Shadee Elmasry – Discussing Theology Shaykh Hasan Spiker NBF 308
AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss the importance of helping people to replenish their winter necessities and generate revenue through a platform called Blue Sky. They also touch on the concept of "identical" and the importance of mystical knowledge in relation to understanding the existence of the world. The success and importance of the book in the US, including its use in shaping behavior and potential impact on society, is highlighted. The goal is to generate revenue and invest in the US, as well as the barrier barrier barrier.
AI: Summary ©
Hey man hamdu lillah wa Salatu was Salam ala Rasulillah. While early
he was a happy woman who Allah.
Welcome everybody to the Safina society nothing but facts live
stream on a Thursday of beautiful sunny Thursday, on a day after we
had a winter drive in which we gave away how many hats are over?
Near to 100 winter hats. What else did we give away
and give away supplies, like you know, winter, winter supplies, as
basic necessities basic winter related necessities and you
figuring that maybe people by now they need to replenish their
winter necessities for the last two months of winter coming upon
us. And so that's where we constantly constantly need your
support, luck, Cosina 367. Now,
I have to tell you something that we do have a philosophy, we
fundraise to build up assets, okay, we fundraise to build up
assets. And that is what we're doing right now. The assets, then
supply, pay our cover our costs, and the food, et cetera, et
cetera, et cetera. So what we do need is
a boost so that we can continue building assets that will produce
the revenues. So just so you know, it's not always
donations to be used right away. No, we try to use the donation to
build an asset. Okay, you understand how it works. And the
asset then produces the revenue. Today, we have a wonderful guest.
She hasn't spiker is on today. It was also his last day on Twitter.
If you saw his announcement, and also, I've turned very sour on the
platform to because of Elon Musk, constant non stop, at this point
getting sort of pathetic.
Kiss in the ring of every possible Zinus out there and the worst of
the worst, he supports the worst of the worst. I really don't even
know why I log on anymore. Right? I really don't even know.
It's a great way to get certain messages out their announcements,
maybe I think they'll just start using it for announcements. That's
it. And instead, we'll just try to build up this this new platform.
It's going to be a woke platform. We know that because it's it's run
by what's his face, Jack Dorsey. But for now, it's called Blue Sky
first, I thought it was some Polish thing. bluesky but as blue
sky, so I'll give it a shot. We'll see what happens. I started
already. And you could you could see or you could join there and
it's got like 10 people on it. So there's only 4 million people on
the whole thing.
But maybe it's going to be less toxic, less acidic, less. Gee,
Dad, I just can't at some point. Your heart doesn't accept it
anymore. The heart of a vacuole cannot do G data more than like
two replies Hello, us. So hello. So too much G dad too much
nonsense, and weirdos and no name people. So
we're gonna give that excuse me.
Give that a shot. And for now, let's turn to our interview today
with Chuck hasn't spiker. All right, I'll bring him on. Welcome
from Amman, Jordan, just echolalia for coming on. Hi, Camilla. Lovely
to see you. So it's great to have you on after reading a lot of your
posts, pro Palestine posts, and also sometimes asked you to defend
some of the sad points of al Qaeda on Twitter and where
there's a lot of debate on these Missae. But the main thing that
I think that you brought to the table is a discussion on some of
the ideas of Fibonacci. And why don't we start there? Why don't
you tell our audience
share with our audience? What exactly is the main contribution
of anatomy? What's his place in Islamic theology? And how you feel
that this is beneficial?
Well, I think,
check it out. But if an outer be is an absolutely unique figure,
he's obviously immensely attractive, and in a strange way
accessible to the modern,
deep thinking, Muslim, non Muslim, even modernists, even Islamic
modernists seem to love him.
He is beloved of all stripes, all different types of people. He's
has a kind of extraordinary universal appeal. And I think in
that sense, one of the most extraordinary things about him is
that he is not really he's not he's in no way a dogmatic thinker.
So it's not about being part of this school or the other school. I
think he of all people would be horrified if people even
dogmatically
blindly followed him.
But what is extraordinary about his thought and he's not really
the right word, but his thought is certainly does have a thought
dimension, a discursive dimension is that he is someone who brings
to bear all of the human faculties. When he looks at
reality, say he's not a rationalist. He's not just
determined to use logic chopping and what we think of as reason
kind of reasoning in a straight line. And that's it, that's the
only means to knowledge. He's not an empiricist. It's not just the
senses.
He's not a Fleur de este, it's not just scripture.
And he's not an altruist either that many people think he is it's
not. He's not saying that the only source of knowledge is mystical
knowledge. He is in a way paradigmatic. This synthetical
thinker who brings together it's, you know, it's what one might call
faculty holism. That we are endowed by Allah to Allah with all
of these different faculties, we have the, the reasoning mind, we
have this spirit, which has spiritual experience, we have the
senses. And of course, you know, we have access to receiving
revelation, of course, the means of receiving revelation is is,
in terms of historically is obviously, alphabet, Assad up
until at odd and so on.
So we have all of these different means of the sources of knowledge.
And the extraordinary thing about him is that he brings them all
together in a synthesis.
You know, he took the time, despite his extraordinary
spiritual capacity to study hundreds of books with 10s, of
great teachers of his time. And he's really a very, very
accomplished alum.
And it's even said of him that he was the most knowledgeable person
in his time and every fun, which is really, probably an
exaggeration. But it goes to show just how
Shamel his knowledge is and how, you know, how, how wide his
knowledge is.
And he is for Sufis, I think, a kind of ultimate banahan of their
way.
He is someone who non Muslims is I would say at the beginning, and
people even who don't particularly come from a traditional and
certainly not a traditional East background, as much as I don't
like the term in him, this kind of bottle Han is kind of proof of the
truth of Islam.
You know, he can speak to someone immersed in, in modern philosophy.
And somehow there's this transformative
transmission by turns intellectual spiritual, which convinces people
that gosh, suddenly everything makes sense. Another thing that
people say about him is that he has an answer to every conceivable
philosophical question, which is not really the case with I mean,
Michelle Tchad, kibbutz Sheikh Ali,
chalky, Rich, who was an Arabic Arabic specialist who died a few
years ago, quite a prominent specialist.
He didn't consider even that someone of the stature of your
mama has Ali, I'm not saying I agree with him, but had that
particular quality of really any question you have, you'll find it
in a check like brand that includes modern questions. I mean,
to give you an example,
you know, gender fluid ism, and ideology,
you know, trying to work out how to answer that for a metaphysical
perspective and make sense of that. If anatomy has a ready
answer, such as?
Yeah. What does that answer?
Well, the answer broadly, is that gender is a metaphysical
principle. It's something which runs throughout all of creation.
And broadly that the masculine principle is the principle of
activity. And the feminine principle is the principle of
receptivity and activity. And so what we found in and that starts
with the,
the column in the lower
and
it and so the column is the active principle, which possesses all of
the universals. And, as it were, inscribes them and even plumps
them, one might say, in the tablet and the tablet.
Then, as it's kind of fertile
The
domain in which all the particulars of those universals
arise, so, so he has an extraordinary you can't play with
gender because it's simply a principle of existence. It's not
something that is in any way discernible as a choice, some kind
of thing.
So, when you talk about mystical knowledge,
a lot of people
have trouble with mystical knowledge, because when we speak,
speech and reason are intertwined. Yeah. Could you elaborate a bit on
how, what what exactly is mystical knowledge? If it's something that
seems to
be different from Rational and empirical knowledge? Yeah. So
could you elaborate on that a bit?
When Absolutely, people raise an objection, which I think is based
really quite straightforwardly on a misunderstanding, that mystical
knowledge, according to the prescription of the of the
advocates of medical knowledge is a total water illogical, you know,
it's a it's a stage of domain, it's a level it's a world beyond
the actual. And therefore, how can that be used as a premise in
rational thinking? How can that be, in any way? Knowledge which,
where it might be interesting to read about people's claims of
their experiences? But how can it form part of our overall picture
of reality, which is supposed to be accessible to everyone, for
example? Well, I think this is based on a basic misunderstanding
of what being a total, beyond the actual means. For one thing,
there's a distinction between the discursive Apple, which is the
apple, which essentially reasons in a straight line, you know, one
plus one equals two, every ASP every B and C's areas see that
kind of logical, strict, you know, discursive, linear reasoning.
And there's a lateral manhours of workable, which you might call the
receptive intellect. And that's the apple which simply discerns
distinct objects, right? So whether those are intelligible
object, as in
pure concepts, let's say universals here, they've got this
universal and you've got this universe, you've got the universal
of human being, and the universal have just purely abstract concepts
like Unity and multiplicity and things like that. And because you
can distinguish between them, they are distinct and themselves, you
can end as an intentional object, that one or that one, the same as
sensible objects, you you distinguish between them.
And the thing is mystical experiences exactly the same,
because the mystical experience is distinct. So the point I'm trying
to make is,
yes,
mystical experience is a total BS is a stage or domain or world
beyond the discursive, alkyl. Right, that will ritual reasons in
a straight line in that fashion. But so as to the sensible world,
just as much the sensible world is also a toll beyond that discursive
Apple, right?
So the point is, people have these misconceptions about reasoning,
which are may be insufficiently philosophical, as if, you know,
Reason is somehow this, this self explanatory thing? Well, in fact,
reasoning is just a form.
