What an excellent presentation. Much appreciated, Dr Andani

Universal Intellect is a pair or duality of essence and existence. We don’t argue for ten intellects. That was just an example of a famous Neoplatonic Muslim who believes in ten immaterial intellects. Our position is that Allah doesn’t emanate multiple effects directly. Not that there isn’t any multiplicity. We’ll have a separate video on the Rule of One.

@Ra3bAbdulRa7man

8 ай бұрын

The Asharis love logic and reason. Turns out science believes space and time can bend/curve.... We believe Allah can do anything... Who was right first ? The Asharis have literally wasted centuries of the Ummah's blood and time over something clear from the Prophet's PBUH Sunnah.

@Dkson0

8 ай бұрын

Who said Asharis say Allah is bound to space/time?

@elliot7205

17 күн бұрын

What is your view of God being all knowing and free will?..

Great video. I'm excited for the new direction of the Channel

This was brilliantly presented brother. Keep up the good work. You taught me a lot with this one video

Brilliant.

I am orthodox Christian and i like your exposition dr Khalil

@commiehunter781

5 ай бұрын

Do you reject ads?

As an outsider exploring these ideas, I love Dr. Andani's explanations and breakdowns. With that being said, the music in the new videos are 👌. It adds some dramatic flair to what he's saying and is waaayyy better than the annoying ringing in his older videos. Thank you Dr.

This will be very interesting to watch

Very well explained! Make more of these, please.

@Ra3bAbdulRa7man

8 ай бұрын

The Asharis love logic and reason. Turns out science believes space and time can bend/curve.... We believe Allah can do anything... Who was right first ? The Asharis have literally wasted centuries of the Ummah's blood and time over something clear from the Prophet's PBUH Sunnah.

@awake3083

3 ай бұрын

@@Ra3bAbdulRa7man You sound insane lol

He initiated creation most initially and commenced it originally, without undergoing reflection, without making use of any experiment, without innovating any movement, and without experiencing any aspiration of mind. He allotted all things their time, put together their variations gave them their properties, and determined their features knowing them before creating them, realizing fully their limits and confines, and appreciating their propensities and intricacies. أَنْشَأَ الخَلْقَ إنْشَاءً، وَابْتَدَأَهُ ابْتِدَاءً، بِلاَ رَوِيَّة أَجَالَهَا، وَلاَ تَجْرِبَة اسْتَفَادَهَا، وَلاَ حَرَكَة أَحْدَثَهَا، وَلاَ هَمَامَةِ نَفْس اضطَرَبَ فِيهَا. أَحَالَ الاْشياءَ لاِوْقَاتِهَا، وَلاَمَ بَيْنَ مُخْتَلِفَاتِهَا، وَغَرَّزَ غَرائِزَهَا، وَأَلزَمَهَا أشْبَاحَهَا، عَالِماً بِهَا قَبْلَ ابْتِدَائِهَا، مُحِيطاً بِحُدُودِها وَانْتِهَائِهَا، عَارفاً بِقَرَائِنِها وَأَحْنَائِهَا. [Nahj al-Balaghah] If His Knowledge is a creation, then how did He know before the creation? Al-salām u 'alaykum wa Rahmat Allah wa barakatuH - a Non-Denominational|Muslim philosopher. My doctrine is that the Attributes are directly and eternally emanated from God, like Avicenna believed the emanation of the first intellect from God directly. And God is The Knower of all.

love learning new ways of thinking and spirituality, I thank you for this amazing video✌️

Pretty nice. I like the new changes. This is way better than the slides, but I have a few criticisms: 1. The music is excessively intense and unfit for the subject discussed. If you are going to use background music use something quieter and more calming. The background music makes it feel like armageddon is happening. It also makes your explanation feel quick or rushed like you're data dumping when you aren't. 2. The audio from 2-4 and from 12 until the end of the video is bad for some reason.

@KhalilAndani

8 ай бұрын

Thank you. We value you feedback

@Ra3bAbdulRa7man

8 ай бұрын

The Asharis love logic and reason. Turns out science believes space and time can bend/curve.... We believe Allah can do anything... Who was right first ? The Asharis have literally wasted centuries of the Ummah's blood and time over something clear from the Prophet's PBUH Sunnah.

Love your work brother 😍

@KhalilAndani

8 ай бұрын

Thank you so much 😀

@saidamzamerobshoev369

8 ай бұрын

More videos, please 🙏

Fabulous! Are you planning to debate with those neosalafis Dr. Khalil?

@Ra3bAbdulRa7man

8 ай бұрын

The Asharis love logic and reason. Turns out science believes space and time can bend/curve.... We believe Allah can do anything... Who was right first ? The Asharis have literally wasted centuries of the Ummah's blood and time over something clear from the Prophet's PBUH Sunnah.

@kkassam

8 ай бұрын

The audio of this video is mostly excerpted from just such a debate kzread.info/dash/bejne/pXuhtKiieLfcZqw.htmlsi=YFwTx6A09gT7E6n8

Wonderful video! thank you so much for these types of videos.

Sir, did you actually read Stephen Charnock's work on the attributes of God?

Excellent breakdown but I have to say the epic movie trailer music is quite distracting

8:23 Also, that's not necessarily true, infinite things can be greater or lesser. In Mathematics, you have the set of integers and the set of rational numbers: both infinite sets but there are obviously more rational numbers than integers.

