@@Saber23 I don't agree with many Christians or Jews for instance on their theology but I wouldn't dare call their works and tradition garbage. The fact that you - who most likely don't even have a sufficient qualification to talk about these matters - use this language shows to me that you either don't understand Inn Taymiyya's argument or that you're an arrogant fool. Or maybe both. In both cases, it's your loss.
Didn't ibn taymiyya end up saying the universe is eternal without a beginning? And hell comes to an end? I don't understand the positive fascination about him when he is clearly a heretic
@@NavM23 You are making a straw man fallacy. 1) Ibn Taymiyyah never said that the Universe was eternal in the past. He said that Allah is perfectly capable of creating a succession of distinct creations, each with a beginning, since eternity. 2) He also never said that Hell has an end. Rather, he explained the position of those who hold this view without ever officially taking part in it. --> Therefore, I'm asking you to not repeat blindly what you have been told without verifying your sources. These are slanders against shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahu Llah.
@@solivagant_x7 Let's start with point two since that was what I raised primarily Ibn Taymiyya says: Therefore, while it is deduced that Hellfire will pass away with The Book, The Sunna, and the words of The Companions, those who say that Hellfire will remain forever have no evidence from The Book, The Sunna, and the words of The Companions. Source: Ibn Taymiyya, Al-Radd 'ala man qala bi-fana' al-janna wa al-nar. ed. Muhammad b. 'Abd Allah al-Simhari (Riyadh: Dar al-balansiyya, 1415/ 1995). Allama Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami rahimahullah stated:"As one of his false beliefs, he [Ibn Taymiyya] has stated: Hellfire will end." Source: al-Fatawa al-Hadithiyya. As for point two he said an innovative matter that is not explicitly stated in the Qur'an or Sunnah nor by the salaf. No one said it the way he did ever. As is mentioned in the video itself
Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله refutes Tasawwur (conceptualization) and Tasdiq (affirmation/judgement) when the logicians (mantiqiyeen) said that _"No Tasawwur (concept) can be formed except by means of a Hadd (definition)."_ Definiendum (Mu'arraf) = word to be defined. Definiens (Mu'arrif) = words that do the defining. In a nutshell Ibn Taymiyyah was saying that the claim of the logicians that _"No concept (tasawwur) can be formed except through definition (hadd)"_ becomes invalid as you'll need to keep on defining the definiens (mu'arrif) with another mu'arraf (definiendum), and so on and so forth until that leads to an infinite regress. In order to understand these stuff, you'll have to understand Mantiq (logic). Most of the errors in 'Aqidah by the Ahlul Bid'ah derives from their principles of Mantiq which they also brought with them into Fiqh until they denied Ahad Ahadith as Qat'i. Hamza Yusuf said that there are only 500 Ahadith that are Qat'i. He said: _"We only have 500 hadith that are of the status of the Qur'an."_ And MBS now denies Ahad Ahadith in order to justify his hedonistic cities and concerts. You have to understand that errors in 'Aqidah and Fiqh by the Ahlul Bid'ah is how fahsha and munkar like liberalism and western values creeps in. And then having comparative knowledge of the western words for the terminologies of the mantiqiyeen will also help, for example Mahiyya (quiditty) or demonstrative syllogism (qiyas burhani). Otherwise you'll not comprehend what Muhammad Hijab is talking about here. Muhammad Hijab is not an ignorant person and should not make himself reject the Salafi 'Aqidah because of his quarrels with the Madkhalis. Not all Salafis are Madkhalis. He should take back what he said about Ibn Taymiyyah and Al-Albaani رحمهما الله. _Al-Kulliyat Al-Khamsa (the five universal necessities)_ 1. Al-Jins (Genus). Divided into Jins Al-Qareeb (direct) and Al-Jins Al-Ba'eed (indirect genus). 2. An-Naw' (species), 3. Al-Fasl (differentia), 4. Al-Khassah (proporium), 5. Al-'Arad Al-'Am (accident). Carl von Linné's Taxonomy has its roots in Mantiq (logic). Muslim Mantiq (logic) went into religion and jurisprudence, while western logic went into math and taxonomy, evolution etc. The math symbols come from logic. Hadd here means definition and not Hadd (limit) that the the Salaf talked about, like Ibn Al-Mubarak's رحمه الله saying _"bi-Haddin (with a limit)"_ in order to refute the Jahmiyyah who were saying that Allah ﷻ is everywhere. No, Allah ﷻ is distinct from His creation and separate from it, not mixing inside it. When the creation did not exist, Allah ﷻ did not create it within Himself, therefore He is High Above Exalted from of it, and not inside it. He is separate and distinct from it. That's what the Salaf meant. Because otherwise you'll land on pantheism, indwelling (hulool), until the creation itself becomes a god like the christians, atheists, jews, and the Ahlul Bid'ah believe. And we do not know the howness of His Nuzul (descend), just like we do not know the howness of His Knowledge or Sight. Imam Maalik رحمه الله said: الاستواء غير مجهول، والكيف غير معقول، والإيمان به واجب، والسؤال عنه بدعة Al-Istiwaa' gheyru Majhul, wal-keyfu gheyru Ma'qul, wal-Eemaanu bihi Waajib, wa su'alu 'anhu Bid'ah _'Al-Istawaa' is not unknown (in the language), but it's howness (nature) is incomprehensible, and belief in it is obligatory, and asking about it is a Bid'ah._ Meaning, we know the apparent meaning of Al-Istawaa or Nuzul, but not their nature. Just like we know the apparent meaning of Al-Baseer (that Allah is All-Seer), but the nature of Allah's Sight is incomprehensible to us. And belief in all Allah's Attributes is Obligatory, and asking the nature about them is a Bid'ah. That is the principle of our 'Aqidah that Imaam Maalik رحمه الله taught us without ta'weel, tashbeeh, tafweed, or ta'teel.
This is a massive smokescreen to conceal some problematic facts. IT believed that Allah was creating eternally. Which would mean that god never stops acting. Going into the kayfiyya and contradicting himself. And everyone before him. He also believed that the ayaat that speak about god being “with us” doesn’t mean by His Knowledge. Rather it’s a way that god alone knows. The analogies you drew with other attributes don’t work. Because there’re certain attributes that Allah himself at times uses metaphorically. But that also contradicts IT denial of metaphors. For example “you are in Our eyes”. If that’s literal then we are in Allah. Which you claimed to reject. So your analogies don’t align because the attribute of knowledge (for example) is never used metaphorically by Allah himself. IT also believed that Allah renews in his knowledge. Who proceeded him in that? That’s also violating his own principles of kayfiyya. Stop worshiping IT. He came like 700 years after Hijra. He had some full blown falsafa imaginations. He’s not masum.
@@wordswords5926 Allah's ﷻ Attributes are eternal. He was Al-Khaaliq before the creation Existed. His Actions are tied to His Will. Fa'alul lima Yureed (He does whatever He wants) whenever He wants. He cannot be questioned as to what He does wjile they will be questioned. As for the Ash'aris and Maturidis they said that Allah was not a Creator until after the creation began brcause they believe that Tasalsul al-Af'aal and Tasalsul al-Aathaar (Infinite Regress or Endless Chain of Actions and Effects) is impossible. They used the impossibility of an endless chain of events going back as proof for the world being created. They called it Hudooth Al-Ajsam (the createdness of bodies). Meaning bodies had a beginning and an endless chain of events without a cause leads to bodies (atoms, matter, the universe) being absolute and everliving. So they had to be consistent with this argument of theirs and thus ascribed it to Allah ﷻ too. So they were the Mushabbihah (anthropomorphists) who ascribed what they thought of the atoms to Allah ﷻ. So Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله refutes them and says that Allah ﷻ was al-Khaaliq forever. That is why our,Salafi brothers warn Muslims of arguing with the cosmological kakam argument (huduth al-ajsaam- createdness of bodies and the impossibility of an endless chain of events). If you are houbg to use it, then don't ascribe that which the creation are limited with unto Allah ﷻ. And بِأَعْيُنِنَا - bi-A'yunina doesn't mean _"in our Eyes"_ rather the apparent meaning is _"under Our Eyes"_ Also when Allah ﷻ says فِي الْأَرْضِ - Fil-Ard, it doesn't literally mean _"inside the soil."_ But _"on the earth."_ And on top of that Allah ﷻ says in Surah An-Nahl, that the Malãa'ikah (angels) fear their Lord فَوْقِهِمْ - Fawqihim (Above them).
@@wordswords5926 As for the rest of things that you said, then that's what is shunned, because you're speaking about Allah ﷻ without knowledge and making similitudes for Him. Because Allah ﷻ doesn't resemble anything that your limited mind can comprehend. Allah سبحانه وتعالى said, وَمَا أُوتِيتُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا And of knowledge, you (mankind) have been given only a little. [Al-Israa' 17:85] فَلَا تَضْرِبُوا لِلَّهِ الْأَمْثَالَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ So put not forward similitudes for Allah. Verily! Allah knows and you know not. [An-Nahl 16:74] لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ ۖ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ There is nothing like Him; and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer. [Ash-Shura' 42:11] رَّبُّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا فَاعْبُدْهُ وَاصْطَبِرْ لِعِبَادَتِهِ ۚ هَلْ تَعْلَمُ لَهُ سَمِيًّا Lord of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, so worship Him (Alone) and be constant and patient in His worship. _Do you know of any who is similar to Him?_ [Maryam 19:65] The Ayah 65 of Surah Maryam, contains all the three categories of Tawhid (Islamic Monotheism). 1. _"Lord of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them,"_ = Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah (to single out Allah Alone as the sole Creator, Sustainer, Regulator, Maintainer, Protector, and Lord of the entire world). No atoms, nature, or the universe, or a man or angel, or jinn or celestial bodies have any share in creating, regulating, sustaining, maintaining or protecting the world. All are His creation. Those who believe that stardust and gravity created the world, or that nature and the universe regulate themselves, and they say: _"nature was not merciful to the people of florida"_ after the hurricane, or they say: _"nature selected"_ or the _"universe decided"_ these are committing shirk in Rububiyyah. They remind me of those who believe in At-Tanjeem (astrology); that celestial bodies, stars and planets etc have influence on the affairs. It is called 'ilm Ta'thir. Whereas studying the movements of celestial bodies to find the Qibla or navigation etc is called 'ilm Tasyeer. This is allowed while the former is shirk in Rububiyyah. Those who believe that atoms and gravity have influence and created the world, are worse than the astrologers in shirk. Because the astrologers said that rain happened because of the Naw' (rising or setting) of such and such a star. But the atheists said that nature, the universe, stardust, atoms and gravity are the very creators, regulators and sustainers. And committing shirk (polytheism) in Rububiyyah (Lordship) is greater than doing it in Uluhiyyah. Because not even the idaloters whom the Messengers of Allah ﷻ were sent to, committed shirk in Rububiyyah. They did not believe that the inanimate idols created anything. They told Abraham عليه السلام that the idols do not speak nor could they have been responsible for smashing the other idols. Thus negating that they could've created anything to begin with. But the atheists of today are polytheists in Lordship. They are not atheists by definition. And using that argument is better than using mantiq and kalam. Because the objective will become Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah if you label them as polytheists in Lordship after clarifying Tawhid that is Allah's Right upon them. The matter will thus become similar to how the idolaters always say that they are not worshipping the idols, after the severe condemnation of Muslims labeling them as polytheists. Same thing will happen to the atheists until you get a leverage over them. But with kalam and mantiq you'll be stuck. 2. _"So worship Him (Alone) and be constant and patient in His worship."_ = Tawhid Al-Uluhiyyah or Tawhid Al-'Ibadah (to single out Allah Alone for all acts of worship, like Du'a (invocation), seeking refuge (isti'adha), seeking help (isti'ana), or vowing, sacrificing etc). Whoever does any act of worship to anyone but Allah ﷻ is a mushrik (polytheist) in worship. This is where most of mankind erred and why Allah ﷻ sent the Messengers. To rectify the shirk in worship that most of mankind were engaged in. They were not atheists, so convincing them of Allah's Existence was not neccesary. Rather they would not cease putting intermediaries and intercessors between themselves and Allah ﷻ, whether it be angels, jinn, men, saints, idols or celestial bodies. You have christians, the raafidah (shi'a), the sufis and the jews, all invoking their prophets, saints, imams, maulanas, or rabbis. Grave worship, icon worship, saint worship, rabbi worship etc became widespread among these. So it should be shunned. 3. _Do you know of any who is similar to Him?_ = Tawhid Al-Asma' wa Sifaat (to single out Allah Alone with His Most Beautiful Names and Attributes). To invoke Him by using His Names, to not ascribe His Attributes or Names to anyone, to not turn Al-Wahhab (the Bestower) into a derogatory term by saying _Wahhabi_ like the sufi grave worshippers and raafidah majoos (shi'a) call the people of Tawhid and Hadith i.e the Salafis. Because whoever lies about Allah's Names, then such a one is a disbeliever just like the christians who commit ilhaad (deviation) by giving Allah ﷻ names that He did not mention Himself with like "the father". To shun all of that so that you may be successful in this life and after this life.
