Destroying atheism | Striking speech of Shaykh Hamza Yusuf

The striking speech of Shaykh Hamza Yusuf. He talks about new trends of Atheism.
#atheist #atheism
#hamzayusuf #faith #islam #islamicreminder #2022 #2022 #islamicspeech #islamicreminder #muslimworld

[@hadukenuphigh2284]

this Man is Rajel wa nusf(a Man and a half +)!!! 👑like we say in Tunis. I love him what a blessing for Islam 🌱💎💎💎

[@cafeihsan6529]

❤️❤️

[@munaahmed2795]

BnnqbIn In

[@TheUneducatedTeacher]

Islam blessed him brother. And us KM Hemmans The KZbinr

[@hadukenuphigh2284]

@@TheUneducatedTeacher at least ALLAH Brother.... Alhamdulllillah 🌱👍🏼

[@Moebad1111]

Haha we say that in Yemen too! ! Now I use it to people I tell them I’m not just right I’m right and a half! Hahaha

[@aqoonqaate8109]

Thats why its important to learn all the agenda books you can get to refute atheists

[@nektekket852]

Kindly refute this sir. I am unconvinced of the existence of any "god". I'm interested to see how you can refute that, since it is the entirety of my atheism.

[@dsbjn6749]

BaroqAllahu feekum Allahuma Zidna Eemanan wa Yaqeenan Wa Fiqha Aameen Assalammualaikum WBT Sheikh. We love ❤️ you and we love ❤️ the Ummah.

[@erwinsmith5381]

اللهم صل وسلم على سيدنا ومولانا محمد عبدك ورسولك النبي الأمي وعلى آله وصحبه وسلم

[@zapy422]

JazzakAllah khairan

[@ReazAhmed-utqe]

SubhanAllah❤

[@jameschoice3983]

i hope you live, where you were your origiuns are. we don´t need those zealy, violent and hypocrit idiots in Europe. The only bring hate, antisemitism and violence towards innocent people (just bcs. they are born with a different sexual orientation and feelings than the average cititzen) and backwardednss to the humanist, free, democratic world.

[@bakersportsyunesakramawi7058]

Jazack Allah shak hamza yousef

[@mousumi8158]

Very nice speech

[@roubaissa6996]

Ma sha Allah

[@Mona-qe4jt]

Subhanna Allah

[@jameschoice3983]

embarrasing.

[@arshianasreen583]

Please give us the link to Complete talk

[@anisarather1558]

Subhan Allah ❤️

[@tabsoha3560]

Have they ever reflected on the wonders of the heavens and the earth, and everything Allah has created, and that perhaps their end is near? So what message after this ˹Quran˺ would they believe in? Quran 7:185 The Qur'an was gradually revealed over the course of 23 years then why do we see the repetition of words and complicated symmetry appears frequently in the Quran. For example, life and death are both mentioned 145 times throughout the Quran. Angels and devils are mentioned 88 times each, while man and woman are each mentioned 24 times. In the Quran, the word "day" appears 365 times, which some scholars have linked to the number of days in a year. In the Quran, the term "month" appears 12 times, according to the number of months in a year. The word "days" is repeated 30 times in the plural form, which corresponds to the number of days in a month.

[@shahid8545]

2:21 Non existence cannot bring about existence Anarchy cannot bring about order. Ignorance cannot bring about knowledge.

[@cafeihsan6529]

❤️

[@johnhammond6423]

And the special pleading fallacy cannot lead you to God.

[@mohammeddockrat7544]

Man cannot create only process!!!

[@arian8533]

Full video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKiqlop7bt-DjJI

[@zainoliprm]

Allahu Akbar

[@Jay-kx4jf]

2:39 wel, Chaos_can_ bring about Order. because its be a part of it, example: roll a die a 100 times, the probability of the dice going 1,2,3,4,5,6,5,4,3,2,1 does exist even if incredibly small.

[@zouaghi09]

This random series is not order through chaos. It is just one case out of he multitude of possible cases. The physical rule which embodies Imam Hamza's maxim is the 2nd law of thermodynamics: entropy can only increase. Yet within a big ensemble, order can locally appears! This in no way negates the broad qualitative rule edicted by Cheikh Hamza: chaos can't generate order.

