Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity: Fresh & Fit: Jay, Sam Vs Daniel, Ijaz

content find the scenes for you guys over there. And uh yeah, guys, we got four guys in the house. Four special guests in the house matter of fact, which I'll have real quickly go through. We got e Jazz from Uh. We got Daniel Koka jew uh, and then we got Sam Shamun and we got Jay Dyer as well. I apologize if I my lash if I butchered the name a little bit there. But we're gonna be doing a debate here on religion, guys, Islam versus Christianity. But I'm

gonna have you guys personally introduce yourselves. I mean, I know who you guys are, but I guys want you guys to introduce yourselves to my audience. We can start with Ejazz from e F.

a gold. To learn more, go to Birchgold dot com slash rumble and get a free no obligation infolkit on diversifying your retirement into goldra. Birch Gold has earned an A plus rating with the BBB, the Better Business Bureau and thousands of happy customers. Protect your IRA or four oh one k Go to Birchgold dot com slash rumble and get your free in focit on go today, and thank you Birch Gold for sponsoring this episode.

we're gonna be doing three four minute rounds. Okay, so twelve rounds total, So three four minutes or sorry, yeah, three four minute rounds. Is that what we're gonna do, guys. So, and each team has four minutes per argument, they're gonna be able to go ahead and make the argument uninterrupted for four minutes. If one party decides to go two minutes or take three minutes, or take the full four minutes,

it's fine, but it's gonna be between the team. But the first round is opening statements, where a Team Islam is gonna take it first and they're gonna go for five minutes. Then Team Christian is going to go. They're gonna go to the first topic, which again is theology Trinity versus the da Weed. Second round is going to be authenticative scripture, and then third round is going to be morality Bible versus of Quran on human rights. And we agreed upon all this beforehand. Want to make sure

that this is even down the middle. I'll be keeping time for the squad. I'll be saying thirty seconds and then ten seconds when they're running into last thirty and ten seconds respectively. And other than that, Team Islam, Team Christiani. Are you guys good?

also not be identical beings? The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. It's all one God. But the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, and neither of them are the Holy Spirits. This is a logical contradiction. The only way to solve the contradiction is to admit that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate Gods, not just one God. This is of course polytheism. As Muslims, we challenge Sam and Jay to resolve this logical contradiction for the audience.

Explain to us how the Father, Son and Spirit are all one God, but they're not identical with each other, and explain it in a way that the average layperson can understand it. A layperson can understand that God is one, He is one God, and he can have multiple attributes. That's Islamic monotheism. I can explain it in one sentence. Can Sam and Jay explain the Trinity without resorting to

a bunch of convoluted gobbledegoup we'll see. What Sam and Jay want to do is to try to claim that Islam's conception of God is actually just as complicated as the Trinity. This is a cheap debate tactic. As we'll see, they can't address the logical problem of the Trinity. So they want to make it seem like we have the same problem in Islam, but we don't. There is nothing analogous to the logical problem of the trinity in Islam. For example, they might claim that Allah's attributes in Islam

are incoherent. No they're not. We can all understand how a person can have multiple attributes, how God can be all knowing, all powerful, merciful, loving, etc. This is not hard to understand. Those attributes of God are not seid separate people with their own minds. But according to the Bible, Jesus and the Father have separate knowledge. They have separate wills. For example, in Mark thirteen thirty two in the Bible, we read but about that day I ei the day

of judgment. No one knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but only the Father. So the Son doesn't know when the day of judgment is, but the Father does know. So this indicates two separate minds. This is polytheism. There are more examples that we can cite in the rebuttal sections, but keep in mind that in the seventh century, the official position of the Church in the Third Council of Constantinople. They held the position that

Jesus has two wills. The Church defined Jesus as having two energies and two wills, one divine and one human. Two separate wills means two separate minds. This means that Jesus and the Father have two separate minds and are therefore two separate entities. You either explain this by admitting it is polytheism, or you have to give us some convoluted explanation of how two minds or three minds are still one God. There's nothing analogous to this in Islamic theology.

Islam says there's one God, he has knowledge, he has will, one will, one knowledge. These things are not divided between multiple persons or energies or anything like that. And all of this Islamic monotheism is clearly expressed in the Quran. By the way, contrast this with the Bible. Jesus is meant to be God, all knowing and the only teacher to the disciples, but the Jesus of the Gospels doesn't

describe the doctrines of the Trinity. We have to rely on Paul and the Church fathers to explain what the Trinity is. That's strange. If God wants us to know him, believe in him, lay the foundation for a general understanding of him, why would he leave that to different authors at different times, in different places, over several centuries, such that when God is finally described in scripture, it results in a mystery, and we need all these church councils

to figure it out. The way that Christians have come to us understand the Trinity is what we'd expect if God did not reveal the doctrines of the Trinity. On the other hand, that God in the Qur'an revealed four short lines that any human being can read and instantly understand who God is and what his attributes are. This is exactly what we would expect from an all knowing, wise, just, merciful and loving God who cares about his creation. The four lines are the one hundred and twelfth chapter of

the Quran. Say he is God, one God, a Llah, the completely self sufficient. He neither begets, nor is born, nor is there to him any equivalents.

because not so fast. When he says he believes in Toheed, what exactly does it mean for all it 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. Why Because I'm going to show Daniel from his authentic sources sahe narrations that the Churn and the chapters of the Koran actually one.

To recede 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 Koran has the

potentiality of speaking with a law. So that means his God consists of at least one hundred and fifteen divine persons or 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 in rebuttal period to prove otherwise. There's not a single verse in the chron that says

the spirit to Ruh is Jibidean. He's now dependent on the very scholars of Islam that comes 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 now going to come and bite him. He admitted Paul taught the Trinity.

It's now recorded. I want everyone to hear it. Paul taught the 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. More to come. The Spirit, according to the Koran, is the sinc from a Lah.

He appears as a man, he speaks and creates. So now if we add the spirit to the Koran and a law, he's got about one hundred and sixteen divine persons or beings, and he doesn't have a singular person called a law, then we can go a little further and adjust the issue of the fact that, according to our friend here this is his belief. Allah has well, he wouldn't use the term body parts. I don't want

to misrepresent him. Allah has a foot, he has a shin, He even has loins, and he has at least two eyes, if not more, and 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 and he's timeless, that means his God supposedly exists when there was no time space in place. But if you have a foot, then 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 embodied being who is temporal and finite, which means that his God didn't 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 because what he just told you is not anchoring the kron or the authentic son of Muhammad. So good luck in chin to defend your rational selfie anthropomorphism. And last time I checked, his partner doesn't share his selfie anthropomorphism, So we're going to have a field day. Now how much nimee?

do with whether it's for awesome. In fact, as we're gonna see the Muslims amongst themselves and their various schools all compete and disagree and fight not only over the attributes but also over jurisprudence.

it back to team Islam. You guys are gonna I'm gonna put four minutes on a clock for you guys, and we will. Are you guys ready, all right, Bills, do you have the clock or do you want to do here? Yeah? Four minutes for this one yea, and from this point for it's gonna be four minuts. Just opening statements that we're five. So once you guys start talking, hit the clock. Just we'll do that, Bills, to make it easier, once they start talking, hit the clock.

up with something so ridiculous. When we will find that this is the case in Christian theology, that God is another being, I mean I do believe that day, I do think that they believe in what's his name, justin matter saying that there's another entity. Of course they would like to revise that, but that's what he literally what he says. When it comes to New Testament, Jesus says it's a person cannot have two masters, or rather that

he cannot save two lords. We look at the Jesus of Teen Testament, he is at odds with the Christian understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. We could even go a step further than this. For us Muslims, yes, the Koran describes our law in a simple thing, so class. But from this we get a comprehensive understanding. We say that this is a joam yo kalam, or speech which

is extensive. You can ask us almost any question about the nature of all law, and in those fort Shore passages we can understand it to the point that if I were to compare this with the Bible, I would not be able to find four verses that simply and reasonably explain the nature of God. If God loved us, we cared for us, and he was merciful for us, then there's a duty there, a justice where he would want us to understand him, But our Christian colleagues fundamentally

cannot and do not understand God. I'll give one simple example here. The God of the Koran was able to describe it self as one, absolutely one, needing nothing. The God of the Bible allegedly describes himself as begotten, a word of which the meaning we cannot know, and which we know. What's actually changed for those who don't know the God of the Bible when he says that he has begotten. This come from the Greek word monogenist. Unfortunately,

that word today is not translated as unique. So if you're a Christian, does it matter to you that the Bible does not teach what you actually believe? My friend here Sam actually teaches that if a thing and I your belief cannot stand being tested by the Bible, then it is false. So I would like to ask him, where is the belief that Jesus is begotten? Using the Greek of the New Testaments for the Daniel, Yeah.

that polytheism is the Trinity. The Trinity is polytheism. So tell me how I want them to explain. Since their whole opening statement was bringing up the issue of the uncreatedness of the Qur'an and the hand of Allah, how does that contradict monotheism? How does God having a hand? However you want to explain that hand, it has nothing to do by the way o it cele Fi or the other theological schools of Klam and Islam thirty All of the schools are united on this. All Muslims are

united on this. God having a hand does not mean that the hand has its own mind, that the hand is its own entity, its own God, its own person. No theologian has ever said that there's no challenge to monotheism of Islam by bringing up the hand or the on or anything like that, or the shin yeah, and that again, like you just said perfectly one hundred and fifteen got like separate gods minds. The Quran doesn't have its own mind.