@ekadria-bo4962

8 ай бұрын

Nope, integet and rational number are "same" in quantity

@t.e9147

8 ай бұрын

​@@ekadria-bo4962No, they aren't, this is a pretty simple proof. For any two integers x and y such that |x - y| = 1, there are an infinite amount of rational numbers between it. This means that between two integers are an infinite # of rationals. Rationals are significantly larger than integers.

I liked this presentation, but can I offer a few suggestions video & audio-wise? I don't want to be very critical since its the first video, but I do want to offer some feedback. 1. The microphone audio was slightly more quiet than I thought it would be. Also the microphone quality in general is a bit unclear. 2. For example, starting from 1:20, there begins to be some kind of a strange "epic" music in the background which is kinda loud in comparison to the microphone audio. I think it detracts from the content, and with the microphone and audio type, it makes it difficult to understand. 3. I felt like this video was somewhere half-way between a plain old powerpoint and a video. In some segments, there are little movements accross the screen, but in other moments, there is just a flat plain image of a slide. Can you add more effects like for example, if you're describing Neoplatonic emanationist model, use some arrow animations and then scroll downwards in order to demonstrate this process analogously. 4. Also the slides repeat themselves a lot which makes retention a bit harder 5. Content-wise, I know that the point of the video is to compare and contrast, but I can't help thinking that the arguments (as mentioned in the video description) are not very well explained here. How useful with this be to someone who is Salafi if the arguments presented are not more thorough and systematic, but barely mentioned? I watched some of your other presentations, but I think in videos like this, its important to present why these people (Ibn Sina, Ibn Arabi, etc.) believed what they believed. I hope this is useful! I really enjoyed this though :) I look forward to more videos in this series

Dr. Andani, I have a few very important questions if I may respectfully ask. I'm quite confused so I kindly request that you help me clarify this. 1. You say that the reason for evil is that the universal soul lacks perfection that the universal intellect has. So the universal soul creates because it recognizes itself as imperfect and seeks perfection. The problem is that this implies that a) Universal soul would have the capacity to change its essence due to its act of creation - however, the universal soul itself is outside of time and hence incapable of change and hence eternally imperfect and you would still have to concede that time is eternal because otherwise if time is a creation then it had to be created at some point but there was no time back then, hence time is either also eternal if only metaphysically or it doesn't exist. or b) G-d, blessed be He, has no choice but to create and sustain evil eternally (contradiction). How do I resolve this paradox? Perhaps you can say that the universal soul is included in time itself somehow, and thus you collapse into some kind of "conscious universe" view, with either "eternal" "metaphysical" "time" or with eternally cyclical universes which I'm not sure is either coherent. But also with this, it'd be hard to prove that there is only 1 universal soul. 2. Does G-d, blessed be He, have knowledge and intellect as an essential attribute or does He not. From your numerous and amazing lectures, I see that Ismaili Shia Muslims say that G-d "transcends" attributes, but I have no idea what that means in practice - from our perspective can we ascribe knowledge to G-d, blessed be He, and then He transcends that even more? How do we do this without violating Absolute Divine Simplicity, because otherwise you're either left with incoherence (e.g. brute facts, essential contingency), or you're left with having to deny knowledge (even analogously) to G-d, blessed be He which is deeply problematic. Additionally, you have to account for emergent effects (e.g. First Intellect gains multiplicity through emergent effects technically) and hence I don't think you can argue for the principle of proportionate causality or whatever the equivalent in Islamic thought is (I forgot it, but it essentially goes something like "You cannot give what you don't have" or something along those lines, I'm not too sure honestly). 3. How do you prove your PSR, especially the contrastive PSR which you seem to promote? Why do you promote contrastive PSR over Feser's Scholastic PSR? Because sometimes you seem to allow people to acknowledge brute facts as if brute facts are a coherent worldview while other philosophers I know just say that brute facts are total nonsense, and anyone who subscribes to them collapses into self-refuting idea fallacy and general incoherence. Thank you! I can't wait to watch more of your lectures!!

@bonbonsweetness

8 ай бұрын

Like, am I missing something in my reasoning for questions 1 and 2?

@KhalilAndani

8 ай бұрын

1. Ismailis distinguish between physical time and spiritual time. The latter is also called perpetuity. The Universal Soul is perpetual and exists in a perpetual duration where it’s undergoing changes in its actual states. This duration is everlasting. That’s why it’s called perpetuity.

@Ra3bAbdulRa7man

8 ай бұрын

These people are all liars.... The beliefs they hold were not the beliefs that the Prophet Muhammed PBUH and his companions held.. They will never substantiate there claims with actions from the Prophet or the Quran.... Infact...many of these people hold saints to be higher than Prophets and can receive revelation from Allah... Not to mention all the drug usage and child molesting that occurs in their communities... Which is why we don't call sufis Muslims... They don't practice what The Prophet Muhammed PBUH and his companions practiced. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤔🤨🤔🤨🤔🤨🤔🤨🤔

In this video, the discourse pertains to the concept of divinity, distinguishing it from specific theological perspectives such as Allah in Islamic theology. The contention arises from an examination of the attributes attributed to a deity, particularly those that involve the issuance of directives deemed ethically and morally problematic, such as advocating for practices like spousal violence, sexual slavery, human trafficking, the extermination of polytheists, and violence ostensibly in the name of the deity. Such attributes are criticized on the grounds of theological coherence and ethical considerations, raising fundamental questions about the nature of divinity and its compatibility with rationality and moral values.

