Allahuma Barik, may Allah increase your good deeds and elevate you

Alhamdulillaah

Haha I didn't even see that till now thanks

😂😂😂

If a god wrote this book of yours then this god is an idiot. Religions are just foolish stories invented by fools

Your comment doesn't make any sense, the Quran was revealed upon disbelievers who didn't believe in it and they became muslims because of it. Your statement of atheists becoming muslims after philosophical convictions has no basis, I rarely see atheists convert to Islam because of philosophy, in fact the people who convert to Islam because of dawah base on Quran and sunnah are far too superior. Your problem is thinking that there's something objective about theoretical discourse, which is not the case, people just like some ways of thinking and love some theories and "first principles" based on desires and nothing else, everything comes down to desires.

@@tayloryoung4974 I don’t think you provided statistics to that even though I agree with you that those Islamic philosophical arguments don’t appeal to some non-Muslims. It depends on the person and their level of conviction. For example there’s a brother that converted recently to Islam (his channel is EA Dawah) that came to the conclusion that there’s a Creator using philosophical arguments and then to Islam when he debated (Thought Adventure Podcast brothers). And now he’s using the same arguments to bring Atheists and Xtians to Islam. There are many other examples. It actually works if you open your mind a little and see the whole picture.

@@Ibn-Abdurrahman Convinction of philosophical arguments isn't related to being open minded, this is what every philosopher whose desires are attached to philosophy and theoretical discourse say, do you think all those philosophers in history who never accepted Islam or who never believed in a creator were somewhat not "open minded" ? No, it's only a proof that sincerity and theoretical discourse have no relation, theoretical discourse is and always was driven by desires, people believe in certain theories and "first principles" and disbelieve in others based on desires not absolute objective truth. And those arguments that are used by some Muslim KZfaqrs have some serious methodological issues, and contradictions to Islam, most of those KZfaqrs don't know the core beliefs of beliefs of a Muslim because they never read an aqeeda book, or some if them are hypocrites in disguise, they use those arguments when they know they're in contradiction with the aqeeda of the salaf just so they can win some arguments and debates.

@@tayloryoung4974 I disagree with you. Ibn Taymia for example was a philosopher (even though he didn’t consider himself one) and critiqued philosophy without compromising Aqeedah. Throwing a blanket statement of hypocrisy on Muslims that were seeking truth is a dangerous thing. Again, We use both methods to establish truth; as they’re not contradictory to each other but complimentary, just like using some historical or scientific facts. There’s nothing wrong with that. We should have the Prophet (peace be upon him) mindset of looking at the full picture; when the companions (May Allah be pleased with them) had disagreements about an opinion and thought that only one’s view must be right, The Prophet ends up approving both their understanding and ijtihad. Unfortunately something we failed to accomplish by having the mindset of “my way or the Highway”.

@@Ibn-Abdurrahman Ibn taymiah wasn't a philosopher, any who says otherwise is lying upon the sheikh and tarnishing his legacy, he was the opposite of a philosopher or a mutakalim, he blasted the foundations of those disciplines he didn't embrace such disciplines, to become a philosopher you need to embrace a certain set of theories of knowledge and existence and methodologies of rational discourse and disagreement resolving, something which ibn taymiah never he actually refuted those same principles, ibn taymiahs principles are rooted into the way the salaf, and his books of aqeeda and fiqh are proof of that, rendering methodological and creedal conflicts into mere disagreements is not the way of the salaf nor the way of ibn taymiah, it's the ways of the philosophers, and it's a crime against the religion of Islam since it dilutes bidah and zandaqa into mere disagreements or different points of view.

"he has no appreciation of what motivates someone who does not believe" ?? arrogance, he always says that, this is why he doesn't entertain them by discussing deeply into the subject, because it's useless, i've never seen someone who debates an atheist the way you deem "correct" convince the other party, the Quran is clear, use its arguments, and use its threats and stop there if they don't accept it, or waste your time if you want to, to be seen as an intellectual who can debate the atheists.

"but he's only using reasoning that comes from believing, which they don't" it seems to me you have never seen Shamsi or Anwar debate an atheist or you just don't understand their arguments.

He his not arrogant he's saying if you're a muslim we should use the quran and hadith as part of our arguments. And he's also saying you shouldn't debate with people who aren't sincere. Atheists come in thinking they're the default position when it's the other way around. One fact that even Atheists know is that we will all die. And we'll all eventually find out if God is real or not.

You don't know exactly what Shamsi thinks. Don't act like you do. Shamsi deals with these ignorant atheists in a good manner. It's a joke how an atheist can accuse someone else of being arrogant. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

@@bazd313 Truth.