Speaker 1: Recently, jade Iron Sam Schmun debated some Muslims on the
Fresh and Fit podcast. They did an excellent job. The Muslims,
on the other hand, were entirely inconsistent in their reasoning.
They use a lot of facious arguments, and they even
went for personal attacks. And I want to show some
clips from that debate, but first I want to talk
about why I'm not a Muslim, and this debate was
a great example of that because in the debate we'll
hear the Muslims claim that the Bible is corrupt. It
actually doesn't say that anywhere in the Koran that the
Bible is corrupt. It says that people will twist the scriptures.
It does not say that the Bible is corrupt anywhere
in the Koran. Muslims are so inconsistent about the Bible
being corrupt. They'll say the Bible prophesizes Muhammed. But wait,
I thought you just said it was corrupt. They just
arbitrarily pick what parts of the Bible they're going to
interpret in their chronic Islamic lens and reinterpret the Bible.
The Bible does not prophesize Muhammed. They'll say that the
Bible doesn't teach a trinity that actually the Bible teaches tahed.
They will claim that the Bible is cruped, then cite
the Bible. So which one is it the Bible corrupt
or not?
Speaker 2: I mean, I've got the Gospel of John pulled up
right now we can start going into the text. Let's
start with John one about the trinity, eternal generation of
the Son. In the beginning was the Word. The Word
was with God. The Word was God. He was in
the beginning with God. All things were through him. Nothing
was made that was not made by him. Jesus is
the creator of the world. There's nothing that exists that
he didn't create. Therefore, the Son of God is not
a creature.
Speaker 1: John one.
Speaker 2: He was in the bosom of the Father even when
he was on earth, walking around eternal generation, omnipresence. After this,
John said, I saw the Holy Spirit descending like a
dove and remaining upon him. It is he who baptizes
with the Holy Spirit. This is the Son of God,
the Father. Right there in John one, verses thirty two
to thirty four, the entire Trinity is revealed to you.
Speaker 1: And also in the Quran it says that you can
judge the Koran on the prior revelation. You know, Muslims
think that the Torah and they say the Angel or
Gospel that Jesus was given book. But if we actually
go to the prior revelation, the Torah and Bible, it
makes Islam an impossibility and shows that Islam has no
continuity with the prior revelation. And why would the Koran
say to go to the prior revelation of the prior
revelation is corrupt. It doesn't make any sense the Qoran
either way, it is refuting itself because the prior revelation
contradicts the Koran. And if the Koran says that to
go to the prior revelation, but the prior revelation is corrupt,
it makes no sense. For example, in the worship that
we read about in the Old Testament, and we see
how Christians worship, it was liturgical, with a sacrifice with
the Lamb, with the Eucharist.
Speaker 3: All.
Speaker 1: You know, these principles exist in Second Temple, Judaism and
Orthodox Christianity. It does not exist in Islam. It has
no continuity. The worship, the entire theology of how God
manifests himself, all these theophanies that I want to further
later in the video. And so when you bring up
to a Muslim that the Koran in Islam has no
continuity with the Old Testament, it's completely arbitrary about the
prior revelation being corrupt. They say, oh, the Koran is
the perfect revelation from Allah. But it's a circular argument.
You're just referring to the Koran, You're not actually using
the prior revelation. It is very important to understand that
in the prior revelation it is leading up to the Messiah,
and the Islam believes in the Messiah, but they don't
really understand what the Messiah is. That Second Temple Judaism
in Christianity understands that the Messiah is going to be
God incarnate and he's going to bring salvation to all people,
a salvation to the gentiles as its promise in Genesis.
The Messiah is Jesus Christ, and it's prophesied before in
Zachariah thirteen that there's not going to be any more
prophets after the Messiah comes. This automatically counsels out anything
like Mormonism or Islam that claims that it's new public
divine revelation in Zachariah. In Jude it talks about how
the faith was once for all delivered to the saints. Jesus,
who Muslim's claim was actually a Muslim says that John
the Baptist was a last prophet. There are no prophets.
And also in one Galatians eight it says that even
if an angel comes from in heaven, if he preaches
a different gospel, let him be a curse. And what
do you know, That's exactly how the Koran was revealed
to Muhammad from a quote unquote angel. So why would
we trust this later revelation that contradicts the worship of
the theology of the prior revelation. We have specific warnings
against it. There's no reason to trust the Quran that
comes six hundred years after the events of the Bible.
Why would we trust that to say what actually happened.
Speaker 4: You're just a cheap knockoff. Oh no, I'm the upbring.
Speaker 1: With Jesus. The Qoran says that Jesus wasn't actually crucified,
he was switched out at the last second. So why
would you trust their version of God? Allah, who is
deceiving at everyone because that is essential. That is a
q piece of Christianity is Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection,
and Islam takes that out and says he's just a prophet.
Another huge fact that disproves Islam is that Jesus was
not a Muslim. They'll quote verses like Jesus doing prostrations. Well,
in Judaism and in Christianity, we still do prostrations, and
he's prostrating towards God the Father. Allah is no father.
So this whole entire theology of the trinity of the Father.
Allah is not a father. It doesn't make any sense.
So how can you cite that verse? And I thought
the Bible was corrupt? So it's just entirely inconsistent about
how Muslims will cite the Bible. And all throughout the Bible,
there's lots of verses that show that Jesus is all knowing.
