Did Ghazali refute Ibn Sina? | Discussion between Ustadh Hasnain Naqvi and
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 жов 2024
- Dive deep into the historic debate between Falāsifa and Ghazali.
Ustādh Ḥasnain Naqvī presents the view of Falāsifa against Ghazali to Qaisar Ahmed Raja in this never happened before philosophical discussion, a first in Pakistan's intellectual sphere.
Brethren of purity is fighting a very hard battle, a battle which is very important for future of Pakistan. If they win, pakistan will flourish.
Pakistan needs economic uplift not philosophical uplift
یہ بھرے پیٹ کے نخرے ہیں
پیٹ خالی ہو تو خالی پیٹ والے کو فرق نہیں پڑتا کہ light wave ہے یہ particles یا غزالی غلط ہے یا ابن سینا ۔
@@bubbly3045yeah both have there own signifigance economy can't be improved without being in a governmental position if you want to see videos on economy then there are also present on internet please go and watch it there . Studying history will also not result in filling your stomach does that mean every everyone should abondon history
@@neutral235
DON'T abandon any thing, just try to read any thing if you have nothing to eat ,no hope for job ,no money for utility bills ,responsibilities of parents, kids,siblings and wife.
میں تو ایک ہی نتیجے پر پہنچی یہ سب
بھرے پیٹ کے نخرے ہیں
خالی پیٹ والے کا دماغ بھی بھرا نہیں ہوتا،اگرچہ وہ پیٹ کی طرح چیخ چیخ کر بتاتا نہیں ہے لیکن اپنے آپ کو استعمال بھی نہیں ہونے دیتا
Brilliant discussion. One of the best defence of the Falsafa and Ibn Sina that I have heard.
@@Taimur_Laal
Hasnain naqvi found giving lecture instead of clear Yes or No answers, looser😂
@@m.s.nafees6314he has given a clear answer. He has said that Ibn Sina is not a kafir. Ghazali was wrong to declare him a kafir.
@@Taimur_Laal
Sir ji i hope you're real.
I wish to see you n my noble teacher Qaisar Raja sitting with coffee n having respectful discussions despite all the differences, mind unblocking him from your space n channels.
All the best.
@@m.s.nafees6314 If you ask like that I am willing. Most people just abuse me and then I don’t want to do it. Thank you for asking me nicely.
@@m.s.nafees6314 bro thats why qaisar raja was totally f**ked in debate with haris sultan🤣🤣😂literelist always fails to prove God coz they have no other medium except Quran and between kafir nd momin base arguments should be universal not from Quran
Brilliant discussion ❤️❤️❤️ want more like this although i agree with qaisar ahmed raja on many issues but have to give credit to hasnain naqvi. I would encourage him to write a book on explaining the the islamic philosophy and argument in simple language to modern day people who don't understand complex islamic philosophical issues because much of that discussion is in arabic vast majority of people don't understand arabic
Qaiser shb ka knowladge kamal hai . ALLAH in k ilm main izafa frmaay .
When surface level expert on all topics meets actual experts. Excellent conversation!
10 mins into the discussion and i am going crazy cause my head is spinning 😂... But loving it ❤
Sch m yar upar s itni khalis Urdu dimag h ghum gya
First time since the start of QAR i am feeling a bit of mediocrity in his arguments. Full credit to the other speaker for being so solid in his arguments.
Damn! it'll be a great resource if Hasnain naqvi Bhai debate with some analytic atheist modern philosophers like Graham Oppy, Joe Schmid,Stephen law etc
Members of BOP already had direct written conversation with Graham Oppy and he was speechless, in a nutshell.
You nonsense people have not understood debate just thought your fav person should win.
@@shahbazhaider6850
Aoa!
Dear brother,
Where can we find the conversation that happened with Graham Oppy?
@@shahbazhaider6850Hi Shahbaz Bhai! I would love to read that conversation. If it is already shared with public can you tell me where can I find it?
QAR: What a noble teacher ❤
It's lovely ❤ a treat to listen to. Throughly humbling experience for the great polymath 🎉😂
باب آلعلم علیہ الاسلام کے ماننے والوں سے اسی علمی برتری کی امید تھی ❤
Bretheerenofpurity Hazoor e Wala koi zahiri rabtay ka waseela hai aap se
I mean how to contact you
@@baqirnaqvi7118
You can contact us on Facebook and Instagram. We have pages with the same name.
JazakAllah
You can also join Whatsapp group:
chat.whatsapp.com/FEPLOS7Sn68IJ2rhv541mH
After watching the whole debate, I come to the conclusion that host and Ustad Sahab apnay muqadmay ko aur complex kar rahay hai aur QAR simple kar raha hai, plus QAR ka argument ain Quran o Sunnat k mutabiq hai.
1:31:05 well said 👏👏 Qaiser sahab 🙂✅
All for this debate that I have to say.
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".
That perticular being which is created and is eternal is universal intellect and universal soul which is also proven as afterlife
بہت اعلیٰ اخوان الصیفا ❤
At first, Qaiser couldn't even understand a sing philosophical term Ustadh used to present his Burhan.
So, when it was Qaiser's turn to answer, he simply jumped to Quran 😃. Average Ashari tactics against Falasifa.....
❤❤
Hasnain Naqvi clearly won.
Hasnain giving lecture in response to every yes or no question, putting unnecessary examples, means he's struggling.
@@m.s.nafees6314 don't put soo much pressure on your brain to understand Hasnain & the falsafa's position.... You will get brain cancer.
2:15:52
Ye kya hogaya...
Video crop krdi..?
QAISER SAHAB ny ek point rakha aur usko edit krdia...
