Hatem al-Haj – The Hanbali School Part 3 Aqida
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
So before we had gotten to a sudo, we had begun to ask about
doctrine. And you had begin to expound, expound upon that, but we
went back to the sword. So now that we have covered or sued, we
have covered the Senate. We haven't covered the founder, but
the biography of Muhammad is everywhere. So if people want to
hear that we don't need to, to review it, unless it touches upon,
you know, one of these chapters since he is the founder of the
method and maybe there's a story and incident, a principle that he
established that truly penetrated through time.
Well, one of those that you mentioned was of course, his
distaste or you could say disallowance of Kedem could you
first just define for us how he understood color? Well, can I um,
turn around the time of Alabama It was basically rational theology is
speculative theology, it was basically theology that is
based on
Kalam, which was ratio Ratiocination or rationalization.
See theology to Imam Ahmed had to be established only for in from
the Quran and the Sunnah.
But then he allowed a, what he called Kalam is
he even favored this over personality badda
but it is in a way, he said that if we don't speak the they will
propagate their falsehood. So we must speak. So in other sense,
he said that will come to convey that we will not qualify require
that basically defending the RP the
economics apologetics column is more apologetics when doctrine.
Read the Shubho hat. Yeah, yeah. So if if you don't want to defend,
rip the venue,
you do not like people will spread falsehood and so on. So he
accepted Calum in a sort of a two tiered system where you establish
our pizza within our hermeneutical system through our basically tools
of interpretation from the Quran and the Sunnah. And then once this
has been sort of crystallized and clear, then you take this and
you're defended. And in this case, you could defend it with Kalam
with rational metaphysics or rational theology. Okay, now,
oftentimes see, see these apologetics and people utilizing
this, you know, rational arguments to dismantle, let's say, the
Trinity, that
someone may then say, Okay, now you you established certain
rational principles to dismantle this trinity. All right, you got
me? I'm one of you. Now, I'm a Muslim. Now.
What happened to those principles? That right? Why don't they apply
any longer those rational principles, if we were if I was to
enter the doctrine of the Muslims. So that's where I tend to find,
you know, a conflict or challenge
in terms of utilizing Munchak for reputation, especially of the
Trinity, but then sort of ticking that you're throwing that tool
aside and saying, forget it, now. We have no Zeus. And that's it.
Do you see where I'm coming from that?
That we have, we just use our Quranic verses and our Hadith for
ourselves. But when it comes down to taking down another thought,
dismantling another thought we rely upon Munduk
could you expound upon that? Seeming, it seems to be a type of
conflict, like you want to use this principles, to tear down the
Trinity for example, or to debunk it, but then in our own theology,
those concepts are not present. Okay. Well, you know, if you use
particular concepts or particular philosophical principles, to
defend the religion, the idea here when you invite people to the
religion when you invite people to God,
I think that the face of reason or the office of reason,
takes priority because if someone does not accept
the authority of the Quran, you can tell them the handset such and
such, they don't accept the authority of the Quran. So the
authority here is
that a reason so you
You will have to basically use rational arguments to convince
them once they arrive.
And now like, like when you arrive at the door of the game, you leave
your horse or mule or donkey outside the door and you come in
barefoot.
And then even you walk into the presence of the king, given you
will listen.
If I come to you with a message from the King, I need to establish
that this is from picking when you arrive in their presence,
you know, the presence of the king of the king. So
when you need to listen and obey someone on our town, now, even
when, you know, but this does not mean, and I understand that we're
trying to talk about, you know, the balance between reason and
revelation. And this does not mean that we will
turn reason off because in our hermeneutical system, we rely a
lot on contextuality and intertextuality, we have to check,
you know, the different reconciliation because it could be
in between different texts, you know,
and the context of the revelation and all of that. So, a system of
hermeneutics that relies this much on contextuality and
intertextuality will not want on to you to turn it off.
But it will what it would want you to not contest the sort of the
definitive proofs of revelation
by sort of rational
sort of arguments.
Now, where work how can we establish the balance that is the
whole discourse between you know, the universal law and
order the knock on effect or harmony between reason and
revelation? And I believe that,
you know, the definitive, whether it is you know, the binary is not
between reason and Revelation, the binary is between definitive and
speculative. So, whatever it is that is definitive, we take it,
whether it is from reasonable revelation,
and we prioritize it over the speculative and when you have
conflict between speculative and speculative
use, you have to look for what's more probative, before we get to
even the discourse on reason and revelation.
