Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 1, 2024 - Fresh & Fit

02:05:15

Fresh Debates @MohammedHijab on Christianity vs Islam

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	What's up, guys?
	Welcome to Fresh Up Podcast, man.
	We got Muhammad Hijab in the house, man.
	We're gonna be doing this virtually.
	Let's get into it!
	Let's go.
	What's up, guys?
	Welcome to the Fresh Fit Podcast, man.
	It is Monday.
	We got a special guest in the house, guys.
	We got a three-peat for you guys, by the way.
	We got Hammond Hijab now, and then we got TK Kirkland coming in a little bit later, and then obviously we're going to do an after-hour show for you guys.
	With him.
	Yes, it's going to be lit.
	Quick announcement.
	Two main things, guys, really.
	Rumble.com slash Fresh Fit.
	That's the home base for us.
	CastleClub.tv.
	And then the tickets.
	Guys, we're having a live event here in Miami, April 26th.
	Don't miss out, special guests, girls, and, of course, us in the studio live for you guys.
	So go check it out.
	Tickets are down below, pinned, and in the comments.
	Totally affordable, too, man.
	It's going to be down here in Miami.
	We want to get as many of you guys out there as possible, meet as many of you guys in person.
	It's going to be lit.
	We're excited.
	But without further ado, man, we've got a special guest in the house.
	You guys have been requesting us to do a collab with him for a very long time, and I'm glad that he made time for us today.
	Welcome to the podcast, Mohamed Hijab, man.
	Thank you very much for having me, my friend.
	How are you doing?
	You alright?
	How are you, man?
	I'm good.
	I'm good.
	Welcome, welcome.
	Yeah, I'm good.
	I'm glad we're able to make this happen, man.
	So for the audience that might not, I mean, obviously I'm very well aware of who you are.
	You know, shout out to Sneeko for linking us, by the way, and creating that contact.
	But can you, you have a huge YouTube channel yourself, huge following, probably one of the most famous Islamic scholars in the world.
	But for those that don't know, can you please introduce yourself to the people?
	Well, I mean, look, as you mentioned, content creator, I would probably call myself in the most neutral way.
	I've been online for about eight years now, producing all kinds of content relating to, I would say, for example, Islam, religion, politics, society, philosophy.
	Obviously, I've had lots of debates, which are high-profile debates.
	Recently, I had one with Piers Morgan.
	got which went viral which are mega viral right so that's really the reason why I've become quite notorious in the ends brother nice nice and I did actually see that debate the one with Rabbi Shmueli right there was two that The initial one I had with Piers Morgan accumulated, I think, probably about eight and a half million views.
	Yeah.
	And then the one with Shmoli about, I don't know, like five million or something.
	But it was a heated debate.
	And Piers Morgan referred to it as the most combative debate in TV history.
	A lot of people, when they watch that debate, consider it to be a very controversial debate.
	So, yeah, I mean, there's been a lot of high-profile moments and interesting times, you know what I mean?
	Yeah, so can you take us through your evolution of how you got here?
	Obviously, you're very respected in the space and in the religious world.
	How did you get to this point?
	What was your background like?
	Well, I've been going to university for a very long time.
	And at the same time, I've been doing Islamic studies.
	So because I've been doing multiple degrees over the span of maybe about 11, 12 years now, I found an outlet in being able to disseminate information, edify people, which was YouTube, actually.
	So I found that YouTube and social media, the internet in general, allows you to get through to people in a way, in a manner, that classrooms and lecture halls don't allow you to do so.
	So it's...
	Yeah, for me it's input and output.
	I've been learning and then I've been teaching.
	So I've been trying to edify the people and also learning from the people as well.
	It's been a very transformative experience for me in the last nine years.
	And I know you're pursuing your PhD when I was looking into some of your stuff.
	How far away are you from getting your doctorate?
	I'm nearly done.
	I'm just writing it up and stuff like that.
	Hopefully, I should be finished with that.
	As I mentioned, I've kind of had enough of university number from because I've been doing multiple degrees.
	I think I've done four now.
	I've done four.
	By one year's time, I would have done six.
	So that's a lot of degrees, and I think I'm going to retire at that point.
	Well, let me ask you this.
	Oh, sorry, please.
	I was going to ask you.
	I just want you to finish your thought before I ask.
	Yeah, I was just talking to my friends about this the other day.
	When you do that many examinations, from when you were a kid, and you do that many essays, and you do that many dissertations or whatever it may be, you get tired.
	And so it's been interdisciplinary for me.
	I've done a history masters, for example.
	I've done something in philosophy of religion.
	I've done something in politics.
	You know, I mean, I've done obviously Islamic, I've done two Islamic studies degrees.
	So there's lots of things I've been doing along the way.
	I found it interesting.
	I find it enjoyable to do that kind of thing.
	Do you know what I mean?
	But now, at the tail end of my studies, I've actually had enough of it a little bit.
	And so, yeah, I feel like the next step for me is probably focusing a little bit more about the teaching side than the learning side.
	Gotcha.
	And I totally feel you there, man, because just for me, even going to college and getting a bachelor's degree was a pain.
	So I can only imagine pursuing multiple degrees, pursuing a doctorate, writing all those essays, going to lectures, writing dissertations like you were mentioning earlier.
	It gets very monotonous very quickly, especially when you've been in the education system for a while.
	But let me ask you this.
	So I've always, at least in America, I don't know what it's like in the UK. I'm assuming it's fairly similar.
	The education system tends to be extremely liberal.
	The people in the education system tend to swing left, be more woke, so to speak.
	As a Muslim, which naturally the religion is fairly conservative, how are you able to maneuver in the education system without dealing with headaches or problems?
	It depends on what you think.
	I've been to four universities.
	So like each university, actually each and every single one of them that I went to in the United Kingdom have been left-leaning universities.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	So I'll be honest, there's pros and cons from like a Muslim traditional perspective of going to a left-leaning place.
	The pro of it is that they are quite, I mean, obviously you'll know this, they're quite inclusive in that sense.
	So they are afraid to say or do things that are going to offend you as a Muslim.
	They're aware of your cultural sensitivities and so on.
	Obviously the cons are well known.
	I mean, I think we're all aligned on some of the cons in woke culture and leftism in general.
	And obviously being around that, I don't like to see and be around some of that stuff, you know what I mean, as an individual.
	It's not my taste.
	It's not something I enjoy to see.
	However, I mean, I think the pros actually are more than the cons, from my angle at least, because at least I can get my job done.
	Yeah, I've had issues, but, you know, at the end of the day, when you're doing your dissertations, when you're doing your examinations in the United Kingdom, they have a degree of anonymity.
	So like, for example, when I was doing A-levels in this country, which is like the equivalent of SATs in America, I've done well in my A-levels because no one knew who I was.
	Do you know what I mean?
	I scored high grades because no one knew who I was.
	When I got to university, once again, there were anonymity things.
	But here's the thing.
	I have actually suffered in the United Kingdom as a result of my views.
	For example, I used to work as a school teacher at one point.
	And this was famous news.
	In fact, one person that you interviewed, which is Tommy Robinson, was part of the reason for this.
	While I was working as a school teacher, and there was this kind of like, they were doing it, they called it the Freedom March.
	Then me and Ali Dawah came down, this was in 2018, it's a public record, you can probably check this if you wanted to.
	We went and wanted to challenge Tommy Robinson.
	In fact, Tommy Robinson had actually invited Ali to be one of the speakers of the event.
	So last minute, we went there.
	Last minute, they cancelled him being the speaker.
	And then we got beaten up, basically, because there was like hundreds of them.
	They rushed us, which means they came in and tried to beat us up.
	Wait, physically?
	Try to beat you up?
	Physically?
	Yeah, beat us physically.
	Yeah, it wouldn't be any other way.
	I mean, there was maybe 30 assailants or something like that.
	Do you know what I mean?
	So what happened is...
	After that, my school contract got cancelled.
	So I couldn't work as a school teacher anymore.
	So I realized that for me as a Muslim that has these views in the West and the United Kingdom, it's either censorship or it's, you know, it's not just censorship from a social media platform, which is something we're afraid of.
	We're speaking to Sneaker, obviously he's been censored and blocked off YouTube and stuff like that.
	But it's also the fact that you get fired from jobs.
	You get managed out of things.
	You can't be free.
	You cannot be free as a conservative, if you like, traditionalist Muslim.
	So these are some of the things that I suffered growing up and stuff like that in this country.
	And so I had to make my living as a content creator.
	It wasn't actually my ambition.
	I wanted to do some kind of work and at the same time do content creation.
	But It just so happened that everything forced me towards this.
	Because it's not just that I became unemployed, but it became unemployable when I had certain views.
	Like for example, the views of LGBT. For Muslims, just like Orthodox Jews and many Christians, you know, we don't believe that homosexuality is an acceptable morality, for example.
	So having that view is unacceptable to the majority of society in the West.
	Especially in London.
	So it's forced me into this corner, I would say.
	Wow.
	Because we've been told, especially in the UK, there's no free speech at all.
	And from the laws as well, whatever you say can be used against you, but work-wise or, for example, even regular-wise.
	Yeah, you guys are fairly restricted in your ability to speak and convey your ideas.
	Have you been to the United States before?
	I'm assuming you probably have.
	I've been to the United States four times, been to Canada about five times.
	I would say, look, it's on a legislative level, it's true that in the United States of America, there are broader legal allowances in terms of what you can say, because you don't have the equivalent of hate speech legislation.
	And things like defamation of character, libel, and stuff like that is much easier to prove in the United Kingdom than it is in the United States.
	So I think you're right to say that in the United States, there's definitely more freedom of speech embedded both in constitutional law and institutions generally.
	But you know, when we speak about freedom of speech, it's not just...
	I think it's a mistake to think that freedom of speech is something that it's only a governmental reality.
	Like in other words, so long as there's laws that allow or prohibit freedom of speech, that freedom of speech is present or absent in a particular society.
	Because the assumption there is that government is in control of all things that happen.
	In a society.
	Well, it's not the case.
	You've got government that controls part of society, but also you've got, for example, institutions.
	Elon Musk, as an example, is a very, you know, influential person, and therefore his platform could be said to be, in many ways, more powerful than some governmental institutions.
	So if he decides to take people off and on his platform, that's an implementation of freedom of speech, or lack thereof, on a platform.
	Likewise, YouTube.
	And a lot of these companies are US-based companies.
	So the point is that freedom of speech shouldn't just be thought of as, okay, if it's in law, then it's present in society.
	If it's not in law, then it's not present in society.
	Because you have all these institutions and companies.
	And one could even make a democratic argument against people like Elon Musk.
	Because he's almost yielding the power of a representative, for example, parliamentarian or member of Congress, without being voted in.
	Okay.
	So this is an issue here because you have people that have power, the power of politicians that have not been voted in.
	So this is a threat to democracy in many ways.
	Good point.
	But these are complex discussions.
	But the point is that what I wanted to bring to the table was that the absence or the presence of freedom of speech is not just contingent on constitutional law, statute law, or otherwise.
	It can also be the institutions and the players, the main players of said institutions.
	Okay.
	And so maybe there should be a discussion about whether or not certain main players need to have some kind of a check from the people if it's a democratic mandate that people are looking for.
	So Elon Musk or let's say whoever it is that owns YouTube or Mark Zuckerberg or whoever it may be, you know, as I say, I reckon that they have more influence than the majority of politicians.
	That's a fantastic point that I never really thought about.
	That's pretty profound because if you really think about it, these people control platforms that actually have the reach and the ability to utilize this free speech that we talk about, but what do they do?
	Thank God for Elon Musk.
	He brought a bunch of people back.
	He made X. Obviously, X still has its terms and conditions and everything else like that, but it's way more open than other platforms.
	But you're right, man.
	Zuckerberg over at Facebook, Adam Massari over at Instagram, all these guys, they have more power than politicians do because they're able to regulate speech on their platforms, which in turn obviously is the vehicle from which you're going to use to get your message out there.
	And if they don't like what you've got to say, then unfortunately you get canceled.
	Yeah.
	I mean, to be fair, it is their platform, so understandable.
	But when it comes to free speech, you're right.
	There really is any free speech because governments don't control everything.
	They control a small portion, but these companies do control a lot.
	Yeah.
	So, yeah.
	That's a good point.
	That's what it is, you know.
	I had a question, if you don't mind your job.
	What do you think about Christianity and atheism separately?
	So we'll take one at a time.
	Obviously, with Christianity, as Muslims, we believe in Christ.
	We believe that Christ is the Messiah.
	We believe that he's a prophet.
	We believe that he was sent by God.
	We believe that he was given wonders and miracles and signs, as it's mentioned in the book of Acts in the Bible.
	He was a man amongst men that was sent with wonders and miracles and signs that God did through him.
	That's a biblical verse.
	And that biblical verse there in the book of Acts is everything we agree with.
	That God did those things through him.
	So we believe that, you know, Christ cured the leper, that he cured the blind with God's permission.
	But here's the difference between Islam and Christianity.
	So whereas we would say as Muslims that Christ was, yes, he was the Messiah, he was one of the greatest people who ever graced this earth.
	We consider anybody who rejects Christ We're good to go.
	Likewise, you cannot be a Muslim and attack or abuse or besmirch Mary, son of Mary, which is the mother of Christ.
	Those two figures are mentioned in the Quran.
	In fact, Allah mentions that Mary is the best woman on the earth.
	That he has chosen you above all women on the earth, even more so than any of the prophet's wives or any of the prophet's daughters or anybody else.
	So Mary for us is the most important woman to have ever lived.
	There's a whole chapter in the Quran, chapter 19, which is the chapter of Mary.
	Which recounts some of the stories there relating to Mary.
	So, we don't believe God, Jesus is God or the Son of God.
	That's the main difference.
	We do not believe that Jesus can be God.
