:43:27 to as god so he's claiming to represent
1:43:29 astani as saying that the god of the
1:43:32 philosophers and theologians is actually
1:43:35 the first intellect so what's your
1:43:37 response
1:43:39 is there a question you just want my
1:43:40 comment on that yeah what's your
1:43:42 response to it because you're claiming
1:43:43 that you believe in the same thing he's
1:43:44 saying that you don't again i would like
1:43:46 you to find me firstly a primary source
1:43:49 you you've been relying only on
1:43:51 secondary sources frank that's not true
1:43:54 well it is anyway um the first part what
1:43:57 frank griffel said there that according
1:43:59 to shahrasthani the god of the quran and
1:44:01 the first intellect no there is no
1:44:02 ismaili author who has said that the god
1:44:05 of the quran is the first intellect this
1:44:07 is completely false okay
1:44:09 the second part the fact that what the
1:44:11 theologians and some philosophers take
1:44:14 as god is the first intellect that does
1:44:16 apply that is true in certain cases and
1:44:18 it's not just the ismailis who held this
1:44:20 view gazali held this view okay in his
1:44:23 mishka anwar your imam ghazali said that
1:44:27 the god worshiped by aristotelians and
1:44:30 some of the muta khalimun is just the
1:44:32 mover of the highest sphere it's not
1:44:34 even the true god and then the god
1:44:36 worshiped by some of the philosophers is
1:44:38 the first creation of the true god and
1:44:40 it's only the god worshiped by the sufis
1:44:42 the attainers that's the true god so
1:44:44 this position uh yes nasser kosovo does
1:44:47 charge the line
1:44:48 theologians with this with this thing
1:44:50 but gazali makes the same charge and i
1:44:52 don't see what's remarkable about it
1:44:53 it's time it's time okay so i'm going to
1:44:56 reset the star uh clock to 15 minutes
1:44:59 and now we're going to switch now uh dr
1:45:01 khalil dhani is going to put jake the
1:45:03 muslim metaphysician in the hot seat all
1:45:05 right ready 15 minutes here it goes
1:45:08 okay thank you uh jake let's begin with
1:45:10 attributes and cut to the chase you hold
1:45:12 that god's attributes are distinct not
1:45:15 identical to god's essence so do the
1:45:18 attributes depend on god's essence or
1:45:21 are they assay necessary in themselves
1:45:24 what do you mean by depend
1:45:27 does the existence of an attribute of
1:45:29 allah depend on the essence
1:45:32 in the same way that for you the
1:45:34 existence of creation or god's existence
1:45:37 depends on the existence of creation
1:45:41 i just mean either the attributes depend
1:45:43 on god's essence or they don't which is
1:45:44 it
1:45:45 yes in the same way that you would say
1:45:48 that god's existence depends upon
1:45:50 creation
1:45:51 i don't say that though so i want to
1:45:53 clear and so i'm saying yeah you just
1:45:55 said that before
1:45:56 i didn't say that well there's a tape
1:45:58 here so we'll watch exactly i'm gonna
1:46:01 take it that you said the attributes
1:46:02 depend on the essence to exist okay i
1:46:05 don't say that
1:46:06 you just said that
1:46:08 no i didn't
1:46:09 okay i'm gonna ask you again are the
1:46:11 attributes of allah are they asked
1:46:14 or not assay
1:46:15 that's a different question are you
1:46:17 conflated i'm changing the question
1:46:19 answer my question
1:46:20 why are you changing the question
1:46:22 because that's my right answer my
1:46:23 question okay so what's your new
1:46:25 question
1:46:26 i already stated it moderator he's like
1:46:28 he's just evading here he's not
1:46:30 answering my questions what's your
1:46:31 question are each distinct divine
1:46:34 attribute is it dependent on god's
1:46:36 essence or is it assay
1:46:37 depends what you mean by depend
1:46:40 the divine essence is the necessary and
1:46:42 sufficient condition for that attribute
1:46:44 and you're not allowed to ask me a
1:46:46 question i want an answer now or i'm
1:46:48 going to take it that you forfeit the
1:46:49 question because you cannot defend your
1:46:50 creed i i answered you i said it depends
1:46:54 you have not answered my question i'm
1:46:55 going to give you one last chance i'm
1:46:57 going to give you one more chance listen
1:46:59 i'm i'm i'm able to respond or am i not
1:47:02 you're not responding you keep yes i am
1:47:04 responding it depends what you mean by
1:47:06 depend is it that you have a special
1:47:08 definition of dependence that i don't
1:47:10 share and that you can't proceed with
1:47:12 your argument unless i agree with your
1:47:14 definition is that your problem depe you
1:47:17 i've already used the term depend
1:47:18 throughout the process so you define
1:47:20 dependence and you tell me do the
1:47:21 attributes depend on the essence or not
1:47:24 i just told you in the sense that you
1:47:27 just said that creation depends on god
1:47:29 and the god
1:47:30 creation depends on okay okay hold on so
1:47:33 just let me let's make some breakthrough
1:47:35 here
1:47:37 so
1:47:38 creation depends on god i said that yes
1:47:42 are you saying that the attributes
1:47:43 depend on the essence the same way
1:47:45 creation depends on god
1:47:47 i'm saying there's a counter factual
1:47:48 dependence
1:47:50 yeah that doesn't matter though so
1:47:52 this is irrelevant
1:47:56 are they i say or not you're not
1:47:57 answering the question you asked you
1:47:59 asked me about dependence and i'm
1:48:00 answering you i'm saying there's a
1:48:02 counter factual dependence okay
1:48:05 without the other let me define it for
1:48:07 you i say creation cannot exist by
1:48:10 itself it can only exist
1:48:13 if god first exists
1:48:15 okay is that a counter factual
1:48:17 dependence it does it doesn't matter
1:48:19 what counter counter factual dependence
1:48:21 doesn't cover this question should be
1:48:22 one way i'm talking about grounding
1:48:24 relations okay god is the ground for the
1:48:27 existence of the first intellect would
1:48:28 you agree that god's essence is the
1:48:30 ground for the attributes grounding
1:48:32 relations are one way