Even in the Qoran, it gives attributes to Jesus that
only God, that only Allah can have. Because the Quran
just took so much from Christianity and Judaism's that's what
it ultimately did.
Speaker 2: So the doctrine in trinity is a doctrine that is
not derived from philosophy, It's not derived from Saint Paul. Early,
is not derived from the Council of Nicia. The Doctor
the Trinity is taught in the Law and the Prophets.
In fact, if you go back to my Daniel Hikikachu
debate in the first ten minutes, I hold up a
whiteboard that shows all the passages from the Torah and
in the Prophets that we derive the doctrine the Trinity from,
mainly from Jewish extragesus of the Old Testament. This might
sound surprising because people think that the doctor in Trinity
is something that's unique to Christianity, or that Jews don't
believe in this nowadays, so therefore Jews could not have
taught it back then. In fact, many Jewish scholars today
eve In Summer, Alan Siegel, Schaeffer, etc. Boyar, and all
of those scholars admit that the Early Church's view is
not that distinct from the Judaism of the time of
Christ in recognizing more than one person in the Trinity.
I'm not saying that Jews necessarily except trinitarianism. I'm saying
that these scholars prove that in the time of Christ,
there was not a generic unitarianism that characterize what it
is to be quote monotheist. They didn't see a contradiction
or a problem between the idea of quote monotheism and
the recognition of the Father as the archae cause and fount,
the Angel of the Lord as his messenger, which we
see through all throughout the Old Testament, who is called God,
who is called Divine, who is called the Messenger of
the Covenant, who is called Yahweh in Exodus three, Exodus
twenty three, throughout the Psalms and the Mini Theophanes passages,
and many times in the Prophets, Jesus predicted, especially in
latter Isaiah to be a divine Nosiah that would be worshiped.
Speaker 5: So a lot of these.
Speaker 2: References to the Trinity are primarily grounded rooted in the
Torah and the Prophets. Islam, however, when it argues against
the Trinity, does so on the basis of it not
being aware of or not being informed, typically on what
the actual texts teach. In terms of the Jewish texts
that we as Christians also refer to. Also when it
comes to the text of the Gospel and the texts
of the New Testament. They're not aware of the fact
that Jesus throughout the Gospel John in every chapter, refers
to himself as divine and or a member of the triad.
John one talks about Jesus being the Logos. John one
talks about him being eternally begotten monogyne staeos, So the
eternal beginning. All of that is already at the beginning
of the Gospel of John, and again every chapter, whether
it's John five through nine, where Jesus identifies himself as
the one at Mount Sinai talking to Moses, the one
that gave the law. Jesus fors to himself as the
son of God many times over, which means that his
God is not Allah, because Allah has no sons. So
Jesus many many times over throughout the Gospel says he
is the son of God and that he makes us
by grace sons of God. This proves that there is
not the same God of Muhammad and the same God
of Jesus. Jesus is not referring to Allah as his father.
Allah has no sons. So when we come to the
time of the early Church fathers, they unanimously teach the
deedy of Christ, the triad as well the deed of
the Holy Spirit. This becomes codified by the time of Nicea.
It's not invented at the time of Nicea. You can
read the church fathers from Irenaeus to Ignatius to Clement.
You can read Cyril, Si Chimi, Cyprian, you can read
a name all these church fathers. Alexander writing prior.
Speaker 4: To the time.
Speaker 2: And I see the teach the due to Christ and
what would become the doction or known as the Doctor
with trinity. So the Trinity is not something foreign to
the scriptures. It's rooted in the Torret's rooted in the Prophet's,
root in the New Testament, root in the teaching of
Christ himself. And I would add that when we compare
it to what's in the Koran, the Koran makes many stakes.
First of all, about what the Christians teach. They say
that we take our monks as lords.
Speaker 5: We do not.
Speaker 2: They take They think that the Koran thinks that we
take Mary as part of the Trinity.
Speaker 5: We do not.
Speaker 2: The Koran also is itself confused in two areas that
I always like to highlight, which is that it claims
that prior revelation confirms it and backs it up and
many times over. Like in A five, it says that
you can look to the previous revelation to confirm the
new revelation, but the old revelation contradicts it. And when
Muslims see the contradictions, they do the same move of
ajaws and the debate to say, well, we reject all
the times that it contradicts, but we accept all the
time that it is with our revelation. Well, that is
a circle that's arguing for the thing that's in question.
We want to know, how do the prior revelation confirmed
the new revelation, which the Quran says it can do
if the prior revelations are corrupt, And how a foolish
it would be to look to a corrupt book to
supposedly prove an incorrupt book. So it makes no sense
on the face of it. I would also then argue
that the doctrine of Tanzi that's derived from the passages
that talk about all of being nothing like creation forty
two and I think around one ten somewhere in there
it says that Allah is absolutely nothing like creation, and
yet Muslims many times over will utilize terminology, language and
so forth to liken Allah to a created thing, to
say that Allah is merciful, that he is just, he
has all these things. Allah has a hand, has a shen,
and so forth. Things that come up in the accepted hadiths. Well,
all of those things are contradictory to the notion of
Talhed that God is a pure unity or pure oneness.
