I'd argue it is the opposite. Similar to the Trinitarian perspective that God is three in one cannot be explained but is expected to be understood. Both of these views where an explanation cannot be provided but yet these statements are supposed to be taken as truth oppose "natural human disposition". This is just my perspective. Salam Alaykum.
@@adamgulamhusein8768 Well, the Trinity and Athari Creed cannot be compared as there are zero scriptural proofs for the former, whilst there are mountains for the latter. For the Athari, when God is affirming or describing an attribute of Himself, we affirm the wording of the text and leave the modality to God as our finite minds cannot understand how Allah has a yad, did 'istiwa, or nuzul. We just affirm it and state that he does it in a way that befits his Majesty. This is the safest position. Those who delve into kalam and philosophy are more prone to accepting heresies, especially if they bicker about the exact nature of Allah's attributes (or them negating/affirming things Allah or the Prophet never affirmed/negated). Abdullah ibn Nafi’ reported: Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked about the saying of Allah Almighty, “The Most Merciful rose above the Throne,” (20:5). The man said, “How is His rising?” Malik said, “The rising is acknowledged, its modality is unknown, and asking about it is an innovation. I see you are a man who intended evil with this question.” Source: al-Istidhkār 2/529 Ibn Abdul Barr said, “The people of the Sunnah agreed upon affirming the divine attributes as related in the Book and the Sunnah, interpreting them as reality and not as a metaphor, except that they do not ask ‘how’ is the modality of any of that.” Source: al-‘Ulūw lil-‘Alī al-Ghaffār 1/250
@@adamgulamhusein8768Trinitarian has the similarity of Ibnu Sina School btw. The Church Fathers basically a classical theist who believe in Divine Simplicity.
Omg this sentence .. it's like the national anthem every salafi says it ! You need to define Fitra, Clear defintion with no ambiguity and provide evidence since it is a metaphysical concept . And you need to prove that other people will react the sameway (which they don't) when they hear the creed you are talking about otherwise your claim is false and your sentence should be : the athari creed is simple to understand, appeals to my natural disposition. Now the true athari creed is tafweed not affirming bodyparts and tafweed actually is somthing that no muslim would have a problem with except wahhabis ofc .
You say ' Laa ilaaha illa allah ' means "There is none worthy of worship besides God". What is so special about this statement ??! We all christians, Hindus, Sikhs, jews..... etc do believe this statement that "there is none worthy of worship besides God ". This statement holds good for all religions. There is no dispute at all provided we all believe in same God. But It is obvious that different religion believe in god of different nature,thus different gods. So there arise a question , since one's God is different from other's, then whose god is this "god" in that statement refers to. So your shahada become meaningless unless you specify the name of your God . Suppose you treat the word "Allah" as a personal name of your God, then I have another objection to make. We name a person for the purpose of distinguishing himself from other persons . Were any eternal beings there along with Allah(if you call your god by that name)before the creation so as to distinguish him from other eternal beings??. So calling your God by a name implies that other eternal beings like other Gods are there with your God . This is clearly against your thouheed. So on both counts that Allah as a generic name or as a personal name your shahada become irrelevant and meaningless As for your comments on arab Christians using the word Allah to represent their God , I would say it is very difficult to preach a different God in a Islamic country. So they took the other way round that they used the word "Allah" in place of the word "God" in order not to offend Muslim's religious sentiments . This is a grave error on the part of Bible translators because Allah and God of Bible are different beings of different natures. And few words on your comment that God is loving and merciful. Mercy is not an attribute , it is 'love in action' or reflex action of love . Love is an attribute that originates from God and it takes an object without which love does not exist. It is out of love that he created this world. So my question still stands, whom does he love before the creation since no being were there before . So we can conclude that love takes its object in God himself. It clearly points to the fact that there is plurality in this ONE true GOD. The problem with Muslims is that they never go deeper into this kind of logical reasoning because they are neither allowed to nor interested in lest foolishness islam is exposed. Grace and truth came into the world through JESUS Christ. JESUS said I AM LIGHT OF THE WORLD .Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness,but will have the light of life. It is those people who followed JESUS lead the world from darkness to light. There is no hope for this world without Christians in it.
I disagree on athari rejection on kalam. That they said Kalam comes from philosophy, philosophy comes foreign way of thinking, moreover, just different style, thus not compatible with Qur'an. Insert foreign name like atistotelian, platonism, as if those are competing religion with Islam thus embracing Kalam or philosophy feels like compromising or even betraying Islam. But, if we look up closer, It doesn't matter what they reject whether they say It kalam philosophy or etc. They can escape what Ashari called as aql. Some translate It as logic, rationality, reasoning etc. No one can escape It. So why not dig deeper into this aql problem and it's solution so that our Faith can be founded strongly on aql.
@@BK_Beloved revelation has to satisfy the aql, not take priority over it. at first athari seems to be a straightforward position, thus avoiding time consuming polemics. until I see not only a handful of sheikhs, but almost all of them flat earth believers. then I said nope, this school of thought wasn't for me. "revelation has taken priority over their minds (aql)". for ashari, revelation is a matter of muhkamat vs mutashabihaat. if a verse seems to contradict the aql, the logic, the reasoning, the common sense, then it's a mutashabihaat verse, an elusive one, which mean it's a pretext to different wisdom it conveys. it's just a style, not the content. meaning it needs an interpretation too bad, more and more muslims become flat earther and use islam as their justification.
@@cikicikibumbum259 flat earth is not associated with atharis lol. Yes there were many muslims who did believe earth was flat but some also believed it was round before many other people found out. Anyways, back to the discussion. The students of the companions and their students completely affirmed and believed in all of the revelation and affirmed all attributes, even the one that seems “problematic”. The main problem with Asharism is that its influenced by Greek philosophy and Mu’atzilites. How can I use the ‘logic’ of philosphers to understand Allah and the Quran??? For me, that makes no sense and goes against the aql.
@@BK_Beloved actually athari can be associated with flat earther. first of all, Athari believe that Allah is on His throne in heaven. if asked what's the definition of heaven they will answer a place that is high, which means earth is below. wich means that the direction toward the sky at any point on the earth is the same everywhere. in a spherical earth, two places on earth never pointing upward at the same sky . secondly, they believe that Allah descends to lower sky in the middle of the night which means that concept of time zone is disregarded. time zone is one of the evidence that earth is spherical. not to mention that there are few verses in the Qur'an that suggests that earth is flat if they were interpreted literally. Ashari on the other hand, believe that Allah exists regardless of space-time, unaffected by them and originless. which means before there were any dot of space or any ticks of time, Allah has always been existing and he was alone. that is the best proximity if we believe that Allah is the Creator of all. so when asked 'where is Allah" ashari will refuse to answer it. Of course revelation alone can not be used as single source of reasoning. there has to be external source so one can escape circular reasoning. why do you believe Allah exist? because the Qur'an say so, why do you believe that Qur'an is true? because Allah says so.
This verse should put an end to all the philosophy and innovations. Surah 3 verse7 He is the One Who has revealed to you ˹O Prophet˺ the Book, of which some verses are precise-they are the foundation of the Book-while others are elusive.1 Those with deviant hearts follow the elusive verses seeking ˹to spread˺ doubt through their ˹false˺ interpretations-but none grasps their ˹full˺ meaning except Allah. As for those well-grounded in knowledge, they say, “We believe in this ˹Quran˺-it is all from our Lord.” But none will be mindful ˹of this˺ except people of reason.