Waah bhai waahh🤦♂️
جب حسنین صاحب نے یہ تسلیم کر لیا کہ واجب وجود ایک سے زائد ہونا ممکن نہیں اور اسکے علاوہ تمسم موجودات اپنی بقا کے لیئے وجود واجب کی طرف راجح ہیں تو پھر بات ہی ختم کیوںکہ انکا امکان میں سے ہونا انکے ضعف کی دلیل ہو گی پھر بحث کس بات کی
طولی سلسلۂ وجود بھی حادث ہی ہے حسنین کو یہ بات سمجھنی چاہئے۔
اگر طولی سلسلۂ وجود کو قدیم بغیرهٖ یعنی محتاج ہی کہہ کر خدا کے برابر کہہ دیا تب بھی شرک ہے۔ کیونکہ اسکا کوئی محتاج بھی اس کے برابر قدیم نہیں ہو سکتا۔
Husnain kept givings statements and when it comes to evidence,His evidence was a Circular Reasoning..😢
Such a thick brain Qaiser has. I salute the patience of Hasnain and Ilyas in the face of such a dimwit.
It is a debate between philosophers so consider it talking between lawyers from the films of India.
Short answer: no (2)
Jo baat Quran se sabit hai uspr NAQVI sahab apni AQQAL laga rahy hai 🙂#sad #verysad
According to NAQVI :-
1ST AQQAL
2D QURAN 😢
Apny aqal ka achaar daalo phr
@@bashirahmed-v4cQuran ka achar dal fir
Short answer: no
He is literally saying when you accept islam stop being rational accept everything without rational mind .
Quran literally tells us to find contradiction in quran and be rational so every muslims should question and try to find answers just like ibn sina ibn rushd al kindi al farabi
In which verse Quran tells you to find contradiction in Quran
@@mohsinhaq509 Surah An-Nisa (4:82):"Do they not ponder on the Quran? If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction."This verse indeed challenges people to examine the Quran critically, asserting that if it were not from God, it would contain contradictions, but since it is divine, it is free from inconsistencies.
Add time-stamps please.
Bohat aala
Why the video ended abruptly?
Was waiting for 3:30 hours to get Qaisar sahab come to the conclusion that he came for the debate without clearing the basics and grasping the most basic of terminology.
He was just trying to frame BoP by saying they don't conform to the mainstream Sunni understanding.
We deserved a proper conclusion!
مخلوق جو بھی ہے کیونکہ خدا نے پیدا کی ہے اس لئے خدا کے قدیم بالذات ہونے کے تناظر میں وہ ہر معنی کے مطابق حادث ہی ہے اور کسی معنی کے مطابق وہ مخلوق قدیم نہیں ہو سکتی۔ اس مخلوق کو قدیم بغیرهٖ کہنا فلاسفہ کی غلطی ہے۔ قدیم اپنی حقیقت میں صرف خدا ہے۔
@qaiserahmedraja
در اصل بوعلی سینا کا فلسفہ قیصر راجہ بھائی کی سطح سے بلند ہے انہیں اس بحث میں پڑنا ہی نہیں چاہیے
مکمل ڈسکشن سن لی میں نے۔ حسنین بھائی کے حوصلے کو سلام! کاش اس گفتگو سے قبل قیصر راجہ صاحب فلسفے کی اصطلاحات اور کچھ بنیادی باتیں سمجھ کے آتے۔ قیصر راجہ کو فلسفہ پڑھنے اور سمجھنے کی ضرورت یے۔ بہت خوبصورت شے ہے فلسفیانہ براہین۔۔۔ حسنین بھائی کی گفتگو آگہی کا خزانہ تھی۔ الیاس بھائی کو سلام عرض ہے۔ اردو میں ایسی گفتگوئیں جاری رکھیں
2:09:10 ring argument pr acha debunked kia QAISER SAHAB ny😮
اگر فلاسفہ قدیم بغیرهٖ کو اتنا ہی قدیم مانتے ہیں جتنا قدیم بالذات ہے تو وہ مساوی وجود ہوئے اور توحید کی نفی ہوئی لہذا فلاسفہ شرک کرکے کفر کے حقدار ہوئے۔
اور اگر فلاسفہ قدیم بغیرهٖ کو اتنا قدیم نہ مانتے جتنا قدیم بالذات یعنی خدا ہے تو پھر وہ قدیم بغیرهٖ اپنے وجود میں قدیم بالذات کے مقابلے پر حادث ہی قرار پاتے ہیں ۔ لہذا فلاسفہ کو انکو قدیم بغیرهٖ کہہ کر مشتبہ نہیں کرنا چاہئے تھا۔
حقیقت یہ ہے کہ فلاسفہ نے جس کو قدیم بغیرهٖ کہا اور ممکن بالذات بھی کہا انکو اللّٰہ کے متوازی قدیم قرار دیا ہے ۔ اس لئے غزالی نے انکو کافر کہا ہے اور فتویٰ درست لگایا۔ کیونکہ خدا کے برابر قدیم قرار دینا چاہے اسکو ممکن کی کہہ کر قرار دیا جائے وہ متوازی وجود بنتے ہیں اس طرح وحدتِ مطلق کی نفی ہوتی ہے اور شرک قرار پاتا ہے۔
@qaiserahmedraja
2:56:01
تابوت میں آخری کیل۔ قیصر راجہ صاحب بچوں کی طرح سیکھ رہے ہیں بحث نہیں کر پا رہے۔ بچارے کو یہ سمجھ نہیں آرہی کی علت معلول اول کو قدیم کہوں یا حادث۔
Hahahaha 🤣 nice joke. Lagta hai app ka philosopher copy paste hai. Qaiser sahab ney Bina philosophy jadey ya samja diya ki philopha ka kehna hai Allah ney qainat ko banaya aur qainat tab sey hai jab sey Allah hai. But app key falsafi ya baat hi ketey hai magar ya b nahi kehtey Allah awal hai magar kuch pico sec ya use sey b Kam mai qainat ka wajood hai aur isa pata chala qainat Allah ki tarah awal hai. Ab example do. Tum. Kayse. 😂
Kia waqi....
