Speaker 1: Hello everybody, and welcome. This is the Apostate Profit. How
Speaker 1: is everyone doing? I am here today with Jay Dyer,
Speaker 1: a very very special guest. H Jay, do you like
Speaker 1: my intro music?
Speaker 2: I do.
Speaker 3: I'm having to turn you off because I had you
Speaker 3: already going in the background, so yeah, I'm getting a
Speaker 3: double dose of you and the music, and so it's
Speaker 3: like a remix.
Speaker 1: But yeah, nice, amazing, that's amazing. That must sound even better. Uh.
Speaker 1: This is basically like the Islamic humming that they always
Speaker 1: play pathetic. I thought remixed it made much better. It
Speaker 1: would be much better if it always sounded like this,
Speaker 1: but they just don't get it.
Speaker 2: So I'm good. Yeah.
Speaker 3: You know, we had a good chat the other day
Speaker 3: on my channel, and you brought up a lot of
Speaker 3: good issues and kind of probably stuff that was old
Speaker 3: hat to you. But it's good to go to that
Speaker 3: stuff because you know, maybe a lot of my audience
Speaker 3: might not know a lot of that kind of old
Speaker 3: hat classic stuff that you know. So yeah, you brought
Speaker 3: a lot of interesting insights. One thing I'd like to
Speaker 3: say from the outset was a lot of people got
Speaker 3: mad or fussed. A lot of Muslims and even a
Speaker 3: few Christians that you and I would have these conversations.
Speaker 3: And it's odd to me because, first thing, you know,
Speaker 3: whether you're Muslim or Atheist or Christian or whatever, we
Speaker 3: should all be aware of fallacies and what they are,
Speaker 3: and the genetic fallacy is one of the more well
Speaker 3: known fallacies. Because it doesn't matter what source an argument
Speaker 3: comes from, the argument either stands or falls on its own.
Speaker 3: So it doesn't matter who says the argument. If Judas
Speaker 3: says an argument has nothing to do with his betrayal,
Speaker 3: whether that argument is true or false, right likewise, and
Speaker 3: you would think people would know this.
Speaker 2: Likewise.
Speaker 3: The only case that I can think of in which
Speaker 3: we would consider bodies character in an argument is if
Speaker 3: the argument was about that person's character, or if they
Speaker 3: committed a crime or something like that. In that case,
Speaker 3: it would be appropriate to investigate their character. But the
Speaker 3: basis of their arguments, the validity the arguments themselves, none
Speaker 3: of them have any None of that has anything to
Speaker 3: do with the person's character and their beliefs. And it's
Speaker 3: odd to me that people don't understand that. But as
Speaker 3: I'm beginning to realize with I think this is like
Speaker 3: my fifth or sixth Islamic debate fallacies seem to be
Speaker 3: something that a lot of Muslims are not aware of.
Speaker 1: Yeah, precisely, I agree with everything that's out there pretty much.
Speaker 1: And you will see this every single time when you
Speaker 1: have a debate with Muslims. Most Muslims, the most apologists
Speaker 1: you will encounterar the same complaints all the time. If
Speaker 1: you are if you genuinely want you to discuss this topic,
Speaker 1: then you shouldn't talk to this person, shouldn't talk to
Speaker 1: that person, shouldn't talk to this other guy. UH, only
Speaker 1: talk to us, only discuss with us. People who criticize
Speaker 1: Islam are unreliable and if you talk to them, that
Speaker 1: means that you are automatically marked as somebody who has
Speaker 1: no genuine interest in debating, and you must be shunned
Speaker 1: at all costs. And that's understandable considering that UH, criticizing
Speaker 1: Islam is not allowed, and especially me as an as
Speaker 1: an ex Muslim, I'm not even supposed to exist in
Speaker 1: Dynal Kikichu's worldview. Like he told me when we when
Speaker 1: we were talking, he basically told me that he thinks
Speaker 1: I should be executed for my leaving Islam. So it
Speaker 1: is really it is. Islam is unique, and Muslims are
Speaker 1: unique in that way where they very often just have
Speaker 1: to invoke that fallacy without understanding the problem that it
Speaker 1: that it that it presents. As as said, when we
Speaker 1: talk about the whole issue with the name of God
Speaker 1: Yahweh and Islam versus versus Abrahamic biblical religion, he chooses
Speaker 1: to now completely ignore the points even when you bring
Speaker 1: it up simply because because you reference me, or because
Speaker 1: you make a reference to what he said to me.
Speaker 1: And when he talked to me about it, he clearly
Speaker 1: had no clue and later he denied what he actually said.
Speaker 1: He basically blasphemed and then later denied what he actually said.
Speaker 3: It was surprising because it's I mean, everybody can see
Speaker 3: the clip, and you know, he clearly says it's a
Speaker 3: pagan name, and then when asked about that, he says,
Speaker 3: I never said that. So you know, it's like this
Speaker 3: is multiple times now where I'm really questioning, you know,
Speaker 3: does he is he really?
Speaker 2: Is he disingenuous?
Speaker 3: Right, because I mean, if you have a person on
Speaker 3: record saying it, it's really difficult to then rewrite the
Speaker 3: history and say no, I never said that. But you
Speaker 3: did say that, so at least you would. You could
Speaker 3: either own up to it and say, well, I said that,
Speaker 3: but here's what I meant, or here's a clarification, but
Speaker 3: the outright just so I never said that. I'm noticing
Speaker 3: a pattern of And this is not to say that
Speaker 3: Christians are always honest.
Speaker 2: People in any position can be dishonest. You can be
Speaker 2: an atheist be dishonest. You be a Christian be dishonest.
Speaker 3: You could be a Muslim and be dishonest. But there
Speaker 3: seems to be, as you noted, a kind of a
Speaker 3: tendency to shun the rational discourse, shun the logical argumentation.
Speaker 3: And again I'm not an expert on Islam. I'm still
Speaker 3: in the process of learning. To me, it looks like
Speaker 3: there's a tendency to when you have this going back
Speaker 3: to the original pure Islam, which is what my understanding
Speaker 3: of Daniel's school, that what it represents, there's a tendency
Speaker 3: again to have to shun logic, to have to shun argumentation,
Speaker 3: because that's seen as later development. Lam is a later development,
Speaker 3: and that might lead to problems, right, because there might
Speaker 3: be questions that are not permitted to ask. I remember
Speaker 3: in the when I was prepared for the Asraa Rashid debate,
Speaker 3: we found some of those old Sunni texts which, even
Speaker 3: though they were engaged in kalam one are the texts
Speaker 3: dealt with the names of a law of the attributes.
Speaker 3: And there was a point where the question is raised, well,
Speaker 3: how do we reconcile the fact of God of Allah's
Speaker 3: pure unity with the fact that we're naming many names
Speaker 3: and what about the distinction between the names? And at
Speaker 3: a certain point it says it is not permitted to
Speaker 3: ask this question. So it's just sort of like you
Speaker 3: can debate and discuss to a certain point, then it's
Speaker 3: not permitted. And as you were saying, the idea that
Speaker 3: there's this unity about Islamic theology is not true. At
Speaker 3: one point in the debate, you know, Daniel's trying to
Speaker 3: say Christians disagree, there's debates, there's there's that Wait a minute, I.
Speaker 2: Mean, you guys don't agree.
Speaker 3: You guys have all kinds of So in other words,
Speaker 3: if disagreements made a position true or false, no position
Speaker 3: would be true false. I mean yeah, they would need
Speaker 3: because none of them would be true. Because now if
Speaker 3: some sort of majority opinion or if the fact that
Speaker 3: we have, you know, thirty percent of the Islamic schools
Speaker 3: agree about this position, sixty percent agree with this position.
Speaker 3: I mean, none of that has anything to do with
Speaker 3: whether it's true false. It's another fallacy to appeal to majority,
Speaker 3: appeal to consensus. You can certainly bring in experts, but
Speaker 3: expert testimony itself doesn't necessarily prove a thing.
Speaker 2: And so I just over and.
Speaker 3: Over and overhere to hear these appeals that were very
Speaker 3: similar to you know, fallacies that I've seen in other
Speaker 3: debates that when I would bring them up, you could
Speaker 3: tell that he didn't even know what what I was referencing.
Speaker 3: What do you mean?
Speaker 1: Yeah, Yeah, there was this very awkward moment that that
Speaker 1: I saw, actually multiple awkward moments about the very same
Speaker 1: thing during the debate that you had with Daniel Kikitche,
Speaker 1: which was where you brought up the idea that the
Speaker 1: Quran tells Jews and Christians that they should read their
Speaker 1: their own book, and it says that their book is
Speaker 1: is confirmed. But if you go to that book, then
Speaker 1: you have the problem of somebody like Daniel Kikitchu saying, okay,
Speaker 1: but those books are invalid because they have contradictions and
Speaker 1: they were corrupted, and so you are caught in this
Speaker 1: whole in this whole dilemma. Okay, are those books now
Speaker 1: confirmed and authentic or are they not? And he then
Speaker 1: comes in and and and and presents this position, which
Speaker 1: is the best he can do, because it is just
Speaker 1: it's it's a whole problem that Muslims can't get out of.
Speaker 1: He then tells you that when the Jews and Christians
Speaker 1: go to those books, uh, they will see contradictions in
Speaker 1: those books with monotheism as presented in Islam, which is
Speaker 1: why they will understand that those books are wrong. Okay,
Speaker 1: but that means that they have to evaluate that whole
Speaker 1: situation from its club's perspective, which doesn't make sense. Yeah. Right.
Speaker 3: If what's in question is the continuity of the Quran
Speaker 3: with previous revelation, then I asked a very simple question
Speaker 3: to Daniel, which was, what is the epistemic principle that
Speaker 3: you have that tells you when the Old Testament is
Speaker 3: true and when it's false? And he says the Quran.
Speaker 3: But the thing is that that's what's in question, So
Speaker 3: you can't just appeal to the thing any question. When
Speaker 3: we're asking about prior revelation. Now you could say, but Jay,
Speaker 3: what you did in the day, He said, But Jay,
Speaker 3: you you appealed to the Old Testament too, in terms
Speaker 3: of your position, Yeah, but I don't argue that the.
Speaker 2: Old Testament has a lot of contradictions.
Speaker 3: So if I thought the Old Testament had contradictions and
Speaker 3: Christianity was the new revelation that replaced it, I would
Speaker 3: be in the same boat as Daniel's position. You see, yeah,
Speaker 3: because you could say, well, you know, the New Testament
Speaker 3: appeals to the Old Testament, right, but it ever makes
Speaker 3: the appeal that the Old Testament is true and valid,
Speaker 3: but it also has contradictions.
Speaker 2: That's Daniel's position.
Speaker 3: Daniel's position that the Old Testament is true and valid
Speaker 3: because the Koran says so, however, there's all these passages
Speaker 3: that don't teach the pure mono theism of Islam. And
Speaker 3: I still have that drawing here that I had drawn
Speaker 3: up the things whiteboard here. So these are just examples
Speaker 3: of theophanies where we find real distinctions in God in
Speaker 3: the Old Testament. And there's more.
Speaker 2: This is just one list that I could fit on
Speaker 2: one board.
Speaker 3: And Daniel says, yeah, those are problem texts that are
Speaker 3: all contradictions. Now, wait a minute. That's why I asked
Speaker 3: the question, Well, then, what's the epistemic principle that tells
Speaker 3: you when you go through the Old Testament? Oh, this
Speaker 3: is the true verse false, verse true, verse false, verse,
Speaker 3: this chapter true, this chapter false, this chunk true, this
Speaker 3: chunk false. And the principle was whatever's consistent with the Quran.
Speaker 3: But the question was, how do we know that the
Speaker 3: Qoran is can assistant with prior revelation given the fact
Speaker 3: that the Quran says you can validate this with the
Speaker 3: books given to the Jews and the Christians. You see,
Speaker 3: this is, like you said, it's an irresolvable dilemma. And
Speaker 3: that's why I had to sort of draw this out
Speaker 3: for him on the small board, what is your episode
Speaker 3: of principle similarity to the Old Testament? And then eventually
Speaker 3: ended up saying, well, you just you just look and
Speaker 3: see with your eyes what's consistent with with what's not consistent?
Speaker 3: You see, So you just look at your eyes. So
Speaker 3: can I do not appeal to the same thing of
Speaker 3: just looking with my eyes.
Speaker 1: It's also extremely funny because the Quran clearly and explicitly
Speaker 1: says about the Jews and Christians. It says, why do
Speaker 1: they come to you when when they have, you know,
Speaker 1: what was revealed to them, basically saying that they should
Speaker 1: just go back and read their books. But that doesn't
Speaker 1: make any sense. If you once again present this whole problem,
Speaker 1: it again goes into this circular nonsense that he cannot
Speaker 1: get out of. What are they supposed to do? They
Speaker 1: are supposed to Jews and Christians are supposed to go
Speaker 1: and read their own scriptures. They don't supposed to come
Speaker 1: to Muhammad. Okay, if they are supposed to read their
Speaker 1: own scriptures, then they will be educated by their own
Speaker 1: scriptures on their own beliefs and on how their beliefs are,
Speaker 1: on what they are supposed to believe according to their
Speaker 1: own scriptures, which if they do that will eventually contradict
Speaker 1: with what Islam Telstone. But then Daniel Kikichu and other
Speaker 1: Muslims come out and say, well, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: you can't take those things in there that contradict with
Speaker 1: real belief because you know those are in values. You
Speaker 1: take the rest. Okay, what is the rest? Well, whatever
Speaker 1: agrees with my beliefs.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And I mentioned that he couldn't see that that
Speaker 3: was a circle. Now, if he affirm circular logic, then
Speaker 3: I would have I mean he would That would have
Speaker 3: been more honest and he could have like maybe gone
Speaker 3: in another direction.
Speaker 2: But of course he didn't want.
Speaker 3: To do that because typically when Muslims do accept varying
Speaker 3: degrees of philosophy, whichever school they're in, it's usually kind
Speaker 3: of a very broad stroke. For example, I have Azar
Speaker 3: Rashid's book. When we did our debate, I got his book,
Speaker 3: and his approach to epistemology was just a very basic empiricism.
Speaker 3: So you know, if you want to have that school
Speaker 3: and that approach, that's what that's fine. But anybody that
Speaker 3: does that's going to have to deal with the outworkings
Speaker 3: of adopting that position. So if you have a very
Speaker 3: basic empiricist view, you're going to have a hard time
Speaker 3: justifying or given account for questions like what about a
Speaker 3: circular argument that you're presenting about the relationship with the
Speaker 3: krant prior revelation you can't affirm just from a strictly
Speaker 3: philosophical perspective, You're not going to be able to affirm
Speaker 3: circular argumentation if you're an empiricist, unless you just want
Speaker 3: to say that my position is just self evident. But
Speaker 3: if he wants to go that route, then I can
Speaker 3: just say, okay, well my position is self evident if
Speaker 3: everybody can just appeal to their own internal self evidence,
Speaker 3: which I don't believe.
Speaker 2: We should do in a debate.
Speaker 3: But if you do that, it kind of makes debate
Speaker 3: no longer possible because the opponent, you see, can appeal
Speaker 3: to the same thing I walk can just appeal to
Speaker 3: my all my principles are just quote self evident, right,
Speaker 3: So so that's not usually the best. That's not usually
Speaker 3: how debates go, unless you're debating something like, you know,
Speaker 3: some obscure topic like transcendental arguments or circular argumentation itself.
Speaker 1: Is it possible?
Speaker 2: Is it not possible?
