YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → BREAKING: Mohammed Hijab SUED Me and LOST

BREAKING: Mohammed Hijab SUED Me and LOST — Transcript

by GodLogic Apologetics · 20,938 words · 3,240 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Well, well, well, man. Doesn't the sound
0:04of victory sound good? Muhammad Aab, you
0:09lost to me in a debate and then you also
0:11lost the court case. Isn't that
0:14embarrassing? I make me sick. In order
0:17for you to hide the video and to stop
0:20the growth, which you couldn't. You
0:21actually made it worse. You tried to sue
0:24me for a copyright strike. And turns out
0:29it got dismissed. Ladies and gentlemen,
0:31so without further ado, this is the same
0:35discussion that I had with Muhammad Aab.
0:38This is how you deal with slobs like
0:40this. This is how you handle them. This
0:42is how you destroy them. You use their
0:45own arguments against them. You use
0:46their own book against them. This is the
0:48very conversation that Muhammad Hijab
0:51tried to hide and gave me a copyright
0:53strike with, which he lost on. Enjoy.
1:01>> Oh, look who we have here.
1:04>> There we go.
1:04>> How How are you there? How are you,
1:06>> man? I'm good, man. How are you?
1:08>> Oh, you you finally come for the for the
1:11final boss, huh?
1:13>> You want to ask me the questions, huh?
1:15>> I came for the champions.
1:17>> I came for the champ. I came for the
1:19champ.
1:19>> Go ahead and ask me the questions that
1:20you want to ask. But before we before we
1:23continue, is it okay that I also
1:25>> raise your voice a bit? I can't hear you
1:27very well there.
1:28>> Uhoh. Testing, testing. And we Okay.
1:30Testing testing.
1:31>> Yeah. Raise it a little bit higher.
1:33>> All right. Let me uh you look a bit
1:37nervous there, boy.
1:39>> Man, you know, big boy.
1:41>> Big stage. You know what I'm saying?
1:43>> It's a big stage and a big opportunity,
1:45huh?
1:46>> Just the champ, man.
1:47>> Oh,
1:49you been waiting like a good boy. You're
1:51the Peter, you the people's champ, man.
1:53You've been st Yeah, I don't know. I
1:54don't know you was getting your courage
1:55up or what. I don't know what it was,
1:57but
1:58>> I'm the giant.
1:59>> Thank you. Is is it okay that I uh
2:02record this and put it on my channel?
2:03Just want to get a verbal confirmation.
2:04We're good.
2:05>> Well, I mean, look, you can go live
2:07right now. I mean, I haven't got any
2:08issues with that myself.
2:10You are live already.
2:12>> Yeah, I'm recording right now. So, I'm
2:13just making sure I can
2:14>> go live. Go live so that your people can
2:16see what's happening right now.
2:17>> Oh, they they will. So, I just want a
2:19verbal confirmation. You're not going to
2:20copyright strike me.
2:22>> No, you're you're going to go live and
2:23it's absolutely fine.
2:24>> Okay, cool. All right. Awesome. All
2:26right. So,
2:27>> we're going live simultaneously right
2:28now, aren't we?
2:30>> Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
2:31are simultaneously gone. Are
2:33>> they This is This is a recording just
2:34like the Huffs and the are all
2:36simultaneously the Quran.
2:38>> Yeah,
2:38>> that's a nice segue.
2:40>> So, tell me now.
2:42This is a good way of doing it, Avery.
2:44Okay. A good way of doing it is you ask
2:47me a question about Islam.
2:48>> Yeah.
2:49>> And then we can go back and forth on
2:51that issue for some time
2:53>> and then I ask you a question about
2:54Christianity and we can go back and
2:56forth on that issue for it. So it's kind
2:58of equal.
2:59>> Yeah.
2:59>> Sounds about right. Yeah.
3:01>> Fair enough.
3:01>> So I want you to do me the following. Uh
3:03Avery, I want you in front of the people
3:06that are watching at home today.
3:08Everybody watching at home, the
3:10Christians, the Muslims, the Jews, the
3:12Zionists, your friends, the Zionists,
3:14everybody want you to tell us what your
3:18strongest. I know you're unqualified.
3:21No, no, it's okay. You're not qualified.
3:23You know, you don't have any formal
3:24qualifications. You don't have any
3:26degrees. You don't have any
3:27certificates. You don't have any
3:28diplomas. I understand all that. But I
3:30give you concession because I want you
3:33>> to tell us your strongest argument
3:36against Islam. We're all Avery.
3:39>> Nice. Thank you. I appreciate it, man.
3:40>> Want to hear that one.
3:41>> Yeah. Yeah, man. I can't wait to give
3:43it, you know, from someone who's
3:44unqualified, no credentials, just a, you
3:46know, young kid who just, you know, did
3:48a lot of YouTube University. It says a
3:50lot.
3:51>> Say, let's get I am, man. I am. You got
3:54to set it up.
3:55>> Give us a strong boy.
3:58>> I got nervous, aren't you? Go ahead.
4:00>> Got to set it up. Got to set it up. You
4:02know, it it it it says a lot for someone
4:04who's unqualified to do what I've done
4:06to the Dava squad and now you're just
4:08laughing.
4:08>> Get on with it, mate.
4:09>> Get on with it, mate.
4:10>> So, so what I'm going to say is Muhammad
4:13Hijab is that the strongest one of the
4:15strongest I wouldn't even say it's the
4:17but one of the strongest arguments that
4:19I would like to use
4:20>> obviously would be the Islamic dilemma
4:22that you said is a easil easily uh
4:26refuted and disregarded argument.
4:28>> Sure.
4:28>> So, I would challenge before we start.
4:31That's your strongest argument. This is
4:33the way to undo Islam. The way to do
4:35undo Islam is the Islamic dilemma.
4:36You've been in this apologetics game for
4:38a very long time. You believe this
4:40>> is the strongest argument. You believe
4:42that?
4:42>> It's it's one of I I believe the
4:44strongest argument would with the
4:47Muhammad's moral character.
4:48>> Now, don't lose the confidence already.
4:50What's the strongest argument? Let's go
4:52for number one because we need to go
4:53down.
4:54>> I want to use this. I want to use the
4:55Islamic dilemma. Can we stop wasting
4:57time and talk about it?
4:57>> Of course you can. That's your strongest
4:58argument, right?
4:59>> All right. Mashah, let's do it.
5:01>> Okay, go ahead and make your argument.
5:03>> All right. Thank you. So, I'm going to
5:05argue that from the Quran standpoint, it
5:07points to the previous scriptures as
5:08being authoritative over the Quran,
5:10meaning it's the standard of truth over
5:12the Quran. Okay? And I'm going to use a
5:15few verses. I'll we could deal with one
5:16at a time. Um my one of my favorite
5:18verses to use would be chapter 10 verse
5:2294.
5:23>> Yes.
5:23>> Okay. And so this is what it says. It
5:25says, "If you are in doubt," this is
5:27Allah speaking to Muhammad. If you are
5:28in doubt about that which we have
5:30revealed to you,
5:31>> then go and ask those who have been
5:32reading the scripture before you. Truly
5:34the truth has come to you from your
5:35Lord. So be not of those who doubt.
5:37>> Sure. So let me ask you this, Avery.
5:39Have you seen any of the exedites on
5:41this? Because it says if you're in
5:43doubt, I'm sure you're aware. I know
5:44you're not qualified, but you understand
5:46that a conditional if is a conditional.
5:49If you are in doubt, that's the Arabic
5:51wording. in if you were in doubt. If you
5:55look at the exedutes, they say he wasn't
5:57in doubt and he never asked. So, it's
5:59irrelevant. Next one, please.
6:00>> Okay. So, notice since I'm unqualified,
6:03it's it's a shame I got to teach you the
6:05argument. Um I never argue anything. I
6:07assure you, my friend. There's no
6:09there's no teaching going on here.
6:11>> I got you, John. Get it out.
6:13>> Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. You said
6:14>> I can't even get it out, ladies and
6:15gentlemen.
6:16>> You said one at a time. You said one at
6:18a time. 10 minutes.
6:19>> Yes. I'm trying to respond to what you
6:20said. chapter number 10 verse 94.
6:24>> Can I respond with you?
6:26>> Wait, what are you are you are you
6:28interrupting me or
6:29>> Hey, you cut me off and now you're
6:31saying I'm interrupting you.
6:31>> No, no, no, no, no. We're dealing with
6:33one at a time here.
6:34>> I know. So you you made a second about
6:36I'm not doubting. Let me respond to
6:37that.
6:38>> If you are in any doubt,
6:44the ones who were given the book before.
6:46>> So no, no. So now the exedites say they
6:50say this is rhetorical. If conditional
6:53you're in doubt then ask what he
6:55supposed to do.
6:55>> Then they say he never was in doubt
6:57because the prophet was never in doubt
6:59and he never asked. He never asked in
7:02this capacity. That's it. It's is it's
7:04put that to the side.
7:06>> Okay. No. So So thank you. I appreciate
7:08that. You that was a waste of time.
7:10That's not my argument. My argument
7:11isn't that Muhammad the first time.
7:13You're cutting me off again.
7:15>> This is the second time. Notice if
7:17you're not afraid of the argument. I'm
7:18unqualified. Remember, I'm unqualified.
7:20>> Second second verse, please.
7:21>> All right. I'm unqualified, ladies and
7:23gentlemen.
7:24>> Just so ladies and gentlemen, my
7:26argument is not
7:28in doubt. My My argument is not that
7:30Muhammad was in doubt. My argument is
7:32what Allah tells him to do if he does
7:35doubt. Now, just to get this just to get
7:38this under clarity, would you agree that
7:40doubt means to be uncertain of the
7:42truth?
7:43Yeah, that's that's so if Muhammad
7:46conditional granted that's what the
7:48verse says. If he's uncertain about the
7:50truth of the Quran,
7:51>> what is he told to do by Allah?
7:57>> Give ask the people who have been given
7:59the book before.
8:00>> Awesome. So if he goes and asks if he's
8:03uncertain about the truth of what the
8:04Quran is saying
8:05>> and he goes and asks those who've been
8:07reading the scripture before him, that's
8:09supposed to help him gain certainty of
8:11the truth. if he sees that the Quran is
8:13in line with what they have. Correct.
8:14>> Okay.
8:16>> Is that is that correct?
8:18>> If you if you're in doubt, it says in if
8:21you're in doubt,
8:23>> I don't know why you're smoking and
8:24grinning.
8:24>> I'm just having a good time, man.
8:26>> I know. I know. Wait, hold on. Hold on.
8:27I know why he's smoking and grinning.
8:29Cuz he's not used to being in class
8:30because he's never been in class.
8:35>> There's nothing funny about this matter.
8:36This is This is buddy. Look, look. This
8:40is I know you're a bucktoothoth
8:41apologist and I know that you're you
8:43keep smirking and smiling. You think
8:44that this is going to get you somewhere.
8:45It's not going to get you anywhere with
8:46Muhammad Hijab
8:48with a couple of other guys here and
8:49there.
8:51>> It's not going to get you anywhere with
8:52Muhammad Hijab because the fact is this.
8:55The fact is conditionals have been even
8:58proposed in the Quran about Allah taking
9:00a son.
9:03If Allah wanted to take a son, he could
9:05have taken his. So the conditional here
9:08for the bucktooth apologist you have
9:10failed to give us anything of substance
9:13at this point.
9:14>> I'm just waiting on you. You're
9:16presenting the strongest argument
9:18against Islam. So please
9:21>> give us the strongest argument. Go on.
9:22>> All right. Awesome. Thank you. So all of
9:24that slander and all that that doesn't
9:25work here. Not with me. You're going to
9:27have to actually deal with the argument.
9:28So again, I'll ask the same question I
9:30just asked. You didn't answer.
9:31>> So here's the question again. Muhammad
9:33hijab. So if Muhammad is uncertain about
9:36the truth of the Quran in in this
9:38scenario that then he's supposed to go
9:40ahead when he asks the people the book
9:43right you read the scripture before him.
9:44Let me let me land.
9:46>> I got you. So when he when he when he
9:48does that
9:49>> if the Quran is in line with what they
9:51have then he'll be certain of the truth
9:54about what the Quran is saying. Right?
9:55If he doubt.
9:55>> No no no no no. See look this is the
9:57problem. Okay. The problem is when you
10:01haven't got a high school diploma
10:02>> and you try and use logical insults but
10:05no engagement in the argument.
10:06>> No, no. This is the the fact is this.
10:08You don't know what you're talking
10:09about. Nowhere does Hold on. Hold on.
10:12Nowhere does it say you've added and
10:14you've added an isog Jesus. You've added
10:16your own superical
10:19narrative onto the Quranic text. Nowhere
10:22does it say if the Quran is if if you're
10:26in doubt then go and then it can be
10:27corrected by the people. Where does it
10:29say that?
10:30>> Where does it say that?
10:32>> I'll show you.
10:33>> I'll show you again. So when it says
10:36that if you are in doubt, meaning which
10:37you already agreed to means to be
10:38uncertain of the truth of what the Quran
10:40is saying.
10:41>> Okay.
10:41>> What he can do to get certainty of the
10:43truth of what the Quran is saying is
10:45asking the people who read the scripture
10:47before him.
10:47>> It doesn't say any of that. It says,
10:49>> "Oh, it you could feel that earlier. No,
10:52no, no. You just read the verse as it
10:53is.
10:54>> Mhm.
10:56>> Go and ask the people before you. That's
10:58it. That's all it says.
11:00>> But the question is, the question is
11:02where's the argument here? So what? So
11:05what? What's your argument? Is this
11:07meant to undo Islam? I don't see any
11:08threat. Where's the argument?
11:10>> I got you. So, so, so again, so do you
11:13agree with the verse that in the case in
11:16the scenario that Muhammad doubts what
11:18the Quran is saying, has uncertainty
11:20about the what the Quran is saying that
11:22he can get certainty what he can get
11:24certainty by asking the people who read
11:26the scripture before. Correct.
11:27>> Ask the people. That's what it says.
11:28Yes. Ask the people. Yes. Ask the people
11:31is what the verse says. Go ahead.
11:33>> Who've been doing what?
11:35>> Say again.
11:36>> Ask the people who what?
11:38>> The ones who have been given the book.
11:40There you go. So in asking these people
11:43who read the scripture before him,
11:45>> he can then get certainty of whatever he
11:48doubted. Correct.
11:49>> No, that's you've you've added that.
11:51See, look, you have to
11:54what?
11:55>> It's what the verse says. No,
11:56>> it doesn't say that. It says
11:59it doesn't say
12:02what do you call it? So you can get
12:03certainty. It doesn't say any of what
12:04you're saying. The question is your
12:06argument. I'm trying to I'm I'm still
12:09finding
12:10I'm trying to find your argument. What
12:12was
12:12>> the argument is there?
12:14>> Yeah, you are. Okay. Hijab, let me ask
12:16you this.
12:17>> Why is Allah Why what is what is this
12:19supposed to do for Muhammad if he's
12:21uncertain about what the Quran is saying
12:23by go and going to the people who read
12:24the script before him? What does that do
12:26for him in this situation? How does that
12:27help? If this is your argument,
12:29>> do you is your argument the following?
12:31Let's just be clear about this. Is your
12:32argument straightforward question,
12:34brother?
12:34>> No. No. Is your argument that you
12:36believe that the Quran affirms the Torat
12:41and the Injil the Bible that you have in
12:43your hands? That's not my argument right
12:46now. My argument argument I said I got I
12:50said it in the beginning. I said that
12:52according to the Quran, the previous
12:54scriptures are the authority are the
12:56standard of truth over the Quran. And
12:58here's my verse to prove it.
12:59>> Wait, is that who said that again?
13:01>> Who said that? Where does it
13:02>> I said that? This is my argument. Okay.
13:04So, where does it say that in the Quran?