@Ra3bAbdulRa7man

8 ай бұрын

Your wasting your time, these fools are just as foolish and arrogant as you.

Great Thanks doctor!

Sunggu rekomendasi banget ini vidio saya suka vidio yg membahas ayat ayat Tuhan sungguh masuk akal ustat

Oh God I have been looking for so long, finally found. This is how I wanted Islamic philosophy to be explained. Thanks a lot

Excellent explanation.

Very easy to understand and well organised video! Jazakallah 😊 btw can you recommend the books for beginners in neoplatonism?

@Ra3bAbdulRa7man

8 ай бұрын

The Asharis love logic and reason. Turns out science believes space and time can bend/curve.... We believe Allah can do anything... Who was right first ? The Asharis have literally wasted centuries of the Ummah's blood and time over something clear from the Prophet's PBUH Sunnah.

@fivii5790

8 ай бұрын

@@Ra3bAbdulRa7manwhat have the asharis negated from the Sunnah that’s clear ? Elaborate on your point

What's the difference between ' ahad' and 'wahid' ? Does one indicate composite in Arabic language?

@Ra3bAbdulRa7man

8 ай бұрын

You can't tell the difference and your here taking your intellect as Allah The Asharis love logic and reason. Turns out science believes space and time can bend/curve.... We believe Allah can do anything... Who was right first ? The Asharis have literally wasted centuries of the Ummah's blood and time over something clear from the Prophet's PBUH Sunnah.

@Stardust475

8 ай бұрын

@Ra3bAbdulRa7man lot of presumptions and ego in your comment. So little to do in life than to share your pointless, baseless hatred. Sounds like you're no different from what you describe of bloodthirsty men but lacking in self-awareness to realise. Never mind, that it is your Abbasid Islam Sharia built on hadith that has committed horrendous bloodetting across centuries. Nor does your comment warrant an explanation as to why I asked, creep!

@flaror3496

3 ай бұрын

​@@Ra3bAbdulRa7manCircular reasoning

Salam Dr Khalil, Beautiful presentation. The music and images are spiritually uplifting. More importantly this is intellectually more cogent than Athari in a few aspects. However, there are some serious contradictions. Please jettison them to make this more Quranic and more Rational and more Cogent. I’ll just mention a few or so. 1. If everything other than Allah is dual, what is the pairing of the Universal Intellect? 2. Why 10 intermediaries and not 12 or 40 or 700 or 482,839? This is arbitrary and thur irrational and impossible. Please jettison this Neoplatonic thoughts that may have been congruent with the limited (and inaccurate) astronomic understanding of our solar system in the days of Plotinus, etc. but we know better now. As you probably know, each intellect was associated with each of the 7 or so planets at the time along with sun, moon, etc. This belongs at the time of 2nd century AD and not now. If Plotinus was alive today, he would not accept this. 3. Bro, just because Allah is simple in the sense that He doesn’t depend on parts, it simply does not follow that He cannot create multiplicity. Sure He can. 4. If the Univeral Intellect leads to multiplicity, then this is just a shell game. Multiplicity is still coming out of Allah. You are simply placing a limit as to how Allah can create. Stop doing that. Stop limiting Allah. If you take these 4 sincere reflections that I have thought of over years, then your presentation will no longer contain contradictions. Please take it with an open mind and open heart. Love you bro. I love and want best for all. Take care. May we transcend sectarian biases.

@KhalilAndani

8 ай бұрын

Universal Intellect is a pair or duality of essence and existence. We don’t argue for ten intellects. That was just an example of a famous Neoplatonic Muslim who believes in ten immaterial intellects. Our position is that Allah doesn’t emanate multiple effects directly. Not that there isn’t any multiplicity. We’ll have a separate video on the Rule of One.

@juadwhite1391

8 ай бұрын

​@KhalilAndani "Universal intellect is a pair or duality of essence and existence" . Well, we can somewhat say the same thing about Allah : Allah has essence(i understand that his essence is identical to his attributes which are identical to each other according to your view, but still he has real essence), and logically speaking he exists(existence), thus Allah is a pair or duality of essence and existence . Anyway thank you so much .

