Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 14, 2024 - Fresh & Fit

03:08:19

Religious Debate

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	What's up guys?
	Welcome to Freshly Podcast.
	We've got a special episode for you guys today.
	We're going to be having a great debate on religion.
	Islam versus Christianity.
	Let's get into it guys.
	guys.
	Let's go.
	Let's go.
	What's up, guys?
	Welcome to Fresh Fit Podcast, man.
	We got a special one today for you guys.
	We're going to have a religion debate, Islam versus Christianity.
	Quick announcement before we get into the show, though.
	First and foremost, romo.com slash freshfitcastclub.tv.
	As you guys know, that's where you support free speech and support the team.
	Castclub.tv is the main place to support.
	So join up, guys.
	We have a bunch of exclusive content behind the scenes for you guys over there.
	And, yeah, guys, we got four...
	Guys in the house, four special guests in the house, matter of fact, which I'll have real quickly go through.
	We got Ejaz from EF Dawa.
	We got Daniel Hakuguju.
	And then we got Sam Shimoon and we got Jay Dyer as well.
	I apologize if I butchered the name a little bit there.
	But we're going to be doing a debate here on religion, guys.
	Islam versus Christianity.
	But I'm going to have you guys personally introduce yourselves.
	I mean, I know who you guys are, but I want you guys to introduce yourselves to my audience.
	We can start with Ejaz from EF Dawah.
	Yep.
	Hi, I'm Ejaz from EF Dower and the I3 Institute.
	I hope that you can follow all our other accounts and join us on Twitter.
	I'm a big fan and followed by the Daniel and I look forward to seeing how this debate goes.
	Daniel, Tanya?
	Sure.
	My name is Daniel Hayratju.
	I am a debater.
	I have a channel, Muslim Skeptic, on YouTube.
	You can also find me on Rumble.
	And I founded MuslimSkeptic.com where we dedicate a lot of time to defending Islam against intellectual challenges, Christianity included.
	So check that out.
	Happy to be here.
	Awesome.
	And then can you tell them real quick about Jake?
	Because I know some of them were expecting Jake to come in, but you could probably explain it best.
	Sure, yeah.
	Jake had a last-minute issue that came up, and he's not in the country, so he couldn't make it, unfortunately.
	But yeah, we have Brother Ejaz here to replace him, and Ejaz stepped up at the last minute, so appreciate that.
	Thank you for coming, brother.
	And then Sam?
	Well, Sam Shimon, I used to write for AnsweringIslam.info, but...
	They stopped publishing new articles years ago, so I started a blog, answeringislamblog.wordpress.com.
	You'll find me on Shemunia.
	That's my YouTube channel.
	Hopefully it stays up, but I'm also on Rumble, Answering Islam.
	So that's pretty much my introduction.
	Not much to say besides that.
	Anyway.
	Dave, you're coming on, man.
	You were highly requested by a lot of the people, so from a lot of my supporters that are Christians.
	A ball piece like me.
	What was that?
	I said a bald beast like me.
	Yeah, a lot of my Christian supporters definitely asked me to bring you on, so I'm glad that you're here.
	And then Jay, please introduce yourself to the people.
	Yeah, thanks.
	Glad to be here, Jay Dyer.
	I do a lot of debates.
	That's just part of what I do.
	I host the fourth hour of Alex Jones every Friday.
	I've been doing that for the last four years.
	I've written several books on Hollywood, symbolism, philosophy, theology.
	So we do all of that.
	And you can find me on my website, Jay's Analysis, and then on all the social medias under Jay Dyer.
	All right.
	Awesome.
	Thank you so much, guys.
	So, real quick, we're going to have Mo read a quick word from our sponsor, and then we're going to get right into the debate.
	Actually, I'll explain the breakdown of the debate for the audience real quick.
	Go ahead, Mo.
	Take it away, make it quick, and then we'll get right to it.
	Who is that woman that walked by you, man?
	I can't say.
	This episode is sponsored by Birch Group.
	Birch Gold Group.
	We recently had some monumental news that no one is talking about.
	For the first time ever, the interest the U.S. pays on its debts surpassed every individual budget item except Social Security.
	That's right.
	The U.S. now spends more on interest than on national defense or even Medicare.
	And it's only getting worse as big government continues to spend recklessly.
	That's why savvy Americans are turning to gold, something not tied to the inflated dollar.
	You can too, with the help of Birch Gold Group.
	For over 20 years, Birch Gold Group has helped tens of thousands of Americans protect their retirement savings by converting an IRA or 401k, an IRA gold.
	To learn more, go to BirchGold.com slash Rumble and get a free no-obligation info kit on diversifying your retirement into a gold IRA. Birch Gold has earned an A-plus rating with the BBB, the Better Business Bureau, and thousands of happy customers.
	Protect your IRA or 401k.
	Go to birchgold.com slash rumble and get your free info kit on gold today.
	And thank you, Birch Gold, for sponsoring this episode.
	Alright, awesome.
	So, thank you very much, Mark.
	So guys, the way it's going to go is this.
	I'll explain it real quick for you.
	We're going to have a five-minute opening between both parties.
	Team Islam is going to go first.
	Then we're going to go into topic one, which is theology, the Trinity versus the Taweed.
	Then we're going to go into authenticity of Scripture, which is round two.
	And then we're going to do morality, Bible versus the Quran on human rights, okay?
	We're going to be doing three four-minute rounds, okay?
	So 12 rounds total.
	So three four-minute...
	Three four-minute rounds is what we're going to do, guys.
	And each team has four minutes per argument.
	They're going to be able to go ahead and make their argument uninterrupted for four minutes.
	If one party decides to go two minutes or take three minutes or take the full four minutes, it's fine.
	But it's going to be between the team.
	But the first round is opening statements where Team Islam is going to take it first, and they're going to go for five minutes.
	Then Team Christian is going to go.
	They're going to go into the first topic, which again...
	It's theology, Trinity versus the Taweed.
	Second round is going to be authenticity of scripture.
	And then third round is going to be morality, Bible versus the Quran on human rights.
	And we agreed upon all this beforehand.
	I want to make sure that this is even down the middle.
	I'll be keeping time for the squad.
	I'll be saying 30 seconds and then 10 seconds when they're running into the last 30 and 10 seconds respectively.
	And other than that, Team Islam, Team Christianity, are you guys good?
	Yep.
	All right, awesome.
	So I got five minutes on the clock.
	I'm going to go ahead and turn it to Team Islam for opening statements.
	Give me one sec, let me...
	Okay.
	All right, Team Islam, you guys ready?
	Yes, can you hear me?
	Yeah, I got you.
	We got you loud and clear.
	I'm assuming, Dan, you're going to take it first?
	Yes.
	All right, man.
	Timer is on.
	Go ahead.
	Islam is monotheistic.
	There is only one God.
	This is known as Tawheed.
	Christianity is polytheistic because Christians worship three separate gods known as the Trinity.
	Christians claim that this is false.
	The Trinity is not three separate gods, the Trinity is three in one.
	But does this claim make sense?
	First of all, there's a logical contradiction in the Trinity.
	How can the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit all be one God, but they also not be identical beings?
	The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God.
	It's all one God, but the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, and neither of them are the Holy Spirit.
	This is a logical contradiction.
	The only way to solve the contradiction is to admit that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate gods, not just one God.
	This is, of course, polytheism.
	As Muslims, we challenge Sam and Jay to resolve this logical contradiction for the audience.
	Explain to us how the Father, Son, and Spirit are all one God but they're not identical with each other and explain it in a way that the average layperson can understand it.
	A layperson can understand that God is one.
	He is one God and he can have multiple attributes.
	That's Islamic monotheism.
	I can explain it in one sentence.
	Can Sam and Jay explain the Trinity without resorting to a bunch of convoluted gobbledygook?
	We'll see.
	What Sam and Jay want to do is to try to claim that Islam's conception of God is actually just as complicated as the Trinity.
	This is a cheap debate tactic, as we'll see.
	They can't address the logical problem of the Trinity, so they want to make it seem like we have the same problem in Islam.
	But we don't.
	There is nothing analogous to the logical problem of the Trinity in Islam.
	For example, they might claim that Allah's attributes in Islam are incoherent.
	No, they're not.
	We can all understand how a person can have multiple attributes, how God can be all-knowing, all-powerful, merciful, loving, etc.
	This is not hard to understand.
	Those attributes of God are not separate people with their own minds.
	But according to the Bible, Jesus and the Father have separate knowledge.
	They have separate wills.
	For example, in Mark 13.32, in the Bible we read, So the Son doesn't know when the Day of Judgment is, but the Father does know.
	So this indicates two separate minds.
	This is polytheism.
	There are more examples that we can cite in the rebuttal sections, but keep in mind that in the 7th century, the official position of the Church in the Third Council of Constantinople, they held the position that Jesus has two wills.
	The Church defined Jesus as having two energies and two wills, one divine and one human.
	Two separate wills means two separate minds.
	This means that Jesus and the Father have two separate minds and are therefore two separate entities.
	You either explain this by admitting it is polytheism, or you have to give us some convoluted explanation of how two minds or three minds are still one God.
	There's nothing analogous to this in Islamic theology.
	Islam says there's one God.
	He has knowledge, he has will, one will, one knowledge.
	These things are not divided between multiple persons or energies or anything like that.
	And all of this Islamic monotheism is clearly expressed in the Quran, by the way.
	Contrast this with the Bible.
	Jesus is meant to be God, all-knowing, and the only teacher to the disciples, but the Jesus of the Gospels doesn't describe the doctrines of the Trinity.
	We have to rely on Paul and the Church Fathers to explain what the Trinity is.
	That's strange.
	If God wants us to know Him, believe in Him, lay the foundation for a general understanding of Him, why would He leave that to different authors at different times and different places over several centuries, such that when God is finally described in Scripture, it results in a mystery, and we need all these church councils to figure it out.
	The way that Christians have come to understand the Trinity is what we'd expect if God did not reveal the doctrines of the Trinity.
	On the other hand, God in the Quran revealed four short lines that any human being can read and instantly understand who God is and what his attributes are.
	This is exactly what we would expect from an all-knowing, wise, just, merciful, and loving God who cares about his creation.
	The four lines are the 112th chapter of the Quran.
	Say, he is God, one God, Allah, the completely self-sufficient.
	He neither begets nor is born, nor is there to him any equivalent.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Still got roughly 30 seconds on the clock, but I'll end it there.
	I will turn it to Team Christianity.
	We'll put another five minutes on the clock for you guys.
	Let me first, Jay, you want me to go or you go?
	Either way.
	Go ahead.
	What's up?
	Okay, let me go.
	Okay.
	Timer's on.
	Ready?
	All right.
	Praise be the Father, Son of the Holy Spirit, the one true God, and glory to the Son of God who became flesh for our salvation.
	May the Lord Jesus be magnified and the falsehood of Tawheed exposed.
	Now, notice what Daniel did.
	Instead of focusing on what it means for Allah to be one, he spent the bulk of his time criticizing the Trinity, but we will answer his objections in a rebuttal period, but I'm now going to turn against him, because not so fast.
	When he says he believes in Tawhid, what exactly does it mean for Allah to be one?
	Because I'm aware that Daniel does believe the fact that the Quran is uncreated.
	And therefore, we now have two distinct eternal entities that are not identical.
	Why?
	Because I'm going to show Daniel from his authentic sources, sahih narrations, that the Quran and the chapters of the Quran actually want to see and debate with Allah.
	So now we have...
	A paradox.
	Because if the Quran is a speech of Allah, and that's Allah speaking, is Allah speaking to himself?
	So is Daniel actually a modalist?
	Or is he a polytheist?
	Or does he have a form of a trinity?
	But his is even worse, because it's not three persons, because each chapter of the Quran He has the potentiality of speaking with Allah.
	So that means his God consists of at least 115 divine persons or divine beings who can interact with one another and appear separately.
	And this is all from his authentic narrations.
	Secondly, the second problem he has is that according to the Quran, the spirit of Allah is not Gabriel.
	So I'm going to now press him in rebuttal period to prove otherwise.
	There's not a single verse in the Quran that says the spirit is Jibril.
	He's now dependent on the very scholars of Islam that come centuries later to bail out Allah and his messenger, because that's what he accused the Lord Jesus, that Jesus wasn't clear enough to articulate the Trinity, but he did make an admission, which is now going to come and bite him.
	He admitted Paul taught the Trinity.
	It's now recorded.
	I want everyone to hear it.
	Paul taught the Trinity, because when we come to the scriptures, I'm going to show that even the Quran acknowledges that Paul was used by Allah to spread the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
	More to come.
	The spirit according to the Quran is distinct from Allah.
	He appears as a man.
	He speaks and creates.
	So now if we add the spirit to the Quran and Allah, he's got about 116 divine persons or beings and he doesn't have a singular person called Allah.
	Then we can go a little further and adjust the issue of the fact that according to our friend here, this is his belief, Allah has...
	Well, he wouldn't use the term body parts.
	I don't want to misrepresent them.
	Allah has a foot.
	He has a shin.
	He even has loins.
	And he has at least two eyes, if not more, and two right hands.
	Now, for the life of me, if Allah is the creator of the heavens and the earth, how does he exist as an embodied being without him dwelling in space?
	Because if he's atemporal and he's timeless, that means his God supposedly exists when there was no time, space, and place.
	But if you have a foot and you have a shin, And you have two right hands.
	I don't know what happened to the left one, but we'll get into that.
	Two right hands, at least two eyes.
	In fact, the Arabic says three or more, but we'll get into that.
	Then that means his God is an embodied being who is temporal and finite, which means that his God did not create all space or place and time because there's a space that his body parts need to occupy In order for him to be his god.
	So the problem is actually worse for Daniel than for us.
	So he's going to have to explain how is it that he's a polytheist, pagan, masquerading as a monotheist.
	Because what he just told you is not anchoring the Quran or the authentic sunnah of Muhammad.
	So good luck in trying to defend your rational Salafi anthropomorphism.
	And last time I checked, his partner doesn't share his Salafi anthropomorphism.
	So we're going to have a field day.
	Now how much time do I have?
	One minute to go.
	110.
	Hey, you want to take the last minute?
	Go ahead, brother.
	Yeah, I'd like to point out that in Daniel's opening statement, he also committed a fallacy, which is a form of Occam's Razor fallacy.
	He kept appealing to the fact that because it's simple, then it must be obvious it must be the case.
	Just because something seems or appears to be simpler or more obvious or because it was only four short and simple things, Sentences has nothing to do with whether it's true or false.
	In fact, as we're going to see, the Muslims amongst themselves and their various schools all compete and disagree and fight not only over the attributes, but also over jurisprudence.
	Okay.
	Great.
	So, this is a little bit of time.
	So, that concludes opening statements.
	Obviously, that segues perfectly into our first thing.
	What I'll do is, do we have any chats to read?
	You know, we'll just go right into the first one, guys.
	Get your chats in now, and I'll read them after the first round, after opening statements.
	Segues perfectly into round one, which is theology.
	Trinity versus the Ta'wid.
	I'm going to turn it back to Team Islam.
	I'm going to put four minutes on the clock for you guys.
	Are you guys ready?
	Alright.
	Bills, do you have the clock or do you want me to do it here?
	Yeah, four minutes for this one.
	From this point forward, it's going to be four minutes.
	It's just opening statements that we're five.
	Once you guys start talking, we'll hit the clock.
	We'll do that, Bill, to make it easier.
	Once they start talking, we'll hit the clock.
	Okay, I guess I'll go first here.
	Bismillah, alhamdulillah, salatu wa s-salatu wa s-salamu ala rasulullah.
	Notice that for this debate, Sam Shimon had to create a religion, a mockery, something which does not actually exist, in order to argue against the Muslims.
	No Muslim believes that Allah is 115 persons.
	Not even the Christians who didn't understand Islam, like John of Damascus, could come up with something so ridiculous.
	But we will find that this is the case in Christian theology, that God is another being.
	I mean, I do believe that they...
	I do think that they believe in, what's his name?
	Justin Marta.
	Saying that there's another entity.
	Of course, they would like to revise that, but that's what he literally says.
	When it comes to the New Testament, Jesus says a person cannot have two masters, or rather that he cannot serve two lords.
	We look at the Jesus of the New Testament, he's at odds with the Christian understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.
	We can even go a step further than this.
	For us Muslims, yes, the Qur'an describes Allah in a simple way, but from this we get a comprehensive understanding.
	We say that this is a or speech which is extensive.
	You can ask us almost any question about the nature of Allah and in those four short passages we can understand it.
	To the point that if I were to compare this with the Bible, I would not be able to find four verses that simply and reasonably explain the nature of God.
	If God loved us, He cared for us, and He was merciful for us, then there's a duty there, a justice, where He would want us to understand Him.
	But our Christian colleagues fundamentally cannot and do not understand God.
	I'll give one simple example here.
	The God of the Quran was able to describe Himself as one, absolutely one, meaning nothing.
	The God of the Bible allegedly describes Himself as begotten, A word of which the meaning we cannot know and which we know has actually changed.
	For those who don't know, the God of the Bible, when he says that he is begotten, this comes from the Greek word monogenes.
	Unfortunately, that word today is not translated as unique.
	So if you're a Christian, does it matter to you that the Bible does not teach what you actually believe?
	My friend here, Sam, actually teaches that if a thing, an ideal belief, cannot stand being tested by the Bible, then it is false.
	So I would like to ask him, where is the belief that Jesus is begotten using the Greek of the New Testament?
	Brother Daniel.
	Yeah, I just want to say that they did exactly what I predicted in the opening statement.
	They wouldn't address the Trinity at all and the clear logical contradiction of the Trinity that everyone is aware of.
	They had to bring up these unrelated issues like the uncreatedness of the Quran or that God, Allah, has hands, for example.
	This has nothing to do with monotheism.
	Maybe they don't understand what Tawheed means.
	Tawheed means one God.
	It means monotheism.
	And this is the claim that we're making, that polytheism is the Trinity.
	The Trinity is polytheism.
	So tell me how.
	I want them to explain, since their whole opening statement was bringing up the issue of the uncreatedness of the Quran and the hand of Allah, how does that contradict Monotheism.
	How does God having a hand?
	However you want to explain that hand.
	It has nothing to do, by the way, with Salafi or the other theological schools of Kalam and Islam.
	All of the schools are united on this.
	All Muslims are united on this.
	God having a hand does not mean that...
	The hand has its own mind, that the hand is its own entity, its own god, its own person.
	No theologian has ever said that.
	There's no challenge to monotheism of Islam by bringing up the hand or the Qur'an or anything like that.
	Or the shin.
	Yeah, and again, like you just said perfectly, 115 separate gods with minds.
	The Qur'an doesn't have its own mind.
	That is time.
	Okay.
	I will turn it over to Team Christianity here.
	This is the bottom of the first round here.
	Bilzi, we got the timer for them.
	Four minutes again on the clock.
	And when you guys start speaking, we'll start the clock once you start speaking.
	Jay, do you want to go or do you want me to go?
	Let me have one or two minutes and I'll turn it to you.
	So I did want to address what Daniel said because, of course, he misstated several things about what our position is.
	First of all, the argument about attributes was not that you believe that they're persons.
	Sam was making an analogy to show that you have the exact same problem in your position, and you have a double standard when you try to say that we have to solve this Trinitarian dilemma.
	It's a contradiction.
	But your view of the attributes is is not subject to that problem.
	That's just a double standard.
	What's the point?
	Nobody said that you believe that the attributes are persons, so that's a misdirection.
	First of all, didn't Hikishu already admit that Paul taught the Trinity?
	And I think Ijaz disagreed with that.
	So which one is it?
	Did Paul teach the Trinity or did he not?
	And then I would also add that Christ does not have a human person, and that's why the notion about divine mind It's a two-mind scenario where he shares a divine mind with the Father, and he has limitations in his human mind.
	That's why it's two minds.
	So you tried to say that he had one mind, and it was separate knowledge.
	The expression where he says that he's limited in knowledge is a reference to rhetoric, and if you can read St.
	Basil, Letter 234, 5, and 6, he talks about these issues and explains that just as Jesus says in other places that there's no one good but God.
	He's not literally saying that there's no one else good because in other passages he calls himself good.
	He calls the Holy Spirit good as well, and so it's a feature of rhetoric.
	You have the same types of expressions in your own Quranic exegesis where you try to solve these dilemmas, but you don't want us to have that right.
	Sam, I'll throw it to you.
	Yeah, notice how Daniel conveniently wants to evade what the topic is.
	The topic is Trinity versus Tawheed.
	But I know he can't defend Tawheed because it's irrational.
	So he just wants to attack the Trinity, thinking that Tawheed wins by default.
	Daniel, you're the one who set up the topic, Trinity versus Tawheed.
	You didn't want to do it separately, so stop whining about it.
	Now, coming back to the issue, maybe you didn't hear what I said.
	The Qur'an must have a mind independent from your God if the Qur'an is going to argue with your God and the individual chapters.
	Here, Sahih Muslim, book 4, number 1757.
