The Abrahamic Experience - Firas Zahabi

[@mohammadhdiebi3249]

Wow SubhanAllah such a powerful argument we are used to the traditional dependency and KALAM arguments but this one is actually mind blowing about experiences etc I might have to rewatch this a couple of times as a lot of gems were mentioned throughout this video May Allah bless brother Firas and The one and only destroyer of Darwinism brother Subboor

[@siyarjoya9655]

Mohammad Hdieb I heard Kalam arguments are wrong. Are they and why? Is it against the Quran and Sunna and they way of Salaf?

[@mohammadhdiebi3249]

Siyar Joya Actually that is a big misconception, Ibn Taymiyyah was against some aspects of the arguments because they aren’t related to the Quran and Sunnah However he agreed with many others like the contingency argument (which is an amazing and powerful argument) and the cosmological argument if Ghazali

[@siyarjoya9655]

Mohammad Hdieb Just found an article about Kalam. It is true that there are valid points. Nevertheless, it’s not the way Islam was understood by the Salaf and I don’t if you agree but first generation were the best in adherence to the religion. Then the one after them and so on. So if they didn’t use these arguments in their times, we shouldn’t either. Allah knows best. If you’re interested, I can send you the link

[@mohammadhdiebi3249]

Siyar Joya I definetly agree with you that the Salaf didn’t use these arguments but we need to understand that there was no need for these arguments at that time Ibn Taymiyyah who was very strict in adopting teachings different to that of the Salaf accepted many KALAM arguments and linked them to the Quran There might be some aspects of KALAM which are not found in the Quran and sunnah but the majority of arguments can be argued to be referenced in the Quran And AllahuAllam

[@siyarjoya9655]

Mohammad Hdieb Jazaak Allahu khairan. Allah knows best

[@BoysInTheCave]

As a reference point at around 12:00 Firas actually discusses Imam Ghazali's point about the possibility of a faculty existing that can usurp the faculty of reason, and this can be found in Ghazali's book 'Deliverance From Error', which we highly recommend Muslims should study when it comes to dealing with concepts of certainty, truth, skepticism etc.

[@AnswerEasy]

Read it and was amazing

[@_darkerblue]

is there any particular edition of that book that should be read ?

[@BoysInTheCave]

@@_darkerblue I've read the Montgomery watt edition but there are probably better ones out there. The Montgomery version does the job though.

[@Zak-gl4ig]

I’m not so sure I’m convinced by this argument. Perhaps I haven’t grasped it, but it seems to me that you could use that line of reasoning to argue all kinds of mythical inventions are real too, like the unicorn, or a goblin.

[@MuhammadAhmed-lc1op]

​@@Zak-gl4igThose are not simple concepts. They are composite concepts based on simpler concepts. For example: When talking about a unicorn, you are mixing two concepts: a horse and a horn.

[@Basalat]

This guy is a gold-mine masha'allah! Learned some many things already in such a short video. Brother Firas, would be happy to meet you someday insha'allah! Subboor bhai, keep up the good work.

[@SubboorAhmadAbbasi]

Jazakallahkhair dear akhi

[@ReformedEducation]

@@SubboorAhmadAbbasi God is not a simple idea A simple idea is like the color red Or the feature of being round God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent which is multifaceted and therefore is a complex idea

[@Tanveer-Shaik]

@@ReformedEducation thats why he said god is perfection

[@ReformedEducation]

@@Tanveer-Shaik But he also said God is a Simple Idea, regardless of God being perfection Maybe I’m not understanding your point, could you elaborate?

[@AK43ver]

Firaz has a gift of explaining complex ideas in layman terms. Not a student of philosophy but everything made sense. Thank you brother may Allah reward you for this.

[@muamerblazevic1837]

Wow Firas talking philosophically about the idea of God. I'm an mma fan too and a fan of Firas so this was a real treat. Thank you Suboor.

[@worshipperofallah1]

Suboor Ahmed Should Upload more videos of Firas Zahabi, Because Firas Zahabi is very intelligent & he has very Amazing Arguments for the Existence of God& very deep knowledge of Philosophy.

[@betweenshadownlight2208]

22:25 "We are all experiencing God all the time" - This, right here, is the reality of Ibrahim (as). It is our own egos that prevent us from knowing this truth. Its good to have ayats of Quran floating in the conciousness, it stablizes the acts of hearing and seeing and keeps one humble. Stay motivated my brothers and sisters, because its not the reward or avoidance of punishment we are supposed to strive for. Allah knows best.

[@Zaid26127]

But how do you do this? How would I experience this/isolate the experience?

[@YusufPonders]

Masha'Allah he covered so many subjects in philosophy in one go! Great video :) does the brother have a channel?

[@ariqrahman9149]

kzbin.info . As far as I know this is the only channel he has.

[@raheedrm]

Salam bro Can you address some of the points Below raised by Eman Puedama Bhudism, Hinduism etc

[@YusufPonders]

@@raheedrm walaikum salaam which points I cant find them?

[@raheedrm]

About third comment from the bottom

[@markov.2467]

@@YusufPonders s. a. Yousef. Firas has a chanel "Tristar gym".

[@alimoorad5998]

MashaAllah.. I love what the Dawah scene is doing in General.. Big fan of Brother Suboor and Firas Zahabi and equally a fan of the Dawah scene. It is videos and channels like this (and Epistemix) that help clear the misconception that people subscribe to a faith/religion due to a lack of intellect and that somehow Atheism is intellectually superior. It also helps make the average Muslim stronger in their Iman as a lot of times we are unable to put our ideas and beleifs and reasons for belief into words that are easy to understand. Finally, it also helps spread the truth that is Islam. May Allah bless everyone who takes a part in any kind of dawah sincerely. These are the kind of youtube channels we need. Subscribed!!!

[@cirhanne]

That's why those simple people from in rural area, those who lived at the time of the prophets simply believe in God without any doubt in their mind!