Can you touch upon you know, language and the importance of
actually setting down the philosophy of language first,
before progressing into that or as I discuss this to some extent,
closer to the end of the book, I talk about nominalism,
conceptualism and realism and I talked about you know, the fact
that
as affirmation is like Hanbury so you know, affirmation is a must
must be tune
we have a responsibility and I always talked about this to
Michael honeyberries
are co athletes in fact I don't attach the this particular RP the
two batteries because honeyberries as you mentioned about longevity
for instance, don't come in one size or one color or orientation
and this respect nor does nor do others come in basically one on
one orientation so like they're gonna have that Barbara is you
know, I am more pro like I'm more like I'm gonna have the button
happy then maybe longevity. So if not THE VIRUS closer to me and RP
then Adnan Zozi. So you know, the partitions that we build that the
compartments that we build, we just need to sort of
walk out of of the of our compartments. So anyway, it's not
a Hanbury issue when I say to call as a reason that's why I called it
SRA in the book, that we have a responsibility sense whenever you
are, you fall on one point of the spectrum your there will be people
to your left and people to your right. And where I see myself
positioned and this sort of spectrum or against
A policy of Muslim possessions on the issue of the names and
attributes of the Divine, which is not the only issue in RP though,
but it's a major one.
So as a
person who believes in earthbath, or affirmation, I see the early SR
is to be immediately to my left and I see the Kurama, it's to be
immediately to my right.
And then extreme affirmation as to or that will not be called an
affirmation as to what would be assimilationist, that would be
farther away.
saris and then the MATA Zina, and then, you know, the Muslim
philosophers all have different degrees to my left. So people who
believe in affirmation, by their position on this spectrum, they
have to be more careful when it comes to 10 Z, they have to first
establish 10 Z, they have to start with a very thick primer of 10 z,
and then allow the sort of the rhetorical richness of the
scriptures the flow, unimpeded by intellectual sort of objections.
So, it part of our tendency is nominalism, part of our tendency
is to talk about these names, and what they mean, we all have to
agree that we have, like, a difficult issue to contend with
here. And almost theologians have tried to figure out a way,
weapon tension intentioned, all of them, they were all well
intentioned, it tried to figure out a way now we have what
eliminative present he must have had this considers to be like
so many
scripture scriptural
evidence is pointing to assimilation, what he considers to
be pointing to and assimilation, or at least the apparent language
of them would point to directionality spatial located
mass, which means assimilation. And we don't have this basically,
we don't have this
countered by the scriptures anywhere.
Now, we are all interested in making sure that Muslims do not
have an anthropomorphic conception of God like the image on the
ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican. Of course, yeah.
This one, it's got, supposedly, God and David touching their
hands. Yeah. Eric got an Adam. Yeah, do you have different
depictions of God, but this is the most sort of popular one. So we
certainly none of none of us want to have this, not even as a
tangible image, in a drawing of fresco sculpture, etc, but even as
a mental conception, and sometimes, even Taymiyah talks
about this, that Muslim scholars never speak like this when the
Christian say, you say that God has a hand God like it has hands
and face and and you know, shin or this and that and eyes and
and you know, etc.
So, anytime man answers them and in answering to be the Christians,
he says, that none of the Muslim scholars speak in this way, this
composition, none of the Muslim scholars speaks in this way and
man should speak in this way. So, in a Friday sermon, he should not
be saying this because the cognitive censuses that would
result from this in the minds of people is reprehensible. So,
we say that, that you know, when we talk about
that language, we understand that the Quran use anthropocentric
language because humanity is the audience that parada is using a
language that has been developed by human beings.
There is this agreement whether language you know, originally
Allah subhanaw taala taught them the names, but over time,
languages have been the
Developed by human beings. So this is a human sort of development,
inspired by God and powered by God but but it is a human thing. So
God use this language that denotes different things within the human
experience. That's why it's limited by our categories of
thought, limited by our experience, to a point to
realities that are completely beyond the apprehension of the
human mind the realities of the unseen, particularly God, and the
qualities of God. So
we talk about nominalism nominalism is a concept that they
may have spoke of before William of Ockham.
And nominalism means that there is no reality for those names or
terms extra mental reality. Because if we say that this means
a simulation, then we
are talking about a realist sort of concept of language that there
is a form, you know, the Platonic forms, you know, Atmos handedness,
you know, this and that. So there is every real pattern that inheres
in the different in particulars, but we don't believe in this and
we don't believe that there is a an extra mental reality. That's
called cabinets, or handedness, or this or that, or faceless.
