They Don't Use Quran To Debate Atheists But Philosophy | Shamsi | Speakers Corner
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 09. 2022
- @DUSDawah
🚀HELP ABCDAWAH ACHIEVE 5,000 SUBSCRIBERS 🚀
🔵 SUBSCRIBE TO THE CHANNEL: / @abcdawah
🔵 PLEASE SUBSCRIBE, LIKE THE VIDEO & LEAVE A COMMENT TO KEEP THE CHANNEL GOING!
🔵 FEEL FREE TO DONATE TO HELP BRING MORE TO ABCDAWAH SUCH AS TRANSLATIONS, EQUIPMENT & MORE:
🔴 Paypal: paypal.me/abcdawah
🔴 Patreon: / abcdawah
🔴 Cash App: £abcdawah
🔴 Become A CZcams Member: / @abcdawah
🔵 FOLLOW ALL OF OUR SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS:
🔴 Tiktok: / abcdawah
🔴 Twitter: / abcdawah
🔴 Instagram: / abcdawah
🔴 Snapchat: / abcdawah
🔴 Facebook: / abcdawah
🔴 LinkedIn: / abc-dawah-269001213
🔵 FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ABCDAWAH FOR ANY INQUIRES: ContactABCDawah@gmail.com - Zábava
May Allah bless shamsi. As a born Muslim the Quran changed my life and it’s refreshing when he recites verses to the people. May Allah bless him and accept his dawah and raise him with the righteous ameen. Allahumma barik, he’s one of the consistent callers to Islam.
( 50 ) Then in what statement after the Qur'an will they believe?
What speech is better than His
Allahuma Barik, may Allah increase your good deeds and elevate you
الحمد لله على نعمة الاسلام
Alhamdulillaah
Great discussion. The fact still remains that the biggest objection to islam from christians and jews is not our scriptures it is our collective actions. We need to change and bring words of islam into our life then you will see them accepting islam in the multitude.
14:38 so true. Most Muslims in the park are in discussions for long periods and don't use quran and sunnah.
Holding that Starbucks mug when giving dawah or lecture has become trademark now for br. Shamsi and I like it.
13:46 “give me a break will ya” 😂😂 that was actually out of nowhere, made me laugh
Haha I didn't even see that till now thanks
😂😂😂
حفظ الله أخونا شمسي ووفقه
جزاكم الله خير وبارك فيكم
ALHAMDULILLAH ❤️ ALLAH bless you all ❤️ JAJAKALLA KHIRAN ❤️🙂❤️
lets go shamziiiiii
May Allah bless him but using logic and philosophy sometimes get people off of Atheism. Presupposing Quran and hadith doesn’t work at first attempt because they reject them. Once you establish there’s a necessary Being/Creator, then you lead them to Quran and Hadith. It works and whatever gets people closer to the Truth is good. Nothing wrong in having various methods depending on the person.
Your comment doesn't make any sense, the Quran was revealed upon disbelievers who didn't believe in it and they became muslims because of it.
Your statement of atheists becoming muslims after philosophical convictions has no basis, I rarely see atheists convert to Islam because of philosophy, in fact the people who convert to Islam because of dawah base on Quran and sunnah are far too superior.
Your problem is thinking that there's something objective about theoretical discourse, which is not the case, people just like some ways of thinking and love some theories and "first principles" based on desires and nothing else, everything comes down to desires.
@@tayloryoung4974 I don’t think you provided statistics to that even though I agree with you that those Islamic philosophical arguments don’t appeal to some non-Muslims. It depends on the person and their level of conviction. For example there’s a brother that converted recently to Islam (his channel is EA Dawah) that came to the conclusion that there’s a Creator using philosophical arguments and then to Islam when he debated (Thought Adventure Podcast brothers). And now he’s using the same arguments to bring Atheists and Xtians to Islam. There are many other examples. It actually works if you open your mind a little and see the whole picture.
@@Ibn-Abdurrahman
Convinction of philosophical arguments isn't related to being open minded, this is what every philosopher whose desires are attached to philosophy and theoretical discourse say, do you think all those philosophers in history who never accepted Islam or who never believed in a creator were somewhat not "open minded" ? No, it's only a proof that sincerity and theoretical discourse have no relation, theoretical discourse is and always was driven by desires, people believe in certain theories and "first principles" and disbelieve in others based on desires not absolute objective truth.