	Abu Umama said he heard Allah's messengers say, recite the Qur'an for on the day of resurrection, it will come as an intercessor for those who recite it.
	How does the speech of Allah intercede with Allah if it's a speech of Allah?
	Is Allah speaking to himself in a different mode?
	Then you are a modalist.
	So your tawhid is modalism, but then it gets worse for you.
	Recite the two bright ones, Al-Baqarah and Surah Al-Imran, chapters 2 and 3.
	For on the day of resurrection they will come as two clouds or two shades or two flocks of birds and ranks, pleading for those who recite them.
	Pleading with who?
	With themselves?
	If the surahs of the Qur'an can appear independently, separately, and appear in visible form, and argue with Allah, that's either your God, being schizophrenic, arguing with himself in different modes, so you're a modalist, Or you have now separate gods argue with one another, so you're a polytheist, or you have to believe that Tawhid encompasses a plurality of distinct entities who can then interact and argue with one another.
	So don't run and evade, which are smoke and mirror tactics, deal with the issue.
	You didn't understand what I meant about your god's body parts.
	Even though you don't like to use the term body parts.
	And no, not all the Sunnis define the hand of Allah as meaning what you mean, because you have those that say that it's a metaphor for His power.
	You do not believe this.
	So I'm still trying to figure out, do you believe in a finite God who assumes time and space?
	Because if He has a hand...
	Two right hands.
	What happened to his left?
	Maybe you can explain.
	He has a shin.
	He has loins.
	That means he's an embodied being.
	If he's an embodied being, he requires space.
	Unless you want to create another contradiction with the irrational Salafi anthropomorphism.
	Still 20 on the clock?
	Okay.
	I'm sorry, yeah, I didn't know because I'm trying to speak past making time.
	So yeah, Daniel, remember what the topic is.
	I know maybe sometimes, being a little intimidated, you forget.
	Trinity versus Tawheed.
	Don't run from shouldering the burden of proof.
	Alright.
	So, I will turn it back.
	That completes round one.
	Well, yeah, the first set of rounds.
	We're going to go into round two of this.
	I'm going to turn it back to Team Islam here.
	Again, with Talweed versus the Trinity.
	Daniel, I'll turn it back to you, or EF, or either one of you that wants to take it, for four minutes on the clock.
	Yeah, I'll take this.
	So, this is quite simple.
	How is it possible that they don't understand that the Qur'an also uses rhetoric?
	In fact, in the Qur'an, Allah says He uses examples of every kind.
	So, it's not that hard to understand it.
	But there is a problem here for Jay, because Jay seems to think that in Mark 13, 32, this is simple rhetoric.
	Unfortunately, the scribes of the Bible did not see it that way, Which is why they had to repeatedly change those words over several centuries.
	They clearly saw a problem with it.
	If there was no problem, why did the scribes change it?
	Unfortunately, Jay, the scribes factually disagree with you.
	I'm sorry, but someone later, like St.
	Basil, trying to allegorize it is not going to solve the physical problem of your scribes changing the Bible.
	Secondly, Sam seems to not understand basic Islam.
	He begins by asking, what is Tawheed?
	Good question.
	Let me teach you.
	Allah is absolutely one.
	Allah has distinct attributes.
	And Allah does not need anything.
	He's not multiple persons.
	He doesn't rely on anyone or anything other than himself.
	He is beginningless and endless, meaning he's the first and the last.
	If I were to ask The God of the Bible, is He the first and the last?
	We know that very recently, the scholars at the ECM have decided that God the Father in Revelation 21 6 actually became the first and the last.
	That's a problem for the Trinity.
	Do you believe that God had to become the first and the last?
	Who made Him the first and the last?
	For us, that just seems unreasonable nonsense.
	Daniel?
	Yeah, so Sam wants to make a big deal about the Quran speaking.
	So he read that hadith.
	Sam is not familiar with the Quran.
	So in chapter 36, verse 65, we read in the Quran,"...on that day we shall seal up their mouths, but their hands will speak to us, and their feet bear witness to everything they have done." Does that mean that our hands and feet have minds?
	Did any Muslim in history ever interpret that verse that the hands and feet of our own bodies have minds?
	Yet they will speak for or against us on the day of judgment.
	So this is an interpretation that he has that no one has ever made in the history of Islam.
	But many Christians and theologians and church fathers have debated and discussed the knowledge of Jesus being different from the knowledge of the Father, and the will of Jesus being different from the will of the Father.
	Jesus has a separate human will, and this is what they will not explain.
	Also, So, yeah, explain that problem, that contradiction.
	God having a hand, guess what?
	That's a problem for the Trinity as well, because the New Testament in Acts 7.55 describes Jesus as standing at the right hand of the Father.
	So what is the right hand of the Father?
	Is that in space?
	Does the Father have a body?
	Can you explain that?
	What is the hand, the right hand of the Father?
	Does he have a left hand?
	Does the Father have a body?
	Like, does the Father have two sides?
	Explain that verse within Acts, and that's in the New Testament, so I'm very interested to understand if this is a corporeal, physical Father or not, or what does the Bible mean?
	Do we have an explanation of that?
	So this, it doesn't matter if you take the hand of God to be metaphorical, if you take it to be bilakef, meaning without modality.
	That doesn't contradict to hate.
	It doesn't contradict monotheism.
	Explain how having a hand, God having a hand means that it's not monotheism.
	That's what you can't do.
	Do you want to go or do you want me to go?
	Do you have time left?
	Yeah, you still have 10 seconds, but it's windling down now.
	Okay.
	Let me ask Jay, though, because we don't know.
	Do you want me to split the time with you or do you want me to take the four minutes?
	I've got about one or two minutes.
	You can go ahead.
	Why don't you go with your one or two minutes?
	Before you guys go, Dan, did you get everything out that you needed to get there?
	Because I think there might have been a confusion on the time.
	Yeah, I got everything out, thanks.
	Okay, all right, cool.
	Just wanted to make sure it's all good.
	All right, Jay, you're going to kick it off on this one?
	Right, so going back to the text about the limitation of Jesus' knowledge, he said the scribes changed it.
	If the scribes changed it, why is it still in the text talking about the exaggeration of the limitation of his knowledge?
	When I said exaggeration or rhetoric, I didn't say allegory.
	So I don't think Yajaz knows the difference between the grammatical terms of exaggeration and allegory.
	I did not say it's an allegory.
	It's similar to other passages where Jesus talks about straining a gnat, swallowing camels.
	It's called exaggeration.
	And so in the same way, he can say, no one is good but God.
	Okay, nobody believes that that literally means that there's literally no one good.
	Like, the prophets weren't good, Jesus isn't good, the Spirit isn't good.
	No.
	He's talking about no one is good but God the Father in a specific sense of God being the Father being the arche, the principle, the fount, and the cause.
	The last thing I'll say is that we're not subject to the same problems as you guys, well, particularly Daniel, because we don't have the anthropomorphic error about God the Father.
	So what we believe about the mode of the sun coming into time and space, you have that same issue with Allah Himself.
	You're saying that Allah has these parts, which you say are attributes.
	And by the way, don't you two disagree on the status of those attributes between yourselves?
	Go ahead, Sam.
	Yeah, let me piggyback off of what he just said.
	Now, he was talking about that the Quran talks about hands and hands speaking, they don't have minds.
	How do you know that?
	Where did the text tell you that?
	Notice his appeal to authority.
	He says, well, no Muslim scholar.
	Yes, I know you live in denial, just like you live in denial that you're pagans and polytheists for a variety of issues, especially kissing the black stone.
	It doesn't matter what your scholars say.
	It's what you can prove.
	So prove to me that when hands and feet are speak, they're mindless.
	So now let's take an analogy with the Qur'an.
	So a mindless Qur'an will be engaging Allah.
	So you're gonna have the Qur'an engaging with Allah, even though it doesn't have a mind of its own.
	So now we're back to square one.
	If the Qur'an is the speech of Allah, how does Allah's speech speak to Himself?
	Is Allah speaking to Himself?
	But in a different mode?
	You didn't answer that dilemma.
	Now coming back to the issue of God in the right hand.
	Unlike you, According to the scriptures, unlike your position as a Salafi anthropomorphist, the Bible says God is spirit.
	So I'm going to challenge you to show me in your Quran where it says your Allah is spirit.
	And in the context of John 4.24, God is spirit, meaning that he is bodiless and corporeal because he's the creator of heavens and earth.
	But that God can appear visibly.
	God the Father appears visibly in heaven.
	That's Daniel 7 9 verses 10.
	Chapter 7 verses 9 to 10.
	Revelation chapter 4.
	So when it says that Jesus in his glorified physical body enters this heavenly realm where angels dwell, heaven itself is created and God can manifest in heaven and Jesus physically being seen by the inhabitants of heaven sitting at the right hand of the Father who appears visibly.
	But you don't believe that about the body parts of your God.
	You're not like Ijaz Amaturidi.
	You believe your God has two right hands.
	Where's the left one?
	I'm still waiting for the answer.
	He has loins, he has a shin, and he's going to put his foot over health, and then you have the womb yanking on his loins.
	That's inside Bukhari.
	How many seconds do I have?
	You got 50 seconds.
	You're good.
	Keep going.
	50?
	50 seconds, yep.
	So, now, come back and address your polytheistic pagan beliefs.
	Since the chapters of the Qur'an can appear separately, in visible form, and they are interceding with Allah, they're disputing with Allah, how if the Qur'an is the speech of Allah?
	Time up.
	No, no, 30, 30.
	I'm just saying 30.
	Okay.
	How is the Quran, how are the individual surahs of the Quran disputing with Allah according to you?
	No one thinks they have a mind.
	So mindless surahs have the mind enough to know who recites them, who to defend and argue on behalf of, and argue with Allah when this is supposedly a speech of Allah.
	So is your Allah speaking to himself?
	Schizophrenic deity?
	Anyway, I think my time is up.
	Go ahead.
	Okay, that is time now.
	So we're going to go into round three now.
	This is the final round of Dawid versus Trinity.
	This is the top of the last round.
	Four minutes on the clock.
	I'll turn it to Team Islam here.
	Whenever you guys go, we'll start the timer.
	You guys do want to go?
	Yeah, this is quite easy.
	So none of these points are defeatists for Islam, nor do they change or attack what Muslims actually believe.
	Notice this trauma that they have to create.
	They have to think that these are parts of Allah.
	Even some admitted you don't use this language.
	So if we don't use that language, we don't describe it that way, we don't teach it that way, why is your opinion of how you read it in a very Christian way, I would say?
	It's very natural for you to create different persons for God, That's the very definition of schizophrenia.
	Let's get something straight here.
	Jay is incorrect.
	He made the statement, well, if it's still there in the Bible for Mark 13, 32, that Jesus does not know the day or the hour, how does that mean that the scribes changed it?
	Yes, the scribes actually changed the meaning of the term, and what the academics have gone and done is translate And they've tried to fix and adjust what divorce means, because it occurs twice in the Bible.
	And in the two places where Jesus has no knowledge of the day or the hour, the scribes tried to amend it.
	There is no textual critic alive today who will not testify to that.
	So I put it back to Jay.
	Let's look at the manuscripts.
	Sam says that your manuscripts are from the 4th century, and Verbatim, he says, that they're a problem because the further they go back, the more that they disagree.
	And this refers to Codex Naiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraimuris scriptus, etc.
	He says that it's a problem.
	So Jay, please address the problem.
	Please answer how God can be ignorant.
	Please answer how God can not know things.
	That is a God who is fundamentally agile.
	Lastly, on this point of Allah having paths.
	Muslims do not believe that.
	Muslims do not say as well that when the Day of Judgment comes and things testify, paths testify, that these mean that they are the mind of Allah.
	No one says that.
	Daniel?
	Yes, there's a lot to say here.
	They keep saying that I'm Salafi this and Salafi that.
	Me and Ijaz are on the same page on all of these issues.
	You don't have to be a particular school of Islamic thought to defend Tawheed.
	So you keep projecting this onto us because you have no way to respond to our argument.
	And it's interesting that you're bringing up sects because...
	Jay here has claimed that Catholics are modalists, that they're heretics, and that basically they are deviant.
	So what does Jay have to say about Catholics?
	He thinks that you're a deviant and a heretic, Sam, and maybe that you're going to hell.
	So did you clarify that with Jay before he even agreed to this debate?
	Second of all, for Sam, look at what Luke 1940 says.
	I tell you, he replied, if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.
	Stones will cry out according to the New Testament.
	Do the stones have minds?
	Isaiah 55, 12.
	Does that mean that the hills and the trees have minds?
	Sam, explain that.
	Or how about Psalm 98, 8.
	Let the rivers clap their hands.
	Let the mountains sing together for joy.
	Does that mean that the rivers have hands and they're clapping for joy?
	Do they have minds?
	Sam, please explain all of those verses.
	You want to have that kind of understanding of mountains, rivers, and whatever, and you'll say that these are not minds.
	But the problem with the Trinity is that Jesus has a separate mind than the Father.
	The Father has a separate mind from Jesus.
	They both have a separate mind from the Holy Spirit.
	That means they're three separate entities and therefore three separate gods.
	This is polytheism.
	We don't have that problem in Islam.
	The Quran doesn't have its own mind.
	There's no one who ever has thought the Quran has its own mind that is separate from God.
	But this is what you're trying to claim.
	Not based on any text, not based on any hadith.
	This is just your assertion based on nothing.
	So address the Trinity.
	Why can't you address the Trinity?
	You have to raise these straw men against Islam.
	It sounds kind of ridiculous, frankly.
	Jay, do you want me to take it?
	You guys still got one.
	Muslims, you guys are done.
	You've only got 142 left.
	You've still got 142.
	That concludes.
	Yeah, so I just want to emphasize that they did not address the Trinity at all.
	We addressed all of their complaints against the Quran, against monotheism, against Tawheed.
	They haven't even started to defend the Trinity.
	So this is a fail, a big fail.
	And Sam is proof for Christians.
	Okay, go ahead.
	Could I point out as well, they didn't address the problem of Jesus' status as being begotten, being changed in the actual text.
	You seem to be missing the point that Sam admitted was a problem.
	Sam says that the manuscripts from the 4th century are a problem.
	He says Codex Sinaiticus belongs to trash, because it's filled with errors and heresies.
	Why does he defend that?
	So this will do, this will do, this will do.
	Since you guys still have some time on the clock, and it seems like this is, you guys kind of want to have a little bit of a dialogue here.
	If you guys want, I'm going to have Team Christianity go right now.
	I'm going to give them their full four minutes.
	And then what we can do is, if you guys want, I can put another three or four minutes on the clock where we'll finish off this round with Tawid versus Trinity, where you guys have open dialogue with each other.
	And I can put four or five minutes on the clock.
	Then I can corner them, they can't run.
	That'll be great.
	So that's what I'll do.
	So I'll give you four minutes on the clock.
	Well, Team Islam, are you guys okay with that?
	Do you guys want that?
	Because it seems like you guys want open dialogue here.
	Yeah, that's what we want.
	You guys what you want?
	Okay, cool.
	So give the people what they want.
	This is what you guys want.
	Awesome.
	So Team Christiana, we'll put four minutes on the clock for you guys.
	And then after this, we'll do either three, between three to five minutes, whatever you guys decide, on just open dialogue between the four of you.
	So I'll put four minutes on the clock here.
	Whenever you guys are ready, go ahead and we'll start the clock.
	Roger, you want to go first, right?
	Yeah, so again, Jesus doesn't have a separate divine mind.
	He shares the same divine mind as the Father, and when he assumed human nature, he assumed a human mind.
	That's part of the fullness of human nature.
	So we don't say that he's separate, just like the persons of the Trinity are distinct, but not separate.
	Just like you believe, attributes are distinct.
	Not separate.
	Now, I know that you can't seem to follow the fact that we're not saying you believe the attributes actually have minds.
	We're just pointing out that you have the same metaphysical problem, that you have a double standard for saying, I'm not liable to explain that.
	You have to explain it.
	And then when we bring that up, every one of your responses on that is a two-quote way.
	Well, doesn't the Bible talk about body parts?
	Yeah, but we don't have the same metaphysical problems as you because we don't have the same metaphysics.
	But you don't seem to be able to follow that, so that's a two-quote way.
	But other than that, the other thing I would just reply to is that Ijaz kept saying that all of the scholars in the world believe this.
	There's not a single one that would disagree.
	Has he read all of the scholars?
	He asserted all of these things.
	He says the scribes changed it, yet it's still there in the text.
	So he's just asserting these things.
	We don't know where this is coming from.
	These are all assertions.
	Go ahead, Sam.
	Yeah, we will get into scripture authenticity in the second part, but he wants to change the topic because it's too hot for him.
	And in the second part, he just proved Muhammad is a false prophet, and he is, but for other reasons.
	But let me come and address.
	Guys, you see how desperate Daniel is, and he's talking about we're evading the topic.
	Read Luke 19, 38-40.
	Let me show you the context as my time is fleeting.
	There, Jesus is being praised by children, and the scholars are saying, rebuke them.
	He goes, well, if they were silent, even the stones will cry out.
	Anyone with any common sense, but I understand it's hard for them to read a text in its literary context.
	He's using hyperbole.
	That even if they don't praise me, creation will praise me.
	That's exactly the context of the Psalms.
	The psalmist, which is poetic literature, is personifying creation to show that all creation glorifies God, because creation is a testimony to the greatness and existence of God.
	Nice try with that false analogy, but I want him now, when I engage you, when I ask you, so are you saying to me, That when the Hadith, not your Quran, says that the Surahs will intercede with Allah, that's not literal?
	Are you saying to me, when the Quran will intercede with Allah, that's not literal?
	I hope you say that.
	And on top of that, what do you do with the Hadith, where it says, the trees greeted your prophet, stones greeted your prophet, and at the last day, a stone will cry out saying, hey, there's a Yahud behind me, come and kill him.
	Are you going to allegorize those statements, Daniel Hakikat you?
	I hope not, because I'm going to have a field day.
	At your expense.
	And what are you going to do with chapter 47, verse 22 of the Quran?
	When you go to Bukhari, your prophet says there's a primordial rachem, womb, that yanked on your God's gonads.
	And he said, stop, stop.
	Are you going to allegorize that too?
	The fact that your god has loins?
	The fact that there is a womb yanking on his gonads, which is actually in Bukhari, cited even in Mekithir?
	You're comparing apples and pineapples because the debate is over.
	You can't defend.
	You're irrational, incoherent Salafi babble.
	And yes, I know you don't want to say the hand Is literal in the sense that it's a hand like my hand.
	But I want to hear you from your own mouth, Daniel.
	Are you telling me that Allah's hand is a metaphor for power?
	I want to hear it.
	Are you going to say, it's a hand.
	We know it's a hand.
	It's unlike anything.
	We don't know how, but it's a hand.
	Because your God is not the true God.
	Your God is the figment of Muhammad's imagination.
	How much time do I have?
	13 seconds.
	Now an interaction.
	Get ready, boys.
	I know you want to change the subject.
	We're going to see how you're going to address these issues, so let's go.
	All right.
	Okay, so do you guys want three minutes, four minutes, or five minutes for open dialogue between the four of you?
	Five minutes?
	Okay.
	Can we put five minutes on the clock, please, Bills?
	So what we're going to do here, guys, is we're going to have it just open dialogue.
	We're on the topic of Trinity versus Dawid, and then we're going to go into scripture next and authenticity for the next round.
	So I will go ahead.
	Who wants to kick it off first, I guess?
	Who wants to do that?
	Jay?
	Me?
	Or Team Islam?
	I mean, the textual stuff is round two.
	I don't know why he just spent the whole time.
	Because he can't deal with the public.
	The Bible holds your beliefs.
	That's round two, dude.
	Does the Bible affect your beliefs?
	I want to know.
	Hold on, guys.
	Hold on.
	What I'm going to do is I'll just have someone who wants to kick off the first question of this open dialogue and I'm going to start the timer.
	Who wants to do it?
	Nobody?
	Yeah, okay.
	Well, let me...
	No, I'll do it.
	You'll go.
	Okay.
	So, Sam, I'm going to turn the clock on once you go, and then this open dialogue between the four of you.
	Guys, try please not to interrupt each other so they can hear you because it's Zoom, so they really won't be able to hear you if you guys interrupt each other.
	So, go ahead, Sam.
	I'll kick it off with you.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah.
	Daniel, I want to hear from your own mouth.
	The Yad of Allah, is it a metaphor for His power?
	It can be a metaphor for his power.
	It can be interpreted in many different ways.
	It does not contradict Tawhid.
	It does not contradict monotheism.
	Yes, it does.
	You can have an Ashari position and interpret it as a metaphor, or you can have a Salafi Athari position and interpret it differently.
	Explain to me how it contradicts.
	Can you explain to me?
	I answered your question.
	How does a hand, how does God having a hand, however it's interpreted, Contradict monotheism.
	Can you explain that?
	How does having a hand...
	How does a hand contradict monotheism?
	Explain it.
	No, you asked me a question.
	It's open dialogue.
	You asked me a question and I answered you.
	Now answer my question.
	I answered your question.
	I answered your question.
	Now you answer my question.