1:48:35 so now you're asking about grounding
1:48:37 relations is that what you meant by
1:48:39 dependence yes are the attributes
1:48:41 grounded by god's essence
1:48:44 in again in the sense that they cannot
1:48:47 exist without the other but we don't say
1:48:48 it's a causal dependency i don't care
1:48:51 what you say i don't care what you say
1:48:52 so you you don't care what i say well
1:48:54 why are you i don't care
1:48:56 next question okay so you said yes they
1:48:58 depend you you say it's not no no i said
1:49:00 it's not a causal dependency there's no
1:49:02 cause of depression it doesn't matter it
1:49:03 doesn't matter
1:49:04 it's a counter factual dependency it
1:49:07 doesn't matter the point is the
1:49:08 attributes depend on the essence they do
1:49:11 not exist on their only in the sense
1:49:13 that they can't exist without each other
1:49:14 okay so the attributes are not assay
1:49:20 what
1:49:20 the attributes are not assay
1:49:23 is that a question or a statement yeah
1:49:25 or agree or disagree
1:49:27 in what sense what do you mean by are
1:49:28 the attributes the attributes are
1:49:30 dependent on the essence so they're they
1:49:32 do not have acai in the sense that they
1:49:34 can't exist without the other
1:49:37 okay
1:49:38 good
1:49:40 now if something is not assay
1:49:44 can it be god
1:49:48 sorry what can it be if something is not
1:49:50 i say is it contingent
1:49:54 anything that's not god is a contingent
1:49:56 is that the question yes
1:49:58 yeah sure okay so therefore the
1:50:00 attributes are contingent so you believe
1:50:03 in contingency
1:50:04 because they're not i say
1:50:06 so my question to you you didn't say
1:50:08 you said not god and then you switched
1:50:10 it with assay i said again you already
1:50:13 said it no no no you switched it you
1:50:15 just did a bait and switch
1:50:17 i didn't i said are the actors ask me
1:50:20 you asked me if there if anything other
1:50:22 than god
1:50:23 is contingent and i said yes and then
1:50:25 you tried to impute that and say that
1:50:27 that means that's referring to the
1:50:28 attributes i don't know i said if
1:50:30 something is not i say is it contingent
1:50:33 you said yes you already said the
1:50:35 attributes are not assay so the
1:50:36 attributes are contingent so your god
1:50:38 has contingent attributes no not at all
1:50:40 the the term god itself includes the
1:50:42 essence and the attributes so how are
1:50:44 you separating them oh
1:50:47 oh
1:50:48 you should have said that before my
1:50:49 friend we would have saved so much time
1:50:52 save so much time with what you keep you
1:50:53 can't yeah it seems like you're having
1:50:55 difficulty you're okay i was under the
1:50:58 impression
1:51:01 i was under the impression that for you
1:51:03 yeah i'll let them speak if you ask me a
1:51:04 question okay so this is not the
1:51:07 questions god is the essence
1:51:09 and the attributes the term god we don't
1:51:12 just divorce them from each other
1:51:15 okay so god is the essence and the
1:51:17 attributes okay and the attributes are
1:51:19 not assay so your god has did i say that
1:51:23 you're not i'm saying
1:51:25 you said they're not i say okay do you
1:51:26 want to you want to say the attributes
1:51:28 are say
1:51:29 i didn't use this terminology the
1:51:31 problem is you keep stranging this
1:51:33 question you're saying i'll say then
1:51:34 you're using dependent then you're it's
1:51:36 the same thing
1:51:38 as independence yeah you just had to
1:51:39 debate with bo branson of saying ah
1:51:41 sadie is independence you just did that
1:51:44 and now you're it's it's no it's not the
1:51:46 same thing you keep changing it you do
1:51:48 you change your position whether you
1:51:50 debate no no the term god the term god
1:51:53 includes both so you can't separate them
1:51:56 okay thank you for clarifying so i said
1:51:59 three times thank you so god includes an
1:52:02 essence and multiple real distinct
1:52:04 attributes correct
1:52:06 god the term god
1:52:08 yeah i'm just repeating what you said
1:52:10 god includes the essence and multiple
1:52:12 real distinct attributes yes
1:52:15 distinct in what sense
1:52:17 the attributes are not identical to the
1:52:18 essence and not identical to one another
1:52:21 correct
1:52:22 okay so therefore your god is a
1:52:24 conglomerate of different entities thank
1:52:27 you for confirming that next i'm going
1:52:29 to move on now okay you just asked me
1:52:31 about um necessary creation
1:52:34 right
1:52:36 so um
1:52:38 here let me can i just state my view of
1:52:40 what i mean by creation is necessary and
1:52:42 you can comment on it if that's okay
1:52:45 go ahead
1:52:46 my view is this okay
1:52:48 the will of god
1:52:50 is necessary every decision choice that
1:52:53 god has made could not have been any
1:52:55 other way
1:52:56 okay it's the best possible choice and
1:52:59 any choice god has made it is impossible
1:53:02 to conceive that it could have been
1:53:03 other way this is
1:53:05 my position
1:53:08 is that position
1:53:10 compatible with islam according to you
1:53:12 or not
1:53:15 is that position compatible with islam
1:53:17 in what sense you're saying does that
1:53:18 make you a non-muslim if you believe
1:53:20 that does it go against taheed
1:53:22 to believe yes it does
1:53:25 believe in the sense that you're saying
1:53:27 that god does not have free will that
1:53:29 creation is just
1:53:31 necessitated by his essence yes that
1:53:33 goes against islam because the quran and
1:53:35 the authentic sunna say otherwise
1:53:38 again i didn't say necessitated by its
1:53:40 essence i simply said every decision
1:53:42 choice that god has made could not have
1:53:44 been any other way and any choice that
1:53:46 he's made it's impossible to conceive
1:53:48 that it could have been any other way
1:53:50 that's my position right is that
1:53:52 compatible with tawheed or incompatible
1:53:55 i take asa just danny's position in his
1:53:58 refutation of it
1:54:00 okay so again can you answer is what i
1:54:02 just said compatible with tawheed it
1:54:04 god's decision could not have been any