You say ' Laa ilaaha illa allah ' means "There is none worthy of worship besides God". What is so special about this statement ??! We all christians, Hindus, Sikhs, jews..... etc do believe this statement that "there is none worthy of worship besides God ". This statement holds good for all religions. There is no dispute at all provided we all believe in same God. But It is obvious that different religion believe in god of different nature,thus different gods. So there arise a question , since one's God is different from other's, then whose god is this "god" in that statement refers to. So your shahada become meaningless unless you specify the name of your God . Suppose you treat the word "Allah" as a personal name of your God, then I have another objection to make. We name a person for the purpose of distinguishing himself from other persons . Were any eternal beings there along with Allah(if you call your god by that name)before the creation so as to distinguish him from other eternal beings??. So calling your God by a name implies that other eternal beings like other Gods are there with your God . This is clearly against your thouheed. So on both counts that Allah as a generic name or as a personal name your shahada become irrelevant and meaningless As for your comments on arab Christians using the word Allah to represent their God , I would say it is very difficult to preach a different God in a Islamic country. So they took the other way round that they used the word "Allah" in place of the word "God" in order not to offend Muslim's religious sentiments . This is a grave error on the part of Bible translators because Allah and God of Bible are different beings of different natures. And few words on your comment that God is loving and merciful. Mercy is not an attribute , it is 'love in action' or reflex action of love . Love is an attribute that originates from God and it takes an object without which love does not exist. It is out of love that he created this world. So my question still stands, whom does he love before the creation since no being were there before . So we can conclude that love takes its object in God himself. It clearly points to the fact that there is plurality in this ONE true GOD. The problem with Muslims is that they never go deeper into this kind of logical reasoning because they are neither allowed to nor interested in lest foolishness islam is exposed. Grace and truth came into the world through JESUS Christ. JESUS said I AM LIGHT OF THE WORLD .Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness,but will have the light of life. It is those people who followed JESUS lead the world from darkness to light. There is no hope for this world without Christians in it.
@@മക്കുടുമാപ്ല technically, the Holy Testimony literally means “ there is no deity but the THE DEITY of deities /the one true Divinity/God, but ok, (btw you’re talking from a personal theism perspective, us sunni/Sufi Muslims and Orthodox Jews are classical theists, unlike Christian’s and Hindus
Hey can anyone explain to me the difference between avicennian and Ismaili doctrine? The theology of God seemed very similar. Although I think Avicenna seemed to argue that the attributes are identical to God's existence but the Ismailis believe that he is the originator. Have I gotten this right?
Why does the rule of one (qadat al-wahid) work if G-d, blessed be He, has to create both an essence and an existence? Those are two separate effects, unless you subscribe to the view that essence is just a mental construct and that only existence is real, in which case you'd collapse into necessetarianism (everything is necessary, and this case, is also unchanging and eternal) and surely you would reject that. So how do you explain that G-d, blessed be He, directly creates both an essence and an existence given that His own essence is one (without distinction) and also necessary, so He can't contain directly the idea of some other essence other than Himself in such a way that we could describe it. Can you explain what the solution to this is?
That is the Platonic false conclusion of Ismailis according to us. According to our Christian belief, Allah didn't create a 1st intellect, but BEGAT, and since he is eternal, he cannot be a creation by definition! Moreover, he isn't a different substance from Allah, but naturally, by definition as an eternal being, he is of the same substance of Allah. Allah didn't create a substance from which he created the universe, but rather created out of nothing, right away - the 1st elements FROM which He created everything: Earth, Waters (heavens), light. Now, it isn't as Ismailis say, that the Intellect created the universel soul (holy Spirit) - the Father Allah did, in 1 act togeter WITH the Intlect, and through the intellect. That so called universal soul is the ACT of God itself, and Source of all action of God upon creation. It also perfect just like the Intellect, and the only reason of defect in creation was the original sin caused by Satan.
I am a muslim, student of Ashaari Creed. What i understood is that what attributed to God with regard to essense, attributes and actions are all categories that our human man able categorized in term of knowledge benefits. Else we cannot discuss eternal essense that has no beginning and no end. Our mind only can grasp creation which is temporary in nature but not the eternal Creator which in reality cannot be grasp by non-eternal and not absolute nature of mind. Thus the Exalted and the Absolute still need to defined by categorically type by human mind. The human mind understood that there is essence which is Self, there is attributes that is different from the essense. And lastly there are action related to those Attributes. These are definition of knowledge related to the Divine. In fact the Divine reality cannot be grasp by human mind. It is not the Divine create His Self, attributes. Anything created is creation and differs from the Eternal Being Himself.
According to Tabatabai's Bidayah al-Hikmah (Internet Archive's version, p. 317), he states: "However, the aspects (jihat) existent in the imaginal world, which is below the world of the Intellect, are so numerous that the few aspects of the First Intellect are not sufficient to emanate it. Hence it has to bring into being the Second Intellect, then the Third Intellect and so on and so forth until the number of aspects of multiplicity reaches the number necessary for the creation of the imaginal realm below it. From this, it becomes clear that there are multiple vertical Intellects (al'uqul al-thuliyyah), although there is no way of determining their number." I don't understand Tabatabai's reasoning for why in his view, there must be multiple intellects between the universal intellect and the universal soul (though their number is logically indeterminate), but the Ismaili Neoplatonic version that you represented, you only have two intellects before direct creation of the universe happens? Why do Ismailis only have two intellects when Tabatabai says there are many intellects?
@@DWAGON1818Even though many of Plotinus conclusions are false, that one is proven correctly - that is our Christ. And your phrase "JUST a logical conclusion" is an oxymoron & proves that it is fact. Unless you reject God's rules of logic, which in that case you only discredit yourself as irrational person💁
@@DWAGON1818 I don't assume, I know, and it's perfectly rational. What isn't rational is to believe in a non-existence of a 1st intellect. And the fact that you don't have an argument against it only discredits yourself twice now
@@DWAGON1818 🤦Khalil already explained it to you...Since God is absolutely divinely simple & perfect His will and act is perfect, thus have no distinctions in Himself, He generates at 1 instance the Son & Spirit. The Son is the blueprint of all Forms, whose role is to translate the oneness & simplicity of the Father into multiplicity & categories in order to create distinct things - and that is what we call knowledge, while the Spirit is the action by which He performs every act, the source of His energy, which is generated BY Him, and proceeding THROUGH the Son, actualizing the potential of God's knowledge, into motion and reality, as the source for all the different kinds of energies - and that is what we call life. Both of them are eternal & perfect. The only cause for a defect in creation is Satan, as the cause for the original sin. So there is nothing more perfect & coherent in this world than our doctrine & creed😁
Yasir Qadhi has a decease of problematising every topic he addresses. His presentation of Athari Aqeeda is quite clear and in line with common sense yet he tries to problematise it. May Allah cure him from the decease of liberalism crept in his heart.
on your presentation regarding ismailis and your critique of attributes, I believe you have made some mistakes regarding the dependency and its implications. The dependency relationship between essence and attribute would be a logical relationship, not an ontological one, there's a key difference with the latter relating to existence. holding onto real distinctions does not negate divine simplicity because one can posit that between essence and attribute it is a nominal distinction, that its not a real distinction in reality, if it was really distinct from the essence then yes your argument would follow, however any read classical theist would know not to make this basic blunder, real distinctions related to attributes have no intrinsic fallacious dilemmas because theses can be simply seen as descriptors of the essence, describing the existence, and that the descriptions are really distinct in so far as one description does not mean another description. an example of something that is really distinct from something else that describes the essence is like a sphere, it has color and smoothness, color would be a consequent of this material existence, and smoothness due to the geometrical shape of the sphere, both of these are descriptions of the existence of the sphere, however are not really distinct parts that are sub tractable from the sphere, they are intrinsic to it and exist necessarily by definition of what a sphere is. taking this in consideration there is no contradiction with divine simplicity with this position, and that this position is much stronger in the context of the quran. You also mentioned ismailis speak in negative language through negation, this seems to be heavily going against LEM, which is funny and ironic if one ones to posit themselves as a rationalist and logical person while also denying one of the most important laws of logic that has been proven.
