 Awwubillahumma na shaytan al rajim, Bismillah al rahman al raheem, wa salat wa salam ala Muhammad al-Ameen, wa ala ahlebeite al-tayyabin, al-taahireen, al-maasumeen, al-mavlumeen. Dear respected viewers, thank you for joining us once more on this, your live show broadcast directly live from Karbala, the holy city of Karbala, that is to say, I'm your host, Yahya Seymour, and you're joining me for your show, back to the basics in which we discuss the basic contentions between us and others, divergences of opinion, differences of opinion, and how to attempt to resolve those differences of opinion, and how indeed we should engage with those in light of what we could call major doubts. Today, it was brought to my attention early in the morning by the management of the channel that there has been an email sent in, and it was an email which I felt was worthy of addressing, insha'Allah, that is to say that I felt it was worthy discussing the points, because at the end of the day, we are here to ensure that the viewers do not feel offended, and indeed that there is no misunderstandings between us and the dear respected viewers. So, insha'Allah, I'm going to jump straight into the email. I may not engage with the email initially in the order of the email, because I have prepared everything I wanted to say in response to it, but it's certainly going to take some time. Nonetheless, insha'Allah, I wish to begin with this email, so I'm going to read that straight out. It states the following. Salamu alaykum upon those who follow righteous guidance. Wa alaykum salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. I have seen several of the episodes in which you were discussing the intellect. Alhamdulillah, we're very happy that you've seen these episodes. Now, the next part is a direct attack upon myself, and nonetheless, for the sake of honesty, I'll read that out. You are lying about Salafi scholars and scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah. We have the most intellectual methodology, which is to not speak about something which was not known by the Salaf unlike your religion of innovation. Okay, well, insha'Allah, we'll come to this point. Insha'Allah, to Allah, if I have lied, then may God restore me to appropriate behavior and may He forgive me, insha'Allah. I do not believe I have lied, rather, if anything, there might have been some misunderstandings between myself and the texts I've been reading, but I do not believe that is the case. I've been trying to stay as loyal to the evidence as possible. Nonetheless, I'll continue. He says, our scholars do not say that Allah has a body as you claimed. We are not modussemites, unlike your early leaders, Hisham bin al-Hakeem and Hashem bin Salim. Hmm, okay, interesting. Brother, I've never once claimed that your scholars say that Allah Azza wa Jal directly has a body. In fact, I've tried to be very loyal to reading what has been said. In fact, I did mention the specific quotes of that brother, who's, in fact, an acquaintance of mine, and a Salafi, and an intellectual one at that, who says that Allah does not have a body, yet he does have a form. And he likened Allah Azza wa Jal to Casper of a friendly ghost. So I hope that was an accurate portrayal of your theology, insha'Allah, because it came straight from the words of a very intellectual Salafi. In regards to him not being from the modussemites or the Salafi and not being from the modussemites like our early scholars or early leaders, rather to quote him accurately, and he says, Hisham bin al-Hakeem and Hashem bin Salim. I believe he's referring to the Hishamain, who are Hisham bin al-Hakeem and Hisham bin Salim, bin Salim, or Hisham bin Salim al-Jawalqi, rather, Hisham bin Salim al-Jawalqi. Insha'Allah, to Allah, we'll have to leave that particular topic for another night. But let me point out very quickly before we get to that particular topic, which of course will not be tonight. There are leaders or the Imams of al-Muhammad, alayhum salam, our leaders are the 12 Imams of al-Muhammad, the 12 Imams who were appointed directly by the Holy Prophet, Salallahu alayhi wa ala. Through a series of direct succession, our leaders are not Hisham bin al-Hakeem and Hisham bin Salim al-Jawalqi. So that needs to be made very, very clear from the inception. Which is to say that I reject that Hisham bin Salim and Hisham bin al-Hakeem believed these particular doctrines which you attribute to them. I'm very familiar with the debate. I'm very familiar with the claims made against the Hishamain or the two Hishams. However, I reject this claim. But let's suggest for the sake of argument, they did believe as you claim. And they were, in fact, as you claim, modusemites or anthropomorphists. Then I would still say that we reject these beliefs of theirs because indeed they're not our leaders. Our leaders are the 12 Imams from al-Muhammad, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon those 12 Imams. He goes on to state, are your books in agreement with the intellect? Is it intellectual that a man could live for 1,200 years? Brother, in yesterday's show I tried to delineate. Perhaps you sent in this email prior to yesterday's show but I tried to delineate between what's actually the intellect and what is to observe a common trend. As long as we can observe and observe an exception to the rule, then an issue no longer becomes non-intellectual. And what I mean by that is the intellect does not rule on whether or not someone can live 1,200 years. In the same way that the intellect does not force us to reject the Quran, which states that Noah lived for 900 years. In the same way that we do not judge your scholars, like a Nawawee, the famous commentator on Sahih Muslim, who states in his shah that many of the scholars of his time had met with Khivr, and of course Khivr, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is much older than 1,200 years