[@Jay-kx4jf]

@@zouaghi09 chaos generates local order exactly as you mentioned. Within Chaos is where Order is born. Order can only exist within Chaos. Ofcourse Hamzah believes there's an ultimate God from which Order comes, which pulls it outside of Chaos. But without evidence of that ultimate being, that's ends up a circular argument.

[@125discipline2]

that's not example of chaos. that's example of probability. chaos does not follow rules. so the right example is asking someone to role 1000 from a pair of normal dice. 0% chance.

[@Jay-kx4jf]

@@125discipline2 yes chaos doesn't follow rules, including the rule of being always random. chaos includes all possibilities. Even the possibility of repetitions.

[@zouaghi09]

​​ @Jay But you are still talking about "thermodynamical" order i.e. that is from from random processes (Beautiful order can indeed emerge as Progogine and his school has demonstrated, but any functionality to it?!) , but you are still hovering at ground zero! You need to reach the living, and more to the point, the conscious and then the human who is, in the religious framework, accountable for his actions. A pretty long way to go.. Now you may ultimately fill out these gaps in the naturalistic way, that is not impossible in some future (and I am open to that, although there is no guarantee), but that will not be an argument for atheism,because any Muslim and will rightly so will argue that is part of the "Sunan of Allah" (God's patterns and ways of action in the natural world) as made explicit in the Quran. In fact the main Quranic message as far as finding out about the functioning of the World is certainly: "Say, travel through the Earth and see how God did originate creation; so will God produce a later creation, for Allah has power over all", and also "Do they not look at the sky above them- How We have made it and adorned it, and there are no flaws in it", and "Observe what is in the heavens and earth; signs and warners...". So you see that we don't need a God of the gaps and we can accept science present and future endeavors with full serenity. Every Muslim is indeed a seeker (physical and spiritual one)... In any case, in the general sense that Shaikh Hamza was talking, in the realm of the human and even the inert, "creation can't come from chaos" is a fair statement. Going further leads us to discuss ergodicity, "rare Earth" hypothesis or abundant one, that is speculations and at best philosophy...

[@jazeelkhourchid1734]

لا إله إلا الله محمد عبده و رسوله

[@aliardogen5846]

Where is full video

[@arian8533]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKiqlop7bt-DjJI

[@DaWanderer]

Where?

[@tesmith47]

light has been changed into matter and quantum particles pop into existence all the time

[@user-so4le3vd9w]

Who made light?

[@mtom2237]

How do you know they pop into existence? Nothing comes from nothing.

[@michaelabbott9080]

If everything needs a creator,then who or what created your god...

[@nasiriqbal9067]

Dear when you met your lord after death and see him then tell who created him

[@michaelabbott9080]

@@nasiriqbal9067 I understand that you believe in god and an afterlife...I do not,simply because in 25yrs,l have never been presented with any demonstrable,testable evidence that it is true...so your threats are meaningless unless you can show they are real...

[@nasiriqbal9067]

Dear i m not going to threat these are realities and the evidence is your own body your own soul think about it

[@michaelabbott9080]

@@nasiriqbal9067 I know my body exists...I can feel it,weigh it,measure it,photograph it and even cut it open and see how it works and what is inside...and so can other people....I cannot do any of those things with what you call a soul...Please explain to me how l can physically verify or test.... that what you call a soul actually exists....

[@nasiriqbal9067]

In Quran Allah answered this question Soul is the commond of Allah

[@kulsumbibi1932]

🕊🤲🌹

[@afrikhotel]

Quran 56:64 says " Is it you who makes it grow, or are We the grower?" Can an atheist do this challenge without God's property?

[@iiddrrii6051]

This is quite silly. Plays grow on their own. No God required. Just because a book says it’s God does it is just as silly as my book saying my dead grandfather makes the plants grow. It’s an empty claim and challenge

[@respectfuldebates]

"Nothing can come from nothing" 1) How do you know that something has to come from nothing? Why can't matter exist for ever?