Muslim Kalam theologians of Ashari, Maturidi and Hanbali schools are NOT classical theists. They make real distinction between God's Essence and God's Attributes. They never say it is merely nominal - in name only. Ismaili negativa never violates LEM and there are specific passages in Ismaili works that address the meaning of the via negativa. The reason is because you can have two predications that are contraries and both are false. Ismailis negate all contraries from God.
@@KhalilAndani Perhaps not in the academic sense of relating exactly what greek thinkers and antiquity as per hardcore divine simplicity, however they really are, in the sense God is omnipotent, all knowing, transcendent from creation, and is simple, they absolutely affirm divine simplicity in its conclusions that God is one and simple, however many did not formulate their stance philosophically well. while the real distinctions can be classified under the tradition, there are positions and scholars within it that dont hold to that, example is ibn taymiyyah from the hanbali school who was very clear that the distinctions were nominal, or virtual or any language you prefer that is related to it being intra mental, and not extra-mental. which also complemented his empiricism. I would also like you to critique if possible this position of intra-mental distinctions in relation to essence and attributes while also the attributes are really distinct from each other. I view this is as the most rationale position that upholds both logical coherence and scriptural contexts. on LEM, the negation of contraries is by definition against LEM, because for example you cannot have something neither true or false, because there is nothing between true or false, there is nothing between, no 'middle' between true and false especially related to truth values. so you can either exist or not exist, negation of both is contrary to LEM, you can either have power or not have power, negation of both results in absurdity, at that point the conception of God is just null, or in other words nothing, God is nothing at that point. furthermore it can be posited God neither necessary or contingent. Also I would like to see what you have to say about the logical and ontological dependency relationships and how its not ontological.
The mistake is the premise that any dependent being must be a created being. We believe that NO - since the Son and Spirit are eternally generated, they are above creation. That is the Platonic false conclusion of Ismailis according to us. According to our Christian belief, Allah didn't create a 1st intellect, but BEGAT, and since he is eternal, he cannot be a creation by definition! Moreover, he isn't a different substance from Allah, but naturally, by definition as an eternal being, he is of the same substance of Allah. Allah didn't create a substance from which he created the universe, but rather created out of nothing, right away - the 1st elements FROM which He created everything: Earth, Waters (heavens), light. Now, it isn't as Ismailis say, that the Intellect created the universel soul (holy Spirit) - the Father Allah did, in 1 act togeter WITH the Intlect, and through the intellect. That so called universal soul is the ACT of God itself, and Source of all action of God upon creation. It also perfect just like the Intellect, and the only reason of defect in creation was the original sin caused by Satan.
What is the use of learning Quran and Hadith. Use is that people they can know, Allah is KAABAS STONE GOD and it's prophet is the prophet of that stone and..
Regarding the names and attributes of allah and the concept of tawhid; their almost identical to the Asharis. They start to differ when it comes to Qadr.
According to salafi school of thought they have to prove God through physicality because all atributes and names define him then they will never prove it..
You said that the universal intellect lacks aseity and so it produces an imperfect universal soul. However, why does aseity have any effect on this? The fact that it lacks aseity doesn't matter for producing a contingent existence, especially in an imaginal/transcedental world. As such, why is the universal soul unable to just replicate itself if its the most perfect contingent creation possible and it recognizes itself as such?
That is the Platonic false conclusion of Ismailis according to us. According to our Christian belief, Allah didn't create a 1st intellect, but BEGAT, and since he is eternal, he cannot be a creation by definition! Moreover, he isn't a different substance from Allah, but naturally, by definition as an eternal being, he is of the same substance of Allah. Allah didn't create a substance from which he created the universe, but rather created out of nothing, right away - the 1st elements FROM which He created everything: Earth, Waters (heavens), light. Now, it isn't as Ismailis say, that the Intellect created the universel soul (holy Spirit) - the Father Allah did, in 1 act together WITH the Intellect, and through the intellect. That so called universal soul is the ACT of God itself, and Source of all action of God upon creation. It also perfect just like the Intellect, and the only reason of defect in creation was the original sin caused by Satan.
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxy Thanks. I've made that comment a couple of months ago and have since abandoned the Ismaili/(Neo-)Platonic philosophy. I'm still a Theist of course.
@@bonbon__candy__1You're welcome, but I think that's a shame for a Muslim to abandon it, since it is the closest to our belief & perfectly coherent as well, as opposed to the pagan Athari Creed.
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxy I was never a Muslim. I consider both the Athari and Ismaili/(Neo-)Platonic views to be incorrect. They might give the appearance of being coherent until you challenge their premises and foundations (and then, they crumble and you see the cracks). Cheers :D
@@bonbon__candy__1 How come you think the Ismaili view is incoherent exactly? I mean, sure I disagree with it obviously, but I don't think it is incoherent. What is incoherent is the Athari anthropomorphic (in disguise) creed
Please Answer me If I am Wrong ! Walad"uuuun Rasool Allahi ?? No , A Boy Not Rasool of Allah , Mount-Sinai = Mh-Sinai"uuuuun Rasool Allahi ?? Yes -- A Mh-Sinai Rasool of Allah , Muslim"uuuun Rasool Allahi ?? Yes , A Muslim Rasool of Allah , Maaaad"uuuun Rasool Allahi ?? Yea , A Maaaadi Rasool of Allah , Ahad-maaaad = Ahmaaaad"uuuun Rasool Allahi ?? Yes , A Ahmaaad Rasool of Allah , Mount-maaaad = Mh-maaaad"uuuuun Rasool Allahi ?? Yes , A Mh-maaaad Rasool of Allah , Muhammad"uuuuun Rasool Allahi , ?? Yes , A Muhammad Rasool of Allah , Muhammad"uuuun Abdu Allahi ?? Yes , A Muhammad Abdu of Allah , Rasool of Allah , Indeed -- In this Point -- Muhammad"uuuun or Mh-maaaad"uuuuun Meaning A Title of the prophets --, Therefore : Muhammad"uuuuun Rasoolu Allahi ( 48 : 29 ) Meaning - A Muhammad or ( A Mh-maaaad ) Rasool ( Messenger ) of Allah , But Not Meaning -- Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah , it is 100% Wrong Meaning , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..;;,,,,,,
atharism is like having once cake and eat it too, it precludes any meaningful understanding when it comes to natural theology yet it stil sugar-coats its anthropomorphism
The atharism can be consume by those that desire simplicity in Islam, thats fine but against the enemies of Islam the Athari can be seen as weak in their arguments therefore they need help from the ash'aris and maturidis
🇷🇺☦🤝☪️🇵🇸When I establish my brilliant Orthodox Christian channel I wanna collaborate with you Shia against the lies and double standards of the neo-salafi dawah guys. I claim that one cannot be a pure Muslim nor Christian if he doesn't believe in the absolute divine simplicity of Allah the Father, as well as the basic neoplatonic principles, since those basic principles are the only thing which secures the oneness of God and His divine essence.
