Reply to Pseudo-Salafi Critique of Contingency Argument in Dawah

Salam Alaikum, warahmatullahi wabarakatu Ramadan Mobarak some of you who are looking at me looking at the champion thinking, why is the champ wearing? Why is he wearing a long hat? This is a Nigerian, I've just come back from Nigeria. I like to have like the clothes. I like the food. I like the country. So I thought I'd bring some of it back with me and present it to the people. But today we're not going to be talking about West Africa in particular, those are very interesting topic, history, the geography, the people, the climate, so on, we're going to be talking about using philosophy and particularly contingency argument. In that one out of why am I even bring this up.

Obviously, I've written a book on the contingency argument, many of you may have purchased it. Many of you may not have purchased it, if you haven't. This is the book here. It's called the Bohan, the Wuhan, it's published, the Sapiens Institute.

Actually, you can get it free of charge Sapiens Institute, we publish these things free of charge, but the paperback version, you don't have to pay for the materials. But you can get it free of charge. Now I'm doing my PhD also on the contingency argument, it's obviously something which is very interesting to me.

So recently, some individuals who self proclaimed selfies have come out and critiqued the use of the contingency argument in the first place. So you shouldn't be using this. This is not what the people of the self did. It's not what people have, you know, the author did, and so on.

There are three people and this is wrong. And so today, what we're going to be doing is just looking at some things, I have already made a video about using Calam. And I've mentioned in particular, the positions of Ibn Taymiyyah. And you can see the video of that somewhere else, maybe I'll put it in the description box. But I'll start off with just reading something that you've been telling me or wrote in his book, or rubbed off on Turkey, and today is going to be an exposition

of what I've been telling me I said, because the the point is this, if you've been sent me as someone who's trustworthy Hamasaki their perspective if you consider him to be the agenda and the things that obviously we consider him to be a great figure of history of Islam, he knows that leader of the other and so on, then in that case, obviously, you wouldn't consider him a deviant. You wouldn't consider his perspectives deviant ones. My perspective is maybe deviant perspective, his perspective of that person, but even to me, let's start with what he says in his GitHub Rajala monoterpene. I presented this one before, but I've got something today which I've never presented in

public. He says well, Bolognesi, according to the coulomb, McKenna adequate, works on demand to opt well, can follow. Then Leon The NAFSA, tablet, another tool, we'll follow modaco further kind of delille Hello, McCarthy, Matt, or Kenneth Giulia. Laptop Ron, if so bear with me through whether you start milma who Turrican karamea El Monte Creo we've already kind of said this one before he says that some people

some individuals, every time that the Delete was or the evidence was more sophisticated and more hidden, if you like, and has more premises, and it was longer to elaborate then it was better for that individual because his self has gotten used to that kind of thing for either kind of the effect either. Kind of DeLillo Collier Rebekah Demet if the Delete was only a few premises are kind of jelly. Yeah, we're very obvious. lumped off rotten if so Hubei he was, he wasn't gonna be happy with that. We'll miss we'll have that card you stomp Aloma who Talia called Kela meal monta po this individual, you use with him the kalam logical method. What are your aha when other methods like

this?

He goes on he actually even mentioned some benefits or why unfriend on law that along with Wi Fi, you have to know either Ribault Hawayo, Kawi, Alliance alignment so on doing this will strengthen the sharpen the mind and so on. But, interestingly, with the contingency, so this is the first thing the first thing is when it comes to using color Montek whatever it Potamia himself is saying that with some people, you need to use those kinds of arguments. That is what he is saying in his book, one of the last books that he's published. But what about the contingency argument itself? One very central aspect of the contingency argument is of course, the infinity of infinite regress the set of

infinite things, a set of set of finite things, etc. And this is in Kitab called immune hedges on pages 436 of one of those so I'm not going to put the screenshot on the screen. And why this is what he says is what to sell to Lyme he says that infinite regress is of two types two sources more authority courtesans fulfill Allahu Malou. Let well hold the social Falleen Wilma Follette for Heather Montana and beautiful Calaca. He basically says infinite regress of two types and one type is the infinite regress of efficient calls

And this is impossible yeah with the

defacto the agreement of all the rational people and how the Baptist will fall you know, we'll holla Pina we'll move to Tina miscellania Cole has a death Lahoma Hadith where they will move this modest

Illa Mala Aeterna he says that, as if to say for example, this originated thing has an originator and this originated the originator as an originator and is infinitely regressive backwards. What does this sound like ladies and gentlemen, this is philosophizing. Even to me. I here's philosophizing, he is using Dedede which is not in the Quran and the Sunnah, this infinite regress column he is speaking of it himself, he's using it himself.