	We do not believe that it's conceivable, it's intelligible or that it's possible that anybody with a date of birth is God.
	Let me say that again.
	We do not believe that it's possible, that it's conceivable or intelligible that anybody with a date of birth is God, because God is the Eternal.
	Jesus is not the eternal, at least the physical manifestation of Him.
	He was born of a certain time.
	He had a mother.
	You know, in the Quran it says, That Him and His mother used to eat food, which indicates limitation.
	Because if you're eating food, how can you be God?
	So the point is that we believe that Jesus never even claimed to be God.
	There is no good evidence that Jesus claimed to be God.
	There's scanty evidence in the Bible, and the Bible itself is an unpreserved text we consider to be.
	So it's a corrupted text.
	So our views on Christianity is as follows.
	We agree that Christ and Mary are great figures, but we think that history has distorted The image of Christ and Mary and this idea of the Trinity was a historical development.
	That what happened was, in the Roman Empire, when Constantine adopted Christianity, because what happened in the beginning was, Christians were a persecuted minority.
	Then what happened was, in the year 313, there was the Edict of Milan, and, you know, Constantine, who was the then, you know, Emperor of the Roman Empire, he embraced Christianity.
	He had a dream and so on, and then he embraced Christianity, and then he spread Christianity throughout the Roman Empire.
	That's how Christianity spread.
	When Christianity spread, the Roman Empire already had mythologies that were adopted from ancient Greek mythologies, like Mithraism, for example.
	You can check out Mithraism online.
	And most of these mythologies consisted of a godhead of some sorts, father, son, this kind of relationship.
	And so it's easy to see that in the Roman Empire, how Christianity evolved due to the adoption, amalgamation, and synthesis of these ideas, which were otherwise, you could say, pantheistic, polytheistic ideas, mythological ideas, into the canon of Christianity.
	And that is even evidenced by some of what you call early church fathers.
	So you have someone called Justin Marta.
	And in his works, he's discussing in primary source materials, he's saying that just as you guys believe in Jupiter and the Sun, we also believe in the Father and the Sun.
	So in other words, he's trying to...
	Make close the proximity between pagan belief and Christian belief.
	So it's clear that the idea of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit was something which was adopted by the Romans.
	That's why the early Christians, for example, the Ebionites, didn't believe in this.
	And the idea of the Trinity is clearly developed such that the Holy Spirit joined the party as co-equal, co-eternal only in the late 4th century according to J.N.D. Kelly in his book, Early Church Fathers.
	So you can see that there was a binitarianism and then that transformed into a trinitarianism.
	Now what we're saying is that this whole idea of God, this is not something God sent.
	It's not something that you even find in the Old Testament.
	Abraham didn't believe in the Trinity.
	That's what the Quran states.
	That Abraham wasn't a Jew or a Christian.
	He was submissive to one God.
	That's what he was.
	He didn't believe in Muhammad.
	We don't say that he did.
	He was the prophet of the time.
	So Abraham didn't believe in the Trinity.
	We don't believe there's any evidence.
	There's scanty to no or zero evidence.
	So this is the point.
	Islam separates itself from Christianity in so much it says that We don't believe that Jesus was God.
	It cannot be possible or fathomable, plausible, intelligible, conceivable that a man who is limited is God who is unlimited.
	A man with a beginning is God which does not have a beginning and so on.
	That's the main difference.
	So, just to respond, I get what you're saying, and I have a family that's a Christian, Muslim as well, so I do understand both sides of the religion on some level.
	But let me ask you this.
	So, in that regard, if Jesus isn't God as you say, what about the Bible?
	Should we follow the Bible as well as the Word of God, or no?
	You see, that's a great question because here's what we believe.
	And it's not just we the Muslims believe it.
	Yes, we the Muslims believe it, but this is now consensus in Christian scholarship.
	The idea that the Bible itself now has become corrupted, which means that there have been things that have been put into it and things have been taken out of it, which is why you have contradictory versions of the Bible.
	We have the New International Version, the King James Version.
	The Revised Standard Version, all of them have contradictory information.
	They're not all the same because they depend on different manuscripts.
	And you can refer to the works of Bruce Mesker, who wrote a book on the corruption of the Bible.
	He was a Christian himself.
	So it's not actually...
	Controversial in the 21st century to state that the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, have been corrupted thoroughly.
	They have been ravaged with corruption.
	They have corruption in every chapter, in fact.
	And so we, as Muslims, the relationship we have with the Bible is we would say there's some truth in it, but some falsehood inside of it.
	And for us to discern what's the truth, we go to the Qur'an because we believe it's the final revelation.
	You see, it's the final revelation which distinguishes and sieves out and filters out the truth from the falsehood.
	And so our relationship with the Bible is that we would say, as any historian would frankly, that some parts of it are voracious and are acceptable, and other parts of it are interpolations, corruptions, and false, frankly.
	So I can't argue that the Bible wasn't changed because things have been changed over a period of time.
	I'm not going to lie to you there.
	But back in the day, let's say Moses himself, did he have the Quran?
	Pardon?
	Moses.
	Yes.
	The prophets back in the day, they doubt the Quran?
	So we believe that Moses was sent the Torah, and that's the same thing as what the Jews believe.
	So the Torah was sent to Moses.
	The Torah is the Torah.
	Now, Christians have a book called the Old Testament.
	Jews have the same book, but they call it the Hebrew Old Testament.
	The first five books of that book is what Jews refer to as the Torah, beginning from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and so on.
	Now, we would say about this is that this is not actually the Torah.
	These five books are not actually the Torah.
	But you can see this, number one, in the fact that there's no chain of narration which links Moses to these five books.
	Number two, that if you see the first manuscripts that we have of the Old Testament in general, they're about a thousand years after Moses, frankly.
	They're a thousand years after Moses.
	So there's no connection between, for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls or whatever it may be, and Moses in a direct way.
	The second thing is that we believe that there was an original book sent to Moses and that that book was corrupted.
	But the corruption that we have now of the first five books It's not necessarily the Torah that Moses was originally sent, but there may be remnants of it which are.
	So once again, as a historian, look into it.
	Now, historians say, for instance, there's something called documentary hypothesis.
	Documentary hypothesis is the idea that there's so many different authors of the Bible.
	This is the dominant school of thought now in secular history, that there have been so many different kinds of authors of the Bible.
	They all bring different things to the Bible, and it is what it is.
	We would say there are some things in the Bible which are true.
	I mean, if you open the Bible with all due respect, the first page of the Bible has contradictions inside of it.
	The first page.
	For example, it says in the beginning God created the night and the day, and on the first day God created the night and the day.
	But on the fourth day, according to Genesis 1, on the fourth day God created the sun.
	But how can you have night and day without the sun?
	On the third day, God created the vegetation, like the plantation, the shrubbery.
	But how can you have plants and vegetation without the sun?
	In Genesis 2, verse 5, which is the second page of the Bible, It said that no plant has sprung up yet.
	So I thought in Genesis chapter 1, it said that on the third day God created the plants.
	But then in Genesis chapter 2 verse 5, it says there's no plants.
	So are there plants or no plants?
	So there's internal contradictions.
	There's external contradictions.
	I mean, that's why most of the people of today in the 21st century have resorted to what you call metaphorizing the biblical text.
	So they're spiritualizing it.
	They're saying this is not what it's meant to be.
	It's just a metaphor.
	That's why there's so many contradictions inside of it.
	And this was not the dominant idea back in the days.
	There's only really the Alexandrian school, who are like origin of Alexandrian others, that used to do that.
	But apart from that, no bona fide church father used to do that, frankly.
	Apart from the Alexandrian school.
	So in other words, people have resorted To metaphorize in the Bible because of the contradictions inside of it.
	And they can't solve those contradictions.
	And so what we would say is that a true book from God cannot have contradictions.
	That's why the Quran says that if this book was from other than God, you would have found in it many contradictions.
	You would have found in it many contradictions.
	And that's the challenge that we put to humanity.
	That if the Quran is truly from other than God, then why are there no contradictions inside of it?
	And so this is one of the many challenges that we put to humanity.
	Go ahead.
	Okay.
	Thanks for your explanation.
	I think it was really good.
	I just question it because in my belief, I think Jesus was God and is God.
	And at the same time, how do you dictate what's real and not in the Bible?
	Like for example, I know you said it was changed numerous times, but how do you dictate what's real and what's not real in your sense?
	Because I've seen many times in the Bible where he says, I am God in different ways.
	But in your stance, you're saying it's not true because things have changed over the years.
	But how do you know what's real and what's not in the Bible?
	So what is God?
	Let me ask you this.
	What is God?
	The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
	The one that guides us through our daily life.
	Do you define God as the all-powerful, the all-knowing God?
	Do you define God in those terms, like the beginning, no beginning, no end?
	Do you define God as the one who's all-powerful, the creator of the universe?
	Yes.
	Okay, so when you pray to God, you are praying to the creator of the universe?
	Yes.
	Alright, so if you're praying to the creator of the universe and the one who's all-powerful, the one who's without limitation, the one who is all-knowing and so on, there are many things about Jesus which make him impossible to be God.
	For example, if he's a human being, he is limited in knowledge.
	And in fact, if you look at the book of Mark chapter 13, I think verse 34, you'll find that he went to the tree and he didn't know if it was in season.
	He didn't know when the hour was going to be.
	For example, he said no one knows when the hour is going to be except for the Father.
	So if Jesus is God, how come he's lacking in knowledge when we've already defined God as being all knowledgeable?
	What would you say to that?
	Okay, so...
	As God being all-knowing and being the father, right?
	Let's say Jesus is his son, right?
	Maybe as a father, you don't tell your son everything that you want him to know up front.
	Maybe things need to be hidden.
	But the son is meant to be all-knowing because the son, Jesus is meant to be all-knowing.
	Okay.
	The Holy Spirit is meant to be God, because the Trinity says the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God.
	If no one, according to the Bible, it says no one knows the hour except for the Father, okay?
	So, does the Holy Spirit know the hour according to the Bible?
	I've not seen the verse saying that, but I would assume yes.
	No, no.
	The verse says the opposite of that.
	So the verse says that no one knows the hour except for the Father, right?
	Which means that the Holy Spirit is precluded, is not included in that.
	So if that's the case, if the Holy Spirit is meant to be God, and being God means knowing everything, then there's a contradiction there.
	Do you see the point?
	I see what you're saying.
	Yeah, so a contradiction is meant to be false.
	It's wrong.
	So if you're speaking to, for example, you know, when you speak to your guests on intersexual dynamics or whatever, and then one of them says, you know, if one of those women come, you know, one of those escorts, or sorry to say, well, I don't know what they are.
	If one of them, I don't know what they are.
	But let's say one of those escorts come and say, what do you consider yourself?
	You say to her, what do you consider yourself?
	So you say, okay, you know, she says, I'm 7 out of 10.
	And then two minutes later, she says, I'm a 6 out of 10.
	And then two minutes later, she goes, I'm a 1 out of 10.
	You're going to say this is a grand contradiction.
	Either that or you're confused.
	So if Jesus is meant to be God, he has to be all-knowing.
	If the Holy Spirit is meant to be God, he has to be all-knowing.
	But he can't be all-knowing and not know when the hour is because then that precludes a part of very essential knowledge.
	You see the point?
	Yes, but just going back to the first thing you said about the Bible contradicting itself, how would I know that that hasn't been changed too?
	See, here's the problem.
	How would I know that that verse hasn't been changed as well?
	You get what I'm saying?
	What verse?
	Oh yeah, exactly.
	Yeah.
	So you've got layers of problems here.
	You've got issues here.
	But hold on.
	You've got one issue that you don't even know what verse has been changed and what hasn't.
	Then you've got the other issue, which is that the concept of God according to Christianity is contradictory.
	Because you have one God...
	So Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but there's only one God, you see.
	So this ain't no contradiction that I'm outlining right here.
	Because if you went to your child who's seven years old, and you said to him, look, we believe that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but there's only one God, and you do this, and you show your three fingers like that.
	I'm pretty sure that your child is going to say...
	This is a problem here, Dad, you know, because this is something which is basic, that this is a contradiction in the idea of conception of God.
	All Christians, Catholics believe in this, Protestants believe in this.
	And so Islam solves the problem, because what Islam does for you, it says, there's only one God, Jesus was not a God.
	He was, yes, a great man.
	He was the Messiah.
	He was a prophet.
	We accept Jesus.
	We believe He's the second coming, all of that kind of stuff.
	But to believe that He's actually God, that we pray to Him, when He Himself, according to the Bible, was on a cross, and He was saying, God, God, why have you forsaken Me?
	Who is He even speaking to then?
	Like, in the Bible, this is what He's mentioned.
	God, God, why have you...
	Forsaken me.
	So it seems to me that this would be a grand contradiction.
	And if he did die and then was resurrected, as in Easter, because we're in Easter time, as what the, you know, the Christians believe.
	If that was the case, then who was running the universe at that time?
	You know?
	You could say, well, his body died and his soul didn't...
	Really, it's hermeneutical gymnastics.
	Mental acrobatics.
	That's what we have to do in order to believe in things like this, brother.
	I have to be honest with you.
	Okay.
	So just real quick, and then this is my last point here.
	So you mentioned earlier about showing your son or your daughter three fingers, saying one is God.
	But you mentioned earlier that God is all-knowing, powerful, almighty, correct?
	Right.
	So, as a man, who are we to question his logic and judgment for his creation, which is basically us questioning him as being God.
	So you're saying three in one doesn't make sense to us, but it makes sense to him.
	You know what I'm saying?
	And then, just real quick here, you mentioned...
	Jesus isn't God as well.
	You can use the argument with every single girl that comes on your podcast and says, look, I'm a transgender.
	I'm this, I'm that.
	We'll say, look, it doesn't make sense to you, but it makes sense to God.
	Truth is not relative.