neo salafis or wahabis reject nearly all form of divine simplicity also in terms of god being compsite of parts and attaining direction they reject it they can say god can have hands and be in direction maturidi and ashari reject that god is composite of matter and is enclosed by direction but in terms of absolute divine simplicity both Muslims and christian except for thomasts deny absolute divine simplicity and absolute Divine simplicity essentially contradicts trinity bible and to some extant also the quran in absolute divine god have no ontological distinct attributes all of his attributes or energies are identical to each other such that they are identical to his divine essence his divine essence being necessary and his act of creation being identical to his essense is also necessary and eternal and in turn the universe although being eternal is necessary in virtue of god that is one thing which both contradicts quran and the bible according to which god by his free will created this universe it doesn't necessarily flows from his act of creation which is identical to his essense and which in turn is necessary and eternal. Thats why al ghazali wrote a book against philosophers who believed in Divine simplicity in result of that they belived that universe was eternal alongside god countering then ghazali formulated his famous kalam cosmological argument which argues universe must have a begining also holding divine simplicity is essentialy in conflict with trinity. I don't understand how one can hold the veiw of absolute divine simplicity and still believe in trinity . BTW good luck for your channel
You say ' Laa ilaaha illa allah ' means "There is none worthy of worship besides God". What is so special about this statement ??! We all christians, Hindus, Sikhs, jews..... etc do believe this statement that "there is none worthy of worship besides God ". This statement holds good for all religions. There is no dispute at all provided we all believe in same God. But It is obvious that different religion believe in god of different nature,thus different gods. So there arise a question , since one's God is different from other's, then whose god is this "god" in that statement refers to. So your shahada become meaningless unless you specify the name of your God . Suppose you treat the word "Allah" as a personal name of your God, then I have another objection to make. We name a person for the purpose of distinguishing himself from other persons . Were any eternal beings there along with Allah(if you call your god by that name)before the creation so as to distinguish him from other eternal beings??. So calling your God by a name implies that other eternal beings like other Gods are there with your God . This is clearly against your thouheed. So on both counts that Allah as a generic name or as a personal name your shahada become irrelevant and meaningless As for your comments on arab Christians using the word Allah to represent their God , I would say it is very difficult to preach a different God in a Islamic country. So they took the other way round that they used the word "Allah" in place of the word "God" in order not to offend Muslim's religious sentiments . This is a grave error on the part of Bible translators because Allah and God of Bible are different beings of different natures. And few words on your comment that God is loving and merciful. Mercy is not an attribute , it is 'love in action' or reflex action of love . Love is an attribute that originates from God and it takes an object without which love does not exist. It is out of love that he created this world. So my question still stands, whom does he love before the creation since no being were there before . So we can conclude that love takes its object in God himself. It clearly points to the fact that there is plurality in this ONE true GOD. The problem with Muslims is that they never go deeper into this kind of logical reasoning because they are neither allowed to nor interested in lest foolishness islam is exposed. Grace and truth came into the world through JESUS Christ. JESUS said I AM LIGHT OF THE WORLD .Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness,but will have the light of life. It is those people who followed JESUS lead the world from darkness to light. There is no hope for this world without Christians in it.
Don’t you see the bias and lack of critical thought or reasoning in your own response? You start off by mentioning certain problems by creating assumptions that the presenters in this video might hold, but that might not be the case. Then you proceed to make dogmatic claims which are against logic or even the data in terms of academia. I’m not even a religionist and I could care less if someone criticizes religion of islam, but it’s the same with respect to people who hold to other religions yet continue to make simply dogmatic claims which cannot be proven through reason or critical thought (which they unfortunately lack). For scholarship on Hebrew Bible, God, ancient Israelite doctrines and practices I recommend Dr. John J. Collins professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale, Dr. Joel Baden at Yale, Professor Francesca Stavrakapoulu on the idea of God in the Old Testament, Dr. Ronald Hendel, Dr. Mark Tabor, Dr. Daniel McClellan, etc. within the academic field that deals strictly with data, semitic languages, and historical material.
You say ' Laa ilaaha illa allah ' means "There is none worthy of worship besides God". What is so special about this statement ??! We all christians, Hindus, Sikhs, jews..... etc do believe this statement that "there is none worthy of worship besides God ". This statement holds good for all religions. There is no dispute at all provided we all believe in same God. But It is obvious that different religion believe in god of different nature,thus different gods. So there arise a question , since one's God is different from other's, then whose god is this "god" in that statement refers to. So your shahada become meaningless unless you specify the name of your God . Suppose you treat the word "Allah" as a personal name of your God, then I have another objection to make. We name a person for the purpose of distinguishing himself from other persons . Were any eternal beings there along with Allah(if you call your god by that name)before the creation so as to distinguish him from other eternal beings??. So calling your God by a name implies that other eternal beings like other Gods are there with your God . This is clearly against your thouheed. So on both counts that Allah as a generic name or as a personal name your shahada become irrelevant and meaningless As for your comments on arab Christians using the word Allah to represent their God , I would say it is very difficult to preach a different God in a Islamic country. So they took the other way round that they used the word "Allah" in place of the word "God" in order not to offend Muslim's religious sentiments . This is a grave error on the part of Bible translators because Allah and God of Bible are different beings of different natures. And few words on your comment that God is loving and merciful. Mercy is not an attribute , it is 'love in action' or reflex action of love . Love is an attribute that originates from God and it takes an object without which love does not exist. It is out of love that he created this world. So my question still stands, whom does he love before the creation since no being were there before . So we can conclude that love takes its object in God himself. It clearly points to the fact that there is plurality in this ONE true GOD. The problem with Muslims is that they never go deeper into this kind of logical reasoning because they are neither allowed to nor interested in lest foolishness islam is exposed. Grace and truth came into the world through JESUS Christ. JESUS said I AM LIGHT OF THE WORLD .Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness,but will have the light of life. It is those people who followed JESUS lead the world from darkness to light. There is no hope for this world without Christians in it.
Yasir Qadhi, please be quiet! I've been a Hanbali for all but 2 weeks of the 18 years I've been a Muslim. This is _not_ an accurate representation of Hanbali theology regarding the Divine attributes and nor is Taqi ud-Din ibn Taymiyyah _representative_ . Yasir Qadhi spent most of his adult life learning a cheap imitation of "Hanbalism" in the Salafi sect. That's like learning the Hanafi school from the Ahmadiyyah. He now claims to be a Sunni again and yet has clearly retained a residual Salafism in his thinking. He never studied with actual Hanbalis in Egypt, Sham or Iraq where they are centred. He made right royal screw up of the whole thing!
Excellent expositions of the different theological positions.
Thank you Dr. Khalil and all the presenters.
Great presentation by all speakers. 👍Thank you Khalil.
I appreciate your this type of work. Anisur Rahman. Pakistan
Great lessons, thank you Mr. Adnani
At least get his name right 😂
The athari creed is simple to understand, appeals to the natural human disposition.
I'd argue it is the opposite. Similar to the Trinitarian perspective that God is three in one cannot be explained but is expected to be understood. Both of these views where an explanation cannot be provided but yet these statements are supposed to be taken as truth oppose "natural human disposition".
This is just my perspective. Salam Alaykum.
@@adamgulamhusein8768 Well, the Trinity and Athari Creed cannot be compared as there are zero scriptural proofs for the former, whilst there are mountains for the latter. For the Athari, when God is affirming or describing an attribute of Himself, we affirm the wording of the text and leave the modality to God as our finite minds cannot understand how Allah has a yad, did 'istiwa, or nuzul. We just affirm it and state that he does it in a way that befits his Majesty. This is the safest position. Those who delve into kalam and philosophy are more prone to accepting heresies, especially if they bicker about the exact nature of Allah's attributes (or them negating/affirming things Allah or the Prophet never affirmed/negated).
Abdullah ibn Nafi’ reported: Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked about the saying of Allah Almighty, “The Most Merciful rose above the Throne,” (20:5). The man said, “How is His rising?” Malik said, “The rising is acknowledged, its modality is unknown, and asking about it is an innovation. I see you are a man who intended evil with this question.”
Source: al-Istidhkār 2/529
Ibn Abdul Barr said, “The people of the Sunnah agreed upon affirming the divine attributes as related in the Book and the Sunnah, interpreting them as reality and not as a metaphor, except that they do not ask ‘how’ is the modality of any of that.”