Right? It's a form, which requires matter. So in logic, you have this
distinction between logical form and logical matter. So logical
form is just, you know, that, say, the figures of the syllogism, you
know, the fact that you have to have, you have to have a first
premise, you have to have a premise, you have to have a
conclusion. And then how do you get from the premise to the
conclusion where it's by the middle term, and then what, what
position is the middle term, in the first premise, if it's in,
let's say, the predicate position, then, you know, it's the first
figure, if it's the predicate position of the first figure in
the first premise, and etc. So, and if it's the subject position
in the second premise, then it's called the first figure, that's
the form. Now, that in itself is completely empty. That's the
logical form, that's not gonna get you anywhere, except seeing that,
you know, that logical form has to produce a true conclusion. But,
but but but at this stage, because we're only at the stage of logical
form, we don't even know what we're reasoning about. You have to
be reasoning about something. Yep. Right. So the idea that you can
include mystical knowledge. Well, if you can include sensible
knowledge, if you can reason about sensible objects
to read, which are not, which are again, a total beyond discursive
reason, you can also reason about mystical objects. Now people might
say, well, you know, that's just a very, very small group of people
who've had those experiences. Well, look, that may well be true
today. In the past, it was very, very ordinary for people to go to
a MACOM have a great Wali, and experience and a fusion of Baraka
an actual present something very, very tangible, sometimes even
receiving knowledge from that encounter. And, you know, that's
why someone like for her as in his mobile alley, even though people
don't think of him at all, as a mystical rater, actually, he's
very mystical later on in his career in a serial Kabir. And also
on mobile Alia, he actually writes about the metaphysics of visiting
a mug calm, and how do you derive a failed from that presence? Now,
that's reasoning about mystical experience presupposing, that a
lot of the people that he's talking to know what he's talking
about, right. So when there's, if there's a shared mystical
experience, you can reason about it, it can it can take it, you
have to then explain that phenomenon in the larger context
of the entire, you know, being of the universe of experience,
in terms of reason,
is, is it accurate to say that mystical experience is
essentially,
is very similar to sensory perception, but is of the soul to
the vibe.
And hence, because it's like, essentially falls in the category
of transmitted testimony.
And it is treated as such. So for example,
a random person says, I saw such and such a
vision,
we don't know you, I'm going to put it in an unknown category. A
reliable, trusted person tells you the same thing. I choose to
believe it, and nobody can say he's a liar. Because we can't
prove that he's a liar. We have no contrary piece of evidence. So I
say that he's truthful. And then a liar, a known person who
exaggerates, then comes and tells us that they saw that such and
such a vision, we said, No, your background is that you're a liar.
So we no matter how beautiful your vision, no matter how much
corroboration it has, we put an X on it. So it's treated very much
like any other transmitted evidence. So you deem that to be
accurate.
That has a very, that's absolutely accurate. And that's a different
dimension of a way to treat of mystical experience. The the, the,
the angle that I was talking about just now is where, for example,
you read in, let's say, alpha two hat, or somewhere else, one of the
books of the earlier about an experience of the presence of the
half of mohammedia, for example. Now, if you yourself, have had
that experience of the idea, then you'll immediately understand what
he's talking about. Right? And then anything that he says about
the the rational, the logical status of the happy family,
because there are things that you can say, you know, let's say it's
the universal pattern of all of the subsequent particulars, which
are subordinate to it, that all has rational content. Yes. If you
experience that there for mohammedia, then you will know
what he's talking about is so in that sense, it's it's analogous to
sense experience, right? I recognize when someone's talking
about sense experiences, talking about trees and mountains in the
world.
Not because I'm having that experience right now. Because I
recognize that experience, if someone reasons about what's going
on in Australia, and you've never been there, right, that's a little
bit different. That becomes more of a transmitted report. And so
it's very similar to then the sighted and the blind. Exactly.
No, okay. If that's the case, then would it necessitate?
Or actually, let me put it this way, elaborate for us on where
would we place mystical knowledge? In epistemology? Will it be
downgraded? Because it's something we'd all don't have access to, to
it and to checking it?
Well, there's a distinction obviously, between metaphysics and
epistemology, which is really a narrative body
distinction, but doesn't make it not real. So it's perspectival.
But you can have perspective
table properties which are real
because it's about your means of approach to
reality, right? So saying which one has priority metaphysically?
mystical knowledge has ascendancy over sense knowledge and merely
rational knowledge.
But epistemology epistemologically, we're talking
about priority in terms of sequence, how do you get to the
conclusion that you're going for? Now, mystical knowledge is of
absolutely no use, if it's not regulated by the other aspects of
human experience, because we're not just spiritual being we're not
a sorceress. It's not only mystical knowledge. Now, that's a
mistake that a lot of modern people who are very interested in
spirituality tend to make there might be total modernists about
philosophy, there might be even really methodological skeptics,
they might not even believe you can prove the existence of God
using reason. But there are Sophists, as you know, I can get
on with just making money and being in this world and being
totally worldly, because none of that really matters. The secret
access that I have is to this mystical knowledge, which that's
the only true knowledge, right? I don't mean totally worldly,
obviously, in the sense of, you know, being ahead. And it's
because if they're spiritual, they're unlikely to be like that.
But I mean, in the sense that I, you know, there's no integration
between my metaphysical view and my reason, right, it's just your
assaulter ism. Other than that, I'm just, you know, it's just the
world. It's just, it's, it's just the, you know, the world, which is
somehow out if opposed, fundamentally to the spiritual.
And
so,
the the point is, I'll give you an example, essentially, for Johnny
says, and shuffle, more active, mystical experience cannot be used
to prove the Creed on a public level. Something very interesting,
it's because the Jews and the Christians, and I think he's
particularly confined to the Jews and Christians, maybe he says
other religions as well. But they also have spiritual experiences,
by which they that they claim somehow prove the truth of that
creed. Correct. That's what it says.
mystical knowledge has to be supplemented by rational work by
rational arguments. Correct, right? Because we believe in
reason we believe in rationality. So the point is, yes, no, I mean,
in terms of the first stages of knowledge of the world, if that
we, you know, you know, when, before teaching someone how to
read and write, and how to raise and basic stuff, and how to use
their senses, we just put them into a hallway. And that's how
they get to know everything, right?
The rational framework, you know, proofs for the existence of the OF
GOD, ALLAH to Allah,
of prophet hood,
of,
you know, the basic items of creed that has to come first, and that
absolutely has to serve there as a foundation. And even Araby says
much very, very clearly, he says that reason can prove the
existence of God, it can prove the possibility and actuality of the
reseller.
And absolutely, it's a total prerequisite and necessity for
someone who wants to then
enter the world of have direct knowledge of spiritual experience
to have that foundation they otherwise they can go very, very
badly astray, of course, and not be able to discern between
different experiences.
It's critical that you mentioned this, that spirit mystical
knowledge needs to be couched with some some rails, because I'll give
you two examples. And you already mentioned it about many of
Christian and Jewish apologists using mystical knowledge as their
proof in the public. So there was a bishop recently who said a
couple of things about Islam. When asked about Christianity, he said,
Jesus is the truth because I know him, I experienced him. So he went
on for about five minutes
talking about how Jesus how he experienced Jesus, which is merely
your own testimony, and is not approved for anybody.
Also, another person who did this, essentially really was Frithjof
swan.
If you think about the perennial is claim that religions are
relative relativity is move is in need of an absolute to tell you
that it's relative. So who's the absolute? The leaders have said
essentially without saying so rendered themselves the judges of
these religions. Yeah. So the chain of transmission, the chain
of authority of this truth really just goes back to the first person
to say, These things are all relative. And then nobody asked
questions about that. So
it's so important for people to recognize this, that
personal experiences, spiritual experiences have to be couched.
That's why we have an orthodoxy. And that's the only way to have a
community where an OMA where the truth claims are verifiable for
everybody. Yeah. And it is not so far off from the concept of Moon
sighting versus calculation. So no Muslim has ever negated the
possibility for us to know that for scientists to know, and
astronomers to know when a new moon is coming out, but we can't
use this for a public mass religion, where only point 00 1%
of people know how it works. It needs to be something democratic,
right, everybody with two eyes can go look at it. Now, you mentioned
that empanada B does hold that people should have this reason
based and transmission based foundation in theology. Let me now
ask a follow up question. Did he endorse for people to follow any
specific works of theology or
schools of thought?
Well,
he sets out in in his major work, the footer hat, he commences the
footer with an RPD.
He says, This is my opinion, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Of
course, people don't listen to him. And they tell him otherwise.
But that's what he says this is my opinion. So take it leave it, as
I'm telling you. And that leader is an act leader, which is just
about as compatible with the
manager model as you can possibly get in the sense that it's not
very overtly ash alley or magic 3d.
It's, it's compatible with the issue that I played it, it's it's
compatible with the matter EDI data, and it's compatible with
the, what you'd find in
a highway here, for example.
And obviously, you know, what distinguishes one one from another
are certain particular points. And I'm not saying that he endorses
all of them, but it's broadly acceptable to all of them. It's
it's really as, as he tries to found it as clearly as possible in
the same proof text that they are drawing upon.
It's an athlete of definitely that falls within acceptability, what
I'm trying to say for those approaches,
but I'm not going to say he's an Ashati. Some people would try to
would like to.