But your view of the attributes is is not subject to that problem. That's just a double standard, was the point. Nobody said that you believe that the attributes are person, So that's a misdirection. First of all, didn't he keeps you already admit that Paul taught the trinity, and I think it Jaws disagreed with that. So which one is it?

Did Paultae a trinity or did he not? And then I would also add that Christ does not have a human person, and that's why the notion about divine mind is a two minds scenario where he shares a divine mind with the Father and he has limitations in his human mind. That's why it's two minds. So you tried to say that he had one mind and it was

separate knowledge. The expression where he says that he's limited in knowledge is a reference to rhetoric, and if you can read Saint Basil letter two thirty four, five and six, he talks about these issues and explains that just as Jesus says in other places that there's no one good but God, he's not literally saying that there's no one else good, because in other passages he calls himself good, he calls the Holy Spirit good as well, And so

it's a feature of rhetoric. You have the same types of expressions in your own chronic exegesis where you try to solve these dilemmas, but you don't want us to have that right, Sam will throw it to you.

didn't hear what I said. The Koran must have a mind independent from your God if the chron is going to argue with your God and the individual individual chapters here Sahei Muslim book four, number seventeen fifty seven. Abumama said he heard all his messengers say, recite the korn, for on the day of resurrection, it will come as an intercessor for those who recited. How does the speech

of a law and recede with a law? If it's a speech of a law, is all us speaking to himself in a different mode, then you are a modalist. So your to heed is modalism, but then it gets worse. For you recite the two bright ones el Bakara and to Deman chapters two and three from the Day of Resurrection, they will come as two clouds or two shades, or two flocks of birds in ranks, pleading for those who

recite them, pleading with who with themselves. If the serves of the chron can appear independently, separately and appear in visible form and argue with the Law, that's either your God being schizophrenic arguing with himself in different modes, so you're modalists, or you have now separate gods argue with one another, so you're a polytheist. Or you have to believe that toheed encompasses a plurality of distinct entities who can then interact and argue with one another. So don't

run and evade with your smoke and merit tactics. Deal with the issue. You didn't understand what I meant about your God's body parts, even though you don't like to use the term body parts and know not all the Sunnieds define the hand of a law as meaning what you mean. Because you have those that say that it's a metaphor for his power. You do not believe this, So I'm still trying to figure out do you believe

in a finite god who assumes time and space? Because if he has a hand two right hand, that's what happened to his left. Maybe you can explain he has a shin, he has loins. That means he's an embodied being. If he's an embodied being, he requires space unless you want to create another contradiction with your irrational Celfie anthropomorphism.

over several centuries. They clearly saw a problem with it. If there was no problem, why the describes change it. Unfortunately, Ja describes factually disagree with you. I'm sorry, but someone later like Saint Basil, trying to allegorize it is not going to solve the physical problem of your scribes change in the Bible. Secondly, some seems to not understand basic Islam. He begins by asking what is the heat? Good question? Let me teach you. Allah is absolutely one. Allah has

distinct attributes, and Allah does not need anything. He's not multiple persons. He doesn't rely on anyone or anything other than himself. He is beginning less and bless me. He's the first and the last. If I were to ask the God of the Bible, is he the first on the last? We know that very recently the scholars at the ECM have decided that God the Father in Revelation twenty one six actually became the first on the last. That's the problem for the Trinity. Do you believe that

God had to become the first on the last? Who made him the first on the last? For us? That just seems unvisible nonsense? Danielle.

own bodies have minds? Yet they will speak for or against us on the day of judgment. So this is an interpretation that he has that no one has ever made in the history of Islam. But many Christians and theologians and Church fathers have debated and discussed the knowledge of the of Jesus being different from the knowledge of the Father and the will of Jesus being different from the will of the Father. Jesus has a separate human will and this is what they will not explain. Also,

so yeah, explain that problem. That contradiction God having a hand. Guess what, that's a problem for the Trinity as well, because the New Testament in Acts seven fifty five describes Jesus as standing at the right hand of the Father. So what is the right hand of the Father? Is that in space? Does the Father have a body? Can you explain that? What is the hand the right hand of the Father? Does he have a left hand? Does the Father have a body? Like does the Father have

two sides? Explain that verse within Acts and that's in the New Testament. So I'm very interested to understand if this is a corporeal, physical Father or not, or what does the Bible mean? Do we have an explanation of that? So this it doesn't matter if you take the hand of God to be metaphorical, if you take it to be be la caf meaning without modality, that doesn't contradict O hate it doesn't contradict monotheism. Explain how having a hand God having a hand means that it's not monotheism.

That's what you can't do.

talks about straining in that swallowing camels. This is called it's called exaggeration. And so in the same way he can say no one is good but God. Okay, nobody believes that that literally means that there's literally no one good. Like the prophets weren't good, Jesus isn't good, the Spirit doesn't good. Out he's talking about no one is good but God the Father in a specific sense of God being the Father, being the archae the principle of the

fount and the cause. The last thing I'll say is that we're not subject to the same problems as you guys, well, particularly Daniel, because we don't have the anthropomorphic error about God the Father. So what we believe about the mode of the Son coming into time and space. You have that same issue with Allah himself. You're saying that Allah has these parts which you say or attributes. And by the way, don't you two disagree on the status of those attributes between yourselves.

It doesn't matter what your scholar says. What you can prove. So prove to me that when hands and feet are speak, they're mindless. So now let's take your analogy with the kron. So mindless Koran will be engaging a law. So you're going to have the chron engaging with a law even though it doesn't have a mind of its own. So now we're back to square one. If the chron is the speech of a law, how does Allah's speech speak to himself? Is Allah speaking to himself but in a

different mode. You didn't answer that dilemma. Now, coming back to the issue of God in the right hand, unlike you, according to the scriptures, unlike your position as a selfie anthropomorphist. The Bible says God is spirit. So I'm going to challenge you to show me your chrown and sone where it says you're alla a spirit and in the context of John four twenty four, God a spirit, meaning that he is bodyless in corporeal because he's the creator of

heavens and earth, but that God can appear visibly. God the Father appears visibly in heaven. That's Daniel seven nine, verses ten, Chapter seven, verse nine to ten, Revelation chapter four. So when it says that Jesus and his glora fight, physical body enters this heavenly realm where angels dwell, Heaven itself is created, and God can manifest in heaven and Jesus physically being seen by the heavens of heaven, sitting at the right hand of the Father who appears visibly.

But you don't believe that about the body parts of your God. You're not like Ijaza Maturidi. You believe your God has two right hands. Where's the left one? I'm still waiting for the answer. He has loins, he has his shin, and he's going to put his foot overhead, and then you have the womb yanking on his loins that's inside bukati. How many seconds do I have?

you read it? In a very Christian way? I would say it's very natural for you to create different persons for God. That's the very definition of schizophrenia. Let's get something straight here. Jay is incorrect. He made the statement, Well, if it's so there in the Bible for market in Jty two that Jesus does don't know the day or the hour, what does that mean that describes changed it? Yes,

the scribes actually changed the meaning of the term. And what the academics have gone and done is translate and they've tried to fix under just what diverse means, because it occurs twice in the Bible and in the two places where Jesus has no knowledge of the day or the hour described, try to amend it. There is no text to a critical life today. Who will not testify to that? So I put it back to j Let's look at the manuscripts. Sam says that your manuscripts are

from the fourth century and Verberton. He says that the problem because the further they go back, the more that they disagree. And this refers to cordectxcited, curs, Vardicanus, alexandrenas, fremi, rescriptors, et cetera. He says that it's a problem, So peace address the problem. Please answer how God can be ignorant? Please answer how God can not move things? That is

a God who is fundamentally agile. Lastly, on this point of all not having parts, Muslims don't believe that Muslims do not see as well that when the day of judgment comes and things testify, parts testify, that these mean that they are the mind of all that No one says that, Daniel.

So what does Jay have to say about Catholics. He thinks that you're a deviant and a heretic, Sam, and maybe that you're going to hell. So did you clarify that with Jay before you even agree to this debate? Second of all, for Sam, look at what Luke nineteen forty says, I tell you, he replied, If they keep quiet, the stones will cry out, stones will cry out. According to the New Testament, do the stones have mines? Isaiah fifty five twelve, You will go out in joy and

be led forth in peace. The mountains and the hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands. Does that mean that the hills and the trees have mines? Sam explained that, Or how about Psalm ninety eight eight, Let the rivers clap their hands. Let the mountains sing together for joy. Does that mean that the rivers have hands and they're clapping for joy? Do they have mines? Sam Please explain

all of those verses. You want to have that kind of understanding of mountains, rivers and whatever, and you say that, you'll say that these are not minds. But the problem with the trinity is that Jesus has a separate mind than the Father. The Father has a separate mind from Jesus. They both have a separate mind from the Holy Spirit. That means they're three separate entities and therefore three separate gods. This is polytheism. We don't have that problem in Islam.

