They do it for Allah not for money.

Wallahi

@@malwaredestroyer105 so they are being paid 😏...by ALLAH! INSHALLAH. Best payment by best PAYER.

Brothers you could donate towards Sapience Institute, a worthy cause.

Allah will give them better. Allahumma Ameen

List of lies? He started lying just around 1:30.

@@jermsbestfriend9296 What did he lie about exactly there

Did you see what’s on the top right shelf?

Beautiful quote. May I know the source?

@@sanwar2410 this quote was taken from an Ottoman book called Risale-i Nur Külliyatı by a kurdish scholar known as Said Nursi. The book has been translated into English. You'll find this quote in the volume entitled "the words".

@@sanwar2410 It's by Said Nursi, he is regarded as one of the most influential scholars in Turkey that ever lived. He has a collection of books where he combines the classic arguments of Gazali and many more - such as Hume - and creates this amazing tafsir of the Quran. He revived Islam during the most secular times of Turkey.

@@HistoryOfRevolutions Why do you say Ottoman? If I quoted something written in the Victorian Era und queen Victoria, would you say it is a "Victorian" book? Say a Turkish book, Old Literary Turkish, or atleast Ottoman Turkish. I personally call it undestroyed and naturally beautified Turkish.

Like a face plant. Just funny. The guy is completely stupid

What's amazing? How foolish he is?

@@jermsbestfriend9296 I guess hijab himself is an atheist, he just trying to survive . What you think?

You do realize he is lying?

It's nonsense.... Honestly, it's an argument that being stupid is best, best possible summary.

@@jermsbestfriend9296your statement is incoherent.

​@@jermsbestfriend9296if you don't understand something that doesn't negate the fact that it is true or untrue. Because if inability to understand something is used as an argument against something's validity then you basically would have to deny everything. There are people in the world who don't understand anything. There are people who don't understand maths but that does not mean maths is wrong

@@Ahle.haq0 Not sure how your point is meant to connect. I understand: the point being made is that stupidity should reign supreme--that's a summary of the point being made, and to the extent that it could be considered true, we would consider efficacy. Stupidity is not effective so it is not true that stupidity should reign supreme.

first to be second Alhamdulilah

Mashallah

@borsalinokizaru9862 How so?

Yes my bro. Hamza tzortzis writes in his book the divine reality that limited parts make limited wholes. A house made of limited parts is limited for example and there is no fallacy of composition.

there is no such thing as a fallacy of composition

Absolute banger of a comment akhi

@@amirbro4606 what makes you say that

Sheesh well said

If someone denies the existence of parts in the first place rather claims that only the whole is real and necessary then how would you refute him?

Cut your nails ......

May ALLAH (S.W.T) guide us all

It is dependent on parts

Well, it is used, even if it is not a logical substitution. Then what you think atheists use as substitution of the necessary being argument ?

@@midoevil7 you have to differentiate between agnostic atheist like myself and Bart Ehrmann and pure atheists. As an agnostic atheist, I am open to the possibility of a necessary being but I don't know what shape, form or attributes this being has. I can't disprove nor prove its existence and attributes either way. A pure atheist considers that the necessary existence might be the energy from which the big bang arose.this energy might be eternal.

@@markorbit4752 I see, but this argument of initial-energy being the necessary existence doesn't hold as well, it doesn't explain the order of the universe, and I think it is basically the universe is what it is argument. Regarding agnostic atheism, I agree with you that this is where logic alone can lead to. I think the next question is: Many scriptures claimed it is the creator's message to humanity, but which one is actually true?

Bez the universe exists since we can see it existing Can't say the same for god

No they cannot. They simply continue to maintain that the sniper will never take the shot.

