Transcription
No human can deny prophethood or the proofs of prophethood unless they descend a degree from the rank of humanity, especially the prophethood of Muhammad, peace be upon him. This is a claim that cannot stand in opposition, contradiction, or rejection of prophethood unless one descends a degree from the rank of humanity. Am I, by doing this, personally attacking someone and insulting them? I am obligated to point out these things. The things I have mentioned, yes, the things I have mentioned, I must point them out. Where is Muhammad? When he spoke to them about the matter of the killed dog some time ago, and they were surprised that some of them immediately said that the Muslims did it, and they did it because of burning the Quran and all that. Then he confronted them and said to them, "O people, who are you doing this for? It was a dog, and it was a supporter of dogs." Do you understand? And he was a criminal, he was a criminal even without this matter, he was already a criminal. So I don't understand why you have this reaction. These things, by the way, yes. On the other hand, the witness is that some of them immediately passed their judgments that the Muslims did this because of this, just because of the circumstantial evidence. In such a situation, the group that ruled that the Muslims did this because of the Quran matter, they did not pay attention to the possibility or the likelihood that it was for another reason, or anything. They immediately ruled, right or wrong? Immediately ruled. So, are these people the same ones who act like fools when you tell them that a miracle indicates the truthfulness of the Prophet? Try to imagine the context where someone tells you, "If the miracle happened in front of me, then I would believe that the person with whom the miracle happened is a prophet." So imagine this picture. You will find him building an actual stance based on a mirage, practically a mirage. But in the case of prophethood, the intellectual possibility here has no role, and it can never be. Okay. Take this, put it aside. Put it aside. Some people say, "We will not speak with the Muslim who believes in the Hadd punishment for apostasy." Why? Because simply believing in it constitutes a danger to me. What? So, simply believing in it constitutes a danger to you? Even though he believes that the hand of a thief should be cut off, mind you. Yet, he has never cut off anyone's hand in the street. But when it comes to him, what happens? The logical implication is that since he believes that, he will harm me. But in the case of prophethood, no, there is no implication at all. It's not a problem. Put this aside. Let's use the reports to infer matters that happened in the biography or in history in general, and bring all these things and attack the Muslims with them, and say that they were bad and they were and they were, based on what? Based on a report without an isnad. Let's not say a report without an isnad, my friend. A report with a weak isnad, based on their jurisprudential view. Imagine, we will bring some of these reports from here and there, which do not benefit anything in anything at all, but we will use them. Why? As long as they serve us in the implication. Okay. Put this aside. Put this aside. And peace be upon you, and the mercy of God and His blessings. We will bring something related to scientific data or a scientific output and use it as certainty against us, and this might have been an example of it recently that you saw. Any glitch, any flaw, and that's it. So, Muslims are causing harm. Put this aside. No problem. Put this aside. If someone from the scientific miracles group brings something from the Quran or the Sunnah and wants to use it as evidence, no, this does not benefit. And we all work as heretics. We all work as heretics. Why? Because this does not serve what we want. Allahu Akbar. Continue, continue. The part where we all work as heretics, and by the grace of God, we all adhere to the words of the interpreters. And the poor person tries to prove something related to the validity of something scientific, or something. We say, "No, these interpreters said the same thing." These same interpreters are the ones we will abandon and disregard their words when we want to prove something contrary to what they said. A disease, a disease in the soul. It's not a matter of seeking knowledge. So, how do we prove prophethood from all of this? The basis. Excellent. Come, put this aside too. So, all that I have been telling you, put it aside. Put all of this aside. Okay. What I will tell you now, put them in order. They are also aside. We have not reached the main point yet, by the way. All of this is just an introduction to get to the main point. The main point is what's coming next, in order. Look, esteemed sir. We do not believe that there is a God at all. Or, at most, we say there is a first cause, but this first cause is natural, not a God with attributes of perfection as you say. He commands and forbids, and so on. No, no, we don't believe this. But we will concede hypothetically that there is a God, and we will concede hypothetically that He is described with attributes of perfection as you say. O, knowledgeable, powerful, willing, and wise. Go ahead, and whatever you want. This concession is only from a hypocrite who concedes because he knows that his concession will have no value in the discussion, and he himself will nullify it. He himself will nullify it. So, we concede prophethood. Is it possible or obligatory for you? Let's assume it's possible or obligatory. What is the difference between the two for you, as a dissenter? He said, "No, because if you say it is obligatory by virtue of wisdom, then how did you know His wisdom?" From the realization that His wisdom would not be the sending of prophethood. Here the descent begins before you. Because when you talk about these things, you are talking while you are keeping in mind a specific mental image of this cursed being called a human, who must have a commander and a prohibitor for the world and the hereafter to be straightened out. So, this being, who has a heart that sometimes does good and sometimes does evil, sometimes differs and sometimes agrees, sometimes oppresses or is just. These matters must have a standard. And if this standard does not exist, then it is either that humans are inherently of one nature, and because they are of this nature, they do not need prophethood or guidance. And peace be upon you, and the mercy of