This is why Muslims for centuries have debated amongst themselves
whether the attributes are really distinct. And you have people
like Jake Slafis and others who say, no, oh, yes,
Allah has a foot, has a shin, We don't know
the modality, but he really has these things. They're really attributes.
And yet were said to be only a religion of
perfect unity and perfect oneness. Yet he's many. Well, the
same problem that you have with the attributes and the
dependence relationship of the attributes on Allah's essence and amongst
themselves is no different than the question that we have
about the persons of the Trinity. It's just simply that
you say that we have a problem that you don't
have to answer when you have the exact same problem
in relationship to the attributes in Allah's essence and their
dependence relationship. And if you don't think there's a dependence relationship,
then I will just simply say, do you believe that
they are then assay or self existent? If they're self existent, then.
Speaker 5: You have what ninety nine gods?
Speaker 2: So you have the same problem, but a double standard
as to how you answer that. I'm not saying note
that you believe that the attributes of persons. I know
you don't believe that. But the same problem of the
one and the many and the dependence status between the
attributes and the essence is a problem that you cannot
answer because within Islam there are countless multiple contradictions.
Speaker 1: Many Christians are lured into Islam without actually understanding it.
For example, they may say the Trinity is too hard
to understand. You know, one God in three persons. I
can't believe in the trinity. It's too hard. But when
you actually look at Islamic theology, their version of God
that Allah has two hands, he has a shin, and
they believe these are real unless you're subverting the Kuran.
Speaker 4: Says that a Lah has one eye two.
Speaker 2: The shin of a nizedlation described in the Purun, that
he has a face allot describing in the pun that
he has.
Speaker 4: Two hands, and both of Allah's hands are right hands.
Speaker 5: We believe that both of the hands of Allah unlock.
Speaker 6: Huh say is very clearly that both his hands are right.
Speaker 4: The self here refers to a law's shine.
Speaker 1: It isn't simpler, and they haven't actually read the Quran.
It's just people having a romanticized version of Islam. That's
just so, it's just so simple, and it's just so unified. No,
it isn't. There's lots of diversity of thought within Islam,
and a lot of what we see online is a
very new modern kind of restorationist sect of Slaviism. Many
people also don't know about Islam, that music is haram,
that dogs are haram, that an angel won't enter your
house if you have a dog. But the number one
reason why people leave Islam is seeing the gross immorality
of the prophet Muhammad. In Christianity, we see progressive revelation
with Jesus the god Man, the perfect person. He's fully
god fully maned, he lives a morally perfect life, he
was sinless, versus in Islam, it's a downgrade after with Muhammad,
is he has sexual relations with a six year old Ayesha,
And this is the number one reason that people leave
is learning about this. They're great at Prophet does this.
Also when they learn that the Koran has many historical
and scientific errors, that it was not perfectly preserved, they
think that Muhammad had it revealed, but he was illiterate,
and that's part of the miracle. They can't answer the
is a Kuran created or uncreated? If you have something
uncreated that's not a Llah, how do they account for
that on their theology. The point is is that a
lot of people are intrigued by Islam, but they haven't
actually studied it in depth. There are so many problems
that we could get into. One last one I want
to mention is Islam's iconoclasm being against religious icons and veneration.
And we see this in the Sunnies versus Shia is
a Shiahs are are more okay with you some level
of veneration and tradition versus the Sunnis are very They're
like the Calvinists of Islam. They just want to get
rid of at all, especially a lot of the modern
Sunnis that we see. Even though veneration happens at the Kaba,
So why are they allowing idolatry? There's all these contradictions
to interact with his peace. He interacted in Theophanes in
a direct manifestations of God, where he is tangible and
often visible to humans. But how can we make sense
of this? Just based off the Old Testament, we can
see from the very beginning that God said, let us
make man in our image after our likeness. We can
read in Genesis that the Lord appeared to Abraham. How
does the Lord appear to Abraham? How does Jacob wrestle
with God? In Genesis, Jacob not only wrestles with God,
but he also says, I have seen God face to face.
When Moses goes to the burning bush, God calls out
of it. God himself is in the burning bush. How
do we make sense of this? How do we make
sense of Moses talking face to face with God in Exodus?
All throughout the Old Testament there are these theophanies. There
are these things that we read about in Isaiah. When
God is referring to himself in plural and manifesting himself
the spirit of God, the Word, his breath, his glory.
We read about all these scenarios where God interacts with
his people in a very unique way, and I will
cover these in depth later in the video. One of
the most interesting things in the Old Testament is the
Angel of the Lord. The Angel of the Lord is
not only an angel who appears continually throughout the Old Testament,
referring to himself as Lord, as God in the first
person and not in the second person. Three other angel
refers to himself as a third person. But who is
this Angel of the Lord. From the very beginning in Genesis,
the Angel of the Lord refers to himself as God
in the first person. All these examples in Exodus numbers
Judges Zachariah of the Angel of the Lord talking in
the first person, that this is God, that this is
a manifestation of God. This is no accident. This is
exactly why concepts like this were debated in ancient Judaism
and are still debated to this day in rabbinical Judaism
of who is the Angel of the Lord. Even before
Christ became incarnate, there was talk of the Angel of
the Lord, about God's Word, the logos, the Spirit, God's wisdom,
God's glory. They struggled to make sense of this, and
so when Christ becomes incarnate. The early Church fathers picked
up on this. They weren't inventing anything new. That's who
this is all along. It's Christ. No longer do we
have to wonder of how to make sense of these
Old testament Theophanes, of how Jacob wrestled with God, of
how Moses saw God face to face. It's just in
their mind that the full revelation was giving. That gets
us into this debate that Sam and Jay recently did.