Speaker 3: Most debates are not going in that way. And that's
Speaker 3: why you know, cor three says there is no God
Speaker 3: but He the living, the self subsisting. He sent down
Speaker 3: the book that is truth upon the confirming what it
Speaker 3: was before he sent the Torah and the Ngel, the Gospel,
Speaker 3: and it is the guidance to mankind. Nothing about but
Speaker 3: it is half corrupted. You see, Oh, it is seventy
Speaker 3: percent corrupted. And that's the thing, is that when you
Speaker 3: actually look at as and I haven't. Let's just take
Speaker 3: the first ten stories, for example. I went through the
Speaker 3: first ten, and I got a giant list of all
Speaker 3: of the references in the first ten to sections of
Speaker 3: the Torah and the profits, right, And here's the thing,
Speaker 3: this is what I was trying to get it. I
Speaker 3: don't think Daniel got this point. I was trying to
Speaker 3: get it across, which is that you got giant portions
Speaker 3: that are referred to referenced giant stories, the Exodusk story,
Speaker 3: the conquests of David, different stories in the Book of Genesis,
Speaker 3: for example, the creation narrative is largely affirmed. So if
Speaker 3: we're going to admit that these giant portions of the
Speaker 3: Torah are correct, then now we've got a problem of
Speaker 3: giant portions not correct. Right, So it doesn't really matter
Speaker 3: what percent did you want to say. Let's say you
Speaker 3: think seventy percent of it's true and thirty percent is false.
Speaker 3: Or maybe you think thirty percent of the Old Testament
Speaker 3: the profits is true and seventy percent is false. Either way,
Speaker 3: you're stuck in the same kind of bind. Because number one,
Speaker 3: the Quran actually says, as you noted, that it's not consistent. Right,
Speaker 3: they'll excuse me that the Old Testament is not full
Speaker 3: of errors. That's a later argument that they may And
Speaker 3: when it does mentions, I think, like you said, when
Speaker 3: it does mention that they perverted the message, it says
Speaker 3: they perverted the message with their mouth. It doesn't say
Speaker 3: the text is perverted. So there's not an intertextual argument
Speaker 3: that I'm aware of that argues that the Torah and
Speaker 3: the Gospel are full of errors. This is a later argument.
Speaker 3: This is why they go to talk about going to
Speaker 3: non believers. Well, they ran to you know, bart Ermin
Speaker 3: and people for me for so long until bart Erman
Speaker 3: said that now there is historical evidence for Christ and crucifixion,
Speaker 3: and then I think they wanted to get rid of
Speaker 3: using bart Ermin because again, so it's like this double state,
Speaker 3: and is what I'm trying to say, there's a double
Speaker 3: standard of you know, I can't talk to you because
Speaker 3: you don't have the same religion as me. And it's like,
Speaker 3: but it does have something to do with the arguments.
Speaker 3: But the arguments are true or false regardless of the person.
Speaker 3: But to go back to your point, like you know,
Speaker 3: I'm just trying to stress that. Look, if you're gonna
Speaker 3: say that a giant portion of the prior revelation is false,
Speaker 3: which is what his position amounts to, then you're gonna
Speaker 3: have to give an account for why does the Quran
Speaker 3: then assume many of these stories, oftentimes in passing, So
Speaker 3: it'll just reference an event or a person, right, And
Speaker 3: how else would we know the context and the meaning
Speaker 3: and the background of that person without going to the
Speaker 3: prior revelation which predates them, It predates the Koran, predates
Speaker 3: the Quran, and isn't.
Speaker 1: And we have some very very explicit Quran versus like
Speaker 1: chapter five, verse forty seven, which say, and let the
Speaker 1: people of the Gospel, Christians judge by what Allah has
Speaker 1: revealed therein, And whoever does not judge by what Allah
Speaker 1: is revealed, then those are the defiantly disobedient. So according
Speaker 1: to that verse itself, who are what are Christians supposed
Speaker 1: to judge by by the Gospel, by what was revealed
Speaker 1: to them by In the Quran's understanding, and it's understanding,
Speaker 1: the Gospel is basically a revelation that was revealed to Jesus,
Speaker 1: like the Quran was revealed to Ahamed. It has a
Speaker 1: very it has a big misunderstanding of what the Gospel
Speaker 1: actually is, and it tells the Christians explicitly they are
Speaker 1: that they should simply stand by and judge by what
Speaker 1: the Gospel says. And there is no single reference throughout
Speaker 1: the Qur'an which explicitly tells you that those books are
Speaker 1: no longer valued, that those books have been corrupted, that
Speaker 1: they have been corrupted into oblivion. Such a mindset only
Speaker 1: only emerged over the centuries much later, I think, as
Speaker 1: late as like the eleventh or eleventh century or twelfth
Speaker 1: century it was. It became entrenched into Islamic thinking that
Speaker 1: those that those books, the Torah and the Ingia as
Speaker 1: they refer to them, meaning the Gospel and the Torah,
Speaker 1: were overall corrupted. But that is just that is just
Speaker 1: as it seems, an explanation that they came up with
Speaker 1: because they could not explain the abundance of contradictions between
Speaker 1: the Bible and the Quran, and contradictions on such a
Speaker 1: level that you cannot possibly believe that both of those
Speaker 1: sources as they are today came from the same God.
Speaker 1: You cannot hold on to of them at the same time,
Speaker 1: it is simply impossible. And I would say, it's like
Speaker 1: this whole game of those books are corrupt. They're not
Speaker 1: in their original form. They are only consistent wherever they
Speaker 1: are consistent with my beliefs. That would be like if
Speaker 1: you went out there, like if Christians went out there,
Speaker 1: or if I if anybody went out there and said,
Speaker 1: you know, Mohammed was actually a righteous guy. He was
Speaker 1: led and he was leading people to the belief in
Speaker 1: one God. But his followers corrupted his sayings and corrupted
Speaker 1: the actual Qur'an, which was full of truth. And when
Speaker 1: Mulim's then asked well how can you improve this, did
Speaker 1: you simply say, well, everything that Muhammad said, everything in
Speaker 1: the Quran that agrees with our Abrahamic beliefs is correct,
Speaker 1: and everything else that disagrees is obviously corrupted. And there
Speaker 1: is your proof. Now let go of your Islamic beliefs
Speaker 1: and come to the truth. Put them in the same position.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. I mean two points there that come to mind.
Speaker 3: I want to read that sort of five. I'm glad
Speaker 3: you mentioned it because it's really strong. It says, how
Speaker 3: is it that they come to deeper judgment when they
Speaker 3: have the Torah, wherein is God judgment. Even after that
Speaker 3: they turn their backs and they are not believers. Truly,
Speaker 3: we sent down the Torah they're in as guidance, where
Speaker 3: in His guidance and light by what the prophets who
Speaker 3: submitted unto God judged those who are Jews, as did
Speaker 3: the sages and the rabbis, in accordance with such with
Speaker 3: God's books, as they were bidden to preserve it, and
Speaker 3: to which they were witnesses. So I fear not mankind,
Speaker 3: fear me. My signs are for sell, not my signs
Speaker 3: for a paltry price, where whosoever judge is not by
Speaker 3: what God has sent down. So like as you said,
Speaker 3: he goes on to say in the Footsteps, we sent
Speaker 3: Jesus confirming the Torah, and we gave him that.
Speaker 2: Gospel confirming the Torah.
Speaker 3: So the assumption of these texts is that there's continuity
Speaker 3: not just with the Old Testament of the Koran, but
Speaker 3: between the Torah and what Jesus said.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: But when we go to what Jesus said, of course,
Speaker 3: there's a lot of problem texts, such as the entire
Speaker 3: Gospel of John, which is why usually Islamic apologetics just says,
Speaker 3: that's one we throw out. So now we're throwing out
Speaker 3: entire books because as you pointed out, well wait a minute,
Speaker 3: the kron speaks as if they thought the Gospel or
Speaker 3: the nGael was this book that Jesus got, like like
Speaker 3: Muhammad got the Quran. It's not. It's a recorded it's
Speaker 3: the disciples recording this oral message and then passing on
Speaker 3: various texts which give, in my view, a coherent narrative.
Speaker 3: So it's just amazing that this it's not a very
Speaker 3: complex argument. I mean, it might be complex if you're
Speaker 3: not used to the Old Testament, or if you don't
Speaker 3: know actually what's in the Torah and the prophets in
Speaker 3: the Bible, But if you actually go and look and see,
Speaker 3: it's pretty clear. Now. The other thing that Daniel referenced
Speaker 3: was the text in Jeremiah, and he didn't even get
Speaker 3: that the This was actually called out by one of
Speaker 3: the super chat questions I think if I recall, but
Speaker 3: he said, oh, well, you see, Jeremiah says that the
Speaker 3: scribe have perverted the text. It doesn't say the scribes
Speaker 3: perverted the Torah. It says that the scribes perverted their text,
Speaker 3: meaning they're what I would say. When Jesus rebukes the Pharisees,
Speaker 3: he says, you've added things to the commands of God.
Speaker 3: And it doesn't mean that the Torah was essentially altered,
Speaker 3: because Jesus says in the same Gospel that the scriptures
Speaker 3: cannot be broken. He presupposes and cites the Torah at
Speaker 3: length throughout the Gospels. So the text in Jeremiah is not,
Speaker 3: first of all, referring to the Torah itself being corrupted.
Speaker 3: It's talking about the rabbinical traditions. However, even if Daniel
Speaker 3: did want to say that the text in Jeremiah is
Speaker 3: referring to the Torah being corrupted, Daniel doesn't have a
Speaker 3: principle by which to know for sure that that text
Speaker 3: of Jeremiah isn't corrupted, because the entire Old Testament and prophets,
Speaker 3: in his view, are potentially corrupted. That's why asked, in
Speaker 3: the principle of epistemic certitude, what is the principle by
Speaker 3: which you judge when the Old Testament's true when it's false. Well,
Speaker 3: it's whenever it agrees with the Kuran. Ok. How do
Speaker 3: you know that the text in Jeremiah that you're citing
Speaker 3: about corruption isn't also corrupted because it agrees with the Kuran.
Speaker 3: So again it all comes back to this circle. But
Speaker 3: as you pointed out, it's not even a good circle
Speaker 3: because the book itself that He's is his ultimate principle
Speaker 3: already affirms that there's not error and contradiction in the
Speaker 3: prior revelations.
Speaker 1: Yeah, even if we talk about so when we talk
Speaker 1: about Jeremiah as a source, there is another problem which
Speaker 1: we talked about last week when we were in your channel,
Speaker 1: which is that Jeremiah is an easy prophet as a
Speaker 1: prophetic source, is not even recognized in Islam. So you
Speaker 1: could it's not mentioned in the Quran. This might be
Speaker 1: a big surprise to many people, but Jeremiah is not
Speaker 1: mentioned in the Koran. Huge huge profit in Abrahamic religion.
Speaker 1: Samuel is not mentioned in the Quran. Huge profit. Isaiah
Speaker 1: is amazingly huge prophet not mentioned in the Quran. Aslam
Speaker 1: as no cool about Isaiah. Daniel, which is very ironic,
Speaker 1: is also Daniel Kikschu's name is not mentioned in the Quran.
Speaker 1: These prophets are not recognized as prophets anywhere in the Quran.
Speaker 1: Any most knowledge about these prophets comes from Jews and Christians.
Speaker 1: They have to go to Jews and Christians literally to
Speaker 1: get information about about these people. So when it comes
Speaker 1: to Daniel Ki gets you referencing something in Jeremiah, that
Speaker 1: would mean he is making reference to a book that
Speaker 1: is a prophetic book according to the Jews and Christians,
Speaker 1: whom he cannot trust because they allegedly corrupted everything. So
Speaker 1: he is appealing to a potentially corrupted source, which, according
Speaker 1: to him, argues that things were at some point corrupted.
Speaker 1: This is just no way to go, hope for to
Speaker 1: make up stolid argument against for the corruption of Judaism
Speaker 1: and Christianity.
Speaker 3: Well, the other funny thing too is that and by
Speaker 3: the way, I know that you know, in our last
Speaker 3: talk on my channel, we had talked about the fact
Speaker 3: that many of these prophets that are major figures in
Speaker 3: the Old Testament, major prophets, that they I didn't even
Speaker 3: realize that it's that they're not even mentioned by name
Speaker 3: in the sense of absolutely no mention. I thought, maybe
Speaker 3: there's passing references, you know, to the Holy prophet of
Speaker 3: so and so, But but you're saying Jeremiah is not
Speaker 3: even mentioned at all.
Speaker 1: It's not mentioned at allow. Jeremiah has no mention in
Speaker 1: the Corona.
Speaker 3: That's wild, because you know, if we were looking for
Speaker 3: a religion that was in continuity of prior prophets, I
Speaker 3: mean from the vantage point of Jews and Christians. I
Speaker 3: mean Isaiah, as we said, is called the Fifth Gospel.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's just huge, even if you don't believe
Speaker 3: Jesus is and Messiah like I mean, Isaiah is Gian
Speaker 3: sixty six chapters. It's huge, you know, Ezekiel huge, right,
Speaker 3: Jeremiah huge, I mean vast books of the of.
Speaker 2: The Old Testament.
Speaker 3: And by the way, just a little funny side note,
Speaker 3: the name Daniel means God is my judge. And the
Speaker 3: l there is would be probably what Daniel was looking
Speaker 3: for when he was looking for the name that was
Speaker 3: pagan l l ohem.
Speaker 2: That doesn't mean the name is pagan.
Speaker 3: Right. This is a word concept fallacy because it's just
Speaker 3: like the word divinity. The word divinity or deity might
Speaker 3: refer to God, it might refer to many gods. It
Speaker 3: might refer to angels, demons, or a human being viewed
Speaker 3: as a divine figure. It's it's a generic term, and
Speaker 3: so amongst the Canaanites. The term L could be a
Speaker 3: reference to any kind of deity or a.
Speaker 2: Class of deities.
Speaker 3: Right, So a lot of people make this mistake because
Speaker 3: they think, oh, well, anything with the name L in it,
Speaker 3: Danielle must be so ironically, his own name would be
Speaker 3: a pagan name.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Bible also uses L or as when
Speaker 1: when it refers to other gods, when it refers to
Speaker 1: other false gods, when it refers to them them making
Speaker 1: a god of of objects of of Yeah. Different.
Speaker 3: It's a word that's a generic term, like like the
Speaker 3: word deity or divinity.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, so it would be it's it's it's just
Speaker 1: very ignorant from general's perspective and other people's perspective to
Speaker 1: argue that that would be the the actual name and
Speaker 1: then to deny the existence of Yahweh as Uh as
Speaker 1: name of God, and that this is one of my
Speaker 1: favorite things by now to to go to one of
Speaker 1: my one of my favorite arguments against Islam, the whole
Speaker 1: absence and ignorance of the name Yahweh in Islam. And
Speaker 1: we talked about this in length on your I don't
Speaker 1: know if you're talking about it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's an amazing argument that you found there with that,
Speaker 3: and especially going into the prophets whose names are also
Speaker 3: derivatives of that, and I think that, I mean, I
Speaker 3: can't see how this argument can be overcome. I mean
Speaker 3: it's really it's really probably one of the strongest that
Speaker 3: I've heard. Uh So again, the fact that you, being atheist,
Speaker 3: have that argument has nothing to do. I mean, the
Speaker 3: argument stands on our own on its own right. So
Speaker 3: it's like, I mean, it's a strong argument no matter
Speaker 3: who says it. And I think that any position that
Speaker 3: doesn't want to deal with arguments and has to kind
Speaker 3: of fall over into these kinds of like, oh well
Speaker 3: he needs to just be gotten rid of or you.
Speaker 2: Know, shut up, shut him up.