	What's your position?
	Yeah, I've studied Salafi, Athari Islam, I've studied Ashari Islam.
	You've studied it, but you won't say your position.
	What are you?
	I have studied all of them.
	It's irrelevant to this debate.
	Stick to the topic.
	Stick to the topic.
	What can you explain to me?
	So, moderator, moderator, he doesn't let me answer the question.
	He doesn't let me answer the question.
	No, because you're doing a dodgeball.
	You don't have to like my answer.
	This is not interrogation.
	This is not cross-examination.
	You already asked me one question.
	Let me ask you a question now.
	Jay, is Catholicism modalism?
	Is it a heresy?
	Yes or no?
	It can lead to that if they're consistent with it, yes.
	No, no.
	Is it or not?
	Well, it's a false either or because not everybody who's wrong is necessarily a heretic.
	They're not necessarily formal heretics.
	You can have a material heresy.
	So the Catholic position, is it a heresy or not?
	It depends on the person whether they're hardened in that heresy.
	No, no.
	It doesn't depend on a person.
	I mean, you're asking me my position.
	I'm telling you my position.
	You're not going to tell me what my position is.
	Okay, let me help you.
	He didn't like your answer, so don't let him filibuster her because he wants to get the time.
	Now, let me ask you the question because I know that's what we're trying to do.
	What do you think about that?
	Jay just called your church a heretic.
	I'm a heretic.
	I deserve help.
	Jay, pray for me and ask the intercession of the saints.
	Now, let's come back to the cron.
	So it's ironic that you're trying to pit me against Ijaz.
	When you and him disbelieve in the same thing.
	You don't believe in the same God.
	You and Jay don't believe in the same God.
	That's the point that we're trying to make.
	Moderator, you're going to have to do a better job.
	Here's the thing, it's open dialogue, and I'm trying to have it, you know, how about this?
	Can you, let's say, I'm asking this question, Dan, please?
	Go ahead.
	And are you scared, Dan?
	I'll take it easy.
	All right.
	Now, you're gone.
	You're...
	Can you let me make my comment, dude?
	Well, make a reasonable comment rather than insults.
	Your Quran.
	You'll never get to me.
	Here we go again.
	All right, I'm going to add 30 seconds to the Quran.
	Your Quran uncreated, right, Daniel?
	Yes.
	Okay, so the hadith that I cited, when it says, Surah Al-Baqarah, Surah Al-Rahan, will appear as flocks of birds interceding for those that recited them.
	Do you take that metaphorically or do you take it actually?
	This is a personification of the Quran, just like the Bible verses that I mentioned about rivers clapping their hands, their stones speaking.
	In the Psalms, I'll read them again.
	You're making the claim that if the Quran is personified, that means it has a separate mind.
	See, now you're interrupting.
	Can I answer the question?
	Go ahead.
	So I pointed out that just because there's personification, that doesn't imply that there's a separate mind.
	And I cited verses of the Bible.
	Your response was that, no, this is just personification in the Bible.
	So personification is okay in the Bible.
	That doesn't imply that stones have minds and that rivers have minds.
	That's fine.
	But if the Quran does it, or if Hadith does it, Your position is that you call them parts.
	Can I address your position?
	Are you going to rant and rape because you want to eat up time?
	You interrupt me when I'm answering you.
	You asked a question.
	Shouldn't we be able to ask no?
	You just asked a question.
	We should be able to answer.
	Daniel, I'm going to ask you a question.
	I'm asking you a question, Sam.
	It's quite simple.
	Please answer the question.
	You'll never get to me.
	You're going to keep running.
	Are we able to ask questions or not?
	Go ahead.
	Okay, let's add 30 seconds to the clock.
	We're going to let Sam finish his point, and then we'll go ahead and let you ask your question.
	Is he making points or asking questions?
	Okay, so now Daniel, Daniel, stop attacking straw man, because in the psalm, you will not find where it says, and the moon will come and intercede for those that look to it.
	And venerated it.
	The hadith I cited is about the day of resurrection.
	It's about intercession.
	So I want to know, what do you mean by personification?
	When in those hadiths, it's talking about the surahs interceding with Allah.
	Will there be intercession?
	Is that true?
	Will people need intercession before Allah?
	Is that true?
	So what exactly do you mean by personification?
	Because your appeal to the Psalms shows that you don't understand what a personification is.
	Can I answer without interruption?
	Go ahead, answer, answer.
	We'll see.
	Without interruption.
	Can I answer?
	Yeah, and I'll give you, Joss, some time as well, because he didn't get a chance.
	So go ahead.
	Yeah, sound didn't come to me as well.
	Yeah, they're just dictating the question.
	So I cited verse of the Quran in chapter 36 that even your hands, even your feet will intercede.
	There are many things that will intercede on the day of judgment.
	That doesn't mean that those things have minds.
	Those things don't imply that those things are God, that those are God's mind.
	That's the thing.
	The point that we made against the Trinity is that Jesus has a separate mind, a human mind, and the Father has a separate mind.
	Now, Jay says that the mind of Jesus is a fully human mind, but does that mean the Father has a fully human mind as well?
	If not, those are two separate minds of God.
	So those are two separate minds.
	Minds, two separate entities, two separate beings.
	That's not analogous to your hands interceding on your behalf on the day of judgment, or the Quran, or your feet, or anything else that will intercede on your behalf on the day of judgment.
	Explain how Jesus can have a separate mind from the Father and they be the same mind.
	So I didn't interrupt.
	So who do you want to answer?
	Because Ijaz wants to ask questions.
	So the separation comes in the fact that he has a human mind that he assumed, but he retains the divine mind that he shares with the Father because he's a divine person.
	He's not a human person.
	This is an important distinction in Christian theology that we don't accept the Nestorian teaching that Jesus is a human person.
	He's a divine subject that assumed a human mind, a human nature, a human will, a human energy.
	So, it's a both-and and not an either-or, so your whole question is predicated on a false either-or.
	So, you deny that the Father has a human mind.
	So, real quick, that is time, guys.
	Jesus has a mind that the Father doesn't have.
	That is time, but did you guys want to ask Ejaz a question, or did Ejaz have a question for you guys?
	They won't.
	They won't ask.
	Go ahead, Ejaz.
	What's your question?
	Simple question.
	Why did the scribes omit for the end of Vulgate that Jesus is not a day or the hour, when it addresses him as the Son, speaking of the person, not speaking of natures?
	Yeah.
	Ask me that in the scriptural debates, because I'm going to use that argument.
	This is theological.
	I'm asking you theologically, is this son the person who saved me?
	Is this son the person who saved me?
	Can you answer the question or not?
	Can you answer it?
	Talk over him again.
	One more time.
	I asked the question, quite simple.
	In Mark 1332, when it says this one, listen to my question.
	I'll tell you what my question is.
	You don't have to change my question for me.
	Let me ask my question and answer it.
	Listen to what I said.
	I asked, and I asked the question.
	He heard your question.
	Just let him answer.
	He heard your question.
	You said about scribes changing the text, so that is referring to the veracity of the Scriptures.
	But even if we go with your very imbalanced approach to textual criticism, they must have done a very poor job because they left intact the Father alone.
	So even your argument buries you because whatever the scribes did, if they inserted the word Son or omitted it, Because there's a debate among textual critics.
	That passage still has the Father alone, so they must have done a very poor job because they didn't remove the word alone, and they left Mark 13, 32 intact, because I know what you're referring to, Matthew 24, 36.
	That wasn't my question.
	Okay, can you ask me about textual criticism?
	My question was not about textual criticism.
	I asked you, does this son...
	Listen one more time.
	Listen one more time.
	I'm asking you, describe me the change to omit or the son, and I'm asking you, why is it specific for the son to be omitted if the son is the same person who has the same knowledge as the father?
	Just a simple question.
	If the son has the same knowledge as the father, why does it specify his ignorance of it?
	Take it.
	You can't answer the question.
	They can't answer it.
	Actually, I didn't answer the question.
	You didn't understand the question.
	You think it's a textual criticism question.
	Let me give Sam a chance to answer this.
	Then we're going to move on to scripture because we have went on a little bit longer here.
	Could I make a final point to Daniel?
	One final point?
	Yeah, go ahead, if you can answer their question as well, please.
	All throughout this debate, he shows that he's a very poor debater because he's attacking strawmen.
	Unlike the examples of your hands and feet, the surahs are supposed to be uncreated and eternal.
	So you still live with the dilemma that the chapters of the Qur'an, uncreated, eternal, will be speaking with God.
	So you have uncreated entities, unlike your hands and feet.
	So I'm going to now agree with you.
	Your Qur'an is a mindless entity.
	Who will appear to Allah without a mind arguing with Allah.
	So you're left with a mindless entity interacting with your God.
	So either that means your God is speaking through different modes or you have a set of 114 uncreated eternal divine objects who are mindless and you have the audacity to attack the Trinity.
	Can I answer his point?
	What we'll do, guys, next time is I'm going to have a question and answer for each person when we do this open dialogue because I can see that this can easily spiral and we'll fix that on the next one.
	Let's just move to Scripture because we're getting there anyway.
	So we'll move on to the Scripture part.
	So Team Islam, you guys are going to kick it off again.
	Unless you want Team Christianity to kick it off on this one.
	Yeah, let them go first.
	Do you want to go first, Ijaz?
	I would like Sam to hang himself so he can go first.
	Are you guys okay?
	We'll go first.
	I'll use that or hang your religion by the grace of Jesus Christ and bury it.
	But now, let's start time.
	By the way, Jay, do you want me to take the entire five minutes?
	So just for the audience knows, this is going to be round two now.
	Same thing, guys.
	Three rounds, four minutes each.
	Now we're going to talk about scripture authenticity between the Quran and the Bible.
	So I'll turn it over to you, Sam.
	Go ahead.
	All right.
	Yeah, by the grace of Lord Jesus Christ, Muhammad's God and judge.
	I'm now going to show the Muslims the dilemma they're in.
	Because I'm not debating Abart Ehrman, who doesn't care about Muhammad.
	I'm debating Muslims who supposedly take the position of Muhammad.
	So I'm appealing to Muhammad because they believe in him.
	I pray they repent and turn away from him.
	Because he's under the feet of Jesus Christ.
	But coming to that point, anytime Hijaz attacks the Bible, he shows that he's smarter than Muhammad, better than Muhammad, knows more than Muhammad.
	Why?
	Because the consistent teaching of the Quran and the sound narration, so we're going to get into this, is that Muhammad confirmed the very scriptures that the Jews and Christians had in their possession at his time.
	And the Quran says that Jesus confirmed the very scriptures between his hands at his time.
	Unless now Hijaz wants to come up with some new set of scriptures, The only scriptures that would have been in existence time of Jesus up to Muhammad are the very scriptures that have variations just like the Quran does.
	Let me just go through a slew of verses for the sake of time.
	Chapter 2 verses 40 to 44.
	Chapter 2 verse 89.
	Chapter 2 verse 91.
	Chapter 2 verse 101.
	Chapter 2 verse 113.
	Chapter 2 verse 121.
	Chapter 2 verse 136.
	Chapter 3 verses 3 to 4.
	Chapter 3 verse 50.
	Chapter 3, I'm sorry, not chapter 3.
	Chapter 4, verse 47, and then we go to chapter 5, and we read verses 43 to 48, 66 to 68, and on and on it goes.
	And then the sound narration.
	So, Ejaz, make my day.
	Help me to hang you.
	Attack the Bible for variations, because you show that you know more than Muhammad.
	That means you expose him as a false prophet.
	But if you believe in Muhammad, you have to accept the Bible, and he's still a false prophet, because Muhammad was an ummi.
	He did not know that his Quran contradicts the Bible.
	Now, The same arguments that they're going to level against scripture, I will use to bury their belief in scripture, because Ijaz is going to have to come clean and talk about the ahroof.
	What are they exactly?
	What are the seven ahroof?
	Over 35 opinions given by scholars, and we know it cannot be dialectal, because I'm going to show from a hadith in Bukhari that Omar heard Hisham recite chapter 25 of the Quran so differently, he dragged him to Muhammad, and Muhammad said, yes, I taught it to him this way.
	And Umar recited.
	I taught the chapter to you this way.
	But they were both Quraysh and spoke the same dialect.
	So it cannot be dialectal differences.
	And then we're going to add to the problem the missing verses and surahs found in the codices of Abdullah ibn Masood, Ubay ibn Kab, two of the four men that Muhammad said learned the Quran from.
	He didn't say Zayed ibn Tabith.
	He said, learn the Quran from Abdullah ibn Masood, Ubay ibn Kab, and yet they contradicted each other and your Uthmanic Codex, Musaf, because there are missing verses and missing surahs, so much for the perfectly preserved Quran.
	But then add to insult to injury.
	Your Uthman decided to burn Copies of the Qur'an that were in conflict to the point that Muslims are about to come to blows.
	You don't come to blows over minor differences.
	And he had the Qur'an's burn, and yet Abdullah bin Masood refused to the point that your sources say, That Uthman instigated a mob reaction against Abdullah bin Masud, who got beat and his bones broken because he thought his knowledge of the Quran was superior to your Zayd ibn Thabit, who was an Ansari.
	Then we add insult to injury.
	What do you do with the different Qiraat?
	According to your Muslim sources, there were 25 Qiraat.
	By the time Ibn Mujahid came, centuries later, 300 years later, after the death of your Prophet, he's the one who standardized seven.
	By whose authority?
	So my challenge to you is, show me anywhere in your Qur'an, or your authentic tradition, where your God sanctioned all these Qiraat, and authorized Ibn Mujahid to standardize seven Qiraat, and these Qiraat are not identical, and then I want you to explain to me what the Ahruf are, and then we're going to go into the missing verses, and we're going to go into the missing sermon.
	Okay, there you go.
	So let's have fun.
	Alright.
	Okay, we will turn it over to Team Azlan for round one.
	And this is authenticity of scripture.
	Go ahead.
	One sec, let me just reset my timer with it.
	No worries.
	There we go.
	Stopwatch.
	We'll start on our side once you start speaking.
	Okay, sounds good.
	Yeah, you can stop.
	So, here's the thing.
	Revelation comes with the expectation of validation.
	Scriptural texts and doctrines are authentic if they can be traced back to the figures to whom they were revealed in the way that they were revealed.
	Otherwise, they are inauthentic.
	Christians believe that the New Testament can go back to Jesus Christ and his apostles.
	However, Sam disagrees because Sam said in his live stream with Crisco that the New Testament comes after the time of Christ, probably the second century.
	So I guess it's not really that early.
	Good that he omitted the fifth century.
	Well done, Sam.
	To continue with this, the books of the Bible as we have them today, we can't authenticate them.
	We can't trust their lineage back.
	We call this thematics or genealogy.
	You have different manuscripts at different times, and we're trying to understand how they were written, why they were written, and with whom.
	The thing that we have to keep in mind is that the scribes who've written these things, and the authors, do not identify themselves as having been inspired whatsoever.
	And we have very little knowledge as to where and when these things were written.
	For example, if I were to give the most famous verse of the Bible, John 3.16, Academic scholars don't know if Jesus actually said those words.
	They think it could be the author or a later scribe.
	In fact, even the words of that very verse, the most famous, the most popular, has a difference in it.
	They've changed it to say that Jesus is no longer begotten.
	The thing is, if they can't get their most famous verse right, what else can they get wrong?
	What about the Shema Yisrael?
	When Moses, in the book of Deuteronomy, has to explain who God is, that differs with the Greek Septuagint, and it differs with what Jesus says in the New Testament in each Gospel.
	So if Jesus can't get his basic beliefs right in the New Testament, Moses makes mistakes in the Old Testament, then these are scriptures I can't believe in, and these prophets seem to have done a very bad job, especially if one of them were meant to be Psalms God.
	Let's continue here.
	Let's consider Isaiah 40, verse 8.
	It says that the Word of God will stand forever.
	Jesus says something similar in Matthew 5, verse 18, that not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will disappear from Scripture.
	Unfortunately, this prophecy is false.
	How do we know this?
	They admit that no two manuscripts are the same, down to the letters and the strokes.
	And I want you to notice here, Jay cannot identify for me which biblical tradition he holds to textually, and neither can Sam.
	Sam says the only textual tradition he would accept if it's from a Trinitarian.
	You don't know what the early Christians believed in the first century.
	So how can you make that distinction and determination?
	I would add one more thing here.
	It's actually a list kept by the Jews, but it changes that they made to Scripture.
	See, this isn't a Muslim invention.
	Historically, there's a list called the changes by the scribes.
	The scribes changed words in the Torah, and we find that in the Christian version of the Old Testament, that those changes are also present there.
	So what we ask, do we know the fact that changes were made by scribes?
	The Jews say yes, and the Christians have it in their Bible.
	And these are not menial changes.
	We continue here.
	Christian scholars believe that the Bible could be reliable for two reasons.
	One, that it's early enough in time to the time of Jesus, and two, the vast amount of manuscripts that they have.
	The problem here, however, is if Psalm appeals to those scholars and their reasoning, then the same metrics, when used for the Qur'an, completely authenticate it.
	We know exactly what the Qur'an is, we can recreate its prototype text, we have a stamina that we can develop for it, and we have the manuscripts from the lifetime of the Prophet.
	I know he was solid.
	Sorry.
	Five?
	No, no, no.
	I was giving you the last ten seconds.
	Oh, sorry.
	That's the time right there.
	Sorry.
	No, that's fine.
	Okay.
	So that completes round one of topic two, which is authenticity of scripture.
	We're going to do...
	Go ahead, Mo.
	We're going to turn it real quick.
	Quick word from our sponsor, guys, that we're going to get right back into it.
	Go ahead, Mo.
	If you guys got to use the bathroom or whatever, go ahead and go real quick.
	This episode...
	You want me to take this forward?
	What do you want me to do?
	Yeah, you can.
	I'll have maybe one or two points I can do briefly on that.
	Okay.
	Go ahead, Mo.
	Read through it, and then, yeah, guys, we'll get right back into it after.
	Go ahead, Mo.
	This episode is sponsored by The Kid's Guide.
	I have an important message about President Trump for all the parents out there, so please listen up.
	President Trump said he wants to take back America and teach our kids to love our country.
	That's why it's so important to make sure that our kids are learning the truth about President Trump, not the distorted lies that they're hearing in the mainstream media.
	This good news is that Mike Huckabee's team put together the Kids Guide to President Trump.
	And right now, you can get it for free with fun illustrations and easy-to-follow content.
	This important guide teaches kids about all about President Trump's accomplishments during his first term.
	And it helps kids understand his goals for 2024.
	Mike Huckabee.
	Wants to send you this free guide so that you can teach your kids the truth.
	But please hurry, because supplies are limited.
	To claim your free Kids Guide to President Trump right now, just visit KidstrumpGuide.com.
	That is KidstrumpGuide.com.
	And thank you, Mike Huckabee and the Kids Guide for sponsoring this episode.
	Thank you so much, Mark.
	Appreciate that.
	We're back to the show.
	Round two guys of Authenticity of the Scripture is going to be on Team Christianity.
	Jay, I believe we're going to take this one, right?
	Yeah, I just have one brief point, then I'll hand it back over to Sam.
	Yeah, I think that Ejaz unknowingly sort of shot himself in the foot there, because the text that Sam listed presupposed that you could go and confirm the new revelation with the old.
	So if I were to set up a hypothetical scenario of a sixth 7th century Jew or Christian hearing this message, hearing it for the first time, it's being revealed.
	7th century, I should say.
	And we're told that we can go check it against the prior revelation.
	If the prior revelation is corrupt, how foolish then that we're checking it against something corrupted.
	And in fact, the texts actually don't say that the prior revelation is corrupted.
	That's a made-up thing that he's tacking on later on.
	Go ahead, Sam.
	Yeah, now, I want to congratulate Ijaz for now doing what I said, and he pretty much destroyed his religion, because I appeal to Muhammad, he appeal to biblical scholars.
	Isn't it ironic?
	A Christian who thinks Muhammad is a false prophet, an antichrist, is appealing to Muhammad, he's appealing to uninspired, So if these textual critics that you are selectively sliding and misquoting, because you don't quote in context...
	Alright, Muhammad is wrong.
	Allah is wrong.
	Because Muhammad had no problem with the variations in the manuscripts that existed amongst the Jews and Christians, unless you're saying he was that much of an Ummi, that much ignorant.
	He didn't know that the Christians, their Old Testament would have variations with the Jewish scriptures because he confirmed them.
	You'll find that in chapter 3, verses 3 to 4, chapter 5, verse 48, chapter 2, verses 40 to 44, but then to add insult and injury to your case, in chapter 3, verse 50, in chapter 5, verse 46, in chapter 61, verse 6, it says, Confirm the scriptures between his hands.
	Well, did Allah not know that at the time of Jesus there were different textual traditions of the Old Testament that were not uniform, they had variations?
	So is he deceiving Jesus?
	Did your God deceive Jesus to confirm all the scriptures and not a word about the variations proving textual corruption?
	So you know more than your God and your Prophet, why are you a Muslim?
