Transcription
How are you? I praise God everywhere. What is your creed? Rububiyyah. Can you hear me clearly? >> You can hear me, not hear me >> Yes, I can hear you clearly >> Yes, I hear you clearly. I have a question. Should I ask? >> Please. Yes. Is it not invalid to stop an action in the duty itself? >> I didn't understand. [Snoring sounds] >> Meaning, is God not still a doer, as Ibn Taymiyyah says? >> He is still a doer, only >> Complete it. He is still a doer. I don't know. I only know this phrase: "God is still a doer." >> How? As He wills, when He wills. A doer by will. So, when He wills, He does, and when He wills, He does not do. And this is the saying of Ahmad: "God is still speaking," or "God is speaking, as He wills, when He wills, by will." So, if you introduce will into the matter, it is natural that God does or does not do because He is a willing one. >> Yes, yes, yes. But will does not necessitate that the deity stops acting, correct? >> Stops acting, what do you mean? >> Yes, for example, God sent the Messenger, correct? >> Okay. Then >> Okay, this is a problem. Meaning, why is there no Messenger in our time, and why did the deity stop sending Messengers? >> And it is supposed >> Praise be to God. O God, praise be to You. >> Long is the [laughter] I want to apologize. >> I honestly want to apologize, by God, because I misjudged you and expected that this man would have problems and so on. So, I am sorry, by God, that I misjudged you. >> I am better than you. >> Okay, the answer is >> The answer is that in this time, there is a Messenger, and he is Muhammad, peace be upon him. He is the Messenger to all people. >> How? >> He conveyed >> You mean to say >> He conveyed his message to you. And the Messenger, according to the Quran, was sent to all people. "And We have not sent you except as a mercy to all mankind." So, the Messenger of God is for all people. >> Excuse me. >> But I mean >> Ah, please. >> But I mean, meaning, meaning, he is now, meaning, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but the Messenger is not present in our time. >> No, no, that is incorrect. The Messenger here is considered in terms of effect or in terms of consequence. So, the effect or consequence, the message, is present. >> Aha, that his message is everlasting. >> Yes. As for your first statement, even with Ibn Taymiyyah, may God have mercy on him, regarding the issue that He is always doing, or so, here it is absolute, absolute. Muhammad >> For God's sake, leave it, leave it, my brother, leave it. >> Okay. The point of the matter is that what he started with has nothing to do with what he is asking about. >> Exactly, exactly. >> Okay. So, your statement now, why now? >> I mean that the doer of a thing continues to it. So, God's wisdom, I meant sending Messengers, it is supposed >> Look, this is how it is. God, the Exalted, has created His creation. You gave birth, right? >> Yes. >> So, have you given birth until now? >> It's not an suggestion. I suggest you pay attention. [Laughter] Meaning, you are the one who >> The rule you ate, which is what? God, the Exalted, if He does something, God, the Exalted, does not stop His action. You gave birth. >> No, that's not the only intention. >> No, one minute. >> Um. >> I say that God's attributes do not change. Meaning, since His wisdom spoke >> Only stopped acting >> No, meaning, the deity itself remains as it is, and it necessitated sending Messengers to these specific people. >> Sending Messengers is an action. >> Sending Messengers is an action. >> Okay, what is the relation of this? >> It is ongoing. Yes, ongoing with the same attributes because God is described by wisdom, so necessarily He sends >> The action, the action, the action is tied to the attribute. >> The action is tied to the attribute. >> What do you mean by an action? What is the action? The action is tied to the essence. >> An action tied to the essence. >> Yes. And the essence is the collection of attributes. >> What is the problem? >> What are you doing, my dear? The action is tied to the attribute, and the essence is a collection of attributes. >> I said no, I said that sending Messengers >> The cause is that God, the cause is that God is wise. >> The action, where is the action? Where does the action take place? >> The action takes place in the doer. >> In the doer. >> No, no. >> Ha. >> The action takes place in the recipient, sorry, in the recipient. >> Which is what? >> Us. >> Which is the object, meaning. >> Exactly, yes. >> What is the relation of this to the attributes? What is the relation of this to being tied to the essence and tied to Zaid? There is no separation between the people of Quraysh and us. Why them and not us? >> No, answer me. What is the relation of this to the fact that the action takes place in the object, and you tell me that this is attributes and they must not be separated? What is the relation of this? Meaning, because the attributes, meaning, the