I think there are some of the best Christian apologists
against Islam.
Speaker 7: I mean the Bible affirms of the prophet Muhammad is
a true prophet and first John Ter.
Speaker 3: I'm reading it.
Speaker 7: Yes, it's falls on his fig but it says something's
occasionally invites broken.
Speaker 3: The rights.
Speaker 7: You say we never made.
Speaker 3: Praise be the Father some way spirit to one true God,
and glory to the Son of God who became flesh
for our salvation. May the Lord Jesus be magnified and
the falsehood of Toheed exposed. Notice what Daniel did. Instead
of focusing on what it means for Alla to be one,
he spent the bulk of his time criticizing the Trinity.
But we will answers objections in a rebuttal period. But
I'm now going to turn against him because not so
fast when he says he believes in Tohed, what exactly
does it mean for Alla to be one? Because I'm
aware that Daniel does believe the fact that Kron is uncreated,
and therefore we now have two distinct eternal entities that
are not identical. Because I'm going to show Daniel, from
his authentic sources that the Churn and the chapters of
the Churn actually one to receive and debate with a law.
So now we have a paradox because if the Koran
is the speech of a law and that's all us speaking,
is all us speaking to himself? So is Daniel actually
a mobilist or is the apolotheist? Or does he have
a phone with Trinity? But his is even worse because
it's not three persons, because each chapter of the Kron
has the potentiality of speaking with a law. So that
means his God consists of at least one hundred and
fifteen divine persons, divine beings who can interact with one
another and appear separately. And this is all from his
authentic narrations Secondly, the second problem he has is that
according to the Koran, the Spirit of Allah is not Gabriel.
So I'm going to now press him. There's not a
single verse in the chron it says the spirit to
Ruj is Jibidir. He's now dependent on the very scholars
of Islam to come centuries later to bail out Alana's messenger,
because that's what he accused the Lord Jesus, that Jesus
wasn't clear enough to articulate to Trinity. But he did
make an admission which is not going to come and
bite him. He admitted Paul taught the Trinity. It's now recorded.
I want everyone to hear it. Paul taught to Trinity,
because when we come to the scriptures, I'm going to
show that even the Koran acknowledges that Paul was used
by Allah to spread the truth of the Gospel of
Jesus Christ. The Spirit, according to the Koran, is the
sinc from Alah. He appears as a man, he speaks
and creates. So now if we add the spirit to
the Koran and a Lah he's got about one hundred
and sixteen divine persons or beans, then we can go
a little further and adjust the issue of the fact
that according to our friend here, Allah has well, he
wouldn't use the term body parts. I don't want to,
mister present him. Allah has as a foot, he has
a shin, he even has loins, and he has at
least two eyes, if not more, in two right hands. Now,
for the life of me, if All is the creator
of the heavens and the earth, how does he exist
as an embodied being without him dwelling in space? Because
if he's a temporal, he's timeless. That means his God
supposedly exists when there was no time, space in place.
But if you have a foot, and you have a shin,
and you have two right hands, I don't know what
happened to the left one, but we'll get into that,
two right hands, at least two eyes. In fact, the
Arabic says three or more. We'll get into that. Then
that means his God is an body being who is
temporal and finite, which means that his God did not
create all space or place in time, because there's a
space that his body parts need to occupy in order
for him to be his God. So the problem is
actually worse for Daniel than for us. So he's going
to have to explain how is it that he's a
polytheist pagan masquerading as a monotheist.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I'd like to point out that in Daniel's opening statement
he also committed a fallacy, which is a form of
Oukham's razor foul. He kept appealing to the fact that
because it's simple, that it must be obvious, it must
be the case's just to go something scenes or appears
to be simpler or more obvious, or because it was
only for short and simple sentences, has nothing to.
Speaker 5: Do with whether it's true false.
Speaker 2: In fact, as we're going to see the Muslims amongst
themselves and their various schools all compete and disagree.
Speaker 5: And fight not only over the attributes, but also over jurisprudence.
Speaker 3: Daniel, I want to hear from your own mouth, the
yah of a law. Is it a metaphor for his power?
Speaker 8: It can be a metaphor for his power. It can
be interpreted in many different ways. It does not contradict,
It does not contradict, or hete that does not contradict monotheism.
You can have any position and interpret it as a metaphor,
or you can have a position, and differently to your position.
Speaker 4: What what do you have studied?
Speaker 5: You've studied it. You won't see your position, are you what?
Speaker 4: I have? You studied all of them? It's irrelev.
Speaker 1: Your position.
Speaker 6: Study the topic, stick to the topic on explain to me, So, moderator, moderator,
he doesn't let me answer the question, doesn't let me
answer the question.
Speaker 3: No, because you're not. You're you're doing a dodgeball your Koran.
All right, I'm gonna have created right Daniel, Yes, okay,
So the headis that I say when it says will
appear as flocks of birds interceeding for those that recited them.
Do you take that metaphorically or do you take it actually?
