Is Child Marriage Acceptable? DEBATE REVIEW | Inspiring Philosophy, David Wood, AP, Mythvision

Foreign. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Thank you.

Put an AP in my children. Hello everybody and welcome. This is the Apostate Prophet. I always have to let David do something weird before we start. Uh, today we are live, uh, once again on, uh, the most watched show in the world, uh, on Apostate Prophet's channel. And today we have a very special episode. Today we are going to find out if it is acceptable to marry children and if it's acceptable to marry babies. Uh, this will be very important.

So this is not something that I'm saying. Uh, we all know the Islamic story on this. Um, Mike might correct me if I'm wrong, but, uh, I think you were told just a few days ago that according to Islam, it is okay to marry an infant, right? And to have, uh, sexual intercourse with her as soon as she starts showing signs of maturity. I, I was shocked. I did, I did not think he was gonna say that, but apparently yes. Daniel Hakikichu said it. Yeah, if, if someone goes through precocious puberty, which can happen as early as 11 months, according to a case study that I have here, uh, yeah, they can be married off and the marriage can be consummated as soon as they start showing signs of, uh, puberty. And wow. But yeah, that's what I heard. Hear this part. No matter the age period. Yeah, yeah. Wow. I mean, I thought it was bad already, but, you know, you haven't seen anything, man.

Generally, he's here to enlighten everybody about, uh, what Islam really is and to bring everyone back to the folds of true Islam, to spread the true message of Islam and convince everyone why, uh, everyone should be coming Muslim. Of course, with beautiful things like these. Um, uh, AP, if you wanna, I got this study if you want to just, I put it in the bottom there if you wanted to show everyone that I have this actual study, uh, because I didn't get a chance to mention it, but here it is. In 11-month-year-old girl was central precocious puberty. So yeah, you can, it does happen where as young as less than one year, a girl started showing displaying signs of puberty, including bleeding. It's mentioned right there in the abstract. So there's a study, guys. I wasn't making it up.

The, the, the weird, the weird, I mean, the weirdest thing about this is that I mean, the Quran, the Quran says you can marry them before they're before they reach puberty. You can marry and have sex with them before puberty. So it's like, as horrible as what Daniel is saying is, the Quran is actually worse. So everyone, don't forget throughout this entire discussion, when you're listening to Daniel Hakikichu and you're thinking, oh my goodness, this is disgusting, he's actually morally superior to what the Quran is saying. The Quran, Surah 65, verse 4, it says, according to that verse, you can marry, divorce, you marry, have sex with, divorce, then pass on to another man, a girl who can then that guy can then marry her, have sex with her, and so on, all before she's ever reached puberty. And so Daniel's actually a, a step above by saying, hey, at least, at least wait till she's reached puberty.

I actually want to, um, want to show this. Uh, once I think this was one of the most, uh, important parts of the debate. This wasn't the cross-examination, of course, we can come to that later, but I want to bring this up here because I personally found that, um, found it very important and thought it was great that that Mike actually put him on the spot and asked him these questions. So I recorded a short clip of that moment here. Uh, that we are talking about. So this is very important to watch. This is the part where, uh, Mike confronts Daniel and he actually says that it's okay to marry and have sex with a child as early as the age of five. Just before this, this was more, this was the hardest part of the debate for me to keep my cool. I almost lashed out because I have a daughter and like this was, it was very hard for me to keep my emotions down here.

Uh, we could see the whole time that, uh, that you were having trouble continuously. You are very visibly uncomfortable. Just, just so everyone knows, he was like that last year at the debates when he was hearing some of the stuff that Muslims were saying. He looked like he was ready to jump up out of his chair. He was just sitting in the audience, but he would look like he was, he was about to jump up out of his chair. He was so enraged at some of the stuff that was being said last year. And so, yeah, he's, uh, AP's a very, uh, sensitive guy. Yeah. By the way, um, very interesting stuff. I have pointed to this out before, but, um, Dan, I think he could just left laptop. He's a predator. Uh, and every moment your own laptop turns on, you guys, you got to be aware of this guy here. Everyone, listen, this guy's a predator. Hey everybody. He's been searching. I, I've already seen people saying, man, I have that laptop now. I got to get rid of it. Oh, this is the first thing that I noticed as soon as I was watching it live and as soon as he, um, have started his opening speech, I was like, wait a minute, what does that say? Hey, sir. Hey, sir. That's an Acer Predator gamer laptop. But now, hey, Acer, Acer stock plummets after being used to defend child rights. Oh boy. Anyway, let's watch this. Let's watch this clip here.

I think it is just very, uh, as soon as she's throwing signs of an imminent, um, fertility, if you can start, uh, that's something that is explained evolutionarily. I don't believe in evolution. I know that you do, but they explain it that this is an adaptation because if you can start, uh, fertilizing a female as soon as she becomes, as soon as she's throwing signs of an imminent, um, fertility, the period, menarche, then that will maximize because you secured the female right at the beginning, the start of when she will potentially give yourself sex before these are maximizing fertility right when the body is physically mature. According to Islamic. So, um, just to have that first part ready. Clearly says, and we can all see Mike is again feeling very uncomfortable about this. Says that as soon as a girl starts showing signs of maturity, which means, uh, you know, bleeding or otherwise, uh, you are supposed, he's saying before bleeding, and I've seen other Muslims do this as well. They're saying, no, no, because puberty really starts before the ovulating and menstruating happens. They start to grow pubic hair, their breasts start to grow, and that's when you can start having sex with them. Okay, that blows your whole argument out of the water that child brides are necessary for maximizing. I noticed that because you're having sex with them before they can even have children. This is about your sadistic pleasure in using girls for, you know, your patriarchal pleasure. You want to. Disgusting. But so it's just, they're shooting themselves in the foot when they admit this. Perhaps you're shooting yourselves in the foot.

So what something you said there that I thought about before even coming into this discussion tonight was when you have your role model, your, your peak figure, the way you're, you understand him is that he marries a six-year-old, consummates it at nine, sexually. And that you're, this is the model in which we should be able to mimic and act for all time. This is an interesting point because the way I imagine it is, if he is an Islamic presuppositionalist, let's just put it that way, which means I imagine many Muslims are the same way, um, that the model of Muhammad should be what we all follow. Then anything he can find that helps back up his claim to support and defend what the prophet did is going to be what he'll use. And then this one you just brought up backfires against him because he's pointing out like, hey, it's all here. Look at the reproduction models, look at the numbers for reproduction and civilization. And then it's like, but you're saying you're having sex with them years before they can even make a child. Um, that'll ruin science. Science has shown that'll ruin the chances of that, that girl ever being able to produce. Yeah, I mean, there's so many things that work against what he's saying. That's that's exactly, uh, as it is.

So, um, is somebody who is, uh, who is, uh, an ultra-traditionalist, he has to stick to everything that Islam says in its, uh, fundamentals and oppose any kind of deviation from it. As such, and we can get into this later, but he, he constantly, preparing for this week, he constantly thinks Christianity is just diet Islam. That is just demonstrably false. He's always like, you just abandoned Christianity for liberal Western values. No, you don't understand Christianity. If you read scholars like, you know, Rodney Stark, Tom Holland, Robert Woodbury, there's a great book Daniel should read called A Secular Age, written by Charles Taylor. And Charles Taylor basically points out modern secularism comes out of Christian ethics. It was these modern, uh, deist enlightened deists that took things they got from Christianity, that focus on equality, focus on care, and they just tried to divorce it from its Christian base and create a system without the Christian beliefs. So he's just absolutely wrong that secularism is eroding, uh, traditional Christianity or that it's like vehemently opposed to it. It's not. It's actually like, as Charles Taylor uses it, it's a corruption of Christianity. It took good things it got from Christianity and then took it in directions that he either, that Taylor and other Christians might like myself don't agree with. But for, so Daniel doesn't realize that how different Christian ethics and Christians, Christian and Christians' histories from Islam. They're vehemently different in multiple ways. And he doesn't realize that he has a view that is very common among Muslims, which is that, um, you know, Muslims have this very, uh, ignorant idea of not really understanding how, uh, what Christianity is and how it works, how Christianity defines morality. So they think Christianity was at some point just like Islam with all the rules, like a list of rules, but then Christians became lazy and corrupted their religion, had abandoned it, and that's why they are now like the liberals. And, uh, somebody like him should be aware that this is a distorted view of Christianity, that this is an ignorant view. Nevertheless, he holds it and pushes this idea. And that makes me think he either doesn't know or he knows and just appeals to that whole, uh, Muslim sentiment. And I'm, I'm caught somewhere in between. You're right. Yeah, yeah.

Let's go. You know what precocious puberty is? Yes, I do. Okay. Where is it? It means going, starting puberty, uh, unusually early. Like, is there anything in Islam that prevents you from, in a man marrying a five-year-old that started precocious puberty? No. Marriage can happen, uh, like a range of marriage even as an infant, but that doesn't mean that sex is allowed. People. So here, what is the, the idea is this existed in Islam. You can, um, arrange a marriage at any age. There is no limit. You can also find this confirmed in traditionalist Islamic sources. If you just go online and Google the traditionalist view, marriage can happen at any age. There is no specified minimum age. But what genetic history here says is that, uh, just sex is not allowed. So you can marry an infant, but you cannot have sex with that infant. I, I just feel good that I don't even know what that word meant until I watch this debate. Makes me feel really good as a human. Yeah. Which, which one? You mean the word he's using about? What do you know what this means? Yeah, he stops for a second, but he's like, hold on, I know exactly what that means. And I would, I would like to pull something. I'm the master of this topic. I like to personally thank my wife because when I was preparing for this debate, she was listed. We were listening to him talk about this stuff. She goes, what would he say about precocious puberty? And I was like, wait, what? And so I started researching, and this was like in December, and I was like, oh my God. So I started writing up my questions right then and there for him. Is currently watching this. Uh, we know he will now say, look, Mike admits that he gets advice for the debate from his wife. Yes, I do. Because my career is my equal. So that's my equal. Yeah. How can she be an equal? She's a woman. Women are naturally. Galatians chapter 3, Genesis 1, First Corinthians 7, the wife is has authority over the husband's body as the husband has authority over the wife's body. We're equal. So yeah, you should study Christianity. Yeah, yeah. Daniel, and have a marriage to a five-year-old, consummate it if she started precocious puberty, if she starts showing signs of physical maturity, then yes, that's permissible. I was like, okay, let's have that again here. Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed. For years, for years I've been saying, and keep in mind that's not even what you get from the corrupt. The Quran refers to marrying, having sex with, and divorcing girls before they've ever reached puberty. Um, but in a recent debate, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I mean, I mean, that's like 14, 14 centuries worth of commentators agree that that's exactly what it's saying. And the historical background, that's specifically what was asked. That Surah 65:4 is answering as people started raising their hands going, what about girls who are too young to have a monthly menstrual cycle? What about girls who are too young, but too young for puberty? And his response was, oh, okay, since they don't have a monthly menstrual cycle, wait three months. So if you're divorcing them before someone else can marry him. So again, a girl, a girl could have four or five different husbands all before she's ever reached puberty, according to the Quran. So again, as horrifying as Daniel's position is, it's better than what you get from the Quran. He's, I think he's adopting the position of later legal schools of Islam where they would talk, they would talk, they would, you know, you're trying to zero in on on the time of, uh, on the time of a monthly menstrual cycle and so on. But, but it's just interesting because for years, I point out that a lot of the Muslim position seems to Muslims, their position seems to be, old enough to bleed, old enough to breed. And then, oh, how dare you say that, David? You love that. That's not oppositional. And as soon as that guy starts shouting at that, Alhamdulillah, so brilliant, great defense, great defense of exactly what David Wood has been saying for 15 years that we kept calling him a liar for. That's the thing. I have been thinking about this the whole time. Same issue. He talks about puberty and signs of maturity as a, as a barrier and, you know, as a milestone to look out for. And, and once that is, uh, you know, in sight, you can go and have, have sex with that little child. But the thing is, if he wants to go to the fundamentals, to the, to the actual, to the Quran and to Hadith, there, there is not even such a, there is not even such detail anywhere to find. This is just, he's still, I would say, I don't know, moderate in comparison to the very traditionalist and literalist view that he is supposed to be a part of. I guess he cannot go hardcore literalist, hardcore traditionalist, which is why he still adds a little bit of an, uh, invention and says, you know, at least there should be signs of maturity, signs of puberty. Yeah, yeah.

I want to say that I'm going to get messages after from angry Muslims that are like, how, how could you side with atheists on this issue? Don't you understand how depraved atheism is? You should be siding. How dare you? Like Muslims, let me just say to those morons out there, um, I don't see any atheists like Derek or Red Von getting up there and arguing in favor if something is horrible as child marriage. Okay? We have a lot of agreement in terms of ethics here, against this pure evil. If there was a group of Christians that believed they had to commit child sacrifice to God, and there was a group of atheists on the outside with AK-47s that saying we're going to go into their temple and rescue the children, I join with the atheists. Right? Okay, let's get something clear. If, if there are theists, they're going to push horrible things like what Daniel pushes, like child marriage, slavery, sexual slavery, murdering apostates. Yeah, you better believe I'm, I'm going to join side with the atheists against this abominable practice, this abominable religion you're promoting. See, Christian apologist admits that he would rather side with atheists. By the way, there are some, there are some hilarious comments over here. Oh, come on, girl said, I can see Daniel's ankle and I'm on fire with lust. Said, uh, if there's fluff on the muff, then she's old enough. Oh my God, that was from Ali G.

I was going to say, your whole debate yesterday, I was watching it. It was earlier today, actually. I was watching your debate, uh, with the Kinney guy. And no fluff is even needed, uh, in the Quran. So it's at least as far as it looks. I have, I haven't investigated all of this myself, but I've looked into it enough to know. And, ah, man, it sucks that that you can't like, your entire, the major voices that are like the stamp of approval are all saying this. That's difficult because I don't find that same problem with Christians. Usually, you're either just a fundamentalist who borrows the whole thing, or you have some negotiation taking place and, and seeing the world around you because the Bible doesn't tell us everything on how to do everything. So, um, it sucks when that is like enforced on you. It's a, like a fundamentalist worldview on the outside. And I'm using that in a derogatory sense, not just saying fundamentals, because everyone has fundamentals in the world they live in. I mean, Islam on the, in there, it just seems inherent. You know what's, uh, this reminds me yesterday as I was, um, I showed this part that we are just watching to my, to my wife. And before even getting to what is being said, she is listening to Daniel Liki-kuchu talk about, uh, a little girl and her, uh, puberty and her breasts forming and stuff. And she just did this, and she said, what, how would people feel if we, uh, you know, put a bunch of women up there and just let them talk about, uh, you know, uh, very uncomfortable things about little boys and their genitals and, uh, you know, went to, went to marry them and stuff like that? You know, I just wonder, she said. And then she, she went away. And I thought, huh, I never thought about that. But by the way, Howard, I mean, you IP and AP, but talk about your, your wives hearing this stuff. And I mean, if they're hearing this stuff and then AP, you know, your wife hearing, you know, all the, the, the, the rape threats and so on on Twitter, and then hearing how, um, deep down these anti-Islam women want someone to come in and take them over and ravish them and so on. Um, I mean, how, how are, how is everyone's wives not not totally impressed with with Islam and its great and its great impact on, its great impact on and treatment of women? You, David, it's because the liberal West has brainwashed all the women to think that they don't want to be, you know, taken over by Muslim men and turned into sex slaves. Come on.

