Original lecture - kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fNaRe7STmsjMfp8.html Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya regarding the satanic backstory of Ilm al-Kalam and negation of sifat: *“And the creed of the negators (an-nufāt) from among the Sabians was that the Lord does not have except negated attributes (sifāt salbiyyah), or an attribute negated relative to another (sifāt idāfiyyah), or that which is a combination of negated attributes and relative attributes. And the Prophet Ibrāhim, the Friend of Allah (ʿalaihis-salām) was sent to them. And Jaʿd Ibn Dirham learnt his ideology from the Sabian Philosophers.* *And likewise, Abu Nasr Al-Fārābī (died 339 AH) entered Harrān and studied under the Sabian Philosophers thus completing his philosophy. And Jahm (died 128 AH) also learned it, as mentioned by Imām Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (died 241 AH) and others, when he debated with the Sumaniyyah who were some of the philosophers of India ― and the Sumaniyyah rejected all the sciences except for the [five] senses. So these are the chains of narration (asānīd) of Jahm that lead back to the Jews, Sabeans, Mushriks and the misguided philosophers, either among the Sabeans or among the other polytheists.* *Thereafter, when the books of the Greeks and Romans were translated into Arabic at the end of the second century, then the tribulation increased alongside that which the Shaytān had thrown into the hearts of the misguided ones in the beginning ― the same as what he threw in the hearts of those who resembled them.* *So towards the end of the second century, these ideas became widespread which the scholars of the Salaf referred to as the sayings of the Jahmiyyah - and they became widespread due to the efforts of Bishr Ibn Ghiyāth Al-Mareesī (d. 218 AH) and those of his era [and inclination]. The sayings of the scholars and īmāms such as Mālik (d. 179 AH), Sufyān Ibn ʿUyainah (d. 198 AH), Ibn Al-Mubārak (d. 181 AH), Abu Yoosuf (d. 182 AH), Ash-Shāfiʿī (d. 204 AH), Ahmad (d. 241 AH), Ishāq (d. 238 AH), Al-Fudayl Ibn ʿIyād (d. 187 AH), Bishr Al-Hāfī (d. 227 AH) and others were plentiful in censoring, refuting and declaring the followers of this ideology to be astray.”* ومَذْهَبُ النُّفاةِ مِن هَؤُلاءِ فِي الرَّبِّ: أنَّهُ لَيْسَ لَهُ إلّا صِفاتٌ سَلْبِيَّةٌ أوْ إضافِيَّةٌ أوْ مُرَكَّبَةٌ مِنهُما وهُمْ الَّذِينَ بَعَثَ إلَيْهِمْ إبْراهِيمَ الخَلِيلَ ﷺ فَيَكُونُ الجَعْدُ قَدْ أخَذَها عَنْ الصّابِئَةِ الفَلاسِفَةِ. وكَذَلِكَ أبُو نَصْرٍ الفارابِيُّ دَخَلَ حَرّانَ وأخَذَ عَنْ فَلاسِفَةِ الصّابِئِينَ تَمامَ فَلْسَفَتِهِ وأخَذَها الجَهْمُ أيْضًا - فِيما ذَكَرَهُ الإمامُ أحْمَد وغَيْرُهُ - لَمّا ناظَرَ «السمنية» بَعْضَ فَلاسِفَةِ الهِنْدِ - وهُمْ الَّذِينَ يَجْحَدُونَ مِن العُلُومِ ما سِوى الحِسِّيّاتِ - فَهَذِهِ أسانِيدُ جَهْمٍ تَرْجِعُ إلى اليَهُودِ والصّابِئِينَ والمُشْرِكِينَ والفَلاسِفَةُ الضّالُّونَ هُمْ إمّا مِن الصّابِئِينَ وإمّا مِن المُشْرِكِينَ. ثُمَّ لَمّا عُرِّبَتْ الكُتُبُ الرُّومِيَّةُ واليُونانِيَّةُ فِي حُدُودِ المِائَةِ الثّانِيَةِ: زادَ البَلاءُ؛ مَعَ ما ألْقى الشَّيْطانُ فِي قُلُوبِ الضُّلّالِ ابْتِداءً مِن جِنْسِ ما ألْقاهُ فِي قُلُوبِ أشْباهِهِمْ. ولَمّا كانَ فِي حُدُودِ المِائَةِ الثّالِثَةِ: انْتَشَرَتْ هَذِهِ المَقالَةُ الَّتِي كانَ السَّلَفُ يُسَمُّونَها مَقالَةَ الجَهْمِيَّة؛ بِسَبَبِ بِشْرِ بْنِ غِياثٍ المريسي وطَبَقَتِهِ وكَلامِ الأئِمَّةِ مِثْلَ مالِكٍ وسُفْيانَ بْنِ عُيَيْنَة وابْنِ المُبارَكِ وأبِي يُوسُفَ والشّافِعِيِّ وأحْمَد وإسْحاقَ والفُضَيْل بْنِ عِياضٍ وبِشْرٍ الحافِي وغَيْرِهِمْ: كَثِيرٌ فِي ذَمِّهِمْ وتَضْلِيلِهِمْ. (Majmu al-Fatawa 5/22)

I’m gobsmacked by this explanation and articulation SubhanAllah. Always heard for years that the Necessary Being / Contingency Argument causes you to deny the sifāt but never heard an explanation for it until now.

May Allah bless him. I finally get it now. So basically Quran and Sunnah are sufficient for speaking with Any and All types of non-muslims to see which ones are sincere and accepts and which ones are insincere and rejects. Playing around with kalam and trying to appease these people will never work. They will never accept because the message was never from Allah and the messenger salallahu alayhi wasalaam. It was from the kalam. Quran and Sunnah ALL THE WAY. Allah Hu Akbar. I finaly get it now.