Ibn Taymiyyah was revolutionary in that he developed the Athari creed because he engaged with those of Kalam with Kalam. So before his time the Athari scholars did not really use Kalam to refute Kalam. They only used Quran, Sunnah and Athar of Sahaba plus statements of pervious Athari scholars to refute those of Kalam. However Ibn Taymiyyah established the Islamic creed with Quran, Sunnah and Athar of Sahaba backed up with numerous rational arguments. Then he refuted philosophers and the groups of kalam (Mutazilah, Jahmiyyah, Khullabiyyah, Ashʿariyyah and Maturidiyyah etc.) with Quran, Sunnah and Athar of Sahaba. But he also refuted them with their own principles of Kalam and philosophical ideas. Lastly he was one the first, if not the first, Athari scholar to develop an whole argument for Allahs existence upon the Fitrah. He gave more importance to the Fitrah than the intellect to fight against the philosophers and groups of Kalam. They pushed forward the intellect as an important thing in affirming Allahs existence. However Ibn Taymiyyah pushed the Fitrah as the most important thing in establishing Allahs existence. He held this was more in line with the Quran. So Allah has put signs on Earth (mountains etc.) to point towards his existence. Any human given the right conditions can engage with these things and affirm that one God exists. He can do this without knowing any intellectual (rational) arguments for Gods existence because Allah had placed in man a Fitrah. A Fitrah that can engage with Allahs signs in the world in the right conditions to come to the conclusion God exists. Ibn Taymiyyah holds revaluation is needed not to establish Gods existence (although it does establish Gods existence). It is needed to establish the correct believes (Allahs names and attributes, jinn, judgment day, angels, prophethood etc.) and the correct law (Shariah).
Regarding no metaphor in Quran and ripping things frim the roots i e. negating the grammatical idea of مجاز، this necessitates a superior knowledge of the root or essential meanings of the Arabic words and their composition of letters which in and of themselves have definate charactetistics. Simply put, any word in Quran can be traced back and understood thru its essential base meaning.
If i summarise it there is no evidence that adding dependent things together produce independency so if part is dependent then whole is also dependant not otherwise
2 things: 1. Didn’t Ibn Taymiyya say that fundamental axioms of reason and logical principles are universal? If yes, doesn’t this then solve your contention? 2. Ibn Taymiyya did believe words can have multiple meanings. He criticized the assumption of words having inherent and fundamental primary and secondary meanings. That's what he meant by metaphors don’t exist. Obviously he believes words have multiple meanings. I might be wrong but it seems you misrepresented him here
@@texto336 Majaz or non-wad’i meanings are secondary. That’s the difference between metaphors and multiple meanings. For IT words have no primary or secondary meanings. Rather, it’s the context, habit of the speaker, the language and more that determines which of the multiple meanings is relevant. If the meaning of a word is used more than another, then this is a statistical fact and not some inherent foundational and atomic meaning. He rejects foundationalism and atomism in language and proposed a contextual theory of language, which is quite visionary as it is how we understand language today.
I am still struggling being a good muslim. I am struggling to finish Quran. I can’t understand why I am going to anticipate criticism between among the muslims. Having Allah swt and follow the sunah of my beloved prophet Muhammad csw is enough for me. I see now days how muslims become aggressive to each other cuz they one differ a scholar than other one. All hating each other comes after our beloved prophet Muhammad csw. I will hold what is in Quran and sahiih hadiths.
@@EV-EV-EV According to the apparent meaning of the Qur'an and ahadith, this is the correct way, because Allah tells us the Qur'an is "in clear Arabic language" [Qur'an 26:195]
I would suggest avoiding all Islamic content online until you have built up your level of knowledge about Islam somewhere local to yourself that has good reliable scholars. I used to watch videos online about Islam and it put me in a really bad place in terms of my faith because everyone seemed to be negative and argumentative and questions were made about our deen. So I stopped watching them and spent 8+ years studying Islam full time and trying to surround myself with pious scholars. What I learnt was (among many other things), is that yes there are many groups ect in Islam, but the differences are not always so big. I also realised that a vast majority of the Muslim ummah are Sunnis that follow one of the 4 schools and that all of these schools accept one another. And it is actually very very rare to see groups accept one another to be true and yet differ on many issues in jurisprudence. And once you realise that the ummah is not so aggressive and divided as it seems online, it will give you some peace of mind. I would suggest avoiding all content about religion online until you are stronger in your knowledge, because even if you watch a video that doesn’t have anything controversial, it will lead to controversial or confusing videos.
I agree with Ibn Tamiyyah about if something is composed of parts in abstraction as Hijab puts, it doesn't necessarily mean that thing actually made up of parts. Because in order for that to be true, Hijab has to show thing concieved in abstraction must be true or it's impossible for that to be any other way.
recite Ayatul Kursi (Quran 2: 255) and make dua/prayer so that God will send an angel to protect us from any evildoer and danger for sadaqah/charity, don’t forget to recite and make dua for all the innocent people too be it muslim or non-muslim so that God will send an angel to protect them too may Allah the one God reward all of our efforts and sincerity, amin 🤲😊 اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ
...a man of true science uses few hard words, and those only when none other will answer his purpose; Where as the smatterer in science...thinks that by mouthing hard words he understands hard things. Herman Melville
Ibn Sina himself, who learned medicine when he was 19 years old, found the texts of philosophy ambiguous until he met his teacher, who taught him and explained them to him until he learned them and the rest is known to you.
Guys you should create a course on islamic philosophy from which we will be able to learn and be benefited from it.If you have any course link regarding islamic philosophy course plz provide it here.
@@obaidafzal818 Yes & No. Depends upon what do you mean by philosophy. Qur'an has philosophy, meaning of life, proof for the existence of God etc. That is philosophy. You clearly haven't watched the video. Check 4:43
@@obaidafzal818 Did the prophet go on elevators? Did he work in a skyscraper? No. Doesn't mean you don't do it or its forbidden. Comparing modern to past as if life is the same. You do what you can to follow him, and do whatever rest to live in this age.
Assalamualaikum, I am from indian Kashmir. Actually I wanna say that we often use the word 'Tarqeeb' here in Kashmir. We use it in both language, Urdu and Kashmiri . Here, by 'Tarqeeb' we mean a method, a technique, a trick or a way of approaching/ doing/making things done. I thought this might help.
al-Razi is bringing some evidences that you cannot maintain this position of apparently negating "hawaadith" (events), because you are in fact forced to affirm them, and there is no escape from this. So these are his evidences, simplified: The first: Let's say that before creating the Pen, we are able say that Allaah has the power to create the Pen , that He is able to bring such a thing into existence from past eternity. Now when He actually created the Pen, it is impossible for it to be said any longer that Allaah is still able to bring it into existence, because it is already in existence, so this is an impossibililty, and power cannot be exercised over that which is an impossibility, and hence the connection of that power and ability of Allaah we spoke of prior to the creation of the pen, to the actual creation of the pen has now expired. So this means that the Ash'arites have to affirm that the "circumstances" have changed so to speak, this is what al-Razi is getting across. The second: It is not possible for Allaah to have requested in eternity a non-existent Zayd to fulfil the obligation of prayer and zakat in the present (as in now) - since Zayd did not exist then. Requesting something is to make something binding and to make something binding is something that occurs and completes, and this necessitates in al-Razi's terminology, huduth al-sifah, a new attribute in Allaah's essence. To hold that Allaah is eternally requesting Zayd to fulfil the obligation of prayer and zakat, before the creation of Zayd and after Zayd perishes is absurd and opposes naql (revealed text) and aql (sound reason). The Third: It is impossible for Allaah to have heard the Voice of Zayd or the form of Zayd before he was created. Allaah hearing that Voice or seeing Zayd was only when Zayd spoke or when he came into existence with a form. This necessitates huduth (something new, recent) in the essence of Allaah according to al-Razi. To put it another way, whatever you are doing right now, did Allaah see you in your bodily form doing it in eternity? If so, that would mean you are eternal along with Allaah's attributes. The answer is no, Allaah is seeing you and your actual form (body with soul) and hearing you (Voice) right now, as you exist, but this was not the case before Allah brought you into existence with an actual form. The Ash'arites of course have no answer to these questions and all they did (and continue to do) was to play word games, and that really is the essence of the Ash'arite (Jahmite) school. It is all about playing with words and definitions to wriggle out of difficulties. So what the Ash'ari (Jahmites) did was to say that hearing (sam') and seeing (basr) are really knowledge (ilm), when Allaah hears, it means He knows and when He sees, it means He knows. And in this way, the Ash'arites are actually forced to deny Allaah has actual hearing (by which He hears His creation) and actual seeing (by which He sees His creation) - otherwise the argument above is binding upon them, and they are forced to acknowledge that the foundation of their madhhab and creed is laid to waste, in ruins, in utter annihilation, and the game is over and done with. This is what we find the Later Ash'aris tending to, explaining away hearing and seeing to mean knowledge, because the implication finally sank into their confused brains (which were roasted and toasted by that ilm-kalaam), after many centuries.
alghazaly I remember said in his book said in his book "maqasid al falasefah" attribute are to different category: original attribute like the ability of the pen to write this essential attribute ,a thing cannot be pen if it's not expected to write. the other one is additive or something down this line like blue pen, the blueness is accidental.
I am going to watch this later, but I hope this goes into Ibn Taymiyyah's (rahimahullah) opinion on taraduf in the language. If you can shed light on this subject, that would be great.
So does he actually cover that here? What is taraduf? He does cover it rh in a lot of detail which I didn’t know he covered. I didn’t know it touched upon infinite regress of creation, for example.
Ibn taymiyyah didnt have an impact in his own time, he’s just been revived by the recent salafi movement the scholars back in his day & the ones of today say that he isnt a true follower of the athari aqidah instead he has created his own Btw he asserted that gods will is always changeable lol
Ya Allah protect innocent Balochistan Woman, Children all family😔 and other innocent family😔 too in Pakistan, Pakistan stop kidnapped, raped and killed innocent family😔
I downloaded the book ad da wad dawaa. The diseases and the cure. I have 2 versions of it, one from ibn qayyim al jawzziya and one from ibn taymiyyah. How can 2 authors write the same book? The content is also different. I am new to this subjects so i dont know well about these authors and books. Can somebody please help me ? Ibn taymiyyah is from Darus-Salam publishers, Birmingham and ibn qayyim one is from Hikmah publications
Ibn Taymiyyah is one of the greatest scholars of Islam, specifically Hanbali fiqh. He died in the 1200s. Ibn Qayyim is another great hanbali scholar, he was a direct student of ibn Taymiyyah. As far as I know, the book you're referencing is by ibn qayyim.
Ibn Taymiyya believed in eternal creation, he refused to accept that a definite thing or a certain sensible object is eternal, only the process of determining things is eternal. This process is based on the principle of causality that the effect comes immediately after the availability of the cause. Cause and effect do not exist together at the same time,one, rather,comes after another. This succession or sequence does not imply any time separation between the attributes and their particular determined entities. The frequently repeated example given by Ibn Taymiyya to describe the role of this succession has been the act of striking and pain, wherethe paincomes immediately after one is struck. In this example Ibn Taymiyya stated that cause and effect are not synchronized, they do not exist in the same moment, but the effect of necessitate comes after the cause without delay. Does this mean Ibn Taymiyyah might believed that God did not know untill he had a will about something?
In my opinion, everything you said was correct, apart from the last question. All that is within the laws of existence, and thus applies to everything and everyone but NOT Allah, for Allah was not created. I hope that makes sense. You articulated well! Insha Allah we can discuss further ♥️
Actually, universe isn't made of composed parts because everything is energy in different form. So to say universe is susceptible to dissambly, Hijab has to show energy can be destroyed.
@@PabloSensei Claiming they are different won't help. If one can't establish the fact that in our universe matter and energy are ontologically different than making an argument on the presupposition matter and energy are ontologically different, wouldn't be an argument that is based on reality and truth. As far as universal field theory is concerned, everything is made up of discrete packets of energy in their respective field. As the famous Austrian theoretical physicist Erwin Schrödinger put it, “What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances).” That essentially everything is energy. Einstein said, “Everything is energy and that's all there is to it.
There are three types of systems: closed, isolated and open system. Energy can't be destroyed in a closed system. That's the scientific fact. So, it's not generalized in all types of systems.
What you are saying isn't necessarily in line with what we know of the Bosons and the Fermions as of today, is it not? Because we'd have an energy category as well as a matter category...?
I'm a Hindu who enjoys comparative religion , just for your knowledge sake with the comment " I don't know anyone who believes in an infinite regress of causes" , actually the Buddha and the Buddhist do.
So in conclusion : Naql is over 'Aql ; the real and only creed of islam is the creed of the salaf that is based on scriptures of Qur'an and ahadith of the messenger (peace be upon him) ; Ach'ari, Maturidi and other rationnalist creed that priorise 'Aql over Naql and that are not present in the way of the salaf are not part of Islam, anthropomorphism included.
