 Peace be upon you all, and peace be upon you, the Prophets, the Messengers, our Prophet and our Master, Abdul Qasim, Muhammad, and his family, the good, the good, the humble, the built. May Allah bless all of them from now on to the Day of Resurrection. Dear respected viewers, thank you for joining us once more from this, your show, from the holy city of Karbala, broadcasting to you live. You're joining me, your host, Yahya Seymour, and we're back on your show, Back to the Basics, in which, insha'Allah, we will be discussing some of the most basic details of our ideological, theological, jurisprudential, and ethical differences with those who do not follow the School of the Ahl al-Bait and the particular understanding of Islam that we have. Of course, in the past few episodes, for those of you who have been tuning into what we've been discussing, we have discussed several key and important details. One of the key issues which I wish to establish in the first few episodes is that our approach to the entire discussion of how to engage with others is one which differs highly from the conventional approaches you utilized and used in our very reactionary behavior towards how others try to dissect our particular beliefs. And tonight, insha'Allah, I wish to round off what we were saying in the previous few nights, but also to introduce to you not merely the approach we were taking, but rather what is the issue of worldviews. I gave a brief, very summarized and simplified method of applying the worldview application to the issue of polemical discussions or discussions with those of other schools. But tonight, insha'Allah, I wish to actually elaborate more on what a worldview is and exactly how to build a framework for this discussion, insha'Allah. Dear viewers, you will remember that one of the main issues we looked at, which of course is one of the main issues in analyzing any worldview, is the issue of human knowledge, where we attain our knowledge from. And indeed, in order to attain knowledge, we need certain tools, one of those major tools being the human intellect, another one being language, and we looked at how both of those, if not correctly or aptly addressed, could lead to major confusion. To such a degree that we would have to fall into what I call the skeptical cycle of not knowing whether or not we can trust anything. And I believe we demonstrated pretty aptly that there are certain, dare I say, I would call them Muslim theological schools for I am very cautious to attribute these schools to Islam, which claim to be dominant and true and yet give no value to the human intellect through their inconsistency. And inconsistency, as we mentioned, is a sign of a defeated worldview because as Allah Azza wa Jalla states in the Holy Qur'an, had this book been from anyone other than Allah, then we would have found in it much inconsistency, demonstrating that something divine has to be consistent. I wanted to round off by just summarizing where we left off last night and it was a point I was unable to make. That point was in particular about this particular doctrine that these Salafis or the Atharis call the Doctrine of Bilakef or Bilakefia. Namely, that is to say that we affirm the literal without discussing the howness or whatness of that literal. That is to say without looking into what these words actually mean. Now we've seen in several previous episodes how this, when applied to Allah Azza wa Jalla, has led to quite disastrous statements like saying that Allah Azza wa Jalla gets bored, tired, weary, that Allah Azza wa Jalla jogs, that Allah Azza wa Jalla has a shadow and just leaving us on a cliffhanger by saying that we don't know what this means but we affirm it because venerations utilize such rhetoric and what we're going to do is affirm it because of venerations without going into how and all we affirm is that this is befitting of the majesty of Allah Azza wa Jalla. We've seen that this approach can be quite disastrous but allow us to just test the consistency of such individuals. I wanted to quote this narration yesterday and we'll round off here and after that we'll look at worldviews insha'Allah to Allah. In a hadith Qudsi or what we call a divinely spoken hadith, that is to say words of Allah Azza wa Jalla which have been narrated by the Holy Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa ala which are not parts of the Holy Quran. Allah Azza wa Jalla narrates according to this attribution. O son of Adam, I fell ill and you visited me not. This is that the messenger of Allah has said that Allah will say on the day of judgment O son of Adam, I fell ill and you visited me not. He will say, that is to say that the person who this is said to will say O Lord, and how should I visit you when you are the Lord of the worlds? He will say did you not know that my servants so and so had fallen ill and you had visited him not. Are we to assume from this narration and affirm the literal that whenever we visit this particular servant because we have to be quite literal and take it very literally that we're also visiting Allah Azza wa Jalla quite physically and that we affirm the literal that Allah is physically there with that individual therefore there must be either a form of incarnation or pantheism. I think not and I think that even their own scholars would consistently reject that interpretation of the narration just in the same way that they consistently reject the verses of the Quran which says that Allah Azza wa Jalla is with his servants and they specify and say that this is in his knowledge. So we see there is this doctrine of attributing howness to the statements of Allah Azza wa Jalla when they wish and as I said inconsistency and methodology is a dead giveaway that a methodology is flawed. So coming back to the issue of world views, insha'Allah. Let's begin by looking at what is a world view and we've defined it in several episodes previously. It is a network of interconnected beliefs and assumptions about man that is to say us, life and the universe. Their origin, purpose and future which shapes how we view and understand our experiences and surroundings in addition to our behavior. I've stated previously everyone definitely has a world view because they couldn't function in life without one. They must have one but most people do not realize they have a world view sadly. World views are primarily concerned with the bigger questions which when dealt with actually shape how we act and think in regards to all of the smaller questions. So for example, if I have a major belief on a bigger question such as the nature of humanity I'm going to act very differently in engaging with a poor human being I see on the streets from someone that thinks differently than I do. If I think positively about humanity I'm going