then you would have to deal with infinite regress of events the process will never start ie universe would not come to existence : Was the universe created by something else created? Will that satisfy the questioner? Obviously not. The contentious person will undoubtedly ask, “Then, what created that thing?” If we were to answer, “Another created thing”, what do you think he would say? Yes, you guessed right: “What created that thing?” If this ridiculous dialogue continued forever, then it would prove one thing: the need for an uncreated creator. Why? Because we cannot have the case of a created thing, like the universe, being created by another created thing in an unlimited series going back forever (known as an infinite regress of causes). It simply does not make sense. Consider the following examples: • Imagine that a sniper, who has acquired his designated target, radios through to HQ to get permission to shoot. HQ, however, tells the sniper to hold on while they seek permission from someone higher-up. Subsequently, the person higher-up seeks permission from the guy even higher up, and so on and so on. If this keeps going on forever, will the sniper ever get to shoot the target? Of course not! He will keep on waiting while someone else is waiting for a person higher up to give the order. There has to be a place or person from where the command is issued; a place where there is no one higher. Thus, our example illustrates the rational flaw in the idea of an infinite regress of causes. When we apply this to the universe we have to posit that it must have had an uncreated creator. The universe, which is a created thing, could not be created by another created thing, ad infinitum. If that were the case this universe would not exist. Since it exists, we can dismiss the idea of an infinite regress of causes as an irrational proposition. • Imagine if a stock trader at the stock exchange was not able to buy or sell his stocks or bonds before asking permission from the investor. Once the stock trader asked his investor, he also had to check with his investor. Imagine if this went on forever. Would the stock trader ever buy or sell his stocks or bonds? The answer is no. There must be an investor who gives the permission without requiring anypermission himself. In similar light, if we apply this to the universe, we would have to posit a creator for the universe that is uncreated.Once the above examples are applied to the universe directly, it will highlight the absurdity of the idea that the universe ultimately was created by something created. Consider if this universe, U1, was created by a prior cause, U2, and U2 was created by another cause, U3, and this went on forever. We wouldn’t have universe U1 in the first place. Think about it this way, when does U1 come into being? Only after U2 has come into being. When does U2 come into being? Only after U3 has come into being. This same problem will continue even if we go on forever. If the ability of U1 to come into being was dependent on a forever chain of created universes, U1 would never exist.146 As Islamic philosopher and scholar Dr. Jaafar Idris writes: “There would be no series of actual causes, but only a series of nonexistents… The fact, however, is that there are existents around us; therefore, their ultimate cause must be something other than temporal causes.

Imagine a casual series of A,B and C where A is pure cause which is not effect of other and C is pure effect which is not cause of another .B is the intermediate member which has both the attributes of cause and effect because it is the cause of C and the effect of A . A ceases to exist the B and C necessarily ceases to exist therefore A is more worthy of existence then B and C . Now it doesn't matter if the intermediates are one or many finite or infinite they will still have the same characterstics of intermediates like B such that it can't exist without a pure cause like A . Suppose two infinite series iof A and B such that series A is ten member shorter then series B now if their is a member in series A for each member of series B then A should be greater then series by a finite amount and that which greater than other by finite amount can't it self be infinite . hope this helps

Would you say you're not relevant to your mother after being dependant on her as an infant?

@@RealVerses don't be stupid. I never said dependency IS NOT RELATED to relevance. I said it is not equal. My peace life depends on the peace treaties that exists between world powers like USA and China and Russia. But those treaties are not relevant to my daily life because they are too far removed from me to have any relevance. If we our universe was created in a lab by being so big we can't even imagine, and those being were created by even bigger beings who were created by the necessary existence , then the necessary existence would not be relevant to us, even if our existence depends on it.

@@markorbit4752 That just sounds selfish mate.

@@RealVerses you don't seem to know what selfish means. Maybe English is not your first language

@@markorbit4752 A simple dictionary definition of 'the word selfish' sums up your previous comment. A Quranic Ayat comes to mind that is repeated more than once: "So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny?"

Assalamualikum bro

@@zakyzayn5361 wa alykum Assalam bro

@@agadirand4four347 bro , we don't use Observation to prove Causal Principle , it's more fundamental than that , And it's metaphysically impossible that Something comes into existence from nothing and by nothing , or From Ex Nihilo and By Ex Nihilo , Therefore everything which comes into existence require "Cause" in order to come into existence. We don't need to discuss if this is true in the Universe or not , it's necessarily true independent of the Universe , because Non existence do not have potential by definition hence can't produce anything , (God creating Universe without material is different issue , because God is present as a Cause)

Science is based on philosophy. Therefore, if science is a valid way of coming to truth, then so is philosophy. Also, because philosophy is what defines the boundaries of science, if there is no philosophical answer, there is no scientific answer. You would not say “we do not know” about anything else but you say it when it comes to this. Why don’t you just say “we do not know” about science as well then? The fact that you’re so ready to throw away philosophy once it doesn’t fit your paradigm is incredibly disingenuous. It’s almost as if you worship science instead of God.

I only got an answer for the first one. I'm young and don't understand much but from my basic understanding is that Things that are made from a variety of parts are depending on the parts existing for itself to exist. For example a triangle must have 3 straight lines. If straight lines didn't exist. A triangle would not exist. Similarly, if you somehow remove certain particles from the universe then it's conditions will be completely different e.g hydrogen. effects black holes, stars, life, gravity. BTW we can make a video game and not be present while it is still running. Walt disney is dead but mickey mouse still exists. Just because you can't see a creator doesn't mean he doesn't exist

@@bargink5287 thanks. The main issue for me is fundamental particles. If they exist, they aren't made of parts. So are they considered necessary existences?