[@painkillergameplay2483]

I think hes miss spoken it

[@shahtalha9325]

Because matter came into existence and was never there forever. It had a finite beginning

[@respectfuldebates]

@@shahtalha9325 How do you know that matter cannot be infinite?

[@shahtalha9325]

@@respectfuldebates Matter began about 13 billion years ago according to research. The first long-lived matter particles of any kind were protons and neutrons, which together make up the atomic nucleus. These came into existence around one ten-thousandth of a second after the Big Bang.

[@respectfuldebates]

@@shahtalha9325 that isn't the full story. The Planck epoch is the point where physical laws that we know today break down. It is also the point where matter, as we know it, with protons and neutrons, began to exist. However, scientist don't know what existed before it. There is some hypothesises, but they are yet to be proven. My point is this: We simply don't know whether physical matter is infinite or not. So, let me ask this again: how do you know that all physical matter (not just protons and neutrons) are not eternal?

[@sibin3732]

If you really think that the universe was empty at the beginning and then God created it, where did the ingredients come from?

[@Fuad_oMan]

ALLAH s.w is out of time and space, they are also his creations. And when he went to create something he just said “be” and it is Quran 36:82

[@sibin3732]

@@Fuad_oMan no, he said you can not get something from nothing

[@Fuad_oMan]

@@sibin3732 bro first take a deeeeep breath and be free from argumentative thinking…… then think about this concept OUT OF TIME AND SPACE I hope you get that big picture May ALLAH help you ammen

[@Miomomo100]

SELAM

[@ashishsharma5672]

watch ghalib kamal

[@125discipline2]

one of the reason why atheism is so rampant in the west is because christianity humanize God. so their idea of God is kind old man in the sky.. which is very easy to destroy.

[@geelee1977]

It is pretty amazing that this man was only able to formulate fallacy.

[@g1j2k3]

What he really does is destroy logic, not atheism. He keeps saying “nothing can come from nothing”. OK .. well where did God come from then ? No doubt he will say, “God was not created, he was ‘self caused’ ”. Which is precisely the same claim I could thus make for the universe. Adding God as an entity solves nothing. We may as well focus on the universe and say it is past eternal .. a bouncing / cyclic Cosmology. Moreover a proposed God creating a universe would not be a Personal God, focussed on instructing, rebuking threatening and punishing one recent species (our human era is 0.1% as long as that of the the dinosaurs, and 0.0001% as long as life has existed on earth) - one species amongst millions, on one planet amongst trillions. Yet he thinks this Creator is talking to and watching us while creating 5,000 new stars every second. Hhmm ..

[@SimpleReally]

so you're basically a modern volcano worshipper, you attribute everything to the universe which is basically a larger volcano

[@iprohoodini7889]

God is timeless, He has always been there. That's why we have something rather than nothing. God was not created (or started) nor can He die (or end).

[@easysolve6044]

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him. (Quran: 112: 1-4)

[@faris9196]

Just go and study basics of atheism to claim on something for atheism.

[@nektekket852]

I have listened carefully, with respect, and I have heard absolutely nothing to convert me to any kind of theism. You are sadly self contradictory, I agree that biologists should steer clear of cosmology, just as theologians should steer clear of science.

[@iiddrrii6051]

Well spoken.

[@lemon_n_mint]

Nothing can come from nothing, even god.

[@raeedkamran6136]

God is eternal

[@Charles-ij1ow]

There has to be a creator because nothing is created without a creator. Sure I can kind of go with that. Now the issue I have is all religion's we have I know is man made, so I guess we are back to the start again.

[@ihsanodabas3654]

İs not clever.

[@Charles-ij1ow]

@@ihsanodabas3654 It's the truth is all

[@jameschoice3983]

@@ihsanodabas3654 Y o u are not clever. One needs to be quite dumb to believe in this old crap in the 21st century. But ok, believe, what you have been told to believe since you were a baby. But: please stay where you are and do not decide to come to europe. The larger the muslim communities in Europe grow, the more drastical the decrease of the average IQ and quality of philosophical discussions in Europe get.