[@reda29100]

As a Muslim I would say, imagine living in the age of one of the prophets so that you see yourself miracles in front of your eyes and argue with those who saw it but not believed in without the need of all of this philosophical and cosmological argumentation. Simple life, work, marry, believe and have strongest evidence witnessed by everyone in the city, die knowing you are on the right path. If only life is that simple!

[@matswessling6600]

@@reda29100"age of the prophets"? you mean when there where little education, no cameras etc?

[@islamrewards2860]

Fantastic breakdown and reading Al Ghazali work helps break this down further as mentioned in the video.

[@mabrouk642]

Subboor akhi, I am happy I tracked you, I was about to post a message to ask about the reason you no longer in the park, and then I found your channel, then I found out about brother Firaz too, I like listening to intellectual talks within the islamic framework, May Allah reward you all and please keep up this amazing work.

[@FunkLogicOne]

Love it. Thank you my beautiful brothers MashaAllah.

[@johnloyd6954]

One of the best videos I have seen on KZbin. This has been recommended to me when I was looking for criticism on the same argument! Man, I thought I brought a new argument, turns out I've been beaten to it so many times!

[@pointdot094]

This guy is a genius.

[@Finggy]

Yes, this is my favourite Professor.

[@thekillerphython]

SubhanAllah our creator has made such intelligent and beautiful people to guide us to a straight path but still some of us don’t understand

[@BoysInTheCave]

Fantastic insights! May Allah bless your efforts.

[@MrJul12]

I want to listen to this guy forever!. PLEASE do more videos from him!!!!!

[@ReformedEducation]

God is not a simple idea A simple idea is like the color red Or the feature of being round God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent which is multifaceted and therefore is a complex idea

[@uthman2281]

That was not his point

[@ReformedEducation]

@@uthman2281 what was his point then?

[@putrarajasinga7504]

Great to have Br Firas in Br Suboor's channel. Quran emphasizes this concept. We are all have bias through preferences driven by Ideology(s) which from brain habitual traits which is shortcuts to fill some level of void of ignorance, employs as belief/faith. While we Muslim (supposedly) have biases toward absoluteness (as Firas said, A Perfection), Haq, the Only source of vision we ultimately subscribed to, while the other "believer" have biases toward subjectivity or multiple subjectivities with minute uncertainties at best. Muslim have been given one of a viable options, which will advocate this absolute ideology, through all ages & eras, to keep the biases in check in practically anything, which is Ikhsan. Wallahu a'lam

[@MSAli86]

Great collaboration!!! Jazakallah khair brothers

[@ReformedEducation]

Complex subjects do exist, like a Smartphone which is a Telephone, Camera, and Computer in one, so technically polytheism or Triune Gods are possible

[@uthman2281]

That was not his point

[@ReformedEducation]

@@uthman2281 then what was his point?

[@ghosttown5443]

Even Coach Zahabi does not fully grasp (like myself), the depths of (some of) what was just articulated. Amazing! The idea of understanding God through reductionism is quite in line with our testimony of faith which also begins with that ever so powerful negation of there being absolutely NONE worthy of worship....save ALLAH. لا اله الا لله

[@thegamechanger3317]

Sometimes in my childhood, I stared for like half minute or so, in those times I racall being amazed of how I am alive, and thinking, the closest thing that could resemble it is out of body experience though it was not it, maybe because i was new to being alive, you brought it back.

[@Hasan-gd2dc]

This video actually changes the way of my thinking. Yes we can't think anything that we didn’t experienced.Only one true God Allah(SWT) is ultimate and we are experiencing Him every moment. May Allah guide us all to the straight path.❤️❤️❤️ May Allah reward you brother for this wonderful work you are doling. ❤️

[@ALKISAHINSPIRATIF]

Before the soul brought up to this world, soul experience God, and God make covenant with the soul, and the soul agreed

[@rajababy2009]

agreed in Quran ALLAH Said HE made Covenant with Our Souls

[@christinescopas1441]

Do you understand about covenants? If you did brother you'd be a Christian. You know the covenant was only up to Jesus after this humans experience God you know why as the word of God became flesh and humans experience God in Jesus. He came down to show us exactly who God was as no man can see God in hes full glory and live

[@aasimyousaf2455]

Wow. These ideas are totally different to anything I've heard before. I'd love to see more of Firas talking on theology and philosophy.

[@ghazali6451]

This video is so great. Every time I watch it, I notice something new.

[@hadihamade5455]

Brooo literally

[@bardamoszecronstarog9499]

Interesting point at the start. I wonder if atheists fail every multiple answer question. They study one answer thoroughly and come to the conclusion that it’s wrong, therefore they deduce every other answer is also wrong, and come out of the exam having circled not a single answer.

[@lewis72]

It wasn't an interesting point at the start at all; it was a false analogy. You completely failed to spot that.

[@Freestyler-rr]

@@lewis72 Could you explain a bit why it is a false analogy?

[@lewis72]

@@Freestyler-rr You too have failed to spot that then. Have a think about it a little longer.

[@KK-yb9lk]

Abd-l Basith answer this multiple choice question honestly for me. What did you eat today? A. Caviar from japan B. Raw eggs C. A brick Im going to assume you didnt eat any of the three options, so is it even possible for you to answer my question? Same goes with any other multiple choice question. So.... If i were to ask a atheist, are you: A. Muslim B. Christian C. Jew He too would not be able to answer the question. In other words, if you do not give the option of something to be the answer, it cannot be given either. So to say that this is a false analogy would be a euphimism. This is a dishonest analogy.

[@j_sr3608]

@@KK-yb9lk It depends on the genuineness of the question you are asking. For example, in this case, you conveniently constructed a question to suit your point, specifically designed to get a desired answer and not honest an answer. You ignored options such as "all of the above" or "none of the above" which are also considered correct answers if given as an option.

[@mashudasaleh9]

The Quran is explicitly telling you not to mix any ideas with the idea of perfection (God) - beautiful words 👌🏽

[@2manyusernamestaken548]

May Allah grant you Jannat ul-Firdaus without reckoning. Ameen.