@@zaidsyed8501 I think we might be overthinking here. If we are agreed that the universe is dependent via its made up parts, but then say the fundamental particles in this universe is of necessary existence based on the argument of parts...I believe the next logical question should be whether necessary existence is possible for stuff like fundamental particles (i.e is it possible to prove that it exists on its own or was it created into existence?). I’d argue it’s not conceivable to argue that anything in this universe can be proven to have necessary existence whether it’s made up of parts or not since one may always question how it exists and why is it the way it is and if it is a form of necessary existence then is it existing infinitely? Idk if that helps or makes any sense

@@symbiotezilla12345 So what you're saying is once we get to the level of fundamental particles, we go into a kind of Kalam argument, asking where it all came from, there had to be a beginning etc.? I guess that kind of makes sense... Another thing would be that the necessary existence is something which is unlimited, meaning it requires no explanation. Fundamental particles are limited per se, because they are within the bounds of this reality I guess. Thank you for your take, I have a lot to think about!

@@zaidsyed8501 I guess you could say that. I think the point of this lecture was merely to show how the universe as a WHOLE is contingent and prove that contingency by using the composition argument - which as Br Hijab explained is a great counter to the questions posed by athiests against the contingency argument. Whereas if we get to the nitty gritty such as fundamental particles or energy and etc then I am unsure if the intent of the lecture really applies to these phenomenon - since as I said the lecture seeks to strengthen the contingency argument overall. So if the universe as a whole is contingent then it is dependent if I understood correctly. I do believe you are kinda forced to go kalam on stuff like fundamental particles but perhaps contingency still applies because those fundamental particles could be rearranged to form anything rather than what they form specifically in our universe - thus implying dependency? Idk but all I know is to the very least you are forced to ask where those particles came from unless we supposed that they existed infinitely- which to me personally would make no sense.

Yes, the triangularity of a triangle, is a necessary existence and is independent of everything. Also the laws of physics are independent existences that are discover and not created

Not any physical thing within the universe, no.

​​@@yassershariflaws are PRESCRIPTIVE AND DESCRIPTIVE, not creative, and a NECASSARY EXISTENCE is DIFFERENT from a necassary FACT facts are also prescriptive and descriptive, existence is more FOUNDATIONAL,

@@ayeshayasir8665 okay describe means we use words to represent what we observe. Prescribe means, we don't have words to describe what we observe so we grant or give a description. An example of a prescription would be sweetness. So if you ask anyone "I never tasted sweetness but I want to understand sweetness, give me those descriptions of sweetness, after hearing them I will have the complete understanding of sweetness." but sweetness cannot be put into words, the only answer to this question is " eat some honey and that taste is sweetness" this the word sweetness was prescribed onto the experience is sweet taste. But in the case of a triangle, we have the notion of forms or shapes or polygons, we know what are angles whether described or prescribed, it doesn't matter, the triangle exists outside of the human mind and its triangularity is necessary, if not then it wouldn't be a triangle. A² + B² = C². This is true even if no triangles were ever discovered. Also necessary existence and a necessary fact are the same thing. Since non existence is not a thing, a necessary fact exists by necessity. Thus a necessary fact is also a necessary existence. They are 2 perspectives of the same thing. If I said "I am a necessary being" if it's true then the fact of me being a necessary being is necessarily true. But it cannot be the case that something exists necessarily but not be a necessary fact. I hope I was able to convey this in a way you're able to understand Thanks

@@ayeshayasir8665 Hummm.. Existence is more fundamental. As we know Things either exist necessarily or potentially at impossibly. So those existing things that come into existence and leave existence are called potential existence. But existence itself is not like that. Because existence cannot come into existence. Because then its cause would have to exist. Thus the cause for existence would be existence itself which is a contradiction and it wouldn't answer our question as to what is the cause of existence

@borsalinokizaru9862 the fundamental principle of this argument, is that, all that is within the range or our perception could have been different, therefor there must be something that made it to be the way it is. That something in itself could not been conceived to be different than it is. I would say that the only thing which is within our empirical range that can not be conceived differently is consciousness, for the mere act of trying to conceived the possibility of it differently than it is, happens within it self. Consciousness is the necessary principle upon which all other things exists. This universal consciousness will point to God.

If you want to present it this argument to an atheist you have to show the steps

@AwarenessOfDay I agree. That is why it makes no sense when people claim to know the truth about supernatural things

Yes only when your ideas are shown to be irrational can the irrational be true.

@@boygenius538_8 read up on quantum entanglement and quantum physics. Sometimes, things we would consider irrational end up being true

Your argument also applies to the natural including your senses. Your argument is essentially we cannot know anything. Sure but then what? You know that premise is bs. No one operates irl thinking that they can't know anything.