Well, that's the funny thing when you, when you met, when you brought up that there is, um, when you said that all the research out there on this topic shows that child marriage is harmful, didn't he say that, uh, that this is a Western conspiracy? Basically. And I turned to the audience and said, it was a conspiracy. And that really upset them. Oh, because there's never been a concern ever in here, right? It's like, you know, AP, did you like, um, did you like my, uh, my, uh, jest about him saying, you know, like, we wouldn't deny the moon landing? Like that's always, yeah, because I know I was upset that he didn't respond to that. Yeah. Everyone, you can go do this right now on Daniel Hakikichu's channel. He is alive about five or six months ago where he's reviewing a conversation Jordan Peterson had with Muhammad hijab. And about three hours and 41 minutes in, someone sent a super chat about interstellar travel and how Pikachu goes on this big rant where he denies the moon landing. In order, it is, you know, humans cannot even leave lower Earth orbit. And it's like, oh, you're one of those people. Okay, so he's a, he denies the moon landing. Yes, you can go see it yourself now. And for very, very terrible and ignorant reasons. Yeah, I, I caught that. I was watching it live. You know, as soon as you brought up the moon landing out of nowhere, just to make a, make a comparison, I started laughing. He didn't react to it. He should have. That would have been fun. If man had traveled to the moon, they would see the crack. But they didn't see the crack. Therefore, they haven't been there. That would be something that I could imagine him doing. He starts with something and then works toward trying to fix it. That's what this whole debate's about in my opinion. You got a problem with how you view the prophet, and you see him as someone who's married a nine-year-old. I know there are certain scholars I've talked to that are more historical critical method. In fact, Dr. Khalil and Donnie is in the chat right now, and he says the Quran doesn't teach child marriage. Which I said, I'd be happy to interview him on my channel to hear what. I would as well, because because I am, I am going solely off of commentators, centuries of Sunni Islamic commentators. So the verse, if you just read it, the verse does sound confusing, but 14 centuries of Sunni commentators have given a pretty, a pretty standard, uh, so yeah, if there's a, if there's another understanding, I would like to hear it because as much as, as much as, you know, we want to point out horrible things, yeah, if at the end of the day, do we want Muslims thinking it's okay to marry children? No, I don't. So if there, if there's another explanation, another way of understanding it, I'd be totally happy. And, uh, I am all for uniting with more, uh, more, uh, moderate, progressive Muslims against child marriage. If, I mean, I would love. So I don't want it. I want Muslims to know if you are against Daniel, then my debate was not against you. I was attacking his understanding of Islam. And I want to say thank you for Muslims on this. Yeah, thank you, Michael and David, for clarifying and just making that statement that honestly makes me feel like, okay, we're, we're all in unison. That's exactly my point because for me, I don't believe it. Like, I don't believe in Islam. I don't believe the Quran. I just want to make one quick comment. Apostate Prophet actually telepath. If they tell me shut the F up, I don't want to say the word that he was saying in his head. Um, but my one, my one comment is this, um, and and that is, if I can find some historical critical method talking to some scholars, and I have Muslim scholars that I've had come on and they're pretty impressive. You know, the four-step model that you've talked about a lot, David, where it's like silent jihad, then it becomes more aggressive, and over time, war, because we have numbers, we have power, we have political power, we have strength. And this is kind of a developing method. You didn't make that up. It's not like you're just some antagonist. I can show you that right here in their books right now if you want. Exactly. And that's what one of the scholars who is a Muslim and he's an academic from Harvard who said, listen, I understand, I disagree with those voices. I'm going back to the Quran now. I don't believe at the end of the day, but I, I love learning like what does the Quran actually say? Because the way they piece together and like they find pericope after pericope and they like cherry pick to try and fit their model. He says, no, just read it on. So it actually looks better when you let the Quran speak for itself than allowing those voices to talk. But it's still a damaging thing for me because the fundamentals of this faith, there's so many people who listen to those voices, that is what makes their faith really popular and what everybody else is following the models of the heroes before, not just what's in the Quran. That's the struggle I find. But yeah, sorry for that. And, and, uh, yeah, similarly, I'm kind of in a similar boat there where it's like, okay, there are other people have different perspectives and aren't relying on the same Hadiths and aren't relying on the same commentators and so on. But you've got the people who are massively growing rapidly. Um, I mean, the people who are exploding in popularity are all presenting some really, really horrible views. So like that's scary. It's like we have to keep blasting away at that stuff, even, even if there are some, there are some other people who, who don't think that way. But, uh, yeah, I, I mean, if some people want to point out that they're wrong, I mean, I'll help that they'll do that. In fact, matter of fact, since, uh, Joshua Little came up in in the debate, I had, uh, I'll go ahead and say, if you had asked me before Joshua Little's dissertation, David, how sure are you that Muhammad married Aisha when she was six or seven and then consummated the marriage, uh, when she was nine? I would have said like 99% sure. I mean, it's just because it's all over. It's all, I mean, I mean, every, every source you, I mean, every, you know, Hadith collection you pick up, it's nine years old, nine years old, Aisha said she was nine years old, right? And you keep doing that all day long. And it's like, I mean, gosh, if I know anything about him, I knew he had, I know I know that he married a, you know, a young girl. Uh, and then there are scholars, there are scholars, any, any other scholars that you remotely trust, they all say this. But, uh, Joshua Little, I have to say, made a much stronger case that that's in question, uh, than I thought was possible. He's basically calling all of that, all of that into question. Not, not but not just because of the specific ideas, but he's pointing out the methods that they use to compile Hadith and so on is much more problematic than even I was aware. So I, you know, I knew they had problems, I knew there were tons of stuff being made up, but I didn't know how bad the problem was. And so, as I said, you know, if you'd asked me just a few months ago, how sure I was, I'd have been like 99%. If you were to ask me now, I'd be like, I mean, if, if Joshua Little's right on, on what a lot of what he's saying, I'm, I'm more like 50/50 on whether Muhammad married Aisha. And so, so Khalil, if you're, if you're still on there, if you wanted to do something fun, contact Joshua Little. You guys come on with me. Me and AP will present our view and why we've criticized this and what the, the standard position that we're dealing with is. And then you could give like a, your person, because I don't know a lot about what the, what the Shia or Ismaili, uh, position is. And that you could give that position. And then we can just let Joshua Little take like an hour to lay out, to lay out his challenges to that case. So that's something that's out there, that's out there on the table.

Yeah, you all talk too much. I told you I was thinking it now. Of course, I get, I get to say the final word because I'm the boss. I just want to say, I appreciate it, Dr. Khalil. The issue is, I just look at something that is along the lines of what David said. It's, it's, it's about what Islam is and how many Muslims actually believe in your form of Islam and in Daniel Hakikichu's form of Islam. So I just want to make a contrast here and say, without any disrespect or anything, uh, if you look at your following in your channel, how many people are following you as Muslims? And then if you look at people like Daniel Hakikichu, Muhammad Ali Dawa, and all these, um, horrible individuals who have current views, how popular are they among Muslims? We all know that they are the most popular Muslims on the internet. They are little young kids are looking up to them to mimic and model them, believe like them, and all of that. So the best we could do is combat the bad ideas. And, and if we find common ground with you or the historical critical method, dude, I'm all for that too. I think Dave, I mean, look, so you're telling me that we can't trust your sources? Cool. I mean, like, I'm okay with that. I mean, that's my opinion and things like that. Like, do we know what is historically reliable? I'm all about that game and I love that because it's what I like to do. Um, but I do that with Christianity, I do that with Judaism, I do with everything. So, yeah, yeah. Anyway, let's move on. I want to play this part again. So here is, uh, Mike asking Daniel about precocious puberty, which is puberty that starts unusually, uh, early before the age of age nine. And says, if a, if a girl shows signs of maturity at the age of five, is it okay to consummate the marriage with her? No, marriage can happen, uh, like a rent, you can arrange a marriage even as an infant, but that doesn't mean that sex is allowed. Okay, could a, could a man have a marriage to a five-year-old, consummate it if she started precocious puberty? If she starts showing signs of physical maturity, then yes, that's permissible. H4, if there are signs. So this is something that becomes biologically impossible because precociousness, it goes as early as 11 months. All right, well, that's something that the parents would not, uh, see. The thing about Islamic marriage is that so, um, I loved how you did this, Mike. I, I loved how he did this. It was very well pushed, very well put on the spot. Yeah. So you ask him about having, uh, sex with a five-year-old if she shows early signs of puberty. He says, yes, if there are signs of maturity, it is okay for a man to marry and have sex with a five-year-old girl. We have this far talked about cases of, uh, having sex with a nine-year-old, right? Or on this channel, I've mentioned this a lot and I've kind of, uh, asked people to de-conceptualize and kind of kind of visualize it as disgusting as it is to understand what in the world we are dealing with. But here in this case, Mike is pushing Daniel and asking about having sex with a five-year-old girl who shows early signs of, uh, puberty. And Daniel goes and says, according to Islam, it is allowed. It is okay to have sex with her. Mike pushes and says, what about four? He says, yes. He pushes and says, what about three? Daniel says, well, this is, uh, biologically impossible. Mike then goes on and says, uh, I actually have research which shows that it can start as early as 11 months. I have found the same thing as soon as I, uh, Googled it, uh, usually earlier at the beginning of this, uh, at the beginning of this live stream. So in, in what Daniel then does as a final resort, he deflects and says, well, you know, in Islam also, the the parents and the caretakers, the guardians are in charge and they can decide. But here is the issue. What if they decide? Yeah, yeah. Here's the issue. They, it is up to them. What if they decide it's okay? Well, there's a book written by Anna Sattler, which I read before this debate called Predators. Laptop. You know, it's laptop, right there. Yeah. They had a whole chapter on, um, on child predators and what to look for. And I, I honestly, everyone needs to read that book, especially if you have children, because you don't know what a child predator is. When you know what I see is a really dumb argument from Muslims is like, oh, I should praise Muhammad. She only had nice things to say about him. Yeah. And read Anna Sadler's book about predators. Predators don't start grooming the children. They start grooming the family, the close ones around them, showing them how much of a good person they are. Then when they start grooming the child, the child, abusing everyone around the child is saying, this person is such an angel, they're such a wonderful. You should be lucky they want to spend so much time with you. Then they're tell, then the predator is telling the child, what we're doing is just fine, it's natural, it's wonderful, it's just a good thing. So everyone around them is telling them that, telling the child that this person is a wonderful angel. Then the, the predator is telling the child everything they're doing is fine, natural. So a lot of times these children who have been abused come out of these situations and go, he never hurt me. Nothing was wrong. He was fine. Everyone said he was great and wonderful. And it was so when people are citing Aisha's commentary on Muhammad, they don't realize how much she falls in line with victims of sexual abuse. Muslims are always shooting themselves in the foot with this Aisha thing. It's, it's, they don't even understand the signs to look for with child predators. And it's scary because if they don't realize what's actually happening and they're defending based on Aisha's commentary, they could very well just let a child predator, you know, pass by their, um, pass by their warning signals. It's scary.

Well, when your prophet was a predator, he's kind of the model. So when you see the predators like, oh, he's, he's great, he's, he's great just like Muhammad. That this reminds me of of cults. Um, I mean, I, I remember, uh, watching and then reading upon, um, this whole thing, this this cult in Chile, which is, uh, might have heard of it, Colonia Dignidad or something like that, where, um, a former Nazi who went and set up a, uh, supposedly religious camp and basically brainwashed the people in there. And then after a while, started also having sexual interactions with the children of the cult members. And this was known within the cults, and it became, uh, you know, accepted. People didn't want to object to the guy. And then this was explained away as, you know, what, there is something holy about it. You shouldn't complain because you were in a place of, of holiness. And this guy is obviously the, the best, uh, the purest human that we have ever seen in our lives through this, uh, brainwashing and this, uh, conditioning of, we are under some, uh, an amazing person's guidance, therefore whatever he does is okay. Abuse is done and normalized. And we have the same example in, uh, the Jim Jones cult, for example, or other other cults. I was just thinking of, uh, Joseph Smith and like these were teenagers, like young teens, some are 12, and he was doing that. And at least they were older compared to what we're talking about here. Um, but yeah, he would take advantage of a lot of these young girls. Uh, he got caught in the spot a few times. There's all sorts of things. But, you know, I would love to know about Aisha's diary or her, her, you know, particular situation. Did she write it or did a man write it for her and like say she said it, you know, hey, this girl's on, she really, really loves what she's getting. And it's a guy who might be saying it. I don't know. It's in. Well, these are all reports from people who say, I heard from this guy who heard from this guy who heard from this guy who heard from Aisha that she said so and so. You know, just to preempt the dumb arguments you get from Daniel's acolytes, which is all Christians were like this before liberalism. No, read children in late, read children in late ancient Christianity, the chapter by John Martins, do not sexually abuse children, the language of early Christian sexual ethics. He knows that it was Christians in the early Roman Empire. They were pushing an end to these pedophilic practices that were happening throughout the Roman Empire. They were vehemently fighting hard to end this kind of stuff. That these were the images of God, you can't just use them for sex. They, there's no sex outside of marriage, and that needs to happen later. If you read works by Brent Shaw and Keith Hopkins, the note, they were encouraging much later marriages than even their, uh, surrounding pagans. So late teens is when they were basically marrying.

I want to add something to what you just said that's important too, because in various facets of Christianity, there was also asceticism. So like there were many, many Christians who were like, sex is bad, and they literally would have lifelong vows to not even have sex. So like, you, you know, come on, it's not like they're driven and motivated to to have four wives and like reproduce 19 kids and things like that. Like, but Daniel, but Daniel said that is that is, uh, that is irrational. It's, it's, you can't do that. You know, absolutely. It doesn't work. Christianity is vehemently opposed to polygamy. And yeah, well, yeah, that was another thing. He's saying like, you didn't give a solution to the whole problem of teens running around. So I started to try to give a solution. And the moment he tried, he's like, interrupted me. He's like, that doesn't work. You didn't give a solution. That doesn't work. I'm like, would you let me actually like explain myself? But he wouldn't let me because he knew I actually had a, a longer argument prepared where I was going to give it. But he didn't want me to give it. They, they, they own it. The only solution is for grown men to marry toddlers. Is the only way.

Let's finish this here. Parents are involved at these ages. And when you look at the marriage of the Prophet, peace be upon him, to Aisha, her parents were involved. And so she was not living with the Prophet, peace be upon him, even though she was married to him. So the parents have oversight. And sometimes a body or a judge can have oversight if the guardians are not capable to make sure that the rights and the physical well-being of a child are not or a minor are not harmed by that marriage. What about if you've tried to justify sexual slavery? I love this part. So what if a man finds a seven-year-old, let's say starting her period, can he take her back as a sex slave? So that's a whole different debate on slavery and concubine. Let's talk about the minor aspect. Would that be fine? You can't answer that. If a girl is, uh, any age, he can be taken as a second, right? Yeah. As opposed to being that we need to be taken by the men because they're too capable. Only about 10 seconds left. Yeah.

