Abdur Rahman ibn Yusuf Mangera – Proof for the Existence and Oneness of God
AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss the importance of establishing one's one's Oneness in one's life, rather than just affirming someone. They stress the need for evidence to convince people about their beliefs and discuss the use of various examples to prove their existence. The speakers also touch on the use of Allah's "be glad of" drink and the "be glad of" Internet, suggesting that if there were multiple Gods, then the world would have been chaos. They believe that there is only one God and that it is definitive.
AI: Summary ©
Though he is from the field, which is transitive.
Saying that it means oneness is intransitive, right? That's
awesome. That's not what are the. So here it means Whitehead who had
the UI Dotto here, to declare somebody to be one, Allah is One,
there's no doubt about it. But what we have to do is we have to
establish His Oneness in our minds for ourselves, La Ilaha. That's a
negation there is no God Illa Allah except Allah. So, look at
this, that even in our Kenema, there is La Ilaha, il Allah.
First you negating then you're affirming, but that creates this
oneness, or this oneness, this uniqueness, but it's an
affirmation that is though heat. So, though he means to declare the
Oneness of Allah subhanaw taala.
If you look in the Quran, most of the evidences are to establish the
oneness as opposed to the existence why is that there could
be various different reasons. Firstly, the one thing is that
Allah subhanaw taala is oneness is such an essential aspect is
existence actually is such an essential reality. That, that is
something that the majority of the inhabitants anytime in the world
who do not go against, they affirm it. Yes, they have different
names. They have different names and titles for this being this one
Creator. But the majority never reject a creator never reject.
They might consider him passive, they might consider him to be out
of the scene now. But the creative one, and this is something that
most people are, you can say pre wired to think about because
they've come from that realm. They've affirmed Allah in the, in
the earlier covenant, I do a list as they call it, untie your Lord
Allah subhanaw taala said, and they everybody said, Bella, and
that's what they come to in this world. And that's the fitrah that
they come that they come from, into this world. And so
that's such an essential reality, you might say, Well, what about
Dawkins and all of these other people that they just loud? These
people, there's a few, but they're very loud. So they speak about not
believing in God and non existence of God. And yes, in some times, it
does become a greater trend to do that. But that's, that's about it.
Even so called primitive indigenous people who know aspect
of modern civilization or revelation, or any religion has
come to, they have been found to believe in a reality that is one
whether he's invisible, or they associated with some object or
something, some deity or whatever it may be. So that's, that's what
it is. A proof of the existence of Allah subhanaw taala is not
something we're going to go into today. Because
it's something which proving the existence of Allah is a very, it's
a, it's a very complicated thing, in the sense that there have been
many famous proofs put out there, the you have the cosmological
proof, you have the teleological proof, you have many different
forms of proof through, you know, through what is the greatest thing
that you can imagine, and God must be greater than that God exists?
The universe can't work without a cosmic argument. There are
different variants of cosmic arguments. The thing is that, why
do you want to know the evidence of the existence of God? Most
likely, as students, you probably want to know, because you want to
maybe convince somebody, but the problem with any proof is that it
really depends what is the most appropriate proof is something
that you won't know until you actually try to use it? And for
some people who have been absolutely stubborn Lama Dasani
says as well, that, you know, there's certain people who are
called the LA area, the agnostics, they don't know, do you exist?
Well, I don't really know. Right? They have a whole problem with
epistemology to start with of how you derive knowledge to start
with. So I don't know. Well, do you know that you exist? No, I
don't even know that. So it's just all absolutely the relay column.
And, and I'm not, I'm not
advocating this, but what amount of data and he says that there's
some people who disbelieve disagree, or disbelief out of
enter just out of stubbornness, and there is no remedy for them,
except to beat them. Right, but I'm not advocating that. Right.