This is a contradiction, its like saying, that a squared circle can be true.mor just because im not telling the truth, doesnt mean im lying, this is what atheism does, lol when it comes to LOGICAL SELF EVIDENT DEDUCTIVE ARGUEMENTS YOUR SCEPTICISM SKY ROCKETS, BUT to irrational and illogical things the knob of skepticism goes down😂 like buddy, with all due respect. Reflect upon what your saying.

If you can take the part out of it, it's dependent Like , can you take the sun out of this universe? How? If a wood turn into a chair, means it's can be any other way!! Dependent! Like,,,

Doesn't explain anything isn't it

​@@randomiser9908atheist in are dumb people

Asalaamualaykum brother There is a difference between infinite and eternal. Infinite either has no start and no end, or has a start and no end, but in both cases it depends on time and space to exist. Eternal on the other hand, is beyond time and space, very different from infinite. Allah is eternal ie, He is beyond time and space.

It's not useless at all lol. And Hijab has PLENTY of videos proving Islam. Check them out💪🏼

I wholeheartedly agree

descends? what's that supposed to mean+you're talking about the way Allah chose to speak with us, that's not a real argument because we don't believe that Allah speaks in the same way we do

the first and third one does not prove anything, the 2nd one is a wahabi belief

@@zahinelahi2655 source?

Paradise is forever after not 500 years

@@boygenius538_8 yes

but his attributes are dependent on him,because he chose to be that way because he is THE necessary existence

@@a_t_l7031 does not matter I have demonstrated to u that his parts or attributes are contingent thus he is contingent The very fact u used the word choice means there existed other possibilities of him existing in other ways 👁👄👁bravo U follow a contingent god

@@arianagrandaremix8858 let's say it's possible that he could exist with any other attributes but it's still necessary that he's what he's now because he chose to be that way,the reason for this is that we believe that Allah's knowledge is above everything and since he's the necessary being it means that even if there was another way for his attributes to exist it's still necessary that he exist in this way because it's the correct one,so you just misunderstood the argument+ his attributes have nothing to do with his necessary existence because this is not arguing the Islamic believe of the creator , but the existence of a one.

@@a_t_l7031 👁👄👁mate contingent things are defined as things which can be imagined to be otherwise or can be otherwise Your god fits that definition so by definition he's contingent not necessary I'm just doing what Mohamed hijab did by the same method he concluded the universe as contingent 💁‍♀️ if his attributes can be any other way that means he is NOT NECESSARY by definition Your right tho he's not directly arguing for his god bez the premisses don't conclude that However, he is concluding that so it's safe to say he's arguing for god 😶 Ps: I think ur conflating being eternal with necessary existence Those are not the same concepts

@@arianagrandaremix8858 i understand what you're saying and i agree that the attributes themselves are contingent if we separated them, but what i believe is that those attributes are necessary by their relation to god himself, because if you said that those attributes could've existed in any other way it's the same when you say that "1+1 " could be other than 2, which is not totally wrong but the percentage of it being true is so low ( using mathematics we're able to prove something like this) however it doesn't change the fact that the only right answer is 2, so what i mean is that if god chose those attributes then they're the only right attributes for him because he himself is the necessary being which means that he's all powerful and all knowledgeable so your argument itself is wrong since it's depicting the attributes as the god which is not true at all. +BtW until this moment i was agreeing with you and arguing from what you believe in , but what do you mean by "his attributes could've been any other way"?? you don't know any of the other ways so you have no bases for your counter argument 🤦🏻‍♂️

An infinite regress of contingent things is an impossibility. If you have an infinite past, you never have a present(we would NOT be having this conversation right now if the Universe never came into existence). A creator of all things is necessary and therefore uncaused.

If I understood correctly, you are saying that there can be a non necessary thing that is eternal because of the parts it is made of. The triangle is dependent on the straight lines to exist. God is not a physical thing so it is not made up of parts.

An infinite regress of contingent things is an impossibility. If you have an infinite past, you never have a present(we would NOT be having this conversation right now if the Universe never came into existence). A creator of all things is necessary and therefore uncaused.

@@Revolt_west Yes the eternal thing that created everything else is eternal, uncaused. But it would still be made of something. We're talking about whether it's necessary -- eternal and doesn't change -- for certain. It is not for certain / not certainly necessary as I have explained.

@@BoItzmannBrain Yes exactly so you're saying God isn't made of anything or God is made of nothing: No parts, nothing. You're just defining God as an absolute nothing without realizing it is my argument. The straight lines could be eternal is what I'm saying in our metaphor. It could change into a V shape so the triangle isn't eternal or neither is the V but the lines it's *made of* are. And remember what does non-physical mean? Again made of nothing.

@@reincarnationentertainment9885 I agree with everything you said except for the "what does non-physical mean? Again made out of nothing" there are non-physical things like consciousness. Made of nothing does not mean it doesn't exist. There are fundamental particles that are not made of anything in our universe and they exist.