So, uh, that is that is the conclusion of this dude. By the way, notice, uh, what I just wanted to point out real quick, because I, I think there's a problem with a lot of what he's saying. And IP pointed out, you know, that there, there doesn't seem to be a concept of, hey, we know you have desires, learn to control them. Like even in, uh, The Reef, which I'm sure we'll discuss in another live stream, but, uh, Muhammad hijab and Ali Dawa talking about why men have secret second wives. And they're basically saying, we're made, we're made for all these desires for multiple women. You're made to be, you know, just for us. So stop being selfish and think that you get us all to yourself when we need, you know, we need multiple wives. We're we're made for that sort of thing. But think about this, when, when you're saying that because you have the desires, therefore the rules, the rules need to, uh, need to take your desires into consideration. Think about Aisha. Muhammad marries her when she's six or seven, then consummates the marriage when she's nine. He dies when she's 18. Before she's ever reached what is the ordinary, you know, sexual peak for women. And he makes it a rule in the Quran, no one can marry his wives after him. So she spends from the time of the, from the time she's 18 for the rest of her life, never allowed, never allowed to have sex with anyone. And yet it's like, well, what, what if she, what if she wants to have sex too? Too bad. Your desires are irrelevant. Shut up. This is the rule. This is what the Quran says. So she's expected to have self-control. But anyone else, no, Allah, Allah miraculously designs all the rules that just so happen to be the desires that were popular in 7th century Arabia for 7th century Arabian men. But what David just said, um, it's, it's right in the Quran. David, do you remember the verse? It is the same verse that it talks about not staying too long as his home, right? Yeah, yeah. That's Surah 33, um, 50, 49, 59. Yeah. It's been a while since after he finds out. I want to give you some context for why I brought this up because it comes from his post-debate review with Sarah's Harris Sultan. He said something that's pretty misogynistic. So yeah, I wrote down the whole quote from, I went to like his thing and did it. He, um, so if you go to his, he did like a nine-hour post-debate review of his review of his debate with Harry Sultan. And at four hours, 50 minutes and nine seconds in, he goes on this really misogynistic rant, which in which in the rant, he has to say, I'm not a misogynist because he realizes how misogynistic what he's saying. So everyone's going to listen to this part. But what he's basically saying, I could just read you the whole quote if you want. I, I don't know, it's really long, but he says, if today, if today all the men disappeared in the world and only the women and children were left, how long do you think they would last? Even with all the technology that makes life so convenient, easy? Well, the power would go out pretty soon because the electric critics, men who were doing the job of maintaining the infrastructure of the country. So your power, your clean running water, your gas pipelines, all of this would be gone within a week, maximum a week, but probably way before that, maybe the first day, maybe the hour before, depending on where you live. So no electricity, no water, transportation, you can't use your electric car, you, you're not going to have gas, it's your, your nice minivan to drive to the grocery store. He goes on about Uber Eats and there won't be any more Netflix. All the men are dead. So how long are you going to survive in the modern world as women when this happens? A day, two days, when all the food is run out. And a lot of people make this argument, and a lot of people make this argument nowadays because it's an obvious answer. All these strong independent women, it doesn't matter how strong independent they are. You know, I'm not a misogynist. Let's be real. Let's get to the facts. No matter how strong and independent you are, these women aren't going to do these jobs. These jobs are 99, 99% male dominated. Men are keeping society afloat all over the world. This is not a Muslim non-Muslim argument because Muslim countries are the exact same thing. It's the men. Women, yeah, your strong career woman, but can you do an office? You can do an office job. Okay. So, so he goes on and says, now imagine 500 years, a thousand years in the past, 2000 years in the past. What are these women going to do? The men have all been killed in war, in battle, they've been killed. So you just, so are they just going to blah, blah, blah? I can just imagine a liberal.

Mind thinking well, those women should be, you know, just respected, you know, given equal status in society. They should be given, they should be living free. Then Daniel says, but this is nonsense. You have to coerce, you have to coerce these women to integrate your society, or you could just leave them to die. You can leave them to die.

The Imam, as I mentioned, can make that choice. He can say that we are not taking any concubines, we're not taking any slaves. The Imam can choose that. He can, he is basically sentencing them to death. He said something to death. So Daniel's basically saying that when in war in the past, when all the men were killed, women literally cannot take care of themselves and their own children. They would just basically die. They're so incompetent, they cannot find food or care for their children without men there.

This is incredibly misogynistic. It's also wrong. Women do these types of jobs all day without a doubt. Plumbers, yeah, we had a female plumber here once. We just got our car fixed by an automotive shop here in Tucson. That's all female-owned. Okay, women can do these jobs. And if, yes, all men disappeared like tomorrow, it would suck because half their population is gone. But women would, the human species would go on. They would raise the children, and there would be new men that grow up. What if they did better off without us? I'm just kidding.

Listen, so hey, serious comment though. I worked in a construction job, like I did renewable energy. We had, I'd say if there were 20 men, we had seven or eight females that worked out there with us. Three of those girls were one of the, like, on the top end of our employees. And this was not like, this wasn't like, oh, your construction job where they waved flags or like, you know, held a sign up for like transport. This is, we're out there on farms, heavy equipment, installing pile drive, we're pile driving I-beams into the ground. They're lifting I-beams up, they're setting up lines, they're in the mud, they're, they're working their ass off. And they did this every day, in and out. I worked with them, I ran crews with them, and could trust them oftentimes more to get the job done efficiently than some of the guys who were knuckleheads.

So wait, wait, I, I have to ask. IP, did you say that there's an all-female mechanic shop and you actually went to it? Yeah, it's called like JB or something. We just got our car fixed there. They were actually really right. The customer service was phenomenal. And yeah, I'm going back there again if I get the choice because they were great. But, but yeah, come on, Ivan. Come on. I mean, yeah, it's true. I, I love them. They're pretty awesome.

But the reason I bring all this up is just to basically point out, David, that in the debate, Daniel was basically trying to justify sexual slavery. In this post-debate review that he gave with Harris Sultan, you got to take them back as sex life because they can't take care of themselves. Guys, we got to take them back and use them for sex and treat them like concubines and property. It's the women are stupid. Have you seen them? They're like babies. They are stupid. They can't function by themselves. That's how women are. We, so that's why I brought this all up in the Q&A because I know he tries to think, he thinks this is actually doing them a favor because he's such a misogynist. No, you're not. Most of those women would not want to sleep with these men who just murdered all their husbands and fathers and brothers. They would, I mean, like, just talk to Nuria, for example. I mean, she said she'd much rather be dead than be taken like that. It's this is why I drink.

So here's, here's the Quran verse. It says in Quran 33, verse 53. Uh, it's, it's a ridiculous verse about not staying too. This is my favorite, this is my favorite Quran verse. Oh yeah, I made a video about this before as well because it's so funny. It says, "All you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the prophets except when you are permitted for a meal without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter. And when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that behavior was troubling the prophet, and he is shy of dismissing you. But Allah is not shy of the truth. And when you ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a partition, a veil. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not conceivable or lawful for you to harm the messenger of Allah or to marry his wives after him ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allah an enormity."

This verse is all together completely ridiculous. And within context, uh, it's, it's like, people are, people come to Muhammad's house after the, uh, the, the, the wedding, right? And, um, they stay too long. And Muhammad gets upset about this. He walks around, and they just won't leave. And then Allah, of course, sees this. The almighty Allah sees it. Says he's like, "Oh no, my messenger, he's feeling very uncomfortable right now. But he's also shy, he doesn't want to say anything about this. I will now send a revelation that led his mouth to the people." That's, that's why this is like so hilarious, right? It's like the man, this is Muhammad receiving this revelation saying, "I got a revelation from Allah." And it's like, okay, what's, what's the revelation? Allah says, "You're annoying, Muhammad. He, he's too shy to tell you about it. He's not gonna tell you about it. But, uh, Allah says, house and asking him with questions, you know, talking him to death when he's, you know, trying to have some sexy chat with his wife. He's too shy to tell you, but Allah's not shy." So anyway, that's a revelation I just received, guys. Oh, and uh, oh, don't, don't marry his wives after him. We don't want anyone being compared with me, uh, sexually. Uh, yeah, don't do that. And it's like, are you serious? Like, how, this is a revelation? How did people not just walk away after this? I mean, like, are you, you're not, you're not a real man if you don't want your wife to have the ability to get remarried if you were to pass away?

Look at this, look at this right here. Share this screen real quick. Check this out. This is in the vein, I'm sharing the screen, section 132, Doctrine and Covenants. This is a doctrine for all Mormons. This entire letter, if anyone is interested in knowing, like William Clayton, who's the right-hand man of Joseph Smith, and Joseph Smith, his brother, are in a room by themselves talking about this whole secret marriage thing. They're having all these marriages where they're having sex with a lot of men. They sent off on missions, having sex with the married women, having sex with the teens, and getting, you know, being married to them, the whole nine. So he approaches Emma and says to his wife, "God has told me, like, I need to have more than one wife." He's trying to get the cat out of the bag, right? He's trying to like, edge his way into like having to go, fine. Okay. But she is not having it. So she gets pissed off and says to him, "Well, if you have wives, then I'm gonna have husbands." That's what she says. So he goes and has this private conversation. For anyone who's seriously interested in checking this out, he says, "Thus saith the Lord," right? Like, I'm talking full-on, Emma, the wife of the Prophet. I am speaking to you. "Thus saith the Lord, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." And he goes into all those, you know, the prophets, and and really the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, all the poly, polygamy marriages in the Bible, is like what he starts pulling from. And he starts to make this case. And finally, God directly speaks through his words to Emma and says, "And you cannot have other husbands, but he can have all these wives." Dude, I'm not making this up. If you ever want to get a laugh, go check out Doctrine and Covenants 132.

Wow. IP, if you want to, if you want some YouTube gold, just make a video titled, "Was the demon that came to Muhammad the same one that came to, um, to Joseph Smith?" I mean, and you can, you can point out all the similarities. It's like, huh, it's got to be the same. It's got to be the same one. They both, they both had child brides. They both were polygamous. And polygamy is evil and horrible, especially to women and the children involved. I mean, yeah, I'm, I'm so thankful Christian history has been vehemently opposed to polygamy throughout the ages. And yeah, sorry, that's that's. And it's only worked one way too. That's that's another problem. Like, yeah, you know what's really, yeah, Derek, you know what's really cool is there's a, there's a clip of Bart Ehrman, and he's giving a talk at some weird temple somewhere on the Gospel of Judas. And in the Q&A section, someone is asking about, "Did Jesus have a wife? Did you have a wife?" And he goes off and he says, talks about, "This is actually, most men in the ancient world before the modern era were not married except for times of extreme war. There's always been more women, there's always been more men than women because of so many that have died in childbirth. So polygamy should never have actually happened in history because there's always been more men. It's just these greedy, lustful men that have always wanted more women when there hasn't been enough women to go around because they keep unfortunately dying in childbirth. There's always been more men." And so he was using that to point out, "This is why we know Jesus was probably not married." Yeah, yeah.

Um, I want to look at a few, I, I marked a few reactions here, uh, to the debate on on modern day debate. Which, this is the first time I've come across as Mike Jones guy, but he killed it. "I don't think any sincere person will be taking Daniel seriously from now on." Now, it is a good comment. It is a good reaction from somebody who doesn't, who doesn't know you. But the issue is, they are wrong about the second part here about saying, "I don't think any sincere person will be taking." Well, okay, it's a sincere person to be fair. But, well, but Daniel will be, will still be taken seriously by his, uh, Islamic audience and by by all those Islamists. Nothing will be, uh, what will be lost on his part, despite everyone witnessing such a horrible debate on his part and such a public humiliation. I'm just shocked that someone would honestly take that debate and actually debate what he was trying to defend. But then again, after seeing him before, it doesn't shock us. I'm very, like, it's very few things that Daniel and Kikuchu shocks me with anymore. I just don't know why he would think he had a chance. I don't know. Well, he thinks he's, he's so.

Here's this one. "I don't understand the Muslim guy's point. He says prepubescent children are sexually frustrated, then goes on to make the argument that a proper outlet for this frustration is to marry young girls to old men. Such a strange person. Didn't he make a comparison that he asked you if it's, he said a 12-year-old girl who marries a 25-year-old man?" Oh yeah, let's address this. Let me address this really quick. So he's trying to give me a comparison. He's trying to say which is more immoral. And I knew I wouldn't have time in the debate to answer this. He's trying to say which is more immoral: a 25-year-old who marries a 10-year-old, or two 10-year-olds who have sex outside of marriage? Now, there, I said they're both immoral. I don't have to say which is more immoral because I'm a virtue ethicist. I don't know which is more immoral because I don't know the circumstances. Who are these people involved? What sexual acts are going on? Who's being more harmed? What is the psychology of this thing? There are so many details he left out of this, this thought experiment. There's not enough to give for me to make a proper judgment. My intuition tells me that it would be more immoral for the 25 and the 10-year-old because of all the evidence I presented. The child marriage is harmful. You're putting, yep, this girl is in this situation where now she's basically, basically a slave to this man because of the power dynamics. Again, I cited to research on the problems of the power dynamics in these relationships, and she's going to be abused, psychologically abused. Whereas a two 10-year-olds, you can just separate them, get them in therapy, and they'll be fine a little bit after that. So, but the thing is that I don't know enough of the details of these situations that he's presenting to make a valid moral judgment. And so that's my response to him. And not the debate, they're both immoral. It's impossible for me right now in the details to to be able to say which is going to be more moral. But my intuition says the the child marriage aspect is going to be far more immoral, given all the data. I, I don't know how like utterly harmful child marriage is. You can't escape this. There's just so much research that I wasn't even able to get to due to the time limits on how harmful child marriage is.

You know what's funny? Um, after almost two hours of debate, where you explain to him that it is categorically or wrong and harmful to marry children because it is, it is incredibly harmful in many ways, he makes the comparison to, so that is the first stupid thing that he does. He makes the comparison to a 45-year-old woman who is, who is pregnant. But then after talking for almost two hours, he, when you say that, if a 45-year-old woman goes to the doctor and the doctor says, you know, it is, it is harmful, you shouldn't do it, then she probably shouldn't do it. He then objects with an extremely dumb thing. He says, "Well, why can't we do the same thing about, you know, a child, like a 12-year-old? Why can't she just go to the doctor?" Dude, you have, we have just argued for over an hour that it is categorically, that is absolutely wrong and harmful, condemned. You will not find a doctor approving of this, which is why you shouldn't go to the doctor. But you can't expect him to say it's not okay. But AP, this is a problem too. This is from my, from my perception, in his estimation, sex is purely for reproduction. Reproduction. So like, at least it seems like he's trying to push that, even though you've argued, Michael, and David's brought this up in his debate after you, that like there's the pre-pubescent meaning they can't have babies, sex, but it seems like that's the ultimate drive. And yet he wants to bring in this like reproduction model to go, "Hey, 45 and up, big risk on death there, and you're risking your life." I don't know. I'm with you on the intuition here. She's 45, like she kind of has a decision to make. She's old enough to know a thing or two about life. And yet you're telling me 10-year-olds? I, I mean, I have a nine-year-old upstairs. When he, I pick him up from school, I take him to school, and if his mother's not taking him, and their world and what they're thinking is nowhere near what I'm thinking. And well, I can guide them, you know, I can guide him wherever I want, however I want. It's, well, he's not taking it in context.

A 45-year-old woman's pelvic bones are fully developed, okay? She's far different than a 15-year-old whose pelvic floor is not fully developed or is spread out, okay? You're not going to develop the psychiatric issues, you're not going to have the extreme high risk of death. Again, as I cited in the debate, a woman, a girl under 15 is like five times more likely to develop an obstetric fistula than than someone over 15. Okay? There's no comparison with a 45-year-old when it comes to the mental issues, the emotional issues, the intimate partner violence, the studies on that that I cited. And again, the physical issues are not even the same because the pelvic floor is not, is not the same. So he's comparing apples to oranges and thinking this was sort of like a good argument. He really has not thought this through. Even, I mean, if we just want to talk about causing harm to others, the comparison that he makes is, you know, a child that you may be a guardian of, and a 45-year-old woman. A 45-year-old woman may go to the doctor and learn that it is not good for her to get pregnant. It is, you know, it causes harm, it is not good for her. And then it is up to her as a grown woman to make the decision and to say, "Okay, well, you know, the doctor said this, I will not do this." On the other hand, we are talking about a 12-year-old girl, for example, who is a child in development, and who would through, you know, such a such a marriage and a pregnancy be harmed as she is in development and doesn't have the proper abilities to judge the way a 45-year-old woman does and to come to a proper conclusion. We're talking about completely different things here, where in one case it is about you and whether you want to do that to yourself or not. And we're talking about a child who is in development and whether we want to ruin and destroy that child or not. I don't understand how in the world he thinks that is a good idea to make that comparison.