I am out of touch from the intellectual trends, but tell me how does is go for current day muslims? Do they first approve the "arguments" and then take shahada or do they still take the shahada and then use arguments to silence opponent apoligists? A athiest has his heart locked to truth, and iman is bestowed by allah alone. Historically, rhetoric i.e. "philosophy" has been successfully used to silence the opponent and prove his arguments as trivial, not to convince him to be a muslim.
I note that Sapience Institute regard the whole series of Londoniyyah youtube videos as a free course after which you can get a certificate of completion. What sort of course is that??? These are extremely technical topics that have to be learnt in a class in front of a teacher, if someone is really interested in philosophy of that kind of depth.
But Aristotle is just a man. He can be refuted by a smarter man. And who says his definition of accident is correct? Philosophers never agree with each other on any basic definition. So who says whose definition is right? I can accept ibn Taymiyyah or Aristotle on accidents. It doesn’t make a difference.
@@ARmirzaful I was simply explaining the origin of the term, the speaker seemed puzzled why it was it was called an 'accident'. That is something that occurs with out intention. It's just a historical note;
@@danielarista1352 I think religious people like hijab and myself don’t like the term accident. From a religious sense, I think, because for us everything is planned out by God. I think my criticism of Aristotle is from that angle. And also odd Aristotle called it that when he believes in a primary mover, from what I recall. It’s a weird contradiction does Aristotle believe in things being planned out and just needed a word for the term?
@@ARmirzaful Independent of Aristotle or any other thinker, if God is capable of creating anything, then he is capable of creating something so complex that while it always follows rules it also is indeterminate....like our universe. This gives the opportunity for free will in mankind, Accidents are those things that while follow the rules of existence God laid out, aren't necessarily predetermined by him .... and of course this is something he is capable of having created. Accidents are then those events that aren't necessarily planned by God but are the result of a creation he ordered and set into existence. With out freewill then it is God who planned and intentionally orders sin and evil to exist and persist. Is this what you believe God intends and has done?
@@danielarista1352 And that is the point. While some modern Muslim scholars, influenced by mutazilah thought, do agree with you that God may not have certain knowledge, mainstream Muslims disagree to your definition. There is nothing in the universe or in heaven or beyond that God does not know, again hence me and hijaab disagree with that definition you provided. God is capable of anything and still he has said he does not have a son or family. Also, he is capable of everything but not something unbecoming of him. Lack of knowledge is something that is looked down upon in a human being. So what about God, who Muslims consider perfect in his knowledge?
Ibn Taymiyah is a Lion. may Allah mercy his soul at 40:40 i think, that’s a weak argument. cuz feeling of “pink elefants” is not from the Fitra like believing in God. And today we have study’s supporting this. So i see there no Problem.
What a beautiful topic this is .. summarizing one of the great muslim philosophers world virw and positions in a video....this was very good also because you did the analysis of both is good arguments and his critiques...
Some empty armchair critics on here. They should create their own hour and half lecture on philosophy and Ibn Taymiyyah and demonstrate how much knowledge they have. 🤦♂️
Does Ibn Taymiyyah believe that the knowledge of Allaah is dynamic? For example does he say example: Prior to Zayd being born, it is in Allaah's knowledge that Zayd will born, live and die at an appointed time. Prior to Zayd dying it is in Allaah's knowledge that Zayd is living and will die at an appointed time, and when Zayd has died, it is in Allaah's knowledge that Zayd was living, has died and died at the appointed time
You misunderstood Ibn Taimiyah position on metaphor. There´s no metaphor on what was well known among the sahabat. IE on the understanding of the apparent. Even if colloquially today you think its metaphoric for the Sahabat it was the true meaning. Its a tricky thing if we see it from a certain angle, but its clear that he doesn't reject the obvios sense of the verse. His argument is regarding Taweel, the exercise of creating metaphors out of something none existent in the apparent understanding by the sahabat. Do you understand? It requieres understanding, there are various articles and lectures on this topic. obviously there are wordings in the Quran that the sahabat understood as metaphoric in the linguistically sense, you would need to be very ignorant to believe Ibn taimiyyah doesn't know this. If the sahabat said for instance, Hamza is a lion, they didn't believe he was a Lion, Ibn Taimiyaah never took that at face value, obviously. He was mainly referring to the attributes of Allah and the kalaam arguments.
but isn't it subjective at the end of the day which metaphors are obvious and which aren't. I would understand if the Quran used metaphors that in the Qurayshi language were already some kind of idioms or metaphors that were used as normal day speech, but I don't think it restrtictly does? (I don't have much knowledge about this, just curious)
@@mahmudibnabidin Ghazali is one of the few scholars that were universally accepted by the people of their time and afterwards. The idea that Ghazali is some controversial figure is a very modern salafi idea that the vast majority of actual Ulama reject. If you really believe that the proof of Islam (Hujjat al-Islam) , as Imam Zahabi refers to him, has basic aqeeda issues then would you mind mentioning one of them. Perhaps I can change your mind on that or maybe you'll convince me.
Unfortunatly, some men just don't learn from the lessons of history...this philosophy and logic that Ibn taymiyya denigrated is the one who built the political system in which you are living, the educational system, the society... All that required a deep philosophical thought in the domain of law philosophy, political philosophy, etc. And the saudians, who are seeing themselves as students of Ibn Taymiyya, are also using philosophy every day, in every part of their state to build their nation. Every average educated person in the society use philosophy and logic every day, they just aren't conscious of it. Logic is an absolute necessity, otherwise one can say something and it's opposite while thinking they are both correct. I think the main problem of ibn taymiyya and his followers, is a problem of attitude. When you don't understand a problematic, or the goal behind the questionning of a philosopher or a scientist, you don't dismiss the author. You acknowledge that it is beyond your understanding for now, that you need time and intellectual maturity to understand what their preoccupation was, why were they wondering that. This is the attitude of every real seeker of knowledge. This is nothing against Mohamed hijab, he looks a great person with good hearted with honorable intentions. But this topic requires deep reflexions..
You said a whole bunch of nothing. Clearly you do not know Ibn Taymiyyah's knowledge and books regarding Philosophy. You even demonstrated how you clearly can't specifially make a balid criticism without being vague. This shows you don't know what you are talking about. If you did and had valid criticism, you would be specific.
Brilliant that Hijab said Ibn Taymiyyah could also make mistakes and could have an incorrect opinion. I've noticed that some Ahle Hadiths/Salafi brothers are getting a little emotional and almost becoming muqalids. For example (if I remember correctly), I think Ibn Taymiyyah was wrong when he said that Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar R.A was a bidati when he sought out the Prophets S.A.W place of worship during Hajj, and he said that created things also existed from the beginning like Allah (Hawadiis have no ibteda). And his statement that the barelvis/sufis would get sawab for the intention behind the bidats around milaad ul nabwi celebrations.
Who said He wasn't able to create? We have clear sahih hadiths that Allah first created the kalm/pen. One of Allah's attributes is that He has always been. And this is beyond space and time and beyond our comprehension. So rather than what ibn taymiyah did, which honestly borders on shirk in Allah's siffat, we should just accept it as something we cant understand.
@@oeshkoer Indeed I heard the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) saying: "Verily the first of what Allah created was the Pen. So He said: 'Write.' It said : 'What shall I write?' He said : 'Write Al-Qadar, what it is , and what shall be, until the end.'" Grade = Sahih (Darussalam) Reference : Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2155 In-book reference : Book 32, Hadith 23 English translation : Vol. 4, Book 6, Hadith 2155
How does a complex, unknown, infinite and uncreated BEING (God/Allah according to some) explain the existence of a (many?) universe. You refer to existence, essence, causality, time, infinity, necessity, universality as if they are well-defined.
It doesn't explain it. But, one can argue that something infinite must exist; b/c it is the only way to end the infinite regress of empirical explanation by accidents/occurrence/events, etc.; there must be a 'causa sui'. But then this implies an agent (a common conceptualization of a 'creator god')...leaving us with, where did it come from? By definition, something infinite could not have a beginning; so the argument goes, that must be our 'creator'. This begs the question, where did it come from? We are left with "unknown" or "unknowable" , at least if you relegate our ability to 'know' , our epistemic faculty, to logical derivation. Asking about the origins of something infinite make no sense to even ask! This goes back to at least Aristotle and his metaphysics (and physics). He proposed a hylomorphic conceptualization of reality, improving on Plato's concept of eternal universals. Hope this helped...
@@danielarista1352 Yes. Thanks. Concepts like infinity, necessity, existence, causation are fraught with misunderstanding and misapplication. Human agency and intention are the culprits of hylomorphism and hylozoism, spirits and personal beings underpinning natural phenomena ...hence the rise of gods. Its an interesting discussion. But like Plato said in one of his dialogues, at the end of the day we should all have a laugh and not take it too seriously, for if you take it emotionally it becomes a tragedy, whereas if you try to rationalize it it becomes a comedy.
@@petrospetroupetrou9653 I think I agree with all of this, but I would add there's been a lot of thinking in Western academic philosophy since then; obviously. I remain an ontological realist about many things, including infinite things, Platonic mathematical structures, and minds ... and of course of material reality. I also have found wrt to tradgedies and comedies, that Pragmatism, along with its Realist metaphysics is pretty compelling. Notice, I can do all of this w no appeal to theology. I'm starting to develop the opinion that theology should first and foremost, if not entirely, be about that metaphysically 'beyond' ... and what relationship we may have with "it".
*The secular West’s double standards are glaringly evident from how they deal with “irrationality”. When this so-called irrationality is linked with religion it’s a problem. However, when it comes to things like “gender fluidity” it’s completely fine. Another example that can be mentioned is how the “clairvoyant” Edgar Cayce was extremely popular during the early 20th-century.* And it’s the same story when it comes to aliens. The secular West, unable to fight its innate tendency to believe in the ghayb, proposes the likely existence of a non-human species that could communicate with our world - the same way Muslims believe in the jinn Of course, all of this is done in the name of their own religion: science. They even have their own priests in the form of astrobiologists, etc. This belief of theirs is of the same nature as ours. Even if they try and add some pseudo-empiricist spice: there may be tangible elements pointing towards the existence of aliens They fail to grasp how we, too, say there are “tangible elements” regarding the influences of the jinn within our world.*25:30@@petrospetroupetrou9653
Everyone should read Ibn Taymiyyah's "The Unsheathed Sword". It shows how people who simply do not agree with Muhammad or Islam should be treated. PDF can be easily found online.
Yes keep coping kid, we will treat u like we want. Plus the book is called the unsheathed sword on the insulter of the prophet, not on who disagrees with him, keep coping
MH: Anything that is made of parts is contigent. The universe is made of part, therefore the universe is contingent. Ibn Taymiyyah: The universe is pre-eternal 🤡🤡
I'm not sure how ibn taimiyah got his reasoning. But If you think about the universe as reality (all that exists and is real) . Then God is pre-eternal, and he is real, meaning reality is pre eternal. If he meant the universe as in space time, then he's wrong and one man doesn't define what Islam is. All are fallible except the prophets.
Nothing is unfair. Sure he made anthropomorphic understanding popular and projected it wrongly to the salaf which the pseudo salafis rely on today. Big issues but he was a nevertheless a scholar.
@@mz8452Allah is above his throne, above his creation. The earliest generations unanimously agreed on this when a sect of muslims refused to say Allah is above the 7 heavens
Allah is above everything in status. As for having a place, all Muslims clear Allah of that and any other attribues from among the attributes of the creations@@BK_Beloved
Why didn’t you expound on Ibn Taymiyyas Allah eternally creating (perpetually)? You skipped the best part my friend. An Athari that has nothing to do with atharism.
@@hilly9114 Yes it’s pure hypocrisy. The salafis accuse the Maturidi and Asharis as coming with new ideas. But Ibn Taymiyya who came like 700 hijra brings ideas completely foreign yet he’s an Athari 🥴
@@wordswords5926 not entirely foreign... ibn Rushd and the actual philosophers preceded him in his conclusions. Be it the eternality of the Creation as a type (by Allah eternally creating), the existence of contingent within the dhaat of Allah, fana' an Nar...
That's quite laughable. It's no mystery whose Kant's philosophical influences were and it's very easily to place him historically in academic philology. And all of the philosophical topics discussed in this lecture, and many more, were well underway in the Greek then Latin cultures beginning over 1000 years prior to this literature. Indeed, this tradition continued during the Dark Ages as well, mostly in Christian monasteries. While Avencena, who was born, raised, educated, and lived in Europe, studied Greek philosophers, his contributions aren't particularly compelling in the philology of Western philosophy. That is, they didn't change the course of Western philosophy as much as it certainly changed the course of North African philosophy (and apparently, at least influenced, Muslim theology). Consider his historical contemporary Acuinas, who had a significant impact on both Western philosophy and Christian theology. Kant's novel contribution was a continuation of the burgeoning Cartesian "enlightenment".
