 The respected viewers, thank you for joining us once more live from the holy city of Karbala for your live show Back to the Basics. Of course, inshallah ta'ala, I don't feel there's any need for us to keep continuing to introduce the theme of the show, especially for tonight, we are slightly delayed according to the original schedule we wanted to run against, so to speak. But that is because we had several viewer questions which had to be addressed appropriately. Unfortunately, the question of the viewer who happened to belong to one of the other schools of thought took up roughly two shows and we had not intended for this to happen, so inshallah ta'ala tonight we're going to go straight into our topic for those of you who are confused about what we're discussing, they may refer to the previous shows which give a slight backdrop and context for this topic. The topic tonight is an introduction or building our worldview. How are we going to do that? How are we going to be looking at the concept of worldview? And this allows me to talk roughly about, dare I say the way in which aqaida or our belief system is taught within the traditional seminary. When I say the traditional seminary, I mean the hausat, the hausat al-almiya, in which students of knowledge will study and go out and become muballiqeen or scholars within their respective communities, resident alims, and so on and so forth. How is aqa'id or the topic and subject of discerning which beliefs are accurate and which beliefs are the correct beliefs taught traditionally within the hausat? Traditionally aqa'id is taught within two different ways. There are two different subjects which would strengthen the particular student of knowledge to engage appropriately with the subject of aqaida. Those two subjects are of course aqa'id, which of course is the plural aqaida, in addition to the topic of al-mal-kalam, and allow me to give a brief illustration or summary of what these topics entail. Aqa'id would literally be for us to choose a text, a standardized text by which we would study and memorize and to a certain degree investigate the words of the writer of that book. In some hausats they would choose, well in the vast majority of hausats, rather the vast majority of Islamic seminaries, they would choose to study the text known as aqa'id al-Imamiyah of Sheikh Muhammad Rava al-Muzaffar, r-Rahmatullah al-Ruha. A very important text which has become the standardized creed by which the students of the hausa will traditionally memorize what the standardized aqa'ida of Vashiyah is. This text would take a slight commentary from a teacher who might choose to go into a little degree of depth. When I say a little degree of depth, he might choose to summarize or go further into the expressions utilized by Sheikh Muhammad Rava al-Muzaffar. But in regards to how the text is studied and in regards to how any aqa'ida text is studied, it literally takes the format of our belief in regards to x with a summary and occasionally a very, very brief outline of evidence. Such a text is not meant to be an in-depth text of rational demonstration or even textual demonstration. It is merely a summarized creed, delineating and illustrating what the official position of the mainstream Shia hausa is in regards to theological doctrines. It's a very important subject. The other subject which allows the viewer or the student, Rava, to go into more depth in studying it is known as el-mal-kalam. El-mal-kalam can be translated, well, literally it's translated to mean the science of speech which of course has to do with the fact that there is disputation involved in this science. But if we were to translate it more appropriately, it would be known as dialectical or rational, demonstrative theology. That is to say theology in which we engage using our minds, our intellect with the evidences available in order to reach a correct position in regards to what our correct doctrines are. They're very, very different and what you would find is the texts of aqa'id tend to be very, very short and summarized and don't concern themselves with giving the rational evidence, whereas the texts of el-mal-kalam would be more concerned with giving a rational argument and less concerned with giving a textual argument. So in the hausa traditionally a book like al-bab al-hadi-ashar of al-lam-hali would be studied as the main text of el-mal-kalam. Now where do I want to head with this? I want to head here that or allow the viewer to understand that these two texts and these two sciences, they both have their valid role in doing what, in shaping what we would call a correct worldview. And the reason for that is we have been emphasizing in this new approach we're going to take to looking at the subject of aqa'idah and how to deal with pertaining doubts in regards to our aqa'idah. The best thing to do is to look at our beliefs as an entire package, an entire set of beliefs given to us and inherited from our spiritual fathers and leaders who are of course the ahl al-bayt alaykum as-salam, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon them, and also the inheritors of the ahl al-bayt. That is to say the rewards of their traditions, the narrators of the imam's traditions. May Allah preserve those who are alive from them and His mercy be upon those who have died and passed away from those righteous souls. We have inherited this great tradition from such men and so we are not merely investigating small isolated beliefs, we are of course engaging with an entire package. And in doing so, we gain the tools from the science of aqa'idah or aqa'idah in regards to learning what that package is, in regards to understanding, memorizing and learning what our pious predecessors, our scholars, the narrators from the ahl al-bayt, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon them, have stated is the correct position of the shia in regards to doctrine. So there's the first part of learning and memorization. But then using almal kalam, we go on to understand what might be the foundational basis of why we would believe these things. And more