Video

Sorry I don't get your point, are you with me or against? 😂

@@africandawahrevival brother i am neither against anyone nor for anyone , but i believe in live and let live as i say :) btw i am against islam in general so you can assume but i am not against muslims

@@arvee-4699 I see, I don't think you should be against islam but against bad people no matter which religion or beliefs they have, that's much better.

@@othmanohgf8748 ok, what is the difference, and is such difference such that it warrants such rhetoric against the Ashari position? Especially given the context of the video, Dr Javed accused traditional Islam of being fatalistic given determinism, Jake then went to say "...we agree with you (Dr Javed) that the Ashari position is silly...", don't you think that's a bit too much, given that you yourself think that Jake is also an occasionalist, btw, do you have video where he calls Ibn Taymiyah occasionalist?

@@africandawahrevival You can watch Jake debate vs. Jay Dyer, where Jake examines (questioning) Jay Dyer; that's where he mentioned it. As far as the difference between the two, Ashari says that fire has no innate ability to burn, but Allah creates the burn at the moment of contact. But that's problematic because that's what criminals want. I didn't kill the guy, but Allah made the bullet kill him. and the Sunni position is that causes are influential, not in themselves. When Sunni say causes are influential, they oppose the Ashari school, and when they say not in themselves, they oppose the people who put natural causes equal to Allah.

@@othmanohgf8748 oh I see, the problem with that view is easily addressed, have you ever wondered why Asharis/Sunnis do not affirm this "influential cause" you speak of? Because, this cause itself is dependent on God's will to influence anything, so if fire touches the cotton, it will not be able to have any influence of burning save God allowance, so in the end, the influence is superfluous and if your position get pushed a little more, you will realise how you will end up allying with the naturalists, whereas our position is safe and gives all efficient cause to God only. Read Aqeedah At Tahawiyah on this issue it is online in English, especially the parts where he talks about "the actions of the creatures and the creation of God", etc.

@@africandawahrevival The Sunni position couldn't be the same as that of the naturalists, who say causes are influenceable and innate. Sunni says causes are influenceable, not innate. As far as the fire and cotton, who brought the cotton to the fire? Another influential being who has no innate ability. As far as the rest, that's just rhetoric. But I ask you if A shot B, and you ask A why you killed B, and he replies, No, you got it all wrong. If it weren't for Allah making the bullet go through his body, A wouldn't have died. What would you say?

@@othmanohgf8748 I would say A killed B, and he is responsible, God CREATES our actions, He doesn't DO our actions, we do them, get it? That distinction has to be made between God creating and we doing. This can also be done by changing perspective, we differentiate between God's perspective from our perspective/POV, just like in the video.

I thought Dr Shadee was Athari Hanbali tho 🤔, and how did you know he was his teacher? I didn't know that

@@africandawahrevival I heard he was his teach And no, Dr Shadee is Maliki Ashari

*teacher

@@_Ahmed_W- oh I see, got you.

As salafis do, probably refutes his teacher now.

I see, there is even another method I thought of, by using the Kantian view of seeing space and time as mental mechanisms of humans, instead of saying that space and time are in the essence of things observed, not to talk of God's essence, we simply say we don't know.

Sorry I don't, but if you want to reach me privately check my bio for my Instagram or we can discuss here on CZcams

​ Got it, Allahumma Barrik brother, eid Mubarrak

We don't encourage people to do it, in fact it is better not to do it, but we do not think it is Shirk, nor consider those who do it as mushriks, unless all the conditions for shirk has been confirmed.

@@africandawahrevival I sees brother points of view, yes when it comes to istighatha, there's ikhtilaf, one say permissible, one say haram, none would calls it shirk and doers as mushrikeen lol, although tawassul and istighatha term is interchangeable, although i am in stands that tawassul is allowed, And istighatha is permissible (but to me, highly recommended if only done if a sheikh already explained properly the meaning and intentions behind it or to better do it with a sheikh to avoid misunderstanding

Wa alaykum Salaam warahmatullah wabarakatuh, yes I am Sunni, and inclined towards Ashari method in Aqeedah. 👍

Salamat pagi 😁, I have many Indonesian friends in my school in China.