	Truth is objective.
	But hold on.
	Like, for example, if I said 2 plus 2 equals 4, you cannot say, well, 2 plus 2 equals 4 to me, but it doesn't mean it to you or to God.
	If 2 plus 2 equals 4...
	It's not something which is static.
	All kinds of absurdities will result.
	So for example, the law of non-contradiction, yeah?
	That you cannot have two opposite things at the same place at the same time existing together.
	You cannot have a tall, short man.
	You cannot have, you know, a squared circle and so on and so forth.
	If you do away with this rule, then any absurdity follows.
	That's a logical precept.
	If you do away with the law of non-contradiction, any absurdity follows, which means truth is not even something which is obtainable anymore.
	There's no such thing as truth.
	If you remove the laws of logic, then there is no such thing as truth.
	An absurdity can follow from that.
	Yeah, that would apply to people, human beings, but to God, you're putting a lot of restriction.
	You know what I'm saying?
	But real quick, so...
	No, no, no, just on this point, I wouldn't agree because I'm saying to you that the laws of logic apply.
	God is the one who, we would say, He is the one who set the laws of logic Himself.
	The thing is, if you don't believe in the laws of logic, and for example, non-contradiction, or for example, 2 plus 2 equals 4, if you don't believe in any of that, then you can't have a conversation with anyone about anything because there's no common ground.
	You can never find out what truth is.
	Okay, so creation itself, who decided 2 plus 2 plus 4?
	Mandate, right?
	I'm just saying, on a basis, 2 plus 2, who decided that?
	Who decided 2 plus 2 equals 4?
	Is that a serious question?
	I'm asking you.
	No one decided 2 plus 2 equals 4.
	How did it come about?
	Look, mathematics is a language.
	Mathematics is a language.
	Actually, it's a tautology.
	Tautology is when you say the same thing twice.
	2 plus 2 is an expression of 4.
	The equal sign in mathematics shows that 2 plus 2 is equivalent to 4.
	Do you get it?
	So it's like, say, a tautology, if I'm saying, it's raining, it's raining, I'm saying the same thing twice.
	It's always true.
	So because in logic, a tautology is always true, anything with an equal science in mathematics is also always true.
	No one decided that.
	That's something which you call an objective truth.
	If you don't have it, you won't be able to do physics, you won't be able to do science, you can't do logic, you can't even have a conversation.
	I agree.
	Let me tell you something, brother.
	I'll be honest with you, my friend.
	What is your name again?
	Fresh.
	Fresh, my friend, if you really believed in what you're talking about right now, which is that you're okay to think that potentially the laws of logic or mathematics can be relative...
	Then really, where you see it right now...
	That's not the argument though.
	What is the argument?
	If I'm God and I'm the creator, I'm almighty, I don't follow the rules of logic or whatever you say as man.
	Why would I do that?
	I'm just questioning because I want to know from your opinion, how can you question God himself?
	If he's a creator and almighty.
	I'm telling you, brother, that 2 plus 2 equals 4.
	2 plus 2 equals 4 is something which is tautological.
	Yeah, for man.
	It is something which is true always and it's objectively true.
	But not for God, though.
	You get what I'm saying?
	It's objectively true for God as well, yes.
	No, but you're putting that on God himself.
	How can you do that?
	I'm not putting it on God.
	God put it on us.
	You just did!
	God put that on us.
	No, as man, but not as God himself.
	God put that on us.
	I don't put anything on God.
	God made it so that the universe...
	The universe and our minds, a priori, all the logical precepts that we come to, are based on what you call the laws of logic.
	Do you get it?
	If you do away with the law, like I said before, if you do away with the laws of logic, everything fails.
	Do you get me?
	You can't have a discussion about anything.
	We're going to disagree on this point.
	Okay, no problem.
	The fact is 2 plus 2 is 4 in the human world.
	I'm just saying in God's realm, it could be in anything.
	What's God's realm?
	I'm proposing that 2 plus 2 equals 4 in every possible world.
	That's what I'm proposing.
	But how do you know?
	You're not God.
	If you put it in a modal logic format, it's the same thing.
	No...
	Okay.
	With a possible worlds format.
	Like, for example, something called modal logic.
	There's no contradiction in that.
	For you to say 2 plus 2 is not equal to 4 in all possible worlds, you have to show me a contradiction of 2 plus 2 equals 4.
	No, but I'm not talking about, for example, us as human beings.
	Let me be honest with you, Fresh.
	I honestly don't believe that you would put your life on the fact that 2 plus 2 is not equal to 4 in every possible world.
	But you are forced to talk about it like this because you know you cannot defend the Trinity without rejecting logic.
	Well, the reason why is because you mentioned before the Bible has contradictions.
	I don't want to go into that because obviously speaking, you could just say it's wrong or right.
	I'm just saying naturally, if you look at God as a creator, being almighty, if he decides 2 plus 2 is 3...
	2 plus 2, you cannot be decided to be 3.
	Because what that would be, that itself, that process is an impossibility.
	It's like saying God can create a squared circle.
	So the process of deciding that 2 plus 2 equals 3 is not possible in the real world.
	It's in the category of logical classification called impossibilities.
	Do you get it?
	And impossibilities cannot exist in the real world.
	So, for example, a squared circle cannot exist in the real world.
	Likewise, the decision or the act of deciding that 2 plus 2 equals 3 cannot be made true in the real world.
	Do you get it?
	I get you, bro.
	Okay, let's move on to the next thing, brother.
	We can think about this in our own time, religion.
	I wanted to speak about more your stuff, guys, because, you know, I know you guys do intersexual dynamics.
	Let me ask you a question, guys.
	I want to get to it, which is, what do you decide is a high-value man?
	I want my role in this as well, because we spoke about religion.
	I let people decide what they think is right.
	But you guys are, let's say you're specialists now.
	This is your area.
	I want to pick your brains a little bit because I think you don't know.
	Your impact is actually quite a significant impact.
	And I think that you actually made some very interesting contributions, you know, especially what now they call it the men's rights movement or, you know, men's activism.
	And I think some of your contributions, frankly, are good.
	I've heard some of them.
	I watched on YouTube.
	I wanted to start with this question.
	What do you guys think is a high-value man?
	How do you define it?
	You want to go first?
	Go ahead.
	You go ahead.
	Go ahead, man.
	No, I don't want to continue real quick.
	I want to go further in religion, but it's fine.
	I mean, y'all can if you guys want.
	No, let's do a topic.
	I mean, this is a subjective thing, right?
	For everyone, it's going to be different.
	So I don't really think there's a truly wrong or right answer.
	But what I will say is that it's going to probably err on the side of, obviously, a higher earner than average.
	Someone who has respect from other individuals, has a network of people that are also on his level as far as status, whether it's financial, social, etc.
	And he's somebody that other people want to essentially be like.
	I mean, to put it bluntly, is the guy that other women want to be with and other men want to be, if I'm going to put it very simply.
	How about you, Fresh?
	What do you say about this?
	So the term high value, the word itself, I get it, is being used wrong.
	Yeah, we hate using that term.
	We never use it.
	We actually never use that term.
	Yeah.
	Ever.
	I hate it.
	But it means something in the world today, so we use it sparingly.
	But I would say...
	I'm intrigued by it.
	I'm not necessarily...
	I'm not throwing what you're saying out the window.
	Fresh, were you going to say something?
	No, no, no.
	I was going to just define high value for me.
	Go on, go ahead, please, yeah.
	So it just means a man that has worked on himself, he's successful in his own right, has a network of people around him that care about him and respect him, and at the same time has value to the marketplace.
	For example, maybe it could be singing, it could be, for example, his business, it could be, for example, his skill set to the public.
	Whatever that may be makes him high value in the eyes of other people as a whole.
	That's what I would say.
	Would you say that, and this is a question to both of you, is this an intrinsic classification or is it extrinsic?
	In the sense that if it's intrinsic, then, for example, like a block of gold, it has intrinsic value.
	But let's say, for example, like, you know, let's say a TikToker, yeah, doing some kind of a video dancing or something like that.
	You couldn't say that that has intrinsic value, but its value is dictated by the marketplace.
	So is your classification of a high value man, is it more intrinsic or extrinsic in that sense?
	So I would say it's up to the individual.
	Because I made a song, High Value Man.
	Funny song, by the way.
	But the term itself, high value, was used as a precursor for wearing watches and chains and having success, cars and girls.
	But that was my opinion at the time what high value was.
	But as you evolve, you become more placed on different aspects of life.
	And maybe for you, maybe just a tiktoker that's on the internet with a lot of views.
	So I think it's just up to the person or individual what they decide for that to be.
	I've got a take on this, guys.
	I don't know what you guys think of this.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Hello?
	No, go ahead.
	We got you.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, sorry.
	So I was going to say, look, I get what you guys are saying, especially when you speak about men and women, yeah?
	But here's my take on this.
	I think there's a kernel of truth in what you guys are saying, but I think it's mostly in the economic marketplace.
	So for example, here's what I would say.
	When you guys use the term high value, you're usually using it in terms of what women would be attracted to, i.e.
	vis-a-vis something like hypergamy.
	And there's ample evidence, there's a Quing study, which I think is the most authoritative, that hypergamy is true, in the sense that if a woman is given a choice between a man with a satiris paribus, everything else remaining the same, a man who's a higher earner versus a lower earner, she's always going to go for the higher earner, in fact.
	And that's the truth.
	Likewise, a lot of the stuff about what you say about women, women who have less experience in what you call a body count or something like that, it's true that that's probably in the market, sexual market value is probably going to be less ceteris paribus, everything else remaining the same.
	However...
	Here's the thing that I would think that is important to distinguish between.
	This is why I asked you the question about intrinsic versus extrinsic.
	Because in this very strict parameter of how the other or the opposite gender sees that person for marriage or long-term committal relationship or even casual relationship, that this whole high-value man has weight.
	This term has weight.
	But if we're talking about intrinsically, as like, for example, remember I gave you the example of the block of gold versus the TikTok video.
	Intrinsically, a high-value man has always classically meant, usually in ethics, for example, all the way up to Christian morality and Islamic morality and Jewish morality, most of the world's cultures, a high-value man or a high-value woman, Has always been like a virtuous man or a virtuous woman.
	So virtue dictates the value of someone on an intrinsic level.
	Virtue.
	So what is virtue?
	Like, in the past, even before Christ, you had a person called Aristotle who died 323 BCE. He wrote a book called Nicomachean Ethics.
	And he had something called Virtue Ethics, which basically, like, he mentioned some of the key virtues for human beings.
	The most important one for a man That makes him high value, opposite to a woman, and this is what I'm putting forward.
	In that paradigm, and also in the paradigm of Islam and Christianity, I would argue, and Judaism, is bravery.
	I'll put it this way.
	If you had the most rich man in the world, but he was a coward, he'd not be a high value man.
	It would be a disqualifier.
	On an intrinsic level.
	Yes, he might be sought after.
	It might be sought after in terms of like women might still want to be with him, but they don't really want to be with him because of what he is or who he is.
	They want to be with him because of what he can offer.
	In other words, they want to be with his money, really.
	They want to have access to his money.
	So they're using him, utility value.
	Yeah, they're using him for his money because they're trying to access funds.
	That's what they're trying to do.
	He's basically an ATM machine.
	And so what I wanted to distinguish between is a high value man on an intrinsic level who exhibits things like temperance, magnanimity, forgiveness, mercy, kindness, but most and chief most among which is bravery because a man needs bravery more than a woman to provide and protect.
	So, I would agree with that, but my thing is, that's why I was very, because you only spoke about it from the female lens, like how women deem the guy high value, but what I'm saying is that you garner the respect of other men, and a coward does not garner the respect of other men.
	And that's why it's very important.
	Like when I look at this term, not to just look at it from the lens of what females are attracted to rather, what do other men respect?
	And obviously cowardice is never respected.
	So yeah, if someone's a coward, then they automatically are disqualified because other men don't respect them.
	They can have all the money in the world, but they're a coward.
	So, um, I see a perspective where virtue, um, but I'm, I'm saying like, you know, when you, it's pretty much already implied.
	That you're a virtuous man and that you're not a coward when other men respect you.
	Because men, we tend to value other men based on their meritocracy.
	And that meritocracy is encapsulated in a bunch of different traits.
	Are you honest?
	Are you a man of your word?
	Are you trustworthy?
	Can I trust you to get something done and get it done when you say you're gonna get it done?
	Are you willing to stand up for not just yourself, but for other people that you love and care about?
	So cowardice has never been respected.
	I would say that the virtue, that argument that you're making, which I agree with actually, falls into the other men respecting you because that's what men respect is meritocracy.
	Well, I see what you're saying, but here's the thing.
	So this is an interesting parameter, but it's also an economic one.
	So folks, I agree with what you said.
	I think that other men would respect meritocracy.
	Another man with a lot of money, right?
	They would never respect a man who's a coward, even if he has a lot of money.
	So here's the point.
	I think that a lot of the red pill stuff that we get involved in and stuff, or the discussions that we have, we overemphasize How much money we have to make in order to satisfy or to attract other women.
	And we under-emphasize the virtue aspect of it.
	And I'm not saying that the money aspect of it is not important.
	I'm pretty sure that the money aspect of it is important, especially depending on how generous the man is.
	Because if the man is not generous, which is one of the virtues, having a lot of money is not a problem.
	It doesn't matter.
	Even the woman, if she finds him to be stingy and wealthy, that combination will never work out because she knows what he's trying to do.
	So I feel like maybe, I don't know, moving forward with like fresh and fit and stuff, if we focus on the virtue aspect of things a little bit more, because I feel like the society is moving on to a degenerate state, bro.
	I'm not going to lie to you.
	And that is fueled by hedonism and capitalism, and also this idea that now Mammoth is the new god, which is the god of money.
	The god of money is the new god.
