So the injeel would hade been physical.

@JohnnyW-od5mg how does saying go to the people of the book mean the injeel was physical? Lol.

@@iyvern7465 it’s closed now that’s why. They will open it up later inshallah

@@petritkola salam aleykum akhi, do you know when will they open for madinah university?

⁠@@petritkolabrother what date does it open up I’m getting mixed answers

Ghazali (the position I was critiquing) very much says that there are no causes in this world. Once again fire does not cause cotton to burn, it just so happens that fire and cotton are put together and Allah makes it so they burn but NOT BECAUSE fire burns If we go back to the Hadith, and rain has no causing effect at all (I.e. it just so happens rain hits the earth and vegetation grows at the same time) then the analogy to Allah's knowledge that knowledge is presented to us at the same time we accept it or reject it. But NOT BECAUSE of the knowledge itself. You get me?

@@petritkola 1. What Ghazali was saying is that there is no intrinsic necessity for fire to burn, every burning is by God's will, to say other wise is the wrong position, because, we could even argue that if God is the one who decided the nature of fire and even for it to burn God still mediates the burning (given Providence), that's all we need to prove occasionalism. There is however normative cause, from the POV of creatures/man, that where compatibilism comes in, that's why I think you should study compatibilism as a Theory in itself first to fully grasp it's utility. 2. Like I said, we can explain the analogy by making a distinction between God's POV and creatures POV, the prophet pbuh was using an analogy from creatures POV, which is justified (given compatibilism), but the deeper question is, who made one ground hard and the other not? God, by decree. The answer to this question will determine if your position might actually be Mu'tazili, similar to my other comment about, who decides who accept guidance or not?

@@africandawahrevival we have to first discuss whether ghazali (the position I argued against) believed things have intrinstic properties or not. Ghazali himself does not believe anything in this world has intrinsic properties to cause anything. As with the first and with the story of Ibrahim ghazali says explicitly that fire does not cause anybring to burn. It has no intrinsic property of burning. It is only Allah and allah does not use secondary means to cause things. Do you agree that this is what ghazali believes?

@@petritkola Fire not having intrinsic property of burning is only to show that there is no necessity of fire burning anything save God's will, it doesn't mean that fire doesn't burn, in fact it does, just like the Ashari position on power, la hawla wala quwatta illa billah, God is the source of any power amongst creatures, but also God is the one who decides if a particular power is effective or not, just like their position on guidance too, God sends guidance, but none can come to guidance save by God's grace/will, etc. We have power and cause things to happen from human POV, and that is sufficient for responsibility according to compatibilism. Btw, there are some Ibn Taymiyah academics who hold that at the end of the day, from some of his other writings, his position is not actually different from the Asharis, read also, Mohammed Hijabs article on sapience about determinism.

@@africandawahrevival in my video I've brought up ghazali saying fire does not have intrinstic priorities. But it's only from Allah. the connection between what is habitually believed to be a cause and what is habitually believed to be an effect is not necessary their connection is due to the prior decree of God In terms of fire and cotton being burnt: These two things are happening at the same time but not that one is the cause of the other (Ghazali, 171). These are quotes. He says kasb is the solution to strict determinism because we can choose our actions but our actions do not cause anything to occur (ghazalli says this) Can you show me a quote in which he says differently?

@@africandawahrevival and? Is that contradictory?

@@petritkola That's beside the point, I thought you were making an argument by refering to the impossibility of an infinite regress (your gun analogy), but Ibn Taymiyah believed in creatio ex creation and an infinite past.

@@africandawahrevival an infinite past of created things and infinite past of CAUSES are different. Ibn taymiyyah believes the later is contradictory but the former not to be. An infinite set of caused things are different and an Infinite set of causes is what is contradictory. That's why the sniper analogy is different than, say, an infinite set of rocks or whayever. You get me?

​@@petritkolaI know y'all believe that, we disagree with such distinction, please respond to my other comments which is more relevant to the topic.

@@africandawahrevival which comment?