Speaker 3: I mean, that's just showing kind of weakness in the
Speaker 3: position from my vanished point.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and even when I brought that whole argument about
Speaker 1: the name of Yahweh on how Islam is completely ignorant
Speaker 1: of the name of Yahweh, I specifically brought that topic
Speaker 1: to him and challenged him on that because I knew
Speaker 1: very well that he that his understanding of scripture, theology
Speaker 1: and things like that is very very poor. He was
Speaker 1: actively it looks like it clearly looks like he was
Speaker 1: actively researching while I was talking and then trying to
Speaker 1: give me these off way answers to my challenge. And
Speaker 1: what he did come up with is, well, Yahweh did
Speaker 1: not Yahweh was not in in Genesis, which was false.
Speaker 1: Yahweh is just you know, it's it's a name that
Speaker 1: the Hebrews probably adopted this pagan name from the from
Speaker 1: from from these polytheistic people, and then gave that name
Speaker 1: to their own God. And later prophets actually fought against
Speaker 1: this and wanted to you know, rid their religion of
Speaker 1: this corruption, but then you know, it just kept being
Speaker 1: used in this corrupt form.
Speaker 3: It just doesn't weird because that's that's yeah, that's usually
Speaker 3: the when people who and that's a very low tier argument,
Speaker 3: like you said, based on ignorance, they usually are referring
Speaker 3: to Aloheim. Usually they say the name Elohim is the
Speaker 3: one that is borrowed from Canaanite religion and therefore Christianity
Speaker 3: and Judy or false because there's this paganization just on
Speaker 3: the basis of a word concept ballacy of the name Elohim.
Speaker 3: But I think he got mixed up or he just
Speaker 3: slipped oh, well, Yahweh is the same thing. It's like
Speaker 3: that it's a pagan it's but it's not. There's no
Speaker 3: equivalent that I'm aware of it being a pagan name.
Speaker 1: So what he did as a result is he completely
Speaker 1: wasted the one opportunity of actually dealing with that argument
Speaker 1: and still presents it as if he was actually he
Speaker 1: actually successfully argued his point when he was challenged with that.
Speaker 1: But when you look at the footage, you can clearly
Speaker 1: see that he gives completely nonsensical answers and it's just
Speaker 1: out there, and he still doesn't engage with it anymore
Speaker 1: after I called him out that his response doesn't make sense,
Speaker 1: that his response that Yahweh is a pagan name basically
Speaker 1: invalidates Islam as well, because Islam itself, the crown itself
Speaker 1: uses theophoric names which clearly references Awe, including the biggest
Speaker 1: I would say is Elijah, which truly means Ali yahooh
Speaker 1: my God, is Yahweh. And he didn't even get that.
Speaker 1: He was like, Okay, well, why why is that Yahweh?
Speaker 1: That doesn't sound like yeahweh? Okay, yeah, it doesn't have
Speaker 1: to exactly sound like yeah, yeah, it's Ali. Yahli. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that the Yah is already enough that that that is
Speaker 1: what is commonly used throughout the Bible and throughout throughout
Speaker 1: Hebrew to reference reference Yahweh, and that should already be
Speaker 1: enough for him. Plus you have two instances of the
Speaker 1: Quran explicitly naming, explicitly saying that John and Jesus, two
Speaker 1: figures that were Allah announced their names beforehand, before they
Speaker 1: were born, and it is Allah himself who gave them
Speaker 1: those names, and both of those names referenced Yahweh. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: So it is just it is just.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't know if you saw the when I
Speaker 3: posted you the clip that you argued. His reply was,
Speaker 3: I never said that. And it's like the clip has
Speaker 3: you think, what do you mean?
Speaker 2: Never said it?
Speaker 1: And that's it. He wouldn't respond to that, right.
Speaker 3: I mean that was the response. I never said that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, free bird said Yahweh. Don't mention the New Testament.
Speaker 2: Sure it does.
Speaker 1: Yeah, go ahead if you want to respond to that,
Speaker 1: so I would, I would say, off the top of
Speaker 1: my head, it is already. First off, it is it's
Speaker 1: a completely irrelevant point because Christians don't have the problem
Speaker 1: which Muslims have of not having the previous scriptures the
Speaker 1: Old Testament. It is known as the Old Testament as
Speaker 1: part of the Bible, so Christians read the very book
Speaker 1: which mentions Yahweh over six thousand times, although due to
Speaker 1: Hebrew tradition it was it is shane into auto and
Speaker 1: I in Hebrew and then the English for example, into a
Speaker 1: lord in capital letters. But that is basically Yahweh plus
Speaker 1: plus the New Testament says Hallelujah for example, which is
Speaker 1: a direct, direct inclusion of direct reference to Yahweh.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's a lot of different ways that you can
Speaker 3: demonstrate this. One of those, as I pointed out, is
Speaker 3: if you look at Exodus three, when you have the
Speaker 3: burning bush manifestation or what we call it a theophany,
Speaker 3: it's known as the ash air, it's God saying I
Speaker 3: am that I am, and so God is the I am.
Speaker 2: This is also equivalent to or.
Speaker 3: A reference to Yahweh as well, because if you go
Speaker 3: over to Exodus twenty three, God says that the angel
Speaker 3: who will go before the messenger. And I remember, a
Speaker 3: messenger doesn't always mean a created angel. It can be
Speaker 3: a divine messenger or it can be a created messenger
Speaker 3: like Gabriel or whoever. But if you look at Exodus
Speaker 3: twenty three, the same mess or the one that the
Speaker 3: voice that speaks in the bush is identified as the
Speaker 3: same messenger who will I'll read it. Hold, I will
Speaker 3: send my messenger before your face to keep you in
Speaker 3: the way and in the land that are prepared. Listen
Speaker 3: to him and obey the voice. Do not provoke him,
Speaker 3: for he will not pardon your sins. Only God can
Speaker 3: prepardon sins. By the way, not angels. My name Yahweh
Speaker 3: is in him, is in the as in the the
Speaker 3: being speaking from the bush. It's this identified as the
Speaker 3: same being of Exodus three. And so when you read
Speaker 3: the Gospel of John, Jesus says for many in many instances,
Speaker 3: I am, He says, I am, when before Abraham was
Speaker 3: I am. And particularly if you want to focus on
Speaker 3: John one and then John five through nine. In those chapters,
Speaker 3: Jesus identifies himself as the one that spoke to Moses.
Speaker 3: So the one speaking in the bush, the one speaking
Speaker 3: and being the messenger to go before them to either
Speaker 3: pardon them or not pardon them.
Speaker 2: In Exodus twenty three.
Speaker 3: Jesus identifying himself as that to the Pharisees. And that's
Speaker 3: what motivates the Pharisees in John five through nine to
Speaker 3: want to stone him because they recognized Jesus saying, Abraham
Speaker 3: believed in me. Abraham saw my day. Abraham believed in me,
Speaker 3: saw my day and was glad. He says Moses, right,
Speaker 3: no one sees the Father at any time, but he
Speaker 3: says that somebody was there speaking to Moses. He's implying
Speaker 3: that it was himself. He says, Moses wrote about me.
Speaker 3: This isn't what enrages the Pharisees because Jesus identifying himself
Speaker 3: as the Angel of the Lord and as the face
Speaker 3: that spoke to Moses, and this makes them want to
Speaker 3: stone him. So those passages I think are very clear
Speaker 3: if you're familiar with the typology, and also if you
Speaker 3: go through a lot of these passages that I mentioned
Speaker 3: that are called the offen. These these are manifestations of
Speaker 3: distinctions in the Old Testament that refer both to the Father,
Speaker 3: to the Angel of Yahweh or the Angel of the Lord,
Speaker 3: and to the Spirit. And this is just a partial list.
Speaker 3: There's many many more. It gots smudged over here. But
Speaker 3: if you go back to the Daniel debate. You can
Speaker 3: see all of those that I've referenced, and so what
Speaker 3: you get is a comprehensive in my view of presentation
Speaker 3: of differentiation in Yahweh throughout the Old Testament, that the
Speaker 3: New Testament is consistent with even if you didn't believe
Speaker 3: in Christianity. I think that modern Jews, for example that
Speaker 3: I mentioned in the debate, the Summer Text, the Seagull Text,
Speaker 3: the Schaeffer, they're all Jewish scholars. They're admitting that there
Speaker 3: is quite a bit of differentiation and distinction in the
Speaker 3: persona of Yahweh and the Old Testament. So it's not
Speaker 3: a strict unitarianism. So I'm just pointing out that whether
Speaker 3: you're a Christian who approaches the New Testament and the
Speaker 3: name of Yahweh and how it's differentiated in the Old
Speaker 3: and New Testament, how it's applied to Christ, or whether
Speaker 3: you're a Jew who looking at for example, Daniel seven
Speaker 3: in the text where we see this one like a
Speaker 3: son of Man, these Jewish scholars are admitting that early
Speaker 3: Christianity is consistent with a quote conservative Judaism of that time.
Speaker 3: In other words, it's not a completely wholesale made at religion.
Speaker 2: In fact, they're admitting that.
Speaker 3: Without believing it. They're admitting that the Jews, the early Christians,
Speaker 3: who were all Jews, were attempting to interpret and be
Speaker 3: consistent with the revelation in the Torah and the prophets
Speaker 3: that was not a strict unitarianism. And in fact, I
Speaker 3: think some Summers argues that the really strict unitarianism of
Speaker 3: Judaism doesn't really come about until my monodies.
Speaker 2: So that's also interestingly kind of parallel with.
Speaker 3: The rise of Islam and its strict version of unitarianism.
Speaker 1: What is very interesting is dealing with all of these
Speaker 1: uh these issues that are presented when we deal with
Speaker 1: Islam and compared to to Abrahamic religion. You pointed out
Speaker 1: that that there is a that there seems to be
Speaker 1: this this attitude, this behavior among traditionalist Muslims, which Dane
Speaker 1: Kikichu seems to be a representative of, of not of
Speaker 1: not really engaging with the the argument. And there is
Speaker 1: an older tradition of simply not asking questions, and that
Speaker 1: goes back to such a such a fundamental level. Indeed,
Speaker 1: I quickly want to point that out that is not
Speaker 1: just something we say. There is a there is a
Speaker 1: term in Arabic bila cave, which literally means without how,
Speaker 1: or which means without asking how? How, Yeah, without asking how?
Speaker 1: And and that is a that is a concept, a
Speaker 1: principle which became popularized by very early Muslim scholar and
Speaker 1: which traditionalists, Muslims, literalists, legalists stood by for quite a
Speaker 1: long time when they dealt with, for example, how how
Speaker 1: allies described in the Qur'an, and that there are references
Speaker 1: to alli having body parts, but then also references to
Speaker 1: to a lot being just uh, you know, everywhere at
Speaker 1: all time, and this and that and and and Muslims
Speaker 1: had problems figuring out how exactly they're supposed to make
Speaker 1: sense of these different interpretations, and the the early scholars
Speaker 1: came up with this, with this explanation or with this
Speaker 1: coping method, which was do not ask how, just read it,
Speaker 1: accept it, do not ask questions. And this is an
Speaker 1: actual concept. As said, it's called bila cave. And quite
Speaker 1: a few Muslim schools have stood by ed. Traditionalist schools
Speaker 1: today are still very much respecting that rule, some of them.
Speaker 2: Does this go back to like the hunt ball.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's it's I think what a prominent opinion is
Speaker 1: that is that Ahmad hn Mad actually came up with
Speaker 1: that whole explore. It was his his idea that this
Speaker 1: is what needs to be done in order to preserve
Speaker 1: proper belief and to avoid corrupting theology. So just take
Speaker 1: whatever the text says, do not question it, do not
Speaker 1: try to make sense of it, do not compare the
Speaker 1: apparent contradictions. It's none of your business. Just just accepted it.
Speaker 1: That's it. That's also consistent with the Quran saying, with
Speaker 1: the Quran saying for the true believers, when when they
Speaker 1: hear a last versus they they say, I hear and
Speaker 1: I obey. That's it. And another another instruction by Mohammad
Speaker 1: where he says that the devil comes to you and
Speaker 1: asks you questions about Allah and who created this and
Speaker 1: who created that. Whenever that happens, seek refuge with Allah
Speaker 1: and sees thinking about these things. So these are actually
Speaker 1: slamming instructions.
Speaker 3: Does that in that in that view? Does that also
Speaker 3: apply to the hot eath or just the Kuran.
Speaker 1: Hadith are more complicated, much more complicated. But I guess
Speaker 1: with the hadith, but what they do is they respect
Speaker 1: the tradition of figuring out what is and is not
Speaker 1: authentic in the hadiths, and then accepting whichever hadith is
Speaker 1: most supported, most stable if there are if there are
Speaker 1: differing reports only specific instants. But yeah, so there is
Speaker 1: for example, Haidith which says which I love, which says
Speaker 1: that a lot comes down every night at a specific
Speaker 1: time to the world, Yeah, to the lowest heaven, the
Speaker 1: heaven of the earth, and stays there to listen to
Speaker 1: all the prayers, and then he goes back again. And
Speaker 1: when do you actually think about that very deeply? That
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense because when exactly, how exactly would
Speaker 1: that work, considering that it is always night somewhere and.
Speaker 3: They are just and also, I mean, this is kind
Speaker 3: of that point about the shins and the above the throne.
Speaker 3: These are spatial locations, and you know, if we're supposed
Speaker 3: to believe in tall heed, that's not possible. And so
Speaker 3: we're sort of forced.
Speaker 2: Into a position then of.
Speaker 3: Making analogies saying, oh, this just represents various attributes and powers, right,
Speaker 3: But then when we do that, we're now moving into
Speaker 3: the domain of philosophical explanations and analogical predication.
Speaker 2: And if we're gonna do analogical predication.
Speaker 3: Then we have to square that with the text that
Speaker 3: says that there's absolutely nothing in.
Speaker 2: Creation that's like a lot.
Speaker 3: So you can't have both of those things, right, you
Speaker 3: can't have analogical predication. And for those that don't know,
Speaker 3: predication by analogy means predication on the basis of likeness
Speaker 3: and similarity.
Speaker 2: Right. So God is a judge.
Speaker 3: In the way that a virtuous human being is a
Speaker 3: righteous judge. Right, so he judges between cases. God judges, right,
Speaker 3: a father loves his son, God loves us in an
Speaker 3: analogous way. It's an analogy between the love of father
Speaker 3: and a son and God's love for us. Just this
Speaker 3: is just throughout history of theology. But in the Middle Ages,
Speaker 3: analogical predication is just predicating on the basis of similarity
Speaker 3: and likeness. But you see the Koran's already said there's
Speaker 3: no likeness at all between Allah and anything created. But
Speaker 3: then we have all these names which are predicates, right, Allah,
Speaker 3: the merciful, the righteous judge. And then we have these
Speaker 3: attribute or these qualities that are predicated like shin, like
Speaker 3: spatial location. So they have to be explained. Then at
Speaker 3: the same time as saying but there is no such
Speaker 3: thing as analogical predication. Oh but there is analogical predication,
Speaker 3: and then they just sort of talk around what that means.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, this I've had.
Speaker 3: I brought this up to pretty much every Muslim of
Speaker 3: debated except for Daniel. I didn't bring up to Daniel,
Speaker 3: but all the other ones that brought it up, and
Speaker 3: it's just like, well, it's not saying that all is
Speaker 3: like creatures. It's saying that all is like this or
Speaker 3: that power. And it's like, okay, well is the power
Speaker 3: that you're talking about concept in your head? Okay, but
Speaker 3: that's a creature, right, the concept that you're have in
Speaker 3: your head of Allah's hand and all as you know,
Speaker 3: movement or those are created things in your view, and
Speaker 3: you're saying that they are descriptors or the what is
Speaker 3: the as she had said.