Now I want to know what is your response to this? How do you feel about if I were to say these things maybe it's a deviant position but you've been told me as saying it himself him and how just on that page 100 436 of 137 He just had them in multifocal allow color female Allah Allah mtti Lian Nicola Maha doth la you just be enough say he says, because this is a second page now. Second page here we go. It says because every model originated thing that cannot originate so for Who Am I doomed BRT but enough say so it is not. It's not. It is absent with regard to itself. Well, hormone can be antibody FC, and it's contingent. Now let's talk about contingency as you as you taught, yes,

yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, he is. He says on his wall more can be antibody in FCM as contingent with regard to itself either called the ramen Delica Melia, Tana ha So if it's something which is understood to infinite, infinite regress of proportions, Lampasas junglers mo Judah YG Bobby Naziha this particular set of things or on this particular set of things is it could not be self sufficient or in existence, because of itself for in demand and death. Death. Well model middle model Mukhin mungkin la Houjicha unkown him of Tachyon Isla AlFalah

the fact that you have contingent things contingent upon contingent things,

that does not mean that that entire set is not itself contingent on some agency outside of itself.

Bill kufra too delicate is it hi Jetty ha was your party her ello file. In fact, the more you add contingent things to contingent things, the more you'll require.

The more it will depend on the agent, the ultimate agent of DeCarlo. And what the most the thing here is to sign off the Carlmont Athenian among Kinane alum and if Takata had on that, so for example, to contingent things, or to originated things or to contingent things is even more dependent than one of them. Yeah, on the on the agent outside of camera and the other Millis, nine out of a woman Adam had to home after school.

If you had that will cut up lots of you who want to lift a car while hija belt a zebra who had doesn't have the car.

This doesn't mean that the contingent thing will at one point there'll be a threshold where it stops being contingent. In fact, it continues being even more contingent.

So this is the first thing clearly he's speaking about contingency. Clearly he's making the argument clearly He's agreeing with the argument. Clearly he doesn't agree with those individuals who say that you can't use the argument he does not agree with that. He is in fact using the argument himself. He is using the argument himself. And he uses it even more and this Kitab which is once again this man has a sauna. And you can look at in fact the whole section page 426 of one to 32 is very interesting discussion because he anticipates the cosmological fallacy much like you know the Bertrand Russell in compositional fallacy that just because there's there is some kind of

description in the pot doesn't mean that that will be generalized to the whole

well then he responds on his a long discussion. I can't show all of it, but I'll just show you some of it. So the fish to rally model met and McKenna lay Ajala Homa mo Judah Bell Murphy I'm in the lift the car il family house line, the steamer I have Owlman hosue Amin hasui here and if the Korea What was your versatile Kalam Allah has of your ideas and Allah

so he's saying here that if you put together things which are non existent Yes, it does not finish tomorrow l model met among kina which are contingent, it doesn't make it existent. Okay? Belfie Hamill, Ducati il fairly hostile and the Shemaiah. When you put these particular instantiations of contingent things together, in fact, it doesn't change his quality. He states. If you even if you put it together, I'll Omaha Sula.