1:54:06 other way
1:54:07 is it competing in so far as i
1:54:09 understand you your position is not in
1:54:11 agreement with tahin
1:54:13 okay so again every decision or choice
1:54:15 that god has made could not have been
1:54:17 any other way that's not compatible with
1:54:19 tauheed okay so if a muslim
1:54:23 that that you knew of held this view
1:54:26 okay would you
1:54:28 um support their work
1:54:33 uh would you promote this so are you
1:54:35 okay promoting this view of god's will
1:54:37 cannot be otherwise are you okay with
1:54:39 that being taught to other muslims
1:54:42 depends who it is
1:54:44 a person who believes this is teaching
1:54:46 this to other muslims
1:54:47 yeah i would have to speak to them
1:54:48 because i can't trust your
1:54:49 representation
1:54:51 well look
1:54:53 if i believe that god's choice could not
1:54:55 have been any other way
1:54:57 we would agree this doesn't meet tau
1:54:58 heed right
1:55:00 well who we talk are we talking about
1:55:02 somebody alive or dead i'm just giving
1:55:04 you my position first because i it's a
1:55:07 five-minute warning you think it's okay
1:55:09 or it's not okay to believe god's will
1:55:11 could not have been any other way yeah i
1:55:12 just want to know because you're talking
1:55:14 if i know the person personally yeah you
1:55:16 know me i'm i'm telling you my position
1:55:19 because yeah i don't i don't believe
1:55:20 your position is tawheed because it goes
1:55:22 against the text
1:55:23 okay
1:55:24 so my question for you then is why is it
1:55:28 the case
1:55:29 that um you work for someone who has the
1:55:33 exact same position of tawheed on god's
1:55:35 will not being any other way as me i
1:55:37 actually just read to you
1:55:40 what i read to you the words of muhammad
1:55:42 hijab in his london nia video published
1:55:44 six months ago you can go see it he
1:55:46 literally says what i just said so
1:55:48 muhammad hijab is teaching a view of
1:55:50 tawheed that you think is not tauhid yet
1:55:52 you go and work for the sapience
1:55:54 institute so are you just being
1:55:56 inconsistent here yeah i can read it
1:55:58 quote go ahead read it the will of god
1:56:00 since it's an attribute of the necessary
1:56:02 existence it must also be what necessary
1:56:04 every decision choice that god has made
1:56:07 could not have been any other way since
1:56:08 his wisdom and knowledge is perfect you
1:56:10 couldn't conceive that the results be
1:56:12 any other way it's the best possible
1:56:13 choice that could be made it's necessary
1:56:16 any choice that god has made it's
1:56:18 impossible to conceive that it could
1:56:20 have been any other way you just said
1:56:22 this position is against tauhid you work
1:56:24 for someone your ustad muhammad hijab
1:56:26 who
1:56:41 say that that you condemn
1:56:42 where did i ever say that you just said
1:56:44 it's not in line with taoheed oh you're
1:56:46 claiming that he's my staff how is your
1:56:48 mind it doesn't matter you work with his
1:56:50 institution he is because you're making
1:56:51 false statements i cannot take your
1:56:53 let's get back
1:56:54 back on course please i'm sorry can i
1:56:56 say something can i say something real
1:56:58 quick uh doctor
1:57:00 because this is a bit messy so if you
1:57:01 can keep it to questions and then and
1:57:04 then jake like let him take like okay
1:57:06 okay
1:57:08 an uninterrupted
1:57:12 yeah okay let's just let's just keep
1:57:14 going then okay
1:57:16 all right
1:57:16 um
1:57:17 let us talk about do you uh jake
1:57:20 in accordance with your creed where is
1:57:22 allah
1:57:25 he's above the throne
1:57:27 where's the throne
1:57:29 what do you mean where's the throne
1:57:31 where's the heart
1:57:33 can you point me in the direction of
1:57:35 allah according to your creed it's the
1:57:37 highest point of creation can you point
1:57:39 with your finger according to the hadith
1:57:41 of your creed where is allah can you
1:57:43 point yes
1:57:45 in the same way that abdul khan jalani
1:57:47 also said the same thing when he quoted
1:57:49 the point it doesn't
1:57:59 so one second one second let me let me
1:58:00 just mod for a second so i think um and
1:58:02 and dr david you can correct me if i'm
1:58:04 wrong but i think before we came on we
1:58:06 agreed that in the cross-examination the
1:58:09 person who answers is going to get an
1:58:11 uninterrupted minute now the issue is i
1:58:13 mean clearly you're probably not going
1:58:15 to agree with his answer but
1:58:17 i mean it's not like one interrupted
1:58:18 minute if you accept his answers
1:58:21 he's he's evading my question yeah the
1:58:23 timer is stopped
1:58:26 i answered all of his questions he's not
1:58:28 answering my questions
1:58:31 this one-minute rule no you seem very
1:58:33 frustrated this was proposed by me sorry
1:58:36 it was proposed by you so i mean it's
1:58:38 not so it's not that
1:58:39 clearly you can disagree with it was
1:58:41 proposed by jake okay so what shall we
1:58:43 find that's fine what i mean is just try
1:58:45 to keep it to questions clearly you can
1:58:47 like face something that's not a
1:58:48 question
1:58:50 and then let's answer how much time you
1:58:52 can come in so you have a few minutes so
1:58:54 you have two minutes and 30 seconds i
1:58:55 would say just in uh khalil's defense
1:58:57 that i think there should be an attempt
1:59:00 made to actually answer the questions um
1:59:02 but uh i am actually attempting to
1:59:05 answer the question but
1:59:06 doctor javad okay so so yes of course
1:59:08 you should stay in your place then it's
1:59:10 also possible it's also possible to ask
1:59:12 for clarifications on the question so
1:59:14 like that's that's not that's not an
1:59:16 issue now clearly okay we're not
1:59:18 supposed to take sides here we want to
1:59:19 be neutral but i i'm just pointing out
1:59:22 that uh dr khalil if you could keep it
1:59:24 to questions that would i mean that's
1:59:26 what the cross examination is for and it
1:59:28 would move more smoothly and he can
1:59:30 respond in
1:59:32 as long as he stays within the minute he