13:06>> I'm showing you. So, again with 1094,
13:09watch this. I'm showing you. You got to
13:12engage though.
13:13>> In 1094,
13:15it tells Muhammad if he is uncertain
13:19>> about what the Quran is saying.
13:21>> Okay.
13:21>> How he can gain certainty.
13:23>> It doesn't say that he's
13:24>> okay. So, then help me out.
13:27>> Why is he saying
13:28>> it? It doesn't say go and get gain
13:29certainty. It says just
13:33Pardon my hijab. He's talking about his
13:35doubts.
13:36Yeah, I understand what you're saying,
13:37but what I'm saying to you is the
13:39exedites have already explained that he
13:41never had that doubt and he never asked.
13:43So, it's irrelevant. I get the same type
13:45of rhetoric.
13:46>> Have you got any other arguments because
13:48this is getting boring for the
13:49>> saying that it's getting boring because
13:50you can't even deal with the argument.
13:52>> This is extreme. This is extremely
13:54boring argument.
13:55>> If it's so boring, you should be able to
13:58is what are you trying to say? Are you
13:59trying to say that the Bible according
14:02to us is preserved? Is that
14:03>> what I'm saying is I'll say it again
14:05very clearly.
14:05>> You believe that we believe the Bible is
14:06preserved? Yes or no?
14:07>> I got you. Do you believe that we
14:08believe the Bible is preserved?
14:10>> I got you. This will be my third time
14:12saying very clearly what
14:13>> I'm asking you the question. Do you
14:14believe that we believe the Bible is
14:15preserved? Yes or no?
14:16>> I know you don't believe that. I know
14:18you don't believe that. My point is that
14:20your beliefs go against Islam. That's my
14:22point. Say again. What's the What's the
14:23point? Your beliefs go against the
14:26Quran. The Quran here and I'll be very
14:28clear. My point, the point that I'm
14:30proving and I want you to focus on is
14:32that the Quran points to the previous
14:35scriptures as being the standard of
14:38truth. Well, if you're disagreeing with
14:40that, I need you to break this verse
14:41down for me and show me how I'm wrong.
14:43>> Okay. Okay. Yes. We believe in the
14:45previous scriptures. Muslims believe in
14:46the previous scriptures. Muslims also
14:48believe that the scriptures that are in
14:50our hands today from the Jews and the
14:52Christians are corrupted. These two
14:54things we believe at the same time. We
14:56believe that there was original
14:57scriptures that then got corrupted. Do
14:59you understand this point or not?
15:00>> I trust me, I know your position. I
15:02know.
15:03>> If you understand this position, what
15:05what's the what's the point here?
15:07Because if you believe that we believe
15:08that is corrupted, then you understand
15:10that there are aspects of the Bible now
15:13that you have in your hands which could
15:14have their remnants back in that they go
15:17back to the actual and aspects of the
15:20Bible which don't. For example, the
15:22aspects that talk about Lot having sex
15:24with his daughters or the aspects that
15:26talk about, you know, for example, Noah
15:28having the, you know, the the the three
15:30sons and seeing them in his nakedness
15:31and all these aspects which or that
15:33Aaron committed shik and polotheism or
15:36uh, you know, that Jesus commanded
15:38according to 31:18 to this, that, and
15:41the other, take the young girls for
15:42yourself. All of these things are
15:43corrections the Quran came to correct.
15:45You see, so as I said to you before, the
15:48corrupt
15:50Bible that we have today, which there
15:52are different versions of, there's the
15:54New International Version, there's the
15:55Revised Standard Version, there's the
15:56King James version, there's whatever
15:58version, different cannons, 66 books, 73
16:01books, whatever. We don't believe that
16:03to be God, God's word. We don't believe
16:0513 books of Paul are God's word. We
16:08don't believe in any of that. So where's
16:09the argument going here? I don't see
16:11where the argument is going. Okay. So I
16:13I I'll break it down. You know, remember
16:15I'm unqualified. So I got to d I only
16:17talk in like dummy standards. Okay.
16:20According to the Quran, the it points to
16:22the previous scriptures
16:25as being the standard of truth. Meaning
16:27if Muhammad is uncertain about what the
16:29Quran is relating, especially in regards
16:31to the previous prophets, the previous
16:33histories, their stories, and yada yada
16:34yada. If Muhammad is in doubt, this is
16:37conditional. As you said, if he doubts
16:39what the Quran is saying on these
16:40matters,
16:41>> then he can get clarity on his doubts
16:45>> by going to the people who read the
16:46scripture before him and asking them
16:47about these things.
16:48>> All right. So, so what?
16:49>> Right.
16:50>> Okay. So, it's saying that you can if
16:53you're in doubt, you can go to the
16:54people who
16:58the people who have been given the
16:59scripture before you. For example, some
17:01Jews, some Christians, those Jews like
17:04for example, who the prophet sallallam
17:06went to a person who was a monotheistic
17:08Christian at the time and he asked them
17:10for questions. You know, this is a way
17:12to reassure himself if he's in doubt or
17:15whatever it may be. Yes, this is what
17:16the Quran says. I want to understand
17:18what the issue is here. Do you see the
17:21argument?
17:21>> So, here's what's the issue. So, thank
17:22you. So, we got we got past this part.
17:24So now since we both now understand
17:27>> that he can get clarity on whatever he
17:29might have been doubting just if in this
17:31in this case he can get clarity he can
17:34get clarity on the truth of what the
17:36Quran is saying by going to the people
17:38of the book and what they're reading
17:40this means that if Muhammad if what he's
17:43receiving from the Quran matches what
17:46they tell him from the previous
17:47scriptures then that will clear up his
17:50doubts if he had any regarding what the
17:52Quran's telling him. Correct?
17:55Okay, let's go with it. Let's grant it.
17:56Yeah. Next. Next. Yeah. Go.
17:58>> Awesome. So, that would clear up his
18:00doubts if he saw that it lined up. Okay.
18:02So, this means that the inverse is true.
18:04That if he doubted and went to them
18:07>> and they told him the opposite of what
18:09the Quran was saying, then this would
18:11actually verify his doubts and he
18:13wouldn't have good reason to trust what
18:14the Quran is saying. Right.
18:16>> This is so weak. You have to understand
18:19how what's it called? Mafu Mhalifa
18:21works.
18:22is a is a principle in and it's a
18:27principle which is what is known in
18:30diametric opposition. Okay, it's not
18:32actually true that if I say for example,
18:35okay, don't if you drink this hot tea
18:39then you will be u you will be in a
18:42position where you you have to go to the
18:43toilet. Okay, it doesn't mean that if I
18:46don't drink the hot tea that I will
18:48definitely not go to the toilet, does
18:49it? So what you're saying is not by
18:51conditional. There's no reason for you
18:53to think it's by conditional that it
18:54works in a symmetrical manner. This is
18:56the the weakness of Christian
18:58apologetics nowadays. You can't even
19:00think logically. The problem is you
19:02can't even actually think properly. And
19:03the and the issue is if you did
19:05propositional logic course 101 in school
19:07before you flunked out and did whatever
19:10you done. Yeah. If you did that to be
19:12honest with you, you bucktooth apologist
19:15smiling again cuz he's been caught out
19:16once again. The point is if you
19:18understood how by conditionality works,
19:20how if one thing is happens the other
19:22thing, then you wouldn't come with these
19:24weak arguments. Okay? There is nothing
19:26in the Quran that indicates or in the
19:29hadith that indicates that if the
19:31prophet Muhammad were to go to the
19:33Christian or the Jew and that if he were
19:35to correct him, he would have to now uh
19:38go in line with what the Christian or
19:39the Jew said because the Quran itself
19:42edits the Bible. It conscientiously
19:44corrects the Bible.
19:46>> For example, in the Quran
19:49in the Quran in chapter 50 of the Quran,
19:50hold on. The Quran, the author is aware,
19:53is he not? My question to you, the
19:55author is aware, is he not in chapter 50
19:58of the Quran where it says
20:01that no tidness touched him when he
20:04created the heavens and the earth. He's
20:05aware of what what was said in Genesis
20:08chapter 1 and also in the book of Exodus
20:11where it says that God rested and he
20:13refreshed Naf. So clearly it's
20:15correcting something in the Bible,
20:17correcting something in the hands of the
20:18Christians and the Jews. is correcting
20:20it. And that's why the Quran calls
20:22itself a mu. Muhe means the corrector.
20:25It's the one that corrects it or mu and
20:27al it's the correct. So you're saying to
20:30me shotgunning indicates that the
20:32opposite is true. Then that must mean
20:34that you have no idea of the Quran. You
20:36have no idea of tap. You have no idea of
20:39what the scholars of Islam said. You
20:40have no idea of hadith. And that's what
20:42happens when you put forward when the
20:44Christian pmical community put forward
20:46an individual who doesn't know the
20:48Arabic language who doesn't know who
20:51doesn't know Quran who doesn't know
20:53anything he's never learned Islamic
20:55studies in his life and you put him
20:57forward to discuss things with me you
20:59came here too early you should have had
21:01a couple of other journeymen you should
21:02have gone to the street and spoke to the
21:04people the Quran actually says the
21:06opposite of what you're saying in
21:07chapter 5 speak bro
21:10>> the Quran says you you lied upon the
21:12Quran by saying that the Quran is
21:13indicating that if
21:15>> how long you going to preach that man
21:17let's tell Muhammad if the prophet
21:18Muhammad were to go to a Christian the
21:20Christian corrects him then he must
21:22follow that the Quran says the opposite
21:24of that the Quran says that well
21:28which means
21:30that is a guardian is a is something
21:34which distinguishes between truth and
21:36falsehood sovereign over the over the
21:39previous scriptures
21:40>> you're telling No, bro. What's going on?
21:42Is this a dialogue or not? You
21:44monologuing, preaching. You
21:46>> ask your next question because if this
21:47is your strongest argument, I don't see
21:48how it is.
21:49>> Okay. So, you saying nuh-uh nuh-uh is
21:52not a a reputation of the argument. Let
21:54me even start. Let me start with your
21:56example. Get to the point. I'm at the
21:58point. Let me start with your example.
22:00Remember, you spoke for the longest. So,
22:01please give me the same respect. You You
22:04said that if you drink this hot tea, if
22:06you say if you drink this hot tea, then
22:08you'll have to go to the bathroom.
22:10doesn't necessarily mean that if you
22:11don't drink the hot tea that you won't
22:13necessarily have to go to the bathroom.
22:14That's a false equivalence because in
22:17the in the example in your phrase that
22:19you're saying that the the tea is going
22:22to cause you to go to the bathroom means
22:24that if you don't drink the tea then the
22:26tea is not going to cause you to go to
22:28the bathroom. Look at this. This really
22:32none of none of this is helping you. The
22:34nervous laughter is not going to get
22:36you.
22:36>> Stupid man you are. I got you. So, bro.
22:40So, so again, so again, according to the
22:43according to the passage, this is what
22:44you got, this is what you need to help
22:45me do.
22:46>> Okay, I got you. So, this is what you
22:48need to help me do.
22:50>> Since you conceded, Since you conceded,
22:52Muhammad,
22:55>> since you conceded, next question,
22:57please. You conceded that Muhammad can
23:00get clarity on the uncertainty of what
23:03the Quran is saying by going to the
23:05previous scriptures. You did. Now,
23:08brother, we're going to rewind your
23:09words and play it back in front of you.
23:11You need to watch your clip back, dude.
23:13>> Saying you've ever said it. You know,
23:16look, Avery,
23:16>> notice how you're interrupting me, man.
23:18Why can't I speak?
23:19>> Avery Avery, hold on.
23:20>> Why can't I speak? Look, look, be fair.
23:23You're a Christian. You got to let me
23:24get my argument off.
23:26Your mental opportunity.
23:27>> You conceived it earlier and now you're
23:29saying you never said that. We all saw
23:31it. All of us. Huh? You're mental. This
23:33is absolutely embarrassing. Nuhuh. Uhuh.
23:35Nuh-uh.
23:36>> One second. One second. You said clarity
23:38on what the Quran is saying. I never
23:40once said any of that. I never once said
23:42any of that. I never once said any of
23:44that. You did, bro. Now you're lying up
23:46here. Remember, you're the qualified guy
23:47and you have to take back your words
23:49like this.
23:49>> Okay. All right. I didn't say anything
23:51about clarity of what the Quran is
23:53saying. I didn't say clarity of what the
23:55uncertain things the Quran is saying. I
23:57didn't say anything about that. Okay.
23:59I've clearly said to you the position.
24:00The position is this. The position is
24:03the Quran says that it's a mu which
24:06means it's a guardian and it sives out
24:09it filters. It's a filter for the truth
24:12of a guardian. I thought it was hold on
24:15and how do you explain that please? How
24:18do you explain before you do the Muslim
24:20shuffle? the hijab twostep. But first,
24:22you should argue that the Quran says
24:24Muhammad. If you know what you said,
24:26sure,
24:26>> I'll explain it. The Quran. So, it
24:29depends on your interpretation because
24:30you have some interpreters that
24:32interpreted that Muhammad that it was
24:34Muhammad who was a Muhammad over the
24:36Quran. And so then if you're going to be
24:38consistent, then you're going to have to
24:39say that Muhammad is an authority or
24:41corruptor or it's words of Allah. That's
24:43not what anyone say. You hold and the
24:46Quran is mu. Wait, hold on. The the
24:49Quran is al mu. It's called al mu.
24:53>> Would you like to see that say otherwise
24:55that say Muhammad's man the Muhammad?
24:57>> The Quran the the verse is very clear
25:00that the Quran is the Muhamm.
25:02>> Now to everybody to some of your
25:04scholars they said Muhammad is the
25:06Muhammad.
25:07>> You see look you're having to lie now.
25:08This is quite pathetic.
25:09>> Do you want me to show you? Can I share
25:10my screen?
25:11>> No no no you don't need to share
25:12anything. You're wasting no wasting.
25:14What are you laughing at? It's the
25:15Quran. The Quran. You don't like
25:18Muhammad. You don't like Muhammad. Okay.
25:20>> Oh man. This is a joy.
25:22>> What you laughing at? What you laughing
25:23at? I get I'm let you know. I lost the
25:25same skill set on my everyday Monday
25:27from Monday, Wednesday, Friday stream.
25:29You're no different than the everyday
25:31Muslim. What does mean? What does hukan
25:33mean?
25:33>> Means criterion.
25:35>> Okay. So what does it mean? What a
25:38standard of truth that tells you what's
25:39right and WHAT'S WRONG.
25:45THERE YOU GO.
25:48GUESS WHAT? THE QURAN SAYS THE TOY IS
25:51also
26:02hear what you're saying. I can't hear.
26:03Tell me something else. I just said I
26:05just said that according to your Quran,
26:08the Torah is alan. In chapter 21:48 and
26:11in chapter 2:53 the term is African.
26:22>> So what do you got to say about that?
26:24The Torah is the Quran or not? Is the
26:25Quran for or not? Is it?
26:27>> Yes. So is the Torah. So is the Torah?
26:29>> Yes. Torah in it own right. By the way,
26:32so is the Torah. Correct. Is that
26:34correct? The Torah is also for chapter
26:3625. Yeah. It doesn't say the Torah. It
26:40says I just said chapter 21:48. It says
26:43that we gave Moses and Aaron the
26:45scripture and the criterion.
26:48Torah, right? That's true. That's true.
26:49That's true. I know it's true. Hold on.
26:52Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold
26:54on. Can't both be true.
26:56What was given to Aaron and Hold on,
26:58hold on.
26:59>> So, what was given to Aaron was a right?
27:01>> Say it again.
27:02>> Look at me or what?
27:03>> Yeah. Aaron and given to dress for the
27:06occasion. I'm getting my getting messy.
27:08Hold on.
27:08>> Is what was given to Are you okay?
27:11What's this guy doing? Is it Get out of
27:13here. You want You want to throw the
27:14towel? You want to throw the towel, boy?