	But now, let's talk about the variant readings in your Quran that are significant That you don't find in the Uthmanic Codex.
	For example, chapter 37, verse 12 of the Quran, when you read it today, it says, in fact, you are astonished by their denial while they ridicule you.
	But Ibn Taymiyyah uses a variant to prove that your god gets shocked and amazed.
	And here's how he quotes it.
	In fact, I was astonished by their denial while they ridicule you.
	So now, Ijaz.
	Who's getting astonished?
	Does your god get astonished?
	Japtu?
	Or you were astonished?
	That's not the same, and it doesn't affect theology because it shows that your god is affected by your actions in time, which means he was caught by surprise.
	So this is a meaningful variant.
	But wait, we got another variant.
	Chapter 33, verse 6.
	According to the qiraat of Ubay ibn Kab, as well as Abdullah ibn Musud, and others, a host of them, Mujahid, Katada, Iqrama, Al-Hasan, There was an additional line in 33 verse 6 where it says, And he is a father to you, and his wives are your mothers.
	A father to you, and his wives are your mothers.
	Where's that phrase?
	A father to you.
	And this is confirmed by Muhammad Assad, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, which is why Muhammad Assad includes the words a father to them, a father to you, in brackets.
	That's significant, don't you think?
	But where is it?
	Now, how much time I have?
	Because I got a lot of these examples.
	15 seconds.
	It shows Quran is corrupted.
	How many?
	12 seconds.
	12 seconds.
	Anyway, the point is, your own standard buries your Quran because there are no two Quranic manuscripts that are 100% identical.
	Point to the two Quranic manuscripts that are 100% identical.
	Let's see.
	All right.
	Turn it back to Team Islam.
	Bottom of the second round.
	Yep.
	So let me just run through this quickly.
	Wait, can I make some points first?
	Sorry.
	Yes, go.
	Sure.
	So what the audience should know, like all that gobbledygook that we just heard from the Christian side, when it comes to the textual preservation of the Quran, we have manuscripts, physical manuscripts that archaeologists have found that date, are radiocarbon dated to the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him.
	That match with what Muslims read, memorize, and recite today.
	There is nothing like that when it comes to the Bible.
	The earliest complete manuscript of the New Testament is from the fourth century, over 300 years after Jesus.
	So the audience needs to remember this is a huge difference.
	How can we tell that between the 300 years that Jesus was alive to the first manuscript, complete manuscript of the New Testament being found, so many of the teachings of Jesus haven't been distorted, haven't been changed, haven't been altered for the sake of political expedience or theological expedience, whatever it may be.
	So this is a huge difference between the Quran and the Bible.
	Let's look at the apocryphal text.
	Let's look at the fact that the Catholic Bible Old Testament has more books than the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible.
	You have entire books.
	We're not talking about like all Sam can bring up are like difference in pronoun usage, like yamaloon versus ta'amaloon in Arabic.
	He doesn't even know Arabic.
	That's like pronouns, like a difference in pronouns.
	And he wants to make a big, oh, this is so significant.
	Yeah, Muslims know about the qiraat.
	Muslims memorize the different modes of recitation.
	So what?
	Even people, many people that I know have memorized them.
	But how about the Catholic Bible having the book of Judith, having first and second Maccabees, having...
	Additions to the book of Daniel.
	Additions to the book of Esther.
	The book of Susanna.
	All of these additions that are not found in the Masoretic text.
	Then you have another variation of the Old Testament with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
	The Septuagint is the Catholic version.
	You have all of these different manuscripts that are not small little differences.
	There are entire books that are not found.
	Now he wants to mention these surahs from Ubaib and Kaab.
	One thing that What Muslims also know is that there is disagreement about whether certain verses are part of the Qur'an or not.
	A very well-known disagreement is on the Bismillah.
	Is that part of every surah of the Qur'an?
	Is it only part of Surah Al-Fatiha?
	There is a well-known disagreement among the schools of thought on this.
	But that's not a completely different book that's not found in the Catholic version or the Orthodox version of the Bible.
	It's just one word, Bismillah.
	Or if you're looking at the different surahs that you're claiming are missing, any Muslim who reads these, I can even read you the translation of these surahs, they're just the dua, the prayer that is read in Qunut, in the Qunut prayer.
	And there was a disagreement among some of the companions on whether this is part of the Quran.
	Just like there's a disagreement on the Bismillah, on the Bismillah being part of every single verse or not.
	This is not like some missing book that we don't know about.
	Like this is what Muslims are reciting in prayer.
	You're trying to make a big deal out of the Quranic variation to hide the fact that the text of the Bible is not preserved.
	You can't find an authentic manuscript within 300 years of Jesus' life, let alone Moses.
	You have all of these variations with the Old Testament.
	The sects.
	The Christian denominations do not agree on what the books of the Bible are.
	What is the canonical books of the Bible?
	You have all of these disagreements, but we should ignore all that.
	And you want to bring up ya'malun versus ta'malun or bal ajibtu.
	Like, this is a joke.
	So your audience is ignorant of Arabic.
	That's why this seems like a big revelation to them.
	But for Muslims, it's laughable.
	Go ahead.
	Jake, can I take the four minutes?
	Yeah, I just have two points here.
	First of all, Daniel said the Septuagint is the Catholic version, which is not true.
	That's the Orthodox Old Testament.
	This really has nothing to do with the topic that we're discussing, because the Masoretic text was used by some of the Jews.
	There were other groups of Jews that also used the Septuagint, so you seem to be totally unaware of any of that, which has nothing to do with which ones are the correct canon.
	And Sam and I agree on that point, so Sam, I'll let you go.
	Yeah, now, guys, notice the deceit in the smoke and mirrors.
	You see the deception on part of Daniel?
	He appealed to the Birmingham Quran.
	And then he compared that to the later codices, which were more complete, and not to the papyri that appears from the second, third, fourth centuries.
	Now, I want to challenge Daniel.
	The Birmingham Quran that you say is from the time of Muhammad, how many surahs are contained?
	You have all 114 surahs.
	You have every verse of every surah in the Birmingham Quran.
	See, again, this kind of deceit and dishonesty is unbecoming someone who claims to follow the God of truth.
	Now, let's come back to how we try to brush aside the very readings.
	Notice what I said about 3712.
	One says, The only one has this God saying, I was astonished.
	Oh, but that's no big deal.
	That's something minor.
	We can brush it aside.
	Oh, really?
	So are you acknowledging that the variant reading affects whether your God can be impacted by the actions of his creatures in time and space?
	Because I was astonished and you were astonished is not the same unless you think Muhammad is Allah and what Muhammad feels, Allah feels.
	Thirdly, notice again he compares apples and pineapples.
	He's comparing a collection of different books, the Bible, written by different authors at different times, and comparing it with one Quran that supposedly came through one medium, and yet the companions of Muhammad cannot agree on the content of that one Quran.
	You just buried yourself, Daniel.
	Because that argument...
	It works more forcefully against your Quran because you're comparing the work of one author and his companions can't figure out how many surahs, how many chapters, with a collection of books written by different people at different times, so there'll be some natural confusion whether this book really comes from an inspired author.
	But we shouldn't find that problem with your Quran if there's only one medium and they all memorize the Quran perfectly, which is a lie from the pit of hell.
	Moreover, Deal with the actual argument I brought up.
	Abdullah ibn Masud is no joshmoh.
	Ubay ibn Ka'b is no joshmoh.
	They are two of the four men that your Prophet said learned the Quran from.
	And I have here traditions, sahih, that said Abdullah ibn Masud recited The Quran in front of companions of Muhammad and they agreed that his recitation is fresh and the way it was revealed by Gabriel through Muhammad and yet your Uthmanic Quran doesn't agree to the point that your Uthman wanted to burn Abdullah ibn Masud's Quran.
	Why?
	If they are slight variations.
	You don't go to war.
	You don't accuse each other of corrupting the Quran over slight variations.
	Stop with the lies.
	Sahil Bukhari, Volume 6, 509, 510.
	So again, we're going to ask you, How come the companions of Muhammad could not figure out how many chapters?
	Abdullah bin Musud said only 111.
	Ubay bin Qab said 116, which you tried to pass off as dua.
	Are you saying Ubay bin Qab, the master of the Quranic reciters, did not know those two chapters were not surahs but prayers?
	So you know more than Ubay?
	Which means that your prophet made a pathetic judgment call because he mentioned him as one of the four, not you, Daniel Hakikachu.
	Thank you for bearing your Quran.
	And thank you for showing that Muhammad didn't know what he's talking about.
	Muhammad confirmed the Bible, and you're saying, no, he's wrong.
	Why are you a Muslim?
	Repent!
	Come to Jesus, Muhammad's God and judge.
	I think my time is up.
	Alright, now you've still got 15 seconds, but if that...
	Oh yeah, that's what I'm saying.
	Now stop with the paganism.
	Come to Jesus, Muhammad's God and judge.
	But thank you, Daniel.
	You helped me show that you don't believe Muhammad.
	You think Muhammad didn't know what he's talking about.
	And I agree.
	And the scholars knew more than Muhammad.
	Stop being a Muslim.
	All right.
	And that is time.
	So this is going to be the bottom of the third round.
	Again, Authenticity of Scripture.
	So I'm going to turn it to Team Islam to finish this up.
	And then if you guys want, we will go ahead and have another open dialogue round if you guys want.
	You can moderate it.
	Good, yeah.
	If not, Yeah, but what I'm going to have to do is for this open dialogue round, it's going to be question and answer.
	So both parties will be able to ask a question to the other party.
	Other party answers, and then they ask a question in return.
	But you have to answer the question.
	So that's how we'll have to do a question and answer for each.
	Each party goes ahead and gets a question.
	We'll start with Dan.
	He could just ask a question to the team or to a particular person.
	And then that person answers that question, and they can go ahead and ask another member of the team.
	That way we keep it fair and put five minutes on the clock.
	So Team Islam, are you guys ready?
	But again, this is your guys' four minutes uninterrupted notes for the last round of Authenticity in Scripture.
	Whenever you guys start speaking, we'll turn the clock on.
	Go ahead.
	This is the last round, or do they get a response after?
	No, this is the last round, and then it's open dialogue after this.
	Go ahead, Ijaz.
	You're on mute.
	You're still on mute.
	Ijaz.
	Yeah, so I'll just start on the timer.
	So, I think that Sam just spent most of his time reading lists of verses that he does not understand.
	There is consensus among the early Muslims as to what the Qur'an is.
	And in fact, what he's appealing to vis-a-vis a codex from some of the companions, these are only found in a tradition that Arthur Jeffrey translated, I think, in the 19th or 20th century.
	It does not refer to any actual physical manuscript That is actually known and dated and seen.
	So there's a difference between a tradition being said in past, as opposed to a physical manuscript in existence, and the same people that transmit the hadith, the same people that transmit the Qur'an, they transmit it to Ibn Masud, they transmit it through the companions in at least three of the seven chains, That are well known.
	So there's no difference among the companions as the number of surahs in the Qur'an.
	Please don't bring me something that Arthur Jeffrey randomly translated that no academic life accepts.
	And by academic here, we refer to the Muslims who transmitted the Qur'an because they would count it letter by letter, line by line, psychometry.
	So we actually have a way that we can mathematically know how many ayats were written in manuscripts.
	It isn't done randomly.
	So I'm not going to be like Sam and pretend to know what the Qur'an says.
	There is consensus that the Muslims never took the Bible as scripture.
	How do we know that?
	Because Allah commands us to testify and believe in the scriptures that he has revealed.
	And when we find this in the Qur'an, we find no companion saying that it is required as a Muslim to believe in the Bible as it exists today.
	There is no such compulsion, whereas we are compulsed to believe that the revelations were given to prophets in the past.
	When he mentions Jesus in the Qur'an, Jesus affirms the revelation revealed to him.
	This is what Allah mentions in the Qur'an.
	He has not testified to a book that came after him, which is what Sam believes in.
	And let's be clear here.
	We have Qaw 47, Sanah, Topkapi, Topkapi, Suwai Medina 1A. We have so many manuscripts of the Qur'an within the first hundred years of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, that complete the Qur'an.
	This is complete in distinction to the Bible where you don't have anything even similar to it.
	You have no second-century manuscripts, no third-century manuscripts.
	How do we know this?
	Elijah Hickson.
	Textual critic, he gets manuscripts.
	There's an entire institute at the University of Munster that determines the papyri and the manuscripts of the New Testament, and they don't determine that there's a single manuscript within the second century.
	And when it comes to the third century, as Sam has admitted, he believes that Quedex Nidicus in the fourth century It's full of errors, heresies, and lies.
	That's your most reliable manuscript.
	If your most reliable physical is filled with lies, don't pretend to tell me what the Qur'an says because you simply don't know it.
	And I'll end with this.
	The God of the New Testament, you said...
	I don't think he's intelligent, or how do I say this, understand scripture.
	How could the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament forget his name?
	In Exodus 3.14, in the Greek Septuagint, the name that he's supposed to give is Ho-on, meaning the being.
	Jesus in the New Testament gives the wrong phrase, ego imi.
	He misquotes his own sacred name that generation for generation must remain.
	It's ridiculous.
	Titus 3.9.
	God has to tell you that don't debate about genealogies because they lead to foolish arguments.
	Two of your Gospels use genealogies as a basis to determine the messianic place of Christ.
	It's ridiculous.
	I'm sorry.
	Address the questions and the claims and the manuscripts.
	Don't bring me random things that you don't understand.
	20 seconds.
	One of the things about the Quranic manuscript, it seems like Sam only knows about the Birmingham manuscript.
	There are many manuscripts.
	If you paid attention when Ijaz was speaking in the opening, he listed the different codices, the different manuscripts.
	All of those together are the Quran that we read today.
	It's not just contained to one manuscript.
	Alright, so what I'll do is, so do you guys want to do the open dialogue or do you guys want to move on to the third one?
	Yeah, if it doesn't go into like a free-for-all, we'll just have questions.
	Okay, so this is how we're going to do it, guys.
	Five minutes on the clock.
	I will go ahead and kick it off with whoever wants to ask the first question.
	Let's say, for example, who wants to ask, Dan?
	Yeah.
	Okay, so Dan, when you ask your question, you can direct it either to Sam or Jay.
	Once they answer the question now, they get to go ahead and direct the question back to a member of it, whether it be you or to Ejaz.
	And then you've got to answer the question, and then you get the ability to ask a counter question back after you answer it.
	Okay, fair enough?
	That way we're able to keep this thing moving, everyone's able to be involved and get their questions asked and answered, and we can still have an open dialogue here to some degree.
	I'll turn it over to you, Dan.
	We've got five minutes on the clock, guys.
	Let's be strict on the time.
	Go ahead, please.
	Okay, can either of you explain to me how many Western scholars of the Bible believe that the Old Testament can be traced back to Moses versus how many believe that the Quran can be traced to the life of the Prophet Muhammad?
	You want me to answer that, Jay?
	Sure, go ahead.
	Yeah, well, I have one better for you than Western scholars.
	I have your prophet.
	So I keep appealing to your prophet.
	So if Western scholars are right, then join me in saying Muhammad is an antichrist, a false prophet.
	I appeal to your prophet.
	You appeal to Western scholars.
	And it depends on which Western scholars you want to appeal to, because not all Western scholars believe the same thing and hold the same presuppositions.
	But I can also appeal to Western scholars that don't think that your Quran, as you have it, is even from Uthman.
	It's actually from...
	Abdul Malik from the 8th century.
	But I did you better.
	I went to Muhammad.
	Why do you have a problem with Muhammad?
	Why are you ashamed of Muhammad?
	He's your prophet, right?
	Your prophet tells me that the scriptures that Jesus had, that Torah is the uncorrupt revelation of God, perfectly preserved, and Jesus confirmed it.
	And since you believe the Torah was given to Moses, your prophet did it for me.
	So if you give me 99% of what's in scholarship, Then either your Prophet is wrong, and I admit he is, and I agree he is, but for other reasons, right?
	Or the scholars are wrong.
	You can't have your cake and eat it too.
	Why do you keep doing jihad against your Prophet?
	You should be agreeing with him.
	Yeah, this is a false dilemma because we have the physical manuscripts of the Quran.
	Well, hold on, hold on.
	So now Sam gets to answer that, ask a question back in return.
	Let's put 20 seconds on the clock real quick.
	Go ahead, Sam.
	Ask your question and then they get to answer your question and respond to you.
	Okay, now you guys have been strawmanning the arguments I've been presenting, so now I'm going to ask both of you.
	Give me the date of the oldest extent Mus'haf that has all 114 chapters, the oldest copy that has 114 chapters, and point out to two Quranic manuscripts that are 100% identical.
	Go ahead.
	So we address the question by saying there is not one manuscript.
	There are several that date to within the lifetime of the prophet, peace be upon him.
	You can go to Ijaz's opening statement.
	He lists them.
	You didn't pay attention to what he said, so you're asking the same question over and over again.
	The answer to how many Western scholars think that the Pentateuch or the Old Testament goes back to Moses is zero.
	Zero Western scholars.
	How many Western scholars, scholars of the Bible, think that the New Testament goes to the time of Jesus.
	Zero.
	Zero Western scholars.
	How many academics of Quranic studies, who are non-Muslim, by the way, they don't necessarily even like Islam, believe that the Quran can be dated, radiocarbon dated, scientifically, to the time of the Prophet?
	That is the academic consensus.
	And you can read about that in books like The Quran, A Historical Critical Introduction by Nikolai Sinai.
	These are non-Muslim, many of them, and they believe that the Quran, not just one manuscript, but multiple manuscripts that are aligned and aligned with what we as Muslims read and recite today of the Quran, is dated.
	Scientifically, to the time of the prophet, peace be upon him.
	You can't say that about the Old Testament going back to Moses.
	You can't say that about the New Testament going back to Jesus.
	The earliest full manuscript of the New Testament only goes to the fourth century, over 300 years after Jesus lived.
	Why don't you address that?
	Sam says that that manuscript belongs in the trash.
	Sam says this.
	Can I ask you a question?
	Pause the clock real quick.
	Pause the clock real fast.
	Dan answered that question.
	I want to ask you a question, Monter.
	I'm asking you.
	He wanted to answer the question he asked me.
	When I asked him the question, he then answered my answer to his question, do I have a right not to refute his lies?
	You can wait till we ask a question and then refute the lies.
	Okay, I'm just saying because he didn't stay on topic.
	He didn't answer my question.
	Neither did you.
	You haven't stayed on topic the whole debate.
	Okay, so this is what I'll do.
	Let me go ahead and we'll let Ejaz ask the question because they did answer the question just now.
	And then you can go and then it'll probably go to you to answer and then you can go ahead and address what you had before.
	Hey, let me know if you want to say something too, brother.
	I don't want to hug up.
	Okay, so my question is to Jay Dayo.
	When Sam Shumun, let me just quote this so I don't get it wrong.
	When Sam Shimon says, and he agrees with this statement, the Sinaiticus document is full of errors and heretical statements, scribbles, and hopefully someday in the near future should be discarded to the trash can.
	Is he aligning with your beliefs or not?
	Well, out of your whole...
	Give me the article where I said that.
	Jay, I just want to ask him.
	Give me the link to the article where I said those exact words.
	Give me the link.
	It's on my Twitter.
	It's on my Twitter right now.
	Give me the link where I said those exact words.
	It's on my Twitter.
	You can go to it.
	Okay.
	That's it.
	And I could actually quote from you, from Crisco, that the New Testament comes in the second century, not even the first.
	Go to my Twitter.
	So the whole of this argument is presupposing that something has to be immediately recorded at the time of the event, and you're just using your own positions We don't believe that.
	We believe in the ability of oral tradition to transmit just as well as something written.
	So you have an artificial standard that you expect of us that is not our standard.
	We don't worship a book.
	We're not a book-based religion like you are.
	Sorry, that wasn't my question.
	Myron, one second.
	Your question is based on a faulty assumption.
	No, I read, just to be clear, you didn't answer my question.
	We don't follow one codice.
	I don't have your suppositions.
	So you're arguing.
	I'm not a Protestant.
	We're not Protestants.
	This is the question I'm trying to respond to.
	He didn't answer your question.
	Myron, you didn't answer my question.
	I would like to repeat my question.
	You just don't like the answer that it's based on a Protestant.
	I hope our God professed.
	Do you agree with Sam that it belongs in the trash?
	It doesn't matter which textual tradition.
	It won't matter which textual tradition.
	It doesn't belong in the trash, as he said.
	It doesn't matter.
	It doesn't matter if the Bible belongs in the trash?
	No, that's Codex Sinaiticus.
	The Codex Sinaiticus is not what the tradition hinges on.
	on.
	That's what your argument hinges on.
	It's the earliest complete New Testament.
	It doesn't matter.
	It doesn't matter.
	Okay, so I'm going to let Sam go ahead and come in because there were some allegations made about something he said or whatever it may be.
	And he did answer your question, Jez.
	I know that you don't like to answer, but he did answer it.
	And now we'll go ahead and go to what Sam said on those comments.
	Notice, notice neither of them answered my specific question.
