Abdur Rahman ibn Yusuf Mangera – Proof for the Existence and Oneness of God

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.