Speaker 8: This is a personification of the Quran, just like the
Bible verses that I mentioned about rivers plopping their hands
their stones speaking.
Speaker 4: In the psalms. I'll read them again.
Speaker 8: And yeah, you're making the claim that if the Qoran
is personified, that means it has a separate mind.
Speaker 4: And I find the point. And I see now you're interrupting.
Can I answer? Can I answer the question?
Speaker 3: Good? Good?
Speaker 8: So I pointed out that just because there's personification, that
doesn't imply that there's a separate mind, and I cited
versus the Bible. Your response. Your response was that no,
this is just personification in the Bible. So personification is
okay in the Bible. That doesn't imply that the Bible
stones have mines and that rivers have mines.
Speaker 4: That's fine. But if the bar does it, or if
he do it?
Speaker 5: Your position is that question?
Speaker 3: You ask your position? Are you going to rant and
rate because you want to eat up time? Stop attacking
straw man in the palm? You will not find where
it says, and the moon will come and intercede for
those that look to it and venerated it. The headiates
I cited is about the day of resurrection. It's about intercession.
So I want to know what do you mean by
personification when in those headiates it's talking about the surahs
interceding with a law. Will there be intercession? Is that true?
Will people need intercession before a lot? Is that true?
So what exactly do you mean by personification? Because your
appeal to the songs shows that you you don't understand
what a personification is.
Speaker 7: Sim of a question, why did those scribes omits for
the in the vulgate that Jesus doesn't to day or
the hour when it addresses him as this son, speaking
of the person, not speaking of natures.
Speaker 3: You said about scribes changing the text, so that is
referring to the veracity of the scriptures. But even if
we go with your very imbalanced approach to textual criticism,
they must have done a very poor job because they
left intact the Father loan. So even your argument buries
you because whatever the scribes did, if they inserted the
word son or omitted it, because there's a debate among
textual critics, that passage still has the father loan, So
they must have done a very poor job because they
didn't remove the word alone, and they left Mark thirteen
thirty two intact. Because I know what you're referring to,
Matthew twenty four to thirty seven, the grace of the
Lord Jesus Christ, Muhammed's God in judge, I'm now going
to show the Muslims the dilemma they're in because I'm
not debating a bark Erman who doesn't care about Muhammad.
I'm debating Muslims or supposedly take the position of Muhammad.
So I'm appealing to Muhammad because they believe in them.
I pray they repent and turn away from him because
he's under the feet of Jesus Christ. But coming to
that point, any time a Jazz attacks the Bible, he
shows that he's smarter than Muhammad, better than Muhammad, knows
more than Muhammad. Why because the consistent teaching of the
Koran and the sound narrations we're going to get into
this is that Muhammad confirmed the very scriptures that the
Jews and Christians had in their possession at his time.
And the Koran says that Jesus confirmed the very scriptures
between his hands at his time. Unless now he just
wants to come up with some new set of scriptures,
the only scriptures that would have been in existence time
of Jesus up to Mhammad are the very scriptures that
have variations, just like the Koran does. Let me just
go through a slow versus for the sake of time,
Chapter two, verses forty to forty four, Chapter two, verse
eighty nine, Chapter two vers ninety one, Chapter two verses
one oh one, Chapter two verse one thirteen, Chapter two
verse one twenty one, Chapter two verse one thirty six,
Chapter three, Verses three to four chapter three, verse fifty,
Chapter four, verse forty seven, and then we go to
chapter five and we ead verses forty three to forty eight,
sixty six, six sixty eight aaghos and then the sound narration.
So a Jazz make my day attack the Bible for
variations because you show that you know more than Muhammad.
That means you expose him as a false prophet. But
if you believe in Muhammad, you have to accept the Bible.
And he's still a false prophet because Muhammad was an Umi.
He did not know that his kron contradicts the Bible. Now,
the same arguments that they're gonn level against scripture, I
will use to bury their belief in scripture because Ajazz
is going to have to come clean and talk about
the aharuf. What are they exactly? What are the seven
aharuf over thirty five opinions given by scholars? And we
know it cannot be dialectal because I'm going to show
from a hadith in Bukhati that Olmar heard Hasham recite
chapter twenty five of the Koran so differently he dragged
him to Muhammad and Mahmad said, yes, I taught it
to him this way, and Olmar recited, I taught the
chapter to you this way. But they were both Croatians
spoke the same dialects, so it cannot be dialectal differences.
And then we're going to add to the problem the
missing versus and surahs found in the codeses of Abullah
ibn Masud uh by bin kapp two of the four
men that Muhammad said learned the Koran from, He didn't say,
say it ibbin Tabit. He said, learn the Koran from
Abdilabin Masud Ouh by Binkop. And yet they contradicted each
other and your Othmanic codex mosaf because they're missing versus
and missing service. So much for the perfectly preserved chron
But then add to insult injury, your oathman decided to
burn copies of the Koran that were in conflict to
the point that Muslims are about to come to blows.
You don't come to blows over minor differences. And he
had the Korans burned, and yet Abdilivan Masud refused, to
the point that your sources say that Othman instigated a
mob reaction against Abdlivered Masud, who got beat and his
bones broken because he thought his knowledge of the kron
was superior to your Saiyah ibn Tabit, who was an ansati.