	People are now chasing money and hedonism and frivolous pursuits.
	They think that, for example, Ronald Tomasi wrote a book called The Rational Mail, right?
	He's had them on your show before.
	I've read the entire book cover to cover.
	And he mentions in his book that, you know, you need to sleep with 50 women or whatever it may be in order to achieve certain levels so you can really have the experience, yeah, to be with women.
	I think I've seen you, Fresh, mention something like that before because I watched a video before with you guys and Sneeko having a discussion on Destiny.
	Yeah, we've all, Fresh calls it spinning, not Fresh, excuse me, Rollo calls it spinning plates or plate theory.
	Yeah.
	I call it getting experience, right, and being able to understand how the sexual marketplace works.
	But yeah, I mean, sorry, you were saying?
	But on this point, bro, here's what I would say.
	Yeah.
	There is no evidence...
	There is no evidence that having sex with a lot of women translates into an ability to understand women in the context of a committed relationship or a longevity relationship.
	There is no evidence of that.
	So this is where the red pill makes a lot of claims, assertions, but they're not backed because the idea is I feel like there's just ad hoc justifications and rationalization for hedonism.
	Which is effectively just doing whatever you want and whatever you desire.
	But really, let's assess this claim.
	The claim that if you have sex with a lot of women, that that's going to lead to you knowing women more and therefore having a stronger relationship, more longevity relationship with some kind of woman.
	But it doesn't seem to me that there's any evidence to that effect.
	Because I was looking at some studies on casual sex.
	Yeah.
	And I was looking at, there was like five or six of them that have been done.
	And all of those studies, first of all, they're mixed.
	They're contradictory, funny enough.
	Some of them say that, yeah, they harm women.
	Actually, most of them say they harm women.
	Casual sex harm women.
	That is a consensus psychological finding.
	It harms men too, a lot of these studies, but it doesn't harm it.
	Some of them say it harms men.
	Some of them say it doesn't harm men.
	Yeah.
	There's no study that says it helps them in relationships.
	Do you know what I mean?
	Yeah, of course not.
	And they would never run a study like that because it would be considered unethical, right?
	And we know that, you know, when they run these studies, they have to be politically correct.
	They got to get funding.
	They have to do it in a certain way to get the blessing.
	But what I will say is with the whole...
	Body, sleeping with women or whatever it may be.
	It's not necessarily to understand women better.
	It's to understand the women that you don't want to necessarily be with.
	And I think that's half the game because what ends up happening, right?
	And remember, I mean, you're in the UK, so you know this too.
	I mean, the UK is going through this as well.
	We live in a very hyper-sexualized world where women are more promiscuous than ever before.
	So my thing is, right, I look at it like, and I was just having a discussion with Andrew.
	He's a devout Orthodox Christian, and he saw my perspective on this too.
	If you're going to try to meet a woman in the West where they are promiscuous, they don't necessarily adhere to gender roles when it doesn't benefit them, they want a man that makes money, but they don't want to necessarily submit, etc., I think it's very important for you as a man to identify these women early on and not bring them into your life.
	Because the beauty of religion, right, whether it's Christianity or Islam or Judaism is that it basically had an institution of shame and it had what I call training wheels to keep women honest with their man.
	It pretty much shamed them for not doing things that they were supposed to do.
	But these training wheels are effectively gone.
	We live in a secular world now.
	And unless you're a very religious man and you're meeting a very religious woman, it's going to be very difficult for you to find a woman that's virtuous.
	So my thing is, I think...
	And the other reason why I think this is so important is because...
	When you get married, right, luckily, you know, in Islam, you can't just go to a mosque, go to an imam, he'll marry you, boom, done.
	You don't got to worry about the state being involved.
	But most people don't get married that way.
	They get married through the state.
	And with the way the family courts are set up, with the way divorce is set up, with the way it's basically an entire industry against men, I look at it like, if you're going to go ahead and you want to have a family one day, which is the nuclear family, which is the backbone of society, and you want to get married...
	You are taking on a tremendous amount of risk and I don't want you to go in blind.
	However, if you're getting married and the state isn't involved and there's no severe consequences to you financially, then sure, go ahead and be less sexually experienced and meet a woman because at least you're not going to be severely punished for it.
	But my thing is, the reason why I even gave that idea like, hey, get with more women so that you understand them, is because I just don't want men to deal with the whores of the family court.
	Now, is it the best solution?
	Probably not, but I think it's a pragmatic one given the world that we're in now.
	Here's the thing.
	I just want to know what the evidence is of, for example, having intercourse with multiple women, what benefit, like let's say 50 to 30, what benefit are you alleging that it has on the man?
	That's a fair question.
	Every man has different competence, right?
	So one guy might be able to hook up with 10 girls and be like, okay, you know what?
	I get it.
	It is what it is.
	But another guy might be incompetent, might be an idiot.
	Everyone's...
	Level of adaptation is different.
	So I'm not saying, oh, have a hard 50 and don't get married.
	It's like, no, if you find a girl that's worthy, that's fine.
	And I would argue that, like, our podcast is like, we're able to kind of fast line it where, you know, remember, this information hasn't been out for very long.
	So people are kind of learning now through us talking about it on our platform, etc.
	So they might not necessarily have to even hit 50 because they're learning from our mistakes.
	You know, the Chinese say...
	But if they do get 50, what's the benefit of that?
	What do they get from that?
	Well, hopefully, depending on the individual, they are able to identify women that are worthy versus ones that aren't.
	In a sexual capacity?
	Well, I'm also assuming that this person would be seeing this woman.
	If they're just looking to have sex, then obviously it's going to be a waste.
	But I'm talking about, you know, you're obviously corning this woman, you're hanging out with this woman, etc.
	You're seeing her.
	But look, my friend had your book.
	I was trying to look for it myself.
	It's cool.
	Oh, nice.
	I was trying to find something.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And actually, I was flicking through it right before I spoke to you.
	And I like that, like, you know, the...
	The statistics you have on here, one of them that you had on here was, for example, that a man will spend 30 hours or something like this, doing 30 hours doing speed dating online in order to just get one date, 1.46 date in the year or something like that.
	Now, what I'm saying is that to get 50 women, look, you know it's a numbers game and I know it's a numbers game.
	The feasibility, the amount of man hours that you're going to need to put in to have intercourse with 50 women that are not prostitutes, according to your statistics that you mentioned, right?
	The amount of man hours, we're talking about if he's going to use Tinder or some kind of an app.
	And according to these stats, he's going to need to do a lot of that, right?
	And the question of benefit here is an important one.
	Obviously from a religious standpoint, Muslims, Christians and Jews all agree that sex shouldn't even be done outside of marriage.
	Now, it is still possible to marry 50 women.
	I mean, I'm not saying you cannot marry and divorce 50 women.
	It's a possibility.
	But I'm not necessarily saying...
	That one should do that.
	Of course, we wouldn't agree that one should do that.
	The point I'm trying to get at is that there isn't actually any good evidence that having intercourse with that many women would give you a kind of benefit in the relationship.
	In fact, you could argue for the opposite.
	Because if you get sex very easily, going back to the idea of virtue, then you can be less restrained in your sexual appetites.
	And this is something that in virtue ethics is referred to as temperance.
	So if you're less restrained, you don't have as much, you don't have as much restraint, for example.
	You don't have self-control.
	And if you don't have willpower and self-control in one area, you're less likely to have it in other areas.
	And I've read that in a book Willpower, funny enough, by Roy Baumeister.
	Very fantastic book.
	I recommend it.
	But he mentioned the point that if you have willpower in one area, for example, he mentioned fasting, religious fasting as an example, Roy Baumeister.
	If you have willpower and discipline in one area, it's transferable to other areas.
	The idea of getting 50 women having sex with them, which is difficult anyway, according to these stats, because just because you're dating a woman, it doesn't mean you're going to have sex with her.
	As you know, like for the average person, you guys might not be the average person because, you know, from a status perspective, you guys have got, you know, big channel, good money coming in.
	The guy's wearing a nice Rolex red face.
	I like it.
	They're fresh.
	And you're wearing a nice watch as well.
	It's chocolate.
	You guys are well put together.
	Thank you, bro.
	Thank you, bro.
	So, not everyone is fresh and not everyone's my own gains.
	Yeah.
	And so it's not going to be easy to get sex like that.
	So, for them to put 30 hours to 50 hours to get one date, and then after that, to get like 100 of those dates, maybe 30, I don't know how many, what the numbers would be, a conversion rate.
	Five dates to one woman having sex, maybe?
	I don't know.
	Keep in mind, right, because people tend to criticize my, you know, my idea that you should have sex with 50 women.
	But there's a bunch of other things I tell the guys to have in place as well.
	They should make a certain amount of money, 35 years old, be in shape.
	They need to have a bunch of things in line so that they can be in a position.
	And the reason why I say this, like, so here's what it is.
	Make six figures a year or more, have six months or a year of savings, be in shape, 50 women, and then be 35 years old.
	The reason why I say have these five things in place is because most women will look at you as a higher status, more attractive male, which will inevitably put her in her feminine, put you in your masculine, so the relationship ends up actually working because we all know what happens when you deal with a rambunctious woman.
	Now, does that mean that if the person reaches 10 bodies, 20 bodies, 30, 40, and he has other things in place, oh, no, sorry, baby, I can't commit to you because I need to hit 50.
	No.
	And like I said before, with our podcast, we might be able to curb it where they don't need to necessarily hit that number.
	But I'm speaking from a general perspective for most people, and then also as far as the book goes with the dating stuff.
	This is why I'm such a big proponent of not relying on online dating.
	I tell people, meet girls through your friends, meet girls when you're out, meet them out in real life, use Instagram.
	We have multiple different ways that you need to go ahead and source women.
	Now, with that said, of course, if you're religious, then this might not necessarily apply to you because you're...
	You're going against your religious beliefs.
	But my thing is this, if you're a religious guy, right, and you can't do this, that's totally fine.
	The only thing I ask is I want them to make sure that they don't get married with the state.
	You don't need to hit this body count number if you're getting married and it's just religious strictly and there I see.
	Look, a lot of what you said there is very reasonable.
	I don't think it's wrong for a man to aspire to make a certain amount of money.
	I don't think it's wrong for them to put themselves in the place.
	I think it's actually quite praiseworthy, frankly.
	You know, there's nothing wrong with that.
	My only issue is that the reason why I mentioned the 50 body count thing...
	This is my analysis, Brian.
	You can tell me what you think.
	We're living in a time historians refer to as Pax Americana.
	It's a time where America is a superpower, and as a result, Western countries have not had to have wars where they themselves are in danger in the ways that they had in the past.
	It's more like incursions or invasions or whatever it may be.
	As a result, we in the West are living in a state of relative ease and comfort.
	Arthur Schopenhauer, a famous philosopher, he said that human beings or humankind, mankind, vacillates between extreme boredom and extreme fear.
	I think now we're living in an age of extreme boredom because we're not fearing that someone's going to kill us in a war context.
	As a result...
	We are missing what most cultures in the past referred to as rites of passage for men.
	This is where the masculinity crisis comes in.
	Because before, a man could prove that he is a man by stepping on the battlefield.
	Now, that kind of opportunity is no longer afforded to us on the same kind of level.
	And as a result, we have invented rites of passage for men so that they can feel like they have gone through a certain process and now they're men.
	And what I see with the red pill movement is that they've invented arbitrary and ad hoc rites of passage Which actually feed more into hedonistic liberal thinking And did anything else which they're scanty to know evidence that will improve them as an individual Virtuously or otherwise the lack of which we've just mentioned the 50 body count thing Which I know comes from the rational mail because I've that was the first place.
	I read I don't know if you got it from there as well Yeah, this is a good point is this He just calls it plate theory.
	Yeah, I mean, what I'm saying to you is, in the time it would take you to find non-prostitutes that are 50 in number that you can have sex with in the West, you can spend making money for yourself, you can spend working on yourself, you can spend improving your bravery, improving your proficiency, your strength.
	Because the thing is, I feel like there's an underlying assumption with the red pill movement, yeah?
	And the assumption almost is that we should live our lives to make ourselves most marketable for women.
	And I feel like that in irony...
	That's not true.
	That's not what we...
	At all.
	So I've always said...
	Go on, go on.
	And I talk about that in the book, too, is I want the guy to be the best version of himself, and then the women are a byproduct of it.
	And I'm very explicit about that in the book, that like, hey, I don't want guys running around chasing women, spending a bunch of time and money and resources on women that don't necessarily want them, because what will end up happening is what you mentioned before.
	He'll be looked at as a utility.
	So I want the guy to develop these characteristics Of obviously sticking to his word, having these masculine traits, being a leader, being dominant, being assertive, going out there and conquering the world and becoming successful, becoming a catch, then the women are a byproduct.
	Because whenever guys go ahead and chase women, a lot of problems arise.
	So I tell guys, focus on yourself first and then the pursuit of women can come after.
	That's why I said be at least 35 years old.
	Beautiful.
	It's good that you cleared that up.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, for sure.
	Yeah, it's fantastic.
	So now my question is, if they're focusing on themselves, why are they doing it?
	Are they doing it?
	Is there a purpose in life, which is an objective purpose in life that they are striving towards, or are they just doing it?
	For another reason.
	So what's the reason that they're doing all these things?
	That's a fantastic question.
	So, right, if I give you a gun, right, you can either choose to use it as a tool to hunt, to eat, or you can use it to commit crimes, right?
	But I'm giving you the tool, and then it's up to you how you want to use it.
	That's exactly what this knowledge is.
	Some guys are going to use it to find their wife, be able to, you know, filter out the women that are worthy versus the women that aren't worthy, and they're able to use this skill set to their advantage for building a nuclear family.
	Other guys are going to use it for more hedonistic things that you disagree with, which I see your perspective on that.
	But my thing is I want to at least equip them with the tools so that they can decide what they want to do with their life.
