Using Philosophy in Dawah

molecule molecules, labor capital, how are you guys doing? It's been such a long time, hasn't it? Since we've spoken casually and informally here in a car, speaking about important matters. And today, inshallah we'll do a clarification or a video basically on the issue of using philosophy and dour.

Now, this has been quite a sticky subject, especially with some segments, I have to say, tiny segments, puny segments of the Salafi community, not all the stuff, of course, not the celebra community. No, definitely not some segments, but even for them, and for their followers, I make this concession. I want to make sure that everyone is on the same page. First of all, what is philosophy? Philosophy is, as I understand it, okay. And according to Cambridge dictionary, it's, I'm paraphrasing here, but it's the use of reason, it is actually the use of reason to understand things about existence, knowledge and existence. Now, this is my understanding of philosophy. In other

words, rational arguments, intellectual arguments, and philosophical arguments for me, can almost be used interchangeably. Let me say that one time, if someone says, I want to make rational argument, for me, they are making philosophical arguments. And if they're making philosophical arguments, they're attempting to make rational arguments. If they're making intellectual arguments, they're making philosophical arguments, and so on and so forth.

That's, that's what we mean by philosophy. Now, what we don't mean by philosophy is Greek logic. Some people have come out, unfortunately, have straw man, my position, have lied, actually, quite openly, maybe it wasn't a lie, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it was just a slip of the tongue. Maybe it was a mistake, or whatever. I said that. My position basically is that you have to use Greek logic in order to come to the truth of Islam. I've never made such a statement in my entire life. I don't even think I've made such a statement of my dreams. I don't think even I made such a statement of my dreams.

And so having said that, Greek philosophy or Hellenistic philosophy Aristotelian, sorry, Greek logic, or holistic logic or Aristotelian logic, is not my intent by the word, philosophy. I don't think it's what anyone intense with the word, philosophy. So if you're making an argument for God's existence, for example.

And those the word the exact wording is not to be found in the Quran. You can't say this is a use of Greek logic, this would be illogical. Now, here's the thing. Is it true to say that the best arguments say for God's existence, say for the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad, Salah Salem, say for the Brooklyn or the falsehood of polytheism? are arguments in the Quran? Absolutely. This is the position of Ibn Taymiyyah. And this is the position I adopt, no doubt.

And this is, this is coming from someone who and Charles I'm specializing in academically arguments for God's existence, I have good exposure, academic exposure to arguments for God's existence, and what I will say is this, every single argument for God's existence, which, for example, has a contingency

basis, okay. Starts I believe, or the soul of it, the foundations of it, are unwholesome innovation, Russia, animal Holocaust,

where they created from nothing or where they they said the themselves the creators of themselves,

because almost every contingency argument that is made, whether it is made cosmologically or ontologically,

proposes that there cannot be a world with only things which are self generated, herbal and or self maintained.

And the idea of self generation, and self maintenance, or the impossibility of it for dependent things comes from the fact that a lie gives us the example the ultimate example of ourselves and hula caught me innovation where they created from nothing where they themselves or by nothing, you know, where they themselves the creators of themselves, or where they themselves are creators themselves. And so, all arguments that we use, actually go back to this and this is the foundation I've been taking states that in fact, this is the best way to argue for God's existence. He mentioned this in Miss Ella today with an alum who's kitab.

That is not to say that you cannot use arguments or wording which is not in the Quran to explicate or otherwise explain how God exists or someone and how do we know this even Taymiyah himself mentioned and why am I keep mentioning you've been teaming up? Because this is under for selfies. Okay, this is under for everyone agrees that he understands his massage from from at least the humble light slash sulfite slash authority understanding

And he has commented on them. And I've made a video before speaking about Abdullah and Hassan and his discussion clam with similar problems that are found here. I am saying so even Taymiyah stated in his GitHub, I'd love to I want to pin and I'm paraphrasing here, but there are some people he states that cooler McKenna delille

affair. What a duck, Kana and farla. I've said this so many times I've almost bloody memorized it. That so there are some people that you know, who are more analytical. Yeah. Who every time that the Lila was more complicated and sophisticated, it was more useful to them. And this kind of person, you're Stammen ma who? Talia, El, calor me and monta Korea, this kind of individual use a column type approach with them, which is based on logic. This is from Ibn Taymiyyah. So, let me give you an easy example. Okay, another easy example. Many people in the Tao have used Hamza resources, very famous line, which is that a mother cannot the universe can't self generate. And this is similar to

a mother giving birth to herself, the impossibility of her mother giving birth to herself.

Now, the phrase the mother giving birth to herself is not in the Quran, but it's actually not in a position to the Quran. And in fact, it has also in the Quran, the Quranic expression of human Holocaust, or they themselves a creative themselves. So although the exact wording is not there, is mocking you to hire is possible, or we are Jews, you can say, and you're and to stop them, and that words are used a Farben? Yeah, lay set for the Kitab off, you could have a less pantalla that I'm not in the Quran, where you are evil, and it doesn't go against and this is what we're saying it doesn't do doesn't go against it. And the rational arguments meaning their philosophical arguments,

these are the kinds of arguments we are talking about. We are not talking about arguments, which have to or all over the Quran, we're not talking about arguments. We're not even talking about arguments which don't have a soul in the Quran.

Okay. Now, a comment I made in the in the previous show was erroneous, I said that it would be

it would be circular reasoning to try and prove the Quran with the Quran.

What I should have said, and this is this is a fine

refutation, that it would be circular reason reasoning, to use the Quran to prove the Quran by justifying that it's, it's true because the Quran says so, that's, that's actually true, I should have said that, like they're trying to make it within 15 minutes. I'm not doing that in this video. Because sometimes when you try and make things, within a minute, you end up making blunders.

So having said that, you know, we're not saying what I meant by that, by the way, was that when you're speaking to an atheist, he doesn't take the Quran as a as Revelation, he doesn't take it as something that they believe is he believes or she believes is true. And so you use arguments, which would be true, independent of the Quran, have the Quran not been there. So the argument what we created from nothing, well, we just serve the creators of ourselves. And this kind of like all the this postulation which drives us to a third conclusion, which that in fact, we had something which is outside a causal us or to explain us or whatever.

This is independent of the Quran being there or not, the Quran doesn't have to be there in order for that to be true.

And so that's what I meant. Okay, maybe some people don't understand fine, no problem, the articulation, I'll take the claim, no poem was my fault. But this is what I meant that our arguments when they say some first principles, they are independent of the articulations of the Quran. They don't depend on the Quran, be there or not. And that's what we mean. And that's what kind of arguments need to be made in order for our religion to be taken seriously from people that don't believe in it. And if you abandon this, then you abandon everything.

You abandon rational inquiry, then you can't really even do dour, quite frankly.

And so that's it really, all you can try and do though, of course, you can just stand there and read the Quran and translate it and that is a fine way of doing that. But the moment you start using examples, or you studying arguments outside the Quran, and you define your own principle, because you're using philosophical argumentation outside of the Quran, and I just want to say, I don't mean this to be rude, but brothers who's speaking about philosophy and these kinds of things, and rational argumentation and Greek logic. Please be aware that this is a specialist, right? This this is something that people study academically, and it's not for anyone coolamon habilidad to come up

and

speak in front of a camera to be taken seriously about these matters if you want more information about this and see what happened to me I said and please look at the video that I've done with other of that Manhattan's there's similar mistakes