Naqvi sb bechary Falsafyana "terminologies" K bechy bar bar chupny ki koshish krty hen.. Lambi lambi taqreer krty hen...
Phir argument ki support men bar bar wohi dawy dohraty chaly ja rahy hen... Na koi dalil hy... Na koi Prof.. Kamal hy aik Muslim scholar k pass aik bhi dalil Quran aur Hadees sy ni hy... Aur topic hy Khaliq aur Makhloq... Hadis aur Qadeem..
Jo chez Makhloq hy wo Hadis hy... Aur Qadeem sirf Allah ki zaat hy...
Mazy ki bat hy Allah ko Qadeem bhi maan rahy hen... Makhloq ko Hadis bhi maan rahy hen...
Likin "Mubda" aur "Zamani" Ki aar men...
Kainat ko Qadeem qrar dy rahy hen... Dalil koi ni...
Jab kaha jata Qadeem sirf Allah hy Baqi Makhloq sb Hadis hen... Warna khuda ki brabri ghalib aay gi... To aaen baaen shaaen shuru kr dety hen... Koi Qurani dalil hy?? Ni hy... Aqli dalil hyQuran k muqably men????
Kia illm hy aur kiya dalil... Wo bhi aik Muslim scholar k pass
Speculative philosophy borrowed from the Greeks and spread by Shia and Ismailis became a detriment to scientific progress.
How?
How?
Bhai kuch bhi matlab kuch bhi? Shia Iswaqt iron dome ke paar missle maar chukay hain. Or aapke ghair aqali " ulama " abhi bhi Goron ke mohtaj hain ke aake unke mulkon se oil nikalain
@@baqirnaqvi7118 aby bhai kaha ki baat kaha kr rhy jo baaf ho rhi h uska jwb do
میں نے فلسفہ کے ایک یا شائد دو لیکچرز سنے ہیں لیکن یہ بحث سن کر اس نتیجے پر پہنچا ہوں کہ قیصر صاحب بضد ہے کہ وہ فلسفے کے مسائل پر بحث بھی کریں اور فلسفے کی زبان و پیچیدگی بھی استعمال نہ ہونے دیں بلکہ عام و سادہ فہم پر ایئں۔ یہ تو ممکن نہیں ہرموضوع کو اسی کی زبان میں سمجھا جاتا ہے۔
خیر استاد حسنین نقوی صاحب و الیاس بھائ نے زبردست دلائل دئے ہیں مجھے اب معلوم ہوا کہ فلاسفہ کائنات کو قدیم مانتے ہیں لیکن کس جہت سے مانتے ہیں۔ یہ مہم ہیں۔
مجھے اس موقع ہر فلسفہ وحدت غیر عددی یاد ائ کہ وہاں بھی گہرائ کے ساتھ توحید کی وضاحت ہوتی ہےعام فہم توحید بعنوان گنتی کی نسبت۔
یعنی ایسا ممکن ہے کہ ایک سوچ و نظریہ عوام الناس کے لئے ایک ہو لیکن اسی نظریہ کا عمیق مطالعہ بزبان فلاسفہ گرچہ عوام الناس کی فہم کی متصادم نہ ہو لیکن اسکا دوسرا مفصل رخ پیش کرتا ہو۔
توحید یعنی اللہ ایک ہے گنتی کے اعتبار سے نہیں۔اسی طرح اللہ قدیم ہے البتہ زمانی حساب سے نہیں۔۔
I'd like to hear your opinion on Ryan Mullins's work on divine simplicity.
only modal collapse challenge can be obstacle to Divine simplicity rest of this I don't think is that much of a problem
QAR clearly is not well read enought for this philosophical discussion... He does not even knows basic terminologies..
2:09:10 ring wali baat pr acha debunked kia QAISER SAHAB ny 😮
Islamic neoplatonism best explanation of God
میں نے پوری ویڈیو دیکھی ہے اور میں یہ کہنے پر بجا ہوں کہ قیصر راجہ فلسفے کی بنیادی تعقلات sسے نا واقف ہیں ۔۔۔۔۔ اسی لئے انہیں سمجھنے میں دشواری ہو رہی ہے ۔۔۔۔۔ ابھی تو ان کا ٹاکرا اسلامی برهان سے ہوا ہے جب ان کی بحث جرمن عینیتوں سے ہو گی کہ جو ہیگیلین اور کانٹین موقف لے کر آییں گے تو ان کا کیا بنے گا ؟
Hasnain Bhai. is video ka aik review b krain. kuch batain hain jahan raja sahab gandam ka jawab channy say day rahay hain impression aisy day rahy hain jaisy wo asal sawal ka jawab day rahay hain. hala k bohat he off road chal rahy hain.
I'm from India....
حسنین صاحب اور مفتی یاسر ندیم الواجدی صاحب کی آپس میں گفتگو ہو تو بہت علمی فائدہ ہوگا
After Engineer Ali Mirza ,Qaisar get tough time 😂😂😂
Ye Tough tough alfaaz mai awaam ko to phasa sakta hai lekin intellectual ke samne bhigi billi ban jata hai
😂😂
Hasnain sb... Passy huwy hen... Argument ki support men koi solid proof hy ni..??
Kahaniyan!!!!
Phillospha ki tar tar???
Na Quran, na hadees
Kiya argument hy???
Kainat hadiss hy...
Kainat hadiss ni hy....
Kainat Qadeem...
Likin Qadeem ni hy...
Kiya contradiction hy???
@@ZubairAhmadAwan philosophy ki tar tar, jaahil hai kya?
