Shadee Elmasry – Certainty of Yaqeen

Shadee Elmasry
AI: Summary ©
The transcript describes a variety of speakers discussing the existence of religion and religion. They mention various examples such as the implementation of ERP, Teen Eliakim's formula for happily enhancing, and the discovery of a rational proof for the existence of what you see. They also discuss the idea of a creature called an angel and the confusion surrounding it.
AI: Transcript ©
00:00:00 --> 00:00:04

Now the eyes of ERP Canelo talamona l Melia Kane laterra

00:00:04 --> 00:00:09

Wandell Jehane formula Tawana eylea. Teen Eliakim is certainty

00:00:09 --> 00:00:11

and is divided into three categories ultimately attain,

00:00:11 --> 00:00:18

finally attain happily Effie Emily upIm is by hearing and possessing

00:00:18 --> 00:00:24

rational proofs. Okay, is by hearing and possessing rational

00:00:24 --> 00:00:28

proofs for the existence of what you don't see. That is the

00:00:28 --> 00:00:32

certainty of the scholars that they have studied the matter and

00:00:32 --> 00:00:37

they are absolutely rationally sure they have a rational proof

00:00:38 --> 00:00:44

that this unseen matter exists. That's LMNOP I usually akin is

00:00:44 --> 00:00:48

when you see something directly, you see it directly. Let's say

00:00:48 --> 00:00:51

let's say angels, for example, someone says Do I have to believe

00:00:51 --> 00:00:54

in angels? We say yes, because all over the Quran and the Hadith

00:00:54 --> 00:00:57

without doubt, there are melodica mentioned angels and they're

00:00:57 --> 00:01:01

created of light and they have these XYZ attributes and features.

00:01:01 --> 00:01:05

At that point, the scholar he's got that piece of evidence he

00:01:05 --> 00:01:09

transmits it with certainty. Absolutely no doubt angels exist.

00:01:09 --> 00:01:13

Now you have another word of Allah. So Allah, he's like, one of

00:01:13 --> 00:01:16

these natural born Olia, illiterate maybe, but he saw an

00:01:16 --> 00:01:21

angel. Okay, this is I IN Naft, he saw an angel. Now there's

00:01:21 --> 00:01:25

something interesting in himself, though the knowledge of the one

00:01:25 --> 00:01:29

who saw the angel is greater than the knowledge of the one who knew

00:01:29 --> 00:01:33

merely knows the proof of the angel in himself, but he cannot

00:01:33 --> 00:01:38

transmit. I shouldn't believe in angels because some random Muslim

00:01:38 --> 00:01:41

saw an angel. No, I believe in Angel because of textual proof.

00:01:41 --> 00:01:43

And that's the big difference of

Share Page