@@tafreekladh so if someone has an opinion in Islam that is against the haqq we shouldn't discuss it 🤔

And this explains the superficial understanding of the modern day salafis, they can't comprehend the ideas they try to refute.

@@tafreekladh this still doesn't help the faultiness in the Ashari explanation with the Hadith I presented

@@Nazam44 I didn’t say because it’s in bukhari it’s sahih. I said it’s hard to prove it’s daeef. This Hadith I haven’t personally found someone say it’s weak

You can get in don’t stress, but avoid the politics

@@UrDreamNet can you show me in the video where I in this one context got ibn taymiyyah wrong? You are making a broad statement but not showing where I didn’t present him properly. Because I think in this one very specific matter I did it justice.

@@oeshkoer show me where he said this because I have never heard that he said this Furthermore on your other comments on infinite regress of the past, I don't see a contradiction tbh

@@petritkola How you mean no contradiction? To give you a example, let say Allaah was always creating a day one after another, then it would mean to reach the current day then a infinite days must have created and completed to reach the current which is illogical as infinite never gets completed. So to reach the current day only a finite days in the past could have been created that is it must have a 1st creation of a day. Hope you understand it.

@@petritkola And beside that how in the world can Ibn Taymiyyah believe in the generic eternality of the universe [ qidam al-alam al-naw’i] and deny the eternality of a particular thing of the universe [qidam al-ahad]? This is surely a binding implication upon him, for how can the world be generically eternal without there being at least one thing [that makes up that whole] that is eternal ?

@@oeshkoer ok is jannah forever? Like does jannah have an "end"? No? If jannah has no end, and there's a Hadith that the Prophet said every Friday people will see Allah, how can we get to Friday if jannah is forever and we can't move in time due to there being an infinite set (based on your logic)

@@petritkola Are you serious man? In jannah there will be after every 6 days always a Friday and having Fridays will go on forever.

@@MaxamadAxmadqaasim lol prove it cause he wasn't 😂

@@petritkola look his fatwah you will see

@@MaxamadAxmadqaasim you made the claim show proof. People who make the claim and say "google it" don't really add anything to the Convo lol

We are suppose to say(!), "inshallah" and "mashallah" and "bismillah, al hamdu lillah", like, when drinking water.

"Tie your camel and rely on Allah" but I wouldn't have a camel if it wasn't by Allah S.W.T. I wouldn't get to my destination if Allah S.W.T. didn't will it, allow it. I wouldn't be alive lf Allah didn't allow me to still be alive. I think you are going too far in the depiction or conveyance of the Ash'ari school of thought and Al Ghazzali's works and other sufi's works in saying that they say or are like the people who say, that we humans don't have free will. I say Allah causes the rain and the wind and is the controller. His is the dominion of the heavens and the earth. We shouldn't get too arrogant or this type of self reliant thinking but I like some of Ibn Taymiyah's aqeedah in this regard as well, but I don't think it's perfect once he goes into it in detail, I think it's better to leave it very simple. And Allah aleum. It is a complicated topic, I dont think I focused enough or have went into it enough myself or quite have the knowledge lf the Qur'an and Sunnah to say too much. I think it's also good to note and think that the Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. before like this one battle, I forget, stayed up praying during the night but and also, he S.A.W. was the least fearful and most courageous of people they say as well. That is a kind of trust, which is a submission. And iman, which I do think, is attained through will though and good works etc, and inner work, I don't think Ash'ari's deny that, but ultimatelly are deferring and bowing still to Allah S.W.T. in humble submissiveness and accept Allah's decree as well.

Jihad of the nafs - Instead of being self focused and self centered, me me me, which is a kind of arrogance that results in division or divides such as self-righteousness and anger like when one's ego is hurt or attacked. Jihad of the nafs is not easy. And the Ash'ari's do not say, just do as you please etc., but they say to acquire knowledge etc. And knowledge can guide to right action which is the acquiescence of good fruit, but no doubt I myself would not be able to produce such fruit myself, we are just slaves/servants of Allah S.W.T. and to fear Allah S.W.T. 😧🙂. I think it's good Allah has made all kinds of different people. Of different colors etc. As Allah S.W.T. says and so we can expect different people to have different points of view. These are allowable differences and we can think and contemplate on such and many different things and topics. We shouldn't try to say people are disbelievers etc. Because they have differing beliefs and understandings than us on certain and allowable differences of opinion. Certainly we are not suppose to divide onto sects and to fear Allah regarding such extremism.