Engineer fully trapped by Qaiser even every point raised.
Engineer is now crying because his students want answer not blaming and abuse.
Brother Hasnain Naqvi had to tell Raja ideology of Ghazali ,what was he here for to defend Ghazali when he didn't even study Ghazali 58:30
اسلام علیکم۔
Ustad Hassan Naqvi sb ka contact mill sakta hy kuch sawalat tha.
You can join Whatsapp group:
chat.whatsapp.com/HTb5Dg7iszM4OE8oPTMYR2
@@IslamicPhilosophers
Jazakallah
مخلوق ہر حال میں حادث ہے۔
اگر کسی مخلوق کو قدیم اور متوازی خدا کہہ دیا جائے تو وحدتِ مطلق میں انفقاق ہوگا جس سے شرک لاحق آئے گا۔
ممکن کے عدم کی علت عدم علت وجود ہی ہے، عدم ممکن کیلئے کسی علت خاصہ کی ضرورت نہیں۔
Hasnain sb... Alf lala suna rahy hen...aur khom phir kr result aik hi hy... K agr kainat Qadeem bhi hy to Qaim bizzaat ni hy... To behis kis baat ki... Argument ki support men Quran ki aik Aayat tk pesh ni kr skay....
افسوس صد افسوس کہ تمام لوگ جو قیصر صاحب کو فلسفہ پڑھنے کی تلقین کررہے ہیں وہ خود بالکل نہیں پڑھے ہوئے اور محض حسنین اور الیا س کی فلسفیانہ اصطلاحات کے رعب میں آکر یہ رائے قائم کررہے ہیں۔بھائی جب بحث فلاسفہ اور ان کے مخالفین سے ہوگی تو یہی انداز ہوگا اور امام غزالی نے بھی یہی اختیار کیا جو حقیقت ہے اور آخر کار ہمیں اسی اصل کی طرف لوٹنا ہے۔غزالی فلاسفہ کی ان الجھنوں سے تنگ آگر ہی تو حقیقت کی طرف آئے تھے کہ یہ صرف بحثیں ہیں اور نتیجہ بھی کچھ نہیں نکلے گا۔
22:10 Qaiser sahab ❤asked Quran se ek aayat sabit karo
23:50 hasnian said Aqqal se daleel nahi hai isliye Quran se daleel dhund rahy ho
It means naqvi k nazdeek Aqqal first🙂 hai
Aur quran 2nd hai
34:02 he again said
Aqqal first
Quran second
🙂
Naqvi sahab said👉
Ap bhi Aqqal se sabit karo
Mai bhi Aqqal se sabit karuga,
Quran ko mat lao 😢 bich mai
39:30 Qaiser sahab ny jawab dediya
Naqvi sahab k pichlay sawal 😊
49:50 till now Qaiser sahab ny Quran se daleel di hai
Lakin Naqvi sahab is baat ki nafi mai AQQAAL ku tarji dey rahy hai... SAD
As non philosophical person i understood why philosipha are wrong. 3:03:14 u were not giving. U were giving statement.
حسنین صاحب ایک ایسا فلسفہ بتا رہے ہیں جو الفاظ تک محدود ہے اور اسکی کوئی عملی مثال ہی نہیں ان کے پاس۔
2:31:23 ayse tayse philosopha ki.....
Ayse tayse is logic ki. Ki scientist created robot and is making robot and only one robot and then we mean man and robot are from same time.
میرا تو سیدھا س خیال ہیکہ فلاسفہ سے نے فضول قسم کی بھینسیں کی ہیں
ایک طرف یہ مان رہے ہیں کہ اللہ خالق ہے لیکن ساتھ ساتھ یہ بھی کہہ رہے ہیں کاءنات بھی ازلی ہے جب سے معاز اللہ جب سے اللہ ہے جب کاءینات بھی ہے۔۔۔۔۔۔
ایک طرف کچھ اور کہہ رہے ہیں ارضی اور طولی میں گھمارہے ہیں
اس بھینس کا نتیجہ کیا ہے اور اس پہ نقد کی وجہ سے کیوں اسلام میں ساءینس کا کام رک گیا؟؟؟؟؟
Naqvi sahb agar meharbani kar k aap itna keh detey k physical world comes temporally posterior to the GOD tou baat khatam hojati .... sometimes you need to keep it simple
Too much farsi terminology might cause more confusion than the topic itself
It's necessary, otherwise general public will misunderstand and it will lead to kifr
@@obeidshariff4307 so that might be the reason that God didn't use philosophy for the guidance of human beings.... Cause one might get misguided just because he failed to follow a voluptuous terminology.
In other words, philosophy is an inefficient method to guide human beings.
@@hammadhussain4422 true, but to answer modern atheists we need this precious knowledge
حسنین صاحب نے کائنات کی تقدیم پر جو دلائیل دیئے وہ بہت ناقص ہیں۔ کیوںکہ اس بات کا انکار نہیں کیا جا سکتا کہ بالعلیت دو قدما ہونا ممکن نہیں چاہے زمان ہو یا نا ہو بس جب ہمارے پاس زمان سے ماقبل کوئی فہم نہیں تو ہم علت کے قاعدہ پر ہی اکتفا کریں گے
Question: Mr Hasnain the problem with your argument is that you are taking ibn Sina's causal argument as some axiom or iman bil ghaib. Because If the universe is eternal then it does not necessarily need to depend on something else according to pure reason...Your job is to prove objectively why two eternal beings are necessarily dependent? because in our world things are temporarily dependent due to the fact they succeed each other even that ring on hand was dependent on the fact that I wore it earlier and although the fan and wall are the same wajud but if they were separate and eternal then it's meaningless to say that fan depends on the wall. So for two coexisting eternal things, one doesn't necessarily need to cause the other although some falasifah with faith can subjectively say but can't prove it objectively. That is what Ghazzali said and all modern Western philosophers reinforce this idea. Also, your reason for the existence of an infinite universe is " if God can create a universal eternally then he has created" preassumes "God". Your job is to prove why eternal existence needs to depend on another necessary being e.g. God. It a circular reasoning not pure e.g., 'God has created an eternal world and it must depend on him. but why because he has created it'... circular reasoning is a fallacy and is believed to be equivalent to incest for philosophers. Just Prove why god must necessarily exist for an infinite universe? don't assume God in your argument nor the reasoning derived from temporal causal reasons because they require temporal succession. Your whole conversation has assumed God and then both are ignorantly debating on whether God has created an eternal universe or a finite one. Such low IQ individuals. It's absurd and also don't reply that I don't understand your argument I am asking to answer the simple question that the whole Western world has put forward.