	Because my fear is I don't want them to get in a situation where the woman is dictating everything because the guy is aloof and not aware of what's going on in naïve.
	And I think that aspect of it is probably where you excel the best and most because that aspect of it appeals to something deep within every single man, which is the ambitious drive to become better.
	And so long as we're...
	These things are very important that we're clarifying that we're not doing this because...
	Of any woman.
	And you know, like, I'm not sure if you've come across these archetypes, you know, the alpha male, the sigma male, and the beta male archetypes.
	You've seen them online, and the differences between them.
	You see, the sigma male archetype usually has what you're talking about.
	He doesn't really care about what the woman is doing or saying or thinking.
	Whereas the alpha male...
	It's more his, you know, he is a status figure and as a result women are coming towards him and so on.
	So here what I'm trying to advocate is more in line with that Sigma male archetype rather than the Alpha male or Beta male archetype.
	So what I wanted to add as well is that the thing with Red Pill, bro, is There's a few elusive but important things in the manual of Red Pill, which I think you need to be aware of.
	So, for example, if you look at Ronald Tomás' book, he mentions that this is not an ideology, but this is a praxology.
	I don't know if you've come across this terminology, yeah?
	Yeah.
	And then he proceeds, in the end of his book, to writing down what he talks about as eight laws, or I think twelve iron laws, right?
	Now, I know they're suggestive.
	They're not prescriptive from one angle.
	They're not obligatory.
	You don't have to do them.
	The 50 rule, the vasectomy that he talks about, all those kind of things, which are arbitrary in my opinion, and there's scanty evidence for their benefit, like I've said before, right?
	But the vasectomy, the lack of family, don't get married, you know, these kinds of things that he talks about.
	Don't get married and, you know, the iron laws and how many people you have to have sex with and all that kind of thing.
	He does advocate for marriage.
	He just doesn't advocate with how we do it today, with the state being involved.
	And I totally, totally sympathize with that viewpoint, especially with the woman taking half of your wealth.
	We would consider that to be a grand injustice anyway.
	And a lot of the things about how a woman can withhold the children, and that's where I agree with Red Pill.
	That's totally where I agree with them.
	I think that's where the strongest arguments lie.
	However, I'm going back to the point that there's something quite elusive about this situation because when something becomes ideological, when does something become ideological?
	It becomes ideological when it becomes what you call teleological, when it becomes prescriptive to some extent.
	And something can become prescriptive to some extent even if someone's making suggestions and giving advice.
	I feel like Rollo Tomasi doesn't understand this point, because I saw his discussion with you and Sneeko and Destiny, and although I don't like the Lata person I just mentioned, Destiny, there, I don't like him.
	I feel like he's a weasel of a man.
	I don't think he's even a man.
	I actually don't think he's a man, let alone a high-value man.
	He's not even a man.
	Him, Ben Shapiro, and all these other people that I mentioned in that discussion, they're not even men.
	They don't even meet the threshold of men.
	But putting that to the side, what I'm saying is that The red pill ideology is prescriptive and therefore it meets the threshold of ideological.
	And so the Quran asks a question.
	Do they have partners with God that have legislated that which he has not permitted?
	When someone tells me to do something or not to do something, the question is from what greater authority are you coming with this information?
	And people like Roland Tomasi, with all due respect to him, because he is a clever guy and he's respectable and I've seen his book and some of the stuff I totally agree with him on it.
	But what authority do you have to give me iron laws or any kind of laws?
	Do you know what I'm trying to say?
	I showed a picture of him to some of the guys, some of the MMA fighters.
	I don't know who they are.
	Him with his hat and his ponytail and this kind of thing.
	And they looked at him and said, this is a guy who's written a book.
	Tell me what you think.
	The first thing they said to him is, this is not the guy that's going to tell me how to be a man.
	Well, would you respect him?
	No, no, no.
	I mean, you know, if you want, I can absolutely facilitate you guys having a discussion.
	I think it'd be a great discussion.
	But, you know, I can't really speak to his views.
	I mean, me and him agree on a lot of things.
	I don't have, you know, I don't have the nine iron rules like he does.
	But I'd be happy to, you know, facilitate that discussion if you want to talk about that.
	I mean, debate-wise, it'd be great.
	I'm open to speak to anybody.
	But the point I'm making to you is, going back to the point that we, in the West, we have these rites of passage that we think we have to go through in order to be men.
	But the truth is, the rites of passage that you have to go through in order to be men is increasing and bettering all those virtues which are seen by cross-culturally, cross-religions, Christians, Muslims, Jews, everyone can agree, all those things.
	Are good things, like for example, being brave, temperance, for example, having magnanimity, for example, having forgiveness, for example, being loving, for example, not being foolhardy, for example, not being cowardly, for example, and so on and so forth.
	Do you get what I'm trying to say?
	So if someone works on those things, increases their knowledge, and from our perspective as Muslims, has faith, that's when they attain...
	A high-value man status.
	That's what it is.
	So high-value man for us is the virtuous man.
	If the person cannot reach, if he's a coward, it doesn't matter how much money he is.
	I don't care if Bezos or Musk.
	If Musk one day is walking the street, Elon Musk, and he's with his kid, or he's with his wife, and someone slaps his wife, or shouts at his wife, or spits on his wife, and he cannot intervene and defend in a proper manner, or at least tries to defend her, I don't care how much money he's got, how many platforms he owns, how many companies he's got.
	He doesn't even meet the threshold of man anymore.
	He's not even a man anymore, let alone high-value man.
	It doesn't matter how much money you've got.
	That's on an intrinsic level.
	Yes, he's always going to have women that are going to want him.
	But they're not going to want him for him.
	They're going to want him for what he has.
	He is a walking ATM machine.
	He would be.
	Do you get what I'm trying to say?
	So that's where I feel like...
	The emphasis should be also.
	So, here's the thing.
	So, and I don't blame you for this.
	A lot of people don't know this stuff, but we do daytime shows, right?
	Similar to this one that we're doing right now, where, obviously, you're a special guest, so we're not doing it today.
	But on Mondays, we talk about how to earn money, right?
	And obviously, earning, with becoming successful, earning money, you have to have certain characteristics of being disciplined, exercising temperance, being dedicated, etc., and putting off hedonism a lot of the times to become successful.
	On Wednesdays, we talk about how to properly date and vet women.
	And then on Fridays, we answer We answer questions.
	We tell guys that they need to get in shape, etc.
	So, unfortunately, right, and this is kind of one of the things, me being very open here about our podcast, our daytime shows don't get as much views and clips and virality because...
	Oh, I see.
	I see it.
	You see what I'm saying?
	Like, no one clips when I yell at men and tell them to stop being pussies.
	No one clips when I tell them to, you know...
	Honor your guys near you and have a good circle of men and be good to those men.
	They never click that stuff because that's not exciting.
	They want to see us dunk on random bimbos on after hours, and that's where people go viral.
	But they never get to see the other side.
	What we talk about, I've been very adamant about loyalty.
	I mean, one of the biggest criticisms I get is people say, oh, you're loyal to a fault.
	You support people all the time.
	They gave me so much criticism for standing by Andrew when he was going through that bullshit with the thing.
	But to me, it's second nature because that's just a masculine trait where if you're my friend, I don't give a fuck what anyone says about you.
	I know that you're innocent and I'm going to defend you regardless of whether it's popular or not.
	But obviously, these things that we talk about never get highlighted, unfortunately.
	What gets highlighted is us dunking on bimbos and they assume that that's all we talk about.
	But we do really focus on trying to get guys to self-improve and have these virtuous traits that you're talking about, not being a coward, sticking to your word.
	Not being a backbiter, standing by your friends when they need you.
	Because that is something that I agree with you that is lost in the West in general.
	It's something that's lost in Gen Z, especially where for them, it's all about making content and going viral.
	There's no honor almost in today's day and age.
	So I agree with you on that.
	It's just that unfortunately, that doesn't get pushed in the algorithm as much.
	They always clip our other stuff.
	Our more degenerative content gets clipped, which is unfortunate.
	Yeah, that is the truth.
	That is the truth.
	I can see you.
	I can see what you're saying.
	Sorry, Fresh, you were trying to say something, right?
	Nah.
	I get it because he didn't understand what we do outside of the dating show.
	Yeah, I mean, and I don't knock them.
	We're coming from a secular standpoint, of course.
	It's not going to be religious.
	It's very secular, worldly.
	So our point of view, our actual steps are going to be more like, I want to say...
	And actually, funny point, people that are religious, I'll refer them to people that are more religious.
	I've had Muslim guys ask me, like, hey, how do I go about this?
	And I'm like, you know what, dude?
	You're religious.
	Go to someone like Muhammad Hijab.
	He'll advise you on how to deal with dating in the modern-day marketplace based on your religion.
	Because what I'm telling you is secular advice, and it's not going to align with what you're supposed to be doing.
	Even Christians, they call into the show, amen.
	Here's one piece of advice I'd give you, Myron.
	And forgive me if this comes across as a bit too forthright, yeah?
	Recently, I've seen some clips where some, you know, Islamophobic guests have been attacking the religion.
	And you gave...
	I know what your style is.
	I understand it.
	Your style is to let people speak.
	You believe in a free speech and all this kind of thing.
	I fully understand.
	But there comes a time where, okay...
	You need to exhibit some of those virtues that we're talking about in the sense that, okay, if they're talking about your religion, because you're a Muslim, right?
	Yeah.
	Like, fresh in the beginning, even though he did try his best, and I respect him for that.
	He was, when I was speaking about, you know, the Bible and Christianity, he wanted to push back.
	He did want to push back, and he, you know, was thinking, and he was really being, you know, inquisitive and so on.
	I would want to see a bit more of that, brother.
	You know what I'm trying to say?
	If people are attacking Islam, because...
	Let me tell you something.
	We need to have as much an emotional investment in the principles that we hold to be true as we do with issues to do with gender and so on.
	For example, I've seen you get mad a few times with some woman in your studio that was, I don't know, saying certain things and then she left and you got mad at her.
	You got vexed.
	Now, let me tell you something.
	The companions of the Prophet, companions of the Prophet Muhammad, when things would be said about him, attacks, slurs, and so on, they would get vexed because they have an emotional attachment to religion.
	And so...
	Malcolm X famously said, the man that stands for nothing will fall for anything.
	And so I feel like it's not a problem if you want to bring Tommy Robinson.
	I've seen him on your show before or anybody else.
	But I feel like there needs to be pushback when they come with nonsense about the religion.
	And if not, like, okay, you might say, well, I don't have the knowledge for that.
	But say, for example, Tommy Robinson, you can call him out and say, so how come you haven't debated...
	Mohammed Hijab or somebody else who's also offered you that in the past and you haven't done it.
	Why are you coming and speaking about it with me, for example?
	But so long as there is some kind of a reaction that the Muslim audience can say, okay, this guy, he's one of us and yes, he has the same emotional investments as we do.
	Just like Fresh, in the beginning, you can see he has an emotional investment to Christianity.
	He even brought out the pendant.
	Now, as we're talking, I don't know if you had it in.
	Well, I had some verses here for you as well.
	You should debate Sam Shuman as well.
	That would be a good debate.
	You know, I think so.
	So, okay, I guess...
	Yeah, I mean, I've debated David Wood in 2018.
	It was one of the most monumental debates, I think, Christian-Muslim debates in the last century.
	Potentially the most, you know?
	And it's been watched like tens of millions of times across different languages.
	So if someone wants to see a debate between me and a Christian, that's the most monumental one.
	Me versus David.
	I get Myron's standpoint as well, but I get what you're saying too.
	But he just likes the guest speak because for our show, even you yourself, we let you talk the whole time because you're the guest, you know?
	But...
	Yeah, so I'll address that because obviously people gave me some criticism for that.
	So I know you mentioned if you stand for nothing, you fall for anything.
	For me, I stand for free speech.
	That's the most important thing to me, right?
	And one thing that I'm really big on is even if I disagree with you, I will divorce my emotions from what you say to let you say your piece because I think it's very important that people are able to say what they want to say uninterrupted and sometimes without pushback.
	Now, and I'll explain what I mean by not giving pushback sometimes.
	On that show, because people tend to forget context, right?
	One of the girls on the panel asked Laura, Hey, you're banned all over social media.
	Why?
	Then she went into her views on Islam, why she was banned, etc.
	Though I don't agree with it, and I also don't agree with a bunch of her opinions on foreign policy, especially with Israel, etc.
	I respect the fact that she's a guest, she's answering a question from another member on the panel, and though I don't agree with her, I'm going to let her answer that question.
	And to go ahead and try to have a debate with her about Islam and religion and everything else like that in the middle of a podcast where we have nine other women at the table and we have 30,000 people watching, it would be counterproductive to the show.
	Yeah, but do you employ the same exact attitude when it comes to people that are opposing you on your gender issue discussions?
	Like, for example, like I said, there are clips of you when you're speaking to those, I don't know what they are, prostitutes, escorts, what they are.
	Sorry to say, no disrespect to them, because now sex work has become a thing.
	So, are they sex workers?
	Those guests that you have.
	But basically, one of those episodes, you got mad.
	We saw you getting mad because she was saying things that were triggering you.
	And my point is that, look, it's not a problem, even if you do have a guest.
	Which one was I getting mad at?
	Keep in mind, that's hours of content.
	I can't remember.
	But you got mad at one and you kicked her out, right?
	You kicked somebody out.
	It's built up, though.
	It's not just like randomly.
	Yeah, so normally when I kick a girl out, again, this is the negative side of clips.
	When you see me tell a girl, get the fuck up outta here, That's typically after two hours of hurting the part of the show, being annoying, over-speaking, interrupting the other guests on the show.
	I really try to exercise a lot of patience when women are misbehaving on the podcast and being difficult, right?