Speaker 2: They signify the divine?
Speaker 3: Well, to signify the divine is to say that this
Speaker 3: is a created sign symbol. That's symbology. That's analogical predication.
Speaker 3: So how if there's no if all is not like
Speaker 3: any creature, is there analogical predication?
Speaker 2: You see?
Speaker 3: This is sah It's forty forty two to eleven it's
Speaker 3: not long.
Speaker 2: I'll read it. It says.
Speaker 3: The originator of the heavens and earth, he is appointed
Speaker 3: for you, mates among yourselves, and is appointed mates amongst
Speaker 3: the cattle. He multiplies you thereby, and not is like
Speaker 3: unto him. Unto him ex me. Yet he is the
Speaker 3: hero and the seer. So those are analogies. To hear
Speaker 3: and to see are analogous to human activities. Right, So
Speaker 3: we're saying that all I hear is and all I sees,
Speaker 3: but not as a man sees, not as a man hears.
Speaker 3: But not only that, here's the problem. Unto him belongs
Speaker 3: to the keys of heaven and earth. He comprehends and
Speaker 3: strange provision for whomever he will.
Speaker 2: He has prescribed that.
Speaker 3: There's excuse me out, let me go back a little bit.
Speaker 3: It was verse eleven. He multiplies you thereby, but there
Speaker 3: is nothing like unto him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was the text.
Speaker 3: I was, excuse me, keep reading. But and then you're
Speaker 3: notice in the notes, if you have the study, the
Speaker 3: study current, they talk about this discussion of nothing being
Speaker 3: like unto him. And I think there's another one too,
Speaker 3: which talks in this way. I forget which one it is.
Speaker 3: But the point being is that if there's nothing like
Speaker 3: unto him. This is I think called tanzi t A
Speaker 3: and z i h the doctrine of absolute dissimilarity between
Speaker 3: online creatures. If there's absolute dissimilarity, then we can't be
Speaker 3: using these predicates like hearing seeing movement.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the issue is if you just if you already
Speaker 1: begin to analyze the things that the Quran says and
Speaker 1: point out the obvious problem here, you slowly approach a
Speaker 1: topic that has been plaguing the Muslim world in terms
Speaker 1: of theology for forever, from the very very beginning, and
Speaker 1: that is still around and over which branches of Muslims,
Speaker 1: schools of Islam have been denouncing each other and calling
Speaker 1: each other disbelievers and even sentencing each other to death
Speaker 1: and persecuting each other.
Speaker 3: And you're saying, specifically over this question of like the
Speaker 3: hand and the placement over the throne.
Speaker 1: This is one of the questions. So one of the
Speaker 1: questions that caused such a huge mess and still does
Speaker 1: is that the body parts the attribute to the specific
Speaker 1: descriptions of a law, and how you can reconcile them
Speaker 1: with the fact that there is nothing like Allah, and
Speaker 1: how much, how far you can think about them. And
Speaker 1: this is actually a very funny thing. I grew up
Speaker 1: in a very religious household, and stuff like this was
Speaker 1: hammered into my head all the time from all sides,
Speaker 1: and I always had trouble understanding that there is nothing
Speaker 1: like a lot and I cannot even imagine it. I'm
Speaker 1: not supposed to. I cannot think about it. I cannot
Speaker 1: imagine it. But then I'm also given these conflicting descriptions
Speaker 1: of what a lot does, at what time and how
Speaker 1: he will appear, and I'm like, okay, I just it
Speaker 1: doesn't make sense. I can't reconcile it. And I might
Speaker 1: have had this issue as simply somebody who witnesses these
Speaker 1: these descriptions of our law and who doesn't study further.
Speaker 1: But this has been an issue from the very beginnings
Speaker 1: of Islamic history. And there have been a traditionalists who
Speaker 1: has said, stuck to the whole idea that you should
Speaker 1: not question, because if you question, then you will cause problems.
Speaker 1: And there have been the others who are basically the
Speaker 1: evidence of specifically that the mainstream Muslims were of the
Speaker 1: idea that Allah is up there, and we have certain
Speaker 1: things that are described about him, but we are not
Speaker 1: supposed to really think about that. Those things may be
Speaker 1: metaphorical or literally, we do not know. We don't think
Speaker 1: about that. Uh. And then there are those the mysticists
Speaker 1: who go further and to say Allah is probably up
Speaker 1: there wherever that is. But that's it. We're not going
Speaker 1: to go into anything else. Everything about him can only
Speaker 1: be metaphorical. Uh. And we leave it at that. And
Speaker 1: then there are others who go to the extreme. And
Speaker 1: actually my parents were kind of part of that, and
Speaker 1: they were like in such an extreme form of mysticism
Speaker 1: where they deal with all of this mess simply by
Speaker 1: saying Allah is not in any direction. It is wrong
Speaker 1: to say All is up there, all that. That was
Speaker 1: the Islamic tradition. Always He's everywhere, all at once, very
Speaker 1: close to you, within you, even to certain any certain understanding.
Speaker 1: And there is no way that you can possibly imagine
Speaker 1: or even describe him. The only way he can be
Speaker 1: described is in the Quran, and we only understand that
Speaker 1: entirely metaphorically. So it's just a huge mess. And all
Speaker 1: of these perspectives are not just perspectives that sit at
Speaker 1: a table and think, okay, you make sense, Yeah, you
Speaker 1: make sense, Okay, I disagree with you. No, they actually
Speaker 1: fought each other and killed each other over these over
Speaker 1: these problems, over these disagreements, and that is just one
Speaker 1: of those issues. It's the location of our law, the
Speaker 1: body parts, and what our lie is like. It's whether
Speaker 1: the Quran is an eternal part of our law or not,
Speaker 1: whether it came into existence through his speech exactly as
Speaker 1: it is or not. All of these things were issues
Speaker 1: of major contention that Muslims truly sentence each other to
Speaker 1: death and still kind of.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is odd because you know, in Christianity, for example,
Speaker 3: in the fourth century, there's a really intense debate that's
Speaker 3: kind of analogous to the debate that occurs in the
Speaker 3: Middle Ages between Jews and Christians and Muslims over naming God.
Speaker 3: And this is the fourth century controversy that the Cappadocians,
Speaker 3: this is Basil and the two Gregory's were very important
Speaker 3: to Orthodox theology. They had a debate with a guy
Speaker 3: named Unomius, and a big part of that debate was
Speaker 3: over how and in what ways we can name and
Speaker 3: predicate of God. And the only reason I bring that
Speaker 3: up is because it's interesting that in other words, if
Speaker 3: Islam is the correct next revelation, so to speak, after
Speaker 3: Judaism or whatever they think is or are, then it's
Speaker 3: almost like there's no cognizance of a prior, intense, nuanced
Speaker 3: discussion of this very question of predicating of God. So
Speaker 3: it's like, if you were the new revelation, it seems
Speaker 3: like you would at least have an understanding of the
Speaker 3: previous Jewish Christian discussions and debates over naming God.
Speaker 2: Does that makes sense what I'm saying?
Speaker 3: Like, in other words, Basil and the Cavedocians have this
Speaker 3: debate with Eunomius, who's the earlier unit. He's like a
Speaker 3: Unitarians in the sense of Islam or Judaism in the
Speaker 3: Middle Ages, and the debate is over whether the names
Speaker 3: that we say of God are unifical, equivocal, or analogous.
Speaker 3: A unifical term is one in which there's an exact
Speaker 3: same meaning between the two the two reference, right. So
Speaker 3: for example, if we said God's love is identical to
Speaker 3: the sense in which man's love, you know, father son love,
Speaker 3: that would be unifical predication. And Eunomius, who was the
Speaker 3: radical unitarian of in the days of Basil, and the
Speaker 3: Gregory's he believed in unifical predication. Equivocal predication would be
Speaker 3: what Islam has, which is that there's no similarity between
Speaker 3: when I say God has justice towards us, there's no
Speaker 3: similarity between that justice and you know, human law courts
Speaker 3: and their creative justice. Analogical predication, which is again what
Speaker 3: the Kappadocians and Christian theology wholesale adopts. I would argue
Speaker 3: from the earliest days, I think you could find it
Speaker 3: in the Old and New Testament itself. It continues clearly
Speaker 3: into this controversy and the councils, which Daniel, for whatever reason,
Speaker 3: wasn't familiar with what councils are and what they are
Speaker 3: about what they mean. He thinks that they're just new revelations,
Speaker 3: kind of like new voices of the Holy Spirit or
Speaker 3: something like that. That's not what councils are. But the
Speaker 3: point is just that this is already a really well known,
Speaker 3: intense debate for centuries in Christianity. When Islam arises the
Speaker 3: points that you're making about the rise of not questioning
Speaker 3: or naming or explaining the hands of God or Allah
Speaker 3: or the Allah season. Here's don't ask what that is.
Speaker 3: It's just ironic because this debate has already happened. If
Speaker 3: you're the continuation of the prior revelation, why is there
Speaker 3: no cognizance of that whole discussion? And not only that,
Speaker 3: it's like, maybe I'm not worrying this, Well, do you
Speaker 3: understand what I'm saying? Yeah? I think it's it's similar
Speaker 3: to the point we were making about that the Quran
Speaker 3: seems to not even understand what Christianity, whether you think
Speaker 3: it's true or not, it doesn't understand what the trinity was. Right,
Speaker 3: there's like a trinity in the Quran which includes Mary. Right,
Speaker 3: it's like they thought that the trinity included Mary. It doesn't,
Speaker 3: never did. But likewise, it's like there was no conception
Speaker 3: of what the previous discussions of predication predicating of God
Speaker 3: were and so it's almost like bypassing that and saying, well,
Speaker 3: Allah's nothing like creation, and that's how it's So it's
Speaker 3: it's all, you know, equivocal predication. But it's like, but
Speaker 3: throughout your book there's analogical predication, so how could it
Speaker 3: be equivocal?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Yeah, the reference to the trinity and the Churan
Speaker 1: not understanding what It is actually a very fascinating one
Speaker 1: that I made a video on very early on when
Speaker 1: I started making uh these critical videos. It has the
Speaker 1: Quran is different understandings. Uh, there are different interpretations of
Speaker 1: what Christians actually believe in. But in one of those instances, Uh,
Speaker 1: Jay is not making this up. The Koran actually does
Speaker 1: say so. It describes a supposed fantasy conversation in the
Speaker 1: future after after everything dies and is resurrected, between Allah
Speaker 1: and Jesus, where Allah asks Jesus, did you say to
Speaker 1: the people, take me and my mother is deities besides Allah,
Speaker 1: and Jesus will say no, I did not, I would
Speaker 1: never say that. Where so it looks like the Quran
Speaker 1: is they're arguing against this clearly, clearly a great belief
Speaker 1: among Christians that that Allah is consists of three, which
Speaker 1: is Allah, Jesus and Mother Mary. And it's just it's
Speaker 1: it's it's very surprising that when you find that out,
Speaker 1: that the Qur'an seems to not understand what Christians are
Speaker 1: to believe and then deals with a completely irrelevant belief
Speaker 1: that no Christian actually represents. And if you bring if
Speaker 1: you bring this problem up today, Uh, they will try
Speaker 1: to explain that a way by saying, well, okay, there
Speaker 1: there are there were probably some Christian sects in that
Speaker 1: time who did have such a belief, and this is
Speaker 1: specifically addressing them, or or they will say this is
Speaker 1: a reference to well, to Christians venerating her way too
Speaker 1: much and turning her into a god. But that's clearly
Speaker 1: not the case there.
Speaker 3: Well, first of all, we would need to know what's
Speaker 3: the evidence that there was a historic group that did
Speaker 3: deify and put Mary as a member of the Trinity.
Speaker 3: I mean, I suppose that's possible, but I've.
Speaker 2: Never heard of this.
Speaker 3: But secondly, even if that was the case, why would
Speaker 3: you be addressing some tiny fringe group that had no continuity?
Speaker 3: Is basically irrelevant, right, I mean, wouldn't you want to
Speaker 3: address the actual positions? That's what That's what I'm trying
Speaker 3: to say, right, And it's the same point with analogical predication,
Speaker 3: like when you want to at least address or explain, Oh,
Speaker 3: you know, the Christians when they had.
Speaker 2: Their debates with the Eunomians and and you know what.
Speaker 3: I mean, and they made their great mistake on analogical predication,
Speaker 3: as Basil and the Gregory's did who who are the
Speaker 3: you know, the great profits of the early like, there's
Speaker 3: no knowledge of any of this.
Speaker 1: Is that's actually, I mean, that's a very big problem.
Speaker 1: It's I have to be very honest. It is when
Speaker 1: I started getting out of Islam, and during that whole process,
Speaker 1: I was trying to further understand and Christianity and Judaism.
Speaker 1: So I started reading, reading, reading the Bible, and I
Speaker 1: noticed that it was completely foreign to me. And the
Speaker 1: same thing is so this is a problem that Muslims
Speaker 1: in general deal with. To them, the Bible, Abrahamic belief
Speaker 1: is entirely foreign because all they know about it is
Speaker 1: stuff that comes from the Quran and from Muslim tradition.
Speaker 1: Other than that, and that stuff what comes from the
Speaker 1: Quran is incredibly limited and very ignorant because there is
Speaker 1: no continuation, because the Quran is simply its own product,
Speaker 1: which emerged in the seventh century. It makes references to
Speaker 1: the Bible, to Judaism and Christianity and to their beliefs,
Speaker 1: but it is completely absent from the vast knowledge that
Speaker 1: comes with the Bible. So the Quran Islam claims to
Speaker 1: be the final message, claims to contry knew what was before,
Speaker 1: but then completely disregards and gets rid of all of
Speaker 1: the knowledge that is in the Bible, which is abundant
Speaker 1: in comparison to the Quran, and then moves on with that.
Speaker 1: And then, as you said, has no understanding of all
Speaker 1: of the problems that are already addressed in Christianity and Judaism,
Speaker 1: has no understanding of so many things mentioned in the Bible,
Speaker 1: has no connection to Jewish and Christian history and theology
Speaker 1: that was already centuries old in terms of Christianity, that
Speaker 1: is a huge problement.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would say to better formulate what I was
Speaker 3: trying to say the way you put it more concisely. There,
Speaker 3: if the Quran and Islam were the correct, final or
Speaker 3: new revelation, I would expect there to be an addressing
Speaker 3: of the specifics of where the previous system or systems
Speaker 3: got these things wrong. So what we see is actually
Speaker 3: no familiarity or consistent knowledge of very precise, very well
Speaker 3: known doctrines theologians and people.
Speaker 1: I can think of one issue, which is Christology and Jesus.
Speaker 1: Early Christian history has a very prominent history of discussing it.