Then we add insult injury. What do you do with
the different paiad? According to your Muslim sources, there were
twenty five paiad by the time. If the mujah had
came centuries later, three hundred years later after the death
of your prophet, he's the one who standardized seven. By
who's the forty? So my challenge you is show me
anywhere in your Qur'an or your authentic tradition where your
God sanctioned all these paidot and authorized Iban Mujahit to
standardize seventh yat and these peot are not identical. And
then I want you to explain to me what the
ahruf are. And then we're going to go into the
missing versus. And we're going to go into the missing that's.
Speaker 5: Time the.
Speaker 2: Text that Sam listed presupposed that you could go and
confirm the new.
Speaker 5: Revelation with the old.
Speaker 2: So if I were to set up a hypothetical scenario
of a sixth seventh century you are Christian hearing this message,
hearing it for the first time.
Speaker 5: It's being revealed seventh century, I should say, and.
Speaker 2: We're told that we can go check it against the
prior revelation if the prior revelation is corrupt. How foolish
then that we're checking it against something corrupted. And in fact,
the texts actually don't say that the prior revelation is corrupted.
Speaker 5: That's a made up thing that he's talking on.
Speaker 8: Later on, can you, either of you, explain to me
how many Western scholars of the Bible believe that the
Old Testament can be traced back to Moses versus how
many believe that the Qur'an can be traced to the
life of the prophet Muhammad.
Speaker 3: I have one better for you than Western scholars. I
have your prophet. So if Western scholars are right, then
join me in saying Muhammad is an antichrist, a false prophet.
I appeal to your prophet. You appeal to Western scholars.
And it depends on which Western scholars you want appeal to,
because not all Western scholars believe the same thing and
hold the same presuppositions. But I can also appeal to
Western scholars. I don't think that your Qur'an as you
have it, it's even from Othman. It's actually from Abdulmatic
from the eighth centuries. But I did you better. I
went to Muhammad. Why do you have a problem Muhammad?
Why are you ashamed of Muhammad? He's your prophet, right,
Your prophet tells me that the scriptures that Jesus had,
that Torah is the uncorrupt revelation of God, perfectly preserved,
and Jesus confirmed it. And since you believe the Torah
was given him, your prophet did it for me. So
if you give me ninety nine percent of us in scholarship,
then either your prophet is wrong and admit he is,
and I agree is but for other reasons right, or
the scholars are own. You can't have your cake and
eat it too. Why do you keep doing gihad against
your progress?
Speaker 8: You'll find other prophets in the Bible talking about ritual purity.
We acknowledge that these religions were originally from God. So
you do find ritual purity in the Bible or in Christianity,
But that doesn't mean that Islam copied these traditions. The
source is the same, it's coming from the same God.
Speaker 5: If it's from the same God, then it's continuity.
Speaker 4: No, there's no no that continuity.
Speaker 5: How is that good from the same God you just
said that, Yeah, it's the same source.
Speaker 4: Where did I say continuity?
Speaker 2: Well, if the religif the rituals came to our religion
from the same God to yours content.
Speaker 8: You talked about punishment for blasphemy, punishment for adultery, execution
in do you condemn that or do you think that
that's that the morality? You might think that it's not
applicable today, fine, but Jesus is still commanding that for
that time, for a previous time. So do you think
that is morally justified?
Speaker 3: All right?
Speaker 4: That's Sam, Sam, Now let.
Speaker 3: Me answer yeah. Now, if you read these laws in
the context from which you're quoting, Unlike your prophet who
didn't give any sign that his God was backing him up,
why don't you read these statements in context, in the
context you're a law who you admitted Jesus according to Crown,
that was Allah, which you just admitted Jesus. So Jesus,
as Mohammed z Allah is God. In the context of
those passages, God appears to the nation visibly in a
pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire
by night, not only in front of the Israelites, but
he also appears to the Egyptians, leaving them with no
excuse to defy his commands. In other words, unlike your Ellah,
the God of the Bible prove his existence. The God
of the Bible set up a theocracy honor. The God
of the Bible gave them ample proof not to doubt
his existence, so that when they see him in the
pillar of cloud, pilor fire by night, hear his voice
audibly and see the signs, so that even the Egyptians
saw the pillar of cloud Exodus fourteen nineteen to thirty one,
as well as Joshua two eight to eleven. He gave
the nations no excuse for defying him. So when God
shows up, then he has every right to tell you
how to live, and if you defy him, he has
every right to take away your life, because he's the
God over death and life. This is unlike your prophet,
who could not provide any proof that God was speaking
through him, who couldnot provide that his God even exists.
All he did was he borrowed the collateral of the
Jews and Christians, claimed to be a prophet like the
prophets found in the Jewish Christian tradition. But when he's
challenged to prove that God sent him, failed miserably. So
you're comparing apples and pineapples. So if God shows up
and I see and I know that he exists, he
has every right to tell me what to do, and
every right to inflict any punishment he deems fit, unlike
your e law, who doesn't exist.
Speaker 2: You notice that when I brought up the line of
argumentation that Daniel had in our debate, he didn't want
to go there.
Speaker 5: He immediately said that I was that he was living.
Speaker 2: Rent free in my head, in other words, deflecting away
from the fact that I've called him out.
Speaker 5: On an inconsistency.