@@africandawahrevival Nice to hear brother, Masya'allah tabarakallah

Basically the argument is that during the incarnation, it is supposed to be a union between the divine and the human, and yet there is only one person; Trinity- 3 divine persons, F, S & H Incarnation - 1 divine person (S) + Human nature Human nature with body and soul Incarnation - 2 persons, 1 divine person + 1 human person ✅ Christians - 1 person in incarnation 🤔🔴 Who died on the cross then? Remember I said 'who', the question of who applies to persons, not nature, therefore, it is either the human person or divine person, the divine person cannot die by definition, so it has to be the human nature, which is a heresy (Nestorianism). It's been long since I made this video but that's basically the argument, hope you are clear now, the Trinitarians are inconsistent when using the term persons in the trinity as compared to the incarnation.

Just a question here: If Ibn Tayimiyyah says without God's X act, we wouldn't be able to exist, let alone breathe; also, if Alaghazali says without God's Y act, we wouldn't be able to exist or breathe either. Then comes a "conciler" and says well, Y is kinda X. It's just that X is more general and closer to the majority interpretations of Quran and Hadith, while Y could be some other more specific or a bit less prevailing interpretation of God's act that might need more evidence or enunciation, which could later be the morr accurate interpretation, but at the end, it's compatibilism anyways. So , what's the fuss about ? If jake is making the fuss, then it's known that Jake and others get caught up in the fight between sects a lot, which is the slippery slope of scoial media anyways, it is really difficult not to get tangled up in arguments and lose the supreme goal (elevating and sharing God's words) in return for in-the-heat personal ego gains or what have you. but by tagging jake and making up recent videos about him and others about similar topics, aren't you doing the same thing by presenting your point of view rather than being the "Conciler" example above? Why not shift the focus on more pressing matters like your other older videos? maybe refreshing videos like how to clarify the Islamic concept of dunya as a testing place to the youth living in your city/country/ummah , theists or otherwise, or the introduction of critical thinking given from an Islamic perspective for young adults going into the workforce, or how to stand firmly on a moral ground in the days of deceipt we live in such as denying Gaza massacres, etc.. Why dwell on the unseen God's ability to be omnipotent while still creating and enabling creatures with somewhat free-will? You are only adding wood to the fire by replying and tagging Jake. He will not listen. This argumentation will not stop by adding another. This goes to all social media Dawah or new muslim debators, like Haqiqat or Mohammed shams eddin or anyone. This is a Fitna that we should not indulge in. Maybe one video , and that's it. but then , we should steer our priorities right. wouldn't you agree? I have no intention but to stop this from going on brother Wallahi. sorry if I'm being harsh, but this is not for you specifically, it's just a frustrated cryout. Jake is not a lying pseudo-muslim like Nas Daily, or guys from Taqueen institute in Egypt who must be rebutted with counter argumentation, he's only in the heat of the social media war of sects and interpretations. it'll come to pass one day inshallah. Let's not be it's fuel to go on. Thank you.

Before ibn taymmyah even 1000 scholars had said that Asharia are infidels as sheikh al Islam al ansari mentioned in his book Zam al kalam and he was before ibn taymmyah with 200 years

@@ahmedfarahat8489 You have probably been sold the nonsense that Asharis are Jahmis, everyone refuted the Jahmis. How is this related to the topic shown in the video? 🤔, please stick to the topic.

@@AShaif noted 👍.

@@africandawahrevival and I am waiting a non Arab who never knew who are the salaf even to tell me so ?

