Friday Sermon by: Alban Fejza, Online Congregation Director

Summary:

In this Friday sermon, Alban Fejza explains the three types of proof accepted in court and in the Quran (empirical proof, logical proof and two reliable witnesses) and applies them to recognizing God’s messengers.

Video Transcript:

Praise be to God. There is no other god except God. There are three types of proof which are acceptable in court and acceptable according to the Quran. 1. Empirical proof 2. Logical proof 3. Proof through two reliable independent witnesses Now, let me take one example from daily life and show how we can prove the same thing in three different ways with these three different types of proof. Let’s say that there is a new property tax code in town, and it will remove taxes for any house which is less than 6 meters in height. Now, you are excited because it could save you a lot of money over many years, but you don’t know for sure that your house is less than 6 meters in height. In that case, the first way to prove to yourself that your house is less than 6 meters in height is to get a tape measure and measure it. But let’s say that you have with you one of those soft flexible tape measures, and it will not stay straight, if you try to reach the top of the house from the ground. So, you need a ladder, and then you release the tape measure from the top down to the ground, and in this way by looking at the tape measure, you can prove that the house is less than six meters tall. And this is empirical proof. “Empirical” means, “in practice”. So, you measured it in practice.

However, empirical proof is not always the most useful way to prove things. What if you don’t have a ladder? What if you have to measure the distance from the earth to the moon? Your ladder and your tape measure would be useless in that case. So, in cases where empirical proof is not very useful, or too time-consuming, or very expensive, or simply too impractical, we have other ways to prove the same thing. In the case of the house, we could use the second type of proof, which is logical proof. For example, logically, from geometry, we know that a right triangle with the other two angels being 45 degrees has the two short sides of equal length. We can use this logic, and think of one side of the house as one side of the triangle, and the flat ground as another side of the triangle, if the ground is flat, and then we simply have to wait until the sun reaches exactly 45 degrees of altitude in the sky, which we can find in astronomical almanacs online. And once the sun reaches 45 degrees, we simply measure the length of the shadow of the house in the flat ground, and that is equal to the height of the house. And logically, because the shadow was less than 6 meters long, we can conclude that the house is also less than 6 meters high. And there are many other logical ways through which we can prove the height of the house. However, sometimes even the logical proof is too burdensome, or too time-consuming, especially when we have to prove things over and over again. In that case, if available we can prove things through two witnesses. For example, you go and get the blueprint of the house, and you check there in the blueprint how tall the house was planned to be, and let’s say that it says that it is 5.5 meter tall. Now, all you have to do is ask two witness who were involved with that to testify that they have built the house according to the blueprint specifications. You call one of them by phone, and you ask him, “Did you follow the blueprint exactly when you built the house, especially in relation to the height?” He says, “Yes”. And then let’s say that you have access to the state inspector, and you call him whether he inspected the house after it was built, and whether it followed all the blueprint specifications. And he says, “yes”, and now you have two witnesses who told you that the measurement in the blueprint is the same as the measurement of the final house. And, if the blueprint says that the house is 5.5 meters in height, you have two witnesses who testified that the house is 5.5 meters in height. And this would be acceptable in court as proof through witnesses, or maybe expert witnesses.

And it’s also a type of proof which is acceptable according to the Quran, which is mentioned in many verses. And by the way, there is a verse in the Quran which validates these three ways of proving things. In verse 17:36, God tells us that he has given us the eyesight, the brains, and the hearing, and we are responsible for using them. Now, we verify the empirical proof through our eyes, the logical proof through our brains, and the proof through witnesses with our ears. See, all these three types of proof are types of proof which are recommended in the Quran, because we have eyes, brains, and ears to verify things. And each of these three types of proofs is used by God to prove three messengers of our generation. But before, I tell you about that, let me give you three examples of messengers from the past. For example, the disbelievers threw Abraham in the fire, but they sew him staying inside of the fire and he did not burn. This is empirical proof, because they see it with their eyes, but they do not understand logically what is going on. But, in the case of Joseph for example, when the famine happened for 7 years, that was not empirical proof, because famines happen quite often, and with their eyes, they did not see something out of the ordinary, but the fact that Joseph predicted it, it logically proves that Joseph was telling the truth, because no one knows the future, except what God tells to a messenger. Now, in the case of Aaron, Aaron was proven through witnesses. So, Moses was proven already because of the empirical proof, the miracles, and when Moses told the people that Aaron is also a messenger, because they already established that Moses was a messenger, that meant that Moses would not lie to them about Aaron. So, the bearing witness of Moses was proof of Aaron’s messengership. The same thing happened with Isaac for example. Abraham testified that Isaac was the next messenger, and that was it. Abraham did not lie, so Isaac was the next messenger. So, these are the three types of proof from the Quran: Empirical proof, logical proof, and proof through witnesses, and using these three types of proof, God proves the three messengers of today. Rashad Khalifa’s messengership was proven through empirical proof. You can see and count certain number directly from the Quran, without necessarily understanding the logic, and statistically this proves that Rashad Khalifa was the Messenger of the Covenant. Now, Alban Fejza’s messengership is proven through logical proof. After reading what the verses of the Quran and what they say about the Clarifying Messenger, logically, you can reach the conclusion that they must be talking about Alban Fejza.