[@kellx1387]

As a muslim, i really like reading david hume works.. indeed hes not the average athiest like some claim to be today!

[@condorianonegdiffsgoku]

what if you start doubting islam?

[@kellx1387]

@@condorianonegdiffsgoku Hamdulilah my conviction in Islam is strong, i've read many islamic philosophy as wel (incl Al Ghazali works). I just find it intresting (sometimes amusing) to know how athiest think.

[@eneszeqiri3364]

@@condorianonegdiffsgoku a well read muslim can never turn into an atheist. The existence of a God is a MUST, there is no otherway. And Islam compared to other religions is FAAAR ABOVE intellectually and instictivly. So there is nothing that can overthrow islam.

[@condorianonegdiffsgoku]

@@eneszeqiri3364 At the end guidance is from Allah. And Allah said to leave a conversation where Islam is being mocked.

[@Baraa.K.Mohammad]

Thank you very much brother Subbor for inviting the great, humble and lovely intellectual brother Firas Az-Zahabi to give us this great insight! Brother Firas I am by no means a "Mufassir" and I don't claim to be one... But this idea has to do something with the verse in Qur'an in which Allah (جلا وعلا) says: "وعلم آدم الأسماء كلها..." Surat Al-Baqara - Verse 31 English translation: "And He taught Adam all the names".

[@sparkxshawty]

can you elaborate ? thanks

[@alibenmussa]

You must complete the verse, Allah say: (And He taught Adam the names - all of them. Then He showed them to the angels and said, "Inform Me of the names of these, if you are truthful." They said, "Exalted are You; we have no knowledge except what You have taught us. Indeed, it is You who is the Knowing, the Wise." ) [2:31]. Also: (And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, "The soul is of the affair of my Lord. And mankind have not been given of knowledge except a little." ).

[@Baraa.K.Mohammad]

@@alibenmussa Thanks for completing the verse... Although it actually didn't contradict anything regarding my point, I would say it may even added more to the point I am asking about. Thanks anyway!

[@alwaysflat7996]

That was my argument throughout my life and there are many ways in proving this notion as being true. As you said, a blind man cannot possibly imagine or describe colours, a born blind man someone who has been blind since birth. That was my argument every time an atheists asks for evidence for God, the point is, is the blind man rational to accept that such thing as a colour really does exist or should he be sceptic and denies that it's possible? Yes, some atheists might argue well, there are billions of people who can tell that blind man that colours does exist. a) Why should he believe them? b) Theists also have many reasons to believe that such thing exists as God, and we have his prophets and messengers who can tell us, hey listen God does exist look what he makes me do and say, that no other normal human can do.

[@mohammedjafferali693]

Analogy fits perfectly- Blind man:Atheist

[@wildastar1]

Y do god create blind man?

[@mohammedjafferali693]

johnny roland are of those dogmatic trend followers who say, “Bad thing happen=No God” If you are trying to say that, then I’m sorry for you.

[@wildastar1]

@@mohammedjafferali693 but no tip on y god do that??

[@bz829]

@@wildastar1 God can do whatever He wishes to do. He is Al-Hakim, The Most Wise.

[@Yusuf.i]

Salam Firaz. Very powerful, thought provoking, and eloquent tafseer. I wish there was a tristar gym in San Diego. Get my mind and body in shape.

[@Nabil-gj2qq]

May Allah reward you bro!! The brother has presented amazing proofs on how human beings innately believe in god as the default position whether they like it or not - MashaAllah! I used to just be a major fan of this brother from Mma perspective but now this side of him is more interesting to me! JazakAllahkhair

[@لاالهالاالله-س8ز6ذ]

Abdullah bin Salam said: “When the Prophet (ﷺ) came to Al-Madinah, the people rushed to meet him, and it was said: ‘The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) has come! The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) has come! The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) has come!’ Three times. I came with the people to see him, and when I saw his face clearly, I knew that his face was not the face of a liar. The first thing I heard him say was when he said: ‘O people! Spread (the greeting of) Salam, feed others, uphold the ties of kinship, and pray during the night when people are sleeping, and you will enter Paradise with Salam.”*

[@infinitebeast5517]

Really enjoy videos by firas zahabi. I always end up learning something new. Please continue to share this knowledge with us!

[@helsharidy123]

Love this guy!

[@MohamedAhmed-kl4ls]

So am I

[@Ahmed-ef3bg]

Manshallah Saboor Ahmed is great.

[@o.3313]

Mashallah. Thank you for sharing brother firas. I hope to one day be as learned as you in suboor in philosophy

[@jageerdarjag3883]

One of the best, simple explanation

[@dylberzylali5065]

Selam Alejkum Br. Subboor and Br. Fires or coach Zahabi... your videos are enjoyable ... May Allah reward in the dunya and ahira.

[@socratesson4320]

Thumps up immediatly! 10 seconds i saw this guy and i already love him!

[@OSKESIS]

Lolz i never thought he was learning philosophy for 20 yrs 😳😐

[@socratesson4320]

@@OSKESIS Yea ...very cool guy!

[@SquiredCircle]

watch his video on philosophy of science kzbin.info/www/bejne/nXurm2d4qbVsfdE

[@khier-eddinehennaoui9783]

I am just and ignorant when its come to philosophy , and i hope you continue talking philosophy and islam wich is the best of gift to us .

[@abdelfattahhilmi5213]

very interesting and we would love more videos but a little bit longer and more profound and complex please,I want to thank both of you br subbour and br firas huge respect

[@MrSoundScan]

This is so interesting. We need more videos like this.

[@doctorikon]

Brother Zahabi is a gem !

[@Doktor00Magnus]

Thank you brother Firas Zahabi - please continue your amazing work and making philosophy accessible.

[@hanifsoul]

This is why spagetty monster idea coumpound can't comparing with the simple purest idea of full perfection god

[@thejoin4687]

But then you have to explain what perfection is.

[@thejoin4687]

@Marco Hammurabi That doesn't help. You're essentially just saying "X = The opposite of the opposite of X". What is an imperfection, then?

