Original lecture - ua-cam.com/video/FpaHQb5bhNk/v-deo.html Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya regarding the satanic backstory of Ilm al-Kalam and negation of sifat: *“And the creed of the negators (an-nufāt) from among the Sabians was that the Lord does not have except negated attributes (sifāt salbiyyah), or an attribute negated relative to another (sifāt idāfiyyah), or that which is a combination of negated attributes and relative attributes. And the Prophet Ibrāhim, the Friend of Allah (ʿalaihis-salām) was sent to them. And Jaʿd Ibn Dirham learnt his ideology from the Sabian Philosophers.* *And likewise, Abu Nasr Al-Fārābī (died 339 AH) entered Harrān and studied under the Sabian Philosophers thus completing his philosophy. And Jahm (died 128 AH) also learned it, as mentioned by Imām Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (died 241 AH) and others, when he debated with the Sumaniyyah who were some of the philosophers of India ― and the Sumaniyyah rejected all the sciences except for the [five] senses. So these are the chains of narration (asānīd) of Jahm that lead back to the Jews, Sabeans, Mushriks and the misguided philosophers, either among the Sabeans or among the other polytheists.* *Thereafter, when the books of the Greeks and Romans were translated into Arabic at the end of the second century, then the tribulation increased alongside that which the Shaytān had thrown into the hearts of the misguided ones in the beginning ― the same as what he threw in the hearts of those who resembled them.* *So towards the end of the second century, these ideas became widespread which the scholars of the Salaf referred to as the sayings of the Jahmiyyah - and they became widespread due to the efforts of Bishr Ibn Ghiyāth Al-Mareesī (d. 218 AH) and those of his era [and inclination]. The sayings of the scholars and īmāms such as Mālik (d. 179 AH), Sufyān Ibn ʿUyainah (d. 198 AH), Ibn Al-Mubārak (d. 181 AH), Abu Yoosuf (d. 182 AH), Ash-Shāfiʿī (d. 204 AH), Ahmad (d. 241 AH), Ishāq (d. 238 AH), Al-Fudayl Ibn ʿIyād (d. 187 AH), Bishr Al-Hāfī (d. 227 AH) and others were plentiful in censoring, refuting and declaring the followers of this ideology to be astray.”* ومَذْهَبُ النُّفاةِ مِن هَؤُلاءِ فِي الرَّبِّ: أنَّهُ لَيْسَ لَهُ إلّا صِفاتٌ سَلْبِيَّةٌ أوْ إضافِيَّةٌ أوْ مُرَكَّبَةٌ مِنهُما وهُمْ الَّذِينَ بَعَثَ إلَيْهِمْ إبْراهِيمَ الخَلِيلَ ﷺ فَيَكُونُ الجَعْدُ قَدْ أخَذَها عَنْ الصّابِئَةِ الفَلاسِفَةِ. وكَذَلِكَ أبُو نَصْرٍ الفارابِيُّ دَخَلَ حَرّانَ وأخَذَ عَنْ فَلاسِفَةِ الصّابِئِينَ تَمامَ فَلْسَفَتِهِ وأخَذَها الجَهْمُ أيْضًا - فِيما ذَكَرَهُ الإمامُ أحْمَد وغَيْرُهُ - لَمّا ناظَرَ «السمنية» بَعْضَ فَلاسِفَةِ الهِنْدِ - وهُمْ الَّذِينَ يَجْحَدُونَ مِن العُلُومِ ما سِوى الحِسِّيّاتِ - فَهَذِهِ أسانِيدُ جَهْمٍ تَرْجِعُ إلى اليَهُودِ والصّابِئِينَ والمُشْرِكِينَ والفَلاسِفَةُ الضّالُّونَ هُمْ إمّا مِن الصّابِئِينَ وإمّا مِن المُشْرِكِينَ. ثُمَّ لَمّا عُرِّبَتْ الكُتُبُ الرُّومِيَّةُ واليُونانِيَّةُ فِي حُدُودِ المِائَةِ الثّانِيَةِ: زادَ البَلاءُ؛ مَعَ ما ألْقى الشَّيْطانُ فِي قُلُوبِ الضُّلّالِ ابْتِداءً مِن جِنْسِ ما ألْقاهُ فِي قُلُوبِ أشْباهِهِمْ. ولَمّا كانَ فِي حُدُودِ المِائَةِ الثّالِثَةِ: انْتَشَرَتْ هَذِهِ المَقالَةُ الَّتِي كانَ السَّلَفُ يُسَمُّونَها مَقالَةَ الجَهْمِيَّة؛ بِسَبَبِ بِشْرِ بْنِ غِياثٍ المريسي وطَبَقَتِهِ وكَلامِ الأئِمَّةِ مِثْلَ مالِكٍ وسُفْيانَ بْنِ عُيَيْنَة وابْنِ المُبارَكِ وأبِي يُوسُفَ والشّافِعِيِّ وأحْمَد وإسْحاقَ والفُضَيْل بْنِ عِياضٍ وبِشْرٍ الحافِي وغَيْرِهِمْ: كَثِيرٌ فِي ذَمِّهِمْ وتَضْلِيلِهِمْ. (Majmu al-Fatawa 5/22)
@@ibmsulaymani But how would you respond, to the Ahul-Kalam like the Ashariyyah or Maturidiyyah that we can affirm like 7 to 8 Attributes of Allah using the contingency arguments.
@@MuhammadAli-mz4pq The claim with contingency is that Allah is dependent on his attributes as the video explains. Therefore they affirm 7 essential attributes as they use rational deduction to claim that Allah would be incomplete without these attributes. This requires more studying in depth and can’t be answered in a UA-cam comment. Refer to the series by Ustadh Abdurrahman Hassan حفظه الله on Aqeedatul Hamawiyya. ua-cam.com/play/PL_db3Znio7qyIv6moaepHZi6RqkPueF5q.html
I’m gobsmacked by this explanation and articulation SubhanAllah. Always heard for years that the Necessary Being / Contingency Argument causes you to deny the sifāt but never heard an explanation for it until now.
Contingency argument is enough for necessary being but the contingent variety in the universe is an evidence that the necessary being that made it is also a volitional agent. The intelligent design and fine tuning in the universe shows the necessary being is all wise and all knowing. I am not saying we should use these arguments i believe quran is enough but just saying that these arguments are not useless. Jazzak Allah u khairan
@@zainkazi650 where the difference beteeen the mu'tazilah and the people of kalam? Refuting or doing dawah to atheist using ilm ul kalam is not the way of ahlus sunnah.
May Allah bless him. I finally get it now. So basically Quran and Sunnah are sufficient for speaking with Any and All types of non-muslims to see which ones are sincere and accepts and which ones are insincere and rejects. Playing around with kalam and trying to appease these people will never work. They will never accept because the message was never from Allah and the messenger salallahu alayhi wasalaam. It was from the kalam. Quran and Sunnah ALL THE WAY. Allah Hu Akbar. I finaly get it now.
Salam what about ex atheists who are now muslims that practice Islam based on these contingency arguments? Look at the ea dawah show as an example. You mean to tell me that Muslims should have just ignored this guy?
Akhi it's meant for you or me as laymans to understand or use philosophy to convince Athiests , as you said just stick Quran and Sunnah and you will be good because convincing Athiests using philosophical arguments is the job of professional Daa'at not us. A layman should never try and dive in these kind of stuff because it could hurt you just leave it for the right people.
There is nothing better than the Qurãn and Sunnah arguments. Al-Jasiyah 45:6 تِلْكَ ءَايَٰتُ ٱللَّهِ نَتْلُوهَا عَلَيْكَ بِٱلْحَقِّۖ فَبِأَىِّ حَدِيثٍۭ بَعْدَ ٱللَّهِ وَءَايَٰتِهِۦ يُؤْمِنُونَ These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what speech after Allah speech and His miracles will they believe?