Secondly, Ghazali's argument was:
Premise #1 Past cannot stretch back infinity because if it were then future unfolding would never happen given it has been unfolded infinitely. After all, infinity cannot be crossed to reach the present moment...
Premise #2 if the Universe isn't folding infinitely or even quantum fluctuations or inflation isn't happening infinitely then it must begin or start to exist from a state of nonexistence.
Premise #3 If the universe begins to exist then a non-existent being can not come into being independently rather explanation for its existence must be prior to that...
Premise #4 then for such a created universe there must be some external explanation or cause of it...
Also for God to create the universe or be the explanation of the universe it is not necessary for him to physically create it in a concrete way even the Quran says he wished and it was كُن فَيَكُونُ
So it's not necessary for God to be with time and space before creation and thus there is no infinite regress of who created god and so on. Rather God can be a necessary existence that is the explanation or cause of every other dependent temporary existence and is eternal without time.
This is supported by entanglement which is proven experimentally and the Nobel prize was awarded for it in 2022. the entanglement says that two things can be correlated or dependent without time like the measurement of particle b will depend on that of an even if they are billion light years apart.
In a nutshell, eternal God can be an explanation of this finite universe that caused it without time or is an explanation of its existence...
Bro qadeem is since the inception of time . But if you imply that God created universe and time at some point you are already assuming that point exists in a time which was ticking when God was creating that universe. Hence universe is eternal in the sense it is woven with time. And being eternal doesn't make something divine, it is still contingent entity.
@@obeidshariff4307 your job is to prove by the reason why being eternal requires contingency or dependence on some other things there is no logical necessity...
regarding the creation of the universe, time was not before the universe it was created with space so no point in time as most physicists believe...and for God to create the universe it does require time only if he physically caused the universe with hand or stuff....but that's not the case rather he wishes and it is. that's possibly experimentally proven with entanglement...the finite universe must have some explanation or cause or purpose independent of it that is God....also if you don't imagine God to be physically near the Big Bang then there is no problem...before the big bang, there is nothing physical.....
So true brother muhammad sufian. . Hasnain sir, while advocating avecenian (ibn e sina's ) approach as well as thought He goes to extreme line. . he by all means wants to make his listeners and followers believe that Avecina's approach and school is like universal. . . which is utterly circular reasoning. . . .
ابن سینا کا اپروچ universal paradigm نہیں بن سکتا۔۔۔یہ ایک طفلانہ روش ہے۔۔۔۔
Ye jitny log Hasnain Naqvi sb ki bartri ka dhindhora peet rahy hen... Yaqeen maniye in men sy 95% logon ko ABC tk ki samjh ni aayi... Aur na hi topic ki samjh hy...
Ghazali ny pure Islamic point of view sy Yani Quran O Hadees ki roshni men philosophers py grift ki... Aur un k jo aqeedy Quran O Hadees sy mutsaadim thy un py fatwa diya....
Qaisar ahmed raja sb Ghazali ko defend kr rahy thy... Lehaza un ka reference Quran tha aur argument ki demand bhi Quran sy thi.... Naqvi sb direct to baat keh ni sakty thy k Quran pak sy un k pass apny argument ki support men koi Aayat ni hy.. Lehaza ajeeb tariqy sy trhaa dy kr patli galli sy nikl liye k "aqli dalil hy Quran sy hr bat ki dalil ni ly sakty"... To Naqvi sab Ghazali ka Philosophers sy " Tanaza ya Ikhtilaf" Kiya tha....
Naqvi sb aap "Istlahat ky pechy chupp gy"
Aur swal k jwab men lambi lambi taqreer shuru kr k circular reasoning krty rahy....
Everything except God is contingent being.
قیصر صآحب ،ان سے پوچھیں کہ یہ جو اصطلاحات ہیں اور فلاسفہ نے قائم کررکھی ہیں تو کیا یہ اللہ کی ذات کے لیے بھی یہ ایسے ہی ضروری جیسے غیر اللہ کے لیے ہیں۔اس پر دلیل طلب کریں اور جواب ایسا دیں جو واضح اور فلسفہ کے علاوہ علوم پر منطبق ہوتا ہو۔
Husnain Naqvi bhai ap please tauheed pr debate krain Haris Sultan (pakistani mulhid) aur Awais Iqbal k sath.
They are not competent enough to even grasp philosophical arguments to engage with them properly. Awais Iqbal believes that anything which is not in space and time cannot exist.
We have already debated Ghalib Kamal. The video is available on the channel.
We need a mutakallimin revolution again but moulvies and their frontman will object so finding a Common Ground is necessary.
