 نعم اهم النشاءة والرجيم والصلاة والسلام على محمد الأمين وعلى أهل بيته الطيبين الطاهرين المعصومين المظلومين ولعنا طلع على عداهم أجمعين من الآن إلى قيام يوم الدين آمين أشهدين لكم أشهدين لكم في إمام هوسين تي بي نتوارك شكرا لكم for joining us live from the holy city of Karbala شكرا لكم منخبارك جيحيا سيمور وللما انه يجب على هذا الانتقال من خلال المطابقات في which we discuss the basics of our doctrinal theological jurisprudential and ethical foundations in addition to a framework by which we may be able to discuss with those of the opposing ideologies and sects. And when I say opposing here I don't necessarily mean that every such individual is an opponent ومثل باستخدامنا على أحسناء أساسية أو أحسناء أساسية التي تختلف من نفسنا ويجب أن يشعر على التقديل ويؤكد عن أساسينا. في أحسناء أساسية ، لقد نحن نتحدث عن أكثر أشهر المهمات التي تضع إلى أكثر أساسي ومعنى أن نجد أساسية ومعنى جنرية أساسية ومعنى أن نتكلم أنها أساسية by which we analyze how do we maintain these religious beliefs and what is the best way for us to view our religion of course in the previous few episodes I introduced the concept known as the world view that every belief, every ideology, every religion tends to be composed of what we would call a world view now I defined a world view for those of you who may have forgotten I'm only going to remind everyone for the next few episodes my tongue gets tired of repeating it but a world view is of course an interconnected set of beliefs pertaining to us, the universe, of our man, our experiences and essentially an interconnected set of beliefs connecting the bigger questions about life and how we are to interact with them of course in light of that I had mentioned that there are several key tools that we want to look at when looking at any world view number one, what is its view in regards to God number two, what is its view in regards to man is man intrinsically evil, is he intrinsically good maybe a bit of both what's its view in regards to knowledge and how we ascertain knowledge and what we can trust about knowledge is it like the scientific materialistic empiricist world view which believes that our only source of knowledge is indeed that which we can detect with the five senses that is to say our sight, our hearing, our ability to smell, our ability to touch and our ability to taste or are we able to trust our rationality these were all great and important questions and of course we gave several tools which are used in interrogating and interpreting looking at the superior world view when digesting these different topics some of them just to remind you all were number one, is the world view consistent is it consistent with itself or is it consistent with the other beliefs that it holds that is to say as the Quran states if anyone is in doubt as to what has been revealed by Allah as-Rujal then had it been from anyone other than Allah they would have found in it much inconsistency inconsistency within itself why? because inconsistency is a natural fingerprint for something which is deficient and not from God so if you find a set of beliefs is inconsistent with your experience of the world it's inconsistent with reality then know that your world view is false it's explanatory scope how much of this world and our experiences that we see in day-to-day life can our world view explain this is of course another great question that we need to ask how much of our experience does this world view account for that's another one how does this world view's ethics resonate with the fitra or the innate disposition of mankind is the world view livable is it fulfilling and doesn't provide hope these were some of the tools we spoke about yesterday now I mentioned yesterday that I want you to analyze the following question if we are to continue discussing world views if we are to have discussions with anyone anyone that shares a different ideology different set of beliefs from our own what would mark the first place or the first thing that we would need in order to have such a discussion with them number one I mentioned of course was the intellect in order for us to be able to have any discussion with anyone well first we'd need a life, we'd need existence we'd need bodies, we'd need minds we'd need tongues to be able to discuss but more importantly we'd need a mind which is able to digest what is being said and what is being read and so we spoke about how several world views in the world can be disqualified from the very inception because they call us to doubt in the very human ability to reason what I call playing Russian roulette with all six bullets loaded and essentially philosophically beheading yourself because essentially what you're doing is coming up with a rational framework then telling someone you can't trust for rationality of course this was something that I pointed out several world views do actually do yesterday I cited the example of a Christian apologist who happens to be someone I'm slightly friends with Richard who said that he trusts his mind to get him to the belief in God but then when it comes to the trinity and the incarnation of God in his world view he suspends his reason because who is he and what is his reason to question the wisdom of God now of course this was not something unique to Richard we gave the example of Richard and this Christian world view that he belongs to because we wanted to show that look these poor individuals in order to justify their belief set in order to perpetuate that unfortunate deficient inconsistent and quite frankly shortcoming lacking sets of beliefs we find that they are willing to shoot themselves in the foot and philosophically behead themselves betraying the very ability to even continue a rational discussion because they want to hold on to that deficient world view of theirs and so we've mentioned that the intellect is one of the most important things another thing which we mentioned just now in any discussion we would need pertaining to a world view which ties into the intellect and we are mentioning it just now is the concept of language the ability to communicate now why does this tie into our discussion of world view today what does this relate to in our discussion pertaining to the intellect you find that in any language there are certain ways of speaking there are certain terms used certain expressions used which might betray the apparent meaning that someone who is first learning the first time might take in so for example if you take the linguistic expression used commonly in the English language it's raining cats and dogs or in Scotland we have a slightly different expression but it's a bit too crude so I'm not going to use it but it would literally take a very foul