	He says that Hijaz rattled off some manuscripts, Topaki, Tashkent, whatever it is.
	That wasn't my question.
	Let me try it again, but you can't answer.
	Guys, remember, they failed miserably.
	I said...
	Point to the earliest Musab codex that has all 114 surahs of the Quran with all the verses that they accept today in their 1924 Cairo edition.
	They couldn't do that.
	Then I asked, show me any two Quranic manuscripts that are identical 100%.
	You didn't answer the question, Daniel.
	Neither did your friend.
	And again, if Western scholars are right, your prophet is a fraud.
	And you're wrong.
	There are many Western scholars.
	You may not like them because they're conservative.
	They do believe that Moses wrote the Torah, and they believe there's enough evidence for it, not only because Jesus confirmed it, but if Western scholars are right, I don't know what you guys don't get.
	You just prove Muhammad is a false prophet, antichrist, because he doesn't agree with Western scholars.
	He agrees with me.
	And here I am defending your false prophet.
	Glory to Jesus.
	Okay, Ajaz, did you have something else that you wanted to, and then we'll finish off with that.
	I just want to make sure everybody got their question off that they wanted to get off.
	Yeah, I mean, he gave us a question about the prophet, peace be upon him, confirming the Torah, and we didn't address that question, so I can address it right now.
	During the four minutes, you never adjust, you want to adjust it now?
	Then I need a response.
	Well, it's on the Q&A session.
	Okay.
	So let me respond to that.
	I'll have your response to this one, then we'll go to Bible versus Quran for the last topic.
	That's fine.
	First of all, the Quran says that the Torah and the Injil, the scripture of the past, has been distorted.
	They change it with their hands.
	This is something that we read in the Quran.
	So that's point number one.
	Point number two is that he doesn't understand the difference between Aam versus Khas in Arabic.
	Aam means general.
	General statement versus Khas, a specific statement.
	So if I point to a book and I say this is a reliable book...
	Or this book confirms what I'm saying.
	I don't necessarily mean that every single line of that book I agree with or every single line of that book is true.
	I'm making an aam statement, a general statement that the book is true.
	Sam can only have an uncharitable reading or an uncharitable interpretation of the Prophet's words in that hadith if we assume that that hadith is authentic.
	So there is a difference of opinion on the authenticity of that hadith and he knows it.
	Second of all, or the third point actually, What Torah is the Prophet or Torah is the Prophet ﷺ referring to?
	Is he referring to the Masoretic text?
	Is he referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls?
	Is he referring to the Septuagint?
	Like, which version of the Old Testament is he referring to?
	And why do you incorrectly assume that the Old Testament that you have, your particular sect or denomination has, is the same thing that the Prophet, peace be upon him, is referring to?
	Like, this is a very flawed logic that you have Sam, to take this hadith and think that the Prophet, peace be upon him, is confirming the book that you have in your hand today.
	By the way, there are all these different variations.
	And the fourth point is that if Muslims believed that the Bible was uncorrupted because of this hadith, why didn't they canonize the Bible in the way that the Christians canonized the Old Testament?
	Christians canonized the Old Testament.
	Muslims never did that because they never saw the Bible as fully reliable.
	They never saw the Old Testament as fully reliable.
	And the actual academic evidence shows that the Bible is not reliable because there's all these different variations and they change the differences between the Dead Sea Scroll and the Masoretic text and the Septuagint.
	These are major theological differences because of changes in wording in the original manuscripts.
	Why don't you deal with that?
	Now, I have the same time to respond to his lies and bluster.
	Okay, and then I'll have you respond, and then we'll end it and go to...
	Let me go through, Jake, because I want to destroy his life and blessings.
	We'll go ahead.
	All right, number one.
	Chapter 2, verses 78-79 shows, again, what you've been doing to the Bible, you're doing to your own Quran, and you fall under the condemnation of 378.
	You not only have the audacity to twist the scriptures, you have the audacity to twist the Quran.
	Anyone, I'm challenging here, let's do a debate on 275-79, your proof text.
	Let's debate it.
	Go read the context.
	I've done an extensive study and the Muslim commentators is talking about a particular group identified as Jews who wrote the book with their own hands.
	It doesn't say all Jews everywhere, let alone mention the Christians.
	You just butchered the Quran like you've been butchering the Bible, but I come back to butcher you.
	That's number one.
	Number two, You said that the Hadith, where Muhammad confirmed the Torah, that there are differences of opinion.
	Well, you probably didn't hear my recent responses to your friend, Jake.
	Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, which I have quoted, and if you want to read Arabic, because you boast about reading Arabic, I'll let you read the Arabic and parse it.
	Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah said, a group of scholars believe the Torah is uncorrupt.
	One of the evidences they gave is the hadith of Abu Dawood.
	They quoted it.
	They didn't question its authenticity.
	And even Al-Albani said it's Hassan.
	But put Albani aside.
	Ibn Qayyim al-Joziyah, for those of you who don't know, he's the disciple of Shaykh al-Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah, his granddaddy, when it comes to Salafi anthropomorphism.
	And he says, these scholars quoted this hadith.
	I guess they didn't know about the science of hadith classification.
	Thank God Allah sent you to correct them.
	Because they said that when Muhammad saw Their Torah, he put it on the cushion.
	He goes, I believe in you and him who revealed you.
	And then the scholars say he would not have said it if he thought the Torah was corrupted.
	And among the people that Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziah lists as saying the Torah and the Gospel are incorruptible are al-Bukhari and Razi, which you probably don't care much about Razi, but Imam al-Bukhari, the one who collected the most authentic nations according to you, the Hadith.
	Now, my time's up?
	No, no, 30 seconds.
	You got 25 seconds.
	Okay, the final thing is, if variant readings invalidate the Bible, it buries your Quran because you have thousands of variant readings, but then you explain the way as Qiraat.
	But who authorized the Qiraat?
	Show me one verse from your Allah that said that Mujahid would come and standardize seven readings of the Quran.
	You make it up as you go along, the gig is up, game over for your religion.
	Could I answer?
	My son, could I answer this?
	Answer and then we'll close on this topic.
	Alhamdulillah, we don't have to make up anything because we actually have the genealogical trees of the manuscripts of the Qur'an.
	The stama of the Qur'an.
	And they're so exhaustive, there is not a single textual critic of the Qur'an that would say that we can't identify the Qur'an that was at the time of Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.
	That they would say that we don't know what it is.
	This is in...
	Contradiction to what you said just now, that they don't know what it is.
	And secondly, when it comes to the Torah, the Prophet, peace be upon him, never authenticated your Torah, never authenticated the Torah that you believe in today.
	There's no one, it's multiple.
	The Prophet, peace be upon him, authenticated a judgment from that Torah, which is about Rajam.
	So read the Hadith in context.
	And lastly, there is no disagreement about the scholars on the tradition of the Qur'an, what it includes 114 surahs, no distinction, nothing!
	This is a difference to you and your scholars who leave books, Who leave chapters?
	Who leave the words of Jesus out and change them?
	They're not the same.
	So while you try to focus on a false Islamic dilemma, a literal false dilemma, you don't answer the question of how the Bible could be authentic and reliable.
	And I'm shocked that as a Christian, you allowed Jay to say that it's fine, it's okay if Codex Sinaiticus is being thrown into the trash.
	I mean, as a Muslim, I have more respect for the Bible than Jay and Sam do put together, but it's ridiculous that he allowed that statement to go unchallenged.
	Jay, why would you do that?
	Throw the Bible, not under the bus, but in the trash.
	I'm shocked at that.
	Well, you're just too silly to think that the Bible is reducible to one textual tradition.
	That's your whole argument is predicated on a stupid argument.
	I didn't say that.
	What you just said.
	By the way, I've got other things I want to talk about.
	So we've got multiple scholars, by the way, that both of you said, I'm replying to him.
	You said that there are no modern scholars that believe in the veracity of the text, the Old and New Testament.
	I've got three here for you.
	Lightheart, FF Bruce, Jay Young.
	They're all well-known textuals.
	What's the text they affirm?
	Which text?
	Which text?
	That's it.
	Which variants?
	Which variants of the Hebrew Bible?
	We don't.
	It doesn't matter.
	You don't even know.
	You don't even know.
	Why don't you open the book and read from it?
	Read the book.
	Read the book, Jay.
	The argument is predicated under being a single sexual tradition, and that's not our position.
	That is not my thing.
	You from the book, what text?
	What text?
	We're going to move on now.
	You can't identify.
	Just give us a textual tradition.
	Give us a textual tradition.
	We're going to move on to topic three.
	You can't.
	Because they don't exist.
	Because we don't follow a single text of tradition.
	You understand?
	I could tell you about this.
	Guys, guys, guys, guys, guys.
	The Orthodox, let me give you an example.
	The Orthodox Study Bible.
	Guys, guys, guys.
	Alright, I'm meeting everybody.
	Okay.
	I knew that this was going to go crazy.
	Anytime we open up the dialogue, it's going to go crazy.
	You guys are not going to agree on this with the text and the scripture.
	But are you allowing insults?
	Yeah, but here's the thing.
	He's getting frustrated because he answered your question and you made some personal attacks about throwing things in the trash or whatever, so obviously he's going to respond that way.
	I read his quote.
	Stop whining, you guys.
	How's that an attack to be the quote?
	Let's just move on to the third topic, guys.
	Alright, so the third topic here, guys, is going to be morality.
	Bible vs.
	Quran on human rights, which you guys can go ahead and talk about this a bit, because I see that there's some personal differences.
	Who wants to take this one first, Team Christianity or Team Islam?
	They can go first.
	Team Islam wants to go first on this one?
	Okay.
	No, no, they can go first.
	Oh, Team Christianity.
	You guys okay with going first?
	Jay?
	Yeah, I would say that if we think about this idea, the transition from the previous topic to the next topic, this idea that...
	Okay, let's put four minutes on a clock real quick.
	Sorry, sorry, real quick, Jay.
	We're going to put four minutes on a clock so that you can go so that we don't...
	Five minutes.
	He gets five minutes, right?
	Not four.
	No, it's four because now we're on the topic three.
	It's per round.
	Yeah, so the opening statement, right?
	Yeah, the openings are five, aren't they?
	No, it's opening statement from the very beginning, and then once we get into the debate rounds, it's four.
	If you guys want, if this is a topic that you guys want to expand on more, we can go ahead and give you guys five minutes.
	But we do have four minutes for all the rounds.
	But if you guys want five minutes for this particular topic, that's fine.
	That's fine.
	Whatever's fine.
	Just five minutes.
	We need five minutes for our opening.
	That's fine.
	You know what?
	For this whole round, this is the last one.
	We'll go five minutes.
	For each round, three times.
	No problem.
	So, Jay, I got five minutes on the clock for you.
	Whenever you're ready, we'll turn to clock.
	Yeah, I'll go one or two, and then I'll pass it over to Sam, because I don't know what his arguments are going to be.
	But I would say that if we think about this previous topic, it relates to the new topic, which is that there needs to be a consistency, a continuity between what was expected and what was later revealed or given.
	Now in the Old Testament, we have a pretty consistent pattern, not of wrath or of anything extreme, but rather Jesus confirms in many places the morality of the Old Testament.
	For example, in Matthew 5, people think that the Beatitudes are contrary to the law.
	In fact, Leviticus says that you have to love your neighbor.
	Jesus says that you can't exact personal revenge, and that was actually part of the Old Testament law.
	So for us, Christ's exposition of the Old Testament is a consistent, true exposition of what the Torah always meant.
	Jesus isn't contradicting it.
	In fact, he gave it.
	He's the one that fulfills it.
	When we get to the time of Islam, we have a totally different expectation.
	For example, many of these ceremonial ideas that are borrowed from Judaism and Christianity actually have no meaning and no significance.
	They're not clear as to why we do them.
	It's just what Allah wills.
	Well, in Christianity, there's a specific meaning for things like an altar, things like cleansing, baptism, et cetera, washings.
	And when I debated Daniel, we talked about this issue of continuity, how God always had an altar, a temple, a priesthood.
	Islam has none of that.
	So there's no continuity there in terms of morality or in terms of the theology.
	Islam has a totally different set of standards that are completely arbitrary.
	Sam, I'll pass it over to you.
	Alright, yes.
	Now, remember why I had asked to do the previous debate before this one?
	Guys, remember, they failed miserably to show that their prophet did not confirm the scriptures.
	Any attack on the scriptures again proves that Muhammad is a false prophet antichrist.
	He is, but for other reasons.
	And Muhammad confirmed all the scriptures in circulation.
	He didn't make any difference between...
	The variations or the versions to him, they're all God's Word.
	Now with that said, that means Muhammad's morality must live up to the biblical morality, otherwise he is a false prophet.
	And so when we look at even the Torah, even though Jesus is a consummation, and we are told clearly in the Old Testament and in the teachings of Christ that God, in his love, condescended to the Israelites, And it allowed things he did not like.
	For example, if you go to 1 Samuel 8, if you go to 1 Chronicles 22, verse 8, 1 Chronicles 28, verse 3, and on and on it goes, and then the words of our Lord, Matthew 19, the Lord allowed and tolerated things that he himself was not pleased with until Jesus came and perfected the revelation and took us to higher standard.
	Muhammad devolves, and his ethics are even worse than that found in the Old Testament, and I can give you several examples.
	In Deuteronomy 24, verse 1 of 4, The true God of Moses says that if I divorce a woman, she marries, and he divorces her, or he dies, I can't take her back.
	It's an abomination.
	What God says is an abomination, Muhammad Zallah says is.
	The only way you can take your spouse back.
	In chapter 2, verses 229 to 230 of the Quran, if Daniel...
	He makes the mistake of irrevocably divorcing his wife.
	She has to marry someone else.
	He has to have sex with her.
	And then if he divorces her, he can take her back, adding insult to injury.
	So the God of Moses says Muhammad's God stands condemned.
	Another aspect, Deuteronomy 21, 10 to 14, unlike what we find in the Quran and the Sunnah, where Daniel's God says, if you're out in jihad, you can take women captive, even married one.
	You can then molest them.
	Even though they won't call it rape, because by taking them captive, you have nullified their marriage, have sex with them, and sell them off, they're your property.
	Whereas the God of Moses says in Deuteronomy 21, 10-14, if you find a captive woman, you make her your wife, she's not married, you give her a month to more and shave her head, and you give her the full status of a wife and his wife, and...
	If you divorce her, she's free.
	You don't sell her.
	So even though the Old Testament is that ideal standard, even the Old Testament condemns the Quran and the Sunnah as being barbaric and draconian beneath even the standard of the Old Testament, which does not live up to the standard of Jesus Christ.
	And any attack in the Bible, they again prove Muhammad is a fraud.
	And I hope you attack the Bible because Muhammad is a fraud, but for other reasons.
	Glory to Christ.
	45 seconds to go.
	All right, well, yeah, so keep that in mind.
	As Jay said, the Old Testament is fulfilled in Christ.
	Jesus perfects the Old Testament.
	Muhammad perverts the Old Testament, let alone the New Testament, so that he doesn't even live up to the standard of the Old Testament, which is an ideal.
	Jesus is the standard, and when you compare Muhammad to Jesus, he's beneath the feet of Christ.
	You still got 25.
	Still good?
	Okay, so any attack, I'm warning you guys, keep attacking the Old Testament, make my day, because your prophet confirmed that Old Testament in his possession, make my day.
	And to answer the question, why didn't canonize it?
	Because your Quran says, the Torah is for the Jews, the Gospel is for the Christians, the Quran is for you, but all of you follow it, because in it is guidance and light.
	It's very simple, your Quran refutes you, Daniel.
	Do a better job studying your Quran.
	Alright, five minutes on the clock.
	The topic again is morality, Quran versus the Bible on human rights.
	This is round one of topic three.
	And this is going to be our opening statement.
	We haven't done the opening.
	Yeah, of course.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So five minutes on the clock.
	Don't worry.
	Should I start?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Five minutes for everybody on each round of this.
	This is the last one.
	Okay.
	Christians often attack the morality of Islam.
	They say Muhammad, peace be upon him, taught war and taught misogyny, but Jesus teaches love and peace.
	They say Muhammad, peace be upon him, promoted child marriage, whereas Jesus believes women should only be married when they reach 18.
	But this Christian perspective is contradicted by the Bible.
	The Bible promotes far more war, killing, and misogyny than anything in the Quran or the life of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
	Let's go through a list.
	The Bible says in Leviticus 20 to execute a woman who engages in adultery.
	Many Christians will say, oh, this is the old covenant.
	It's no longer applicable.
	Fine, that may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that God...
	commanded executing adulterers at one point in history.
	And God, according to the Trinity, is also Jesus.
	So Jesus commanded the Israelites to kill adulterers.
	Does that sound very peaceful?
	Later in Leviticus, Jesus says homosexuals should be executed.
	If a father sleeps with his daughter-in-law, they should both be executed.
	Here's a brief list of sins that Jesus requires you to be executed for, according to the Old Testament.
	Engaging in idolatry, breaking the Sabbath.
	So if an Israelite 3,000 years ago accidentally did some work on Saturday to break the Sabbath, Jesus wanted that Israelite to be executed.
	A son striking his parents deserved death.
	Or even if he curses his parents, Jesus said, kill him.
	A sorceress.
	Jesus said, kill him.
	A blasphemer.
	Jesus says, kill him.
	A brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend who entices you to worship other gods, as says in Deuteronomy 13.
	Jesus says, stone them to death and have no pity on them.
	So Jesus is pro-death penalty for a lot of things.
	To be fair, Islam.
	Also has the death penalty for adultery, sorcery, and blasphemy.
	But if we're judging who is more pro-death penalty, Jesus or Muhammad, Jesus wins hands down, according to the Bible.
	Jesus is also pro-genocide.
	In Deuteronomy 20, Jesus commands Moses to attack the Canaanites and other peoples and, quote, leave nothing alive that breathes.
	In Deuteronomy 2, Moses requested safe passage for the wandering Hebrew people from Sihon, king of Heshbon.
	But the king refused.
	Jesus then commands his followers to conquer and possess Sihon's lands.
	As Moses says, quote, Now, to be fair, Muhammad, peace be upon him, also commands war in some contexts.
	But the difference is Muhammad, peace be upon him, doesn't command Muslims to kill women, children, and babies.
	He says the opposite.
	He says to spare women and children.
	But Jesus, according to the Bible, is not so merciful.
	Then we go to slavery.
	The Old and New Testament both endorse slavery, including taking girls as slaves for potential brides.
	Numbers 31 says...
	Chapter 31 says, Moses said to them, have you let all the women live?
	Now kill every male among the little ones and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.
	But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
	Again, Islam also endorses slavery and concubinage, but the difference is that in the Bible, Jesus says you can sell your own daughter into slavery.
	Exodus chapter 21, verse 7, Jesus says, When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.
	Unlike Jesus, Islam doesn't allow parents to sell their little girls into slavery.
	Finally, on the topic of age of marriage, nowhere in the Bible does Jesus specify a minimum age for marriage.
	Jesus had no problem with child marriage, and if he did, he never told anyone, even though it was a common practice in his time in the Old Testament times.
	Furthermore, many church authorities endorse child marriage.
	For example, St.
	Augustine himself was set to marry a 10-year-old when he was 31 before he became a priest.
	Thomas Aquinas says that sex depends on maturity, which he says happens at 12 years old for girls.
	And he says it can even happen earlier for some girls.
	The Catholic Encyclopedia also notes that Mary was betrothed to Joseph when she was just a 12-year-old little girl.
	And in the canon law in Catholicism, this minimum age of marriage is 12.
	I want the Christian audience to know that the Bible and the Catholic Church have fully endorsed marrying girls as young as 12, or even younger.
	So if you want to attack Islam and the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and say that they endorse pedophilia, well, so does your Bible, and so does the Church, and so does Jesus.
	Note that I'm not condemning the Bible or the church for this reason.
	So this is not a two-quo-quay fallacy, as Jay is sure to say, but I'm just pointing out the lack of consistency among many Christians.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Okay, so what I'll do real quick...
	I want a brief response.
	Sorry, did you have time left?
	Yeah, that's the rest of the time.
	What I'll do is...
	Okay, so...
	Mo, Bills, can we have the chats ready?
	I'm going to let them go another round, then I'll read the chats after this, because obviously I know that they want to really respond to this.
	Yeah, pull the chats up on the side and we'll have it.
	So don't worry.
	I was going to read the chats, but I know that you guys really want to respond.
	So I'm going to have...
	Jay, you wanted to go first, right?
	Okay.
	We're going to put five minutes on the clock.
	I'll read chats after they finish both rounds of this.
	We're on round two of the Bible versus the Quran.
	Five minutes on the clock.
	Go ahead, Jay.
	Take it away.
	Yeah, so the first thing I would say that you'll notice the double standard again, because Daniel tried to argue quite a bit for continuity there.
	But you'll notice that earlier we had heard the Bible was corrupted.
	But now all of these verses from the Old Testament somehow match up to a kind of continuity with Islam.
	Well, wait a minute, I thought all the Old Testament, Jesus, all this was corrupted.
	It's only corrupted...