	And when you see me blow up and tell them, get the hell out of here, that's typically been the culmination of multiple hours of them being annoying.
	And the audience knows that's watching, but unfortunately it gets clipped and they make it look like, oh, this guy just kicked her out and went crazy because she disagreed with him.
	And I even say it before I do the show, I will never kick you off for disagreeing with me.
	I will only kick you off.
	If someone came on your show and started talking about...
	Have you got kids?
	No.
	If someone started talking about your mum, yeah?
	And then, like, sorry to say, went hard with your mum.
	So your mum is this and this and this.
	I'm not even going to mention anything, yeah?
	But if they started doing that and they're a guest on the show, how would you react?
	Would you let them say whatever they want?
	Well, I mean, that's, I don't think that, uh, I don't know if that's the, that analogy kind of aligns with what we're talking about.
	It's the free speech thing.
	So like, in a sense, you could argue, well, this is a free speech situation, you know, let them say whatever you want.
	If they know her personally, or let's say she's a public figure, let's say she's a public figure or they know her personally and they start attacking her.
	Yeah.
	Would, would you accept that or would you challenge that?
	People do it all the time.
	They say, oh, your mom doesn't, you know, who raised you, your mom.
	People have made insults about my mom all the time.
	I just, it is what it is.
	I think the protection of free speech overrides my personal feelings towards that individual.
	So you would have that, you'd do that if someone was like, because here's the thing.
	We have, this goes back to virtue then, because free speech means you can also speak.
	Of course.
	That's what it means.
	Of course.
	So there's no contradiction in free speech if someone says something that you disagree with, that you challenge them, or that you defer them.
	Do you get what I'm trying to say?
	And by the way, just on that point, free speech is not a holy cow.
	Like, free speech is not God.
	Do you get what I'm trying to say?
	Because now people speak about free speech.
	I understand that.
	But Muhammad, you missed the point.
	When she gave that answer, that was in response to another girl on the panel.
	So, why am I going to push back when she's saying why she got banned?
	Does that make sense?
	Like, she said, oh, I got banned.
	I didn't watch that, to be honest.
	I didn't watch that.
	And that's the problem, because people just see the clips and they don't see the context.
	They think, oh, you just stood there when she talked about Islam.
	She was simply answering a question.
	She was just answering a question from one of the panelists.
	That's how that clip even came about, but no one ever puts the context in there.
	Mm-hmm.
	Do you understand where I'm coming from?
	That, okay, free speech doesn't mean, doesn't preclude that you can also respond in kind with aggression and emotion.
	Like, for example, like I said before, if your parents, either or both of them were public figures, and they were being attacked or besmirched online, yeah, then you can respond to that.
	If you are being besmirched, if someone comes and says to you, listen, you're a scumbag, this, this, that, whatever, and defaming you and whatever, and you respond in kind, I'm sure you've probably done your fair share of refutations and repudiations in the past.
	So what I'm trying to say is that we as Muslims, in terms of how we consider our holy prophet, we have red lines.
	Obviously, Andrew Tate has spoken about this at length when he said that when he came into Islam, one of the things that attracted him to Islam was the boundaries.
	Well, the red lines that Islam put.
	So for us as Muslims, there's wars that have started in Islamic history as a result of things that were said and done, which were deemed to be disrespectful.
	Okay.
	So these are every man.
	One of the things that you'd put as like the virtues is that every man has to have consequences in it.
	And if they think it's okay to come speak to someone like Myron Gaines, who has clout and he has status in the community, who's part of the men's activism movement, And go for his religion effectively in front of him and that he's not really going to care about or something like that.
	That actually deprecates your character in a certain way.
	Because then if they speak about your religion today, tomorrow they're going to speak about your mum.
	And after tomorrow they're going to speak about your dua.
	Do you get it?
	I disagree.
	Because again, context is important.
	I disagree.
	I strongly disagree with that.
	I feel like there is something to be done in this regard, but it's up to you.
	Obviously, this is your platform and your thing, but this is just my two cents on this issue.
	Well, again, I understand your two cents, but again, context matters.
	If someone asks her a question and she responds as to why she was banned on social media, Then what is there to debate?
	Like she's saying, these are my views.
	This is what got me banned.
	Okay.
	And then we just move on because, again, that episode was not designed to have a religious debate and go back and forth.
	Me and Laura have already talked, you know, offline of our differences of opinion when it comes to American foreign policy, Islam, etc.
	And I tell her, I don't agree with you.
	But I'm not going to hurt.
	I don't want to flog it at all.
	I think we both understand each other's perspectives now.
	I don't want to flog it at all.
	Like I said before, so long as you understand where I'm coming from.
	No, I completely understand.
	And if she made comments like that, and we were having a different type of show, and there weren't nine other girls on the panel, and one of them didn't ask her personally for her opinion, because that's what she asked was, tell me why you got kicked off, and she gave her a reason why.
	I can't really argue with her about why she got kicked off.
	That's not...
	Does that make sense?
	I totally understand what you're saying.
	But someone can do that in an underhanded manner.
	For example, the same analogy can be applied back to the whole mother thing.
	Someone can say, well, the reason this is because you're mother.
	But once again, if someone brings it up, it's a disrespect, effectively, bro.
	So anything that could be considered to be a disrespect.
	Famously, Khabib, when he was with Connor, And Conor tried to underhandedly disrespect Khabib by putting drink on his table and stuff like that.
	He responded in kind.
	He wasn't having it.
	And then after when Conor said, you know, it was all business, he didn't accept that.
	Because there's a degree of seriousness that you need to exhibit on issues that are serious.
	Do you know what I'm trying to say?
	Because otherwise you'd be seen as capricious and frivolous as an individual.
	We don't want to be seen...
	Yeah, we could all have fun.
	I'm a joker as well.
	I like to have fun and joke and have a good time.
	Do you get what I'm trying to say?
	But there's a time to have fun and there's a time to get serious.
	And so I just feel like when it comes to religion and family, faith and family in particular, these two things are always going to be red lines for any man and should be always red lines for any man.
	That's why even the Quran instructs us not to attack religions of other people and mock them.
	Yeah, we can disagree.
	We can talk about the corruption, the Bible, and someone can say, well, the Quran is corrupted, and, you know, someone can say this.
	But to mock another religion now.
	So if I were to come and Fresh is a very polite guy, if I try to attack him and say, you know, this and that, and try to mock him, that would be something that Islam doesn't allow.
	And otherwise, shouldn't be allowed in the sense that a man shouldn't allow for another man.
	Now, obviously, I'm not saying anything about laws.
	I'm not making a political argument here.
	I'm not saying, oh, therefore, we should ban this or we should ban that.
	I'm just making the point that a man has to have his boundaries.
	Can I just say one thing?
	Oh, go ahead.
	I understand what you're saying.
	That's your opinion about the show and Myron's take.
	But I would say this about the show.
	Our guests, we respect totally.
	So whatever they say, as a guest, for example, you talk for a long time.
	I mean, listen, I want to chime in as well.
	But you know what?
	You're the guest while you speak.
	The point is, with the show, me and Myron, whatever guest comes on the show, their opinions, their actual, I want to say, mindset, for example, their ideologies is on them.
	They talk.
	People know our opinion, our stance on things.
	And look, people know he's Muslim and he does his thing.
	It's more like, you know what, she's a guest, she can talk.
	Pretty much.
	Yeah, especially in response to someone's question, because the Islamic community tried to come at me for that, and I was like, okay, well, they don't know the context that she was answering a question, and that's why it is.
	But, you know, it is what it is.
	But also, it might be that you didn't know that this is how you should react.
	Because actually, Islamically speaking, you've got to respond to that.
	Like, there's an ayah in the Quran that says, وَإِذَا رَأَيَاتِ اللَّهِ يُكْفَرُوا بِهَا وَيُسْتَحْزَأُ بِهَا فَلَا تَقَعَضُوا مَعْهُمْ حَتَّى يَخُضُوا فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ You know, there's a verse that said, if people attack the religion and the ayat and the verses of God and you see them mocking it, don't sit with them.
	People who basically say that, you don't sit with them until they speak about something else.
	Otherwise you'll be just like them.
	No.
	And that's where me and you disagree.
	Because I'm okay with platforming people that disagree with me.
	I'm okay with platforming someone like yourself who's a developed Muslim.
	I'm okay with platforming someone that you disagree with, like a Zionist.
	I platform people even if I don't agree with their takes.
	And I understand from a religious perspective that can be seen as haram.
	But I'm not a religious guy.
	And my thing is, I think it's very important To be able to platform and bring people on with differing views, right?
	No, no, I'm not against you platforming them.
	I'm just saying the response to how you platform them.
	Like, you can platform them, but respond to certain things they say about Islam, religion, prophets, you know.
	If someone attacked Jesus, like, someone came on and attacked Jesus Christ, the same thing can be said.
	I would say that that shouldn't be acceptable.
	Do you get it?
	Now, they can do it, but I would respond to them.
	That's what I'm saying.
	All I'm saying is I would respond to them.
	If someone came and said, Jesus is this and Jesus is that, I would get vexed on that basis.
	I would have to respond on that basis.
	Do you get what I'm saying?
	So, yeah.
	I'm not saying they don't platform them.
	You can platform you like.
	Alright, so, I'll wait for the debate between you and Sam Schumann.
	When's it happening?
	I don't know.
	I never thought a man with that kind of level was someone that should be on my radar because I don't know how many even how subscribers he's got is unqualified, untrained.
	I beat his best friend who is much more qualified and trained than him.
	So I don't know.
	You just mentioned his name to me.
	No one really proposed.
	I don't even think he called me.
	I don't even know.
	Okay.
	I was looking to debate Tommy Robinson, you know, because you had him on your show.
	You said you're going to set that up.
	Yeah, I was talking with him a few weeks ago, and he said he'll do it.
	It's only fair that someone, you know, like myself, should debate someone like Ben Shapiro, bro.
	Because how many years have I been in the game?
	How many millions of views have I amassed?
	Do you know what I'm trying to say?
	So why do I need to get some...
	Yeah, I can...
	I go to the streets and talk to people like, you know, Shamone or whoever it may be.
	Do you know what I'm like?
	Unholy Schmoly and these guys.
	I haven't got a problem.
	I've never actually turned down a debate.
	I'm actually in a park.
	I've been in a park 300 times debating anyone who wants to debate me.
	I go in the streets of London, bare-chested.
	I come out and say, anybody who wants to talk to me can talk to me, bro.
	And it's called Speaker's Corner.
	I come out and say, anyone who wants to chat to me, anyone who wants to debate me, I've been there 300 times online.
	There's videos of it.
	I've never denied a fight and I've never denied a debate.
	Tommy Robinson denied both.
	Tommy Robinson, because he's not my size, I said, bring any heavyweight in the world.
	I'll fight him.
	MMA rules.
	So long as you fight a man that's your way.
	And then we have a debate afterwards.
	So that it can be a conversational and it can be a physical altercation.
	We disagree.
	You want to put hands on me?
	I want to put hands on you in a physical and legal manner.
	So let's put hands on each other.
	If it's dishonorable that a man of my size and my height, 6'7", 275 pounds, Yeah?
	Someone of my size.
	If it's dishonorable that I'm going to put my hand on a small guy, then I'll fight anybody.
	I opened it up for him.
	I said, anybody in dunya, bro, in the world, come.
	And then we'll get you an opponent.
	He wasn't interested in that.
	So, when people propose new names for me like this Shimon and this Shmoli and this and that, I've never said no to anybody, bro.
	I say yes too much.
	Just like some of those prostitutes that you have on your show.
	I always say yes.
	We do bring a multitude of girls from different, obviously the OnlyFans girls are the ones that go viral, but we've had doctors on the show, we've had lawyers on the show, we've had law enforcement on the show, we've had women that are professional, we've brought religious women on.
	Are they prostitutes?
	Do you go to the directory of prostitutes and just go and call them up and say, listen, we'll give you this much money instead of doing a sexual act, come on TV? No, never, never.
	You know, that's not a misconception.
	How do you get these?
	If you don't mind me asking.
	I mean, I have a team that does it.
	So they go ahead and source us from different places, whether it's a college campus or out and about or whatever.
	That's how we've been able to get a diverse panel of women on.
	But also, they're not all sex workers.
	They're not all, yeah.
	Some have degrees, some have real jobs, some are mothers.
	We got a doctor on last week.
	Yeah.
	We literally had a specialist on last week that's a doctor that does...
	They're not all sex workers.
	Yeah.
	That does surgery.
	To be fair.
	But that's a common misconception is that we only bring OnlyFans girls on.
	But we actually do bring a multitude of different girls.
	OnlyFans.
	Okay.
	So are there OnlyFans?
	There have been girls, absolutely, that do OnlyFans, right?
	But we've also had a bunch of women that work professional jobs.
	Every panel that we have, there's a few women on the panel most of the time that do some type of professional work or educate or whatever, because we try to have it where we have women from different walks of life on the podcast.
	I think that's very important to bring different perspectives.
	But a majority are not OnlyFans.
	We actually got the data on it.
	What's the percentage?
	I'll pull it up on the side here.
	Out of 2800, ages from 18 to 49, 46 different US states, 325 different job titles.
	And OnlyFans is one of them.
	So we've brought on a bunch.
	But I get it.
	And that's kind of what it is with our podcast.
	People look at the clips and they kind of run with the narrative a lot of times.
	Which I'm not blaming you.
	I mean, obviously, it's a lot of content.
	You're not going to go through every two to three hour podcast two times a day.
	It's a lot.
	And I understand that time is...
	No, no.
	I understand where you're coming from.
	I understand where you're coming from.
	But there was something I was going to say.
	It's a very important point to clear up.
	Because I think most people just think they're prostitutes, frankly.
	Maybe we should do Dawah to them.
	Maybe we should actually speak to the prostitutes.