essence, if it continues with the same attributes, then its action remains the same. Meaning, not like a wise person >> He will always act wisely. >> If he does an unwise action, this means his attribute has changed. >> Because the unwise action >> Ah, you mean to say, you mean to say that the implication of the attributes, their implication, is that it is inherent in them. The implication of the attributes. >> That God, the Exalted, is the Creator, and the implication of wisdom is that He has ordained and sent Messengers, and so on. >> Then >> Good. Why did the deity favor Quraysh over us, for example, or over the group before us? >> I don't know. Then >> Okay. I will ask another question. [Laughter] >> No, one minute. Now, when I tell you I don't know, why did the deity make your head above your shoulders and not make it >> No, I asked about that before, but it didn't satisfy me. >> And that's why I came to you. >> I don't want to be with you. I want you to know how to ask in the first place. >> Because when you come and say, "The deity is wise, the deity sent Messengers," these are general rules. But when you come to specific issues, which is, "Why did He send?" >> No, because the matter returns to the origin. Meaning, sending Messengers returns to the origin, correct? >> Seconds, seconds. Yes. Now, we have established, we have established that the deity is wise, and we have established that He has sent Messengers, and we have established that Muhammad is a Messenger. Now, now we have established this matter. Then we ask later, saying, "Why did He send to Mecca and not to other places?" We say, "We don't know." Does this negate the origin we established? Meaning, this is not necessarily the answer. No, yes. >> It doesn't establish any origin. So, what is the value of this question? >> You know it or you don't know it. So what? >> No, meaning, will my question, you said you don't have an answer because my question is wrong? >> No, I didn't say I don't have an answer. I said I don't know. But since I don't know, so what? Does this deny anything or prove anything? >> No, no. >> Yes. >> So, what is the value of this question? >> How is the value of this question? Meaning, the question for which you have no knowledge is the question of value. >> No, no, not this. There are questions for which we have knowledge, and something results from them or not. These questions have value. A question has value. >> Aha, I understand. So, what is the value of this question? >> Exactly. What is the value of this question? >> Yes. What is the purpose of this question or the value of this question? It is for us to set the guidelines. We are not the ones who established justice and [clears throat] and attributes for God. >> Harvest, harvest. Stay with me. We established that God is wise, a definitive matter. Something is built upon this. Yes, something is built upon it. That God, the Exalted, ordained. The matter that God ordained. Something is built upon it. Yes, sending Messengers and obligations and all these matters. And does this have a meaning? Yes, this is what I am going for in this topic. Stay with me. Stay with me. >> Yes. >> So, we say, whether God is wise or not wise, meaning, is His action characterized by precision or not? But when I come to this whole chain, I establish it, then I arrive at, "God, we have established that Muhammad, peace be upon him, is a Messenger." >> Aha. >> Through the proofs of prophethood, we established that he is a Messenger. Then we will ask a question after establishing that he is a Messenger, so we ask, "Why was Muhammad, peace be upon him, sent to Quraysh and not others?" What is my answer, or whether I answered or not? Whether I knew or did not know. So, what will be built upon this? >> I understand. Meaning, the matter stops at the origins, if we concede to the first matters. >> After [clears throat], everything is finished. Questions like these cannot overturn anything or prove anything, whether you know them or not. This does not affect the origin. >> Yes, yes. I concede. Okay, I have a question. >> Meaning, now you have conceded that from the origin, excuse me, from the origin, yes. >> From, meaning, who established the origin? [Laughter] >> Correct. >> Your question has no value in this regard. Anyway, complete your second question. What is it? >> If, meaning, I discussed with a group of Muslims about wisdom, because I had a problem with wisdom, precisely, why is a person, for example, is wisdom one action or multiple? And here we debated about the concept of wisdom. He gave me a concept, but I was not convinced by it, honestly. What did he say? Meaning, without naming him, he said that wisdom is to do what you want. Imagine, to do what you want, but with complete ability. Meaning, anything I want, if I do it and my ability is complete, meaning, I will not do something that contradicts what I want, it will necessarily be your action, wise. Do you concede to this? >> No, no, I