@DrOmar11

8 ай бұрын

@@KhalilAndani Before I reply, I just wanted to say the opening desert scene and then the scene of the rotating galaxy is breathtakingly beautiful. Back to my comment and your reply, I am sorry but the whole idea for the Universal Intellect is a contraction. Obviously you are not saying that the Universal Intellect is utterly simple, are you? So the idea that God can only create what is simple and thus the Universal Intellect and nothing else is contradicted by the fact that the Universal Intellect is when analyzed not utterly simple. But the whole notion that God cannot create anything other than what is simple is simply (no pun intended) a non sequitor. Dear Professor, this earth has a lot of things....but drawing a circle around everything and calling it all earth or part of earth does not remove the multiplicity. It is just word games if one does that. Moreover, and very importantly to realize philosophically, God can do anything at all, then He is by definition not as simple as nothingness. Nothingness is utterly simple. So, sorry God is not simple in the absolute sense. The whole mindset of this Neoplatonic theology is just that...Neoplatonic...it is not Islamic and thus not properly Tawhid. Correct me if you think I am wrong...but scholars generally will not say that Neoplatonic sensibilities was that the source was a conscious being, correct? So it would be more like the One was some impersonal one entity, right? Well an impersonal entity is by definition atheism. If there is anything to that, then what you are preaching is starting with atheistic assumptions. Please stop doing that. Please stop inadvertently misleading others. But again, the whole notion that God cannot create multiplity is a non sequitor. Each of us can by the blessings of God do many things. If any one of us could only say...Da...Da...Da....ad infinitum, it would not make us better but would make us severely lacking in comparison. I think the deep notion you are trying to grasp and convey is that God cannot be exhausted by any multiple number of things. God is beyond everything. But that does not mean that He cannot at one time create all of existence. So as a way to take what you are saying in a positive sense, God is not bound by time and thus does not have to create one thing at a time...one by one....He can do one creation X and then all of reality can unfold through time as determined by God but that X is not the universal intellect but just the Amr of Allah....the command of Allah for everything...that is it and as Imam Ali is reported to have said in the Nahj al Balagha...that is the end to the matter (and no I am not Shia or Sunni...just a non- sectarian Muslim) Peace to you.

@Ra3bAbdulRa7man

8 ай бұрын

Show me a single Sahabi that mentiod these mystical claims. Stop lying about Allah's religion... Why do all these Sufis love smoking opium and having little chai boys around for Sodomy?? Show me a single Companion who practiced this filth !

@user-rs1iq3kt6l

8 ай бұрын

It's almost like all of this shit is made up

Interesting, so are Muslim philosophical schools moreso Platonic than Aristotelian? In Thomistic (Aristotelian) philosophy God is seen in Divine Simplicity as having no distinction between existence and essence as understood in this school, meaning God is not only loving but is Love, not only merciful but is Mercy. Likewise speech of God would typically he understood analogically. Of course theology is ultimately apophatic. It is interesting how similar but so different the more predominant philosophies are in Islamic history

@Ra3bAbdulRa7man

8 ай бұрын

The Asharis love logic and reason. Turns out science believes space and time can bend/curve.... We believe Allah can do anything... Who was right first ? The Asharis have literally wasted centuries of the Ummah's blood and time over something clear from the Prophet's PBUH Sunnah.

I'm so confused by both Jake and your explanation. Is Tawhid this difficult to understand?

@ashaqhussain6902

8 ай бұрын

No. Only if you try to understand it for Christian, Jewish, and Atheist, professors in western Universities like this guy Khalil Adnani.

@Yesunimwokozi1

Ай бұрын

The one ur tonight is madrasa is really simple,but when I grow up it's all different​@@ashaqhussain6902

Great video . Can you please explain why ismaelis believe ismael and not imam Kathim should be the next imam?

Interesting to see that people like Jake, Hijab etc who attempt to criticize the Trinity actually follow creeds that were stolen from the Trinity!

@greentube1357

5 ай бұрын

Bro💀 the scholars like ibn sina ibn farabi intrepete on their own this yt is bs he chooses hertic scholars, ghazali ra declared them kafir cause of their panetheistic believes which is not ashari maturudi at all and they are completely different

@bourbon2242

2 ай бұрын

​@@greentube1357 "Al-Ghazali declared them as kafir so they're kafir" 😂😂

@Ok44398

12 күн бұрын

How? The Asharis and Maturdis are similar to the Trinity as they are later developments. Athari is pure, it’s simple. Christianity is the heresy with the Trinity in the broader Abrahamic narrative.

@hubertagamasu6283

12 күн бұрын

@@Ok44398 @Ok44398 Did you watch the video? Your pure Atharis are neo-platonians. In other words, they were influenced by the pagan Plato! To say the Trinity is heresy shows two things: 1. You don't understand heresy (look it up in the dictionary) 2. You don't understand the true Abrahamic religions (Judaism and Christianity) Btw, lemme show you how even Muhammed copies the Trinity blindly without knowing. Could you explain why you Allah spoke with plural pronouns if he was a singular God?

Would these objections still hold if one is an anti-realist wrt abstract objects/concepts? What do you think of this move? For instance, can't I say that, I can affirm attributes, but they don't exist, such that there can't be a multiplicity leading to polytheism. (I am speaking from a Ashari/Maturidi inclined pov)

@KhalilAndani

8 ай бұрын

If you were to say that the attributes are merely conceptual - they are distinct in human conception but in God they are all identical to each other and God's Essence - then there is no problem anymore. This was the position of certain Sunni kalam thinkers like al-Iji.