process done by human beings on a daily basis and we would use that word but that's not the word we want to be using we're going to stick to it's raining cats and dogs if we take it's raining cats and dogs and we take that particular expression and we were to bring in a foreigner that's learned the language fairly well but he's not studied literal idioms what's he going to understand from that particular term and what would he be justified in understanding from those particular words he would be justified in understanding from this particular expression that perhaps someone had been thrown dogs and cats outside of a window perhaps in a divine catastrophe a miraculous event dogs and cats started hailing down from the skies perhaps there was a plane which was transporting a set of domesticated animals and from the skies rained down those domesticated animals be they cats and dogs and he would be justified because only a parent it's accurate but then if he were to see the reality and see that no it was just raining heavily he would be forced to reinterpret what that statement meant and understand that a literal idiom was being used likewise anyone that hears certain expressions saying things like it's hot as hell today they might literally take that literally and be like wow this man must have been to hell before in order for him to understand how hot hell really is but then we understand that no this is just a metaphor this is not something that is literally being meant we don't literally mean that it is as hot as the fires of jahannam or when we say it is cold as hell today we don't literally mean that there's a part of jahannam which is as cold as the prophetic temperature in the winters of the western world this is not what's meant this is symbolic language and so any rational mind understands that languages include symbols and symbolism and that's something I wanted to come back to in our discussion of the intellect and those who refuse to allow the intellect to judge and would rather reduce the role of the intellect in order to justify a very theological set of beliefs in interpreting scriptures interpreting religious texts given that they are written within a framework of human language languages which already existed now some atheists create problems about this why didn't God create a new language the reason God didn't create a new language was because he wanted everyone to understand his scripture and the scriptures were sent to people that had fallen away from the tracks of belief and so the scriptures were revealed in bare languages in the languages that those people happened to follow in the case of the jaheli Arabs they had reached a peak of the Arabic language and were more than familiar with what the Arabic language meant and so we understand that they had even had a comprehensive understanding of literal metaphors metaphors that we can find in their poetry today when we look at the jaheli poetry which still survives until this day and these metaphors need to be understood in light of what we give a particular framework which states the following when scripture contradicts rationality as we have it I've already stated that Imam Sadaq may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon Imam Sadaq Sadaq Ali Muhammad this individual the sixth Imam who states that the intellect is that by which the merciful one of the names of Allah is worshiped so when he gives this high status to the intellect what we understand from this is if we have any text which on the apparent surface reading contradicts the intellect then the intellect must be given primacy because you have only three options either you've misunderstood the text and the text truly is from God or you've understood the text and the text is not from God or it's impossible for anyone to understand that text or you haven't understood the text but if you have understood that text and the apparent meaning is something which is rationally absurd something which could never be affirmed by any rational human being then we would be forced to say that there must be an alternative explanation within the linguistic capabilities and possibilities of that particular word within what we would call the semantical domain of that word utilized and if the primary meaning contradicts our rationality and therefore cannot be from God we must search within that semantical domain and find is there any other possible meanings which could possibly be utilized here which do not contradict the intellect this is of course sound reasoning and how one would apply their reason in order to understand how we should interpret divine scripture and of course interpreting divine scripture is important because it is the very crux of our religion and for where we get our doctrines dear viewers, inshallah to Allah we're going to go for a very short break but we'll be right back after that thank you for allowing me to take that short break as I was saying any discussion pertaining to religious texts to the way we interpret scripture is extremely important and it is through this methodology that we would see which methodology truly respects the intellect I quoted yesterday a very prominent Salafi Persuasion which tends to adopt a standard higher than the average internet polemical forum that is to say it is moderated by people who are considered at the very least students of knowledge and therefore conduct themselves with the etiquette and morality of a student of knowledge it's not filled with profanity nor insults nor basic vial and bile that you find on an average internet forum let me quote what is stated by one of the scholars who is an admin on this website the website is of course called مطلقة أهل الحدي it states the following حيفم حمدان one of the scholars on that website he states the position of the Salaf and by this he means the Salaf al-Sala which according to him is the first three generations of Muslims his ultimate standard for looking back to the terms of knowledge he states about them the position of the Salaf is simply that our great lord الله سبحانه وتعالى has a form that is suitable to his majesty of course I've already asked what does the word forum mean in the English language in the English language forum is to have a very distinct image is to have a distinct set or basic limitations which make you distinct from something else so what does it mean to say that الله سبحانه وتعالى has basic distinctions which befit his majesty I quoted someone that is normally of the utmost intelligence and someone I must truly commend for I know him personally and he's a man of great even though we disagree heavily on Islamic concepts his name is Bassam Zawadi who's known out for debating