do not concede to this. It is not necessarily a wise willing one. >> He, yes, I told him, is every willing one wise? He said, yes. >> No. >> He said, the condition >> He said, but listen, he said, the condition of complete ability is that what he wills is fulfilled. >> Wisdom, wisdom, excuse me, will and ability and knowledge are conditions for wisdom. But for every willing one to be wise, this is a mistake because the condition, do you know what the definition of a condition is, Hassad? >> Yes. >> The condition is what is necessary for its absence, absence, and its existence is not necessary for its existence. This is the condition. >> What is necessary. You can >> Meaning, for example, for example, what is necessary for its absence, absence. Meaning, if I am without a mouth, can I speak? >> No. >> Okay. If I have a mouth >> Aha. The rule is, everything that is necessary exists. >> No, no, no, no. Let me focus. I don't have a mouth. What is necessary for its absence, absence. If my mouth is absent, speech will be absent, right? Even if I want to speak, I won't be able to. >> No, no. >> Correct, correct. >> And its existence is not necessary for its existence. I might have a mouth, but still be silent, not speaking, correct? >> Do you understand how? >> And its existence is not necessary for its existence. So, the condition is what is necessary for its absence, absence, and its existence is not necessary for its existence. When we say that will is a condition, or excuse me, that knowledge is a condition for wisdom, meaning, what? Meaning, if knowledge is absent [snoring sounds], wisdom will necessarily be absent. But if knowledge exists, will he necessarily be wise? No, not necessarily. >> Okay, okay. How do you prove the necessity of wisdom in action? >> What do you know about it in the first place? Do you know it? >> I can prove it in a way. >> Know its definition, yes. >> Know its definition. >> Continue. >> Say, say, what are the definitions? >> Define, meaning, doing something in its complete form. >> No, no. We say, complete form. This will lead to >> Meaning, in the best, in the best form. Meaning, if I create a human >> To be >> Yes. >> Even in the best form. Here, look, this definition of yours itself needs a definition because we will go back to the meaning of "best" that you mean and the "form" that you mean. Do you mean by form, what appears from the human, or do you mean by form, what the human is characterized by? Do you understand? Even this needs definitions. Let me define. >> Okay. >> For example, when we say wisdom is doing what is appropriate. These are among the definitions. Or we say wisdom is putting things in their place. I can prove this in two ways, with two approaches. I can prove it. >> Excuse me, just repeat again to focus. >> Wisdom is doing what is appropriate. And the second definition is putting things in their place, which is the famous definition. >> Meaning, you have returned "what should be done" to will itself? >> No, to the attributes collectively. >> Aha, okay. >> No, it returns to all of them collectively. Let me tell you. The first approach, by which I prove in this matter, I say, if we say that God, the Exalted, which is putting things in their place, wisdom is putting things in their place. According to this definition, I say, is God, the Exalted, or is existence divided into necessary or possible? >> I, according to my knowledge, do not see possibilities. >> You see everything as necessary. Yes, even that. I have no problem. You will see that, for example, I am necessary because I exist, but I am not necessary in myself. I am necessary by another. >> Ah, yes. >> Yes. The necessary by another is possible in itself. >> No, it is impossible in itself. >> How is it impossible in itself? If it is impossible in itself, its existence is impossible, like the absence of two opposites. >> Meaning, meaning, I say that its existence, that it exists by itself, is impossible. >> No, no, not that it exists by itself. It is possible by itself. It is not that it exists by itself. Another exists it. Another exists it. But by itself, the >> The divisions of wisdom are either that it is impossible, so its existence is impossible, or it is possible, needing another to bring it into existence, or it is necessary, independent of >> Okay. This impossible, meaning, even the impossible is divided into impossible by itself and impossible by another. Impossible by itself, like the absence of the conjunction of two opposites. This is called impossible by itself. Impossible by another, like Ali having wings to fly. >> One minute, one minute. I have a leap, but >> Let's return to wisdom. Don't take us, Hassad. >> Okay. >> Let's return to wisdom. So, we say that, or let me use simpler words than mine. Necessary and possible. I say, for example, the division in reality is divided into Creator and created, right? >> Correct. >> Either Creator or created. The created, its existence