The Quran doesn't have its own mind. There's no one who ever has thought the Quran has its own mind that is separate from God. But this is what you're trying to claim, not based on any text, not based on any hadith. This is just your assertion based on nothing. So address the trinity. Why can't you address the trinity? You have to raise these straw men against Islam. It sounds kind of ridiculous.

you guys want. I could put another three or four minutes on the clock where we'll finish off this round with Tweed versus Trinity, where you guys have open dialogue with each other and.

saying you believe the attributes actually have minds. We're just pointing out that you have the same metaphysical problem that you have a double standard for saying I'm not liable to explain that, you have to explain it. And then when we bring that up, every one of your responses on that is a two quote way. Well, doesn't the Bible talk about body parts? Doesn't the Bible? Yeah, but we don't have the same metaphysical problems as you because we don't have the same metaphysics. So but you don't

seem to be able to follow that. So that's a two quot way. But other than that, the other thing I would just reply to is that you jas kept saying that all of the scholars and in the world believe this, so there's not a single one that would disagree. Has he read all of the scholars. He asserted all of these things. He says, the scribes changed it, yet it's still there in the text. So he's just asserting these things. We don't know where he's where this is

coming from. These are all assertions. Go ahead, So.

saying rebuke them. He goes, well, if they were silent, even the stones were cry out anyone with any common sense, but understand it's hard for them to read a text in its literary context. He's using hyperbole that even if they don't praise me, creation will praise me. That's exactly the context of the Psalms. The Psalmist, which is politic literature, is personifying creation to show that all creation glorifies God because creation is a testimony to the greatness and existence

of God. Nice try with that false analogy, But I want him now when I engage you, I'm when I ask you, so, are you saying to me that when the Hadeed not your Quran says that thesaurus will intercede with the law that's not literal. Are you saying to me when the Koran will intercede with the law that's

not literal? I hope you say that. And on top of that, what do you do with the Hadiz where it says the trees greeted your profit, stones greeted your profit and at the last day a stone will crowd saying, Hey, there's a Yahoo behind me, come and kill him. Are you going to allegorize those statements, Daniel hakika Chu, I hope not, because I'm going to have a field day

at your expense. And what are you going to do with chapter forty seven, verse twenty two of the Koran When you go to Bukhati, your prophet says there's a primordial rachem womb that yanked on your God's gonads, and he said stop stop. Are you going to allegorize that too, the fact that your God has loins, the fact that there is a womb yanking on his gonads, which is actually in BUKHATI cited even in Imocathar. You're comparing apples and pineapples. Because the debate is over, you can't defend

your irrational, incoherent sell a feebabbel. And yes, I know you don't want to say the hand is literal in the sense that it's a hand, my hand. But I want to hear you from your own mouth, Daniel, Are you telling me that almost hand is a metaphor for power? I want to hear it. Are you gonna say, build a cave? It's a hand. We know it's a hand. It's unlike anything. We don't know how, but it's a hand. Because your God is not the true god. Your God

is the figment of Muhammed's imagination. How much time I have?

to kick it off first? I guess we want to do that, Jay for me or our team.

Is that true?

a human mind, and the Father has a separate mind. Now, Jason says that the mind of Jesus is a fully human mind, But does that mean the Father has a fully human mind as well? If not, those are two separate minds of God. So those are two separate minds, two separate entities, to two separate beings. That's not analogous to your hands interceding on your behalf on the day of judgment, or the or on or your feet or anything else that will intercede on your behalf on the

day of judgment. Explain how Jesus can have a separate mind from the Father and they be the same mind.

a both and and on either or. So your whole question is predicated on false either or.

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 six.

with the law. So you're left with a mindless entity interacting with your God. So either that means your God is speaking through different modes, or you have a set of one hundred and fourteen uncreated eternal divine objects who are mindless and you have the audacity attack to Trinity. So this is.

But coming to that point, any time a Jazz attacks the Bible, he shows that he's smarter than Mohammad better than Muhammad, knows more than Mohammad. Why because the consistent teaching of the Qoran and the sound narration. So we're going to get into 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 Muhammad are the very scriptures that have variations, just like the Koran does. Let me just go through a slew of 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 three vers sorry not Chapter three, Chapter four, verse forty seven. And then we go to chapter five and we read verses forty three to forty eight, sixty six, six,

sixty eight, and on and on. It goes and then the sound narrations. So hey, jas, make my day, help me to hang. You 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 gonna level against Scripture, I will use to bury their belief in scripture because Hejazz is going to have to complete and talk about the aharuf? What are they exactly? What are the seven aharruf? 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 two 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 Kab, two of the four men that Muhammed said learned the Koran from, He didn't say, say it mun Tabit.

He said, learn the Korn from Abbit Massoud, who vibin cop And yet they contradicted each other and your othmonic codex Mosaf because they are 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 burn, and yet Abdilivan Masoud refused, to the point that your sources say that Othman instigated a mob reaction against Abdolivered Masud, who got beat and his bones broken because he thought his knowledge of the chron was superior to your Saiah ibn Tabit, who was an Ansadi. Then we add insult and injury. What do you do with the different pairod. According to your Muslim sources, there were twenty five paiad

by the time. Ifn Rijah 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 Quran or your authentic tradition where your God sanctioned all these paidot and authorized ib Mujahit to standardize seventh pia and these paidot are not identical. And then I want you to explain to me what the ahuf are. And then we're gonna go into the missing verses and we're gonna

go into the missing time. Okay, so let's have a found all right.

go back to Jesus Christ and his apostles. However, some disagrees because Sam said in his live stream with Crisco that the disasterment comes after the time of Christ, probably the second century. So I guess it's not really that early good that he omitted the first century. Well done, some to continue with this. The books of the Bible as we have them today, we can't authenticate them. We can't trace their lineage back. We call the stematics or genealogy.

You have different manuscripts at different times. Are we're trying to understand are they written, why they're known with whom. The thing that we have to keep in mind is that describes who've written these things, and the authors do not identify themselves as having been inspired whatsoever. And we're very little knowledge as to where and when these things were written. For example, if I were to give the most famous risks the Bible, John three sixteen, academic scholars

don't know if Jesus actually said those words. We think it could be the author or a later scribe. In fact, even the words of that very verse the most famous, the most popular, has a difference in it. They've changed it to say that Jesus is no longer begotten. The thing is, if they can't get their most famous verse right, what else can they get wrong? What about the shamai Israel? When Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy has to explain

who God is? That differs to the Greeks of triagents and a difference with what Jesus says in the in the Testament, in each gostel. So if Jesus can't get his basic beliefs rights in the Testaments, Moses makes mistakes in the Old Testament, then these are scriptures I can't believe in. And these prophets seem to have done a very bad job, especially if one of them were meant to be Psalm's God. Let's continue here we have that. Let's consider Isaiah chapter forty, verse eight. It says that

the word of God will stand forever. Jesus says something similar in Matthew five eighteen, that not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will disappear from scripture. Unfortunately, this prophecy is false. How do we know this? They admit that don't know too. Manuscripts are the same, down to the letters and the strokes. And I want you to notice here, Jay cannot identify for me which biblical

tradition you holds to textually, and neither can Sam. Sam says, the only textual tradition you would accept if it's from a Trinitarian. You don't know what the early Christians believed in the first century, so how can you make that distinction and determination. I would add one more thing here that it's actually a list kept by the Jews, but the changes that they made the scripture. This isn't a

Muslim invention. Historically there's a list called the changes by the scribes tikun sofam describes changed words in the toler We find that in the Christian version of the of the Old Testament that those changers are also present there. So we ask ruling over the fact that changes when we ad vice scribes, did Jews say yes? And the Christians have it in their Bible? And these are not menial changes? We continue here. Christian scholars believe that the

Bible could be reliable for two reasons. One that it's early enough in time to the time of Jesus and two the vast amount of manuscripts that they have. The problem here, however, is if some appeals to those scholars and their reason, and then the same metrics when used for the Koran completely authenticated. We know exactly what the Koran is. We can recreate its prototype text, we have a stammard that we can develop for it, and we have the manuscripts from the lifetime of the profits of

one novel. All he was solid.

dot com. And thank you Mike Hugabye and The Kid's Guide for sponsoring this episode.

to 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 attacking on. Later on, go ahead, Sam, Yeah, Now, I want.

a Muslim? You need to repent. So if these textual critics that you are selectively slighting and misquoting because you don't quote in context, all right, Muhammad is wrong. Allah is wrong because Mohammad had no problem with the variations and the manuscripts that existed amongst the Jews and Christians, unless you're saying he was that much of an umi, that much ignorant. He didn't know that the Christians their Old Testament would have variations with the Jewish scriptures because

he confirmed them. You'll find that in chapter three, verses three to four, five, verse forty eight, Chapter two versus forty forty four. But then Tad insult an injury to your case in chapter three, verse fifty. In chapter five, verse forty six. In chapter sixty one, verse six, it says Jesus confirmed Musseddep and Limabina Yadeh confirm the scripture between his hands. Well, did Allah not know that at the time of Jesus there were different textual traditions of

the Old Testament that were not uniformed. They had variations. So is he deceiving Jesus? Did your God deceive Jesus to confirm all the scriptures? Not a word about the variations proving textual corruption? So you know more than your God and your prophet. Why are you a Muslim? But now let's talk about the variant readings in your Qoran that are significant that you don't find in the Othmonic codecs. For example, chapter thirty seven, verse twelve of the Churn.