importantly, why these beliefs are rational and why other beliefs are irrational. So you have the one science on the one hand informing people. And you have the other science on the other hand informing people as to why we believe in the first. And so there are two necessary wings which allow us to have flight into the process of building an accurate and reliable functioning worldview which makes perfect sense of the data around us. Of course I have mentioned in previous episodes that our approach in this series in analyzing worldviews that is to say analyzing packages of beliefs or interconnected networks of beliefs and how they affect how someone views the world around them and understands their experiences, understands the nature of human beings, Allah Azawajal, and understands their own future is definitely one of the easier ways to engage in conversation with others who are not Shia if Nashariah or Imamiah or even Muslims or even believers in Allah Azawajal. It also allows us to save ourselves the difficult nitty-gritty graft work of having to look into every single small detail of every small sect in the world and what they believe. Because by asking these bigger questions we would know what these smaller answers are. And by finding flaws or apparent truth in the bigger questions we would know again how these smaller beliefs which are interconnected with these bigger questions seem perfectly valid and are perfectly fine to believe in. Of course we haven't had much time to look into this entire process of building a worldview or how one would engage in analyzing different worldviews. So tonight that is our aim inshallah ta'ala. The main thing that I want us to understand when engaging in this particular exercise or this particular engagement with other worldviews is that it is not alien nor foreign nor external to the very methodology given to us by the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon them. When we look at a great work of rawayats, a great work of the traditions and sayings, actions and approvals of the Imams, but in this particular case it would be more a traditional work of their sayings, known as Kitab al-Ahtajaj, the book of disputation by the scholar Atabrisi. We would find that the method of engagement within such a text is that the Imams, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon them, have all traditionally utilized a particular principle. That particular principle is one which finds its way into the works of Qa'ad al-Fiqhiyyah or jurisprudential principles. This particular principle is known as Qa'idat al-Ilzam, the principle of compelling someone. In jurisprudential circles, the way that this principle functions is we would say that if we were in a Muslim-dominated area, or if we were in, for example, the caliphate of Amir al-Mu'mineen, alayhi salatu wa salam, or Imam al-Hassan, alayhi salatu wa salam. The exception of which, other than the caliphate of Rasulullah, sallallahu alayhi salatu wa ala, and these two particular Imams, we do not believe in the legitimacy of any other caliph who has, of course, come out throughout the chronicles of history. So these are the cases that we would look at. But say if we were to hypothetically be in their time of rule, and we were to find that they would judge a non-Muslim in a particular way. What the principles from the Imam state is that we would not judge the non-Muslim according to the precepts, orders, and commands of the religion of Islam. Rather we would judge them in accordance to what has been revealed in the law that they claim they themselves accept. This finds its way into numerous different cases. It's not only applied to people of other religions, but also those who claim to be Muslim themselves and follow a different school of jurisprudence. We would also hold them to this particular principle too. So how does this particular rule work out in the way of discussing with others and disputing with them? The way that such a rule would work is that in studying any other particular religion or sect, in understanding their foundational beliefs, what we would call the big questions in any worldview, we'll understand what the consequences of those beliefs are as well. So for example, if I believe that on Sunday it is a holy day and I'm not allowed to leave the house, but rather the only thing I'm allowed to do is engage in scriptural study, but then I of course go out and do something on a Sunday that would show that there's an inconsistency in my behavior and my worldview. Or for example, if I believe that God is just, but then I believe that he hates a particular race of people, again, this would be an inconsistency in my worldview and it would show that my worldview is inconsistent. Well, inshallah ta'ala we'll go through these principles slightly more after we take a short break. I pray that you join me, salamu alaykum wa rahmatullah. Dear viewers, welcome back. I was discussing shortly before the break the fact that this principle is something that would be utilized in applying to theology. And what the Imam would do is he would hold, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is he would hold the followers of a particular doctrine to take that doctrine and roll with it or move forward with it consistently. So for example, if you claim that God acts in a certain way, but then you hold another religious belief which completely contradicts that original belief, what we would call in the English language cognitive dissonance, then the Imam would demonstrate that there is an inconsistency in that belief. Or for example, if you were to rationally object to an aspect of someone else's worldview, but then your old worldview was completely inconsistent on that issue and gave you no rational basis to even object to it, this again would be an inconsistency. And we've already stated in numerous previous episodes that inconsistency is the sign of a defeated, false and non-divine worldview. So it is using this principle that would be the foundational governing tool that we will use in this engagement with other worldviews. So what we would do