without the Creator is impossible. Its existence without the Creator is impossible, right? >> Yes. >> And this created thing does not exist except in its place, right? >> Yes. >> Meaning, it does not exist outside of its place. Therefore, the Creator is the Creator of the thing and the Creator of its place, right? >> Meaning, the Creator of the thing and the Creator of its place. Yes, I agree with this. >> Exactly. So, in that case, there is no place except where the Creator places it, right? >> Correct, yes. >> So, wisdom from this perspective becomes necessary because, fundamentally, all His actions are putting things in their place. >> Yes. >> But, meaning, yes, I agree with this. But, meaning, a person sees the place of a thing in its position. A person, when they come and see and judge based on >> Seconds. A person, when they come and see and say, "It should have been like this," this is based on incomplete induction that does not repel rational proof. >> No, just one minute. Now, my hand is in its place, good. >> Okay. >> So, we know wisdom. Where is the place of the human hand? >> Exactly. But it cannot be reduced to these matters only. Yes, here. >> Where should the human head be? Above his shoulders. >> Correct. >> Um. Do you understand how? Because, fundamentally, the concept of the human head is not understood except by being above his shoulders. For example, when I say, "Man is a rational living being," or "a rational animal." How did you understand "rational animal" by looking at a human? >> Correct. >> So, your knowledge of places is your research into creation, and you are not the one who determines these places. You only discover them. >> Yes. But, meaning, here is my problem. Meaning, yes, we concede that what that essence is found with is correct, and this happens through induction. So, if we find, for example, a person with a disability, here wisdom becomes, oh, Haj, oh, Haj, you are mixing things up. May God be pleased with you. >> Um. Even this, even this, we can talk about. Focus on what we said. We are talking about attributes or general matters before entering into these specifics. A person with a disability, a person is born sick, a person is born >> But, meaning, it breaks this, this wisdom. >> We will come, we will come to it. It does not break the proof because if we concede to the proof, it will be a fixed proof. These justify, they don't >> Here we will fall into a contradiction. >> No, no, we will not fall into a contradiction. Tell me. >> Because, one minute, because wisdom, my brother, is the most important. >> Muhammad, I have no problem. You are explaining and so on, and okay, perhaps some listeners will benefit from the explanation and so on. But, Hassad, you [sighs]. There is a difference between a complete قطع in a certain matter, saying that this essence is characterized by wisdom, this is one matter, and another matter. >> Is it, meaning, do we induce this wisdom? >> Once more, if you would just be patient for a moment, and then when we judge a specific detail and say, "Does this have wisdom or not?" Then the perception of this specific detail, whether it is an action or not, the judgment is based on that action, with good and bad. >> Once more, just one second, for Naim. Naim, greet your mother and tell her to convince you not to open accounts and come to whiten the chat. Greet your mother, son of the one who is busy with your upbringing. Anyway, there is a difference between you judging a specific essence as being characterized by wisdom, and you coming to judge a specific detail in reality. This does not mean from this. Please continue. Yes. >> Okay. So, meaning, we see that, for example, a wise person. >> I will explain to you, Hassad, a little, with your permission. For example, you and I agree that Al-Mutanabbi is a great poet, right? >> Yes. >> Does your not understanding some of his verses necessitate that he is not a poet? >> No. >> This is exactly what happens. That you >> But here, yes, but here we understood the place of the thing. >> What did you understand? >> Meaning, we knew that a human is in place. Now, seconds. Now, there is a disease. Does this disease contradict wisdom, absolutely? >> Meaning, that it has tampered with the place of the thing as it should be. Yes. >> What is the determination that it should be? That is what determines it. Aha. Meaning, it is not necessary for a human to be as we usually see him. >> Look, when we come and say that this thing should be here, what is the basis of this necessity? It is not inherent, because it is fundamentally possible, so it is not inherent necessity, like the third is always raised, and that "fa" is "fa." No, this is not this necessity. So, do not assume that the thing >> Hassad, you keep interrupting me. You are killing me. Don't interrupt me. Let him explain the matter, and then you interrupt or don't interrupt, okay, my dear. During the explanation, if you interrupt, the idea gets lost for