And those arguments that are used by some Muslim CZcamsrs have some serious methodological issues, and contradictions to Islam, most of those CZcamsrs don't know the core beliefs of beliefs of a Muslim because they never read an aqeeda book, or some if them are hypocrites in disguise, they use those arguments when they know they're in contradiction with the aqeeda of the salaf just so they can win some arguments and debates.
@@tayloryoung4974 I disagree with you. Ibn Taymia for example was a philosopher (even though he didn’t consider himself one) and critiqued philosophy without compromising Aqeedah. Throwing a blanket statement of hypocrisy on Muslims that were seeking truth is a dangerous thing. Again, We use both methods to establish truth; as they’re not contradictory to each other but complimentary, just like using some historical or scientific facts. There’s nothing wrong with that. We should have the Prophet (peace be upon him) mindset of looking at the full picture; when the companions (May Allah be pleased with them) had disagreements about an opinion and thought that only one’s view must be right, The Prophet ends up approving both their understanding and ijtihad. Unfortunately something we failed to accomplish by having the mindset of “my way or the Highway”.
@@Ibn-Abdurrahman
Ibn taymiah wasn't a philosopher, any who says otherwise is lying upon the sheikh and tarnishing his legacy, he was the opposite of a philosopher or a mutakalim, he blasted the foundations of those disciplines he didn't embrace such disciplines, to become a philosopher you need to embrace a certain set of theories of knowledge and existence and methodologies of rational discourse and disagreement resolving, something which ibn taymiah never he actually refuted those same principles, ibn taymiahs principles are rooted into the way the salaf, and his books of aqeeda and fiqh are proof of that, rendering methodological and creedal conflicts into mere disagreements is not the way of the salaf nor the way of ibn taymiah, it's the ways of the philosophers, and it's a crime against the religion of Islam since it dilutes bidah and zandaqa into mere disagreements or different points of view.
He's got the point. God did send his book so we call people to it. And he did send his messenger to show us how to call to God's book. If you can do it that way that's the best way. If people reject that Then you try to explain it to him the way he understands. That's how I understand it.
If a god wrote this book of yours then this god is an idiot. Religions are just foolish stories invented by fools
Borat?
I know exactly what Shamsi thinks , and his strategy for dealing with atheists is doomed to failure . The only person showing arrogance is him to be frank, his position is completely informed by his belief , and he has no appreciation of what motivates someone who does not believe, other than what Shamsi's beliefs tell him about their reasons to reject. All he's suggesting here is to assert that he is correct his interlocutor is wrong , but he's only using reasoning that comes from believing, which they don't . Its the attitude of someone who thinks themselves infallible , it's just not persuasive, he just sounds like a Presuppositionalist. He should choose simply not to talk to Atheists .
I prefer his honest attitude to Dawah , rather than the dishonest and disingenuous methods of many of Islams advocates at the corner, but I'd not waste my time listening to what he'd regard as persuasive advocacy for Islam.
"he has no appreciation of what motivates someone who does not believe" ?? arrogance, he always says that, this is why he doesn't entertain them by discussing deeply into the subject, because it's useless, i've never seen someone who debates an atheist the way you deem "correct" convince the other party, the Quran is clear, use its arguments, and use its threats and stop there if they don't accept it, or waste your time if you want to, to be seen as an intellectual who can debate the atheists.
"but he's only using reasoning that comes from believing, which they don't" it seems to me you have never seen Shamsi or Anwar debate an atheist or you just don't understand their arguments.
He his not arrogant he's saying if you're a muslim we should use the quran and hadith as part of our arguments. And he's also saying you shouldn't debate with people who aren't sincere. Atheists come in thinking they're the default position when it's the other way around. One fact that even Atheists know is that we will all die. And we'll all eventually find out if God is real or not.
You don't know exactly what Shamsi thinks. Don't act like you do. Shamsi deals with these ignorant atheists in a good manner. It's a joke how an atheist can accuse someone else of being arrogant. Ignorance is bliss I guess.
@@bazd313 Truth.