27:17You want to throw the towel?
27:18>> Oh, come on. I need to dress. It works.
27:21It works for the occasion.
27:24>> Sit down. Sit down. Sit down.
27:25>> I need to dress for the occasion. He
27:27needs to do this. He needs to do this,
27:28doesn't he?
27:29>> He's getting agitated.
27:30>> I need to I need to dress for the
27:32occasion, man.
27:33>> Okay.
27:34>> Okay. All right. So, now here's the
27:36question. Here's here's the question,
27:37too. Are we done with your
27:39>> Are we Are we Are we done with your
27:40logic? Are we done with your dile
27:42dilemma?
27:43>> Uh, no. You haven't you haven't dealt
27:44with it yet. You just said an answer.
27:46>> You want to ask me now?
27:47>> Okay. So So, so continuing with the
27:49argument because you said you never said
27:50this. You said you never said this. So,
27:52I'm going to make you say it again.
27:53>> What's your question? What's your
27:54question? About to give it to you. Said
27:56this. I'm about to give it to you. I'm
27:58about to give it to you. I'm about to
27:59give it to What's your question? What's
28:01your question?
28:01>> All right. So when Allah tells Muhammad,
28:04>> yeah,
28:05>> if you are in doubt
28:07>> about what we have revealed to you, if
28:09you're uncertain about the truth, about
28:10what we revealed to you like four or
28:12five times, right?
28:13>> Because you keep flip-flopping like
28:14flip.
28:15>> You asked this question like four or
28:16five times, haven't you?
28:17>> Because you keep saying you said it and
28:18you didn't say it. The relation of yes,
28:19no, yes.
28:20>> You understand? You understand that the
28:22Quran is referred to as bim and furan.
28:25Okay. You can't get away from that.
28:26Okay. Which means it's the criterion.
28:28All right. Of course, you said it's the
28:29criterion. You understand that the Quran
28:32is a criterion over the previous You
28:35understand? You understand that when
28:38Prophet Muhammad wasallam
28:41reading aspects of the Torah, he told
28:43them that you have been given something
28:45you don't need to read this which is the
28:46Quran.
28:47>> Say that again.
28:48>> Are you say that again? You
28:49>> want me to say that one more time?
28:50>> Yeah, please. When when the prophet
28:52Muhammad wasallam saw Omar Katab reading
28:55aspects of the Tawat of the time which
28:58were preserved some aspects were
28:59preserved and he was reading it he said
29:01that you've been given something which
29:02replaces this. So the point is the point
29:05is this the prophet wasallam mentioned
29:07yeah in aith
29:12you know this hadith do not bely them
29:14and do not believe them about the people
29:16of the past
29:20do not believe them and do not bely them
29:21do you know this hadith in mkari
29:22>> yes so what what does he say so so so
29:25hold on there are aspects of noct of
29:28these let me finish let me finish what
29:30I'm saying
29:30>> finish the hadith
29:34Let me explain to you. And no, finish
29:37the last line. You're skipping a line.
29:38That'sith
29:50English. Do not bel do not bel them and
29:53do not believe them. You can speak of
29:56Israel.
29:58Yeah. With no issues.
29:59>> No, that's not what he says. That's not
30:01what he says. Okay, let me let me teach
30:04you. He says
30:09this means them and do not believe them.
30:12Which means that there's aspects of
30:13what's in circulation.
30:16This is why this is important.
30:19I got you. He says, "Do not believe them
30:21nor disbelieve them, but say we have we
30:24believe in what was revealed to us and
30:26what is revealed to you." You just read
30:29it, didn't you?
30:34The point I'm making is am I correct? Do
30:36not believe them. Do not bel them. So
30:38the issue is this.
30:38>> So what are they supposed to say?
30:39>> Yeah. Yeah. And tell them that we've
30:41believed in what was revealed to Abraham
30:42and Jacob and Isaac, etc. in the Quran.
30:44It's mentioned.
30:45>> So he you're supposed to believe in what
30:47you have corrected.
30:48>> He recites caught lying on your own
30:50hadith. Sorry. Say again. You're caught
30:52lying and misquing your own hadith. I
30:54have your What are you talking about,
30:57man? Are you stupid?
31:00The Quran says that the hadith says that
31:02don't bely them and don't believe them.
31:04Which means that there's something in
31:05circulation. There is something in
31:07circulation from which is you may remain
31:11agnostic about. If the Quran contradicts
31:15it, then the Quran takes precedence.
31:18That's why never said that
31:23they didn't kill him, they didn't
31:24crucify, but it was made to appear.
31:26Clearly, it's correcting something,
31:27isn't it? In the New Testament. Let me
31:29touch on this because you're messing up
31:30your Is the Quran correcting the New
31:32Testament? It is not. And guess what?
31:34Muhammad correcting the New Testament.
31:37Let me answer. Is the Quran correcting
31:39the New Testament?
31:40>> Question. Let me answer. The answer is
31:42the answer is no. And Muhammad never
31:45ever ever says that the Quran is
31:48correcting the previous scriptures. Say
31:50that.
31:52Let me finish. The Quran's correcting.
31:53Wait, hold on.
31:56You got to let me finish, man.
31:58>> Let me ask you a question. Let me ask
31:59you a question. You trying to jump.
32:02>> When the Quran says,
32:04>> "Stop trying to not like the rest, man.
32:07Stay in there."
32:08>> Hold on for a second, Avery. Otherwise,
32:09we can't We can't speak over each other.
32:10Let me ask
32:11>> You're speaking over me.
32:12>> I You're not letting me speak.
32:15>> I just let you finish and ask me a
32:16question. You didn't let me finish my
32:17answer.
32:18>> Let me Let me tell you. I'll ask you a
32:19question. Let me ask
32:20>> You're about to ask and let me speak.
32:21>> Correct.
32:22>> You're going to You're going to give me
32:23an answer. to ask you the question,
32:24right? So, can I qualify my answer
32:26though? Can you let me ask you the
32:28question so you can answer?
32:28>> Of course, but I want to know if I
32:29short. Let me ask you the question.
32:31Don't be too scared. Don't be worried.
32:32Don't be nervous. I know that you know
32:34you must be scared because you don't
32:35even let me ask.
32:36>> It doesn't work on me. Are you Can you
32:38assure me that when you scared?
32:40>> Can you assure me that I will be allowed
32:42to answer your question?
32:42>> Can you ask the question? Let me just
32:44ask you the question.
32:44>> Will you allow me to answer the
32:46question? Let me ask you the question.
32:47Let me ask you the question.
32:48>> So, I'm going to answer in when you ask.
32:50>> Go ahead.
32:50>> Okay. So, you're not letting me say
32:52anything? Yeah,
32:52>> I'm letting you go. I'm just saying I'm
32:54going to answer in full.
32:55>> When the Quran says,
33:00yeah, that no weariness touched God that
33:04Allah he created the heavens and the
33:06earth and
33:09no weariness touched him. Yeah. Is that
33:12a correction of the Genesis and Exodus
33:16narrative or not? Yes or no? Is it
33:18correcting what's in the hands of the
33:19Bible or not? Is it correcting or not?
33:21I'm gonna answer you in full. The answer
33:24is no. It is not a correction. No, it is
33:27not a correction. The Bible doesn't even
33:28teach tiredness. Notice how it doesn't
33:32even teach that tiredness touched God.
33:35In fact, it talks about him ceasing
33:37working on the seventh day. Not that he
33:39was actually tired. So, if you knew your
33:41own, let me
33:44hold on. If you knew your own, you know
33:46that there's a verse allowing me to
33:47answer. You must BE BOY. YOU MUST BE
33:51SCARED, BOY.
33:53>> Let me finish. Let's go back to the
33:56hadith that you are referring to.
33:58>> Hold on. Hold on. It says, "Don't
34:00believe what they say nor disbelieve
34:02what they say." This is what you respond
34:04to.
34:04>> Why you changing the subject?
34:05>> We believe. Let me finish.
34:06>> Why you changing the subject?
34:07>> No, you're the one who changed the
34:08subject. You brought this. Hold on. Hold
34:11on. Hold on.
34:11>> You brought this up, but now you're
34:13getting screwed. Now you're getting Why
34:15you running? Why you running? says, "Say
34:17believe in what was revealed to us."
34:21>> Avery, what was revealed to you? Avery,
34:23listen.
34:24>> So, hold on. Are you supposed to believe
34:25in what was going to listen or not? No.
34:27Are you going to listen? I don't listen
34:28to you.
34:29>> Are you So, answer the question.
34:31>> Let me let me let me tell you what I'm
34:32saying to me.
34:33>> Let me tell you what I'm saying and then
34:34you can say what you want to say.
34:36>> You said that. Let me speak, man. Just
34:38give me 20 seconds
34:40again.
34:41>> If you It's not a dialogue if if we
34:43can't speak to each other. You're the
34:45only one speaking over me. Hijab,
34:46>> if you let me speak for 20 seconds, then
34:48you can respond for 20 seconds.
34:50Otherwise, you're trying to you you get
34:52it.
34:53>> Okay. So, what I'm trying to say is that
34:54in the book of Genesis, it's mentioned,
34:57yeah, that God rested. However, in the
34:59book of Exodus, chapter number 31 verse
35:02number 17, okay, in that verse, the word
35:06is that he not only rested, but he
35:07refreshed. And the Hebrew word is
35:09nafash. So here clearly in the Old
35:12Testament corpus you have this idea of
35:15God actually literally resting. If you
35:18find if you look at all of the the the
35:20the the rabbitical commentary about that
35:22it's an actual rest. So the point is
35:24this you're saying when the Quran says
35:28in chapter number 50 in that it's not
35:31correcting this. So what is it
35:33correcting then? Why is it mentioning
35:34that?
35:36>> All right. So again,
35:38>> um the the author of the Quran is
35:41actually unfamiliar with what is in the
35:43Bible. He only goes by word of Allah. So
35:46notice you said that I can speak. Notice
35:48how you said I can speak. I let you
35:49speak. Unin
35:50>> Okay, go ahead.
35:51>> I already answered you. No, it is not a
35:54correction. Muhammad is ignorant of what
35:56is in the previous scriptures and he's
35:58only going by word of mouth. Here's an
35:59example. The example is what you brought
36:02up in the hadith that you had no idea
36:04about. The hadith says that you're
36:06referring to it says that the Jews used
36:08to recite the Torah in Hebrew and then
36:11explain it in Arabic.
36:13>> Okay. So before
36:16let me finish this one.
36:17>> Let me finish. Let me finish.
36:21Go on to speak.
36:22>> I appreciate it. So according to the
36:24hadith that you brought up, it destroys
36:26you because it shows that they're
36:27hearing by word of mouth. They're having
36:29the Torah explained to them in Arabic by
36:31some of the Jews. Then in response,
36:33Muhammad says, "Don't believe what they
36:35say, nor disbelieve what they say, but
36:38in response say,"We believe in what was
36:41revealed to us and what was revealed to
36:42you." So they can't trust the Jews on if
36:45they're lying or not of what their
36:46scriptures say, cuz they don't know it.
36:47They don't know the scriptures
36:48themselves. They're only going by word
36:50of mouth. So Muhammad is not correcting
36:52nothing. He's ignorant of the
36:53scriptures.
36:53>> Okay. So I've let you speak. Is it my
36:55time to respond?
36:56>> Thank you. I appreciate it. Finally.
36:57>> Yeah. Fine. By the way, don't forget
36:59that Muhammad point because I I'm going
37:02to show you that Mujah is the one that
37:03said that Muhammad was the Muhammad over
37:05the Quran. Give me a second. Let me
37:06speak. Let me respond.
37:08>> I've given you one example. Okay, one
37:10example is in the book of Exodus,
37:12chapter number 31 and the book of
37:14Genesis, chapter number one, there's
37:16this idea of rest. Now, you can say
37:18Genesis is not rest is ceasing to work,
37:19but you can't say that with the book of
37:20Exodus. And therefore, the Quran says in
37:23more than one occasion, by the way, it
37:24actually says this many times inah it
37:27mentions
37:28in chapter 46 in chapter number 50 it
37:30mentions that no no we has touched him
37:33no the tide has touched him so clearly
37:35there's a correction going on but you
37:36don't want to believe that no problem
37:37the Quran says
37:41the Quran clearly is responding to a
37:44biblical narrative it's clearly
37:47responding to a Christian narrative
37:49saying they did not kill him they did
37:50not crucify him
37:53it was made to appear as if they So the
37:57question is this is the Quran with this
38:00verse
38:04is it aware of what is being said by
38:07Christians. Is this correct that they
38:08say that he he was killed and crucified?
38:10Is that correct representation? And is
38:12it then correcting that or not? Yes or
38:14no? Beautiful. So now I get to fully
38:17answer. So this is what you're this is
38:19notice the difference. The answer is
38:22yes. Here's a quick answer to yes.
38:24>> Yes. It is correcting what people
38:27say, "Yeah, now we're talking." is
38:29correcting what they say, not what the
38:32scriptures say,
38:34>> but the Christians and the Jews. So,
38:36notice how notice how Let me Let me
38:37land. I let you speak uninterrupted.
38:39Right.
38:40>> So, thank you. I appreciate it. So,
38:42notice the difference. At first, you
38:44were arguing that Muhammad is aware of
38:47what the scripture says and is
38:49correcting the scripture, not just what
38:51the Jews and Christians say. But you
38:53just changed your question to is
38:55Muhammad aware of what the Christians
38:57say and is therefore correcting what the
38:59Christians say. And the answer to that
39:01is yes. Unbeknownst to him that what
39:04they are saying is actually in the in
39:07the gospel. So Muhammad is going against
39:11the Christians unknowingly going against
39:14the gospel. And here's the point. This
39:16is why. Hold on. Let
39:19>> keep talking. Actually I appreciate it.
39:22I didn't realize this, but
39:25I didn't realize this actually. Please
39:27keep talking.
39:28Thank you. So, what you're going to have
39:30to deal Thank you. So, this is what
39:32you're going to have to deal with. What
39:33you're going to have to deal with is
39:35Muhammad commanding you not to just not
39:38to believe what we say or disbelieve
39:40what we say. Notice he never goes
39:42against the scripture. Show me anywhere
39:45anywhere where Muhammad says, "Don't
39:48believe in what the scripture says."
39:50Man, what are you talking?
39:50>> Show me one time where mom said
39:51>> Avery, let's go back to the point.
39:53>> This is the point, please.
39:54>> Avery, hold on. This is what you said.
39:57You said that it was a correction. Okay,
40:00it was a correction. You You admitted
40:02you actually I'm surprised and I have to
40:04I have to commend you actually.
40:05>> Yeah.
40:06>> I thought you'd be a belligerent young
40:07man.
40:08>> Okay. I thought, you know, you put on
40:10the hat, you put a humble, but I have to
40:12say you're better than I thought you'd
40:14be. You're better than I thought. You
40:16you do you do have a future in in in
40:19content creation and in in influencing.
40:21>> You do have a future this and you you
40:23know what there's some I'm starting to
40:25like him.
40:26>> Yeah.
40:27>> Yeah. He's got some he's got some good
40:28qualities. But just
40:29>> that's usually the effect I have on
40:31people
40:31>> because don't just smile like that
40:32because you look like a buck buck to uh
40:37put
40:40a we're having we're having a good time.
40:42>> This is a humble chef. I like to cook
40:44giant.
40:45>> Okay. Whatever. Let me just say this to
40:47you, right?
40:48>> The point I'm making to you is is is
40:49this. You have just admitted when the
40:52Quran says,
40:55"Yeah, that I didn't say anything."
40:57>> No, no, no. Let me finish what I'm
40:58saying. Let me finish. But you just
41:00misrepresented me. I never said about
41:01anything.
41:02>> I didn't even say anything yet.