[@thejoin4687]

@Marco Hammurabi The problem is that it tells us neither what perfection is nor what imperfection is.

[@thejoin4687]

@Marco Hammurabi How does one assess whether or not god has or has made an error?

[@thejoin4687]

@Marco Hammurabi "simple, God does not make errors at all" Try reading my question again

[@alwaysflat7996]

From my experience in reading David Hume's work, I find it hard to believe that he actually was an atheist, most of his philosophical arguments / points tend to bash atheism's "core" I am putting this out there for everybody else, was he really an atheist? I can believe that he didn't believe in the God of the Bible, but I am unable to reconcile his work with his alleged atheistic disposition. I know that they are trying to present all great minds as "atheists" but after a quick research the truth is revealed about these people, that they were not atheists. some of them were agnostics, some didn't necessarily believe in a particular religion or doctrine but they were not atheists as per its modern definition. So I kind of agree that atheism does not exist, it is maintained by some as a fact but after careful scrutiny and analysis you can't help but come to the conclusion that the notion of atheism cannot be defended. Atheism is simply untenable.

[@alwaysflat7996]

@annimr attaij True It is indeed a strong possibility.

[@JohnVEscobar]

samuel barry there is an issue with semantics that frequently occurs today. When most people refer to themselves as atheist what they really mean is that they do not believe in any of the worlds religions, nor that a higher order being purposefully created us. They are not denying the possibility of a force that created the universe, but rather that this force is not the one that religions claim it is. Agnostic today really just means that you’re not sure whether there is a “religious” god or not (a god that created us with intent or that has communicated with us). Even though the proper terminology for atheism is that they actively believe there is no god, no reasonable atheist would make that claim as there’s no way to prove it. So rather than specifying that they don’t believe that there is a god (especially a religious one) but because they cannot prove it they must call themselves agnostic, they just use the term Atheist to refer to not believing in a religious god.

[@NoOne-ul8ni]

@@alwaysflat7996 kzbin.info/www/bejne/bqqwdWxvnN6lZ5Y

[@Frosty-cq8sn]

@@JohnVEscobar You mean deism?

[@mlunatone6696]

Subhanallah, what a speaker. Please could we have more of Firas. Jazakallah Kair

[@DhammeMaxmoud]

Am learning something here

[@syedahmedshaheer117]

Your first proposition about internal religion in line with external revelation is pretty much the argument of ibn Taymiyyahs Also the reductionism argument seems to be ibn Sinas argument for soul .. did i get it right? Also i like how you pointed to the possiblity of knowing God through constant experience indicating God is actually interacting/interacted with us would have liked it better if you used the islamic term 'fitrah' might have made things easier to reflect for people regarding what concept are you talking about. However I would like to hear a detailed breakdown and your refutation regarding Humean augmentation argument.

[@saamady]

I think he deliberately tried to avoid using terms like fitrah an dunyaa so that non-Muslims can understand the video just as easily.

[@Mugetsu669]

Yes exactly, when we as muslims talk in public, use terms everyone can understand. That is the same reason why non muslims are flipping and freaking out when someone mentions Jihad, its been missrepresented. And some muslims still dont get it the keep yelling Jihad our Jihad.. None muslims be like ok u extremes we dont accept you. So as brother explaind use a simple Ideas/words, cuz Jihad e.g. is wide and complex.

[@syedahmedshaheer117]

@@Mugetsu669 I would have liked it better if he used the word Fitrah. The uniqueness in islam is this concept of Fitrah. Only few non islamic sources has it probably John Calvin in Chrsitianity assert it. I think it should be made more mainstream than using a universal word.

[@Mugetsu669]

@@syedahmedshaheer117 how do you not understand our point, a non muslim would never ever understand it and even less accept it as standard especially in a public speach, or an online video like this where you invite really everyone to watch it and debate, use simple words everyone can understand. You could have used it but that would be just arrogant. Rather put it in simple terms, make a soild foundament and build from there, otherwise people wont debate with you cuz they wont understand you. If you are in a "closed only muslim" debate its totally fine to use whatever specific Islamic terms, everyone will be able to follow.

[@syedahmedshaheer117]

@@Mugetsu669 i understand your point but i dont agree with it. I have been into islamic theology for a very long time now and i think our concept needs to be mainstreamed not just through ideas but its technicalities as well which will be missed without the terminology.

[@iliasilias144]

There an aya in quran were ALLAAH subhana wa ta3ala says (interpretation of the meaning); "so KNOW, that there is no god that is worthy of worship, except ALLAAH" THE KEY WORD HERE, IS KNOW. and ALLAAH knows best

[@abdur-raghmaanmatthews5408]

Yoh this was amazing this was really amazing serious brother I really loved this video

[@VictorDe.999]

Your awareness is the awareness of the universe, so everything within the universe is within your awareness

[@going2sleep]

All of what he said can be summarized in two words the Quran used. 1) SubhanAllah and 2) As-Samad.

[@contentsailor5764]

Omg how could I have missed this gem, Assalamualaikum brother love your videos on this.

[@VictorDe.999]

Your awareness is the basis of existence, without your awareness there is no existence

[@abousaalih8177]

Jazaak Allahou khairan for these amazing insights. I would like to add that to my knowledge John Searle doesn't claim that robots can never be conscious. His chinese room experiment is opposed to the view of Strong AI. He tries to show that a digital computer only works with manipulating symbols and doesn't have any understanding about what it does. It only works with syntax and can't work with any semantics. He tries to say that finding the right program to simulate the brain is not enough to actually create a thinking and conscious machine. He stresses that we have to also work on making the right hardware. Since humans are the only creatures we know of that posses consciousness, we will have to reproduce our physical brain. He states that when we will be able to reproduce the physical brain, we will be able to create a thinking and conscious machine. I am not saying I agree with his view, but to be fair this has to be stated.