He's he agrees with the shadow on many issues, but he disagrees with
on many issues. He's very clear about that. It's not really, in
some, in any way ambiguous. I mean, it's very, very clear about
praising the shadow on some issues, and saying that they're
mistaken on others. One of them is the super added pneus of the
attributes, for example.
He doesn't really think that that is justified in any way. And he
says, you know, maintainer, Laham, you know,
what real evidence that they have, it's just a semantic proof that
they have, it's not a real proof. Could you explain what that what
that meant? superadded?
Well, just the idea that the divine attributes
not identical to the divine essence.
They're obviously not identical, in the sense that we can pick them
out and talk about, you know, the quadra, the Iraida, and so on, as
we're saying Quadra and errata, we're not saying so. So there must
be distinct to that conceptually, to that extent. But it's more than
that is the idea that they are distinct
beyond
a merely the merely conceptual level.
To take a step back, which is to explain the Ashanti position here,
that the attributes are neither the essence nor separate from the
essence is what the Ashati said. Yeah. And to say that they're the
essence would be
refuted by the fact that we talk about them separately. So we can't
say they're the essence. Can't say they're separate from the essence
because that negates the unity of the Divine that he has had one in
himself not consistent of parts. So this is why that shot ended up
saying the
The attributes and the essence is not the essence, nor distinct from
the essence. So, what did how did empanada be? Reply?
Well, I think he feels this is a a a doctrine which is rather devoid
of content.
He finds it very far fetched
the the formulation that they are neither identical nor distinct is.
And he he says that very explicitly that it's a far fetched
formulation.
And I think that he feels that it does actually, insofar as it's,
well, that look, there's two things, I don't want to put words
into his mouth. But, you know, a way that this is often critiqued
by those who are within Allah Subhan, Allah Jamara. But don't
hold to that view, is that essentially,
if you're saying that the divine attributes are not identical, in
the sense that they are distinct in their home,
right, and you're saying that they are not?
Right, in the sense that they can't be separated from the Divine
nations?
What is that ontological status, it seems to be that what you're
saying is ontologically, they are identical to the essence, that is
different in my home.
Now, there's no school of thought, who doesn't think that they're
different in my home?
Because I'm being what is understood? Yeah, what is
understood, because obviously, everyone is picking them and we
won't be able to discuss the matter. And we weren't able to
distinguish these. So So I think that line of critiques as well.
Either this is actually fairly devoid of content, and it's
actually what's called a hill after Luffy
ranch of merely a verbal difference with people, you know,
often our alumni actually differ. Is this a man? are we different is
actually a real difference, or is it just a lovely, different?
Difference?
Either it's just a verbal difference, in which case, you
know, shaky luck, but I would say it's actually not the
it's not the best adverb actually, because of the way that it's more
him, it may lead people to think there's some sort of dependency
within the divine essence, there's some sort of myth within the
divine or there's some sort of multiplicity within the divine
essence.
Or it's not, it's actually a half man who in which case, you must be
saying there's an actual ontological super adness of the
actual now that becomes very problematic.
Because what what precisely could you mean by an ontological super
headedness of the attributes? When you're talking about of course,
their shared on everyone else? I'm not saying that they don't, but
they're cheering everyone else from Allison and Gemma, say that
Allah Allah is perceived, he's not composite, right? He's not a
composite of parts he's not made up of but of course, you know, how
show him I'm not saying that a szoba Hashem, actually, but you
know, I'm not saying that a shout, are saying that Allah to Allah is
a composite of parts. But it becomes very difficult to descend
what one could possibly mean if one was saying that the attributes
are super added ontologically other than
they're being popped? In this case, this message itself is for a
meaning branches off from the true difference, which is, what is the
definition of an attribute? Yeah. Is it merely a different way of
speaking about the divine? Or is it something else altogether? And
that's the real point of difference, right?
So let's, let's take a shift now.
From from this theological, philosophical discussion, to
something, I would say is more of a
more of a, just a description of Fibonacci, and some of his
mysticism. Could you kindly talk about some of his more cash
effects that you've read over the years? That Have you found
transformative to people?
Because when I think we talk about mystical experience and reason,
there's a philosophical element, but there's also should be an
actual mystical element of our discussion, which is just to talk
about some of his McCosh effects and how they touch people.
Well, I have to say that the McCosh effect which are most
meaningful for me are the ones which reveal
an order of reality, which can make an
So of everything that's all very well having extraordinary
experiences, and I think they are interesting in and of themselves,
but they can often have the quality of of subjectivity as
well, extraordinary experience. Mashallah, but, you know, bad in,
I'd like to have an experience like that. But I think the
extraordinary thing about anatomy is his mystical experiences where
he didn't, these weren't subjective experiences for him,
these were unveiling the structure of reality. Right? So, and this is
why, you know, you have this complementarity, this, this
continuity between the mystical and the rational orders. It's not
just the issue of have you had the same experience, have you
experienced that, you know, the spiritual presence of the prophets
that allows them, for example, which as you recognize what he's
talking about, it's more than, than that, it's about saying, when
I read about his mystical experiences with a certain level,
not like him, obviously, but with a certain level of one zone, a
personal corroboration. I don't just have a warm feeling about
baraka and under mystical experience, but actually see this
kind of internal logic, about morality before Jude about the
hierarchy of reality. So that's why, you know, when he talks about
Ireland will mythical, for example, he has had all sorts of
extraordinary experiences which are detailed in his works of
course, one can also read about them quite extensively and
excellent works like the the English language biography a
little shaky, like but which is written, what's it called? Quest
for the red shell, for example, that has a lot of it's quite a
reliable but not in every way. There's things I find a little bit
more him about perennialism. I don't think the author is a
perennial list, but there are things that one has to be slightly
careful about there. But I think generally, it's very monotone, and
very, very helpful book very, very carefully researched, and can can
you explain automated methods to everybody? Well, optimal mythical
is the world that this world is directly subordinate to, right.
And so there's a bit of a mock up demo, let me just tell you a
little bit bit about the overall account of the levels of existence
and on shaky legs. So
Allah to Allah is the absolute, the one Alfredo Ma, he is
in himself in himself. Right? Not. I know, it gets a bit complicated,
forgive me, but in himself insofar as
we have to conceive of Allah to Allah,
without respect to creation, now creation is a fact it's happened.
But if we think of Allah, to Allah just in himself, in the sense that
the only one who knows Allah to Allah fully is Allah to Allah.
Anyone who knows the absolute fully is that that is in the very
understanding called Hadiya, which can also be has lots of names as
also monitor, but a lotta Ayyan, for example, the degree of non
determination, right? Now, a lot of critics, unfortunately, have
Aquarian ism. Say, Well, what do you mean that God in himself is
indeterminate and somehow arbitrary or he's not much of a
and he's not individuated and he's not split, you know, that. There's
no Aquarian who doesn't think that Allah to Allah is much alien. By
the way. This is talking about something entirely different. When
we say Muslim at the latter I am. We're saying he is not restricted
in himself, by any description, we could give him by limitation that
we could impose upon him. He transcends any of those things in
himself. So he's mutlak, they say, right, that's also the degree of
valuable Judo Mukluk he's Mukluk hat and I idol, it luck. Even that
term that qualification that word we're using, you know, when we're
calling him o'clock, he's Muslim, even beyond that. But beyond that,
good luck. So those months that were to lead to iron, right. So,
you know, that degree of transcendence and pure
unknowability And it's quite amusing when people make this
pantheist accusation against
was not really that funny, but it's a bit it's rather unfortunate
when they when this pantheist accusation is made against a shaky
leg, but when I don't, I've never read an account of the 10 Z the
transcendence of Allah Tala, which is more clear and emphatic than in
that, you know, that school of thought.
You know, God in himself is prayer.
incentive beyond any of our attempts to grasp him.
He's Mukluk had downplayed luck. So the question
arises, you know, how does the whole take place? How do we go
from this pure unknowability to the emergence of creation of this
distinct world? Right? The next stage after a hadiya is wider and
wider is the dimension is the level of playful Muhammadiyah as
well. I'll have evil mohammedia so this is the spiritual reality of
the proposer Islam as an object of knowledge of God again, people get
unfortunate confused if they don't have a teacher, where they start
thinking well, this that had the the widened, or hottie and that's
three and oh, do you know I'm starting to get worried now that
he has gotten himself. Everything else is an object of God's
knowledge. Right? It's simply an object of God's. Allah Allah,
according to all of the schools have suddenly thought is, is
omniscient. Right. That's one of his kamalesh. It's actually
covered tonight. So he knows everything distinctly in
eternality. Right in his eternity knows everything distinctly.
Right. And what is in the solid MushiShi?
The where it says we're currently vinyl baklawa Yes, absolutely.
Welfare, Bihari LA. Hadiya. Exactly. So let's go over those
terms. Again. What are that Hadia referring to? And would you
the judo of Allah subhanaw taala and his absoluteness and
transcendence. Yeah, and the wider being the wider is the first
determination, right? So you have the famous
Hadith, which is not not a real Hadith, according to them had
disowned, but is actually correct. And its meaning according
according to the Mikasa foon, which is I was a hidden treasure,
right. And I I longed to be known, so I created the creation and by
by me, they have known me, right?