But by the way, AP, one of those comments you just pulled up, um, someone said that that they're not going to trust, uh, uh, Daniel anymore. People can't trust Daniel anymore. It's interesting because, you know, Daniel obviously has some really, really horrible views. But, you know, when he was citing sources in the past, he's always citing sources saying, "Ah, according to this study, according to this study, according to this book," and giving him the benefit of the doubt, I was always assuming that he was citing things accurately, even if he has horrible views. So, one of the, one of the benefits of his methodology is if you quote a bunch of sources that no one's out, that no one's familiar with, they don't know if you're quoting them wrong. In this debate, he started quoting things that I, that I was familiar with. And I can't think of, I can't think of anything he quoted where he was actually interpreting it and representing it, representing what it said correctly. And so now it's like, wait a minute, if you, if you quote 50 things that I've never read, I mean, uh, you know, I, I think you're quoting them accurately. If you then cite five or six or seven things that I'm familiar with, and you completely misrepresent every single one of them, it's like, whoa, now, now I can't trust you on anything. Now I can't trust you because the only things where I could actually test you, you were wrong. You misrepresented it. And therefore, I can't trust you on anything. So at this point, on anything Daniel says, it would be like, look, give me the study. Let me read it because there is no way I can trust what you're saying about it. And, and, uh, hey Pete, just as a quick easy example, I sent you a link to the Catholic encyclopedia. Didn't he say that according to the, correct? I mean, I was working on my opening statement while, while this debate was going on, but didn't he say that according to the Catholic encyclopedia, Mary was, I mean, Mary was 12 or 14 and then 13 or something? Yeah, and then Joseph was 90 at the time? That's what he said. According to the Catholic encyclopedia, I think it's 80. I can't remember the exact numbers, but yeah, it's like that big disparity. But just added really quickly, the same cat, the same apocryphal sources also say Mary was a perpetual virgin, so there was never any intercourse with her. So yeah.

But look what happens, look what happens when we actually read it. Scroll down to marriage. It's called marriage or Mary marriage, something like that. Yeah, marriage. So, um, you've got this passage. Now go down. Skip because this is where you get 90. Scroll down. So look right now, right there, right about, so at the top, there, at the very top, it will not be without interest. So this is what the Catholic encyclopedia actually says in context when it talks about Joseph being 90 and so on. "It will not be without interest to recall here, unreliable though they are, the length-faced stories concerning St. Joseph's marriage contained in the apocryphal writings." So it's talking about unreliable apocryphal writings. Watch, watch, it gets better. "When 40 years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. They had two daughters, blah, blah, blah. A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wish to find in the tribe of Judea, uh, uh, in the tribe of Judah, a respectable man to espouse Mary, then 12 to 14 years of age. Joseph, who was at the time 90 years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates. A miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later, the Annunciation took place." These dreams, as Saint Charles Styles styles them, from which many a Christian artist has drawn his inspiration, see for instance Raphael's, blah, blah, blah, are void of authority. Wow.

So just imagine, the Catholic encyclopedia says, "We're going to tell you what these sources, what this source says, even though it has no authority, it's apocryphal, and it's unreliable because it's so late." And what, what IP pointed out, there was a reason for this because by now, there's a discussion, "Was Mary always a virgin?" And if so, what about the brothers of Jesus in scripture? How did Jesus have brothers if Mary was always a virgin? So there was a drive to write some sort of source explaining why Joseph never had sex with her. Well, if he's 90 and she's like 12, oh, he's an old man, right? And then as far as brothers, oh, we'll say that, you know, he had another marriage beforehand. So the writing sources in order to, in order to account for their position. But then the Catholic encyclopedia says, "Okay, yeah, but we don't, we don't trust these sources. They're unreliable, they're apocryphal." And yet, when Daniel looks at this, you see, she was 12 and he was 90, according to the Catholic encyclopedia. That's this, I mean, this is wild stuff. So notice, but notice everything he quoted that I was familiar with, it was like this. It was like, "That's not what that says. That it does not say what you just said. The Talmud doesn't say what you said. The Catholic encyclopedia doesn't say that." Dude, you are, this is, this is bad.

One thing you do know though, his followers will not care. Yeah, yeah. We talked about this before, the, before we started to live stream. But so, um, Michael and I, we talked months ago about China, the Kikuchu. Once it was, uh, confirmed that the two will actually have a heavy debate, and as soon as we started talking, I said to him, um, you know, one thing I noticed after the first time that I talked to generally Kikuchu is that he brings up a lot of sources, and when you look into the sources, you notice that none of the sources he mentions actually support his arguments. I'm, I'm not exaggerating. None often support his arguments. And Michael had already by then, you know, looked into his streams and the things that he brought up and already read the researchers and he said the same thing to me. He also noticed the very same thing. Daniel brings up, uh, citations, sources, and makes it look like they are in his favor, makes it look like they argue what he wants to argue. But if you actually open the source, it has nothing to do with, uh, with what he is claiming. So, even during his debate with with Nuria, Congress, he brought up certain certain studies on how, you know, feminism has failed and the West has failed and women have become increasingly depressed and so on. And he cited a research which supports the idea that feminism has failed and women's rights have failed and stuff like that. If you actually open the research that he that he cites, the research is about how the development of women's rights and freedom has, has been problematic, has been problematic because it hasn't been balanced enough, because women have, women are still disadvantaged and still not fully equal. So the study actually argues that, that there is harm and that there are problems because there is not enough equality. Whereas Daniel uses this study, it misrepresents it and twists it and argues that equality is a bad thing. So it is, it is so stupid. I mean, what he does is, uh, I mentioned this to Mike too, when I, when I first went to college, it's like, uh, at the beginning, at the beginning, they, they teach us how to, how to do, how to conduct basic research. And nobody expects you to actually use citations that are very detailed and support your stuff. In the, in the very beginning, all you learn is to look for citations that seem to have something to do with what you are arguing, and that's it. And what Daniel, Nikikichu, does is basically that. He's at that stage with his citations. He, he just looks for something, maybe looks at the, at the abstract of the research, and thinks, "Okay, this seems to agree with what I'm about, with what I think, so I'll just mention this study." And then he comes and and and and gives you a citation to that study, which once you reach the study, is completely in contradiction with whatever he's saying. Yeah.

And that's, and that's, notice the parallel, because that's been the, the Islamic methodology of Islamic apologetics for forever, right? I mean, just think about it. Finding prophecies about Muhammad in the Bible. You sit there reading verse one says that Islam is false, verse two says that Islam is false, verse three says that Islam is false. All of a sudden, you get to verse 18. Oh, that's something I can twist into a into a prophecy about Muhammad. Alhamdulillah, this is the proof. Verse 19 says Muhammad's a false prophet. Verse 20 says they just, Isaiah 42. Yeah, they're able to scan, they're able to scan massive amounts of of of material and then just fixate on one thing, thing that can be twisted into supporting their case. And you know, that's just been the, the Islamic methodology for years. Daniel's just applying it to like various psychological studies and so, but it's the same methodology. Let me go through this entire thing. Oh, here's something that can be used for me, even if the entire rest of the study completely contradicts what he's saying.

Let's get to Bruce Ryan because this has been Daniel's go-to guy for years to defend child marriage. Now, Bruce Ryan never defends child marriage, never once. But this is the weirdest unholy alliance I've ever seen because Bruce Ryan is trying to defend pedophilia in a lot of ways. Him and his co-author of the 1998 meta-analysis, Ryan has actually spoken at conferences in the Netherlands that defend pedophilia. He has written for a journal called Paideia, P-A-I-D-I-K-A, which defends pedophilia. So this guy is someone who's in, specifically he's focusing more on defending man-boy pedophilia. So this is the weirdest source for Daniel to bring up to defend his case for Chalmers. But this is the guy that he has been going to to make this case. Most of what Ryan is doing, and if you want to share the screen there, AP, I'll bring up the 1998 meta-analysis because this is what he said in the debate. So this is the 1998 meta-analysis. This meta-analysis was condemned by both houses of Congress and the psychological community at large, the psychology community at large. And what Ryan is doing in this, and his co-author as well, is they're trying to argue that, okay, can you enlarge? Yeah, I can zoom in a little bit here. Okay, yeah. So, yeah, what Ryan is trying to do here, he's trying to say that, um, there is no evidence that pedophilia is really harmful to the child involved. Now, this, as I noted in debate, this was an outlier meta-analysis. There were other meta-analyses, more that found the opposite of what Ryan found here. But this was the meta-analysis that he's using. The problem with his meta-analysis is his cherry-picked data. Ryan is only grabbing sample sizes from people who are in college. But as other researchers have noted, that people that have been really been damaged by child predators end up going to college because they have psychological issues that last for a while. So you're just sort of like pulling the people that sort of recovered. Well, a lot of the poor children in these incidents don't recover. But the ironic thing is, what I was trying to point in the debate, which Daniel denied, is that Ryan argues that actually the the boys that have been abused are not reporting as much harm. It's the girls. And here's the quote I wanted to bring up because he says, "In general, findings from the current review suggest that social legal definitions of child sexual abuse have more scientific validity in the children in Adam for male and adolescence, given the higher rate of unwanted negative experiences for women." So Ryan is basically, once again, saying the men, the boys basically do not experience really harmful effects after, but the women do, and they report that. So again, the most weirdest unholy alliance I have ever seen in my life. Why would you say the guy trying to defend men, man-boy love to support child heterosexual child marriage? It's ridiculous.

Now, the other study I wanted to bring up, uh, you can put this one. I'll bring up the other study here. Is the study he cited in in his debate with Harris Sultan? He cited it as far back as 2019. He also cited it in his, um, post-debate review with, um, Harris Sultan. So this is the one. It's called "Hemophilia as a Mental Disorder." Now, this is the one I, I read multiple times here. Um, you can see it here. If you go to his post-interview, he puts this on the screen. So I read it immediately when I saw it, and I pointed out, page seven, "Child sexual abuser abuse research have repeatedly maintained that hebephilic interactions are innately and intensely harmful for the younger person." And then he cites his own research to back that up. Then at the end of the review, the end of his study here, he says, "Yet, he hopes this provides direction for psychiatry and helping those with hebephilic impulses to control their behavior." So he's rec, he's hoping this research helps people to stop having hebephilic interactions. He's not hoping people use this to argue in favor. And he even says here at the top of this page, "To conclude, it should be accepted to conclude that that it should be accepted because of its expression and other species is an instance of a naturalistic fallacy, and a judge it moral in our society because it has been judged in other cultures is to commit the relativistic fallacy." So he's basically saying Daniel can't even use his own research to argue in favor of child marriage. This argues that it's moral because Ryan is basically even in agreement that this would not demonstrate its moral. He's arguing that this practice should be curbed, that they should be stopped. And my favorite part is again, these four pages where he just lists man-boy love constantly happening throughout the world, how common it was because Daniel's argument is that child marriage was so common that why, why would it be bad if it was so common? But so was man-boy love. It was so common. And notice all the highlighted parts. I, I pointed out, it was constantly Westerners ending man-boy love. "The tradition eroded in the late 19th century in reaction to Western abhorrence. The tradition faded when the practice of military service discontinued under British colonization. With outside cultural context, the tradition began, began to decay. The tradition ended in the later 19th century because of embarrassment and Western repugnance of effort and efforts to modernize it." So again, Daniel, I'm so sorry that Christians came and we took all your child brides and your man-boy love and we just ruined it with our, we're liberal Western values we had thrust upon the world. You're welcome. Christian apologizes for ruining the world.

But Michael, one thing that I'm, I'm remembering here, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the typology, this this research and this guy Bruce Ryan, that you had a headache disagreement with him during the debate, and he didn't agree that, with your correct assessment of what the study is actually saying? And he then wanted to, uh, compare the studies, and you wanted to read the actual study and actually quote from it. And what did he want to do? What did he want to do instead? Can you, can you say that he wanted to just read the abstract? Like he did? And is the review with Harris Sultan where he just read the abstract where he doesn't mention anything about homosexual hebephilic interaction? But that, yeah, the key assumes the abstract is going to give him all the details about the study. That's just false. You can see in the abstract of this study, it doesn't mention that the study goes into homosexual hebephilic interactions. It all, it just is kind of vague about it. But it seems to me that's what he thinks the abstract represents the whole study. Well, that's not always the case. Yeah.

And, and this, this brings me back to, uh, to what I said to the, um, what I said before, which is that, um, it looks like what he does is he simply skims through research that seemingly supports his views, and without actually reading through the research, without studying the research, looking at the abstract, maybe it's skimming through it, he then presents this as, uh, as a supportive source, a supportive evidence, right? I mean, this is what this is what it looks like. I'm looking at it. You want to re, yeah, for example, "In Muslim societies from the 18th and 19th century, particularly extensive documentation shows that men's attraction to boys was considered as natural as their attraction to women." So you remember his debate from a couple months ago with Maria, where he's arguing that, you know, women need to fail because men can't control their urges? Well, why weren't boys being failed in Islamic societies if men couldn't control their urges? I mean, is he had considered that maybe boys? You could tell he got very upset during the debate when you did that too. He got really defensive and like, "What Muslim country allows this to happen?" And like right here, I, I was, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna name any names or anything, but I know a woman who was working with five Pakistani men and got to, you know, they'd have conversations and so on. But, you know, she could tell that some of them were a little troubled by something. And it happened, she ended up getting into discussions with them, and turns out all of them had been molested by older men when they were, when they were boys. And they all thought, they all thought it was completely normal because it was apparently just completely standard in Pakistan. And, and, you know, having these discussions with them, she found out they don't consider that homosexual if it's a boy before he's actually a man. They don't consider it homosexual. And so you're fine, you're fine with the, you're fine with the boy if it's the man, you have to, if you're a man, you have sex with a man, you have to die. But if he's a boy, yeah, we're gonna look the other way because it's, it's not really gay. Just to be clear, real quick, the only reason I brought up Bruce Ryan is because this has been Daniel's source for like four years now. I wouldn't have brought him up at all because he doesn't talk about child marriage. But because the one citing him for four years, I'll cite what he says to show that Daniel's not been aware of his own research. I mean, I would never have brought up Bruce Ryan in this debate because he doesn't talk about child marriage. And again, he is an outlier. He is not represent mainstream psychology.

It is, it is a, there is a long history in many Muslim cultures, including two cultures that identity was actually very familiar with, which is, which are Pakistan and Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure he's, he's familiar with the history of Afghanistan, where also, um, the whole, you know, boy loving, where older men used little boys for entertainment and also for sexual purposes was a very common cultural thing. And it was then battled, and they tried to somehow get rid of it, but it's still in existence. And similar traditions have been around in in many Muslim countries. And the funny thing is, yeah, as David points out, that is not seen as, um, as being gay or as homosexuality. That is just, that is seen as something different, like, uh, appreciating the beauty of a young boy. And look, look at IP's face. Look at this. This is, this is what I love, ladies and gentlemen. I mean, if he hadn't been around some of this, some of the horrible stuff that these guys were saying, he would have just kept on making his, you know, nice videos about Bible comics and responding to atheists. But he gets, he gets disgusted actually hearing what some of these guys are saying. So he actually posts a response. And then they don't know enough because they have one methodology of dealing with critics, which is just like, "We'll shower you with so many, we'll shower you with so so much threats and abuse and so on that you'll, you'll, you'll stop talking about Muhammad." And they never understand. I've said it repeatedly when it happens, like, "Do you guys really not understand personality types?" Yes, some people, you can shower them with threats and abuse, and they'll stop whatever they're doing. Other people, it has the exact opposite effect. They're like, "Wait, what? Wait, you think you think you can stop me like that?" And they, and they come after it more. And so they're like, they're like creating this monster for destroying Islam. They don't, they don't realize it. Yeah, wild, wild stuff, man.