[@CoachZahabi]

Your right brother, like I said I was not using his though experiment in the sense he used it. Searle’s position as I understand it is that it is “possible” if we can reproduce certain mechanical (chemical) aspects of the brain, we have yet to do so. By “possible” I take it that he is not sure that it would work even if we did. My position is that Searle is pre-supposing materialism in his claim. I consider him to be wrong in his position that the mind arises from a physical brain. He is presupposing materialism. The brain is not known by the brain - the brain is known by the mind. If the mind is a illusion (by product) then the brain is a illusion. All is manifested in the mind including the brain (ego centric predicament). This is a complicated topic but Insha’LAh Ican address it in another video.

[@abousaalih8177]

@@CoachZahabi Thank you for clarifying this point! I definitely agree with you on this matter. When listening to what you said I thought people could misunderstand Searle's belief and maybe attribute to him what he doesn't believe. Since we as muslims are taught to be just when we speak I thought I had to mention something about it, but now it's all clear! Excuse me brother if I had misunderstood you on this point. I would love to see something on the topic of egocentric predicament and actually anything about the theory of mind and consciousness would be nice! May Allah bless you and shower you with his favours.

[@CoachZahabi]

AbouSaalih Jzk brother. Always good to clarify. Very appreciated. Yes Insha’LAh

[@zaidsyed8501]

I’ve been thinking about this argument and it seems so epic, but I have a few questions: 1. You said everything we know is directly experienced (except God). My question is what about angels and jinns? For angels sometimes they come in the form of humans, and the Prophet (S) describes Jibreel as having 600 wings. So his description is using things we have experienced. But what about jinns? The idea of an immaterial being which has free will like us. We believe in them, but have no picture or idea about them. How could we have experienced them, or experienced something which describes them? Jzk

[@Bleedzz]

Because you don't need to see or imagine something to experience it?

[@khairular8936]

MashaAllah!! I respect Bro Firas for training GSP, my all-time fave MMA fighter and now this!! 👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽

[@Dogface1984]

Being raised by a Christian mother and Muslim father I learned a lot about religion. I think it’s hard to completely discard all scripture as it is very hard to come up with an an original fiction that elaborate (my opinion, atheist will disagree) Watching my favorite you tube channel I came to understand that For someone like Moses (I assume the writer of a majority of the Old Testament) was in a different state of mind that we cannot understand. specifically from his environment. The food he ate, the air he breathed and water he drank. He could probably see God in nature and was able to transmute that on paper. Just food for thought, we’re unable to tap into frequencies that are present simply from our modern environments Maybe Thank you Firas!

[@alishash2994]

Mashallah very thought provoking video. I still wish he could expand more on the augmentation argument because I feel he didnt fully debunk it here. Or maybe he did but I didnt get it.

[@anklebreaka03]

Truly an incredible video everyone should watch

[@VictorDe.999]

To know for certain, anything is to delude yourself, and to inhibit your self from tuning in to the realm of possibility that comes with the unknown because that’s what potential is, it is unknown

[@uthman2281]

according to you

[@IvanPecuh]

I'd like to add an argument from a non-believers perspective, feel free to reply! I think the better argument is: Why not simplify "God" even further to just the experience of "Life" and "Consciousness" themselves? Using your own argument about simplicity, it seems using "God" to explain this internal experience is the greater complex word of the 3. I've felt consciousness and that exact outer experience you've talked about many times in my life. I've meditated for hundreds of hours and experienced many extreme, conscious experiences not only with myself but with others. I've always asked myself: "Is this experience God/Universe/Consciousness/Energy?" and my internal answer has always been it's simply "Life". The word "God" didn't resonate with me. I felt it lead towards a collective Ego with only 1 group of people that believed in One God/many Gods/etc, respective to their own religious beliefs. The better argument in my mind is the further reduction of all of these religions and gods, and that is this: We are all human beings. Not Muslims, not Christians, not Buddhists, just humans. We experience life and consciousness. I and many others across the world have experienced this consciousness without even reading the Qur'an or other religious texts, how could that be so? The simplest argument is the one I've stated above. We ALL share the experience of Life.

[@hamzazulfi]

What do you mean by life and consciousness? Yes, it is inbuilt in humans to have experiences of something greater. Hopefully We will discuss why someone should choose Islam/Quran.

[@PabloSensei]

he conveys this to the laymen so well

[@JustAnotherObserver5703]

SubhanAllah please can you continue with tha argument or present another one?

[@arjantenbroecke9477]

Dear F i am a fan of yours, i just would like to say 1 thing: you say frequently that you keep it simple...it gives me the idea that i am too dum to follow what you're saying...dont hold back!

[@jasonvoorhees8899]

Mashallah Akhi. may Allah Grant us all the Firdaous.

[@hmzmss]

Lovely subhanAllah. Could you pleaseee!!! Elaboraye on your last few mins abourlt reductionism and how if you remove everything you come to know God? This is the important part and coukd do with elaboration in order to reflect.. jazakAllah

[@RifatIslamXD]

Love the citation of al-Ghazali

[@reda29100]