Kendall Murphy and Bob Jones, pathological Hulk. Fabiana. phony,
right, so.
So
this is a, this symbolizes the emergence of ultra Ionel a world
right, which is God, this is my hat, Bell Verity. It's Allah to
Allah is loving to be known.
It's no one else with him.
Who's going to know him, a man from himself. Now, that is
obviously, if any
Analy lament. So we have to be very clear, you know, if your
athlete is clearer than you did, one doesn't worry about these
things. If any Anil alum, he doesn't need to create the
creation. So we get rid of that idea. But he wishes to create the
creation. And
so the bridge as it were, between that pure o'clock, right, and the
emergence of the world of creation, is the
thief of Muhammadiyah. Right? Now the happy but not to be very clear
that how they remember there is just an object of knowledge. It's
actually one of the Aiyana saboteur, just like everything
else, is it but it has a metaphysical priority, not a
temporal priority, of course, because this is, you know, a
degree of reality beyond time, this is God's knowledge. Eternal
knowledge of himself and of the world has a it has a degree of
priority to the other ins out of their own saboteur, it for the
benefit of your viewers. The source forms as it were, you might
say the exemplars, the the archetypes. It's a problematic
term, but it's something others dismiss that term completely. It's
not completely wrong, but they are the source forms as it were, for
the emergence of the world
when it's created, so everything in creation possesses this source
form, in the divine knowledge, right. It's not the same as that
as the creative thing. Now, forgive my crudity, but it's as it
were, what Allah to Allah says con to right, right in order for the
creative thing to emerge. So the hub FM idea is the title Oh, well,
it's the first determination it encapsulates
The whole of creation in this each melee way in this general way,
right? And it's for that it's for that reason that the militia
phones the people in the school of Sri Lanka or another Sufi schools
they say that the Ayana saboteur
that all of the other am are furore. Right? are afforded that
branches of the hadith of Muhammad year. Right?
What does that mean? That means that somehow, the whole Israel
really created to relate to the microcosm, macrocosm, somehow, all
you know, the sun and the moon and the angels and the stars and the
universe is somehow a father of human nature. And it all exists
for the sake of human nature. Right. And this, this ultimate
archetype of human nature is I have David Muhammad here.
This is the perfect mother of Allah to Allah in His Jamal and
his Joelle in a perfect balance. Now a mother is a locus of
manifestation is not the same as the thing of which it is a mother.
So there's no sense of pantheism or any sense of some sort of, kind
of confusing identity of Allah Tala, with his creation. I mean, I
always find that very extraordinary because it's so
explicitly disavowed in all of the works of Aquarian ism that I've
ever read. Motherhood is a way in which a divine reality becomes
manifest. What does it mean? It means to be to be to become quiet,
so that creation can see it. So that becomes manifest literally.
So no, so you have an idea you have the wider, you have the worst
idea, which is the level of the hoard of this map, right? All of
the divine attributes and names they become.
Manifest distinctly
right? On the level of the iron a saboteur through the eye on a
saboteur. Right? God has them in himself, but the point is on the
level of Hadiya, there's no name or description. It's total
negative theology. So yes, he has the all of the Divine Names, but
they're not distinct in a way which is knowable to us. on that
level. They become knowable to us on the level of that I am a
saboteur, which by the way, in that buried understanding is the
highest level of mystical knowledge that one can possibly
have, because one can't know that one can't even know God in his
luck.
Right, so.
So this is all the level of the divine knowledge.
And it's uncreated.
It's uncreated, because God doesn't create his own knowledge.
He already knows it.
Right? You can't say I'm going to decide,
you know, how should the lower level metal Allah,
that I'm going to,
I'm going to create my knowledge of the world now. He's gone, he
knows he already knows it, every conceivable possible.
Object of knowledge eternally, in his own essence. In fact, they say
that his knowledge of the world is a consequence of his knowledge of
his own essence. But we don't need to get into that.
But the show but then the first level of creation is allemaal.
Anwar is the world of spirits. It's the it's the first world of
creation.
And what is distinctive about it now Imam a shout out and he has
very interesting question that he raises No. YAHWAH Well, Joe ahead,
he says, is interesting puzzle. Because brilliant answer to which
is, well, if, if everything already exists in the divine
knowledge, eternal eternally. What is the point of creating it
certainly there
won't say what is anything gained by being created if it's already
there? Well, what it gains He then goes on to answer it he cites the
foot and this is it gains gains self knowledge. So the saboteur
again to get rid of the Sherpa that somehow there's multiplicity
in the divine essence on the in the divine realm, because we're
talking about a hadiya and what we're here none of the ins ever to
have self consciousness insofar as the iron saboteur right? Allah
knows them but they don't know themselves. We didn't create it
means in this understanding means to be granted self consciousness
as in as it were to wake up
and to start representing the world from my perspective, that's
what happens in Parliament Ottawa.
So, Alma Ottawa has the level of spirits of the aim
Angels have lofty
spiritual beings
which have a tremendous level of closeness to Allah. That's their
spiritual element. Right, separated, not yet placed into
their physical bodies. Exactly. And this spiritual element is not
an abstract it is at their actual spirits. Exactly. It's a realm
it's an actual world of spirit in which these beings dwell.
And we say in which I mean we shouldn't think of it as temporal
and and spatial in the same way as our world. But then you have the
the world subordinate to that which is Parliament myself. So,
that is our butcher, my VA here they are loci of manifestation of
the Divine Names, the world of spirits that the beings in the
world of spirits Avahi they are located manifestation of the Ayana
saboteur
then there's a there's a further level of manifestation further
world. What do we mean by a world it means it's it was literally a
world it has different individuation conditions. So for
example, the world that we're in right now is very familiar to us,
obviously, because it's, you know, a world of corporal reality, time
and space.
You know, being bound by time and space, we can't be in two places
at one time hit was here speaking to each other, we come as far as I
know, being two places at once, and so on. So it has particular
individuation conditions, if something exists in this world,
it's going to exist in a particular form.
The other worlds are the world, the places where beings exist and
have life but they have different individuation conditions. Right?
So the item a lot of why, for example, is not is not temporarily
bound in the same way that this world is, you know, this world is
for a moto hierarchy, a tethered Egea. This world is for beings
which are changing and they're growing and they're turning they
that not only let's say growing up from being a child to an adult,
they're also increasing in knowledge and the gain through a
different state were much higher activity here. So we're changing
beings, which change in levels and degrees and incrementally. As the
beings are that change, they're not there, they're there. They
don't teach. Sorry, they don't age. Exactly that age. They don't
go and acquire knowledge incrementally they already they
already possess their full perfection as in nor sustenance do
they need exactly precise not in the same way except in terms of
the sustenance to deriving their existence from Allah Tala. So. So
that didn't Well Allahu Allah, the different individuation condition,
then Parliament morale is an intermediary world, it's an
isthmus, it's what's called a bizarre between animal or an
animal milk the century that we're in this which this world, and that
is a world, it's a very extraordinary place.
Because this is the world of work, you could you could translate it
is imagined the world of imagined representations. But what it is,
is a world where pure meanings, take multiple bodily forms,
pure meanings, take multiple bodily forms, that's the kind of
if body it's not Qatif in the same way as this well, but it's a world
where pure meanings take multiple bodily forms. So
so give it give some examples, you know, how did Satan a Gibreel take
lots of different forms. For example, in the Hadith, the very,
very basic and fundamental Hadith where he comes to teach the
Prophet Islam about Islam, the man in SM, he comes in the form of one
of the
Sahaba said in a day here.
Now, this this raises an immediate question. Now, when the proposer
Islam leaves the cave, after the initial revelations, he sees
technically Gibreel also, but he sees a different form, taking up
the entire horizon. Now the question then becomes and then you
know, in the in the in the Mirage, he sees him and yet different
forms.
There's a certain point in which he sees him in his truthful now
all the time, where we're saying Gibreel Jabril Gibreel, but he's
taking a different home and each time now, if a human being was to
keep on taking different forms, he wouldn't keep on thinking that it
was the same human being the human being is
Simply attacked you know, I'm I'm hassled I have this particular
physical appearance if I suddenly appear in the form of Richard
Dawkins and Sam hasn't Spiker, then no one's gonna believe me.
But the point is in in Alamo MSL, the same reality the same methods
the same being takes multiple
corporeal forms, but it's the big, right? So I element Matthau is a
way of understanding. It's an object of experience, it's a world
of experience to the mechanic, the mechanic or food, but I'm saying
it also has a utility in actually making a lot of sense of a lot of
the
the data of revelation of scriptural
accounts that we have scriptural knowledge that were given, when,
for example, that our male teacher just said in the life in the Baba,
right, how can I? How can I take bodily forms?
What does that even mean? That are male? So what does it mean to say
that is that that bodily form
that that physical form is Jibreel? And that other physical
form is Gibreel? as well? How can you say that? It's all understood
in terms of our method when the proposition was offered?
Either
wine or milk or in another way, or water or milk?
I'll come back. I'll I think that's it.
Then he then then.
And it was said he chose the milk and it was said you've chosen the
FITARA?
What does that mean? How is milk? FITARA? Like really? Like
literally how it is milk is milk. It's not the fifth.
So Allah methyl explains the possible but how is symbolism
possible?