1:59:34 can say whatever he wants and if he asks
1:59:36 for a clarification it could simply mean
1:59:38 that he doesn't understand the question
1:59:39 or that the question requires a further
1:59:41 clarification there's no issue with that
1:59:43 right so so let's just keep it that way
1:59:45 so it can just run smoothly and i hope
1:59:48 you stop the timer dr duvet
1:59:50 yes that sounds all good to me and uh
1:59:53 khalil i think you made your point about
1:59:54 muhammad hijab but we don't need to keep
1:59:56 litigating that so
1:59:58 let's start again at two minutes and 30
2:00:00 seconds i'm going to restart it right
2:00:01 now okay
2:00:03 please continue
2:00:04 okay are you able to point me in the
2:00:07 direction of allah's throne
2:00:13 he's on mute
2:00:14 so
2:00:15 sorry about that um yes we can point to
2:00:18 it alhamdulillah just as abdul qaddar
2:00:21 jalani stated earlier when he quoted the
2:00:23 hadith which you also mentioned where
2:00:25 the prophet
2:00:28 approved the belief of the girl when he
2:00:30 asked her where is allah subhanahu wa
2:00:33 and she pointed to the heavens
2:00:36 okay can you point where is allah right
2:00:38 now yes we can yeah can you do it with
2:00:41 your finger yeah we point up
2:00:43 okay so allah is up okay uh
2:00:46 allah you have to get the throne yes it
2:00:48 is okay is the throne below allah
2:00:52 no when did i say that the throne
2:00:55 no the throne is not
2:00:57 i mean allah subhanahu wa is above the
2:01:00 throne this is what i said
2:01:02 is the throne below allah
2:01:05 yes
2:01:06 the throne is below allah
2:01:10 i just said that yeah
2:01:12 okay uh is the lowest heaven below the
2:01:14 throne
2:01:18 is the lowest heaven below the throne
2:01:20 yes it is okay so do you affirm that
2:01:24 allah for the hadith descends every
2:01:26 night
2:01:28 to the lowest heaven
2:01:31 yes i affirm
2:01:32 because it's mentioned in the hadith of
2:01:34 the prophet
2:01:36 okay so then do you affirm that allah
2:01:38 descends from above the throne to below
2:01:40 the throne
2:01:41 he never leaves the throne
2:01:43 but i can't believe that he discerns yes
2:01:45 it's a real descent of newsul which is
2:01:47 mentioned in the text
2:01:49 okay what's the meaning of a descent
2:01:51 here because descent means to go from
2:01:53 above to below so what does new zealand
2:01:55 mean
2:01:58 yes we understand it in the plain
2:01:59 meaning which is mentioned in the hadith
2:02:02 if i had it in front of me i can read it
2:02:04 but it's very clear i think everybody
2:02:06 knows what dissent means
2:02:08 so you affirm that allah descends from
2:02:10 above the throne to the lowest heaven
2:02:12 below the throne
2:02:14 without entering his creation yes
2:02:16 okay but he does move then from above
2:02:18 the throne to below the throne did i
2:02:20 mention anything about movement
2:02:22 well
2:02:23 movement okay what is the meaning of
2:02:25 descend that everybody knows
2:02:28 i just explained it to
2:02:31 no you can't explain it again i'm dumb
2:02:33 unfortunately that's time even though
2:02:34 this got really interesting let him
2:02:36 answer the question
2:02:37 you can have 20 seconds uh jake if you'd
2:02:40 like explain it again what's the meaning
2:02:42 of newsul that everybody knows yeah so i
2:02:44 i explained it and ibentamia which you
2:02:47 said that i couldn't appeal to which i
2:02:49 don't know why all i told you was i
2:02:50 don't agree with him on every single
2:02:52 position and that's certainly fine but
2:02:54 when it comes to the usual i agree with
2:02:56 him and the fact of the matter is he
2:02:59 explains this he talks even about the
2:03:01 spirit coming down and the angels and
2:03:04 this type of so-called movement which we
2:03:06 cannot really understand and he compares
2:03:09 that to the new zulu or descent of allah
2:03:12 and he says the difference in that is
2:03:14 exponentially greater therefore we
2:03:16 cannot understand the kefia we don't
2:03:19 have enough knowledge on it we stick to
2:03:20 the text and what it says and we don't
2:03:22 dwell on the kefia
2:03:25 okay thank you just like we can't
2:03:26 understand the kefia of trinity thank
2:03:28 you very much okay so we're moving on to
2:03:31 the 10-minute closing
2:03:33 um since you guys don't have a free
2:03:35 discussion period i don't think so
2:03:37 um unless you want it
2:03:39 all right so we're doing the 10-minute
2:03:41 closing uh is jake still going first on
2:03:43 the closing
2:03:45 yeah okay jake uh let me know when
2:03:47 you're ready do you have slides that
2:03:48 you'd like to share
2:03:51 um no just give me one second though
2:03:55 let me know when you're ready
2:03:56 yeah one second um
2:04:14 okay and this is uh ten minutes correct
2:04:18 yes that's correct
2:04:19 okay yeah yeah i'm ready whenever you
2:04:21 are okay you can begin okay
2:04:33 now this debate has been very
2:04:35 interesting i really did enjoy it what
2:04:37 we saw from khalil
2:04:39 is him admitting defeat in the debate he
2:04:41 said he didn't actually come here to
2:04:43 defend his own personal views and why
2:04:46 it's because i've exposed him and as a
2:04:49 charlatan quite frankly that he is
2:04:51 because he goes on these public
2:04:53 platforms and tries to present himself
2:04:55 in an academic fashion and tries to tell
2:04:58 people that all of these different
2:05:00 creedal positions agree he tried to even
2:05:02 claim abdullah
2:05:04 and mention that when he's the one that
2:05:06 actually mentions the hadith of of the
2:05:09 one that you are just questioning me
2:05:10 about and he affirms it without any
2:05:12 problem
2:05:13 so he's not on your side the fact of the
2:05:15 matter is for khalil himself his
2:05:18 understanding of divine predication
2:05:21 and in his classical text is that god
2:05:23 cannot be known through the intellect
2:05:25 alone i've showed this over and over
2:05:27 again i showed that khalil himself
2:05:30 affirmed taqleed in order to know the
2:05:32 oneness of god in his own article i
2:05:34 recommend that people go and read it