When you read it today, it says, in fact, you are astonished by their denial while they ridicule you. But Imantamia uses a variant to prove that your God gets shocked and amazed. And here's how he quotes it, In fact, I was astonished by their denial while they ridicule you. So, now, Ijaz, who's getting astonished? Does your God get astonished a jeptu

or you were astonished? That's not the same and it doesn't affect theology because shows that your God is affected by your actions in time, which means he was caught by surprise. So this is a meaningful variant. But wait, we got another variant chapter thirty three, verse six, according to the Ubai bin Kapp as well as Abdullah Ebin Masud and others, a host of them Mujahid Katl Hassan.

There was an additional line in thirty three sixty for thirty three verse six where it says, and he is a father to you and his wives are your mothers. A father to you and his wives are your mothers. Where is that phrase a father to you? And this is confirmed by Muhammad Asad ab Yusefali, which is why Muhammad Asad includes the words a father to them a father to you in brackets. That's significant, don't you think? But where is it now? How much time I have?

Because I got a lot of these fifty seconds shows Kron is corrupted?

and recite today. There is nothing like that. When it comes to the Bible, the earliest complete manuscript of the New Testament is from the fourth century, over three hundred years after Jesus. So the audience needs to remember this

is a huge difference. How can we tell that between the three hundred years that Jesus alive to the first manuscript, complete manuscript of the New Testament being found, so many of the teachings of Jesus haven't been distorted, have n't been changed, haven't been altered for the sake of political expedience or whatever theological experience, whatever it may be. So this is a huge difference between the or on in

the Bible. Let's look at apocryphal text. Let's look at the fact that the Catholic Old Testament has more books than the masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. You have entire books we're not talking about. Like all Stam can bring up are like difference in pronoun usage, like yah malun versus tam malun in Arabic. He doesn't even know Arabic. That's like pronouns, Like a difference in pronouns, and he

wants to make it a big Oh, this is so significant. Yeah, Muslims know about the ad Muslims memorize the different modes of recitation. So what even people, many people that I know have memorized them. But how about the Catholic Bible having the Book of Judith, having first and second Maccabees, having additions to the Book of Daniel, the additions to the Book of Esther, the Book of Susannah, all of these editions that are not found in the Masoretic text.

Then you have another variation of the Old Testament with the Dead Sea Scrolls, the septuagen is the Catholic version. You have all of these different manuscripts that are not small little differences. There are entire books that are not found. Now he wants to mention the suras from Obeban cap. One thing that Muslims also know is that there is disagreement about whether certain verses are part of the Koran

or not. A very well known disagreement is on the besmla bis mila is that part of every sura of the Quran? Is it only part of There is a well known disagreement among the schools of thought on this. But that's not some mind blown It's not like a completely different book that's not found in the Catholic version or the Orthodox version of the Bible. It's just one word bis mila. Or if you're looking at the the

the different suras that you're claiming are missing. Any Muslim who reads these, I can even read you the translation of these suras. They're just the d'a, the prayer that is read in Khunut, in the pri in the Khunut prayer. And there was a different disagreement among some of the companions on whether this is part of the Koran, just like there's a disagreement on the best mela, on the

bismula being part of every single verse or not. This is not like some missing book that we don't know about, Like, this is what Muslims are reciting in prayer every day or every week on a regular basis. So you're trying to make a big deal out of the Qoranic variation to hide the fact that the text of the Bible is not preserved. You can't find authentic manuscript within three hundred years of Jesus' life, let alone Moses. You have

all of these variations with the Old Testament. The sects, the Christian denominations do not agree on what the books of the Bible are. What is the canonical books of the You have all of these disagreements, but we should ignore all that. And you want to bring up yeah, malun versus tom Adlon or edgip to it like this is a joke. So your audience is ignorant of Arabic. That's why this seems like a big revelation to them. But for Muslims it's laugh of time.

on that point. So Sam will let you go.

every verse of every sur in the Birmingham Koran. See again, this kind of deceit and dishonesty is unbecoming someone who claims to follow the God of Truth. Now let's come back to how we try to brush aside the variant readings. Notice what I said about thirty seven to twelve. One says you were astonished. The one has is God saying I was astonished. Oh, but that's no big deal, that's

something minor. We can brush it aside. Oh really, So are you acknowledging that the variant reading affects whether your God can be impacted by the actions of his creatures in time and space. Because I was astonished and you are astonished is not the same unless you think Muhammad is a lah and what Muhammad feels Allah feels. Thirdly,

notice again he compares apples and pineapples. He's comparing a collection of different books the Bible, written by different authors at different times and comparing it with one Koran that supposedly came through one medium, and yet the companion's Muhammad

cannot agree on the content of that one Koran. You just buried yourself, Daniel, because that argument works more forcefully against your Koran, because you're comparing the work of one author and his companions can't figure out how many sort us, how many chapters with a collection of books written by different people at different times, so there'll be some natural confusion whether this book really comes from an inspired author.

But we shouldn't find that problem with your Koran if there's only one medium and they all memorize the Koran perfectly, which is a lie from the pitavel. Moreover, deal with the actual argument I brought up. Abdullah ibn Masud is no Joshmo Obi bin Kab no Joshmo. They are two of the four men that your prophets said learn the

Koran from, and I have here traditions Sahi. That's an Abdillah bent Massud recite it the Koran in front of compantits Muhammad, and they agreed that his recitation is fresh and the way it was revealed by Gabriel through Muhammad. And yet your Othmanic Koran doesn't agree to the point that your uthman wanted to burn Abdillah eben Masuit's khan. Why if they are slight variations, you don't go to war. You don't accuse each other of corrupting the Koran over

slight durations. Stop with the lies sailed Bukhati, volume six, five oh nine, five ten. So again we're gonna ask you, how come the competitis of Muhammad could not figure out how many chapters abdulah Ban Wassud said only one hundred and eleven, Obi bin Kopp said one sixteen, which you tried to pass off as dua. Are you saying, Obi bin Kapp, the master of the chronic reciters did not

know those two chapters were not suris but prayers. So you know more than Ubai, which means that your prophet made a pathetic judgment call because he mentioned him as one of the four. Not you, Daniel Hakikachu. Thank you for bearing your Koran and thank you for showing the Mahma didn't know what he's talking about. Muhammad confirmed the Bible, and you're saying, no, he's wrong. Why are you a Muslim? Repent? Come to Jesus Mohammed's God and judge. Think my time is up?

person answer that question. They can go ahead and ask another member of the team. That will keep a fair for five minutes on o'clock. So teamsam, are you guys ready? But again this is your guys four minutes uninterrupted. Notes to you guys for the last round of Authenticity in Scripture. Whenever you guys start speaking, we'll turn the clock on.

So there's a difference between a tradition being said in past as oppose the physical manuscript in existence. And the same people that transmit to kdid the same people that transmit the Koran, they transmitted to Masud. They transmitted through the companions, and at least three of the seven chains that are well known, so there's no difference among the companions as the number of sewers in the Quran. Please don't bring me something at art Jeffrey randomly translated that

no academical life accepts. And by academic here we refer to the Muslims who transmitted the Koran because they would counted letter by letter, line by line psychometry. So we actually have a way that we can mathematically know how many a yats were written in manuscripts. It isn't done randomly. So I'm not going to be like Sam and pretend to know what the Quran says. There is consensus that

the Muslims never took the Bible descripture. How do we know that because a lot of commands is to Suo Buck to testify and believe in the scriptures that he has revealed. And when we find us in the Quran, we find no companion saying that it is required as a mission to believe in the Bible as it exists today. There is no such compulsion, whereas we have been are composed to believe that the revelations were given to profits in the past. When he mentioned Jesus in the Kuran,

Jesus affirms the Revelation revealed it to him. This is what a lot mentions in the Kuran. He is not testified to a book that came after him, which is what some believes in. And let's be clear here we have call forty seven sonariotop copy top copy survi Medino one A. We have so many manuscripts after Kuran within the first one hundred years of the prophet Muhammad, p spe upon him that complete the Kuran. This is complete in distinction to the Bible, where you don't have anything

even similar to it. You have no second century manuscripts, no third century manuscripts. How do we notice Elijah Hickson text, your critic, he dates manuscripts, dates an entire institutes at the University of Moans, so that determines the propriety under manuscripts after New Testament. And they don't determine that there's a single manuscript in the second century. And when it comes to the third century, as Sam has admitted, he believes that Credets Nyaks in the fourth century is full

of errors. Here seasoned lies, that's your most reliable manuscript, if the most reliable physically, if still with lies, don't pretend to tell me what the Kuran says, because you simply don't know it. And I'll end with this, The God of the New Testament you said, I don't think he's intelligent, or how do I say this? Understand scripture?