[@DaniyalQureshiOfficial]

study and understand the concept of a creator in different religions, ask and learn instead of remaining in a bubble.

[@ihsanodabas3654]

@@DaniyalQureshiOfficial ,,,witch another religions ??

[@tesmith47]

this theist is running scard

[@michaelabbott9080]

Medieval nonsense..

[@theoskeptomai2535]

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._* And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 10 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by theists that a god exists. To be clear, these are not premises for an argument concluding there to be no gods. These are simply facts I take into account when evaluating the claim. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists. 5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain either fallacies or false or unsubstantiated premises. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

[@hurmetnoka9434]

You are the proof of God`s design and magnificent creation. You were a microscopic cell. And now you see, you speak you reason and you learn the immaterial knowledge and speak the immaterial language and you deny your immaterial soul.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@hurmetnoka9434 That is a load of BS. You haven't provided a causal relationship between my existence and this god you've mentioned.

[@hurmetnoka9434]

@@theoskeptomai2535 i can not be bothered. God says lets just wait when you die and everyone will see the truth. So lets just wait

[@saltymonke3682]

that's not atheism, that's theist agnostic

[@saltymonke3682]

@@theoskeptomai2535 here's the thing, learn biology or bioinformatics, you cannot make any DNA or RNA sequence out of nothing or chemicals, that's it. We took every genetics materials from existing source. who wrote those codes/genwtic sequence? not human for sure, not me nor my team of biotechnologists

[@robindude8187]

"...you cannot get something from nothing..." And no one has said it does, or ever has. This is a straw man. "...we have scientists that are denying design..." Yeah, that's because they found ways that the _appearance_ of design can be _highly_ misleading, and, in fact, things we _used to_ think _had to be_ the result of 'deliberate design' can, in fact, form _entirely_ without intent _at all._ Not that intent _could not_ do it, but that intent is an _unnecessary, extra_ hypothesis _on top of_ the existence of such things. The more we look at reality, the more clear it becomes that this universe has been running on automatic since the Big Bang, that the universe _as a whole_ and _on Earth_ for _almost all_ of its existence has not contained any intelligence to speak of. Well, sort of, I mean... for all we know an advanced civilization like ours _might_ have existed 200,000,000 years ago, and since then everything they've built has been reduced to less than rubble so we won't ever find it, but still, nothing prior to _600,000,000_ years ago was ever going to be intelligent (animals date to back then), and _even that_ far back is a small fraction of the lifetime of Earth (13.2%) or the universe (4.4%). "...it's all a trick in the mind... and yet we can clearly see the design..." That's like saying something _is not_ an illusion because you can clearly see the illusion. ... What? It's _still_ an illusion! Just because you can perceive what the illusion is showing you doesn't make the illusion _real!