41:03>> Yes, you did. You said that what I
41:04admitted that what the Quran says I
41:07never said anything about what the Quran
41:08says. We're talking about what Muhammad
41:10said. I
41:11>> haven't finished my sentence. So, you
41:12would you couldn't have known what I'm
41:14saying. Go ahead, bro.
41:15>> I said when the Quran when the Quran
41:17said
41:22they did not kill him, they did not
41:24crucify him. Where it was made to appear
41:26to them that that was the case. Yeah.
41:29You admitted that that was what you
41:31thought was a correction of Muhammad of
41:34the Christian community, but you thought
41:36he didn't know what's in the New
41:37Testament. Okay. He didn't know what's
41:39in the New Testament, yet it's still a
41:41correction somehow. The point is, is the
41:43crucifixion mentioned in the New
41:44Testament? Yes, the crucifixion is
41:46without a doubt mentioned in the New
41:48Testament, and it's mentioned multiple
41:50times in multiple reports. It says in
41:52the Quran that it was made to appear to
41:54them that it was the case, it didn't
41:57really happen. This is a correction of
42:00the Quran which shows the author of the
42:02Quran whether you believe it's the
42:04prophet Muhammad or we believe it's
42:05Allah. The author of the Quran was fully
42:08aware of what was in that book and he
42:11was fully aware what was in circulation
42:12with Christians and Jews. And not only
42:14did he reject it, he corrected it. Is
42:17that true or is that false? False again.
42:20So I don't know I I don't know how many
42:22times you want me to answer this for
42:23you. Hijab I don't know how many times
42:25you want me to answer this. I I'll break
42:27it down. And remember, I'm going to
42:29break it down in in unqualified terms.
42:31And maybe this will help you out. What
42:33we're talking about is what Muhammad is
42:36saying regarding what the people say,
42:39not the scriptures. So when the Quran
42:42says, "Oh, uh, they for," this is the
42:45example, for their boasting. For their
42:48boasting, we killed the Messiah. We
42:51killed the Hold on a second.
42:52>> For their boasting, this is chapter four
42:54about the crucifixion verse.
42:55>> What is this? For their boasting,
42:58they say, "We killed the Messiah, son of
43:01son of uh son of Mary." Notice this. Can
43:04you please listen? I need you to pay
43:05attention this time so you can learn
43:06this.
43:07>> The Quran is addressing what people are
43:10saying. It's never addressing what the
43:12scriptures themselves say.
43:14>> Why? Because Muhammad didn't know.
43:17>> Because he was ignorant. What you need
43:20to do, hijab, what you need to This is
43:21what I need to do. This is what I need
43:23you to do. I've got a question.
43:24>> I need you to Let me finish.
43:25>> I've got a I've got a question for you.
43:26I've got an honest question.
43:28>> Ask it after I'm done.
43:29>> I've got a question for you on this
43:30point. I've got a question for you.
43:32Please
43:32>> ask it after I'm done.
43:34>> No, ask it after 20 seconds. Should I
43:35give you 20 seconds?
43:36>> No, I need more time than that cuz you
43:37didn't have like 15 seconds.
43:39>> Let me speak. When I when I finish, I'm
43:42good.
43:43>> Okay. Okay. I appreciate it. So, we're
43:46talking about what they say, not what
43:48the scriptures say. What you would need
43:50to do for me, hijab,
43:51>> is give me any hadith. You got thousands
43:53to pick from. Give me any hadith where
43:55Muhammad talks about or discredits what
43:58the scriptures say, not what the people
44:00say. That's number one. Number two, what
44:02I would like for you to do is show me
44:04where the Quran say uh critiques what
44:07the scripture says. It says this is in
44:09the scripture and then it and then it
44:10goes on to correct or address what the
44:13scripture says uh and says that that's
44:15wrong. Okay. Don't show me cuz this is
44:17all we have. Show me a couple things. I
44:19promise I'm about to land.
44:21>> Okay. What we have in the Quran and from
44:22Muhammad, Muhammad says in jammy altern
44:3389, chapter 2 verse 91, chapter 4 vers 7
44:37vers 101, it says the Quran is
44:39confirming what is with them. Never do
44:42we ever see one unambiguous statement.
44:44>> Okay,
44:45>> one unequivical verse where the Quran is
44:47correcting the previous scriptures
44:48textually.
44:49>> Beautiful. Let me let me respond.
44:50>> Speak anything. Hadith of the Quran.
44:52>> I've already mentioned to you before and
44:54I don't know if you got this point.
44:55Yeah.
44:55>> Does the Quran mention that that's in
44:56the scripture?
44:56>> You know, have you spoken? Have I let
44:58you speak?
44:58>> You did interrupt me a little bit.
45:00>> Okay. So, is it my turn now to can I
45:02respond?
45:03>> Yeah, sure. If you can answer that, if
45:04you can answer my question directly.
45:06>> So, yeah. The point is yes or no.
45:08>> I made this point to the your previous
45:10the previous guest that we had. When I
45:12was saying that whenever the Quran
45:13mentions for example the probably the
45:15clearest verse is in I'll help you with
45:17it.
45:21Yeah. Which is that they see the prophet
45:24mentioned with them. Okay. With them. So
45:26it indicates there's something going on
45:28with them. They have something with
45:29them. Right.
45:30>> The in the Torah says explicitly.
45:32>> Yeah. So it's Torah and Injil. There's
45:34an aspect of that which is with them.
45:36Now the question is this.
45:37>> What does it say?
45:37>> Is it Can I Can I finish this?
45:40>> I didn't I didn't know we were
45:41butchering texts.
45:42>> Okay. Butchering texts. I I'll explain
45:44to you why it's not butchering text cuz
45:46this is things I've learned when I was
45:47in university when I was doing the Azar
45:49degree.
45:50>> You learned it from Orthodox Muslim.
45:51Nice.
45:51>> No, no, no. No. I learned this what I'm
45:53going to tell you now. An orthodox
45:54Muslim did teach me a few things as
45:55well. Actually, we were sitting down
45:56here saying I'm starting to like this
45:58guy.
45:59>> Yeah. Started like this guy. You kind of
46:01humble man.
46:02>> What do you mean?
46:04Orthodox Muslim is my guy, brother. He's
46:06he's our guy, brother.
46:10I'm happy you can admit you think I have
46:11a problem with a with a with a person
46:13who has
46:13>> I'm happy you can admit that you think I
46:15care about that.
46:16>> Yeah. So where in the text does it say
46:18in our religion we we we take knowledge
46:20from whoever.
46:21>> In fact where does it say that
46:27someone who is two people don't learn
46:29you're one of them by the way which one
46:31of them is a shy person the other one's
46:32the arrogant person. So let me tell you
46:34this.
46:34>> Oh so you're the arrogant person.
46:35>> There's two people who don't like learn.
46:37Is it
46:38>> there? But you just described yourself.
46:40>> Sure. Sure. Maybe you're right about
46:41that. Actually, you're probably right.
46:42>> Okay. Putting that to the side for now.
46:44Let me ask let me tell you this.
46:46>> What I learned when I was in university
46:47was that there's a principle called
46:51Yeah. which is that using the whole to
46:54refer to a part of a thing. So for
46:56example, yeah, in the Quran in chapter
46:5812, it says
47:00ask the town. Okay. Ask the town. What
47:04it means to say is ask the people of the
47:06town. But this is a rhetorical device
47:07that's mentioned.
47:08>> So the whole town is represented by a
47:11part of the town is represented by the
47:13whole of the object. Number one. Number
47:16two in the Quran it says in chapter 71
47:23that they put their fingers in their
47:24ears. Right? Now they don't put their
47:26entire fingers in their ears. They put a
47:27part of the fingers in the ears. So the
47:29the point the point is in English you
47:31call this part uh Tatum propartum. Yeah.
47:35Tatum propum which is the idea of using
47:38a gen a general statement to talk about
47:40a whole other thing. So if I say the
47:41United States won the match or if I say
47:44that England won the match doesn't mean
47:46every single person in the country won
47:47the match. So the the point is this this
47:50principle super extends to all of those
47:52instances in the Quran where it
47:54indicates that okay it speaks in generic
47:58terms. when it says
48:01or or any of those terms meaning with
48:03them it indicates a part of those things
48:05not the whole of the thing okay so
48:07unless you're able to undo this
48:08principle which is a principle not just
48:10in Arabic linguistics but in all of the
48:12languages in the world actually
48:14including English yeah then you don't
48:16have a case unfortunately as I said the
48:17the scholars of Islam people like
48:21they have made it very clear that they
48:23believe that what's in with the
48:25Christians and the Jews today is corrupt
48:28That is which scholars? Which scholars?
48:31>> I said in
48:34he mentions that we and our friends he
48:36says this
48:38that me and our friends say that what's
48:40in the hands of the the the Christians
48:45is
48:47it is it is distorted textually.
48:51>> That's what I can you show us the
48:52reference.
48:53>> Yeah, it's in I can pull it up for you.
48:56>> I can't right now. I'm drinking my tea.
48:58I'm sitting down. You can find that. You
48:59think I'd lied to you about that or
49:00online people. You've been lying.
49:03>> This is uncontroversial. Avery, this is
49:04I'm Barry.
49:06>> Let me show you why this No, I know
49:08there are some corrupted.
49:10>> I know there are some scholars who
49:11didn't believe that. I know.
49:13>> Yeah. Yeah. I know that. I know there
49:15are some scholars. And see, I'm loving
49:17your honesty. So, there's some scholars
49:19who believe in sexual corruption. Some
49:21scholars who believe in wholesale
49:22preservation. That's beautiful. Good
49:23job. Good job.
49:25>> You don't believe in Let me tell you
49:26this. So Ib Tamir believed in the
49:27following. He didn't believe in
49:28wholesome preservation. He believed that
49:30he compared in his what do you call he
49:33had a whole book called the uh correct
49:36response to the Jews and the Christians.
49:38Yeah. And in this book basically he says
49:41this. He says the similitude of the
49:43Bible okay is like the similitude of the
49:45weak hadith. Okay. So we we treat the
49:48Bible like we treat weak hadith. And
49:50that's considered to be a strong version
49:53of Okay.
49:54Huh? What does Bkari say? Abkari there's
49:57a difference of opinion about him. Like
49:59so for example Hajbar who obviously is
50:02interpreting Albkari because fat is an
50:05interpretation of Bkari. Yeah says that
50:08al Bkari has this view which indicates
50:11that they may have had some kind of
50:13preserved text at the time.
50:15>> Okay. He indicates
50:16>> may have says they definitely says that.
50:20I don't think he says that. I don't he's
50:21unsure about it. But what I'm saying to
50:23you is that you can interpret Bkari
50:25maybe like that. Yeah, you can. But what
50:27I'm saying to you is,
50:29>> huh, Bkari, that's what he says.
50:30>> Some scholars of Islam might have
50:32believed in this. I'm not negating this
50:33point that the Jews and Christians at
50:35the time of the prophet had some kind of
50:36preserved text. Some means that our
50:39position is is completely Islamic that
50:41the scriptures are uncorrupt.
50:42>> Scholars of Islam, some scholars,
50:43classical scholars of Islam might have
50:45believed that. But as I said, as I said,
50:47yeah, of I have to be intellectually
50:48honest. What do you think? Uh I'm being
50:51I'm intellectually honest earlier.
50:53>> The point I'm making to you is
50:54>> the point I'm making to you is this.
50:56It's very clear that the scholars the
50:59overwhelming vast majority of Muslim
51:02scholars believed that what's in the
51:04hands of the Christians and the Jews is
51:06corrupt. That is clear.
51:08>> You said majority.
51:10>> The overwhelming vast majority of the
51:12Muslims,
51:13>> pardon,
51:13>> of the early Muslims.
51:15>> Sorry, of the early Muslims.
51:18The overwhelming vast majority of
51:20classical scholars throughout the
51:21medieval period throughout the early
51:22scholars the like Hassam had a very
51:25staunch view. He he what do you call it?
51:26He wro in the fourth century the fifth
51:28century. He believed that it's like
51:30toilet paper. It's like nothing. He
51:31believed the Bible of the of the time of
51:33his people were was very is distorted.
51:35That's what he believed.
51:36>> What is your what is your evidence that
51:37the majority of the early scholars of
51:39Islam
51:40>> believe that the previous scriptures
51:42were
51:43>> my evidence is what Kalani mentions in
51:45fat where he said that our
51:48>> Bkari says something else.
51:51>> Inn is interpreting Bkari. is the number
51:53one person who interprets Bkari in the
51:55world in the history of
51:56>> Bkari explicitly says
51:58>> you asked me to give you a reference I'm
52:00giving you one of the most premier and
52:02gold standard references in Islam you
52:04don't know it you you don't when was the
52:05hajj born when was that all of that is
52:09>> you don't know these people you don't
52:10know that's the thing you don't know
52:11these people you don't know these things
52:13you don't know these things you don't
52:15>> you know Bkari but you that's all you
52:17know yeah so
52:20>> he's calling him
52:22Yeah. Yeah. Abbas doesn't say anything
52:24about this. Abbas doesn't say you're all
52:26over the place. You're over the place.
52:29>> I know. I know the the hadith in Bkari
52:31about Abbas. I know.
52:32>> Oh, nice.
52:33>> And it's actually against that hadith is
52:35against you. But the point I'm making is
52:36this.
52:37>> Okay.
52:37>> The hadith is against you. But let's
52:39stop going
52:41is it's simple. It's simple. The
52:43overwhelming
52:45vast majority of Muslim scholars from
52:49the classical period until now believe
52:51that this Bible that we have in our
52:54hands is corrupt.
52:56>> Show me that. Don't just say that.
52:58>> And the reference of that reference
53:01>> and the reference of that is
53:04>> show us brother. You you can't be making
53:07what you show you. I don't mean you got
53:08all those books behind you. You don't
53:10got a reference. You don't have the
53:11source that didn't show me with me in
53:13this uh house. This is quite pathetic.
53:15You're asking me to go and get you a
53:17>> I'm asking you to provide evidence for
53:19what you're saying, not just claiming it
53:20cuz I can't trust anything you're
53:21saying.
53:22>> Well, we can get someone from the from
53:23the from the chats to get it. It's it's
53:25in. And it starts like this. I I
53:27remember I memorized the first he says
53:29that the majority of this I memorized
53:30the first part of what this is the best
53:32you're going to get. And for me to even
53:33memorize Yeah. This is surprising.
53:40that sum of our friends. He meaning when
53:44he says our friends he means the
53:50what is in the hands
53:51>> all of our friends
53:54>> yeah what is in the hands of the day the
53:57Jews and the Christians is corrupted and
54:01he mentions what kind of he goes on to
54:04say
54:05>> he goes on to say it's altered and
54:08corrupted from a textual perspective to
54:13see that because according to other
54:15scholars as you already agreed they
54:17don't hold that
54:19they don't know what to do for you right
54:21now I just I appreciate let me fine bro
54:24you just spoke for a long time let me
54:25respond
54:26>> goodness so you don't know about this
54:28>> just as you agree that there's other
54:29scholars there's the other side of
54:30Islamic scholarship
54:32>> that disagree with that position which
54:34and you're saying some of he says some
54:35of our friends
54:36>> where they believe in wholesale
54:38preservation of the scriptures and they
54:41quote verses the same verses that we use
54:43today that none can alter the words of
54:45Allah. They they even use the hadith
54:47that a lot of Muslims today try to say
54:49is is not authentic Abu Dh49 where
54:52Muhammad puts the Torah in the judgment
54:53seat. They use these arguments to
54:55substantiate right that says that you're
55:00right side that says on that point
55:03scriptures I know I'm right on that.
55:04Thank you for telling me. I appreciate
55:06it. There are there are some scholars
55:08who believed that the the the Bible
55:10sorry the Torah in the was preserved at
55:13the time of the prophet.
55:14>> Exactly. That was a minority view. Okay.
55:17That is a minority view. It's like this.
55:19Look, let me tell you this. In the
55:20Quran, there's two types of scholars.