@@danielarista1352Decart was influenced by alghazali occasionalism and NO ibn-sina(avincenna) was born in present day Uzbekistan, he's family is from balk(north afghanistan) and he lived and died in the middle-east not europe. so i don't know how you make an absurd pretence by making him a native european LMAO 😂🙃 Ibn-sina(Avincenna) indeed made a significant contribution to the western-world by writing a medical book that continued to be used by western institutions for the next 700 years. mathematising everything into the material, corporial world didn't start by rene descart, on the contrary rene descart adopted some of the methodological tools used by Hassan ibn-al- Haythm (father of optics and the first true scientist)
@@Razi290 you are correct about his life, I was confusing him with someone else mentioned in this video. Regardless, Avincenna was predominantly influenced by Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotle, and of course Islamic theology. I don't see how "indeed made a significant contribution to the western-world by writing a medical book that continued to be used by western institutions for the next 700 years" given by the time the Western knowledge he leveraged to write his book reached him in the middle east, the Western thinkers (to include the Romanized North Africans) had already gone beyond what's in that book, which makes historical sense. Much of what is proposed in his Book of Healing (which isn't about medicine) in the much of which was already laid out but not developed by other Western Aristotelian thinkers, into the Scholastics, which is really my point. His work was largely derivative of Western thought and helped educate the Muslim world, not the other way around.
@@mogainz hahaha..you make me laugh a lot..thank....what kind of shaykh ul islam...??!!..he was jailed..losing debate...he memorised more than he can understand...he is the one who said..Allaah is like a man...anthropomorphism..mushabiha..that's all
I think taymiyyah is someone, much like Wahab that should be completely ignored. He has a recent revival due to the wahabis misusing him, but if this much controversy surrounds them why take from them when you have the 4 great madhabs that all fall within the salaf that the Prophet SAWS praised while these two don't?
@@Saarimul_masloolUnapologetic Ummm... I guess everyone of taymiyyah followers reject the salaf and are anthromorphosists... Let's make some more generalizations Mr wahabi/salafi/najdi sir.
confused with you’re statement when both scholars Ibn Taymiyyah رَحِمَهُ ٱللَّٰهُ and MIAW were both hanbali (I don’t take from MIAW, but it is known he was hanbali). You said the 4 great madhabs, Ibn Taymiyyah رَحِمَهُ ٱللَّٰهُ is l one of the ‘relied upon’ scholars of hanbali fiqh (top 4 shuyookh in fiqh atleast). With this said- numerous hanbali shaykh a has huge influence off Ibn Taymiyyah رَحِمَهُ ٱللَّٰهُ since he was someone huge in the madhab. Though not all May of agreed with his aqidah, lot of them was influenced by some of his views in aqidah, or would rely on Ibn Taymiyyah on some aqidah beliefs to prove it while go against some others, As for MIAW i believe hes barely even considered except by the salafis
Why is Dunya such a bad thing in Islam? I'm not a Muslim but I am learning, but please tell me, why is Dunya disregarded as filthy and unclean? If the Lord God made the heavens, the Earth and the universe why would he place little to no value in this world? It is God's creation afterall.
I think the dunya itself is not seen as disregarded. You can enjoy halal things like family spouse food etc. But hayat al dunya is seen as bad which one could translate to the fleeting worldy life. That includes things like pre marital sex or alcohol or other haram things.
dunya is not filthy or unclean lol where did u get that ? its more like its a temporary whereabouts for a human and afterlife is what eternal so a human should seek the one which is eternal for that is more better for him/her
It's about your relationship with it. There is a right way and a wrong way to engage with the dunya. The Prophet (PBUH) said: "Be in this world as if you were a stranger or a traveller" [Bukhari 6416]
Because prophet Mohammad told us that , that is the true answer . Also , because life is no more than a test , so for this reason it actually has no value .
Dear Salafies, Here are some excerpts from Ibn Taymiyyah's writings. Decide for yourself. As for the insincere commentators, please, just open up your mind: Allah SWT is: “[Something with spatial] measurement of length, breadth and depth, which prevents something else from being present where it is, unless it moves from that place.” “It is known that the vision [of Allah in the afterlife] which the Lawgiver has told [us] about cannot be affirmed while negating [for Allah] what they regard as a ‘body’. Rather, affirming it [i.e. vision] necessitates [affirming for Allah] what they regard as a ‘body’ and ‘direction’. It is clear that whoever tries to combine these two [i.e. affirmation of vision and negation of ‘body’ and ‘direction’] is stubbornly refusing what is established by reason and by the senses.” [Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah] “As for a thing not be described with increase and decrease, nor the absence of that, and it is existent without having a size, then that is inconceivable.” [Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah] “Allah, exalted is He, has a limit which nobody but Him knows. It is not permitted for anybody to imagine himself a demarcation to his limit, and rather he must believe in it and consign the knowledge of it to Allah. Allah’s place also has a limit, namely [His place] on the Throne above His heavens; so that means two limits.…[Here he cited a number of texts from the Qur’an which in his opinion show that Allah has a physical limit then he says:] This and what is like it are proofs that all show that [Allah has a] limit and whoever does not profess that has disbelieved in the revelation and denied the verses of Allah.” [Muwaafaqah, vol. 2, p. 29] “If He wanted He could board/get on the back of a mosquito and it would hold Him up/carry Him by His power and the gracefulness of His Lordship; so what about a great throne greater than the seven heavens and the seven earths?” [Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah] Please decide for yourselves now.
@@Abdullah.......... yes ofc this is the aqeedah of the salaf Ibn taymiyya said the last paragraph you mentionned? are u sure not someone else and he just copied it?
@@abdulkader7104 Please check the references I've given. And no, this is not the aqeedah of the salaf. This is the aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyyah, followed by Ibn Abdul Wahhab and later, the pseudo salafi scholars.
@@Abdullah.......... ok you just exposed yourself I know the reference But this phrase was said by imam aldarimi in his book الرد على بشر المريسي He is student of imam ahmad And imam ahmad approved of his book where he said so U can go and read the book So that is your level Copy paste Not gonna waste my time You never actually read ibn taymiya books nor the salaf Ibn taymiyya just copied the phrase and then commented on it Pure dogmatism No self critical thinking and research
Wahabi said propet don t do that .. you do Bida ah ??? So are Wahabi dare to says Abu Bakar .. Umar .. Usman ... Aisyah ... Ali do Bida ah ????? The truth is Wahabi is Bida ah !!!!!
@Reasonably Unfiltered Hehehe Syiah yes we all muslim know it but Wahabi more dengeros he hide he faith like " Takiyah " slow slow he made muslim fight each other . always said Bida ah that ... Bida ah that ... Bida ah that but when we ask proof from Al Quran and Hadis they can t give ... only said propet don t do that ???????
Believing in the prophet(pbuh) includes I. To believe in what he tells you Il. To follow him in that which he commands you III. To worship God in the way he legislate it. if you do something in the religion, is upon you to bring evidences for it otherwise is an innovation(bidda)
Philosophy is pure kufr. We don't need to prove the existance of God, we just present our arguments from the Qur'an...if it appeals to them, they accept. If they don't, they don't. You can relish on your intelelctualism all you want, but remember, any and everyone who dwelled in it lost their faith including Ghazzali who had become agnostic for long.
@İslamdan Beri God's existence cannot be proven through the scientific method. The scientific method is based on empiricism. God cannot be proven empirically because he's a metaphysical entity. May Allah ﷻ guide the sincere. Ameen!
@İslamdan Beri Please stop embarrassing yourself. Science is not the only yardstick to attain truth. There are many other methods to attain truth, for example: _testimony, logic, etc..._ Allah' ﷻ existence is self-evident. The burden of proof is on the one who's making the claim. You're claiming that Allah ﷻ doesn't exist (Nauzubillah). Where is your evidence for such a pathetic and childish claim? Go ahead!
@@ahmed.aljelali Yes, it is a group of so called scholars who are more important than the prophet (S). Imam Malik said this, Imam Shafi said this. And what is common between all of them, they'd say anything to defend Umar and Aisha. If they are cornered in an argument to accept either God is more than one or Umar wasn't a good guy, they'd choose the first one and will never ever admit that this filth did some horrible things. This is their whole religion in a nutshell.
Brother hijab this discussion is useless because it will makes more divisive and provocative I think you should focus on make Da3wa To non Muslim which you are good in that field Other thing I pointed it out is when you talk ibn taymia you refer him hanbali and this is big mistake Ibn Taymia taught and fiqh and understanding and concept is beyond the 4 madhabi school even he nurtured from hanbali madhab
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Very beneficial. May Allah bless the whole team of Sapience Institute beyond measure.
@RT Christblood 😂😂😂😂oh my God the irony in this one is stupid strong.
@RT Christblood Go and educate yourself about the Abbasid Caliphate then you will understand how ridiculous your current thinking was
@RT Christblood What are you talking about yall are still stuck on absolute divine simplicity...
@RT Christblood Christians can't even figure out what 1 + 1 + 1 equals. Lol.
Aameen
Sheikh-ul islam Ibn Taymiyyah was a great scholar may Allah have mercy on him
@@Saber23 Source : My left toe*
@@Saber23 Still waiting for your source. Until then, cope and seethe !
@@Saber23 go watch your animes you are in the wrong comment section
@@Saber23Still haven't brought a source
We have an ignorant brother here
Ibn Taimiyya's argument to debunk the compositional fallacy argument Is amazing
@@Saber23 I don't agree with many Christians or Jews for instance on their theology but I wouldn't dare call their works and tradition garbage. The fact that you - who most likely don't even have a sufficient qualification to talk about these matters - use this language shows to me that you either don't understand Inn Taymiyya's argument or that you're an arrogant fool. Or maybe both. In both cases, it's your loss.
@@Saber23Shut up mushrik pagan. Stop your sister from mutah
Didn't ibn taymiyya end up saying the universe is eternal without a beginning? And hell comes to an end? I don't understand the positive fascination about him when he is clearly a heretic
@@NavM23 You are making a straw man fallacy.
1) Ibn Taymiyyah never said that the Universe was eternal in the past. He said that Allah is perfectly capable of creating a succession of distinct creations, each with a beginning, since eternity.
2) He also never said that Hell has an end. Rather, he explained the position of those who hold this view without ever officially taking part in it.
--> Therefore, I'm asking you to not repeat blindly what you have been told without verifying your sources. These are slanders against shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahu Llah.
@@solivagant_x7 Let's start with point two since that was what I raised primarily
Ibn Taymiyya says:
Therefore, while it is deduced that Hellfire will pass away with The Book, The Sunna, and the words of The Companions, those who say that Hellfire will remain forever have no evidence from The Book, The Sunna, and the words of The Companions.
Source: Ibn Taymiyya, Al-Radd 'ala man qala bi-fana' al-janna wa al-nar. ed. Muhammad b. 'Abd Allah al-Simhari (Riyadh: Dar al-balansiyya, 1415/ 1995).
Allama Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami rahimahullah stated:"As one of his false beliefs, he [Ibn Taymiyya] has stated: Hellfire will end." Source: al-Fatawa al-Hadithiyya.
As for point two he said an innovative matter that is not explicitly stated in the Qur'an or Sunnah nor by the salaf. No one said it the way he did ever. As is mentioned in the video itself
Ibn taymiyya ra is one of the original and greatest thinker of not only islamic world but of whole world.May have Allah have mercy upon him
what do you mean original?
not the greatest maybe one of the greatest we still have ghazali and rumi and ibn arabi and ibn siena
@@Saber23 sorry brother but I looked into Shiism and I don’t like it thanks for your input though
@@Saber23 I see the truth in the sunah my brother
@@Saber23 sorry what was your question brother
Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله refutes Tasawwur (conceptualization) and Tasdiq (affirmation/judgement) when the logicians (mantiqiyeen) said that _"No Tasawwur (concept) can be formed except by means of a Hadd (definition)."_
Definiendum (Mu'arraf) = word to be defined.
Definiens (Mu'arrif) = words that do the defining.
In a nutshell Ibn Taymiyyah was saying that the claim of the logicians that _"No concept (tasawwur) can be formed except through definition (hadd)"_ becomes invalid as you'll need to keep on defining the definiens (mu'arrif) with another mu'arraf (definiendum), and so on and so forth until that leads to an infinite regress.
In order to understand these stuff, you'll have to understand Mantiq (logic). Most of the errors in 'Aqidah by the Ahlul Bid'ah derives from their principles of Mantiq which they also brought with them into Fiqh until they denied Ahad Ahadith as Qat'i. Hamza Yusuf said that there are only 500 Ahadith that are Qat'i. He said: _"We only have 500 hadith that are of the status of the Qur'an."_ And MBS now denies Ahad Ahadith in order to justify his hedonistic cities and concerts. You have to understand that errors in 'Aqidah and Fiqh by the Ahlul Bid'ah is how fahsha and munkar like liberalism and western values creeps in.
And then having comparative knowledge of the western words for the terminologies of the mantiqiyeen will also help, for example Mahiyya (quiditty) or demonstrative syllogism (qiyas burhani). Otherwise you'll not comprehend what Muhammad Hijab is talking about here. Muhammad Hijab is not an ignorant person and should not make himself reject the Salafi 'Aqidah because of his quarrels with the Madkhalis. Not all Salafis are Madkhalis. He should take back what he said about Ibn Taymiyyah and Al-Albaani رحمهما الله.