TLDR - 1. Philosophy -> To win an argument (which most of the time even at that you fail because they end it with the " we agree to disagree "). 2. Correct Dawah -> To call people to Allah This is what I noticed, the main difference between these 2, and once you notice it, you can tell which one is correct, not to mention the many Hadith and the Salaf Books, which clear any doubts as to why not to use Philosophy.
@@Mohammed5i The general rule yes akhi as far as I heard from Scholars and Students of knowledge. There is even a quote Iforgot who said it " There are no philosophers in Islam ". And many more
@@Mohammed5i What contradicts Quran & sunna is rejected. These are the 1st 2 evidences in Islam. The 3rd is ijm3 or consensus of the scholars starting with the sahabas. These 3 are binding & used in Aqida or belief which even **the avg. Muslim SHOULD know.** Proof for this is hadith where Muawiya got mad & struk his sIave and then felt bad. Prophet Muhammad peace and blessing be upon him was told & also feIt bad. He asked her where is Allah & who am I? She said Fi Sam3 or above the Heavens & you are His Rasul. Prophet Muhammad peace & blessing be on him said free her she is a believer. In another hadith it said she was mute & and pointed up & did other signals. The 4th evidence is qiyas or analogy based on how much an imam studied the text - This is more for fiq or physical worship. as long as it doesn't contradict the first 3 evidences it can be valid. Because different imams study different hadiths after Quran at times their qiyas differs. The laymen usually just follow one scholar in this as Quran 21.7 says. When they study more they can choose between imams - Quran 4.59. Fiq has two 2 types fatwas and hukm. Fatwas are usually rulings for pure ibada or worship for Allah alone. This is usually based on the 5 pillars of Islam. Hukm are rulings between ppl, which can become worship with the right intentions & sometimes in the end may involve ppl's customs based on verses in Sura Nisa. That was for some context. As for what's at hand. Alot of ppl don't know the distinction of following terms. They mix up mantiq or logic which is sometimes used in qiyas with kalam which is a logic mixed with personal bias* over Quran & sunna - very wrong thing to do, esp. In Aqida or things dealing with 6 pillars iman. This would contradict many ayat. Quran 5.3 - Islam is a complete religion. Quran 5.48 - Islam is a criteria/judge of other religions. Quran 4.82 - Anything from other than Allah will contradict. Thus not only is incorrect but will lead to further division. Few of examples of this taking place. 1. Qadriya - Prophet Muhammad peace and blessing be upon him predicted this sect in hadith. They are known as the Majews in the ummah or ppl who make 2 gods, as majews believe in a god of light & dark guiding ppl to do eviI. Qadriya would say why do you say Allah knows the future, this means He allows eviI. However we see in Surah Kahf story of Kidr with Musa things appear eviI but there is a wisdom and even good at times behind things that appear eviI. 2. An offshoot of this Qadriya is the Jahmis who would say Allah forces us denying our free will under Allah's will & deny Allah's Attributes saying this is likening Allah. 3. Mutaxilah would deny Allah's Knowledge of the Qadr and deny Allah's attributes saying they are parts. Imams of this sect were behind what was called the mihnah fitnah. Their err is similar to the pagans Arabs in Quran 53.19 - see tafsir ibn Kathir for the refutation. 4. Asharis would affirm the Qadr so in a very general sense reenter ahl sunnah, but would maintain the Qadriya pattern of judging Allah's attributes by greke kalam bias and contradict Quran and sunnah and themselves many times forfilling Quran 4.82. They would say Allah's Attributes which sound physical like Allah's Hand are not to be taken at face value using greke kalam what is physical is limited in time & space. However even our existence itself is physical in nature, so in Ashari logic should we deny Allah Exists? Islam, is the middle baIance path. Asharis are at 2 extremes to say Allah exists like creation akin to polytheism or or doesn't exists akin to atheism. The way of Tawhid is to affirm Allah's Attributes as Perfect (Quran 16.60) negating atheism leading to the next point of rejecting likeness (Quran 42.11) negating polytheism - Tawhid baIance. Some Asharis will also say the meaning of attributes are unknown. This is refuted by the Quran which would appeal to the pagan Arabs recognize Allah's attributes of being Creator and so forth to show worship is for Him alone in Quran 29.61 or 43.8.
1. The mutakallimīn do not say we rely on our characteristics. They say that the our characteristics depend on Allah to make them the way they are. And this is agreed upon by all. 2. The mutakallimīn say Allāh is not dependent on anything, but again, this doesn't mean that His characteristics are negated. Just because some of you insist that they do ta'tīl doesn't make it the case.
The Argument from Contingency only proves a Necessary Being. This is true. This is why there are two other arguments: the argument that the Necessary Being is a Fā'il Mukhtār and another argument that the Necessary Being is One. The mutakallimīn affirm all of the sifāt of Allāh, even if you do not agree with the mode of this affirmation.
the mistake is in treating abstract existences (mawjudat dihniyya) and concrete existances (mawjudat 3ayniyya) the same way, when they say a being is dependent, they mean dependent on another being, not dependent in general (mutlaq al-iftiqar). these philosophical arguments are always full of ambiguities.
that makes the thing still dependent in general btw argument clearly implies that cause it's impossible to be completely independent ever as the only thing that "keeps" the dependant things to keep depending on each other is the necessary independent being
Great video bro, this video finally made me realize why kalam should not be used in dawah, I see so many people using kalam then calling it something else.
How can a necessary being with no attributes go on to cause existence? The speaker basically is saying that assigning attributes to a necessary being is a contradiction but i do not see how. Allah assigns attributes to himself for us to recognise him by then does this not make Allah not independant because Allah depends on attributes to be recognised by? By the way, great channel and may Allah accept your contribution to the dawah scene.
@@DhukuAC I'm saying Allah created time, Allah just is. As for attributes, one can possess attributes but only act able on external objects. For example, i have the necessary attributes/quality of a father prior to having a child but i can only materialise the qualities once i actually have a child. Are you muslim? Or a believer in God? How would you explain the necessary existence?
The way to prove that the necessary being has sifat, is by pointing out intelligent design that exist all around us. From nature, space and human biology we can determine that this necessary being has a consciousness. It therefore can also be concluded that since this necessary being has a consciousness, it provides guidance to us to live the best optimum lives through prophets. We accept all prophets from Adam to Muhammad peace be upon them all. However, the only book that has been preserved is the quran and there is historical documentation and scientific evidence to show this. Finally, the linguistic, historic, scientific miracles prove that this quran cannot be written by a man living in a desert using just his intellect. Mind you this argument can only be used against an aethist. The contingency argument helps to convert an aethist to an agnostic. After that you use the quran and sunnah. The contingency argument is just a tool that can be used in a specific scenario. Or it can be thought of as a medicine to an illness. Once the illness has been cured it is not recommended to consume it further.
That’s not a good argument because from nature I can say so many things even I can say that god is not good and I can give so many other characteristics to that independent being that goes against every religion just from nature using your argument. contingency is good argument for an independent being not for god!
@@impeacefulgamer You're missing the point. I am not saying the contingency argument is the answer to everything in the universe. Quran Verse (52:35) Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]? (Sahih International). The contingency argument is essentially this verse just packaged in a different way. What you are bringing up is a different question entirely. Someone who does not believe in God does not believe in objective morality. So, you can point out to that person is that his own subjective moral standards cannot be used judged whether this being is evil or not. Rather in dawah and this is according to my opinion use the contingency argument as a point to intrigue the other person and then introduce the sifat of Allah, the miracles of quran, etc.