	When it doesn't suit their purpose or their argumentation, that's a double standard.
	Next, I would say that even in the Old Testament, the rabbinic tradition, Jews did not always act upon these penalties.
	Many of these penalties that were listed were about ritual impurity.
	Not all of them, but many of them were.
	And ritual impurity does carry over into the New Testament when, in our view, what happens is that not so much the state, although Christian states have at times enacted some things like death penalty for the things that were listed, It's ritual impurity in terms of coming to the liturgy.
	So in the Orthodox and in the Catholic Church, we both share this position.
	You do confess your sins before you come to the Eucharist.
	That's because if you have committed these sins, you are ritually, and in a sense morally, because the ritual refers to the moral, you're morally impure, and so that's the purpose of confession.
	So many of these things do carry over, just not in the way that they assume, and I would say that that's a much better notion of continuity.
	I'll let you go ahead, Sam.
	Yeah, I want to thank Daniel for proving that Jesus is his God, Allah.
	Why?
	Because according to the Qur'an, in chapter 5, verse 20 to 26, it was his Allah that ordered Moses and the Israelites to enter Canaan and wipe it out, chapter 5, verse 20 to 26.
	Also, it was his Allah that ordered Saul, which the Qur'an erroneously calls Talut, because he fought Jalut, And again, I want him to justify Talut as a form of Saul.
	In chapter 2, verse 246 to 251, where it was his Allah, whom he said was Jesus, so he just assumed that Jesus is Allah, Muhammad's God and Judge.
	In chapter 2, verse 246 to 251, who ordered Saul on these expeditions, and there's not a word of condemnation by his prophet, saying that what Saul did to the livestock and children, Was an abomination to Allah.
	That means he's better than his God and his prophet.
	And again, I want to thank Daniel for proving that Jesus is Allah, his God.
	Because in Sahil Bukhari, volume 4, number 353.
	Ask me to read it because I don't want to eat up my time.
	There, in an authentic narration, his prophet refers to a prophet who went in an expedition jihad and the sun stood still and his prophet narrates the injunctions of Deuteronomy chapter 20.
	And also alludes to Joshua 7-10.
	So that means Jesus is Allah, his God, Muhammad's judge, because according to your prophet, your God sanctioned these marriages.
	Not marriage, I'm sorry, these wars.
	So that means you're better than your God.
	Now, ironically, he quoted Exodus 21-7, but as he's been doing all night, all day and all night, he didn't quote the entire context.
	Because if you read the context, the reason why she couldn't be Let out is because a woman that time can't be let go to be on her own.
	She has to be under the protection of the master or her father.
	But then the text says that she's to be married, not raped, like what Muhammad did in chapter 4 verse 24 in the Sunnah when they took married captives and raped them and sold them.
	Exodus 21 7-11 says he's to marry her or her son marries her.
	And if he cannot be fair with her, she has to be divorced and let go.
	So Conveniently, he doesn't show that this context, again, condemns Muhammad and his morality, and ironically, he mentions about the age of marriage.
	Well, in the Talmud, because Muhammad quotes the Talmud, and I'll show you where, even his prophet said that according to the Torah, he confused the Talmud to Torah, a woman has to be past the age of 12, And show signs of maturity.
	And he called that injunction in the Talmud, the Torah.
	But that means even by that standard, his prophet is condemned to hell.
	Because at the age of 54, he slept with a nine-year-old minor and sanctioned pedophilia.
	Because there is no limit or age.
	In Islamic Sharia, according to his scholars, that would say a woman has to be yea high, or this age, in order for a man to mount her.
	And in the same Talmud it says, you're not to give a girl who's mature enough for marriage to an old man!
	And Muhammad was 54 years old.
	You don't get any older than that.
	He was old enough to be her great-granddaddy.
	So I'm glad you're appealing to the Jewish-Christian sources, because these very sources say, your prophet is a false prophet, an antichrist, under the feet of Jesus.
	How much time do I have?
	20 seconds.
	Mama mia!
	Ironically, you mentioned it.
	Let me show you where it says.
	In the Talmud, right here, where it says that you cannot give...
	A young girl mature enough for marriage, which is past the age of 12, to an old man.
	Here, let me read.
	This verse is referring to one who marries his daughter to an old man.
	That's time.
	Time's up.
	That's time.
	I know you want it to be up.
	No, physically up.
	Alright, so I'm just showing a picture of Mario here because he's a famous plumber and he's with his princess, so I think that has significance.
	Plumber is for Sam.
	Can I just ask you a question, Daniel?
	Hold on.
	You'll have a chance to ask him a question when we do the fire round, but I'm going to turn it back to Team Islam here.
	We're going to give you guys five minutes.
	Is that the final one?
	No, we got one more round.
	For five minutes that you guys got.
	So this is going to be, Team Islam Now, it's going to be on you guys, five minutes.
	Notice, Christian audience, that your champions here did not mention child marriage.
	Are they dodging that issue?
	Why didn't Jay or Sam mention child marriage?
	Hmm, I thought that Islam promotes pedophilia.
	You know why they didn't address child marriage?
	Because they know that canon law in the Catholic Church...
	And Thomas Aquinas endorse child marriage and marriage at age 12, 12 years old.
	Is that pedophilia, Sam?
	Why don't you answer that question?
	How about you, Jay?
	Do you want to condemn the church for endorsing pedophilia?
	And then he makes a big deal about how, oh, the Old Testament, you take the captives for marriage as if that's any different.
	You're taking captives.
	It's not a consensual relationship, Sam.
	Like, who are you trying to fool?
	The Bible says, take these women and then shave their heads and then marry them.
	It's not giving you them, humiliate them.
	It's not giving them an option.
	So I'm not condemning.
	Notice, get the logic right, Sam and Jay.
	I'm not condemning the Bible for slavery.
	I believe that Islam also endorses slavery.
	Islam also endorses war, but we don't go as far as Jesus in commanding killing babies like he does in Deuteronomy and Numbers.
	I don't condemn Christianity or the Bible or Catholicism for this minor marriage, marrying girls as young as 9, 10, 11.
	I don't condemn that because I think that there's nothing wrong with that.
	But I want your audience to know that you don't find anything wrong with that.
	You don't find anything wrong with a 12-year-old getting married.
	Because that's what the Catholic Church, that's their morality.
	And that's what this section of the debate is about.
	It's about morality.
	So I'm giving it to you, Jez.
	Yeah, I'm just interested in, Sam, just a quick question.
	Why didn't you mention anything about abusing wives, beating wives?
	I understand why you mentioned rape.
	I mean, I can understand why you did that.
	What is the God of the Bible?
	Which, I mean, your uncle?
	Which one?
	So just to be clear here, Sam, can you let us know what does the Bible teach about violence against your wives and the limits at which you can humiliate them?
	Let's keep in mind here that Jesus in Matthew 23 commands the disciples and Christians to do and believe as the Pharisees believe.
	And if I'm not wrong, they really liked young girls, three years old on one day.
	I mean, Jesus seemed okay with it, but are you okay with that?
	Sam, are you okay with that side of Jesus?
	Seems a little bit naughty for you, isn't it?
	Yeah, we're pointing out plumbers because I think Sam has a lot of experience with plumbers.
	He wants to insult...
	Hey, don't interrupt our time, brother.
	Don't interrupt our time.
	Moderator, moderator.
	We wanted to be courteous and not bring this stuff up, but when Sam gets down and dirty and starts insulting the Prophet Muhammad...
	Then we have to respond in kind.
	We have to insult Sam and point out his vile history and the kinds of filth that he puts on his channel.
	So we're just playing fair.
	You want it to go down and dirty and use filthy language, then we're going to bring up the fact that a plumber basically stole your wife.
	And you had certain charges against you.
	That's all.
	That's all.
	No, our time is not up.
	They've got two minutes.
	They've got two minutes.
	We have some time left.
	So we want to hear you condemn child marriage.
	To go back to what Jay said, I never said anything about continuity.
	I never said that, oh, what we find in the Old Testament is continuous in terms of morality with the Quran.
	I never claimed this.
	You just pulled this out of your back pocket, Jay.
	We were not talking about rituals.
	We were talking about practices of war.
	The thing is that the Bible says to genocide little babies, to leave nothing that breathes alive.
	The Quran never says this.
	Yes, the Quran commands war.
	There is the story of Moses going to battle.
	Yeah, that exists, but there's no genocide.
	That is mentioned because the Quran is correcting the false narratives that are found in the Old Testament.
	All the additions that we find in all the different variations of the Bible that we've discussed in the previous section.
	So that's the difference.
	And yes, please, everyone is waiting.
	Stop dodging the issue.
	Condemn child marriage.
	Tell us that the Catholic Church is really a pedophilia organization over the centuries because canon law...
	Not the Talmud.
	We're not talking about the Talmud.
	We're talking about canon law says that 12 years old is the age of marriage.
	Acceptable age of marriage.
	So condemn that.
	Please, we're waiting.
	Jay and Sam.
	Go ahead, Ejaz.
	Yeah, I mean, they won't condemn that because they accept it, historically at least.
	Let's just be clear here.
	We're not saying that this is hypocritical, but you're not consistent.
	Who cares about rituals and priests?
	When it comes down to the meat and the matter, you guys approve child marriage, Jesus approved it, the Pharisees approved it, and this is what you believe.
	I really want Sam to speak on whether or not a person can abuse their wife, whether a person can take donation money, spend it incorrectly, maybe spend it on young girls.
	Wouldn't be surprised to find you an Epstein's List, to be honest.
	So I just really want Sam to ask and answer the question, do you accept, Sam, do you accept child marriage, yes or no, and based on what?
	We would like to know.
	Does Jesus condemn it?
	Does Jake condemn it?
	Who condemns it?
	That's time.
	Sorry, you can't interrupt.
	Okay.
	Five seconds.
	Five seconds.
	He took it back.
	Five seconds.
	Okay.
	Let me just reclaim the five seconds.
	Yeah.
	But don't demand something from us that you yourself aren't consistent with.
	Okay.
	We're going to add 10 seconds to the clock for Team Christianity for that.
	Okay.
	I'm going to give you guys five minutes on the clock.
	This is going to be the beginning of round three.
	Okay?
	So this is going to be the final round on Bible versus Quran.
	Morality.
	Human morality.
	So I'll put five minutes on the clock.
	What I'll do is...
	I don't want to interrupt this.
	So what we'll do is we'll read the chats after they complete this round.
	And then before they do the fire round where they, you know, open dialogue, then we'll do the chats.
	Sorry to you guys.
	I don't want to interrupt it.
	You know what I mean?
	The flow and everything else like that.
	My job here is to moderate, give you guys the best show.
	Don't want to interrupt it with super chats right now.
	I'll do it after we finish this and then we'll do the final thing.
	So round 3, 5, 10 on the clock for Team Christianity.
	I know, Sam, you got a lot to say, so go ahead.
	Jay, do you want to say something real quick?
	Yeah, briefly.
	So I was referring to the topic that Daniel and I debated and the way he's using these texts here in this debate.
	Both of those situations show that Daniel only uses the Old Testament when it suits his purposes, and he's not consistent with it.
	In that debate, he argued that Islam has more continuity with the Old Testament because of, well, there's some loose similarities between imams and places where you go and pray in a mosque or whatever.
	That has nothing to do with the continuity that the argument in that debate was about.
	Here he's using it as another way to say, these are the texts in the Old Testament that are valid to teach this.
	So my point is that he's arbitrary and he has a double standard, and that's an internal critique, which neither of them have never understood.
	I've made this point in every debate we have.
	They don't know what an internal critique is.
	They think that it means that you hold to your position.
	That's not what an internal critique is.
	It's just showing that you have a double standard.
	I'll let it go to you, Sam.
	Yeah, now let me get back and answer the questions.
	They think that I'm going to run like they've been running by the grace of Jesus Christ.
	Now, as far as those accusations, let's assume those accusations are true.
	All you're proving is that I'm a sinner unfaithful to the teachings of Christ, but I was acting like Muhammad because Muhammad did a lot of plumbing with a lot of women other than his own wives because when he sanctioned the rape of married women, raping them and selling them off as chattel, that's condemned by the The God of Moses in Deuteronomy 21, 10 to 14.
	So, Lord forgive me for acting like Muhammad, because I know acting like Muhammad leads me to hell, so I may have mercy.
	Now let's come back to the issue.
	You kept saying that, will we condemn child marriage?
	Absolutely.
	And here, Ezekiel 16, verses 68, 1 Corinthians 7, chapter 7, verse 36, the Didache in chapter 2, as well as the Talmud.
	The reason why they say 12, if you are in context, and I'm going to challenge Daniel, give me the full quotation of Thomas Aquinas, unedited, because you're like your prophet, you like to edit and quote out of context.
	They're placing it at 12 because that's when they assume that a woman will reach puberty.
	And even then they say she has to wait a little time beyond 12.
	For example, here in the Talmud says, not only 12, but sometime after that when her breasts are formed.
	Because they took that as indication that she's now pubescent and that she's now knowledgeable enough to choose marriage or reject marriage.
	So even by their standards, you condemn Muhammad to hell.
	Because according to that very standard, Muhammad mounted a nine-year-old.
	He was 54.
	So Christian and Jewish sources would condemn him as a pedophile who desired a nine-year-old, and he mounted her, and then your Quran in 65 verse 4 doesn't even have the age of 12 as the limit.
	So yes, I condemn it, which is why I condemn your prophet.
	And as far as violence?
	Well, it's your Quran that says that you guys can beat your wives.
	So if you want to accuse me of that, More power to you.
	Lord Jesus, forgive me, I'm a sinner.
	At one point, Sam Till, I want to add just to point out, I'm not Catholic, and as a side note, I don't care what Thomas Aquinas says, but irregardless of all that, it's not even true in Catholic canon law that that's the age.
	It's 16 for a guy, and it's 14 for a woman, which again presupposes that puberty has already happened.
	Now, how much time do we have?
	Two minutes, 155.
	Yeah, and now notice again, they just proved that Jesus is Allah, Muhammad's God, because their God, Allah, who is Jesus, he's the one who sanctioned what Moses did and Canaan, what Joshua did, and I gave them the sources.
	Now notice what they did.
	Oh yeah, it's just, you know, an instruction to go ahead and carry out these expeditions generally, but Where does it say that in the Quran?
	And here's my challenge to Daniel and Ijaz.
	Show me in your Quran the explicit condemnation, prohibition, explicit condemnation, prohibition of killing children.
	Because I'll show you in your Quran, Where your own God destroyed women, children, cattle.
	For example, in the flood of Moses.
	I'm sorry, Noah.
	Because the Quran does confuse two floods, one at the time of Moses and Noah.
	And as well as Sodom and Gomorrah, where he pelted them with stones.
	Can you show me where your God discriminated and said, Oh, okay.
	Hey, stone.
	That's a baby.
	Avoid him.
	That's cattle avoid him.
	But that pagan right there, strike him in the head.
	Show it to me.
	And you're fully aware that your own hadiths mention...
	Where your prophet allowed women and children to be killed indiscriminately.
	That's even in your own hadith.
	But again, like you've been doing with the Bible, you've been butchering your Quran and your Sunnah.
	And I don't blame you because if I was a Muslim, I'd have to resort to these tactics because you can't defend a lie.
	Muhammad is dead and Jesus is alive.
	End of story.
	30 seconds.
	Alright, so that's it.
	Anytime they attack the morality, they just prove Muhammad is a false prophet.
	Their god Allah is a false god, and they are for other reasons.
	Because your prophet confirms the Bible, my Bible doesn't confirm Muhammad.
	And they keep forgetting Jesus is now the standard.
	And even though the Old Testament is not the standard, even the laws of the Old Testament are better than your prophet.
	And notice what he said about captives.
	The reason why she's taken captive, there was a war, but that shows you the humanity of the God of Moses.
	You don't take a captive woman and rape her like your prophet did.
	All right.
	So what we're going to do now is I'm going to read the chats real quick and then we're going to go ahead and do a...
	What I'll do is I'll probably put 10 minutes on the clock since it's the last one where you guys can go back and forth with your discourse.
	And we'll do the same thing.
	Question, answer.
	Question, answer.
	We'll try to bop it around.
	And guys, if you could please answer each other's questions, please.
	So I'll read these chats real quick and then we'll get right back into it.
	What do we got here, Bills?
	Okay, DN Fry says, the guy in the top corner's opening statement was trash.
	Water could be solid, liquid could be gas, but there are some things in different forms.
	Father, Son, Holy Ghost, of course.
	And just so you guys know, debaters, the chatter is going to be biased towards their religion, so it is what it is.
	Silasort says, Sam, why would you say the words prove irrational in a debate about religion?
	Why is the left hand such an issue?
	Please mind etiquette when you're in a debate because pointless jab derailed the conversation.
	Okay, that's from Silasort.
	We got...
	Mark Q. Myron, I know you're trying to be professional timing rounds, but people want to see bloodbaths, so you should add an extra last round where both parties just go at it.
	We got that.
	Don't worry.
	We're already on that.
	Mark Q. This Sam guy is unserious.
	He goes and creates his own understanding of Islam, shows his integrity.
	I bet you will find many contradictions.
	If his understanding of Christianity is investigated.
	Okay.
	How come Islam was created at 635 and the Gospel of John was created 100 AD? John was an eyewitness.
	He saw, lived, and eaten with Jesus.
	Should I believe in a cave or a witness of Jesus Christ?
	Okay.
	Andrew Wilson in.
	This is from Army Kelo.
	We got Snow Valentin says, just asking, aren't we all going to hell under Islam and there's nothing we can do to correct it because of our sinful nature?
	Okay.
	Snow Valentin.
	We got here.
	Myra, thank you for bringing this great debate together.
	Respect to all four men who are participating.
	Can I recommend Christian Price to join the next debate?
	Sam, can I ask to join if you approve?
	Thanks again.
	Yeah, Prince.
	He means Prince.
	Okay.
	That's from Beansburner.
	And guys, sorry my voice is like this.
	I'm a little sick.
	So that's why I've been like meeting myself and coughing on the side to try not to interrupt the debate.
	Do the Muslims even know who Canaanites were?
	They were an abomination, descendants of Nephrilin, fallen angels, demons, etc.
	Okay.
	Muslims struggle with grasping, nuanced concepts and have low cognitive flexibility.
	That's from St.
	Gruyper.
	This is why Sam's in the kitchen always.
	Man, stay cooking.
	That's from Stone.
	You guys got supported on both sides.
	T3 Day Youngin says, this might be to a schizo, but Zerka and Sneko, big spiritual influencers.
	One thing Zerka said that has me learning more, Christian, is why is Jesus the most mocked figure if he wasn't God?
	Okay?
	Hamza says, Okay?
	And then the man, Matt, says, if you follow any religion to the T with fear or just blind faith, I'm sorry, but you are a slave and cannot think for yourself.
	There is no separation between us and God.
	We are all a part of God.
	We all do what Jesus did, who was black, by the way, and his name was Yeshua.
	Yeah, Yeshua.
	Modern society has forced the masses to believe that we are all like peasants to some omnipresent, omnipotent being, which couldn't be farther from the truth.
	Everyone here needs to study Neville Goddard's teachings.
	Okay.
	WFNF, thanks guys for making this happen.
	Question for Sam and Jay.
	If Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, were to come back, which will happen, what would happen to the Muslims who believe in him as a prophet but not as God?
	Anyways, guys, we have much more in common than indifferences.
	So he asked this question for Team Christianity, it says here.
	If Jesus came back, what would happen to the Muslims who believe in him as a prophet versus as a God?
	That's the question you want us to answer?
	Jay, do you want to take it first or do you want me to take it?
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, when you say that the Muslims reject Jesus, well, you've got to take into consideration...
	When you mean Muslims, not all Muslims know what they're rejecting.
	Not all Muslims know the Islam.
	Not all Muslims are educated.
	The Lord Jesus is a God of infinite compassion and mercy.
	He sees your situation.
	He meets you where you're at.
	And if to no fault of your own you didn't know the truth of the Gospel, He extends mercy.
	So this is my belief.
	Again, I'm speaking from my perspective.
	Jay may have a different perspective.
	So you can't just generalize all Muslims, because not all Muslims know Islam.
	They don't even know what Christians believe, just like Christians may not know their faith, right?
	Let alone what Muslims believe.
	God is a God of infinite mercy, and I don't think the Muslims would disagree with me, because you take into consideration your circumstances, your knowledge, and your status and position in life.
	That's my answer.
	I don't know if Jay wants to add something to it.
	Jay, what do you think?
	What's your interest to that?
	Me?
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I pretty much agree.
	I think Romans 2, Paul addresses this.
	He says that those without law will be judged on the basis of moral law or the natural law that they have within them.
	So, you know, we don't know people's destinies other than God tells us to tell them to repent.
	And then ultimately, God is their merciful judge.
	Alright.
	Any more chats in there?
	Are we...
	Alright, I'm going to fly through these.
	Okay.
	Victor says, Wise man once said, You can't solve today's problems politically because men's problems are spiritual.
	All agree.
	Okay.
	Salafis uphold...
	This is from Gambler.