That's just what he says, just to show you that. It doesn't matter
what proof you have. It's not always going to be effective,
because it depends on how a person receives it, who the recipient of
this is and whether hidayah and guidance has been written for them
or not. So what you have to remember, so yes, some would argue
that
There are a predicted proofs and are predicted proof from logic is
basically a proof that is undeniable, the market demand
which means the premises, the base premises, they are all factual to
the, to the level that whatever is derived from there. And the proof
that is that is formulated from that is going to be absolute
apoplectic. It's called the hookah in Arabic. But for somebody who
wants to disagree, who wants to deny that there's no point in that
it won't be effective. So that's why we're not going to touch that
issue. Allah subhanaw taala has used certain types of proofs in
the Quran. It does it in many different ways is very persuasive,
trying to appeal to emotion, trying to appeal to the intellect
and say these others that you believe in and that you worship
other than Allah, do they give you benefits? Can they harm you? Can
they eat the food in front of you and so on and so forth. He uses
many different ways, because there is just such a variety of people
who, who, who associate with Allah subhanaw taala. So, for example,
the one verse which is very famous, it's called the
bouddhanath Tomato. It's called the Berhanu tomato, which is the
the proof of the mutual of mutual hinderance as such, Allah says if
they were in the heavens and earth, other gods besides Allah,
they would both meaning the heavens and the earth would have
both become corrupted, they would have been chaos, they would not
work in the way that they do, that the sun still comes up every day.
Mashallah, right, and it goes down every day.
You might say, well, there is problems in the ozone layer
greenhouse effects. Well, that's our abuse of it. Right, that's not
a malfunction of the system on its own. That's our abuse of the
system. And we know that and we profess to that. But what is being
said here is that had there been more than one God, a multiplicity
of gods in the heavens and earth, then there would not have been
the order that we still see them in, they would have been chaos.
Now, if I was to ask you, before I go into any detail here, would you
consider this a definitive proof or just a persuasive proof?
Would you consider this to be absolutely definitive? Or would
you consider it to be just persuasive? What would the
difference between the two is persuasive proof means that for
the most people, they won't really go too deep into the Look at this?
Yes, absolutely. You know, I can understand that. And this takes me
to the conclusion that there's can only be one God, but an actual
proof is that even if the greatest intellectual tries to overcome it,
they won't be able to because it's definitive, there is no way you
can break that proof. Right? There is no way you can break that proof
through through logic as such. So would you consider this to be a
definitive evidence? Or would you consider it to be persuasive?
Who says definitive? Okay, who says persuasive? Okay, well, I
guess there's precedents for this if they laugh before so, you know,
I can't say who's right or wrong, that
Allama doesn't he considers it to be? Who knows?
Allah doesn't he considers it to be Nakata, ie not definitive says
it's persuasive, as are many proofs in the Quran. I mean,
there's no problem with it being just a persuasive proof. Because
the majority of people are not of the high intellectual nature, and
they're going to start questioning things. You know, they take things
as they come. And yes, absolutely, yes. If there were two gods or
three or four, how could they all have function autonomously, with
full power to do whatever they wanted? And no chaos in the world
that would just not work out. So how does one god that's normally
there's been a lot of condemnation for Allah Matata, sorry for saying
it's only persuasive. Because the others, I would say, probably the
majority would consider it to be definitive. Right? And that I'm
not going to go into that difference of opinion there. I'm
just highlighting that there has been a difference of opinion. But
I think what I said before was that there is no proof. I don't
think there's any proof that will work with everybody. Because some
people are just absolute deniers obstinate doesn't work. But the
whole idea here is that if you had two gods
and then for example, they said that okay, this person, Harry, has
to I want him to move today, doesn't sit down wanting to sleep
today. I want him to be motionless those and I want to be I want him
to be in motion. What's going to happen? If both are supposed to be
independent, they both if they're both gods, in the definition of
God being able to do omnipotent doing whatever they want to do,
how is it possible that this Harry, this person called Harry is
able to be motionless and in motion at the same time? That's
impossible? That's inconceivable because you have to offer
Let's come together. That's inconceivable to anybody. So then
what's going to happen? There are other options. There are other
possibilities. Other logical possibilities are that he come
into motion. And thus, the God who wanted him to be in motion
prevails, and the other one doesn't seem to be very godly
anymore. Right? So you've got that option, or it's going to be the
opposite way in which it will render the other one enfeebled. Or
they could agree,
is it that's where the possibility of them agreeing to be together is
why some scholars say that this is just persuasive. Right. However,
what the other says that because of the mere possibility that they
could disagree, because and they have to have the right to
disagree, because they're supposed to be gods, and they should be
independent, they should all have the right to do whatever they
want, because of that, even the mere possibility that they could
do that this makes it
not this makes it very clear that this has to be cut a this has to
be definitive, because I mean a possibility. We're just saying
that as a as a pause as one of the logical possibilities that they
agree to not disagree, but the mere possibility that they have
the right to disagree means that they could have been chaos.