@africandawahrevival

8 ай бұрын

@@KhalilAndani I see, thanks👍. I have a further question, this is a short description of my position, could you comment on it? I wrote it in response to one of claims from the video; Siffat and Mawsuf / Attributes and the Attributed are co-dependent on each other? Me - No, that word co-dependent is a concretist term and too strong of a word to use, God is not dependent on anything, not even attributes, but that doesn't mean our judgement of ascribing attributes to God is wrong tho, they are mere mental judgements. Co-dependent, like co-exist are all terms used to compare objects in the same context, therefore a concrete object cannot co-exist with an abstract object, only if you compare two concrete objects or two abstract objects; ConcreteA & ConcreteB -> ✅ AbstractA & AbstractB -> ✅ ConcreteA & AbstractB -> ❌ Notice however that what I mean by concrete also needs to be clarified, in one sense we could say God and creation are both concrete, this only means that we (the observer) make the same judgement of God to exist and of creation to exist aswell, another method is to show that judging is taking place in both cases. [ Is God concrete then, since you say all abstract concepts are Judgements? I do not say God that is concrete so as to avoid misunderstandings, I prefer rather to say that God is 'Who I am referring to' or 'the direction of my attributions' or 'The Signified, to Whom my signification is ascribed to' etc, that's much better ]

@KhalilAndani

8 ай бұрын

As long as the Signified, i.e. God, is simple without internal distinctions, and the Signifiers, i.e. Attributes are merely mental concepts in human intellects, I do not see a problem in that as far as composition is concerned.

@africandawahrevival

8 ай бұрын

@@KhalilAndani got it, thanks 👍

@Ra3bAbdulRa7man

8 ай бұрын

The Asharis love logic and reason. Turns out science believes space and time can bend/curve.... We believe Allah can do anything... Who was right first ? The Asharis have literally wasted centuries of the Ummah's blood and time over something clear from the Prophet's PBUH Sunnah.

Thank U, Infinite Intelligence 🙏

Very interesting.

@Ra3bAbdulRa7man

8 ай бұрын

The Asharis love logic and reason. Turns out science believes space and time can bend/curve.... We believe Allah can do anything... Who was right first ? The Asharis have literally wasted centuries of the Ummah's blood and time over something clear from the Prophet's PBUH Sunnah.

Also attributes are not the same thing as components; a stone is not literally made of "being sharp" and "being cold". They can be components, but an attribute is a quality; a way in which a thing interacts with others. A light bulb is bright because it interacts with the eyes in a certain way, not because it has "brightness". Same thing here, right?

@KhalilAndani

8 ай бұрын

You are confounding attributes with descriptions. The debate I had with Jake goes into the detail and difference between them.

@t.e9147

8 ай бұрын

​@@KhalilAndaniI mean, when one says "attribute", the general meaning is "characteristic" or "defining feature", right? I don't see how my examples are conflating attributes with descriptions, but I'll definitely check out the recommendation

@KhalilAndani

8 ай бұрын

Sunni Kalam theology speaks of entitative attributes - these are attributes that are metaphysical entities that subsist in the divine essence. @@t.e9147

@Ra3bAbdulRa7man

8 ай бұрын

The Asharis love logic and reason. Turns out science believes space and time can bend/curve.... We believe Allah can do anything... Who was right first ? The Asharis have literally wasted centuries of the Ummah's blood and time over something clear from the Prophet's PBUH Sunnah.

@EasternOrthodox101

8 ай бұрын

@@KhalilAndani 🇷🇺☦🤝☪️🇵🇸🇮🇷Yesterday, the moment I mentioned your name in Jake's live chat he blocked me from his channel😁I smell weakness...🦈

Simple..God's unity is Love

@EasternOrthodox101

8 ай бұрын

🇷🇺☦🤝☪️🇵🇸🇮🇷No, it's not. You didn't understand a damn thing Khalil explained...🤦

@Mark-cd3vd

8 ай бұрын

@lionboy4427 YES IT IS....ITS THAT SIMPLE..

@EasternOrthodox101

8 ай бұрын

@@Mark-cd3vd 🤦Enjoy your shallow contingent hippie god then lol

Excellent Quality video with deep respect for you and your video on this issue I've a question regarding using of verse 42:11 for arguing against God not having attributes is missing the mark from my perspective coz if you look verse 42:11 carefully it doesn't negate attributes infact it affirm as Allah being all seeing and all hearing and , wrt pair thing mention in verse I believe it should be interpreted in a which maintains God's transcendence without negation of attributes being mention in and I believe we should understand attributes that are asma al husna in Quran as qualitative not quantitative but when it comes to anthropomorphic attributes I think we should do ta'will of that which does have precedent in primary Islamic texts. I guess tawili tendencies are also there among minority with in atharis as well and there few other minor erros as well because creedal schools of Sunnis with in themselves as well are very diverse as well there are identified asharis doing ithbat + tafweed and hanabali atharis doing tawil some trace certain tawil back to imam ahmad in with solid chain so I believe your criticism is too generalized but still I do like this video a lot in fact I loved I'm eagerly waiting for newer ones as well And I will end with last questions concerning Ibrahim al-qurani, as you've mention book by him in video and fact that he affirm anthropomorphic attributes of God Mentioned in primary Islamic text literally. And fact that you're against ithbat how do you reconcile that with your neoplatonic worldview and I believe ibn arabi al Jilani these scholars also affirm these attributes literally. Or your criticism on understand literally attributes can be directed against them as well and if you are okay with them. Hope you'll offer a Good reply To questions Assalamualikum

@KhalilAndani

8 ай бұрын

You are confusing attributes (sifa) with description (wasf). The Quran contains descriptive statements about God, but it never says God HAS attributes that are entitative and distinct from Him. 42:11 says there is nothing like God, which means He does not have any attributes - since all created things have attributes and duality; the divine names Hearing and Seeing was descriptions (wasf) not attributes. Ibrahim Kurani is an Akbari who believes that God's Essence is absolutely simple and there are emanations of the Essence and the Divine Names only apply to the emanations, not to the Essence. That is standard Akbari teaching of Ibn 'Arabi.