2:05:36 just for that purpose otherwise you know
2:05:39 you deal with it yourself but anyway go
2:05:41 and read that text yourself as i said i
2:05:44 have all these references that i can
2:05:45 demonstrate for a fact everything that
2:05:47 i'm saying what khalil has done is he
2:05:49 said i only quoted secondary source
2:05:51 material no i quoted primarily primary
2:05:55 source material and then i showed
2:05:57 secondary source material agreeing with
2:06:00 my interpretation of the text and all of
2:06:02 them agreed griffel agreed mad lung
2:06:05 agreed even your own text from mr uh
2:06:08 muhammad poor in this in introduction
2:06:11 paul walker agreed all of these scholars
2:06:15 who are by the way
2:06:17 represented by khalil's own organization
2:06:20 the institute of ismaili studies he
2:06:22 wants to talk about me that i'm
2:06:24 disagreeing with muhammad hijab which
2:06:26 shout out to my brother
2:06:28 he's saying that i'm disagreeing with
2:06:30 him i'll have a talk with him and see
2:06:31 what what he was explaining there i
2:06:33 don't really know haven't read it but
2:06:35 regardless you are disagreeing with all
2:06:38 of your own ismaili scholars who
2:06:40 translate these texts that are published
2:06:42 by the institute of ismaili studies and
2:06:45 which are confirming
2:06:46 secondary sources are confirming
2:06:49 jake's interpretation of the text not
2:06:52 khalil's interpretation of the text
2:06:54 again frank griffel in the article
2:06:56 mentioned earlier says asha hadistani
2:06:58 rejects ibn cena's basic distinction
2:07:01 into necessary by itself and contingent
2:07:04 by itself and subsequently he also
2:07:06 rejects that the proof that ibn cena
2:07:09 tried to build on so you're trying to
2:07:11 use ibn cena's proof and yet
2:07:13 shahadastani and your own scholars
2:07:15 reject it in the section on the true
2:07:16 choice he clarifies that one does not
2:07:19 need philosophical proofs for god's
2:07:21 existence because the creator is too
2:07:23 well known to exist to be pointed to by
2:07:25 anything and the recognition of him
2:07:27 exalted as he is through immediate
2:07:30 knowledge fitrate or innate disposition
2:07:33 in a way that one would not need to
2:07:36 formally argue for
2:07:38 again paul walker in his book on the
2:07:40 ismail ismaili
2:07:43 al-kurmani states and i quote in his way
2:07:46 of arriving at tarheed al karmani will
2:07:48 run the through the proof offered by the
2:07:51 philosophers so he says he does do that
2:07:53 concerning the first being first cause
2:07:55 and necessary being
2:07:58 and then note that the resulting end of
2:08:00 the causal series is despite its primacy
2:08:03 in that series what still a part of that
2:08:06 series the end is intellect the first
2:08:08 intellect not god close quote so in
2:08:12 classical ismaili theology god cannot be
2:08:14 known through reason and the necessary
2:08:16 being is not god it is the first
2:08:19 intellect yet khalil states the opposite
2:08:21 so we have a formal announcement to make
2:08:23 that khalil and has apostasized from the
2:08:26 ismaili faith and hence probably why he
2:08:29 didn't want to debate under the title of
2:08:31 the ismaili faith why because he's
2:08:33 representing the methodology and the
2:08:36 positions of the philosophers rather
2:08:39 than his own ismaili faith and it's
2:08:41 really a shame i mean there's so many
2:08:43 points that can be addressed
2:08:44 unfortunately khalil used machine gun
2:08:47 tactics and there's so many points that
2:08:49 i didn't have the time to address but
2:08:51 i'd be happy to do so at another time
2:08:53 period also as i said for khalil
2:08:57 god is not the necessary being so this
2:08:59 despite his protestations to the
2:09:01 contrary of him claiming that he can
2:09:03 prove that god exists not only can he
2:09:05 not prove that god exists he already
2:09:07 lost a debate because of the fact that
2:09:09 he cannot even speak about his god every
2:09:12 single time that he opens his mic about
2:09:14 god he cannot say that he even exists he
2:09:17 cannot say that he's a cause of anything
2:09:19 he cannot say that they're depend that
2:09:20 anything is dependent on god he cannot
2:09:23 say that god is all-knowing he cannot
2:09:25 say that god is all-powerful and for
2:09:27 khalil his god only has the power to
2:09:30 perform one action he cannot do anything
2:09:34 else besides that okay
2:09:36 not only that
2:09:38 as i mentioned earlier on the rule of
2:09:40 one which he said he believes in the
2:09:42 rule of one asagestani has a whole
2:09:44 wellspring to refuting the rule of one
2:09:46 when he says and i quote the 37th
2:09:49 wellspring on conceiving a plurality
2:09:51 from a single cause namely the command
2:09:53 of god wisdom dictates that from from
2:09:56 the pure one there is a plurality if
2:09:58 there were from one only one by means of
2:10:01 what thing would this plurality appear
2:10:03 one is not other than one in respect to
2:10:06 being one and a thing cannot be the
2:10:07 cause of itself if we were to hold that
2:10:10 from one one appears and one is not
2:10:12 other than one it is therefore the one
2:10:14 and not something other than itself so
2:10:17 he's explicitly refuting the doctrine of
2:10:20 the rule of one assad istani who was a
2:10:22 hajj of the imam who khalil himself on
2:10:26 twitter said that he is representing the
2:10:28 theology of assagistani and nasral
2:10:31 khusral and i'm bringing you their
2:10:34 primary sources where they are clearly
2:10:36 refuting khalil both in methodology and
2:10:39 his positions so the fact of the matter
2:10:42 is he's not an ismaili and he has
2:10:44 apostasized from his faith and that's
2:10:46 why he wanted to
2:10:47 debate under the banner of quote-unquote
2:10:49 islamic philosophy but the fact of the
2:10:51 matter is
2:10:52 i want to instruct all of the listeners
2:10:55 there to actually pick up a quran
2:10:57 whether you're muslim or not go and read
2:10:59 it for yourself and you tell me would
2:11:02 you ever come away with the beliefs of
2:11:04 khalil and