Ok, 😁. Very profound point you made there mate

@@africandawahrevival fine, I truly hope your mind is open because I am going to answer you in an honest and very respectful way my brother I really hope you catch what I am going to throw at you .. First point, I agree Indeed, God is immortal secondly, I hope you agree that God is not limited by time or space. So now that we clarified those two things here’s the main point: To die, is to cease from existing. Which Yeshua did not do, The Son suffered a DEATH OF THE FLESH, not his spirit. Because he exists outside of this dimension, it is entirely possible for the Christian doctrine of “God atones for the sins of humanity, by offering a Pure and Holy Sacrifice (mind you, until this point, the Jews would u Gods exists in a dimension we cannot see or touch, god is able to reveal himself in anyway that he sees fitting. God is not limited to or defined by his creations.. the same way you can probably deduce some personality traits from the design or creation of an engineer [(myself)i.e: because I chose this material rather than “x material” you can say I am a “blah blah” kind of person” but, you will not be able to describe me as a human being, my attributes, etc simply by the thing that I have created…

You might be new to this, but it isn't I who lack understanding, I have studied this topic extensively, you can check my Contra-Trinity playlist, you might learn a thing or two if you are open minded. 👍

Given your analogy of Humans, don't you see how that leads to polytheism? If all human persons have equal humanity, speaking of quantity, and what would constitute polytheism if not this.

You studied something doesn't mean you understood it. That's what im saying. Even in the quran God always presents himself as a plural as well as on the Bible. He said "let us make man in our image" im very open minded but i think you're associating your logical thinking with your beliefs. You say because the quran said not because you studied. ​@africandawahrevival

@gracious6575 Your responses and arguments shows me that you have not studied this very deeply, no offence, that's why I was referencing some of my works on this, if you don't by that, why don't you start with this, search Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy trinity, read that, then we can discuss further, ok. Quick reply on the "plurality" thing, have you heard of a royal WE before? that's the answer.

That's what the video was against, especially unaliving people because of theological disagreements.

A Muslim guy said on live video that if you associate Allah with anyone, the punishment is death. Just like apostasy, if anyone leaves Islam, he has to be killed 😢. Like this is so scary

@@gracious6575 I know, but I have been making videos to refute this claim, it makes more sense that people in the past were executed for treason or breach of oath of allegiance, than because of religion change, you can watch some of my content on this (check Contra-Apostacy law playlist)

Yeah, but what about whoever does not refute or disassociate from a khawarij?

That's the label their opponents gave them bro, read it again.

@@africandawahrevival oh so what’s your position

@@denohart4929 closer to the Anti-Khawarij camp.

you have a point there bro 👍

Ameen. Can you point out the verses that you speak of that cannot be contextualised to a specific case? I can give you many verses from the Qur'an supporting what I proposed, that is "...go for peace, if they (enemies/non-muslims) go for peace...", "...spare those who fight you not, nor drove you out of your homes...", "Treaty of Hudaibiya", etc. I don't see anything against Islam in what I said in the video, are you saying that "we should fight everyone who is not Muslim, whether they offer peace or not, whether they maintain their treaty or not, we fight them"?

​@@africandawahrevival If there was a legitimate Islamic state established (there is none established currently), it will be incumbent upon them to engage in expansive jihad if the conditions are met. This involves approaching different countries and conquering them to Instill Allah's law. They are given the option of converting or paying the jizya to the Islamic rule. Evidences that support this point include: Q9:29: "Fight those People of the Book who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Last Day, and do not take as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared as unlawful, and do not profess the Faith of Truth; (fight them) until they pay jizyah with their own hands while they are subdued". The tafsir by ma'arif al-Quran says this applies to every non-believer and not just people of the book. If there were any group that should have been exempt, it would have been people of the book, but even they are included. Q9:123: "O you who believe, fight those disbelievers who are near you, and let them find severity in you. Know well that Allah is with the God-fearing." hadith 8, arbaeen an-nawawi : The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and until they establish the salah and pay the zakat. And if they do that then they will have gained protection from me for their lives and property, unless [they commit acts that are punishable] in Islam, and their reckoning will be with Allah." These sound pretty clear cut to me. I would like to hear what your responses to these evidences are though. barakallahu feek.