	Salafis uphold God's transcendence and reject anthropomorphism.
	They interpret Quranic descriptions like hand or face as symbolic of Allah's power, not literal human traits, ensuring that his attributes remain distinct from human characteristics.
	Okay.
	Aristotle online says Islamic Tawhid has been proven contradictory.
	Islamic Tawhid has been proven contradictory, but the response from Team Islam is, our scholars don't think Tawhid is contradictory.
	Okay.
	Bukhari 6000 says Allah made mercy into 100 parts and that He sent down one part to the earth.
	How does Allah's divine attribute have parts?
	How did Allah's attribute which is divine and uncreated free from limitation enter into creation?
	Okay David?
	Respond to Dr.
	Haytham Sidki, where he has shown that the Quran MSS exhibit, a stamina, due to discrepancies, Medin, the first four copies.
	These were codified in today's Quran.
	Also, Dr.
	Eleanor Sellard, that the Sanna MSS was a separate accepted codex.
	Okay.
	And then Aristotle says, This level of hand-waving requires tight titanium wrists.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	AC1 says, why are you always quoting, quote mining Justin Martyr from Jehovah's Witness and ignoring the rest of the rebuttal, lying your balls off?
	That's from AC1.
	Okay.
	And then David says, for Muslims, is it true that today's Quran is not based on early Quranic manuscripts, rather on the work of a man named Abu Amr al-Dani?
	And then David says, Why are you always, quote, mining Justin Martyr from Jehovah's Witness and ignoring the rest in the rebuttal?
	Okay.
	Line your balls off.
	Okay.
	Whose voice is that?
	It's a random person.
	No, it's a talk to speech.
	I like his voice.
	It says here, okay, so this is what Dr.
	Majin, Van Putin and others have studied.
	How can that be trusted?
	So they're saying that today's Qur'an is not based on early Qur'anic manuscripts rather on the work of a man named Abu Amr al-Dani.
	Is that true guys?
	Or you guys want to answer that?
	Yeah, that's not true.
	Dr.
	Moran is a friend and colleague.
	This is ridiculous.
	He doesn't accept that whatsoever.
	In fact, he actually attests to the fact that the Qur'an is reliable and within the lifetime of the Prophet peace be upon him.
	Okay.
	Last few here.
	I can book the top renowned Israelite official scholars and camp leaders for simulcast debates.
	Learn the proper interpretation of our sacred text from the descendants of the biblical authors.
	IG. Okay.
	He puts IG. ALC says, Jesus said, Love your enemy, but Muhammad endorsed graping slaves and selling them for ransom.
	Sahil Muslim 1438.
	Google it.
	In what world would anyone think these two prophets come from the same God?
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Aristotle online says, okay.
	Alright, we're caught up.
	So, okay guys, I'm going to go ahead and put 10 minutes on the clock.
	Is that okay with you guys?
	Because I've noticed that we've won over 10 minutes.
	This is what we're doing now at this final part, just to get an idea.
	This is going to be a question-answer, open dialogue between you guys, and this is going to be on the morality of the Quran versus the Bible.
	I'm putting 10 minutes on the clock because I've noticed that we've...
	Before you do that, is this the last it?
	This is it?
	Yeah, this is the last one.
	So this last 10 minutes?
	This last 10 minutes right here.
	So it's going to be a question-answer.
	And guys, please try to answer each other's questions.
	So the way it goes is, you ask your question, the answer, after the person that answers it dictates the next question and who it goes to.
	Fair?
	Oh yes, fine.
	Awesome.
	Who wants to kick it off first?
	Jay Watson.
	Okay, go ahead.
	Well, I heard Sam condemn child marriage, and he asked me for a quote from Thomas Aquinas.
	I can read the quote if you want, but he does say...
	Huh?
	You want me to read it?
	The entirety, yes.
	Okay, I'll read it, but my question for Jay, he can think about it in the meantime.
	Sam condemned child marriage.
	I wonder if Jay will also condemn child marriage despite the tradition, the church tradition.
	Here's the quote.
	Let me just bring it here.
	I'll read the whole thing.
	Now, for the most part, this age is 14 years old for males and 12 years old for women.
	But since the ordinance of positive law are consequent upon what happens in the majority of cases, if anyone reached the required perfection before the aforesaid age, so that nature and reason are sufficiently developed to supply the lack of age, the marriage is not annulled.
	Wherefore, if the parties who marry before the age of puberty have marital intercourse before the aforesaid age of 12, their marriage is nonetheless perpetually indissoluble.
	End quote.
	So my question now to Jay is, does he condemn child marriage?
	Okay.
	I stopped the clock.
	We can start the clock back up again because you were reading something lengthy and I didn't want time to get eaten by that.
	Go ahead, Jay.
	Sorry.
	So there's ambiguity about, quote, child.
	I'm not a Catholic, so again, I don't care what Thomas Aquinas says.
	He's not part of my tradition.
	And even Thomas Aquinas' positions on many things are not part of the overall Roman Catholic position.
	Roman Catholic canon law in 1083 says, again, that the age is 16 for a guy, 14 for a girl.
	Orthodox canon law is different.
	In Greece, for example, the age of consent...
	Question for Team Islam.
	Is the Quran created or uncreated?
	Answer without commuting shirk, violating tafid, or violating tanzi, or making the Quran unknowable.
	If you think this question is irrelevant, you have no grounds to criticize the Trinity.
	We'll address that after, the fact.
	We'll put that back on the clock and continue on.
	Sorry.
	Yeah, so Orthodox canon law is, there's not a one-size-fits-all in the sense of being identical to, like, Roman Catholic ideas.
	So, for example, in Greece, the parents can be involved, and it's under 18.
	If the parents agree, it can be 15.
	So we don't have a one-size-fits-all, but for us, adults, Or it's not a child marriage, because again, as Sam was pointing out, the assumption would be that they're past puberty.
	All right.
	Jay, now your question is to you.
	Go ahead and toss it to anyone from the Team Islam.
	In terms of morality, what is the purpose of the rituals and the various postures or cleansings that you might do in your religion if they come out of a tradition that has a specific purpose for them that now your religion divorces it from that tradition?
	I'm curious what the purpose of those rituals are.
	Is it just because you're told to do it?
	Well, that's your assumption that it's coming from the Bible or the Christian tradition or Jewish tradition.
	That's your assumption that we don't share.
	The ritual purity, part of it is what God has commanded, and it's supposed to be cleanliness will bring you closer to God.
	Cleanliness is from godliness.
	This is a principle within Islam.
	Ritual purity before prayer, like wudu, or making rosal after certain actions like intercourse.
	You have to do a ritual wash.
	These are commands of God, and it's understood that water has been created as something to purify.
	But it's not something where...
	Yeah, you'll find other prophets in the Bible talking about ritual purity.
	We acknowledge that these religions were originally from God.
	So you do find ritual purity in the Bible or in Christianity.
	But that doesn't mean that Islam copied...
	These traditions.
	The source is the same.
	It's coming from the same God.
	So I don't see how this is some kind of interrogation of Islamic morality.
	If it's from the same God, then it's continuity.
	No, there's...
	No, no.
	How is that continuity?
	How is that continuity?
	It's from the same God.
	You just said that.
	Yeah, it's the same source.
	Where did I say continuity?
	Well, if the rituals came to our religion from the same God to yours, that's continuity.
	No, God can change.
	The same God is continuity.
	God can have a ritual for a specific race, like in Judaism.
	You can burn calves, you can burn certain livestock as a form of ritual practice.
	That doesn't mean God has required that for Christians or Muslims.
	It's still the same God, but there isn't continuity.
	There's not a particular practice.
	Yeah, there's not continuity.
	Because I said that it's coming from the same source.
	You're claiming that there's continuity.
	But didn't you argue for continuity in our debate?
	No, you didn't understand what I argued for in our debate.
	Well, you argued for continuity.
	You didn't understand that debate?
	I don't know why you're bringing it up.
	I don't know why you're bringing it up in this debate.
	I'm living in your head rent-free.
	I'm living in your head rent-free.
	You're still debating like a previous debate.
	You mean because 90% of the We're talking about child marriage.
	We're talking about child marriage and you can't even give a condemnation.
	Neither you or Sam can say Thomas Aquinas.
	Neither you or Sam can say that Thomas Aquinas are pedophile.
	I don't follow Thomas Aquinas.
	You're bringing irrelevant.
	Why can't you condemn him?
	Why can't you condemn him?
	Aquinas?
	Yeah, why can't you?
	I don't have a problem.
	You say he's a pedophile.
	Did you not hear me?
	He's a pedophile then.
	Can I correct that?
	What pedophile?
	Did he sleep with a girl like your prophet did?
	He said it's fine, too.
	He said it's fine for 12 years old or younger.
	I read the quote, Sam.
	I read the quote.
	And he's dressing a legal matter in case that happens.
	You're equivocating on child.
	He says you can have intercourse with under 12.
	Is that pedophilia?
	Dan, Dan, I think it's your turn to ask a question.
	I read the entire page.
	Unless you want to turn it to...
	Dan, it's your turn to ask a question unless you want to turn it to Sam and he can ask you guys something.
	Yeah, so my question is that we didn't just talk about child marriage.
	We talked about punishment for blasphemy, punishment for adultery, execution, punishment for homosexuality.
	Do you condemn all of these things in the Old Testament?
	Do you think that these are wrong things?
	When I read the quotes, the Bible is saying that you execute one who blasphemes.
	Do you condemn that?
	Or do you think that that's the morality?
	You might think that it's not applicable today.
	Fine.
	But Jesus is still commanding that for that time, for a previous time.
	So do you think that is morally justified?
	All right, that's Sam.
	Go ahead, Sam.
	Now, let me answer.
	Yeah.
	Now, let me give you a Thor answer.
	Listen, let's see if you're going to get it.
	If you read these laws in the context from which you're quoting, unlike your prophet, who didn't give any sign that his God was backing him up, why don't you read these statements in context?
	In the context, your Allah, who you admit is Jesus, because according to the Quran, that was Allah, which you just admit is Jesus, so Jesus is Muhammad's Allah, his God.
	In the context of those passages, God appears to the nation visibly in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.
	Not only in front of the Israelites, but He also appears to the Egyptians, leaving them with no excuse to defy His commands.
	In other words, unlike your Elah, The God of the Bible proved his existence.
	The God of the Bible set up a theocracy on earth.
	The God of the Bible gave them ample proof not to doubt his existence, so that when they see him in the pillar of cloud, pillar of fire by night, hear his voice audibly and see the signs, so that even the Egyptians saw the pillar of cloud, Exodus 14, 19-31.
	As well as Joshua 2, 8-11, He gave the nations no excuse for defying Him.
	So when God shows up, then He has every right to tell you how to live, and if you defy Him, He has every right to take away your life, because He's the God over death and life.
	This is unlike your prophet, Who could not provide any proof that God was speaking through him, who could not provide that his God even exists, all he did was he borrowed the collateral of the Jews and Christians, claimed to be a prophet like the prophets found in the Jewish Christian tradition, but when he's challenged to prove that God sent him, Failed miserably.
	So you're comparing apples and pineapples.
	So if God shows up and I see and I know that he exists, he has every right to tell me what to do and every right to inflict any punishment he deems fit.
	Unlike your Eli who doesn't exist.
	Alright, Sam, you want to turn it back to them with a question?
	Or Team Christianity, you answered the question, now it's back to you guys.
	You've got two minutes left on the clock.
	Now Jay, do you want to ask or want me to ask?
	Well, I want to address, first of all, I'll let you ask the question, but I want to reply since we have two minutes.
	You'll notice that when I brought up the line of argumentation that Daniel had in our debate, he didn't want to go there.
	He immediately said that he was living rent-free in my head.
	In other words, deflecting away from the fact that I've called him out on an inconsistency, because in that debate he was arguing for Islam having more continuity with the laws of the Old Testament.
	That doesn't suit his purpose here, and so he doesn't want to go to that, and he has to deflect away.
	No, that's because I just caught you in a double standard.
	You're using two different standards, as usual.
	So, Sam, I'll talk to you.
	How many seconds do we have for this section?
	A minute and a half if you've got a question or something that you want to ask the team.
	Oh, I've got a question.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Let me ask these guys a question because they have the final, right?
	They're going to answer.
	This is the final one, right?
	Yep.
	Okay, now I want you guys to show me anywhere in your Quran, explicit, not inference, anywhere in your Quran, explicit, where it says, do not kill women and children.
	In light of all the verses, such as the ones I mentioned, where your God rains stones on Sodom and Gomorrah indiscriminately, killing children and women and cattle, as well as flooding the people of Noah, including women, children, and cattle, can you show me a single verse in the Quran?
	When he orders your prophet to go and perform jihad, not to kill women and children, when his pattern is he destroys everything?
	All right.
	Team Islam, go ahead and we'll put the clock back on just so we can ask.
	So first of all, we don't just go by the Quran.
	We also go by the example of the Prophet, peace be upon him.
	There's the Quran and Sunnah.
	So there are explicit hadith that say do not kill women and children and the elderly.
	And we see this in the example of the Salaf as well.
	Ijaz, go ahead and read the hadith for them.
	Yeah, it's pretty simple.
	The first is, a woman was found killed in one of these battles, so the Messenger of God sallallahu alayhi wa sallam forbade the killing of women and children, Sahih Muslim in Kitab al-Jihad.
	The first Khalifa Abu Bakr radiallahu an, gave the following command to his arms.
	So this is other than the Prophet, but his followers, immediate followers.
	Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person.
	Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees.
	Do not destroy an inhabited place.
	Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food.
	Do not burn bees and do not scatter them.
	Do not steal from the booty and do not be cowardly.
	That would be tough, I guess, here for Sam.
	But just to be clear here, just so we establish this, when you claim that the Qur'an approved rape, this was your claim, And you claim that the Qur'an approved genocide when you spoke of Saul.
	Why does the Qur'an do that?
	It never does that once.
	And the Qur'an actually says in the same chapter, I'm not asking a question, I'm making a statement.
	The Qur'an actually says in that chapter, do not transgress beyond the limits which Allah has established.
	And we know what those limits are based on the durations we just read.
	Also, to answer what Sam said, that, oh, there's a pillar of cloud that the Israelites saw, so therefore you can kill homosexuals.
	He's ignorant of Mosaic law, because the Jews who lived after the time of Sinai, they were still bound by the Old Testament law.
	They were still bound by the Mosaic law.
	They were still killing the blasphemers, killing the sorcerers, killing the adulterers, executing them, executing anyone who tempted you to worship idols.
	You have to execute them.
	That's what Jesus says.
	Those Jews didn't see pillars of clouds.
	They didn't see any miracles.
	They were living after the time of Sinai.
	So your biblical allegory or your exegesis is completely off base.
	And also Jay is misrepresenting the Catholic Church.
	He's misrepresenting canon law.
	I'll read more quotes for you.
	In the 12th century, canon law jurist Gratian stated that consent for marriage could not take place before the age of 12 years old for females and 14 years old for males.
	Also, consent and betrothal could not take place before the age of 7 years old for females and males, as that is the age of reason.
	So it's actually 7 years old and 12 years old.
	The Church of England, after breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church, carried with it the same minimum age requirements – Age of consent for marriage of 12 years old for girls and 14 year olds for boys is written into English law.
	And then the Catholic Church, before the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the minimum age for a dissoluble betrothal was seven years.
	Seven years in the contractees.
	The minimal age for a valid marriage was puberty, or nominally 14 years for males and 12 years old for For females.
	This is the 1917 code of the church.
	So this is something that was up until very recently the Catholic doctrine.
	I reference Thomas Aquinas.
	I reference Gratian.
	Sam is a heretic.
	He's throwing all of the Catholic church under the bus.
	He's throwing canon law under the bus.
	And Jay refuses to say that these are all pedophiles.
	Jay refuses to condemn Thomas Aquinas as a pedophile.
	That's shocking.
	I hope all the Christian listeners, especially the Protestants listening, note that these heretics, Sam and Jay, are down with pedophilia.
	Did you not hear my condemnation?
	I explicitly said I don't have a problem condemning Aquinas, so you just blew up.
	As a pedophile.
	Can I answer?
	Yeah.
	Do we ask a question now or what?
	Well, he asked you guys a question.
	You guys gave a very lengthy answer.
	So it is on Team Christianity here.
	I'll let them get the last one because we're way over time here and I know you have to pray very soon, Dan.
	Yeah, I'll let you guys.
	Daniel, pretend to listen better.
	I know you're going to embarrass yourself.
	You just destroyed your prophet again.
	Because if you read the Old Testament, God didn't stop at Sinai.
	And you're accusing me of not reading the Bible.
	I think you want to be an umi like your prophet.
	Continue reading the rest of the Old Testament.
	God kept sending prophets with miracles and signs to keep ratifying and confirming his existence and that this is his law and he has a right to put to death whoever he wants.
	Because in 1 Kings 18...
	Elijah had a showdown with your spiritual ancestors, because your God, Allah of the Quran, is Baal.
	And there God showed up miraculously that your God is fake and Yahweh is true.
	So no, I am consistent with the Old Testament narrative.
	All throughout, God shows up miraculously through prophets to confirm, I am God, this is my covenant, I have a right to do with you as I see fit.
	Nothing for your prophet, the prophet of Baal.
	Because your God is a fake God, and the God revealed in Jesus is the true God.
	End of story.
	Bye-bye.
	You lost.
	Oh, you saw a miracle, therefore kill the adulterer.
	Oh, you saw a miracle, therefore kill the homos.
	Yeah, that makes sense.
	That's real great morality there.
	I got two questions for the Muslims here, I think, from the supporters here.
	Real quick, and then we'll close this thing out.
	Thank you, guys.
	That was a fantastic debate, by the way.
	Sound arguments made on all four points.
	I was taking a whole bunch of notes.
	I learned a bunch myself.
	I was learning a bunch because I'm not the most religious guy, so it was great to see both perspectives here.
	RazorSharp135 says, it's a TTS? Okay, it just came in.
	All right, so we'll let this play.
	It's actually a talk to speech here.
	It's Sam's favorite voice.
	Just curious here, how is sin defined in Islam and in Christianity?
	Or to say it this way, what is sin in Islam and in Christianity?
	Alright, so I'll let each team just give their quick definition of it.
	You want to answer, Jay?
	We would just say that any sin is just simply a moral move of the will against the good, away from the good, against God's law.
	That's it.
	Amen.
	For Islam?
	Or do you guys agree with that definition?
	Yeah, I mean, it's a similar definition.
	Like, God sends a law, and then if you disobey it, it doesn't matter.
	You have to see a miracle to obey the law.
	Like, God sends the law.
	If you disobey it, then that's a sin.
	And then you can ask for forgiveness, and God will forgive your sins.
	All right.
	What else do we got here?
	Danny Dana says, is it soon not to get ridden by naked, dark jinn like Muhammad did?
	Question for Jiz and Homo and Daniel, the...
	It's raging.
	They're raging.
	I think I got under their skin.
	Islam only says, 4211 in the Quran makes it pretty clear that Allah having body parts is to be taken figuratively.
	This thing is like split down the middle with people that support either or the religions.
	Aristotle says, question for Team Islam.
	Is the Quran created or uncreated?
	Answer without commuting shirk.
	Violating Taweed or violating Taanzi or making the Quran unknowable.
	If you think this question is irrelevant, you have no grounds to criticize the Trinity.
	The Quran is uncreated.
	We don't need to...
	Question for Team Islam.
	Is the Quran created or uncreated?
	Answer without commuting shirk, violating Tafeed, or violating Taanzi, or making the Quran unknowable.
	If you think this question is irrelevant, you have no grounds to criticize the Trinity.
	Well, you were answering it.
	Sorry.
	Go ahead, brother.
	Go ahead, I just… The Quran is uncreated.
	We don't dispute this.
	We don't doubt this.
	The claim was that the Trinity is incoherent because there are multiple minds.
	That was our critique.
	That's why this is either polytheism or it's incoherent.
	The Qur'an is uncreated, but The Quran doesn't have a mind.
	The Quran is not a person.
	No one has claimed this, but people do claim.
	Christian theologians do claim that Jesus has a mind.
	Is it the same mind as the Fathers and the Holy Spirits?
	There's a debate.
	There's no clarity in the Christian tradition because it's a contradiction.
	That's why.
	But we don't have the same problem in Islam.
	The Quran doesn't have a mind, so how does it contradict monotheism?
	Can I reply to that?
	No one could explain that.
	No one could explain that in this debate.
	Because there's a debate, it's not clear?
	Would that mean that because there's a debate in Islam amongst all the schools, none of it's clear about the attributes?
	No one debates about Islam having multiple gods.
	They don't debate the attributes?
	I have multiple attributes.
	That doesn't mean I'm multiple people.
	How is that contradicting?
	How does that contradict?
	Explain.
	You know you debate Salheed.
	I'm not saying that there are debates, that there are no debates in Islam.
	There are debates in Islamic theology.
	Exactly.
	So that was a bad argument.
	No, no.
	But there's debate in Christianity about the nature of God.
	There isn't that same debate about there's being three and one.