How is symbolism possible and we we look at a physical tree, for
example, but it has all of this symbolic resonance in that bearing
understanding that would be because whether actually there is
a realm, that that
physical appearance of a tree is actually just one image of a
meaning. Right, which in Ireland, mathematics, lots of different
images. Right. So that, you know, for example, you know,
astrological report, you know, a ram being brought, and slaughtered
and said death has been killed. Again. How was that death? It's
around. Yeah. Yeah, that's again understood in terms of algorithm
without. So that's been Yeah. So DataMan method is the essential
home base or the true location
of trickiness.
definis as a concept
Ribba is not something that we see, right, it's like a
transaction, but it's not a thing that we can hold in touch.
A contract with a divot in it is paper and ink. So that's an idea
to yet we are told in the Day of Judgment, it's a river of blood.
So
you're saying essentially, that Ireland method
seeks to explain this. And so my now my follow up question, and
it's a very, it's a thief question. In other words, a
question from someone trying to imagine what is somebody who's
never heard of this asking, thinking? And that question is, so
are you saying that it is a kind of location where Trina's has a
true form,
from which all these trees or branches is that way, it's more
that it's, it's more of the idea that the physical appearance of a
tree in this world.
Now, in this world, we don't have to think about our method is just
a tree. I mean, you chop it down. And you know,
as Mark said, to a capitalist, you know, it's lumber to a poet. It's
this, it's to Mr. Manifestation to, to a poet, it's actually just
a tree, and so on. But the point is, you know, a tree is, for all
intents, intents and purposes in this world, it's just a tree. I
mean, it doesn't. It doesn't make sense under it, you might drop it
down, whatever. But the point is, if you look at it in it's more
fundamental on what its ontological derivation, because
our whole idea is that this world is not
self standing, self sufficient. Now, of course, we all believe it
all of the different schools believe it was created by God.
Barians no
Different than that. And I'd say that Baron is I mean, he mumbled
was Elliot scatola. Anwar is very, very close to this, by the way,
but But it's but we there's more of a detailing.
Right? It's not really a fundamental difference as much as
there's more of a detailing, which is always saying is, there's this
world and there's also lots of other worlds that God's created.
Yeah. And they're all connected to each other. And they actually
there's a relationship of subordinate subordinate, say one
to another all the way I hate to say up to the Divine, I don't mean
in any sense like that obviously, but you know, all the way in a
manner he sends all the way up to
closeness to the divine reality, okay. So.
So, just to get your your question specifically
the the ultimate intelligibility of a tree is going to go right up
to the Parliament Ottawa, him the and I own a saboteur, the level of
the level that the
the parliament, morale is particularly explaining, is the
level of
a man are we dimension, let's say, just for the purposes of
discussion, right? Let's say, you know, a tree has these qualities
of, of this sense of, of being a pillar of the bat, of giving, you
know, gives out oxygen, of being a symbol of life, for example,
right, so I'm not doing Tarot enough, what is a tree in Ireland
mythology, but the point is, a tree is a symbolic representation
in this world of something that in our mythology is broader, and
could potentially take other bodily forms other than a tree,
which has the same meaning. That's the idea. So it's very close to
what of nobis Rhodiola was out on who said, he said that every
description in Jannah have a fruit. It has that and the name,
but it has many, many other things. So or I think, and he's
actually said, well, it shares is the name. So that pomegranate in
this life, like it has a shell that has a lot of work to do and
it can stain you and it has a lot of negatives to the pomegranate.
Alright, so it's that the paradoxical pomegranate shares
nothing with this pomegranate except its name. That's
incredible. Masha Allah, have the lovely rose zip code. I'm in
Kabul, you know, to be here to share with you Serbia. So
something, something links it to make you recognize it. Maybe the
redness may be part of the flavor, but it's a whole nother thing. But
Allah calls this a pomegranate, and he calls that a pomegranate.
So you're saying I had them in me? That is a way to understand how
one meaning can take on these different forms. Yeah, that it is
not meant
is not meant to indicate the existence of some physical place
where there's the ultimate pomegranate?
No. Okay. Good. So we have a question from,
you know, that's a common misconception about this type of
thinking. Yeah. Is it which is the read duplicative
interpretation that somehow you've just got a table here and then up
there, there's a like, even better table? Yeah. So the element method
is fair to say that it is an abstract
construct, to help us understand how things have different forms.
Well, you know, it has a conceptual efficacy, it has a
conceptual
practice practical purpose, but the more casual firm would say no,
this is an existing place.
Yeah. Okay. We have a question from Mark. Go ahead. What's your
question? This this idea, I think it kind of
delves into the idea of whether existence how existence in essence
kind of interact, because the modern notion, the liberal notion,
is that
sort of
the liberal notion is that you know, essence comes after
existence, meaning that things exist and then we define what they
are like things are defined as as after after existence after the
physical aspect. And so this idea kind of indicates towards is the
opposite. The opposite of that is that the for example, masculinity
and femininity exist an item I'm thud and then we have multiple
different I think you wrote about the show.
And if you could touch about how this this idea kind of, can be
used to push back against like philosophical liberalism. Okay, so
if anyone didn't hear if the mic wasn't clear to anyone, Amana
brings up a great point. He says that the materialists
see an object like a stick
and believe that the material matter is the core and all the
other things about its essence.
Come after
it.
But he's saying that it would seem to be that if anatomy is saying
that no, no, it's the total opposite. The essence and meaning
exists first. And this is merely one form of it. And so in that
sense, this concept is a refutation of materialism.
Absolutely.
And I think that's a very good way explain it. I mean,
obviously, there are lots of different ways of looking at this.
But I mean, take Sadko, for example, who's you know, not not
fashionable now. But that just shows you how kind of fickle
modernity is. But, you know, the, for most of the, well, let's say,
the second and third quarters of the 20th century, he was the most
popular and famous philosopher in the world with a kind of real
popular appeal of public intellectual. And his whole
doctrine was that existence is prior to essence. But what did he
mean by that he meant that
there aren't any essences, essences are all constructed,
we're the ones creating them. All that we are before we construct
essences, are these pure existences, I mean, it's this kind
of your
kind of
blind, encoded, encoded energy, as it were, which has physicalities.
Yeah, pure physicality, just will. I mean, he's his main focus is
just the fact that we all have access to our own will, but it's
completely arbitrary, right, and we can direct this way or that,
and then we create, we construct these realities.
And then we mistake them for real realities. So, you know, because
lots of human beings and societies have got together and decided that
there's something called human nature, we imagined that it's
actually this concrete thing out there, actually, and to become
truly free, is to read is to become mature and free is to
realize those aren't really out there. And that you can create
your own human nature, like every individual can create their own
human nature, in whatever way that they want, you can define it
themselves, it's completely up to them during construction. So in a
way, it's a refutation of something like that, and
refutation of all forms of materialism.
You know, which is not in any case, I mean, if you think of, you
know, modern physicalism, where the whole idea is that everything
is physical, whatever that's supposed to mean. And then, you
know, consciousness itself is what they call an epiphenomenon. It's
an emergent property. That's a completely ridiculous and
incoherent view anyway, we shouldn't we shouldn't give it any
credence theory or take it seriously, frankly, because what
they're saying is
the means by which as in consciousness consciousness, which
is the means by which this purely physical being then turns around
and says, This is just a physical bit, there's nothing spiritual, or
metaphysical about it. That means is actually just
a series of physical processes going off, you know, neurons
firing, essentially.
And yet, we're supposed to trust what it is purporting, effectively
tell us about reality and the nature of reality. It's absurd,
ridiculous. So
it undermines its own engine that produced it. Precisely. It's it's
such a it's actually this concept is actually pure Kofa.
No, praising the pagan is actually, in his paradigm is
actually closer because it pagan does say there is an absolute, but
he's got the wrong absolute, he points to an idol or something
like that. Whereas this kind of cover
is makes cover of everything. Right, which then actually should
really disqualify him from making any conclusions about anything.
Right? So that's the inconsistencies that they're,
they're claiming to make a conclusion while actually making
Cofer of the source that may produce that conclusion. Exactly.
I mean, that's the thing, our ability to know the world and so
when I'm giving a true account of what the world is, in, if it's the
material is
that ability, that pure intelligibility, the no ability of
the world is the ultimate refutation of atheism and because
that intelligibility itself is such a miracle. It makes
absolutely no sense directly refutes the idea that reality is
somehow fundamentally fundamentally material. It was
fundamentally material, it wouldn't be possible to have a
true intelligible as in mental objects of the mind intelligible
account of what it is, that simply wouldn't be correct.
Now let's move to another subject.
Why did the shoot and what it did with Jude? Are they merely
semantic differences? Or are they the same thing? Or are they
separate things, different concepts? For everyone for
listening, what it's in with Jude is hypnotic, his concept, the
literal, the literal translation is oneness of being wanted to
shoot, I believe that came from an Imam Rabbani who described it as
oneness of witnessing, and he meant by that, whenever you
witness anything, you recognize it to be a manifestation of the
Divine Will.
So is are they the same thing? And are they different?
Well,
Imam Rabbani is obviously a great Imam Rhodiola. And he's someone
that we all have huge respect for, and his macro bat, extraordinarily
beneficial, and full of amazing debate.