Do you cause the rain or does Allah? If the water becomes sunken into the ground how are you going to attain it? Or what are you to do? If your risq is taken away what are you going to do? If you are put into Gaza and face the situation and atrocities they face how are you going to handle that? Could you? Or would you break? - I've heard, we want to build our foundation on a rock, something solid, but we are not suppose to be like a piece of wood but more like a pliant kind of plant, or like a flower, able to bend but not break. Store your treasures up in heaven (build your house) but dont let your heart become hard like a rock or such like that or get too big headed or cocky, arrogant, etc. We come from a piece of discharged white fluid and Allah is the One and to Allah we will (*all*) be returned. And even if you do break, what are you going to do? Totally break or are you going to come back to Allah and ask for forgiveness? We're all humans. We all make mistakes and sin. But the ones higher in rank, like the Prophet's of Allah, S.W.T. are the ones who accept being thrown into the fire - accepting their fate. It's an internal acquiescence of "goodly strength", not like a piece of wood or a "one dimensional man".

Nice pfpic

@@Rian-zw3xn U too

Part 2 (continuation) : Ibn kathir praising ibn taymiyyah: Sharf ud din al Maqdasi, The Shaykh, The Imam, The Khateeb, The teacher, The Mufti Sharf ud din Abul Abbas Ahmad bin Shaykh Kamal ud din Ahmad bin Na`mah bin Ahmad bin Jafar bin Husayn bin Hammad al Maqdasi ash-Shafiee. He was born in 622 h and heard a lot (of hadeeth), he wrote good and useful books. He was deputy of the Judge, teacher and Khateeb in Damascus, He was a teacher as well as Khateeb in al Ghazaliyah and Dar al hadeeth al Nuriyah. At a time he taught in ash-Shamiyah al Baraniyah. He gave Ijazah of giving fatawa to a group of virtuous people, among them are Shaykh the Imam the Allamah Shaykh ul Islam Abul Abbas bin Taymiyyah, He was proud and happy with it and said: I have given the Ijazah to Ibn Taymiyyah to give fatwa who has mastered many of the vast disciplines of the Islamic sciences. [al Bidaya wal Nihaya 13/396] Ibn kathir also said: "In Damascus, a lot of tension arose due to the absence of the vice Head of State [who was in Egypt at the time]. The [Ash’ari] judge in Damascus ordered for some disciples of Ibn Taymiyyah to be punished IIn the same period, it so happened that al-Mizzi read a chapter refuting the Jahmiyyah from al-Bukhari’s Khalq Af’aal al-Ibaad under the Nasr Dome [in the Umayyad Mosque]… Some [Ash’ari] jurists who were present there became angry and complained to the Shafi’i [Ash’ari] judge, Ibn Sasraa who was an enemy of his. Al-Mizzi was therefore jailed. News reached Ibn Taymiyyah and he was saddened. He went to jail and had him taken out. He then went to the palace and found the judge there. They argued over al-Mizzi, so Ibn Sasraa took an oath that he would return al-Mizzi to jail or else he would step down as judge. [News reached Egypt], and the deputy Head of State had him re-imprisoned to keep the [Ash’ari] judge happy, but had al-Mizzi jailed nearby him in the city of Cusae [Asyut, Egypt]. Then the Deputy Head released him.When the Deputy Head returned, Ibn Taymiyyah told him what had happened to him and his disciples in his absence. The Deputy Head was deeply saddened and announced in Damascus that nobody should debate in theology, and whoever does so would have his wealth seized, his blood shed and his house and shop razed to the ground. The situation therefore cooled down…” [al Bidaya wal Nihaya 14/52-53, Ibn Hajar asqalani also mentioned in ad-Durar al Kamina.] Ibn kathir also said: "When friday came, As usual Shaykh Taqi ud din did Tafsir of “And indeed, you are of a great moral character” in Jamia (Amawi), Then on Saturday He met Qadhi Imam ud din and other scholars and they argued about Al Hamawiyah and they