@zakymalik6920

8 ай бұрын

@@KhalilAndani but again I would disagree respectfully on categorizing quality seeing and hearing as wasf you did included seeing and hearing in your video as attribute not description.

@zakymalik6920

8 ай бұрын

@@KhalilAndani I think Ibrahim al kurani doesn't classify divine names as emanations (Fayd) but as Manifestation or Theophany (Tajjali).

@KhalilAndani

8 ай бұрын

It is both. Have you read of the Fayd Aqdas and Fayd Muqaddas? These are Ibn Arabi terms for the levels of Tajalli.@@zakymalik6920

@zakymalik6920

8 ай бұрын

@@KhalilAndani I do whats fayd al aqddas and fayd al muqaddas thoose are first and second enitications or level determination, thoose are specific ways of relating Manifestation of God to himself and to Manifestations in external world but tajjali is something General not specific

Khalil deleted this message but why is he so scared of the truth? Posting again: Polytheism is the view that there are multiple Gods. If you were being honest, you would concede at the least that Neoplatonic philosophy was actually developed by polytheists who affirmed the existence of multiple deities. Classical Ismailism did so as well, and the 'ten intellects' as found in the historical literature. The only difference is that they rename the Gods as intellects' or 'Souls' and so on. But the fact is, they are eternal beings, not subject to generation of corruption, and the One or the First cannot create the world without those other beings, and so, the creation of the World occurs in concert by all of the Gods together. Thus, it is a dishonest exaggeration to claim that a denial of divine simplicity is an affirmation of polytheism; or the affirmation of simplicity means a denial of polytheism. If anything, it is Neoplatonism which is polytheistic: God is an agent, Agency entails possessing properties like knowledge, will, power, life. The One, an absolutely simple being, is not an agent at all; on some views, it does not even exist, it is rather a principle of unity of existing beings. The Henads are the Gods, and each one of them is absolutely unique. If there are any Gods at all in the Neoplatonic system in any substantive sense, it is these, or the superlunary Intellects or Celestial souls which control and create events in the sublunary world. The problem with the neoplatonist is that he imagines that 'attributes' are somehow intelligible on their own, independently of the being described by them. This is an unjustified reification. In the Islamic context, most Sunni and Shiite doxagraphers took classical Ismailism to be explicitly or implicitly polytheistic.

@KhalilAndani

8 ай бұрын

Nobody deleted this message. This objection rests on what the term "deity" means. Sure if we redefine deity to anything that is non-material and supra-natural, then you can say Neoplatonism is polytheistic. But if deity is defined as what is ultimate and independent, in Neoplatonism there is but one God - the One.

There are certain things like gambling n unsavoury things that you want to reject off utube and it just throws you onto some crappy set of numbers n www stuff.

Beautifully done

John 14:6 (KJV) "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

@EasternOrthodox101

8 ай бұрын

Are you Catholic or Orthodox?

@ukaszturlej1102

8 ай бұрын

@@EasternOrthodox101Neither. I am follower of the Lord, Jesus Christ. I am His 21st century disciple, I don't follow any of those religion philosophy.

@EasternOrthodox101

8 ай бұрын

@@ukaszturlej1102 Then you are a Protestant. You discredited yourself as not being a Christian, so we will appreciate if you westerners not speak in our name please 🇷🇺☦🤝☪️🇵🇸

@Sosarchives

8 ай бұрын

@@ukaszturlej1102So non-denomination

@YingGuoRen

7 ай бұрын

@@ukaszturlej1102 Protestant, then.

Then does He swt have a womb then too?

Does this mean that, if humans have consciousness, and stones lack consciousness, then God neither possesses nor lacks it?

With all due respect, when it comes to describing Sunni theology [aqida], you have a tendency to distort it, making it look incoherent or silly. In Sunni theology, there are 13 necessary attributes, and one of them is ontological, which means it pertains to the very essence of God. This is the attribute of "necessary existence". This is the first and foremost of all of the attributes, especially for the Ash'aris. For the Maturidis, kidm or "pre-existence" is typically the foremost of attributes. But this difference is mostly a difference of the type of language used, with Maturidis inclining towards scripturalist language. Then there are the five negative attributes, and these are all necessary: 1. Pre-existence, 2. Ever-lastingness [or eternity], 3. Dissimilarity, 4. Self-sufficiency, 5. Oneness Then there are the seven positive attributes, and these are all necessary: 1. Life, 2. Knowledge, 3. Will, 4. Power, 5. Hearing, 6. Seeing, 7. Speech These 13 attributes are the foundation, they are a matter of consensus, and are clearly established in the Qur'an, sunnah, pure reason, and experience. Their opposites are impossible. They are the minimum because the attributes of God are infinite. But these are the arqan, the foundations (ummahat). You've included one of the negative attributes among the seven positive attributes, and added a bunch of attributes that are not held by Sunnis in terms of the ummahat. Moreover, framing this Sunni view of God, divided into parts as "distinct and co-eternal" is an attempt to equalize Sunni theology with Christian Trinitarian theology. Also, by equalizing Salafism with Athari'ism, and then equalizing Athari'ism, Ashari'ism, and Maturidi'ism, you're basically equalizing traditional Sunni theology with Salafi/Wahabi theology. You have included some attributes that only Salafis/Wahabis hold, but which are regarded as heretical by Sunnis, such as having two hands and two feet. These are physicalist beliefs, and traditional Sunni'ism, unlike Wahabi'ism, is not physicalist. You cannot mix and match core theologies. That would be a great mistake, and very harmful to as within the Sunni community there has been a battle between the revisionist dispensation of Wahabi'ism and traditional Sunni'ism. For more information on Sunni theology, see the courses by Shaykh Umar Faruq Abdallah. kzread.info/dash/bejne/q3alqLaEoMXfZJc.html I think that it would be beneficial if you did a video discussion with him inshAllah.