How could the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament forget his name in Exodus three fourteen in the Greek subtulogen the name that he's supposed to give is our own women. The being Jesus in New Testament gives the wrong frise ego. He misquotes his own sacred name. That generation for generation must be mean. It's ridiculous. Titus three nine. God has to tell you that don't be

genealogies because they're glad to foolish arguments. Two of your gospels use genealogies as a basis the messianic place of Christ. It's ridiculous. I'm sorry. Address the questions under claims on the manuscripts. Don't bring me random things that you don't understand.

way we're able to keep this thing moving. Everyone's able to be involved and to get their questions asked and answered, and we can still have open dialogue here to some degree. I'll turn it over to you, Dan. We got five minutes on a clock, guys, let's be strict on the time.

hold the same presuppositions. But I can also appeal to Western scholars that don't think that your Qur'an as you have it, it's even from Othman. It's actually from Abdolmatic 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 that Torah was given to Moses, your prophet did it for me. So if you give me ninety nine percent of uston scholarship, then either your prophet is wrong and admit he is and I agree is but for other reasons right, or the scholars are wrong. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Why do you keep doing jihad against your prophet? Fisa bi la lah? Should I agree with them?

How many Western scholars scholars of the Bible think that the New Testament goes to the time of Jesus zero zero Western scholars. How many academics of Quronic studies who are non Muslim, by the way, they don't necessarily even like Islam, believe that the Quran can be dated radiocarbon

dated scientifically to the time of the prophet. That is the academic consensus, and you can read about that in books like the Kurana Historical Critical Introduction by Nikolai Sinai Sana and the Origins of the Quran by behn Am Sadafy and Mossa and Godharzi and Islam and the Empires of Faith by Sean Anthony. These are non Muslim, many of them, and they believe that the Qur'an not just one manuscript, but multiple manuscripts that are aligned and aligned

with what we as Muslims read and recite today. Of the Quran is dated scientifically to the time of the prophet, Peace be upon him. You can't say that about the Old Testament going back to Moses. You can't say that about the New Testament going back to Jesus. The earliest full manuscript of the New Testament only goes to the fourth century, over three hundred years after Jesus lived. Why don't you address that?

twenty four Cairo edition. They couldn't do that. Then I asked, show me any two chronic manuscripts that are identical one hundred percent. You didn't answer the question, Daniel, neither did your friend. And again, if Western scholars are right. Your prophet is a fraud and you're wrong. There are many Western scholars. You may not like them because they're conservative.

They do believe that Moses wrote the Torah, and they believe there's enough evidence for it, not only because Jesus confirmed it, but if Western scholars are right, I don't know what you guys don't get. You just proved Muhammed is a false prophet antichrist because he doesn't agree with Western scholars. He agrees with me, and here I am defending your false prophet glory to Jesus.

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 there 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 second of all, or the third point, actually, what Torah is the prophet or telrat is the prophet sola la jaya Sam referring to is he referring to the Mazaretic text is he referring to the Dead Sea scrolls? Is he referring to the Subtuagen? Like which version of

the Old Testament is he referring to? And why do you incorrectly assume that the Old Testament that you have, your particular sect or denomination has is the same thing that the profit piece be upon Him is referring to. Like this is a very flawed logic that you have sam to take this Hadith and think that the profit piece be upon him is confirming the book that you have in your hand today. By the way, there are

all these different variations. And the fourth point is that if Muslims believed that the Bible was uncorrupted because of this, why didn't they canonize the Bible? And the way that the Christians canonized the Old Testament. Christians canonize the Old Testament. Muslims never did that because they never saw the Bible as fully reliable. They never saw the Old Testament as

fully reliable. And the actual academic evidence shows that the Bible is not reliable because there's all these different variations and they change, like the differences between the Dead Sea Scroll and the Mastertitexts and the super Septuogen These are major theological differences because of changes and wording in the original manuscripts. Why don't you deal with that?

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 mentioned the Christians. You just butchered the Qoran 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 Mohammed confirmed the Torah that there are

differences of opinion. Well, you probably didn't hear my recent responses to your friend Jake ibin KM L Josiah, which I have quoted. And if you want to read Arabic because you think your votes about reading Arabic, I'll let you read Arabic and parse it. Ib and L Josiah said, a group of scholars believe the Torah is uncorrupt. One of the evidences they gave is the headith of Abu Dao Wud. They quoted it, they didn't question its authenticity,

and even El Albani said it's Hassan. But put Albani asai I K. L. Josiah for those of you who don't know. He's the disciple of Schekhalistam ibn Tamia, his granddaddy when it comes to celifie anthropomorphism, and he says these scholars quoted this said, I guess they didn't know about the science of Adeid classification. Thank God, I'll have sent you to correct them, because they said that when Muhammad saw virek Tora, he put it on the cushion. He goes. I believe in you and him who revealed you.

And then the scholars say he would not have said it if he thought that Toro was corrupted. And among the people that I El Josiah lists as saying that tour and the Gospel are incruptible are El Buchhari and Razi, which you probably don't care much about. Razzi, but Imam El Bukhari, the one who collected third almost said some technicians. According to you, dadis no, my time's on.

know what it is. And secondly, when it comes to the tour with the perfect piece perpon him, never authenticated your torah. You never authenticated the tour that you believe in today, there's no one, there's multiple The perfect piece of him authenticated a judgment from that tour, which is a word Jim, so read the hedits in context. And lastly, there is no disagreement upon this with about the scholars on the tradition of the Koran, what it includes one

hundred and fourteen sewers, no distinction, nothing. This is a difference to you and your scholars who leave books, who leave chapters, who leave the wizard Jesus out and change them. They're not the same. So why do you try to focus on a false Islamic dilemma of virtual false dilemma? You don't answer the question of how the Bible could be authentic, unreliable. And I'm shocked that as a Christian you allowed Ja to say that it's fine, it's okay

if Correctinaticus's me thrown into the trash. I mean, as I musdam, I have no respect for the Bible than Jay and some to put together. But it's ridiculous that he allowed that statement to go unchallenged. Jay, why would you do that through the Bible, not under the bus, but in the trash. I'm shocked at that.

New Testament. I've got three here for you, lightheart, F F Young.

the morality of the Old Testament. For example, in Matthew five, people think that the beatitudes are contrary to the law. In fact, Leviticus says that you have to love your neighbor. Jesus says that you can't exact personal revenge, and that was actually part of the Old Testament law. So for us, Christ's exposition of the Old Testament is a consistent, true exposition of what the Torah always meant. Jesus isn't contradicting it. In fact, he gave it. He's the one that fulfills it.

When we get to the time of this law, we have a totally different expectation. For example, many of these ceremonial ideas that are borrowed from Judaism and Christianity actually have no meaning and no significance. They're not clear as to why we do them. It's just what Allah wills. Well, in Christianity, there's a specific meaning for things like an alter, things like cleansing, baptisms that are washings. And when I debated Daniel, we talked about this issue of continuity, how

God always had an alter, a temple, a priesthood. Islam has none of that. So there's no continuity there in terms of morality or in terms of the theology. Islam has a totally different set of standards that are completely arbitrary. Sam will pass it over to you, all.

Mohammad's morality must live up to the biblical morality. Otherwise he is a false prophet. And so when we look at even the Torah, even though Jesus is the consummation, and we are told clearly in the Old Testament and in the teachings of Christ, that God in his love condescended to the Israelites and allow things.

and I can give you several examples. In twenty Deuteronomy twenty four, verse one of four, the true God of Moses says that if I divorce a woman she marries and either or he dies, I can't take her back. It's an abomination. What God says is an abomination. Mohammed Zelah says is moheeded the only way you can take your spouse back. In chapter two, verses two twenty nine to two thirty of the Koran, if Daniel makes the mistake of irrevocably divorcing his wife, she has to marry

someone else. He has to have sex with her, and then if he divorces her he can take her back, adding insult injury. So the God of Moses says, Muhammed's God stands condemned. Another aspect Douranmi twenty one ten to fourteen, unlike what we find in the chron and the Sunna, where Daniel's God says, if you're out in jihad, you

can take women captive, even married one. You can then molest them, even though they won't call it rape, because by taking them captive you've numbliflied their marriage, have sex with them, and sell them off to your property. Whereas the God of Moses says in Douranami twenty one ten to fourteen, if you find a captive woman, you make her your wife. She's not married, You give her a month to mourn, shave her head, and you give her the full status of a wife and his light wife.