and was much older than 1,200 years at the time and Nawawee was writing. So these are not non-intellectual beliefs. These are just beliefs which happen to be contrary to popular norms. But given that we all believe in revelation and that revelation just tells us about the lifespan of someone, we do believe that it is in the firm capability of Allah, Azim-e-Jal, to preserve someone's life for a long duration of time, much longer than the average human lifespan, just to make that clear. So if you revise what I've said about the intellect, about the rational, irrational and non-rational, we would see it the very best that Allah in his infinite wisdom, keeping a man alive for 1,200 years, falls at best in non-rational. It does not fall under irrational. And therefore this is a mistaken understanding of what I have been proposing, promoting and propagating over the past few nights. He goes on to finally say, if you are very concerned with truth and true view of world, perhaps he means world view here, Allahu Alam, why will you not debate Sunni? Okay, okay. Well, this is insha'Allah to Allah, brother, we will come to every single question you ask. And firstly, allow me to say that I thank you for sending this question in. Insha'Allah to Allah, I pray that I have not offended you over the past few episodes. If I have, it's not been my intention to do so, insha'Allah to Allah, rather I'm just trying to engage in a productive dialogue. So let's go through these points one by one. Insha'Allah to Allah, let's start with the first. You are lying about Salafi scholars and scholars of the Ahl Sunnah. We have the most intellectual methodology, which is to not speak about something which was not known by the Salaf unlike your religion of innovation. Interesting, okay. Okay, insha'Allah to Allah. I think we've all understood the brother's point. His claim is that the Salafi methodology is of course the most intellectual methodology. Insha'Allah to Allah, I believe my point still stands and it still stands that the points I've raised cause us to doubt in the ability of the intellect, but our ability to trust the intellect, brother, but nonetheless, let's engage with this claim. They do not speak about things which were not known by the Salaf unlike our religion of innovation. Now of course he means Shia Islam or the original form of Islam versus the Salafi doctrine. In regards to not speaking about something not known by your Salaf, brother, if you go and view the vast majority of debates that are online, if you read the vast majority of books written to counteract the atheists, even ones which are translated into the Arabic language, you would observe that most of these books utilize a standard which is quite normally dependent upon decent rational argumentation, utilized, prioritized and taken from people who are not necessarily Muslim in origin. Now do I have a particular problem with this? Definitely not. Because I believe the intellect is a hudja. I believe that the intellect stands as an independent proof and that it matters not whether or not the intellect which came up with the argument is a Jew, a Christian, an atheist, a Buddhist, a Hindu. As long as the argument is sound, valid and rational, then I will take that rational argument. In the same way, many of your Salafi brothers and Salafi duads have been doing the same thing in their debates. So if you're going to tell me that your religion is not one which allows people to speak without reference to the Salaf, I know that this is a classically made claim, but it just seems to be inaccurate. More importantly, let's assume that it was a religion which only took from the Salaf. That's probably why your religion is failing to counteract the spread of atheism, which is so prevalent in parts of the Arab world, which happened to traditionally follow the doctrines of Salafi Islam. You may counteract that by saying that look, in certain majority Shia countries, atheism is likewise spreading like wildfire, and I would agree with you entirely. But the difference is when you speak to such atheists, it's normally a lifestyle change as opposed to an intellectual conviction and conversion. Whereas when you look at many of the statistics pertaining to those in the largely Salafi following world, it's actually a change of beliefs. They go from believing one thing, and not because of a lifestyle change, many of them maintain traditional values as well, but rather they change their minds about doctrines, and this makes perfect sense to me because when you realize that I've been believing in a very limited God whose existence is extremely dubious, I'm not too surprised that they would be attracted to atheism. Now, I don't say these things to offend you, brother. Rather, I merely want to engage with what you've said. Now please forgive me if anything I'm saying does cause offence, sometimes it's necessary in order for there to be light that we bring a little bit of heat to the discussion. So please do forgive me. It's not my intention to offend you. Now you say it again. Our scholars do not say that Allah has a body as you claimed. We are not more just someites unlike your early leaders, Hisham bin al-Hakim and Hashim bin Salim. So I've already pointed out who you're referring to. I'm sure it was just a spelling mistake, or it might be that you're not too familiar with early Shia Islam. Again, it might not be your specialty, brother, and you might just be referring to what your scholars have taught you about Shia Islam. So again, we're not going to fault you for that. And I'd prefer that the viewers again, understand that we all make spelling mistakes. We all make mistakes when it comes to the names. I've probably made a thousand spelling mistakes and pronunciation mistakes since the show has started. So this is not something we hold against the brother inshallah ta'ala, rather we deal with the point. You've stated