@@abdul2499 I have several ways of response; 1- verses of peace, "Fight not those who fight you not, if they seek peace, you seek peace". (paraphrased) وَقَـٰتِلُوا۟ فِى سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلَّذِينَ يُقَـٰتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوٓا۟ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُعْتَدِينَ ١٩٠ Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors. (2:190) لَّا يَنْهَىٰكُمُ ٱللَّهُ عَنِ ٱلَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَـٰتِلُوكُمْ فِى ٱلدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُم مِّن دِيَـٰرِكُمْ أَن تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوٓا۟ إِلَيْهِمْ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُقْسِطِينَ ٨ Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are fair. (60:8) إِلَّا ٱلَّذِينَ يَصِلُونَ إِلَىٰ قَوْمٍۭ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُم مِّيثَـٰقٌ أَوْ جَآءُوكُمْ حَصِرَتْ صُدُورُهُمْ أَن يُقَـٰتِلُوكُمْ أَوْ يُقَـٰتِلُوا۟ قَوْمَهُمْ ۚ وَلَوْ شَآءَ ٱللَّهُ لَسَلَّطَهُمْ عَلَيْكُمْ فَلَقَـٰتَلُوكُمْ ۚ فَإِنِ ٱعْتَزَلُوكُمْ فَلَمْ يُقَـٰتِلُوكُمْ وَأَلْقَوْا۟ إِلَيْكُمُ ٱلسَّلَمَ فَمَا جَعَلَ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ سَبِيلًۭا ٩٠ Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allāh had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allāh has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them. (4:90) 2- golden principle, reciprocity argument: If we can justify an unprovoked invasion, then others can as well, and war will be perpetual, the core message of Islam cannot be military conquests, lest the people would have been justified in objecting to it. 3- political realism, I believe that the early Muslims fought because of being in an anarchical situation, a world of expansionist empires. 4- other Islamic empires were fought as well, even though they were Muslims, which shows the political side of things rather than religious, which is exactly my point. 5- Lastly, I am not a pacifist, I believe you can fight to defend yourself and even expand, but not for religion per se, but for politics instead, such that were you to fail, it would be you who failed, not Islam, Islam never dies, it keeps on spreading whether there is a Caliphate or not. I can't go into too much details here, but I think this should suffice, especially the first one, Barakallahu feek 👍.

Well you are wrong and probably haven't studied this topic deeply, you are free to unsubscribe, for no one forced you to subscribe in the first place. 👍

Old Testament mate, and historic Christianity

Yeah, I used to always understand it in light of either the context of war, where it is seen as treason, or some context lost to us in modernity, but these defenders have explicitly clarified that "it is not because of any threat, but for the very change of religion itself", that's when I disagreed with the whole thing. I even understand harsh punishments like stoning adulterers to death and others, but killing someone for not believing anymore, that, I don't get, and after also seeing the consequences of this law in how many innocent lives have been cut off for merely being charged with apostasy, this is what the jihadis do.

Why you said ," just religion " , religion is the most important. And we don't base our religion on other religion don't kill apostates, we do it, don't think like if.religion is subjective

@@doflamingo5345 Yeah religion is the most important, but there is also "no compulsion in religion", "whoever wills let him believe, whoever wills let him disbelieve", and many other verses. Let me ask you a difficult question to help you see the problem with killing apostates for changing religion and not for threat or other reasons, did you know that child apostates are to be killed aswell? and how old do you think they have to be before they can be killed?

If I may ask, have you studied or read Anti-natalists works?

@@africandawahrevival Nope, Why should I? I am in favor of humanity having lots of babies. Are you trying to convince me to be an anti natalist?