And if you divorce her, she's free. You don't sell her. So even though the Old Testament it's the ideal standard, even the Old Testament condemns the kron and the Sunnah as being barbaric and Droeconian, beneath even the standard the Old Testament, which does not live up to the standard of Jesus Christ. And any attack in the Bible, they again prove Muhammad as a fraud. And I hope you attack the Bible because Muhammad is a fraud, but for other reasons.

of the prophet Muhammad. Pist people. Let's go through a list. The Bible says in Levidigus chapter twenty to execute a woman who engages in adultery. Many Christians will say, oh, this is the old Covenant, it's no longer applicable. Fine. That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that God commanded executing adulterers at one point in history, and God, according to the Trinity, is also Jesus. So Jesus commanded the Israelites to kill adulterers. Does that sound

very peaceful? Later in Leviticus, Jesus says homosexuals should be executed. If a father sleeps with his daughter in law, they should both be executed. Here's a brief list of sins that Jesus requires you to be executed for, according to the Old Testament, engaging in idolatry, breaking the sabbath. So an Israelite three If an Israelite three thousand years ago accidentally did some work on Saturday to break the sabbath,

Jesus wanted that israel Light to be executed. A son striking his parents deserve death, or even if he curses his parents, Jesus say, kill him. A sorceress, Jesus say, kill him. A blasphemer, Jesus says, kill him. A brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend who entices you to worship other gods. That says in Deuteronomy thirteen, Jesus says, stone them to death and have no pity on them. So Jesus is pro

death penalty for a lot of things. To be fair, Islam also has the death penalty for adultery, sorcery, and blasphemy. But if we're judging who is more pro death penalty Jesus or Muhammad, Jesus wins hands down. According to the Bible, Jesus is also pro genocide. In Deuteronomy twenty, Jesus commands Moses to attack the Canaanites and other peoples and quote leave nothing alive that breathes. In Deuteronomy chapter two, Moses requested safe passage for the wandering Hebrew people from Sihon,

king of Heshman, but the king refused. Jesus then commands his followers to conquer and possess Sihan's lands. As Moses says, quote the Lord our God, meaning Jesus, delivered him before us, and we smote him and his sons and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little

ones of every city. We left none to remain. Now, to be fair, Muhammed peace be upon him also commands war in some contexts, but the difference is Muhammed peace behind him doesn't command Muslims to kill women, children, and babies. He says the opposite. He says, to spare women and children. But Jesus, according to the Bible, is not so merciful. Then we go to slavery. The Old and New Testament both endoored slavery, including taking girls as slaves for potential brides.

Numbers thirty one says. In Chapter thirty one says, Moses said to them, have you let all the women live. Now kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. End quote Again. Islam also endorses his slaves and concubinage, but the difference is that in the Bible, Jesus says you can sell

your own daughter into slavery. Exodus, chapter twenty one, verse seven, Jesus says when a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years, as the men are. Unlike Jesus, Islam doesn't allow parents to sell their little girls into slavery. Finally, on the topic of age of marriage, nowhere in the Bible does Jesus specify a minimum age for marriage. Jesus had no problem with child marriage, and if he did, he never told anyone, even though as a common practice in his

time in the Old Testament times. Furthermore, many church authorities endorse child marriage. For example, Saint Augustine himself was set to marry a ten year old when he was thirty one before he became a priest. Thomas Aquinas says that sex depends on maturity, which he says happens at twelve years old for girls, and he says it can even

happen earlier for some girls. The Catholic Encyclopedia also notes that Man was betrothed to Joseph when she was just a twelve year old little girl, and in the Canon law and Catholicism this minimum age of marriage verse twelve. I want the Christian audience to know that the Bible and the Catholic Church have fully endorsed Marian girls as

young as twelve or even younger. So if you want to attack Islam and the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and say that they endorse pedophilia, well so does your Bible, and so does the Church, and so does Jesus. Note that I'm not condemning the Bible or the Church for this reason. So this is not a two quote quay fallacy, as Jay is sure to say. But I'm just pointing out the lack of consistency among many questions. Thank you, all right, Okay, So what I'll do real I want to a brief responsor.

So I'm going to have a Jay. You wanted to go first, right, Okay, you're going to put five minutes on a clock. I'll reach out after they finished both rounds of this word round two of the Bible versus the Kuran, five minutes on a clock, Go ahead, Jay, take it away.

suit their purpose or their argumentation, that's a double standard. Next, I would say that even in the Old Testament, the rabbinic tradition, Jews did not always act upon these penalties. Many of these penalties that were listed were about ritual impurity,

not all of them, but many of them were. And ritual impurity does carry over into the New Testament when in our view what happens is that not so how much the state, although Christian states have at times enacted some things like that pulpy for the things that were listed, it's ritual and purity in terms of coming to the liturgy. So in the Orthodox and in the Calviny Church, we both share this position. You do confess your sins before

you come to the Eucharist. That's because if you have committed these sins, you are ritually and in a sense morally, because the ritual refers to the moral, you're morally impure, and so that's the purpose of confession. So many of these things do carry over, just not in the way that they assume. And I would say that that's a much better notion of continuity.

In chapter two, verse two forty six to two fifty one, where it was his Allah, whom he said was Jesus, So he just met Jesus, says Allah Mohammed's god in judge in chapter two, verse two forty six to two fifty one, who ordered Saul on these expeditions, and there's not a word of condemnation by his prophet saying that what Sal 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 Saihel Buhari, Volume four, number three fifty three asked me to read it because I don't want to eat 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 Deuran me chapter twenty and also alludes to

Joshua chapter seventy ten. So that means Jesus is a law his god, Mohammad's judge, because of according to your prophet, your God sanctioned these marriages. I'm not marriage. I'm sorry

these wars, so that means you're better than your God. Now, ironically, he quoted Exodus twenty one seven, but as he's been doing all night, all day, and all night, he didn't quote the entire context because if you read the context, the reason why she couldn't be let out is because a woman that time can't be let go to be on her own. She has to be under the protection

of the master or her father. But then the text says that she's to be married, not raped like what Mohammad did in chapter four Verus twenty four and the Sunna when they took married captives and raped them and sold them Exodus twenty one seven to eleven says he's to marry her or her son marries her, and if he cannot be fair with her, she is to be divorced and let go. So conveniently, he doesn't show that

this context again condemns Mohammad and his morality. And ironically he mentions about the age of marriage well in the tullmood, because Muhammad quotes Tomud, and I'll show you where even his prophet said that according to the Torah. He confused the Tumud the Torah, a woman has to be past the age of twelve and show signs of maturity, and

he called that injunction in the Tumut the Torah. But that means even by that standard his prophet is condemned to hell because at the age of fifty four he slept with a nine year old minor and sanctioned pedophilia. Because there is no limit or age in Islamic shetty, according to his scholars, that would say a woman has to be yahai or this age in order for a

man to mount her. And in the same tolament it says you are not to give a girl who's mature enough for marriage to an old man and Muhammad was fifty four years old. You don't get any older than that. He was old enough to be her great granddaddy. So I'm glad you're appealing to the Jewish Christian sources because these very sources to say your prophet is a false prophet and Antichrist. Under the feet of Jesus.

them an option. So I'm not condemning. Notice, get the logic, right, Sam and Jay, I'm not condemning the Bible for slavery. I believe that Islam also endorses slavery. Islam also endorses war, but we don't go as far as Jesus in command and killing babies like he does in Deuteronomy in numbers. I don't condemn Christianity or the Bible or Catholicism for this minor marriage, marrying girls as young as nine, ten, eleven. I don't condemn that because I think that there's nothing

wrong with that. But I want your audience to know that you don't find anything wrong with that. You don't find anything wrong with a twelve year old getting married, because that's what the Catholic Church, that's their morality, and that's what this section of the debate is about. It's about morality. So I'm giving it to you.

the limits at which you can umiliate them. Let's keep in mind that Jesus in Matchew twenty three commands the disciples and Christians to do and believe as the Pharisees believe. And if I'm not wrong, they really liked young girls three years older than one day. I mean, Jesus seems to ocup with it. But are you ok with that?

against you. That's all. That's all. Now, condemned, child condemned. No, our time is not up.

leave nothing that breathes alive. The Quran never says this. Yes, the Quran commands war. There is the story of Moses going to battle, Yeah, that exists, but there's no genocide that is mentioned. Because the Quran is correcting the false narratives that are found in the Old Testament, all the additions that we find in all the different variations of the Bible that we've discussed in the previous section. So that's the difference. And yes, please, everyone is waiting. Stop

dodging the issue. Condemn child marriage. Tell us that the Catholic Church is really a pedophilia organization over the centuries, because canon law not the tal mood. We're not talking about the tal mood. We're talking about Canon law says that twelve years old is the age of marriage acceptable age of marriage. So condemn that, please. We're waiting, Jay and Sam, go ahead, you Jess.

is what you believe. I really want some to speak on whether know a person can abuse their wife, whether a person can take donation money, spend it incorrectly, maybe spend it on young girls. Wouldn't be surprised to find you enough Stein's list to be honest. So I just really want some to ask and answer the question, do you accept Sam do you accept child marriage? Yes or no? And based on what we would like to know Jesus is Jay condemn it? You condemned it?