By the way, there is also empirical proof about Alban Fejza’s messengership, but I don’t like to emphasize it a lot because then it makes me look like an imitator. The purpose is to learn something new while proving a messenger through a different type of proof, because ultimately understanding the truth and that there is more than one way to get to that truth is more important than simply being obsessed with who is a messenger and who is not. But, anyway, Rashad’s messengership is proven through empirical proof, Alban’s messengership is proven through logical proof, and the next messenger is proven through the third type of proof which is proof through two reliable witnesses. Just like in the case of Aaron and Isaac, the people knew that they were messengers because the already proven messengers (Moses and Abraham) told them about it. In the same way, since Alban is already proven, if he tells you about the next messenger and who he is, that is proof about him. That is proof through testimony from an already proven person. And I know that you need two witnesses instead of one to prove things through witnesses, but the testimony of a proven messenger is equal to the testimony of two witnesses, because he speaks on behalf of God also. And this is idea which is also described in the Bible. When they asked Jesus in the Bible, how do they know that he is a messenger of God?

He said, because I bear witness about it. They said, “But your witness does not count, because you are only one person, and we know from the scripture that there must be two witnesses.” And Jesus told them that being a messenger means that you speak for yourself and for God, and that’s two witnesses. So, both Jesus and God testified about the messengership of Jesus, and this was enough according to the Bible, because the truthfulness of Jesus had already been proven through the miracles. Anyway, the Quran says the same thing in verse 13:43, where it says that God is sufficient as a witness and those who possess knowledge, and Alban as a messenger is among those who possess knowledge. So, people will have two witnesses about the next messenger: God and Alban as a knowledgeable person. That’s two witnesses. So, these are the three ways to prove something. However, I want to point out a fourth way which I call alternatives to proof. This happens when some event makes that specific proof irrelevant to be verified, or when it’s not worth pursuing proving something. For example, if we go back to the example of that house when we proved that it is less than 6 meters tall so that it can qualify for a tax deduction. Now, let me tell you alternatives to that which make the proof irrelevant.

For example, let’s say that you are some kind of eccentric businessman with lots of money and power, and you think that your house should be less than 6 meters high anyway. So, whether the house is less than 6 meters in height or not doesn’t matter to you because you can make it be less than 6 meters in height anyway, even if it’s not. You ask the builders to change the height of the house. You tell them, “remove one floor, and I know for sure that the first floor alone will not be six meters tall. I don’t like climbing the stairs anyway” And because you have the power and the money, you forced the house to be as high as you wanted, and it doesn’t matter how high it was before. Facts don’t matter when you have the power and the will to change them. So, whether it was less than 6 meters or not, it doesn’t matter anymore, because with your power you forced it to be less than 6 meters in height. So, this is the alternative to proof through power. And there is also the alternative to proof through prior agreements. So, let’s say that in the case of the house, you wanted to know if it’s less than six meter in height. And you friend tells you, “How high is it planned to be in the blueprint? “It’s 5.5. meters, but I don’t know for sure that they built it exactly like in the blueprint.” And your friend tells you. “It doesn’t matter then, because the municipality has reached an agreement, a prior agreement, that they will collect the tax based on their archives where they have the blueprints of the house, and they will not go out in the field to measure the houses. So, in this case, they reached a prior agreement how to approach the situation, even if that doesn’t ultimately prove the height of the house, because that was not the main purpose. So, the alternative to proof can happen through power or prior agreements. And this alternative will be used by the last messenger, the Mahdi. See, once the Mahdi frees Mecca and takes control of Mecca and dominates the people and the region, does it really matter if he can prove himself? Did it really matter whether David as a king could prove himself to his subjects? They had to do what he said anyway, whether they believed him or not. He was the king. He ruled with power. Those who have the power don’t need to prove anything. For example, if you have children, when they were infants, did you prove to them that milk is good for them before you gave them the milk, or did you just give them the milk? And they didn’t see the need to ask for proof, because it was delicious. So, in the same way, the citizens in Mahdi’s state will feel good about their prosperity, so why would they bother to ask for proof, when things are going as they want them to go?

Those who don’t have the power are the ones who need to prove things, because they are the ones who want change. The burden of proof is on the person who is asking for change. The one who says that things are good as they are, and no one needs to change anything, then he doesn’t need to prove anything. So, the last messenger will be proven through his power and dominance over Mecca. And I show you in another video that his power is proof of his messengership because no one can free Mecca from today’s Arab elite, unless he is truly the Mahdi, the last messenger. This is predicted in the Quran. Also, before dominating Mecca, he might choose to use prior agreements as alternatives to proof. For example, he might come up with a concrete plan and written agreement which will limit what he can ask you to do, and what you can ask him to do, and in that case you just reach an agreement like any normal business agreement, and since you know beforehand what everyone’s role is, you don’t need to prove a person’s messengership before you enter into a relationship with them. However, of course, there will be many people who will claim to be the Mahdi during those times, and this is why you should make your decision, not based on what they promise you about the future, because you do not know the future, but based on whether what you are agreeing is the right Quranic thing to do in the present anyway.

And if you use that logic, they can not fool you.