that your early scholars are not more just someites. I would agree with you to a certain degree, but I would reject what you say to another degree. So do they necessarily affirm what we would call a jisim for Allah Azawajal? Not necessarily. Verbals who refer to Allah Azawajal as having a shape, but without necessarily having a jisim. One of them is the brother I quoted earlier, one of my coincidences, Bassam Zawadi, who likened Allah Azawajal as, or likened our understanding of how Allah Azawajal has a form to the way we can understand Casper of a friendly ghost. And he stated that we can understand this for creation, then we can understand this for the creator. Now, I've already commented to death on that particular comment and that particular argument, but what I'm trying to state here is that I've never once emphasized that Salafi scholars believe Allah Azawajal directly has a body that's not a claim I've made. Nonetheless, it's necessary for us to deal with this particular claim as well. Inshallah. Inshallah to Allah dear viewers, I'm going to cite a narration which is found in the Sunan of Abu Dawud, which illustrates that Allah Azawajal, if this narration is true, does have a body. But I've just been informed by the brothers that we've got to take a short break. So I pray that you join me after the break and we'll discuss that tradition. Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh. Dear viewers, brothers and sisters, thank you for joining us on that short break. We're going to go through this text very, very quickly, Inshallah to Allah because there are a lot of time constraints and I don't want to dedicate more than one episode to this particular email, Inshallah to Allah. So please forgive me for speaking at such a fast pace. I only do so in order that we can deal with this topic within the constraints of this episode, Inshallah to Allah. And afterwards we will revisit what we were discussing about the intellect and the concept of worldviews. The narration, as is found in Sunan Abidawut, is as follows. The Holy Prophet, Sallallahu alayhi wa adha, stated, do you know the greatness of Allah, truly his throne, his arsh is on his, is on his heavens. And he formed with his fingers something like a dome over him. And it groans on account of him like a saddle groans because of its rider. A saddle is of course that thing which we put on a horse before we mount a human being onto it. This is the Istiwa mentioned in the Quran. Because of it, the arsh makes a creaking sound. Now this particular hadith is known as Hadif al-Ata'it, which means that sound which comes from creaking and that sound is made because of the weight of Allah Azawajal upon the arsh. Now just to cite all of the Salafi scholars who actually believe in this particular narration and they're not just Salafis, there are mainstream Islamic scholars in here too, Inshallah to Allah. I'm just going to cite them quickly. Ibn Taymiyyah, one of them. Ofman bin Saeed al-Darimi. Ibn Hazm, Ibn Khuzayma. Salman bin Sahman al-Najdi. Al-Albani, half of al-Zahibi. Half of Abu Dawud. Al-Imam half of Mahmoud al-Dashdi. Excuse me, dear viewers, I'm just browsing through these pieces of paper very quickly. Al-Haaf of al-Maqdisi al-Haqim al-Nasaburi. Al-Dukhtur al-Ali bin Muhammad bin Nasir al-Faqihi. Al-Sheikh al-Mosallat al-Ataibi al-Ataibi. Al-Sheikh al-Adal al-Hamdan. And inshallah to Allah that suffices from the names of all scholars who believe in this particular doctrine. And also Sheikh al-Jibreen, one of the famous Salafi scholars of this era. So when we look at this particular narration, what do we see? Let's look at what the narration would demonstrate if the narration were taken at face value and taken to be true. It would demonstrate that Allah, as a jel, must have a physical presence. That is to say, he must be physical of some sort in order for this pressure to be applied that would cause the arsh or the throne to make this creaking sound which is made when a rider mounts upon the saddle of his riding beast. So we see that this particular narration implies that Allah, as a jel, is physical. It also implies that Allah, as a jel, is mounted upon an arsh, again that the arsh is physical too. So these are some of the things that we would derive from this particular narration. So I believe that when it comes to this, again, we do have justifiable reason to state that your scholars at the very least indirectly and for pomorphic. That is to say, they do indirectly, even if they do not affirm it with their own mouths, believe that Allah, as a jel, has a body. So those are those concerns. I've already dealt with the claim that are your books in agreement with the intellect? Is it intellectual that a man could live for 1,200 years? So allow me to quickly now deal with the last question which I believe is probably the most important one to you, brother. If you're very concerned with truth and true view of world, which I believe he's talking about the true world view, the concept I've been mentioning throughout this show, why will you not debate Sunni? It's a very good question, brother, and I do thank you for it, insha'Allah, to Allah. In the past, my dear brother, I used to be very concerned with debates and I would have been more than willing to engage in a debate. But what I found is that debates, as the scholars say, as the scholars of Akhlaq say to Al-Hasouma, or the act of aggressively debating is something which makes the hearts hardened and they remove the hearts from the remembrance of Allah, Azawajal. And so the Imams have generally given us principles which is not to encourage debates unless the person who is debating is particularly gifted and follows directly the statements of the Imams. Do I trust myself to be particularly gifted or follow necessarily directly the statements of the Imams? Insha'Allah, I try my best to follow them. But do I believe in the fruit of