Your videos for the common Sunni Muslim are wonderful. It’s like walking on eggshells when we talk about the misguided sect of salafis, they are well versed in Quran and no matter how hard one tries to talk sense into them, it’s a waste of time. Breaks my heart that they are misguided and extreme in their deen.
May Allah bless you sheikh. I always wonder the salafiyyah aka pseudo salafi all they do is doing tabdee against the ashaira. While the ashaira primary source is from the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Dear Sheikh, Wouldn't "circular reasoning" imply that we are unable to establish that the Quran is a revelation from Allah SWT. I would suggest that if we are able to establish the Quran is a revelation then the idea of "circular reasoning" ceases. We are Muslims not because of intellectual proofs of Allah but through the Quran, the living miracle of Allah SWT to mankind .
@@LeafSoulsthey already believed that Allah existed. They were polytheists not atheists. You can either prove the divine nature of the quran OR the existence of God first. Either one could be done independently
We step outside of the book, because we want to talk to people who don't believe in The Quran. We say to them Allah is true not because of Quran say so. We say to them Allah is true because Logically Allah is true. But when we speak with people who believe Quran, we will give the verses
I have to disagree on your first response akh. "What stops a christian from claiming that Allah is triune?". A lot actually, the preserverance of the text, the inconsitensies within the text and the plain contradictory statements that are found all around the bible. Knowing this, one who claims that Allah is triune in nature has no foundational proof to rely on when their text (if they claim it is indeed from God) has this many flaws. The reason why we can claim that God is how He describes Himself in the Qur'an is due to its reliability and preserverance. "What seperates or differentiates between the two (i.e one claiming Allah is so and so based on the Bible vs Qur'an)". Again it is the truthfulness of the Qur'an vs the many obvious altercation that is found within the new and old testament. Neither of the old or new testament is found in its original language only provided in translations. You don't need to use ilm al-kalam versus a person who already has established that God exists, ilm al-kalam vs atheists is a suitable tool as you have to provide them rational proof for God. But when two theists of different religion debate here, you just go back to how the religious texts are, any alteration, contradictions or flaws. As a text who is prone to mistakes can't be from God and thus any description of God within those text can't be taken 100%. As Allah the Most High Himself said: "Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction." (4:82) And Allah knows best.
For them then Ibrahim as. Must be a Greek philosopher euzhbillah. These are really such ignorant people. Majority of scholars, giants like imam gazali and many more are all deviant and used their intellect over revelation, sure. Let’s go with your bidah Abdul wahab and hand full of anthropomorphistic scholars over 1500 years full of scholars.
Didn’t you just use circular reasoning to explain your whole point? “We use the intellect to explain the Qur’aan, because the Qur’an requires the intellect for it to be accepted” And where do you get the 5 laws that you mentioned?… how can we agree on that, what is the source/root, who came up with this, etc Not trying to challenge but how can one logically/rationally even accept what you are saying in this case? It’s almost as if you are saying, just believe this because I said so, “it is what it is”, but with no actual proof… Sidenote: I give da’wah to non-muslims, i usually just use the revelation model. i.e.: first commandment, words of jesus (hear o israel our lord your god is one), and islamic shahada+surah ikhlas are the same; the prophets msg were the same; so there’s something there, theyre all calling to tawheed; God sent prophets, Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم proves to be the last Won’t this be sufficient?
It’s not circular reasoning because the intellect affirms the Quran and the Quran affirms the intellect. The common base we have between different religions is rationality. And from there, the common ground we have, we use it as a basis to then finish the matters we disagree about.
Your entire channel is about strawmanning the opponent's position and then attacking that. I think you know it very well that salafis don't actually say that such fundamental attributes of God as "existing, eternal, all-knowing, all-hearing, independent, all-powerful" are known or believed SOLELY through the Quran and not through universal knowledge or sound reasoning of the mind via observation of reality (outside of the Quran to conclude the veracity of Islam that it is in line with sound intellect). You even strawman christians. Even christians don't believe that God is "eternal, all-knowing etc." ONLY because the bible said so, they would say "these are logical conclusions", although they would then contradict themselves by admitting jesus was not "all-knowing" (e.g., didn't know the hour etc. but thats a separate discussion).