And these words would only acquire their meaning when they apply to
the particulars.
And
whatever applies to seeing and, and sort of some bizarre seeing
and hearing, when we talk about commonality, or we talked about
whatever they may call the pattern, which Tarak
This is the same thing, you know, the reason why Allah use love, he
used, he wanted to use the word love. So we just have here to
this, and we say that he loves, but we reject all the lawyers, and
we reject and this is important. Also, we reject all the so called
necessarily concomitance.
You know, I have to tread carefully here, because, you know,
I, I want you to ask the questions, and they will be clear
and honest about what I think. But also, I do not want to exploit
your generosity and kindness and sort of propagate ideas on your
platform.
Not Not, not at all, I mean, we're humbled at discussing this matter.
And I think it's, it's actually a great example, and a lot of people
looking forward to this. Because from for a lot of people, this is
not so much of an intellectual issue. It's,
it's more of a type of
battle, or they don't like to see this type of negativity between
people. And they'd be very happy to see someone like myself, who I
don't even claim to be from the
scholars have appeared at all, but just from the students of
knowledge, and I promote what I have learned of that. And then
someone like yourself, that's known as a authoritative figure in
the fit the school. And I think they're very comforted by the fact
that we're able to just discuss this without going off the rails.
So I think Angela would be very positive. My question is that the
Quran came in the language of the Arab.
So therefore, the, the meanings of the words will have some precedent
with them first before it came down as a revelation.
And so, therefore, was very possible. And that's the whole
point of lexicons is to document how the Arabs used all of those
words. And therefore, you could say, Okay, this Shudra was used
this najem was used in this way, and the evidence is how the Arabs
use them. Because this allows us to do to really concretely say,
here are the words of the Quran.
This is what each word means, right? And the Quran itself is
coming to speak in their language. So it's using these words now. So
just that premise, is that premise do Is it, is it acceptable or is
it something that's different in the view of the authorities?
No, it is a little bit different because the lexical definitions
came after, you know, the time of the sahaba. And the linguistic
conventions on the time of the sahaba.
Were a little bit different from the lexical definitions. And like,
you know, if the lexical definition of Rob, for instance,
you know, talks about a state where there is boiling of the
blood of the heart and so on,
we don't have to concede that we don't have to agree that this is
God,
you know, that this is what
would infer
in every context and with every one.
And the same applies to love, amen, the lexical definition of
love, we don't have to, we don't have to accept that
you see
him when he talks about the
era.
And that's a discussion between a neurosurgeon because our email
loves the mercy on them, he when he talks about the Harada
rather means what a rather means, well, and in the lexical
definition, it is something that is based on a rod or interest, you
have you are inclined to something because you have interest in it
and that is unacceptable. And then an email because it says but but
it is revealed that this part of the scripture, and
he does not he does not retreat that the that how he will have to
accept that there is a way and and so on, and the authority would
basically expand to the same sort of concept. That help also came in
the Scriptures. And so, we will not
basically
we will we will affirm it. And we will not accept the concomitants.
And we will not accept the lexicon old sort of the lexical definition
of the word. Yes, so And with those, it's easier to understand
those or to handle those
Escalades because we have other new suits, as you said,
intertextual, telling us that he is a somewhat he has no need, so
therefore, His love will be without a need, or in his era that
will be without a need. Right? So, whereas the other Morticia, Behat,
they do have a connotation of limpness of being limbs, which, of
course leads you, you established the 10 Z. And oftentimes, when I
speak to authorities, I just can't seem to get them to define a word.
Right? It's like,
when you when you hold on something, and it just keeps
slipping out of your hand, and you need to put it down. So what does
this word this word means X, Y, or Z? All right.
By not being able to put down a word, it, it seems to me that it's
almost as if they have now
added a new definition to it. Right, which, for example, a limb
that is a limb or a hand that is a limb,
or that is a hand in the VA had a sense of it, or the affirmed
sense, but not a limb.
All right, whereas this such a thing does not, has no precedent.