2:11:05 of three eternal beings god the
2:11:09 universal intellect and the universal
2:11:10 soul would you ever come to that belief
2:11:13 without somebody telling you talk lead
2:11:15 of the imam that you're supposed to
2:11:17 believe it no you wouldn't and the salah
2:11:20 fasaga never believed in this uh
2:11:23 belief that he's presenting that's why
2:11:25 he's willing to throw the sahaba and
2:11:27 it's no surprise because of the fact
2:11:29 that he is shia let's just be honest
2:11:31 he's willing to throw the sahabah under
2:11:32 the bus and say they never understood
2:11:34 god they never knew god whatsoever but
2:11:36 yet khalil and is coming here in 2022
2:11:40 with his harvard degree to try to tell
2:11:42 us that everybody just misunderstood god
2:11:45 in the early centuries nobody understood
2:11:48 him until these neo-platonists came
2:11:50 along to tell us that we can't even read
2:11:52 or basic understand the basic text of
2:11:54 the arabic when khalil himself cannot i
2:11:57 mean he cannot even he's trying to
2:11:59 correct me on arabic and yet every
2:12:01 single time he talks i don't know if
2:12:03 he's speaking persian or gibberish i
2:12:05 don't know what he's speaking so
2:12:08 the fact of the matter is khalil came
2:12:10 unprepared for this debate he thought
2:12:12 that this was merely going to be a
2:12:14 debate on divine simplicity versus a
2:12:16 rejection of divine simplicity no i
2:12:18 showed and demonstrated that his own
2:12:20 position and methodology is internally
2:12:22 contradictory he cannot defend his
2:12:25 ismaili beliefs and that's why he said
2:12:27 he was not here to defend them but
2:12:30 i'm debating you i'm not debating dr
2:12:32 javad or anyone else on the panel or
2:12:35 even anybody else listening i was
2:12:37 debating you and you failed to actually
2:12:39 bear your burden and actually defend
2:12:41 your position now the position that we
2:12:45 hold to which is established by the
2:12:47 early muslims which is based on a simple
2:12:50 reading of the text of the quran and
2:12:51 sunnah and everybody if anybody wants to
2:12:53 know about my rational argumentation i
2:12:56 provide rational argumentation all the
2:12:58 time for things like the contingency
2:13:00 argument because ebentania has a whole
2:13:03 section refuting the contingency
2:13:05 argument of ibn cena and actually
2:13:07 endorsing his own version of the
2:13:09 contingency argument and he accepts it
2:13:11 unlike for leon danny who is using the
2:13:14 contingency argument when there is an
2:13:16 entire text written by asha hastani who
2:13:19 he defends as an ismaili who denounces
2:13:23 ibn cena's argument and says anybody who
2:13:25 uses it is gone astray and he compares
2:13:28 ibn cena's god to a trinity so khalil
2:13:31 wants to compare my god to a trinity a
2:13:34 stalker for the law which he's obviously
2:13:36 not yet the position he's claiming to
2:13:38 define and defend sorry of ibn cena his
2:13:42 own scholars condemned as poly
2:13:45 polytheism and said that this is
2:13:47 anthropomorphism so don't worry about
2:13:49 his claims listen if you are a muslim or
2:13:52 a non-muslim out there and you believe
2:13:55 even as the tesla did which he admitted
2:13:57 they were accused of anthropomorphism
2:13:58 and polytheism by nasral you believe
2:14:02 that allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is
2:14:04 knowledge
2:14:05 knowledgeable or all-knowing
2:14:07 all-powerful perfect in all the
2:14:09 attributes that you are known about god
2:14:11 whether you're muslim or otherwise
2:14:13 according to khalil's own theology you
2:14:16 are a polytheist therefore you should
2:14:18 not support him whether you agree with
2:14:20 divine simplicity or not and i thank you
2:14:22 very much for your time
2:14:24 thank you so much jake um i'm gonna stop
2:14:27 the timer restart
2:14:29 uh
2:14:30 just give me one second here
2:14:36 okay
2:14:37 um hello dr andana you ready here it
2:14:39 goes
2:14:40 are you let me know when you're ready
2:14:42 and i'll begin if you want to turn your
2:14:44 camera on
2:14:45 and are you using slides
2:14:53 sorry give me a minute my my screen
2:14:54 isn't loading just give me one second i
2:14:56 need to get get this thing off give me a
2:14:59 second okay
2:15:12 sorry it said that the slide shows no i
2:15:14 just have to restart the
2:15:17 program here
2:15:18 so it comes up
2:15:20 okay
2:15:24 oh wait
2:15:25 okay hold on screen share let me screen
2:15:28 share
2:15:33 all right if you can put that up first
2:15:35 thank you
2:15:41 okay uh ladies and gentlemen uh thank
2:15:44 you for joining us for this debate uh
2:15:46 thank you jake it was a very uh
2:15:47 entertaining uh debate
2:15:50 i was quite entertained by everything
2:15:51 you shared
2:15:52 so let me just state at the outset why i
2:15:54 did this debate i don't plan to be a
2:15:57 career debater like you
2:15:59 so i'm sure you'll have plenty more
2:16:01 debates and you can you know really get
2:16:03 some practice on defending your creed
2:16:05 because you know god knows you need it
2:16:07 uh i in participated in this debate
2:16:10 because
2:16:11 for some unprovoked reason last december
2:16:14 uh jake the muslim metaphysician who had
2:16:16 been a sunni muslim for just two years
2:16:18 at that time
2:16:20 and who had just heard about shia
2:16:22 ismaili islam just decided to start
2:16:25 calling our worldview
2:16:27 and neo-platonism generally kufar and
2:16:29 shariq and he took feared a whole bunch
2:16:32 of us not just his smileys he takes fear
2:16:33 at anyone who believes in a neoplatonic
2:16:36 world view
2:16:37 and um because jake is actually a very
2:16:40 smart individual uh who deserves a
2:16:42 response unlike some of the other trash
2:16:44 that's out on youtube where some people
2:16:46 are they just they're not very smart but
2:16:48 jake is actually an intelligent person
2:16:50 uh and frankly i have to give him credit
2:16:53 he's very honest about what he believes
2:16:55 and what he thinks is right so because
2:16:57 of jake's um
2:16:58 capabilities uh his intellect and his