Using the Qur'an as proof is valid because the Qur'an is true. Other religions can not do the same because their holy books are not true. This is not circular logic because the Qur'an can be proved in many ways. Besides, proving that the God of the Qur'an makes logical sense does not prove the Qur'an to be true, so that's faulty logic. Also those five characteristics are literally affirmed in the Bible. Christians can bring you many quotes such as "Your God, O Israel, is one God" Also using philosophy can make you affirm/negate attributes which are not even mentioned in any of the Islamic texts.
what u were saying is "if the god of islam makes sense then the quran must be true" this is fallacious. A deist can use your kalam and believe the god of islam makes sense but not believe in the quran. The right way to establish the aqeeda is to first prove a creator rationally then prove the quran is from that creator rationally. The rest of the aqeeda (the angels, the day of judgement, the attributes of allah etc) and sharia originate from the quran and sunnah after. This is much better than your dangerous ilm ul kalam methodology. wa allahu a3lam
If we affirm what ALLAH SWT affirms, we’ll be accused of anthropomorphism. Studying the ashari aqeedah and the science of ilm kalam really messes with your head. I can’t even find one sheikh who can explain without leaving more confused. The “salafi” approach is more simple and straightforward.
you're saying the layman can't understand what circular reasoning means? the layman can do calculus, algebra and get a 4 year degree in college but can't understand that using the Quran to prove that the Quran is from God and other forms of fallacious reasoning is inconsistent? Which layman are you talking about lol?
Imagine trying to explain to a layman that some people who call themselves Muslims believe in a God that has body parts but 'NoT liek ourz.' It doesn't even make true sense. The brothers and sisters that have come from Christianity have come from worshipping 3 parts that are meant to equate to one, they come from worshipping a body that exists in Heaven and now you Salafis are doing the exact same thing.
@Malik this is a very simplistic and frankly strange view of the salafi theology. You need to sit down with a good salafi scholar to study the Aqeedah of SALAF AS SALIH. Don’t take one or two opinions out of context. May Allah guide you to Islam ameen.
@@syedshakaibanwar2698 belief in Allah’s hand is part of the Aqeedah of ADAM A.S Adam said (to Musa): “You are Moses who Allah chose for his speech and wrote the Torah for you with his hand.” Grade: Sahih al Albani *[ Sunnah Ref: Sunan Abu Dawud 4701 ]* do you choose to follow (a) our father, the Prophet Adam A.S (b) random 10th century mubtadi jahil called ashari
What's ironic about both the Ashari and Athari cults, is that in the introductory lessons of both, they highlight "blind following in faith is impermissible". Then immediately after go on to tell you that the following points written by shaykh so and so are an obligation to believe in... Lol Let's not even get into the fact that neither cult's foundations are rooted in The Actual Revelation, I mean they both innovate dogmatic treatises either by distorting or breaking up the context of Indexes(آيات), by deliberately mistranslating, romanising and inventing synonyms, or by outright inventing ideas not mentioned in The Scripture at all.
![Chino Pacas - Modo Capone (with Drake & Fuerza Regida) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zjv8TQ0gBkg/mqdefault.jpg)
Your videos for the common Sunni Muslim are wonderful. It’s like walking on eggshells when we talk about the misguided sect of salafis, they are well versed in Quran and no matter how hard one tries to talk sense into them, it’s a waste of time. Breaks my heart that they are misguided and extreme in their deen.
JazakAllah khayr for these videos, they’re very beneficial. May Allah bless and preserve you!
Asharis were dealing with mutazilis and philosophers. The audience being addressed has to be known to understand the context. Simple
Love the videos brother. May Allah ﷻ reward you.
Wow loving your videos! May Allāh accept and continue to use your for the service of his Deen!
Please continue ❤️
I will continue refuting Asharism and Jahmism and every other ism the zindeeqs try to put besides *al islam*
@@maalikserebryakovno one asked + no one can refute Ahlus sunnah wal jammah
@@maalikserebryakovnobody knows you💀
Couldn't have put it more succinctly.
May Allah bless you sheikh. I always wonder the salafiyyah aka pseudo salafi all they do is doing tabdee against the ashaira. While the ashaira primary source is from the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Ameen. They accuse us of putting our intellect over the Qur’an and Sunnah, which we would never do.
I just watched of this takfiris call imam nawawi kafir.