talked about many issues. He replied and silenced them after a long discussion. Then Shaykh Taqi ud din returned and everything was peaceful. Qadhi Imam ud din had good belief and had good intentions. [Al Bidaya wal Nihaya 14/17] "Shaykh Taqi ud din spoke with him firm (king of taatar-when he marched towards Damishq) and harsh manner which had great interests and benefits for the Muslims Wal Hamdulillah" [Al Bidaya wal Nihaya 14/20] "Ahmad bin Ibraheem bin Abdul Ghani al Sarawji al Hanafi, The commentator of “Al Hidayah”… He objected to Shaykh Taqi ud din Ibn Taymiyyah on Ilm al Kalaam in which he made people laugh at him. Shaykh Taqi ud din wrote many volumes in his Refutation and invalidated his evidences" [Al Bidaya wal Nihaya 14/77] When people presented a letter attributed to Prophet peace be upon him which states that Jiziya has been stopped from Jews then Ibn Kathir mentioned: "Shaykh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah argued and cleared their mistake and lie and that the letter is false. They accepted that the Jiziya should be given." [Al Bidaya wal Nihaya 14/33] Ibn Taymiyyah forgave all the people who did conspiracy against him: Sultan became angry with those judges who plotted against Ibn Taymiyyah and asked him to write a fatwa of killing these “judges”. But Shaykh never did that → Ibn Kathir mentioned: "Shaykh understood the meaning of Sultan`s anger, then he started to venerate the Judges and Scholars and rejected that he would go against them, and told him that if you kill them than, none of the same caliber could then be found in your country. Sultan said these are the people who harmed you and tried to kill you many times. Shaykh repliedAs for what they have done to me, and my right to extract a punishment, I forgive them, and they are free and whoever Harmed Allah and his Rasool than Allah will take his revenge. I will not take revenge for myself" [Al Bidaya wal Nihaya 14/71] Qadhi of al Maalakiyah Ibn Makhloof said “We have never seen the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah, We plotted against him and tried to take control over him but he took control over us. He argued (with Sultan) regarding us [Al Bidaya wal Nihaya 14/72] "Ibn taymiyyah forgave people who vonspired against him: The Jurists started to apologize regarding whatever they said bad against him." [al Bidaya wal Nihaya 4/72] Ibn kathir also wrote: Then they (Ibn Taymiyyah and Kamal ud din bin Zamalkani) engaged in a debate and people commended the merits of Shaykh Kamaal Al-Deen ibn Az-Zamalkaani, his wittiness, and careful researching as he debated Ibn Taymiyyah and talked with him. Finally, he accepted Al-‘Aqeedah (Al-Waasitiyyah) and Ibn Taymiyyah went home honored and revered.” [Al Bidaya wal Nihaya 14/52] Ibn Rajab mentioned that after the three majalis on the Aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyyah: وقع الإتفاق بعد ذلك على أن هذه عقيدة سنية سلفية They (all the scholars present in the majlis) agreed that this is the SUNNI and SALAFI Aqeedah. [dhaylh Tabqaat al Hanabilah of Ibn Rajab hanbalee 4/396] Ibn Abdul Hadi said regarding this debate: وقد أظهر الله من قيام الحجة ما أعز به أهل السنة وانصرف الشيخ تقي الدين إلى منزله Allah gave victory and honored Ahlus sunnah through the evidences, and Shaykh Taqi ud din departed to his home. [al Uqud ad-durriyah, Ghayat al Eemani 2/232] Ibn kathir further states: "His knowledge and virtues were praised by the scholars of his time like Qadhi al Khoobi, Ibn Daqeeq (al eid), Ibn an-Nahaas, Qadhi of the hanafis chief justice of Egypt, Ibn al Hareeri, and Ibn al Zamalkani and others. I saw in the writings of Ibn Zamalkani that he said: He (Ibn Taymiyyah) had the abilities of Ijtihaad, He was given an upper hand in writing good books, tarteeb, taqeem and explanation. and the following poetry was written on his book: What do they say in his praise* his attributes are many he is dominant