But
his understanding why he does your hood is that it is a further level
of experience that m&r ob didn't get to how he got to that level of
experience, he would have realized that actually, what he thought was
the unit of existence was just the appearance of the unity of
existence.
It's not that reality is actually
a manifestation of Allah to Allah. Now, that thing is from the
perspective of someone who is faithful to binotto ob school of
thought.
And of course, we're faithful to the Prime Minister's statement
Allah Allah, it's not in that sense, but
finds themselves subscribing to that school of thought, based on
on evidence and other than their own conviction.
This is based on a kind of misunderstanding.
It's shocking as that might seem, but the truth is, you know, the
the QUAL of the of the out of Finn can be contradictory. They're not
mass on. If they are wildly contradictory, it means that one
of them's right. One of them's wrong, actually, a real way to
escape that, you know, obviously, you know, when it comes to
mazahub, and things one might take him shot on his lane and others
and say all of them are their HIPAA crew, and they're all
correct, but it's not when it comes to haka economically, yet.
That doesn't work.
So there's only one truth of the matter, here.
Now, there's a tendency today. So I mean, before I get to there, you
know, just say, starkly, and frankly, the Barians would say
that Imam said no, he was wrong about that. Because it was shaky
like Barry's not saying that reality is to be identified with
Allah Tala. That's not what was the word you would means.
Without necessarily getting into the the particular details of I
discussed this very question in a recent podcast I did with my
friend, she had my mango, which was the it's called the two
molars. And it was episode three, if anyone wants to go back to that
we discussed that in quite a lot of detail. But to get to the
particular
point that you're raising
the The interesting thing about
today, where there's a kind of what could be described as a kind
of reaction, but it was a reactionary, but in some sense, a
reactive attitude from a lot of people who, let's say, mostly
those who become religious in this kind of self focused way, that
somehow we always have to err on the side of caution. And
if an Arab is a great wily, but we have to be a bit careful of him
because, you know,
his, that his
doctrines are can be confusing and they can be. Now there's there's a
certain type of truth to that, but but all I'd say is contrary to
what people tend to assume, which is the Imam said Hindi came along,
respected him and Araby but actually corrected him on many
issues where he seemed to diverge from
the agreement with
exoteric scholarship and conclusions. The tendency to
assume that Imam said Hindi must have been right. And the really
orthodox careful thing to do is agree with the imams in Hindi. Now
the reality is, most of the people in Imams had his own line
agreed with him an hour beyond this point.
What was the man who said Hindi so imams are Hindus point is why did
to show who has a higher level of experience where beyond seeing
what we're doing that if he's shown that actually this is just
in the show hood, it's in the witnessing. It's there's actually
a distinction between Allah Tala in himself and his manifestations
that say it's based on a misunderstanding in the first
place we can shake like Brad's not saying that Allah Tala in his
manifestations is somehow that those manifestations are identical
to his essence in any way.
Right, exactly. Yeah. So what is the explanation? of why certain
would?
Well, what a question. Well, the that's would be an episode in
itself, right? Yeah. I mean, the most basic understanding is simply
only Allah, Allah has true existence. We call, you know,
colloquially as it were, all of these different things around us,
including ourselves existence is so and that's what we can say that
we exist, but we don't exist, in and of ourselves are not self
existent. And our existence in every way is derived. So the
doctrine of wisely would you say is to say that there is only one
true existence, which is Allah to Allah. Everything else is merely
determinant. Yes, we can use the word existence for for these for
the world, but it's not truly existence. That's only one
world
is an image of the Divine Names, or it's a series of images, it's a
it's a world of images of the Divine Names.
And,
and, you know, this is based on this fine support from a hadith
like, you know, halacha Allah Who, Adam, Allah Surah Rahman, for
example, that
somehow the particular form that creation takes
is an image of the divine nature that in no way means that there's
any form of identity God has completely transcendent in
himself, but it is an image a manifestation, a mother. And what
what why is it a renewed expense is that asset dependency, whereas
philosophical and Qalam schools would, would typically just, they
would limit our dependency
in terms of philosophical explication, simply to the fact
that we've been granted existence. Right. Now we talk about the
variant school talks about the ontological contingency, but it
also talks about the formal contingency, it's also the fact
that all of our attributes are derived from as images ultimately
from the divine nature, as an image will allow us to measure the
Arleigh Lisa committee shaped with us available see if one can't
emphasize the 10 Xia too much. They are nonetheless an image and
we have proof text for that like
that sacred Hadith Caliph Allahu Adam, Allah authority Rahman,
which indicate that
it is justified and religiously, in terms of source text justified
to speak in these terms, apart from, you know, Alkalete proofs,
cash, free proofs, and so on.
So it's not just that we're ontologically derived, it's also
the question of look at this well, do we have all of these
attributes? Where did they come from? You know, we see
manifestations of wisdom, we see manifestations of beauty, we say
manifestations of, of identity, and so on. The digital Caesarea
read aloha and for example, says, identity in this world is that
Aloha ear, the fact that, you know, is Hashem spiker manifest a
particular identity, you as shedule ministry manifest a
particular identity, he would say that identity as it appears in
this world is a ray, without touch B, of course, is a ray of his
identity. Right? It's a ray, it's an image, that again, I can't
emphasize too much. There's no identity there. And there's no
touch base there. And there's no likening in the sense of there's
any parity or equivalence. But the point is, where do these
properties when we see beauty in this world, it's a ray of his
beauty when we see identity. It's a ray of his identity, where we
see wisdom and this was a ray of his identity. And that sense.
You know, we are constantly in allowed to help us cover
not only in terms of our existence, but also in terms of
The actual shape and form that this will take is also completely
all derived from Allah to Allah, you know over over two thirds you
in the Lucha Yong Sik or sama Wort you will have the Anta zoulah
Right? If you would immediately disappear, that Allah wasn't
constantly holding us exist in existence not only in in terms of
the fact that we exist but also the particular form that we take
is also derived from his divine names. And what we're saying is
that the only true existence is for Allah to Allah Okay, so that
that would only apply to that which which we can connect to a
divine attribute with what if the spec the skeptic now says what
about bad things in the world, the sound of the donkey or, or many
things that we would want to clean off of our bodies or something
like that, or those those dirty things or the fact that nothing in
the
in this world is perfect, atheists would always say, so
no orb is perfect. The Earth is not perfectly round, there's
imperfections. So how are those treated or understood?
That's very, very good question which as you know, is raised often
in the literature including the Aquarian.
Now as I answer I'm just going to well give me 10 seconds please
because I've just seen low battery I mean, I need to
move on my computer. Just give me give me Sure. No problem. No
problem.
Brothers and sisters, all those listening. We are the with our
guests. Sheikh Hassan spiker This is the Safina sighting nothing but
facts live stream you could like the channel subscribe to it so
that you can get notifications turn your notification bell on.
And you could support us at
what is it patreon.com patreon.com/safina
society could be a supporter there and you can
keep in touch with us also on Instagram so fina society's
channel their Twitter and now gonna give blue sky a chance. Jack
Dorsey's competitor with Twitter, give that a chance. You'll see us
now there. And on every platform that our team puts our stuff on
these, these streams are on supposed to be on Spotify, aren't
they? Yes, they should be updated and linked up on Spotify. Alright,
Sheikh Hasson is back.
He's saying if you could just move your camera down a little bit
to remove some of that space in the top there.
Okay to pick up where we left off, we left off on the fact that when
we look at wonderful things of this world, we're seeing that
their manifestations of the divine attribute that is perfect in that
respect. So when we see wisdom, we know that that is a manifestation
of Divine Wisdom. When we see beauty manifestation, divine
beauty and this is the common also really, it's not just a mystical
perspective is the common man's theology. Right? This is how we
know that there is order and there is one
controlling
creator who is filled with beauty and wisdom when you go out and
look at nature. That's the natural reaction people get. Now the
atheists and the skeptics they like to answer back and say, Okay,
well, what about the crocodile that just ate that beautiful?
Deer? What about the sickness in the world? What about all the bad
things? What about all the imperfections of this world? So
now I'm asked about what to do with Jude and the UK body and
thought regarding regarding that, what are they manifestations of,
or not manifestations of?
Well, it's important to recognize that Allah to Allah, as they say,
limitlessly transcends the sights of manifestation. So he is not the
sights of manifestation. He's not the mother. He's not. He's not the
thing that we're talking. Exactly. It's not the things that that
become manifest. One could say, I mean, stretching language a bit
that they are symbols of Allah Taylor's names and attributes.
They're not they're not identical to them. Correct. But they have no
reality outside of, as it were. And you know, lack of method I
don't mean literally, but outside of the shadow cast by those
metaphysical realities in it, they have no reality or you might even
say they are the shadow cast by them.
And
I'm thinking of a Quranic verse, they often say in that regard, but
it's escaping me in any case,
So,
he limitlessly cites to say that transcends the search
manifestation. So, in the first phase, the idea that well, you're
saying that these things become manifest as caused or out and so
on for one thing that there's no identity there are not, we're not
saying that they are in any way the divine one or the below.
Second of all,
our account of evil is definitively as a privation.
So, evil or imperfection or deficiency is the absence of
perfection is the absence of the full good.
In the Aquarian, understanding Allah Tala is a Hydel market is
the pure good and existence itself, which is Allah to Allah
itself, existence itself, not the existence is existence itself, the
only true being is pure goodness.