	The loudest ones are the ones that you see on the clips.
	What goes viral is the loudest, craziest girls.
	The girls that are quiet that aren't like that.
	They don't get a lot of airtime.
	No one hears them talk because they don't talk.
	They're listening.
	They're listening.
	Processing it.
	And then after the show, they'll be like, oh, we agree with you.
	But they don't want to say it on the show because, like I said, women tend to be more scared of being exiled than men, right?
	For us, being a coward is a problem.
	For them, being a coward is not a big deal.
	It's actually in their survival makeup.
	So they won't speak up during the show.
	But unfortunately, those girls never get light.
	The crazy ones do that are the sex workers or whatever.
	We were talking about something I was going to mention before this.
	What topic were we on just right before?
	Oh, his story, him getting...
	No, no, no, no.
	Just literally just now before the...
	Religion?
	No.
	Damn it, man.
	Okay, that's fine.
	Should we read chats?
	I think we got TK in the house too.
	Yeah, we do.
	So we'll wrap up here in a little bit.
	I'll read these chats real fast.
	We got what?
	We got 13?
	No, 14K, y'all in here, man?
	I'll tell you guys.
	Between Rumble and YouTube.
	We have...
	Okay.
	Wiping goes...
	No!
	What the hell?
	No, no.
	What the fuck, man?
	No, not today.
	Okay, so he says, the Trinity isn't a contradiction.
	Godhead has three distinct persons.
	Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
	Godhead is a being.
	A person and beings are distinct.
	Completely logical.
	Other.
	Clown trying to use logic to explain the nature of supernatural being.
	SMH. Yeah, so this distinction between person and essence, yeah?
	Who made this distinction and why?
	So, for example, is this distinction found in the Bible?
	You won't find this distinction is made in the Bible.
	This distinction is made by church fathers who tried to reconcile the idea of the Trinity.
	People like Augustine, for example.
	Augustine, who's a 5th century, 4th, 5th century writer.
	He made these kinds of decisions.
	He had a whole book called De Trinitatis, like multiple volumes.
	And they all recognized the problem.
	They all recognized the problem with the Father being God, the Son being God, and the Holy Spirit being God.
	So to try and solve the contradiction, they said, yeah, but it's one essence, but three different persons.
	There's a difference between Uzziah and Persona.
	That's what they said.
	But the first question, therefore, is...
	Is this a biblical distinction?
	No, it's not a biblical distinction.
	These kind of philosophical distinctions are not there.
	Number two, it doesn't even solve the problem.
	Because you've got three unique, distinct centers of consciousness.
	So if the Father has a center of consciousness, the Son has a center of consciousness, the Holy Spirit has a center of consciousness, that's three distinct entities that we're talking about.
	And each of them individually are God.
	So the Father is God.
	The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
	Yet, despite me holding three fingers up to this camera right now, you want me to believe that this is one.
	I'm saying that if this is one, then I'm losing my mind.
	Then I'm no longer operating on that logical paradigm.
	Either that, or what you're saying is illogical.
	And I go with the latter.
	Okay.
	But again, like I said earlier, because as a man...
	Logic isn't everything, right?
	To God.
	Because God is God.
	That sounds like something a bimbo would say, though.
	No, no, no.
	That's something like a bimbo, like an emotional bimbo, like logic isn't everything.
	You speak to her, you give her facts, and she'll just say, like, you know, logic ain't anything.
	But you're putting on God restraints.
	You can't do that.
	I'm just saying that argument right there.
	Yeah.
	Well, I'm saying this, I'm not putting on God restraints.
	I think that if you're saying God is limited, that will be putting God on God restraints.
	If you're saying God is a man, there's no clearer way of putting restraints on God, but to call him a restrained being.
	I mean, who is the one who's putting restraints on God?
	The one who's saying he's unrestrained, unrestricted, unlimited, or the one who's saying, in fact, he is a man who is God?
	Which means his restraint is limited.
	Come on.
	We all know the answer to this question.
	So what I'm saying is, if you want to do away with logic, then you can't have a conversation with anyone about anything.
	You should close down Fresh and Fit and say that we have decided to close down Fresh and Fit because we have decided there's no such thing as logical truths.
	And so when the woman comes on, the bimbo comes on, and the talk, what's that thing called?
	That thing, that sex thing.
	OnlyFans.
	That sexting OnlyFans.
	I don't know much about this.
	It's not false piety.
	I actually don't know about it.
	I've never been on it.
	Okay.
	And so the OnlyFans woman comes on and she starts talking about her emotional arguments, which are in contradiction to logic.
	You can just accept her arguments because the truth is relative in that sense.
	Because her truth is different.
	My truth is different.
	Two plus two could be different here, in a different world.
	It could be different there.
	It could be anything different.
	So when a transgender comes or a woke person comes, you can just say, well, the truth is relative.
	Anything is fine.
	See, you're a very good debater, bro, but you lack our context.
	The problem I'm trying to raise you here is that, like, ultimately, I'm saying, man-to-man, logic applies.
	But with God, it doesn't apply.
	So you're putting logic onto God.
	It's like, what are you doing?
	Yeah, well, we've heard this argument before, bro.
	As I said to you before, logic is an expression that has come from God.
	It's not something that is impinging on his will.
	For man, not for him.
	You know what I'm saying?
	No, no.
	What we're saying is that logic is something that God has enforced upon everyone.
	Do you get me?
	For humankind, yes.
	Yeah, that's it.
	But not for himself.
	So we have to operate on logic, otherwise there's no going forward in any discussion.
	Again, context.
	There's no way.
	You're not hearing what I'm saying.
	I'm just saying context here doesn't play to God.
	But okay, it's fine.
	Let's move on.
	So can God not exist?
	He's God.
	He can do whatever he wants to.
	Okay, so atheism could be true in certain cases then, yeah?
	No.
	Is that what you're saying?
	What I'm saying is, is that you're telling me that because...
	If God can be a man, so surely God cannot exist, can decide to take himself out of existence.
	God created man, right?
	So I'm assuming, maybe using logic here, that if you create a man, he can create a man in his image, right?
	For himself.
	Okay, can God decide not to be a God?
	Do you know?
	I didn't hear that.
	I didn't hear your answer.
	No, I'm asking you.
	Can God decide not to be a god?
	No, I'm asking you.
	Can God take himself out of existence?
	That question in itself makes no sense.
	Brother, come on, man.
	So you're telling me that question makes no sense.
	But the question that you've been asking, which is the same thing.
	So God can be a man because logic doesn't apply to God, but God can't take himself out of existence.
	You see what I did there?
	Because that question doesn't make sense.
	No, obviously it's satire.
	But what I'm telling you is that God can do whatever he wants to do.
	Bro, if he's allowed to be a man, then he should be able to take himself out of existence, which you've agreed that he can.
	So then in that case, atheism could be true then.
	Like I said, he can do whatever he wants to do.
	He's God.
	I can't question his judgment.
	I can't question what he does.
	He made us in his image, but he's God through and through.
	He's almighty.
	Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift?
	See, this argument, again, again, again.
	You're trying to put me in this corner, but God is limitless, bro.
	I'm not going to question him.
	So sure, if God is limitless, he can't be a man.
	So hold on.
	Is Jesus a liar?
	Jesus never claimed to be God.
	Where did he claim to be God?
	Where did Jesus say, I am God?
	So, why do all the disciples talk about him being the son of God?
	Are they liars?
	Son of God.
	Son of God is different to God, by the way.
	Okay, but we're talking about, for example, God himself, right?
	Say again?
	Okay, so, I'm just saying, everyone is pointing towards him being, right?
	The son of God.
	What does son of God mean?
	What does it mean?
	Son of God, God himself.
	Son of God, God himself.
	So wait a minute.
	When in the Bible it's mentioned, when it's mentioned in Matthews, that blessed be the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God.
	So any peacemakers are son of God.
	Is that a ceremonial title or is that a biological title?
	term used to define Jesus but let me just go into a little bit deeper here because Philippians 2:6a says make clear the full deity and human humanity of Jesus Christ who though he was in a form of God did not count equality of God a thing to be grasped but emptied himself by taking the form of a servant being born likeness of men so he didn't come to earth as humble being a man to us but in likeness he was God so it's a I get what you're saying Philippians is not Jesus himself speaking.
	That's a book of, by the way, Paul, yeah?
	I agree.
	So that's Paul.
	Paul, by the way, never met Jesus, just to let you know.
	He never met him.
	So you're giving me the works of a man who never met Jesus Christ.
	I'm asking you where did Jesus himself say that stuff?
	Did Paul meet Muhammad?
	Pardon?
	Did Paul meet Muhammad?
	No, he didn't.
	What's that got to do with what we're talking about, though?
	But again, I'm just telling you that just because I never met a person doesn't mean I don't know about them from other disciples.
	Say that again.
	He's not a disciple.
	Paul is not a disciple.
	He wasn't alive when Jesus was alive.
	I'm saying all the accounts of everybody that talk about Jesus Christ, when he was alive, speak about him being that person.
	Being what?
	The Son of God.
	Okay, so what do you mean by the Son of God?
	What do you mean by it?
	Like, God himself on earth.
	Okay, that's not what the Son of God means in any ordinary language or any terminological language.
	The Son of God means that it can either mean adoption or it can mean biological son, begotten son.
	So I'm asking you, what do you mean by the Son of God?
	Well, in terms of this example right here, like, obviously we could be sons of God too, but the actual title for Jesus Christ is King, Christ the Lord.
	So that would be his full title.
	He was never king on the earth, by the way.
	According to your narrative, according to the New Testament, he was whipped by the kings and killed by the kings.
	He's coming back.
	He was killed by the kings.
	But he'll be back.
	He was killed by the kings, according to your narrative.
	He was never a ruler of any polity.
	He's coming back.
	So why should he be called king, even by your standard?
	I didn't say it.
	He was never king.
	No one called him king.
	It's in the Bible.
	I didn't say it.
	No, but no one called him king from a political perspective.
	He wasn't a king.
	He wasn't a sovereign of a nation.
	Well, in their eyes, definitely not.
	But he is.
	Sure.
	So what does it mean to be king?
	What does it mean?
	I'm trying to make the argument here that you're putting...
	How could he be crucified?
	Sorry?
	How can a king say, Eli, Eli, I'm lama sabachthani, God, God, why have you forsaken me?
	Because he died for our sins.
	I understand what you're saying, but how can a king, okay, who's a sovereign, be put in a position like that?
	Asking God to help him?
	Well, again, I'm not trying to dictate how God moves.
	I'm just telling you, and especially history itself, what happened, and him saying to people, listen, you know what?
	My father put me in this position to save you guys.
	It's what it is.
	I'm not arguing that.
	I'm just saying, like, you're saying that God has limitations and he doesn't have any limits at all.
	That's what I'm saying.
	He learned himself to become...
	Yeah, I'm making the argument that God doesn't have any limits and that if God were to become a man or to not exist, that that would put a limitation on God.
	Do you get it?
	If God ceased to exist, that is the ultimate limitation, but there is no God then.
	If you've accepted that God cannot exist, then atheism can be possible in certain contexts.
	So, what we're talking about here, bro?
	So hypothetically...
	What you're telling me...
	A rock existing...
	Okay, what is right now?
	Which is, basically, he died...
	Pardon?
	He died for his sins.
	That's history, correct?
	That's not history.
	That's your history.
	That's a 2,000-year-old history, which is contradictory.
	Where's his body, then?
	Pardon?
	Where's his body, then?
	Where's his body?
	Yeah.
	Oh wait, hold on, hold on.
	Do you think that everybody that lived on the earth 2,000 years ago, we have their bodies and we can identify them?
	No, but someone of that stature and that prominence, for example...
	Yeah, that's not an argument.
	That's called an argument from silence.
	That's called an argument from silence.
	So it's not where's his body.
	That's not...
	We both live in an ascension.
	The Muslims believe in Jesus was ascended.
	And also in the Bible, it's mentioned that Jesus was ascended.
	That's why we both believe he's alive now, actually.
	So we don't believe that he was dead.
	That's the first thing.
	The second thing is, in terms of the crucifixion and resurrection, we're talking about an alleged history, which is, by the way, contradicted.
	Because you have early accounts, for example, in the Talmud, which is a Jewish book, saying that Jesus wasn't crucified, but instead he was stoned.
	What you call the Babylonian Talmud is mentioned that he was stoned.
	Other early accounts of the Gnostics, they mentioned that he was substituted, in fact.
	So you have early accounts from different histories that say different things about what happened to him on the cross.
	So if it was so clear, like you say, then how can we have primary source material from different places that have contradictory information about how he died or if he died, even?
	Can you answer that?
	Well, again, I wasn't there, and you weren't either.
	Okay, so imagine this.
	Imagine if you wasn't there, so I'm saying to you, imagine this.
	Imagine God is going to put people in hell for a 2,000-year-old history which has contradictions in it.
	So, for example, look, yeah, if you did...
	I agree.
	Pardon?
	I agree.
	You're right.
	Yeah.
	So imagine this.
	Imagine you've got a history exam, yeah?
	Mm-hmm.
	And there's only one question on the history exam.
	The history exam says the following.
	It says, did Jesus die for your sins?
	Did Jesus die on the cross?
	Was he resurrected?
	Two questions.
	Did he die on the cross?
	Was he resurrected?
	Which is the whole point of Easter, yeah?
	There's two questions on the history exam.
	I say no.
	I click on both things, and I have academic reasons.
	I've just cited them.
	Based on historical...
	Information, primary source information, as I said to you, Babylonial, Talmud, diagnostics, and so on.
	I have historical information.
	I say that one and two, no, I don't believe he was crucified or resurrected or any of that stuff.
	So that means because I have this view of history as a historian or an academic or otherwise, that now I must spend my entire afterlife and eternity sizzling, burning, cracking, popping, In a fire, do you think that was something that a merciful God would do?