2:17:01 honesty i made an exception to my policy
2:17:04 of not debating and i decided to debate
2:17:05 him so that that's why i'm involved with
2:17:08 this because i think if some if an
2:17:09 intelligent person is going to make
2:17:11 comments
2:17:12 about the worldview i hold then i need
2:17:14 to ensure that there is a correction due
2:17:18 when appropriate now um jake throughout
2:17:21 the debate has tried to isolate my
2:17:23 beliefs as a ismaili beliefs but then
2:17:26 he's also said that my beliefs are not
2:17:28 ismaili beliefs so there seems to be a
2:17:30 logical problem of the takfiri going on
2:17:32 here he needs to decide is khalil and is
2:17:34 smiley or not in a smiley here's the
2:17:36 thing the worldview i've defended today
2:17:39 is on the screen i've defended that
2:17:41 allah is absolutely simple without real
2:17:43 distinct attributes i've defended the
2:17:45 first intellect as the first creation
2:17:47 and i've defended the first intellect as
2:17:48 the intermediary for all other creations
2:17:50 this is the world view that i'm
2:17:51 defending all the smileys believe this
2:17:54 and all the people all the names on this
2:17:56 screen believe this as well
2:17:58 okay and it's a big tent neoplatonism in
2:18:01 the sense of the world view that i'm
2:18:03 defending today goes way beyond the
2:18:04 ismailis and just because this world
2:18:07 view is common to ibn cena even arabi
2:18:10 inclu even some hanbali sufis by the way
2:18:13 abdul qader jillani in his text
2:18:17 specifically says that the first
2:18:19 intellect is the first creation of god
2:18:21 that it contains uh the universals of
2:18:24 everything and that the entire universe
2:18:26 has been created from the first
2:18:28 intellect abdelkader jillani says this
2:18:30 in his own work that's why his name is
2:18:32 there so
2:18:33 neoplatonism or hikmah is a big tent
2:18:36 this is not just an ismaili phenomenon
2:18:38 and this is a common polemical tactic to
2:18:42 people who uh espouse certain salafi uh
2:18:46 takfiri ideology what they try to do is
2:18:48 they try to isolate minority communities
2:18:50 and make it seem that nobody believes in
2:18:52 their worldview except them and it's
2:18:54 quite the opposite here the neoplatonic
2:18:56 worldview is quite vast so this is what
2:18:59 i was aiming to defend the entire
2:19:01 neoplatonic worldview do i hold the
2:19:03 ismaili version of that yes and nothing
2:19:05 you've said in this debate has actually
2:19:06 shown that i've departed the ismaili
2:19:09 account of neoplatonism i'm going to
2:19:11 show you why but let's get back to the
2:19:13 fact that this is a debate between the
2:19:15 othery creed and islamic neoplatonism
2:19:18 even if you want to call it ismaily
2:19:20 neoplatonism so it's a debate and both
2:19:22 sides have to give arguments in the
2:19:24 debate so i gave 10 arguments and you're
2:19:27 calling it a machine gun approach
2:19:29 because you are utterly unprepared for
2:19:31 what i had to show you today you have
2:19:33 not actually gone through the primary
2:19:36 sources of your own creed or my creed
2:19:39 and actually seen the different type of
2:19:41 discourse that's there this is the
2:19:43 problem i'm actually astonished why jake
2:19:46 who frankly is a very very smart guy
2:19:49 okay like i have to hand it to you you
2:19:52 are very good at philosophy you're very
2:19:54 clear thinker i enjoy you know watching
2:19:57 some of your other videos i really do uh
2:19:59 you're very smart and it's just beyond
2:20:02 me why you picked the authority creed it
2:20:04 has like the least defensible positions
2:20:07 so i like frankly um i've offered these
2:20:10 ten arguments against the authority
2:20:11 creed uh and you did you didn't really
2:20:14 respond so i'm gonna grade you okay i'm
2:20:16 a professor and i grade people okay so
2:20:18 let's grade your response so
2:20:21 philosophical kalami arguments are
2:20:22 forbidden for authorities this is a
2:20:24 historical fact
2:20:26 you appeal to inventamia um i'll give
2:20:29 you a d minus on that okay because for
2:20:31 this debate
2:20:32 you said you followed the creed of ibn
2:20:34 kudama and ibn kudama as well as the
2:20:37 followers of ibn kudama today they say
2:20:40 philosophy logic this is not allowed in
2:20:42 the madhhab so you will have to go
2:20:44 outside the other recreate so i'll give
2:20:46 you a d minus um number two
2:20:48 anthropomorphism of ahmedabad humble you
2:20:50 had nothing to say about that so i take
2:20:52 it you can see you can see the point you
2:20:54 get an f um the problem of tough weed
2:20:57 you had nothing to say about tough wheat
2:20:58 in fact you changed your view you said
2:21:00 you commit to tough weed by a facebook
2:21:02 message but today you said you commit to
2:21:03 the apparent meaning which is worse than
2:21:05 tough wheat so you get an f okay and
2:21:08 same for all the other tough weed now
2:21:09 you did appeal to mystery so you fall
2:21:11 into argument five you said we don't
2:21:13 know how god descends it's
2:21:16 incomprehensible but we believe it well
2:21:18 congratulations you've appealed to
2:21:20 mystery and you are no different from
2:21:23 the trinitarian christians that you like
2:21:25 to debate so for any trinitarian
2:21:26 christian watching this remember what
2:21:28 jake has said today he says god is above
2:21:31 his throne and he descends in some
2:21:33 incomprehensible way and we don't know
2:21:35 how okay so now every christian can say
2:21:38 god is three persons one essence and we
2:21:40 don't know how
2:21:41 the actual positive arguments you offer
2:21:43 i gave you had like nothing to say about
2:21:46 these arguments so i'm giving you f's on
2:21:47 most of them you did try to answer
2:21:49 number eight i'll give you a d minus for
2:21:51 trying i like giving participation marks
2:21:53 as well but really everything was an f
2:21:56 now your arguments against me let it be
2:21:58 on the record for everyone watching i
2:22:00 rebutted everything you said you first
2:22:02 said the smiley philosophy is
2:22:03 incompatible with falsafa
