YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → THE ISLAMIC DILEMMA DEBATE CHRISTIANS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE! (MUST WATCH)

THE ISLAMIC DILEMMA DEBATE CHRISTIANS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE! (MUST WATCH) — Transcript

by itachii · 18,771 words · 2,867 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:12Well, well, well. It seems like some of
0:15us Muslims have been a little bit too
0:16lenient as it pertains to giving time to
0:19a certain Christian platform to upload
0:21some debates. Now, if you didn't already
0:23know, myself as well as two Muslim
0:25brothers, the Muslim Apologetic and Sira
0:27Dawa, had recently gone in May to film
0:29three debate videos on a platform called
0:31The Way with Brian Dilla. Now, we were
0:34under the impression that these videos
0:36were going to be uploaded in a timely
0:38fashion, one after the other. Week three
0:41rolled along and our video didn't get
0:43uploaded. Instead, other videos got
0:46uploaded, other debates happened, and
0:47other debate videos got uploaded
0:49instead. Now, there's one debate video
0:52in particular that they're still not
0:53trying to upload and they don't want you
0:55to see. And it's very odd that they
0:58don't want you to see this particular
1:00video considering it's the most prolific
1:02argument against Islam at the moment.
1:04Supposedly, it was a 3v3 debate between
1:08myself, the Muslim apologetics, Satawa,
1:10God logic, inspiring philosophy, and
1:12Belu. It was a debate on the Islamic
1:16dilemma. The argument that these
1:18Christians have been trying to propagate
1:20against Islam for so long. Yet, for some
1:23reason, they don't want to upload this
1:25particular debate. They uploaded two
1:28random debates that we had with them.
1:30One was a 1v4 on which one was better
1:32for society, Islam or Christianity. And
1:35the other was regarding Jesus, the
1:37historical Jesus, uh whether or not he
1:40had taught the trinity. But for some
1:42reason, the most important topic of the
1:45three that we had debated when we were
1:46there, they don't want to upload. It's
1:49the one topic that these particular
1:51Christians have been propagating for so
1:53long against Islam. Now, I'll leave the
1:56speculating up to you guys to determine
1:58why it's the case that they didn't want
2:00to do it. From the rage quits
2:02traditions, I said to the, you know, not
2:06answering of questions to the moderator
2:08trying to butt in and debate with the
2:10Christians. So, it ended up being a 4v3
2:12instead of a 3v3.
2:14Whatever the reason may be, you guys
2:16could be the ones to decide why it's the
2:18case that they did not want to upload
2:20this particular debate. Before we get
2:22into the video though, I just want to
2:23make it very clear that prior to us even
2:25arriving in Vegas, I made it very clear
2:27to the casting individual, uh, whose
2:29name is Shayla, that we would be filming
2:32from our phones. She only had an issue
2:35with whether or not we were going to be
2:36filming with a professional camera, to
2:38which I very clearly told her no. And as
2:40you could see in the screenshot, she had
2:42no issues with filming through a phone.
2:45So, she even hoarded the message and
2:47everything. So, they cannot turn around
2:48and say, "Oh, I can't believe the
2:50Muslims did this and oh, blah, blah,
2:52blah." Um, yeah, that's not going to
2:54work here because we got permission
2:55ahead of time. And there's no reason why
2:58we wouldn't have a some sort of
2:59confirmation considering there was no
3:01contract that was even signed in regards
3:03to when the videos would be uploaded or
3:05anything. So, this was more so a safety
3:07cushion for us. Also, please bear in
3:10mind that in order for me to upload this
3:12video, it was obviously, as I said,
3:13filmed off of a phone, so the quality is
3:15not going to be the best of qualities.
3:17However, I do feel as though everybody
3:19should be allowed to see this video
3:21considering the Christians are fighting
3:23tooth and nail to keep it hidden away
3:26from the public. However, you know,
3:28that's not going to work here with us.
3:29With that being said, I want you guys to
3:31sit back, grab your popcorn, and enjoy
3:33the video.
3:34>> Is the Quran the final revelation of
3:36God? Beautiful.
3:39>> We say no. It is not the final
3:41revelation of God. It has so much
3:43incoherence in it that we cannot trust
3:45it. It's clearly human comes from human
3:48origin. The biggest reason we would say
3:50is clearly the going to be the Islamist
3:52dilemma. The Quran constantly in dozens
3:55upon dozens of verses confirms our
3:57scriptures. Scriptures that we have that
3:59are between our hands over and over
4:01again. Therefore, it's confirming
4:03scriptures that it contradicts. So
4:06either this is what we call the Islam.
4:07If we have the scriptures from God then
4:10we have to judge Islam as false because
4:12our scriptures contract the Quran. If
4:13our scriptures are corrupted well then
4:15the Quran is confirming corrupted
4:16scriptures. So it cannot be the final
4:18revelation.
4:19>> Beautiful. Yeah that that's good. So um
4:22we would say that the basic response or
4:24the basic way to get around this is that
4:26we affirm as Muslims that the Quran
4:28generally confirms the previous
4:29scriptures. We would say that it's an
4:30absolute confirmation of every specific
4:33doctrine that you guys would quote to.
4:34And the main reason we say to this is
4:36because the author of the Quran seems to
4:38be familiar with the Jewish Christian
4:40scriptures. And while doing so, he edits
4:42parts that he doesn't find to be in line
4:45with his Christology, in line with his
4:46protologology, so on and so forth. The
4:48best example we can give this is in the
4:50text found in comparison with the book
4:52of Matthew where the author of the Quran
4:54mentions these details. That's number
4:56one. Number
4:59Um yeah exactly right we see these inter
5:02text with the Quranic author and this is
5:04backed by scholarship by um Gabriel St.
5:06Reynolds in his book the Bible of the
5:07Quran he specifically mentions that the
5:09author of the Quran is familiar with the
5:11biblical uh prophets familiar with the
5:13stories right and changes the
5:15prophettologology according to what he
5:16believes is true so because the author
5:18of the Quran consciously is this
5:20material we would say that it's not
5:21absolute confirmation and um that's like
5:25the basic response what do you guys
5:26think of
5:27>> yeah I think that uh one there's nowhere
5:31in the Quran that says that
5:32>> okay
5:32>> there's nowhere in the Quran that gives
5:34any such ideation
5:37a partial confirmation. Uh over and over
5:39again, you see the Quran saying that it
5:41confirms the Torah and the gospel. It
5:43confirms the Torah in the gospel. It
5:44confirms what is with you vers 41. Um it
5:47commands the Jews and the Christians to
5:48believe in the Quran because it confirms
5:50what they have with them. And so it
5:52wouldn't make sense that the Quran is
5:54saying, "Oh, well actually it's only
5:56confirming some of what you have. So
5:57believe in the Quran because it's not
5:59part of what you have." That just that
6:01just wouldn't follow. It just I think
6:02makes the problem worse.
6:05saying that there's conscious edits
6:06would be saying that Muhammad is
6:07actually purposely creating the Islamic
6:10>> you know and so you have verses where
6:13you know it points to the previous
6:15scriptures as like a standard of truth
6:17on how you can know that the Quran is
6:19giving some of these stories correct
6:21chapter 10 vers 94 it says if you're in
6:23doubt then go and ask those who've been
6:24reading the scripture before you truly
6:26the truth is coming from your lord so be
6:28not of those who doubt
6:29>> right chapter 2 vers 85 it says you know
6:32uh do you talking about the Jews who are
6:34going against the Torah, right? Going
6:36against what they uh don't like,
6:38choosing what they like. It says, "Do
6:40you believe in part of the scripture and
6:42reject the rest? What is the recompense
6:44of those who do so among you except
6:46disgrace in this life and in the
6:48hereafter you get a severe torment?" So,
6:50you're going to go to hell if you
6:52believe in part of the scripture, right?
6:53The cross. So, this idea of partial
6:56confirmation,
6:57it just I don't see it in the cross.
6:59>> Okay.
7:00>> Okay. Yeah. Um I think a bigger issue
7:03that we have to focus on first is
7:04because obviously the prompt is is the
7:06Quran a final revelation is what a
7:08criteria for revelation would look like
7:10irrespective of what we would take an
7:13interpretation of a particular verse to
7:14be because if we're going to sit here
7:16and argue about particular
7:18interpretations and this scholar says
7:20this but this one says that about a
7:21particular verse it's not really going
7:23to get anywhere. But if we can establish
7:24some sort of fundamental basis as to
7:26what a particular revelation looks like
7:28from God or from specifically the
7:30Abrahamic God as we're going to be
7:32discussing between the Bible and the
7:34Quran, I think it's going to be a lot
7:35more you know of a fruitful discussion.
7:38But I mean obviously at the same time
7:39when it comes to Islamic dilemma I think
7:42um when it comes to this particular
7:44discussion
7:46um like I said there are many different
7:48scholarly opinions and those things can
7:49be taken out of context. They could be
7:51twisted into different ways etc. But at
7:53the end of the day if we agree that
7:56there is a majority opinion from the
7:58scholars who from the beginning took a
8:01position or held to a position where
8:03there was going to be a general
8:05confirmation in the sense where the for
8:07example you have and other individuals
8:09who say things such as the Quran is a a
8:14criteria over them. He says that the
8:16Bible and the Torah were corrupted. He
8:18says to the people, the Muslims
8:20specifically, he says, uh, why is it
8:22that you read what you um what what they
8:24have, but you have that which is already
8:27not corrupted and it is clear, it is
8:29undistorted and it is given to you by
8:30the prophet peace be upon him and they
8:32don't read your scriptures.
8:33>> What does say about the prior scriptures
8:35in that?
8:36>> Yeah, he specifically says it's
8:38corrupted.
8:40Um he says uh there's the I believe
8:42>> well the thing is the same Arabic word
8:44shows up in surah 16101 when Allah is
8:46talking about abrogation
8:48>> so that means corruption
8:49>> what is the word in Arabic
8:50>> what is it the thing is I'm probably
8:52going to butcher it it's like something
8:53like that
8:55>> I don't know the exact word 161 is my
8:57point that's important because he's
8:59talking about arrogating so if that word
9:01means that we've corrupted our
9:03scriptures then Allah is saying that the
9:04Quran has been corrupted he doesn't
9:06change something it's because he's
9:07corrupting someone if you look at that
9:09the most literal understanding is that
9:10he's they substituted
9:13not that he's been corrupted.
9:14>> Right. So I want to work backwards with
9:161094 285 specifically regarding the uh
9:19objection they gave. I don't believe it
9:20addressed the substance of conscious
9:21edits. So you mentioned specifically
9:23that the author of the Quran which you
9:25posit to be
9:27>> beautiful. Let's go with that. The
9:29author of the Quran purposefully uh goes
9:32against the previous scriptures. Would
9:33you agree that in that case he doesn't
9:36believe that it's revelation if he
9:37purposefully knowingly changes
9:39revelation? Right.
9:40>> No, I I don't think he's going against
9:41the scriptures. I think he's hearing
9:43stories and going against what he's
9:44hear.
9:44>> Amazing. So you're saying that there's
9:46an old tradition by the Jews and the
9:47Christians that he's listening to and he
9:49doesn't believe that it's revelation or
9:51the Bible specifically. Correct. Right.
9:52So that wouldn't hold weight for two
9:54main reason. Then first reason is that
9:56we know that the author of the Quran is
9:57very familiar with the biblical text. I
9:59gave you the inference fromah hadith and
10:02I gave you also the fact that the author
10:04of the Quran parallels with stories for
10:05example Moses in the exodus of him
10:07taking out his hand right the exodus
10:09council that his hand was lepous
10:11>> yeah I'm saying that there's two there's
10:12two examples of conscious edits right
10:14and the second example in the Quran says
10:16that his hand was without disease so the
10:17author of the Quran follows exactly to
10:19the tea every story part of the story
10:21and then towards the end he edits it so
10:23because of that and I give you the
10:25historical pres scholarship sheet
10:27presidents by Gabriel um St. Reynolds
10:30where he explicitly says that the author
10:32of the Quran is familiar with the
10:33prophettologology is familiar with the
10:35uh um account within the Bible. So how
10:38do you deal with that specifically?
10:39>> So I don't know.
10:41>> Yeah. So can you uh quote who said this
10:43about
10:44>> G will say no.
10:45>> Okay. And what was this?
10:46>> Uh he's he's a contemporary scholar.
10:48>> Okay. Very cool. So would you say that
10:50your scholarship and throughout history
10:52has affirmed this idea of correcting the
10:55stories of the prophets? Uh yes we have
10:58for example Hazam who's a classical
11:01scholar who quotes of the early Muslims
11:03in his book Alis where he explicitly
11:05mentions that we have heard of a group
11:07of Muslims from amongst the Muslims who
11:10did not believe in textual corruption.
11:12What this means is that the majority
11:13Muslim would have been in textual
11:14corruption. However the minority
11:16position would have been that obviously
11:18they don't believe that but that's like
11:19a different position.
11:20>> Yeah. So I actually really like the
11:21point you brought about about the
11:22conscious edits. Okay. So for argument
11:24sake, let's just say that uh the the
11:27author of Quran is correcting the
11:28previous scripture. Beautiful.
11:29>> Okay, let's just say that specifically
11:31>> and he knows the previous scriptures.
11:32>> Um I think it's like well actually I
11:35would argue that
11:37>> I'm not really sure what happened, but
11:39it's divine revelation, right? And so if
11:41Muhammad gets all these details correct,
11:43either way, whether he knew it or he
11:44didn't hear it, he's getting from God.
11:46So it doesn't matter if he heard it
11:47somewhere else, right?
11:48>> Yeah.
11:49like an outside person looking in,
11:50they're not going to grant this.
11:52>> Oh, definitely not. But I'm saying so
11:53like that's your guys's position is my
11:55is my understanding. And so because of
11:56that, all these details, especially the
11:58prophets have to be correcting what's
12:00wrong in the Torah. And you said
12:02conscious, right? Y
12:04>> so with that being said, that means that
12:06your claim would have to be that someone
12:08a Jew went and changed the stories of
12:11the Torah.
12:12>> A Jew or a particular Yeah. a group of
12:14Jews.
12:14>> Was it intentional or unintentionally
12:16changed?
12:16>> Yeah. So it would depend on the context,
12:18right? But
12:18>> so can we have some examples? I'll bring
12:20some examples and you can tell. Okay.
12:21>> Yeah, go ahead.
12:22>> So for example,
12:23>> um the story of Okay, even you brought
12:25up Moses, right? Why is one loveless,
12:28one's not
12:28>> that's like a very intentional someone
12:30changed it. Okay. Um another example
12:32would be this one actually strikes me a
12:34lot. So the story of Ysef Joseph, okay,
12:37there's many irreconcilable differences.
12:39So for example, Jacob's reaction to
12:41Joseph uh Joseph's quoteunquote death,
12:44right?
12:44>> Right. So in the Quran, Jacob's like, "I
12:47have faith by Allah. He's alive." He
12:50doesn't say that. He says it implicitly
12:52at first and later on after they're
12:54going back to Egypt. So this is years
12:55later. He's still like, "No, I can smell
12:57Joseph. Go look for Joseph." Finally,
12:59when he finds out, he basically was
13:00like, "I told you guys. I told you he
13:02was alive." Now, when you look at the
13:03Torah, so his reaction to the death is
13:06he goes, "Joseph is without doubt torn
13:09to pieces." And then years later in
13:11Egypt, he's like, "Don't take Benjamin.
13:13Joseph's already dead. He was torn to
13:15pieces. Later, finally, when he sees
13:17Joseph, he's still like or he hears
13:18about Joseph, he's like, "No, I don't
13:20believe it." So, this is very
13:21intentionally changed because you can't
13:22just change it in one place. You have to
13:24go and change in like multiple other
13:25places. Beautiful. And so, my my my idea
13:28is is this that that's one that's one
13:30mistake I just brought up, right?
13:31>> Yeah. Do you want to address that real
13:32quick?
13:33>> Well, she's got the point the point is
13:36that um there are these intentional
13:38changes and that's just one difference I
13:40brought up. Okay. But there's actually
13:42944 differences just in 98 verses of
13:45surah sorry of the story of Joseph and
13:47surah. And so that is kind of crazy. And
13:50so my question is what is the motivation
13:53of a Jew changing his uh even changes
13:56his age. He even changes how long it
13:58takes for it to come back. Just like
13:59there's water in the well in the Torah.
14:01There's no water in the in the pit. I
14:02mean there's no water in the pit in the
14:04Torah. There's water in the pit in in
14:06the Quran. Like super random. I don't
14:08understand if it's like is it prophecies
14:10of Muhammad trying to take out? No.
14:11>> Right. So what you're saying is it
14:13ethics if there's no motivation that we
14:15can assume that the text is
14:16>> so my argument would be a razor. It's
14:18just the most simple argument if it's it
14:21doesn't make sense and there's point
14:22it's it's an argument from
14:23pointlessness.
14:25>> Yeah. But so the issue with that is
14:27going to be if we don't have any
14:29evidence right to suggest that there was
14:31some sort of corruption or some sort of
14:33change historically speaking right um
14:35then it would be the case that we could
14:37say you know if you use Alam's razor
14:38come to the simplistic understanding
14:40given on the idea that we don't have any
14:42evidence okay however even reporting to
14:44the Jewish traditions we have
14:45individuals such as what they believe
14:47during the fifth uh century BC they
14:49believe Iban Ezra right or a individual
14:51sorry not Ezra specifically Ezra the
14:54master the rabbi yeah He specifically
14:56was the one who recollected the entirety
14:58of the Torah for them or the entirety of
15:00what they had up until then of the Old
15:01Testament specifically. And he he was
15:03the one who did it alone. So this is
15:05something according to their tradition.
15:06>> Accept the source.
15:07>> I don't need to accept the source. The
15:09point is hold on. Hold on. The point is
15:10is that I'm showing is that there is
15:12certain things that occur historically
15:14where we could use them as some sort of
15:16evidence to negate the proposition of
15:18>> how this was written. Sorry.
15:20>> Yeah. So it could I'm not sure when
15:23specifically it's written. comes within
15:24their oral tradition though. So,
15:26>> so this is post Jesus. This is way out.
15:28>> She wasn't referring to fourth Ezra. I
15:30know you're referring to that, but she
15:31wasn't referring to it. She's referring
15:32to the Torah itself. Like in 2 Kings 22
15:34and 25, like in 2 Kings 22 when it says
15:37that King Josiah found the book of the
15:39law, he found Deuteronomy. It lost it.
15:42And then later in 2 Kings 25, it says
15:44that when King Nebuchadnezzar came and
15:46destroyed the temple, he burned down
15:47everything. Everything was lost. And
15:49that's how we see Ezra and Nehemiah 8.
15:52When Ezra is reading the Torah, the
15:54Levites at the time, they have to
15:56interpret these laws for the people
15:57because they're not familiar with it.
15:59And that's how we see in verse 16 to 17
16:02that they quote a law that hasn't been
16:04done since the time of Joshua. But I've
16:06heard you believe in documentary
16:08hypothesis. You don't think that the
16:09penetuk that we have, you don't
16:11>> you don't think you think the penetuk
16:13that we have is the one for Moses. This
16:15is a shift.
16:16>> Well, it's not a shift. because he's
16:18she's asking how is it intentional and
16:19unintentional response.
16:21>> So I reject just real quick I reject the
16:23documentated hypothesis. Um
16:24>> so you think the penetuk was written by
16:26>> Moses. So I can address that but first I
16:28want to finish this. So I I get that you
16:30brought Okay, we're not talking about
16:31for Ezra either.
16:33>> Either way,
16:34>> I don't hold to the Jewish traditions
16:35and even if we did,
16:37>> I wasn't done with my point.
16:39>> For argument sake, the Jewish tradition
16:41is correct for argument sake. Let's just
16:42say
16:43>> so essentially it was changed, but then
16:45that would be an accidental change. That
16:47would be them unintentionally trans
16:49together and the kid was wrong.
16:50>> Does that make sense? So I'm trying to
16:51look for the intentional changes that in
16:54the uh the Quran, I'm sorry, in the
16:56Torah. So I'll just give one example.
16:58Okay.
17:00Yeah, because I don't
17:02Yeah, you're right. Because I don't know
17:03why you're saying that it has to be
17:04specifically intentional. There could
17:06also be things which are done
17:07unintentionally such as, for example,
17:09the reason why this even occurs by the
17:11way in the fifth century BC is because
17:12of the Babylonian head. Uh I think like
17:14you said, Nebuchadnezzar, he's the one
17:16who goes, he burns all the Toras, etc.,
17:18etc. And the one who recollects it for
17:20them again is this individual named
17:21Ezra. Whether you accept or reject the
17:23tradition, that's different, right? What
17:25I'm saying is is that you appealed to
17:26Alam's razor. You're saying that we have
17:28to go with the more simplistic
17:29understanding. However, the only, you
17:31know, understanding that we could gather
17:33based off of the evidences at least from
17:34that time period is going to be that
17:36this is the tradition of the held to
17:38unless we have some sort of fifth
17:39century Torah or fifth century pentatuk
17:41or anything of the sort that you could
17:42appeal to and then by which obviously
17:45the the appeal is going to be a little
17:46bit different. The evidence is going to
17:48be different. It would be skewed towards
17:49your favorite terms.
17:50>> Okay. So, let me understand your
17:51argument. So, let's just fork sake,
17:53let's just say in the uh when would you
17:56say the last perfectly preserve
17:57preserved power was that? If you had to
17:59go,
18:00>> what do you mean? No, I'm not I'm not
18:01saying perfectly preserved. I'm saying
18:03when was last. Let me just make sure.
18:05Okay. What I'm saying is okay, if we're
18:08saying that there's a specific Torah in
18:10the fifth century BC, okay, and it has
18:13XYZ detailed information or whether it's
18:16correct or incorrect, it's what it is
18:18specifically that goes Sorry, one sec.
18:20whether it goes against or for what the
18:22Quranic narrative is saying. Okay. What
18:24I'm saying is that your story, right, is
18:26that this pentitute that we have today
18:28or this specific story in Genesis of
18:30Joseph, right, it has a particular
18:32narrative that goes against the Quranic
18:34narrative of that, right? That's what
18:36you believe, right? However, what I'm
18:38saying is is that we don't have any
18:39evidence to suggest, right, that this
18:42story is the same as what would have
18:44been there prior to fifth century BC.
18:46>> Okay, very good. Okay, thank you. So it
18:48would if there wasn't correct Torah with
18:51all these details also I only brought
18:52Joseph there are thousands of
18:54contradictions in all the stories of
18:55prophets. So let's just say there was a
18:57Torah at a point in time with all those
18:59correct stories, right? Those stories
19:01that said that for example Quran says
19:03there's seven plagues.
19:05>> Every Torah, every corabation says
19:07there's 10. Everyone else
19:08>> said nine.
19:09>> Um so define a plague because
19:11conflicted, right?
19:11>> Okay.
19:12>> Only seven were inflicted. The two other
19:14signs like the hand and the snake that's
19:16why I said seven.
19:17>> Okay. So um so that's like huge, right?
19:21So at a certain point in time there was
19:22a Torah that said there were seven.
19:24Okay. somewhere and that would have been
19:26first of all that's already a really
19:28really crazy thing. Fine because the the
19:30Passover influences all of Jewish
19:32history. You have the piece of unleven
19:34bread. You have uh the the firstborn
19:37death for the firstborn. You have uh the
19:39redemption of the firstborns. You have
19:41so many other things. Okay? And so a Jew
19:43would have to have written all of these
19:45in on accident. Absolutely not. It was
19:48intentional. So they would have to add
19:49in the passive land. They have to add in
19:52the feable. They would also have to
19:54changed the fact that in the Quran they
19:56were running away at night and they
19:57changed it to be like pharaohs telling
19:59them leave right now because my first
20:00one was under so they added all these
20:02things my head I just I don't understand
20:03why they added it but okay let's just
20:05say from the 1400s Moses to the fifth
20:08century okay so that would be thousands
20:11thousands and thousands of
20:13irreconcilable differences
20:15>> corruption you can agree with that
20:17>> so um or until like I guess the 250s BC
20:21which is where the desi scrolls come in
20:22but suddenly
20:24from 1400s to 250 BC and onwards the
20:28corruption stops.
20:29>> It just stops. Like maybe there's
20:31scrabble errors here. Maybe there's some
20:32like you know fragments of things but
20:35the actual irreconcilable contradictions
20:37of the prophets it just stops. So that's
20:38your argument that from 1400 to 250 BC
20:41thousands thousands thousands of
20:42contradictions suddenly 250s BC comes
20:44out and then from 250 BC to 2026 today
20:48it's just that they're not contradicting
20:50in the same way when the corruption
20:51stops. So that's that's your argument my
20:53understanding.
20:53>> Okay. But that that's not even correct
20:55to even say that to begin with because
20:56we know that we have the maseretic for
20:58example that comes later on and it still
20:59contradicts that sea scrolls Greek
21:01>> in the same way even even if it's not
21:03the whole point is is that there are
21:04still contradictions and for example um
21:07in the Greek Septuagent we know that it
21:08contradicts or rather say that there is
21:10more of a difference in regards to the I
21:13am narrative that's in Exodus 3 where
21:15one would be suggested towards the idea
21:16that um you know obviously in the Hebrew
21:19it says uh I am that I am. go tell them
21:20that I am has sent you. But when you go
21:22to the Greek, it says tell them that the
21:25one being has sent you. Right?
21:27>> Even if I grant that, I'm not talking
21:29about a theological thing. Like if
21:31there's a theological change,
21:32theological change, I can be like, okay,
21:33I can see why maybe someone did that
21:35because intentional changes, right?
21:37>> So intentional changes, but with no
21:39theological, prophetic, political, or
21:41ethical motive at all.
21:43>> She's saying that these changes can't be
21:45unintentional. They're on purpose, but
21:47also they don't have motive. Right? What
21:49would be the reason for this for these
21:51details?
21:51>> The thing the thing is this argument is
21:53going to be like mainly abducted. Right?
21:54So is working based on two hypotheses.
21:56You're saying that look we have this
21:58case or we have these changes but
22:00seemingly there is no motivation behind
22:02the changes and therefore we can be we
22:05can assume that there was no reason to
22:06change it and therefore was reliable.
22:07Therefore the Quranic account would
22:08grow. That's the stim of the argument
22:09they got to say. The only issue is is
22:11just because we're not able to we don't
22:13have epistemic access to the sort of
22:15multiplation doesn't mean that it exist.
22:17I'll give an example. When it comes to
22:18historicity, there's a example known as
22:20the principle of embarrassment. Right?
22:22So, we're looking at a text. If there's
22:23something that's seemingly embarrassing
22:25in a text, the author would have would
22:26have um it would have been intended by
22:28the author. We can assume that it's not
22:30corruptive. Thing is within a
22:31scholarship, they don't take the
22:32principle of embarrassment by itself to
22:34be feasible. Why? Because we don't know
22:36what would have been embarrassing at
22:38that time to be able to determine
22:39whether or not the author would have
22:40been embarrassed including or not.
22:42with the example that you have just
22:44because we don't have access to a
22:45motivation doesn't mean that there could
22:47have been some sort of motivation behind
22:48it and therefore the argument is simply
22:51going to be like very like low
22:53probability
22:54>> heard the argument it's about it's about
22:55Akam's razor at this point now now we
22:57have to count now to posit all these
22:59intentional intentional intentional
23:00changes it's just an easier explanation
23:03to shave all that off and just say the
23:04Quran just made made errors from your
23:06>> yeah that wouldn't follow because we're
23:07not accounting in infallibility and
23:09writers so
23:10>> but that's assuming your conclusion Not
23:11because I'm actually making an argument.
23:13What I'm saying is I'm lowering her
23:14probability by saying that there is
23:16other explanations that require less
23:17presuppositions such as that the authors
23:19or the collectors are going to be
23:21fallible and therefore we still expect
23:22these same changes. My explanation
23:24requires less presupposition and
23:25therefore under a razor my exposition
23:27would follow to be.
23:28>> So so how how does your if you're saying
23:30they're fallible so therefore they're
23:31just making mistakes that's
23:33unintentional mistakes. Right.
23:35>> Right. So, they're unintentionally going
23:37into all of these specific details,
23:40>> making these these uh differences on
23:43accident over and over and over and over
23:45again that has a continuity with what
23:48with the first mistake and the second
23:49mistake and the third mistake and the
23:50fifth and sixth and seventh and 10th
23:52mistake all make one uh consistent
23:54story, but it disagrees with the Quran.
23:57So therefore when you say consistent I
23:58don't really what that means because if
24:00you're simply saying that there's
24:00mistakes but
24:02and they don't contradict well yeah of
24:04course they can be scribble mistakes and
24:05they don't contradict and they can build
24:09>> what do you mean
24:10>> you think the Passover
24:11>> no I believe it's intentional actually
24:12because I believe that this with this
24:13specific example it has a financial
24:16motivation specific regarding to the
24:18rabbis and the priests they would have
24:19wanted to have the this sort of
24:21sacrificial system implemented because
24:23they would obviously influence financial
24:25gain so that can be intentionally
24:26explained explain the weight. So that's
24:27different how right
24:29>> even if we just explain it
24:30>> even if we grant that then let's we can
24:32throw that do you know the story of in
24:34the in the so right he he's about to go
24:39to army to fight Goliath and then he
24:41tests his army with a river says if you
24:42drink from the hall of your hands are
24:43with me if not you're not and then he
24:45and his army charges at Goliath's army
24:48>> and then it says David kills Goliath
24:49>> so anyone who has read the Torah any
24:52copy manuscript of the Torah any
24:54corroboration of the Torah story So in
24:56any part of the world they would know
24:58that it's completely just divergent.
25:01>> So that's like a different example.
25:02>> Exactly. Now but it's not just
25:04different.
25:05>> It's mixed. So it's mixed with this
25:07character in the book of Judges, right?
25:09That is way before Saul and that's his
25:12story with the testing the army of the
25:14river. Okay? So anyone who reads Torah
25:16is going to notice and that's not in
25:18that in that in that sense. The idea
25:20here is that what you have to say is
25:23that a Jew because that's not an
25:24accident. That's on purpose. A Jew did
25:26this. A Jew made up the story of Gideon.
25:29Completely made it up and then rewrote
25:31the story of Saul.
25:33>> Okay.
25:33>> So again, what does the water have to do
25:35with any type of motive, theological,
25:38political, etc.
25:40>> So you guys keep kind of like sticking
25:41to the point of that it's either the
25:43scribe is intentionally altering it or a
25:45scribe unintentionally just foully made
25:47an error. Right.
25:48>> No, it's it's intentional.
25:49>> She can you can just Well, God loic
25:51specifically made some instances where
25:53you said it was unintentional.
25:54>> No, no, no. We were trying to show you
25:55that for it to be unintentional would be
25:57really like
25:59>> okay for that. But but the thing is
26:01earlier y'all were granting for the sake
26:03of the argument the Jewish tradition and
26:05that Jewish tradition like it says in
26:06Well, we rejected that
26:07>> earlier.
26:08>> Well, we do reject it.
26:09I'm familiar with
26:11that means build.
26:14>> So you you guys are kind of ignoring the
26:16fact that in 2 Kings 25, King
26:17Nebuchadnezzar burned down everything of
26:19the Torah and that Torah was lost for 70
26:22years. So they didn't have any Torah
26:23manuscripts for over 70 years. Like
26:25Jeremiah says um that they were in exile
26:27for 70 years. So they didn't have any
26:30Torah manuscript whatsoever for 70
26:31years. Hold on. Hold on. And then
26:33furthermore, we see that when Ezra did
26:35revise this Torah and redact it
26:36together, he has laws that were not
26:38found for over 1,000 years, like it says
26:40in Nehemiah 8:16-17,
26:43that they were started following
26:44festivals and laws that were not done
26:46since the days of Joshua. So for over
26:481,000 years, there isn't a single Torah
26:50document that ever had this law. But now
26:52you see that Ezra's revision has this
26:54law in it. So it's not that every single
26:57in change is is intentional from a
27:00scribe. They didn't have any Torah for
27:0170 years. Now you're just expecting us
27:03to
27:04>> someone who doesn't have a Torah for 70
27:06years to just recompile that and have a
27:08perfect Torah.
27:09>> I disagree with that. But you got away
27:11from her point. This is why we keep
27:12saying like that's that's kind of a
27:13shift. Now number one, Nebuchadnezzar is
27:15contemporary with Daniel, right?
27:16>> Daniel had a Torah. In Daniel 9, he
27:19actually quotes from he references it
27:20the Torah that he has and the word
27:22Jeremiah that he to understand that this
27:24is the time where God's supposed to free
27:26the people in Babylon. So Daniel had a
27:28Torah. So I think that you're a specific
27:30laws in a specific area where they
27:32didn't have access to the Torah. Daniel
27:34did and his people do. But to her point,
27:36she's talking about specific examples
27:38where you got like you guys have to
27:40reconcile if you're going to say this is
27:42corruption, why and how? Because there's
27:44no there's no intention. Um or it isn't.
27:48It's in it's intentional because these
27:50these changes are uh consistent and they
27:53they're building up on on these era
27:56after era after era after era. They're
27:58building a narrative off of the first
28:00mistake. So, they're doing this over and
28:01over and over again. This isn't
28:02intentional. They're changing ages, um,
28:05reactions. These aren't accidents. So,
28:08>> that's why I said specifically regarding
28:09your point when you So, number one, when
28:11you say that it's something consistent
28:13or they're building on something
28:14consistent, are you merely saying, and
28:16it's rhetorical, are you merely saying
28:18that this just we don't see any
28:19contradictions? Therefore, the story can
28:21be reconciled and therefore we can So,
28:23he's not saying that.
28:24>> No, he is saying that it can't be
28:25reconciled.
28:26It can't be reconciled. No, we're not
28:28talking about the Quran at this point.
28:29We're talking about the stories in the
28:30Bible. That's the point that you're
28:31building on that we see these authors of
28:34or these scribes, they're building on a
28:35narrative, right? That's what you're
28:36saying. And you're saying that as long
28:37as they don't contradict, we can assume
28:39that they're building on a narrative.
28:40Well, I can simply grant you that, hey,
28:42even if there's no contradictions per
28:43se, doesn't mean that the specific
28:45narrative that they're all in on that
28:47they're building upon. It simply means
28:48that the story doesn't contract. That's
28:49number one. And number two, I'm going to
28:51I'm going to get to the second point
28:52that you made uh regarding the um the
28:54intention whether it's intentional or
28:55not, whether we have epistemic access. I
28:57already responded to this. Just because
28:59we don't have epistemic access to the
29:00justification behind the specific scribe
29:02doing this doesn't mean that there
29:04couldn't been have been a reason. The
29:05same thing with the principal
29:06embarrassment. You guys have to show me
29:08how is that any different from the
29:09principle of embarrassment being a very
29:11weak historical critique to be used to
29:13determine whether something is
29:14historical or not. Because you're saying
29:16that that's you're saying that that's
29:17weak if that's the only thing that's
29:19used. This isn't we're not just we're
29:21not using the principle of
29:22>> No, I'm talking about I'm talking about
29:24the specific inference that if there is
29:26no motivation, therefore we can assume
29:28the text to be reliant. I'm I'm not
29:29granting that inference.
29:30>> It's probable. Do you think it's
29:31probable?
29:32>> Good. So you're arguing from induction,
29:33right? You're arguing from probability.
29:34Okay, good. We can lower that
29:36probability and as long as we get it
29:37below 51% then the argument doesn't
29:38follow you. And we can show that as long
29:41as your explanation and my explanation
29:43if the probability of both uh add up to
29:46one, you have to show me why yours is
29:48more than mine. And I'm showing that
29:49your standard of just saying hey just
29:51because we don't know the motivation
29:53right doesn't mean that there is no
29:54motivation just doesn't follow. You have
29:55to show justify that premise. Give me
29:57give me the reason to believe that hey
30:00we know all the from the data available
30:01that there couldn't have been
30:02justification.
30:02>> Let me clarify this. So there's only two
30:04types of changes intentional and
30:06unintentional. Yeah, we agree.
30:08>> There are thousands of intentional
30:10changes in the Torah according to you
30:12guys.
30:13>> Mhm.
30:14>> Which requires an intention.
30:16>> Yeah.
30:16>> But we can I'm not going to list all
30:18thousands of views out, but I guarantee
30:20you if you do begin
30:22throwing through the that's the burden.
30:24>> Throw out the Passover.
30:26>> You said motivation. You said you don't
30:27have access to the motivation.
30:28>> Right.
30:29>> That goes back to a point of outcomes.
30:30Raise your now. You have to posit one
30:31assumption for every single one of those
30:33thousands of changes. This is assumption
30:35upon assumption upon assumption. It is a
30:37massive violation of a razor now.
30:39>> Right. And and that would assume because
30:41what we're seeing is that we're lowering
30:42the probability of that reason by
30:44itself. I wouldn't say that's a good
30:45metric for inductive arguments like
30:48mostly abduction. We're arguing for two
30:49hypothesis under each evidence expected
30:51of each then you can argue for she's
30:53saying that it's from induction
30:54probability. So you guys are going
30:55against each other as a point, right? So
30:58explain to me why should why should we
30:59be grant from an induct from a proistic
31:02point of view that there couldn't have
31:04been an intention therefore it's not
31:06motivated
31:07>> yeah without going here so let's let me
31:09let me bring up let me bring up what do
31:11you think about's idea of the stories of
31:15>> right
31:16>> so I brought up right
31:19>> uh counted everything first of all I
31:21don't know
31:22>> anything has to do with the Quran
31:23>> yeah so he basically commentary on verse
31:25two 256 Because two 252 sorry 246 to 252
31:30the story of Saul in complete
31:32contradiction the Torah version right
31:34and then on a commentary to wrap up this
31:36the verse goes uh uh you didn't know
31:40sorry deeds are truly I can't quote it
31:42but it basically says this is a story
31:44revealed to you now and you are a
31:46prophet okay it says something to this
31:47degree Eva is commentary commentating on
31:51this and he says and he's he's in the
31:52third century right
31:55>> yeah exactly right and This is what he
31:57says. He says these stories, this story
31:59talking about Saul conforms to the exact
32:02manner that they have in their divine
32:05books today. They being uh being
32:08>> So you're saying that
32:09>> Yeah. So what do you think about what he
32:11thinks about that? And then I immazi
32:13he says alazi.
32:15>> Okay.
32:15>> He says that same verse. He says there
32:18are no differences at all.
32:20>> There are no differences at all between
32:22account and the account of this story of
32:26technically Gideon. But so would you
32:28just throw those both those out?
32:30>> So it's like I said initially when I
32:32first started right
32:33>> do you though like would you have to
32:34reject that those
32:35>> I'm getting to it. Yeah. You don't have
32:36to you don't have to accept any
32:38particular tap or anything of the sort.
32:40Right. Like I said, majority opinion is
32:42that these scriptures were corrupted.
32:43Though there are still certain scholars
32:45that held to different positions for a
32:47number of different reasons, whether it
32:49be because they may have studied it
32:50more, whether it be because they learned
32:51it from somebody else that was their
32:53teacher, etc., etc., right? Um, but the
32:55point is is that if we take the position
32:57of corruption because the whole point
32:58right now that you guys are trying to
32:59make is about the Islamic dilemma and
33:01whether or not the Quran um, you know,
33:03is saying that the fire scriptures are
33:05corrupted, not corrupted, etc. So, we're
33:06trying to go based off of interpretation
33:09where you guys are trying I believe if
33:10I'm not mistaken you guys are trying to
33:11pause it. Absolute confirmation. Yes.
33:13>> Well, that's what the crowd says.
33:15>> I'm just asking that's that's what you
33:16believe.
33:19>> For the sake of our just making sure I
33:21know what you guys's position is on it.
33:23Okay. Neither does it say absolute nor
33:26does it say general. Okay. So, the
33:28position we have two positions now.
33:29Either it's the case that the Quran
33:31wholeheartedly absolutely affirms
33:33everything that comes from the prior
33:34scripture. Okay. Or it's the case that
33:36there is some sort of motivation or
33:38intention that we find within the Quran
33:40and the Quranic author's writing style
33:42or anything of the sort such that we
33:44would be able to posit the other
33:45position which is the case right for
33:48example the crucifixion narrative for
33:49example the Exodus narrative that he
33:51mentioned for example uh the soul the
33:53soul narrative that you're mentioning
33:54there are different in even the Joseph
33:56example as well and I think that there
33:57are different ones that are being
33:59highlighted within the Quran that you
34:01guys keep indicating to the point where
34:03you're actually going against the idea
34:04of absolute absolute confirmation that
34:06you guys are trying to, you know, free
34:08suppose onto it. Go ahead.
34:09>> So, so there's two things. One, thank
34:11you for acknowledging that there are
34:12scholars within early Islam that did
34:14hold to uh complete confirmation, right?
34:17That that scriptures were not
34:18technically corrupted, but maybe just
34:20misinterpreted, right? That's
34:23>> really
34:28funed about like second third century.
34:30It's not any earlier.
34:32>> Of course. So, but we we do have
34:34scholars that that that say that that
34:36hold that position. Cool.
34:37>> Right. This is huge. Bard, one of them.
34:39>> What's the reference to that?
34:40>> Uh
34:43yeah, the uh
34:45>> what's was the reference?
34:46>> That's the author.
34:48>> Yeah. I know I forget the book of the
34:49name of the book, but I can put on the
34:52screen. I can put on the screen. Um when
34:54we click this, I can send it to you.
34:56>> But yeah, trust me.
34:58>> Yeah. Cam is a contemporary theater.
35:01They both studied under. Okay. I don't
35:03remember the exact name of the book. I
35:05think it started with B though, but it's
35:06an Arabic word. I don't remember Arabic
35:07words, but you know what I'm saying.
35:12>> So, you know, my bad, man. My bad.
35:14You're good, bro.
35:14>> Okay. Thank you, man. Have mercy on you.
35:16So, you got to right. He references
35:19position in that um that the scriptures
35:21were not textually corrupted, but they
35:23were misinterpreted. I mean, he goes by
35:26other positions. He mentioned other
35:27groups that also help. He didn't name
35:30them specifically. Okay.
35:31>> One other guy he mentioned was Alrazi.
35:33He also mentions
35:34>> what is Alzi?
35:35>> I don't know.
35:37>> Same thing same thing same thing same
35:37thing same thing same thing same thing
35:37same thing same thing same thing same
35:37thing same thing same thing same thing
35:37same thing same thing same thing same
35:37thing same thing same thing same thing
35:37with Alzi though is that Rozi usually is
35:40just giving commentary most of the time
35:42when it comes to position
35:45>> just real quick right um so you would
35:47have to like this is why like references
35:49and such are important right because we
35:50would have to know what specifically
35:52he's talking about because he could just
35:53simply be commentating such like for
35:55example you're bringing up
35:57regarding Bkari and so on. We would have
35:59to know specifically what's being said
36:00and whether or not he's giving his own
36:02position or not.
36:02>> I can tell you what you're saying. Yeah,
36:04that's what I'm saying. They're
36:05commentating on corruption of the
36:06scriptures, whether or not they're
36:08corrupted or not. Ozi talks about how
36:10they're not corrupted. And a matter of
36:11fact, he makes the point that it's a
36:13silly argument because what about all of
36:16the scriptures all across the world? You
36:18cannot, you would have to say that
36:20they're universally corrupted. That
36:21would be his position. He says that
36:22that's silly. Um he goes and he and he
36:25says that groups in says that the groups
36:27that believe
36:28>> in textual preservation of the previous
36:30scriptures he says that they used verses
36:32like uh chapter 6 verse 113 where
36:35>> did they use the
36:36>> huh
36:36>> did they use the
36:38>> not not them see if they knew to me they
36:40they would
36:42>> go ahead
36:43>> but they didn't use the for but they
36:45they used 615 where it says that you
36:47know none can change the words of Allah
36:49they also used the hadith where I know
36:51you guys would argue that this is
36:52unarmed the wood 339
36:54>> 4449 right where so you guys argue that
36:57that's not authentic but they use that
36:59as a proof that you know they'll say
37:01that Muhammad would not have done this
37:02put the Torah on the judgment seat if it
37:05was corrupted would not have done that
37:06so they reason that okay this would mean
37:08that the Torah is fully
37:10>> right that's okay so now with 1094 this
37:14is my thing
37:15>> right with 1094 it does not
37:18>> just the scholar thing before I I'll
37:21drop it All right. So beautiful. So we
37:23have to establish a principle and this
37:25principle we can all agree upon that
37:26scholars in themselves aren't evidence.
37:29Scholars are used for evidence. So it
37:32doesn't add any more weight or reduce
37:33any weight of your argumentation
37:35especially because they're quoting
37:37postclass scholars. Now regarding Bkari.
37:39So regarding Bkari
37:41regarding the specific preservation that
37:44we talked about is that they would
37:45believe in a preserved Toran in Mecca
37:49Mina meaning that they didn't believe in
37:51universal preservation specifically
37:53talked about the preservation within the
37:55same
37:57that's number one. Number two,
37:58specifically regarding uh um your second
38:01point regarding whether or not we can
38:03use and so on and so so forth and you
38:06mentioned the hadith first first of all
38:07hadith is weak we know a specific person
38:10in the chain that say weak some say
38:11strong
38:12>> that is weak yeah so beautiful back to
38:14that again scholars of evidence we
38:16follow where the evidence is now there's
38:18a specific person in the chain that has
38:20been determined to be weak and therefore
38:23someone come along and say hey this
38:24isn't weak but that could be due to
38:26multiple reasons number one maybe they
38:27don't have access to the judge or the
38:30critique of the specific person
38:31therefore they would have deemed they're
38:32reliable right or they would have a more
38:34lenient approach so we simply go with
38:35the evidence so I think this doesn't
38:37work and just before we go into 1094 I
38:39quickly want to again focus on how we
38:41posited from a historic perspective from
38:43a naturalist naturalistic perspective
38:45that the author of the Quran wouldn't be
38:46familiar with the and therefore edited
38:49right you didn't go over that at all so
38:51after we can go over
38:52>> yeah I yeah we totally disagree with
38:54that here's here's my thing I I agree
38:55with you that you know uh you follow the
38:58evidence where it leads. Here's the
38:59point. And when I is bringing this stuff
39:02down, he shows that beside that says
39:04that you agree with us that the
39:05scriptures are preserved that they use
39:07the Quran and Hadith. The other side,
39:10they didn't bring sources. They didn't
39:11bring Quran references. They didn't use
39:13hadith references.
39:14>> Well, you know, you don't even know the
39:15book. Can you tell me that?
39:16>> No. Don't say that's not even true.
39:18>> Don't say
39:19finish, guys.
39:20>> Don't say that I don't know the book.
39:21Just because I can't remember the name
39:23of it. So, that's what it is. Doesn't
39:25mean doesn't mean I don't know it. I
39:26just gave I'll give you the references
39:28and so to say that I don't know is a
39:30little
39:30>> you give his name
39:31>> that's that's so when when when he's
39:34quoting and giving reference to Bkari
39:36Alaji and others and the whole group and
39:38saying and here's like yeah this is what
39:40they use they use Quran they use sunnah
39:43while the other side is not getting
39:44anything the it shows that our side even
39:47Islamically has evidence you guys don't
39:51and so this is why um we use the Quran
39:53verses even if let's say even one of the
39:55scholars because it used 1094. It works
39:58>> because the Quran says, "If you are in
40:01doubt about that which we have revealed
40:03to you,
40:04>> then go and ask those who've been
40:05reading the scripture before you." Would
40:06you agree? Just really quick because I
40:07want to build up the Quran.
40:09>> Yeah.
40:09>> Huh?
40:10>> Is that a question?
40:12>> Would you agree that doubt means to be
40:13uncertain of the truth?
40:16>> Okay. So if you are uncertain about the
40:18truth of what the Quran is said, let's
40:19say let's I don't know because in
40:22general it could be specific stories
40:23that it's just talking about. But if
40:25you're dying to the truth about what the
40:27Quran is saying, what can you do to
40:29ascertain the truth?
40:31>> Go and ask those who've been reading the
40:32scripture before you. Meaning that you
40:34there it's appealing to the previous
40:36scripture as ascertaining the truth of
40:38what the Quran is saying.
40:40>> So this shows that they have the truth.
40:42If the Quran is in line with it, you'll
40:44know that the Quran is telling the
40:45truth. If the Quran is not in line with
40:46it, you know that the Quran is false.
40:48>> Yeah.
40:49>> Okay. Yeah. I I have a question on that
40:50actually. So, let's say there's
40:52something that's mentioned in the Quran,
40:53right, that's not mentioned in the Torah
40:55or the Gospel. It could be literally
40:56any. Let's say the embryology versus
40:58Okay. I don't think embryology is
40:59mentioned in the Bible anywhere, right?
41:01Um this is something mentioned in the
41:02Quran. Have the people at the time heard
41:04it or anything of the sorts? Right. They
41:06probably wouldn't have known the better
41:08in terms of embryology or anything of
41:09the sort. Would you say that they still
41:10have to refer to the prior scriptures in
41:12regards to that or not? I I would think
41:14that it's if I'm being reasonable in
41:15terms of with the verse, it's talking
41:17about what the Quran mentions in regards
41:18to the previous scriptures.
41:20>> So So specifically when it comes to that
41:22which interacts with the Bible and the
41:24Torah, correct? Okay. So that it would
41:26be stories, it could be certain claims
41:28in regards to Muhammad peace be upon him
41:29being a true prophet, right? But not not
41:31specifically laws of the Quran. Okay. So
41:34would we agree that the Quran in that
41:36respect does take precedence over that
41:38in terms of laws
41:39>> and for for Muslims? Sure.
41:41>> Yeah. Okay. So if you're a Muslim, you
41:43take precedence in in regards to the
41:45laws. Uh the Quran takes precedence,
41:47right?
41:47>> Yeah.
41:48>> Okay. Good. So when it comes to the
41:50stories now, okay, like we were talking
41:52about before, whether it be general or
41:54absolute confirmation, what we find with
41:56the Quran, and this is the point that I
41:57really want to like, you know, I want us
41:59to address specifically when it comes to
42:00the absolute confirmation is whether or
42:03not it's the case that we find these
42:05certain differences between the prior
42:07text. So the examples that we were
42:09talking about were the Exodus account uh
42:11between Moses's hand. We have the Joseph
42:12uh the Joseph story and all of these
42:14things. Do you guys agree right that
42:16these are very clearly differences
42:19between the Quran and the Torah?
42:20>> We can agree that these are differences
42:22but the point that I was trying to make
42:23is and set a foundation before we go
42:25into these details is establishing what
42:28the standard of truth is because you're
42:30saying that because the these these are
42:32different from the Quran therefore
42:33they're false and are corruption. So
42:35that's why I I you need to establish
42:37what the standard of truth is in 1094
42:39would you agree with me that according
42:42to 1094 the standard of truth in regards
42:44to the previous prophets their histories
42:45their stories whatever the Quran is
42:47talking about would be the previous
42:48scripture would you agree that 294 is
42:50>> right so that's actually going to be the
42:51crux of the matter right it's whether or
42:53not it's going to be the truth
42:55absolutely or generally speaking so when
42:57we see these stories okay what we see
43:00between the Quran and the Torah is that
43:02the general story is going to be there
43:04that there are going to the key specific
43:05details that are spoken about that may
43:07differ. For example, what we find is
43:09that Moses goes to the burning bush. He
43:11speaks to God. He gives him certain
43:13revelations. He tells him, "These are
43:14certain miracles that you're going to
43:15take back to um Pharaoh." But then when
43:17we go to the Exodus account, it
43:18specifically talks about the leprosy.
43:20Yet, when we go to the Proonic account,
43:22it says um that your hand is you could
43:24put your hand in your cloak. When it
43:26comes out, it's going to be pure, white,
43:28free of any sort of disease, completely
43:30negating the Exodus accounts. Right? So
43:32the point the point being right I'll rub
43:34that you could do that.
43:36>> The point being is that whether or not
43:38it's the truth in so far as generally
43:40speaking or absolutely okay as it
43:43pertains to these stories. So generally
43:45generally I agree with you.
43:47>> Okay. So you're saying that generally
43:49the the previous scriptures would be the
43:51standard of truth over the Quran in
43:53these instances. Y
43:55>> in so far as the story specifically when
43:57it comes to the general understanding or
43:59the general theme of the story
44:01>> for example I'll give you wait because I
44:03cuz I I disagree with this pieces of
44:06>> general like so are there you're saying
44:08that there are parts in the in the Quran
44:11when it comes to these stories that the
44:12Quran can disagree with the previous
44:14scriptures and still be right. So that's
44:16what I'm going to specifically say,
44:17right, is that I'm trying to know
44:19whether or not your position about
44:21absolute confirmation when you see these
44:24certain verses where the Quran interacts
44:26with the priority text, whether it be,
44:28you know, the whole point of this
44:29conscious edit saying is whether or not
44:31it's intentional or unintentional. He
44:33already gave you certain points in
44:34regards to the fact that the Quranic
44:35alter whether you believe Muhammad peace
44:37be upon him or God himself um would know
44:40what this specific content is. There are
44:42other for example um you know
44:44>> yeah not not just from what he heard
44:46well yeah it would obviously be what he
44:48heard but in so far as for example other
44:50scribes that he used to command to go
44:52and learn Hebrew like
44:54for example he commanded him to go learn
44:56Hebrew so that he could learn the prior
44:58scriptures right so he another
45:02>> I'm I'm getting to it okay he knows what
45:05those prior scriptures say
45:08he knows what those prior scriptures say
45:10so the point being is that if they see
45:12that these things in the Quran clearly
45:14don't align with those prior scriptures
45:17then they sorry so when it comes to
45:20those particular verses where they see
45:22that the Quran does not fully and
45:24wholeheartedly accept the narrative
45:25that's coming from the Old Testament yet
45:27they don't try to go and correct
45:29Muhammad peace be upon him then they are
45:31going to be accepting a general
45:33understanding of the stories yet
45:34negating these key specific details that
45:37are incorrect in the scripture
45:38>> to the people that he told to go learn
45:40the Torah and they come back and tell
45:42them what they learned because they be
45:44wrong about what they learned.
45:45>> Okay. So if you want to take that for
45:46example with regards to Zen Sabbath, I
45:48don't mind positing that prefer Abdullah
45:51bin Salam. One second. Abdullahbam
45:53specifically was known to be a rabbi
45:55amongst the people. So that one second
45:58that narrative would not make sense or
46:00at least it would be less probable than
46:01the idea of him knowing than not
46:04knowing.
46:04>> Did according to the Quran did some of
46:06the rabbis twist the the Torah with
46:08their words?
46:08>> Yeah. in so far as those who tried to
46:10hide certain scriptures about Muhammad
46:12peace be upon him the ones who were left
46:14in charge specifically after
46:17>> because I asked I didn't I
46:18>> yeah because you're asking a question
46:20but it's going to be a loaded question
46:24very simple because I'm I'm not asking
46:25for you to like
46:26>> go on a super explanation it's really
46:29>> well then you don't actually want an
46:30answer
46:30>> no problem my answer was simple my
46:33answer was simple is could he be wrong I
46:35don't need a whole explanation of a
46:36whole story I just yes or no could be
46:38possibility doesn't deal with these
46:39arguments because I'll tell you why.
46:41We're talking about interpretation.
46:42We're talking about historical
46:43artistation. IP would tell you is right
46:45next to you that possibility semantics
46:47don't actually determine whether or not
46:49a text can be interpreted this way or
46:50that way. That's
46:52>> where I'm going with it.
46:52>> That's fine. I'm I'm simply making a
46:54comment regarding saying, "Hey, is it
46:55possible they could have got this
46:56wrong?" Okay. Right. I'm saying that
46:58it's very improbable.
46:59>> No, no worries. Is it possible that
47:01Abdullah bin Salam could have been wrong
47:02on how he understood it?
47:03>> He can make a point, but we're not going
47:04to assumption that possibility can
47:06contain a conclusion.
47:07>> No worries. I just want to know.
47:08>> Obviously, it's logic to conceivable.
47:10>> So, yes,
47:11>> it's logic conceivable.
47:13>> So, Abdullah bin Salam could have been
47:14wrong or other people could have been
47:15wrong about what they learned from the
47:17Torah. Could they have misunderstood
47:19what they uh got from the Torah?
47:21>> No, because they learn it directly from
47:23the Torah.
47:23>> And could they and could they have like
47:25for example, can Muslims read the Quran
47:27directly and misunderstand what they
47:28just read?
47:29>> Right. If it's a major theme, if it's
47:31it's a major case, it's a theme, then
47:32they would have got
47:33>> that's it. Can they
47:35>> Oh my Let me let me let me get it
47:36straight. When it comes to a major
47:38theme, for example, Christ crucifixion,
47:40I'll give I'll give an example. I'll
47:41give you an example. Christ crucifixion.
47:43>> This is important.
47:43>> This is important.
47:44>> I'm I'm I'm getting it. Christ
47:45crucifixion. It's a consistent theme
47:47according to the gospels. Right.
47:49>> Sure.
47:49>> Right. If anybody reads the gospels, can
47:52they walk away without understanding
47:54that Christ is crucified?
47:55>> It's possible.
47:56>> Wow.
47:56>> Because because that person is silly.
48:00>> I got
48:02you know this is nonsense. No, listen.
48:04People that say that nonsense. Come
48:06here. Listen. Go ahead, bro.
48:07>> I just did a live me and life was live
48:09the other day. Beautiful.
48:10>> We were in our truck eating and it out.
48:12>> Did a live on the crucifixion, bro. A
48:15Muslim came up
48:16>> and told me the crucifixion is not in
48:18the gospel.
48:19>> Beautiful. Let let me tell you the
48:20symmetry break now. Let me tell you the
48:21difference. The difference is you're
48:22talking to right.
48:28>> You're talking to someone that obviously
48:30wouldn't be compared to Abdullahb who
48:33was who's a rabbi. Just one second. who
48:36was who was a rabbi. It's very
48:37inconceivable, right, that you would get
48:40major themes wrong according to
48:41according to Torah. Again, again, he
48:44said he wouldn't be building up on this,
48:45but he did exactly do that. He built up
48:47on logical possibility to determine a
48:49conclusion about the historical document
48:51and conclusion. Yes. Yes, you are.
48:54Because
48:54>> I didn't yet.
48:55>> No, no. Again, you're saying that it's
48:57logically possible. Therefore, it can be
48:59reconciled within your argumentation of
49:00Islamic dama. Now this is what's going
49:02on. I didn't make
49:06this point. This is a very important we
49:09can cut the straw. Right. It's very
49:10simple
49:10>> that Avery is trying to work off this
49:13illogical possibility that it's possible
49:15that this is the case. Uh um and
49:17therefore the Islamic dam follow it
49:19doesn't work like that. I'm about to
49:21finish up regarding histoal
49:22documentation regarding historical
49:24accounts interpretation of that. You
49:25don't work with possibility semantics.
49:27Right? So when when there's a major
49:29theme from Toro, right? Right? And we
49:31know that they're rabbis. We know that
49:32they interacted with Jews and
49:33Christians. We know that they even went
49:35and learned the the Jewish scriptures.
49:37It is very unlikely for them to miss a
49:39major theme. It doesn't follow.
49:41>> Is what
49:42>> would a would a major theme be
49:44prophecies of Muhammad?
49:46>> Uh yes.
49:46>> Okay. So it would be near so Abdullah
49:51cannot get those wrong. If you read the
49:53Torah,
49:54>> u he can understand that Muhammad would
49:56be in the Torah in Jah.
49:57>> The Torah we have today is a major theme
49:59of Muhammad being
50:01>> Yes.
50:02>> And you can't miss it.
50:03>> You can't miss it. No.
50:06>> Okay.
50:07>> Wow.
50:08>> So you just Okay. So what just happened?
50:10>> One more thing.
50:11>> So nice to different topic.
50:14>> Notice what just happened. You said that
50:15people could read cannot read the gospel
50:18and miss major themes. But there's an
50:19entire world, Jews and Christians all
50:21over the world. We read the Torah.
50:22You're saying that's a major theme. We
50:24say it's not in there. So you're you're
50:25>> double.
50:25>> So why do we have expectation of Jews in
50:287th century Arabia expecting a Arabian
50:30prophet?
50:30>> According to according to who?
50:32>> Real quick real quick.
50:35>> So Islam so according to Islamic
50:37sources, the Jews were expecting a
50:39>> real quick real quick is attested to by
50:42non-Islamic chronicles to be a real
50:44person that exists. Now real quick real
50:46quick. What? What's the No, no, no. Let
50:49let me point regarding a hadith, right?
50:51The only way you can get around this if
50:53you say that hadith are ahistorical and
50:55therefore they can't be used to
50:56reference back what the Jews or the
50:57believers say.
50:58>> This is what you're doing. This is what
50:59you're doing. You want to my point?
51:01>> I understand your point. This is way
51:06if it is if it is the case that are
51:08historical and about events that
51:10happened even would you agree if it is
51:14historical that there was Jewish
51:15expectations of Arabian prophet. It was
51:17historical. Sure. Beautiful.
51:19>> If it was historical, but guess what?
51:21You don't have historical evidence of
51:22what
51:24amazing. Let's go to that. Now, here's
51:26here's here's here's the issue that you
51:28guys are not even dealing with. Okay.
51:30The circle you just said it's improbable
51:33for if something is a major theme for a
51:36someone of a scholar of the of the book
51:38and religion to miss such a major thing.
51:40Let me ask you this. Are there scholars,
51:43Hebraic scholars, and uh uh uh uh
51:46biblical scholars, Greek scholars that
51:48miss uh these prophecies of Muhammad in
51:50the Torah?
51:51>> Of course, but we're talking about
51:52talking about the context of I built
51:54this.
51:57You can't just take a yes or no and run
51:58with it, right? There's going to be a
52:01difference here. We're talking about
52:02something where there is expectation of
52:04prophet to come, right? compared to
52:06something where say that nobody um would
52:09have done so except you would have
52:11missed it is very different.
52:12>> No, now you switched it real quick. Let
52:14me bro.
52:16You got to let me down. You said that
52:19you got to let me down. You took over my
52:21point that I was making you as to me.
52:24You asked this question to build my
52:26point and you asked to me when it comes
52:28to that answer. I'm not going to allow
52:30you to take over.
52:31>> I understand that. But you allow me to
52:33finish what I was saying. You you asked
52:34the question, so I'm going to give it a
52:35>> You already gave an O of course. Yes.
52:37Then you made a point and now you're
52:39making another point. I asked this for
52:41you to build on. There is no one. I'm
52:44simply going to make it.
52:45>> Please allow me to finish what I was
52:46saying.
52:47>> He can finish, but he ask the question,
52:48Avery. That's
52:49>> So allow me to finish what I was saying.
52:50>> I got you. I'm going to finish up.
52:52>> No, no, no. I'm going to finish it now.
52:54>> Just let him finish his point. Just go
52:56ahead. Also, like during the
52:58conversation, if you guys ask each other
53:00questions, it kind of breaks up the
53:01conversation cuz then they they don't
53:03give short answers.
53:04>> Clearly. Clearly.
53:05>> And that's and that's fair.
53:09>> You're going to ask yes or no. You're
53:11going to be strong.
53:12>> Yeah. So So I'm I'm going to make it
53:13clear when I if I ask a question, I'm
53:16building up. I'm I'm asking it for the
53:18purpose of building what I'm saying.
53:19>> So that therefore I'm looking for a
53:21quick answer. Okay. And you can expound
53:23on this when it's your turn to speak.
53:25Yep.
53:25>> Is that cool? when I land my point. All
53:27right. So, like I was saying, you said
53:29of course there are scholars, learned
53:32men, learned people, biblical scholars,
53:34Hebraic scholars that completely miss
53:36the main theme of Muhammad being
53:39mentioned in the Torah in the Gospel. So
53:41therefore, your entire argument was shot
53:43because you said that it's unlikely. No,
53:45you didn't just say it's unlikely. It
53:47can't happen. You said it can't happen
53:49that that a rabbi who who who is
53:52knowledgeable of the scripture,
53:53knowledgeable of the Torah, can miss a
53:55major thing like Muhammad being
53:56mentioned in the scripture. You just
53:58shot yourself in the foot. So again,
54:00here and let me just make the point
54:02because you're not going to answer like
54:03straight away. Here's the point. The
54:05point is is that Muhammad is hearing
54:07things. Muhammad doesn't know the
54:09scripture. As you guys said, he's
54:10sending people to go, "Hey, go learn the
54:13Torah and then come tell me what it
54:14says." He doesn't know it himself. So
54:16he's only going by word of mouth. He
54:18does not know what is in the scripture.
54:20They can come and be telling him wrong
54:21things. For example, like Warah telling
54:24him that the same angel that appeared to
54:26Moses is the angel that appeared to him
54:28in the cave. Was it was did Gabriel
54:30appear to Moses?
54:32>> Yeah. Again, according to Yes.
54:34>> Huh?
54:34>> Yes.
54:34>> According to who?
54:35>> Torah.
54:36>> According to the Torah, did Gabriel
54:38>> Hold on. Hold on.
54:39>> You want to answer this? The question is
54:41tradition.
54:42>> Let me rephrase. According to the Torah,
54:45did Gabriel appear to Moses?
54:47>> Does he say according to the Torah? No,
54:50he doesn't say he says the angel the
54:52same angel that appeared to you is the
54:53same. Yes. The hadith doesn't say that
54:56according to the Torah, this is the same
54:58angel that came to So it could be from
55:01Jewish tradition, oral tradition.
55:03There's there's many traditions. You
55:05could go into the Sanhedrin, the
55:06Midrush, et
55:08Yes. They verbatim say that he came to
55:10him by the burning.
55:13He was wrong, man. Cuz according to
55:14according to the Okay. According to the
55:16Quran, did did an angel come to Moses
55:19and appear to Moses or did Allah speak
55:20to himself?
55:21>> Good. Good. So, it's Allah who speaks to
55:23himself. However, however, I'm not done.
55:25I'm not done. Don't get happy. Okay.
55:27Their and what he's talking about and
55:29what the Jewish Bible say, specifically
55:31the Jewish oral tradition is that there
55:33are other angels in the vicinity of it.
55:36Okay. So while he's speaking to Allah,
55:38there are also other angels present such
55:40as Gabriel, which is what the Jewish
55:42traditions say and also what if, if I'm
55:44not mistaken, he also says in the as
55:46well for that.
55:47>> Very good. So what we got here so far,
55:48ladies and gentlemen, absolutely. What
55:50we got? We got a lot. What we got was is
55:52we got you guys were very happy to
55:54contradict the Quran where it says that
55:56>> I just heard the answer.
55:57>> Oh, I heard you. Now, now can I repeat?
55:59Absolutely. I still meant what you said.
56:01I still you and then I'm going to show
56:02you how you shot yourself before. So
56:04your answer is is that war is getting it
56:06from Jewish tradition and according to
56:08some Jewish tradition there were a
56:09multitude of angels that were in the
56:11vicinity when Allah appeared to Moses.
56:13Is that your point?
56:14>> Yeah. So I didn't say one.
56:21>> I didn't say yes. I was
56:23>> you literally said yes and you were
56:24about to continue on that
56:26>> to go super explain.
56:28>> Holy crap.
56:28>> You were trying to go super relax. So is
56:30it the last question?
56:31>> No, it's not a yes. Okay. I never said I
56:34never said water plus specifically
56:35getting it from the Jewish traditions. I
56:37said I said
56:39>> okay goodbye.
56:40>> Yeah. Yeah. This this ridiculous dumb
56:43wait. Stop. I'm telling you. You just
56:45said
56:45>> let me finish the point.
56:46>> You just said I'm sorry. Cuz it was my
56:49point I'm not either. Let me finish. It
56:52was my point. All right. Don't.
56:54>> No. It was my point. Just leave the one
56:56that was talking about cuz I asked
56:57>> Yeah. So I'm going to speak.
56:58>> I asked was this correct according to
56:59your cuz you I was making a point. You
57:01told me. Wait. Can you repeat what I
57:03said? I said, "Sure, I'll repeat what
57:04you said in light of following that I
57:07was going to make my point." Right. So
57:09then when I repeated your point, I said,
57:10"Was this your position?" You said,
57:12"Yes." So, and then you was about to
57:13throw in a
57:14>> I said yes in so far as I was going to
57:16say no to you. I'm saying yes in so far
57:17as what I'm talking about right now.
57:19>> Finish point.
57:23That's the whole thing. When he asked
57:25me, okay, about the first initial point
57:28that you made when you made it about,
57:29okay, what you asked is, does anything
57:32in the Torah say,
57:34>> that's what I asked.
57:34>> That's literally what you said. We're
57:36talking about the Torah, which is why I
57:39mentioned
57:41this is why she's going off on a diet
57:42tribe and I try to stop her because when
57:45I actually said this is what happens
57:47when you like to finish when I was
57:51making my point, in the middle of me
57:53making my point, you interrupted me and
57:55said,
57:55>> "Can you repeat what I said?" Did you
57:57say that? Yes or no? Just
57:58>> because of what? Because
57:59>> No, don't see notice. YOU DON'T WANT TO
58:01TALK ABOUT THE ACTUAL BEING. You're not
58:03capable of
58:06contradictable
58:09main points.
58:09>> Thank you. So I know you're incapable of
58:13answering strange.
58:14>> Is it a true contradiction or was it
58:16simply apparent?
58:17>> Okay. Listen, please just just for
58:19everyone to like for the listeners and
58:21everyone, let's do this. When you guys
58:24are making points, please don't ask each
58:26other questions.
58:27>> Yeah. Because because you ask a question
58:29and then they they
58:31>> they can't answer straight away. They
58:32have to they have to
58:34fine.
58:35>> They expand on that question and then
58:36you expand on something they said.
58:38>> I'll I'll say it for you, Brian. They
58:40can't answer straight away.
58:41>> Okay. So, let's just have you finish
58:42your point without asking any questions
58:44and then I want to get to her to
58:46respond. No interruptions.
58:47>> All right. So, it here's your double
58:49talk. At first, you said that that Wara
58:52is getting it from Jewish traditions.
58:53Then I just asked then you just
58:55contradicted yourself and said I didn't
58:57say that he was getting it from Jewish
58:58traditions. Y I don't I don't know what
59:01you're doing here. So either make up
59:03your mind and either he was getting it
59:05from Jewish traditions, he made it up or
59:08he's getting it from the Torah. Where
59:10did he get it from is the question.
59:11That's number one. Number two, your
59:13Quran is very clear that it wasn't an
59:16angel. It wasn't nobody else that
59:18appeared to Moses. Other people he
59:21speaks into in dreams, but with Moses he
59:24spoke to directly. It was not the angel
59:27Gabriel. So was Warah correct when he
59:30said that the same angel that appeared
59:33to Moses is the same angel that appeared
59:36to you. Is he correct? Yes or no?
59:38>> Okay.
59:40>> I get to speak full.
59:43Okay. Okay.
59:44>> All right. Yeah. So, first of all, what
59:46I was saying is
59:46>> yes or no.
59:48>> Oh my god.
59:50ANSWER.
59:56Let me speak.
59:56>> She said she's going to answer though.
59:57>> Yeah. So, first of all, no, that's not
59:59>> Thank you for the answer. No problem.
1:00:01Okay. Now, keep going.
1:00:03>> So, when it comes to what I did say,
1:00:05okay, I said that is not mistaken
1:00:07because what we find is that there are
1:00:09Jewish traditions that say the same
1:00:11thing. I never said water himself gets
1:00:14it from a Jewish tradition. Okay? So,
1:00:17trap. All right. Now when it comes to
1:00:19the Quran, what it says is that Allah
1:00:22spoke directly to Mus Alam. Okay, that
1:00:24does not negate what is saying and it
1:00:26does not negate what the Torah or sorry
1:00:28the the specifically the oral tradition
1:00:30is saying regarding other angels being
1:00:32in the vicinity because the Jews also
1:00:34hold that Moses spoke directly to God.
1:00:36But they also hold that there were Jews
1:00:38that were in the vicinity of the burning
1:00:40bush. So that's not it's not it's not a
1:00:42point. Yes, there are Jews that say that
1:00:44in the midash in the
1:00:45>> but the Jews were there.
1:00:46>> No, not the Jews. Angels,
1:00:49let's get back to the main point. Okay.
1:00:51>> Were you finished with your point?
1:00:52>> I haven't finished.
1:00:52>> Okay. This is just getting our own point
1:00:55about Muhammad not getting this stuff
1:00:57from the prior scriptures. He's getting
1:00:59it from stories, from rabbis, from
1:01:02tradition. This is why Se calls him the
1:01:04ear. He's not getting this stuff from
1:01:06the scriptures. And we know that because
1:01:08you agree with us. There are so many
1:01:10contradictions. So, this just makes far
1:01:12more sense. He's getting all these
1:01:13stories from various rabbis, traditions,
1:01:17mid she's hearing, not from the
1:01:19scriptures. And that's why we know the
1:01:21Quran is false because it's not. It says
1:01:23it's confirming the prior scriptures but
1:01:25contradicting them. Why? Because it
1:01:27thinks those stories, those things from
1:01:29the mid from the Talmud that he's
1:01:31getting are actually in the scriptures.
1:01:33>> A God who is omnicient without making
1:01:35such a ridiculous mistake.
1:01:37>> Beautiful. Amazing. So I want to pick up
1:01:39back on that from the point that Avery
1:01:40made that the only way that his argument
1:01:44is if and only if the hadith regarding
1:01:47him are not authentic. That's the he
1:01:49decided to rest upon and show how that's
1:01:51not feasible. So Avery or IP which
1:01:54address this what does it mean for not
1:01:55for us not to have historical evidence
1:01:58about who is? So how are you going to
1:02:00determine the is not authentic or those
1:02:03attributions aren't authentic? We don't
1:02:04have to
1:02:07internal external critique.
1:02:08>> Okay. So I'll continue then the Islamic
1:02:11dilemma is a modified internal critique.
1:02:13We're looking at your sources combined
1:02:14with our sources because your sources
1:02:16are invoking ours. Then we show there
1:02:18are contradictions in there. So even if
1:02:19you do have those it doesn't change
1:02:21anything what we're arguing. So as I
1:02:23said so as again as they showed that
1:02:25they don't have any evidence for the
1:02:26hadith and the attributions of the
1:02:27historical
1:02:29that they're inauthentic and therefore
1:02:31the argument that you made regarding it
1:02:32being absent is moot
1:02:36but you didn't give a point. So I I can
1:02:38I can believe I can be justified in
1:02:40believe that you guys don't have a
1:02:41response because you didn't give a
1:02:42response response you didn't give it
1:02:43right. So again, Abdaham, if it is the
1:02:46case that we have the historical
1:02:46attestation, if it is the case that we
1:02:48have these evidences of those who
1:02:50interacted with the Torah um read the
1:02:53Torah, right, and were contemporary with
1:02:54Muhammad, peace and bless upon him, and
1:02:56we have this scholarship that attest to
1:02:58this as well that he didn't respond to,
1:03:00right?
1:03:00>> You're scholars.
1:03:02>> No, Gabri.
1:03:04So who says what?
1:03:04>> He's a Muslim. He believes that the
1:03:06author of the Quran is familiar with the
1:03:07Bible.
1:03:07>> No, does he affirm that that Abdullahb
1:03:10Salam was waiting for Muhammad's
1:03:12prophet? affirmed the conclusion of the
1:03:14argument the concludes real quick. He he
1:03:16affirmed the conclusion of the argument
1:03:18that the author of the Quran knows the
1:03:20Bible and interacts with the Bible and
1:03:22change the prophettologology to what
1:03:23suits him. That's what says, right? So
1:03:25the conclusion of what I'm getting to he
1:03:26said he said the same thing. Yeah. The
1:03:28Bible and the Quran gave us the Bible
1:03:31and the Quran gave us reference that's
1:03:32the reference. You see how I got
1:03:33reference already? You don't
1:03:34>> I I gave you the reference.
1:03:35>> No, he said he said he reference just
1:03:38cuz you don't know the reference doesn't
1:03:39mean I didn't give you the reference.
1:03:39>> He said is a reference. Yes, Ibam's a
1:03:42reference. Ibam on your tops here on on
1:03:45giving a commentary on the corruption of
1:03:47the scripture. He that's a reference.
1:03:49What are you talking about? If you're
1:03:51the reference name, you don't even know
1:03:54the source.
1:03:54>> Hey man, let let you know the source. I
1:03:57don't know. You know, you don't even
1:03:57know the source.
1:03:59>> You quoted it.
1:04:00>> Yes. And you DON'T KNOW IT. YOU'RE
1:04:01UNFAMILIAR WITH IT. YOU'RE ignorant of
1:04:02it. Let's go.
1:04:03>> You're going no argument against MKM
1:04:05though.
1:04:06>> So So Gabriel Reynolds. So, the author
1:04:07of the Quran knows the scriptures but is
1:04:09intentionally changing them. Is that
1:04:10what you're saying?
1:04:11>> Okay, that's worse because they do
1:04:14contradict. But then what is he going to
1:04:15say? I'm confirming your scriptures. I'm
1:04:17confirming your scriptures. 241 447. And
1:04:19by the way, if you're in doubt about
1:04:21what I'm telling you, go ask those who
1:04:22are reading the scriptures 1094. At that
1:04:25point, now at that point, it's worse for
1:04:27the sake of argument. I'm not conceding
1:04:29that. I'm saying on your argument, it
1:04:31makes it far worse because now we have
1:04:32we're dealing with
1:04:34>> Muhammad knows. If Muhammad knows the
1:04:35Bible, that means and he edits it. It
1:04:36means he doesn't agree with some parts
1:04:37of it, right?
1:04:38>> No, no, no. That's what I'm saying. I'm
1:04:39saying words, if you know, if he knows
1:04:41it.
1:04:42>> No, you're taking us out of context.
1:04:43>> No, I'm saying give it up. On my
1:04:45argument, on my argument, if he does
1:04:47know the Bible and it means he doesn't
1:04:48believe it's true, right?
1:04:49>> No, no, no. Look, back up. Back up.
1:04:51You're taking this out of context.
1:04:52>> Say I Gabriel I said that with if
1:04:54Gabriel Reynolds is right. Now, we have
1:04:57a liar because he's saying he's
1:04:59confirming scripture, not generally
1:05:00confirming. confirming them saying it
1:05:03and he's saying that you can verify
1:05:05these revelations by going and checking
1:05:07down
1:05:07>> beautiful
1:05:17thank you appreciate it
1:05:20volume 2 page 351 so now I'm going to
1:05:24respond to
1:05:26>> so regardless is that he is a liar now
1:05:28when it comes to this position given
1:05:30your conclusion One of the conclusions
1:05:32that would follow is that Muhammad would
1:05:33have believed in the Torah entirely.
1:05:35Right? Given that position, still mine.
1:05:36>> No, no. He said he did.
1:05:40He's
1:05:40>> contradict. It means confirmed.
1:05:44>> Real quick
1:05:45is true. That's what the word. I want to
1:05:48follow cuz I know you understand this
1:05:49right. If given my position, given
1:05:51Gabriel and R's position, you're saying
1:05:53that it would follow. However, one of
1:05:55the conclusions is is that they will be
1:05:56aligned. That's one of the conclusions.
1:05:58But I'm saying still ming my position
1:06:00that the author does know the Bible. If
1:06:02he does know it and he changes it given
1:06:05your second conclusion, would you agree
1:06:06that it would also follow to my logical
1:06:08conclusion that he doesn't believe this
1:06:09entirely true?
1:06:10>> No, he's contradicting it because he
1:06:12says other places confirming the
1:06:14scriptures and then goes on to
1:06:16contradict himself.
1:06:17>> What does it mean to know the Bible and
1:06:18edit it? What does that mean?
1:06:19>> That would be like for example someone
1:06:21taking it and like erasing things and
1:06:23putting new words in it.
1:06:24>> But if I if I know a book, right? If I
1:06:26know a textbook, let's say a science
1:06:27book, if I know the book and I change a
1:06:29specific detail,
1:06:30>> does that mean I don't believe in a
1:06:31specific detail?
1:06:32>> Uh, if you say you do, yes, it does. And
1:06:34that's what he says throughout the
1:06:35Quran. It's a contradiction, dude.
1:06:38Regarding the example that I gave,
1:06:39regarding a science textbook, you're
1:06:40trying to take what I said. I've already
1:06:42given you an answer. I've already given
1:06:43you an answer.
1:06:44>> You didn't regard the science book.
1:06:45>> It's a contradiction.
1:06:46>> So, you don't want to answer.
1:06:46>> Come here. Come here. Ask
1:06:48>> ask a question. The question is if
1:06:51there's a student right or a teacher a
1:06:53science teacher right and he goes to a
1:06:55science book and he knows a science book
1:06:57right
1:06:57>> and while knowing the science book he
1:06:59goes and changes a specific chapter
1:07:01right about a specific uh thing right if
1:07:04he does that while knowing the contents
1:07:06we can conclude from this example is
1:07:08that he doesn't believe that this part
1:07:10is true right IP
1:07:11>> nope nope because that's not even an
1:07:14analogy so let me explain why because at
1:07:15the same time in this analogy we're
1:07:17comparing it to the Quran the student is
1:07:18saying I'm going to confirm confirm
1:07:20everything in here. I believe Hold on,
1:07:22let me finish. Stop and interrupt. Stop
1:07:23it. Go ahead.
1:07:24>> At the same time, he's saying I believe
1:07:26everything in here. And then he goes
1:07:27around and starts contradicting it.
1:07:28That's the welcome to the Islamic
1:07:31dilemma. That's the point. You're making
1:07:33the point for us is that they he is
1:07:35claiming over and over again
1:07:37>> that I'm confirming these scriptures.
1:07:39I'm confirming and then in other times
1:07:40he's contradicting them. So the simplest
1:07:42explanation is not what you're saying.
1:07:45It's not that he knows that he's hearing
1:07:47stories from around him. This is what
1:07:49the Quran tells us to the ear. He was
1:07:50illiterate. So he can't actually
1:07:52according to your sources know what is
1:07:54in the prior scriptures because he's
1:07:56illiterate. So he's got to hear stories.
1:07:58He hears stories and he goes, "Okay,
1:08:00well I don't like that one." So it can't
1:08:02be in the prior scriptures, which I'm
1:08:04clearly confirming. So I'm going to
1:08:05reject that.
1:08:06>> Where does everything by the way?
1:08:08>> Say that again.
1:08:08>> Where does everything where
1:08:10>> 241 447
1:08:15it says I'm confirming what is with you.
1:08:17>> Okay. So confirmation must be always
1:08:18absolute.
1:08:18>> Chapter 2 vers 85.
1:08:19>> Unless it's qualified, yes, unlessif
1:08:23is another one. Chapter 2. Chapter 2
1:08:26vers 85 says, "Do you believe in some of
1:08:28the scripture while rejecting parts?
1:08:30Those who do so among you, you're going
1:08:31to hell." So can you believe can you
1:08:33reject some parts of the scripture and
1:08:34believe in parts?
1:08:35>> We're going to get to that in a second,
1:08:36but this resp.
1:08:41>> So you're saying that confirm has to
1:08:44mean everything. Just because it
1:08:45confirms just means kind of everything
1:08:46>> because of the context.
1:08:47>> But then at other times you reject that
1:08:48everything doesn't mean everything like
1:08:50in Matthew 23 for example. But the
1:08:51reason why I'm bringing that is because
1:08:53when the author uses the word confirm
1:08:55it's madic which orientalist scholars
1:08:56like Gabriel Reynolds and Nikolai Sinai
1:08:59both agree that when the author of the
1:09:00Quran is confirming something it's only
1:09:02the revelationary aspect of it. Just
1:09:04like Jesus in Matthew 5:17 when he's a
1:09:06fulfillment of the law.
1:09:10So when the author of the Quran is is
1:09:12saying that he confirms it, it doesn't
1:09:14mean he's confirming the textual
1:09:15verbatim affirmation. We can see this in
1:09:17350 that Jesus confirms the Torah while
1:09:19changing laws within it. So there's
1:09:21authoritative textual modification. This
1:09:22is what scholars verbat
1:09:25one one last point. One last point
1:09:26please. Thank you so much.
1:09:28>> And that's why the Quran says you judge
1:09:31the previous scriptures by the Quran in
1:09:33548. confirms the scripture while being
1:09:35a supreme authority over it, a moan over
1:09:37it, which these same scholars, Gabriel
1:09:40Reynolds and Nikolai Sinai both agree
1:09:41with, which you said, let's for the sake
1:09:43of the argument, let's just grant that
1:09:44they're correct. If they're correct,
1:09:45then the Quran confirms it by being a
1:09:47supreme authority over it. So, it's the
1:09:49arbiter of the content of the book.
1:09:52>> Nikolai, do we want to go to to your to
1:09:55your scripture that you brought up?
1:09:57>> So, he only says that it would be a
1:10:00criterion if you take a variant
1:10:01non-cononical read. He says it's
1:10:03basically a um basically it's in line
1:10:05with just confirming. So let's go on
1:10:08that first. Hold on. So do you agree it
1:10:10doesn't say it's only confirming the re
1:10:11the revelationary material is what you
1:10:13said. Revelatory material.
1:10:14>> Yeah. The revelator.
1:10:15>> Great. So there's no very clearly says
1:10:17that right
1:10:18>> the Quran there's no it says is a
1:10:20verbatim.
1:10:21>> Exactly. It doesn't say. So you get you
1:10:24just contracted the Quran. The Quran
1:10:25says in surah 121 it is clear. It says
1:10:27in 111 these verses are well perfected
1:10:29and fully explained. So by you
1:10:31constantly adding to the Quran to try to
1:10:33get out of the Islamic dilemma, you
1:10:34shoot yourself in the foot.
1:10:35>> But I didn't use the Quran to justify my
1:10:38>> not detailed as surah 1211 says it is
1:10:40not perfected and then fully explained.
1:10:42>> So according to the author of the Quran,
1:10:44what does confirm mean?
1:10:45>> Do this. You just keep telling us the
1:10:46Quran is wrong.
1:10:47>> So according to the author of the Quran,
1:10:49what is the what does confirm mean? And
1:10:50can you show me that the author of the
1:10:52Quran is explaining that confirm means?
1:10:54Just really quick because on your point
1:10:55about 350 where Jesus confirms the Torah
1:10:58but then also abregates some of the
1:10:59laws. When he abregates the laws, is he
1:11:01saying that those laws are not
1:11:02revelation of a law?
1:11:03>> He's confirming that the revelation to
1:11:04Torah, not the not the actual types of
1:11:06verbatim manuscript.
1:11:07>> I'm asking the laws that he abrogates,
1:11:09is he saying when he abregates those
1:11:10laws, is he saying that those laws are
1:11:12not revelation of a law?
1:11:14>> What the the Torah he's confirming isn't
1:11:16a textual manuscript, but the Torah he's
1:11:18confirming is the revelationary material
1:11:20and then he changes those laws. But he's
1:11:22not confirming the Torah that's
1:11:23literally textually verbatim in front of
1:11:25him.
1:11:25>> Well, he it literally says that he's
1:11:26confirming the Torah.
1:11:28>> Well, currently the argument at hand is
1:11:30that Gabriel Gabriel Reynolds is
1:11:32correct. So if we're arguing within
1:11:34their perspective right now, we're not
1:11:35arguing within your random perspective.
1:11:38>> All you want is we're arguing from the
1:11:39perspective of these oriental scholars,
1:11:41not so I know you go with the oriental
1:11:43scholars. I'm going to go with
1:11:45>> So we're going to just switch points cuz
1:11:46I lost, right? So you're going to switch
1:11:48points cuz you lost. Switch points cuz
1:11:50you lost. So according to according to
1:11:52your argument just real quick according
1:11:54to your argument when Jesus abregates
1:11:57the laws that are in the Torah some of
1:11:59the laws in the Torah that he has that
1:12:00and he's saying he's confirming he
1:12:02abrogates some of those laws. My
1:12:03question is very simple.
1:12:05>> Is he saying that those laws that he's
1:12:07abrogating are not revelation of Allah?
1:12:09Yes or no?
1:12:09>> I just need a clarification cuz I'm a
1:12:11little bit confused. Is this to do with
1:12:12the original topic from the perspective
1:12:14of Gabriel Reynolds or is this your
1:12:15imaginary perspective? You just switch
1:12:16topics.
1:12:17>> I'll I'll answer that since you can't
1:12:18answer my question. You
1:12:20>> It was a clarifying. I was going to
1:12:21answer.
1:12:21>> You brought this up in light of what
1:12:24Gabriel Reynolds and this is saying. Oh,
1:12:26so is Gabriel Reynolds correct in this?
1:12:29>> You guys brought the argument, let's
1:12:31just say he's correct. So, we're
1:12:32entertaining that. This is you. No, no,
1:12:33no. You said it. You've he said, let's
1:12:36just grant he's correct. Let's argue.
1:12:38You explicitly said that's not what
1:12:40we're doing.
1:12:40>> Hey, man. You said it.
1:12:41>> Okay. All right. Let's Let's do this
1:12:42very clearly.
1:12:43>> No. Gabriel Reynolds.
1:12:45>> All right. Topic switch. Topic. This is
1:12:48topic is done cuz we lost. So, we're
1:12:50going to switch.
1:12:50>> Notice you appealed to Gabriel Reyn and
1:12:53>> No, no, no. You guys,
1:12:55>> we have it on recording. John said he's
1:12:56correct.
1:12:57>> Let me finish.
1:12:57>> No, we did not say we never said that,
1:12:59but it's okay. They can't track. They
1:13:01can't track. You brought up Gabriel. Is
1:13:03this okay?
1:13:04>> You brought up Gabriel Re and tried to
1:13:06build your point quoting 350 as an
1:13:09example of Jesus affirming a Torah, but
1:13:12not the text of the Torah, but only
1:13:14revelational parts of it. So, my
1:13:16question is this. It's very simple. Very
1:13:18very very simple. Very very simple.
1:13:21Okay. According to chapter 3:50, when
1:13:24Jesus said when it says that Jesus came
1:13:27confirming the Torah that he has
1:13:30>> and to make lawful that which has been
1:13:32unlawful for you, is he saying that the
1:13:35parts that were unlawful for them of in
1:13:37the Torah, because that's what he's
1:13:39talking about, the Torah. Is he saying
1:13:41that those laws that are now abregated
1:13:44are not revelation of Allah? Yes or no?
1:13:46>> Yeah. I never made the argument that
1:13:48when he's abregating laws within the
1:13:50revelation material of the Torah that
1:13:51he's saying that these laws he's
1:13:52abrogating are just corrupted. I simply
1:13:54made the argument beautiful.
1:13:57>> I simply made the argument that when the
1:13:59author of the Quran is saying he
1:14:01confirms something that's in the
1:14:02revelation aspect, hence 548 to uh to
1:14:0650.
1:14:06>> And so when when when he affirms the the
1:14:09Torah, it's the revelationary material
1:14:11and he abrogates those laws.
1:14:13>> Go ahead, man. Go ahead.
1:14:14>> Okay, got you. So abrogation is not is
1:14:17not corruption of text.
1:14:18>> I didn't say that him abrogating the law
1:14:20is the proof of corruption though. I
1:14:21never made that argument at first. I
1:14:22said he said him confirming the Torah is
1:14:24the revelation of the problem.
1:14:26>> Well, I don't know why you keep
1:14:28if I have to represent my position
1:14:30correctly so he can represent you. Look,
1:14:33here's the thing. It's not my problem if
1:14:35you double talk. I'm going to put your
1:14:37words back in your mouth and then you're
1:14:38going to say
1:14:39>> that's not my words though. I'm making
1:14:40it very clear.
1:14:40>> That's exactly how that's why I'm saying
1:14:42right now. I didn't say that. Right. So,
1:14:44so this is what happens now. So, thank
1:14:46you for acknowledging that abrogation
1:14:49when Jesus says that this is lawful now
1:14:51and whatever that doesn't mean that the
1:14:53laws that were are being abregated are
1:14:56not revelation of Allah. They're still
1:14:57revelation of Allah. They're just not
1:14:59applicable to the certain people he's
1:15:01talking to now. So now abrogation out
1:15:04the window. He's still affirming the
1:15:06text that he has. That's number one.
1:15:08Number two, when you talk about chapter
1:15:105 verse 48 about Muhammad, first of all,
1:15:13it doesn't say criterion. It doesn't say
1:15:15supreme authority for for Khan is
1:15:17criterion. Now, if you want to go, if
1:15:19you're going to say that being Mahu, let
1:15:21me just ask you before I make this
1:15:23point. I'm going ask you and you can
1:15:24expand if you want. I'll say, listen,
1:15:26when you say Mahimman, are you saying
1:15:28that Mahimman is a corrector and
1:15:30authority over that which it's a
1:15:31Mahimman over?
1:15:32>> Yeah. Like I said from the very
1:15:34beginning of this argument which I don't
1:15:35know why he said I brought up Gabriel
1:15:37Reynolds it was TMA and then and then IP
1:15:39says well let's just grant he's correct
1:15:41so we're arguing from that perspective
1:15:43from their perspective Gabriel Reynolds
1:15:44and Nikolai Sinai when the Quran says
1:15:46it's the arbiter of the contents of the
1:15:48previous scripture a mu a mu they
1:15:51understand it as meaning arbiter of the
1:15:53content of the previous scripture
1:15:54because from 544 the Quran talks about
1:15:56how Jews and Christians judge by their
1:15:59scripture but then in 549 to 50 it
1:16:01rebukes that and calls that pre-Islamic
1:16:03ignorance. So their judging of the
1:16:05scripture is ignorant. It's you only
1:16:07judge by what the Quran revealed as it.
1:16:09>> Gotcha. Okay. So also so Muhammad is now
1:16:11we all heard it.
1:16:12>> Muhammad is a corrector and supreme
1:16:15authority over that which is a Muhammad
1:16:17over.
1:16:18>> Okay.
1:16:19>> So what? Excuse me. Let me go ahead.
1:16:21>> Go ahead.
1:16:26>> My bad. My bad. Go ahead.
1:16:27>> Trying to steal my recipe.
1:16:30So when you have mujah
1:16:32>> and others like they say that Muhammad
1:16:36is the Muhammad of the Quran absolutely
1:16:41taps on chapter 5 vers 48. So there is
1:16:44hold on a second.
1:16:45>> Okay.
1:16:45>> So in in chapter 5 vers 48 they say and
1:16:50others say that Muhammad is the
1:16:52Muhammad. Yes. Chapter 5:48. And not
1:16:55only this now let me just be honest
1:16:58here. in the cathed.
1:17:02He doesn't say that 548 is saying
1:17:04Muhammad is Muhammad but he says but
1:17:06this is correct in meaning.
1:17:08>> Yeah.
1:17:09>> So he affirms that Muhammad is the
1:17:11Muhammad over the Quran just like Abuh
1:17:14I'm sorry not Abu but Mujah affirms that
1:17:16the
1:17:17>> Muhammad over the Quran
1:17:18>> that Muhammad is Muhammad over the
1:17:19Quran. So would this mean now that
1:17:21Muhammad is the corrector and supreme
1:17:23authority over Allah's work?
1:17:25>> Check that reference.
1:17:28It's not
1:17:30I have some response to that. There
1:17:32there's there's something you went a
1:17:33little bit over past what I said in 549
1:17:35to 50. It's not just the Quran which is
1:17:37being used as a judgment over the
1:17:39previous scripture which the Quran
1:17:41already considered the the Christian and
1:17:42Jewish uh interpretation and judgment as
1:17:44pre-Islamic ignorance. The Quran says
1:17:46it's the or in 549-50 the Quran and the
1:17:49prophet are the judges between the
1:17:52disputes over the previous scripture. So
1:17:53it's both the Quran and the prophet what
1:17:55the what the prophet has to say about it
1:17:57as well because we know he has multiple
1:17:58types of revelation as we see.
1:18:00>> Would you agree?
1:18:02>> Would you agree in chapter 5 verse 48 of
1:18:04his
1:18:06so go you you have the English
1:18:09right?
1:18:10>> Yeah he he references Abu Jah and others
1:18:13and he also gives his
1:18:15mujah. Sorry.
1:18:17>> No no no read the word I just said about
1:18:19right there.
1:18:19>> Yeah. Let me find this.
1:18:22>> Okay. Uh Abbas said that Muhammad means
1:18:25witness. Mujah said the same.
1:18:29>> Yeah. Can you go to the Arabic one?
1:18:30Because that's the a bridge.
1:18:31>> Nothing about Muhammad.
1:18:32>> Right. So
1:18:33>> can you go to the Arabic one?
1:18:35>> Wait, what does the Arabic one say?
1:18:37>> It says exactly what he doesn't know.
1:18:39>> I'll say it again. It says Mujah and I
1:18:41forget the other guy's names, but
1:18:43Mujahed and others refer to Muhammad as
1:18:46the Muhammad. They say they say that
1:18:48chapter 5:28 is the Muhammad is actually
1:18:50referring to Muhammad being Muhammad
1:18:52over the Quran. Ibadir disagrees with
1:18:54that interpretation of the text but he
1:18:56says this is correct in meaning that
1:18:58Muhammad is it is true that he's Muhamm
1:19:00over the Quran.
1:19:01>> Okay. So wait are you I I just want to
1:19:03understand are you saying that Muay only
1:19:05has one restricted meaning according to
1:19:07the scholars? They do they pause it
1:19:08multiple meanings?
1:19:09>> They they do which is which which is why
1:19:11let me let me answer in full we we've
1:19:13been practicing this right. Well, we
1:19:15have
1:19:15>> so I know I know. So what what's
1:19:18happening here is is I asked him because
1:19:20he's taken the meaning of of chapter
1:19:225:48 to mean a criteria supreme
1:19:25authority judge over it. That's what
1:19:27he's taken that to mean. And so I said,
1:19:29"Okay, so in this verse you have
1:19:30scholars that say in this verse, in this
1:19:32context, it's actually Muhammad who's
1:19:34the Muhammad in this context over the
1:19:36Quran." So would you then agree with
1:19:38them? Would you say because they don't
1:19:40even take it to mean that that's what it
1:19:41means. But would you say then that
1:19:43Muhammad is the supreme authority
1:19:45corrector over the
1:19:46>> No, we reject reject that meaning we
1:19:48reject that.
1:19:48>> I got
1:19:50exactly
1:19:52point
1:19:53the point is that Muim cannot mean
1:19:56corrector because Muhammad cannot be the
1:19:58corrector of
1:20:03but you didn't
1:20:06he says it just means protector. No, he
1:20:08doesn't. In his key terms of the Quran,
1:20:10he explicitly says that Muham means the
1:20:12Quran is the arbiter of the content. I
1:20:14have I have a picture. Where does it say
1:20:16that? Show me right now. Show me. Show
1:20:18me. Please
1:20:18>> pull it up.
1:20:20>> You pull it up. You're the one making
1:20:21the claim.
1:20:24>> He said he says that and I have an
1:20:25explicit quotation where he does not say
1:20:27it.
1:20:28>> So if you can show me where he says
1:20:29that, please show me.
1:20:35>> I don't have like the whole PDF on my
1:20:37phone.
1:20:39No, you're not.
1:20:41I have the quotation. I don't have the
1:20:43entire book. I have a quotation. I don't
1:20:45have a whole 800 page.
1:20:47>> I'm not counting you.
1:20:48>> But I just want to reference that. I
1:20:50don't I'm saying I don't only come up
1:20:52twice.
1:20:54>> All right. So, this is uh Sarah 548,
1:20:57which you guys didn't want to read.
1:20:59>> Yeah.
1:21:00>> What paragraph?
1:21:01>> Okay.
1:21:02>> It says this. Are you affirming that
1:21:03this is here? No, I'm saying I'm waiting
1:21:05for you to say it so I can show you how
1:21:08>> intellectual.
1:21:08>> So you don't know if it's here or not.
1:21:11>> All right. Say the point.
1:21:12>> As for what Iben Abi hat narrated from
1:21:15from
1:21:17ibiral
1:21:19Kurasani and Iban Abi Naji under the
1:21:22authority of Mujah that they said
1:21:24regarding his statement and a Muahan
1:21:26over it. Meaning Muhammad peace be up
1:21:29peace and blessings be upon him is the
1:21:31Mahimman over the Quran over it.
1:21:34>> Okay. Thank you.
1:21:35>> And there goes on to say um uh this is
1:21:40correct in meaning. If they mean that
1:21:41Muhammad is trusty over the Quran then
1:21:43this is correct in meaning. But there is
1:21:45room for consideration in interpreting
1:21:46it in in interpreting this in this way.
1:21:49And there is also room for consideration
1:21:51in its revelation to him from an Arabic
1:21:54perspective. So he's even saying that
1:21:56yeah they have created to interpret it
1:21:58this way. So I'm going to respond now.
1:22:00So do you do you affirm that?
1:22:01>> I disagree with you completely and I'll
1:22:03show you Muhammad.
1:22:05>> I got you. So um Avery's claim is that
1:22:11affirm this specific meaning. Now watch
1:22:13this. This is what it says in the
1:22:14Arabic. So now I do your homework. I'm
1:22:16going to close it up on you. It says
1:22:20so in the Arabic means from what they
1:22:22say. And then it says
1:22:33meaning that way to the chin of people
1:22:36who said this guess what Avery this
1:22:38doesn't mean that it's himself who
1:22:40believe this why because
1:22:43already gave his opinion let's go to it
1:22:45says from here it says
1:22:58So it already tells us that believed
1:23:00that it's about him being that being a
1:23:03witness. It tells us position later it
1:23:06says that narrated about this that the
1:23:09group believed this not that he himself
1:23:11believed it. So thank you so much you
1:23:12barely.
1:23:13>> Can I can I say something here?
1:23:15>> Yeah sure. So this this is why it's
1:23:18important here. Number one, thank you
1:23:20for giving different people who are
1:23:22saying that Mujah says different things.
1:23:24That's all you just showed was that
1:23:26people say that Mujah says different.
1:23:28>> Yes. Yes. Here it is. You're actually
1:23:30notice how they can have it. You can
1:23:32have it.
1:23:32>> Notice how they have to interrupt it
1:23:34because they don't even understand their
1:23:35own sources. This is under the authority
1:23:38of Mujah.
1:23:39>> He's not.
1:23:40>> This is under and guess what? And does
1:23:42there agree with this?
1:23:43>> No.
1:23:44believe this does agree with this.
1:23:46>> Does this notice how you can't answer a
1:23:49finish up? Finish up agree. Yeah, I
1:23:52thought so. That's what I thought. So,
1:23:53so watch this. I says that this is
1:23:57correct in meaning. So, I affirms that
1:24:01Muhammad is also Muhammad over the
1:24:04Quran. And so if our friends are correct
1:24:06that Mahimman means supreme authority
1:24:08and corrector over something then you
1:24:10have to agree that Muhammad is the
1:24:13supreme authority and corrector over
1:24:14your Quran. Mah
1:24:16>> okay. Who wants to close on your side?
1:24:18>> We we we can begin closing and then have
1:24:19to close. No problem.
1:24:20>> Okay. So
1:24:22>> uh
1:24:22>> the second part
1:24:24>> we brought up how Gabriel said
1:24:26interprets things and then IP says let's
1:24:28just grant his understanding. So we went
1:24:29through that and then after
1:24:30demonstrating how these scholars view
1:24:32that you guys just wanted to reject it
1:24:33and go well we're we're team Allah. So
1:24:35then one time quoted Allah only by the
1:24:37Quran uh two four uh 544 to 448 to 50 uh
1:24:43and 68 and even 1094 that would be for
1:24:46us not for you. Yeah it's for us because
1:24:48it's talking about Muslims that won't be
1:24:49too long. Um you guys just didn't accept
1:24:52this and you went to scholars instead.
1:24:53You went back to scholars. Oh, let's
1:24:54just quote some other scholars now
1:24:56instead of Allah when you were team
1:24:57Allah a second ago.
1:25:00>> Uh yeah, I mean it's very simple. They
1:25:02already agreed and acknowledged with the
1:25:03fact that there are two different
1:25:04positions when it comes to this. One
1:25:06position is not more right or wrong than
1:25:08the other. Appealing to one particular
1:25:10scholar who says that oh the other
1:25:11scholars don't actually say anything in
1:25:13regards to evidence but they actually
1:25:14do. For example, Bambas which I
1:25:16mentioned to you in the beginning he
1:25:17very much does give evidence in regards
1:25:19to the corruption or the idea of
1:25:20corruption in regards to your text. Um
1:25:23yeah so you've acknowledged the fact
1:25:24that there are two positions ergo
1:25:26there's not going to actually be an
1:25:27Islamic dilemma if one is not you know
1:25:29bound by the particular presentation
1:25:31that you guys are giving for it so yeah
1:25:34you want to close out
1:25:35>> yeah sure love what you said earlier
1:25:37about the criterion I I just go the
1:25:40Quran's criteria if this had not been
1:25:42from Allah they would have found many
1:25:44contradictions in it that's our whole
1:25:47point there are so many contradictions
1:25:49it's constantly saying I'm confirming
1:25:51your scriptures and and contradicting
1:25:53what is in our scripture. And notice
1:25:54what they have to do constantly. They
1:25:56have to go, well, let's go to these
1:25:58scholars and look reinterpreted. That's
1:26:00the problem again because at that point
1:26:02now they're saying the Quran is wrong
1:26:04when it claims to be clear, fully
1:26:06detailed in surah 12:11 when it claims
1:26:08to be the verses are perfected and then
1:26:10fully explained. They're telling you the
1:26:12Quran is wrong. So you have to bring in
1:26:14scholars to rescue what the Quran is
1:26:16saying because it doesn't actually say
1:26:18that stuff. This is exactly why we know
1:26:20the Quran is not the final revelation
1:26:21from God. And there I I would expected
1:26:24at some point in this conversation for
1:26:25them to want to veer towards evidence,
1:26:27but they can't because there isn't any.
1:26:29>> The evidence that we have based on the
1:26:31Quran is that the Quran fully affirms
1:26:33the testimony, the preservation, the
1:26:35authority of the previous scriptures.
1:26:36And what we did was is that we did both
1:26:39things. We appeal to Quran. They like to
1:26:40appeal to scholars. Then we use
1:26:42scholars. They ask why we're using
1:26:43scholars. It's it's the double talk of
1:26:45of this religion all the time. with this
1:26:47Islamic position. Nowhere ever do you
1:26:50ever see the Quran picking out the
1:26:52scripture itself and correcting what is
1:26:54in the scripture or claiming to correct
1:26:55what's in the scripture. What we see is
1:26:57is the Quran disagreeing with what it
1:27:00claims to confirm. And not only this,
1:27:02it's not just Kafir that says this about
1:27:05uh Muhammad being Mahimman. Uh Alabari
1:27:08also says this. Alabari in chapter 5:48
1:27:10he says and as and as a Muhammad over it
1:27:13meaning we have revealed the book which
1:27:16we sent down to you oh Muhammad as a
1:27:20um confirming before it as a witness
1:27:23over them that they are true from Allah
1:27:25as a trustworthy over them preserving
1:27:27them right so notice to doesn't take
1:27:30this meaning to be a a supreme authority
1:27:33a corrector but a witness to the
1:27:36scriptures right um notice this when
1:27:38we're talking about what the Quran says
1:27:40over and over again. The Quran says if
1:27:42you're in doubt, come to us. That's
1:27:44chapter 10 94. That's chapter uh um slip
1:27:48in mind. Chapter 21, I believe it is
1:27:49217.
1:27:50>> Yeah. 217 chapter 16:43. If you don't
1:27:53know about what the the revelation that
1:27:55the Quran is talking about, you got to
1:27:57come to the people of the book. Come to
1:27:58us so that you can get the truth about
1:28:00what your Quran is saying.
1:28:01Unfortunately, your Quran contradicts
1:28:02what we have and therefore the Quran is
1:28:04false and not a revelation from God.
1:28:07And even if even if we concede the point
1:28:11or argument that yes, the Quran is
1:28:13correcting the scriptures, that claim
1:28:15I'm trying to show you guys that, okay,
1:28:17that's a claim you're making, but that
1:28:19claim comes with so many so many
1:28:21consequences and repercussions. Okay,
1:28:23you have to say that someone changed all
1:28:26of those details and corrected it. Is
1:28:28that Do you guys hear what I'm saying?
1:28:30So, it's correcting thousands and
1:28:32thousands of irreconcilable differences.
1:28:35They can't even flow together. You can't
1:28:36even like kind of make it work.
1:28:37Thousands. And so somebody in history
1:28:40changed the original the the Quran's
1:28:42version of the Torah. Thousands of
1:28:45intentional ways. And to this day, we do
1:28:47not have a single Torah manuscript in
1:28:50any language in anywhere in the world
1:28:52that corroborates the details that are
1:28:54in the Quran's version of the Torah. And
1:28:58then you brought up the I don't know if
1:28:59you know the Medinian Torah theory. Some
1:29:00people do. That's fine. That is like the
1:29:02most impressive thing I've heard so thus
1:29:04far. And even then, what I would do if
1:29:07you hold to the Medinian Torah theory
1:29:09because clearly there was something in
1:29:10Medina or Mecca that had the same
1:29:13details as the Quran version of the
1:29:15Torah, I would spend all the money from
1:29:17the Hajj pilgrimage and do a massive
1:29:20excavation of Saudi Arabia to find one
1:29:22manuscript of a Torah corroborating the
1:29:24details in the Quran. Uh in contrast to
1:29:27our version of the Torah, if you find
1:29:29that for me, I will take my shot. You're
1:29:31beautiful. That was awesome.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of THE ISLAMIC DILEMMA DEBATE CHRISTIANS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE! (MUST WATCH) by itachii, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 18,771 words across 2,867 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.