55:22Some of them believe the earth was flat
55:24and some of them believed the earth was
55:25round.
55:26>> Okay? They looked at the verses of the
55:28Quran. Some of them looked at the vers
55:30of the Quran. They believed the earth
55:31was flat because of them. And some of
55:32them looked at the vers of the Quran.
55:33They said the earth was round because of
55:34them. Likewise, some people looked at
55:36the verses of the Quran and the vast
55:38majority of them interpreted it as
55:42that it is a distortion of the text both
55:44in text and in meaning. Okay. And a
55:47minority of them believed like you said
55:49which but you've exaggerated the claim.
55:51>> No, no, no. You you said it and I will
55:52admit it. It's true. Yeah. That some of
55:55the scholars of Islam scholars
55:57>> sorry
55:58>> heavy scholars, right?
56:00>> Well, I mean that's it's up for debate
56:01whether Bkari mentioned that or not.
56:03It's up for debate.
56:04>> No, it's it's No, it is up for debate.
56:06I've looked at the the text text myself.
56:07I I don't know what he says about that.
56:09It's it's hard. You can make a case for
56:10against either way. Either way, either
56:13way, Tamia has a strong view on it. He
56:16says that the what do you call it? The
56:17Bible is like the weak hadith. Haj says
56:20that the majority of people that what do
56:22you call it Hassam has a very strong
56:24view.
56:25>> IB believed that most of it was
56:27preserved.
56:28>> Yeah, he did say that.
56:29>> Mhm.
56:29>> He believed that most of it was
56:30preserved. But he said that the rest of
56:33it was like weak hadith and stuff like
56:35that. And he mentions the parts of the
56:37Bible which he believed were in
56:40congruent with the Quran. And he unlike
56:42what you said today said these can't be
56:44from God. Okay. So he has a whole book
56:47on that called All right.
56:49>> Which is which is something by way I got
56:51the reference here for you. I got the
56:52reference for you. Volume one page 161.
56:56Okay. And he says that it's our view
56:58that there's no disagreement against uh
57:00on the companions on this matter of
57:02there being a change. So Hazam is an
57:04early
57:06>> he believes lly he believes he believes
57:08there changed in a textual aspect.
57:09>> Does he say that?
57:10>> Yeah, he does say that he is very clear.
57:12>> Can you read the quote cuz you said you
57:13got the verse the the reference up.
57:16>> You can you can go to that. I've just
57:17told you that he believes that. You can
57:18go and and check the volume. Can you get
57:19the volume and the the thing get one of
57:21the guys to pull out for us? But you're
57:23asking me to pull out you know exact
57:25quotations. Is that the reference?
57:27>> It's now becoming now it's becoming
57:29ridiculous. Actually,
57:30>> it's ridiculous for me to ask.
57:33>> No, no problem. I'll get you the quotes
57:35that you want. I will get them. I'll get
57:36someone to get you the exact saying that
57:38that's ridiculous.
57:39>> No, no, no. But I don't have the books
57:40with me all all of a sudden.
57:42>> Then respectfully, don't mention it if
57:43you're not ready to present it.
57:44>> No. What do you mean? I've just
57:46mentioned the name of the book and the
57:47volume. If you want me to read the exact
57:49quotation, what do you want? This this
57:51is this is why I'm saying this hijab is
57:53because earlier when you were
57:54referencing the when you were
57:56referencing the hadith you misqued the
57:58hadith you didn't know what the hadith
57:59said. You only knew a part of it but you
58:01didn't know what the whole hadith said.
58:02This is why this is your memory
58:05reference now this what you said was the
58:07said the hadith the prophet himself said
58:09led to
58:12and then the part of it which is that
58:13don't bel them don't believe them. The
58:15other part of it wasn't hadith was
58:16actually a verse of the Quran. He
58:17recited a verse of the Quran
58:18>> in the hadith. Right.
58:20>> In the hadith. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. So
58:22that's why that you asked me about the
58:24hadith. The hadith is not we
58:26differentiate between the hadith and the
58:27Quran. That's why you mistake mistaken.
58:29>> Muham Muhammad the Quran verse in the
58:32hadith. What are you talking about?
58:34>> This is this. Yeah. Okay. So do you want
58:36me to read this for you?
58:38>> Yes.
58:40Okay. Let me see if this
58:52So he says this is he says that
58:56they wrote another book with their
58:58hands. Yeah
59:02that they said this is he's he's he is
59:04doing of which is you know the chapter
59:07279
59:09which says they wrote a different
59:11yeah he's he's interpreting that he's
59:14saying that it's a distortion of the
59:16text. Do you understand?
59:17>> Oh no no no worry. So, this is my this
59:19is my issue cuz I understand what you're
59:20saying. My issue is this. In that
59:22writing doesn't exist or hold on. No,
59:25cuz this is what I'm saying. Writing
59:27doesn't exist.
59:28>> You what you just read doesn't tell me
59:30that he believed that the Torah was
59:31textually corrupted simply because they
59:33wrote another book and tried to sell it
59:35for a small price. You have multiple
59:37interpretations on this matter.
59:40You mentioned Hold on. You mentioned
59:42Iban earlier with
59:44>> brother. Let me finish.
59:46allowed me. This is insane.
59:50>> Iban Tabbury talks about this and talks
59:52about how they wrote another book with
59:54their own hands. So has nothing to do
59:56with the itself.
59:57>> You wanted the reference.
59:58>> Avery, we're going to read it for you
59:59and we're moving on.
1:00:00>> Thank you. Go ahead.
1:00:01>> Okay. How can you ask the people of the
1:00:02book about something while the while
1:00:04your book which is was revealed to his
1:00:06messenger?
1:00:07>> That's another hadith, right?
1:00:08>> That's that's a hadith, right?
1:00:11>> You're asking me to to references,
1:00:13right? You ask me to provide references.
1:00:15cuz I'm reading the references and
1:00:16you're now you're complaining. What do
1:00:18you
1:00:18>> Is this reference to Hadith? Is this
1:00:21Saiukari the culture referencing,
1:00:23>> bro? Let's just read it and let's move
1:00:25on. It's too
1:00:26>> Okay, just leave this. I mean, to be
1:00:27honest with you,
1:00:30what are you laughing at? What are you
1:00:31laughing at? There's nothing.
1:00:33>> There's nothing to Look, Avery, you're
1:00:35not you're not wearing anything here.
1:00:37Genuine
1:00:38>> what whatever you say.
1:00:39>> Do you understand? Do you understand
1:00:41what I'm saying to you right now? I know
1:00:42this is high level. You wouldn't be
1:00:44allowed my class, brother.
1:00:45And this is what happens when you bring
1:00:47people. You wouldn't be allowed in my
1:00:48class because you're not understanding.
1:00:49You said that the I'm simply asking you
1:00:51a simple question.
1:00:52>> I'm asking you a do you understand?
1:00:55Can I ask you a question? Can I ask you
1:00:57a question?
1:00:58>> Why would you mix up the references? Do
1:01:00you understand that in Islamic
1:01:02scholarship that there are two views,
1:01:05one majority and one minority? And the
1:01:07majority I I disagree with you saying
1:01:10majority, but I do agree that there are
1:01:11two views on preservation of beautiful.
1:01:14Beautiful. Excellent. Avery, now
1:01:16>> I scholars that say that they're
1:01:18preserved.
1:01:19>> You said it's not unreasonable. What you
1:01:20said is not unreasonable. What you said
1:01:22is not unreasonable. Whether or not you
1:01:24believe it's the majority or minority
1:01:25view, you still believe there are two
1:01:27views, right?
1:01:28>> Yes. If a Muslim if a Muslim takes the
1:01:31view that the the book that we have
1:01:33today is corrupt which is what
1:01:34scholarship modern scholarship has
1:01:36already established as you know
1:01:37>> they haven't established it that's
1:01:38>> they have established it like Bart man
1:01:40and all these what do you call it Bruce
1:01:42who affirms the
1:01:44yeah you you haven't even got a single
1:01:47diploma to your name and you're talking
1:01:48about
1:01:48>> he was on your page saying laughing in
1:01:50your face anyway
1:01:52he was laughing
1:01:53>> anyway anyway so Jesus was crucified
1:01:57>> you know we definitely have essation for
1:01:58that.
1:01:59>> You remember that
1:02:02I'm saying you you said you said it now
1:02:03and we can end at this and then we can
1:02:05move on to Christianity because you
1:02:06you're trying to avoid Christianity
1:02:08is hold on. So Christianity we have
1:02:12heard I know you
1:02:14all
1:02:17doubts we cleared up all your doubts now
1:02:20we can agree. Hold on for a second. Can
1:02:24I respond what you said? I haven't even
1:02:25said anything yet. I haven't even made
1:02:27my point yet.
1:02:28>> What is this?
1:02:29>> Avery, a second. Give me a second. You
1:02:31said that you we accept that there are
1:02:33two views. One view that it's partially
1:02:35uh what do you call it? Corrupt
1:02:37>> from a textual perspective and the other
1:02:39one that it's not corrupt from a textual
1:02:41perspective. Correct.
1:02:42>> I accept that. That's that's a clever
1:02:44way of putting it. No problem. I'm
1:02:45saying that this is the majority view
1:02:46based on my reading. I don't think you
1:02:48can access the books to even tell us
1:02:50that this is the majority in the
1:02:51minority because you can't either. I
1:02:52can't even translate it. books that I
1:02:55asked for that you were saying that you
1:02:56could
1:02:56>> it's not even digitized. I don't see how
1:02:58you can read this and how you can know
1:02:59this. You don't know the Arabic language
1:03:01yet the teacher couldn't bring me the
1:03:03reference. You couldn't bring the
1:03:05source.
1:03:06You said you were reading from Ibaj but
1:03:08skipped and started reading Iban Haz.
1:03:11>> You said you were reading Ibaj earlier
1:03:12but started reading from H. People are
1:03:14giving me the source. I rely on this is
1:03:18pathetic.
1:03:18>> Okay. I'll get you the Haj one if you
1:03:20want. No problem. as a as a goodwill
1:03:22favor, I'll give you in the point is
1:03:26this is that you've already conceded the
1:03:28point which is that there are two views.
1:03:29So if I not
1:03:30>> conceded that that was my point
1:03:32>> I'm the one who I'm whatever. Okay.
1:03:35>> Yeah. No, whatever.
1:03:37All right. I'm the one who had to teach
1:03:40you that there were big time scholars
1:03:42who said who disagreed with you had to
1:03:44teach me. You are so clever. I have to
1:03:46teach you today. I love my lesson. And
1:03:48the lesson is this. The lesson is that
1:03:50there are two views. Okay. One view is
1:03:52that textual distortion is there and the
1:03:55other view is that textual it's not
1:03:57textual distortion but it's a distortion
1:03:58in meaning. There's two views. Okay. And
1:04:00I'm saying that I take the view that
1:04:02there is textual distortion. Just like
1:04:04there's two views just like there's two
1:04:05views on people looking at the Quran
1:04:07different scholars of Islam in the past.
1:04:10Some of them said that the earth was
1:04:11flat and some of them said that the
1:04:12earth was round. By the way, nobody
1:04:15looked at the Bible and said that the
1:04:16earth is round by virtue of the fact of
1:04:18the Bible. By virtue of the fact, by the
1:04:21way, the closest you have is the book of
1:04:23Isaiah 202,
1:04:25the circle of the earth. But no, hold
1:04:27on. So just like you have scholars, just
1:04:30like you have scholars of Islam who
1:04:32looked at the verse of the Quran, some
1:04:34of them said the earth was round and
1:04:36some of them said the earth was uh flat.
1:04:39And we take the view that the earth is
1:04:40round which which corresponds with the
1:04:42views of Ibamiani and Ahmed Muham and
1:04:46Ham and etc etc. We do the same thing
1:04:48with this issue here. So so long as
1:04:51>> Okay. Yeah. Beautiful.
1:04:53Ah we got it.
1:04:54>> Can we switch off? Okay. Thank you. It's
1:04:55too long on this. We switch this.
1:04:57>> Is this is this is this thing?
1:05:00>> Okay. Okay.
1:05:01>> This one.
1:05:02>> Where's the other one?
1:05:03>> This one and this one.
1:05:04>> Oh no. Here it is. It's exactly what I
1:05:05said. Subhan Allah.
1:05:07>> Okay. This is what this is what what do
1:05:09you call it? Uh what's his name? Um says
1:05:24actually this is even worse for you.
1:05:27You're right about that. And I tell you
1:05:29that that's why he said yeah. Can you
1:05:31translate so let me let me let me let me
1:05:34let me translate that. that our friends
1:05:38a lot of our friends companions mean
1:05:41yeah
1:05:43hold let me finish that the Jews and the
1:05:46Christians they changed the
1:05:49changed them okay
1:05:52they even said because they changed them
1:05:54yeah that you can you can distort and
1:05:57you can rip up the verses of the Bible
1:06:01actually doesn't even say the Bible yeah
1:06:03the verses of those distorted texts
1:06:07Bkari that this is goes this goes
1:06:09against what Bkari mentioned. So this is
1:06:12you wanted a reference. This is exactly
1:06:14done, right?
1:06:15>> What do you want? Do you want do you
1:06:16want the page number? Do you want what
1:06:18do you want?
1:06:20>> Can you shout out the page number and
1:06:21everything so we can look at that?
1:06:22>> Yeah.
1:06:25Uh what do you call it? It's page number
1:06:27531 and the J is number 13 and uh the
1:06:32paragraph is number 7,14.
1:06:34Done. Done. Are
1:06:35>> we done?
1:06:37No. Just one second. You want more of a
1:06:39reference?
1:06:40>> Yeah. Can I respond now?
1:06:42>> Come on now.
1:06:43>> Would you admit it now?
1:06:44>> Can I respond?
1:06:44>> Now it's time. What? Another view.
1:06:47>> You admit it now. It's time that we're
1:06:49going to actually ask.
1:06:50>> Hold on. Just one second. I got to be
1:06:51able to respond what he just said.
1:06:52>> I respond. Then we go to Christianity.
1:06:53Is that fair?
1:06:54>> Yeah. Go on.
1:06:56>> Go on.
1:06:57>> Okay. So, thank you for finally bringing
1:06:59the source. Now, we're going to take a
1:07:00look at that to see what it actually
1:07:01says in context. Um, you know, you
1:07:04didn't put it on the screen like we
1:07:05asked you. Did you read one second?
1:07:07Notice how I let you interrupt it,
1:07:09right?
1:07:12>> You don't understand.
1:07:13>> If you're not afraid of what I got to
1:07:14say, man, you got to let me speak, bro.
1:07:15>> Go on.
1:07:16>> All right. I appreciate it. So, when you
1:07:18when you say, are you are you going to
1:07:20admit it? Are you going to admit it?
1:07:21Admit what?
1:07:22>> We've already agreed together by your
1:07:23own concession that there are two views
1:07:26from the scholars.
1:07:27>> There's a view that some of them hold
1:07:28that the scriptures are textually
1:07:30corrupted. There's the other view that
1:07:31people like Bkari, Ibn Abbas and others
1:07:33according to Ibn Bkari uh I'm sorry
1:07:36according to Bkari uh quoting Iban Abbas
1:07:38that the scriptures are textually
1:07:40preserved and they're only distorted in
1:07:42meaning not intent.
1:07:44>> So the one that we have today
1:07:46>> just one second.
1:07:47>> Yeah.
1:07:47>> So in the time of Muhammad according to
1:07:50a lot of your big scholars
1:07:51>> the scriptures as you already said were
1:07:54preserved in Muhammad's time. Now here's
1:07:56the thing
1:07:58that's true. This is what majority of
1:08:00them.
1:08:02>> Please allow me to finish.
1:08:03>> Yeah. Yeah. No problem.
1:08:03>> Please allow me to finish. Thank you. I
1:08:05appreciate it. This is what this would
1:08:06mean because I I I take this view the
1:08:08the view of Bkari and others.