2:22:05 i rebutted this i showed you that to see
2:22:08 harmonize them so it does not
2:22:10 necessarily follow that they're
2:22:11 incompatible i also showed how some of
2:22:13 ibn cena's views on god being above
2:22:15 existence are actually affirmed by him
2:22:17 and agreed with us i showed siddhisthani
2:22:20 is actually a necessitarian on god's
2:22:21 will he's not a libertarian so me being
2:22:24 a necessitarian is actually in
2:22:25 accordance with the ismaili philosophy
2:22:28 you said siddhisati refuted the rule of
2:22:30 one you know this is a rookie mistake
2:22:32 you if you read that text properly when
2:22:34 sidjasthani said that one cause can give
2:22:37 rise to a multiplicity that one cause is
2:22:40 not god the one causes god's command and
2:22:43 in fact the ismailis do affirm the rule
2:22:44 of one they just have a pythagorean
2:22:46 version of the argument you said i
2:22:48 contradict the quran and that anyone who
2:22:50 reads the quran will come to the other
2:22:51 review that's completely false you have
2:22:53 no consistent theory of predication i
2:22:55 have a theory of predication called
2:22:57 kinaya or metanimic speech god is
2:22:59 knowing means that god is the originator
2:23:01 of knowledge or whatever x he's
2:23:02 predicated with you said repeated that
2:23:05 ismailis don't use rational proofs to
2:23:07 establish god they do go read the
2:23:09 primary sources stop relying on
2:23:11 secondary sources like grifold and
2:23:13 madelung and walker pick up kiramani's
2:23:16 read it in arabic there's an entire
2:23:18 chapter to establish god rationally and
2:23:21 he uses a dependent argument a
2:23:23 dependence argument which is different
2:23:25 from ibn cena's and i i use a dependence
2:23:27 argument i don't use ibn cena's
2:23:29 continuously argument personally um
2:23:32 regarding tacleed ismaili's texts are
2:23:34 full of rational arguments when it comes
2:23:36 to metaphysics we don't actually do tuck
2:23:38 lead you actually prove the metaphysics
2:23:40 so overall i've shown here we have two
2:23:43 competing visions of tauhid okay the
2:23:45 vision of islamic philosophy is very
2:23:47 simple
2:23:48 god is one god is simple god is beyond
2:23:50 time god is beyond space god creates
2:23:52 everything but creation unfolds through
2:23:54 intermediaries and the hadith talks
2:23:57 about the intermediaries the pen is the
2:23:58 first creation we call it the intellect
2:24:00 the tablet comes after the pen we call
2:24:02 it the soul the other heed frankly
2:24:05 is a big mess okay it has god with all
2:24:08 these multiple finite attributes that
2:24:10 are somehow floating around my opponent
2:24:12 doesn't want to even answer the question
2:24:13 whether the attributes are dependent or
2:24:15 independent it's a huge mess and he
2:24:17 really had no answer to deal with the
2:24:19 logical problem of the other do you take
2:24:21 the zahiri meaning of god appearing as a
2:24:24 beardless youth with curly hair do you
2:24:25 affirm it jake or do you do taw wheel
2:24:27 well you can't do tawil so you have to
2:24:29 affirm it and if you affirm it tawi
2:24:31 tawhid is finished if you don't affirm
2:24:33 it you're in a logical contradiction so
2:24:35 it's really too bad and i'm not going to
2:24:37 personalize the rest of this debate
2:24:39 because look
2:24:40 islam contrary to what like what people
2:24:42 want to say today islam is a big tent
2:24:45 islam is extremely diverse we have so
2:24:47 many legal schools in islam we have so
2:24:49 many theological schools we have so many
2:24:51 sufi tariqas and the ismailis are part
2:24:53 of this islamic diversity so are the
2:24:56 authorities and as a muslim i do not say
2:25:00 that the authority belief although i
2:25:01 disagree with it i do not say it is
2:25:02 kufar i will never tuck fear
2:25:06 the people who are utteris or salafis or
2:25:08 anybody i will not do that i may have
2:25:10 disagreements with you but jake i don't
2:25:12 think you're a kafir i think you're a
2:25:14 muslim uh i think your beliefs are
2:25:16 misguided but that's okay i will treat
2:25:19 you like a muslim and that goes for
2:25:20 anybody so my position is that if you
2:25:22 affirm the shahada you're a muslim uh it
2:25:25 doesn't matter what we disagree on so we
2:25:27 need to keep this in mind so let me
2:25:28 close
2:25:29 jake says you know i'm in a smiley so
2:25:31 yeah i'm in a smiley here's what the
2:25:32 ismaili imam say they say that we pray
2:25:35 that god and his infinite mercy will
2:25:37 forgive the sins of all muslims okay we
2:25:41 recognize all interpretations of islam
2:25:43 other than our own as quote equally
2:25:46 earnest endeavor to practice the faith
2:25:48 in allah and emulate the example of the
2:25:50 holy prophet this is what the israeli
2:25:52 imam shakarim al-husseini
2:25:54 thank you very much
2:25:57 okay thank you abdulrahman are you there
2:26:01 yeah so um i guess that's that's it for
2:26:05 the debate thank you both
2:26:07 jake and khalil i enjoyed the discussion
2:26:10 it was um reasonably civil i appreciate
2:26:13 that and uh and i and i really enjoyed
2:26:16 the back and forth
2:26:18 thanks
2:26:19 to dr duvet for
2:26:21 joining us
2:26:22 in moderating and i thank everybody else
2:26:25 who was watching we should be having
2:26:27 a stream coming up in about two weeks or
2:26:29 something and we'll announce that soon
2:26:31 so everybody um
2:26:33 just keep an eye out for that and
2:26:35 i guess we'll end it right there
2:26:37 so yeah thank you for watching jake i
2:26:39 guess you can end this right there
2:26:47Music 2:26:51 ah
2:27:10 you

Debating Tawhid: Athari Creed vs Ismaili Neoplatonism (2022-06-16) #

Description #

The Hosts: #

Summary of Debating Tawhid: Athari Creed vs Ismaili Neoplatonism #

00:00:00 - 01:00:00 #

01:00:00 - 02:00:00 #

02:00:00 - 02:25:00 #

Full transcript with timestamps: CLICK TO EXPAND

Debating Tawhid: Athari Creed vs Ismaili Neoplatonism (2022-06-16)

Description

The Hosts:

Summary of Debating Tawhid: Athari Creed vs Ismaili Neoplatonism

00:00:00 - 01:00:00

01:00:00 - 02:00:00

02:00:00 - 02:25:00