Hope these discussions provide that environment and muslims again claim their lions share of knowledge
(For anyone wondering, mutakallimin aren't mutazilli or shia)
Those who you consider Mutakallimeen are also referred as Molvis or Mullahs by some others so better not use Molvi as a derogatory term
your comment shows you have no idea what you're talking about
@@MuhammadAhmed-lc1op I misnomered falasifa with mutakallimin, hope that helps
flasfa are not mutakalimoon
Well done Qaisar bhi.... 100 sunar ki aik lohar ki.... Apny argument ki support men Quran ki aik Aayat pesh kro.... Khamoshi.... Baqi tar tar non stop..rukny ka naam hi ni... Is this an argument by a Muslim????Naqvi sb
ویسے ہم philosphers کو کیوں study کرتے ہیں ؟
Qaiser sahb is weak in this subject.
I really want to understand what first speaker is saying. Lakin urdu bohat mushkil hai kuch samaj nai aa raha.
Can you please make a seprate video on this topic in simple urdu?
You can watch other videos on the channel.
Qaisar bhai great victory!!!
2:47:39 philosopher sahab mai b samaj gaya. App galat inferences nikal raha hai. Kitne second baad bane.
ویڈیو میں حسنین بھائی نے ایک جگہ انگلی اور انگوٹھی کی مثال دی اور کہا کہ انگوٹھی اپنی حرکت کے لیے انگلی کی حرکت پر انحصار کرتی ہے۔ اور اس مثال سے پھر یہ سمجھانے کی کوشش کی کہ کائنات ازل سے موجود ہے لیکن اس کا تعلق اللہ کے ساتھ ویسا ہی ہے جیسا انگوٹھی کی حرکت کا انگلی کی حرکت کے ساتھ۔
لیکن میرا سوال یہاں پر یہ ہے کہ بات تو کائنات کے وجود کی نہیں ہو رہی؟ اگر کائنات کے وجود کی ہو رہی ہے تو پھر انگلی اور انگوٹھی والی مثال یہاں پر صحیح معلوم نہیں ہوتی۔
صحیح مثال کچھ اس طرح سے ہو سکتی تھی کہ جس نے بھی انگوٹھی بنائی اس کا انگوٹھی سے پہلے موجود ہونا ضروری ہے۔
اسی طرح اگر کائنات اللہ کی طرف سے تخلیق شدہ
ہیں تو اللہ کا کائنات سے پہلے ہونا ضروری ہے۔
براہ مہربانی اس پر رہنمائی کر دیجیے۔
The point of the analogy was to explain that dependence of effect on a cause doesn't always require temporal priory...
بھائی، مثال صرف ایک جہت بنتی ہے، مثال میں آپ کئی دوسری جہتیں نکال سکتے ہیں جو کہ غلط ہوں، مثال میں صرف تعلق کو واضح کیا ہے انگھوٹھی کس طرح ڈپنڈڈ ہے انگلی پر،
Husnain keep saying Quran does not contradict pur view and does not able to present a Single Verse of a Quran in his defence.On the other hand QAR did present a Verse of a Quran to support his Narrative.Husnain is a Good Yapper..
Exegetes like Rāzī himself agree that nothing clear in the Quran contradicts the philosophical view. This is in his Maṭālib.
@@IslamicPhilosophers QAR did gave a clear verse of a Quran in his defence.Why Husnain was not able to quote a single verse in his defence?Infact he tried to avoid the direct question regarding the verse of a Quran from QAR multiple times.
It is not a "clear verse" that proves temporal origination. Even Rāzī doesn't agree it is clear.
Yes, because Quran is open to interpretation. The Islamic philosophical exegetes understand them differently. There is no point in citing verses in an issue where interpretations exist on both sides.
@IslamicPhilosophers Again you are just giving statements without any evidence.Its was a clear Verse from the Quran Even Husnain didnt challenge QAR on this verse in a debate,He just gave his statement (Oh Quran does not contradict our position)And thats it.Which clear verse Supports Husnain View ?he was not able to give a Single.
listening to Qasir Raja saying Quran ki epistemology say jawab dain
States clearly he is not the person to debate with, specially not on the topic of philosophy because asking Hasnain Naqvi to give ref. From Quran (theology) which has different interpretations by everyone mindset
Tu Bhai Yeh Qasir Raj ko debate and discussion ka ABC nhi PATA yeh mashoor kis baat ka hy is ko chaya Dr moiz/merb awan ka Sath discussion kia Kary bus vo ji limit hay in ki
Jnab... Qaisar sb aik Muslim scholar sy debate kr rahy hen...
Ghazali k falsafy k hwaly sy... Aur ghazali ny islamic point of view sy flasfa k aqeedy ko kufr qrar diya tha...
Jab bat hi sari Quran O Hadees ki roshni men huwi thi aur kufr ka fatwa ghazali ny diya tha...
To main dalil Quran sy hi aay gi na...
Ajeen Muslim scholar hy jis k pass koi Quranic dalil ny hy... Flosfa ki tr tr hy...
Naqvi sb k pass sab kuch hy... Sway Quran ki aik Aayat k... Aur wo bhi apny argument ki support men...
بھائی قرآن کی پوری تفسیر لکھی ہیں فلاسفہ نے۔ متکلمین نے اپنے انداز سے آیت کی تفہیم کی ہے اور فلاسفہ نے اپنے انداز سے۔ اس پر بحث ہے ہی نہیں۔
Hasnain Bhai would be like kis jahil sa baat hori hay
Hasnain Bhai "Ap educated admi lagray han"
Naqvi saab baray alfaaz tu use kr rahy hain lekin baaton ki kichari bna di hai QAR clear baat krty hain lekin Naqvi kabi English or kabi mushkil alfaz use kr k siway ilmi roab dalny k or kuch nai kr rahy
Last mai app logo ney sab sey irrational baat ki. Aur us ko philosophy naam diya. Is pa haad ya hai ki. Ya kehtey ho kisi cheez ka imkaan hai aur wo imkaan tab sey hai jab sey Allah hai. Aur wo chhez b tabi sey hai. Tou adam b imkaan tha aur wo b tabi sa hai jab sey imkaan hai. Phir 6 din mai qainat kayse bani.