_ "...we can explain life without God..." We can explain the _diversity_ of life without God. _As yet_ the origins of life, itself, are not _100%_ clear... but are close enough for most people. If we accept _that,_ then we can show how, without intent, life diversified on the planet, how life _arose_ on the planet in the _first_ place, how the planet _itself_ came about, and how it all leads back to an original singularity (probably, again, close enough for most people). What _haven't_ we explained without intent? Where that singularity came from... and that's _it._ That's the _only_ place left for a god to hide, is in the origins of the Big Bang, and to _that_ we don't say 'no god did it', we only say 'we do not know' and wait for _demonstrable_ evidence for an answer. We have _several_ possible ways it _might_ have happened _without_ a god, but we can't point to any of them definitively, not even to the level of the singularity or the origins of life. _All_ of those other explanations are based on stuff we can _actually detect_ and thus don't need a god or intelligence involved. "...where did it all start..." Hang on, you were discussing design _in the human body,_ which is a _different topic_ here. Switching to 'well where did the cosmic dust come from' is a _dishonest tactic._ You want us to _forget about_ looking at the human body, which we can explain how it arose, _without the need_ for intelligence, from simpler (ie, single-celled) organisms. This _destroys_ your initial point and now you have to argue something _else,_ as if that's what you meant all along, which it isn't. That's why this is deceptive. You are, in effect, _lying,_ sir. "...the atheist are liars..." Rich, coming from the person who lies about _their own argument_ from design. Hypocrite. "...anarchy or chaos cannot bring order..." Yes, it can, and it happens all the time _or_ there's no such thing as 'chaos' for anyone to examine to find out what it does. "...ignorance cannot bring knowledge into existence..." That's how _all_ our knowledge _was_ brought into existence. We _were_ ignorant, and with that we examined things to _figure out_ what happened. If this is a means of talking about how intelligence _arose_ in animals, again... evolution covers that quite nicely, with no need for intent to bring it about. "...this is something that humans have never believed..." At one time, you could have said that about 'the Earth is round'. Does the fact that humans _of the past_ believed something different have _any bearing_ on what is _actually true?_ No, it doesn't. That's an argument from popularity fallacy. "...this modern argument is not a new argument..." True. What's _new_ is the _evidence_ to _back it up_ with, _plus_ some new understanding about epistemology, and how we go about deciding what is likely true and what isn't likely true. All supernatural claims fall into the 'not likely true' category _by definition_ here, and _part_ of that is that if we _do not_ accept this, then we have to accept _all_ the miraculous claims of history, from _every_ religion, making _all_ of them _simultaneously_ true! Even when they _flat out contradict_ each other! And _that_ is just _insanity,_ so we don't do it. "...the intellect is immaterial, it is not of this world..." Everything we can _test_ says otherwise. Wanna find out? Go get _extremely drunk_ and have yourself on video. Find out _just_ how much your intelligence suffers from having a _material substance_ in your body, and how it _returns_ when that _material substance_ is _removed_ from your body. Your intelligence _is_ the result of material processes. It's a _description_ of a _certain behavior_ that exists in _some_ material objects and not _other_ material objects based _solely_ on the _arrangement_ of matter, just as a _snow flake_ is just an arrangement of matter and behaves _like_ a snow flake for that reason. "...we don't know where we go when we dream, but we know that we leave this place..." Not so. You don't 'go' anywhere. You just have internal experiences, and we can detect them with sophisticated machines. The same parts of the brain that light up when you see and hear things _also_ light up when you dream. They are _illusions, hallucinations,_ and _nothing_ more. They are the brain operating as a physical thing and rearranging chemistry in the brain for future operation. _Dogs_ dream, _most_ mammals dream, probably most _animals_ dream. You've gone _nowhere._