Speaker 1: Coming to a proper understanding of the nature of Jesus
Speaker 1: uh the crucifixion and the resurrection. I mean that is
Speaker 1: a that's a core issue. It is the core, It
Speaker 1: is the fundament, is the fundamental the fundamentals of Christianity
Speaker 1: is Jesus comes, preaches, does many things, and then very important,
Speaker 1: he is crucified, and then he is resurrected. And that
Speaker 1: resurrection is supposed to play a great role in terms
Speaker 1: of what Christians believe. It Islam is supposed to come
Speaker 1: and correct the Christians because they were wrong about Jesus
Speaker 1: about how they explained his crucifixion and resurrection. But it
Speaker 1: doesn't do anything about it at all. It doesn't even
Speaker 1: address the resurrection. It just all it says about the
Speaker 1: death of Jesus is and they did not crucify him,
Speaker 1: nor did they kill him. But it was made to
Speaker 1: it was made to appear that way to them, and
Speaker 1: that's it. Why wouldn't why wouldn't the Quran address this
Speaker 1: whole giant elephant in the room. If the Christians are
Speaker 1: indeed wrong, if they corrupted their own beliefs, if Christianity
Speaker 1: is a giant misunderstanding, as the Quran claims, why would
Speaker 1: it not deal with Christology? Why would it not deal
Speaker 1: with what exactly happened after Jesus died. With the resurrection,
Speaker 1: it doesn't do any of these things and therefore leaves
Speaker 1: a huge discussion completely unanswered. Just as DANIELI Kikachu does says, well,
Speaker 1: just look at it, and whatever agrees with Islam is true,
Speaker 1: and whatever it doesn't just false. That's it.
Speaker 3: Well, and I mean it was like all of what
Speaker 3: you just said is bypassed by you. Just look and
Speaker 3: see with your eyes, Okay.
Speaker 2: Well can I not? I could appeal to the same thing.
Speaker 3: Well, when I look and see with my eyes, it
Speaker 3: can it confirms my view? Right, So I mean that's
Speaker 3: really just a non answer. But yeah, I mean this
Speaker 3: is a great point about the resurrection. I mean, you know,
Speaker 3: even if you didn't believe in Christianity, you would at
Speaker 3: least want to understand, Well, what is their view? Why
Speaker 3: do they think that, you know, this is so important?
Speaker 3: What is the resurrection have to do with the fall
Speaker 3: of man? What about what about all these prophecies, for example,
Speaker 3: in the Psalms of David, that we see as predictions
Speaker 3: and prophecies of the Messiah, his descent to Hades, and
Speaker 3: his resurrection. Now, maybe you don't believe that, but it
Speaker 3: would be better. It would make sense to understand, you know,
Speaker 3: like here is what they believe, and you know this
Speaker 3: is why it is false, you know, but we don't
Speaker 3: get that. That's what's amazing is that there's not even
Speaker 3: an understanding of what the position is. And I would
Speaker 3: I feel like if this was a divine revelation, they
Speaker 3: would at least, you know, God would understand what the
Speaker 3: errors were, you see, and they would be corrected. But
Speaker 3: it doesn't even explain what the erroneous position is. If
Speaker 3: I could misunderstand the erroneous position.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's actually a very interesting coron verse that I
Speaker 1: could quickly want to go to, and I might put
Speaker 1: it on the screen here because I wanted to bring
Speaker 1: that up. It's actually very relevant to the very point.
Speaker 1: Let me share this one here, so Kara three, verse
Speaker 1: fifty five. I'm appealing to all the different translations here,
Speaker 1: but I'll just take the first one. Soayga international. What
Speaker 1: it says mentioned when Alas said, Oh Jesus, indeed, I
Speaker 1: will take you and raise you to myself and purify
Speaker 1: you from those who disbelieve, and make those who follow
Speaker 1: you superior to those who disbelieve until the day of resurrection.
Speaker 1: Then to me is your return, and I will judge
Speaker 1: between you concerning that in which you used to differ.
Speaker 1: Very very interesting point, very interesting verse here, So a
Speaker 1: lot told Jesus that he will raise him and purify
Speaker 1: him from those who denied him, while making those who
Speaker 1: followed him and believed him superior until the day of judgment.
Speaker 1: Interesting but how exactly does that work? So who were
Speaker 1: those people who followed Jesus, Who were the people who
Speaker 1: who acknowledged him, who believed him? And which group exactly
Speaker 1: has been has been made superior since then? And which
Speaker 1: group will be made superior from then till the day
Speaker 1: of judgment.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm actually baffled by this. What what what is
Speaker 2: their explanation of this?
Speaker 1: I don't understand the explanation I can tell you will
Speaker 1: be well, this is actually a reference to the Muslims.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make much sense.
Speaker 2: But what do they think the raising is?
Speaker 1: Well, that he was just you know, he was raised
Speaker 1: to heaven as a as a prophet, and he will
Speaker 1: stay there and he will come back one day. And
Speaker 1: when he comes back, he will then announce that all
Speaker 1: the Christians and all the people who had these corrupt
Speaker 1: beliefs went astray, and that the Muslims are actually the
Speaker 1: true believers, and then he will come and fight for
Speaker 1: the Muslims and abolish the cross, and break the cross
Speaker 1: and and do things like that and basically becoming Muslim Jesus.
Speaker 1: That is their explanation. But if you read it on
Speaker 1: the surface, it just looks like it pretty much improves
Speaker 1: of the questions.
Speaker 3: It also it reminds me of I forget exactly where
Speaker 3: it is, but samr Moon had referenced a there's actually
Speaker 3: just sections of the Gospel of John that are kind
Speaker 3: of cribbed, you know. I'm talking about like there's like
Speaker 3: several verses that are basically just copied and pasted into
Speaker 3: the Koran. Oh yeah, yeah, which is because they typically
Speaker 3: want to say the Gospel of John is fraudulent. It
Speaker 3: was like, wait a minute, aren't some of the passages
Speaker 3: actually just copied and pasted into the Koran? Well, those
Speaker 3: are the ones that are not corupped. Oh okay.
Speaker 1: You can also find Muslims occasionally give some references from
Speaker 1: the Gospel of John in order to prove that Muhammad
Speaker 1: was mentioned in the gospels, or that Jesus prayed like
Speaker 1: a Muslim or things like that, which is a very selective,
Speaker 1: dishonest approach. They will say, they will take that, they
Speaker 1: will take the part, for example, where Jesus throws himself
Speaker 1: on the ground and pray and prays, and they will say, look,
Speaker 1: he prayed exactly like Muslims pray. But that's not he
Speaker 1: didn't do a ritual prayer there. That's not the only
Speaker 1: prayer date according to the Gospel. So that's a very
Speaker 1: very interesting.
Speaker 3: Well, it's like that text in Deuteronomy that they use
Speaker 3: about I'll raise a prophet amongst your brethren, and you know,
Speaker 3: you know, Christianity obviously has always seen that as a
Speaker 3: prophecy of the Messiah.
Speaker 2: You find many.
Speaker 3: Church fathers prior to the rise of Islam citing that
Speaker 3: as a text about the Messiah. Conceivably, Jews might also
Speaker 3: cite it as a potential Messianic text. But the for Muslims,
Speaker 3: that's a prediction of Mohammad. And and I didn't really
Speaker 3: get to go into this, but when it was mentioned
Speaker 3: in the debate, the argument was, well, this is about Muhammad.
Speaker 3: And I said, well, but it says amongst your brethren,
Speaker 3: so I'm pretty sure Mohammad wasn't a Jew. And they said, oh,
Speaker 3: but they can all be brethren, because everybody is a
Speaker 3: brethren all the way back to Abraham.
Speaker 2: And I'm like, well, but wait a minute.
Speaker 3: Genesis is cast out the slave woman, and so they're
Speaker 3: not actually brethren, but in the Jewish sense, they're not
Speaker 3: bresent brethren. That's the sense that we would be getting
Speaker 3: from Deuterom the eighteen, not the Koronic sense. It would
Speaker 3: be the Jewish sense of brethren.
Speaker 1: What's funny is one last point.
Speaker 3: The other thing that's funny about that, which is that,
Speaker 3: so wait a minute. If everybody is a brethren, then
Speaker 3: Edomites are brethren, but no Jew would call an Edomite brethren.
Speaker 3: They're the enemies of the Jews. But they have a
Speaker 3: common They have just as much a lineage that's common
Speaker 3: as what would be Hagartes.
Speaker 1: It might be amazing to you the forms of a
Speaker 1: responses that you can get from you to cope with
Speaker 1: that problem, which is when they bring that up. I
Speaker 1: even got the response, which was a ridiculous one when
Speaker 1: I think about it again and again, which is that
Speaker 1: it says your brethren, and that clearly means that it's
Speaker 1: in reference to to the Ishmae alliance to the to
Speaker 1: the others, because that's why it says brethren instead of
Speaker 1: just saying from from you or your own tribe.
Speaker 3: But no Jew is going to listen to an Ishmael.
Speaker 2: That's the weird part.
Speaker 3: It's like the rest of the rest of Deuteronomy assumes
Speaker 3: that only a Jew is only going to listen to
Speaker 3: a Jew.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, and that's the that's the whole problem. But
Speaker 1: then there comes forth some guy in seventh century Arabia
Speaker 1: who doesn't like his own culture and his own religious
Speaker 1: beliefs and looks up to the Christians and Jews and things.
Speaker 1: He's going to just start a message and claim that
Speaker 1: the same God is speaking to him. And what's very
Speaker 1: interesting is I actually put a thing together. A I
Speaker 1: took out all of the references in the Quran to
Speaker 1: Christians and Jews and put them in chronological order as
Speaker 1: far as we know. And you can see very much
Speaker 1: that in the beginning, it is just this very naive
Speaker 1: approach to the Christians and Jews of like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, they're nice, they're good, they have true beliefs,
Speaker 1: and you know, we are just like them, same source,
Speaker 1: same guys, and then it increasingly becomes gets into disagreements
Speaker 1: with them, and eventually at some point it comes to, Okay,
Speaker 1: they have their beliefs, you have your belief and finally
Speaker 1: it comes to they will accept your beliefs or else.
Speaker 1: It's just a if everything, naive, ignorant approach from Muhammad
Speaker 1: to Jewish and Christian beliefs. And and here we are
Speaker 1: dealing with a religious group that actually claims to be
Speaker 1: in possession of the true religion, yet one that is
Speaker 1: completely disconnected and completely ignorant. And I actually want to
Speaker 1: ask you a question about that. So, when you read
Speaker 1: the Quran, when you began studying the Qur'an as somebody
Speaker 1: who extensively studied the Bible, what is your what was
Speaker 1: your impression of the Qur'an? Did it appear similar in
Speaker 1: I don't know what was What was your impression in
Speaker 1: comparison to your own?
Speaker 3: My initial impression is not really different than where I'm
Speaker 3: at now. It's just kind of like I've read more
Speaker 3: text from scholars that I think really back up the
Speaker 3: impression that I have, which is, you know, especially like
Speaker 3: the Gabriel site Reynolds book where he goes through about
Speaker 3: thirteen or fifteen I forget how many case studies where
Speaker 3: he basically just compares the references in the Koran to
Speaker 3: the biblical context from which they come, and then contrasts
Speaker 3: and compares the narratives whether they make sense where they contradict,
Speaker 3: and then the various Islamic explanations. So it's a really
Speaker 3: good book from a person who I don't think he's
Speaker 3: a Christian or a Muslim. He's just an academic. But
Speaker 3: the text shows the ways that there have been attempts
Speaker 3: to explain, and it also shows what was really helpful
Speaker 3: to me all of the different extra canonical sources that
Speaker 3: Islam also draws from. So I think you made a
Speaker 3: great point when you and I were talking about this
Speaker 3: the other day. You know, when you start getting into
Speaker 3: the hadiths is where it becomes a lot clearer that
Speaker 3: there's a lot of other influences here. So it's not
Speaker 3: like you're just dealing with the Quran. You're also dealing
Speaker 3: with about a bunch of world tradition which is kind
Speaker 3: of collected and then it has to be scholarly kind
Speaker 3: of feeded out as to how authoritative they are. But
Speaker 3: those also apparently rely on a lot of myths and
Speaker 3: narratives and stories, as the Quran does. And so when
Speaker 3: I first started reading the Koran, my first impression was,
Speaker 3: it's it sounds like the Bible, but it's like I
Speaker 3: was detecting kind of like stories and references that they
Speaker 3: didn't understand that are coupled together. And then your point
Speaker 3: about the Hadiz, I think further backs that up. But
Speaker 3: now I see, Okay, well, it's not just the infancy
Speaker 3: narrative of Christ that you referenced as an extra canonical text.
Speaker 2: It's also Cave.
Speaker 3: Of Treasures, Life of Adam and Eve proto Evangelim of James.
Speaker 3: It's all of the Sleepers of Ephesus. It's all these
Speaker 3: other storiesries and traditions, some of which are also by
Speaker 3: the way, telmudick. Which is odd because you know, uh
Speaker 3: that that weird reference that Reynolds points out about how
Speaker 3: the Sabbath that was a punishment, It's like, that's absolutely
Speaker 3: totally foreign to everything that's in prior revelation. It's not
Speaker 3: a punishment.
Speaker 1: It goes back to Genesis, right, expand on it very quickly,
Speaker 1: for yeah, you can quickly expand it if you want
Speaker 1: to or I can.
Speaker 3: No, I'll let you expand on it, because it was
Speaker 3: just just a cap on my to summarize my point
Speaker 3: there about the more that I would get into this,
Speaker 3: the more I'm realizing, wait a minute, this is like
Speaker 3: cribbed from earlier stuff, cobbled together, and what's cobbled together
Speaker 3: is not actually coherent. But then it's the job of
Speaker 3: the Islamic scholars to try to make this thing work.
Speaker 2: That's what I get from it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, So the point about the Sabbath in the
Speaker 1: Quran is people who have looked into that or deeply
Speaker 1: can pretty much I guess explain that better. But I
Speaker 1: made a note a while ago here on that. But
Speaker 1: the Quran basically, when it references to Sabbath, doesn't recognize
Speaker 1: it as something that that is a fundamental or essential
Speaker 1: part of of of biblical or Jewish belief. What it
Speaker 1: basically says is that the Sabbath was just prescribed to
Speaker 1: the Jews as as a punishment for their for their actions,
Speaker 1: for their transgressions, and it was it was basically a
Speaker 1: burden placed on them by Allah, which is why I
Speaker 1: only they keep it. So that is that is and
Speaker 1: then that's that's a very ridiculously ignorant.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's very central to you know, the entirety
Speaker 3: of the Torah goes back to Genesis as part of
Speaker 3: the creation narrative. So it's it's almost like to think
Speaker 3: that the Sabbath would be a punishment would be to
Speaker 3: again completely misunderstand something very fundamental to Genesis, which is
Speaker 3: the seven Days and the Sabbath. And in the the
Speaker 3: Say Reynolds book, it's pages one, nine, ten, and eleven,
Speaker 3: and you've got multiple Islamic scholars and people have tried
Speaker 3: to explain this, and it's just all the different explanations
Speaker 3: are kind, they're just they're amusing because when you see
Speaker 3: the scholarly explanations, they're even they're not understanding what the
Speaker 3: meaning was for the Jews and the Christians. So I
Speaker 3: could understand if okay, so fine, you think it's wrong,
Speaker 3: but at least understand how central this was to the
Speaker 3: creation narrative and to the entirety the Old Testament. To
Speaker 3: think that, as many of these scholars have.
Speaker 2: Said, that it was a punishment from God, it.
Speaker 3: Just shows an incoherence of not even understanding the narrative,
Speaker 3: just like with other things that we talked about like
Speaker 3: the Arc of the Covenant. They thought that because it
Speaker 3: had the Seraphim on top of it as a box,
Speaker 3: that it was a box that flew.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So here's the reference we're talking about. In the Quran,
Speaker 1: in chapter sixteen, verse one, and twenty four, it says, basically,
Speaker 1: the Sabbath was only appointed for those who differed over it,
Speaker 1: and indeed your Lord will judge between them on the
Speaker 1: day of Resurrection concerning that of which they used to differ.
Speaker 1: And it's further than recognized that the Jews were basically
Speaker 1: transgressors over and over again, and the Sabbath was only
Speaker 1: given to them because of their because of their of
Speaker 1: their troubles and there their transgressions.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it's even you. You have this four forty seven.