Qur'an key hujat ki daleel is the prophet Mohammed saw.
یہ دور کا مغالطہ ہے۔ یعنی "x" نے کہا "y" درست ہے اسلئے درست ہے۔ اور "x" کیوں درست ہے؟ کیونکہ "y" نے کہا۔
اہل حق کو پہچاننے کے لیے حق کو عقلی بنیادوں پر پہلے سمجھنا پڑتا ہے ورنہ کسی بھی دین کو کسی دوسرے دین پر کیا فوقیت حاصل ہوگی۔ اسی لیے حضرت علی کا قول ہے کہ حق کو پیچانو اہل حق تک پُہنچ جاؤ گے۔
@@shahbazhaider6850 bhai read seerat and understand how he proved existence of Allah. What was aqali daleel of wahi at that time. So that hazrat ali accepted Mohammad saw as prophet. What is aqali daleel of that your imam is divine.
@@shahbazhaider6850 ya shai suni debate nahi hai. Dono muslim hai and eik understanding hai. So then the concept of proving the Qur'an is true is not relatable.
@@Faqr-e-Ghayoor
جناب دور کا مغالطہ عقلی مغالطہ ہے۔ شیعہ سنی argument نہیں۔ آپ کو خود اسلام اور قرآن کا امتیاز عقلی بنیادوں پر ہی ثابت کرنا ہوگا ظاہری سی بات ہے ورنہ اگر آپ کسی اور دین میں پیدا ہوتے تو اسے بھی ایسے ہی defend کرتے۔ اسلام کی کونسی interpretation درست ہے اسکا فیصلہ ظاہری بات ہے عقل ہی کرے گی۔
@@shahbazhaider6850 Bai sahab. Myre sawal ka jawab do. Apne baat phir sey bata kar kuch prove nahi ho raha hai.
The Problem is that you guys (those representing Falaasifa) think that you guys completely grasped ALLAH's DhaaT, and now you guys can put limitations on that DhaaT...
You guys are kinda turning him into a Machine Like dependent being who does not have any Divine Will...
How did you even affirm the existence of God, if not by logical reasoning? It is the very same logical reasoning that entails this truth.
Muslims always like to claim that all religions apart from Islam are followed just because of ancestors and cultural reasons. If Islam doesn't itself use logic to prove its point, how is it any different from those religions ?
This is your pre-supposition, nothing else.
@@IslamicPhilosophers that was not an answer to the question asked. The question was about turning the divine into a machine and you are answering about affirming existence. Two very different things
@@IslamicPhilosophersHow do you account for the fitrah then? Why do we have an innate disposition to believe in God before our brain develops?
Is that not independent of logical reasoning?
Get off your high horse, greek philosophy is in complete contradiction to what Allah has revealed. The Aqeedah derived is in complete opposition to that of the Prophet ﷺ and his companions.
Ibn Sina was excommunicated by 200 scholars. Maqsad kya hai Qur'an ka fir bataou?
Did Allah not know greek philosophy existed prior to the birth of Prophet ﷺ? Why did Allah choose to reveal those words and explain Himself in such a way that opposes greek philosophy?
Allah ko tumlog static/constant/frozen being banaake chordiye incapable of thinking about anything but Himself. Incapable of speaking or responding (after they call onto Him) to His creation, incapable of increasingly loving those that increasingly worship Him and incapable of increasingly hating those that are increasingly disobeying Him.
Kya ghatiya soch hai falsafa ke logo ki.
This debate and the arguments by Ustad Hasnain Naqvi proves that why in İran people are becoming repulsive to religion day by day and the religion is being limited to a certain individuals who have a belief that they follow a superior tradition from all other traditions including İslam because they are doing this in the guise of İslam with big beards and Thobes
Muslims ko kis cheez ki daleel hai.
Unfortunately, I had to stop watching when brother Hasnain at 1:12:06 talks about necessity of rational proof for truthfulness of Prophet and Revelation. It was always the character of Prophet which justified his Prophethood instead of some "Philosophical proofs". Moreover Miracles were also granted to some Prophets but it was always their character and them being most truthful from their nations and communities.
Moreover the ego-fest at 20:50 shows despite being this well versed both of them are still pretty biased and not completely open for truth.
What is the truth? We're open. Tell us. Prophecy first of all has to be proven in principle, for it to be established in particular. Furthermore, even the particular proofs you've talked about require reasoning to back them. For example, why are miracles authoritative? That itself has a logical structure to the answer.
@IslamicPhilosophers Truth is God's word. God's word is what a Godly man says. To recognize a Godly man, meet him if you are looking for him. Those who have been blinded from their hearts by God cannot recognize him, everyone else from a layman to a scholar can recognize him. Prophethood ended with blessed Muhammad because he made it clear.
Miracles aren't necessary to recognize the truth, although the reason only God knows best, in my opinion miracles were granted to Prophets for their assistance and difference from common people. Although God can give miracles to any person He wants, being a Prophet isn't a must.
like qaiser raja ap b nahi samaj saky . yaha tak k qaiser raja wazeh tor per ghusa kr gaey aur bahany banany lag gaey. clearly hasnain ny un ko wapis debate main payar say pher enter kia tha . Ap ka argument emotional hai warna hasnain ny aisa nahi kaha jo ap samaj rahy ho.