to have more confidence in the average person that asks me for assistance. If I think very negatively of humanity it's likely that I'm going to be switched off in such a decision. So a world view is the very lens or prism that which we use to view and understand the data and experiences we have and we witness around us. We rationalize this world with a world view and we understand our experiences using this world view. And as I've said, a world view is something very helpful to understand religion as because every religion and sect falls under a world view and again most cultures teach people to think in a certain world view too. But world views and comparing them allows us to do several things. One of those things is to make useful comparisons between reasonable beliefs and unreasonable ones without realizing that in the past our methodology was slightly more flawed so we find that this methodology is far more apt and accurate inshallah ta'ala. And we also make meaningful conversation with others by asking for big questions as opposed to having to ask specific details. So as opposed to me asking someone are you a Muslim or are you a Christian and making assumptions based on these words when in reality these words could be an expression referring to several world views as opposed to one I could ask a major question which would untap for me and unlock which particular world view a person aligns themselves with without having to read libraries of books and reading about individual beliefs. It allows me to have constructive conversations and make headway in tabligh as well as defense of our own religion against those who doubt. And it allows us to reject methodologies or beliefs because of the bigger picture. So as I've stated, if a particular methodology rejects the role of the human intellect or in applying its methodology rejects it without being direct about it then we know to reject this methodology and there's no need to further question that methodology because it's already not passed the test on the first exam. It allows us to make reasoned evaluations of the different world views and more importantly it allows us to protect ourselves and our children and our families from the absurd nature of certain beliefs out there which garnish and present themselves as feasible rational alternatives to our particular beliefs at the moment. In discussing any world view there are several major questions we need to look at. They are the question of theology or ilahiyat, the question of knowledge or elm, the question of anthropology that is to say what a human being is and what his nature is, the question of morality and the question of human destiny that is to say our liberation. So in looking at questions pertaining to the existence of God and theology we would ask the question does this world view believe in a deity? What is the nature of that deity? What's the nature of the God that this world view proposes that we believe in? How does that deity relate to us as human beings? How does it relate to the universe in general? And how does that deity relate to me personally? When it comes to the nature of knowledge we would ask how can we know anything about the world around us? How can we know anything about Allah Azawajal or the deity that we believe in? How do we know what we know to be true? That is to say can we trust our intellect? Can we trust our sources of knowledge? Are there limits to human rationality? Can we trust our rationality in the first place? And can we increase in our knowledge? That's another important question. When it comes to the nature of human beings we would ask what are human beings? Where did we come from? Are we unique? Are we here for a reason? And what is the nature of a human being? When it comes to ethics or morality we would ask the following question is there such a thing as right and wrong? Are these things objective or subjective? That is to say is it merely because that's the way we've been told it is or is there an objective reality behind these moral decisions? Why should I do good? And more importantly, am I going to be accountable to anyone or anything? And when it comes to the last topic that is to say human future we would look at the question what are the worst problems facing humanity? Is there a solution? What is that solution? And what role do we have in that solution? And more importantly what role does the deity we believe in have in that solution? These are all the primary questions which are concerned with when we're looking at a world view. These are the first questions we ask and after any world view passes the test on these things we would look at more specific questions pertaining to doctrine. Now I've already mentioned in several episodes the tools for interrogation. That is to say the things we would ask in order to understand what a good or valuable or reasonable or feasible world view would look like. So we would ask ourselves is it consistent? Does it provide explanatory scope for what we see around us? Does it collaborate with our experience? Is it coherent? Does it resonate with a fitrah? Is it livable? Dear viewers insha'Allah ta'ala these are some of the questions we will ask after the break we'll continue with this analysis. Salamu alaikum warahmatullah. Salamu alaikum dear viewers thank you for joining me after that short break. We were discussing world views and the tools of interrogation we would use in order to assess and judge these world views. I stated earlier on that one of these that some of these tools were its consistency, its explanatory scope whether or not it resonates with our experience of the world is it coherent internally? Does it resonate with our fitrah? That is to say what we know to be true from our natural disposition. Is it livable? Is it something that human beings can actually live up to? Is it fulfilling and does it provide us with any scope for future hope? Now these are all the tools we wish to utilise in analysing any particular world view and this approach whilst it might seem new and unconventional to some is very much in line with our theology, with our texts and it's the approach given to us by the holy imams may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. What I mean by that is when you observe the previous debates of the imams in books like Kitab al-Ihtajaj, in books like Kitab al-Tawheed, in books like Ayun al-Akhbar al-Rivah, alayhi salat wa salam we would find that the imams utilise certain approaches with their opponents, with their protagonists, with those who come to question them, with those who come to challenge them about certain beliefs and with those who come to challenge them about either the existence of Allah or the position of Imamah or even things like the Prophethood of the Prophet Muhammad and we would see that the Imam utilises certain approaches one of the main approaches we utilise and is utilised till today in any discussion is known as that is to say the principle of compelling someone to hold by the very positions they adopt now in doing so what the Imam normally does is he will compel a person using the very positions they normally adopt in their day-to-day lives and according to their worldview and utilising this very method he would demonstrate that the positions they adopt that the mabadah they adopt, that the principles they adopt will all lead to absurdity in one way shape or form I am arguing that when we look at a worldview when we look at the key assumptions behind every worldview we would see that these assumptions force certain other beliefs and we would see that their behaviour or the way they deal and construct their religion is not internally consistent whatsoever and I will argue that using this Qa'id-ul-Izzam this is how we will assess the different worldviews and will demonstrate that the different worldviews which exist out there are not sufficient nor are they worthy of sitting at the table with our particular worldview but it's not to say that we are forcing our beliefs onto anyone else we are not violent people unlike some other sects which exist and talk in the name of Islam sadly but we are concerned with truth for truth is the most important thing to all of us and utilising this methodology is one of the few ways we can ensure and have confidence that we are giving a fair trial to others that we are explaining ourselves in an adequate manner and that more importantly we are doing justice to the limited amount of years and time that we have as human beings to go out there and search for the truth it does not make sense that I should have to discuss small beliefs, small side beliefs which stem from major beliefs in order to try and demonstrate my religion to someone who unfortunately judges using their own canon of evidence the Quran tells us to come to a common ground and in doing so we will have to essentially find a position from which we can relatively compare with apt analogies in regards to whether or not our beliefs are sound or not one of the ways we can do that is by asking people to bring forward their worldview ask these major questions and compare package versus package what I mean by that is we would compare the entire totality of our beliefs versus the entire totality of their beliefs and we would ask the bigger questions do these doctrines make sense? for it is not just that we would be held accountable for not knowing about the smallest of details where the evidence for them is internally this is not how people traditionally come to a new religion when we look at the Christians who convert to Islam we do not ask them where is the Sahih hadith which states that for example there are 124,000 prophets or where is the Sahih hadith which states that Nabi Daniel was a prophet for example and we don't compel them by saying that how do you know that between this particular scholar of Rajal and that particular scholar of Rajal this one is more sound and more accurate therefore your evidence is at a level of certainty these are not questions which we ask a person in fact rarely will you find that converts who come on TV and discuss why they moved from one religion to another religion will have a intricate understanding of the small, finer details and mechanics of a particular religion's scripture and the authenticity in terms of transmission of such scripture this is what we would call modern day polemics modern day polemics of course is very different to how the real world works in the real world we don't discuss these issues utilizing this very cheap and incoherent approach rather we utilize an approach which respects and gives credence to the human rational ability to trust their fitra and their instinct in judging whether or not a religion seems to make sense and these religions can only make sense if we have accurate information about the bigger questions these smaller questions about where's the evidence for the prophethood of for example prophet Adam this is not a question which makes sense for us to go and ask a person in regards to why Islam is true this might be a perfectly valid question when we are discussing individual beliefs with friends of ours who are already Muslim but it would make no sense for an atheist to start asking us in regards to demonstrating the accuracy of the science of transmission of the principles of tafsir and whether or not that has accurately reached us from the first generation of Islam these are not questions which are fruitful and we wish to save ourselves time in adequately discussing what are the bigger and important questions bigger and important questions such as well I have a concept of Allah Azza wa Jalla and you have a concept of Allah Azza wa Jalla which makes more sense I have a concept of what a prophet is and you have a concept of what a prophet is which makes more sense I have a concept of leadership after the holy prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alaihi and you have a concept of leadership which makes more sense It's very easy to sit back and throw stones at other people. Especially when you're doing so from the angle of I don't have to help, I don't have to reasonably answer for any of my beliefs. This is something that we all witness the new atheists doing. You'll come to them with evidence for the existence of a deity. You'll demonstrate to them that it's impossible that we just emanated from nothing and and that certain things like the certain things like the issue of morality cannot be grounded within standard atheist metaphysics. When we ask them to demonstrate this according to their worldview, what they'll tell us is, well okay, I can demonstrate this but I'm not going to pause at your God, I'm going to pause at Zeus for example. Now I have an explanation. It's very easy to do that. It's very easy to attack others and not offer any solutions from your own internal worldview. What we want is a discussion in which we are comparing two worldviews, mine versus yours. There is no appeal to a hypothetical situation. There is no appeal to any other worldview. Rather, mine versus yours. Insha'Allah to Allah, dear brothers and sisters, we will continue with this discussion in the next few episodes and I thank you for joining us tonight. It's always quite difficult to summarize all of these issues in one episode but we'll be continuing with this analysis over the next few nights and you're always in our prayers and we pray that what I have said tonight has been reasonable and clear. Insha'Allah to Allah, join us tomorrow night while we continue. Wassalamu alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.