[@zakyzayn5361]

Are we determined or free

[@robindude8187]

@@zakyzayn5361 *Are we determined or free* Good question. No one knows, and there doesn't seem to be a way to find out, either. Though _quite likely_ we are determined, whether there's a god or not. If there _is not_ a god, then it seems likely we are determined because our minds are based on physical processes which are likely deterministic (we can only say _likely_ deterministic because we don't _know_ that they are, in fact, deterministic). If there _is_ a god (here meaning one that is all-powerful and all-knowing), then we are likely determined because our behavior stems from the way we were formed and the situation in which we find ourselves, all of which was selected by this god _in full knowledge_ of _exactly_ what that would end up being like, and _could have_ made us in _very slightly_ different ways that would have changed the outcome, but _he_ chose _this_ way to make us and our environment, meaning _he_ chose the end result.

[@zakyzayn5361]

@@robindude8187 If there is a god (here meaning one that is all-powerful and all-knowing), then we are likely determined because our behavior stems from the way we were formed and the situation in which we find ourselves, all of which was selected by this god in full knowledge of exactly what that would end up being like, and could have made us in very slightly different ways that would have changed the outcome, but he chose this way to make us and our environment, meaning he chose the end result. - I would like to answer this by Quoting certain stuffs and my opinions too " Dr. Albert Ellis, an American psychologist who originated a reasonably successful form of psychotherapy that he labelled ‘Rational Emotive Therapy,’ writes: The idea that certain people are bad or wicked springs from the ancient theological doctrine of free will, which assumes that every person has the freedom to act ‘rightly’ or ‘wrongly’ in relation to some absolute standard of truth and justice ordained by ‘God’ or the ‘natural law’; and that if anyone uses his ‘free will’ to behave ‘wrongly’ he is a wicked sinner. This doctrine has no scientific foundation because its key terms-including ‘absolute truth,’ ‘God,’ ‘free will,’ and ‘natural law’-are purely definitional and can neither be proven nor disproven in empirical scientific terms. " Muslim View on Free Will - According to View of Maturidis [A Major Sunni Theological School] According to Maturidis, humanbeing has two kinds of will: One of them called kull, and the other called cuzz. They think that two powers have effect on the action. One of them belongs to Allah, which is creating the action. The other one belongs to human being, which contains capability (istitaat). Hereby, coming out of nothing for action is actualised by Allah via the attribution of teqwin (the creation from nothing) and in the process of taking place of the action, the will belongs to human being. Thus, Maturidis thought the power and will that effects to creation of action as one side of it belongs to Allah and other side of it belongs to human being. For them, the creation pertains to Allah only. All of things are created by Allah. Whether voluntary or obligatory, all actions and the power are created by Allah. According to Maturidi, being the object of Allah’s command and prohibition and facing with good or bad deeds show us that human being has freedom in his actions. Example "I've freedom and possibility to choose how to use knives in different ways like cutting vegetable (is something Good) but if I'm using it to chop someone's fingers (it's something wrong) so it's not knives fault in this scenario it's mine coz i misused my ability of freedom." In Short Māturīdism holds that humans are creatures endowed with reason, which differentiates them from animals. The relationship between people and God differs from that of nature and God; humans are endowed with free-will, but due to God's sovereignty, God creates the acts the humans choose, so humans can perform them. So my simple advice to you is to Throughly study different perspective of muslim on theses issues before saying some about them.

[@y_r_u_geh]

Surah 45. Al-Jaathiya Verse 3. Indeed, within the heavens and and the earth are the signs for the believers. Verse 4. And in the creation of yourselves and what He disperses of moving creatures are signs for people who are certain [in faith] Verse 4. And in the alteration of the night and the day and what Allah send down from the sky of provision and gives life thereby to Earth after its lifelessness and [in His] directing of the winds are signs for people who reason. P.s to you is your faith, to us is our faith.

[@robindude8187]

@@zakyzayn5361 *I would like to answer this by Quoting certain stuffs and my opinions too* Sure, you're entitled to your opinion. After all, that's what everything I said _after_ I noted it was impossible to know for sure _is._ And since it was _only_ an opinion, it really doesn't matter. ... But it's fun to talking about, innit? :) *According to Maturidi, being the object of Allah’s command and prohibition and facing with good or bad deeds show us that human being has freedom in his actions.* That's nice. It's wrong, though, since it _still means_ that the nature of man was made _by Allah_ in a way that he knew _in advance_ how it would play out, he _could have_ altered our selection process of action and that would have led to different results, meaning the results we _have_ are the ones he _wanted_ and he, alone, _chose,_ while _you_ just play out what he decided must happen. You're not free. *"I've freedom and possibility to choose how to use knives in different ways like cutting vegetable (is something Good) but if I'm using it to chop someone's fingers (it's something wrong) so it's not knives fault in this scenario it's mine coz i misused my ability of freedom."* And, from the point of view of God, _you_ are a knife. You have no more ability to decide to do _other than_ what God has decreed you _will_ do by dint of you being made how you were made. As such _you_ are not good or bad, God is. *In Short Māturīdism holds that humans are creatures endowed with reason, which differentiates them from animals.* Then they are not only _wrong,_ they are _demonstrably_ wrong. We _know_ animals can reason, we've _seen them do it._ They aren't _as good at it_ as we are, they aren't as _smart_ as we are, but they are _able_ to reason through things and figure out answers that get them what they want. Also, we _are_ animals, by definition, but I know what you mean by 'animals' here (that is, non-human animals). *So my simple advice to you is to Throughly study different perspective of muslim on theses issues before saying some about them.* Nah. Everything you presented is _wildly_ silly, has _zero_ evidence for it, and is just assertion on top of assumption. Why would I _bother_ with that noise when all the _actual evidence_ that we see around us points to our wills and actions being a product of the brain and nothing beyond that?