Regarding the consciousness experience, and every other subjectinve experience, I'd like to say: we , humans, can describe only what is external to our bodies. In other words, only materialistic objects that we can experience with the 5 senses. It does, therefore, baffle me how we, in different languages, could ever translate abstract meanings like glory, knowledge, attachment, significance or creativity. Think about it, how, in materialistic way as you don't have the words that other guy with different language understands, describe attaching yourself to someone? Not dependency, not love, not utilitiy, assuming even these vocabulary are known to exchange meanings in the first place, but a relationship that is between superficiality and dependency. I have really no idea how abstract terms can be communicated from someone that understands our languages. Yes, if I understand English and gradually add to my language that I am creating then yes, these meanings and terms could be communicated. But someone who understands nothing if our languages like aboriginal tribes or, who knows, aliens . I think we need to figure out a way to communicate abstract meanings that cannot be expressed with materialistic means. Regarding the outside body, and soul is no different in this sense, imagine that we have never seen any hearth, lung, liver, bone or even blood in our lives; not even from killed animals? I'll try to describe human organs/components without any internal part as I have no experience of whatever is inside, with the best way I can. I can, however, use hands and skin as they are totally exposed to the surface, but bones and lungs are not; only teeth and nose I know. So for blood: *I don't know. Some parts (i.e. mouth and are unreasonably red for seemingly no reason. I really wonder if color is due to the skin's features, according to my mood or even the food and temperature ,or maybe just a fluid supplying in and out if every human part.* You see? It have absolutely no way to know and describe how something is, let alone how it feels. So the point is, if even the materialistic parts that we have no experience are hard to be observed, let alone describe their attributes, let alone how the subjective experience feels like. If the blood, hence I'm cheating now, is hard to be observed let alone described, then how may I describe some unobservable entity like electricity or force or dark matter that we really don't know what they are; we only use analogies to conceptualize them. It is even harder for things we can't describe the world without like space and color; btw imagine a physical object that is totally transparent and has no light reflection at all or a shadow. Imagine now it having no distinct attributes from the space around it like mass, gravity or even matter; just a hologram. It is possible to imagine it but I can easily lose its idea in my mind as soon as I normalize it with the surroundings. Notice how I'm dealing only with materialistic entites and had not even touched upon feelings and emotions. The point is, I can coin any word in any language to describe every experience I have, but the issue is I can write that word down in my words but it would only be temporarily (i.e. ram volatility, temp data access) as even if it was my own word, then the meaning itself is not simulated in my nerves but is just understood, let alone communicate that subjective feeling to others. This sentence might sound complicated but think about the mist basic meanings like pleasure, pain, sweet, sour, rough and smelly. Can you really describe *what* pleasure is? Don't describe it, just define it. Many fiods can taste good, but can you describe what sweet/sugary is (another question is hoe it feels) without referring to and some foods? Even if referred to these, still the question stands, what do we mean with sweet in sweet foods? What does it mean for a surface to be rough? I don't mean describing the texture, I mean the experience of touching a rough surface. Because in a hallucination, I could touch a smooth surface but feel the same roughness-feeling, so defining the experience of rough surface by the texture of the material is like describing sweetness in terms of sugar. What if all sugary foods have become salty but I still feel the sweetness in my tongue and *no one really cares about my feelings!* What does it feel for an odor to smell smelly? Excuse me but I can't shake out the sponge bob reference out of my "mind". So to anyone who believes without electricity we would be living in caves, I'd like you to consider a way simpler case of basic language expressions. BTW this is also a chance to ask evolutionists the same question: to me, it is not only that emergence of life that is mysterious, but also abstract meanings in languages. Just as I pointed out of the inability, as far as I know, of people who have no common language, to communicate meanings to other languages, the question also stands: for the first humans on earth, since they don't speak any common language, how did they ever communicated such abstract meanings (i.e. how did we ever make up words for abstract meanings in the first place that other people can understand)? This also applies to people we see eath other for thr first time, or at least since esrth plates were separated, how did we communicated these abstract meanings but the question of the first humans is more baffling to me.

[@thegamechanger3317]

Can you make in detail series coach firas? .

[@ahmadosama1463]

Nice argument, But the thing is a Philosopher like ibn Sina would say yes God is one but he is not a willing being and deny god's attributes. While someone like sheikh Ibn Taymiyya would Go on to say that god is physical and surrounds the world physically. Someone, like Al Ghazali and the Asharis would affirm god's attributes while denying that he is a physical being. So the argument only goes to prove the existence of a first cause based on first principles but it cannot truly prove any specific god as God is not a simple idea and his attributes are not directly apparent to every theist. Also, usually we start with observing complex existences and break them into simple ideas based on common things. So reality doesnt really have to conform to the simple ideas we infer from it, so a trinity cant be denied in this way, and the simple idea we get from reality doesnt need to exist on the outside. eg we infer from our observation that the ultimate reality in our created universe is that things that exist on the outside occupy space ie bodies, however, the idea of the body doesnt exist on the outside it is a mere concept that we infered from reality. I would suggest that the proper argument for God's existence is the Cosmological argument as presented by the Asharis in its proper philosophical form not like the one William Lane Craig presents it (he adds alot of scientific arguments which are only inductive and uses speech form arguments). I think it is sufficient to affirm the primary attributes of God when followed by several small arguments. These i believe give a definitive belief in God and his Attributes.

[@abdulkader7104]

i don't think ibn taymiyyah says he is physical since the sunni position is that he is not a physical entity

[@ahmadosama1463]

ahmad i can assure you he does, thats the main difference between Asharis and Salafis, but the laymen Salafis nowadays dont know this and those who do hide it

[@abdulkader7104]

@@ahmadosama1463 can u give me references because because he is sunni and that is not the position of sunnis

[@ahmadosama1463]

ahmad i can in about 4 hrs as i am going away

[@abdulkader7104]

@@ahmadosama1463 yeah sure brother

[@brody5484]

This is that ufc guy who coaches gsp right?

[@TheMercifulAndJust]

وما أرسلناك إلا رحمة للعالمين

[@sapienceuniversalsolution6151]

Ma shaa Allah Jazakhumullahu khair 🤝🏽

[@theimprovist4158]

Always a pleasure listening to you

[@RayhanulSumon]

Amazing, learn something new ♥️♥️♥️♥️

[@alinajm5432]

23 minutes of GOLD

[@asmanizamani2567]

This is absolutely profound.. MashAllah

[@Dennis-McTatten]

This is one of my favourite clips on youtube

[@706taohid8]

Can anyone explain to me what's that experience of God we all are having that he is talking about

[@alAwa2el]

Please have Firas come again to your channel :)

[@muamerblazevic1837]

Firas please make another video like this and complicate it I'd really like that at least to a point where I can follow and understand. I'm sure I'm not alone.

[@eissa.f]

Abraham didn't believe the moon, star, sun were God, it was a tactic of debating his people

[@nvvidbeans9404]

Firas clarifies its a jest

[@jhanink]

I think Anselm’s ontological argument is concise (neatly packaged). Can you compare and contrast with that? Thank you.