with Christians and others and even debating with Muslims he states the following and I quote again as I quoted last night Christian philosophers and I'm assuming Ash-Ari philosophers by Ash-Ari's he means the majority of those who call themselves Sunni will argue that Allah is like an unembodied mind thus arguing that Allah does not have a form however just because Allah does not have a body doesn't necessitate that he doesn't have a form even Casper the friendly ghost in the cartoons has a form yet no body so if our limited minds could imagine this for the creation then what about the creator Allah سبحانه وتعالى are all the viewers following this if our limited minds can attribute to Casper the friendly ghost a body and he's a creation he's a creation of the human mind then Bassam Zawadi argues why couldn't we imagine this for the creator we seek the refuge of Allah from such thoughts comparing Allah as a وجل to a cartoon and to claim that it's an act of greatness of تعظيم to be able to assume that Allah can have a form not a body because we can do so with this fictional child's humorous cartoon my friends if you want to hold cartoons as a basic source of your theology then please don't expect the rest of the Muslims to do it this is disgusting and it's quite frankly something which is a bit of a joke that we are bringing such discussions into the remit of classical rational theology when we talk about the theological schools of Islam there was never a day where we could imagine that this would be done with Allah as a وجل he continues to state if Allah does not have a form then what are we going to look at on the day of judgment the prophet said we will see Allah as clearly as the moon on a cloudless night how on earth does that happen if Allah has nothing of himself for us to see so we see that the ultimate binding factor here is that they have a narration the narration states one thing and therefore the Samzawadi and the Salafis would rather restrict the remit of the intellect and go with the apparent meaning of a narration which of course contradicts the intellect because they want to follow the apparent meaning of the narration this is exactly something we see as well with the so-called Salafi theologian who makes a big effort to elaborate and clarify that he is a theologian to the world his name is Dr. Yasser Qavi a graduate from I believe Yale University and a theologian for those of you who are not aware Yasser Qavi states in one of his papers which is available online entitled the theological implications of the story of Ibrahim and the stars of course he's referring to Nabi Ibrahim and the great narrative in the Quran the great story in which Nabi Ibrahim in order to establish a hudja upon his people falsify is the fake belief that the stars the moon and the sun are deities worthy of worship in this paper Yasser Qavi compares to the entamea to the rational theologians and what he states is that this proof that the rational theologians have given namely the proof of the motion of bodies celestial bodies and the movement being something which cannot be an attribute of Allah that this rational argument is not something we can use based upon the Quranic story and we should not entertain such rational arguments in order to prove Allah's existence what is the crux of Yasser Qavi the theologian what is the crux of this argument and why he believes it is a deficient argument for Muslims to use his argument is that the Quran does not use this argument even though the whole paper questions whether or not this Quranic anecdote is a use of the argument of what he calls the first three generations to utilize such a methodology I'm sorry just because the Salafasala did not utilize this argument does not make it a non-sound rational argument that can be used for calling people to the existence of Allah the imams of the Ahl al-Bayt have respected the human intellect enough to say that we are the ones who give you the principles and it is upon you to branch out and expand those principles the imams give us the usul it is upon us to branch out those principles that the imams have given us rational principles but with someone like Dr. Yasser Qavi he would rather just stick to well the classical first three generations did not use this argument not going to use this argument but what are the complications of such a statement as I mentioned earlier we quoted my friend Basam Zawadi and their approach when it comes to what we call سفات الخبارية those attributes of described terms describing certain attributes of Allah as a وجل so in the Quran you might find a statement saying that the hand of Allah is above the hands of the believers when they give allegiance when you find such a statement the ultimate ipso facto default position of the salafi movement is to say we do not look at what this word means we accept it without discussing how we affirm the literal meaning so they affirm that Allah has a hand again not taking into account the usage of metaphor let me give a very very quick analogy of how this can sometimes turn slightly foul my brothers and sisters not respecting the intellect one of our scholars ألاوي بن عبد القادر السقاف who of course is Yemeni in origin describes in his book called the attributes of Allah or سفات الله he states in volume 1 page 232 الحرولة الحرولة سفة فعلية خبرية لله عز وجل بالحديث of صحيح that the attribute he states that the attribute of running is one of the attributes of Allah عز وجل and that this attribute is necessarily proven to be an attribute of Allah due to a صحيح حديث and of course that صحيح حديث is found in صحي البخاري it's narrated from Abu Huraira and what they say here is that Allah عز وجل runs but his running is not like the running of human beings سبحان الله there are many such examples of these beliefs these beliefs which really perplex and confuse the human mind about how this is being attributed as being the purest form of توهيد إلهي إليك when we talk to the Christians when those who have a very simple understanding of Christian theology debate for Christians what do they say? when he did things like eat and sleep and drink all human attributes can you imagine that the Christian would turn around and say but you see he ate and sleep and drank in a way which was befitting of his majesty we would not accept this answer from them in the same way my brothers and sisters when it comes to this debate when it comes to looking at a worldview when it comes to looking at our intellects we need to respect our intellect we'll continue this topic in the next few episodes إن شاء الله تعالى thank you once more for joining me dear viewers السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته