 Save 10% with my code Bobby10 on raw, organic, grass-fed and grass-finished, freeze-dried organ meats from grassland nutrition. Link in the description box. All right, guys. Welcome back to the channel. If you're new, my name is Bobby. Guys, interesting title today. We're going to react to how deep Islam is by the channel humble believer. Researching Islam myself, I can confirm that Islam is indeed very deep, simplistic on the surface. It is about the worship of one God, Tawhid. However, if you really start digging deeper, you will see how deep the rabbit hole goes. It is absolutely amazing and I believe that Islam satisfies the simple mind, the intellectual mind, the philosophical mind and even the spiritual mind. All right, guys, but with no further ado, let's have a look. Fahdudin Ar-Razi said the reason that Allah has given us this complexity is because he gives several reasons, but among them he says, had it all been spelled out, black and white, no difficulties, we would have been like automatons. Of course. There would have been no diversity. There would only been one method, one way of doing things and everybody had to follow it. That's not human nature. Yeah, this basically describes the question of good and evil as well. Of course, why is there evil? Why do bad things happen? Otherwise, it would be paradise already or more over, like he describes here. If we would all conform, then there would be no diversity and therefore would be robots. We would be machines and not humans. We will never have all of humanity agreeing on any one thing. This reminds me as well of the Quran when the Quran states, I'm paraphrasing here, of course, that if God wanted us to have all the same belief, he wouldn't wield it, but he wielded otherwise. Agreeing on any one thing. And so diversity is our nature. There are people that are strict. So there's all these hadith that suit those strict people. There are people that are lenient. There's all these other hadiths that suit those lenient people. There are people that really like to be strict on themselves and on others. And there's all these hadiths that they're going to find that they fit them perfectly. They seem to know all those hadiths. They don't know any of the other hadiths about leniency and being, but they know all those. That's the vastness of Islam is that, and then there's people that incline towards certain things that don't incline towards other things. And it's all there in the Prophet's life. So he says that that vastness is the universality of Islam. And when you have a book that is nuanced, that is subtle, that is can be interpreted on many different levels, it's going to encourage the universality. It's going to complement that aspect of humanity. And then you have to say, of course, that Islam is one. There is no other Islam. There is only one Islam, right? But at the same time, he kind of points out that there are different interpretations of the same book. This for me is reminiscent of perennialism and the interfaith movement. Yet again, I often get this tone when I'm listening to Sheikh Hamza Yusuf. What is he really saying here that there is not one true Islam, but there are different interpretations? Please let me know what you think in the comment section. Another important aspect is that everybody wants to prove their point. So when they take a position about something in the Qur'an, they're going to work really hard to strengthen their position. So it forces a type of study. If everybody agreed on it, people wouldn't be studying like today. For the people that were in the imataki class, I was talking about the difference between the Saddle and the Qabbal. If there wasn't a difference of opinion, everybody would just be doing this and nobody would know why they're doing it other than that's what everybody does. But because there's a difference of opinion, it forces you to look at the Hadith. It forces you to know the people that had this opinion, why they had that opinion, and then what their delil was and why. And so it creates a type of intellectual engagement with the tradition that would not otherwise exist, which is very important. I mean one of the things people tell me all the time, Muslims are always arguing over stupid things like the moonsighting. Every year we have this argument, why can't we just work it out? Well, it is amazing that we are an umma that still cares about these things that much to where they're actually important. Because a lot of religions don't even care about these things anymore and they're like, who cares? What's the big deal? And that's their attitude towards their religion. But for Muslims they do care. They want to do the right thing and there's different opinions about what the right thing is and they get passionate about it. Now sometimes they become overzealous and that's a problem. But better in some ways to be overzealous than to be dead spiritually as a community, to not have any real zeal about your faith or your religion. So I don't think that's a negative about the Muslims. What we're lacking is civil society. What we're lacking is adab and one could argue that we've never had it universally in the Muslim umma. I'll give you a few examples just to point this out. Imam his house was stoned by students of the Hanbali madrasa in Iraq when he was teaching because he didn't consider Ahmad a faqih. They went and stoned his house. Imam al-Nasa'i was stomped to death by one of the greatest muhadithin in Muslim history. He was literally stomped to death in a masjid. So it's not like there hasn't been these terrible things that have happened in our history. There are. There have been terrible things. And you'll find these in all religious traditions. When you get fanatics, when you get idiots, when you get naqal heads, that have no other way of understanding something except their limited way. This provincial attitude and that somehow it's my religious duty to stomp out any other way of viewing it. Literally. It's a problem. Religion becomes poisonous. As far as I'm concerned, it actually becomes a source of human suffering as opposed to a source of human enlightenment of actually elevating people's state. Yeah, it's a fine line, of course, because on the one hand you have some zealous idiots that interpret the scripture a certain way. But then yet again, it doesn't mean that if you interpret it more liberal, therefore it will become correct. I'm not saying that this is what he says here. However, I'm getting this impression point of the stories. The question always has to be, what is the true Islam? And if there is a true Islam, which we of course have to expect, then how do we obey that true Islam? No, I'm closer to God. It actually it distances them from God. They become harsh, hard-hearted. And that's why immediately after this verse, first of all, warns us about people. Whenever you find people that are interested in, you know, these verses in the Quran that are hazy, and they want to make sure you know that they mean exactly what they say they mean. In other words, that they're muhkamat. The first saying, know that they're from the people of fitna that Allah warns against, and that they have deviation in their hearts. They have zegr in their hearts. But the second thing, know that they don't have intellect, because Allah praises the people of intellect at the end of those verses. Saying that the people that really understand this are people of intellect because they know that when Allah SWT says istawa ale al-arjh, you know, that he's upon a throne, that they know by their intellect that it is absolutely inconceivable for the infinite creator of the heavens and the earth to be limited by time or space. Yes. To be mahmul, to be carried on anything. They know that. I absolutely agree. I have to agree, of course, because we're talking about the necessary being. We're talking about a God that is transcendent of time and space. And now we're talking about a throne. How can that throne be literal? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Yet again, with all due respect, but this is my thought pattern. If you intellectually rationalize your way to a necessary being that exists without time and space, time and space, thrones, chairs, hands, faces, all of this only exists within time and space. And therefore, to really believe that God sits on a throne, that would be already limiting God. Deny that verse, because that verse is there. So they say, we believe in it, and we know it doesn't mean what it appears to mean, because with God there is no how. And this is what Imam Malik, when he was asked, how did God istawa? Which in Arabic can mean to sit. So he asked, how did God do this istawa? And Imam Malik said, the istawa is known. In other words, that it's in the Qur'an. Is completely irrational. It's inconceivable. And in a Rewaya, it's just, it's not something you could ever know what that means. And then he said, and to ask about it is a bidah. It's an innovation, because none of the set of asked about it. That was Imam Malik's position. So these, the only reason I'm focusing on this is, because this is a problem in our time. That's the only reason. I would pass over these a lot quicker, but you need to understand that there are people out there that are presenting a position, and they're saying, this is the position of the first community, and it's not. It's a deviant position. And they can call it... And now he makes an absolute claim, of course, and he says that this is the deviant position. But why? What is the arguing for that? He, of course, indirectly claims that, therefore, his position must be the correct one, if he disqualifies the other position. It's deviant. That's fine. You know, Allah says, I'm going to settle this on the day of judgment. So you're a deviant. I'm a deviant. Fine. We'll wait. Let's just actively towards each other. I'm going to pray next to you in the masjid. I'll break my Ramadan fast with you. I'll say Assalamu Alaikum and we'll be friends. You're a deviant. I'm a deviant. But on Yom Kiyamah, we'll see who the deviant is. And I'm willing to wait. I'm willing to wait. But if defending God's vastness is deviancy, I'm willing to be a deviant. All right. That's it for this video. Hamza, you serve as always a bit too emotional for me personally. And moreover, you can't really put your finger on him. You can't really say, okay, this is what he's about. He is slippery. He says, okay, well, then we are both deviant. This is a non-confrontational approach, of course, but indirectly he claims, of course, that his position is the correct one. He truly believes that you cannot yet again put your finger on God's vastness. If you have a more literal approach, if you look into the Salafi school, for example, from what I found out so far, it is a more literalistic approach. So therefore, if the Quran says Allah has a hand, Allah has a face, Allah has a throne, etc., etc., then this is what it is. And we're not going to question it. However, he of course questions it and he uses his intellect to further understand God for himself. And yet again, I can truly understand his approach here because I make the argument as well that a transcendent God cannot sit whatsoever. There is no sitting. God is not limited like we are with legs and with a behind, of course, for him to sit on a throne. This becomes a metaphor, of course, that we cannot fully understand. The only way that I would look at it is that God is above everything, sitting above everything like a king, symbolically above everything else, but not like a creature that is constrained to its body, sitting on something. An all-transcending God, our existence is contingent upon his pure existence. This God cannot be limited to any physical imagination. All right, guys, but this is it for this video. Let me know in the comment section what you think about it. And if you liked the video, leave it a thumbs up. If you haven't subscribed already, guys, please do so. And if you want to support this channel via Patreon, for example, all the links are in the description box below. Thank you so much for your ongoing support, guys. As always, may God bless you all. Much love and peace.