1:08:10>> But this is what this means. This means
1:08:13that the scriptures that existed in
1:08:15Muhammad's time according to your pre-
1:08:17Islamic scholars, notice how they got to
1:08:19keep interrupting. Brother, have some
1:08:20self-control. Let me talk. Thank you.
1:08:22Have some self-control. You put on a
1:08:24chef hat. Selfcontrol. Let me talk
1:08:27to the occasion. I got dressed for the
1:08:29occasion. That's all.
1:08:34>> Since according by your concession, the
1:08:36big scholars, some big scholars also
1:08:38believed in full preservation of the
1:08:40scriptures in Muhammad's time. This
1:08:42means that according to those scholars,
1:08:44what I have even to this day, Matthew,
1:08:47Mark, Luke, John,
1:08:49>> Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
1:08:51Deuteronomy, the writings of the
1:08:52prophets, everything that they had in
1:08:54Muhammad's time that they had in
1:08:55possession.
1:08:57is the author is authoritative and is
1:09:00the word of Allah in revelation.
1:09:01>> That's a misrepresentation of those.
1:09:03>> Please, bro. Please, if you can correct
1:09:05me when I'm done.
1:09:06>> Oh, I will. We'll do. Go on.
1:09:07>> Okay. Appreciate it.
1:09:08>> Yeah.
1:09:08>> So, and here's here's the the other fact
1:09:11that we have to take into account,
1:09:12>> okay?
1:09:13>> Is that the side that believed in
1:09:15preservation of the of the Bible, they
1:09:18gave references from the Quran. They
1:09:20used the Quran and they used to prove
1:09:23their point. But from your side, this is
1:09:26what what the problem is. Your side of
1:09:28the spectrum, you guys have no Quranic
1:09:32or hadith proof to back that there's any
1:09:35textual corruption. You're talking about
1:09:38something that's way above your pay
1:09:39grade. Look, let me tell you something.
1:09:40You say it's above my grade.
1:09:43Prove me wrong. Saying that is not a
1:09:46proof. It's not an argument.
1:09:47>> Okay. Do you want me to respond to you?
1:09:48The response here,
1:09:49>> give me evidence to this, please.
1:09:50>> Uh, sure. So, what I've just I've just
1:09:52given
1:09:52>> you just say this and we can move on to
1:09:53Christianity. you want evidences. I've
1:09:56given you a reference and not only have
1:09:57I given you the P number. Okay. So, no
1:10:01longer can you play this game. I read it
1:10:02in the original.
1:10:03>> Wait, what game?
1:10:05>> Sorry. Play game.
1:10:08>> The the game that you're playing that
1:10:09you're saying that they never refer to a
1:10:11hadith or Quranic verse. It's not true
1:10:12because in fact Bkari sorry
1:10:15>> I didn't say that bro. Okay. You said
1:10:17that they don't mention hadith versus
1:10:20sorry hadith or the Quran. That's what
1:10:22you said. So they they don't they don't
1:10:24have
1:10:24>> on my side of the scholarship. You said
1:10:26on my side of the scholarship they don't
1:10:28mention a Quranic verse and they don't
1:10:30do on my um oh on yours. So sorry. Yeah.
1:10:32So on on your on your on your side
1:10:35there's no Quranic. What I said is
1:10:36there's no Quranic evidence. So let me
1:10:38respond to that.
1:10:39>> So what the answer to that is actually
1:10:41they do mention it and they usually
1:10:43mention chapter 2 verse 79. Yeah. And in
1:10:46fact himself mentions a an opinion like
1:10:50that in
1:10:52where it says there's an opinion that
1:10:54says
1:10:55>> what does what does say himself
1:10:58>> doesn't do he just puts different names
1:11:01okay
1:11:02>> oh he does he's
1:11:04viewers it's not clear to me what
1:11:06>> I can tell you I can teach it to you
1:11:07>> it's not clear to me I've I've looked at
1:11:09all the verses in question it's not
1:11:10clear to me
1:11:10>> yeah but would you like to know what he
1:11:11says
1:11:14mentions something of they they dispute
1:11:17the authenticity of that hadith saying
1:11:19that it's etc which means want to know
1:11:22what himself said cuz he doesn't know
1:11:24that that tour is being corrupted.
1:11:26>> Let me finish. Let me finish.
1:11:27>> You don't want to know himself.
1:11:29>> Can you let me finish? Can you let me
1:11:30finish so you can learn something from
1:11:31this? Can you let me finish?
1:11:33>> I'm the only one teaching you so far,
1:11:34man.
1:11:34>> Okay. Well, you can teach me without
1:11:36access to the primary sources and I can
1:11:37learn without access to the primary
1:11:39sources. It's quite of an asymmetrical
1:11:41lesson.
1:11:42>> I have I have open right now.
1:11:43>> It's an asymmetrical lesson like you
1:11:45actually have ready to go. You don't
1:11:47have access to the primary sources.
1:11:49That's an asymmetrical lesson. All
1:11:50right.
1:11:51open
1:11:53right here. Let me finish. Let me finish
1:11:55what I'm saying. Let me finish what I'm
1:11:56saying
1:12:01and all of these other scholars that
1:12:02I've mentioned with the with the page
1:12:04number and the J number and the
1:12:06paragraph number. All of those guys,
1:12:07they mentioned this verse in chapter
1:12:10number 279. Some of them mentioned the
1:12:12verse in chapter 5 verse 134. Yeah. Some
1:12:16of them mention other verses.
1:12:19They do interpret the Quran in that way.
1:12:21Okay? Now, you can say they don't, but
1:12:24that's just your interpretation. Just
1:12:25like if someone said, "Okay, there are
1:12:26some scholars that say the Quran is
1:12:28flat." Yes, we believe the Quran says
1:12:31that the earth is flat. But Hassan
1:12:34believes that it says the Quran says the
1:12:35earth is round. So, there are two
1:12:37interpretations. Someone can follow this
1:12:38one and someone can follow that one.
1:12:40It's not a matter where if you the Islam
1:12:43has one opinion on it. So, it can't be
1:12:44an undercutter for Islam. Do you get it?
1:12:46If it can't be an undercutter for Islam
1:12:48because there's more than one legitimate
1:12:51opinion and in my estimation it is the
1:12:53majority opinion. Now we've finished.
1:12:55Your strongest argument has been
1:12:57complete. Now it's time for Christianity
1:12:58unless you want to run away.
1:12:59>> No no it's done. It's done. It's done
1:13:00now. It's done now.
1:13:03It's done.
1:13:05People can decide. People heard you.
1:13:06People heard me. It's done. It's done
1:13:08now just we we spent a lot of time on
1:13:11it. I promise you I won't even give
1:13:13another reference. Spent a lot of time
1:13:14on it. We spent a lot of time on it.
1:13:19>> Torah can decide. People can decide.
1:13:21Avery, people can decide. Now
1:13:22>> says they wrote a book based on their
1:13:24own interpretation.
1:13:25>> Now it's time. Let me ask you this. Is
1:13:26Jesus's point.
1:13:28>> Is Jesus fully God?
1:13:30>> We we say that he's truly God.
1:13:31>> No. Is Jesus fully God?
1:13:32>> Is he Is he fully God?
1:13:34>> I already answered you. We don't say
1:13:35fully as if there's percentages. We say
1:13:37truly God.
1:13:39>> Okay. Is he fully God?
1:13:41>> How many times you want to answer this?
1:13:42>> No. No. Is he fully God? We you're a
1:13:44strong man in our position. Please, if
1:13:46you're going to ask the question
1:13:49in reference question or not,
1:13:52>> we say truly God. Is Jesus truly? I'm
1:13:55>> asking God.
1:13:57>> Is Jesus fully God or not? Jesus is
1:13:59fully God or not? Is he fully God or
1:14:01not?
1:14:01>> I already answered.
1:14:02>> Yes or no?
1:14:03>> Give me another question. I already
1:14:04answered.
1:14:04>> Yes. Is Is Jesus fully God or not?
1:14:06>> Yes. Don't run. Don't be scared. Yeah.
1:14:09Don't Don't run from an actual
1:14:10Christianity. Is Jesus fully God or not?
1:14:12>> You don't say fully God. God truly run.
1:14:15Yes, he knows it's truly God in every
1:14:17way that God Jesus fully God all the
1:14:21essential properties to be God. Now deal
1:14:23with my deal with my position. Fully God
1:14:25is Jesus fully God deal with my position
1:14:27please.
1:14:27>> Is Jesus fully God ord not? Please deal
1:14:29with my position. Is Jesus fully God or
1:14:31not? I already answered you.
1:14:32>> Just wait. Deal with my position. Don't
1:14:34be scared now. I know what you should
1:14:36do.
1:14:36>> Deal with my position fully God or not?
1:14:38I want you to notice ladies and
1:14:39gentlemen. This is how you know someone
1:14:42is having they have to scare the script.
1:14:46Once you take them off their script,
1:14:49they don't know where to go. God, they
1:14:51don't know where to go.
1:14:53>> Is he fully God?
1:14:55>> Yes. Ask and answered.
1:14:56>> What is it?
1:14:57>> Asked and answered.
1:14:59>> Okay, let me ask you this. Let me change
1:15:01it because you you're not going to
1:15:02you're not
1:15:04gone or not. All right. No problem. No
1:15:06problem. You run away from that one.
1:15:08He he possesses all the essential
1:15:10properties that make God God.
1:15:12>> Okay. So when you say Jesus is is is
1:15:14this statement true or false? Jesus is
1:15:16God. Is it true or false statement?
1:15:18>> That's a true statement.
1:15:19>> Okay. Is the is okay. Excellent. Jesus
1:15:21is God is a true statement, right?
1:15:24>> I just said that.
1:15:25>> Yeah. Great. No problem. Is that is of
1:15:27predication or identity?
1:15:28>> It'll be a predication.
1:15:30>> Okay. So it's predication, is it? So he
1:15:33has the quality of being divine.
1:15:34>> Yep.
1:15:35>> He has the description of being divine.
1:15:38Yep.
1:15:39>> Okay. So that means to say that the
1:15:41father has this quality, the son has
1:15:43this quality and the holy spirit has
1:15:45this quality.
1:15:46>> They they all have the essential
1:15:48properties. They all have the divine
1:15:50essence. They are all god by essence.
1:15:53>> No problem. So they all have the quality
1:15:54of being divine. Yeah.
1:15:55>> They all have the nature.
1:15:58>> Okay. Beautiful. And do they have a
1:15:59will?
1:16:00>> Yeah, they have the same will because
1:16:01will is will is a faculty of your
1:16:04essence. So wait, hold on for a second.
1:16:07So they have the same will do they?
1:16:10>> That's what I said.
1:16:11>> So is the will uh predicatively okay
1:16:16does uh God the father have the same
1:16:19will in a predicative sense as God the
1:16:21son?
1:16:22>> What why would you say in a predicative
1:16:23sense? What do you mean by by that?
1:16:25>> Because you're mixing between Latin
1:16:27trinitarianism and three self
1:16:29trinitarian social trinitarianism.
1:16:30You're mixing between
1:16:31>> Can you explain that?
1:16:32>> Yeah. Let me explain because No, let me
1:16:34explain this to you. Right. is if you're
1:16:37saying that the father is God from a
1:16:40predicative perspective. Yes. If he's
1:16:42God from a predicative perspective, that
1:16:44means he has a center of consciousness
1:16:46which is different from the sun. Is that
1:16:47correct?
1:16:48>> Based on what?
1:16:50>> Because you you've just said it's
1:16:51predicative. It's not identity is it?
1:16:54>> Yeah. So what what is what how does it
1:16:55follow you understand the words I'm
1:16:57using? I don't think you do. If Jesus is
1:17:00God by predication, just real quick, if
1:17:02Jesus is God by predication, because he
1:17:04derives the divine essence from the
1:17:05father. Just let me finish.
1:17:06>> I don't understand. I don't understand.
1:17:08Why you get so uncomfortable? Why you
1:17:10get so uncomfortable?
1:17:11>> You don't even understand the question.
1:17:12Ask Jesus full of God. You can answer.
1:17:14>> If Jesus If Jesus because he deres his
1:17:17source from the father and the divine
1:17:19essence of the father and so therefore
1:17:21is predicated the divine essence, how
1:17:24does that entail or conclude that he has
1:17:26a different than the father? separate
1:17:28center of consciousness to the sun or
1:17:30not.
1:17:30>> Correct. What? Why? Why? Why? I don't
1:17:32understand. What do you mean? Why? I'm
1:17:34>> They have the same They have the same
1:17:36mind and will, brother. They have the
1:17:37same center of consciousness. Same mind.
1:17:40>> They have the same mind. They have the
1:17:41same will. They have the same essence as
1:17:43well. They have the same every time you
1:17:45ask me the same question.
1:17:48>> They have the same mind. They have the
1:17:49same will. They have the same essence.
1:17:50Do they have the same attributes?
1:17:53>> Yes. Aha. So now you've moved to is of
1:17:56identification because identity because
1:17:58now actually if they're the same in
1:18:00essence and the same in mind and they're
1:18:02the same in consciousness and the same
1:18:03in will and the same in attributes that
1:18:05means they're one and the same person
1:18:06aren't they?
1:18:07>> No, there's a relative identity. They're
1:18:09identical in essence not identical.
1:18:11There's a distinction in their
1:18:12personhood.
1:18:13>> Wait, hold on. Hold on. Hold on.
1:18:14>> This this doesn't work.
1:18:17>> This this argument probably worked back
1:18:18in 2017.
1:18:20>> Wait, hold on. Let me take it step by
1:18:22step because take it step by step. We're
1:18:24going to dismantle this step.
1:18:25>> Don't pretend don't pretend that
1:18:26Christianity has not been struggling
1:18:28with this for two years.
1:18:29>> It has it hasn't yet this this argu.
1:18:31Okay, no problem. Yeah, we we've just
1:18:33been pretending we've just been looking
1:18:35at different things. There's different
1:18:36models. If you're right now the trinity
1:18:38on Stanford encyclopedia, you'll see
1:18:40Latin trinitarianism, social
1:18:41trinitarianism. There's views of this.
1:18:43You mentioned relative identity. Do you
1:18:45know who mentions that relative
1:18:46identity?
1:18:47>> Who has written book? Peter G has
1:18:49written about it recently actually.
1:18:51Yeah. Relative identity actually. What
1:18:53does it have to do with what does that
1:18:54have to say?
1:18:55>> He's going to join us next.
1:18:56>> He's going to join us next.
1:18:58>> Are you Are you about to refute Peter G
1:19:00or something? Or
1:19:01>> Yeah. You don't know what he says? What
1:19:02does he say? What does Peter I I I just
1:19:04asked you if you're going to Are you
1:19:06>> What does Peter say? If you're talking
1:19:07about what does Peter G say?
1:19:09>> What What is my position?
1:19:10>> What is You said relative identity. So I
1:19:12want to know what Peter G.
1:19:13>> So in in regard in regards to my
1:19:15position, how are you refuting the
1:19:17trinity?
1:19:17>> No. How? You said relative identity.
1:19:19That's associated with Peter Gech. Do
1:19:21you know what he said?
1:19:21>> What? I I don't care who you talking
1:19:24about, do you? You don't even know what
1:19:26you're talking about.
1:19:26>> If I hold the position talking identity,
1:19:28hold on. If I hold the position of
1:19:30relative identity, what is your argument
1:19:32against it?
1:19:34>> Do you do you hold the position of
1:19:36identity?
1:19:36>> Do you or not?