There is nothing better than the Qurãn and Sunnah arguments. Al-Jasiyah 45:6 تِلْكَ ءَايَٰتُ ٱللَّهِ نَتْلُوهَا عَلَيْكَ بِٱلْحَقِّۖ فَبِأَىِّ حَدِيثٍۭ بَعْدَ ٱللَّهِ وَءَايَٰتِهِۦ يُؤْمِنُونَ These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what speech after Allah speech and His miracles will they believe?

TLDR - 1. Philosophy -> To win an argument (which most of the time even at that you fail because they end it with the " we agree to disagree "). 2. Correct Dawah -> To call people to Allah This is what I noticed, the main difference between these 2, and once you notice it, you can tell which one is correct, not to mention the many Hadith and the Salaf Books, which clear any doubts as to why not to use Philosophy.

The Argument from Contingency only proves a Necessary Being. This is true. This is why there are two other arguments: the argument that the Necessary Being is a Fā'il Mukhtār and another argument that the Necessary Being is One. The mutakallimīn affirm all of the sifāt of Allāh, even if you do not agree with the mode of this affirmation.

1. The mutakallimīn do not say we rely on our characteristics. They say that the our characteristics depend on Allah to make them the way they are. And this is agreed upon by all. 2. The mutakallimīn say Allāh is not dependent on anything, but again, this doesn't mean that His characteristics are negated. Just because some of you insist that they do ta'tīl doesn't make it the case.

the mistake is in treating abstract existences (mawjudat dihniyya) and concrete existances (mawjudat 3ayniyya) the same way, when they say a being is dependent, they mean dependent on another being, not dependent in general (mutlaq al-iftiqar). these philosophical arguments are always full of ambiguities.

This is going above my head....

sadly atheists beleive in chance and no necessary beings at times today, intelligent design of our bodiies and life shows there is a Creator. Ashariis should learn Quran 36 :36, Allah made us needy pairs, while Allah is 1 and independent with Perfect Attributes!

Every person can speak even cry , but which one will be heard? "Ah its not important, all matter i have doing what been told"

Did Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah not refute this interpretation of the contingency argument by saying the Attributes of Allah are not separable pieces? I’ve heard he did that

pieces or parts does not mean attributes ! the contingency argument reach a conclusion of there must be a independent god that does not depend on any thing aka pieces or parts now what is the problem ? greek philosophers, asharii,maturidi,motazli will say that ok attributes are also parts so god does not have attributes or they would say that god attributes are only known by using mind such as free will , power etc if i agree with the main conclusion of the contingency argument and say god attributes are known from using mind like free will , power and also from Quran, Sunna whats wrong with it ?

Great video bro, this video finally made me realize why kalam should not be used in dawah, I see so many people using kalam then calling it something else.

The way to prove that the necessary being has sifat, is by pointing out intelligent design that exist all around us. From nature, space and human biology we can determine that this necessary being has a consciousness. It therefore can also be concluded that since this necessary being has a consciousness, it provides guidance to us to live the best optimum lives through prophets. We accept all prophets from Adam to Muhammad peace be upon them all. However, the only book that has been preserved is the quran and there is historical documentation and scientific evidence to show this. Finally, the linguistic, historic, scientific miracles prove that this quran cannot be written by a man living in a desert using just his intellect. Mind you this argument can only be used against an aethist. The contingency argument helps to convert an aethist to an agnostic. After that you use the quran and sunnah. The contingency argument is just a tool that can be used in a specific scenario. Or it can be thought of as a medicine to an illness. Once the illness has been cured it is not recommended to consume it further.

🤲🤲🤲

Long time no see

Yes the same way pointing to your nose being above your mouth for the existence of God does not prove god's attributes

Imagine M. Hijaab getting caught and athiest asking him to prove that the necessary existence is Allah and not someone or something else.

Mohammad Hijab made a video to refute this video, I need answer from you . Please say something about his video.

umm non muslim upon the contingency argument then comes to Islam to accept all the characteristics of Allah

Mohammed tuburooj, Frown2jahannam, Alineedsdawah... have all left the chat.

Al ikhlas surah the lightly definition of Almighty creator (Allah)no need divide because khilaf argument.. simple Allah knows better..so be united...

All that is your idea shaykh.

But didn’t Sheikh Ibn Tayymiah r.a study philosophy to understand the enemy and disassemble their arguments?

I've got a question. Is kalaam haram or not recommended because our scholars says so or it's because Rasuulullah said so? The evidences I am seeing or hearing on both sides is that this scholar said this, that scholar said that. Never came across "Muhammad Rasuulullah said that"

Deviant hijab will never come out of the box until he returns his affair to the way of Salaf

Ibnu siina is disbeliever? Is that what he mean brother Abdulrahman?

At 5:21 he says "They say". Who are "they"? If he intends the proponents of the the arguments (theists) then he is incorrect. This is *not* the claim of the proponents. This was the argument of Jahm ibn Safwan ( about sifaat), that is upon him alone. If he intends the atheists, then the atheist claim that the necessary being is energy and matter. That does have properties. Either way, it does not seem correct to say that a necessary being has literally no characteristics.

MH is literally defending the contingency argument like its his religion...

your confusing everyone ask Mohammad Hijab or the other brothers to teach you.

Im not for debates , Especially the people of biddah, but someone really needs to debate MH because how much damage he is doing (or atleast a refutation by a proper student of knowledge ) Im not against or support shamsi , but he released a video that MH came for his(shamsi) help for the David wood debate , asking him basic stuff , and still MH makes videos against him. Which goes to show that this man is not to be trusted And dont get me started in his vile manners , it's not even funny anymore May Allah guide us all