Anyway, the original plan here was actually that we would, uh, watch the debate and then talk. You might need, you might need to do like eight lives. You might need to do like eight live streams, AP, to get through all this stuff. I know. But I, I want to say, um, I said this before on my community tab, I said this on different occasions, but I, I mean, it is this debate. It was, it was fantastic. I think, uh, you did an amazing job. You, um, confronted the guy and his very sick mindset head-on, exposed him and his mindset before everybody, before the hundreds, uh, of thousands of people will probably see that. And you have destroyed it. You have to absolutely destroy it. You have crushed it. And to be very honest, I, I usually, uh, don't want to use these these sentiments to describe what goes on in a debate, but it was a, you publicly humiliated the guy and made him look like a complete idiot. Humiliated. Also, he looked disgusting. The comment section is full of people being, uh, disgusted and disbelief about the things that he says, which by the way, he thinks is good because he is actually representing the true good morality. But but people are also appalled by how how stupid his justifications were and how how horrible his comebacks were intent, how he was entirely unable to perceive some some basics. For example, one of my favorites was, um, was when when he thought he got you by bringing up fornication and adultery, which, so what happens is, um, you are against child marriage and you think it should be banned because it is, it is immoral and it is absolutely wrong. And then he's like, "So, so Mike, do you also, are you also against fornication and are you also against adultery? And why do you not want to outlaw those? Yeah, why do you want to outlaw child marriage instead?" See, humiliating through the logic to realize how dumb of an argument that is. Like, like, do I really need to explain it to you? Like, think about this for a little while.

Along those lines, AP, this has happened. This has happened twice in a row. This, we've, we've talked about this before, that, um, a Muslim apologist can become popular as a debater by having a certain, by having a certain methodology that works against certain people. So Zucker Hussein would just make stuff up about Hebrew and stuff like that. But if he's debating people who don't know Hebrew, he can make up anything he wants, and his own followers don't care if he's making stuff up. So he would debate people who don't know any better. And so he's been doing that for years. Suddenly he decides, "Hey, let me debate a scholar of ancient Near Eastern languages who happens, who happens to know, who happens to know the script, the the Christian scriptures better than every Muslim on the planet combined. Let me use that methodology against him." And it's like, no, that you should have avoided that at all costs. Only go against people who don't know what you're talking about and who can't refute what you're saying. Under those circumstances, do you expose your methodology to someone who can destroy it? But that's the same thing here. Daniel has this, you know, this scamming abstracts of articles methodology. But the people he's talking to generally haven't, aren't familiar with any of those studies. So he can say whatever he wants. They don't know any better. But you don't use that methodology against someone who's going to read all of those studies and who's going to be able to point out that you don't know what you're talking about, you've completely misrepresented them. And so it's like, IP is like the last person in the world he should have used that methodology against. And yet, that's the guy he challenged on this topic. He challenged the one guy on the planet who would actually go through all those sources and be able to expose him. And it's like, what are you guys doing? What, like, how do you? And to be fair, he went into this knowing though. I mean, Michael told me this a month and a half ago or something that he had this quote and he's like, "This guy's been using this quote like totally out of context and it has nothing to do with like child brides and like marrying off and like pro, it has nothing to do with that." And he can't wait because he was like, I mean, it's the guy's secretly closeted homosexual and he he doesn't want to like let his cat out of the bag or something. I'm like, oh my gosh, that's the thing.

After the first time that I talked to her generally, he could get you. I had a discussion with him. I did a terrible job in preparing for that. And I, I actually just wanted him to explain his his ideas without having a back and forth debate with him. I only later sat down at actually, you know, studied his his methods and things that he does. And one thing that I did was he kept repeating to me one book, which was, uh, Civil War Civilization. Yeah, yeah, War Before Civilization. He mentioned that book as supporting his whole idea of a primitive society is doing all those primitive things that he is for. And that book actually explains how those things were totally are good and, you know, advantageous for societies and all that. So what I did was, just, I, I bought that book and, and got it and read through it. And I realized that the book is in no way supportive of what he's actually trying to tell me. It is, uh, it is basically depicting the past as.

Savages and, uh, depicting the past. There's people who, out of necessity, did things that, uh, you know, no longer are, uh, you know, should be done. Or he, he makes me think like this is his logic. AP, like, he finds that beating your wife is something that is like ubiquitous in the tradition. Um, maybe they find something in the Quran that hints at it, and then it's like, can I find a study that comes close to saying something that sounds like something? And then be like, actually, did you know it reinforces, uh, structure within the household, which allows stability of civilization and the reproduction of manhood, which helps womanhood? And in fact, it's actually an equal rights thing that you beat your wife. It's actually a good thing, and I've studied it from, um.

That's the same with his book. Uh, he cites this book by M. Stephen Fish called "Our Muslims Distinctive." And I read it on a plane, like, back in like, uh, February or something. And yeah, you get to chapter seven, and he, do you really want to talk about what's in chapter seven on gender and class inequality in Muslim countries? Because it's really bad for women and for people that are not of the upper class. It just basically shows that women in Muslim countries have lower literacy rates, less education, and lower life expectancy. It's like, why would you cite this book? This is not good. Like, oh my goodness. It's like, this is, this is something like if I, you know, like, this is something you would not want his opponent to know about.

It's funny, he always, um, he very often in his debates when he, um, responds to the people who, you know, make their opening statements, he says that they are, uh, Gish Galloping. And that's just such a, such a huge way of projecting what you are actually doing. And because that's, that's what he does. That's what he did in his opening statement with you. He just, uh, randomly threw out source after source after source after source of things that have nothing to do with what he's actually saying. And so that is Gish Galloping. That is what he's describing. That is what he accuses his opponent of doing. Uh, and in, in your debate, you actually concisely, extensively, uh, you know, showed the studies on screen, uh, and made your points properly. And what he did was Gish Galloping by presenting all kinds of things that he entirely took out of context. It did not support him at all.

You got to remember is that I, I was texting you in David months ago where I was saying, I'm gonna upload some videos on Aisha. Or I'm going to specifically use arguments I know Daniel will have an easy time addressing. I'm going to make him think I'm going to argue like, you know, just like the typical secular liberal that he always argues for. And I'm gonna hold back all the studies I found until then because I wanted to think this will be an easy debate for him. And so just now, like, I'm letting the cat out of the bag now. Those videos, like TikTok and Instagram, were specifically designed to, uh, make Daniel think that I had weaker arguments than what I actually had. I was racking my brain for weeks, or not weeks, but hours, trying to figure out what are arguments I can put out that would be good, but not my best. And that's why, and I kept all my studies back because I want them to think this would be an easy debate for him. And yeah, he's arguing for child marriage. So no sympathy. I mean, like, this is not going to be something I'm going to be like, you know, trying to help give him any sort of, you know, leg up anymore. Poor guy. How could you do this to him? Well, don't think about children.

So here's, uh, one comment that I saw from somebody who, uh, at least claims to be a Muslim, said, "As a Muslim, I'm really embarrassed by what Daniel, uh, has said in this debate. I really don't know what to say about this." And I'm sure people can relate. I mean, if I was still a Muslim, the way I was a Muslim, I would have, uh, probably listened to what Johnny Kikachu was saying and I would have been, uh, disgusted by the way he, he argued. And, uh, to, to be honest, um, I would have probably sat down later and thought about the things that he said and compared my actual beliefs and sources with the things that he said. And maybe that would have led me to, to leave Islam again in a different way. But, uh, a lot of Muslims are expressing these feelings as well. Let's see that. "As a Muslim, I'm ashamed of Daniel's position on this issue and embarrassed by his explanation. We do not endorse this man, nor child their age, which is an act that the Quran forbids clearly."

Well, correction. The Quran does not forbid such a thing. But yeah, this is very interesting because, um, um, you have the, I, I don't, it's definitely not all Muslims, but the people who follow, you know, their, their particular dawah are just conditioned over time to cheer for whatever he says. This, this goes, I mean, this is, this is always been something in Islam. But I mean, I heard from Christians in India that when Soccer Nike would debate in one of his couple debates, that, uh, a ton of the Muslims who showed up to the debates would be people who don't even speak English. They don't even know what he's saying. They're just trying to, they're, they're taught, they're told to cheer like crazy whenever he raises his voice in a certain way and so on. And so they're cheering. They don't even know what, they don't even know what he's saying. But, uh, more recently, the rise of this, you know, the online, uh, dawah and so on, you know, no matter what happens in a debate, just cheer for him. Oh my goodness, he totally humiliated this guy and so on. And they're doing that now. And so notice, if you condition people over a period of years, hey, whatever our, whatever our guy says, however he performs, just cheer him on and say he smashed the other guy and so on. Uh, just keep doing that. Okay, what about when he's defending child marriage and so on? Yeah, just say he completely destroyed the other guy. And yes, alhamdulillah, he gave the great defense of of child marriage, not realizing there are all these people out there who are on the fence or who didn't know about any of this and so on. And now it's not, it's not David Wood and the apostate a prophet saying that Islam supports child marriage. It's their, their new champion of dawah saying it. And all the people, there are plenty of people who, when I say it or when AP would say it, they would say, I can't trust you. You, I can't trust the kufar. I can't trust the next Muslim. I can't trust this guy. But who now? Wait, what do you, what do you do when your champions of dawah say it? And then you see thousands of their followers praising Allah for him defending child marriage? Now it's no longer us. And so now all these people who, who would have had the option to think, well, maybe we're making it up. How do you say this guy's making it up and all his followers are are falling for it? Um, so they don't realize what's going on. They've just horrified a lot of people. Yes, your followers may think that's great. Your followers may think you did a great job, but you just announced to the world that this is the religion of child marriage. And everyone's going to notice. And that's, uh, that's the thing.

I've been saying it for a while, you know, it's Daniel Kikichu is personally my favorite. It's my go-to Islamic apologist that I want to help popularize. I, I like that he is out there. I like that he represents Islam. It makes all his defenses. I have, uh, you know, it, I have personally suggested him to, uh, to Michaela Peterson. I told her about him. I said, hey, invite him to your podcast, invite him to your dad's podcast, let him explain Islam to you guys. I told them that, you know, I thought that in private, in public as well, we should secretly fund him. Oh my gosh, if I, if I could, I would even, uh, I would mirror his videos and publish them on my own channel just to have him speak.

Well, I think he worked great in the West. But like David said, like he, along with the rest of the apologists, we see going on like they just have a crowd that's like, he's our team. No matter what he says, he's our team. I saw a debate a long time ago between, um, Dan, uh, Dan Barker and, uh, Richard Carrier, like back in the '90s or late '90s when he did their only debate they ever debated Muslims. They went to Michigan. Richard said it was crazy. He's never experienced anything like that. But he sat there and the guy tried like making this argument and he's like, "Who could say life came from water? The Quran says," and he quotes from Surah. And then he turns around in the audience goes, "Oh!" And then all of a sudden he turns and goes, "Well, Thales said that in 1500." And he like quoted some Greek freaking philosopher. And then the whole audience was like, "Oh crap!" Like it was just like they cheered him on no matter what because they're like, "You win, you win." And it's like, you didn't even hear the guy, the other guy say anything yet, and you're already saying who won.

Hey AP, I want to put, uh, one thing on the screen here. Um, you might find this kind of funny. Um, this is one of Bruce Ryan's sources in the paper I cited. And I just love the title of this. This is from 1997. This was one of the sources he was using on the all the homosexual activity in Islamic society. "The strip, the striptease that was blamed on Abu Bakr's naughty son. Was the father being shamed or was the poet having fun? Homoeroticism in classical Arabic literature." That actually rhymes. The title rhymes. Naughty son having fun. Oh boy. Yeah, there was a lot of stuff in that. And there's a lot. He, Daniel should never have mentioned Bruce Ryan if he read his stuff. Just the, what it opens you up to, the stuff that you can now find to critique Islam. You should never have wanted his critics to find this stuff. Like ex-Muslims should read this now and use it against them. That's the, that's the same thing with like Kenny Bomer bringing up, uh, Joshua Little. That's like that guy. That guy, if you take, with that guy, if you believe what that guy says, I mean, he destroys the entire foundation of your religion by, by just ripping your sources apart. And it's like, why would you go? It's just, hey, anything that we can use for some specific purpose at a moment in time, regardless of how damaging it would be to our case otherwise, we'll roll with it. And that's, uh, that's the methodology.

Here's what's what's funny about, uh, about all of this. And now Dan Kikichu, when he had a debate with Harris Sultan on, um, a while ago, what was it? Was it a year ago or so? I don't know. Um, somebody in the, um, somebody among the viewers asked a question to Harris Sultan. And the question was something along the lines of, uh, "Which books of, uh, Islamic, you know, legal Jewish jurisprudence have you actually, uh, read?" And Harris's answer to that was something like, "I've read a few pamphlets." And that bit was mocked to death by Daniel Kikichu and his audience. Like, "Look at him, he talks about Islam and his life morality, but he hasn't even read one single, uh, book on Islamic jurisprudence." He has only read pamphlets. Which, by the way, Harris Sultan said, uh, maybe a few pamphlets, he kind of said as, uh, as a way of like, I don't need to read those things. You know, I just need to read the pamphlet. I don't have to study those things in order to understand that, uh, that Islam is, uh, dominant immoral and all that. But here we have Dani Kikichu now, in contrast to that, making such a mockery of Harris Sultan not reading books and only reading pamphlets. Here he is, not reading the things that he himself cites. And then also on camera, in the middle of a debate, when you, uh, quote from the study, he says, "Let's see, let's read the abstract." [Laughter] "I read the abstract only. Abstract only research." Yeah.

Everything I think he's cited in relation to this, I've read. So I've read "The Anthropology of Childhood." Now I've read "Our Muslims Distinctive." I've read a lot of Bruce Ryan's studies. I'm, I disagree with a lot of what he says because again, he's an outlier. But Daniel says things that even Bruce Ryan does not say. And does not point that a lot of what Bruce Ryan is trying to defend is man-boy attraction, right? That's mostly what he's doing. It's not the heterosexual aspect. And he never once even brings child marriage. You know, one thing I did want to ask you, um, that I thought about during your debate, he kept trying to bring up, "Show me the studies on child marriage." As if like he was saying they're awesome. Yeah. Can you, can you address that now that you have time and nobody's gonna step on you and like constantly interrupt you? Like, what he's trying to get at there, it sounds like he's trying to say you can't show statistics of negative impact from child marriages. And I just think about the FLDS. I mean, do I need to go any further than to know this is not good?

Well, I mean, that was my whole opening statement was all of the data that shows this is harmful. I mean, this is not even debated among experts. He was trying to compare it to like children who have transgender surgeries and like saying, "Well, you know, there are," but if you actually look at that, like, for example, there's an article, uh, it's called "Gender Dysphoria is Rising and So Is Professional Disagreement." Okay, this was published this year. Points out that researchers are disagreeing. They're saying there's not enough data on this yet to know what to do. So he's not, he's comparing apples to oranges. We've, all the researchers agreed child marriage is harmful. We've got dozens of studies that have studied this for years. But I mean, like, for him to make this comparison shows he's not really, he's not really done the research on child marriage. And this is why, uh, here, I'll just share my screen here again. Uh, I again, we can just go back through a lot of my opening slides at where it just basically, I basically just point out all of the data. Yeah, let's just go back through these slides here.

What's funny is, um, your opening statement is you presenting evidence that child marriage is harmful and bad. And as far as I remember, in his opening marriage, he argues that his opponents were against child marriage, don't have any evidence and don't have any pre-modern scholars, but only argue from a modern, uh, by modern standards, which is which is a complete lie. You just, in your opening statement, right before he made his opening statement, proved him wrong already by citing pre-modern scholars and by giving evidence that it is harmful. It is so idiotic, I don't even understand.