	If I don't believe that Jesus died for my sins, I must be eternally damned, doomed, destroyed in a hellfire.
	Forever.
	This is not a religion, brother, that makes any sense.
	Already we've spoken about three in one, and one in three.
	That's number one.
	And number two, we've spoken about this idea of the crucifix you brought up.
	And I'm telling you, on both accounts, these things don't make sense.
	And if you're sincere, brother, I'm saying to you, it's Ramadan for us.
	Let me say this to you.
	If we're sincere about the situation, honestly, There's only one solution, which is to believe there's only one God that is the creator of the heavens and the earth, that is not begotten, that does not beget, does not have children, himself is not a child of anybody, that there's nothing like him, he's the all-powerful one, he's the all-knowing one, He is the one who wills anything that he wants to will.
	That's the God that we should believe in.
	That's what's going to give you power and strength.
	As a man on a Fresh and Fit podcast, what's going to give you power and strength is believing that the most powerful one is your Lord, not the one who, quote unquote, humbled himself and died on a cross and humbled a week.
	Because when you attach yourself to weakness, you become weak.
	And when you attach yourself to the ultimate strength, you become strength.
	You become strong.
	And that's why we have a saying in Islam.
	There's no strength and power except with God.
	The all-powerful one.
	The all-strong one.
	So what I'm saying to you is...
	Look into Islam properly, brother, because I think, hopefully I've planted the seed into your heart today by looking at the key doctrines of Christianity and showing you how nonsensical they are on an ordinary analysis for a lay person.
	It does not require a scholar.
	It's just easy to see that these things don't make sense, brother.
	And what makes sense is that there were prophets.
	Abraham, Moses, Jesus.
	We believe that all prophets, they came for one thing and one thing only.
	To tell people to worship one God and to do good by their fellow man.
	That's why they came.
	To worship the God, the creator of the heavens and the earth.
	The universe.
	And then to do good by their fellow.
	That's what we believe as Muslims.
	That's what Islam is.
	That's what it means.
	I appreciate the knowledge, the feedback.
	I respect it.
	Thank you very much Fresh.
	I will say Jesus is not weak though.
	He's very strong.
	But listen, I'm not a debater.
	It's one of your opinions on these things here and your actual truth, which I appreciate as well.
	And yeah, let's continue.
	Thank you, bro.
	No, no, I appreciate that.
	Appreciate that, bro.
	It's just because the question that came to us was a Christianity-related question.
	Yeah, yeah, I get it.
	Thank you, bro.
	Appreciate that.
	Okay, I'll fly through these because we got TK in the house and we're a little bit behind.
	Next time, I didn't realize that you guys were going to have a whole full-on debate about Christianity versus Islam.
	No, no, no.
	I just have questions.
	I'm not debating it.
	I just want to see, like...
	Listen, he's a less debater, bro.
	Fresh versus hijab is the goal we all waited for.
	Fresh, you gave the best defense.
	God gives logic, not hijab.
	Okay.
	And it looks like it's split here.
	Excellence, some people agree with hijab, some people agree with fresh.
	Excellence advice to hijab from a Muslim viewer.
	You were invited on an FNF show but are condescending and arrogant.
	It's embarrassing.
	They're tired of you.
	Muslims are respectful and non-arrogant.
	Respect to all people.
	Love.
	Excellence said that.
	No, he gave his opinion on what he saw.
	To be fair, bro, if you're watching the show without watching it in full context, you don't see everything.
	How would he know?
	Yeah, I know.
	Well, I mean, the thing is, many of your bimbo guests were going to consider you guys to be arrogant.
	It's just that when you make an argument with force, there's always going to be people that take offense.
	Do you get what I'm trying to say?
	And usually that's the last card resort for someone who doesn't have anything to say about something or hasn't got a logical response.
	They'll just say, oh, they'll go for the meaner argument.
	Oh, for the disposition argument.
	Oh, your disposition wasn't to my liking.
	I'm not here to entertain anybody.
	If I wanted to entertain any of the guests, I'll make a freak show.
	I'll do some funny things.
	I can do that as well.
	But, you know, if someone doesn't like my demeanor, of all due respect, I don't care.
	Like, you know what I'm trying to say?
	Who the hell?
	I mean, this person is probably a Pornhub addict.
	You know, what's that thing they call it?
	The OnlyFans addict, do you get what I'm saying?
	You know, this guy is probably in pot noodle now because he's by himself and he's one of the people that has been on Tinder for all this time.
	Can't find a date.
	He's coming to the champ and he wants to ask the champ, talk to the champ and say about arrogance and demeanor.
	Come on.
	I will say, Hijab, I did see your video on porn and how to think about it and it was a very good breakdown of what you should do and what it really is and what you're lacking when you do that.
	So that was a very good video.
	Okay, it goes here.
	Crew, and I'll just fly through these.
	Use logic, please.
	So once Moses went out to take a bath and put his clothes over a stone, and then the stone ran away with his clothes.
	Moses followed the stone, saying, No.
	Okay.
	Jude goes, okay, we read that one already.
	Okay, here's some rumble rants.
	Okay, Jocasta says, a jab throwing shots at the show with the prostitute's comments is the arrogance that turns people off.
	Secondly, the Quran doesn't have direct quotes from Jesus either, so your gospel argument is futile.
	Okay.
	WJab cooked this to Kufar.
	Sticker, bro.
	W, vasectomy, L, religion.
	Okay.
	W, Christians working in the club.
	That's Sneeko again.
	And he goes, Potter, goblins.
	Yeah, I know you don't talk here, bro.
	Okay.
	Okay, Vax don't care about you fresh.
	Okay.
	Is that it?
	Oh.
	The three fingers belong to one hand.
	Your logic is not sound.
	Okay, that was in response to the three fingers thing.
	Okay.
	Three fingers belong to one hand, but I've got five fingers on the hand.
	So there are five persons in the Trinity today.
	Gotcha.
	What else do we got here?
	That's it?
	Oh.
	There's more.
	Law of Relativity is a mathematical law.
	Einstein was famous for this.
	Okay.
	And then we got...
	Debating God and religion is not quite right because God simply says the wisdom of man, meaning the baiters, is foolishness in the eyes of God.
	You can't read your own book and use it to confirm the book itself and to disprove another religious book.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	I clipped the good moments, Myron.
	Okay, that's from Ryan L.O.D. All right.
	And then Mr.
	Zabata says, Jesus claims to be God, Matthew 2.23, John 8.58, Exodus 3.14, Matthew 11.12, John 14.1-7.
	And then Dean for Truth.
	Isn't it good to dispense advice for a person who lives a different lifestyle than yours that's best for them?
	WFNF? Dean for Truth.
	Okay.
	And then Say Christ is King Fresh.
	There is power in the name.
	Jesus, gang.
	Shout out.
	Yeah.
	So it's split here.
	We got a lot of, like, you know, obviously there's Muslim viewers, there's Christian viewers.
	They're going to have different things here.
	And then someone else says Christ is King.
	Okay.
	Is that it?
	No, no.
	Five more.
	Logic Bomb says...
	Hijab debate with Jay Dyer?
	Jay Dyer?
	Who's that?
	I don't know who that is.
	And then Hijab throwing shots at the show.
	No, we read that one already.
	WFNFWT, thanks DGBuild.
	WMireFresh, stand on business, Christ is King.
	Okay.
	And then Waylo.
	So if Jesus is God and he died for our sins, then you believe that not only God can die in addition to that he died at the hands of his own creation.
	Also the Bible says God is not a man.
	Okay.
	Sharpshooter, bro, I tried to send y'all someone who breaks down the bio, but it was blurred.
	Hijab, you are wrong.
	Okay.
	Myron, keep 100 women who are experienced care more about a man's sexual performance than his love for her.
	That's why men should sleep around before getting serious.
	I mean, in some way, that is very telling.
	I mean, yeah, I didn't go into all the weeds of it, guys, because obviously that wasn't the purpose of today's show, but I see your perspective.
	This is from Silent Chaos.
	Hey, Muhammad, are certain men exempt from the rule of having a maximum of four wives?
	Also, are boxers like Devin Haney exempt from Ramadan if they have to train for a fight?
	Not a bad question.
	What do you think, Hijab?
	No, I mean, he wouldn't be exempt if he has to trade for a fight.
	So he should do what, like, a lot of these other guys do and come outside of Ramadan and fight outside, like in Hamzat and Islam Makhachev and a lot of these, Khabib, famously, he didn't, none of these guys used to fight or still do fight in Ramadan.
	So that's just something they can do.
	The second question is about, what was it?
	What's the first one?
	The other one was, can you pull it back up?
	Oh, is there a rule?
	Are certain men exempt from the rule of having a maximum of four wives?
	Nah, not really.
	Not today.
	That's the max, right?
	Not today.
	Yeah, not today.
	But I mean, obviously, one can marry and divorce.
	Okay, fair enough.
	And then marry again and divorce again.
	But I'm not saying that that's something that, you know...
	Marriage in Islam is a very easy process, by the way.
	It is.
	Like, if someone wants to get married, it's not like this whole, like, ceremony and stuff.
	You don't need to do any of that.
	Really, just to avoid zinnah, it's a five-minute process, really.
	Like, I'm only saying this because, obviously, Myron, we want you to keep you safeguarded and chased as well.
	Which is the fact that, for example, if you have a Muslim or Christian or Jew, because Muslims are allowed to, Muslim men are allowed to marry Christian women or Jewish women.
	Muslim women are not allowed to marry Christian men or Jewish men, only Muslim men.
	But Muslim women, sorry, Muslim men are allowed to marry Christian and Jewish women.
	So say, for example, you met a Christian woman or a Jewish woman, yeah, or a Muslim woman, and you want to marry her, all you would do is you'd get two witnesses, And two witnesses, two male witnesses, male witnesses, who are Muslim, that they would effectively witness what you're saying.
	Consent is given on both sides.
	You'd give her a dowry.
	The whole process will take five minutes.
	And if her father gives permission, according to three schools of thought, he's required.
	If not, then according to one school of thought, he's not even required.
	So...
	Really and truly, it's a five minute process and you don't need to fall into what would be considered to be a major sin in the religion of Islam.
	Which is to commit zinnah.
	Which is extramarital or premarital fornication or whatever it is.
	When marriage is made so easy.
	And they say you don't want to be with the woman anymore.
	You don't want to be with her anymore.
	Then you discuss and then you can divorce.
	It's not like Catholicism.
	It's not like Catholic religion.
	Where you're trapped into the marriage and so on.
	And that, you know, it's a death to us part.
	No, if you don't want to be with her, you don't have to be with her.
	So yeah, you can marry up to four wives.
	You can have four wives at one time.
	And if you don't want the wife, then you can divorce her and you can get a new one.
	That's what you can do.
	Okay.
	What else do we got here?
	That's it?
	Cool.
	No, this is great.
	I definitely, I had a bunch of questions here, Mohamed, that we didn't get to get to because we talked about the other stuff.
	But we'll definitely bring you back and I want to ask more questions about the religion itself so that people can get a better understanding of Islam because obviously there's a lot of negative stereotypes that I wanted you to kind of debunk, but we didn't have time today, unfortunately.
	And where can they find you, bro?
	Yeah, but yeah, where can they find you?
	Yeah, so you can just put my name, Mohamed Hijab, on YouTube.
	As you mentioned, it's quite a big channel.
	It's quite easy to find.
	And you'll see, if you want to see more debates, I've done lots of debates with Christians, lots of debates with atheists.
	That's something that me and Fresh and everyone else would agree with.
	And we've done a lot of gender debates.
	Like, I've done lots of debates against feminists as well.
	You know what?
	Before Fresh and Fit and Red Pill, by the way, I had a ton of things about feminists.
	I was, you know, really...
	I'm ravaged, if you like, you know, by the community and by outside the community because I used to be talking directly about feminism and stuff like that.
	So there's also stuff if you wanted to have arguments against feminism.
	I've done lots and lots of work on that as well.
	No, that's awesome, man.
	I'd like to bring you back to talk about Islam, the religion, and kind of educate the people.
	And then also, I think I have someone in mind that would be a great person that you could talk to.
	He's an Orthodox Christian, Andrew Wilson.
	I think that'd be a great conversation between the two of them and we could set it up.
	Yo, real quick, you know what you should do, bro?
	Since these prostitutes are on the show, why don't you do a virtual after hours?
	Have a virtual after hours?
	Have him on the pod with the girls?
	Tell these three or fours, any feminists, what do you need to hear from over there?
	They can sit right here.
	Tell them what's up.
	That'd be funny, bro.
	That'd be funny, actually.
	What do you think?
	Yeah, whatever you want.
	I don't have any problem.
	I'll speak to anyone you want me to speak to, brother.
	Yeah, we'll set something up like that in the future, man.
	I think it'll be great.
	But I definitely want to have you back on again after, maybe after Ramadan, because I know it's a holy month and fasting is not easy.
	But yeah, we could definitely do it.
	But guys, check him out.
	His YouTube is huge.
	I think one of the biggest Islamic channels on YouTube.
	Go check him out.
	And bro, it was great to have you.
	And just real quick, I think as Christians and Muslims, we do believe in God.
	And I do believe as well that we can disagree to, you know, We'll agree to disagree.
	But at the same time, we shouldn't hate each other.
	You know what I'm saying?
	No, of course not.
	Of course not.
	Cool.
	Guys, go check them out.
	Look, we're all one community.
	We're all one family.
	If you guys need anything from me as well, then I'm here.
	Awesome.
	Appreciate it, bro.
	All right, guys.
	You guys take it easy.
	We'll catch you guys.
	We're going to be back with TK Kirkland here in the next five or ten minutes, man.
	Sorry we're behind schedule.
	Mohamed, thank you for coming on.
	We'll catch you guys.
	Peace.

▲