_Al-Kulliyat Al-Khamsa (the five universal necessities)_
1. Al-Jins (Genus). Divided into Jins Al-Qareeb (direct) and Al-Jins Al-Ba'eed (indirect genus).
2. An-Naw' (species),
3. Al-Fasl (differentia),
4. Al-Khassah (proporium),
5. Al-'Arad Al-'Am (accident).
Carl von Linné's Taxonomy has its roots in Mantiq (logic). Muslim Mantiq (logic) went into religion and jurisprudence, while western logic went into math and taxonomy, evolution etc. The math symbols come from logic.
Hadd here means definition and not Hadd (limit) that the the Salaf talked about, like Ibn Al-Mubarak's رحمه الله saying _"bi-Haddin (with a limit)"_ in order to refute the Jahmiyyah who were saying that Allah ﷻ is everywhere. No, Allah ﷻ is distinct from His creation and separate from it, not mixing inside it. When the creation did not exist, Allah ﷻ did not create it within Himself, therefore He is High Above Exalted from of it, and not inside it. He is separate and distinct from it. That's what the Salaf meant. Because otherwise you'll land on pantheism, indwelling (hulool), until the creation itself becomes a god like the christians, atheists, jews, and the Ahlul Bid'ah believe. And we do not know the howness of His Nuzul (descend), just like we do not know the howness of His Knowledge or Sight.
Imam Maalik رحمه الله said:
الاستواء غير مجهول، والكيف غير معقول، والإيمان به واجب، والسؤال عنه بدعة
Al-Istiwaa' gheyru Majhul, wal-keyfu gheyru Ma'qul, wal-Eemaanu bihi Waajib, wa su'alu 'anhu Bid'ah
_'Al-Istawaa' is not unknown (in the language), but it's howness (nature) is incomprehensible, and belief in it is obligatory, and asking about it is a Bid'ah._
Meaning, we know the apparent meaning of Al-Istawaa or Nuzul, but not their nature. Just like we know the apparent meaning of Al-Baseer (that Allah is All-Seer), but the nature of Allah's Sight is incomprehensible to us. And belief in all Allah's Attributes is Obligatory, and asking the nature about them is a Bid'ah. That is the principle of our 'Aqidah that Imaam Maalik رحمه الله taught us without ta'weel, tashbeeh, tafweed, or ta'teel.
This is a massive smokescreen to conceal some problematic facts. IT believed that Allah was creating eternally. Which would mean that god never stops acting. Going into the kayfiyya and contradicting himself. And everyone before him. He also believed that the ayaat that speak about god being “with us” doesn’t mean by His Knowledge. Rather it’s a way that god alone knows.
The analogies you drew with other attributes don’t work. Because there’re certain attributes that Allah himself at times uses metaphorically. But that also contradicts IT denial of metaphors. For example “you are in Our eyes”. If that’s literal then we are in Allah. Which you claimed to reject. So your analogies don’t align because the attribute of knowledge (for example) is never used metaphorically by Allah himself. IT also believed that Allah renews in his knowledge. Who proceeded him in that? That’s also violating his own principles of kayfiyya. Stop worshiping IT. He came like 700 years after Hijra. He had some full blown falsafa imaginations. He’s not masum.
MashaAllah How can i contact you i had some questions jazakallah
السلام علیکم ورحمتہ اللہ وبرکاتہ
Does Hijab reject the Athari Aqeedah?
@@wordswords5926 Allah's ﷻ Attributes are eternal. He was Al-Khaaliq before the creation Existed. His Actions are tied to His Will. Fa'alul lima Yureed (He does whatever He wants) whenever He wants. He cannot be questioned as to what He does wjile they will be questioned. As for the Ash'aris and Maturidis they said that Allah was not a Creator until after the creation began brcause they believe that Tasalsul al-Af'aal and Tasalsul al-Aathaar (Infinite Regress or Endless Chain of Actions and Effects) is impossible. They used the impossibility of an endless chain of events going back as proof for the world being created. They called it Hudooth Al-Ajsam (the createdness of bodies). Meaning bodies had a beginning and an endless chain of events without a cause leads to bodies (atoms, matter, the universe) being absolute and everliving. So they had to be consistent with this argument of theirs and thus ascribed it to Allah ﷻ too. So they were the Mushabbihah (anthropomorphists) who ascribed what they thought of the atoms to Allah ﷻ. So Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله refutes them and says that Allah ﷻ was al-Khaaliq forever. That is why our,Salafi brothers warn Muslims of arguing with the cosmological kakam argument (huduth al-ajsaam- createdness of bodies and the impossibility of an endless chain of events). If you are houbg to use it, then don't ascribe that which the creation are limited with unto Allah ﷻ.
And بِأَعْيُنِنَا - bi-A'yunina doesn't mean _"in our Eyes"_ rather the apparent meaning is _"under Our Eyes"_
Also when Allah ﷻ says فِي الْأَرْضِ - Fil-Ard, it doesn't literally mean _"inside the soil."_ But _"on the earth."_
And on top of that Allah ﷻ says in Surah An-Nahl, that the Malãa'ikah (angels) fear their Lord فَوْقِهِمْ - Fawqihim (Above them).
@@wordswords5926 As for the rest of things that you said, then that's what is shunned, because you're speaking about Allah ﷻ without knowledge and making similitudes for Him. Because Allah ﷻ doesn't resemble anything that your limited mind can comprehend.
Allah سبحانه وتعالى said,
وَمَا أُوتِيتُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا
And of knowledge, you (mankind) have been given only a little. [Al-Israa' 17:85]
فَلَا تَضْرِبُوا لِلَّهِ الْأَمْثَالَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ
So put not forward similitudes for Allah. Verily! Allah knows and you know not. [An-Nahl 16:74]
لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ ۖ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ
There is nothing like Him; and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer. [Ash-Shura' 42:11]
رَّبُّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا فَاعْبُدْهُ وَاصْطَبِرْ لِعِبَادَتِهِ ۚ هَلْ تَعْلَمُ لَهُ سَمِيًّا
Lord of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, so worship Him (Alone) and be constant and patient in His worship. _Do you know of any who is similar to Him?_ [Maryam 19:65]
The Ayah 65 of Surah Maryam, contains all the three categories of Tawhid (Islamic Monotheism).
1. _"Lord of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them,"_ = Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah (to single out Allah Alone as the sole Creator, Sustainer, Regulator, Maintainer, Protector, and Lord of the entire world).
No atoms, nature, or the universe, or a man or angel, or jinn or celestial bodies have any share in creating, regulating, sustaining, maintaining or protecting the world. All are His creation.
Those who believe that stardust and gravity created the world, or that nature and the universe regulate themselves, and they say: _"nature was not merciful to the people of florida"_ after the hurricane, or they say: _"nature selected"_ or the _"universe decided"_ these are committing shirk in Rububiyyah.
They remind me of those who believe in At-Tanjeem (astrology); that celestial bodies, stars and planets etc have influence on the affairs. It is called 'ilm Ta'thir. Whereas studying the movements of celestial bodies to find the Qibla or navigation etc is called 'ilm Tasyeer. This is allowed while the former is shirk in Rububiyyah.
Those who believe that atoms and gravity have influence and created the world, are worse than the astrologers in shirk. Because the astrologers said that rain happened because of the Naw' (rising or setting) of such and such a star. But the atheists said that nature, the universe, stardust, atoms and gravity are the very creators, regulators and sustainers.
And committing shirk (polytheism) in Rububiyyah (Lordship) is greater than doing it in Uluhiyyah. Because not even the idaloters whom the Messengers of Allah ﷻ were sent to, committed shirk in Rububiyyah. They did not believe that the inanimate idols created anything. They told Abraham عليه السلام that the idols do not speak nor could they have been responsible for smashing the other idols. Thus negating that they could've created anything to begin with.
But the atheists of today are polytheists in Lordship. They are not atheists by definition. And using that argument is better than using mantiq and kalam. Because the objective will become Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah if you label them as polytheists in Lordship after clarifying Tawhid that is Allah's Right upon them. The matter will thus become similar to how the idolaters always say that they are not worshipping the idols, after the severe condemnation of Muslims labeling them as polytheists. Same thing will happen to the atheists until you get a leverage over them. But with kalam and mantiq you'll be stuck.
2. _"So worship Him (Alone) and be constant and patient in His worship."_ = Tawhid Al-Uluhiyyah or Tawhid Al-'Ibadah (to single out Allah Alone for all acts of worship, like Du'a (invocation), seeking refuge (isti'adha), seeking help (isti'ana), or vowing, sacrificing etc). Whoever does any act of worship to anyone but Allah ﷻ is a mushrik (polytheist) in worship.
This is where most of mankind erred and why Allah ﷻ sent the Messengers. To rectify the shirk in worship that most of mankind were engaged in. They were not atheists, so convincing them of Allah's Existence was not neccesary. Rather they would not cease putting intermediaries and intercessors between themselves and Allah ﷻ, whether it be angels, jinn, men, saints, idols or celestial bodies.
You have christians, the raafidah (shi'a), the sufis and the jews, all invoking their prophets, saints, imams, maulanas, or rabbis. Grave worship, icon worship, saint worship, rabbi worship etc became widespread among these. So it should be shunned.
3. _Do you know of any who is similar to Him?_ = Tawhid Al-Asma' wa Sifaat (to single out Allah Alone with His Most Beautiful Names and Attributes). To invoke Him by using His Names, to not ascribe His Attributes or Names to anyone, to not turn Al-Wahhab (the Bestower) into a derogatory term by saying _Wahhabi_ like the sufi grave worshippers and raafidah majoos (shi'a) call the people of Tawhid and Hadith i.e the Salafis. Because whoever lies about Allah's Names, then such a one is a disbeliever just like the christians who commit ilhaad (deviation) by giving Allah ﷻ names that He did not mention Himself with like "the father". To shun all of that so that you may be successful in this life and after this life.
Ibn Taymiyyah was revolutionary in that he developed the Athari creed because he engaged with those of Kalam with Kalam.
So before his time the Athari scholars did not really use Kalam to refute Kalam. They only used Quran, Sunnah and Athar of Sahaba plus statements of pervious Athari scholars to refute those of Kalam.
However Ibn Taymiyyah established the Islamic creed with Quran, Sunnah and Athar of Sahaba backed up with numerous rational arguments. Then he refuted philosophers and the groups of kalam (Mutazilah, Jahmiyyah, Khullabiyyah, Ashʿariyyah and Maturidiyyah etc.) with Quran, Sunnah and Athar of Sahaba. But he also refuted them with their own principles of Kalam and philosophical ideas.
Lastly he was one the first, if not the first, Athari scholar to develop an whole argument for Allahs existence upon the Fitrah. He gave more importance to the Fitrah than the intellect to fight against the philosophers and groups of Kalam. They pushed forward the intellect as an important thing in affirming Allahs existence. However Ibn Taymiyyah pushed the Fitrah as the most important thing in establishing Allahs existence. He held this was more in line with the Quran.
So Allah has put signs on Earth (mountains etc.) to point towards his existence. Any human given the right conditions can engage with these things and affirm that one God exists. He can do this without knowing any intellectual (rational) arguments for Gods existence because Allah had placed in man a Fitrah. A Fitrah that can engage with Allahs signs in the world in the right conditions to come to the conclusion God exists.
Ibn Taymiyyah holds revaluation is needed not to establish Gods existence (although it does establish Gods existence). It is needed to establish the correct believes (Allahs names and attributes, jinn, judgment day, angels, prophethood etc.) and the correct law (Shariah).
This is GOLD.
Thank you so much for these bro.. God bless you!
This is premium content mashallah.
Very deep discussion. I grasped some of it
Jazakum Allahu khairan kathiran Ustadhuna aljaleel
Regarding no metaphor in Quran and ripping things frim the roots i e. negating the grammatical idea of مجاز، this necessitates a superior knowledge of the root or essential meanings of the Arabic words and their composition of letters which in and of themselves have definate charactetistics.
Simply put, any word in Quran can be traced back and understood thru its essential base meaning.
If i summarise it there is no evidence that adding dependent things together produce independency so if part is dependent then whole is also dependant not otherwise
2 things:
1. Didn’t Ibn Taymiyya say that fundamental axioms of reason and logical principles are universal? If yes, doesn’t this then solve your contention?
2. Ibn Taymiyya did believe words can have multiple meanings. He criticized the assumption of words having inherent and fundamental primary and secondary meanings. That's what he meant by metaphors don’t exist. Obviously he believes words have multiple meanings.
I might be wrong but it seems you misrepresented him here
if words have multiple meanings then essentially metaphors exist
@@texto336 Majaz or non-wad’i meanings are secondary. That’s the difference between metaphors and multiple meanings. For IT words have no primary or secondary meanings. Rather, it’s the context, habit of the speaker, the language and more that determines which of the multiple meanings is relevant. If the meaning of a word is used more than another, then this is a statistical fact and not some inherent foundational and atomic meaning. He rejects foundationalism and atomism in language and proposed a contextual theory of language, which is quite visionary as it is how we understand language today.