Well, I started with all, I started with all the studies here. Like, this is one I used. And I use this one in specific because I, I didn't want him. I use this article specifically because it's looking at rural communities. And these are people that are going to be furthest away from Western influence. And this is in India, for example. And they note that child marriage is associated with all these harmful outcomes for the children. Uh, it's also very harmful for the girls. I mean, it bereaves young girls in their childhood by regarding them with domestic responsibility, motherhood, sexual relations. They're not, they're psychologically not prepared for childbirth. Maternal morbidity is really high with them. Uh, they, they let the immaturity and lack of education of young mothers undermine their their capacity to understand and realize the importance of such practices for the nurturing and upbringing of their children. Then there was this other study done by, um, obstetrician. She did a bunch of, she compiled a bunch of research showing that all of the negative consequences. And I brought this study up later in the debate because she actually notes that in, um, that with child mothers, we see an increase in STDs in cervical cancer. So he's trying to say we need child marriages to decrease promiscuity, but actually, when a husband has a child bride, he's very likely to go out and have multiple affairs because, and she can't rein in his sexual behavior because she's a child. And so there's just so much data that shows in this paper specifically of all the harmful effects. But then I even went beyond that and I said, in review, so this is as you can see, as, as you can see, the opponents of child marriage, who are, uh, human rights extremists, have no evidence at all and are only arguing from a modernist, uh, point of view and appealing to emotions. As you can clearly see here. I love that you're bringing data, you're bringing facts, observable, testable data, and not just bringing up tradition. We all have, and we can all go into the ancient world and find stuff and go, "We didn't know what we know now." Cool. Exactly. We have good reasons to throw away certain things or say, "Okay, let's maybe not judge the ancients for what they thought at the time." But in this case, you're ancient is supposed to be the ever-present example in which we all follow. And then you're pushing for these. I think that's, that's, I'm picking up what you're putting down.

I cited these reviews specifically because they, these, this paper specifically, like this one and this one and another one I cited, didn't, this is, these are not studies, they're reviewing individual studies and they're compiling the research to go, "Overwhelmingly, we find plenty of evidence that this is harmful." But with regards to the past, I also cited this research pointing out that in the past, in ancient Rome and among the Jews, they were actually marrying later. They were not having children at 12. This Muhammad is an extreme exception with a nine-year-old. Most people understood it's better to wait until you're 18, in your late teens, even early 20s. Like this one says, like this is Michael Satlow, who points out a 20-year-old Jewish woman from Egypt who died, well, apparently betrothed, is described as ripe for marriage, like a rose in a garden nurtured by fresh rain. So they're, they're so, so why would we think that Mary was like 13? I mean, like in Palestine, again, it was like late teens, early 20s. And I didn't get the chance of this, but Daniel cites this, this guy called Joseph Heinrich to argue that, you know, Westerners have had a nuclear family. Well, scholars like Michael Satlow and Amram Tropper actually, no, no nuclear families were actually existing in ancient Jewish and Roman structures because by the time a man turned 25, his father was practically dead, and they defined their own life for the most part. And that's in Amram Tropper's paper. So like, again, there's just so much data that shows that even ancient people understood, ancient and medieval people understood, you need to wait for a girl to become a woman for you before you expect her to have children because they were, they were idiots. They could observe easily these girls that were dying in childbirth. They had such high infant mortality rates. And they understood that women who had children older more likely survived from probably from their own experience. And so this is why we see this in the research.

He doesn't understand the distinction, by the way. Derek, what you just mentioned, I mentioned to him before when I talked about slavery. I said that, that I cannot, I would not sit here and judge people in the past in, uh, times and environments where slavery was normal for engaging in, in slavery, you know, for having slaves and buying and selling slaves and all of all of that. I wouldn't be sitting here and judging Muhammad if he was just a random historical person, right? But I have to judge in this case because Muhammad is not just a random person from history. He's supposed to be the perfect moral guy for all humanity. And I also told him that, I think slavery is historically, uh, justified, you know, and explicable, but it is nevertheless still abhorrent and should be opposed, especially in today's time. He thinks this whole idea is a contradiction because I, because I, that's ridiculous because I mean, do I need to spell this out? It's relevant, apparently. It's like saying this, we know the Pharaohs, like the kings of Egypt, literally like generation after generation were incestual, okay? They literally were incestual. They kept the bloodline as pure as really got, not pure by doing that, but anyway, pure. And they, and they ended up becoming deformed and not being able to be sexually active, eventually having to cut the lines off. Like if there were modern people running around saying, "We need to be like the Pharaohs," and that means you need to marry and be with your, your brother, whoever the sister is, here, and you like literally were perpetrating that as a modern belief in practice, then we have a problem. You can judge the ancient, but I'm not gonna sit here. I have no, I could judge anyone in the ancient world. I just don't have any use for it. I'm gonna, hey, they were in their time and their space and this and that. But even then, I've actually had the question, and I mean, David might know the answer, and AP, you probably ran across this too. I'd love to get your thoughts. Is was it even socially acceptable even for him in that time in the 7th century to do that with a child at that age, Aisha? I don't know. I don't know what the standard was in Arabia. But if you're going on Christian European Roman standards of the time, no. And if I didn't have time to get to these, these are additional slides I was going to use if I had the time. But he tried to argue that, you know, most girls were having their period so early. Even Kenny in Davis's debate brought it up. Like, David, or Daniel made a really good argument that the girls were having their period at nine at that time. No, I have two studies here. Uh, so "Evil Devoted Human Adolescence" and this other one, "Evolution Development in the Timing of Puberty." They note that, look, so you go 2,000 years ago versus 200 years ago. So Muhammad is going to be like, right in there sometime. They note that the age of monarchy when girls were having their first period was delayed. It was it wasn't happening at nine. The earliest it could have happened was maybe 10 or 11, but that would have been exceptionally rare. Average you're gonna have is around 14, 15. This other paper says, "Thus by medieval times, the average age of monarchy was referred to 16.5, as it remains today among underprivileged adolescents in developing countries." So this idea that these girls like in Muhammad's time are having their periods at nine left and right, no, that would have been exceptionally rare. If Aisha did, she would have been, she would have been an example of precocious puberty. It would have been exceptionally rare.

Yeah, David, what do you think? You have been very quiet. Although you always talk a lot. Uh, I, I still, I still can't get back. I still can't, I don't know. I just can't get past the fact that this is, this is a debate. I think if, I mean, if you were a, if you were a Muslim, uh, dawah, a Muslim speaker, debate, or whatever, I mean, wouldn't you want to be having debates on showing that Muhammad's a true prophet and that the Quran is a miracle or something like that? Daniel, marriage, child marriage, child marriage, and wife beating. I think this is amazing. I, I said this before, but, isn't it funny how, how whenever Islam is mentioned in, uh, in controversy in online discussions, uh, it comes up with stuff like this, you know, with intolerance, with with aggressiveness, with beheading, with, uh, beating women, mistreating them, now child marriage. This is a, a very common, very popular one. Very often when Islam is publicly discussed and there is a heated debate, it is about child marriage. So this is the kind of stuff that comes up when we talk about Islam, when we discuss Islam on the internet. I think that's amazing. There it is right there. This debate may have awoken something in me and I might have to start going after Islam in the future. Right. Then I was thinking, if they respond by heaping insults and abuse on him, this is not gonna go, it's not gonna go well. But yeah, that's what, that's the direction this is, this is their making. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Terrible, terrible. Yeah, yeah.

This whole channel was his idea. The day he posted this, I stopped whatever I was doing and I read like three hours of, three hours worth of studies on child marriage and I was like, "Okay, this will be an easy win." And I, I was like, waiting for him to like send me your like thing like, you know, "Let's have the debate." And I'd be like, "Oh yeah, sure, why not?" He never, never happened. So I was eventually like, "James, make it happen." Like I was like, "Wait, he's not actually sending me anything." Actually set up and set up the debate. Go ahead.

Oh, I was just gonna say, isn't it weird that like Kenny Bomer challenged me? I didn't challenge, he challenged me. And then Daniel challenges you. And then you, and then we end up with back-to-back debates on child marriage. But you, but you get both of the major positions because there's two directions you go. You can either, you can either defend it, defend child marriage, or you can say, "No, it actually never happened, and that's all a bunch of lies from later on." And so we got to deal with like the both major positions on this really sick.

Yeah, you know, it was funny, uh, um, I got the end of the end of the debate between Madillahunty and that other Muslim guy. And, uh, Madillahunty made a remark towards the end which was something like, uh, "The remaining two debates, the remaining two debates today are about whether it's okay to rape, rape children." That's he made that remark. And he emphasized that repeatedly about this. Well, Matt actually came up to me before the debate and he was like, "Am I right in assuming that the next two debates after mine are if we or not have sex with children?" And he used more vulgar language. And I just sort of looked at him and was like, "Yeah." And he's like, "The Muslims are arguing in favor of this." I'm like, "Well, one of them is, at least." I know that. I'm a bit confused.

So Kenny's taking the position he's taking. More he, he feels the pressure. Is all I gotta say. Morally, he sees what we see. He's not like this. Like this. He, he actually is trying to argue that maybe the later texts were corrupted or something. Although see, there's, there's always this, this ongoing question when someone is saying something. It's like, do you just have an incorrect view on this, or are you lying? Right? Because, you know, there are lots of Muslims who, if you say something they disagree with, they'll say you're lying. And it's like, you need to be clear online. If someone actually thinks that what they're saying is correct, but they're wrong, then they're wrong. But they're, they're not lying. So when, when Kenny is interpreting, um, his sources as not, as not claiming that Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old girl, there's a question. Is he, is he, is he lying, or is he just really, you know, he, he feels the pressure, as you put it? He feels the pressure to, uh, of this issue. And so he does, he, he actually, uh, wants a way out of this issue. But then when he was quoting, when he was quoting Joshua Little, I mean, it was just, look, there are two possibilities. You, you either didn't read that, or you're lying. Because there's, there's no way, there's no way to interpret this as what you're saying. So it's, it's, you haven't read it, or you're lying. And he says he's read it and he's right. And so that's the situation where, oh, now, now you're in the deceiver category. Now I have to, now mentally, I have you in the deceiver category. Can't trust anything you say. But it was the same thing with Daniel. Now seeing how he treats sources, completely misrepresenting every single, I don't recall him accurately citing anything where I could verify it. And so it's now, oh, now it's not just, oh, you have abhorrent views, but this is what you, you know, you, you're trying to get to the truth, but you've got these abhorrent views. It's now, I think you're, you're deliberately trying to deceive your listeners. And, uh, yeah, it's wild stuff.

Well, here's a good example. This is a good example. He's constantly saying, "We need to have a society that that decreases divorce." Well, I mean, studies show that if you marry, look, look at the ages there at the bottom, 10, 20, 30. The studies show that when you marry in your teens, you're far more likely to get divorced. So why would he be encouraging child marriages if they're far more likely than the divorce? Okay, what does the abstract say? That, right? Oh, that's a good point. Hey, abstract show it in the abstract, or shut up. Abstract or nothing, baby. Oh god.

Here's one, one issue that also came up, uh, previously. Xxwzxx said, "Tom Holland's book, The Shadow of the Sword, says that the Arabs were likely highly Romanized, so the likelihood of nine years being acceptable is low." Now, I have heard different, uh, views on this as well from scholars. But, so what I have heard that David, correct me, I don't know if you have ever heard anything about this. But what I have, what I have read on this so far is that it may have been quite normal in the pre-Islamic period to, um, marry off your daughters as a means to, you know, increase your family, to secure your family line. So as soon as, uh, as a girl is born, and in the years as she's developing as a child, the girl is already, um, married off and assigned to somebody. And then at some point later, the marriage is consummated. And I'm not sure if there was ever a, a lower limit where they say you're onto something. Phillips' book, "Medieval Maidens," she's talking about that a little. She talks, we use several examples about girls that were married young in medieval Europe, but their fathers are specifically putting in the clauses, "You cannot consummate the marriage with my daughter until she's 18 or 16." There are putting these age limits. So yeah, they're sometimes you're having these marriages happen among the higher classes, but they're also saying consummation can't happen until much later. And then, you know, even children should come even after a period after that. The thing is, we're talking about pre-Islamic Arabia, which by, uh, by many, it is so, so hard to study pre-Islamic Arabia that there is, uh, that there is very little, uh, in terms of, uh, text that you can actually that survives that you can study in order to further understand how people lived and what they thought in pre-Islamic Arabia. It was severely underdeveloped. It only served as a, a place of nomadic tribes trading and traveling and occasionally attacking the North and all that. So, but one of the views is that it was, uh, common for common to marry off your children. And then, uh, consummation was a matter, uh, that's that is then defined or decided by the parents. But the issue is, my issue with this is, it doesn't even matter, are to me, whether this was a common practice in pre-Islamic Arabia or not. What matters to me is that we are talking about Muhammad as the central figure of Islam, who according to Islamic teachings clearly is the perfect guide for all humankind, a person of excellent character according to the Quran, and someone that every Muslim should follow. Which is why people like like Daniel the Kikachu come today and defend his actions, including defending child marriage and pedophilia. So that's what matters to me. I don't really really care, uh, I don't really consider it such a huge factor whether it was a normal in his time or not.

Did you ever talk to him about the difference between, I mean, did he ever try to delineate between what pedophilia is and child marriage? He's done that in the past. And then it's again, it's ironic. He's quoting Bruce Wright because Bruce Wright is the one actually arguing that the pedophilic interaction between men and boys is not that bad. And then then he goes like, and then he'll cite Bruce Wright and go, "Well, you know what Bruce Wright, you know, for example, points out that this isn't harmful for for the for children that are putting these marriages." What is harmful though is when little kids are diddled in closets. Well, why are you citing Bruce Wright? Like I've seen him do this in like his Harris Sultan debate, as well as with UAP. It's, it's one of those weird things where it's like he's claiming that pedophilia interaction is harmful, but then he'll cite Bruce Wright, who argues that it isn't harmful. And it will say that Bruce Wright supports him that they should actually be married off of that. It's like there's so many bad arguments in those short phrases, it's hard to even keep up with it all. Yeah, yeah.

Michael Jones destroyed Pikachu. I don't want to be juvenile and, and refer to him as Pikachu. No, his new nickname is, uh, yeah. See, the thing is, I like him. I like him as somebody who exposes Islam more than Muhammad. I know if we have our disagreements here, uh, David, you are more a fan of Muhammad, uh, Job. Uh, I am more a fan of Danity Kikichu because I think, uh, they can be deceptive and still, you know, be like, they can lie and twist things in the public. Definitely keep it to he doesn't care. He will just say whatever he believes and thinks, and it is glorious. It's amazing. Uh, uh, hey, I think, I think said he has to go soon. Earlier, so I don't care. He didn't give a crap when you're reading comments and stuff. But, uh, yeah, we can continue. So Derek, if you need to, if you need to, uh, vote, I just wanted you to read the abstract for my exit. Seriously though, I want to say thank you, um, for letting me come hang out. I wanted it to be a fair fight, you know, meaning four of us on the same team. Because too often we, we, you know, I'm always in arguing different things. And this is one of those issues that was so serious, so big of a deal. I have been rooting behind the scenes, Michael's upcoming debate here, and proud of you, man. I really am. I'm so glad that you went and did such a good job. Even if we have our disagreements, I know AP has disagrees with, uh, with David. Um, you and me, we've had conversations, but I think we're showing that through all of that, friendships there, and we have common ethics.

Well, I agree. I think at some point in the future, if this gets worse, I don't think it, I think the Muslim apologists are destroying themselves before our eyes with telling us what they believe. But if it gets out of hand, there's going to be a point where atheists and Christians need to unite against a common evil where we need to just like protect children. I'm ready.

You see, no, he did not. No, he did not. You, you didn't see what he actually did with that. And on a previous live stream I did, I don't need that. We did. We did. We did exactly what Muhammad hijab was saying. Was that Muhammad hijab? Yeah, yeah. It wasn't, oh yeah, yeah. It was in his video, yeah, yeah. He, Muhammad hijab was saying that, uh, if you're a Quran only Muslim and you read the verse about, uh, striking your wife, he said it's the same verse for striking the next. I mean, it's the same word that's used of striking the necks of your enemy in battle. So if you didn't have the Hadith to to sort of moderate your wife beating, you would think that you could just saw your wife's head off if she disagrees with you. And so we just, we, we reenacted what he was saying. Yeah, yeah.

Did you use a doll or something like, yeah, I did it on a teddy bear. Yeah. You know what? I'm not shocked anymore anymore. I'm not shocked anymore. But look, I really appreciate you guys. Let's do this again. Yeah, we will do that. We should do that. Thank you, man. Thank you for coming. Thank you.