Speaker 2: You have been given the book.
Speaker 3: Believe in what they have brought, what we have brought down,
Speaker 3: which confirms which is already with you. Before we transform
Speaker 3: the figures, turning them inside out, we curse you as
Speaker 3: we curse the people of the Sabbath.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it's I don't know, it's just sometimes I
Speaker 1: feel like it is very.
Speaker 4: Hard to put into words the amounts of of ignorance
Speaker 4: that the Quran brings to the Chable when it talks
Speaker 4: about Abrahamic biblical beliefs, and to then claim that this
Speaker 4: is the same God, the same source, it's just it's
Speaker 4: just absurd.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And and again, I mean, there's a lot of
Speaker 3: different ways to approach this discussion, this debate. I mean,
Speaker 3: one another example would be if you if you thought,
Speaker 3: for example, that the Revelation to Jews and Christians was false.
Speaker 3: One thing that's prevalent throughout the Old and the New
Speaker 3: test is analogical predication. So if you're going to say
Speaker 3: that was all wrong and we can't do analogical predication,
Speaker 3: which conceivably you could have with many Islamic schools and
Speaker 3: the denial and the teaching of Tanzi, then you would
Speaker 3: need to again explain or at least understand that this
Speaker 3: group four thousands of years, for centuries prior to Islam
Speaker 3: with Christianity, you know, for six injuries, that they got
Speaker 3: this big thing wrong. And again there's not even a
Speaker 3: reference to So let me put it this way. There's
Speaker 3: very sophisticated philosophical debates. Okay, here's a great book that's
Speaker 3: just on this very topic I recommend, And this is
Speaker 3: not from This is from just an academic at it's
Speaker 3: published by Oxford. I forget where he teaches, but it's
Speaker 3: a well known book called The Rise of Christian Theology
Speaker 3: and the End of Ancient Metaphysics, and it basically traces
Speaker 3: the development of just the idea of hypostasis, right, which
Speaker 3: is very important to the Trinity, all the way from
Speaker 3: the Cappadocians to John Damascus in the seven hundred seventh centuries,
Speaker 3: which is contemporary.
Speaker 2: He's the first Christian to write about.
Speaker 3: Islam, by the way. So basically we're going to trace
Speaker 3: this really sophisticated development of what hypostasis is in the
Speaker 3: Trinity and what it is in Christology.
Speaker 2: And it's very nuanced, very precise.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of philosophical terminology, a lot of references
Speaker 3: to Aristotle, all this kind of stuff. And then by
Speaker 3: the time that we get the revelations to Muhammad, it's
Speaker 3: like it's like that and never, none of this ever happened,
Speaker 3: you see. And again I'm stressing this argument because if
Speaker 3: we're going to look at continuity again, we would want
Speaker 3: to know precisely where the previous tradition was wrong. And
Speaker 3: I'm not trying to bank everything on philosophy. But it's
Speaker 3: sort of like, you know, Christianity had already adopted and
Speaker 3: baptized and was okay philosophy by this point. Even if
Speaker 3: you think it's wrong, this is this is not really debatable.
Speaker 3: It's pretty easy to It's pretty well known, right. I
Speaker 3: mean John Damascus, for example, he wrote an entire book
Speaker 3: on Aristilian philosophy, is another book on dialectical philosophy. I
Speaker 3: mean his his systematic theology in the seventh century is
Speaker 3: utilizing a lot of philosophy, as we said, from Cappadocians
Speaker 3: and people prior to him. Maximus the Confessor full of
Speaker 3: a lot of philosophy and at texts. And it's like,
Speaker 3: if you're going to deal with and reject the position,
Speaker 3: and I'm not even saying that it's true, because it's
Speaker 3: a lot of philosophy. I'm just saying that we would
Speaker 3: need to see understanding of what's being talked about. And
Speaker 3: it's not even that it's not understood. It's like there's
Speaker 3: no knowledge of it at all.
Speaker 1: It's like you're having it's like you had this whole long,
Speaker 1: lengthy discussion on a major pressing issue that you're trying
Speaker 1: to understand, everybody has had this discussion forever. He went
Speaker 1: on and on and on. Yeah, you have already established
Speaker 1: a system of analyzing This is how different theories came
Speaker 1: to proper conclusions dealt with it. And then some guy
Speaker 1: comes along and entirely ignores everything that has been said
Speaker 1: and just starts a discussion from the very beginning.
Speaker 3: It says, I had a dream and everything you said
Speaker 3: is don't basically basically, let me ask you this question
Speaker 3: what you think of this? So the more I hear
Speaker 3: what we're talking about in regard to the rise of Islam, originally,
Speaker 3: it's very parallel in many ways to Mormonism, and so
Speaker 3: Mormonism basically says, all the prior revelation has some truth
Speaker 3: in it, but it was also corrupted. Ours is the
Speaker 3: new final revelation, and you just didn't have the full
Speaker 3: consistency of understanding that God is.
Speaker 2: Actually three things. It's also ironic too.
Speaker 3: That in Mormonism God has a the Father has a
Speaker 3: body much like what we see in the Koran, with the.
Speaker 2: Body of all lots of it. But you know.
Speaker 3: They're they're a pro is not Now there's actually polytheism.
Speaker 3: I would argue Mormonism is ultimate polytheistic. But I mean,
Speaker 3: could we conceivably just counter the whole system with Mormonism,
Speaker 3: because if the argument is, well, the Kuran is preserved, well,
Speaker 3: maybe the books of Mormon are better preserved.
Speaker 2: You see.
Speaker 1: Plus the aside from the preservation, you don't even need
Speaker 1: the preservation there. You could simply appeal to the fact
Speaker 1: that some guy comes along in the middle of a
Speaker 1: land where people are trying to figure out which religious
Speaker 1: beliefs to hold onto. This guy comes along and claims
Speaker 1: to receive revelations, and there are people around him who
Speaker 1: are affirmed that he is indeed revelations. The affirm that
Speaker 1: he's of great character, the affirm that he is a
Speaker 1: fantastically pious guy who was entirely selfless, and a lot
Speaker 1: seems to be God, seems to be completely in agreement
Speaker 1: and basically in his service, and it gives him these
Speaker 1: these revelations, and he establishes the truth and declares that
Speaker 1: people corrupted his message. I mean, he's ultimately doing exactly
Speaker 1: what Mohammad did. I've heard a lot of people refer
Speaker 1: to him as the American Muhammad or there there there
Speaker 1: are people who say I spoke to a former Mormon
Speaker 1: here on this channel, a woman who is a former
Speaker 1: an ex Mormon. I think her her channel is called
Speaker 1: ex mole X, But she came on here just to
Speaker 1: to also pleasantly argue that she did hear about Islam
Speaker 1: and how Mormonism is compared to Islam before when she
Speaker 1: when she was a Mormon, and also afterwards. And she
Speaker 1: was also pointing out that the way the revelation is
Speaker 1: seen and the way the way Joseph Smith, yeahs my
Speaker 1: mind going all over the place, the way he is
Speaker 1: he is trusted by Mormons in terms of his revelations,
Speaker 1: even if they seem completely absurd and out of places.
Speaker 1: Quite similar to the way Mohammed is trusted in Islam
Speaker 1: when he makes when he brings outrageously weird revelations, or
Speaker 1: when he brings revelations that are just about him and
Speaker 1: his desires. It's quite similar to it to Mormonism. To
Speaker 1: the point that you bring up it could be very
Speaker 1: it could be reasonable to to go with that projection.
Speaker 1: And I have seen people actually argue against Muslims and
Speaker 1: and say why not just accept Mormonism. It does the
Speaker 1: very same thing. But then you get a very hypocritical
Speaker 1: answer from them, and the answer is just revolves around, well,
Speaker 1: we know that that's not true, because you know, he
Speaker 1: was just all about his own desires and then he
Speaker 1: just made up revelations. Well, you could say the same
Speaker 1: thing about Mohammad. Well we already know, we already have
Speaker 1: the truth. With Muhammad already brought the truth, we don't
Speaker 1: need anything else.
Speaker 3: Well you could see, can I could see them just
Speaker 3: in terms of epistemology making that work is that they'd
Speaker 3: have to say in a strict way that the Qur'an
Speaker 3: was the final revelation. But I mean, but aren't the
Speaker 3: hadiths also additional revelations?
Speaker 1: So well what what you what they do with that
Speaker 1: is they will say the Koran is up is the
Speaker 1: absolute final revelation, that is the truth. After that, no
Speaker 1: revelation can can come, no prophet can come.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 1: The hadiths are different from that because the hadiths are
Speaker 1: basically just saying, so Muhammad that or actions that people
Speaker 1: around him noted that are not considered revelation. Everything that
Speaker 1: comes after him is absolutely unacceptable, absolutely false. And that's
Speaker 1: the answer that they will give you when you when
Speaker 1: you tell them, okay. Joseph Smith he made a lot
Speaker 1: of a lot of claims. He said, these religions in
Speaker 1: the past word corrupted, and he's he brings the truth.
Speaker 3: He So wait a minute, though, Let's expand that argument
Speaker 3: and say, well, but Allah apparently allowed divine revelation to
Speaker 3: be corrupted amongst the Jews and the Christians, right, yes,
Speaker 3: so he allowed them to be deceived, apparently, and for
Speaker 3: the revelation to be corupted.
Speaker 2: Hence, why we need the Koran?
Speaker 3: Why are we why should we think that it's not
Speaker 3: all also corrupted if Allah can allow the revelation to
Speaker 3: be corrupted.
Speaker 1: Because because because the Quran is unique in that Allah
Speaker 1: had a plan of those previous scriptures being corrupted, and
Speaker 1: the Koran is unique in that this is the only
Speaker 1: book which Allah promised nobody will ever be able to
Speaker 1: corrupt and he will protect it for well.
Speaker 3: But my point is that the promises are in the
Speaker 3: older books too, right, So.
Speaker 1: But you can't trust those books because those books were corrupted.
Speaker 3: I know. But that's what I'm saying is that the
Speaker 3: same promise of non corruption was in the Torah, it's
Speaker 3: in the Christian texts and allowed.
Speaker 2: Us to be deceived.
Speaker 3: Then how are we not in the same epistemic dilemma.
Speaker 3: If we believe the Kuran, that Allah might be allowing
Speaker 3: us to be deceived.
Speaker 2: Now you see what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but a lot wouldn't do that because and we
Speaker 1: already know that. We already know that those crypt scriptures
Speaker 1: are corrupt because when you when you read them, you
Speaker 1: will see that they are obviously uh not in alignment
Speaker 1: with pure morttheistic as like beliefs.
Speaker 3: But that's derived from the book the same question.
Speaker 1: So yeah, well if you just if you, if you
Speaker 1: go and look at those books, if you just look
Speaker 1: at the Kuran and open your eyes, you will see that.
Speaker 5: You just look, Okay, yeah, I mean that's the thing.
Speaker 3: Somebody wrote a paper. I have to dig it up.
Speaker 3: I've got it save somewhere. It's a couple of years ago.
Speaker 3: But they were arguing that. But Islam does argue that
Speaker 3: Allah is a good deceiver, right, And so if Allah
Speaker 3: is a good deceiver, then how are we able to
Speaker 3: trust at all any of our reading of the Quran? Right,
Speaker 3: we might potentially be be be being deceived. Right, And
Speaker 3: so now all the propositions are potentially deceptive, and so
Speaker 3: we're not in any better position with the Qoran than
Speaker 3: we are if we are a Muslim and we're looking
Speaker 3: at the Jewish and Christian text, which also promise that
Speaker 3: they're inspired and not that they don't have errors.
Speaker 1: You see.
Speaker 3: So in other words, let's say I'm taking Let's say
Speaker 3: I'm a fourth century Jewish Christian.
Speaker 2: The books that I have tell me that.
Speaker 3: They're not corrupted, and they're inspired and they're authoritative. But
Speaker 3: from the Islamic perspective, those books are corrupted and I'm
Speaker 3: basically deceived, right, and so I need the Quran to
Speaker 3: fix that. But Allah is already a good deceiver, and
Speaker 3: so why would I not think that the New revelation
Speaker 3: also is potentially deceptive. You can't just say, well because
Speaker 3: it says it's not because the old books said they
Speaker 3: were not.
Speaker 2: But God was also deceptive back then, you see.
Speaker 3: Does that make sense?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah. And there is a very funny, a very nice
Speaker 1: thing that you can add to that which I love
Speaker 1: about Jesus and his crucifixion, some flavor you can add
Speaker 1: to specifically that which is uh So allied as a deceiver.
Speaker 1: He he he says that he is the best of deceivers.
Speaker 1: Think about the what the Quran says about Jesus. Jesus
Speaker 1: was he was sent down with a message with a scripture.
Speaker 1: He was They tried to they denied him, and they
Speaker 1: tried to crucify him. They tried to kill him, but
Speaker 1: they did not manage to kill him, not managed to
Speaker 1: crucifying him. It was only made to appear that way. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: what happened as a result of that, as a result
Speaker 1: was specifically that a major religion came into existence, that is,
Speaker 1: according to Islam, a complete corruption of the truth. And
Speaker 1: why did it come into existence? Because the people believed
Speaker 1: that Jesus on that day was crucified and they saw him,
Speaker 1: I guess rise, which is a deception. It was made
Speaker 1: to appear to them. So and that appearance, that deception,
Speaker 1: that illusion, whatever you want to call it, brought forth
Speaker 1: the largest religion in the world, which happens to be
Speaker 1: a completely corrupt religion. Is this a last plan? Did
Speaker 1: did a lot establish a plan for Jesus where his
Speaker 1: death was basically a deception which brought forth the largest
Speaker 1: false religion in the world? So did Allah create this
Speaker 1: false religion on purpose? By by creating this deception?
Speaker 3: Well, they would say, yeah, right, I mean, if you're
Speaker 3: a you're a hard determinist, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And why would you blame the Christians? Then? See
Speaker 1: exactly why would you blame the Christians Because it looks
Speaker 1: like Allah made it a lot, created the deception, and
Speaker 1: they fell for it. So it's it's not there is
Speaker 1: it their fault? If All is the best of deceivers?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's just maybe this plays into the pathology of
Speaker 3: that religion right to where well, if Allah is the
Speaker 3: best of deceivers, is it possible that Muslims then welcome
Speaker 3: being deceptive?
Speaker 1: Maybe?
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm what do you think is do you.
Speaker 2: Think that.
Speaker 1: I want to think deeply, like you.
Speaker 3: Know people, do you think the takia objection? Is that
Speaker 3: overused or is that.
Speaker 1: I think I think Okay, that's why I'm thinking about
Speaker 1: this right now. But here's the issue. There is a
Speaker 1: lot of there is a lot of overuse of that
Speaker 1: whole tekia accusation of saying whenever Muslims says something that
Speaker 1: doesn't seem to be true or that doesn't seem to
Speaker 1: be consistent. Uh, some people might say they're just they're
Speaker 1: just doing tekia. I would say that that is largely
Speaker 1: overused Muslims do not learn actively to to lie and
Speaker 1: to deceive and to you know, hide the truth and
Speaker 1: all of that. And they don't learn about this concept, uh,
Speaker 1: this idea called tekia, and that they're supposed to practice this.
Speaker 1: The problem is the problem with that is and there
Speaker 1: is a lot of nuance to this, although takia is
Speaker 1: usually a wrong, over used accusation. Although Muslims don't actively
Speaker 1: learn to to lie explicitly, Muslims do have a habit
Speaker 1: quite often of concealing uncomfortable truths or conceal certain things
Speaker 1: which they also lie to themselves about, and simply go
Speaker 1: to whatever makes it easier to convince the other side
Speaker 1: that Islam is true. And and you learn this whole concept,
Speaker 1: which is that religion is supposed to be made easy.