people. So, the idea, my dear, is that when we come and talk about the deity placing things in their places, meaning, what? That the disease is what He places in the sick person, and health is what He places in the healthy person. Rather, fundamentally, there is no place except where the Creator places it. But is it a condition for a human to be healthy and not sick? No, not necessarily. Is it a condition for a human to be, meaning, speaking? No, not necessarily. This is not one of the conditions of being human, nor is it an intellectual necessity, so that if the deity contradicts this necessity, then we will dismiss this matter of Him creating humans tall, short, this and that. This diversity itself is necessary. On the contrary, necessity >> Our master. >> Our master. >> He, he, he has been doing this since morning. >> Since morning, what he is asking about is wrong. What he is asking about is from these جزئيات. It must be linked to actions and judged as good and bad. He is now, even after you explained, he will understand the matter differently. So, at the end of the road, he will say what? Okay, I concede that in some matters, it is a جزئية, we don't know the wisdom in it. Okay, that's the end of the road he will reach. But with his misunderstanding, what will happen next? When we discuss prophethood, you will hear the objection, which is, "And what makes you think that the wise deity did this for a wisdom we don't know, and therefore He willed to misguide the servants at this moment for a wisdom we don't know?" No, it is invalid, invalid. I don't want the description for this, and I haven't >> I am closing the door on the Faran. I am closing the door on the Faran. Excuse me. >> No, no, I just want to know that a wise thing is in one form, not in multiple forms, because then it becomes absurd. >> No, that is incorrect. No, no. What I am trying to tell you is that wisdom is only in the way that the action necessitates from the essence of the Creator, whether you know it or not, whether it is from one perspective or twenty perspectives. Do not reduce it to one form for you. >> No. >> Okay. Does this not mean you fall into a loop? >> Hassad, Hassad, seconds. Return to the definition of wisdom, which is what? >> According to your definition. >> Which I mentioned, which I proved a while ago. With what is necessary, with what is necessary. No, the definition we are discussing, which is putting things in their >> Correct place. >> Okay. So, if all things are one thing, and they have one place, one position, is there any meaning to putting things in their place? >> If, meaning, there is no separation between them. Yes, there is no meaning. >> Exactly. So, necessarily, do we say that all people are one thing, or does each one of them have a place [clears throat], a function, and a meaning different from the other? Rather, this is what gives value to our minds. >> Correct. But in reality, this, meaning, it is a reality based on deficiency. But in reality, we are one. It is based on deficiency. People, we are one in terms of definition. We are not one in terms of person. >> A human is a living, rational being. In this sense, we are one. But in terms of you being Hassad, and I am Ali Amiri, there must be differences between us. And these differences are what create meaning. Therefore, there must be >> Please, let me >> Let me simplify to the level of >> That there must be a sick person for there to be a doctor, and there must be a hungry person for there to be women cooking, and there must be a tall person for there to be a short person. There must be handsome or ugly for there to be handsome, and so on. So, these dualities, these >> These dualities and these opposing matters are necessary for there to be meaning at all, otherwise, without them, there is no meaning. And this >> Correct, in its meaning. But do you not see that the meaning of our existence is based on deficiencies in the first place? And our existence is deficiency. We are not God, my brother. >> Correct. We are created in the first place, not God. So, we say from this perspective that God, the Exalted, that God, the Exalted, is the Creator of the thing, and He is the Creator of its place. So, there is no place except where God places it. Therefore, wisdom becomes necessary for God, because fundamentally, putting something in its place can only be done by the deity who creates the thing and creates its place. >> Okay. Yes. But it is supposed to >> Let me, let me move to the second proof. Don't tell me "it is supposed to," because you are not qualified. Neither I nor you are qualified to stipulate these matters. It is like 1 + 1 = 2. [Laughter] It's not a matter of remembering some. >> No, no. But I just, you said that wisdom should not contradict the other attributes of the deity. >> Rather, it is according to the attributes of the deity. >> According to, excellent. And if this negates that discrimination is done without, meaning, there is