1:19:40>> Question. So, so if you hold the
1:19:42position of relative identity of Peter
1:19:44Gech, my response to it is the
1:19:46following. My response to it is in order
1:19:48for you to come to that conclusion you
1:19:50have to have a relative identity
1:19:51framework and a relative identity
1:19:53framework goes against predicate and
1:19:56propositional logic and in particular it
1:19:58goes against Linet's law which means
1:20:00that in order for you to prove the
1:20:01trinity you have to allow contradictions
1:20:03you do you agree do you agree with that
1:20:05no uh can you
1:20:06>> you have to reject propositional logic
1:20:08reject classical logic yes or no what
1:20:11what is liben's law
1:20:13>> it's the law of identity
1:20:14>> no it's a specific Law of identity. Can
1:20:16you tell me exactly what
1:20:18>> law? It's the law of identity. What
1:20:20specific law of identity is it? Cuz
1:20:22there's
1:20:24categories of categories within the law
1:20:26of identity. Would you like what does
1:20:28law say?
1:20:29>> Wait. Do you want me to teach you what
1:20:30the law of identity is? Is that what
1:20:31you're asking me?
1:20:32>> No. I want you to this is what we're
1:20:34going to do cuz it show it seems like
1:20:36you didn't know anything about anything.
1:20:39You didn't even know that relative
1:20:41identity was connected to
1:20:43you. Don't understand. You don't even
1:20:45understand.
1:20:46>> Saying I don't understand doesn't mean
1:20:47anything.
1:20:48>> Hold on. Hold Avery. You didn't even
1:20:50know that relative identity was
1:20:52associated with Peter Geachch.
1:20:54>> I had nothing to do with the argument. I
1:20:56had to teach you that has nothing to do
1:20:57with the argument. My position is
1:20:59relative identity. What is your argument
1:21:02against my position?
1:21:03>> Yeah. Yeah. So my
1:21:05>> law is law of identity. What is it?
1:21:08>> Sure. Hold on. Hold on.
1:21:10>> All right. We're waiting.
1:21:11>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
1:21:12>> Yeah. Yeah. If A is X and B is X, it
1:21:15follows A is
1:21:17>> finish it. You tell me. If if the father
1:21:20is God in your father is God and the son
1:21:24is God, it it follows what?
1:21:27>> Answer. You do it. Father is the son. It
1:21:29follows the father is the son. It
1:21:31follows.
1:21:32Okay. What category are you? Okay.
1:21:34You're the son.
1:21:35>> What category of the law of identity is
1:21:38the law.
1:21:38>> Do you believe that the father is the
1:21:39son?
1:21:40>> Okay. Let let me believe the father is
1:21:41the son. No, I don't. So, let me help
1:21:43you out. I don't believe in the father's
1:21:44law. Let me help you out. This is a
1:21:46blunder cuz you don't even know what
1:21:47life's law. Lman's law is the category.
1:21:51He says he says that his law of identity
1:21:54is called absolute identity. Means that
1:21:57you have to be absolutely identical in
1:21:59every way and every sense. Exactly. And
1:22:02guess and guess what? There are
1:22:03philosophers who do like Peter Gech and
1:22:06others who do not hold to absolute
1:22:09identity. And so we can keep going with
1:22:10examples. So absolute identity is not
1:22:13the abandon.
1:22:17Let me let me teach you this. Let me
1:22:19teach you this. Allow me to respond.
1:22:21Identity absolute identity is a
1:22:23necessity.
1:22:24>> Let me let me respond to you, okay? And
1:22:26let me teach you because this is
1:22:27something
1:22:30is a necessity.
1:22:31>> Avery, have some respect because listen,
1:22:33I've done six degrees. Yeah. Six degrees
1:22:36of 15 years. You know, I'm trying I'm
1:22:38trying to respect you. You're talking.
1:22:40You're showing that you don't have you
1:22:42got degrees. Ask me questions. Ask you
1:22:44trivia questions. Don't ask me whatever
1:22:46questions trivia question is. No.
1:22:48>> You don't even know what I law.
1:22:50>> Hold on. Hold on. Let me finish. This is
1:22:52an education. It's a free one. Okay? So,
1:22:54just have some respect, okay? And I'll
1:22:56teach you about all these things.
1:22:57>> You didn't know what Liv's law was?
1:22:59>> What do you mean? I've written a whole
1:23:00chapter on liess in my jealous. What
1:23:03does this state? What is wrong?
1:23:05>> I've read Give me one book that lives
1:23:07wrote. See, there's another book. Give
1:23:09me one book that liro. We're going to
1:23:12book that wrote. Give me one book that
1:23:14wrote book
1:23:18is one book that wrote. Give me one
1:23:20book.
1:23:22One book. The Muslim shuffle doesn't
1:23:24work. It doesn't work.
1:23:25>> So just be quiet. Yeah.
1:23:28>> Law is don't even know anything that he
1:23:29wrote. I've written chapters. Tell us
1:23:32what his law is.
1:23:33>> Be quiet. Shut up. Yeah. Honestly,
1:23:36please. Lit law is equivalent to the law
1:23:38of identity. You already discussed it,
1:23:39man.
1:23:40>> What are you doing, man? What you are
1:23:41you
1:23:41>> Hey, look. I love how my food talks back
1:23:43to me, ladies and gentlemen.
1:23:45>> I love it. You've run away. You've run
1:23:47away now from the discussion, haven't
1:23:49you?
1:23:50>> What do you mean? You're the only one
1:23:51acting God.
1:23:52>> Is the father god?
1:23:54>> I already answered this. Can you tell us
1:23:55what lil is?
1:23:58Are you do I need to repeat myself the
1:24:00fourth time? You don't even know who
1:24:01live is.
1:24:01>> Get your thoughts together.
1:24:02>> You don't even know.
1:24:04What did he invent? Look at his first
1:24:07name. Make sure his first name
1:24:11this dude deflects.
1:24:12>> What's his first name?
1:24:13>> What is
1:24:15Mohammed? You brought it up.
1:24:18>> What is his first name? What is Lieben's
1:24:21law? I've already explained to you. It's
1:24:23the law of identity. Are you
1:24:24>> No, that's a it's a category within the
1:24:26law of identity. You know what I'm
1:24:28talking
1:24:31>> it's it's the law of identity. It's the
1:24:32same as the law of identity. That's they
1:24:34call it live law. The law of identity is
1:24:36live at law. Be quiet now because you
1:24:38don't know what you're talking about.
1:24:39You don't even know who lives is. You
1:24:40don't even know where he was from. You
1:24:42don't even know what books he wrote. You
1:24:44don't even know what his first name was.
1:24:46You don't know anything about him. You
1:24:47don't know anything about him. I'll tell
1:24:49you. I've actually read all of his books
1:24:51by the way. I'll teach you. You tell me
1:24:52if I'm the ones.
1:24:54>> I'll tell you if I'm correct. Listen.
1:24:56Let's be quiet. Don't talk about livets
1:24:57with me. Yeah. You're not in a position
1:24:59to speak about liveness.
1:25:02Look,
1:25:02>> I'll tell you what his law is.
1:25:04>> Tell me, tell me anything. You're not in
1:25:05a position to do so.
1:25:07>> You tell me. The question is this is the
1:25:09father. Len's law is is that something
1:25:12is identical if and only if they are
1:25:15identical. They share all the the
1:25:18properties. They are identical in all of
1:25:20their properties. Is that correct?
1:25:21>> You're reading the over AI overview,
1:25:23right? I'm looking at you. My friend is
1:25:25telling me all of Okay, no problem.
1:25:28correct or not?
1:25:28>> Oh, so so so good. Good. Do do you
1:25:31accept lin law? Is that correct law? Do
1:25:33you accept it or not?
1:25:34>> Is that correct?
1:25:36>> Yes. Yes. Yes. You
1:25:37>> I had to teach you on what Len's law
1:25:38was. Thank you.
1:25:39>> Are you a stupid guy? Are you all right?
1:25:42Are you okay? So now dealing with Len's
1:25:44law.
1:25:44>> Okay.
1:25:45>> I don't go the father god's law.
1:25:49>> Philosophers also reject lion's law of
1:25:52identity.
1:25:52>> Father God from a linen's law identity
1:25:56perspective.
1:25:56>> From a law identity. I don't hold to
1:25:58that. I don't hold a liance law.
1:25:59>> Ah, so you have to reject it, do you?
1:26:01>> Yes. I don't hold to it.
1:26:03>> So you have to reject live law. Do you?
1:26:06>> You don't know. You don't know what you
1:26:09accept. Wait, what are you laughing at?
1:26:10What are you laughing at? What are you
1:26:11laughing at?
1:26:12>> I'm
1:26:13going script was destroyed.
1:26:15>> No, hold on. Hold on.
1:26:16>> Okay.
1:26:17>> You're you're you're putting in a
1:26:18relative identity framework. What you
1:26:20don't understand is the following. What
1:26:21you don't understand is order in order
1:26:23for you to put forward a relative
1:26:25identity framework, you have to reject
1:26:27Linet's law. Linenet's law or the law of
1:26:30identity is in fact one of the three
1:26:32major pillars of propositional logic.
1:26:35You have three pillars of propositional
1:26:37logic. One of them is the law of
1:26:38identity. The other one is the law of
1:26:40non-contradiction. And the third one is
1:26:41what? The law of excluded middle. These
1:26:43are the three principle of propositional
1:26:45logic. These are the pillars of it. Now,
1:26:46in order for you to make your case, what
1:26:48you're essentially admitting is the
1:26:49following. that in order for me to make
1:26:51a case for Jesus being God and in one
1:26:54sense and father being God in another
1:26:55sense and the Holy Spirit being God in
1:26:56another, I have to reject one of the
1:26:59pillars of propositional logic.
1:27:00Propositional logic is the most
1:27:02foundational and accepted logic in the
1:27:06world for the last 3,000 years 4,000
1:27:09years. So you have to you accept that in
1:27:11order for you to try and justify a
1:27:14version of the trinity which is Peter
1:27:15G's one which is repudiated by
1:27:17Christians himself that you have to
1:27:19accept a framework which rejects one of
1:27:21the pillars of propositional logic. Yes
1:27:22or no?
1:27:23>> No. So can you demonstrate? No. No. No.
1:27:26But you said you reject
1:27:28so I let you don't hold to it.
1:27:30>> I let you hold to it for a very long.
1:27:32>> That's what you just said. You said you
1:27:33don't hold it for a very very long time.
1:27:35So you just said
1:27:38God logic doesn't believe in logic
1:27:42logic don't believe in logic logic
1:27:44propositional logic you don't believe in
1:27:46it do you order for you in order for you
1:27:49to fight the trinity you have to get let
1:27:52me beat my chest instead of have a
1:27:54discussion so relax
1:27:57>> I appreciate it respond
1:27:58>> I don't have to reject of lib's law in
1:28:04order to hold to the Law of identity.
1:28:06The law of identity works with relative
1:28:10identity. I'm not rejecting the law of
1:28:11identity.
1:28:13>> So you can be identical in one sense
1:28:15while having distinctions in another.
1:28:17>> No, that's not that's even how Peter Ge
1:28:21that's not how he um articulates it. He
1:28:24says there's a sort and then he says
1:28:25that the sort is represented by G and
1:28:28then you've got F and then you've got uh
1:28:30S and you've got H. Father, Son, Holy
1:28:33Spirit. And then he says that F is
1:28:35relatively identical to G and the S is
1:28:38relatively identical to G and the HS
1:28:40which is the Holy Spirit is relatively
1:28:42identical to G. He doesn't say what
1:28:44you're saying. He in fact rejects the
1:28:46law of identity which is what you've had
1:28:48to do. You have to reject a pillar of
1:28:50logic yet you call God logic. YOU
1:28:53ACTUALLY CALL YOURSELF GOD LOGIC BUT YOU
1:28:55HAVE to reject logic in order for you to
1:28:58make some sense of the trinity. Don't
1:29:00you? Yes or no?
1:29:01>> No.
1:29:04I'm I'm sorry that the script didn't
1:29:05work. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That's
1:29:07false. That's false. I'm sorry that the
1:29:09I'm sorry the script didn't work.
1:29:10>> Logic
1:29:14respond one second. Let me respond. Wait
1:29:17one second. He's rejecting logic so
1:29:19much. His recipe says reduce until
1:29:22thick.
1:29:23>> No, but thanks for adding nothing to the
1:29:26cup. I'm asking you, guys. I'm going to
1:29:29respond. Okay. I don't want to I don't
1:29:31want us to talk over each other. Do you
1:29:34reject the law of identity or not? Yes
1:29:35or no?
1:29:36>> No, I don't. So,
1:29:37>> you just said you don't hold to it.
1:29:38>> Can I please speak?
1:29:39>> You just said you don't hold to it.
1:29:40Please contradiction.
1:29:43You might as well. You might as well
1:29:45contradiction. You've just rejected one.
1:29:47You might as well reflection. Another
1:29:50interject.
1:29:52Why don't you just
1:29:55script is dismantled has been
1:29:57intellectually molested. has been cooked
1:29:59and chefed and stirred up.
1:30:03I think you know I think the people can
1:30:06see
1:30:10you know what the situation
1:30:12people can see in order
1:30:16that
1:30:20is necessary
1:30:21>> or reject it. We're going to spend 20
1:30:25minutes.
1:30:25>> You reject the law of identity. You
1:30:26demonstrate that Lieben's law
1:30:29necessitates absolute identity cuz
1:30:31that's what you're saying. You're saying
1:30:33that absolute identity is the law of
1:30:36identity which I disapp
1:30:46notice how they're talking over me still
1:30:48hij
1:30:54let him speak guys and he has to
1:30:56interrupt me and talk over me
1:30:57>> this shows the weakness in your position
1:30:59hijab let me speak bro
1:31:01>> I'll give you 20 seconds Not 20 seconds.
1:31:03Just let me say my piece.
1:31:05>> Say your piece. Say your piece. Say
1:31:06>> good lord. Thank you. So here's an
1:31:09example.
1:31:10If so, the Titanic, right? The Titanic
1:31:14before it got shipped off. It's in
1:31:16perfect uh condition. No scratches, no
1:31:19bangs, you know, it's all good to go.
1:31:22>> He's reading.
1:31:22>> Gets shipped off, crashes into the
1:31:24glacier, sinks, gets ripped up.
1:31:27>> Here's my question.
1:31:29He's reading.
1:31:30>> Here's my question. a job is the Titanic
1:31:34that left the shore, man.
1:31:36>> Absolutely identical in every way to the
1:31:39Titanic that crashed into the glacier
1:31:41and is sunk sunken. Is it absolutely
1:31:43identical in every way?
1:31:43>> I wasn't hearing what you said. Look, I
1:31:46don't even know what you're talking
1:31:46about.
1:31:47>> No, no, I don't even know what you're
1:31:48talking about. Listen, go back. Stop
1:31:50reading GPT. This is
1:31:53not really the new generation
1:31:56people
1:32:00don't know where to go.
1:32:01>> The only Titanic is your arguments are
1:32:03sinking, brother. That's the only thing
1:32:05that's arguments. I don't even see your
1:32:07arguments. Listen, let's go back.
1:32:11>> You're not You're not up there yet to
1:32:13where you can understand the argument
1:32:15where you can hear the argument.
1:32:16>> Answer the question.
1:32:18>> What's the way
1:32:20question?
1:32:22reading.
1:32:22>> Is the Titanic
1:32:25that left the shore?
1:32:28>> Absolute clowns.
1:32:30>> Is the Titanic that left the shore
1:32:33absolutely identical in every single way
1:32:36to the Titanic that crashed and sunk?
1:32:40>> What? What?
1:32:42>> The Titanic that left the shore the same
1:32:45as the one that sunk?
1:32:46>> They absolutely identical in every way.
1:32:49>> PROBABLY NOT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN OH, BUT
1:32:52IT'S STILL THE TITANIC. SO, you just
1:32:54affirmed that the
1:32:55>> That is the worst That is the worst
1:32:58thing I've ever heard. That is the
1:33:00worstity I have ever heard. That is the
1:33:04worst thing I've ever heard.
1:33:05>> Okay. Is Is the Titanic the same Titanic
1:33:08that sunk?