Speaker 1: So when you try to preach Islam to somebody, make
Speaker 1: it easy. Forget about the complexities. You can cover things
Speaker 1: that don't need to be mentioned, you can ignore questions
Speaker 1: that are more pragmatic. Yeah, just focus on one whatever
Speaker 1: makes it easier for the other person to accept Islam.
Speaker 1: That's it. So, while the accusations of the key are
Speaker 1: largely wrong and overused, there is an element of doing
Speaker 1: whatever it takes just to make the other person accept
Speaker 1: that Islam is true, and that might include there is
Speaker 1: a there is an issue here that might include occasionally
Speaker 1: using deliberate deception when you deal with people that you
Speaker 1: consider enemies of Islam, like myself, where they say it
Speaker 1: they are basically at war with me and with any
Speaker 1: mues of Islam, and in war, deception is allowed, as
Speaker 1: Mohammad said, exactly is it is it is to be used.
Speaker 1: So that is part of that as well.
Speaker 3: So there's not like any hadith that says, you know,
Speaker 3: you may deceive your opponent explicitly.
Speaker 1: No, there is nothing that says you may or you
Speaker 1: should lie to them. All there is is that there is,
Speaker 1: there is implied, there are words for Muhammed that deception
Speaker 1: is part of war, and there are just instructions on
Speaker 1: making it making it easier for people to understand Islam.
Speaker 1: So that's that's pretty much.
Speaker 3: It interesting, that's good, that's overused.
Speaker 1: Like said, yeah, I want to point at this thing
Speaker 1: here to simply revisit the whole issue of ignorance of
Speaker 1: pre Islamic beliefs. So here's a whole narrative that is
Speaker 1: adopt adopted from later Christian ideas where Jesus speaks as
Speaker 1: a as a baby when he is born and tells
Speaker 1: people that he is Jesus. But what's very important here
Speaker 1: that narrative is in Graduate in nineteen verse thirty. It
Speaker 1: says Jesus said, indeed, I am the servant of Allah.
Speaker 1: He has given me the scripture and made me a prophet.
Speaker 1: So I hear you already chuggling about this about what
Speaker 1: it says here. But yeah, so that the understanding here
Speaker 1: is that Allah gave Jesus a scripture and made him
Speaker 1: a prophet. And what's very interesting is that Jesus says
Speaker 1: this as a baby already, is what Jesus is saying
Speaker 1: this as a baby here, So he's speaking as a
Speaker 1: baby and he's seeing, I am a servant of Allah.
Speaker 1: Allah gave me a scripture and made me a prophet.
Speaker 3: I have a note two saying that this is from
Speaker 3: that Syriac infancy narrative.
Speaker 1: Right, yeah, yeah, and.
Speaker 3: What what what when when that's brought up, I've not
Speaker 3: hurt anybody addressed? Like is that ever addressed? Like aren't
Speaker 3: these from prior non canonical or superb a graphical texts?
Speaker 3: Like is that ever addressed.
Speaker 1: The answert you get usually are that that people did
Speaker 1: have certain truths and falsehoods that survived throughout the centuries,
Speaker 1: and some of these stories that.
Speaker 3: Came from they don't have a prominent minting that these
Speaker 3: are older.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, you know the yeah they So they will
Speaker 1: just explain that a way is some truth and falsehoods
Speaker 1: through the centuries. Same thing with with For example, there
Speaker 1: is an issue with chapter verse, chapter five, verse thirty three,
Speaker 1: I believe, which is the prominent verse of whoever kills
Speaker 1: one person has killed all men, all humanity. Okay, that's
Speaker 1: chapter five, verse thirty two. It says there we decreed
Speaker 1: upon the children of Israel that whoever kills a soul,
Speaker 1: unless for his soul or for corruption in the land,
Speaker 1: it is as if he had slain all mankind, And
Speaker 1: whoever saves one, it is as if he had saved
Speaker 1: all mankind entirely. And Muslims will often cite only part
Speaker 1: of this, and we'll just say, whoever kills somebody has
Speaker 1: killed all mankind. Whoever saves someone has saved all mankind.
Speaker 1: The problem with this is, as it points out, we
Speaker 1: decreed upon the children of Israel. This is something that
Speaker 1: was apparently taken from Jews. And the problem with this
Speaker 1: is this stuff here, whoever kills a soul unless for
Speaker 1: his soul, it's as if he had killed all mankind.
Speaker 1: And then the same with saving is something that directly
Speaker 1: comes from the town Wood.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've heard rabbinical sources said, yeah, it.
Speaker 1: Is directly in the Talmud. The Talmud deals with this issue.
Speaker 1: It explains something from the Torah and then says what
Speaker 1: you can understand so that the rabbi says what you
Speaker 1: can from understand from that is that if one killing
Speaker 1: one Jew is like killing all of mankind and saving
Speaker 1: Jews like saving all of So that that is an
Speaker 1: idea that is that is that was presented by the
Speaker 1: rabbis in the Talmud. It is not something that was
Speaker 1: revealed or that was found in the Torah or anything
Speaker 1: like that. It is directly a Talmudic rabbinic explanation of
Speaker 1: the Talmud. But here it is in the Qur'an directly
Speaker 1: presented as God, as if it were from Allah revealed.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I didn't know about that one either.
Speaker 3: So and Reynolds mentioned a couple of those, but I
Speaker 3: don't remember off the top of my head, which one
Speaker 3: he said was Talmudic in terms of the source, So
Speaker 3: that would be that would be one of them.
Speaker 2: That's interesting.
Speaker 1: It was also important note here is that this is,
Speaker 1: according to the Quran, only a law for the Jews.
Speaker 1: So and here's the next verse, just to make it
Speaker 1: very nice. Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war
Speaker 1: against a lie is messenger and strive upon earth to
Speaker 1: cause corruption is none but that they should be killed
Speaker 1: or crucified, or their hands and feet be cut off
Speaker 1: from opposite sides, or that they should be exiled from
Speaker 1: the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world,
Speaker 1: and for them here in the hereafter is a great punishment.
Speaker 1: This is a horrible So.
Speaker 3: Is this why you see some of the radical a
Speaker 3: islonic groups doing this to people at times, including like crucifixion?
Speaker 1: Yeah, and including there were reports in Somalia, for example,
Speaker 1: in the recent civil wars where they were referencing this
Speaker 1: first and actually cutting off the hands and feet from
Speaker 1: opposite sides of rebels.
Speaker 2: That's what I thought.
Speaker 1: Yeah, pretty messed up. Yeah, there's a lot.
Speaker 2: Now is that that one?
Speaker 3: Is that uh from a prior source or is that
Speaker 3: unique to the Quran.
Speaker 1: That part about cutting off stuff that is not that
Speaker 1: is that is from the Quran, but that is just
Speaker 1: the first after the one that is taken from the Jews,
Speaker 1: from the Talmud. So what happened, what probably happened there.
Speaker 1: The theory is what probably happened there. Why the Quran
Speaker 1: suddenly has a Talmudic teaching there as if it was
Speaker 1: really revealed from a law, is that Muhammed was in Medina,
Speaker 1: Medina had a lot of Jews, learned Jews. Jews interact
Speaker 1: with him and tell him things, and one of the
Speaker 1: prominent ideas and teachings they have is specifically that moment
Speaker 1: hears it and probably thinks, oh Allah revealed this to them.
Speaker 1: So it's that included as a revelation from a law.
Speaker 1: But and that's just a big oopsie, you know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it looks like a lot of the narratives are
Speaker 3: maybe things that were heard and misunderstood, like the Trinity
Speaker 3: Mary stuff that sounds like something that was heard. Oh
Speaker 3: they think this you know there was recorded.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Also I mentioned in Grand nine, verse thirty, there
Speaker 1: is this Jews say Ezra is the son of a
Speaker 1: law and Christians say the Messiah son of a law
Speaker 1: knowed you believe that of God and worships Ezra. But
Speaker 1: it's probably something that he heard. I mean, maybe somebody joked.
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe somebody was joking about the room,
Speaker 1: and he took it seriously and included.
Speaker 2: Maybe somebody was trolling him.
Speaker 3: And I told him, yeah, we think Ezra right, and
Speaker 3: he wrote that down like it was an ancient trolling.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what, what's have you heard of? The of the
Speaker 1: idea that Alexander the Great is also in the Qur'an.
Speaker 1: That's a very important thing to look into. That. Uh.
Speaker 1: There is a character named the Karnaine in the same
Speaker 1: chapter that also mentions the people the Sleepers seven Sleepers,
Speaker 1: and it talks about a figure named Dul Karnain who
Speaker 1: is a servant of all and who was given all
Speaker 1: kinds of power by Allah and went to the very
Speaker 1: far ends of the world. And the issue with that
Speaker 1: character is nobody knows who that character is. The issue
Speaker 1: with that character is early Islamic scholars, we are very
Speaker 1: clear that the Karnain is Alexander the Great, But over time,
Speaker 1: when people learned who Elese and the Grade actually is,
Speaker 1: they began to deny that and many mostms today will
Speaker 1: still deny that because the Quran basically depicts Alexander the
Speaker 1: Great there as a servant of Allah. Yeah yeah, yeah wow.
Speaker 1: And what happens there going to the Hadith is people come,
Speaker 1: apparently Jews are coming and asking him about this, and
Speaker 1: he then goes away. It comes back many days later
Speaker 1: with these revelations. But the revelations get it all wrong Islam.
Speaker 3: Yeah, maybe maybe he heard, you know, the texts in
Speaker 3: Daniel or Maccabee's which reference that time period of of Alexander. Yeah,
Speaker 3: and maybe he thought that that meant that Alexander was
Speaker 3: a servant of God, which is odd because that's not
Speaker 3: at all what Maccabee says. Like it, Maccabee's doesn't really
Speaker 3: comment a lot on Alexander. It focuses on Antiochus of
Speaker 3: Theefani's right, who's the one that defiles the temple. I'm
Speaker 3: just trying to think, like why he would have Maybe.
Speaker 1: There's an explanation off so historically seen. Apparently the early
Speaker 1: Jews had a developed and understanding of of Alexander the Great,
Speaker 1: where they for a while referred to him as somebody
Speaker 1: who was given given power by God or was favored
Speaker 1: by God because they had an understanding that people who
Speaker 1: become very powerful and we have.
Speaker 2: Providence.
Speaker 1: They yeah, they're they are given divine providence and they
Speaker 1: so they began referring to him as somebody who was
Speaker 1: gifted by God. Yeah, but that doesn't mean that he
Speaker 1: herved God, like that's that's the issue, and probably misunderstood
Speaker 1: that so exactly.
Speaker 3: I mean, it says the same thing about uh Nebucannezer
Speaker 3: that like, when Daniel's talking about Nebucanezer, he says that
Speaker 3: divine providence raised up Nezer. Doesn't mean that Negeezer was
Speaker 3: a servant of God. In fact, he was a blasphemer
Speaker 3: and he in the Book of Daniel, he's punished.
Speaker 2: Because he's a blasphemer.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So yeah, that's fascinating.
Speaker 3: I was gonna look and see how because I know
Speaker 3: mccabee's mentions. I can't remember if it mentions him explicitly
Speaker 3: or if it just kind of mentions him in passing
Speaker 3: in the first chapter of Macabee's but he's talking about
Speaker 3: that period. Yeah, I don't I don't think he mentions
Speaker 3: him by name.
Speaker 1: Thinks serious said, can you look at the errors of
Speaker 1: the Trinity in the ground. We did that, thank you
Speaker 1: so much.
Speaker 2: No, it does, excuse me.
Speaker 3: So the first, the very beginning of maccabee's doesn't mention
Speaker 3: Alexander as king of Greeks. He went to the ends
Speaker 3: of the earth, he spoiled, he spoiled the earth like
Speaker 3: army spoils. He fell sick and died, doesn't reference anything
Speaker 3: about it, just states it kind of like a history
Speaker 3: of Alexander. And then it moves into talking about Antiochus
Speaker 3: being a horrible blasphemer because he was one of the
Speaker 3: four generals that took over after Alexander passed away. Alexander
Speaker 3: ray for twelve years and then he died. His servants
Speaker 3: took over and ruled in his place. One of those
Speaker 3: was Antiochus. So it doesn't there's never a positive mention
Speaker 3: in maccabe's as just as curiosity.
Speaker 1: I will quickly put this year on the screen just
Speaker 1: because it's so funny. Uh So, here is the Kuronic
Speaker 1: narrative on the Karnae, and it says in eighteen eighty
Speaker 1: three and they ask you about the Karnaine and lo
Speaker 1: garnane literally means the two horned one, the two horned one, Yeah,
Speaker 1: two horned one.
Speaker 3: Oh, that that might actually be a reference to Daniel.
Speaker 1: Well, the thing is so, if if you look at this,
Speaker 1: if you look at the narrative here, it is very much,
Speaker 1: very much copies ancient myths, the legends about Alexander. It
Speaker 1: basically copies the Alexander romance legends. And Alexander the Great
Speaker 1: was known as the one who wears a helmet with
Speaker 1: two horns. And there were coins that were that existed
Speaker 1: in Arabia as well at the time where Alexand the
Speaker 1: Greatest depicted somebody with two horns. But it says here
Speaker 1: I will recite to you about him a report. Indeed,
Speaker 1: we established him upon the earth, and we gave him
Speaker 1: from everything away. So he followed away until when he
Speaker 1: reached the setting of the sun, he found it setting
Speaker 1: in a body of dark water. And he found neared
Speaker 1: eight people, and we said, oh, theo carnein. Either you
Speaker 1: punish them or else adopted them a way of goodness.
Speaker 1: Here is a very interesting detail. He found the sun
Speaker 1: setting in a pool of dark water. He said, as
Speaker 1: for one who wrongs, we will punish them. Then he
Speaker 1: will be returned to his lord, and he will be
Speaker 1: punished with a terrible punishment, but as for one who
Speaker 1: believes and does righteousness, he will have a reward. Then
Speaker 1: he followed another way. When he came to the rising
Speaker 1: of the sun, he found it rising on a people
Speaker 1: for whom we had not made against any shield, and
Speaker 1: then he builds for them ay wall to protect them.
Speaker 1: But this is basically goes back to all legends about
Speaker 1: Alexander the Great, who allegedly traveled to the very very east,
Speaker 1: very west, and who built a giant wall to protect
Speaker 1: these people from these invaders.
Speaker 3: And yeah, but you'll find this interesting because if you
Speaker 3: look at Daniel eight, like verses five to fourteen, a
Speaker 3: lot of people think that it's whether you think it's
Speaker 3: a prophecy or whether it was written later. It's talking
Speaker 3: about Alexander, and it's calling him the horn the horned one,
Speaker 3: the goat, it calls him the male goat.
Speaker 2: I think here and yeah, verse five.
Speaker 3: So what I'm saying what's funny about that is that
Speaker 3: the description is that he's an evil pagan ruler in Daniel,
Speaker 3: but he's called the horned goat, the horned one. Yeah,
Speaker 3: and he's li liken to a goat, which in scripture,
Speaker 3: goats are typically referred to as the wicked sheeps and goats.
Speaker 3: So I'm just pointing out that it's the chronic narrative.
Speaker 3: If if he heard this story from Jews, or if
Speaker 3: he'd heard Daniel and thought maybe that was about Alexander.
Speaker 1: Maybe maybe maybe that could be how its So what's.
Speaker 2: Funny is that in Daniel he's a wicked person.