	What is the difference between the Father and the Son?
	Do they have the same knowledge?
	Do they have the same will?
	Do they have the same knowledge?
	Do they have the same will?
	We don't have the same debate.
	Jake versus Bo Branson.
	We don't have that same debate in Islam.
	It doesn't matter if it's the same debate.
	You said debate means it's not clear.
	You said if there's debate, it's not clear.
	That's a fallacy.
	You're a fallacy machine.
	No, that's not what I said, actually.
	So you don't follow the argument.
	That's the problem.
	All right.
	I'll fly through these real quick and close out.
	Chris Percession says, Hi, Sam.
	It's Bored Cody.
	I have a question for Ajaz.
	You're citing scholars to prove reliability, but plenty of scholars, Metzer, Gerd, Gerdeson, Joedsey, Rayner, Reisner, says the NT traces the actual words of Jesus.
	What scholar says Quran traces actual Jesus?
	Do you want me to answer this?
	It's quite simple.
	Sure, go ahead.
	Yeah, so scholars do not say it traces back to the very words of Jesus.
	They actually say it goes back to the ideas about what Jesus could have said.
	It's called the Ipsosimo Vox, or what Jesus could have said.
	There is no way to determine that Jesus actually said anything that is claimed in the New Testament.
	And between the Gospels themselves, they're not dateable to the first century CE, which is the big problem.
	We can largely assume that they're from the second century onwards, as Sam claimed in his interview with Chadescu, I think was the name.
	Just to be clear, as for the Qur'an, however, you don't have to guess.
	Because the manuscripts are within the lifetime of the Prophet, peace be upon him, but the manuscripts aside, we have inscriptions.
	But the inscriptions aside, we have other geographical data that is widespread enough to definitively prove that the Qur'an as we have it today is from the lifetime of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and his companions.
	We call this, just to be clear, an archetypal text.
	This is what we accept as Muslims.
	But for Christians, there is no such thing.
	I would like Sam or Jay to really point out that the Bible as they have it today, the scholars refer to it as a voyage or a hypothetical reconstruction.
	It's not actually the Word of God.
	When you see it mentions that every word in Scripture is God-readed, they should amend it to say it may be God-readed, but we can't actually know.
	I mean, for goodness sake, Jesus got God's name wrong.
	Can I respond to him because he brought a question to us?
	Yeah, I mean, he was answering a question from one of the chaters.
	Up to you.
	You don't want me to answer.
	No, no, no.
	Go ahead.
	I want to make sure everybody gets a fair say here because my thing is I want you guys to put your ideas out there and let the chat decide who they think wins.
	So go ahead, please.
	Okay, now, number one, again, because he doesn't know much about...
	Are we getting to do responses to this chat?
	We didn't agree on that.
	No.
	Well, I mean, you answered the chat, and then he wants to give his perspective as well.
	Yeah, because you asked the question to us, right?
	So do you want me to answer?
	Yeah, it's fine.
	Let him respond, and then we can respond to any of the chats.
	Okay, so if he responds to...
	Number one.
	Number one.
	Okay, when he talks about ipsisimavax, ipsisimavurba, that now he just destroyed the Qur'an even worse, because when we come to the case of the Gospels, no Christian denies that human authors were used to communicate the words of Jesus in translation in Greek, and God can do that.
	So they're not going to quote exactly the same way in the target language.
	But what he doesn't tell you, and I did series on this, Allah, who's supposedly speaking the Qur'an, will repeat the same story.
	With the same speech, whether Moses and the Egyptians, or Shaitan, Iblis, and Allah, or Lot, and he cannot get the details in the exact same way, he'll quote the same speeches in often various conflicting, contradictory reporting.
	So the Quran itself is one huge Ipsissima Vax, which is surprising because I thought Allah is speaking and Allah knows everything and recalls speeches perfectly.
	So much for Allah and Him being all-knowing.
	And then if we extend that to the Hadith, your own scholars admit that when it comes to even your authentic traditions, you have Ipsissima Vax of your Prophet, not Ipsissima Verba.
	Moreover, If the Bible is not preserved, you prove Muhammad is an antichrist, because he confirmed all the scriptures.
	He didn't make any fuss about the variant readings, because if he did, he would end up bearing your Qur'an, because he admit that the Qur'an did not come down in one mode.
	Ahruf, which your scholars till this day don't even know what the hell that means.
	That's why you have over 35 opinions about what the Ahruf are, which means if you're consistent, you just destroyed the Qur'an, you destroyed your Prophet, you destroyed your God, Stop being a Muslim.
	Join Bart Ehrman, man.
	So, I could just respond to this quickly.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	I mean, the Bible affirms that the Prophet Muhammad is a true prophet.
	In 1 John chapter 4, I'm reading it.
	It's false and it's fake, but it says some things are occasionally right.
	A broken clock can be right twice a day, right?
	I don't deny that the Bible might say God is one occasionally.
	It's false and it's fake, but it's good here.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Good job.
	I don't deny this.
	We never say, we never made a claim that...
	It's false and fake.
	I'll prove it here.
	Okay, we can interrupt you too, Jay.
	We can interrupt you.
	To be clear, neither Daniel or I made the claim that all of the Bible is false or wrong.
	It gets things right.
	It mentions Jesus' mother.
	It mentions Jesus.
	It gets it right when God agrees with it, not when it allows genocide in your case.
	So let's be clear here.
	we have so keep interrupting because you don't like the answer Let's be clear here.
	The Bible, 1 John 4 verses 2 and 3, it mentions directly anyone who testifies that Jesus is the Christ and that Jesus came in the flesh is a true spirit from God.
	So you may not have to like it, but your Bible affirms Muhammad.
	Secondly, secondly, to be clear here, secondly, secondly, to be clear, because I...
	Carry your religion further.
	It doesn't have to be genuine for me as long as you believe in it.
	It's consistent for me to get that point.
	I can put the Bible against you.
	I can put the Bible against you.
	I don't have to assume that this is Islam.
	It's not secular reasoning, because I'm not implying the consequence, to be clear.
	So one more time, please try not to interrupt.
	I know you don't like the answer.
	Secondly, you made the claim that the Prophet, peace be upon him, committed rape.
	We asked you to show where he did so, and you could not.
	On the other hand, I showed you where Jesus the Christ...
	He affirms that whatever the Pharisees tell you, do it.
	He says they're hypocrites, but he also says obey them.
	And we know that they committed genocide.
	I don't need to, I quote exactly what I want.
	Thirdly, you made the claim that Jesus never affirmed anything extreme.
	But if you believe he affirmed the Old Testament, he affirmed the crimes, the rapes, the murders, the genocide.
	Killing babies.
	That's Allah.
	Yeah, that's Allah.
	Killing babies, yeah.
	Yeah, Allah.
	You didn't condemn him.
	He thanked Moses to do that, so thank Allah.
	We don't believe that, and the Quran never says that.
	That's your assumption.
	Does it confirm the flood?
	I said the Quran doesn't affirm the genocide that someone wants to believe in.
	Oh, the difference between the Bible and the Quran.
	Yeah, the flood happens.
	There is pestilence.
	That's different than the Bible.
	The Bible says the soldiers...
	Jesus says the soldiers go kill those babies.
	That's what Jesus says.
	There's nothing like that in the Quran.
	Jesus says...
	Jesus says, go and kill.
	Jesus says, go and kill those babies.
	Don't leave anything that breathes.
	Go take their women as captives.
	Go take the girls that have not slept with any man.
	The girls who haven't slept with any man, take them as your Do uncreated things share communicable attributes with
	created things such that we can have knowledge of them?
	We didn't hear the question.
	Okay, so I think it was a TTS chat.
	Okay, this is what I'm going to do.
	I think, Dan, you got to say what you wanted to say about talking about what Jesus had done.
	Sam, I'll let you respond because you were trying to say something.
	No, I didn't respond.
	I didn't get to finish my point.
	You can't interrupt me.
	Finish your point and then it goes to Sam and then Jay.
	And then we'll finish off on this.
	There's a difference between God sending pestilence or God sending a catastrophe to punish a people.
	That is a natural disaster that God commands.
	That's different from what the Bible says.
	The Bible, Jesus is telling Moses, go and kill the women, children, and leave nothing that breathes.
	That is a command to people, to soldiers, to go and actually commit that.
	And the interpreters of the Bible, including the Christians, took those verses to justify their genocidal programs.
	In the Roman Empire, in the Byzantine Empire, all the way to the colonial period.
	They use these verses of the Bible.
	Israel today, they're using these verses of the Bible to justify their genocide throughout history.
	The Russian Orthodox Church as well.
	The Russian Orthodox Church uses these verses to justify the murders in Ukraine as well.
	Muslims don't say, oh, we can go kill babies because there was Noah's flood.
	No Muslim has had this interpretation.
	But that's the difference between the Bible and the Quran.
	Let me go to Sam and Jay so they can respond and then we'll finish this topic.
	Yeah, go ahead, Sam.
	I know you're trying to say something.
	Did we lose him?
	Or is he muted?
	He's muted.
	Sam, are you muted?
	Yeah, you can unmute yourself, Sam.
	We'll try to, yeah.
	All right, well, I'll go.
	Go ahead.
	You ready?
	You want me to go further?
	You get the last word, Jay?
	Go ahead.
	Okay.
	All right.
	I know you guys have a hard time hearing, because let me repeat again what you failed to address adequately.
	You just proved Jesus is Allah, Muhammad's God, and judge.
	Let me repeat the ayat again.
	Everything we said proves that, apparently.
	Okay, so chapter 2, verse 246 to 251.
	Read chapter 2, verse 246 to 251.
	Read chapter 5, verse 20 to 26.
	Jesus, your Allah, Muhammad's God, who gave him the Quran and you corrupted it, he's the one who ordered what Moses and Joshua and Saul did, and there's nothing in these passages that say...
	That when you go ahead and do this...
	Nothing in the Quran says that.
	Guys, guys, guys, read the passage.
	They can't let you stand.
	They have to cut it.
	Read it.
	Go ahead, guys.
	Read the passage.
	Take it easy.
	No, read the Quran.
	Read the Quran.
	Stop foaming.
	Let me read now.
	Read the Quran.
	Can I read?
	Go ahead, Sam.
	I know you're about to recite the Quran.
	Let me read.
	Sam, can you read the Quran?
	Let him speak.
	Let him speak.
	I'll read both.
	He's afraid to do it.
	Matt, they won't let me finish their manifestos.
	You guys won't let me, you guys.
	Said Bukhari, Volume 4, Number 353.
	Narrated Abu Hurairah, the prophet said, A prophet amongst the prophets carried out a holy military expedition.
	So he said to his followers, Anyone who has married a woman and wants to consummate the marriage and has not done so yet should not accompany me, nor should a man who has built a house but has not completed its roof, nor...
	A man who is sheep, or she-camels, and is waiting for the birth of their young ones.
	So the Prophet carried out the expedition, and when he reached that town at the time, or nearly at the time of the Asr prayer, he said to the son, O son, you are under Allah's order, and I'm under Allah's order.
	O Allah, stop the sun from setting.
	It was stopped till Allah made him victorious.
	Then he collected the booty, and the fire came to burn it, but it did not burn it.
	He said to the man, some of you have stolen something from the booty, so one man from every tribe should give me a pledge of allegiance by shaking hands with me.
	They did so, and the hand of a man got stuck over the hand of their prophet.
	Then that prophet said to the man, The theft has been committed by your people, so all the persons of your tribe should give me the pledge of allegiance by shaking hands with them.
	The hands of two or three men got stuck over the hand of their prophet, and he said, You have committed the theft.
	Then they brought a head of gold, like the head of a cow, and put it there, and the fire came and consumed the body.
	The prophet added, Then Allah saw our weakness and disability, so he made booty legal for us.
	Here, Sahih Bukhari, your prophet...
	Confirms Durami 20 verses 1 to 9, which you just attacked earlier, meaning you're better than your prophet.
	I didn't hear the murder of the race.
	Don't interrupt me, buddy.
	Where's the murder of the rape?
	It's absent.
	Where was it?
	You didn't say any of that.
	When he goes...
	Why are you off cam?
	Why are you off cam?
	Show your face when you say it.
	Yeah, why don't you show your face?
	Show your face when you say it.
	Glory to Jesus.
	Go ahead, Jake.
	Alright, Jake, finish up here and then we'll move on to the next topic.
	Dan, I know you said you have to go, right?
	At 8.30?
	You have to pray?
	Yeah, I have to pray pretty soon.
	Are we finishing up?
	Yeah, we are finishing up here.
	Go ahead, Jake.
	No, Sam, you can finish that point.
	You can take the rest of the time.
	Oh, they're going to manifest because it's time for prayer.
	So let's see if they can control themselves.
	Okay, guys, did you hear me read?
	Nothing in the context makes any exceptions.
	Muhammad is confirming these stories as found in the Bible.
	Nothing in the context says that Joshua was told all but spare women and children.
	They have to read that into it because they got humiliated.
	You said you would also read the Qur'an.
	So read that in the Qur'an, please.
	Keep manifesting.
	So you can read it in the Hadith and you can read it in the Qur'an.
	And you had your faith in shame.
	Let him finish and then we'll make your points.
	So now the burden of proof is on Daniel before he goes and prays to Baal.
	Show me in these passages in Surat Al-Ma'idah 520-26, Surat Al-Baqarah 246-251.
	I'll be listening all of the Qur'an now.
	Can I finish my question?
	Let him finish, Ijaz.
	Let him finish.
	You're about to follow the sunnah of your prophet.
	Tell me where in those passages your prophet said that when Allah sent Musa and Joshua, that he gave them the orders, spare the women and children, because he quotes them as is, and he confirms the Torah in his possession.
	So now go ahead, condemn your prophet.
	Christ wins, Muhammad loses again.
	Go ahead.
	Are you done?
	First of all, you didn't show that the verses of the Quran or the Hadith are condoning rape and murder.
	That's your first lie.
	As found in the Bible.
	As found in the Bible.
	We read verses of the Bible.
	We'll read it again.
	Jesus said to Moses, have you let the women live?
	Now kill every male among the little ones and kill every woman.
	Every woman who has known man by lying with him.
	So basically, save the virgins for yourself.
	That's what Jesus says.
	And then you can force them to marry you, shave their heads, and humiliate them.
	This is what we're reading from Numbers.
	So this is like, you didn't mention any rape.
	The hadith that Ijaz read earlier says that there's no killing of women and children.
	Why can't you deal with that?
	We don't read one hadith and say that one hadith that you read...
	Let me do it.
	See, we didn't interrupt you, right?
	Okay, go ahead.
	No, actually, Hijaz did, so stop lying.
	And we told him not to.
	I told him not to.
	He kept doing it.
	He kept manifesting.
	You want me to give me a minute?
	Watch what I do with Numbers 31.
	I'll bury your argument.
	Put the camera back on and say that to my face.
	Yeah.
	A little short guy like you, Muni Daniel to help you.
	I'm still the image of your God, isn't it?
	I can see that this isn't going to...
	You guys are just going to keep going in a circle.
	It's fine.
	Well...
	The point was that there's no passage in the Quran, there's no verse that condones genocide, whereas we read the explicit words of Jesus saying to go and kill the babies.
	How are you coping with this?
	It's all just a cope from Sam, and it looks silly.
	You didn't quote anything.
	We quoted you the hadith that says don't kill women and children.
	We don't just take the Quran.
	We take the Quran and Sunnah.
	So when you cite one hadith, you didn't show where that hadith says kill women and children.
	You didn't show that.
	Where does the hadith say kill women and children?
	Don't just filibuster and pretend we're not going to notice.
	Don't pretend we're not going to notice that nothing that you read says kill women and children.
	Where does it say?
	Where does it say kill women and children?
	Where does it say kill women and children?
	Can I answer you with your question?
	I know you don't know logic and you want to shift the burden of proof.
	You quoted hadith where your prophet said it, but there's the same hadith that says that if women and children are killed, they are of them.
	It's in Sahih Muslim.
	I mentioned it, but you read the chapter.
	Read the whole chapter.
	Read the whole thing.
	The chapter says, the unlawful, the chapter reads, the prohibition of killing women and children.
	And it was not a permission to kill women and children.
	It was a category of whether they're polytheists or not.
	We're just going to move on.
	There's a question here for Team Islam.
	Run, Ijaz, run with Daniel.
	There's a question.
	A follow-up for Team Islam.
	I'd be like your wife then, no?
	You claim the Quran was created.
	Oops, oops.
	The one that you assaulted and syndicated.
	Let me just read this.
	Let me just read this.
	A follow-up for Team Islam.
	You claim the Quran was uncreated and uncreated things knowable.
	To be clear, do uncreated things share communicable attributes with created things such that we can have knowledge of them?
	I think that's a question for Team Islam.
	I'll turn that to adjust because the answer is correct.
	It's indicative.
	We can indicate things, but not know the exact essence of them.
	Which is why Allah establishes, there is nothing absolutely like him, but he can indicate knowledge which is familiar to us.
	Okay.
	That's pretty much it.
	Fair enough.
	So what I'm going to do is I'm going to, and then last one here, one question for Daniel.
	If your prophet is a representation of what you should be, why don't all Muslims have intercourse with nine-year-olds, and why don't you allow your daughter to get married when she is six?
	Do you want to address that?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I have an entire debate with a Christian on this topic.
	What?
	Sorry?
	On Aisha, if I'm not mistaken, right?
	The nine-year-old?
	The age of Aisha, yeah.
	The wife of the prophet, peace be upon him.
	This is the number one thing that Christians want to bring up against Islam.
	And we pointed out in this debate that the Bible has no problem with child marriage.
	The church actually has no problem with child marriage and actually endorses it with 12 years old or younger.
	Canon law, Gratian endorses it.
	And even Jay could not condemn Thomas Aquinas as a pedophile.
	He condemns him.
	He condemns him, but he doesn't say that he's a pedophile.
	So actually, within this debate, we've seen plenty of resources within Christianity that child marriage is condoned.
	It's accepted.
	And that's the Christian tradition.
	Now, if Christians want to throw their entire Bible, their church tradition in the trash, go ahead.
	Muslims, we're consistent.
	We say that, look, marriage can happen at the age of puberty.
	When a girl goes through puberty or a boy goes through puberty, then they can get married.
	And that is what That's what every culture and religion has practiced historically.
	It's only become a problem in modern times because of modern educational system that requires you to go through 12 years of education so you can become a wage slave, go and work in the factories, go and work for the industries.
	So they want to prevent you from getting married younger, as a teenager.
	Instead, they want you to fornicate.
	They want little girls at 9 years old to fornicate with each other.
	And a lot of these Christians, they don't have problems with their kids having a girlfriend or boyfriend or experimenting with sex at age 9, 10, 11, 12.
	That's happening rampant within Western society.
	All we hear is about how Islam is pedophilic.
	Well, look at your own societies.
	Marriage would be the solution to the amount of degeneracy that unfortunately we see in the West.
	And maybe Jay would agree with me, maybe not Sam, but Jay might agree that marriage can be the solution for a 15-year-old to get married, a 14-year-old to get married.
	That was certainly the church's position.
	Okay.
	Anything else?
	Alright, that was the last one.
	So guys, thank you so much for coming on the podcast.
	I want you guys to all just kind of say where the people can find you, where they can get your content if they're interested in learning more about you.
	We'll turn it over to...
	We can start with you guys.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, EF Dawah and everywhere you go.
	He has a YouTube channel.
	Guys, go check him out.
	EF Dawah.
	Okay.
	What about you, Daniel?
	Yeah, Muslim Skeptic.
	That's the channel.
	You Google it, Muslim Skeptic with a K. And we have a lot of debates, playlists, where I debate Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists.
	So you can check me out on Muslim Skeptic.
	There's also MuslimSkeptic.com with a website with a lot of material as well.
	Awesome.
	Sam?
	Oh, you're muted, Sam.
	You might have to unmute yourself.
	Here, yeah, you have to just unmute yourself.
	Okay, Shamounian, if you go to YouTube, it's Shamounian, S-H-A-M-O-U-N-I-A-N. And also on Rumble, it's Answering Islam, and I have answeringislamblog.wordpress.com.
	I try to stream daily, so Lord willing, you can find me there, and you can find the articles and all the material we use there, as well as an answeringislam.info, so that's where you can find me.
	Awesome.
	Jay?
	Yeah, jaysanalysis.com.
	You can find me on all the socials under my name, Jay Dyer.
	You can also find me every Friday hosting the Alex Jones Show.
	Alright, awesome on Infowars.
	Guys, I hope you guys enjoyed the debate, man.
	We'll probably host something like this maybe in the future.
	You know, got a little personal there at times, but the guys still remain extremely professional, which I thank you guys for that.
	Thank you guys so much.
	It was great to have you guys.
	Guys, please go follow them.
	Go check them out.
	We'll be back here with some lovely ladies in about 45 minutes, in about an hour.
	We'll have some after hours.
	It won't be as kosher as this debate was here.
	So, we'll catch you guys.
	Thank you guys so much for coming on the podcast.
	Great to have you guys.
	Peace.

▲