Okay, finally, now he's gone. Uh, I think I think Mike Jones has to go too, don't you? Yeah, I got like five more minutes. Let me, let me see if there are questions for you specifically. Um, nobody knows who you are, but maybe some people actually. Well, they, [Music] Kevin said, "AP, you're genuinely one of the greatest Christian apologists I've ever seen. You're on par with William Lane Craig." Wow, that's really important thing. That's very honorable. Thank you. I appreciate that. I don't, I don't think I can agree, but I do appreciate it. That's quite a compliment. Yeah, I, I would, I would say Craig is the best on the topics he deals with, but on the stuff, yeah, the, the kinds of things that that AP deals with, he's, he's obviously the best. So, uh, WWE said, "I love the debate. Not only did AP smash Daniel, but his arguments were super informative and educational. I actually learned a lot from him." Oh, good. That's what I wanted to hear. I want people to realize how damaging child marriage is and think twice. Because, you know, Dan's got a lot of followers outside of the U.S. and in Africa and Asia. I hope some of his followers that were maybe more moderate will think twice about subjecting their daughters or something like this. Actually happens. I have to say this again. I said this before and I'm not exaggerating at all. Um, I, I watched a lot of debates between, uh, Muslims and non-Muslims about Islam. I have, uh, myself had had debates and discussions with these people. David had a lot of that stuff. David and I both thought that you would be the perfect person to have this debate with you. And seeing the debate, having seen the debate, seeing the results of it, I think without exaggeration, with all honesty, this was the, the best ever destruction of an Islamist and his beliefs and perspectives that I have ever witnessed. This is the best, uh, that happened in a debate. So mad respect. Fantastic job. I think it was amazing. Thank you. Appreciate that. Yeah, it's all for all, all honestly, it's all for protecting the innocent and trying to combat these horrible practices like child marriage. That's honestly what was kept me going in these months. Just it's not about protecting the innocent. It's about you siding with Western liberalism. Yeah, an atheist. The liberals and the atheists. The only reason for you saying any of this. That's why child marriage is good. That's why Muhammad is good. See, you see now, convert to Islam. Christian Metal had said, "Won't be able to watch live, but wanted to say that AP and the Dizzle did an awesome job in their respective debates. Much love to the four of you." Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Let's see if there are any, uh, more addressed to any more for AP here. Yeah, it's actually ridiculous when, yeah, when Muslims think that like Christianity is like Islam, like Diet Islam. It's not. It's, here's the thing. Islam is, is very much a system that's built to around order, authority, loyalty, preserving certain ways. Christianity is a system, a religious system, that was built to topple systems and institutions that didn't prize equality, freedom, uh, care for those who need it. This is why we see it creating revolutionary changes throughout the Roman Empire, throughout the Middle Ages, creating things like the abolitionist movements, fighting child marriages. And this comes from things like experts like Robert Woodbury, Tom Holland, Rodney Stark, as I had mentioned. And this is why we see secularism come out of Christianity because once again, again, as, as people like Charles Taylor note, atheists and atheists took ideas they got from Christianity, sort of like took and divorced them from the Christian beliefs and thought they could create a secular society without the Christian beliefs. So like, he, Kikichu is just absolutely wrong that like, is that like Christianity was just like Islam before secularism came along? You got to start, you got to read Tom Holland, like read Charles Taylor. This is not the case at all. Yeah, yeah.

Um, Connor said, uh, oh wait, T-Splash said, "I made the mistake of watching this debate while eating." Okay. Uh, uh, yeah. Shorter King said, "AP, can we get the PowerPoint?" Uh, the best way to get it, uh, message me through my website, inspiringphilosophy.org. And I, I've already, I already gave the slides to Daniel yesterday because he wanted him for his, he wanted to put my slides in his own version of the video. So more powerful. Absolutely. Please do. I want more people to see that. Yeah, just email me. IP, you might want to, uh, since there, since there are time constraints and so on, and interruptions and so on in a debate, you might want to put together like, just an hour-long video, just like one hour long video going through all your studies and you could use all your slides and so on like that and give a, give a complete case because it's relevant because, uh, notice when people are, when people are saying, "Oh, Islam allows child marriage, that's horrifying. Ah, that needs to be stopped." If the Muslim fans of their dawah have been trained to say, if they've been trained to say, "Ah, but there are all these studies showing that you're wrong." I mean, people are gonna need to be equipped to, uh, to refute that stuff. So absolutely, absolutely. They just can set IP, you got destroyed. Alhamdulillah. Oh, the cognitive dissonance is already set in. Enfield Noodles said, "I will say for for Infidel Noodle, I actually did use some of her stuff to help prepare for this. I watched some of her interviews where she's interviewing ex-Muslim women. And the reason I did that is because I wanted to try to think about, I want to try to get a female perspective of what it's like to be an Islam and leave it, to understand the harm this causes to women because there's a thing about child marriage. So actually to use some of her stuff to just try to get myself in the right psychological mindset to think about what it is for women to leave Islam. So I just, I was I listened to some of her stuff on some bike rides I was doing back in the winter. So you know, I did enjoy your stuff for sure. That's very, very nice. She does a great job although she's not very active. I wish it was more active. Which she does a fantastic job as well, as well as providing a woman's perspective on on things. Uh, uh, the gang is all here. Aisha had no kids. This isn't about fertility. That's the thing. Yeah, that's the thing that I always think of whenever Daniel brings up fertility. I mean, Muhammad had all these all these wives and fertility was not was not the point, right? He didn't have a, you, you're muted. You're muted. Oh, Daniel basically had to admit that in the debate when I said, like, but you're saying you can have sex with a girl before she's in reaches the age of ovulating and menstruating. So it's not about fertility. This is not about maximizing fertility. This is about your sadistic pleasure and just using girls for that. That's what this is about. Let's be honest. If you're saying you can have a sex with a girl before she starts ovulating and menstruating, then it's never, it's never been about maximizing fertility. So that's a lie. But he said, "You have to secure the female as soon as possible." You know, that's what he said, didn't he? Doesn't make any sense. Yeah. And but I mean, notice for, for.

Aisha, at least marriage to Muhammad, reduced the fertility because Muhammad, I mean, apart from apart from Khadijah and his sex slave Mary the cup, none of his other wives became pregnant. Um, and since Aisha wasn't allowed to get married after him, she had to be childless her entire life, specifically because she married Muhammad when she, when she was six, and therefore, therefore, she was doomed to never having a child ever.

One thing that was funny was, um, when he asked you about banning, banning fornication, uh, between, between kids or teenagers, uh, he asked you, "Why do you not want about?" And you let him down and said, "Okay, let's talk about this. How do you want to, how do you want to bet it? What do you want to do? How do you want to punish them?" And he's like, "I don't know exactly. Throw them in prison." What's so funny? He's like, "You don't have any solutions." So when I bring up, like, a problem with his system, he doesn't have any solutions either. Like, they're 10-year-olds, they can't consent, they're not committing crimes because they don't know what they're doing. Them in prison, he wants to throw 10-year-olds in prison for having, for, uh, you know, making out. The double standard of Hakikichu is like, "You don't have any solutions to teen promiscuity." Well, you don't have any solutions apparently either. You think they should be thrown in juvie? Like, if we don't have, she has, he has a solution, we do have a solution. We'll bone them all, marry them off. Year-old man, problem solved, man, problem solved. Yep.

