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?
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.
John one.
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.
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.
All.
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.
You're just a cheap knockoff. Oh no, I'm the upbring.
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.
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.
So a lot of these.
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.
To the time.
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.
We do not.
They take They think that the Koran thinks that we take Mary as part of the Trinity.
We do not.
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.
You have what ninety nine gods?
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.
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.
Says that a Lah has one eye two.
The shin of a nizedlation described in the Purun, that he has a face allot describing in the pun that he has.
Two hands, and both of Allah's hands are right hands.
We believe that both of the hands of Allah unlock.
Huh say is very clearly that both his hands are right.
The self here refers to a law's shine.
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.
I mean the Bible affirms of the prophet Muhammad is a true prophet and first John Ter.
I'm reading it.
Yes, it's falls on his fig but it says something's occasionally invites broken.
The rights.
You say we never made.
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.
Yeah.
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.
Do with whether it's true false.
In fact, as we're going to see the Muslims amongst themselves and their various schools all compete and disagree.
And fight not only over the attributes, but also over jurisprudence.
Daniel, I want to hear from your own mouth, the yah of a law. Is it a metaphor for his power?
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.
What what do you have studied?
You've studied it. You won't see your position, are you what?
I have? You studied all of them? It's irrelev.
Your position.
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.
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?
This is a personification of the Quran, just like the Bible verses that I mentioned about rivers plopping their hands their stones speaking.
In the psalms. I'll read them again.
And yeah, you're making the claim that if the Qoran is personified, that means it has a separate mind.
And I find the point. And I see now you're interrupting. Can I answer? Can I answer the question?
Good? Good?
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.
That's fine. But if the bar does it, or if he do it?
Your position is that question?
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.
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.
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.
Time the.
Text that Sam listed presupposed that you could go and confirm the new.
Revelation with the old.
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.
It's being revealed seventh century, I should say, and.
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.
That's a made up thing that he's talking on.
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.
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?
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.
If it's from the same God, then it's continuity.
No, there's no no that continuity.
How is that good from the same God you just said that, Yeah, it's the same source.
Where did I say continuity?
Well, if the religif the rituals came to our religion from the same God to yours content.
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?
All right?
That's Sam, Sam, Now let.
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.
You notice that when I brought up the line of argumentation that Daniel had in our debate, he didn't want to go there.
He immediately said that I was that he was living.
Rent free in my head, in other words, deflecting away from the fact that I've called him out.
On an inconsistency.
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.
Standards as you.
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.
They were still bound by the Mosaic law. They were still killing the.
Blasphemers, executing anyone who tempted you to worship idols.
You have to execute them. That's what Jesus says.
Those Jews didn't see pillars of clouds, they didn't see any miracles.
They're living after the time of Sianai. So your biblical or your exit Jesus is completely off base.
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.
End of story.
Bye bye Oh.
The Bible of films of the prophet Muhammad is a true prophet. And first.
I'm reading it.
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?
That's good here?
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.
So we're just playing fair.
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.
That's all.
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.
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.
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.
Mist there's a debate.
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?
No one, No one could explain that. No one could explain.
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.
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?
Explain?
You know, deblame you debates.
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.
If there's debate that's not clear, that's a fallacy. You're a fallacy machine.
That's fine.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Before time began, there was the cube.
We know not where it comes from, only that it holds the power to create worlds.
Thank you so much for watching. God bless