nothing that permits this discrimination for the deity. >> This discrimination, this discrimination is for you. >> Yes. >> So, what is the value? Let's reverse it. >> Oh, Hassad, what makes you say that this essence is characterized by wisdom? Please. >> No, to say that this essence is characterized by wisdom. >> Yes. Meaning, try to say anything other than that you are the entirety of wisdom. >> Yes. The first question is, the essence must be committed to that wisdom. Meaning, I don't see it the first time. >> One second. >> This is based on your knowledge of every action that falls under wisdom. My first question before this part: what makes you affirm the attribute of wisdom for an essence? Please. >> That it is a condition for the existence of this essence, perfection. >> What makes you adhere to this condition? >> Sweet, sweet, sweet. >> Let him, let him, let him. What makes you adhere to this condition, the condition of perfection? Please. >> Ah, meaning, what makes that wise essence >> Its being >> Ah, correct. Yes. Its being [laughter]. Give me, give me from beginning to end. Please. Tell me, Muhammad, I have to prove wisdom for this essence. Be careful, I'm not saying the deity. I have to do X, Y, and Z. Please. >> Yes. It must be a necessary essence, an essence that is not deficient. >> Complete in every way. >> Complete. Yes. Complete in every way. [Laughter] >> Negating wisdom is deficiency. It contradicts its being complete in every way. >> Yes. >> And a condition, and a condition that if wisdom is removed, its existence is removed. >> If wisdom is removed, its existence is removed. >> Correct. >> No, that is incorrect. >> What is this incorrect? >> Incorrect. If wisdom is removed, its existence is removed. Why, God willing? >> Because that attribute is essential. >> No, it must be removed. It is a necessary attribute of the essence. Yes. >> It is necessary. >> Essential means it is an attribute that is the essence itself. >> Yes. >> God. >> Ah, you see. >> God be praised. [Laughter] >> No, seconds, seconds, seconds. No, honestly, until now, Hassad, I am taking it in good faith, honestly. Because I am sure that Hassad says words according to his understanding, not according to his understanding. Honestly, until now, Hassad, my brother. >> Come on, our master Essam. >> May God bless you, my brother. Because from the beginning, he was using words >> May God bless you, my dear. Because from the beginning, he was using words with a meaning other than what you and I know, my brothers. So, he has a special understanding of these words, and then he presents them according to his understanding. Is that not so, Hassad? Meaning, if I ask you now, look, so that I understand you. >> Yes. >> You say it is the essence itself, meaning it is an essential attribute that cannot be separated, cannot be separated from his essence. >> Yes. >> What? Not in the sense that it is the essence itself. >> Because the attribute is different from the described. Beauty is different from Ali Amiri. Amiri is me. I have in this, in this matter, I have another matter. >> Stay with me, Hassad. Stay with me. >> Which is, meaning, Ali Amiri is handsome, right? >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Beautiful. Is beauty the essence of Ali Amiri? >> It is an expression of the same essence. Yes. >> It is, you are giving some realized meanings of the essence, not its essence itself. Beauty is not the essence of Ali Amiri, but Ali Amiri is the handsome one. >> Ali Amiri is his essence. >> The beauty is not something. >> Attribute. >> The beauty is not something that can be measured. >> Yes, I know. I am using it as an example to explain to the brothers the meaning of "essence itself." You do not mean the essence itself. >> He says it is a rational necessity. He doesn't mean the essence in the attributes. >> Okay, it is a rational necessity, right? >> Exactly. >> Now, Hassad, you are at a crossroads, no third option. Either you say that this necessary essence must be characterized by this attribute, which is wisdom, or there is no meaning and no existence to what is called wisdom. And this would be contrary to the premise. You are contradictory. Why? Because all the conditions you set apply only to the Exalted God. So, if you do not establish wisdom for the Exalted God, then there is no wisdom at all. So, it is contrary to the premise. How did you know that wisdom is putting things in their place if there is no wisdom at all? >> Ah, meaning, is wisdom necessary or not? >> No, we would have known that wisdom is putting things in their place if there was no wisdom at all. >> Ah, I understand. Meaning, wisdom is fundamentally a human expression. How do we stipulate it for the necessary essence? >> No, he tells you, if God is not wise, then there is no wisdom, because God is the Creator of everything. So, if His creation is without wisdom, it means He does not put things in their place. Then you cannot conceive of the