@@Saber23 calm down kid... You know nothing about Islam
I am still struggling being a good muslim. I am struggling to finish Quran. I can’t understand why I am going to anticipate criticism between among the muslims. Having Allah swt and follow the sunah of my beloved prophet Muhammad csw is enough for me. I see now days how muslims become aggressive to each other cuz they one differ a scholar than other one. All hating each other comes after our beloved prophet Muhammad csw. I will hold what is in Quran and sahiih hadiths.
Focus on your self bro first then try to spread peace between all of them if you can
You have done the correct thing akhi
ok...according to whose understanding of the Qur'an and the ahhadith?
@@EV-EV-EV According to the apparent meaning of the Qur'an and ahadith, this is the correct way, because Allah tells us the Qur'an is "in clear Arabic language" [Qur'an 26:195]
I would suggest avoiding all Islamic content online until you have built up your level of knowledge about Islam somewhere local to yourself that has good reliable scholars.
I used to watch videos online about Islam and it put me in a really bad place in terms of my faith because everyone seemed to be negative and argumentative and questions were made about our deen. So I stopped watching them and spent 8+ years studying Islam full time and trying to surround myself with pious scholars.
What I learnt was (among many other things), is that yes there are many groups ect in Islam, but the differences are not always so big. I also realised that a vast majority of the Muslim ummah are Sunnis that follow one of the 4 schools and that all of these schools accept one another. And it is actually very very rare to see groups accept one another to be true and yet differ on many issues in jurisprudence. And once you realise that the ummah is not so aggressive and divided as it seems online, it will give you some peace of mind.
I would suggest avoiding all content about religion online until you are stronger in your knowledge, because even if you watch a video that doesn’t have anything controversial, it will lead to controversial or confusing videos.
This went over my head completely
I agree with Ibn Tamiyyah about if something is composed of parts in abstraction as Hijab puts, it doesn't necessarily mean that thing actually made up of parts. Because in order for that to be true, Hijab has to show thing concieved in abstraction must be true or it's impossible for that to be any other way.
How ?
recite Ayatul Kursi (Quran 2: 255) and make dua/prayer so that God will send an angel to protect us from any evildoer and danger
for sadaqah/charity, don’t forget to recite and make dua for all the innocent people too be it muslim or non-muslim so that God will send an angel to protect them too
may Allah the one God reward all of our efforts and sincerity, amin 🤲😊
اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ
اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ
اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ
...a man of true science uses few hard words, and those only when none
other will answer his purpose; Where as the smatterer in science...thinks that by mouthing hard words he understands hard things.
Herman Melville
Ibn Sina himself, who learned medicine when he was 19 years old, found the texts of philosophy ambiguous until he met his teacher, who taught him and explained them to him until he learned them and the rest is known to you.
Guys you should create a course on islamic philosophy from which we will be able to learn and be benefited from it.If you have any course link regarding islamic philosophy course plz provide it here.
Londonniyah series
Islamic philosophy?🤔 did prophet peace be upon him teach that 🤔 ?
@@obaidafzal818 Yes & No. Depends upon what do you mean by philosophy. Qur'an has philosophy, meaning of life, proof for the existence of God etc. That is philosophy. You clearly haven't watched the video. Check 4:43
@@obaidafzal818 Did the prophet go on elevators? Did he work in a skyscraper? No. Doesn't mean you don't do it or its forbidden. Comparing modern to past as if life is the same. You do what you can to follow him, and do whatever rest to live in this age.
Can you do a video addressing the lies against Ibn Taymiyyah whether good or bad? Thanks
Assalamualaikum, I am from indian Kashmir. Actually I wanna say that we often use the word 'Tarqeeb' here in Kashmir. We use it in both language, Urdu and Kashmiri .
Here, by 'Tarqeeb' we mean a method, a technique, a trick or a way of approaching/ doing/making things done.
I thought this might help.
Where are you located in kashmir?
@@saadwani9175 where are you from?
@@ibrahimaejaz5606 pahalgam
@@saadwani9175 I'm from charar I sharief
@@ibrahimaejaz5606 Salam alaikum Kashmir
Watched this many times and still got no clue what sheikhul Islam was talking about
al-Razi is bringing some evidences that you cannot maintain this position of apparently negating "hawaadith" (events), because you are in fact forced to affirm them, and there is no escape from this. So these are his evidences, simplified:
The first: Let's say that before creating the Pen, we are able say that Allaah has the power to create the Pen , that He is able to bring such a thing into existence from past eternity. Now when He actually created the Pen, it is impossible for it to be said any longer that Allaah is still able to bring it into existence, because it is already in existence, so this is an impossibililty, and power cannot be exercised over that which is an impossibility, and hence the connection of that power and ability of Allaah we spoke of prior to the creation of the pen, to the actual creation of the pen has now expired. So this means that the Ash'arites have to affirm that the "circumstances" have changed so to speak, this is what al-Razi is getting across.
The second: It is not possible for Allaah to have requested in eternity a non-existent Zayd to fulfil the obligation of prayer and zakat in the present (as in now) - since Zayd did not exist then. Requesting something is to make something binding and to make something binding is something that occurs and completes, and this necessitates in al-Razi's terminology, huduth al-sifah, a new attribute in Allaah's essence. To hold that Allaah is eternally requesting Zayd to fulfil the obligation of prayer and zakat, before the creation of Zayd and after Zayd perishes is absurd and opposes naql (revealed text) and aql (sound reason).
The Third: It is impossible for Allaah to have heard the Voice of Zayd or the form of Zayd before he was created. Allaah hearing that Voice or seeing Zayd was only when Zayd spoke or when he came into existence with a form. This necessitates huduth (something new, recent) in the essence of Allaah according to al-Razi. To put it another way, whatever you are doing right now, did Allaah see you in your bodily form doing it in eternity? If so, that would mean you are eternal along with Allaah's attributes. The answer is no, Allaah is seeing you and your actual form (body with soul) and hearing you (Voice) right now, as you exist, but this was not the case before Allah brought you into existence with an actual form.
The Ash'arites of course have no answer to these questions and all they did (and continue to do) was to play word games, and that really is the essence of the Ash'arite (Jahmite) school. It is all about playing with words and definitions to wriggle out of difficulties. So what the Ash'ari (Jahmites) did was to say that hearing (sam') and seeing (basr) are really knowledge (ilm), when Allaah hears, it means He knows and when He sees, it means He knows. And in this way, the Ash'arites are actually forced to deny Allaah has actual hearing (by which He hears His creation) and actual seeing (by which He sees His creation) - otherwise the argument above is binding upon them, and they are forced to acknowledge that the foundation of their madhhab and creed is laid to waste, in ruins, in utter annihilation, and the game is over and done with. This is what we find the Later Ash'aris tending to, explaining away hearing and seeing to mean knowledge, because the implication finally sank into their confused brains (which were roasted and toasted by that ilm-kalaam), after many centuries.
alghazaly I remember said in his book said in his book "maqasid al falasefah" attribute are to different category:
original attribute like the ability of the pen to write this essential attribute ,a thing cannot be pen if it's not expected to write.
the other one is additive or something down this line like blue pen, the blueness is accidental.
So what is a pen without ink? Does it stop being a pen after it served its purpose
@@blossomsports1 it's still expected to write until you know it's empty.
السَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَةُ اللهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ
As-Salaamu `Alaykum wa Rahmatullaahi wa Barakaatuhu
I am going to watch this later, but I hope this goes into Ibn Taymiyyah's (rahimahullah) opinion on taraduf in the language. If you can shed light on this subject, that would be great.
So does he actually cover that here? What is taraduf? He does cover it rh in a lot of detail which I didn’t know he covered. I didn’t know it touched upon infinite regress of creation, for example.
Ibn taymiyyah didnt have an impact in his own time, he’s just been revived by the recent salafi movement
the scholars back in his day & the ones of today say that he isnt a true follower of the athari aqidah instead he has created his own
Btw he asserted that gods will is always changeable lol
Don’t bother to try to explain that to the pseudo salafis. First they have to learn history and most of them don’t like to learn anything.
Ya Allah protect innocent Balochistan Woman, Children all family😔
and
other innocent family😔 too in Pakistan,
Pakistan stop kidnapped, raped and killed innocent family😔
Great topic
I downloaded the book ad da wad dawaa. The diseases and the cure. I have 2 versions of it, one from ibn qayyim al jawzziya and one from ibn taymiyyah. How can 2 authors write the same book? The content is also different. I am new to this subjects so i dont know well about these authors and books. Can somebody please help me ? Ibn taymiyyah is from Darus-Salam publishers, Birmingham and ibn qayyim one is from Hikmah publications
Ibn Taymiyyah is one of the greatest scholars of Islam, specifically Hanbali fiqh. He died in the 1200s. Ibn Qayyim is another great hanbali scholar, he was a direct student of ibn Taymiyyah. As far as I know, the book you're referencing is by ibn qayyim.
Ibn Taymiyya believed in eternal creation, he refused to accept that a definite thing or a certain sensible object is eternal, only the process of determining things is eternal. This process is based on the principle of causality that the effect comes immediately after the availability of the cause. Cause and effect do not exist together at the same time,one, rather,comes after another. This succession or sequence does not imply any time separation between the attributes and their particular determined entities. The frequently repeated example given by Ibn Taymiyya to describe the role of this succession has been the act of striking and pain, wherethe paincomes immediately after one is struck. In this example Ibn Taymiyya stated that cause and effect are not synchronized, they do not exist in the same moment, but the effect of necessitate comes after the cause without delay.
Does this mean Ibn Taymiyyah might believed that God did not know untill he had a will about something?
In my opinion, everything you said was correct, apart from the last question. All that is within the laws of existence, and thus applies to everything and everyone but NOT Allah, for Allah was not created. I hope that makes sense. You articulated well! Insha Allah we can discuss further ♥️
Actually, universe isn't made of composed parts because everything is energy in different form. So to say universe is susceptible to dissambly, Hijab has to show energy can be destroyed.
This is a an issue with identity, matter isn't energy they're ontologically distinct aren't they
@@PabloSensei Claiming they are different won't help. If one can't establish the fact that in our universe matter and energy are ontologically different than making an argument on the presupposition matter and energy are ontologically different, wouldn't be an argument that is based on reality and truth.
As far as universal field theory is concerned, everything is made up of discrete packets of energy in their respective field.
As the famous Austrian theoretical physicist Erwin Schrödinger put it, “What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances).” That essentially everything is energy.
Einstein said, “Everything is energy and that's all there is to it.
There are three types of systems: closed, isolated and open system.
Energy can't be destroyed in a closed system. That's the scientific fact. So, it's not generalized in all types of systems.
What you are saying isn't necessarily in line with what we know of the Bosons and the Fermions as of today, is it not? Because we'd have an energy category as well as a matter category...?
@@skrm5311 ie against the standard model of lagrangian
I'm a Hindu who enjoys comparative religion , just for your knowledge sake with the comment " I don't know anyone who believes in an infinite regress of causes" , actually the Buddha and the Buddhist do.
Buddhist don't believe in higher power
So in conclusion : Naql is over 'Aql ; the real and only creed of islam is the creed of the salaf that is based on scriptures of Qur'an and ahadith of the messenger (peace be upon him) ; Ach'ari, Maturidi and other rationnalist creed that priorise 'Aql over Naql and that are not present in the way of the salaf are not part of Islam, anthropomorphism included.
I am out of touch from the intellectual trends, but tell me how does is go for current day muslims? Do they first approve the "arguments" and then take shahada or do they still take the shahada and then use arguments to silence opponent apoligists?
A athiest has his heart locked to truth, and iman is bestowed by allah alone. Historically, rhetoric i.e. "philosophy" has been successfully used to silence the opponent and prove his arguments as trivial, not to convince him to be a muslim.
What’s the benefit of using philosophy in dawah? Genuine question
You cannot prove God without philosophy
So you can have an argument against the non believers you need to learn philosophy
@@jaisalrw3494 subhanallah. So the quran doesn’t prove the existence of Allah?
@@nasseralmatar2460 there are arguments in the quran.
@@إلهانبنأحمد المقصد انك تحاجج الملحد او الغير مسلم بالمنطق الي يستخدم اذا حاججت من شي ثاني ماراح يسلم فيه لأن ما يأمن فيه
I note that Sapience Institute regard the whole series of Londoniyyah youtube videos as a free course after which you can get a certificate of completion. What sort of course is that??? These are extremely technical topics that have to be learnt in a class in front of a teacher, if someone is really interested in philosophy of that kind of depth.
It's called an "accident" b/c that what Aristotle named it, along with categories, etc. over a 1000 years earlier.
But Aristotle is just a man. He can be refuted by a smarter man. And who says his definition of accident is correct? Philosophers never agree with each other on any basic definition. So who says whose definition is right? I can accept ibn Taymiyyah or Aristotle on accidents. It doesn’t make a difference.
@@ARmirzaful I was simply explaining the origin of the term, the speaker seemed puzzled why it was it was called an 'accident'. That is something that occurs with out intention. It's just a historical note;
@@danielarista1352 I think religious people like hijab and myself don’t like the term accident. From a religious sense, I think, because for us everything is planned out by God. I think my criticism of Aristotle is from that angle. And also odd Aristotle called it that when he believes in a primary mover, from what I recall. It’s a weird contradiction does Aristotle believe in things being planned out and just needed a word for the term?