@KhalilAndani

8 ай бұрын

First. This video is refuting Salafi Athari theology. It is not focusing on Ash'ari or Maturidi theology. Second. the critique of multiple attributes that are distinct from God's Essence but not separate from Him DOES apply to the 7 entitative attributes (sifat ma'nawiyya) and that is akin to Christian Arab Trinitarian theologies - just look how the Christian Arabs describe the Persons of the Trinity as Sifat, or as the Divine Essence considered with a particular Sifa. Agreed that other things we address in the video - like God's two hands, face, two eyes are Salafi believes and to be fair, we showed clips of Salafis stating this.

@emptyingthecup

8 ай бұрын

@@KhalilAndani You said: "The Asharis, Maturidis, and Atharis believe that God possesses an uncreated eternal knowledge, uncreated eternal life, an uncreated eternal power, and he possess an entire set of multiple uncreated eternal attributes. Some of these attributes are even similar to that of human beings." And of course we see the Salafi belief in literal and physical bodily limbs. At the top of this slide at 4:05 you have in the title "Athari, Ash'ari, and Maturidi". If your intention is not to address Ashari and Maturidi theology, or to equalize them with Athari theology, then you need to change your slide and rephrase what you have stated. As it is, it appears to equalize them with Athari theology. And if we want to be more accurate, it is not Athari theology but more of a neo-Athari theology that has been created by the Salafiyyah. Atharis make no commentary on such metaphysics of God. The Salafiyyah pretend not to, but they do as a necessary result of their literalism. Based on your definition of Divine Simplicity, the Ashari/Maturidi theology would be under that category.

@KhalilAndani

8 ай бұрын

I have another lecture on my channel where I devote to Ash'ari, Maturidi and Hanbali theology. This particular video is really addressed to Salafi theology. However, the audio is from a debate I had with a Salafi who self identified as "Athari", so that is why I address Salafi theology as Athari. As for the diagram - it is a general one and I can see the possibility of confusing a viewer not familiar with kalam. @@emptyingthecup

@bonbonsweetness

8 ай бұрын

@@KhalilAndani Dr Andani, can you please answer my questions (at least the first one), since your whole theology/philosophy is based on it?

@KhalilAndani

8 ай бұрын

Yes we have answered your first question, re: universal Soul and time

Cool video! Well done.

@KhalilAndani

8 ай бұрын

Thank you very much!

@Ra3bAbdulRa7man

8 ай бұрын

The Asharis love logic and reason. Turns out science believes space and time can bend/curve.... We believe Allah can do anything... Who was right first ? The Asharis have literally wasted centuries of the Ummah's blood and time over something clear from the Prophet's PBUH Sunnah.

@nob8503

2 ай бұрын

@@Ra3bAbdulRa7mani wouldnt use science to support ur argument when your sect completely rejects it 😂

@Ra3bAbdulRa7man

2 ай бұрын

@@nob8503 Divert and mock your way to hell 7abibi 🤔

The light of anything is preceded by that thing, which is the source fo that thin. The light of the Sun radiates from the Sun as its source. If the first creation is the LIGHT OF MUHAMMED, does that not make Muhammed the source of that light? Does that not make Muhammed God? Is that not blasphemy?

I know this is a 7 month old video but I would like an answer for this. If there are no real attributes, what about actions of God. If you say God Created the first intermediary, that is a divine action of His. If that action is indentical to His being (cuz no distinction between attributes and essence of God) then the act of creating the Pen would in essence be Allah, naudhubillah. That is absurd, how can Allah be identical to His act of creating something. His act of creating the Pen would be indentical to Himself, so by that logic you cannot suggest the creation of the Pen is in any way dissimilar to Allah, which is kufr because now a created thing starting to exist is neccessary to the essence of Allah. There is no other way to define creation except as a created thing starting to exist, so the Pen starting to exist is naudhubillah the same as Allah, if divine simplicity is true. The only way you get around this is by claiming one of two things. Eithet you say that Allah did not create the Pen (or anything, because if you suggest Allah has created anything, you run into that problem) This would contradict your belief that Allah created the pen/first intermediary. Or you can say that creating the pen cannot be called an action, which also contradicts your cherished law of excluded middle because a thing is either created by God or it is not created by God, a middle ground between those is contradictory and impossible.

I sense alot of jealousy when it comes to this superb theology.