Any dissent from that pure goodness is a deficiency in that
pure good, it's a it's a, it's a deficiency, it's a reduction in
that pure goodness, it's an impairment of that full goodness,
insofar as it's entering multiplicity is becoming limited,
it's becoming needy of other things around it is it's not the
pure good, certainly of Allah to Allah himself, but even if the
let's say the angelic realm
as things descend, they
imperfections accumulate is that
are those bad things the absence of good or are they creations in
themselves? So, is evil is better or bad things? Independent
creations? Are they the absence of perfection?
Well, one has to think in answering that question of how it
is that we have fixed the
characterization to those things have bad have effect, right? So
what that gets into is the question of
whether
you know, a personal Koba
shatter a or not, right, whether we only find out about whether
something is good and evil, because we are told in the
Revelation, or if you have some means of knowing outside of the
revelation, or if there is, let's say, a, they they work together
the various sources to let us know about good and evil, or if let's
say some only some, there are certain things which we only know
about from the shutter. And, and this is actually of an Arby's
position. It's also a matter Ed position. It's a It's certain
their their opinion of certain nationalities
that when we say that, l personal Koba
both shadow a,
right when we mean in terms of people often misunderstand that as
meaning that we can have no knowledge left our own devices,
let's say in the absence of Revelation, if we have ascertained
that, we would have no knowledge whatsoever, good and evil, you
know, we, if we were to, you know, see an old lady crossing the road,
we'd have no idea whether that was good or evil, then we just be fine
to run them over, because we simply no idea we haven't been
informed. Right.
The now that's a misinterpretation or misunderstanding, I would say
of the shadow position, I would say any accurate position really,
because what has been been both being shadow a means is that is
this is answering the question of corruptible. So Avila Cobb. Right.
We only find out about the fact that such actions lead to
punishment in the next life or reward in the next life. You know
what action leads either to punishment. If it's a good action,
it's rewarding the next life through the shutter, the shutter
is what informs us of that. We but that doesn't mean we can't know
with Arkell whether something is good or evil, it's just that we
don't know the fullness of the ultimate implications of the
other. Yeah, that's otherworldly, that otherworldly implications.
Exactly. Now, there are other things, as I said, there's so
there is that kind of the way that the Akerlund the shadow work
together, that bill provides as it were the foundations of that
knowledge, and then the Shut up provides the fullness of the
knowledge, one of the matterI arguments against the let's say,
the straw man ASHRAE
account is well, you have to know some things are good otherwise you
wouldn't
even bothered to believe in the revelation in the first place, you
wouldn't know, you wouldn't have a link to tell you that this prophet
is true. Exactly. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Precisely. And so.
So that's one of the matterI critiques. Now, as I said, if
anatomies own position is very much compatible with with these
different schools, I don't even like to talk about different
schools, you know, my own kind of training with my own che, he never
spoke about different schools, he wasn't in that sense of sectarian
at all, he always saw him an Arby's view. And the Ashari view
in the matrix view is basically the same view with, you know,
little nuances here or there. They're not kind of these
discreet, you know,
totally separate points of view where, but and then, you know,
when you're making a Twitter account, you say, you know, I'm
certain So, Ashley ERL, a couple year old match, it's this weekend,
this identitarian thing, there's very much flow into one another,
the combated whether they recognize one another, and, and
one scholar may well take different positions from different
schools. It's not like it's so you know, what do I do if I'm an Azure
is to make sure that it's all Ashrae compliant?
That's at least not the not the way that I was taught. But in
that, but in any case, his view is that there are some things let's
say, you know, the fact that matter is, is through your
archives, you know, that doesn't really have a
there's no way that you can infer that that is going to
lead to reward in the author out. That isn't itself, hatin or
anything
only by transmission revelation. Is there anywhere. And I like what
you said about even just the judgment of something being good
and bad. itself.
It has examination. So for example, if somebody says, well,
all this beauty and then we just see defecation next, are you
looking at beautiful lake? Yeah, through seed defecation next to
the lake, it's so ugly, it ruined it, actually, you know, even
something as universally vile as defecation even by Shetty. It's
not just immediately you have to dispose of it. That's the
obligation and the idea
of human wastes. But if we can ponder human wastes a little bit,
we willfully put stuff in our mouths, nobody, no one produces
human waste. On his own you willfully you produce human waste,
after you are on your make the decision to put something in your
mouth and eat it, you decided that then Allah to Allah takes all of
this takes all the good stuff, you use it, all the bad stuff, puts it
into this, this thing that can sit in your body for a while, and then
come out with ease, right? And remove,
to remove the other and then for you to know that it's not
something anyone should consume. Okay, then he made it smell bad
and look ugly, and everything like that as a signifier, like putting
a skull and crossbones on poison, right? Whereas milk, on the other
hand, also comes out of the, the cow. But that you know, is good,
it smells good. It only comes out at your own willpower. It doesn't
just come out on accident, so then it will be wasted. So even the
signifying something as good or bad, right is oftentimes a matter
of perspectives. Yeah, it's bad to step into it. But its existence is
an amazing it is a Rama for human beings. Right? There's a
perspective that even very every bad thing that we call bad, is
also a drama. It bliss is a drama, because the, as one of the shields
said, We know men can attain ranks, without the antagonism of
bliss against him. Exactly. The resistance of fighting him. So
really, from every perspective, you can find a good ending in
something that we consider really bad. We've kept you for a long
time. But there are some questions, I did promise some
people that we would answer some questions. So we could do if you
would like a rapid fire question, set of questions on a ship
adequate of anatomy. And the first question is,
regarding the transmissions of anatomy, Are they accurate? And
what would we say about some views that were transmitted about him or
from him that would seem to be non Sunni views such as Fatone
accepted Islam?
What do you what do we say about that? These are some fun ie rapid
fire questions. No. Yeah.
There are different views on that. There are views that there's a lot
of deaths in an Arby's work, specifically the facilities that
have come there and tabulations that other people put in.
But I'm not I don't agree with that view. I don't think
There's Deus in for social heckum.
And I think the best evidence for that is the fact that his
immediate commentators in his immediate line, which are people,
like, say, Saturday, Lakota, we buy at the Jandy,
Kashani, Doudou, Caesarea, and so on. They come and take on the
fossils with all of those putative legends and interpolations. And
they didn't say their declarations. So, I mean, that for
me is pretty, pretty much a, but hadn't been a. So the alternative
to that is to say, well, either he's a harsher who Far be it from
me as a raging heretic, or we need to interpret those statements
differently, so that they are compatible with analysts and other
drama. That's what his commentators typically do they
interpret those statements. Also, you know, when one has a nuanced
understanding of a soul, and so on, one becomes more
critically aware of what massage will actually constitute heterodox
conclusions. I don't particularly want to enter into every one of
those
problematic issues here, but
it's not necessarily if one takes a line, which is against
the dominant view, but it's based on evidence and reasoning, you
know, yes, sir. How to be it. Right. It's it's based on a sound
interpretation of the actual
Arabic expression.
That this sound evidence for within the the text itself for
that interpretation, even if it's a very unfamiliar interpretation,
it's not possible to say that that person is somehow immediately a
heretic. Because they're simply telling you what they're convinced
of, you know, they have all of the Arlette they have all of the
necessarily necessary apparatus is that they need the tools that they
need to interpret the text and we know that check it out. Absolutely
did. And he's interpreted it differently. He said, No, the
broad, I can see that the general, the mainstream interpretation of
this verse is wrong.
Lagu you know,
he's saying that it's, he's within his rights to, to come to that.
I'll give you an example. You know, a lot of people would think
and again, I really hope that viewers don't misunderstand me I
know for sure they weren't willfully misunderstand me, but
they don't need to understand me at all.
Because I'm not saying that this is true. I personally hasn't.
spiker firmly believed that said nicer as it says in the Quran,
did not die
on the cross and that he was not actually crucified, but it's not
actually cover
to
and there is a position a very weak position, which and it's not
even Arabic position. I'm just saying this as a separate issue to
kind of eliminate this discussion. There is a position which says
that said nicer
did day on the grocery.
And
that when it says are the lowest energy markets, Olivia Pina is
talking about spiritual death. Why is that? It's because it there's
another verse which says, in the motel were fika whare fair. Okay,
la.
One, we'll go ahead. Okay. Milena, covered in Nishimoto. A fika,
which means I cost you today and then rate you up. Right, speaking
about Satan ASA, and the MaHA you know, the evidence that for
example, mascota Louis, I think that could be interpreted
figuratively in terms of spiritual death is because it says eltra
Mercado de la Tasha. Vanderlinden according to visible light and
water, Bella, yeah.
It's it's a it's, you know, willing to say that position is
wrong. It's incorrect. It's mistaken. But it's not it's not
heresy, because it's based on a legitimate
interpretation
based on the evidence, and you know, the litmus test for that
tends to be if something's a mass, you know, soul will fit if
something's a mouse. It doesn't, you know, the technical sense of
mass it doesn't admit of a second interpretation.