I'll do is I don't want to interrupt this. So what we'll do is we'll read the chats after they complete this round and then before they do the fire round where they you know, open dialogue, then we'll do the chats. Sorry to you, guys, I don't want to interrupt it. You know what I mean, and the flow and everything else like that. My job here's to monterie give you guys, the best show. Don't want to interrupt

it with super chats right now. I'll do it after we finished this and then we'll do the final thing. So round three, five, ten on the clock for a team Christianity. I know, Sam, you got a lot to say, so go ahead.

continuity that the argument and that debate was about. Here, he's using it as another way to say, these are the texts and the Old Testament that are valid to teach this. And my point is that he's arbitrary and he has a double standard, and that's an internal critique which neither of them have ever never understood. I've made this point in every debate we have. They don't know what an internal critique is. They think that it means that you hold to your position. That's not what an

internal critique is. It's just showing that you have a double standard. I'll let it go to you, Sam.

of women other than his own wives. Because when he's sanctioned the rape of married women, raping them and selling them off as channel, that's condemned by the God of Moses and Deronomy twenty one ten to fourteen. So Lord, forgive me for acting like Muhammad, because I know acting like Mohammad leads me to hell, So I may have mercy. Now, let's come back to the issue you kept saying that

will we condemn child marriage absolutely. And here Ezekiel sixteen versus sixty eight, first quenteen seventh verse, chapter seven, verse thirty six, the dedicate in chapter two, as well as a tulmud. The reason why they say twelve if you are in context, and I'm going to challenge Daniel, give me the full quotation of Thomas and Quinas unedited, because you're like your prophet, you like to edit and quote out of context. They're placing it at twelve because that's

when they assume that a woman will reach puberty. And even then they say she has to wait a little time beyond twelve. For example, here in the Tomat says not only twelve, but sometime after that when her breast start formed, because they took that as indication that she's now pubescent and that she's now knowledgeable enough to choose marriage or reject marriage. So even by their standards, you condemned Mohammad a hell because according to that very standard,

Mohammed mounted a nine year old. He was fifty four. So Christian and Jewish sources would condemn him as a petal file who desired a nine year old and he mounted her. And then your Kuran and sixty five ors four doesn't even have the age of twelve as the limit. So yes, I condemn it, which is why I condemn your prophet. And as far as violence, well, it's your Kuran that says that you guys can beat your wives. So if you want to accuse me of that, more

power to you. Lord Jesus forgive me. I'm a sinner because I was.

here's my challenge to Daniel and Ijaz. Show me in your Koran the explicit condemnation prohibition, explicit condemnation prohibition of killing children, because I'll show you in your Koran where your own God destroyed women, children, cattle, for example, in the flood of Moses. I'm sorry, Noah, because the chron does confuse two floods when a time of Moses and Noah, and as well as Sodom tomorrow where he pelt them

with stones. Can you show me where your God discriminated and said, oh okay, hey stone, that's a baby, avoid him. That's California. But that pagan right there, recommend head show it to me. And you're fully aware that your own hadith mention where your prophet allowed women and children to be killed indiscriminately. That's even in your own Hadith. But again, like you've been doing with the Bible, you've been butchering

your Koran and your son now. And I don't blame you because if I I'd have to resort to these tactics because you can't define a lie mamma is then, and Jesus is alive. End up story thirty seconds, all right, So that's it. Anytime they attack the morality, they just prove Mammaeda is a false prophet, their god Allaw is a false god. And they are for other reasons because your prophet confirms the Bible. My Bible doesn't confirm Muhammad,

and they keep forgetting Jesus is now the standard. And even though the Old Testaments not the standard, even the laws of the Old Testament are better than your prophet. And notice what he said about captives. The reason why she's taken captive there was a war, but that shows to the humanity of the God of Moses. You don't take a captive woman and raper like your prophet did.

we'll get right back into it. What do we got here? Bills? Okay, Dan Fry says the guy in the top corners opening statement with shash water could be solid, liquid, could be gassed. But there are some things in different father forms father son, holy goes of course, and just you guys know, debaters, the chatter is going to be bias towards their religion, so it is what it is. Silad Sort says Sam. Why would you say the words prove and rational in a debate about religion? Why is it left hand such

an issue? Please mind etiquette when you're in a debate, because pointless jab derailed the conversation. Okay, that's what Silace Sword, We got h mark you, Matt. I know you're trying to be professional timing rounds, but people want to see blood blasts, so you should add an actual last round where both parties just go at it. We did, we got that. Don't worry, we were already on that. Mark you. This Sam guy is unseerious. He goes and craatezone understanding

of his lump shows as integrity. I bet you will find many contradictions if his understanding of Christianity is investigated. Okay, Odi didan How come Islam was created six thirty five and the Gospel John was created one hundred a d. John was an eye witness. He saw I lived and eat eating with Jesus. Should I believe in a cave or a witness of Jesus Christ? Okay, Andrew Wilson, and this is from army killo. We got snow, Valentine says, just asking aren't we all going to hell under Islam?

And there's nothing we can do to correct it because of our sinful nature? Okay, Snow, Valentine, we got here. Mayn thank you for bringing this great debate together in respect to all four men who are participating, Can I recommend Christian Price to join? The next to me, Sam can ask to join if you approved?

stay cooking us from stone. Yeah t three, See guys, You guys got supported on both sides every day. Young And says this might be to Skitzo, but Zurka and Sicco big spiritual influencers. One thing Sirka said that has me learning more Christian is why is Jesus' most mock figure if he wasn't God? Okay. Hamza says, Islam translates the submission to God in Arabic language, all lot translates

to God in Arabic and Arabic languages. Christiated comes from the word Messia in Greek language refers to Prophet Jesus. Judaism comes from the tribe of Judah. Only Islam doesn't associate anyone with God. The first human being a prophet, Adam submitted himself to God, not the Messiah or Judah tribe. Okay. And then the man Matt says, if you follow any religion to the tea with fear or just blind faith, I'm sorry, but you are a slave and cannot think

for yourself. There's no separation between us and God. We are all a part of God. We all do what Jesus did, who was black, by the way, and his name was Yeshua. Yeah, yeah, yes Shua. Modern society has forced the masses to believe that we all like peasants to some omnipresent on the potent being, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Everyone here needs to study Neville

Goddard's cheek teachings. Okay, wfn F, guys for making this happen question for Sam and Jay if prova of Jesus, peace be upon him, were to come back, which will happen? What would happen to the Muslims who believe in him as a prophet Banaa's God. Anyways, guys, we have much more common than in differences, So he asks this question for Team Christianity. Says, here, if Jesus came back, and what would happen to the Muslims who believe him as a prophet versus as a god?

Jay may have a different perspective. So you can't just generalize all Muslims because not all Muslims know Islam. They don't even know what Christians believe, just like Christians may not know their faith right, let alone what Muslims believe. God is a god of infinite mercy. And I don't think the Muslims would disagree with me because you take into consideration your circumstances, your knowledge, and your status and

position in life. That's my answer. I don't know if Jay wants to answer some add.

attributes remain distinct from human characteristics. Okay. Aristotle Online says Islamic tawheed has been proven contradict this from titias. Okay, go ahead, we can play. It just came in earlier tour if I'm not mistaken. Yeah, it came in a way early. I can't even hear.

accepted codex. Okay, and then Aristotle says, goobl duke, oh, gooblegook. This level of handwaving requires tight titanium risks ok gobledygook okay, and acy one says, why are you always quoting quote mining Justin Martyr from Jehovah's witness and ignoring the rest of the rebuttal, lying your balls up. That's from ac

one okay. And then David says for Muslims, is it true that today's Quran is not based on early chronic manage scripts, rather on the work of a man named El Danny and his medieval Mussulai.

says gobbledy. Okay, all right, we're crought up. So okay, guys, I'm gonna go ahead and put ten minutes on the clock. Is that okay with you guys? Because I've noticed that we won over time.

it here. I'll read the whole thing since quote. Since marriage is affected by way of a contract, it comes under the ordinance of positive law like other contracts. Consequently, according to law, it's determined that marriage may not be contracted before the age of discretion. When each party is capable of sufficient deliberation about marriage and of mutual fulfillment

of the marriage debt, and that marriages otherwise contracted are void. Now, for the most part, this age is fourteen years old for males and twelve year old twelve year old for women. But since the ordinance of positive law are consequent upon what happens in the majority of cases, if anyone reached the require perfection before the aforesaid age, so that nature and reason are sufficiently developed to supply the lack of age,

the marriage is not annulled. Wherefore, if the parties who marry before the age of puberty have marital intercourse before the aforesaid age of twelve, their marriage is nonetheless perpetually indissoluble. End quote. I stopped fining. So my question now there, Jay, is does he condemn child marriage?

do a ritual wash. These are commands of God. And it's understood that water has been created as something to purify, but it's not something where Yeah, 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. So I don't see how this is some kind of interrogation of Islamic morality.

can say Thomas Aquinas. Neither you or or Sam can say that Thomas Aquinas, our pedophile is a pedophile.