And if the Korea is still remains dependent or versatile Kalam,

Allah has already had an MRI. He says that I spoke about this in another segment, someone may argue, well, actually he has a serious problem. And he did have a serious problem with

some of the way the philosopher like even CNN, farabi, al kindI and so on, they use this argument to do nephew of the SIFAT. To to negate some of the attributes of God and yes, you can see this for example, in the quotation above and suffer the when his Kitab called a sufferer day from page number 104 to 111. But what he says is really interesting, as as I'll show he says elsewhere, is that it really depends on how you define a partner. For example, Allah subhanho wa Taala he says as follows and Masha Allah Kobrick for example, and he mentioned this

if the thing itself what do you call it and what a compliment young Kinta Frick Bala one but cow Boyle insane. For example, if you can separate these things together, like for example, that are the appendages of a human being then or that you can you shot LA, for example, because Shamcey will falak

then these things are not what are intended by composite parts. He says here, what is the character Delica maloom and the Hamidah Carlo? And if Battersea factor sells the motor keep now he's attacking the philosopher. He's saying that if we're talking about attributes, and that the Estelle's him would tell, keep a composition LEM, you read to be heal our 30 meanings, these two examples, finish with Bertozzi fat Lasme Lightoller. He's saying that each of the SIFAT of Allah are necessary. So the attributes of God are necessary. Whereas a part of a thing that can be taken away and put into that's not necessary. That is not necessarily even telling me it's telling you this is not me,

that's telling you this is even telling me they're selling you this and he says that again. And shanaka the list for honey a page 91. So if you look at the two Jews, they are separate from each other for your rakibul Jamia and what I kept. So the more I keep putting them together.

And what a cube puts them together. So here he's saying he's showing you the problem that he has with the composition or argument that had been seen a mix. He's saying that basically they are conflating between an attribute and a pot, he's saying basically is something like he gives two examples. For example, a ship has lots of planks. Now, these are the parts that can be put in or taken out, or food that is made up of many different ingredients. These are the kinds of parts that is impossible for hockey later Haila with Allah subhanahu Atoll,

therefore even told me, he tweaks the contingency argument, because even Cena and the philosopher don't really make this distinction they conflict between the attribute and the pot. So the question is, how do in my book I've actually accounted for this. So you can see, and how I describe a pot, we've described it in English as a piece, because the word piece in the English language, it has already the denotation that it can only be put in or taken out. And that is impossible with Allah subhanaw taala. For example, say a piece of cake. Whereas the word part in Mariology, you can say a part of his personality, like part of his personality or the attributes of God has got many

different attributes. So the word pot is confusing from that perspective. So in order to eliminate the confusion, I use the word peace. And we can't say Allah has pieces. So having all of these things bearing all these things in mind, there should be if someone is saying there's a problem with using the contingency argument, and they are making that claim. Now your problem is no longer with Muhammad hijab.

Let me sorry to say this, your problem is no longer with Muhammad hijab. Your problem is with Ibn Taymiyyah himself. Now all of your reputations and your PDFs, please write them with the title refuting even Taymiyah because this is very clear why I've given you more than three or four references. Shall happy to do this for honey, I'd love to elementary, Yun min hedges Sana I suffer the loss for references for different books. So it will take me as saying things. Now you can say well, he's he's saying these things out of context. I'm giving you the entire reference. I've shown it to you on the screen. I've read out to you in Arabic and translated it to you in English. Maybe,

maybe you don't understand this. With all due respect. Maybe we don't understand what was going on here. But just because you don't understand something. It doesn't mean that you have a right to block people from doing Dawa to atheists because you're not doing Dawa to atheists you cannot do that show us how to do Dawa demonstrate to us how you can do Dalit to atheists without using first principle methods. So anyway, I mean, I don't want to waste my time too much. But the point is, is that we just want people to know who Allah is.

And we just want people to understand that you can use these arguments in Islam and Islam as a rational religion. That's why even TV himself wrote the Kitab dot otol. Believe it or not, this lack of contradiction between the knuckle or the textual evidence is inaccurate.

If I hope with all of this evidence, I'm no longer going to receive questions from the hammer, the general public and whatever, and other people videos being made and so on about the contingency argument, unless these quotations are dealt with, if you deal with these quotations, and also haven't please, I would love to see how these quotations are wrong. So I can amend my thesis, my PhD thesis so I can speak to my friends. So so we can improve our knowledge together. Otherwise, it's just going to be name calling and, and blocking the way of Dawa with all due respect. So instead of blocking the way of Dow and name calling, let's stick to the academia. Let's stick to the

references. If you cannot deal with these references, and you cannot respond to them just it's no it's not ashamed to say, you know, I was wrong on the matter or Salam Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh