YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → God Logic Got Scared and Cooked by a Young Muslim | The Apologetic Muslim | Speakers Corner

God Logic Got Scared and Cooked by a Young Muslim | The Apologetic Muslim | Speakers Corner — Transcript

by Sam Dawah · 7,186 words · 1,020 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Give me a second. All right. So, so just
0:01for clarification, so the NGIL is what
0:03Jesus was preaching orally, right?
0:05Correct. And then what and then the New
0:07Testament that they had in Muhammad's
0:09time in the 70s. Correct. So what we
0:11have is the NGL in a general sense. In a
0:13general sense. Okay. Correct. So the
0:14majority of what we have in the New
0:16Testament is the gospel is the NGO. Uh
0:18in a sense where obviously we have to
0:19decipher what is historically accurate
0:21or not. uh when it comes to the uh
0:23initial gospels, Mark obviously being
0:24the earliest, we have no issue of doing
0:27a general confirmation of the parables
0:29of the teachings uh found in there. Uh
0:31but yeah, so and we're also obviously
0:33going to use the Quran as a criterion as
0:34I mentioned chapter 20 of the Quran.
0:35Where does the where does the B or where
0:37does the Quran say that you use the
0:38Quran to tell what the angel is? Uh yes.
0:41So if you go to chapter 20 of the Quran
0:43verse
0:44133 means clarification over the pre
0:47over the previous scriptures. All right.
0:48Can can we get that verse up? Yeah, of
0:50course. Um, you said you said what verse
0:52is. Oh, my phone's dead.
0:55Yes.
1:07Some water. I got some water for you,
1:10please.
1:15You got it.
1:28Yeah. Right. And a specific word in
1:30Arabic used bay English. English. Yeah.
1:32They demand if only he could bring us a
1:34a sign from his lord. Have they not
1:36received received a confirmation by the
1:38same word can also mean a clarification
1:40of what is in the scripture. It says
1:41confirmation. Right. But if if we just
1:43if we go into wait what what verse is
1:45this again? Chapter 20 of the Quran
1:48versation. manifestation of what they
1:50have. And yeah, just give me a second,
1:52guys. And Ibnb and I know you love me. I
1:54know. Just give me a second. I know you
1:55love me. Andba Kir mentions the same
1:58exact verse, same exact chapter. If we
1:59go into anyone can open up right now, he
2:02mentions, let's go to it. Uh, one
2:06second. Let me pull up.
2:09All right. 2133, right? Yeah. So yet the
2:13Quran contains information about the
2:16about the people of the past that tells
2:17of their events from times long ago and
2:20it agrees with the authentic information
2:22in in the previous books concerning
2:24these matters. The Quran is supervisor
2:26over these books. It verifies what is
2:28correct and explains the mistakes that
2:31were falsely placed in them. So that
2:34specifically mentions how the Quranic
2:35author is aware of biblical details many
2:38times um edits biblical deton such as
2:42the account of Moses account of Jesus
2:44and directly amidst them which means
2:45that the Quranic author is aware of
2:47these details. Okay. So just to be clear
2:48so it says um it says
2:53uh and they say why not has 21 133
2:57right? Why not has why not um did he
3:00bring to us a sign from his lord has u
3:04when has not come to them has not come
3:06to them evidence of what is in the
3:10scriptures of the former correct so it
3:12says that the that what the Quran is
3:14bringing is evidence in their scriptures
3:17yeah but you're assuming that the word
3:18has a univocal meaning if if why are you
3:20taking it to be to mean that it's like
3:22fixing it when it doesn't say that
3:23because the the the earliest exegetical
3:25work such as clarifies what is meant So
3:28if you're well I'm just confused. If
3:29you're if if the Quran doesn't say that
3:31now I I we could agree that the Quran
3:32doesn't say that it's coming as a
3:34clarification or fixing what is in the
3:36scripture. If you assume if you assume a
3:38univocal meaning then yes but because
3:39it's equivocal it's going to have to be
3:41the case where it has an equivocal
3:42definition and by the earliest
3:44understanding we can match that meaning.
3:45Okay. So if we go to like for example in
3:471094 let's talk about right it says that
3:49if you are in doubt oh Muhammad about
3:51what we have revealed to you then ask
3:53those who have been reading the
3:54scripture before you and who are those
3:55who read the scriptures logic? The
3:56people of the book who the Jews okay
3:58that's wrong that's incorrect according
4:00to our existical works such
4:03as they clarify that those who read the
4:06scriptures are those rabbis and
4:08Christians who were non-believers who
4:10became Muslims after they found one
4:12second after they found Muhammad in the
4:14scriptures so they're Jews and
4:15Christians right who who are Muslims it
4:17doesn't say that they're Musl they're
4:18Jews and Christians correct no no like
4:20do you know Abdam of course he converted
4:22right okay so he's a Muslim who was a
4:24Jewish exactly so he a Jew. We got
4:26Christians, right? Because they found
4:28Muhammad. One second. So the people
4:29who've been reading the scripture before
4:31Muhammad, who are they? Abdullahbam and
4:33other readers. So these are Jews and
4:34Christians, correct? Nope. At the time
4:35of the revelation, the they were Yeah.
4:38Just give me a they were Jews and
4:40Christians who converted to Islam. And
4:42that's why Just give me a second. Say
4:43that. Just give me a second. Who
4:45converted to Islam after who converted
4:48and the verse was revealed on their
4:49account because after after they became
4:52Muslim. Why? Because they saw Muhammad
4:54in the scriptures. Okay. Boom. So what's
4:55their source for making making sure
4:57Muhammad was a true prophet? Uh the Old
4:58Testament. Exactly. So it was the Old
5:00Testament that verified Muhammad's
5:01prophethood, right? Correct. Okay. So if
5:03he wasn't in their scriptures, they
5:04could have judged Muhammad as a false
5:05prophet. Right. Sure. So then what's the
5:07judge on who on Muhammad's prophethood?
5:09Is it the Quran or is the previous
5:10scriptures? Yeah. So because the the
5:12statement in 1094 is going to be
5:13something known as a conditional
5:14impossibility because the condition of
5:16Muhammad be in doubt as for our
5:17narrations is impossible because the
5:19same narration that we No, no, just give
5:21me a second. Gives you okay. Just give
5:22me a second. The narration that we have
5:23states specifically speak a little
5:24slower and clearer. Yeah. The narration
5:26that we have specifically mentioned that
5:27Muhammad was never in doubt and he
5:29didn't go ask that's why we have
5:30specific we're not asking about. Just
5:31give me a second. Just let me land the
5:33point. Which means that 1094 is
5:35something known as a conditional
5:36impossibility to convey the message that
5:39Muhammad is in the scriptures. The
5:40reason we know this is because for if I
5:42say for example if I had wings I could
5:44fly. Obviously I can't have wings. So
5:46I'm saying it because I'm conveying the
5:48message that I can't fly. But it's
5:50impossible.
5:52It can't happen. Hold on a second. So
5:54you when with your statement you're
5:56communicating that if you had wings you
5:58could fly, right? Correct. So you're
6:00conveying a truth. You're you're
6:02conveying a truth. The condition is
6:03impossible but it's not the reality of
6:05the situation. Right. Yeah. No, it's is
6:07the condition itself is impossible. No,
6:09it's not. God can give you wings.
6:10Correct. Couldn't he? Yeah. But
6:11obviously from an altruistic point of
6:14view I'm speaking from but it's not. Is
6:16is Muhammad being possible? It's
6:17possible. Of course. No. Okay. Oh, you
6:19can say that if you're doing an internal
6:20critique. Let me give you that it's not
6:22possible that Muhammad actually doubted.
6:24Okay. What does Allah tell him to do if
6:25he did? Go to Abdam. No, it doesn't. It
6:28does. Can you read Can you read the
6:30verses? Tell me where it says go to
6:32Abdullah Salam. Yeah. So, it's it's
6:34going to be a very simple argument.
6:35Logic is arguing that those who are the
6:37scriptures read the verse. Those who are
6:40the who are the scriptures. Okay. Yeah,
6:43sure. So, so does the So, just to be
6:46simple and let's be honest with it. Does
6:48the verse say if you're in doubt go to
6:51Abdullah Salam? We're not Quranists. I
6:53didn't I didn't say that. It doesn't say
6:54that though. So uh because our clarifies
6:57what is meant in that verse. Do you love
6:59your do you love the Quran? Not just the
7:01Quran. I love the Quran and the Sunnah
7:02and the statements of the Do you cherish
7:03it? Now logic because seriously do do
7:06you cherish the Quran? Do you rever it?
7:08Of course. But you want to let me line
7:09my point? I just want I'm on my point.
7:12You would never you would never add You
7:14love the Quran. You cherish it. You
7:15rever it. So you would never add to it,
7:17right? But we're not Quranist. Would you
7:19add to the Quran? What do you mean by
7:20that? Clarify what you mean. Would you
7:21ever say something that the Quran
7:22doesn't say? Yes. We we we Yo, can can
7:25you let me learn my points? We derive
7:27jurist we derive juristprudent matters
7:29from outside the Quran as well as the
7:31Quran. The Quran is not the only thing
7:32that's authoritative upon us. We're not
7:34Quranist. Which means that when we have
7:36the Quran and the Sunnah and the
7:37statements of the Salaf, all three are
7:39going to be binding upon us. No, just
7:40one one second logic. And because Logic
7:43is doing an internal critique,
7:44unfortunately, he's going to have to
7:46grant me my paradigm which includes our
7:48exegetical work which includes our
7:49narration. So now Logic because our
7:51earliest exetical work includes these
7:53people as those who read the scriptures
7:55because you're doing internal critique,
7:56you have to grant it to me unless you
7:58don't want to grant it. No, I don't have
7:59to I don't have to grant you your
8:00position because it's an internal
8:01critique. You have to Well, I'm I'm
8:02giving you the Quran. But you don't like
8:04the Quran and it's you give me just the
8:06Quran. Let me finish please. Okay. So
8:08you're saying that according to the
8:10interpretation of the verse that it
8:12mentions a narration where Muhammad goes
8:14to uh a former Jew and asks am I in your
8:17scriptures or a former Christian? Am I
8:19in your scriptures? Right. No. No. No.
8:21Oh. So does say oh really the those who
8:24are reading the scripture before him are
8:26specifically uh Abdullah Salam. Does he
8:28say that? Yes. Can you show me that?
8:29Yeah, of course. He's talking about the
8:31Jew because they have the sign. They
8:33have the sign in their book like
8:36Deuteronomy 18:18. When God talked to
8:39Moses and he told him the prophecy of
8:42prophet, he will send a prophet like you
8:45from among their brothers. So guys, pay
8:48attention to the point. No, pay
8:50attention to the point. The the point is
8:53is that he's saying that according to
8:55the verse, those who've been reading the
8:57scripture before you is not talking
8:59about in general the people of the book
9:00as a whole is specifically talking about
9:03Abdullah Salam. No, it's impossible.
9:04That's what he's saying. It's
9:05impossible. It's impossible. wrong. I'm
9:07not saying he's wrong. That's his
9:09opinion. He's entitled to his opinion.
9:11But what I'm saying is what I'm saying
9:13is you want to Why you It's like yes or
9:16no. No, it's not. is not God talking to
9:21everybody because the law of Moses the
9:24law of Mos the law of Mos is specific
9:27for the Jew while the Quran confirm it
9:30and suppress the the Bible with a law to
9:35the legislation agreement we agree yeah
9:38so you're on my side we're against him
9:41he I don't know why he's specific only
9:44for I don't know
9:46either in this you are Thank you. Thank
9:49you so much. Because because the Jew at
9:52at the time of the prophet, they were in
9:55the Medina waiting for the coming of the
9:57new prophet. And this is what it is. And
10:00the prophet when he come the Jew, they
10:02were the first one who turned against
10:04him. This is why he expel him after they
10:07try to assassinate him.
10:13Yeah. Yeah.
10:14[Applause]
10:15[Laughter]
10:20Y'all out here cooking, man.
10:23There we go. I can pull it up, too, but
10:26I don't
10:28have something. Yeah, sure. Uh, I'm in
10:31Arabic. Do you mind if I just in Arabic?
10:40Okay. You got to translate. Yeah. Okay,
10:43that's fine. Uh,
10:481094. Ask those who read the scriptures
10:50before
10:52you from the people of the Tawat and
10:55like Abdullah. Ah, wait, wait, pause
10:58there. Yeah. So like Abdullah, what's
11:00his name? Abdam. Can I just call him
11:03Bdam? Abdullah bin Salam. Thank you
11:04guys. So like Abdullah bin Salam.
11:07Correct. So he's just an example of what
11:09this looks like. So he's talking in
11:11general. Ask those who've been reading
11:13the scripture before you and like he did
11:16with Abdullah Ib Salah. Yeah. Because he
11:18recognized the prophet of Muhammad. I
11:20got you. So he's an example of this
11:21coming into fruition. Yeah. Because he
11:23he fits that criteria. I get you. But so
11:26the point is is that the verse is
11:28referring to the people of the book in
11:29general. Abdullahbin Salam is an example
11:32of this happening. Why is he an example
11:33logic? Because it happened in real time.
11:35No. No. He's an example because he
11:36matched the criteria of those that can
11:38be referred to to find the prophet
11:40Muhammad in the scriptures. Why? because
11:42he was the people of the book. No. Yes.
11:45No. No. Logically, not every person of
11:46the people of the book will recognize
11:47Muhammad as scriptures. However, only
11:49those who reverted will recognize
11:51Muhammad in the scripture. I got you.
11:52But you're not you're missing my point.
11:53My point is is that the reason why
11:55Abdullah bin Salam matches the criteria
11:58of someone he can go ask is because he's
12:00of the people of the book. I'm not
12:01granting that is the only criteria. I'm
12:03saying there's another qualifier on top.
12:05Okay. The other qualifier is that they
12:07have to recognize Muhammad in the
12:08scriptures. Okay. Where do you get that?
12:10Can I explain him? Can I explain what
12:13he's saying? What he's saying? I know
12:15what he's saying. I know what he's
12:16saying. What he's saying? Shut up.
12:19What he's
12:21saying? He applies the criteria and
12:25accepted the Jew who accept that the
12:28prophet criteria. He is the prophet of
12:30God. I got you. So, can you say it's
12:32reasonable that um it's it's referring
12:34to the people of the book in general and
12:36the people who took this seriously, they
12:39would end up believing Muhammad's a
12:40prophet, right? Yes. Okay. So, it's
12:43referring to the people of the book in
12:44general. And when the people of the book
12:46in general check their scriptures, their
12:48scriptures affirm and verify Muhammad's
12:50a prophet. Correct. Okay. If the
12:52scriptures doesn't affirm that
12:53Muhammad's a prophet, they can judge
12:54that Muhammad's a false prophet. Right.
12:56Sure. So, what's the judge on Muhammad's
12:58prophethood? Is it the Quran or the
12:59previous scriptures? It depends on who
13:00you're speaking to.
13:03No, please. Yo, yo, you got to let my
13:05points, right? If you're referring to
13:07someone who's uh the only bind of
13:09scripture upon them is going to be the
13:10biblical narrative, then sure, we can go
13:12there. However, generally speaking, we
13:13can affirm Muhammad's prophethhood
13:15without needing to appeal to the Bible.
13:16We don't need to appeal to the Bible. I
13:17didn't ask that. I I I know that you
13:19have your ways of uh that you believe in
13:21Muhammad outside the Bible. Sure. But
13:22specifically, the Quran points to the
13:24Bible as a proof for Muhammad's
13:26prophethood. Does that does that in turn
13:28absolute confirmation? Of course it
13:29does. So why is everybody jumping in?
13:32He's doing good, guys. This guy, this
13:36brother's doing good. All right, he's in
13:38he's intellectual. He can do it. All
13:40right. So So with this being said,
13:42right, when you're talk when it says go
13:44to the people of the book, all right,
13:46who can read the scripture before you if
13:48you are in doubt, right? Correct. So
13:50basically the verifier of the of the of
13:52Muhammad's prophethood and the Quran is
13:54the is the old test is the old
13:55scriptures. So that means that it's the
13:58old scriptures that's the judge on
13:59whether the Quran is true or not. Right?
14:01Uh judge if Muhammad is a true prophet
14:04according to the Jews and Christians.
14:05Yes. No. No. Not according to Jews and
14:06Christians. Because that's the binding
14:07of scripture upon them. We'll do this
14:08again. It says if you're in doubt about
14:11that which we have revealed to you which
14:12is the Quran. Right. Okay. If you're in
14:14doubt about the Quran then go check the
14:17scriptures. Sure. Right. So if Muhammad
14:19goes and checks the scriptures he and he
14:21sees that he lines up with it, he'll
14:22he'll know that the Quran is good and he
14:24has no reason to doubt. Right. Sure, but
14:26but it's impossible for him to be down
14:27the first. No worries. Just going with
14:28the hypothetical. That's literally
14:30important to the premise. I don't think
14:32so. We're going with Look, it's not my
14:34Allah gave this hypothetical, not me.
14:36Sure. All right. So, I'm going with what
14:37Allah gave us. Okay. So, Allah gave him
14:40us a hypothetical. If Muhammad's in
14:41doubt, go check the previous scriptures.
14:43Sure. So, Muhammad can go check the
14:45previous scriptures, find himself in
14:47there, correct? And he'll know that he
14:49has no reason to doubt the Quran. Right.
14:51That's impossible hypothetical. Yeah.
14:52Sure. But yes. Okay. Okay. Now, if if
14:55Muhammad goes to the previous scriptures
14:57and finds out he's not in line with
14:58them, then he'll know that the Quran is
15:00false and he has good reason to doubt
15:01the Quran, right? Sure. Sure. Okay. So,
15:03then therefore the judge of truth
15:05according to this scenario, is it the
15:07Quran or is it the pre specifically the
15:09prophetic message is in the Bible?
15:11Whatever prophesied. Yes. Okay. So, if
15:14it's there, then it's good. Then the
15:16Quran's good. If it's not there, the
15:17Quran's false. Sure. Sure. So, it's the
15:19Bible that's the that's the judge over
15:21the Quran, right? Yeah. So no, if if the
15:23B if the Bible doesn't prophesy
15:24Muhammad, Islam is false. Good. So then
15:27the judge is the Bible in the sense that
15:29the prophetic not the entire Bible.
15:31You're missing it. No, I'm not I'm not
15:34Once, let me clarify. I'm not granting
15:36that because the prophetic the prophetic
15:38material is in the Bible that this must
15:39mean that we must holistically confirm
15:41the scripture that we specifically
15:43appeal to the prophetic elements found
15:44in the biblical scriptures. Okay. Not
15:46everything. Okay. All right. No worries.
15:47Okay. So this is what I need you to do.
15:48Okay. So we we agreed that according to
15:51Muhammad's prophet prophethood, right,
15:53that it's the Bible that's the judge on
15:55whether Muhammad is a true or false
15:56prophet. It's not the Quran to those
15:58binding upon the sign of the prophet.
16:02But yeah, we
16:04we agree. There's no doubt. There's no
16:08doubt
16:13listen. The prophet, there's no doubt he
16:16is a prophet. And what I'm saying is the
16:18sign the sign is for the Jew and the
16:21Christian to look at their scripture and
16:24to look for him. I'll try my best. I'll
16:26try my best. I'm talking to you, man.
16:29I'm talking to you. Okay. Okay. Sorry.
16:33Prophet Muhammad, he is the true prophet
16:37and the last prophet of of God. And he
16:40knows that while the Christian and the
16:42Jew who they need to do their scripture
16:46and she and see if the sign of the
16:50prophet are found in their their
16:53religion and I have for you lot of
16:55references references and the Bible talk
16:59about
17:03all right you okay so when it come when
17:07it comes to Muhammad and his
17:09prophethhood Correct. The judge is the
17:11Bible. It's going back to the pre older
17:14scriptures. So, and you said
17:15specifically about Muhammad being
17:17mentioned in there. Correct. If he's not
17:19mentioned in there, it's false. So, what
17:21I would want is an example of Jesus
17:23mentioning Muhammad. Uh, is Jesus the
17:26only part of the biblical narrative of
17:27of the angel? The New Testament. Can we
17:29not go through Old Testament? What's
17:31that? I'm Cuz Well, because your Quran
17:32says that Jesus mentions him by name.
17:34Does it say in the scriptures? Well, it
17:36says Well, where else would Jesus be
17:37mentioned in that? Wait, wait. No, no,
17:38you're not getting it. Imagine that
17:40Jesus said Ahmed will come. I agree with
17:41that. Does it say that? Wait, wait one
17:43second. Does it say that Ahmed will come
17:44and that's written in the scriptures? It
17:46doesn't say that. Okay, good. So, where
17:48would it be? What we're going to do is
17:49that we're going to go to the
17:50scriptures. We're going to be good
17:51people of the scriptures. We're going to
17:52go to it and we're going to go to the
17:54Old Testament. How about that? Wait, no.
17:55The New Testament. Why not the Old I'll
17:57tell you what. I'll tell you. I just
17:58told you why. John 16. John 16. Let them
18:01do it. John 16:16.
18:06Man, man. Come on, bro.
18:10Yeah. So, look. So, look. This is where
18:11we're at. Okay. Just give me a second.
18:12The re the reason why is because one, it
18:15does mention both Old and New Testament,
18:17right? But it specifically mentions
18:19Jesus as well, right? It does. So, I'm
18:21interested in where Jesus mentions this.
18:23Now, here's here's let me work this out
18:25with you. When you say that, does it say
18:27that Jesus said it and in the
18:29scriptures? Correct. You're right. It
18:30doesn't say that. That's fun. Now, where
18:33would Jesus be revealing this? Would
18:34this be in scripture or would this be in
18:35like a hadith of Jesus or something?
18:37What do you mean? When Jesus gives a
18:39revelation that a prophet's coming after
18:41him, where would it be? U that's going
18:43to argue from silence. You're assuming
18:45that everything that Jesus must have
18:46spoke must be recorded and and told in
18:49the scriptures. We don't have to go on
18:50that. Okay. When so you you said that
18:52when Jesus came he's preaching the jail,
18:54correct? So if he's mentioning a
18:56revelation Sure. When you agree that a
18:58the like a a prophecy of another prophet
19:00is a revelation from God, right? Yeah,
19:02sure. Okay. So if g when Jesus is given
19:04revelation this is in the scripture
19:06would you agree? No, that's not one
19:08second. It's a nonsequiter. Oh my
19:10goodness. It's It will be a nonsequit to
19:12say that everything a prophet must have
19:13spoke, must be recorded in the
19:15scriptures is a nonsequit. It doesn't
19:16follow. So you must justify why is it
19:19that one second
19:22that we don't have to grant that it must
19:23be in the scriptures. Your argument
19:24logic your argument hinges on that
19:26everything that Jesus must have
19:27prophesied about every every prophetic
19:29elements must be written in the
19:31scriptures. I'm not granting that. I'm
19:33saying I'm saying that it's a facious
19:35argument from silence because we
19:36wouldn't expect it there to be evidence
19:38for us to find Jesus and everything he
19:40prophesied about written in scriptures.
19:42I got you. Let me tell you why it's not
19:43an argument from silence. The reason why
19:44it's not an argument from silence is
19:46because we have evidence of the contrary
19:48and I'm going by the Quran standard. The
19:50Quran says Jesus came preaching the
19:52Injio. Sure. Right. And you agreed that
19:54whenever he's giving revelation, it's in
19:56his which is the scripture of Allah. I
19:58haven't even said that the inj the equal
20:01definition. What was Jesus preaching?
20:02That must have been written down. I
20:03didn't grant you that. You said the
20:05angel is what Jesus was preaching and
20:06then also the New Testament that the
20:08Yeah. It's an equivocal definition
20:10because it's going to have a different
20:11definition depending on the context
20:12logic. I one second. I never granted you
20:15that whatever Jesus was preaching was
20:17actively being recorded down. I never
20:18granted you that. So what? Okay. So this
20:20new test I'm just confused now. So when
20:22you say that the angel is the new
20:23testament when you say that the angel is
20:25the new testament that the Christians
20:26have is so is that is that the
20:29revelation of Allah? Yeah. Uh guys, let
20:32It's all good. It's all good. Yeah.
20:33Yeah. Yeah. Is is that is the New
20:35Testament that they have with them that
20:37Allah is appealing to is that revelation
20:39of Allah. It wouldn't be exact
20:40revelation. It would be correct in
20:42meaning. However, it wouldn't be the
20:43exact revelation again. What does that
20:44mean? Exactly. If if you if you asked me
20:46first before we spoke, what does what do
20:48you mean by equal? I would have
20:49explained it to you. No issue. I got
20:50you.
20:58Vocal. I'm going to repeat it one more
20:59time. It's either going to refer to what
21:01was originally given to Jesus as a
21:02revelation or what the Jews and the
21:05Christians had with them in the second
21:07second century seventh century. Sorry.
21:10Oh my god. Ignore it. Ignore it. Ignore
21:12it. Ignore it. All right. Can I still
21:14hear? Ignore it, guys. Ignore. Ignore.
21:16Ignore. Just ignore. They get no energy.
21:18Yeah. Do you want me to Oh, yeah. So,
21:21Injil is
21:23In is either going to Bro, why
21:26am I shouting? I'm So the E and they
21:30either the what Jesus originally spoke
21:32correct or the New Testament that they
21:35had in in Mohamad. Yeah. Now when I say
21:37this it shouldn't be you understanding
21:38that hey the New Testament must be the
21:40revelation given to Jesus. That's what
21:42the angel is. Again you're not you don't
21:44get what I'm saying. So it's part of the
21:45NGO not a revelation. No again you're
21:48equivoc you're equivocating. You're
21:49collapsing the definitions. Can you I'm
21:51just look can you can you like justify
21:53this in the Quran that the NGO in some
21:55sense is not a revelation. Yeah, because
21:57it refers to the Jews and the Christians
21:58having the injured with them even though
22:00it had distortion. But it says but it
22:02says the Quran is confirming that in a
22:04general sense. It doesn't say in a
22:05general sense. Okay, good. Then it has
22:06to be reconciled through the scripture.
22:07No, no, this guy has to get out. The
22:10Quran chapter chapter 2, chapter 3, four
22:14and five. Yeah. Yeah. You got to let him
22:16do it. It confirm what the truth and the
22:19Bible and let because it's mixed. Your
22:23Bible is mixed. is be tempted with.
22:26Okay. Okay. Good. So, God logically just
22:28asked me where do you get it from in the
22:31Quran that the confirmation given is a
22:33general confirmation and absolute. Good
22:35question. I agree with Yo, this guy's
22:37got to stop. This guy's got I agree with
22:39logic that if we only take the verses
22:41which confirm the scriptures that we
22:43wouldn't be able to derive a general
22:44confirmation. But because we must take
22:46these accounts holistically, we
22:48reconcile the verses which affirm the
22:50the the injil and affirm the scriptures
22:52and we reconcile it with other verses
22:54and narrations which confirm the
22:55corruption. Therefore, we derive that it
22:57must be a general confirmation through
22:59through reconciliation of the
23:00scriptures. I see. So you're man that's
23:03tough cuz that'll that'll lead us to
23:05does the Quran confirm the Bible? And
23:07you kind of you're saying yes and no. I
23:09want to show Muhammad in the Bible but
23:10you don't want to let me man. So this is
23:11what I want. So, so since it says it's,
23:14you know, Muhammad is in the jail and
23:16the Torah, but and the Torah, you're
23:18right. But in the jail that you're
23:19talking about, the New Testament. Okay.
23:22So, I want to see Muhammad mentioned in
23:23the New Testament or his description.
23:25Yeah. So, I can give you an example.
23:26Just give me a second. Just give me a
23:28second. Ma Matthew 21:43 specifically
23:31mentions Jesus speaking to the Jews and
23:33saying that the kingdom of God will be
23:35taken away, given to people that will
23:36bear its fruit. The question to you is
23:38do you agree that it is the same kingdom
23:40talked about in Daniel 2 logic? No, no,
23:43no, no, no. So that uh there's a
23:45different context. Daniel 2 and Matthew
23:4721, brother Daniel uh in Matthew 21,
23:51Jesus says that he's going to give it
23:52he's talking to uh the Pharisees, right?
23:54The ones who are disbelieving in him.
23:56And he says he's going to give it to the
23:57people who are bearing the fruit. Okay.
23:59In Luke, Jesus says that he's given the
24:01kingdom to his disciples. Okay, that's
24:03fine. Yeah, but I'm I'm not granting I'm
24:04not granting specifically the holistic
24:06of the new the because it's the same
24:08thing. Just give me a second. Otherwise,
24:09I'm going to have a contradiction. But
24:10that's why I answer my answer my
24:12question directly. I just did. Is the
24:13kingdom that Jesus speaking about that
24:15will be given to the people the same
24:17kingdom that Daniel prophesied about.
24:19Yes or no? Sure. Okay. Good. It's the
24:21same kingdom. So now all I have to do is
24:22prove that the kingdom in Daniel is the
24:25Islamic kingdom and therefore it would
24:26prove no because you messed up here. How
24:28did I mess up? All right. Right. In
24:29Matthew 21, okay, you have Jesus talking
24:31about he's given the kingdom to another
24:33to to others, which he specifically says
24:35is his disciples. Okay? Right. No, no
24:37worries. Okay. I'm not I'm not granting
24:40a uniform understanding of You don't
24:41have to grant me No, you said that
24:42Muhammad is in the New Testament. That's
24:44what you said. Correct. You went to a
24:46parable where Jesus is talking about
24:47giving the kingdom to his disciples.
24:48Okay. Yes. Now, you just agreed with me
24:51that that kingdom is the same fifth
24:53kingdom in Daniel. You agree to that,
24:55correct? Yeah. Okay. Good. So now if we
24:57show that the fifth kingdom in Daniel
25:00cannot be the kingdom of Jesus then it
25:02cannot be the kingdom given to the
25:03disciples. It must mean that either the
25:05the the New Testament accounts are
25:07wrong. Would you agree? If it is if it's
25:09granted that Daniel is not a different
25:12type of kingdom. Wait. So God has two
25:14kingdoms. No. What what I'm saying is is
25:16that if you're if you're saying that oh
25:18um all I have to do is prove that Daniel
25:202 is the same. It follows directly. If
25:22it's not then what? We just have two
25:24different kingdoms that we're talking If
25:25it's not, then the biblical accounts
25:26will be wrong. Then no, it just means
25:28that there's two different kingdoms. So
25:29God has two kingdoms. That's not that's
25:30not contrary. God has two kingdoms. I'm
25:31not saying that. I'm just saying. Okay.
25:32I need to tell your position. Does God
25:33have two kingdoms? That's not what I'm
25:34saying. That's not what I'm saying.
25:35Okay. If you're if you're demonstrating
25:37that, oh, if Daniel 2 is not the same
25:39kingdom as Matthew 21, then that you
25:42just have two different kingdoms. That's
25:43not a That's not what I'm saying. I know
25:44what that's not what you're saying.
25:45You're saying that it's the same
25:47kingdom, right? You're saying that
25:49Daniel 2 is the same kingdom being
25:51spoken out in Matthew 21. Correct. But
25:53unfortunately for your position, the
25:54kingdom in Matthew 21 is given to the
25:56disciples of Jesus. Now you're you're
25:58assuming that the account in Luke and
26:00the count in Matthew are in conformity.
26:02They're talking about the same kingdom.
26:03Okay. I'm not granting that in
26:04conformity. You don't have to I'm saying
26:06I'm saying you the writers of New
26:08Testament sure Jesus into the Matthew
26:11and Daniel into the prophets in Daniel.
26:12But hold on a second. If you're if you
26:14appeal to Matthew 21 that talks about
26:16the son of God that talks about the
26:18kingdom being given to the disciples and
26:20then tries to uh uh uh put that with
26:24Daniel 2. I'll make it very simple. And
26:25then and then say wait actually it's not
26:27really I'll make it I'll make it very
26:28simple. For X if any X if the kingdom of
26:32God in Daniel uh uh in Daniel 2 is the
26:35Islamic kingdom would you agree that the
26:37kingdom talked about in Matthew? Listen
26:38the question very carefully. for any X
26:40if X if the kingdom in Daniel is the
26:42Islamic kingdom would you agree that the
26:44kingdom in in Matthew 31 must also be
26:46the Islamic kingdom it's a conditional
26:48Islamic as a question oh sure I agree
26:52that Matthew 21 the kingdom of God is
26:54Daniel 2 and Okay good so now knee and
26:56logic both agree that for any X if X if
26:59the kingdom in Daniel is the Islamic
27:01kingdom it must follow that the kingdom
27:03in Matthew is Islamic kingdom yeah okay
27:05good so so do you all also agree that
27:07since Matthew 21 and Daniel 2 as the
27:10same kingdom. Matthew 21 talks about the
27:12kingdom that is given to the disciples.
27:14I I I'm not going to go into your
27:16account. But you but you just said I'm
27:17not going to count to Luke. I'm not
27:18going to
27:19conformity. One second. One second. So
27:21now So notice what you have to do. What
27:23you have to do to try to formulate Islam
27:26and shoehorn Islam in there is you No,
27:28you do. You have to go to the New
27:29Testament. You got to pick out, okay,
27:31you know what? This detail can somehow
27:33match Islam. But when I when we get the
27:35full details of what it's talking about,
27:37ah, I don't like that one because that
27:38eliminates us. So, let me eliminate
27:40that. You know why I don't have to do
27:41that? The reason why I don't have to do
27:42that crazy is because logic just
27:44conceded that if the kingdom in Daniel
27:46is Islam, the kingdom in Matthew must
27:48also be Islam whether he likes it or
27:50not. So now the only conclusion that the
27:53king if the kingdom is Islam, the only
27:54conclusion we come to is that the
27:56biblical accounts are wrong. Simple.
27:59Because because it would not in
28:01conformity. So now No, that doesn't No,
28:02dude. Oh my goodness. You're missing it.
28:04You're missing it again. Your claim is
28:06that the kingdom in Matthew 21 is an
28:10Islamic kingdom, right?
28:13Uh, no. No. Daniel. Yeah. Matthew 21 and
28:15Daniel 3. Okay. So, Matthew 21 is the
28:18kingdom of God, which is an Islamic
28:21kingdom. That's your claim. Yes. Which
28:23is also referenced in Daniel 2. Correct.
28:25And Daniel 7. Right. Correct. Okay. So,
28:28in all of this references, can we just
28:29go to Daniel, please? Right. We're right
28:31here. We have to go to Daniel. is stuck
28:33here because because the Why don't you
28:34go to Daniel? Because we're stuck in in
28:36what you quoted. You quoted Matthew 21.
28:38Correct. So in Matthew 21, it talks
28:40about the kingdom that is given to the
28:43disciples of Jesus. Okay. Okay. Is the
28:46Islamic kingdom given to the disciples?
28:49Uh no. Then it's done. It's over. Okay.
28:52It's only over if you assume that the
28:54accounts are
28:56uniformity. If we use the whole New
28:57Testament, one second. One second. One
28:59second. I am not granting
29:01for if logic wants to go to if logic
29:05wants to go to but I don't know I don't
29:06I don't know if he wants to I don't know
29:07if you want to man why why won't you go
29:08to Daniel you're in Matthew 21 bro okay
29:11but you just agreed with me that the
29:12kingdom in Daniel is the same as yes so
29:13if it's the same you have to affirm that
29:15Islam was given by to the disciples or
29:17that your accounts are contradictory no
29:18it's not that you're wrong what the heck
29:20my guy I'm not granted that New
29:22Testament is in
29:23conformity but you're quoting the New
29:25Testament I'm not granted that Mark
29:26Matthew Luke and John have the same
29:27Christologology I don't I'm not grant
29:28that Mark Luke and John the same. This
29:30is what you need to do. What you need to
29:31do is demonstrate that the kingdom that
29:33Jesus talks about that he's given to
29:35another people when he says the same
29:36thing and he says he's given the kingdom
29:38to his disciples that is not the same
29:39thing. Demonstrate that. Okay, good. All
29:41I have to do is that Daniel is Islam.
29:42That's what I have to do. No, the No,
29:44you don't. Let's go to Daniel logic. Why
29:46won't you go? No, you're running from
29:47this. No, I'm exactly on topic. I'm
29:49saying that Daniel is listen to the
29:51problem that you have. You said I'm not
29:53granting that the Gospels are in
29:56conformity. Correct. You're saying that
29:58they're in contradiction to each other.
29:59Correct. Okay. What you need to do is
30:02prove it. Good. So, I have to
30:04substantiate my ex. Pause. Pause.