Speaker 2: Because in that debate he was arguing for Islam having
more continuity with the laws of the Old Testament. That
doesn't suit his purpose here, and so he doesn't want
to go to that and he has to deflect a
wate live in your head rent free. No, that's because
I just caught you in a double standard. You're using
two different.
Speaker 5: Standards as you.
Speaker 8: He's ignorant of Mosaic law because the Jews who lived
after the time of Cyanai, they were still bound by
the Old Testament law.
Speaker 4: They were still bound by the Mosaic law. They were
still killing the.
Speaker 8: Blasphemers, executing anyone who tempted you to worship idols.
Speaker 4: You have to execute them. That's what Jesus says.
Speaker 8: Those Jews didn't see pillars of clouds, they didn't see
any miracles.
Speaker 4: They're living after the time of Sianai. So your biblical
or your exit Jesus is completely off base.
Speaker 3: Daniel, to listen better. I know you're gonna embarrass yourself.
You just destroyed your prophet again because if you read
the Old Testament, God didn't stop at Sennai. And you're
concusing me and not reading the Bible. I think you
want to be an Umi like your prophet. Continue reading
the rest of the Old Testament. God kept sending prophets
with miracles and signs to keep ratifying and confirming his
existence and that this is his law and he has
a right to put to death whenever he wants. Because
in one King's eighteen Elijah had a shout down with
your spiritual ancestors because your God all love the chron
is bail and there God showed up miraculously that your
God is fake and Yahweh is true. So no, I
am consistent with the Old Testament narrative. All throughout God
shows up miraculously through prophets to confirm I am God.
This is my convenant. I have a right to do
with you as I see fit. Nothing for your prophet,
the prophet of bail, because your God is a fake God,
and the God revealed in Jesus is the true God.
Speaker 4: End of story.
Speaker 3: Bye bye Oh.
Speaker 7: The Bible of films of the prophet Muhammad is a
true prophet. And first.
Speaker 3: I'm reading it.
Speaker 7: Yes it's false and it's fig but it says something's occasionallyvite,
brooken cluck, come the right, look looking the clock. Can
you write twice a y?
Speaker 5: That's good here?
Speaker 8: Yeah, yeah, But we wanted to be courteous and not
bring this stuff up. But when Sam gets down and
dirty and starts insulting the prophet Mohammed upon then we
have to respond in kind. We have to insult Sam
and point out his vile history and the kinds of
filth that he puts on his channel.
Speaker 4: So we're just playing fair.
Speaker 8: You wanted to go down and dirty and these filthy language,
then we're going to bring up the fact that a
plumber basically stole your wife and you and you had
certain charges against you.
Speaker 4: That's all.
Speaker 3: That's all condemn Now, as far as those accusations, let's
assume those accusations are true. All you're proving is that
I'm a sinner and faithful to the teachings of Christ.
But I was acting like Muhammad because Mohammad did a
lot of plumbing a lot of women other than his
own wives. Because when he's sanctioned married women and selling
them off as chattel, that's condemned by the God of
Moses in Deuroonomy twenty one ten to fourteen. So Lord,
forgive me for acting like Muhammad, because I know acting
like Muhammad leads me to help, so I may have mercy.
And as far as violence, well, it's your chron that
says that you guys can beat your wives. So if
you want to accuse me of that, more power to
be so.
Speaker 7: Scholars do not say it chooses back to the very
words of Jesus. To say it goes back to the
ideas about what Jesus could have said. It's called the
ebism of vox. So what Jesus could have said, there
is no way to determine that Jesus actually said anything
that is claimed in the New Testaments.
Speaker 3: When he talks about it, of Ox sees some of
verbal that. Now he just destroyed the Koran even worse
because when we come to the case of the Gospels,
no Christian denies that human authors were used to communicate
the words of Jesus in translation in Greek. And God
can do that, so they're not going to quote exactly
the same way in the target language. But what he
doesn't tell you, and I did series on this, all
lah who supposedly speaking the Koran, will repeat the same
story with the same speech where they're Moses and the
Egyptians or Chapan it believes, and a lah or a
lot and he cannot get the details in the exact
same way. He'll quote the same speeches and often various conflicting,
contradictory reporting. So the kron itself is one huge apsisima vox,
which is surprising because I thought Allah speaking and Allah
knows everything and recalls speeches perfectly, So much for a
law and him being all knowing. And then if we
extend that to the Hadith, your own scholars admit that
when it comes to even your authentic traditions. You have
absisima vox of your prophet, not a sis verba. Moreover,
if the Bible is not preserved, you prove Muhammed is
an antichrist because he confirm all the scriptures. He didn't
make any fuss about the variant readings because if he did,
he would end up bearing your Koran, because he admit
that the Koran did not come down in one mode. Aharuf,
with your scholars till this day don't even know what
that means. That's why you have over thirty five opinions
about what the aharu are, which means, if you're consistent,
you just destroyed the Koran. You destroyed your prophet, you
destroyed your God stopp being a.
Speaker 4: Mist there's a debate.
Speaker 8: There's not no clarity in the Christian tradition because it's
a contradiction, that's why. But we don't have the same
problem in Islam. The Quran doesn't have a mind. So
how does it contradict monotheism?
Speaker 4: No one, No one could explain that. No one could explain.
Speaker 2: Because there's a debate, it's not clear. Would that mean
that because there's a debate in as long amongst all
the schools. None of it's clear about the attributes.