Dear Sheikh, Wouldn't "circular reasoning" imply that we are unable to establish that the Quran is a revelation from Allah SWT. I would suggest that if we are able to establish the Quran is a revelation then the idea of "circular reasoning" ceases. We are Muslims not because of intellectual proofs of Allah but through the Quran, the living miracle of Allah SWT to mankind .
no, we establish the quran from intellect, after that the quran becomes a proof for the rest
@@LeafSoulsthey already believed that Allah existed. They were polytheists not atheists.
You can either prove the divine nature of the quran OR the existence of God first. Either one could be done independently
@@baha17222 what i wrote was stupid sorry lol
@@LeafSouls nw lol
"we step outside the book" so we use our minds instead of the quran and sunnah and say things the prophet never said and nor did the sahaba.
We step outside of the book, because we want to talk to people who don't believe in The Quran. We say to them Allah is true not because of Quran say so.
We say to them Allah is true because Logically Allah is true.
But when we speak with people who believe Quran, we will give the verses
O my God Sheyx Umar
This what RUclips is crying out for
I have to disagree on your first response akh.
"What stops a christian from claiming that Allah is triune?". A lot actually, the preserverance of the text, the inconsitensies within the text and the plain contradictory statements that are found all around the bible. Knowing this, one who claims that Allah is triune in nature has no foundational proof to rely on when their text (if they claim it is indeed from God) has this many flaws. The reason why we can claim that God is how He describes Himself in the Qur'an is due to its reliability and preserverance.
"What seperates or differentiates between the two (i.e one claiming Allah is so and so based on the Bible vs Qur'an)". Again it is the truthfulness of the Qur'an vs the many obvious altercation that is found within the new and old testament. Neither of the old or new testament is found in its original language only provided in translations. You don't need to use ilm al-kalam versus a person who already has established that God exists, ilm al-kalam vs atheists is a suitable tool as you have to provide them rational proof for God. But when two theists of different religion debate here, you just go back to how the religious texts are, any alteration, contradictions or flaws. As a text who is prone to mistakes can't be from God and thus any description of God within those text can't be taken 100%. As Allah the Most High Himself said: "Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction." (4:82)
And Allah knows best.
The question is. Why do Wahhabis limit Allah to having 2 hands 🙌. That’s the question 🫤
MashAllah
They just know to mock & run from debate atharis sheikh dedu is still waiting
For them then Ibrahim as. Must be a Greek philosopher euzhbillah. These are really such ignorant people. Majority of scholars, giants like imam gazali and many more are all deviant and used their intellect over revelation, sure. Let’s go with your bidah Abdul wahab and hand full of anthropomorphistic scholars over 1500 years full of scholars.
Didn’t you just use circular reasoning to explain your whole point?
“We use the intellect to explain the Qur’aan, because the Qur’an requires the intellect for it to be accepted”
And where do you get the 5 laws that you mentioned?… how can we agree on that, what is the source/root, who came up with this, etc
Not trying to challenge but how can one logically/rationally even accept what you are saying in this case?
It’s almost as if you are saying, just believe this because I said so, “it is what it is”, but with no actual proof…
Sidenote:
I give da’wah to non-muslims, i usually just use the revelation model.
i.e.: first commandment, words of jesus (hear o israel our lord your god is one), and islamic shahada+surah ikhlas are the same; the prophets msg were the same; so there’s something there, theyre all calling to tawheed; God sent prophets, Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم proves to be the last
Won’t this be sufficient?
It’s not circular reasoning because the intellect affirms the Quran and the Quran affirms the intellect. The common base we have between different religions is rationality. And from there, the common ground we have, we use it as a basis to then finish the matters we disagree about.
Your entire channel is about strawmanning the opponent's position and then attacking that. I think you know it very well that salafis don't actually say that such fundamental attributes of God as "existing, eternal, all-knowing, all-hearing, independent, all-powerful" are known or believed SOLELY through the Quran and not through universal knowledge or sound reasoning of the mind via observation of reality (outside of the Quran to conclude the veracity of Islam that it is in line with sound intellect). You even strawman christians. Even christians don't believe that God is "eternal, all-knowing etc." ONLY because the bible said so, they would say "these are logical conclusions", although they would then contradict themselves by admitting jesus was not "all-knowing" (e.g., didn't know the hour etc. but thats a separate discussion).