meaning of wisdom, and you cannot say it is putting things in their place, and this contradicts what we agreed upon. Then you will contradict yourself. >> Okay. Did you not say, Ali, that the place of a thing returns to God Himself? >> Correct. Meaning, God is the one who >> No, God is the one who places things in their places. Rather, the thing has no existence without its place. In this sense, good. This is the reality. Any action of the necessary essence is wise. >> But this is known by wisdom itself. >> It leads us into a loop. >> No, Hassad, it does not lead into a loop. It is a description of God's actions. You are describing Him. Wisdom is not something extra that is absent and we try to deduce it. Rather, wisdom is something we try to uncover. >> Correct, correct. >> Not separate from the essence. >> Yes. You, Hassad, it is not something far from Him. For example, when you say God is willing. Is God willing? Is God alive? Hassad, it has become a loop if Hassad is not alive. A loop. [Laughter] No, Hassad, my brother, it's not like that. This speech is wrong. It is not if >> No, meaning, because you deduced from the definition that it is a loop. Because the definition of wisdom is God Himself. This definition is not necessary, which I mentioned. It is not necessary except for the necessary. >> Why, why? Because we said that the necessary being is necessary in every way, right? >> Correct. >> Negating wisdom is deficiency. >> Deficiency. >> Does deficiency occur to the one who is complete in every way? >> Ah, no. >> So, necessarily, He is wise. >> Okay. Do you not see that >> Yes, I will argue, but yes, I honestly concede. Do you not see that >> Inducing wisdom. Do you not see that inducing wisdom is an injustice to the essence? >> Injustice? >> Yes. >> To whom? >> We, meaning, when we say about the essence, for example, when we say, for example, that the essence is so-and-so. >> You might say, for example, just one minute, just to show you what I mean. You will say that the essence >> No, no, just to show you that wisdom is an اعتبارية, meaning, yes, relative, correct. You will say that wisdom is that, for example, the essence wants. I will tell you no. The complete essence does not want, because it has all its needs met. It is relative. So, this relativity, first of all, returns to you in terms of your discovery of your knowledge of the places of things, not from the perspective of the Creator. Understand. >> But, but explain whose words or whose words? Seconds, Hassad, explain Anas's words. Explain Muhammad Al-Mughtarib's words. You have befriended Muhammad Al-Mughtarib a lot, to the point that your words have become like his words. Have you noticed this? [Laughter] Hassad, my dear, you see, I am explaining to you. I am explaining to you, Hassad, when he says "wants," he understands will in the sense of desire. He understands will, meaning, it is something God benefits from or gains from, and we have assumed that He is complete, so He has no need of others. He has no desire for others. Is that not your meaning, Hassad? >> Yes. >> Um. >> Have you noticed that I am explaining Hassad's words even without using his words? [Laughter] Hassad, my dear, your definition of will is wrong. This is not the definition of will. >> Yes. >> Um. >> You understand will? >> Wants something, desires it. These are synonyms. No, no. Will is different. Will, my dear, is fundamentally, why do we say that the deity is willing? Do you know? >> Yes. Aha. >> Willing from the perspective of perfection. >> What does will mean fundamentally? What is it when we say the deity is described by will, or He is willing? Why do you know? How do we reach this? >> No. >> Um. Because we said that the deity is necessary, and there are possibilities that He creates, that He brings into existence, right? >> Correct. >> So, are these possibilities limited or unlimited? >> Very many. >> Very many. These possibilities. Ali Amiri has wings. This is possible. >> Yes. No. >> No, this is possible, realistically, that Ali Amiri has wings. It is possible that I am born in Saudi Arabia and not in Iraq. It is possible that I am not handsome. >> One minute. A human has wings. >> For example, for example, a human has wings from the perspective of possibility, not from the perspective of existence. >> Ah, yes. >> Yes. From the perspective of possibility, a human can have wings. It is possible that I am born in Germany. It is possible that I am short? Possible, right? >> Yes. >> So, why did my existence become in Iraq and not have wings, and I am tall and handsome? Why, why is this action preferred? Will, my dear, is what makes this action preferred. Will is what prefers the aspect by which the object exists. Do you understand? So, when they define it, what do they tell you? Will is an attribute in bringing something into existence in one way and not another. Meaning, it determines among these possibilities, some exist and some do not. >> Aha. Meaning, the