1:33:09>> What are you talking?
1:33:10>> Is it the same ship?
1:33:10>> So, what's the analogy here?
1:33:11>> Is it the same ship?
1:33:12>> What's the What's the analogy here?
1:33:13What's the
1:33:14>> Is the Titanic for sure the same ship
1:33:17that sunk? What's your point? What's
1:33:19your point? Make it again. I'll ask it
1:33:21again.
1:33:21>> No. No. Make your point. We don't
1:33:23understand.
1:33:23>> You're going to answer. You're going to
1:33:24answer.
1:33:25>> No, it's not the same one. It's a
1:33:26different one. It's a different one.
1:33:27It's a different one. Whatever. Okay.
1:33:29Now, the shore. What does it mean?
1:33:32>> Is it the same ship that sunk? What are
1:33:34you talking about, man? Okay. No, it's
1:33:36not. No, you're right. So, what does it
1:33:38mean? What does it mean? What does it
1:33:38mean? What does it mean?
1:33:40>> Is I'll ask it again. I'll ask it again.
1:33:42Cuz you just affirmed identity without
1:33:45absolute identity. Now you waste time.
1:33:47>> You tend to find identity without
1:33:50absolute identity. I'll ask it again.
1:33:52>> So is the Titanic that left the
1:33:54>> No, no. Explain it to me how it goes to
1:33:56Father, Son, Holy Spirit, please.
1:33:58>> No, no, no, no. You're going to answer
1:33:59this. I want you cuz I want I It's the
1:34:01same. It's different. Some things are
1:34:02different about it. No problem. Yeah. No
1:34:04problem.
1:34:04>> The Titanic that left the shore. The
1:34:06same ship.
1:34:09>> What?
1:34:13>> Okay. What do you want me to say? I
1:34:14don't know how he wants me to answer
1:34:15this.
1:34:17>> With all those degrees, man,
1:34:20you're not educated. You're not You're
1:34:21not qualified for this level of of of,
1:34:24you know,
1:34:26you're not ready, man. One sec. One
1:34:28second. Let me clarify
1:34:31you, ladies and gentlemen. One second.
1:34:32You're saying the Titanic.
1:34:33>> I'm sorry, brother. I'm sorry. Let me
1:34:34just land this and then I'll let you
1:34:35speak. It's
1:34:36>> not the same one that I don't want to
1:34:38speak over you. I want to hear what
1:34:39you're saying. Just let me land what I'm
1:34:40saying, okay? I'm land what I'm saying
1:34:42and and I promise I'll sit quiet. I
1:34:43listen to you.
1:34:44>> So Muhammad Hijab, you just affirmed
1:34:48identity
1:34:50disregarding absolute identity.
1:34:53>> That's why you're confused. Uh go ahead
1:34:57prove relative identity. So from one
1:34:58aspect he's God and from another aspect
1:35:00he's not. Is that what you're trying to
1:35:01say?
1:35:01>> No. So what what you trying to say?
1:35:04>> What you trying to say? What you trying
1:35:05to say? Make your point man
1:35:08understand you man.
1:35:11So, so the father, son, and holy spirit
1:35:13are identical in essence while being
1:35:16distinct in personhood or hypostasis.
1:35:19>> Okay. Okay. No problem. They're distinct
1:35:21in hypoasis and in person. Okay. No
1:35:23problem. If they're distinct in person,
1:35:25do they have separate centers of
1:35:27consciousness or not?
1:35:28>> I already answered this question. I'll
1:35:29answer it again. They have the same
1:35:31center of consciousness. They have the
1:35:33same mind, the same will.
1:35:36>> Tell me what's different. Yeah. Tell me
1:35:37what's different about it.
1:35:38>> Oh, what's different about the persons?
1:35:40>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah,
1:35:40>> sure. One. So, the father begets the
1:35:42son. The father is unbegotten.
1:35:44>> The father is unbegotten. The son is
1:35:46begotten from the father. And the spirit
1:35:48proceeds from the father.
1:35:49>> Oh, I see. So, no. Great. I let me learn
1:35:53a bit more about the trinity because I
1:35:54want to know.
1:35:54>> I know. You're learning a lot today.
1:35:56>> No, I need to learn more about the
1:35:57trinity since I've been here all day,
1:35:58man. I'm here to serve me.
1:36:01>> I'm here to serve hal meals.
1:36:03>> Hold on. Let me just ask you the
1:36:04question so you can teach me about the
1:36:05trinity, please. Yeah. I want to know
1:36:06cuz everybody wants
1:36:07>> doing that so far. What's your question?
1:36:08>> All the Muslims want to know. All the
1:36:10Muslims want to know. Yeah. So I'm going
1:36:11to ask you this.
1:36:12>> What's your question? Habibi. My
1:36:13question boy is the following. Okay.
1:36:17Boy, the question is the following. If
1:36:20it's true, if it's true that the father
1:36:25beggets the son. Okay. You said that,
1:36:27right?
1:36:28>> Yeah, I did.
1:36:29>> Does that mean that the son is
1:36:30generated?
1:36:31>> Yes. He is generated eternally from the
1:36:33father.
1:36:33>> Okay, beautiful. So if he's generated,
1:36:35that means he's caused, right?
1:36:37>> Uh he is. No. So when we're saying let
1:36:40me
1:36:41>> Yeah. No. Huh? Who is it?
1:36:43>> All this broenerated.
1:36:45>> Let me let me explain. Let me explain.
1:36:48All right.
1:36:48>> Got you. So when we say that the son is
1:36:51begotten or generated or caused by the
1:36:54father. This is not something that
1:36:56happens in time. But this is eternal
1:36:58generation. An eternal begotten.
1:37:00>> He's being perpetually caused. Is he? Is
1:37:03he being perpetually caused?
1:37:04>> He's he's eternally generated. Aha. So
1:37:07generated means he's perpetually caused
1:37:09is he?
1:37:09>> Sure.
1:37:10>> What?
1:37:10>> So caused. Okay. So he's a contingent
1:37:12existent. He's not a necessary
1:37:13existence. He's contingent. He's a
1:37:15dependent being. Is he? Is your God
1:37:17depend? No. No. He's not.
1:37:19Let me let me answer this now. He's not
1:37:21a dependent being. To be to be a
1:37:23dependent being means that you are
1:37:25dependent or contingent on another being
1:37:28outside of yourself. The son shares the
1:37:31same essence is the same being as the
1:37:33father. And so therefore, the father
1:37:36eternally called regenerating the son is
1:37:38not demonstrates that he's actually a
1:37:42father because his essence isn't sourced
1:37:44in any other essence.
1:37:45>> But you just said he you just said he's
1:37:47generated by the father. That's what you
1:37:48just said. He's called
1:37:49>> Yeah, that's he shares the same essence
1:37:51as the father. This is the difference
1:37:52between hypoatic properties properties.
1:37:55To be independent being means that your
1:37:57essential properties are contingent on
1:37:58another being.
1:38:00>> Learn the categories. remember. Okay.
1:38:02Fantastic. So now you admit you admit
1:38:05that he's generated by the father
1:38:07>> eternally. Yes.
1:38:08>> Oh, eternally. That makes even worse
1:38:09because he's caused being caused and
1:38:11caused and caused and caused and caused
1:38:13that he needs to be caused over and over
1:38:15again.
1:38:18>> Is that what you're telling me?
1:38:21>> Say it again. Sorry.
1:38:21>> Can you be caused and uncaused at the
1:38:23same time?
1:38:24>> Depends. Yeah. It depends on what you
1:38:26mean. So you can be you CAN BE
1:38:35LOOK AT IT. NOW, NOW YOU'VE GONE
1:38:38STRAIGHT INTO the non-contradiction
1:38:40of noncontradiction.
1:38:43YO, THE MAN
1:38:45IT'S NON CONTRADICTION, BOY. This is
1:38:47This is WHY
1:38:48>> HOW DARE YOU TALK ABOUT ISLAM, BOY. How
1:38:50dare you talk about Islam, boy. Why
1:38:53you've been
1:38:55called and at the same time
1:39:01one way
1:39:03Christianity repent for your ways
1:39:05Christianity immediately now YOU HAVE
1:39:08BEEN CAUGH OUT
1:39:10NOW HAVEN'T YOU BOY and uncaused AT THE
1:39:13SAME TIME IS IT
1:39:13>> none of this works bro
1:39:16at the same time it's a controvention
1:39:18contradiction on this boy is it a is it
1:39:21a contra
1:39:22non contradiction or boy. You've been
1:39:24trying to jump out the P.
1:39:25>> Is it a contravention of
1:39:26non-contradiction or not, boy?
1:39:28>> Okay. All right.
1:39:30>> Is it a contravention of
1:39:31non-contradiction or not? Boy,
1:39:33>> can I can I can I answer?
1:39:34>> Oh, it's on cause, is it? Is it cause?
1:39:39>> Can I answer? Thank you. So, now I'm
1:39:41about to answer your question. So,
1:39:42hijab, this is you not understanding
1:39:45categories to for something to be a
1:39:47contradiction. It has to be the opposite
1:39:50in the same way in the same sense. So
1:39:53when I say Jesus is uncaused and gone at
1:39:56the same time, I'm not saying that he's
1:39:58uncaused in the same sense that he's
1:40:00caused. So in for example, him being
1:40:03caused by the father, excuse me, him
1:40:05being caused or eternally generated by
1:40:07the father is a hypoatic quality.
1:40:10>> It's a hypothetic property, a relation
1:40:12that he has with the father.
1:40:14>> Sure. Not saying, excuse me, excuse me.
1:40:16He is not essentially called me.
1:40:19>> Excuse me.
1:40:20>> Can a necessary being be caused in any
1:40:22way?
1:40:22>> Excuse me.
1:40:23>> Can a necessary being in any way?
1:40:25>> Allow me to finish.
1:40:26>> Can a necessary being in any way? Talks
1:40:28to me but not a necessary being caused
1:40:30in any way, boy.
1:40:31>> Can a necessary being caused in any way?
1:40:33Can an independent being in any way? Can
1:40:36an uncaused being caused in any way?
1:40:38Jump out.
1:40:39>> Can an uncaused being caused in any way
1:40:41to jump out the pot.
1:40:44>> Stop trying to jump out. And this is
1:40:46what the Quran says. Subhan Allah. This
1:40:47is what the Quran. This is what the
1:40:48Quran says.
1:40:53>> He does not
1:40:58forget. Why? Because he's a
1:41:03nervousness. He's going to allow your
1:41:05nervousness and your fear to overcome.
1:41:08Are you going to continue to not
1:41:11be quiet for not going to happen this
1:41:13entire live? Let me tell you this. Hey
1:41:15now, now the live stream, ladies and
1:41:16gentlemen, has degraded because can't
1:41:19allow a discourse, a dialogue.
1:41:22>> Avery,
1:41:23>> allow me, allow me to finish what I was
1:41:24saying without your interruption.
1:41:26>> Avery, Avery,
1:41:27>> allow me to finish what I was saying.
1:41:31>> Avery, Avery. So, I'm just going to
1:41:33continue.
1:41:39>> Listen, Jesus is not caused.
1:41:42what you're saying because you're saying
1:41:45from the father is not derived from
1:41:48anything else.
1:41:50>> Okay.
1:41:50>> But however is caused hypoatically
1:41:54eternally generated meaning it doesn't
1:41:56happen in time because that's his
1:41:58relation with the father. So it's not a
1:42:01contradiction because his causation is
1:42:04in the sense of his hypoatic relation
1:42:06with the father while he's essentially
1:42:08not caused by any other being. I'm
1:42:11holding be in any sense. Can a necessary
1:42:16being be caused in any sense?
1:42:18>> Yes. Hypothetically, then you're you're
1:42:21out. You're out of order because you're
1:42:23out of order and you don't know what
1:42:24you're talking about. A necessary being
1:42:27cannot be in any sense with the
1:42:29consensus of magicians.
1:42:32You're absolutely out of order. You're
1:42:35absolutely out of order for you to say
1:42:38Yeah. that it's it's it's ridiculous. So
1:42:40your god is dependent is he refute me.
1:42:43>> Refute me. No. Again to be dependent.
1:42:47Okay. No problem. To be dependent is to
1:42:49rely on a being outside refutes you. The
1:42:52>> show me that my God is is is
1:42:54>> the Quran refutes you by telling you
1:42:56clearly. The Quran says
1:42:59say he's Allah one and only. Allah he is
1:43:02the independent.
1:43:05He begets not nor is he begotten.
1:43:09and there's nothing like him. Why is
1:43:11Allah telling us that he is independent
1:43:13and then telling us he does not beget
1:43:15nor is he begotten? Because it's clear
1:43:17that people like you unfortunately
1:43:20believe it's possible to be independent
1:43:23and dependent at the same time. Allah is
1:43:25telling us and this is in line with
1:43:27classical logic which you've already
1:43:28rejected today that it's impossible to
1:43:30be independent and dependent at the same
1:43:33time in any respect in even 1% respect.
1:43:37You cannot be a necessary or independent
1:43:39being in any respect in any respect and
1:43:42then have an 1% dependency. You can't
1:43:45have 1% dependency. You cannot have
1:43:47hypoatic dependency. You cannot have
1:43:50essential dependency. You cannot have
1:43:51attributional dependency. You are not
1:43:53having any level onlogical dependency.
1:43:56And if you believe that you can, then
1:43:57you are putting two things together
1:43:59which contradict.
1:44:02You're fooled. You're an idiot. And you
1:44:03have misrepresented Peter Gech. He
1:44:05doesn't believe what you just
1:44:07Yes or no? With the with the predicative
1:44:09view, social trinitarianism and what do
1:44:13you call it? Latin trinitarianism and
1:44:15trinitarian. You don't need philosophy.
1:44:17You don't know what you're talking
1:44:17about.
1:44:19You don't know what you're saying.
1:44:22Depth. You're completely out of your
1:44:24depth. You don't know what you're
1:44:25saying. You can drink. You can put
1:44:26whatever hat and costume you want. You
1:44:28have been entirely decimated today. It's
1:44:31been destruction upon destruction upon
1:44:33destruction.
1:44:35Any Christian that's watching this
1:44:36today,
1:44:38let me tell you this Christians, if
1:44:40you're watching this and you just heard
1:44:41this, if you just heard this
1:44:43presentation about the trinity and you
1:44:45still are Christian, wah, you are
1:44:47fooling yourselves and you should be
1:44:48ashamed. You are absolutely there's no
1:44:50way you believe. You don't believe in a
1:44:53god that's dependent. You don't believe
1:44:55in aarass. You don't believe in a
1:44:57generated god. You don't believe in any
1:44:59of that stuff. You believe in the one
1:45:01God that created the heavens and the
1:45:02earth. That's what Muslims call you to.
1:45:05We call you to the one God who created
1:45:07the heavens and the earth.
1:45:08>> Yes. The father, son, and holy spirit.
1:45:10The one God who created the heavens and
1:45:11the earth had to
1:45:14go to say about the god of all creation
1:45:17and all
1:45:19that dependent and on the central level
1:45:22is not that is an insufficient
1:45:23dissatisfactory otherwise incomplete
1:45:26answer
1:45:28possible to reconcile. And if you
1:45:31engage, then you're either ignorant
1:45:35engage. You know Islam is true. You know
1:45:38there's only one God worthy of worship.
1:45:40You know there's only one God that
1:45:41doesn't begget nor is he begotten. You
1:45:43know that the father is you know that
1:45:45the father god
1:45:48and you know that the holy spirit. This
1:45:51is your strongest argument when it
1:45:53crumbled. This is our strongest argument
1:45:55against Christianity. It succeeded. We
1:45:57finished you. Any last words before we
1:46:00go? Depending on in order to have a son,
1:46:02he's depending

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of BREAKING: Mohammed Hijab SUED Me and LOST by GodLogic Apologetics, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 20,938 words across 3,240 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.