Using the Qur'an as proof is valid because the Qur'an is true. Other religions can not do the same because their holy books are not true. This is not circular logic because the Qur'an can be proved in many ways. Besides, proving that the God of the Qur'an makes logical sense does not prove the Qur'an to be true, so that's faulty logic.
Also those five characteristics are literally affirmed in the Bible. Christians can bring you many quotes such as "Your God, O Israel, is one God"
Also using philosophy can make you affirm/negate attributes which are not even mentioned in any of the Islamic texts.
@@UmarElhashmi But Waseem is not presupposing it’s true
The Bible is contradiction. It has monotheistic texts and polytheistic texts at the same time
Short answer: Because you are Greek philosophers.
Ok, try to prove existence of Allah and His attributes to the atheist who doesn't believe in Quran and Sunnah, using only Quran and Sunnah
what u were saying is "if the god of islam makes sense then the quran must be true" this is fallacious. A deist can use your kalam and believe the god of islam makes sense but not believe in the quran. The right way to establish the aqeeda is to first prove a creator rationally then prove the quran is from that creator rationally. The rest of the aqeeda (the angels, the day of judgement, the attributes of allah etc) and sharia originate from the quran and sunnah after. This is much better than your dangerous ilm ul kalam methodology. wa allahu a3lam
The ashariyya aqeedah is a total ball of confusion. Try explaining it to a layman? The poor layman will be more confused, if not more dumber 😂😂😂
If we affirm what ALLAH SWT affirms, we’ll be accused of anthropomorphism.
Studying the ashari aqeedah and the science of ilm kalam really messes with your head. I can’t even find one sheikh who can explain without leaving more confused. The “salafi” approach is more simple and straightforward.
you're saying the layman can't understand what circular reasoning means? the layman can do calculus, algebra and get a 4 year degree in college but can't understand that using the Quran to prove that the Quran is from God and other forms of fallacious reasoning is inconsistent? Which layman are you talking about lol?
Yes, we need to study the works of aristotle, plato and socrates. Then we will fully understand the Quran 🤣🤣🤣
@@boomboom-qg2mg lol, another fallacy.
Imagine trying to explain to a layman that some people who call themselves Muslims believe in a God that has body parts but 'NoT liek ourz.' It doesn't even make true sense. The brothers and sisters that have come from Christianity have come from worshipping 3 parts that are meant to equate to one, they come from worshipping a body that exists in Heaven and now you Salafis are doing the exact same thing.
Here is a complete list of the differences in Aqeedah between Ancient Greek mushrikeen and The Ashariyyah:
Dude you guys are the ones saying "bruh Gawd has hands bruh but they different from our's bruh, no you can't imagine them that's Kufr!!"
@Malik this is a very simplistic and frankly strange view of the salafi theology. You need to sit down with a good salafi scholar to study the Aqeedah of SALAF AS SALIH.
Don’t take one or two opinions out of context.
May Allah guide you to Islam ameen.
@@syedshakaibanwar2698 belief in Allah’s hand is part of the Aqeedah of ADAM A.S
Adam said (to Musa):
“You are Moses who Allah chose for his speech and wrote the Torah for you with his hand.”
Grade: Sahih al Albani
*[ Sunnah Ref: Sunan Abu Dawud 4701 ]*
do you choose to follow
(a) our father, the Prophet Adam A.S
(b) random 10th century mubtadi jahil called ashari
@Malik
ibn kullab was. Zindeeq
Take your Aqeedah from the four Imams of the salaf
Abu Hanifah
Maalik
Al shafi’i
Ahmad
not random heretics. 👍
Your belief in a giant man sky god is more in line with Ancient Greek mushrikeen.
What's ironic about both the Ashari and Athari cults, is that in the introductory lessons of both, they highlight "blind following in faith is impermissible". Then immediately after go on to tell you that the following points written by shaykh so and so are an obligation to believe in... Lol
Let's not even get into the fact that neither cult's foundations are rooted in The Actual Revelation, I mean they both innovate dogmatic treatises either by distorting or breaking up the context of Indexes(آيات), by deliberately mistranslating, romanising and inventing synonyms, or by outright inventing ideas not mentioned in The Scripture at all.