@@makkialqaosain8872 1.you said ‘to prove necessary being has characteristics by pointing out intelligent design that exist all around us From nature…..’ I simply responded to that by my previous argument that your argument of observation in nature is not good argument. 2. ‘Someone who doesn’t believe in god does not believe in objective morality.’ Search what is Utilitarianism. And other objective morality that doesn’t come from god or any authority. Also every objective morality has subjective basis.
@@impeacefulgamer 1. It's ok to think it's not a good argument, that's your opinion. But if you look at many tafsirs of surah Ar Rahman, Allah talks about the many favours bestowed upon us and asks the reader to ponder which of them would you deny? I feel to someone who is not a muslim the intelligent design argument is something quite powerful and many have accepted Islam because of it. 2. As far as I know there is no book of utilitarianism that every utilitarian believe in, as people may be from different cultures, communities and different levels of intellect, thus may differ in deciding what is just. 3. I think this conversation has gone far enough for me and I don't see any more benefit in continuing this. So, I will take my leave first. Jazakallah Khair.
@@makkialqaosain8872 1. "the intelligent design argument is something quite powerful' Yes intelligent design is quite good argument but not in this context where you want to prove that a necessary being from contingency argument is a god from a particular religion. And on top of that there are other powerful counter argument such as Problem of evil! 2. Utilitarianism is a philosophical concept and no-one conflicts with the basic principle of this concept its the same like in your religion there are many school of thoughts in your religion but the basic concept is the same 3. Yeah if you are not feeling comfortable its ok.
sadly atheists beleive in chance and no necessary beings at times today, intelligent design of our bodiies and life shows there is a Creator. Ashariis should learn Quran 36 :36, Allah made us needy pairs, while Allah is 1 and independent with Perfect Attributes!
pieces or parts does not mean attributes ! the contingency argument reach a conclusion of there must be a independent god that does not depend on any thing aka pieces or parts now what is the problem ? greek philosophers, asharii,maturidi,motazli will say that ok attributes are also parts so god does not have attributes or they would say that god attributes are only known by using mind such as free will , power etc if i agree with the main conclusion of the contingency argument and say god attributes are known from using mind like free will , power and also from Quran, Sunna whats wrong with it ?
The issue is whether one considers divine attributes as distinct from essence or considers them identical to divine essence. Ashāʿirah & Māturīdiyyah believes in a real distinction between the divine attributes and essence. The phīlosophers and the Mu'tāzilāh on the hand deny real distinction between essence and attributes because their argument is that divine essence is independent but if it has attributes additional to essence then essence would rely upon those attributes for perfection and divine itself would be devoid of perfection.
Allah is unified in unity with all his attributes hence why we call it Tawheed, this is what you are missing and the only way we can know anything about God is through his attributes/names
Did Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah not refute this interpretation of the contingency argument by saying the Attributes of Allah are not separable pieces? I’ve heard he did that
@@erTalhaKhan overused argument. UA-cam isn't part of the religion. It's merely permissible to use. Likewise, a microphone isn't part of the religion, just a tool used to spread info.
@@erTalhaKhan yes we do believe those who are not ahlus sunnah are deviants and we're proud of that. “The Jews split into seventy-one sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy in Hell. The Christians split into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which will be in Hell and one in Paradise. I swear by the One Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, my nation will split into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two in Hell.”
@@beluga2520 numbers isn't key to victory, Quran 9 :25 Correct belief is Quran 2 :137, if you have branch differring its ok but unite on Quran and Sunnah Quran 3 :103!
Yes he did use it against the enemy, he didn’t establish unfounded aqeeda point using kalam alone if there was no textual evidence for it. Go and read his Aqeedatul Wasitiyya for example, all of it is Quran and Sunnah.
@@hammadahmad6312 ❝And he (Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymīyyah) was asked about the ḥadīth of Anas Ibn Mālik from the Prophet ﷺ that he said: “Seven never die, never perish and never taste perishment. The Hellfire, its inhabitants, the Preserved Tablet, the Pen, the Kursī, and the Arsh,” is this ḥadīth ṣaḥīḥ (authentic) or not?❞ وسُئِلَ: عَنْ حَدِيثِ أنَسِ بْنِ مالِكٍ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ أنَّهُ قالَ: ﴿سَبْعَةٌ لا تَمُوتُ ولا تَفْنى ولا تَذُوقُ الفَناءَ: النّارُ وسُكّانُها واللَّوْحُ والقَلَمُ والكُرْسِيُّ والعَرْشُ﴾ فَهَلْ هَذا الحَدِيثُ صَحِيحٌ أمْ لا؟ • So he replied: ❝This narration with this wording is not from the speech of the Messenger ﷺ, but it is from the speech of some of the Scholars. *And the Salaf of the Ummah and its leading scholars, and all of Ahl al-Sunnah Wa al-Jamā’ah are agreed that there are from the created things those which will not cease to exist, and will never entirely perish, such as Paradise and Hellfire, the Throne and other than that.* And none spoke of the expiration of all of the created things except a faction from the innovating Ahl al-Kalām, such as al-Jahm Ibn Ṣafwān and whoever agreed with him from the Mu’tazilah and their likes. This saying is futile, it opposes the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah of His Messenger and the consensus of the Salaf of this Ummah and its leading scholars. Just as there is evidence in that of the eternity of Paradise and its inhabitants, and the eternity of other than that which this page does not suffice for it to be mentioned. Some of the factions of Ahl al-Kalām and the Mutafalsifah have argued for the impossibility of the expiration of all created things using rational evidences. And Allāh knows best.❞ فَأجابَ: هَذا الخَبَرُ بِهَذا اللَّفْظِ لَيْسَ مِن كَلامِ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ وإنَّما هُوَ مِن كَلامِ بَعْضِ العُلَماءِ. وقَدْ اتَّفَقَ سَلَفُ الأُمَّةِ وأئِمَّتُها وسائِرُ أهْلِ السُّنَّةِ والجَماعَةِ عَلى أنَّ مِن المَخْلُوقاتِ ما لا يَعْدَمُ ولا يَفْنى بِالكُلِّيَّةِ كالجَنَّةِ والنّارِ والعَرْشِ وغَيْرِ ذَلِكَ. ولَمْ يَقُلْ بِفَناءِ جَمِيعِ المَخْلُوقاتِ إلّا طائِفَةٌ مِن أهْلِ الكَلامِ المُبْتَدِعِينَ كالجَهْمِ بْنِ صَفْوانَ ومَن وافَقَهُ مِن المُعْتَزِلَةِ ونَحْوِهِمْ وهَذا قَوْلٌ باطِلٌ يُخالِفُ كِتابَ اللَّهِ وسُنَّةَ رَسُولِهِ وإجْماعَ سَلَفِ الأُمَّةِ وأئِمَّتِها. كَما فِي ذَلِكَ مِن الدَّلالَةِ عَلى بَقاءِ الجَنَّةِ وأهْلِها وبَقاءِ غَيْرِ ذَلِكَ مِمّا لا تَتَّسِعُ هَذِهِ الوَرَقَةُ لِذِكْرِهِ. وقَدْ اسْتَدَلَّ طَوائِفُ مِن أهْلِ الكَلامِ والمتفلسفة عَلى امْتِناعِ فَناءِ جَمِيعِ المَخْلُوقاتِ بِأدِلَّةِ عَقْلِيَّةٍ. واَللَّهُ أعْلَمُ. 📚 (Majmū’ al-Fatāwā 18/307)
@@ibmsulaymani it’s true that Ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.) did use philosophy to defend what has been transmitted, however, he also took certain positions based on his philosophical framework which were contrary to the straightforward (apparent) meanings of authentic athar. Two examples that come to mind are: 1. His belief that Allah has been creating perpetually from pre-eternity, because if He hadn’t that would negate His attribute of being the Creator or imply that this attribute had a beginning. There are many authentic hadith which specify a 1st creation, alongside the hadith that specifies “Allah was and there was nothing with him…” 2. Ibn Taymiyyah’s (ra) view that hellfire would cease to exist despite the Quran and hadith clearly stating the hellfire will last forever. Now of course he justifies this by reinterpreting the hadith, which is ironic given his censure of the mutakallimeen for doing the exact same thing. To clarify, I am not defending Kalam and I understand the great service Ibn Taymiyyah provided by defending (for the most part) the creed as transmitted by RasulAllah & the salaf. However, in certain instances he did also fall into the trap of allowing his philosophical framework dictate his conclusions rather than the apparent meanings conveyed from the athar. No one is infallible apart from the Prophets
At 5:21 he says "They say". Who are "they"? If he intends the proponents of the the arguments (theists) then he is incorrect. This is *not* the claim of the proponents. This was the argument of Jahm ibn Safwan ( about sifaat), that is upon him alone. If he intends the atheists, then the atheist claim that the necessary being is energy and matter. That does have properties. Either way, it does not seem correct to say that a necessary being has literally no characteristics.