Source: al-‘Ulūw lil-‘Alī al-Ghaffār 1/250
@@adamgulamhusein8768Trinitarian has the similarity of Ibnu Sina School btw. The Church Fathers basically a classical theist who believe in Divine Simplicity.
Omg this sentence .. it's like the national anthem every salafi says it !
You need to define Fitra, Clear defintion with no ambiguity and provide evidence since it is a metaphysical concept .
And you need to prove that other people will react the sameway (which they don't) when they hear the creed you are talking about otherwise your claim is false and your sentence should be : the athari creed is simple to understand, appeals to my natural disposition.
Now the true athari creed is tafweed not affirming bodyparts and tafweed actually is somthing that no muslim would have a problem with except wahhabis ofc .
Fitrah is intuition @@hamzehhoussani191
Excited ❤️❤️❤️❤️
You say ' Laa ilaaha illa allah ' means "There is none worthy of worship besides God". What is so special about this statement ??! We all christians, Hindus, Sikhs, jews..... etc do believe this statement that "there is none worthy of worship besides God ". This statement holds good for all religions. There is no dispute at all provided we all believe in same God. But It is obvious that different religion believe in god of different nature,thus different gods. So there arise a question , since one's God is different from other's, then whose god is this "god" in that statement refers to. So your shahada become meaningless unless you specify the name of your God . Suppose you treat the word "Allah" as a personal name of your God, then I have another objection to make. We name a person for the purpose of distinguishing himself from other persons . Were any eternal beings there along with Allah(if you call your god by that name)before the creation so as to distinguish him from other eternal beings??. So calling your God by a name implies that other eternal beings like other Gods are there with your God . This is clearly against your thouheed. So on both counts that Allah as a generic name or as a personal name your shahada become irrelevant and meaningless
As for your comments on arab Christians using the word Allah to represent their God , I would say it is very difficult to preach a different God in a Islamic country. So they took the other way round that they used the word "Allah" in place of the word "God" in order not to offend Muslim's religious sentiments . This is a grave error on the part of Bible translators because Allah and God of Bible are different beings of different natures.
And few words on your comment that God is loving and merciful. Mercy is not an attribute , it is 'love in action' or reflex action of love . Love is an attribute that originates from God and it takes an object without which love does not exist. It is out of love that he created this world. So my question still stands, whom does he love before the creation since no being were there before . So we can conclude that love takes its object in God himself. It clearly points to the fact that there is plurality in this ONE true GOD. The problem with Muslims is that they never go deeper into this kind of logical reasoning because they are neither allowed to nor interested in lest foolishness islam is exposed.
Grace and truth came into the world through JESUS Christ. JESUS said I AM LIGHT OF THE WORLD .Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness,but will have the light of life. It is those people who followed JESUS lead the world from darkness to light. There is no hope for this world without Christians in it.
@@മക്കുടുമാപ്ല Okk Buddy, thanks for the comment. God bless you
Khalil Andani starts here 2:10:05
Why don’t you watch the others
Great wishes for all of you
I disagree on athari rejection on kalam. That they said Kalam comes from philosophy, philosophy comes foreign way of thinking, moreover, just different style, thus not compatible with Qur'an. Insert foreign name like atistotelian, platonism, as if those are competing religion with Islam thus embracing Kalam or philosophy feels like compromising or even betraying Islam.
But, if we look up closer, It doesn't matter what they reject whether they say It kalam philosophy or etc. They can escape what Ashari called as aql. Some translate It as logic, rationality, reasoning etc. No one can escape It.
So why not dig deeper into this aql problem and it's solution so that our Faith can be founded strongly on aql.
The main point of Athari is that the revelation will take take priority over the Aql of a human being
@@BK_Beloved revelation has to satisfy the aql, not take priority over it. at first athari seems to be a straightforward position, thus avoiding time consuming polemics. until I see not only a handful of sheikhs, but almost all of them flat earth believers. then I said nope, this school of thought wasn't for me. "revelation has taken priority over their minds (aql)".
for ashari, revelation is a matter of muhkamat vs mutashabihaat. if a verse seems to contradict the aql, the logic, the reasoning, the common sense, then it's a mutashabihaat verse, an elusive one, which mean it's a pretext to different wisdom it conveys. it's just a style, not the content. meaning it needs an interpretation
too bad, more and more muslims become flat earther and use islam as their justification.
@@cikicikibumbum259 flat earth is not associated with atharis lol. Yes there were many muslims who did believe earth was flat but some also believed it was round before many other people found out. Anyways, back to the discussion. The students of the companions and their students completely affirmed and believed in all of the revelation and affirmed all attributes, even the one that seems “problematic”. The main problem with Asharism is that its influenced by Greek philosophy and Mu’atzilites. How can I use the ‘logic’ of philosphers to understand Allah and the Quran??? For me, that makes no sense and goes against the aql.
@@BK_Beloved actually athari can be associated with flat earther. first of all, Athari believe that Allah is on His throne in heaven. if asked what's the definition of heaven they will answer a place that is high, which means earth is below. wich means that the direction toward the sky at any point on the earth is the same everywhere. in a spherical earth, two places on earth never pointing upward at the same sky . secondly, they believe that Allah descends to lower sky in the middle of the night which means that concept of time zone is disregarded. time zone is one of the evidence that earth is spherical. not to mention that there are few verses in the Qur'an that suggests that earth is flat if they were interpreted literally.
Ashari on the other hand, believe that Allah exists regardless of space-time, unaffected by them and originless. which means before there were any dot of space or any ticks of time, Allah has always been existing and he was alone. that is the best proximity if we believe that Allah is the Creator of all. so when asked 'where is Allah" ashari will refuse to answer it.
Of course revelation alone can not be used as single source of reasoning. there has to be external source so one can escape circular reasoning.
why do you believe Allah exist? because the Qur'an say so, why do you believe that Qur'an is true? because Allah says so.
This verse should put an end to all the philosophy and innovations.
Surah 3 verse7
He is the One Who has revealed to you ˹O Prophet˺ the Book, of which some verses are precise-they are the foundation of the Book-while others are elusive.1 Those with deviant hearts follow the elusive verses seeking ˹to spread˺ doubt through their ˹false˺ interpretations-but none grasps their ˹full˺ meaning except Allah. As for those well-grounded in knowledge, they say, “We believe in this ˹Quran˺-it is all from our Lord.” But none will be mindful ˹of this˺ except people of reason.
Thank you khalil 🙏🏼😊
Cant wait
What a great presentation of the Avicennian view!
Ibn sina have been rebuked through modern discovery of the big bang
Can you do a presentation on war and fighting according to Quran holistically not hadith or Sharia.
@jj-yi1ne that’s actually an insult to the Quran , you’re clearly not Sunni saying this
You say ' Laa ilaaha illa allah ' means "There is none worthy of worship besides God". What is so special about this statement ??! We all christians, Hindus, Sikhs, jews..... etc do believe this statement that "there is none worthy of worship besides God ". This statement holds good for all religions. There is no dispute at all provided we all believe in same God. But It is obvious that different religion believe in god of different nature,thus different gods. So there arise a question , since one's God is different from other's, then whose god is this "god" in that statement refers to. So your shahada become meaningless unless you specify the name of your God . Suppose you treat the word "Allah" as a personal name of your God, then I have another objection to make. We name a person for the purpose of distinguishing himself from other persons . Were any eternal beings there along with Allah(if you call your god by that name)before the creation so as to distinguish him from other eternal beings??. So calling your God by a name implies that other eternal beings like other Gods are there with your God . This is clearly against your thouheed. So on both counts that Allah as a generic name or as a personal name your shahada become irrelevant and meaningless
As for your comments on arab Christians using the word Allah to represent their God , I would say it is very difficult to preach a different God in a Islamic country. So they took the other way round that they used the word "Allah" in place of the word "God" in order not to offend Muslim's religious sentiments . This is a grave error on the part of Bible translators because Allah and God of Bible are different beings of different natures.