evidence of Allah. He is marvel in this age, He is clear sign of the creation* His lights Superseded the dawn [al Bidaya wal Nihaya 14/159-160] Ibn rajab al hanbali said about ibn al zamalkani praising ibn taymiyyah after his debate with him (he accepted the view of ibn taymiyyah): "It has reached me from authentic way from Ibn al Zamalkani that he was asked regarding Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah and he said “one who had more memorized than him has not been seen in the last five hundred or four hundred years as the narrator is not sure but better is five hundred years”. [Dhayl Tabqaat al Hanabilah 1/340, Ibn Nasir ud din quoted in Radd al Waafir pafe 56, ar-Risalatul Zakiyah fe Thana al Aima al Ibn Taymiyyah page 37] Imam ad dahabi praises ibn taymiyyah: "In 698 h He wrote “al hamawiyyah” on Sifaat. His opponents gathered and went to him, they had back of a Hanafi Judge. They declared that fatawas should not be taken from him. But a group stood for his (Ibn Taymiyah) victory and Allah saved him. In 705 h the order came from Egypt that his aqeeda should be investigated. The Deputy of Damascus al Afram called the Judges and the Scholars for this issue…. THEN THEY AGREED THAT HIS AQEEDAH IS POWERFUL, SALAFI (i.e. the aqeedah of righteous predecessors). [al Uqud ad-Durriyah 1/211-212. al Kuwakib ad-Durriyah 112, Ghayat al Amani 2/229] Imam Mur’ee bin Yusaf al Hanbalee quoted from Ilm ud din Bazzarli that He said: "Qadhi (Imam ud din ash-Shafiee) said (When Ibn Taymiyah read his book al Hamawiyyah): whoever oppose him (Ibn Taymiyyah) or say things against him, I will see him by myself. His (Imam ud din’s) brother Jalal al-din said: whoever oppose or say things against the shaykh, we will punish him. People were waiting to listen good news about shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah and he reached his home in crowd of people. But his opponents accused him with those things which a man who have intellect will feel shy to mention them… after this incident the righteous people saw the best outcome of it. If we write about that it will make a volume." [al Qawl al Jalli fi Tarjuma Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyah page 357-358, also quoted by Shukri al Alusi from his book in Ghayat al Amani 2/231] Abu hafs al bazzar said about ibn taymiyyah: "He would send durood and salam on the Prophet peace be upon him whenever he would mention him. NO BY ALLAH I HAVE NOT SEEN anyone who did Tazeem of Messenger of Allah peace be upon him more then him, neither anyone who was more eager to follow the Prophet peace be upon him. " [Munaqib Ibn Taymiyah by al Bazzar page 28] So to the neo ashari jahmi who ridicules Shaykh al islam ibn taymiyyah with no knowledge. Are u claiming u are more knowledgeable than ur scholars who praised him and deemed him a scholar of Ahlul Sunnah? Learn to stay in your lane before bad mouthing an ocean on knowledge, which ur own ashari scholars praised greatly like as subki and as suyuti.

اللهم آمين

@@batzorigvaanchig6358 for the ayat I said that it can go both ways but leans more towards athari than ashari As for the Hadith, I showed that if we take the Ashari view, and rain has no intrinsic property in it of itself and only Allah makes vegetation grow, then Allah's knowledge as per analogy of the Hadith has no intrinsic property thus it cannot cause us to believe in his knowlege. The Hadith is sahih no one can dispute that I appreciate the comment maybe I did not clarify as well. But you can read the blog and scroll towards the Hadith portion to see more of it maybe. But I think if, as per ashari view, rain has no property to cause vegetation, and the prophet likened Allah's knowledge to rain, then taking the Ashari view, Allah's knowledge has no intrinsic property at all. Therefore we only believe in Allah if at the same time information came to us Allah made us believe. You get me?