30:06Demonstrate that the kingdom that Jesus
30:08says that he's given to others and that
30:11when he says he's given it to his
30:12disciples is not the same thing. Okay,
30:15good. I'm going to I'm going to what I'm
30:16going to do is I'm going to put in a
30:17syllogism so maybe logic can actually
30:19get it. P1, the kingdom in in the book
30:21of Daniel is the same as the one in
30:23Matthew. P2, the kingdom in Daniel,
30:26granted is going to be Islam. P3,
30:28conclusion, the kingdom in Matthew must
30:30also be Islam. Which premise do you
30:31disagree with logic? I disagree with all
30:33of it. No, no. Which premise exactly?
30:34All of them. Wait. So, you disagree?
30:36Wait. You disagree that the kingdom in
30:37Matthew is the same as Daniel? I
30:38disagree that the kingdom is is islamic
30:40kingdom. That's what I disagree with.
30:41Okay. So, can can I can I go to that?
30:43No. You That's You're very slick. You
30:45tried it. You tried it. I gave you aism.
30:47No. And and and let me let me reverse it
30:49to you. You said No, you have to answer.
30:51You have to deal with me. I am dealing
30:52with you. You're not You're not dealing
30:54with me. Let's go to You're not dealing
30:55with me. Can we go to the book of
30:56Daniel? Is this not scripture? Did I let
30:58you speak? You did, man. Go ahead. Okay.
30:59Thank you. I appreciate it. So, what
31:01you're trying to run away from. You
31:03quoted Matthew 21, not me. Okay. I
31:05didn't go here. You went here. Correct.
31:07And then I also gave you an ex an
31:09exogetical answer of what the kingdom is
31:11based on the New Testament. Correct. Who
31:13he's given it to to the disciples. I
31:15don't respond. You said, "Well, I don't
31:17have to take them as as as uh together
31:19in conformity." Conformity. I don't have
31:21to take them together. Correct. You're I
31:22I think that they're disagreeing.
31:24Correct. So, what I said you have to do
31:26is prove it. Good. So, show me that the
31:30kingdom that Jesus is handing Wait, go
31:32ahead. Show me that the kingdom that
31:34Jesus is handing to others is not the
31:36same kingdom that he's given to the
31:38disciples in the New Testament. Show me
31:40in the New Testament that it's the
31:41difference. Okay, hold on. Why am I
31:42being constricted to the New Testament?
31:44Because you said it's different. You
31:45came here and said it's different. Okay,
31:48you answer my question. Why am I being
31:49constricted to the New Testament? I'll
31:50say it. I'll say it again. logic. Why
31:52only the New Testament? Why we go to Say
31:53it again. I'll say it again. Okay.
31:55Because you quoted Matthew Hold on,
31:57please. You quoted Matthew 21? Because
32:01you came to the New Testament. Okay,
32:02good. And we gave and the answer is in
32:05the New Testament. You're saying that
32:08it's not the same thing. Okay. But to
32:10substantiate that premise, why am I only
32:13being restricted to the New Testament
32:14framework? Why? Because you quoted the
32:16New Testament framework. No, no, I
32:17understand I quoted it. But why only the
32:19New Testament?
32:21I know, but why is he only restricted me
32:22to the Old New Testament? Why can't I
32:24use the Old and the New? Why? Guys, does
32:26it make sense that if he quotes the New
32:29Testament, he's bound by the New
32:30Testament? No, I'm bound by the Bible.
32:32I'm bound by the framework of the Bible.
32:34Say that when I ask you to show me that
32:36Muhammad is in the New Testament.
32:37Correct. You didn't quote the New
32:38Testament. I'm going to use Daniel
32:40because Daniel is a Daniel is a prophet
32:41from God than Old Testament. But is it
32:44is he not binding upon you? Hold on a
32:45second. Is he not binding? Okay, good.
32:47You quote the New Testament and then you
32:49say this kingdom is the same kingdom of
32:50Daniel. Fine. But according to the New
32:53Testament, this kingdom is given to the
32:55disciples, right? According to correct.
32:57Okay. So according to the New Testament,
33:00it can't possibly be Islamic because
33:02your accounts are contradictory. Is that
33:04correct? If we if we only work by One
33:06second, one second. Okay. I'll make it
33:07very clear so we don't waste time. If
33:09logic only grants me the New Testament
33:11framework, I agree. But unfortunately,
33:13this conversation isn't only bound by
33:15the New Testament logic. You must deal
33:16with me and actually go to Daniel. You
33:18have to. Okay. I think that you have to
33:19deal with me and get some new testament
33:21logic. Appreciate it, man. It was good
33:23speaking to you. Yeah, good talk, man.
33:24Thank you guys for having me. Thank you.
33:26All right. Can Can we
33:30Good, man.
33:32Can Yeah. First of all, guys, first of
33:35all, guys, any any more mics? Let's uh
33:37let's give a round of applause for our
33:38guest.
33:42That was good, bro. Thank you, Log.
33:43Yeah, it was a good time.
33:45I'll make sure to get back to whoever.
33:46So, what we have here, ladies and
33:47gentlemen, don't just come see me in a
33:49blue jacket. Stay a
33:53well played.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of God Logic Got Scared and Cooked by a Young Muslim | The Apologetic Muslim | Speakers Corner by Sam Dawah, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 7,186 words across 1,020 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.