@@ARmirzaful Independent of Aristotle or any other thinker, if God is capable of creating anything, then he is capable of creating something so complex that while it always follows rules it also is indeterminate....like our universe. This gives the opportunity for free will in mankind, Accidents are those things that while follow the rules of existence God laid out, aren't necessarily predetermined by him .... and of course this is something he is capable of having created. Accidents are then those events that aren't necessarily planned by God but are the result of a creation he ordered and set into existence.
With out freewill then it is God who planned and intentionally orders sin and evil to exist and persist. Is this what you believe God intends and has done?
@@danielarista1352 And that is the point. While some modern Muslim scholars, influenced by mutazilah thought, do agree with you that God may not have certain knowledge, mainstream Muslims disagree to your definition. There is nothing in the universe or in heaven or beyond that God does not know, again hence me and hijaab disagree with that definition you provided. God is capable of anything and still he has said he does not have a son or family. Also, he is capable of everything but not something unbecoming of him. Lack of knowledge is something that is looked down upon in a human being. So what about God, who Muslims consider perfect in his knowledge?
Very deeply mashallah may Allah bless you bro
JazakAllahu khairan
Ibn Taymiyah is a Lion. may Allah mercy his soul
at 40:40 i think, that’s a weak argument.
cuz feeling of “pink elefants” is not from the Fitra like believing in God.
And today we have study’s supporting this.
So i see there no Problem.
This is an important point you are making. Our abilities to imagine things are to /know/ the truth are very different faculties.
Salamo Alaykom. Can you please give us the references's names, the arabic ones please, thank you.
What a beautiful topic this is .. summarizing one of the great muslim philosophers world virw and positions in a video....this was very good also because you did the analysis of both is good arguments and his critiques...
There are no such thing as Muslim philosophers.
@@Мухьаммад_786 lol why? the philophers who were muslim were muslim philosophers ..whats the problem?
@@asathelogiclaman637 Alright, did the Salaf use the Philosophy.
@@Мухьаммад_786 no so what?
@@Мухьаммад_786 yes
Thank you brother you are doing great work god bless you
Some empty armchair critics on here.
They should create their own hour and half lecture on philosophy and Ibn Taymiyyah and demonstrate how much knowledge they have. 🤦♂️
Wa alaykumassalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh
Does Ibn Taymiyyah believe that the knowledge of Allaah is dynamic?
For example does he say example:
Prior to Zayd being born, it is in Allaah's knowledge that Zayd will born, live and die at an appointed time.
Prior to Zayd dying it is in Allaah's knowledge that Zayd is living and will die at an appointed time, and when Zayd has died, it is in Allaah's knowledge that Zayd was living, has died and died at the appointed time
@@Saber23 u probably a rafidhi
wasn't just ibn taymiyyah thay rejected kalam
He refute kalam but in time of need he use it to debates against the deviant sect innovators in Islam
He never advocated people to learn it
You misunderstood Ibn Taimiyah position on metaphor. There´s no metaphor on what was well known among the sahabat. IE on the understanding of the apparent. Even if colloquially today you think its metaphoric for the Sahabat it was the true meaning. Its a tricky thing if we see it from a certain angle, but its clear that he doesn't reject the obvios sense of the verse. His argument is regarding Taweel, the exercise of creating metaphors out of something none existent in the apparent understanding by the sahabat. Do you understand? It requieres understanding, there are various articles and lectures on this topic. obviously there are wordings in the Quran that the sahabat understood as metaphoric in the linguistically sense, you would need to be very ignorant to believe Ibn taimiyyah doesn't know this. If the sahabat said for instance, Hamza is a lion, they didn't believe he was a Lion, Ibn Taimiyaah never took that at face value, obviously. He was mainly referring to the attributes of Allah and the kalaam arguments.
but isn't it subjective at the end of the day which metaphors are obvious and which aren't. I would understand if the Quran used metaphors that in the Qurayshi language were already some kind of idioms or metaphors that were used as normal day speech, but I don't think it restrtictly does? (I don't have much knowledge about this, just curious)
subscribed alhamdulillah
Ibn taymiyyah is the father of TAKFIR
We need timestamps please
How can one think universals exist ? (Outside of Allah SWT)
10:30
20:00
I just skiped from this man to
46:40
If I hear "Plato maybe argue..."
I directly know I will not learn Islam here.
Are you serious???
this is why u need context. u are a fool. maybe watch a few seconds after that
39:49 Ibn Taymiyyah's disdain for universals.
Bit are not there some problems with The 'Aqida of Al Ghazali?
Yes, many problems
@@mahmudibnabidin yea you numb nuts are better at knowing aqeedah than ımam gazali r.a
Nope, absolutely not.
@@dajjubhai7363 May Allah guide you
@@mahmudibnabidin Ghazali is one of the few scholars that were universally accepted by the people of their time and afterwards. The idea that Ghazali is some controversial figure is a very modern salafi idea that the vast majority of actual Ulama reject. If you really believe that the proof of Islam (Hujjat al-Islam) , as Imam Zahabi refers to him, has basic aqeeda issues then would you mind mentioning one of them. Perhaps I can change your mind on that or maybe you'll convince me.
Who is this Al Amadi guy, how do you spell his name?
Sayf al din al amadi
Unfortunatly, some men just don't learn from the lessons of history...this philosophy and logic that Ibn taymiyya denigrated is the one who built the political system in which you are living, the educational system, the society... All that required a deep philosophical thought in the domain of law philosophy, political philosophy, etc. And the saudians, who are seeing themselves as students of Ibn Taymiyya, are also using philosophy every day, in every part of their state to build their nation.
Every average educated person in the society use philosophy and logic every day, they just aren't conscious of it. Logic is an absolute necessity, otherwise one can say something and it's opposite while thinking they are both correct.
I think the main problem of ibn taymiyya and his followers, is a problem of attitude.
When you don't understand a problematic, or the goal behind the questionning of a philosopher or a scientist, you don't dismiss the author. You acknowledge that it is beyond your understanding for now, that you need time and intellectual maturity to understand what their preoccupation was, why were they wondering that. This is the attitude of every real seeker of knowledge.
This is nothing against Mohamed hijab, he looks a great person with good hearted with honorable intentions. But this topic requires deep reflexions..
You said a whole bunch of nothing. Clearly you do not know Ibn Taymiyyah's knowledge and books regarding Philosophy.
You even demonstrated how you clearly can't specifially make a balid criticism without being vague. This shows you don't know what you are talking about. If you did and had valid criticism, you would be specific.
Brilliant that Hijab said Ibn Taymiyyah could also make mistakes and could have an incorrect opinion. I've noticed that some Ahle Hadiths/Salafi brothers are getting a little emotional and almost becoming muqalids. For example (if I remember correctly), I think Ibn Taymiyyah was wrong when he said that Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar R.A was a bidati when he sought out the Prophets S.A.W place of worship during Hajj, and he said that created things also existed from the beginning like Allah (Hawadiis have no ibteda). And his statement that the barelvis/sufis would get sawab for the intention behind the bidats around milaad ul nabwi celebrations.
So you affirm that God must a first creation, and before that he was NOT able to create?
Who said He wasn't able to create? We have clear sahih hadiths that Allah first created the kalm/pen. One of Allah's attributes is that He has always been. And this is beyond space and time and beyond our comprehension. So rather than what ibn taymiyah did, which honestly borders on shirk in Allah's siffat, we should just accept it as something we cant understand.
@@MegaTidehunter cite the proof for first creation
@@oeshkoer Indeed I heard the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) saying: "Verily the first of what Allah created was the Pen. So He said: 'Write.' It said : 'What shall I write?' He said : 'Write Al-Qadar, what it is , and what shall be, until the end.'"
Grade = Sahih (Darussalam)
Reference : Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2155
In-book reference : Book 32, Hadith 23
English translation : Vol. 4, Book 6, Hadith 2155
@@MegaTidehunter and what does other ahadith state as first creation? Water / Throne ? The light of the Prophet ?
How does a complex, unknown, infinite and uncreated BEING (God/Allah according to some) explain the existence of a (many?) universe. You refer to existence, essence, causality, time, infinity, necessity, universality as if they are well-defined.
It doesn't explain it. But, one can argue that something infinite must exist; b/c it is the only way to end the infinite regress of empirical explanation by accidents/occurrence/events, etc.; there must be a 'causa sui'. But then this implies an agent (a common conceptualization of a 'creator god')...leaving us with, where did it come from? By definition, something infinite could not have a beginning; so the argument goes, that must be our 'creator'. This begs the question, where did it come from? We are left with "unknown" or "unknowable" , at least if you relegate our ability to 'know' , our epistemic faculty, to logical derivation. Asking about the origins of something infinite make no sense to even ask! This goes back to at least Aristotle and his metaphysics (and physics). He proposed a hylomorphic conceptualization of reality, improving on Plato's concept of eternal universals. Hope this helped...
@@danielarista1352 Yes. Thanks. Concepts like infinity, necessity, existence, causation are fraught with misunderstanding and misapplication. Human agency and intention are the culprits of hylomorphism and hylozoism, spirits and personal beings underpinning natural phenomena ...hence the rise of gods. Its an interesting discussion. But like Plato said in one of his dialogues, at the end of the day we should all have a laugh and not take it too seriously, for if you take it emotionally it becomes a tragedy, whereas if you try to rationalize it it becomes a comedy.
@@petrospetroupetrou9653 I think I agree with all of this, but I would add there's been a lot of thinking in Western academic philosophy since then; obviously. I remain an ontological realist about many things, including infinite things, Platonic mathematical structures, and minds ... and of course of material reality. I also have found wrt to tradgedies and comedies, that Pragmatism, along with its Realist metaphysics is pretty compelling. Notice, I can do all of this w no appeal to theology.
I'm starting to develop the opinion that theology should first and foremost, if not entirely, be about that metaphysically 'beyond' ... and what relationship we may have with "it".
*The secular West’s double standards are glaringly evident from how they deal with “irrationality”. When this so-called irrationality is linked with religion it’s a problem. However, when it comes to things like “gender fluidity” it’s completely fine. Another example that can be mentioned is how the “clairvoyant” Edgar Cayce was extremely popular during the early 20th-century.*
And it’s the same story when it comes to aliens. The secular West, unable to fight its innate tendency to believe in the ghayb, proposes the likely existence of a non-human species that could communicate with our world - the same way Muslims believe in the jinn
Of course, all of this is done in the name of their own religion: science. They even have their own priests in the form of astrobiologists, etc.
This belief of theirs is of the same nature as ours. Even if they try and add some pseudo-empiricist spice: there may be tangible elements pointing towards the existence of aliens They fail to grasp how we, too, say there are “tangible elements” regarding the influences of the jinn within our world.*25:30@@petrospetroupetrou9653
I wa trying to understand each words and philosophical theories
Ibn Taymiyyah rahimullah
Interesting.
Ibn Taymiyya is imam of mujassimah. Anthropomorphism is kufr.
Assalamualaikum warahmatullah hi Wabarakatuhu
walaykum Assalam wa'rahmatu Allahi wa'barakatuhu
mashallah this islam malarkey is good money.
Everyone should read Ibn Taymiyyah's "The Unsheathed Sword". It shows how people who simply do not agree with Muhammad or Islam should be treated. PDF can be easily found online.
Thats very interesting. How long is the pdf?
Yes keep coping kid, we will treat u like we want. Plus the book is called the unsheathed sword on the insulter of the prophet, not on who disagrees with him, keep coping
Cope harder ....The book talks about those who abuse Rasoolullah sallalahu alaihi wasallam...
😂 you people are just....
Mohammed Hijab needs to work on his lecturing skills. The subject is interesting but he is all over the place.
MH: Anything that is made of parts is contigent.
The universe is made of part, therefore the universe is contingent.
Ibn Taymiyyah: The universe is pre-eternal 🤡🤡
I'm not sure how ibn taimiyah got his reasoning. But If you think about the universe as reality (all that exists and is real) . Then God is pre-eternal, and he is real, meaning reality is pre eternal. If he meant the universe as in space time, then he's wrong and one man doesn't define what Islam is. All are fallible except the prophets.
🤦. You butchered IT's position
Ibn taymiyyah knew nothing of the minhaj (Islam Iman and Ihsan ) of the Salaf
Nothing is unfair. Sure he made anthropomorphic understanding popular and projected it wrongly to the salaf which the pseudo salafis rely on today. Big issues but he was a nevertheless a scholar.
@@cano5063 you can’t justify buffoonery. FULL STOP 🛑
@@Gog3453 I’m not justifying the mistakes. Our job is to point them out and not to fallow a single individual but rather ijma of ahlu sunnah.
@@cano5063 AGREED. But we can not minimize ibn taymiyyah’s buffoonery nor can we minimize the madness of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab
good
My question according to you where is Allah?
He is outside of creation but has his power in creation as he says in quran
nowhere.
i should do istighfar for my lack of knowledge.