Good job, but isn't the Athari's standpoint called anthropomorphism and it's kind of limiting of the concept of GOD, it's like trying to understand God from human angle. It's like God is a superhuman. No disrespect but that's what I think it is.

@flaror3496

3 ай бұрын

I think they were trying to affirm the verses while at the same time without their modality

Daniel is not Athari

Satan is alive and walks among us. Jesus is my Living God and lives in me.

Don't use term Salafi also any one can call himself what ever he want

You keep saying there are creations of God, but there is no such thing in a divine simplicity model. If God has real attributes, He cannot have ownership of creation because ownership is also an attribute; therefore the advocate of divine simplicity would have to argue that God does not possess creation and that the Imams and Prophets are not creations of God, because if they are His creation that would imply ownership, and according to you God has no real attributes, including the attribute of ownership of posession. Saying God has no real creation and that we are not creations of His is kufr, and thus refutes divine simplciity.

What’s utter blasphemy… pray do tell us what attribute of creation is Aga khan suppose to be? Don’t Ismailies take him to be the avatar of God?

I didn't come to watch the video nor did I watch it. I just came to say Mohammed Hijab and Daniel Haqiqatjou are definitely not salafi nor athari. They are innovators. Hijab is an ikhwaani innovator with much misguidance. Daniel is a khaariji innovator. Both have too much misguidance for 1 comment to cover. As for the 3rd guy I don't know who he is. And as for philosophy, philosophy has no place in Islam. Philosophy is haram and not Islam. Hijab himself uses philosophy and wrote a book about it, so how possibly is this guy salafi?

God was created twice? God was not created, he's the creator. This is contradictory to Quran, Kalam cosmological and Ibn Sinas arguments for the existence of God, there is no Muslim sect that agrees to this. You have taken some people's words out of context. For example if Allah has multiple characters that doesn't mean he's made of parts, it just means that he shows those charcters from one character which is absolute wisdom or knowledge e.g sometimes you show mercy by killing an animal to ease its suffering or get angry at someone to save them from something. The same thing goes for his face or hands etc. Also if God literally has a face, but is so so different from our face, then it might as well be a metaphor, to elaborate on this let's say that we go to an alien planet and the transport machines their are so different that we can't recognise them, so the aliens tell us they are cars, in this case the car is really a metaphor because they are not the cars we use, but are transport machines, hence they are both a metaphor and literal, and since it is both then it must be literal and not a metaphor, as literal is real whereas a metaphor is not.

Dr. Andani is very smart, but I think he is kinda a bit mean in my opinion 😢😢💔💔💔

@tawsifchowdhury4035

8 ай бұрын

Not as cruel/mean as most of the Salafized idiots who attack him.

@hubertagamasu6283

8 ай бұрын

You need to school and discipline arrogant, ignorant people who think owning KZread channels equates to scholarship.

Your presentation is full of contradictions. One of the biggest ones is that if God is absolutely dissimilar to His creation, surely you will agree that the excluded middle, which is a law of logic that applies to created things, cannot apply to God, otherwise both creation and the Creator would be bound by the same logical categories. If you take this to be true you cannot say that the doctrine that the attributes of God are neither identical to Him nor seperate from Him contradicts the law of excluded middle, because that law applies to creation, and the Creator is not like the Creation. Furthemore if there are no real attributes, what about actions of God. If you say God Created the first intermediary, that is a divine action of His. If that action is indentical to His being (cuz no distinction between attributes and essence of God) then the act of creating the Pen would in essence be Allah, naudhubillah. That is absurd, how can Allah be identical to His act of creating something.

This strand of Islam is quoting the Quran which cannot be refuted. The vast majority of Muslims base the Deen and the Quran on their understanding of Surah Al ikhlas which is illogical. The logical view would be to base that surah on the Quran in its entirety. There are far more ayat describing Allah's anthropomorphic features. Instead, orthodox Muslims twist the descriptions of Allahs face, hands, legs, feet etc.. into allegorical meanings so it can fit their understanding of what it means to be eternal or unalike Allah. Allah can have a face and hands and still there could be nothing like him without any contridicrions. Just as you have a face and hands and there is no one like you. There is no one with your bone structure and no one with you finger print, therefore there is no one like unto you.

@arminradoncic4555

5 ай бұрын

Yeah, but anyone with a face, hand, bone structure, or finger print would be similar to you even if they are not exactly like you. You can categorize multiple beings with those same features as human. If God is completely unlike his creation, then he would have to be in a category of his own, which means there can be nothing even remotely similar to him in his creation.

Both hands are right 🤣 it’s abnormal allah.

Arbic Alla is racist . 😂 he even wants you to learn Arabic language to communicate and do Azaan Namaaz😂

One day Islam will realize it's all about Jesus.

Islam is a waste of time.

In other words god is a contingent being because he can exist differently in another possible world.

@1001011011010

8 ай бұрын

I'm not sure how you got that impression from the presentation

@free-naturalist8912

8 ай бұрын

​@1001011011010 Clearly you have to understand philosophy bro. 😄

"A created hierarchy of intermediaries; beginning with the first creation of....." That sounds like pure shirk.

The fact you had to promote your Bidah aqeedah through ads shows your desperation and how unappealing it is. Lol

You are in a cult

Mohammed Jihad

Sam shamoun makes much more sense. Go watch him you will see.