So this is the logic that I'm coming with such a definition of a
hint with the VA hidden meaning of a hint, or the affirm meaning of a
hand, but it's not a limb. So that is something that is seems to be
an inconsistency or seems to lack precedent, right? Or be, you know,
something that where was Where did the Arabs you know, use that. So,
if you can sort of clarify, you know, that that perspective, yeah,
you know, this is,
I mean, if you if you consider bucklebury to be as real,
because, you know, that very sort of fit. assertion is about
learnings and forex, and the moment when Hassan as well so all
those great Imams that you know, the their problem was never we
have never a had never, never had anything to do with the essential
attributes or is the fact that they had an issue with the
volitional attributes or so far left era. Yeah. And can you define
those for those listening that may not be aware what those terms are?
You have the differences of according to the SRT
classification, you have a Safaga data which are the essential
attributes
You have so far to Serbia which are sort of the negating
attributes negated attributes,
sort of identity. I mean, he has no surely you can put them he has
no beginning,
cetera. And then you have so far that does that our accents are the
seven so far with our rationale so far that are established by a lot.
And
these are herbaria, but not all the familia not all the scriptural
attributes are affirmed in the etheric school, they basically
affirm all the Scripture attributes, including the yard and
the face and so on. And that was certainly the position of
authority and it has
great followers.
Or the earliest stories in general. So I basically have
the best
argument put together in defense of our, these attributes.
Remember it so I use that I used to have in the book as well.
And the way he was talking about, you know,
like a plus two, there have to be a day, why don't you prostrate to
here, who migrated my two hands and so on, clearly talks, he's
talking about the hands.
You know,
without consigning the meaning is affirming the meaning of hands,
and he says that there is no need whatsoever to consider these to be
limbs.
Because the language like when prompted by rahamallah talks about
F coming to us, we're coming about what's this, this comes to
that does not necessarily mean spatial locate, yes or no, we're
moving from one place to another place. Yep. That's a beautiful
example. So when Allah says Watch out a book on saffron and suffer
and your lower they had come with the engines rank after rank?
Why do we have to? Why do we have to be talking about movement and
so on, also, talks about the row being described in the scriptures
as powerful and hearing and capable of going up and coming
down. And that does not mean corporeal ism whatsoever that seem
whatsoever.
So when we talk about the hand in this case, it certainly is not a
limb, because we certainly do not believe that God is composed of
parts. The idea of Turkey and MP Sam composition and the
visibility. We completely agree. GABA is not composed or divisible.
So it is it certainly is not a lambda, but that yet basically
infers agency. Sometimes it would mean generosity. Sometimes it
would mean power. Sometimes it would mean control. Sometimes it
would mean affability.
So, you know, like handshaking and stuff like that you're talking
about, that's what it can mean, in the language or in the news
source, and the source and the nurses and the language both.
But instead of saying it means power, here, it means janazah we
just affirm the hand all of the agency that comes with this
affirmation, and in that way and get that this is not a part of
knowing that nothing is like knowing that these not composed of
parts are divisible. We accept and accept all the agency that is felt
by the heart when you hear the word the Adela.
And then sometimes that would be generosity, it would be power it
would be this, but that rhetorical richness, I do not want to place a
barrier between that sort of effect and the
Part of the believers that's why earlier Sophie's particularly and
I mentioned this in the book, you know,
Messiah like and how do we and Jelani? I think it was further
Sufism than their herbalism that made them particular the
antagonistic Tickler. Yes, I mean, that's a beautiful way to put it.
And they have often said, Read them with your heart and not with
your mind these two because that's what they're meant for. And this
is what you would just expounded upon, and what you expounded upon
I don't what you just said, I don't think that any of the
you know, you negation of the parts, negation of the liveness
limbs, negation of spatial
movement, this is exactly what is in a madman know, is explanation.
In short, I have Sahih Muslim, which I could read, even I have it
in front of me, but it's, it's exactly that unknown. When does
when does go on a touch team you went into Cody, what to how you
fugir on Saturday seafoods and McCulloch which is that he is
transcendent beyond the body, the movement, the displacement and
having a direct and other contingent, other qualities of
contingent beings, which is one thing, you know, because we said
that we're going to be honest, yeah, that's fine. I, I would not
basically negate
directionality spatial located nurse movement, and would not
affirm it, I will take a non committal position here because it
did not come in the Scriptures. And that is, you know, so that
isn't a man approach.
For instance, we consider kappa B and B, because sometimes also in
that way, since we're being very honest with each other, sometimes
also, you know,
the Messiah from the asari orientation, or the material
orientation, allow a lot of latitude within the Atari and the
matter Ed, school. But whenever there is a disagreement within the
accuracy score, generally speaking, they point this out, as
you know,
he's not asked for it and tried to sort of
it is, we feel it's a little patronizing, or it's just, you
know, like, Bobby is not after you when he speaks very strongly
about, you know, Listeria, and very strongly about you know, he's
not everywhere, because why would like he'd be on the throne of he's
every. So we interpret it as not as you know, but to be basically
the Nise movement dichotomy affirms movement.