God and His blessings. May God bless the Imam. May God bless the Imam. So, because they are inherently of one nature, they do not need it, because it would be a foregone conclusion. Or, you do not perceive this difference between people and each other, and you do not perceive what it will lead to, even if he prolongs his cries and barks and wails, whoever claims objective ethics. Cry as much as you want. Claim as much as you want. The reality is, do what you want. So, there are two possibilities now, so you don't get lost. When he says that wisdom necessitates sending messengers because this human, by his nature, by his existence, by his reality, needs guidance, and you deny this. Your denial of it can only be one of two things: either people are inherently of one nature, and therefore there is no meaning to disagreement, and this is contrary to reality. Or, you do not know, or do not understand, or do not comprehend what it means for people to be generally equal in their minds, yet differ in what results from their perceptions with their minds in reality, in terms of action, in terms of belief, in terms of, in terms of, in terms of all these matters. So, if you say the first, you are butting your head against reality. And if you say the second, you are also butting your head against reality. So, there is no meaning for you to say wisdom and this nonsense. Put it aside. So, whether the Muslim says it is obligatory by virtue of God's wisdom, or by virtue of human nature and its need, in both cases, to refute one of these, you are butting against reality. So, if he says possible, then this possibility, most likely, will be a general possibility for you. That is, I have no problem, and although, if we reach this level of stinginess, it is a bad omen for the future. Because if this is just a general possibility without your realization of what we decided a minute ago about human nature itself and its need for this guidance or these commands and prohibitions, then there will be a problem. So, if you are harboring the idea of human independence from prophethood while talking to me, if you are harboring this, it will reflect on you later. We want to be truthful in the research we are doing. Focus. All of this is still not close. We are still on the ground with him. Our ground. So, my lord, okay. What makes a human believe that so-and-so is a prophet within this framework? What makes a human believe that so-and-so is a prophet? What is it that, if presented, would make him believe? This is a question, my friend, for me and for you. Right now. So, one says, "If he performs a miracle for me." And peace be upon you, and the mercy of God and His blessings. How are you, Uncle Anas? One says, "If such-and-such happens." One says, "If." The answer cannot be "I don't know." "I don't know" immediately means descending a degree. Because we have assumed now that you are a human capable of inferring indications, and we have set three conditions for inferring indications, which we will need later. So, if you say "I don't know," the person in front of you has the right to say, "O esteemed sir, when you know, tell me, and you are not accountable for what we are saying," and this is due to an excuse in you. Let's continue. Not everyone will say that, of course. Some will say, "Let's continue." People agree that the most famous proof of the truthfulness of prophethood is the miracle. The most famous proof. But is it only the miracle, or are there other matters besides the miracle? No, meaning if they are not independent matters, then at least they are indications of the miracle, indications of the one through whom the miracle occurred or through whose hands the miracle occurred. Now, does it make a difference to us in the claim of prophethood regarding the state of this man before it, or not? No doubt, some people will say, "Well, it doesn't make a difference." Others will say, "No, it doesn't matter." Because it is very normal for me to know that he is a liar, and then one time he might be telling the truth. So, his lying once or twice does not mean he lies in everything he reports, not necessarily. Let's continue. So, esteemed sir, is the miracle for you a proof of prophethood or not? He says, "No, wait. Wait. Because I read a book about these things, and this book discussed the views of Muslims and presented those who believe in rational improvement and vilification." Wait, let me hear what I memorized. Wait. You will get me into a mess. No, wait. Wait. Let me mix these with some words from ChatGPT. So that I appear eloquent to you and I am speaking, and the theory of knowledge, epistemology, and so on, and so on. What will we do? So, will it be a proof or not? He says, "No, be patient. Be patient. First, I need to clarify some things with you." Better, my lord. Clarify what? He said, "First, you say rational improvement and vilification, or religious improvement and vilification? Secondly, does God act for a purpose, or does He not act for a purpose, or act without a purpose? And is the indication of a miracle to the truthfulness of the claimant intellectual or not? Because I disagree with these things. And even if I concede these things to you, my lord, even if I concede them, the miracles happened, the miracles occurred, and all that you are saying is perfectly fine. Now, how do you hold me accountable and make me concede the indication of the miracle? How do you hold me accountable that this is proof of the correctness of the claim?" You will say, "By widespread transmission." Yes, allow me. Allow me to descend into the well. Allow me. Let me descend into the well. But so you don't see me. Yes, I am speaking to you from the well now. Based on the knowledge derived from widespread transmission. Is it theoretical or necessary for you? If it is theoretical, then prove it to me. And if it is necessary, then I have no knowledge of necessary things, and you have no argument with me. Do you see me in the well? Don't think I will come out and stand on the ground. No, I am in the well. Either you come down here, or you have no argument with me. You have no proof, or no proof. Yes, come to me, or no. I'm done with you, son. Shame on you. Isn't that right, my dear? Isn't that right? We were good at first and overcame many good things. Anyway, esteemed sir, I used the word "well" as a metaphor to avoid the other word. Otherwise, he is burying his head in the ground, thinking no one sees him when he says this. When he says this, he is burying his