Speaker 1: And and that's where the issue is. He just hears
Speaker 1: bits of knowledge, probably from from the Jews, from others,
Speaker 1: and then the things, oh, I have a revelation from
Speaker 1: a law.
Speaker 3: Allah says so and so and so and But you're
Speaker 3: saying that he in this passage about this figure here,
Speaker 3: that it's actually calling him a righteous person.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, No, it's it's it's literally according to the verse,
Speaker 1: it's a lot communicating with him and making him a
Speaker 1: judge over people, whether they are righteous or or not.
Speaker 2: And you're saying that.
Speaker 3: Initially the Muslim scholars have said it's it's Alexander, but
Speaker 3: now they don't, or there's debate.
Speaker 1: Some still say that it's Alexander, but most of them
Speaker 1: nowadays deny it. But it's, yeah, it's in early Islamic history.
Speaker 1: The interation. What's very clear that this is a reference
Speaker 1: to Alexander the Great.
Speaker 3: Yes, there's another example of just something being misunderstood. Yeah yeah,
Speaker 3: So what would now do they say that it's just
Speaker 3: some unknown ruler or something.
Speaker 1: Yeah, most likely they usually say that it's it's that
Speaker 1: that we don't know who it is. But that's also
Speaker 1: very funny because there's just some guy mentioned here, a
Speaker 1: little car name. You have no idea who it is,
Speaker 1: that's it.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Plus he also builds a wall here that is
Speaker 1: supposed to prevent Gog and Magogue, also a narrative taken
Speaker 1: from the Bible and previous beliefs.
Speaker 3: Well, that's interesting because that's Ezekiel. But there's no ravens
Speaker 3: or explanation to what Ezekiel's talking about.
Speaker 1: But here here it's like he builds a wall, and
Speaker 1: Gog and Magog are these these these beings, these corruptors,
Speaker 1: and they are behind that wall, and they are to
Speaker 1: this day still trying to get through that wall, and
Speaker 1: one day they will make a hole into the wall
Speaker 1: and they will invade the whole world.
Speaker 3: And basically, well, now I'm getting this is in my mind,
Speaker 3: what is this sounds like the plot of.
Speaker 2: What was the Avengers? Were the like making up.
Speaker 3: They're making a hole in the sky and the member
Speaker 3: they come through the portal? Is that what we're talking about?
Speaker 1: Something like that. I've I've never watched you in movies, actually,
Speaker 1: very honest.
Speaker 3: What does this mean? This hole in the wall and
Speaker 3: they're trying to get through to this day.
Speaker 1: Which which I think there's a I don't want to
Speaker 1: explain it myself. I would like to let Muhammad explain
Speaker 1: it to you.
Speaker 2: Uh, I was just in a hottie about that.
Speaker 1: Well, it's it's also here in the Qur'an. It's it is,
Speaker 1: but it is more any more detail described in the
Speaker 1: so here it is mentions They said, although we're kind
Speaker 1: of indeed, Gog and Magogue are corruptors in the land,
Speaker 1: So may we assigned for you an expenditure that you
Speaker 1: may make a barrier between them and us? And he
Speaker 1: does that. He builds a huge wall, and it says
Speaker 1: so they were unable to pass over it, know, were
Speaker 1: they able to penetrate it? And then it further says,
Speaker 1: but one day much will be blown and will assemble
Speaker 1: them in an assembly. Yeah, one day they will get over.
Speaker 2: I guess, like, is this a literal wall?
Speaker 3: Or is there like some spiritual reality where they can't.
Speaker 1: I'm going to now invoke Muhammed. Here ah, here is Mohammed.
Speaker 1: According to the Hadis, it says the prophet got up
Speaker 1: from his sleep with a flushed red face and said,
Speaker 1: none has the right to be worship about Allah. Woe
Speaker 1: to the Arabs from the great evil that is nearly
Speaker 1: approaching them. Today a gap has been made in the
Speaker 1: wall of gog and magogue like this, and he makes
Speaker 1: a number. It was asked, shall we be destroyed though
Speaker 1: they are righteous people among us? The prophet said, yes,
Speaker 1: if evil is increased. So it is actually a wall,
Speaker 1: and they're trying to dig through that wall. But it
Speaker 1: gets even better, it gets even better.
Speaker 2: This is bizarre, it is.
Speaker 1: It is very bizarre, very very bizarre.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it says the afflictions of the end of the world.
Speaker 3: So does that mean that this wall in the hole
Speaker 3: has that they're trying to dig has been going on
Speaker 3: from that?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Yeah, it gets very very ridiculous. So this is
Speaker 1: a description about the end times, and it says he
Speaker 1: mentioned the job. They said, I will descendhim, kill and
Speaker 1: then people will return to their own nets and will
Speaker 1: be confronted with Gog and Magogue, people who will swoop
Speaker 1: down from every mound. They will not pass by any water,
Speaker 1: but they will drink it by anything, but they will
Speaker 1: spoil it. They will the people will besieged Allah, and
Speaker 1: I will pray to Allah to kill them. The earth
Speaker 1: will be filled with their stench and the people will
Speaker 1: besieged Allah, and I will pray to a lot and
Speaker 1: the sky will send down rain. Uh. Then the mountains
Speaker 1: will turn to dust and the earth and this and that. Uh. Okay,
Speaker 1: there's one description, but there's there's even more. It gets
Speaker 1: very bizarre. It gets very very bizarre. So it describes,
Speaker 1: I go back to the the things here ah Gog
Speaker 1: and Magog. Gog and Magog.
Speaker 2: Are they are these strong head eats.
Speaker 1: Ah yeah yeah. Bugari is always strong, very reliable. Some
Speaker 1: of them are from different sources, but they are also
Speaker 1: marked as sh authentic. M Gog and Magogue dig every
Speaker 1: day until when they can almost see the rays of
Speaker 1: the sun. The one in charge of them says, go
Speaker 1: back and we will dig it tomorrow. Then Allah puts
Speaker 1: it back stronger than it was before. This will continue
Speaker 1: until when their time has come. Allah wants to send
Speaker 1: them against the people. They will dig until they can
Speaker 1: almost see the rays of the sun. Then they were
Speaker 1: the one who is in charge of them will say,
Speaker 1: go back, and it will dig it tomorrow if Allah wills.
Speaker 1: So they will say, if Allah wills, then they will
Speaker 1: come back to it and it will be as they
Speaker 1: left it. So they will dig and it will come
Speaker 1: out to the people, and they will drink all the water.
Speaker 1: People will fortify themselves. They will shoot their arrows towards
Speaker 1: the sky, and they will come back with blood on them,
Speaker 1: and they will say, we have defeated the people of
Speaker 1: the earth and dominated the people of heaven. Then Allah
Speaker 1: will send a worm in the names of their necks
Speaker 1: and will kill them thereby, and so on and then
Speaker 1: and then there will be a beast of the earth
Speaker 1: that will be let's loose. This is all stun so.
Speaker 3: This is another layer of what I would say from
Speaker 3: the Christian biblical perspective of kind of cobbling together things
Speaker 3: in Ezekiel that are kind of mysterious, and but I mean,
Speaker 3: there's nothing, you know what there is. There's a text
Speaker 3: in Ezekiel where Ezekiel is he is talking about the
Speaker 3: Jews who were engaged in pagan worship and that they
Speaker 3: had dug out under the wall of the temple a
Speaker 3: secret place where they were worshiping like pagan gods. H.
Speaker 3: So that's famously the same book where we get Gog
Speaker 3: and Megod from the latter chapters of Ezekiel. I'm just speculating.
Speaker 3: I'm thinking that they might have heard stories from Ezekiel
Speaker 3: about digging through the wall, and then Muhammed is creatively
Speaker 3: kind of cobbling this together and saying, this is an
Speaker 3: end Times narrative of a wall that the Jews and
Speaker 3: other people try to dig through.
Speaker 1: You see what I'm saying, interesting perspective, just speculating. In
Speaker 1: the ends, we cannot know what exactly happened there, But
Speaker 1: as point of Chule, there is a lot of There
Speaker 1: are lots of references in the Quran where it continues
Speaker 1: saying and they say that these are just stories of
Speaker 1: the old They say, he hears what he believes whatever
Speaker 1: he says. So these are Koran verses about Muhammad, and
Speaker 1: these Choran verses basically tell us that the people around
Speaker 1: him kept accusing him of taking stories from others, from
Speaker 1: people around him, from believing whatever people say, from making
Speaker 1: things up, of being crazy and so on. So it's
Speaker 1: we can speculate, but it looks like he just got
Speaker 1: a lot of myths and some true stories, some falsehood
Speaker 1: some complete misunderstandings and mixed them all together and presented
Speaker 1: them as revelations.
Speaker 3: Well, we have a lot of I mean that that
Speaker 3: end time's kind of stuff there. I mean, I've spent
Speaker 3: many years researching and reading and looking at evangelical approaches
Speaker 3: to end time stuff, and I see a lot of
Speaker 3: parallels there with that, where they'll kind of cobble together
Speaker 3: a bunch of very ambiguous, you know, Old Testament passages,
Speaker 3: especially Ezekiel's latter chapters about Gog and Magog, and it
Speaker 3: gets kind of cobbled together in this jumbled narrative that
Speaker 3: always talking about Russia, and it's talking about the end
Speaker 3: of the world in China, And I mean, I don't
Speaker 3: know what the end of the world is going to
Speaker 3: be like, but I don't think that, you know, the
Speaker 3: evangelicals kind of have the they don't know what they're
Speaker 3: talking about, as I'm trying to say. And I sense
Speaker 3: the same kind of extremities and cobbling together with Muhammad
Speaker 3: in those passages that we see, for example, evangelicals doing
Speaker 3: with passages from ezekiel Eschatology.
Speaker 1: Is a very very interesting, very enticing thing, right two people.
Speaker 1: It's talking about the end times, talking about the tribulations,
Speaker 1: all the stuff that will happen as something that people
Speaker 1: are always fascinated by. It's also a very easy topic.
Speaker 1: I can imagine that in the seventh century in Arabia.
Speaker 2: It would play well with an audience.
Speaker 1: Yeah, where people do not study much, do not know much,
Speaker 1: don't know anything. It is very easy to get everyone's
Speaker 1: attention by talking about the end times and all the
Speaker 1: fantastic stuff that will happen then. And it's it's quite
Speaker 1: believable that Muhammad got his fair portion of that of
Speaker 1: all of that and then turned to that into a
Speaker 1: revelation which he then presents to his own audience. Because
Speaker 1: it works so well, and there we have it.
Speaker 3: It would be interesting to see a similar type of
Speaker 3: breakdown of the conceptions of anti christ doj all and
Speaker 3: all that kind of stuff that you that you were
Speaker 3: referencing the way that you were talking about, how you know,
Speaker 3: to Christianity, the resurrection has a really significant role. Antichrist
Speaker 3: is not as significant, but it does play a key
Speaker 3: role in some of the you know, apocalyptic texts of
Speaker 3: the Bible.
Speaker 2: I'm curious. I'd be interested to see in what way
Speaker 2: it's misunderstood or sort of cobbled together in Islam because
Speaker 2: I didn't I didn't know about those passages there with
Speaker 2: your fascinating UH.
Speaker 1: It's funny. The ja literally means deceiver or something along
Speaker 1: along those lines. So the actual, the actual long form
Speaker 1: name is which is the false Messiah or the deceiving Messiah. Uh.
Speaker 1: It's directly adopted from Christianity but then presented in a
Speaker 1: completely different way and then Islam. The narrative is basically
Speaker 1: that the job, the false Messiah will come uh at
Speaker 1: the end, and he will basically claim to be God.
Speaker 1: Very interesting stuff. He will claim to be God, and
Speaker 1: he will raise people from the dead. He will kill
Speaker 1: somebody and raise him from the from the dead, and
Speaker 1: he will be sound.
Speaker 3: These sound like I mean, that sounds like Paul and
Speaker 3: Second Thesalonians, and it sounds like chapters of the Revelation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and he will he will claim to be Allah,
Speaker 1: and people will follow him because he will be so
Speaker 1: so so amazing. But the true believers, they will immediately
Speaker 1: recognize him and they will not follow him. And then
Speaker 1: at the same time, Jesus will come down from the
Speaker 1: sky as a Muslim and.
Speaker 2: So this this is crib from the apocalypse, and he.
Speaker 1: Will he will basically fight, fight them, fight to the
Speaker 1: jar and and then pray together with the Muslims. And
Speaker 1: according to the Hadith, he will come and break the
Speaker 1: cross and kill the pig.
Speaker 3: And break the Christian cross.
Speaker 1: Yeah, break the Christians.
Speaker 2: Who's the pig?
Speaker 1: Uh, the pig is just killed, he says, kill the swine.
Speaker 1: That's what Muhammed said. Kill the pig again. He just
Speaker 1: he just kills the pigs and for no reason.
Speaker 3: And wait, literal pigs are like the people are called pigs.
Speaker 1: No, it's it's it's literal pigs. So he comes, and.
Speaker 2: Surely you're joking.
Speaker 1: He will come and he'll be like, don't eat this.
Speaker 1: I don't know why exactly.
Speaker 3: He's gonna becaus gone clean.
Speaker 1: I guess so. But so what Momma says is he
Speaker 1: will come and he will break the cross and kill
Speaker 1: the pig. I will prove to you that I'm not
Speaker 1: joking about it.
Speaker 2: I just I guess.
Speaker 3: I just keep wanting giving the benefit of the doubt
Speaker 3: and think, well, surely they mean like the swine symbolic
Speaker 3: of evil people. But you're saying, actually just kill Well,
Speaker 3: I guess at the end of the world, those pigs
Speaker 3: do have to get dealt with.
Speaker 1: I mean, like, yeah, somebody has to do something about this.
Speaker 2: Well, okay, there you go.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so a lot of messages at the r will
Speaker 1: not be established until the Son of Mary the sense
Speaker 1: amongst you, as a just ruler. He will break the cross,
Speaker 1: kill the pigs, and abolished.
Speaker 3: Do they have like explanations of oh, this symbol lies
Speaker 3: the unbelievers or something.
Speaker 1: Or I haven't looked in length into this, but I
Speaker 1: know that it's that It's like the explanation is just
Speaker 1: that it's it's it's actually pigs, and the cross is
Speaker 1: actual cross, and he will he will literally break it
Speaker 1: to confirm that the cross belief is false. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so these are the priorities of Jesus when he comes back.
Speaker 3: Well, I guess if look, if Jesus does descend and
Speaker 3: break the cross and destroy the kill all the pigs,
Speaker 3: I guess I'll have to be a Muslim at that
Speaker 3: that happens.
Speaker 1: Right, especially if you see him kill the pig. I
Speaker 1: can't believe that was actually correct. So wow, that's messed up.
Speaker 3: That's crazy, all right, I mean, uh, really instructive, instructive
Speaker 3: and insightful talk. I always enjoyed talking to you. It's
Speaker 3: really funny too, by the way, same thank you for
Speaker 3: all that that insight there. You always learn from you.
Speaker 2: I appreciate that.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. I I really I of the
Speaker 1: debate that you had. It was like your opening was
Speaker 1: an education for Daniel, and then he came and just
Speaker 1: messed it all up with this very primitive approach to
Speaker 1: the scripture. So mad respect for that as well. And
Speaker 1: I'll always be happy to have you here.
Speaker 3: Jay, absolutely, yeah, thank you. I'm glad to be glad
Speaker 3: to be back on and anytime you want to chat again,
Speaker 3: I'm down absolutely.
Speaker 1: Thanks everyone for joining. Have a fantastic day. I'll see
Speaker 1: you soon and stay away from Islam, all right.
Speaker 2: Thanks man,