@@anonymoose9322 the possible existence cannot exist without relying on something, whilst the necessary existence is independent of all things and must exist in all and any circumstances
@@mrs8768 It was a rhetorical question. The OP said that it's incorrect to say that the necessary being has no characteristics/attributes. But the very thing that makes an existence possible and dependent is that it possesses attributes/properties. Those properties require an explanation outside of themselves. Hence, those (possible) existences are dependent/contingent. Thus, when you take this Kalaam rhetoric to its logical conclusions, then you end up with a necessary existence which is devoid of any attributes, since the possession of attributes will essentially make it a possible existence, rather than necessary. And you'll end up with the same belief as the Jahmiyyah who denied the attributes of Allaah سبحانه و تعالى for the exact same reason, especially the Sifaat Fi'liyyah.
@@anonymoose9322 Could you kindly elaborate. Why would the possession of attributes make it a possible existence rather than a necessary existence? Especially if the claim is that this being has no cause. No beginning. Is all-powerful and all-encompassing. He is the master of existence. Why should that mean he has no attributes?
Akhi,Don't call people deviant without establishing evidences, Tabdee' is not a simple thing, if it is wrong the sin will return to the one who done it. You can say X is in a bid'ah not X is bid'ee(deviant) till evidences are established. NB: Do not restrict manhaj of Salaf to the one who just affiliate to the Dawatunnajdiyya.
@@amjadnihal6041 : he is established deviant no doubt …his sitting and accommodation with people of bidaah is well known. It is not hidden. Prophet sallahu aleihi wassalam said: whoever honours a person of innovation then he has aided in the destruction of Islam. Fudail bin iyyad said: do not trust the person of innovation with your religion, do not consult with him in your affair, NOT SIT WITH HIM FOR THE ONE WHO SITS WITH HIM WILL INHERIT BLINDNESS. Furthermore our Beloved Prophet sallahu aleihi wassalam said: A man is upon the religion of his friend so let one of you look to who he befriends. Suleiman Ibn Dawud said: “DO NOT PASS JUDGEMENT UPON ANYONE WITH ANYTHING UNTIL YOU LOOK TO HIS ASSOCIATES” there are plenty of Aqwaals from the salaf we can quote ….so this shows all of them from DawatuNajdiyyah
Akhi if I’m being honest here, there isn’t an issue with using the contingency argument and I have to politely disagree with the Ustadh. The issue he raised was that the necessary being cannot be rationally proven to be Allah because affirming attributes for him will mean he is murakkab (composite/made of parts) therefore he must be dependent. Ibn Taymiyyah refuted this claim in many of his works including sharh al-aqeedah al-asfahaniyyah by solving the objection to Allah being made from parts thus making it accessible for us to use the argument from infinite regress.
That already has been done. Even amongst the Mushrikoon they have a God above all gods, you'll find the same concept in Hinduism. Allaah mentions it in Quran in several places including Surah al-Mu'minoon verse 84 onwards. It's the same in the case of Judaism and Christianity. They all technically are supposed to believe in Allaah, however, they have distorted their Aqeedah relating to Allaah, so they can be dismantled from that aspect. Ultimately everyone will agree in an all powerful uncreated being. Each religion may call that being by a different name, and each religion will have fabrications attached to their belief in that being. But brush away all the ambiguities and they're technically talking about Allaah. So you prove their religion to be false and their false beliefs falls away with it.
I've got a question. Is kalaam haram or not recommended because our scholars says so or it's because Rasuulullah said so? The evidences I am seeing or hearing on both sides is that this scholar said this, that scholar said that. Never came across "Muhammad Rasuulullah said that"
That’s the point the prophet ﷺ never did it so why should we? Dawah is Tawqifiyyah you have to have proof that prophet ﷺ did it that way. So the burden of proof is upon those who say it’s okay not the ones who say it’s haram. Hope you understand bro
Im not for debates , Especially the people of biddah, but someone really needs to debate MH because how much damage he is doing (or atleast a refutation by a proper student of knowledge ) Im not against or support shamsi , but he released a video that MH came for his(shamsi) help for the David wood debate , asking him basic stuff , and still MH makes videos against him. Which goes to show that this man is not to be trusted And dont get me started in his vile manners , it's not even funny anymore May Allah guide us all
@@thebrownprofile1352 Walikum asalam akhi I would adivce you to write on google "Situations in Which Gheebah (“Backbiting”) is Permitted" by islamqa Jazakallah khair
Original lecture - ua-cam.com/video/FpaHQb5bhNk/v-deo.html
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya regarding the satanic backstory of Ilm al-Kalam and negation of sifat:
*“And the creed of the negators (an-nufāt) from among the Sabians was that the Lord does not have except negated attributes (sifāt salbiyyah), or an attribute negated relative to another (sifāt idāfiyyah), or that which is a combination of negated attributes and relative attributes. And the Prophet Ibrāhim, the Friend of Allah (ʿalaihis-salām) was sent to them. And Jaʿd Ibn Dirham learnt his ideology from the Sabian Philosophers.*
*And likewise, Abu Nasr Al-Fārābī (died 339 AH) entered Harrān and studied under the Sabian Philosophers thus completing his philosophy. And Jahm (died 128 AH) also learned it, as mentioned by Imām Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (died 241 AH) and others, when he debated with the Sumaniyyah who were some of the philosophers of India ― and the Sumaniyyah rejected all the sciences except for the [five] senses. So these are the chains of narration (asānīd) of Jahm that lead back to the Jews, Sabeans, Mushriks and the misguided philosophers, either among the Sabeans or among the other polytheists.*
*Thereafter, when the books of the Greeks and Romans were translated into Arabic at the end of the second century, then the tribulation increased alongside that which the Shaytān had thrown into the hearts of the misguided ones in the beginning ― the same as what he threw in the hearts of those who resembled them.*