Because there is nothing like observation reality, it is a myth used to snatch the unaware into a contrivance of horror. I only ask you to believe in two propositions; 1- That you were created by God 2- That there is life after death Why? you might ask, (1) the universe emerged and it is reasonable to propose a creator, (2) the afterlife is where justice is served to all those who were wronged. If you think this are fairytales provide your own answer to address this issue, seriously, no kidding. Lastly, one could argue from (2) to (1), like I did in one of my recent videos, on justice, here is a snippet; - you watch injustice happen, let's say a case of a genocide of an entire nation, like that in the Melian dialogue. - the perpetrators got away and nothing happened - you want them to be brought to justice - you believe that there is life after death where the innocents will get their justice and judgement will be enacted on the tyrant. - you either want this or you don't, it is not by force, and since it is something in the future and a possibility, you believe. Another way is the existentialist path, but I stop here for now.

Have you ever heard of modal logic? Also, tone it down a bit, CZcams will delete your comments, lol.

@@africandawahrevival You are the one saying that reality is not real and fantasy is truth. I merely asked you to show the courage of your conviction.

@@snuffywuffykiss1522 I never said reality is not real, I am only saying that all realities are interpreted by man, and we differ in its interpretation. Also, notice that I am not disputing with you if 1+1=2 or any typical scientific facts, this is a philosophical issue, issues about the origin of the universe and the meaning of man's existence, you can't simply point to "observable reality" in this cases, you have to make a judgement. Take the case of a man beating another to death, what just happened here? we all observed it? It is real? but what does it mean? Murder or not? Right or wrong? etc, no appeal to science or "observable reality" can aid us here.

@@africandawahrevival The origin of the universe in a question of natural science, not philosophy. Meaning is both personal and subjective. As to observed reality... If we witness a man beat another man to death then THAT is what we witness in reality. You moral view or the legal definition of the action are both again personal and subjective. And by the way... There is a such a thing as social sciences where we study human interactions... But you wouldn't know about that because its not in your special magic book... So how about you stop trying to change subjects and doing the standard apologetic tap dance. Just give 1 REAL reason to believe in your fairy tale imaginary sky wizard.

ChatGPT is just like Google bro, is Google dajal too? 😁

Philistinism

Comes to show people are so different. Whenever something unexplained is infront of us some will shy away and claim the universe is incomprehensible, others will just keep walking, and yet others will muster their strength to understand it

@@ivanjaldin235 I agree, but I don't see this as shying away. I view this situation more like scientists falling into the trap of needing to announce an answer. I will continue my search for answers as vigorously as Sapolsky and I take his thoughts with great consideration. However, at the end of it all, we can't dismiss the very real limitations of the human brain. Humans are good at observing and re-creating, but I'm not sure we even *can* create ideas that come from nothing. And as we know it today, the universe came from nothing.

What context? Can you put it back in context, atleast one of the points made in the video?

Lol 😂, don't do that, for the rebuttal to work, you have to show that the Christians are on their own in this particular issue, because, they appealed to the Jews to ostracize the Muslims, but the Jews reject the trinity or any such plurality.

@@africandawahrevival I get it, I saw the claim recently so the video was informative about philo and karbala. it’s just funny how they try this. They even try this claim with the Quran. “Islam isn’t monotheism because the Quran is an attribute of Allah”, because they secretly believe all attributes of God are their own fully divine persons with their own attributes. Literally no brains. Idk if you’ve seen that claim.

Fair enough 👍

Think you need to watch the whole debate and not just cherry picked elements, and then determine which person came across as honest, truthful and able to make reasonable arguments. Given time and lots of people to pick out contridictions and mis-spoken terminologies in someone's entire recorded events then anyone can create a collage that says what you want it to say. If you take the supposed words of Jesus, his life, his actions, his death etc from the so called eye witness testimony then you can shape it to prove that Jesus is actually the agent of Satan, and the whole thing is a ruse......and that has been done, without additional material or altering the texts of the Gospels.......

Yeah, but this point cannot be substantiated, what exactly was misrepresented? Clarify any claim attributed to Matt, which he doesn't hold, if you cannot do this, maybe it is you who need to watch the whole debate, I don't need to put the entire length of the video to prove something Matt believes in himself and said it as clearly without ambiguity.