And few words on your comment that God is loving and merciful. Mercy is not an attribute , it is 'love in action' or reflex action of love . Love is an attribute that originates from God and it takes an object without which love does not exist. It is out of love that he created this world. So my question still stands, whom does he love before the creation since no being were there before . So we can conclude that love takes its object in God himself. It clearly points to the fact that there is plurality in this ONE true GOD. The problem with Muslims is that they never go deeper into this kind of logical reasoning because they are neither allowed to nor interested in lest foolishness islam is exposed.
Grace and truth came into the world through JESUS Christ. JESUS said I AM LIGHT OF THE WORLD .Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness,but will have the light of life. It is those people who followed JESUS lead the world from darkness to light. There is no hope for this world without Christians in it.
@@മക്കുടുമാപ്ല stop making assumptions about people. I dont follow Islam
@@മക്കുടുമാപ്ല technically, the Holy Testimony literally means “ there is no deity but the THE DEITY of deities /the one true Divinity/God, but ok, (btw you’re talking from a personal theism perspective, us sunni/Sufi Muslims and Orthodox Jews are classical theists, unlike Christian’s and Hindus
@@മക്കുടുമാപ്ല idk who you’re replying to actually (you must be replying to the video)
Hey can anyone explain to me the difference between avicennian and Ismaili doctrine? The theology of God seemed very similar.
Although I think Avicenna seemed to argue that the attributes are identical to God's existence but the Ismailis believe that he is the originator. Have I gotten this right?
Why does the rule of one (qadat al-wahid) work if G-d, blessed be He, has to create both an essence and an existence? Those are two separate effects, unless you subscribe to the view that essence is just a mental construct and that only existence is real, in which case you'd collapse into necessetarianism (everything is necessary, and this case, is also unchanging and eternal) and surely you would reject that. So how do you explain that G-d, blessed be He, directly creates both an essence and an existence given that His own essence is one (without distinction) and also necessary, so He can't contain directly the idea of some other essence other than Himself in such a way that we could describe it.
Can you explain what the solution to this is?
That is the Platonic false conclusion of Ismailis according to us. According to our Christian belief, Allah didn't create a 1st intellect, but BEGAT, and since he is eternal, he cannot be a creation by definition! Moreover, he isn't a different substance from Allah, but naturally, by definition as an eternal being, he is of the same substance of Allah. Allah didn't create a substance from which he created the universe, but rather created out of nothing, right away - the 1st elements FROM which He created everything: Earth, Waters (heavens), light. Now, it isn't as Ismailis say, that the Intellect created the universel soul (holy Spirit) - the Father Allah did, in 1 act togeter WITH the Intlect, and through the intellect. That so called universal soul is the ACT of God itself, and Source of all action of God upon creation. It also perfect just like the Intellect, and the only reason of defect in creation was the original sin caused by Satan.
I am a muslim, student of Ashaari Creed. What i understood is that what attributed to God with regard to essense, attributes and actions are all categories that our human man able categorized in term of knowledge benefits. Else we cannot discuss eternal essense that has no beginning and no end.
Our mind only can grasp creation which is temporary in nature but not the eternal Creator which in reality cannot be grasp by non-eternal and not absolute nature of mind.
Thus the Exalted and the Absolute still need to defined by categorically type by human mind. The human mind understood that there is essence which is Self, there is attributes that is different from the essense. And lastly there are action related to those Attributes.
These are definition of knowledge related to the Divine. In fact the Divine reality cannot be grasp by human mind.
It is not the Divine create His Self, attributes. Anything created is creation and differs from the Eternal Being Himself.
According to Tabatabai's Bidayah al-Hikmah (Internet Archive's version, p. 317), he states:
"However, the aspects (jihat) existent in the imaginal world, which is below the world of the Intellect, are so numerous that the few aspects of the First Intellect are not sufficient to emanate it. Hence it has to bring into being the Second Intellect, then the Third Intellect and so on and so forth until the number of aspects of multiplicity reaches the number necessary for the creation of the imaginal realm below it.
From this, it becomes clear that there are multiple vertical Intellects (al'uqul al-thuliyyah), although there is no way of determining their number."
I don't understand Tabatabai's reasoning for why in his view, there must be multiple intellects between the universal intellect and the universal soul (though their number is logically indeterminate), but the Ismaili Neoplatonic version that you represented, you only have two intellects before direct creation of the universe happens? Why do Ismailis only have two intellects when Tabatabai says there are many intellects?
@@DWAGON1818 what is proof according to you empiricism or logic ı think you are a fool
@@DWAGON1818Even though many of Plotinus conclusions are false, that one is proven correctly - that is our Christ. And your phrase "JUST a logical conclusion" is an oxymoron & proves that it is fact. Unless you reject God's rules of logic, which in that case you only discredit yourself as irrational person💁
@@nasrullahtoprak5461Yes, he is. I mean, what the hell does "just a logical conclusion" means other than being a "proof"🤦
@@DWAGON1818 I don't assume, I know, and it's perfectly rational. What isn't rational is to believe in a non-existence of a 1st intellect. And the fact that you don't have an argument against it only discredits yourself twice now
@@DWAGON1818 🤦Khalil already explained it to you...Since God is absolutely divinely simple & perfect His will and act is perfect, thus have no distinctions in Himself, He generates at 1 instance the Son & Spirit. The Son is the blueprint of all Forms, whose role is to translate the oneness & simplicity of the Father into multiplicity & categories in order to create distinct things - and that is what we call knowledge, while the Spirit is the action by which He performs every act, the source of His energy, which is generated BY Him, and proceeding THROUGH the Son, actualizing the potential of God's knowledge, into motion and reality, as the source for all the different kinds of energies - and that is what we call life. Both of them are eternal & perfect. The only cause for a defect in creation is Satan, as the cause for the original sin. So there is nothing more perfect & coherent in this world than our doctrine & creed😁
Yasir Qadhi has a decease of problematising every topic he addresses. His presentation of Athari Aqeeda is quite clear and in line with common sense yet he tries to problematise it. May Allah cure him from the decease of liberalism crept in his heart.
In the beginning was the Word.....
on your presentation regarding ismailis and your critique of attributes, I believe you have made some mistakes regarding the dependency and its implications. The dependency relationship between essence and attribute would be a logical relationship, not an ontological one, there's a key difference with the latter relating to existence. holding onto real distinctions does not negate divine simplicity because one can posit that between essence and attribute it is a nominal distinction, that its not a real distinction in reality, if it was really distinct from the essence then yes your argument would follow, however any read classical theist would know not to make this basic blunder, real distinctions related to attributes have no intrinsic fallacious dilemmas because theses can be simply seen as descriptors of the essence, describing the existence, and that the descriptions are really distinct in so far as one description does not mean another description. an example of something that is really distinct from something else that describes the essence is like a sphere, it has color and smoothness, color would be a consequent of this material existence, and smoothness due to the geometrical shape of the sphere, both of these are descriptions of the existence of the sphere, however are not really distinct parts that are sub tractable from the sphere, they are intrinsic to it and exist necessarily by definition of what a sphere is. taking this in consideration there is no contradiction with divine simplicity with this position, and that this position is much stronger in the context of the quran. You also mentioned ismailis speak in negative language through negation, this seems to be heavily going against LEM, which is funny and ironic if one ones to posit themselves as a rationalist and logical person while also denying one of the most important laws of logic that has been proven.