*So towards the end of the second century, these ideas became widespread which the scholars of the Salaf referred to as the sayings of the Jahmiyyah - and they became widespread due to the efforts of Bishr Ibn Ghiyāth Al-Mareesī (d. 218 AH) and those of his era [and inclination]. The sayings of the scholars and īmāms such as Mālik (d. 179 AH), Sufyān Ibn ʿUyainah (d. 198 AH), Ibn Al-Mubārak (d. 181 AH), Abu Yoosuf (d. 182 AH), Ash-Shāfiʿī (d. 204 AH), Ahmad (d. 241 AH), Ishāq (d. 238 AH), Al-Fudayl Ibn ʿIyād (d. 187 AH), Bishr Al-Hāfī (d. 227 AH) and others were plentiful in censoring, refuting and declaring the followers of this ideology to be astray.”*
ومَذْهَبُ النُّفاةِ مِن هَؤُلاءِ فِي الرَّبِّ: أنَّهُ لَيْسَ لَهُ إلّا صِفاتٌ سَلْبِيَّةٌ أوْ إضافِيَّةٌ أوْ مُرَكَّبَةٌ مِنهُما وهُمْ الَّذِينَ بَعَثَ إلَيْهِمْ إبْراهِيمَ الخَلِيلَ ﷺ فَيَكُونُ الجَعْدُ قَدْ أخَذَها عَنْ الصّابِئَةِ الفَلاسِفَةِ. وكَذَلِكَ أبُو نَصْرٍ الفارابِيُّ دَخَلَ حَرّانَ وأخَذَ عَنْ فَلاسِفَةِ الصّابِئِينَ تَمامَ فَلْسَفَتِهِ وأخَذَها الجَهْمُ أيْضًا - فِيما ذَكَرَهُ الإمامُ أحْمَد وغَيْرُهُ - لَمّا ناظَرَ «السمنية» بَعْضَ فَلاسِفَةِ الهِنْدِ - وهُمْ الَّذِينَ يَجْحَدُونَ مِن العُلُومِ ما سِوى الحِسِّيّاتِ - فَهَذِهِ أسانِيدُ جَهْمٍ تَرْجِعُ إلى اليَهُودِ والصّابِئِينَ والمُشْرِكِينَ والفَلاسِفَةُ الضّالُّونَ هُمْ إمّا مِن الصّابِئِينَ وإمّا مِن المُشْرِكِينَ. ثُمَّ لَمّا عُرِّبَتْ الكُتُبُ الرُّومِيَّةُ واليُونانِيَّةُ فِي حُدُودِ المِائَةِ الثّانِيَةِ: زادَ البَلاءُ؛ مَعَ ما ألْقى الشَّيْطانُ فِي قُلُوبِ الضُّلّالِ ابْتِداءً مِن جِنْسِ ما ألْقاهُ فِي قُلُوبِ أشْباهِهِمْ. ولَمّا كانَ فِي حُدُودِ المِائَةِ الثّالِثَةِ: انْتَشَرَتْ هَذِهِ المَقالَةُ الَّتِي كانَ السَّلَفُ يُسَمُّونَها مَقالَةَ الجَهْمِيَّة؛ بِسَبَبِ بِشْرِ بْنِ غِياثٍ المريسي وطَبَقَتِهِ وكَلامِ الأئِمَّةِ مِثْلَ مالِكٍ وسُفْيانَ بْنِ عُيَيْنَة وابْنِ المُبارَكِ وأبِي يُوسُفَ والشّافِعِيِّ وأحْمَد وإسْحاقَ والفُضَيْل بْنِ عِياضٍ وبِشْرٍ الحافِي وغَيْرِهِمْ: كَثِيرٌ فِي ذَمِّهِمْ وتَضْلِيلِهِمْ.
(Majmu al-Fatawa 5/22)
Brother, Muhammad Hijab has posted a response to this, so how would we respond to it.
@@MuhammadAli-mz4pq This is the response, I uploaded this because of Mohammed Hijab’s video.
@@ibmsulaymani Thank you brother for your efforts, May Allah The Most Wise reward you.
@@ibmsulaymani But how would you respond, to the Ahul-Kalam like the Ashariyyah or Maturidiyyah that we can affirm like 7 to 8 Attributes of Allah using the contingency arguments.
@@MuhammadAli-mz4pq The claim with contingency is that Allah is dependent on his attributes as the video explains. Therefore they affirm 7 essential attributes as they use rational deduction to claim that Allah would be incomplete without these attributes. This requires more studying in depth and can’t be answered in a UA-cam comment. Refer to the series by Ustadh Abdurrahman Hassan حفظه الله on Aqeedatul Hamawiyya. ua-cam.com/play/PL_db3Znio7qyIv6moaepHZi6RqkPueF5q.html
I’m gobsmacked by this explanation and articulation SubhanAllah. Always heard for years that the Necessary Being / Contingency Argument causes you to deny the sifāt but never heard an explanation for it until now.
Contingency argument is enough for necessary being but the contingent variety in the universe is an evidence that the necessary being that made it is also a volitional agent.
The intelligent design and fine tuning in the universe shows the necessary being is all wise and all knowing.
I am not saying we should use these arguments i believe quran is enough but just saying that these arguments are not useless.
Jazzak Allah u khairan
@@zainkazi650 الله أعلم but it's irrelevant
@@zainkazi650 why should he be beaten?
@@zainkazi650 where the difference beteeen the mu'tazilah and the people of kalam? Refuting or doing dawah to atheist using ilm ul kalam is not the way of ahlus sunnah.
@@abusadi4742 pure deviance
May Allah bless him.
I finally get it now.
So basically Quran and Sunnah are sufficient for speaking with Any and All types of non-muslims to see which ones are sincere and accepts and which ones are insincere and rejects.
Playing around with kalam and trying to appease these people will never work. They will never accept because the message was never from Allah and the messenger salallahu alayhi wasalaam. It was from the kalam.
Quran and Sunnah ALL THE WAY.
Allah Hu Akbar.
I finaly get it now.
Salam what about ex atheists who are now muslims that practice Islam based on these contingency arguments? Look at the ea dawah show as an example. You mean to tell me that Muslims should have just ignored this guy?
Akhi it's meant for you or me as laymans to understand or use philosophy to convince Athiests , as you said just stick Quran and Sunnah and you will be good because convincing Athiests using philosophical arguments is the job of professional Daa'at not us. A layman should never try and dive in these kind of stuff because it could hurt you just leave it for the right people.
There is nothing better than the Qurãn and Sunnah arguments.
Al-Jasiyah 45:6
تِلْكَ ءَايَٰتُ ٱللَّهِ نَتْلُوهَا عَلَيْكَ بِٱلْحَقِّۖ فَبِأَىِّ حَدِيثٍۭ بَعْدَ ٱللَّهِ وَءَايَٰتِهِۦ يُؤْمِنُونَ
These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what speech after Allah speech and His miracles will they believe?
But if something doesn't contradict the Qur'an and Sunnah
Then there's completely nothing wrong using that According to the Qur'an itself
@@fahim-ev8qq huh?
What does this ayah have to do with contingency argument? Does it prove a necessary existence?
This is going above my head....
The contingency argument only argues for a necessary being. The names and attributes of the initial state of the universe would suffice.
TLDR -
1. Philosophy -> To win an argument (which most of the time even at that you fail because they end it with the " we agree to disagree ").
2. Correct Dawah -> To call people to Allah
This is what I noticed, the main difference between these 2, and once you notice it, you can tell which one is correct, not to mention the many Hadith and the Salaf Books, which clear any doubts as to why not to use Philosophy.
Exactly brother , recipe is in the pudding
Correct dawa is much more concise.
Is all types of philosophy prohibited in da'wah?
@@Mohammed5i The general rule yes akhi as far as I heard from Scholars and Students of knowledge.
There is even a quote Iforgot who said it " There are no philosophers in Islam ". And many more
@@Mohammed5i
What contradicts Quran & sunna is rejected.
These are the 1st 2 evidences in Islam.
The 3rd is ijm3 or consensus of the scholars starting with the sahabas.