[@socratesson4320]

Damn i love this guy!

[@OSKESIS]

😀😃😄😁😊

[@JanLaalaa]

@@OSKESIS 😂😂

[@Eman_Puedama]

This was interesting. I hope I'm not putting words into his mouth, but my overall impression is that he's equating God with pure mind, and arguing for idealist monism. That isn't a criticism because I agree with his arguments, and I think that reality _is_ primarily mind-like. I also think that this philosophy is the esoteric basis of all monotheistic religions (as well as some religious systems which _appear_ to be polytheistic). As far as I know, Advaita Vedanta is the system that spells this all out the most explicitly but, as I say, I think it's pretty fundamental to virtually all religion.

[@MrBoogiePope]

Considering the divine in terms of "mind" is being influenced by Cartesian epistemology (res cogans/res extensa), so it's a modern(ist) reading. What would be a better expression IMO from this traditional Islamic perspective would be to consider God as "pure" existant (wujud). As for Advaita-Vedanta, keep in mind Adi Shankara said Hindus should keep praying to idols if they can't detach from body - so he accepted polytheism - and Ramanuja, many say because of the Islamic influence which were beginning to manifst in India, criticized Adi Shankara for not giving enough importance to the world (Maya as illusion). IMO the closest is to be found in Buddhism, more specifically in the Cittamatra/Yogacara philosophy of the Mahayana school.

[@Eman_Puedama]

@@MrBoogiePope When I said 'mind' I meant consciousness rather than specifically the capacity to think. I think that Mahayana Buddhism is also basically an idealist system. 'Pure existent' might be a less misleading term in one sense, but in another, it seems much more ambiguous. A materialist idea of the 'pure existent' might be something along the lines of insentient physical law. So, in order to make a distinction from such ideas, I think you need to use terms such as 'mind', 'sentience' or 'consciousness' in order to define this 'pure existent' - even if those terms are limited and somewhat ambiguous in themselves. I hadn't heard the theory that Ramanuja was influenced by Islam - and I didn't know that he made that criticism of Shankara either. Neither of those things surprise me, but I do find them interesting. I'm not religious in any way really, and I'm not particularly interested in religious images- but, at the same time, I can understand the idea that they can be representative of aspects of the divine, and I don't see why that should necessarily conflict with the belief in a supreme ineffable being. Many systems have had a spiritual hierarchy, and the fact that their followers petition or honour specific subsidiary objects-of-worship within that system, doesn't imply that they can't also believe in a transcendent God. I can more easily understand the idea that honouring or petitioning lesser beings takes your mind from God, but it's not something that I have any position on, nor anything that concerns me much.

[@MrBoogiePope]

@@Eman_Puedama Well the issue I have with terms like "mind" or "consciousness" is that they fit the Cartesian epistemology which is rationalistic and reductive, and these terms are thus too "psychological" ; the older Idealist systems (not talking of bishop Berkeley then) were not "psychological" but, to use a now out-of-fashion, "noetical". Noetics concern with the "supra-individual" in the individual, the Brahman of the Vedantists, the Buddhi of the Mahayanists and so on, whereas mind or consciousness are "infra-individual". I don't know if I'm clear enough, it's a complex subject and English is not my first nor second language for that matter, but basically Cartesian anthropology (view of man) is too much screwed to apply its categories anywhere (Damasio has been showing it in neurosciences recently), let alone to God. But the term existence (wujud) is more apt, and here too of course it's complexe to described all of it, after all some big brain peoples spent literally thousands of pages on it, but let's say that existence is not virtual like mind/consciousness can be ; existence is literally the most universal of reality and yet the most hidden at the same time. It's basically an exegesis of the Qur'anic verse that God is both al Zahir (the manifest) and al Batin (the innermost). If you want to know read up on "Wahdat al Wujud", its classical formation, but read on "Wahdat al Shuhud" as well, which IMO is its best expression. Also from an Islamic point of view (I thought you were Muslims considering the public here nearly wholly is) you can't wed tawhid (pure unicity of God) with allegiances to minor pseudo-deities, like you see in those old idealist systems, but yeah it's another debate.

[@Eman_Puedama]

@@MrBoogiePope I've read and heard about the concept of Atman and Brahman, and how they're seen as the same thing in Indian philosophy, so I understand the distinction you're making. Schopenhauer, who was influenced by Hinduism and Buddhism, had a similar concept of the Self. So yes, I do see the distinction between comparing God to the mind of an individual, and saying that God is pure sentience/awareness etc. _itself_ - and the latter is the meaning I intended. I can see that these terms lend themselves to such confusions, and, from what I remember reading about Indian Philosophy, these issues seem to have led to a huge amount of theological discussion and dispute. However, while I don't know what layers of meaning the term wujud may have in Arabic, it still seems to me that, while defining God as 'pure being' may have the advantage of avoiding that kind of confusion, it does so at the expense of almost complete ambiguity - Unless that is, you happen to be talking to people who already know what you mean and are in agreement with you. That's not much use in philosophy however - even if it may be completely valid in other contexts. You're right, most people who discuss philosophy on here are Muslims, and most of the people who disagree are atheists and materialists. One thing I like about Islam is that it seems a quite philosophical religion in some ways - that is, I hear more philosophical arguments in general from Muslims than I do from Christians, who usually seem to accept that religion is just a matter of faith. Then again, that could be due to me being English because, from what I've seen on KZbin, American Christians seem to be more interested in philosophical arguments than British ones on the whole. I know these things are very complex and that most religious schools of thought stress that reason isn't _enough_. Yes, I will look up Wahdat Al Wujud, and I'd also be interested in hearing the Islamic arguments as to why having allegiances to subsidiary deities is incompatible with belief in one God. I'd also like to know in what _sense_ it's believed to be incompatible. I imagine that the objection is the same as the objection to the trinity - i.e. that God is one. However, it does seem to me that, while there may be an underlying unity (and I believe there is), it's quite undeniable that there is at least _apparent_ diversity too. This may be rambling and off-topic, but I think the Buddhists have the best answer to the problem of the one and the many in the argument that every 'thing' is interdependent with what it is not - just as an image cannot exist without a background. Anyway, I'll try and get round Wahdat Al Wujud and see what it has to say about these things. I would also liked to have heard Firas Zahabi's arguments as to why we should believe that God would have chosen any specific individual to reveal metaphysical truth to humanity - This is the point on which I primarily disagree with organised religion, and he seemed to suggest that he'd be getting on to that but never did. I think your English is probably better than mine when it comes to this very esoteric topic. I must admit I struggle not to be too wordy. I think I have quite a broad general idea of these theological issues, but I don't always have all the terms at the tip of my fingers.