You are correct. He was doing philosophical gymnasium. Asking this question is absurd. That is why there is confusion in Shia imamat philosophy
No brother we don't use akhlaq as proof, because morality changes and idea of best person will vary. Grounding good argument is necessary
مسیح و مھدی بنانا لوگوں کا کام نہیں ھے۔ یہ اختیار صرف اللہ تعالٰی کو حاصل ھے۔اللہ تعالٰی نے جسے چاھا اسے مسیح و مھدی بناکر بھیجا۔ لیکن زمین پر رھنے والوں نے اللہ کے بھیجے ھوئے کے ساتھ وھی کچھ کیا جو ھر مرسل کے ساتھ انہوں نے کیا تھا۔ حضرت عیسٰی علیہ السلام کو بھی ان کی قوم نے دھتکار دیا تھا۔ ھمارے آقا و مولٰی حضرت محمد صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کی قوم نے بھی آپ کے ساتھ اور آپ کے ماننے والوں کے ساتھ سخت برا سلوک کیا تھا۔ اس لئے آپ کافروں والی روش اختیار کرو، ھم رسولوں کے ماننے والوں کی طرح صبر کے ساتھ اللہ کی نصرت اور فتح کا انتظار کرتے ہیں۔
Leave these discussions to the experts of the field of kalam. These issues are not of your level so avoid discussing them and that too in public where there is possibility of misguidance if the masses. You are doing no service to the religion by carrying out such discussions.
Very opposite. The topics are the need of the current age.
@@IslamicPhilosophersYou need to discuss whether the universe is hadith or qadeem and whether multiplicity can directly stem from Allah swt? These are important questions for today? Moreover tell me where you guys have studied falsafa from?
yes, because Avicennian tradition is essentially related to the esoteric, mystical, and philosophical method of Islam which is highly required in a time when people are becoming Atheists.
@@IslamicPhilosophers I understand the fact that sometimes the arguments of the falasifa may prove to be useful when debating atheists but why do you have to go a step ahead and spread the beliefs of the philosophers in other areas. Clearly the Shia ulema do not believe in such things. I will ask you once again where have you guys learnt your philosophy from? Are you even qualified to discuss these issues? This is extremely important considering the fact that falsafa and mantiq and kalam are issues which require extensive discussions and arguments with the experts in the field. Is it because you guys are as we say in Urdu “neem hakeem” that you don’t want to answer this question
The argument of ibn sina “برهان وجود والامكان" does not necessarily require one to be an expert of the whole philosophical thought of Islamic philosophers
Kya aap sab Pakistani hai ? Hindi bol rahe ?
yes
Hindi nhi hai ye, urdu hai, asmaan zameen farq hai urdu aur hindi me
No. 🤡
حسنین صاحب ایک تو آپ آیت غلط پڑھ رہے ہیں اور الٹا اسکی تفسیر فلاسفہ کی تعریفات والی عینک پہن کر کر رہے ہیں ہم فلاسفہ کی تعریفات کو ہی کالعدم قرار دیتے ہیں آپنے جن مباحث میں اپنے آپ کو غلطاں کیا انکو ثابت کرنے کے لئے زمان اور حرکت وغیرہ کی جو تعریفات کی وہ فلاسفہ کی اختراعات ہیں ۔۔۔پھر اپنے جو خلق کے معانی بتائے وہ اس بات پر دال ہیں کہ آپ عربی زبان کی مبادیات سے بھی ناواقف ہیں اکیسویں صدی میں طبیعیات نے ہی فلاسفہ کے خبط کا بھانڈا پھوڑ دیا ہے اور فلسفے کو دفنا دیا ہے ۔۔۔لوگ آپکی اصطلاحات سن کر مرعوب ہورہے ہیں حالانکہ وہ کھوکھلی ہے ۔۔۔جو خدا فلاسفہ نے متعارف کروایا ہے اسسے بہتر تو انسان ہے اور جسے قرآن نے متعارف کروایا ہے وہ ذات متعالیہ ہے۔۔
پہلی بار کوئی قیصر راجہ کو صحیح بندہ ٹکرا ہے۔ قیصر راجہ بچارے کو سمجھ بھی نہیں آرہی اسے دوبارہ سے فلسفہ پڑھانا پڑھے گا پھر غزالی دوبارہ سے سمجھانا پڑے گا۔ قیصر کو ابھی یہ ہی نہیں معلوم کے اختلاف فلاسفہ اور غزالی کا ہے کیا۔ حسنین نقوی نے بہت عزت سنبھالی ہے قیصر راجہ کی۔ ورنہ کھل کر بتا سکتے تھے کہ آپ کی حالت کیا ہے جو آپ نے ساری زندگی کی تعلیم کیا ہے۔ اور میرا دعوی ہے یہ جرات نہیں کرے گا دوبارہ چیلنج کرنے کا ہر ایک کو۔ کم از کم حسنین نقوی کے سامنے کبھی نہیں آئے گا۔
Phale debate deako to sahi kise se hasd na karo
Dono apne dalayal diye
Qaiser saab agr hum muslmanon ko rational jwab nhi de skty to ethists ko khak dena
Kya rationality hai. Ya phir philosophy seikho.
This is not a debate about aqal/ rationality as Hassan puts it. It's really not. Al Ghazali did not deny the ideas of ibn sina because of him using rationality over scripture. He only showed their logic itself is inconsistent. That was his point. I don't understand why it's being made to look like Al Ghazali did not like logic or rational thought. That's far from true. He knew if you make even a single claim it will be coming from some logic.
Secondly QAR's point is not that you shouldn't use rationale when it comes to scripture. Hassan said that the ideas of the philosophers are in line with the Qur'an, they're just not inline with literalist interpretation. That's something he has to prove. QAR wants that proof from him. How can you say they are in line with scripture when you deny God's attributes.
None of the philosophers "deny God's attributes". You're just regurgitating the old accusations.
@@IslamicPhilosophers understandable. I get that's your interpretation. This is just my opinion and interpretation of your position. To me it seems more like God's Attributes are Infact being indirectly denied.
You need to prove that through a deductive argument. You can't just assert it.
momen momen das raha hai aor mulhid betha haas raha hai 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