debates? No. And that is why generally you will see that the people who do such debates are not scholars and in fact it is the scholars who are against such debates because these debates are done in a particular format. They're utilizing particular structures. They take into account only one side of evidence. So normally it's the opposing side or the Sunnis who will define what is evidence for us. And I don't believe that we should allow anybody to hold us ransom to their canon of evidence. And more importantly, they discuss issues which are not primarily fruitful. The Qur'an in telling the Christians or in telling the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa alayhi wa alayhi about his dispute with the Christians, it could have easily mentioned that you are a prophet. It could have easily mentioned that dispute with them over the crucifixion because that's their whole belief in salvation which is a flawed belief. Instead it said what? It said come to a common words that we should worship none other than Allah. Do Christians claim to believe in one God? Yes, absolutely. If you read their creeds it's very clear they make that claim. What is the problem? The problem is their belief in that claim is one which is compounded. And so we would argue that by necessity even though they affirm one God, this belief boils down to a belief in either three independent standalone, all-powerful gods or it boils down to a belief in three deficient demigods and not a single god. So when we see these things and when we see that this is the approach that Qur'an advises us to take, we would likewise say that the first place we would need to discuss and I say discuss, I don't say debate is the issue of Tauhid. Before there can be any discussion on anything else we need to discuss number one, can we trust the rationality? If we can't trust the concept of rationality, do we agree that this concept of Tauhid is restricting Allah to a deficient demigod? And if it is, then we need to resolve this issue before we can move on to any other issue. So I am willing to discuss this, inshallah ta'ala. I'm not willing to debate it. Debates are a very, dare I say, problematic concepts. And when I say discuss it, inshallah ta'ala, I'm more than willing for anyone to join me here in the holy city of Karbala. The very safety is guaranteed by us, we'll fly them out, we'll ring them to the studio and we'll have a very polite and friendly discussion moderated by an independent, unbiased figure. There's plenty of non-Muslims who are available that we can bring over and I'm sure they'll be willing to adjudicate this discussion in a very befitting manner, inshallah ta'ala. But more importantly than that, there's the real question of whether or not anyone that would come forward to debate would actually represent anyone himself. Because you see the traditional Salafi position is that they do not discuss with Varraus or the heads of the Ahl al-Bid'ah. And what we mean by that is the heads of the people of innovation. Now for them, someone like ourselves or someone like anyone that sits on a Shia channel would be considered as falling under this definition. So if this is the case, and it's stated that the asal or the origin point is not to discuss or sit with the people of innovation, then we would find that again, such a person would just be dismissed by their own scholars and they would not be considered as being representative of traditional Salafi scholarship. There is one clause to that, of course, which is that someone that has graduated and is recognized by Salafis as representing the Salafi scholars, has a form of tasqia from their scholars, then of course such a person would be worthy of discussing with, as I said, moderated academic intellectual discussion. But a debate, no. And that's why we find that when you look at even what their own scholars say, just to quote Muhammad bin Idrisa Shafi'i, who's considered to be one of the Salaf for them, he states, I never debated anyone whom I knew to be established upon innovation. And of course, Al-Bayhaqi comments on this, that is because the one who established upon innovation very rarely returns from his bid'ah. Indeed, debating is with the one who is hoped will return to the truth when the truth is made clear to him. Insha'Allah, I pray that I'm one of those who would return to the truth if the truth was made clear to me. But what I'm trying to say here is that such claims are very, very problematic in light of those who go around asking others for debates. Because the question would be, who do you actually represent? If your scholars are saying these things, and these are apparently the position of your scholars, then we would question, we would be forced to question at the very least, are you considered as being representative of anyone? Have you studied the foundational principles of your own school of thought? Because if you have, then you probably wouldn't be someone coming out for debates. And this is our experience of Salafi scholars. There is, of course, a couple of exceptions to the rule, but this is generally their traditional position. Now, it's quoted in Sira'il-Lam al-Nabala of Wahabi, that one of the scholars, Al-Qasim bin-Othman al-Jawa'i states, if a rai'it or a rajan, yuhasim, fahuwa yuhibbar-ra'asa. If you see a man debate, then know that he loves leadership. He's someone that loves leadership. He's someone that loves to get himself out there and promote himself. Insha'Allah Ta'ala, we hope that no one falls under that category. And that we discuss for sincerity and not for purposes of our own egos. That's what I would like to say to this brother who sent in the email. I do thank you for your email. Again, please forgive me if I've offended you in any way. Dear viewers, thank you for joining us and thank you for bearing with us patiently. Wassalamu alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.