distinction indicates will. >> Exactly. Because if, meaning, if He were not willing, meaning, He does not determine the existence by which the actions are brought into existence, we would be between two options, no third. Either all possibilities exist, and this is impossible, or all possibilities do not exist, and this is also impossible. Therefore, necessarily, He is willing, He determines the aspect by which the action exists. But this action that exists by will, and by power, and by knowledge, and all these attributes, these are God's actions. Are they characterized by wisdom or not? Certainly, they are characterized by wisdom, as we decided earlier. So, wisdom is an attribute of the deity. Yes. A perfection, an attribute of perfection. Yes. >> Yes. We are done. >> Ah, yes. >> Praise be to God. Welcome, Hassad. Welcome. >> I still have a question. >> Let's welcome the guests. >> Let's. Peace be upon you. >> And peace be upon you, and the mercy of God. Welcome, brother Nael. >> May God bless you. May I, perhaps, present to you a matter that I see as proof of wisdom conceptually, and you give me your opinion on it? >> Yes, my dear. Please. >> For example, we ask the one who challenges us on the attribute of wisdom, "Do you have a concept of this attribute?" >> Now, I am the challenger, and you are the affirmant. >> Yes. Meaning, for example, brother Ali, do you have a concept of this attribute, the attribute of wisdom? >> Yes, I have a concept. >> Does it lead to richness or deficiency? Meaning, if an essence is characterized by it, does it enrich it or make it deficient? Is it an attribute of richness for it? >> Perfection, do you mean? >> Um. >> This is what we mentioned, my brother, correct? >> Yes. >> Yes. Meaning, if it is linked to an essence, and it is its attribute, then it is more deserving of being in this existence. >> The rule that says, "Everything that is a perfection in the created is more perfect in God." >> Yes. Meaning, if it is an attribute of perfection, then who is more deserving of it in this existence? >> The necessary being. >> Necessary, correct. >> I have an intervention. >> No, Hassad, you don't have an intervention. >> Yes. Meaning, this is the matter. Meaning, if it is an attribute of perfection, then who is more deserving of it in this existence, if not >> Correct. >> This is what it was, my brother. And I have another question about the schools of thought, but I don't want to >> If you have, if you have a matter, the schools of thought, what schools of thought do you mean? Theological, or jurisprudential? >> Meaning, a matter, when you hear, "This is the opinion of the majority." Does it matter who determines who the majority is? >> The majority are the most numerous, the majority of jurists from all schools of thought. >> Meaning, the four schools of thought, or >> Yes. >> Competitor. >> If it is not qualified, it refers to the schools of thought collectively, even more than the four schools of thought. Because in the past, when they said >> This is the opinion of the majority, the schools of thought were not just four, but more than four. For example, Sufyan al-Thawri had a school of thought. Al-Awza'i had a school of thought. Al-Tabari, the author of the tafsir, had a school of thought. Imam Ahmad, Malik, and others, all of them were founders of schools of thought. Al-Hasan al-Basri had a school of thought. So, all of them were founders of schools of thought. So, when they said, "This is the opinion of the majority," they meant the opinion of the majority of all schools of thought, not necessarily the four schools of thought. But later, when they say, "This is the opinion of the majority," they mean the four schools of thought. >> Meaning, but, meaning, why is there a specific focus now on the four schools of thought? Because all the previous schools of thought, I can say, merged with these four schools of thought due to their fame and so on, so their principles became similar. >> Um. But, meaning, my brother, you find, for example, they say about the Zahiris, "The Zahiri school of thought is invalid," or they say, "Lait, he declared it, but his school of thought did not reach us." So, there are schools of thought that have not reached us at all. >> Um. Do you know what is meant by "school of thought"? What is meant by "school of thought"? >> School of thought. This is what I mean. >> Or shall I tell you, Master Essam, my dear? >> Yes, my dear. [Clears throat] >> Yes. >> Please, my dear. >> With you is Sister Nael. >> Why don't you go first? You want to embarrass me. >> Your specialty. >> No, our master. The school of thought, generally, is a way of understanding the text. So, it is said, "The school of thought of so-and-so" means his way of dealing with religious texts, whether from the Book, the Sunnah, or the sayings of the Companions, and so on. This is what is meant by the school of thought. This school of thought has a method of inference, which is.