We consider this all within Bathory scope, because we consider
them all to be within the etheric school, hypnotizing me, isn't the
middle of this school most of the time, if not closer to the SRE
side at times,
but he takes a non committal position and why would they even
if they may have like a non committal position and disagree
Like for instance, you'll find that I will stop for instance, a
great hunt buddy, some people think of elbow for top would be
closer to home forward you know consigning the meanings
and and if we can talk about this, if you want in terms of humbly of
weaving in the humbly method, but when our cloth cutter for
instance, they asked him karuma Manistee well who have been Lana,
cool to have so I don't know Teddy, god of Antara who just man
Polana patrologiae See more international more heady Yeah, so
they said what is the meaning of sdwa tell us he I said that this
is the this is a question of basically a wrongdoer and
aggressive they said then you believe that he is a body or
corpus you know you believe in corporeal as and you believe that
he's just can I be able to talk said can we just see more internal
cluster images see more interactive mode Hedy, I said that
the anthropomorphised or the corporeal list to be more accurate
is like the mud head in in our book you know, so I don't have the
map necessarily mean atheism but but but extreme departure from the
truth.
I would say the fold of Islam
So, typically Tamia comes and takes a non committal position and
all of these things. Why is this because he is philosophically
schooled. And is basically
mastery of philosophy made him more careful, because he's afraid
of you knows dialectics and he's afraid of the next step, which
he's afraid of the next step like he's afraid of the concomitant
sees afraid that you know, if he commits to an answer, he certainly
believes in the indivisibility of God, that God is not composed and
he talks about this and he talks and he gives the example of a row
and the movement or row and this and that, but he would not say you
know, when it comes to just with a high use, the directionality
corporeal is spatial located in a spatial extent, he will take
American metal position, because he does not want to give an answer
that will lead to someone pushing him into a corner, because of the
like arrest authority, and for instance, the categories of
understanding you know, that there is devil hard substance and an
auto accident, and if it is not listed as that, and that may be
what pushed to the termites to say that he is Jowhar, that is
substance God, which is completely wrong of them. And we certainly
didn't have access to that and do not,
you know,
because they were afraid that if they say he's not when he is
Sahara accident, and nothing can be predicated or bought up, things
can only be predicated of Jowhar. And of the two categories. Which
one is Astra for more noble? Doha is more noble than Herod. So but
we like
we basically take a non committal position when it comes to these
things, there are certain things that we completely accept, and we
completely agree with, and there would not be much of a difference.
In fact, I have a particular student who has been learning with
me and learning with an asari safe as well for several years. And he
keeps on saying, I am pulling my hair out, what is the difference
between you
know, certainly, we both tell him there are differences, there are
major differences. But again, he says, but at the end of the day,
I'm not seeing the difference. Yeah, no, no.
First of all, before we continue this, I really want to just
emphasize how much I loved the perspective of your team, which is
shabby hats as being things that touch your heart, as you said,
Anthro centric discourse that they really do touch your heart now
setting aside being in theology class, when you see here i at and
I remember, as a teenager, he's closer to you than your jugular
vein. He descends in the last third of the night, you know,
provided a person doesn't really think twice about it. In a, you
know, sense, those are really moving
a hadith and yet,
you those, so that is the function. I didn't want to just
pass over that I wanted to emphasize it a second time because
I really do think the purpose of the divine revelation to us yes,
it's and it's of course, it's knowledge and theology. There's
but it's also nearness and love to the Creator. And I don't I just
didn't I wanted to emphasize that again, before we move on. These
are Gartner is sort of guardrail discussion, yeah, this is not what
will actually give you the energy to seek
different discourse, they always say that you will find that
there's more in the SOFIA scale discourse of them in the geology
class. Yeah. Now, now, for him to tell me that not wanting to take a
position for that reason, that you mentioned, but also not taking a
position can also open a door to another.