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?

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 pillar 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 prophet's 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 elaw who doesn't exist.

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 the way, Oh, I 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 usual. So Sam, I'll vote to you how many seconds we have to for this minute and a half.

people of Noah, including women, children, and cattle. Can you show me a single verse in the Koran where when he orders your prophet to go and performs jihat, not to kill women and children when his pattern is he destroys everything.

sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly. That would be tough. I guess you for some Just to be clear here, just so we establish this. When you claim that Koran approved re this was your claim, and you claimed that the Koran approved genocide when you spoke of soul, Why does the Kuran do that? Never does that once? And the Klan actually says in the same chapter I'm asking the

question only in a statement. The Klan actually says in that chapter, do not transgress beyond the limits which on law has established. Are we more what those limits are based on the durations we just read.

That's what Jesus says. Those Jews didn't see pillars of clouds and they didn't see any miracles. They were living after the time of Sina. So your biblical all or your exegesis is completely off base. And also Jay is misrepresenting the Catholic Church. He's misrepresenting Canon law. I'll read more quotes for you. In the twelfth century Canon law, jurist gration stated that consent for marriage could not take place before the age of twelve old, twelve years old

for female than fourteen years old for males. Also, consent and betrothal could not take place before the age of seven year old from females and males, as that is the age of reason. So it's actually seven years old

and twelve years old. The Church of England after breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church, carried with it the same minimum age requirements age of consent for marriage of twelve years old for girls and fourteen year old for boys is written into English law and then the Catholic Church.

Before the nineteen seventeen Code of Canon Law, the minimum age for a dissoluble betrothal was seven years seven years in the contractees, minimal age for a valid marriage was puberty or nominally fourteen years for males and twelve years old for females. This is the nineteen seventeen Code of the Church, so this is something that was up until very recently. The Catholic doctrine. I reference Thomas Aquinas, I reference Gration. Sam is a heretic. He's throwing all of

the Catholic Church bus. He's throwing Canon law under the bus. And Jay refuses to say that these are all pedophiles. Jay refuses to condemn Thomas Aquinas as a pedophile. That's shocking. I hope all the Christian listeners, especially the Protestants listening, note that these heretics, Sam and Jay are down with pedophilia all right.

put to death whenever he wants. Because in one King's eighteen Elijah had a show down with your spiritual ancestors because your God will 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 up story, Bye bye, you lost.

I just came in all right, So we'll let this play it's actually talk to speech here.

crowd unknowable. If you think this question is irrelevant, you have no grounds to criticize the Trinity.

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?

We don't have the same debate, Branson, We don't have that same debate in Islam at that.

which is the big problem. We can largely assume that they're from the second century onwards, as Sam claimed in his interview with Chattiscoa. I think was the name or yeah, just to be clear. As for the Quran, however, they don't have to guess because the manuscripts of it in the light time of the perfect Peace per Oponem. But

the manuscripts aside, they have inscriptions. But the inscriptions aside, we have other geographical data that is widespread enough to definitively prove that the Quran as we have it today is from the light time of the profect Peace Perponem and his companions. We call this, just to be clear, and archetypal text. This is what we accept as Muslims. But for Christians there is no such thing. I would like some or j. Toy really point out that the Bible as they have it, the scholars refer to it

as a voltage or a hypothetical reconstruction. It's not actually the word of God when you see it mentions that every word, every word in scripture is God readed. They should amended to stay. It may be God readed, but we can't actually know. I mean, for goodness sake, Jesus got God's name wrong.

the target language. But what he doesn't tell you, and I did series on this, Allah, who's supposedly speaking the Koran, will repeat the same story with the same speech, whether Moses and the Egyptians or Chapan Ebliez and Allah 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 churn itself is one huge ipsissima vox, which is surprising because I thought Allah

speaking and Allah knows everything and recalls speeches perfectly. So much for Allah 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 i seima vox of your prophet, not ep sees some of Verba. Moreover, if the Bible is not preserved, you prove Mohammed is an antichrist because he confirmed 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 I 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. Stop being a Muslim, joined Barber Madam.

It's for me to there's that point the Bible against you. I can pre the Bible against you. I don't have to assume to use it against you. It's not secular reasoning because I'm not implying the consequence to becose. So one more time, please try not to interrupt. And then you don't like the answer. Secondly, you made the claim that the prophet Peace be upon him committed rape. We asked you to show where he did so, and you

could not. On the upper hand. On the other hand, I showed you were Jesus with Jesus the Christ, the firms that whatever the Pharisees tell you, do it, it's just not your Chapter twenty three the hypocrites sys the hypocrites. But he also says obear them or bear them. We know that, and the committed genocide. I don't need to I quote exactly what I want. Thirdly, Thirdly, thirdly, you made the claim. You made the claim that Jesus never

affirmed anything extreme. But if you believe he affirmed the Old Testament, he affirmed the crimes to rapes, the genie babies.

their women as captives. Go take the the girls with any man, the girl the girls who haven't slept with any man. Makes them as your captives and shave their heads and humiliate though. Okay, we didn't deny the flood. We didn't deny that. Just pointing out that's a stupid argument. It's a stupid no. It's it is a big difference. God want order people.

and actually commit that. And the interpreters of the Bible, including the Christians, took those verses to justify their genocidal programs in the Roman Empire, in the Byzantine Empire, all the way to the colonial period. They use these versus the Bible. Israel today, they're using these verses of the Bible to justify their genocide throughout history.

their young ones. So the prophet carried out the expedition, and when he reached that town at the time or nearly at the time of the act prayer, he said to the son, O, son, you're under Allah's order, and I'm under Allah's order. Oh Allah, stop the sun from sitting. It was stopped till Allah made him victorious. Then he collected the booty, and the fire came to burn it, but it did not burn it. He said to the men,

some of you have stolen something from the booty. So one man from every tribe should give me a pledge of allegiance by shaking hands with me. They did so, and the hand of a man got stuck over the hand of their profit. Then that prophet said to the man, the theft has been committed by your people, so all the persons of your tribe should give me the pledge of allegiance by shaking hands with him. The hands of two or three men got stuck over the hand of

their prophet. He said, you have committed the theft. Then they brought a head of gold, like the head of a cow and put it there, and the fire came and consume the body. The prophet added, then Allah sorrow, weakness and disability, so he made booty legal for us. Here, Sahibukati, your profit confirms dur on me twenty verses one to nine, which you just attacked earlier, meaning you're better than your prophet.

And then you can force them to marry you, shave their heads and humiliate them. This is what we're reading from numbers. So this is like you didn't mention it any rate. The Hadith that Hejazz read earlier says that there's no killing of women and children. Why can't you deal with that? We don't read one kadith and say that.

that hadith says kill women and children. You didn't show that. Where does the hadith say kill women and children? Don't just fill a buster and pretend we're not going to notice. As you don't pretend we're not going to notice that nothing that you read says kill women and children. I don't where does it say, Where does it say where does it say kill women and children?

that's that's a question for team as. I'll turn that to a because he answered the.

twelve years old or younger. Canon law, gration endorses it. And even Jay could not condemn Thomas Aquinas as a pedophile. He condemns him, he condemns him, but he doesn't say that he's a pedophile. So actually, within this debate, we've seen plenty of resources within Christianity that child marriage is condoned, it's accepted, and that's the Christian tradition. Now Christians want to throw their entire Bible, their church tradition in the

trash go ahead. Muslims were consistent. We say that look, marriage can happen at the age of puberty. When a girl goes through puberty or a boy goes through purity puberty, then they can get married. And that is what God has allowed, and that's what every culture and religion has

practiced historically. It's only become a problem in modern times because of modern educational system that requires you to go through twelve years of education so you can become a wage slave, go and work in the factories, go and work for the industries. So they want to prevent you from getting married younger as a teenager. Instead, they want you to fornicate. They want little girls at nine years

old to fornicate with each other. And a lot of these Christians, they don't have problems with their kids having a girlfriend or boyfriend or experimenting with sex at age nine, ten, eleven, twelve. That's happening rampant within Western society. All we hear is about how Islam is pedophilic. Well, look at your own societies. Marriage would be the solution to the amount of degeneracy

that unfortunately we see in the West. And maybe Jay would agree with me, Maybe not Sam, but Jay would might agree that marriage can be the solution for a fifteen year old to get married, a fourteen year old to get married. That was certainly the church's position.

five minutes. In about an hour, we'll have some after hours. It won't be as kosher as this debate was here, so we'll catch you guys. Thank you guys so much for coming on the podcast. Great to have you guys.