These 3 are binding & used in Aqida or belief which even **the avg. Muslim SHOULD know.**
Proof for this is hadith where Muawiya got mad & struk his sIave and then felt bad.
Prophet Muhammad peace and blessing be upon him was told & also feIt bad.
He asked her where is Allah & who am I?
She said Fi Sam3 or above the Heavens & you are His Rasul.
Prophet Muhammad peace & blessing be on him said free her she is a believer.
In another hadith it said she was mute & and pointed up & did other signals.
The 4th evidence is qiyas or analogy based on how much an imam studied the text -
This is more for fiq or physical worship.
as long as it doesn't contradict the first 3 evidences it can be valid.
Because different imams study different hadiths after Quran at times their qiyas differs.
The laymen usually just follow one scholar in this as Quran 21.7 says.
When they study more they can choose between imams - Quran 4.59.
Fiq has two 2 types fatwas and hukm.
Fatwas are usually rulings for pure ibada or worship for Allah alone.
This is usually based on the 5 pillars of Islam.
Hukm are rulings between ppl, which can become worship with the right intentions & sometimes in the end may involve ppl's customs based on verses in Sura Nisa.
That was for some context.
As for what's at hand.
Alot of ppl don't know the distinction of following terms.
They mix up mantiq or logic which is sometimes used in qiyas with kalam which is a logic mixed with personal bias* over Quran & sunna - very wrong thing to do, esp. In Aqida or things dealing with 6 pillars iman.
This would contradict many ayat.
Quran 5.3 - Islam is a complete religion.
Quran 5.48 - Islam is a criteria/judge of other religions.
Quran 4.82 - Anything from other than Allah will contradict.
Thus not only is incorrect but will lead to further division.
Few of examples of this taking place.
1. Qadriya - Prophet Muhammad peace and blessing be upon him predicted this sect in hadith.
They are known as the Majews in the ummah or ppl who make 2 gods, as majews believe in a god of light & dark guiding ppl to do eviI.
Qadriya would say why do you say Allah knows the future, this means He allows eviI. However we see in Surah Kahf story of Kidr with Musa things appear eviI but there is a wisdom and even good at times behind things that appear eviI.
2. An offshoot of this Qadriya is the Jahmis who would say Allah forces us denying our free will under Allah's will & deny Allah's Attributes saying this is likening Allah.
3. Mutaxilah would deny Allah's Knowledge of the Qadr and deny Allah's attributes saying they are parts.
Imams of this sect were behind what was called the mihnah fitnah.
Their err is similar to the pagans Arabs in Quran 53.19 - see tafsir ibn Kathir for the refutation.
4. Asharis would affirm the Qadr so in a very general sense reenter ahl sunnah, but would maintain the Qadriya pattern of judging Allah's attributes by greke kalam bias and contradict Quran and sunnah and themselves many times forfilling Quran 4.82.
They would say Allah's Attributes which sound physical like Allah's Hand are not to be taken at face value using greke kalam what is physical is limited in time & space.
However even our existence itself is physical in nature, so in Ashari logic should we deny Allah Exists?
Islam, is the middle baIance path.
Asharis are at 2 extremes to say Allah exists like creation akin to polytheism or or doesn't exists akin to atheism.
The way of Tawhid is to affirm Allah's Attributes as Perfect (Quran 16.60) negating atheism leading to the next point of rejecting likeness (Quran 42.11) negating polytheism - Tawhid baIance.
Some Asharis will also say the meaning of attributes are unknown.
This is refuted by the Quran which would appeal to the pagan Arabs recognize Allah's attributes of being Creator and so forth to show worship is for Him alone in Quran 29.61 or 43.8.
1. The mutakallimīn do not say we rely on our characteristics. They say that the our characteristics depend on Allah to make them the way they are. And this is agreed upon by all.
2. The mutakallimīn say Allāh is not dependent on anything, but again, this doesn't mean that His characteristics are negated. Just because some of you insist that they do ta'tīl doesn't make it the case.
The Argument from Contingency only proves a Necessary Being. This is true. This is why there are two other arguments: the argument that the Necessary Being is a Fā'il Mukhtār and another argument that the Necessary Being is One. The mutakallimīn affirm all of the sifāt of Allāh, even if you do not agree with the mode of this affirmation.
the mistake is in treating abstract existences (mawjudat dihniyya) and concrete existances (mawjudat 3ayniyya) the same way, when they say a being is dependent, they mean dependent on another being, not dependent in general (mutlaq al-iftiqar). these philosophical arguments are always full of ambiguities.
that makes the thing still dependent in general btw argument clearly implies that cause it's impossible to be completely independent ever as the only thing that "keeps" the dependant things to keep depending on each other is the necessary independent being
Great video bro, this video finally made me realize why kalam should not be used in dawah, I see so many people using kalam then calling it something else.
How can a necessary being with no attributes go on to cause existence?
The speaker basically is saying that assigning attributes to a necessary being is a contradiction but i do not see how.
Allah assigns attributes to himself for us to recognise him by then does this not make Allah not independant because Allah depends on attributes to be recognised by?
By the way, great channel and may Allah accept your contribution to the dawah scene.
@@DhukuAC I'm saying Allah created time, Allah just is.
As for attributes, one can possess attributes but only act able on external objects. For example, i have the necessary attributes/quality of a father prior to having a child but i can only materialise the qualities once i actually have a child.
Are you muslim? Or a believer in God?
How would you explain the necessary existence?
The way to prove that the necessary being has sifat, is by pointing out intelligent design that exist all around us. From nature, space and human biology we can determine that this necessary being has a consciousness. It therefore can also be concluded that since this necessary being has a consciousness, it provides guidance to us to live the best optimum lives through prophets. We accept all prophets from Adam to Muhammad peace be upon them all. However, the only book that has been preserved is the quran and there is historical documentation and scientific evidence to show this. Finally, the linguistic, historic, scientific miracles prove that this quran cannot be written by a man living in a desert using just his intellect. Mind you this argument can only be used against an aethist. The contingency argument helps to convert an aethist to an agnostic. After that you use the quran and sunnah. The contingency argument is just a tool that can be used in a specific scenario. Or it can be thought of as a medicine to an illness. Once the illness has been cured it is not recommended to consume it further.
That’s not a good argument because from nature I can say so many things even I can say that god is not good and I can give so many other characteristics to that independent being that goes against every religion just from nature using your argument. contingency is good argument for an independent being not for god!
@@impeacefulgamer You're missing the point. I am not saying the contingency argument is the answer to everything in the universe. Quran Verse (52:35) Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]? (Sahih International). The contingency argument is essentially this verse just packaged in a different way. What you are bringing up is a different question entirely. Someone who does not believe in God does not believe in objective morality. So, you can point out to that person is that his own subjective moral standards cannot be used judged whether this being is evil or not. Rather in dawah and this is according to my opinion use the contingency argument as a point to intrigue the other person and then introduce the sifat of Allah, the miracles of quran, etc.
@@makkialqaosain8872
1.you said ‘to prove necessary being has characteristics by pointing out intelligent design that exist all around us From nature…..’ I simply responded to that by my previous argument that your argument of observation in nature is not good argument.
2. ‘Someone who doesn’t believe in god does not believe in objective morality.’ Search what is Utilitarianism. And other objective morality that doesn’t come from god or any authority. Also every objective morality has subjective basis.
@@impeacefulgamer 1. It's ok to think it's not a good argument, that's your opinion. But if you look at many tafsirs of surah Ar Rahman, Allah talks about the many favours bestowed upon us and asks the reader to ponder which of them would you deny? I feel to someone who is not a muslim the intelligent design argument is something quite powerful and many have accepted Islam because of it.