is we would look at the bigger questions, what they believe about X, Y and Z, and utilizing these bigger questions, we would test the waters. We would see, is this something that can consistently be applied and we would try to discover, is there any apparent inconsistencies here? If there is inconsistencies, we would reject that worldview. And this is how this particular methodology is applied. Of course, we mentioned there are certain things which are what we would call the primary questions. What is the nature of mankind? If you believe that you are doomed to failure, and then expect from people a form of perfection, then of course your worldview is defeated from the start. If you believe that we are merely predetermined, predestined, and have absolutely zero free will in the choice of religion, fate, salvation, or the ability to do good or bad deeds, then again your worldview doesn't make the cut because there is no point in me discussing or engaging with anyone if they have absolutely zero free will or any role in the particular process we're talking about. Likewise, if you believe that there are no such thing as good and bad, but then you believe that we're going to be judged, you would again be falling under the banner of inconsistency. And this is where Qa'idah al-Izzam would constantly apply. We would test, do your foundational principles align and happen to be in the process of harmony with the other principles in your religion. So for example, do you claim that God is just, but then attributes in just actions to the nature of that God you believe in? These are of course areas where we would be analyzing, investigating, and thoroughly applying this Qa'idah, and on this Qa'idah al-Izzam to see is the worldview consistent? And it is through determining that a worldview is inconsistent that we would be able to rule it out and say it doesn't really make the cut. So what we're looking for is we won't be comparing or judging these worldviews in accordance to what Islam says, because at the end of the day that's the way that most religious debates work out right now. The Christian will say, I don't like this aspect of your jurisprudence. The Muslim will say, I don't like this aspect of your theology. The Buddhist or the Hindu would say, I don't like your exclusivist claims. I don't like the fact that you guys claim to possess the absolute truth. And the atheist would say, I don't like the fact that any of you are superstitious and believe in things that belong to a non-naturalist, non-materialist realm of existence. I don't like the fact that you guys make reference to something which is beyond the physical that I can see in front of me right now. In this occurring, when this occurs and when we witness this occurring in conversations, it's very clear that we need to have an ability to get beyond this. Why? If a discussion between myself and someone else all revolves around the assumption I have and the assumptions I have about truth and the assumptions I have about good and the assumptions I have about bad. But such a person has entirely different assumptions about truth, different assumptions about good and different assumptions about bad. What's going to happen? It's going to become a case of my desires versus another person's desires. And that is not objectivity. That is subjectivity at its best. And so when you have someone that comes and judges you on the basis of their own standard, a standard or worldview they have not yet established to you to be true, all they are saying to you is that in this conversation I'm going to act like a dictator. This is what we know as personal pontification. Namely, it's themselves issuing a personal fatwa and you have to be bound by their fatawa. This makes absolutely zero sense. This is not how a dialogue works. If anything, what such a person is doing with their assumptions is reducing the conversation to a monologue. But at the same time, are we going to appeal to an entirely neutral standard? Indeed, the real question arises, is there such a thing as neutrality in the first place? Is there a standard that we can even agree to arbitrarily and say that look, this is the standard by which we're going to judge? And unfortunately the answer to that is likewise, there is not. So what we need to be doing is taking everyone's package of beliefs, everyone's worldview and therefore asking the question, which of these worldviews has the ability to explain away the following phenomenon? Number one, us as human beings. Number two, our knowledge and rationality as human beings. Number three, our nature as human beings. Number four, our experiences as human beings. Does this worldview have the ability to explain away in a decent manner that which we see around us? Does it have the capability to explain away our emotions or dreams or feelings? Does it have the ability to explain away human civilization? Does it give a good explanation for the existence of animals, what goes on to animals in the world? And does it provide a decent explanation for that which is beyond this planet Earth? Indeed, the real question is, does such a worldview seem to align or completely disalign with the reality that you and I and every single person watching this program tonight lives in? This is the real way in order to judge the superiority or deficiency, the validity or invalidity of a particular set of beliefs. For those who come to you and with their dominant nature attempt to bully you into providing evidence which aligns with their already pre-existing set of presuppositions, what we find is that they are as unsophisticated as anyone else out there. Really, such an act demonstrates the lack of rational maturity they show, the lack of experience in life they have, and more importantly it demonstrates entirely that they have not fought out nor have they considered what it means to form and shape an accurate series of beliefs. Dear viewers, thank you for joining me once more. I pray that you will join me tomorrow night in which we continue to discuss this. Wassalamu alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.