It could also open another door for example, not taking a position
on the spatial existence of God that He exists in space, in a
space or in a direction but is not all space, the creation
with that with the non committal statement or position allow for
somebody said, Well, maybe maybe not God could exist inside of his
creation because all space is the MacCulloch
right and only matter can exist in
face. So I don't even know either even though it's not some explicit
but there are, wouldn't there be ads that
make it clear that he would not be dependent upon his creation nor be
inside of it? How about can hola Mia Kumar who shaped Hadith or
there he existed and there was nothing and then the principles
will Meza come again.
So the question is, is not space a creation? So how can he be in it?
Well, the idea here is the spatial located less comes from the high
us
is that this is how we translate the highest and directionality is
jihad. So, they, you know, people who refuse they took a
noncommittal stance and refused to say yes or no, they were running
away from that very thing, which is God being inside his creation.
So, when, when I have the Lebanon water candidates report from
Abdullah Abdullah Mubarak that he said, level had and even if a
mayor reflected on this, and he said that those who said that did
not mean that Allah is limited by an spatial extent had mean spatial
extent. They just wanted to say that he's not in his creation,
he's not back in an unhealthy he separated from his creation, not
inside his creation. So, that is why they said had not decided that
he's limited
by a spatial extent, but basically say that is not
part of the you know, of this existence, which would lead to
pantheism in their thought, yeah, which is why I had mentioned
earlier, the concept of god of refute refutation of Trinity
is, you know, one of our simple responses that God cannot exist
inside does not exist inside of his creation, because this
reflects a need being Jesus, the person of Jesus, the body of
Jesus,
by extension, anything of the creation that would apply to
anything of the Creation Okay, so that if a Christian wants to say,
Okay, you prove to me that God does not exist inside of a human
being because that's a need, right?
But then you're not you don't want to commit and say that he doesn't
exist inside of his universe, we are saying he's not inside his
universe, but So, that is indication of spatial existence,
existence in a space or in or even in a direction means it depends on
what you mean by spatial located most, like when we say for
instance, you know, when we talk about directionality and our low
people say that this means to her and Jaha means to high us and and
high us means
seem corporeal prefer realism and figure see means produce, or
origination, we don't accept all the can countenance evidence that
did not accept a contract and sees the commentator. So if these are
rational, basically
necessary concomitance You know, the commentator, you know,
commentator, because he wrote commentaries on Aristotle,
it should be a rational person, and he did not accept them as
necessary. concomitance. So, the idea of
the highest we do not.
space here is being defined as this universe. When we talk about
a boldness, we're not saying they're purchasing a boldness. So
you, someone can say, well, I'm going to pull out my hair. And why
are how come on? No, it's not Yeah.
I am, I am just adhering to the Scriptures. And I am not
inferring, when I know what has to be Jehovah. In my personal
experience in my empirical experience. Well, I know it's, I'm
not talking about my empirical experience. I'm talking about a
different paradigm, a completely different language game.
Wittgenstein would call it a completely different language
game. So low does not mean you have you could say that girl on
the opposite side, you know, the girl who pointed upwards to the
heavens to the Prophet sallallahu Sallam and said
This summer,
a girl on the opposite side of the Earth could be pointing to the
other direction. And same for cement.
I have no problem with this. Because I'm just saying, Oh, that
is a low for her. For the one on this side that is all over the one
on that side
handle that completely ends the sort of that notion of Jaya.
But again,
when it comes to jihad, the Scripture is going to speak of
this, therefore I abstain I refrain. So it seems that your
position may be different from what many people commonly
experience, which is a type of persistence in making sure that
people understand he is above the throne, as if this is like one of
the you know, it's a point to be emphasized, it sounds like your
position is different from that, you simply you'd want to abstain
from the commentary. Whereas I think that a lot of people would
say that their experience in the discourse, discourse, especially
the common discourse in the DAO related discourse, is a little bit
of the opposite. It's
bringing this issue up,
right and making it something that must be stated, right.
As a person, I have always had sort of moderate allegiance to all
people.
You know, my, my ultimate allegiance is to Allah and His
Messenger, and to the scriptures and Sahaba and so on. I have
moderate allegiance. So people I have no antagonism, no animosity
I,
I don't, you know,
had I heard how they lived during the time of the majority, for
instance, I may have loved him more than they may like as a
person, it is not, you know, when people, when people talk about
these issues, study these issues, debates over these issues, it's
like soccer matches, and they should not be at Oh, yeah, we
should have love and respect for our people. Let's agree on love.
But
honestly, speaking, I disagree with this approved, I don't
condemn that people, I just disagree with them. And sometimes
I say that this actually could be dangerous, sometimes is reckless.