2. As far as I know there is no book of utilitarianism that every utilitarian believe in, as people may be from different cultures, communities and different levels of intellect, thus may differ in deciding what is just.
3. I think this conversation has gone far enough for me and I don't see any more benefit in continuing this. So, I will take my leave first. Jazakallah Khair.
@@makkialqaosain8872
1. "the intelligent design argument is something quite powerful' Yes intelligent design is quite good argument but not in this context where you want to prove that a necessary being from contingency argument is a god from a particular religion. And on top of that there are other powerful counter argument such as Problem of evil!
2. Utilitarianism is a philosophical concept and no-one conflicts with the basic principle of this concept its the same like in your religion there are many school of thoughts in your religion but the basic concept is the same
3. Yeah if you are not feeling comfortable its ok.
sadly atheists beleive in chance and no necessary beings at times today, intelligent design of our bodiies and life shows there is a Creator.
Ashariis should learn Quran 36 :36, Allah made us needy pairs, while Allah is 1 and independent with Perfect Attributes!
pieces or parts does not mean attributes !
the contingency argument reach a conclusion of there must be a independent god that does not depend on any thing aka pieces or parts
now what is the problem ?
greek philosophers, asharii,maturidi,motazli will say that ok attributes are also parts so god does not have attributes or they would say that god attributes are only known by using mind such as free will , power etc
if i agree with the main conclusion of the contingency argument and say god attributes are known from using mind like free will , power and also from Quran, Sunna
whats wrong with it ?
The issue is whether one considers divine attributes as distinct from essence or considers them identical to divine essence.
Ashāʿirah & Māturīdiyyah believes in a real distinction between the divine attributes and essence.
The phīlosophers and the Mu'tāzilāh on the hand deny real distinction between essence and attributes because their argument is that divine essence is independent but if it has attributes additional to essence then essence would rely upon those attributes for perfection and divine itself would be devoid of perfection.
Allah is unified in unity with all his attributes hence why we call it Tawheed, this is what you are missing and the only way we can know anything about God is through his attributes/names
How many real things are you unifying and calling One? @@LARESCIV
Long time no see
You used to have a DiCaprio pfp I think
@@randommuslim5684 yes?
@@Bulayla1426 Oh nothing. Just asked to see if I remembered lol.
Every person can speak even cry , but which one will be heard?
"Ah its not important, all matter i have doing what been told"
Did Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah not refute this interpretation of the contingency argument by saying the Attributes of Allah are not separable pieces? I’ve heard he did that
Yes he did, It’s highly likely the Ustadh made a mistake in the video
MH is literally defending the contingency argument like its his religion...
@@erTalhaKhan nice try but anything related to religion other than what the salaf did are things we as Muslims are supposed to avoid
@@erTalhaKhan How is YT a methodology in dawah? You have obviously problems to understand what is considered bid'a.
@@erTalhaKhan overused argument. UA-cam isn't part of the religion. It's merely permissible to use. Likewise, a microphone isn't part of the religion, just a tool used to spread info.
@@erTalhaKhan yes we do believe those who are not ahlus sunnah are deviants and we're proud of that. “The Jews split into seventy-one sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy in Hell. The Christians split into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which will be in Hell and one in Paradise. I swear by the One Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, my nation will split into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two in Hell.”
@@beluga2520 numbers isn't key to victory, Quran 9 :25
Correct belief is Quran 2 :137, if you have branch differring its ok but unite on Quran and Sunnah Quran 3 :103!
But didn’t Sheikh Ibn Tayymiah r.a study philosophy to understand the enemy and disassemble their arguments?
Yes he did use it against the enemy, he didn’t establish unfounded aqeeda point using kalam alone if there was no textual evidence for it. Go and read his Aqeedatul Wasitiyya for example, all of it is Quran and Sunnah.
@@ibmsulaymanioh please. He believed in Fina Un-Naar.
@@hammadahmad6312 ❝And he (Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymīyyah) was asked about the ḥadīth of Anas Ibn Mālik from the Prophet ﷺ that he said: “Seven never die, never perish and never taste perishment. The Hellfire, its inhabitants, the Preserved Tablet, the Pen, the Kursī, and the Arsh,” is this ḥadīth ṣaḥīḥ (authentic) or not?❞
وسُئِلَ: عَنْ حَدِيثِ أنَسِ بْنِ مالِكٍ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ أنَّهُ قالَ: ﴿سَبْعَةٌ لا تَمُوتُ ولا تَفْنى ولا تَذُوقُ الفَناءَ: النّارُ وسُكّانُها واللَّوْحُ والقَلَمُ والكُرْسِيُّ والعَرْشُ﴾ فَهَلْ هَذا الحَدِيثُ صَحِيحٌ أمْ لا؟
• So he replied:
❝This narration with this wording is not from the speech of the Messenger ﷺ, but it is from the speech of some of the Scholars. *And the Salaf of the Ummah and its leading scholars, and all of Ahl al-Sunnah Wa al-Jamā’ah are agreed that there are from the created things those which will not cease to exist, and will never entirely perish, such as Paradise and Hellfire, the Throne and other than that.* And none spoke of the expiration of all of the created things except a faction from the innovating Ahl al-Kalām, such as al-Jahm Ibn Ṣafwān and whoever agreed with him from the Mu’tazilah and their likes. This saying is futile, it opposes the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah of His Messenger and the consensus of the Salaf of this Ummah and its leading scholars. Just as there is evidence in that of the eternity of Paradise and its inhabitants, and the eternity of other than that which this page does not suffice for it to be mentioned. Some of the factions of Ahl al-Kalām and the Mutafalsifah have argued for the impossibility of the expiration of all created things using rational evidences. And Allāh knows best.❞
فَأجابَ: هَذا الخَبَرُ بِهَذا اللَّفْظِ لَيْسَ مِن كَلامِ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ وإنَّما هُوَ مِن كَلامِ بَعْضِ العُلَماءِ. وقَدْ اتَّفَقَ سَلَفُ الأُمَّةِ وأئِمَّتُها وسائِرُ أهْلِ السُّنَّةِ والجَماعَةِ عَلى أنَّ مِن المَخْلُوقاتِ ما لا يَعْدَمُ ولا يَفْنى بِالكُلِّيَّةِ كالجَنَّةِ والنّارِ والعَرْشِ وغَيْرِ ذَلِكَ. ولَمْ يَقُلْ بِفَناءِ جَمِيعِ المَخْلُوقاتِ إلّا طائِفَةٌ مِن أهْلِ الكَلامِ المُبْتَدِعِينَ كالجَهْمِ بْنِ صَفْوانَ ومَن وافَقَهُ مِن المُعْتَزِلَةِ ونَحْوِهِمْ وهَذا قَوْلٌ باطِلٌ يُخالِفُ كِتابَ اللَّهِ وسُنَّةَ رَسُولِهِ وإجْماعَ سَلَفِ الأُمَّةِ وأئِمَّتِها. كَما فِي ذَلِكَ مِن الدَّلالَةِ عَلى بَقاءِ الجَنَّةِ وأهْلِها وبَقاءِ غَيْرِ ذَلِكَ مِمّا لا تَتَّسِعُ هَذِهِ الوَرَقَةُ لِذِكْرِهِ. وقَدْ اسْتَدَلَّ طَوائِفُ مِن أهْلِ الكَلامِ والمتفلسفة عَلى امْتِناعِ فَناءِ جَمِيعِ المَخْلُوقاتِ بِأدِلَّةِ عَقْلِيَّةٍ. واَللَّهُ أعْلَمُ.
