Shadee Elmasry – Certainty of Yaqeen

Shadee Elmasry
Share Page

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: Summary ©

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