head in the ground and thinking no one sees him. So, if we notice here, he tried to raise some objections. He raised some objections to both. He raised obstacles whether you believe in rational improvement and vilification. So, I see religion as ugly, fundamentally ugly, rationally ugly. He thinks rational improvement and vilification are like hormones. It's like improvement and vilification with hormones. And if you believe in religious improvement and vilification, then what prevents God from lying? And if you believe in causality, that He acts for a purpose or not for a purpose. If you say He acts for a purpose, then how can we know that His purpose in this miracle is to confirm the claimant? Why wouldn't His purpose be any other purpose? And if you say He does not act for a purpose, then you have closed the door to the miracle indicating truthfulness, because it would only indicate truthfulness if His purpose in it was to confirm the claimant. Notice that he is on both. Notice that he is on both. It is supposed that in this case, we have two doctrines. We have two doctrines. If you dismiss one, or invalidate one, the other will be accepted. If you invalidate one, the other will be accepted. As for you and me now, in the desert, if I perish, what about your rational or religious improvement? Or what? This is the desert, my friend. All of this is later. All of this is later. So, the person who believes in religious improvement and vilification, for example, will say, "What do I care if this matter is invalid? I have this that indicates that, but what is the connection of rational improvement and vilification to the matter?" Rather, I take from this indication another indication to deny the ugly possibility that you are clinging to. Rational improvement and vilification. It's difficult, by God. Sending prophets is ugly. No, I say religion itself. And in other things, the obligation itself is ugly. Because the obligation is either for the benefit of the worshipped or the worshipper. And it cannot be for the worshipped, so it must be for the worshipper. So, when He obligates the worshipper, He obligates him with matters. If he does not comply, He will admit him to hell. So, it's as if He admitted him to hell for something that was for his benefit, so it was more appropriate to admit him to paradise. Things like that. So, governments should not enact laws, because enacting laws is ugly. Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. Anyway, let's take these one by one. The things that he says, "He just brought you the principles of religion according to him." What are the principles of religion according to him? That I will not concede to you widespread transmission. Because if you say it is theoretical, then prove it to me. And if you say it is necessary, then I have no indication. And I will not concede widespread transmission of miracles for another matter. That widespread transmission itself is based on the usual occurrence of these people not gathering on a lie, while these same people transmitted the disruption of the usual occurrence. So, I have a disruption of the usual occurrence transmitted based on another usual occurrence that was not disrupted. So, why do you prefer the non-disruption of the usual occurrence in widespread transmission over the disruption of the usual occurrence transmitted in widespread transmission? He presents it to you like this. We will explain all of this now. So, all of these are the principles of religion according to him, with which he refutes the matter. Not to mention that we are still in general prophethood. We are still in general prophethood. Later, when you come to him with the Quran, you will find the melodrama of what I am telling you now. You will not find a well, you will find a cave. Not a well. Among them, "What is the miracle of the Quran? Where is the aspect of its miraculousness? Where are you? I don't see you. And do you mean that the miraculousness of the Quran is in its eloquence, or in its clarity, or in its foretelling of the unseen, or in what exactly? Tell me, tell me. What is the miraculousness of the Quran?" And take this fool as you wish. We are concerned with the lesson regarding the miraculousness of the Quran, that you and we agree that the Quran was revealed concerning them, and among what was revealed is that he challenged them to bring something like it, or ten surahs like it, or one surah like it. And I don't think anyone among you denies this, honestly. I don't think anyone would reach the point of stubbornness to deny this. But they might attribute the lack of opposition to the Quran to the fact that they were not interested, or it was not something. They did not take his words seriously. Anything, anything that is added to negate this matter. So, he adds another principle. We are not preventing this talk, but on the assumption that we concede it, what is the miraculousness in challenging them to something they cannot produce? What is the miraculousness in challenging them to something they cannot produce? And what does "like it" mean? Like what? Like what? The similarity here, what kind of similarity? Okay. So, my lord, it seems you have forgotten our first question. Let's return to it before we talk. We have separated from the person who did not know what proof supports the truthfulness of prophethood. So, are you being hypocritical and concealing the denial of prophethood altogether? And all of this is just evasion and hypocrisy from you, so we don't prolong the conversation. Of course, this accusation of hypocrisy is a grave accusation. He says, "No, no, no. I am saying it is possible. It is possible." So, we are talking about what would be a proof or a miracle. Why are you, for an hour, acting like a fool? Do you mean, or do you intend? I didn't understand. Are you saying that so-and-so? Are you saying that so-and-so? Why wouldn't it be so-and-so? And why wouldn't it be so-and-so? It's a matchbox full of questions. They entertain themselves with every context, every discussion, about ethics, prophethood, God, attributes, anything. It's a matchbox full of questions. That's all it has. But something to adhere to, build upon, and complete? Never. So, where do we start with you? Where do we start with you? I have repeated his words, almost. Almost repeated his words while I am explaining now. What is it? The details of his objections will come. What exactly is he saying? Thank you for watching. Follow us, and don't miss the rest of the parts.