Allah exists without a place
@@mz8452Allah is above his throne, above his creation. The earliest generations unanimously agreed on this when a sect of muslims refused to say Allah is above the 7 heavens
Allah is above everything in status. As for having a place, all Muslims clear Allah of that and any other attribues from among the attributes of the creations@@BK_Beloved
Wahabi bring muslim heat each other
you sound like typical sufi
Why didn’t you expound on Ibn Taymiyyas Allah eternally creating (perpetually)? You skipped the best part my friend. An Athari that has nothing to do with atharism.
Badly they try to make it as if ibn taymiyah was athari and he was no where near
@@hilly9114 Yes it’s pure hypocrisy. The salafis accuse the Maturidi and Asharis as coming with new ideas. But Ibn Taymiyya who came like 700 hijra brings ideas completely foreign yet he’s an Athari 🥴
@@wordswords5926 not entirely foreign... ibn Rushd and the actual philosophers preceded him in his conclusions. Be it the eternality of the Creation as a type (by Allah eternally creating), the existence of contingent within the dhaat of Allah, fana' an Nar...
@@wordswords5926 Ibn Taymiyyah did it not because of philosophy lmao he just looked at the naql and concluded this
@@Firelord2nd Right, he was using his own aql. Same as the philosophers. He concluded that from the top of his head. Lmho.
Is it true Kant copied from Ibn Taymiyyah?
@Ali Al-Mahdi stop doing drugs
He discusses this in the video, the answer is maybe but we can't be sure
That's quite laughable. It's no mystery whose Kant's philosophical influences were and it's very easily to place him historically in academic philology. And all of the philosophical topics discussed in this lecture, and many more, were well underway in the Greek then Latin cultures beginning over 1000 years prior to this literature. Indeed, this tradition continued during the Dark Ages as well, mostly in Christian monasteries. While Avencena, who was born, raised, educated, and lived in Europe, studied Greek philosophers, his contributions aren't particularly compelling in the philology of Western philosophy. That is, they didn't change the course of Western philosophy as much as it certainly changed the course of North African philosophy (and apparently, at least influenced, Muslim theology). Consider his historical contemporary Acuinas, who had a significant impact on both Western philosophy and Christian theology. Kant's novel contribution was a continuation of the burgeoning Cartesian "enlightenment".
@@danielarista1352Decart was influenced by alghazali occasionalism and NO ibn-sina(avincenna) was born in present day Uzbekistan, he's family is from balk(north afghanistan) and he lived and died in the middle-east not europe. so i don't know how you make an absurd pretence by making him a native european LMAO 😂🙃 Ibn-sina(Avincenna) indeed made a significant contribution to the western-world by writing a medical book that continued to be used by western institutions for the next 700 years. mathematising everything into the material, corporial world didn't start by rene descart, on the contrary rene descart adopted some of the methodological tools used by Hassan ibn-al- Haythm (father of optics and the first true scientist)
@@Razi290 you are correct about his life, I was confusing him with someone else mentioned in this video. Regardless, Avincenna was predominantly influenced by Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotle, and of course Islamic theology. I don't see how "indeed made a significant contribution to the western-world by writing a medical book that continued to be used by western institutions for the next 700 years" given by the time the Western knowledge he leveraged to write his book reached him in the middle east, the Western thinkers (to include the Romanized North Africans) had already gone beyond what's in that book, which makes historical sense. Much of what is proposed in his Book of Healing (which isn't about medicine) in the much of which was already laid out but not developed by other Western Aristotelian thinkers, into the Scholastics, which is really my point. His work was largely derivative of Western thought and helped educate the Muslim world, not the other way around.
👍👍
🌹🌹🌹❤️❤️❤️
But you're still a dramaqueen.
55:00
Ibn taymiyyah is an anthropomorphism..believe god as young man..he's only a thinker..and has been jailed thrice..for liking god to his creation..
Your ignorance of ibn taymiyyahs position seeps through your comment like water through a punctured water balloon
@@mogainz hahaha..you make me laugh a lot..thank....what kind of shaykh ul islam...??!!..he was jailed..losing debate...he memorised more than he can understand...he is the one who said..Allaah is like a man...anthropomorphism..mushabiha..that's all
MashAllah brother
I think taymiyyah is someone, much like Wahab that should be completely ignored. He has a recent revival due to the wahabis misusing him, but if this much controversy surrounds them why take from them when you have the 4 great madhabs that all fall within the salaf that the Prophet SAWS praised while these two don't?
Every person of bida hates ibn taimiyah...
@@Saarimul_masloolUnapologetic Ummm... I guess everyone of taymiyyah followers reject the salaf and are anthromorphosists... Let's make some more generalizations Mr wahabi/salafi/najdi sir.
Why u talking about ibn taymiyas dad. The topic of discussion is his son.
@@Saarimul_masloolUnapologetic Every wahhabi loves Ibn Taymiyya though he’s a pure philosopher 😂🤦🏻♂️
confused with you’re statement when both scholars Ibn Taymiyyah رَحِمَهُ ٱللَّٰهُ and MIAW were both hanbali (I don’t take from MIAW, but it is known he was hanbali). You said the 4 great madhabs, Ibn Taymiyyah رَحِمَهُ ٱللَّٰهُ is l one of the ‘relied upon’ scholars of hanbali fiqh (top 4 shuyookh in fiqh atleast). With this said- numerous hanbali shaykh a has huge influence off Ibn Taymiyyah رَحِمَهُ ٱللَّٰهُ since he was someone huge in the madhab. Though not all May of agreed with his aqidah, lot of them was influenced by some of his views in aqidah, or would rely on Ibn Taymiyyah on some aqidah beliefs to prove it while go against some others, As for MIAW i believe hes barely even considered except by the salafis
Why is Dunya such a bad thing in Islam? I'm not a Muslim but I am learning, but please tell me, why is Dunya disregarded as filthy and unclean? If the Lord God made the heavens, the Earth and the universe why would he place little to no value in this world? It is God's creation afterall.
I think the dunya itself is not seen as disregarded. You can enjoy halal things like family spouse food etc. But hayat al dunya is seen as bad which one could translate to the fleeting worldy life. That includes things like pre marital sex or alcohol or other haram things.
dunya is not filthy or unclean lol where did u get that ? its more like its a temporary whereabouts for a human and afterlife is what eternal so a human should seek the one which is eternal for that is more better for him/her
It's about your relationship with it. There is a right way and a wrong way to engage with the dunya. The Prophet (PBUH) said: "Be in this world as if you were a stranger or a traveller" [Bukhari 6416]
Because prophet Mohammad told us that , that is the true answer .
Also , because life is no more than a test , so for this reason it actually has no value .
@@mohammadalriz1998 Dunya does have value. Life is beautiful and worthy to be cherished. It is something precious.
Dear Salafies,
Here are some excerpts from Ibn Taymiyyah's writings. Decide for yourself. As for the insincere commentators, please, just open up your mind:
Allah SWT is: “[Something with spatial] measurement of length, breadth and depth, which prevents something else from being present where it is, unless it moves from that place.”
“It is known that the vision [of Allah in the afterlife] which the Lawgiver has told [us] about cannot be affirmed while negating [for Allah] what they regard as a ‘body’. Rather, affirming it [i.e. vision] necessitates [affirming for Allah] what they regard as a ‘body’ and ‘direction’. It is clear that whoever tries to combine these two [i.e. affirmation of vision and negation of ‘body’ and ‘direction’] is stubbornly refusing what is established by reason and by the senses.” [Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah]
“As for a thing not be described with increase and decrease, nor the absence of that, and it is existent without having a size, then that is inconceivable.” [Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah]
“Allah, exalted is He, has a limit which nobody but Him knows. It is not permitted for anybody to imagine himself a demarcation to his limit, and rather he must believe in it and consign the knowledge of it to Allah. Allah’s place also has a limit, namely [His place] on the Throne above His heavens; so that means two limits.…[Here he cited a number of texts from the Qur’an which in his opinion show that Allah has a physical limit then he says:] This and what is like it are proofs that all show that [Allah has a] limit and whoever does not profess that has disbelieved in the revelation and denied the verses of Allah.” [Muwaafaqah, vol. 2, p. 29]
“If He wanted He could board/get on the back of a mosquito and it would hold Him up/carry Him by His power and the gracefulness of His Lordship; so what about a great throne greater than the seven heavens and the seven earths?” [Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah]
Please decide for yourselves now.
decide what?
@@abdulkader7104 Whether you still want to say that your aqeedah is same as those of Ibn Taymiyyah’s.
@@Abdullah.......... yes ofc this is the aqeedah of the salaf
Ibn taymiyya said the last paragraph you mentionned? are u sure not someone else and he just copied it?
@@abdulkader7104 Please check the references I've given. And no, this is not the aqeedah of the salaf. This is the aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyyah, followed by Ibn Abdul Wahhab and later, the pseudo salafi scholars.
@@Abdullah.......... ok you just exposed yourself
I know the reference
But this phrase was said by imam aldarimi in his book الرد على بشر المريسي
He is student of imam ahmad
And imam ahmad approved of his book where he said so
U can go and read the book
So that is your level
Copy paste
Not gonna waste my time
You never actually read ibn taymiya books nor the salaf
Ibn taymiyya just copied the phrase and then commented on it
Pure dogmatism
No self critical thinking and research
Salaf creed developed 400 years after the salaf 🥴 genius!
5:15 there is your answer
TAYMIYYAH was a fool. He spoke rubbish. Why do you pray? Why punish with hell or reward with heaven? Taymiyyah cud not explain Was alaykum Salam.
Wahabi said propet don t do that .. you do Bida ah ??? So are Wahabi dare to says Abu Bakar .. Umar .. Usman ... Aisyah ... Ali do Bida ah ????? The truth is Wahabi is Bida ah !!!!!
U need immediate psychiatric attention
@Reasonably Unfiltered Hehehe Syiah yes we all muslim know it but Wahabi more dengeros he hide he faith like " Takiyah " slow slow he made muslim fight each other . always said Bida ah that ... Bida ah that ... Bida ah that but when we ask proof from Al Quran and Hadis they can t give ... only said propet don t do that ???????
Believing in the prophet(pbuh) includes
I. To believe in what he tells you
Il. To follow him in that which he commands you
III. To worship God in the way he legislate it. if you do something in the religion, is upon you to bring evidences for it otherwise is an innovation(bidda)
Philosophy is pure kufr. We don't need to prove the existance of God, we just present our arguments from the Qur'an...if it appeals to them, they accept. If they don't, they don't.
You can relish on your intelelctualism all you want, but remember, any and everyone who dwelled in it lost their faith including Ghazzali who had become agnostic for long.
Typical salafi.
Can you please provide the surah or hadith that says philosophy is pure kufr brother?
@İslamdan Beri God's existence cannot be proven through the scientific method. The scientific method is based on empiricism. God cannot be proven empirically because he's a metaphysical entity. May Allah ﷻ guide the sincere. Ameen!
@İslamdan Beri Please stop embarrassing yourself. Science is not the only yardstick to attain truth. There are many other methods to attain truth, for example: _testimony, logic, etc..._
Allah' ﷻ existence is self-evident. The burden of proof is on the one who's making the claim. You're claiming that Allah ﷻ doesn't exist (Nauzubillah). Where is your evidence for such a pathetic and childish claim? Go ahead!
@İslamdan Beri The Quran *IS* evidence. The preservation and challenges put forth by the Quran are evidence. May Allah ﷻ guide you to Islam. Ameen!
Ibn Taymiyyah LA. He is the real prophet of the Salafis.
Wrong, Ahmad ibn hanbal is
@@ahmed.aljelali Yes, it is a group of so called scholars who are more important than the prophet (S). Imam Malik said this, Imam Shafi said this. And what is common between all of them, they'd say anything to defend Umar and Aisha. If they are cornered in an argument to accept either God is more than one or Umar wasn't a good guy, they'd choose the first one and will never ever admit that this filth did some horrible things. This is their whole religion in a nutshell.
There is only one hujat al islam Al Ghazali
M Niqab needs to educate himself before engaging in stuff he cannot comprehend.
Indians
yinna dey thamby… ayoyo.. kadawaley… chittt..!!!! u rascal… podaaaahh…
Yes the same niqab wearing girl who destroyed your wolves and shouted at your faces ...a typical cow worshiping pagan
@@eerievon2208 write back in English if you want to reply
@YAHYA I think this is applicable to Mr M Niquab
Brother hijab this discussion is useless because it will makes more divisive and provocative I think you should focus on make Da3wa
To non Muslim which you are good in that field
Other thing I pointed it out is when you talk ibn taymia you refer him hanbali and this is big mistake
Ibn Taymia taught and fiqh and understanding and concept is beyond the 4 madhabi school even he nurtured from hanbali madhab
Didn’t he say god has a physical form ? Astagfurullah
No he did not say that and next time do your homework
Yes he did. That is kufr
@@mz8452 you must be sore loser
I have some questions that I really want answers for. Plz . Where cab i ask u? @sapienceinstitute
Contact them on lighthouse session on sapience institute
@@MohammadQasim when is that kindly tell me.
Was he a mujasim??? He believed god had a body like wahabis?
Is it Haram to believe that God has hands ?
38:08
Unneeded individual in Muslim history.