Muslim Kalam theologians of Ashari, Maturidi and Hanbali schools are NOT classical theists. They make real distinction between God's Essence and God's Attributes. They never say it is merely nominal - in name only. Ismaili negativa never violates LEM and there are specific passages in Ismaili works that address the meaning of the via negativa. The reason is because you can have two predications that are contraries and both are false. Ismailis negate all contraries from God.
@@KhalilAndani Perhaps not in the academic sense of relating exactly what greek thinkers and antiquity as per hardcore divine simplicity, however they really are, in the sense God is omnipotent, all knowing, transcendent from creation, and is simple, they absolutely affirm divine simplicity in its conclusions that God is one and simple, however many did not formulate their stance philosophically well. while the real distinctions can be classified under the tradition, there are positions and scholars within it that dont hold to that, example is ibn taymiyyah from the hanbali school who was very clear that the distinctions were nominal, or virtual or any language you prefer that is related to it being intra mental, and not extra-mental. which also complemented his empiricism. I would also like you to critique if possible this position of intra-mental distinctions in relation to essence and attributes while also the attributes are really distinct from each other. I view this is as the most rationale position that upholds both logical coherence and scriptural contexts.
on LEM, the negation of contraries is by definition against LEM, because for example you cannot have something neither true or false, because there is nothing between true or false, there is nothing between, no 'middle' between true and false especially related to truth values. so you can either exist or not exist, negation of both is contrary to LEM, you can either have power or not have power, negation of both results in absurdity, at that point the conception of God is just null, or in other words nothing, God is nothing at that point. furthermore it can be posited God neither necessary or contingent.
Also I would like to see what you have to say about the logical and ontological dependency relationships and how its not ontological.
The mistake is the premise that any dependent being must be a created being. We believe that NO - since the Son and Spirit are eternally generated, they are above creation. That is the Platonic false conclusion of Ismailis according to us. According to our Christian belief, Allah didn't create a 1st intellect, but BEGAT, and since he is eternal, he cannot be a creation by definition! Moreover, he isn't a different substance from Allah, but naturally, by definition as an eternal being, he is of the same substance of Allah. Allah didn't create a substance from which he created the universe, but rather created out of nothing, right away - the 1st elements FROM which He created everything: Earth, Waters (heavens), light. Now, it isn't as Ismailis say, that the Intellect created the universel soul (holy Spirit) - the Father Allah did, in 1 act togeter WITH the Intlect, and through the intellect. That so called universal soul is the ACT of God itself, and Source of all action of God upon creation. It also perfect just like the Intellect, and the only reason of defect in creation was the original sin caused by Satan.
im confused here, are you a christan? platonist? or neoplatonic muslim@@EasternRomeOrthodoxy
What is the use of learning Quran and Hadith. Use is that people they can know, Allah is KAABAS STONE GOD and it's prophet is the prophet of that stone and..
Real Sunnis /Sufis and Shia and other abrahamic faiths can get along
@@donaldmcronald8989 what are you talking about?
Athari🤡 Maturidi 👶🏻 Avicinnian 🗿 Ismaili 🗿
Athari 🗿Maturidi 🤡
Avecennian, Ismaili-> doesn’t matter because kuffar.
Get your greek lenses out of the islamic theology
We disagree using foreign lenses to read our theology
@@ibrahimmohammedibrahim9273 U mean you're Anthropomorphism sh*t ?
Ismaili 🐷🐖 Infront of Quran and Sunnah
Why no Ithna Ashari Shia?
They lact Kalam
nothing Ash'ari?
Regarding the names and attributes of allah and the concept of tawhid; their almost identical to the Asharis.
They start to differ when it comes to Qadr.
According to salafi school of thought they have to prove God through physicality because all atributes and names define him then they will never prove it..
You said that the universal intellect lacks aseity and so it produces an imperfect universal soul. However, why does aseity have any effect on this? The fact that it lacks aseity doesn't matter for producing a contingent existence, especially in an imaginal/transcedental world. As such, why is the universal soul unable to just replicate itself if its the most perfect contingent creation possible and it recognizes itself as such?
That is the Platonic false conclusion of Ismailis according to us. According to our Christian belief, Allah didn't create a 1st intellect, but BEGAT, and since he is eternal, he cannot be a creation by definition! Moreover, he isn't a different substance from Allah, but naturally, by definition as an eternal being, he is of the same substance of Allah. Allah didn't create a substance from which he created the universe, but rather created out of nothing, right away - the 1st elements FROM which He created everything: Earth, Waters (heavens), light. Now, it isn't as Ismailis say, that the Intellect created the universel soul (holy Spirit) - the Father Allah did, in 1 act together WITH the Intellect, and through the intellect. That so called universal soul is the ACT of God itself, and Source of all action of God upon creation. It also perfect just like the Intellect, and the only reason of defect in creation was the original sin caused by Satan.
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxy Thanks. I've made that comment a couple of months ago and have since abandoned the Ismaili/(Neo-)Platonic philosophy. I'm still a Theist of course.
@@bonbon__candy__1You're welcome, but I think that's a shame for a Muslim to abandon it, since it is the closest to our belief & perfectly coherent as well, as opposed to the pagan Athari Creed.
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxy I was never a Muslim. I consider both the Athari and Ismaili/(Neo-)Platonic views to be incorrect. They might give the appearance of being coherent until you challenge their premises and foundations (and then, they crumble and you see the cracks). Cheers :D
@@bonbon__candy__1 How come you think the Ismaili view is incoherent exactly? I mean, sure I disagree with it obviously, but I don't think it is incoherent. What is incoherent is the Athari anthropomorphic (in disguise) creed
Please Answer me If I am Wrong !
Walad"uuuun Rasool Allahi ?? No , A Boy Not Rasool of Allah ,
Mount-Sinai = Mh-Sinai"uuuuun Rasool Allahi ?? Yes -- A Mh-Sinai Rasool of Allah ,
Muslim"uuuun Rasool Allahi ?? Yes , A Muslim Rasool of Allah ,
Maaaad"uuuun Rasool Allahi ?? Yea , A Maaaadi Rasool of Allah ,
Ahad-maaaad = Ahmaaaad"uuuun Rasool Allahi ?? Yes , A Ahmaaad Rasool of Allah ,
Mount-maaaad = Mh-maaaad"uuuuun Rasool Allahi ?? Yes , A Mh-maaaad Rasool of Allah ,
Muhammad"uuuuun Rasool Allahi , ?? Yes , A Muhammad Rasool of Allah ,
Muhammad"uuuun Abdu Allahi ?? Yes , A Muhammad Abdu of Allah , Rasool of Allah ,
Indeed -- In this Point -- Muhammad"uuuun or Mh-maaaad"uuuuun Meaning A Title of the prophets --,
Therefore : Muhammad"uuuuun Rasoolu Allahi ( 48 : 29 ) Meaning - A Muhammad or ( A Mh-maaaad ) Rasool ( Messenger ) of Allah , But Not Meaning -- Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah , it is 100% Wrong Meaning ,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..;;,,,,,,
atharism is like having once cake and eat it too, it precludes any meaningful understanding when it comes to natural theology yet it stil sugar-coats its anthropomorphism
How is it anthropomorphic?
The atharism can be consume by those that desire simplicity in Islam, thats fine but against the enemies of Islam the Athari can be seen as weak in their arguments therefore they need help from the ash'aris and maturidis
@@redzuansazali3955 why weak in arguments? Give some examples
Don't spread sectarianism, atharism is a valid school of theology among the three main schools.
If their is no reason in your faith then why you are debating let it on God he will decide...
42:12 bookmark
Who is the creator of 🐖pig?
God, he also created Jinn, and the leader of Jinn, turn against him.