Speaker 8: No one debates about Islam having multiple gods having attributes
that I have multiple attributes. That doesn't mean I'm multiple
people like is How is that? How does that contradict debate?
Speaker 4: Explain?
Speaker 5: You know, deblame you debates.
Speaker 8: I'm not saying that there are debates that there are
no debates in Islam. There are debates in theology, so
that was a bad argument. But there's debate in Christianity
about the nature of God. There isn't that same debate
about there's being three and one? What is the difference
between the auther and do they have the same knowledge?
Do they have the same will? Do they have the
same knowledge? Do they have the same will? We don't
have the same debate. We don't have that same debate
in Islama.
Speaker 5: If there's debate that's not clear, that's a fallacy. You're
a fallacy machine.
Speaker 4: That's fine.
Speaker 8: First of all, the Quran says that the Torah and
the Engel, the scripture of the past has been distorted.
They change it with their hands. Point number two is
that he doesn't understand the difference between I'm versus hass
In Arabic means general general statement versus hass a specific statement.
So if I point to a book and I say
this is a reliable book or this book confirms what
I'm saying, I don't necessarily mean that they're every single
line of that book I agree with, or every single
line of that book is true. I'm making that making
an I'm statement a general statement that the book is true.
Sam can only have an uncharitable reading or an uncharitable
interpretation of the prophet's words in that hadith if we
assume that that hadith is authentic. So there is a
difference of opinion on the authenticity of that hadith, and
he knows it.
Speaker 3: Chapter two versus seventy eight seventy nine shows again what
you've been doing in the Bible. You're doing to your
own Koran, and you fall under the condemnation of three
seventy eight. You not only have the audacity twist the scriptures,
you have the audacity twist the Kuran. Anyone I'm challenging here,
Let's do a debate on two seventy five cent and
in your proof text, Mono Imano, let's debate it. Go
read the context. I've done an extensive study and the
Muslim commentators. It's talking about a particular group identified as
Jews who wrote the book with their own hands. It
doesn't say all Jews everywhere, let alone mention the Christians.
You just butchered the Koran like you've been butchering the Bible.
But I come back to butcher you. That's number one.
Number two. You said that the hadith where Mohammad confirmed
the Torah, that there are differences of opinion. Well, you
probably didn't hear my recent responses to your friend Jake
Ibin Tayim l Jozia, which I have quoted. And if
you want to read Arabic because you think about reading Arabic,
I'll let you read Arabic and parson it Iibin km
l Josiah said, a group of scholars believe the Torah
is uncorrupt. One of the evidences they gave is the
hadith of Abu Dao would they quoted it, They didn't
question its authenticity, and even El Albani said it's Hassan.
But put Albani aside. Ibin km l Josiah for those
of you who don't know, he's the disciple of Sekhol
Islam Iban Tamia, his granddaddy when it comes to selfie anthropomorphism,
and he says, these scholars quoted this HEADI. I guess
they didn't know about the science of Adid classification. Thank God,
I'll have sent you to correct them, because they said
that when Muhammad saw virek Torah, he put it on
the cushion. He goes, I believe in you, and him
will revealed you. And then the scholars say he would
not have said it if he thought that Toro was corupted.
And among the people that ibink El Josiah lists as
saying that tour and the Gospel are incorruptible are El
Buchhi and Razi, which you probably don't care much about. Razzi,
but Imam Elbu, the one who collected it almost said
some technicians. According to you. That is now the final
thing is if variant readings in validate the Bible, it
varies your Koran because you have thousands of variant readings.
But then you explained the way as kiat, But who
authorized the karate? Show me one verse from your a
law that said that Mujahad would come and standardise seven
readings of the Koran. You make it up as you
go along. The gig is up game over free religion.
Speaker 8: Now, to be fair, Mohammed pisp upon him also commands
war in some contexts, but the difference is Muhammed piece
behind doesn't command Muslims to kill women, children and babies.
Speaker 3: I want to thank Daniel for proving that Jesus has
got a law, because according to the Koran in Chapter five,
verse twenty to twenty six, it was his allaw that
ordered Moses and Israelites tenter Kanaan and wipe it out. Also,
it was his a law that ordered Saal, which the
Koran erroneously calls Talu in chapter two, verse two forty
six to two fifty one, where it was his Allah,
whom he said was Jesus. So he just I met
Jesus say Allah, Mohammed's God in judge in chapter two,
verse two forty six to two fifty one, who ordered
salt on these expeditions, and there's not a word of
condemnation by his prophet saying that what Saal did to
the livestock and children was an abomination to a law.
That means he's better than his God and his prophet.
And again I want to thank Daniel for proving that
Jesus is Allah his God, because in Saihelbuhari volume four,
number three fifty three asked me to read it because
I don't want to end up my time there. In
an authentic narration, his prophet refers to a prophet who
went in an expedition jihad and the son stood still,
and his prophet narrates the injunctions of Deranmi chapter twenty
and also alludes to Joshua chapter seventy ten, so that
means Jesus is a law his God, Muhammad's judge. Because
according to your prophet, your God sanctioned these wars, so
that means you're better than your.
Speaker 5: Before time began, there was the cube.
Speaker 4: We know not where it comes from, only that it
holds the power to create worlds.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for watching. God bless