[@MrBoogiePope]

@@Eman_Puedama In fact to base a whole philosophy on existence (wujud) is still interesting even for a modern : Heidegger said that Western philosophy is nothing but a hidding of the notion of existence, and he blamed Western metaphysics from that, Plato onwards ; but in Islam there's a whole ontology of existence (culminating into the philosophy of Mulla Sadra) which even avoids Heidegger's negative ontology (as Hans Jonas, his student, showed it's a sort of neo Gnostic nihilism). I might sound an apologetic Muslim but I've read the major theologians and philosophers from all major religious traditions and I think that defining God in terms of existence is paradoxically the simplest and at the same times the most complex way to apprehend Him, and this simplicity/complexity is encapsulated into the tawhid (unicity) promoted by Islam. As for the issue of the One/many in fact this Islamic existentialism answers it too : Henry Corbin has shown in a book, "The paradox of monotheism" (how to reconciliate one divinity with a multiple world) that Islamic philosophers, working on a neo Platonic basis (esp. Proclus), have given a definitive answer to this issue. The problem with non Islamic religions is often that they transform the answers into questions.

[@Ryba125]

god is compound, each of is attributes is a human one or a human one with a negation of limit. His immateriality is negation of body, omnipotence is power without the limit. Perfection is when the model/ideal is opposed to reality, like every real circle is imperfect but a Circle is perfect. Perfect strength is strength without limit or negating the imperfection of it being unable to do something. Imperfection can also be readily imagined as the absence of ability, an imperfect muscle cannot lift a arbitrary large stone, the same way a baby is an adult where age is absent. A glass full of water without spilling is perfection. So it seem perfection, on a aspect at least, is observable. The problem with your increase analogy is that you didn't followed it to the end, continue to add water as long there is somewhere to add it, and at the end, you will obtain perfection; a perfectly full universe. Another exemple is conductivity, from mercury to superconductor, as resistance tend to 0, it approach perfect conductance, no resistance. Hard problem of consciousness of the gap... 13:00 is now refuted as AI can read minds. 200 years ago you would have a point. Your god can be broken in 99.

[@uthman2281]

according to you

[@yadurajdas532]

Respect to this man. The concept of a personal God in Islam is not very clear. It sounds more like we are all Consciousness and consciousness is Alláh

[@noobieexplorer4697]

can you elaborate what do you mean by a personal God?

[@yadurajdas532]

@@noobieexplorer4697 sure A personal God. The all powerful lord, whose capacity to interact with his pure devotees in a personal way is not limited by time or spence A personal God whose form posees transcendental personal attributes: emotions, feelings senses by which he can hear, see, smell, touch and feel the offerings of his great devotees

[@hamzazulfi]

@@yadurajdas532 "It sounds more like we are all Consciousness and consciousness is Alláh" *There is nothing like Him, for He ˹alone˺ is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing* *You need to study more before you comment something like this.*

[@yadurajdas532]

@@hamzazulfi i had done nothing wrong by commenting on my impression was on what was taught in this video. The speaker should be more explicit in his explanation so that outsiders like my self don’t get the wrong impression about Islam.

[@hamzazulfi]

@@yadurajdas532 Maybe you're right or maybe he's making a point that you didn't get right. That's also a possibility

[@medizami6594]

Mashallah you got in the word dunya after 22min

[@hen2005]

All you spoke about was how human psychology is not that well understood by humans, and that make sense since we did not evolve to understand our existence. In fact the notion of an explanation for the universe may itself be a purely psychological phenomenon. However none of this proves the existence of a supernatural deity, which is where your arguement will always fall down.

[@hashamahmad7358]

human psychology is still understood by concious mind your psychology is in conciousness

[@HussainFahmy]

*_Brilliant, can the Atheists figure it out where the conscience resides?_*

[@HussainFahmy]

@The Rod - *_Between eternal Pain or eternal Pleasure._*

[@HussainFahmy]

@The Rod - *_Keep watching Darwinian Delusions with an open mind if you are serious in seeking the truth._*

[@HussainFahmy]

@The Rod - *_You too._*

[@HussainFahmy]

​@The Rod - *_Thanks, our sincere wish is that you are guided in the right path. It's for your benefit. Life on earth is a fleeting moment in time and some of us believe that we will surely return to the one who created us. We wish you well in your discovery and on the search to the purpose of your life._*

[@MrSuperman957]

What about something like the Chakra/Ki that some buddhists, etc talk about. If everything we think of is a result of experiences, where does this come from?

[@mubashirkhan6881]

Its also an experince but maybe weve not all experienced it ourselves personally or maybe people experience similar things but have different labels for the same thing, also we dont need to directly experience sometbing first hand to understand it, we can know it through the experience of other people, like fire burns....we know that because weve been taught that fore burns from someone who has either experienced it or maybe he/she has knows someone who has experinced this, so i guess ehat im saying is not everything needs to be experienced first hand we can know of it through the experience of others perhaps?

[@greencoolmoss]

I dont get it. Is Firas' point that because we can only hold ideas in our mind that we've experienced or a combination of experiences. Because if thats the point then we can know 'perfection' because ive seen a 20/20 test result which is a flawless score, therefore im familiar with the idea of perfection. I know God to have 99 attributes and Im familiar with each one because theres similar examples to them one earth.