📚 (Majmū’ al-Fatāwā 18/307)
@@ibmsulaymani it’s true that Ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.) did use philosophy to defend what has been transmitted, however, he also took certain positions based on his philosophical framework which were contrary to the straightforward (apparent) meanings of authentic athar. Two examples that come to mind are:
1. His belief that Allah has been creating perpetually from pre-eternity, because if He hadn’t that would negate His attribute of being the Creator or imply that this attribute had a beginning. There are many authentic hadith which specify a 1st creation, alongside the hadith that specifies “Allah was and there was nothing with him…”
2. Ibn Taymiyyah’s (ra) view that hellfire would cease to exist despite the Quran and hadith clearly stating the hellfire will last forever.
Now of course he justifies this by reinterpreting the hadith, which is ironic given his censure of the mutakallimeen for doing the exact same thing.
To clarify, I am not defending Kalam and I understand the great service Ibn Taymiyyah provided by defending (for the most part) the creed as transmitted by RasulAllah & the salaf. However, in certain instances he did also fall into the trap of allowing his philosophical framework dictate his conclusions rather than the apparent meanings conveyed from the athar.
No one is infallible apart from the Prophets
At 5:21 he says "They say".
Who are "they"?
If he intends the proponents of the the arguments (theists) then he is incorrect. This is *not* the claim of the proponents. This was the argument of Jahm ibn Safwan ( about sifaat), that is upon him alone.
If he intends the atheists, then the atheist claim that the necessary being is energy and matter. That does have properties.
Either way, it does not seem correct to say that a necessary being has literally no characteristics.
So what differentiates a necessary existence from a possible existence?
@@anonymoose9322 the possible existence cannot exist without relying on something, whilst the necessary existence is independent of all things and must exist in all and any circumstances
@@mrs8768
It was a rhetorical question.
The OP said that it's incorrect to say that the necessary being has no characteristics/attributes. But the very thing that makes an existence possible and dependent is that it possesses attributes/properties. Those properties require an explanation outside of themselves. Hence, those (possible) existences are dependent/contingent.
Thus, when you take this Kalaam rhetoric to its logical conclusions, then you end up with a necessary existence which is devoid of any attributes, since the possession of attributes will essentially make it a possible existence, rather than necessary. And you'll end up with the same belief as the Jahmiyyah who denied the attributes of Allaah سبحانه و تعالى for the exact same reason, especially the Sifaat Fi'liyyah.
@@anonymoose9322 Could you kindly elaborate. Why would the possession of attributes make it a possible existence rather than a necessary existence?
Especially if the claim is that this being has no cause. No beginning. Is all-powerful and all-encompassing. He is the master of existence. Why should that mean he has no attributes?
@@DhukuACdumb it down for me 😂 elaborate
Deviant hijab will never come out of the box until he returns his affair to the way of Salaf
Akhi,Don't call people deviant without establishing evidences, Tabdee' is not a simple thing, if it is wrong the sin will return to the one who done it.
You can say X is in a bid'ah not X is bid'ee(deviant) till evidences are established.
NB: Do not restrict manhaj of Salaf to the one who just affiliate to the Dawatunnajdiyya.
@@amjadnihal6041 : he is established deviant no doubt …his sitting and accommodation with people of bidaah is well known. It is not hidden. Prophet sallahu aleihi wassalam said: whoever honours a person of innovation then he has aided in the destruction of Islam.
Fudail bin iyyad said: do not trust the person of innovation with your religion, do not consult with him in your affair, NOT SIT WITH HIM FOR THE ONE WHO SITS WITH HIM WILL INHERIT BLINDNESS.
Furthermore our Beloved Prophet sallahu aleihi wassalam said: A man is upon the religion of his friend so let one of you look to who he befriends.
Suleiman Ibn Dawud said: “DO NOT PASS JUDGEMENT UPON ANYONE WITH ANYTHING UNTIL YOU LOOK TO HIS ASSOCIATES”
there are plenty of Aqwaals from the salaf we can quote ….so this shows all of them from DawatuNajdiyyah
@@amjadnihal6041 he supports ppl of karijiya like bro kariji, he should be ashamed.
@Turkish Salafi grave kisser😌 seriously?! lmao
@Turkish Salafi Mohammad Hijab and Bro Hajji do be speaking facts though.
Give me some labels too. Which labels do I get?
Imagine M. Hijaab getting caught and athiest asking him to prove that the necessary existence is Allah and not someone or something else.
Akhi if I’m being honest here, there isn’t an issue with using the contingency argument and I have to politely disagree with the Ustadh. The issue he raised was that the necessary being cannot be rationally proven to be Allah because affirming attributes for him will mean he is murakkab (composite/made of parts) therefore he must be dependent. Ibn Taymiyyah refuted this claim in many of his works including sharh al-aqeedah al-asfahaniyyah by solving the objection to Allah being made from parts thus making it accessible for us to use the argument from infinite regress.
That already has been done. Even amongst the Mushrikoon they have a God above all gods, you'll find the same concept in Hinduism. Allaah mentions it in Quran in several places including Surah al-Mu'minoon verse 84 onwards. It's the same in the case of Judaism and Christianity. They all technically are supposed to believe in Allaah, however, they have distorted their Aqeedah relating to Allaah, so they can be dismantled from that aspect. Ultimately everyone will agree in an all powerful uncreated being. Each religion may call that being by a different name, and each religion will have fabrications attached to their belief in that being. But brush away all the ambiguities and they're technically talking about Allaah. So you prove their religion to be false and their false beliefs falls away with it.
Al ikhlas surah the lightly definition of Almighty creator (Allah)no need divide because khilaf argument.. simple
Allah knows better..so be united...
Mohammed tuburooj, Frown2jahannam, Alineedsdawah... have all left the chat.
😂😂 this is one of the funniest comments ive ever read
umm non muslim upon the contingency argument then comes to Islam to accept all the characteristics of Allah
He or she did not think it through but Allah still guided them.
Yes the same way pointing to your nose being above your mouth for the existence of God does not prove god's attributes
I've got a question. Is kalaam haram or not recommended because our scholars says so or it's because Rasuulullah said so?
The evidences I am seeing or hearing on both sides is that this scholar said this, that scholar said that. Never came across "Muhammad Rasuulullah said that"
That’s the point the prophet ﷺ never did it so why should we? Dawah is Tawqifiyyah you have to have proof that prophet ﷺ did it that way. So the burden of proof is upon those who say it’s okay not the ones who say it’s haram. Hope you understand bro
@@Kardu3 good explanation.
🤲🤲🤲
Ibnu siina is disbeliever? Is that what he mean brother Abdulrahman?
Yes he apostated from islam
@@yahyamohamoud7290 wahhabi lie alot 😂😂😂😂
Mohammad Hijab made a video to refute this video, I need answer from you . Please say something about his video.
Rather this video was made after his video
Im not for debates , Especially the people of biddah,
but someone really needs to debate MH because how much damage he is doing (or atleast a refutation by a proper student of knowledge )
Im not against or support shamsi , but he released a video that MH came for his(shamsi) help for the David wood debate , asking him basic stuff , and still MH makes videos against him. Which goes to show that this man is not to be trusted
And dont get me started in his vile manners , it's not even funny anymore
May Allah guide us all
Assalamu alaykum, I hope you are well. Would this fall under Gheebah?
@@thebrownprofile1352
Walikum asalam akhi
I would adivce you to write on google "Situations in Which Gheebah (“Backbiting”) is Permitted" by islamqa
Jazakallah khair
@@cOnfidentialcOrp JazakAllah khair, wassalam.
All that is your idea shaykh.
your confusing everyone ask Mohammad Hijab or the other brothers to teach you.
He spoke well grounded fax from centuries of Islamic scholarship