ISMAILIS EXPLAINING GOD WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE FROM QURAN AND PROPHET SAYINGS OR SAYEEDA ALI's
HYYYPED
🇷🇺☦🤝☪️🇵🇸When I establish my brilliant Orthodox Christian channel I wanna collaborate with you Shia against the lies and double standards of the neo-salafi dawah guys. I claim that one cannot be a pure Muslim nor Christian if he doesn't believe in the absolute divine simplicity of Allah the Father, as well as the basic neoplatonic principles, since those basic principles are the only thing which secures the oneness of God and His divine essence.
neo salafis or wahabis reject nearly all form of divine simplicity also in terms of god being compsite of parts and attaining direction they reject it they can say god can have hands and be in direction maturidi and ashari reject that god is composite of matter and is enclosed by direction but in terms of absolute divine simplicity both Muslims and christian except for thomasts deny absolute divine simplicity and absolute Divine simplicity essentially contradicts trinity bible and to some extant also the quran in absolute divine god have no ontological distinct attributes all of his attributes or energies are identical to each other such that they are identical to his divine essence his divine essence being necessary and his act of creation being identical to his essense is also necessary and eternal and in turn the universe although being eternal is necessary in virtue of god that is one thing which both contradicts quran and the bible according to which god by his free will created this universe it doesn't necessarily flows from his act of creation which is identical to his essense and which in turn is necessary and eternal. Thats why al ghazali wrote a book against philosophers who believed in Divine simplicity in result of that they belived that universe was eternal alongside god countering then ghazali formulated his famous kalam cosmological argument which argues universe must have a begining also holding divine simplicity is essentialy in conflict with trinity. I don't understand how one can hold the veiw of absolute divine simplicity and still believe in trinity . BTW good luck for your channel
You say ' Laa ilaaha illa allah ' means "There is none worthy of worship besides God". What is so special about this statement ??! We all christians, Hindus, Sikhs, jews..... etc do believe this statement that "there is none worthy of worship besides God ". This statement holds good for all religions. There is no dispute at all provided we all believe in same God. But It is obvious that different religion believe in god of different nature,thus different gods. So there arise a question , since one's God is different from other's, then whose god is this "god" in that statement refers to. So your shahada become meaningless unless you specify the name of your God . Suppose you treat the word "Allah" as a personal name of your God, then I have another objection to make. We name a person for the purpose of distinguishing himself from other persons . Were any eternal beings there along with Allah(if you call your god by that name)before the creation so as to distinguish him from other eternal beings??. So calling your God by a name implies that other eternal beings like other Gods are there with your God . This is clearly against your thouheed. So on both counts that Allah as a generic name or as a personal name your shahada become irrelevant and meaningless
As for your comments on arab Christians using the word Allah to represent their God , I would say it is very difficult to preach a different God in a Islamic country. So they took the other way round that they used the word "Allah" in place of the word "God" in order not to offend Muslim's religious sentiments . This is a grave error on the part of Bible translators because Allah and God of Bible are different beings of different natures.
And few words on your comment that God is loving and merciful. Mercy is not an attribute , it is 'love in action' or reflex action of love . Love is an attribute that originates from God and it takes an object without which love does not exist. It is out of love that he created this world. So my question still stands, whom does he love before the creation since no being were there before . So we can conclude that love takes its object in God himself. It clearly points to the fact that there is plurality in this ONE true GOD. The problem with Muslims is that they never go deeper into this kind of logical reasoning because they are neither allowed to nor interested in lest foolishness islam is exposed.
Grace and truth came into the world through JESUS Christ. JESUS said I AM LIGHT OF THE WORLD .Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness,but will have the light of life. It is those people who followed JESUS lead the world from darkness to light. There is no hope for this world without Christians in it.
Don’t you see the bias and lack of critical thought or reasoning in your own response? You start off by mentioning certain problems by creating assumptions that the presenters in this video might hold, but that might not be the case. Then you proceed to make dogmatic claims which are against logic or even the data in terms of academia. I’m not even a religionist and I could care less if someone criticizes religion of islam, but it’s the same with respect to people who hold to other religions yet continue to make simply dogmatic claims which cannot be proven through reason or critical thought (which they unfortunately lack).
For scholarship on Hebrew Bible, God, ancient Israelite doctrines and practices I recommend Dr. John J. Collins professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale, Dr. Joel Baden at Yale, Professor Francesca Stavrakapoulu on the idea of God in the Old Testament, Dr. Ronald Hendel, Dr. Mark Tabor, Dr. Daniel McClellan, etc. within the academic field that deals strictly with data, semitic languages, and historical material.
COME ONNNNNNN
You say ' Laa ilaaha illa allah ' means "There is none worthy of worship besides God". What is so special about this statement ??! We all christians, Hindus, Sikhs, jews..... etc do believe this statement that "there is none worthy of worship besides God ". This statement holds good for all religions. There is no dispute at all provided we all believe in same God. But It is obvious that different religion believe in god of different nature,thus different gods. So there arise a question , since one's God is different from other's, then whose god is this "god" in that statement refers to. So your shahada become meaningless unless you specify the name of your God . Suppose you treat the word "Allah" as a personal name of your God, then I have another objection to make. We name a person for the purpose of distinguishing himself from other persons . Were any eternal beings there along with Allah(if you call your god by that name)before the creation so as to distinguish him from other eternal beings??. So calling your God by a name implies that other eternal beings like other Gods are there with your God . This is clearly against your thouheed. So on both counts that Allah as a generic name or as a personal name your shahada become irrelevant and meaningless
As for your comments on arab Christians using the word Allah to represent their God , I would say it is very difficult to preach a different God in a Islamic country. So they took the other way round that they used the word "Allah" in place of the word "God" in order not to offend Muslim's religious sentiments . This is a grave error on the part of Bible translators because Allah and God of Bible are different beings of different natures.
And few words on your comment that God is loving and merciful. Mercy is not an attribute , it is 'love in action' or reflex action of love . Love is an attribute that originates from God and it takes an object without which love does not exist. It is out of love that he created this world. So my question still stands, whom does he love before the creation since no being were there before . So we can conclude that love takes its object in God himself. It clearly points to the fact that there is plurality in this ONE true GOD. The problem with Muslims is that they never go deeper into this kind of logical reasoning because they are neither allowed to nor interested in lest foolishness islam is exposed.
Grace and truth came into the world through JESUS Christ. JESUS said I AM LIGHT OF THE WORLD .Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness,but will have the light of life. It is those people who followed JESUS lead the world from darkness to light. There is no hope for this world without Christians in it.
@@മക്കുടുമാപ്ലOK ricebag😂😂
@@മക്കുടുമാപ്ലyou clearly do not understand what tawhid is
Yasir Qadhi, please be quiet! I've been a Hanbali for all but 2 weeks of the 18 years I've been a Muslim. This is _not_ an accurate representation of Hanbali theology regarding the Divine attributes and nor is Taqi ud-Din ibn Taymiyyah _representative_ . Yasir Qadhi spent most of his adult life learning a cheap imitation of "Hanbalism" in the Salafi sect. That's like learning the Hanafi school from the Ahmadiyyah. He now claims to be a Sunni again and yet has clearly retained a residual Salafism in his thinking. He never studied with actual Hanbalis in Egypt, Sham or Iraq where they are centred. He made right royal screw up of the whole thing!
Absolutely.
Abdul wahed al hanbali is a good example but sadly he has no english video or subtitles.
हिन्दी में लिखा करें। और हिन्दी में बोला करें। हम अनुवाद नहीं सुनेंगे।
यहां बात करने वाले सारे हिंदी बोलने वाले तो नही हैं उन्हें हिंदी नही पता अगर अंग्रेजी नहीं पता है तो अनुवाद न देखें
हिंदी में लिखा करो
Jay Shree Ram🚩🚩
Bhai ap kia ker raho ho yaha🤣
@@muneerallem9432 jay Shree ram bolne keliye Aya Hoga jahil 😂