So, you know, even Taymiyah himself says that this
composition, this way of speaking, you know, when he say Allah has
and and allies face on and so on, no Muslim scholars speaking this
way, because because of the cognitive synthesis that what
happened from speaking in this way. And I repeatedly say that,
for us, measure the exposure of the public of the masses, talk to
them about things that will bring them closer to God.
reseller for him now, besides the caravan to highway here, ethical
behavior, but anyway,
how are you teach it to Hawaii without getting into the
technicalities? Now, you will have a theology class, get into the
technicalities, because if we leave a void,
it will be filled by all kinds of philosophies, if we do not make
sure that we arm our like sort of
theologians with a sophisticated discourse and a sophisticated
decode discourse will not be able to steer clear of controversy in a
loving environment in a respectful environment, without exposing the
masses to this discourse that will confuse them and that will take
away from their email or their face not add to it. Many people
ask, well, the Quran is supposed to be clear. And the Quran tells
us that it is a clear a clear book. And yet there are these
watershed Behat why why this these come in? And number of people have
asked me I'm sure they asked you this too.
That seems to have maybe have a division divisive result, right?
And an unclear matter? Well, one of the things that I was taught is
that the answer to this really comes in one area and one Hadith
and that Allah Himself has created has has placed these this man
matter as a type of tests to clarify and to separate between
two categories of scholars, and that is from the quality and the
radical Kitab Minh who I had to mock him at
normal keytab, Oklahoma, Tasha, we had family in a vehicle
equilibrium sake. That's the first category. those in whose hearts so
he says this book has been revealed with clear ads. They're
the foundations of the book, and others
to share about him in it's unclear. Well, why would a book
say it's clear and then intentionally place Matt to Sheva
Minho, why?
To separate between the first group feel Columbia Zaid in their
hearts is a crookedness fair to the owner Myrtaceae him in who
they will persist to dig at those blind spots. And those ambiguous
debatable matters, they will continue to persist and like
picking out a little fester in your skin.
If Takata will provide fitna that we did they seek to they love the
fight. Like you said they it's not a soccer match. Sometimes it's a
sometimes and I have you know shake I'm with my 20s You're one
of your students, and he's in the masjid and we have 50 chess
matches all the time. Really for fun after I shut right. It's a
many people think we're arguing. We're not arguing we actually
enjoy the 50 discussions. So
this is different though. This is IP to fitness. They want to see
MMA
theological MMA
when they added Miuccia widow Ilala were Rossi Kona fidelium.
That's the second category. The firmly established in knowledge.
Yoku Luna M nav colon, Min en de Rabina
were may have Docker Illa Allah bap. So this Motorshow Behat have
been placed in the Quran
as a test, and a simple way to see if a person if a preacher or a
scholar or a teacher has a leaning and has a desire for fights, or is
he Rasik for them. And then we have the Hadith as you as you know
very well. The sahih Hadith the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa
sallam said to either at Medina tell the owner Mata Chabahar Minho
for Allah. Allah Dena some MELHEM Allah Favaro, if you see those
people who pick and pick away at the different about the watershed
that the ambiguous or vague matters, okay? Or the unclear
matters? Those are the people Allah named in that other verse,
so stay away from them. So this gives us a very simple answer to
why this is exists, which is it is a manner it's a it's a way to
immediately say, stay away from that individual. What do you think
of this framework of understanding of the watershed yet?
Yeah, I think it depends to a large extent on depends to a large
extent on intentions and context.
Circumstances because there are a lot of circumstantial variables.
Certainly a lot of people you know, it. First is intention, you
know, if people have lost, there'll be a reward that whether
they were right or wrong, we were told by the prophets on Monday,
the Hackerman, Hawkins would start
with a hack and hack and fetch data for us, for our JSON. So when
you apply it on a matter when you're qualified, and you apply
and on a matter, after due diligence, it's that after due
diligence, and you're wrong, you will be rewarded once if you have
it appear more than twice. So many times people were pushed into
this, like, for instance, you know, remember what Hassan in his
heart he was posting to
this discourse about by the contentions raised by the martyrs
in the Martez era felt that they were pushed into this discourse by
the contentions raised by the philosophers when Muslims you
know, the Islam
reached from en de Lucia to China within a very short period of
time, when a kufra translate all of Aristotle's works, and that was
very early on 120 to 140 after the hijra, this is the time where our
status works have been translated and
Many people have become exposed to this and people have become
exposed also to Christian apologists who were philosophers
to a great extent. And you know, Christian philosophers have been
very assertive, into philosophy to defend me because they felt that
their theology is somewhat complicated that really requires a
lot of mental effort to defend the Trinity. So Muslims were exposed
to this, the more physical I felt that, you know, they have to
basically live up to the responsibility and defend Islam.