A famous Salah just means that they must say it doesn't mean you
don't have to pray. There's no way that it right, but something which
is a lot, HIV means sure the interpretation that we're giving
of this versus is very much the likely interpretation, but there
is nonetheless
This possibility that it means something else. So when a verse is
a lot here, and that might be based on
having to collect evidence from elsewhere, it's not possible to
say that it's heresy for someone to hold that that. What doesn't
their interpretation have to be in line with all of the texts related
to the subjects? Absolutely. So in this case,
the coming back? Are they saying that only is that he's going to be
creating a second body? Or are they denying the Second Coming all
together? Because we have no Sue's that He will speak to people in
old age that he will return?
Yeah. So how do they reconcile? That's? That's a very good
question. I don't think that the Nebraska This is from the Nebraska
by the way that one can find this position in the Nebraska will
further hurry on shuttle Archaia. If anyone wants to look for it, I
obviously don't have the
reference to hand, partly, sadly, because I've lost my library. It's
still in Berkeley, California.
Please pray that it gets back to me. But but
but that is in the process? I can't remember whether it goes
into that question. But of course, you know, one would have to take
into account
all of those considerations. But what seemed clear to me, and the
point that I'm making is that because it's under the authority,
obviously, the author of the new badass, which is a very much a
very serious and very widely respected book. He's not saying I
hold that position, he's saying it's not, it's not possible to say
that that's a
healthy one into Cofer or heresy. Because although it's wrong, it's
still based on a sharper
when someone is basing their interpretation on evidence, which
even if it's weak, is ultimately justifiable, then, then they are,
they're simply exercising their another to reach a conclusion. And
that's the point is, it's not accurate there. There are some
interpretations were just wrong. Let's say if you're going against
a nurse, for example, if there's a nurse, and there's no possible way
to, to that this, this word or sentence or verse doesn't in any
way admit, in itself, have a legitimate other interpretation,
even if even if it's weak,
then that interpretation is simply about them. Right. So I don't
think that those
parts of the footer of the for source are interpolations. Okay.
The other thing I'd say, however, is, I don't believe I'm not a
McCullough to shake luck. But
as far as I'm concerned, sometimes he's giving his interpretation of
Scripture.
More often than not possibly all the time, I'd be allowed to say, I
know, but more often than not, I believe,
supported by his direct experiences cash, right.
But you know, on issues, for example of, let's say, what, you
know, what they call the cooling of the fire? Right? I don't
believe it. Yeah. What is that question on that? Yeah, I do
believe that the cooling of the fire, do not believe or do
believe. No, I don't. I'm not I'm not a literal shake. Like, but
yeah, I haven't had that experience. As far as I'm
concerned. Che Al Akbar is telling us about his experience.
And then he also says, well, there's actually a legitimate way
of he knows there's a legitimate way to make this fit with the
source texts. Right? This is what he typically does. Yeah. Now, I
don't I haven't had that experience. And I'm no one's you
know, he's telling me about his experiences. I have a strong
personal vision for him.
I believe that he's telling us something very, very significant.
When he tells us these things, I think very often,
the way that it necessarily becomes expressed in language can
really ruffles people's people's feathers. And that's sometimes
because of the the, the gulf between experience and our ability
to express it.
But, but you know,
it if an r&b is believed by the consensus of that, if soon to be a
rally, to be someone who has the highest level of spiritual
experience,
look, he can be wrong. He's not a masculine prophet. He can be wrong
about certain things, but as long as it's based on a legitimate
Chabahar Yeah.
It's not possible to hurl someone into you know, to
hurl accusations of disbelief or so as long as it's in accordance
in the broadest,
you know, fundamental minimum necessary of the Canon
interpretation.
And it doesn't negate something, which is my Illumina Dean, Laura.
You know, he could have a wrong position. That's fine. Is he ever
based on his own? He had? Yeah. And one what it doesn't have to
immediately say well, that, you know, Harley for the leader here,
he's saying he hasn't. So you have personal Dunphy saying it doesn't
you have enough data, and he knows what he's talking about. So in a
way, it's a kind of extraordinary sort of, of him. It almost makes
him into this kind of Bath and New Hampshire who, where he's
pretending to believe that they do it actually believes in something
else is not putting forward what he's telling us as an alternative.
Abida he said, This is what I think about this masala. Here's my
evidence. Here's the Mashhad. Here's the experience today had?
Yeah. What is last question? Because we held you for a long
time, and it's now probably late in Jordan.
What is human creativity, in light of what it did with Jude, in the
view of Ivanov, is it also an extension of Divine Creation?
There's only Allah to Allah is, is the true creation of anything and
that's been NASA.
Who,
you know, is there a creator, other than Allah to Allah?
Hanuman?
Yeah. And,
and that's in the sense of the true Creator of all things, and a
lot of great greats are the liturgy below halacha come one at
a time alone with the trademark Tesla and their show around the,
whether it's the hassle of Buildmaster and all that, but it
is, you know, Allah created you and that which you do, then which
you create as you make because that's that which you are making,
your activities, your the objects that you
create and so on your creativity.
And
yes, I mean, I think it's, it's our theme is the barrier, the so
called Tech barrier at school, it's not my favorite word, but it
does seem to be new, so it's fine.
Absolutely, that would be the Aquarian view as well. And
ultimately the only true creator is Allah Tala.
And so
in a way it's a it's a very clear cut answer but of course that's
without you know there is a there is the the the appearance there's
the the intermediary the mediation of
our action, that's why I love fabric theater as he's formulation
that we are
matar risotto chill matar
just a sorta, really
upon i One question that I didn't ask you is about knifes. And I'm
gonna that's gonna have to be another episode done. Because that
is a big question and you wrote an entire book on it. And inshallah I
think that will we'll punt on that one. And we'll get back to that in
another episode. There was Insha Allah, it was a pleasure talking
to you and inshallah won't be the last time the light data. In the
meantime, I'm going to get acquainted with your book. And
then we'll do this again. Insha Allah, very kindly madeleina Thank
you very nice to be in your presence and it's been a great
pleasure. Likewise, likewise, a pleasure talking to you and insha
Allah Tada. I do have the intention to go to Jordan next
year for Mota. And if you're still there, we'll meet up inshallah.
Does that go out at some Hanukkah?
Stop for the corner to retake. Thank you just like love Hayden.
Thank you, Melinda.
All right, my brothers and sisters. There you have it the
long awaited and I know many of you are very excited about this.
And many of you are upset that it didn't ask about enough salami
didn't get a chance to because the discussion on a pinata be
was I think very fruitful. Very good. I think it answered a lot of
questions. A lot of people who love Adobe, and seem to not know
what to do when they're confronted with such questions, such as some
of these photo points such as the cooling of the Hellfire or other
such questions. Right so but here are you give you an answer? He's
simply not a mechanic. He could be the greatest Willie in your view
and have a mistake in the flu.
furore.
And I think that he also answered very well on the texts, where
these texts altered. Well, his closest disciples made
commentaries on them. And they didn't say no, no, this, this
contradicts him, they say didn't contradict. So they did hold to
that fact that his texts were transmitted properly. And we
should also remember that chick Amin, Hawaii also said, The texts
are transmitted properly this idea that they they weren't is sort of
a quick cop out. And it's not true, they weren't transmitted
properly.
We we discussed, what else did we discussed the concept of Ottoman
method and the
some of the misconceptions on that, and also the some of the
misconceptions on what why would you do this? So I think it was
very fruitful discussion on hypnotically, and clarified a lot
of things on the Bonacci that that people may misunderstand. So with
that,
ladies, gentlemen, I must run, I wish I could stay longer and talk.
But next next week, in the late next Tuesday, midnight, we will
discuss the verses of war, in the Quran, all the verses that the
Islamophobes discuss, and they are about six, five or six main
verses, we'll discuss them, I'm going to show you the verses
before them, the verses after them, and the verses that fit hand
in glove with them. And so the full picture of what the Quran is
talking about when it reveals verses that scare away the
Westerner and think ISIS is coming and show you that nothing really
can be further than the truth. And in fact, if the US was to ever
follow this book in their code of law war,
probably 90% of its fatalities would not exist 90% of the killing
that has happened in from Vietnam, all the way to Afghanistan, and
now I don't know what they're going to do now
with Iran
would not exist. So we're going to discuss that on Tuesday. That's
going forward. Give us a pitch in be part of our soup kitchen
effort. I'm gonna give this luck Cosina 367 dot O R G go there.
Two bucks a day, two bucks a month? Well, if a million people
do that, right, if 200 if 100,000 People do that, if 10,000 if
10,000 People do that. We're gonna have a soup kitchen running seven
days a week very soon. Because we were running one day a week we
want to run seven days a week. That's our goal by 2030. What do
we do with your donations? Do we go by beans? Do we go by plates?
No.
We invest in assets that will then produce the revenue. So you know
that your donation will continue on will not come and immediately
be used to purchase paper cups. It's a silly way of operating.
So that's our goal is to produce assets with this that will fund
the rest of the operation. Again, that's luck with Siena 367 dot o
RG and of course as you can see on the screen, like Cosina 367 on
Instagram 367 is also the address. That's why it's called many people
so why this random number it's not a random number at all. It's the
address. All right. So with that, I thank you all for coming. And
for listening. Does that come along? Clara Subhanak Allah Who
Moby Dick nutshell doing and Isla illa Anta nest offer corner to a
lake while us in Santa Fe host Illa Allah Dena Aman who I'm in
Australia had what a while sobered up what it was so Sabra pacella
Armonico Rahmatullah?
Lot
who
God