The shahada is
the same way the earlier Charlie's the other Chinese.
I honestly, you know, people people talk to me about for
instance, openly they may or Hemant Allah, whom I consider it
to be safe in Islam and consider it to be like a monster had a moth
luck Montesa. Combined, we get we talked about this a little bit
about but there's people with me and people from bsrem mother at
orientation and from other orientations tell me that he was
very polemical.
This is an uncontested virtualized reading of someone that people
really need to spend time learning about. I would recommend a bizarre
as book shuffle. Sandra is actually an SRE. And he wrote a
book on everything may i people should learn about a person that
his opponent said, we've not seen anything like this, you know, for
400 years. And at the same time, you're hearing all of this about
him? Well, if you know that he was born just five years after the
fall of Baghdad, the Crusaders were still the air they left in
693.
The the were alive care elements that were fighting with the Tatars
and if it was many fat, fat, you know,
this, the 70s and the assassins we use assassinate so many failures,
and so on and so forth. So he wrote a seven volume book to
answer the Christians. That's polemics but, you know, he felt
that this is what would work. This is what is buying a home at this
time. He wrote a nine book, basically a nine volume book to
basically review the CRS because I've never heard of holly wrote a
book to refute Zionism. So here he basically
you could say that he Why would he write an 11 volume book to the
refute the universal law of a Razzie and his Assadi orientation
when some people when he himself respect to the martial arts a lot
to the extent to the point that you find certain messiahs
nowadays, who say that beneath me also sorry, who told you sir,
but But he, you know, polemics.
And why, why was he somewhat aggressive with certain people not
in our house and not in the amount of vapid learning because he felt
that this sort of patronizing, like, when when you read Matthew
arribar by mmrrc,
and you know, you find selfies whatever, avoid saying the
memorizing as it is with a weight saying I'm Tamia, and I think that
this whole thing is just
weak, but you'll find them
Razi. He's he when he speaks about Muhammad, Muhammad Yunus, Hakka
enough was Amer you know, he says, he says very colorful things about
him. He calls his book if habit or hate, he calls it Khattab,
hysteric and he calls him, you know, many, many things that are
very offensive. So for someone like me, they may have Jose ima or
one of them Hamedan and ARTBA. That shefa is would consider much
they have not lot but they still would count them as suffer is
because because of how great they were a Tabari and Herrmann, the
monster and mawashi.
And they call him Mr. M. That's not only admit they may have
caused an M D sub t causing the moment
and he basically reached the pinnacle and in terms of his
knowledge of accreditation, so that environment
the fact that someone like this would be spoken out
Up in this way, he felt that SRE is well need athletes have been
saying
have been staying away from engaging with Calum engaging with
rational theology. And he felt that this is not working, because
it seems that alpha is we're losing ground for two to 300 years
before him.
So he took it on himself to basically defend the the sort of
what he believed to be the SRA Arcada through rational theology,
so
it is all about the times, it's all about the times yet he himself
was very, very friendly and warm, have a personal level with his
federal authorities.
Ken, I would not say federal Sophie's because he was to a great
extent to Sophie.
But, but with his federal authorities,
very, very warm, loving relationship at a personal level,
and there are, you know, countless stories.
So it depends on the context.
Would would he be frightening, the same books now? Would he be
focusing on the same issues now? Would he or different issues, I
would say different issues,
not the same issues that times are different. The words about at work
are different. And
you know, the spread of atheism in Egypt in the last 10 years?
is unprecedented. It's scary, actually. You're talking about a
country that is at the heart of the Muslim world.
If you're, if we're going to pick up fights over, you know,
spatial located. Yeah, I totally agree with you. I totally agree
with you. It's, it's incomprehensible.
And when people say, Oh, well, it's part of the deen but I agree
with you that there is triaging and you're a medical physician and
of course, triaging is you know the rule number one in the ers
that you know, someone's coming in with a heart attack, another
coming in with a broken ankle. There's going to be obviously a
major difference in the priorities the time given to each subject. So
I totally agree with that.
You mentioned the Sufis so I want to take this chance as a segue to
our final chapter. Yeah, maybe.
Yeah.
Well