Uh, do you have to go? Yeah, I appreciate the hangout. Uh, I might even, I've had a bunch of people ask me to do interviews to review the debate, so I'm probably gonna do more of these and just cover more because there's just so much to talk about and everyone was really happy with the debate. So I'll probably do some more interviews this week on it because, yeah, there's a lot going on. Just, just to remind, uh, you again, we signed a non-competition agreement where after, you cannot have any interviews about this debate with anybody else after. Oh, yeah. Okay. Having an extra video on this channel. So, yeah, keep that in mind if you don't want to be sued. Awesome. Yeah. Uh, somebody said, "IP, will you make longer videos about Islam?" Answer that. And then eventually, I need to do, I'm gonna probably, if I'm gonna start, it's gonna be on the sociology. But there is some talk behind the scenes about me debating another big Muslim apologist eventually, and I'm not gonna say anything about it till it's announced. But I will wait, use the data I have for that because again, in researching this, I found a whole bunch of other data that can harm Islam overall and show sociologically it's just not a good system for humanity in a lot of ways. So, um, yeah, some stuff is in the works and there might be some more debates happening next year, so get ready for that. Fantastic, fantastic. If there are more questions to IP, you can always contact him. He's responsive, unlike, uh, David, who's very irresponsible when it comes to responding to people, and me as well. I try to be, I tried. Yeah, yeah. And, uh, he will try to respond to you, and I'm sure he's busy and will do a lot of stuff in the future, and we will have him on here again. I think this debate was fantastic. There should be more of these debates, and I, I would like to see much more of this stuff. Um, we should, we should all just go. What do you think, David? Up to you. Sounds good. Yeah, I have to go. I have to go as well. All right, bunch of losers. Just leave it running. I'll chat with people afterwards. Okay, I'm just kidding. All right, all right. Now it's us again. After, after everything that we have witnessed. So, what do you think, David? Uh, thank you, thank you. Now let's go. Okay, I can actually, I mean, they are in a pretty difficult position, right? I mean, Muslim apologists are in a difficult position. It's either defend what your Prophet did, which is what Daniel does, and then you got to defend child marriage and say it's actually good and wonderful because Muhammad did it, uh, or say he didn't do it, in which case you're gonna, you gotta throw all your sources under the bus, and you gotta run to, to Western academics who will, uh, who will save you from the criticism by destroying the reliability of your sources. And so, man, this is not a good position to be in right now. That's a ridiculous thing, isn't it? I mean, you come to the conviction for some very dumb reason that Islam is, uh, the true religion, or you were just bought into it, and, and then you are left with, uh, with the fact that your own religion clearly presents Muhammad as a moral example, but at the same time, somebody who did terrible things that are very hard to explain to, uh, to a more enlightened audience. And then you are left with just dealing with that and somehow figuring out what to do with it and defending it. And you have to do that because you can't just change your mind and leave Islam. You can't just say, "Oh, well, you know what, it's, it's apparently not that great. I was wrong." Oh, you have to defend it, and then you have to make a mess. And, and yeah, for, for, for a long time, Muslim dawah operated in an atmosphere of complete ignorance. They could say whatever they want about Islam. And then now people are learning about it. What's weird is if they, if they hadn't done this push for like dawah, uh, to Westerners, they would have eventually outnumbered everyone just by sheer, like, birth rates and so on. But they decided, "Ah, we're gonna go and we're gonna, we're gonna, uh, we're gonna attack Christianity and we're gonna say that there's all this evidence for Islam and all these scientific proofs and so on." And that worked for a while because no one knew anything better. No one, no one knew what Islam actually teaches. So they can say whatever they wanted. And now we're getting to a stage where people are actually looking everything up and then going, "Whoa, hey, look what we actually found in your sources." And, yeah, now they're dealing with the, the avalanche of apostasy. And I think it's only going to get worse. If now they're known as the religion of child marriage, which we, we always knew that's what it was, but they were denying it, and now they're embracing it. I don't even understand. Generally, Kikichu makes these debates and then actually, uh, actually invites the audience to Islam. You know, things, but he thinks over here under the impression that he actually convinces people to, yeah, like, who's your target audience that you think this is going to, to be to impact? Right? Like, who, who do you think is in the audience is going, "Wow, I never thought of that. Yet child marriage is really good. Where do I sign up for this?" Anyone here in the audience attracted to children? I have something for you. Have I got a religion for you? Sometimes I feel like he's a, he's a secret agent from, from some Western agency that is paid to destroy Islam. Yeah, it's like, you, you have to think there's something else at work, right? I'm the same way, but I'm thinking like, like in a spiritual sense, like, has the Lord delivered you into our hands? Is that what happened? Has he like just, has, has, has, has God made you do this to, to expose your religion? I don't know, but it, I just don't understand someone thinking in their heads and thinking rationally and thinking that this is a good idea. But, uh, but, but here we are. It's amazing, man. Anyway, about this Christian apologetic said Daniel, only the average population, Mary is adults, apparently. The mere existence of a fringe nut jobs in society is a justification for Daniel. I know the whole thing is full of, I don't know. Everybody should watch it. I would, I could go through the whole thing again. Maybe I should do that on a separate live stream. By the way, but, uh, his reasoning is so stupid. His objections to somebody like, uh, like Mike, to be very honest, I mean, I'm, I think Mike did an amazing job. He had a genius, uh, approach, strategy toward tackling generally Kikichu. The guy is a genius. I think I feel like the guys, isn't this weird though? Because I mean, Daniel could have challenged any of us on that topic, and we, we would have taken it, right? We would, we would have done a debate on child marriage, and none of us would have done such a good job. Yeah, that's what I mean. None of us would have done. I mean, we would have found, you know, a study or two. We, we wouldn't have looked up everything Daniel has cited in the past and then researched those and then been able to expose him so thoroughly. So it's like he challenged, and keep in mind, IP wasn't known as someone dealing with Islam. He's just ticked off. He was just ticked off at something and some stuff he was listening to. And then Daniel, "Aha, I want to challenge this guy. This is the guy I want to challenge." And it is out of, how many people are there in the world? Seven, eight billion now? Like, out of all the people in the world, that is the last person, and you should have challenged. And that's the first person he wants to go to for this debate. So it's beautiful. And he has been, he has been in touch with David and with me for for months ever since that whole idea of that debate came into existence. He has been corresponding with David and with me the whole time. We have texted and called each other, sent emails about about things. And for months, I have seen how he is preparing for it and how he is reading everything that Daniel has ever mentioned. Uh, it was, it was, it was meant, it was bound to be brilliant. This is, I mean, and ladies and gentlemen, don't forget that we're not just talking about some horrible practice in the past. This isn't just an analysis of Muhammad. This still goes on. It's hard to actually end the practice, even though largely due to Western pressures, uh, many Muslim countries now have laws against child marriage. Um, it's hard, it's hard for them to enforce those laws because they have to deal with the religious leaders who say, in effect, "Hey, if you're, if you're making laws against this or punishing people for doing this, you're actually, you're going against Islam." And so you still have child marriage, um, all over the place in the Muslim world. Yeah, I mean, thanks to Mo, thanks to Moe, thanks to Moe, this practice is global. This evil is global. Yeah, and Daddy wants to bring it back. They still marry kids from Kabul to Mosul. And wants everybody to be able to marry kids. Same travel. Miracle Worker said, "Can you all address the argument that they got the teaching from Judaism sages, rabbis?" I have read a reference from Sage Rashi that nine-year-old is legal age. I wanted to address something about this whole thing separately. He, he made, uh, several references during his debate with, uh, with Mike where he said that the rabbinic tradition allows child marriage as early as three years old as well. I know that that is false. The most, the most common thing I've seen in, I'm obviously no, uh, expert on the rabbinic sources and so on, but whenever I've looked into this, the most common position I've seen is that 12 was the bare minimum. You do have, you do have discussions about, uh, three-year-olds and so on. I've heard, I can't verify this. I've heard that the discussion was that that they actually had an odd belief that if someone did have sex with someone who was like three, that they believe that person should still be, that girl should still be counted a virgin because they had some belief about her hymen would, would be healed or something like that. So you had these discussions. And just to be clear, you, you do have creepy positions from, from a lot of people. You do have creepy, not just, not just among rabbis and so on. You could go and find creepy positions from people of all kinds of different perspectives and so on. But to, it's the fact that he's acting like this is just, hey, that that's the position of, you know, rabbinic Judaism is three years old. No, it's not. The most, again, the most common position I've seen was 12 is a minimum. But with that said, you can find a rabbi who has said pretty much anything, right? You could find some Christian thinker at some point who said all kinds of things, even if he's going, you know, against, uh, what the vast majority of other people would say. So you can find weird, weird, creepy positions. What's, what's disturbing is that the Muslim debater will go and look for that particular person. Why? To justify pedophilia, right? So they don't go and look, say, "Hey, what was the actual position? The most common position in Judaism?" They'll look for someone who says something about a three-year-old and then say, "Aha, you see, this is the position." Why? Because they're trying to justify pedophilia. And that it's the same thing with, with the Bible. Mary is called a woman, Rebecca is called a young woman. These are clearly not children. And yet you saw it. Daniel Kenny, they will point to those that you see, "Rebecca was three, Mary was 12." I mean, there's no way to get these positions from the sources. So why are you saying it? Why are you even making the claim? Well, the reason is they're trying to defend pedophilia, right? And it's like, guys, understand, okay, your Prophet did it. A lot. Most other people did not do it. So stop falsely accusing everyone else of being like your Prophet, being as bad as your Prophet. It's disgusting. Yeah. So, um, the one reference that he makes, by the way, he also does his thing. He says, "In rabbinic law, uh, age of three is okay." And this is also connected to, to Isaac and the age of Rebecca or something like that, he said in during the debate. And the issue is those two things are entirely disconnected from each other. They have nothing to do with each other. The Talmud actually discusses about, about a hypothetical or a situation in which something was brought before a court of somebody who was married to a three, three-year-old, and it discusses the technicality of that while not ever saying that it is okay to do this. And under Jewish law, historically, it has been known that the age of marriage is supposed to be around the 12th or 13th or something like that, which to which I don't agree with at all, right? I don't agree with it at all. I think, I think it's totally, uh, it's absurd and wrong. But the issue is, what I believe or don't believe is not the point. The point here is that Daniel Hikichu keeps making these these references to, uh, to different sources while entirely, uh, twisting them and distorting them and then presenting them in such a way, uh, as if they somehow supported his own, uh, idea that it is okay to marry an infant and have sex with her as soon as she shows signs of maturity, which according to, uh, his statement in the debate, as we have also seen earlier, can be true if the girl shows, uh, signs of maturity at the age of five or four or even three or maybe even 11, maybe even 11 months if the parents are okay with it. That's what he says and what he argues. What he implies. And, and notice, I mean, it's so insane, but it's, it's only impressive and persuasive to their crowd. But notice, notice what they're trying to compare. We go to Muslim sources, right? We go to, we ask them, "Hey, what are your best sources? What are your best sources on the life and teachings of Muhammad?" "Oh, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim." We go there and say, "Okay, Bukhari, Abu Bukhari, we open it up, nine years old." We keep reading, nine years old, nine years old. Aisha said she was nine years old. We could keep going through, right? "Oh, Bukhari says she was nine years old." You go, you could pick up Sahih Muslim. Sahih Muslim says she was nine years old. Nine years old. You keep going through them, right? Tabari says she was nine years old. And it's just everywhere, right? And then when we pointed out, "Hey, you've got all this stuff in your sources, nine years old, nine years old," then the response is, "Ah, but Mary was 12." Really? According to what? According to a completely misrepresented Catholic Encyclopedia? Right? We're going to completely, utterly, totally misrepresent what the Catholic Encyclopedia says. And you say, "Okay, well, that's not really saying there's an unreliable because the Catholic Source, I mean, the Catholic Encyclopedia specifically says this is unreliable, this is unreliable and apocryphal and it has no authority." And but you represent that as, "Aha, Mary was 12." And then you go to to the story about Isaac and Rebecca, and there is no way any sane person could read that as Rebecca was three. But you'll go to some, you'll, you'll find some Rabbi to say she was three. When that is an absolutely insane way to read the text. No one in the history of humanity, apart from some some guy you found, would ever read this text and say, "This is talking about a three-year-old girl." No one would ever conclude that. And yet they will. And so it's a situation where the reason we say that Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old girl is not because we're taking something that one person said and twisting it and so on, or we found one weirdo who said it and therefore we're going to say that that's the dominant position. It's because it's everywhere in all of your best sources. That's why we're claiming it. Do you have pedophilia is okay? A and Rebecca was three and Mary was a child? Do you have that in our best sources clearly being stated? No, you don't. So these situations are just reverse. But it's just this, it's this weird position where they're they're looking for justifications for pedophilia. They're not going to the text and saying, "What does this actually say?" It's, "Let me go to this source." And keep in mind, it's not just the Bible or the Talmud. It's all the, all the studies and so on that Daniel's pointing to. He's going there with a mindset, "Let me go here and be able to defend pedophilia from what I find." That's, that's the goal. And the idea that this is the person whose analysis you should, you should trust. What? That's the goal. I'm going through various sources to defend pedophilia. It's like, if I found out that someone was just looking for reasons to defend, you know, child brides and child marriage and pedophilia, I think that's probably a person I should not trust when he's doing the research and so on. And then, as we've seen in this debate, it's, it's totally correct. You should not trust this guy because he's misrepresenting everything in order to defend child marriage. Pretty creepy stuff. Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely. I want to quickly address here one thing. Gene Politics said, "Why are Christians always appealing to people like Derek and Rivon who hate religion, especially Jericho mocks the Bible for a career?" How many times? How many times have we answered this? Many, many times. And I don't even want to answer the question here. I just want to point out, uh, one thing here. I know Derek, his ideas personally about religion. Derek doesn't hate religion, right? I know that for a fact. In fact, we've, I had this conversation with him yesterday, I think, on the phone. And I personally, I don't hate religion. I have explicitly said that I don't hate religion on many occasions. I even made a video about this. So I'm not sure where people are getting these ideas from. Um, uh, uh, yeah, and, and I'll just add, if, if someone did absolutely hate religion, but he believes that marrying children is wrong, guess what? I agree with him. In other words, you could, you could take the most anti-religious person in the world. If he agrees, if he agrees that marrying children is wrong, then guess what? On this topic, we agree. And we could actually sit down and say, "Hey, we all agree on this. We disagree with the people who support child marriage." So no idea, no idea. We've talked about this a million times before. We don't have this mindset where I can only associate or have a discussion with someone who dis, I mean, someone who agrees with me on everything. That's a modern idea where everything has to be clicked. Everyone has to be clicked up into groups and never, never shall the groups interact and or have any sort of reasonable discussion and so on. We don't have that idea. So stop applying it to us. Yeah, especially right now, uh, in this environment right now, we are, we are allies. Once we have the things that we disagree on, uh, or that we agree on out of the way, we can come to dealing with each other and slaughtering each other. That's, that's a whole different issue. Question for David said, "Is it a, well, Aaron Writer's Edge, is it a well-established fact? I can't read anymore that the Virgin Mary was not a Levite but a descendant of the tribe of Judah, or is that not 100 verifiable? PS, lots of respect and admiration for your work and ethics." Um, yeah, it doesn't know a thing. So I don't know what kind of, I mean, you, you have, you have genealogies in Matthew and Luke, but just, just keep in mind that with those genealogies, you can, you can trace. You can trace when you trace a genealogy, you're saying this person to this person to this person to this person. This person. An actual genealogy, if you trace it back, is like a, that's why they call it a like a family tree, right? You have, you have tons of people. So you can actually be, you can actually be both. So, yeah, yeah. Uh, Muhammad, Satan, partnership, friendship, yes. Mnag said, "I've had several arguments with Christians, and their argument is that Mary was a virgin, yet she gave birth, and so that's why it's okay that she was only 13." Your thoughts? One, we have no source saying she was 13. There's, there's no, there's no reliable authoritative source on the age of Mary. You could read the Bible and think she was 13. You could read the Bible and think she was 18. There's, there's no, it doesn't say so. Again, we have to compare this, right? When we have, when we have the Quran, right? I mean, when we, when we had the Hadith for Muslims who would deny this, like Kenny Bowmer, who thinks that she wasn't nine, they say one thing, but we got the Hadith at our disposal. We got the Hadith at our disposal. Your Hadith say this, right? It's very strange to say, "Hey, you have dozens and dozens and dozens of references to Mary being nine," and then, "We don't know how old Mary." We don't, we don't know how old Mary was. So Aisha was nine. We don't know how old Mary was. And therefore, we're just going to say she was 13. You can't. You see this is a fundamental source. This is a shortened version where they remove all the repetitions. But this is, all the Hadith since in English, you can open this. It's either a fundamental source in Islam, and you can see here repeatedly that it says she was nine, she was nine, she was nine, she was nine, she was nine, she was six, and she was not, she was six, and she was not, she was six or she was seven, and she was nine, whatever it is. People keep bringing up this whole, uh, Rebecca's age and Mary's age. Show me one single, um, in the fundamental texts, yeah, that's Judaism and Christianity, where that is actually mentioned. Yeah. So the, the basic approach you have is, um, according to dozens and dozens of Muslim sources, Aisha was nine. But since this is the, the approach of Muslim apologists, since we don't know how old Mary was, we could just say anything we want. Okay, you could say whatever you want. But then you apply it to us, like, "Haha, you have this problem because we'll say she's 12." Well, it's not the same thing, guys. This is stupid. Yep. So, was Islam, question and answers, right? About those marriages? I mean, Islamic sources are agreed with you guys. Why do Muslims say lies about it? Yes. What was that? Questions and answers, right? About those marriages? I mean, Islamic sources are agreed with you guys. Why do Muslims say lies about it? Well, because this is used as a criticism, right? It's used. They have a, there is a natural desire to defend your position against criticism. Well, if you're being criticized because your sources say that your Prophet had sex with a nine-year-old girl, you got two basic ways to defend that. Either defend the practice, defend child marriage, that's what Daniel Hakikichu did. Or deny your sources say it didn't happen, it's actually misrepresented, it was made up. That's what, that's what Kenny Bowmer did. So they're all, there's no secret, there's no mystery as to why they would deny it. Um, of course, you, I mean, that is one of the two main ways you could get around the problem. But there is this, people have a tendency to to defend their positions. Everyone does. So, absolutely. So Timothy, we said, "There are some things in life that don't need studies to demonstrate they are terrible ideas." That's true. That is true. Um, I remember this brings me back to when I first set my discussion with Daniel Kikichu. He wanted me to, he was asking me why I don't have any studies which show that slavery is bad. And, yeah, interesting stuff, man. Apollo's Christian apologetics said, "Most people sleep at night is an abstract matter." That whole abstract thing should become a new meme. I would cut that out. I will do that. Mnex said, "What are your thoughts on the naked boy found with Jesus when he was arrested?" What people? People, they were trying to capture Jesus' followers. They grabbed a guy and he pulled away and ran away naked. So, oh, you see, so I guess the, I guess the claim is that, so this is what this is when the soldiers come to capture Jesus, and it says in the gospel of Mark, they, they grabbed one, but he pulled away and ran away. So they grabbed him by the garment, he runs away naked. And so I guess, uh, I guess this, oh, you see, it's the same thing. I haven't even thought about the correlation. This is, this is getting, uh, this is getting stupid. That's that's interesting. Uh, we're doing set is then a deceptive or incompetent in misquoting studies? Does he honestly think that short marriage is a good thing and I'm not harmful to the child? No, here's the thing. It doesn't really matter what he thinks and what he believes, how he feels. What matters to him is Islam says this is okay, therefore I must somehow argue that this is okay and that this is good. So with that in his mind, with that, with that idea, with that bias, he goes into studies and selectively picks whatever he can to justify that idea and does a terrible job at that. He clearly shows to everybody that he doesn't, uh, he either doesn't read those studies and doesn't understand them, or he does read and understand them and deliberately misrepresents them in order to make his point to a, uh, to the public audience. And I, I'm still conflicted here. I still do not know what is true. Whether he actually doesn't read and understand, or whether he deliberately takes these things out of their context to twist and lie to the audience. Either of those things makes his position terrible. Yeah, either, either, either way, either he doesn't know what he's talking about or he's deliberately being deceptive. It's the same thing we've said about Allah in the Quran, right? Like, whoever's responsible for the Quran, when you say that the Jews say Ezra is the son of Allah, it's, or when you say that the Trinity is made up of of Allah, Jesus, and Mary, who just work together as three really close gods, uh, you either don't know what you're talking about or you do know what you're talking about and you're deliberately being deceptive. So you're ignorant or you're deceptive. The author of the Quran is either ignorant or deceptive. Daniel Hakikichu is either ignorant on these topics or he's deceptive. Either way, not someone you should be listening to. So you're saying Daniel is basically like Allah? I mean, I mean, watch this debate. I mean, think because, uh, you know, we all have kids, but dads with kids must be feeling furious. Yeah, when they hear this stuff. Yeah, yeah. Jimmy's I said, "Pre-modern Christians did condemn adult child relations. Martins do not sexually abuse children." The language of early Christian sexual ethics, yeah. And, uh, it's kind of, it's not the most important thing in the world to say, you know, who said this a long time ago. We can learn over time that things are bad. Once you learn and realize that something is bad, then you have to have this principle in your head, "Oh, now that I know it's bad, now we can't do it." It doesn't matter if people did it a thousand years ago. If you've figured out that it's bad, then okay, now you have a moral obligation to not do that because now you know that it's bad. But in Islam, it's, "Look, nope, God did it 14 centuries ago, and so we got to do it." That was, uh, that was Michael, Mike's, uh, point at some point in the, in the debate, which, which was, it doesn't really matter, you know, whether it was, whether people in the past condemned it or not. We know, we have learned that it is wrong, it's it is harmful, therefore we should no longer do it. It is, it is a harmful practice. We learn principles and learn to apply those principles, and by those principles, we learned that this is harmful and wrong. But generally keeps going back to, "Well, give me a source where somebody in the past said that this is wrong." So nobody said it's wrong, therefore it's good. It's okay, therefore it's good. That's just, that is very idiotic. It's, it's unbelievable to me that somebody like Danny Kikichu, with such an arrogance about, uh, education and research and all that, comes with such an approach. It insists on that. Incredible. IPO, we haven't asked this to IP. IP, do you remember when I talked to you before the debate and bet he would bring up Isaac? And you said he wouldn't do something that illogical. Funny. I did the same thing, uh, just days before the debate. I said, "Oh, by the way, Daniel might bring up this and this because Muslims like to bring up that objection." And he was like, "Really? They'll be stupid." That's what you said to me. Yeah, this is this is interesting too, because, um, it, it's along the same lines as the terrible idea of actually debating this. It's a terrible idea for him to debate this because even though this may be convincing to his group of followers, it's absolutely abhorrent to everyone else who's watching who will now be pushed further away from Islam. So this is an obstacle to dawah. But is there's something similar when they bring up Isaac and Rebecca and say that that Rebecca was three? It's a similar thing where that may be convincing to your fans who are completely ignorant and have no idea what you're what what the real evidence is. They may, when you tell them, "Yes, she was three," they may all go, "Okay, she was three," because they've been trained to mindlessly agree with whatever you say, not to do any actual, uh, research into the topic. But from the perspective of everyone else, when everyone else has, you just said, "IP, you just said Rebecca was three, dude, we cannot take you seriously anymore." So he's, I mean, he's wrong in the eyes of his followers, but he just massively discredited himself in the eyes of everyone else by, by almost every point he brought up. Yeah, somebody here is posting stuff like, "Flying horses are not real. The moon never split." Crazy, crazy stuff. I hope somebody will call the police on you. Uh, and let's see, um, the shell skin said, "That was a joke, by the way. There is no question. You want, you know?" Yeah, I think he was aware of that. Uh, yeah. Addison Weir said, "IP, are you going to do longer videos?" I read that already. When he was here, I read that too. Mighty Girl said, "The police is looking for a pedophile according to DSM-5. This is non-cultural and non-lawful. It's just pedophilia." Yeah, I, I made, in, in a discussion with Alfadi last year, uh, we went through the DSM-5. That's the standard work in psychology for diagnosing mental health disorders. And Muhammad meets, Muhammad meets all of the criteria for pedophilic disorder. Yeah, so he would be, he would be classified as a pedophile according to the DSM-5. And one of the, uh, interesting things is, uh, Daniel actually brings this up and says, "You know, it is being normalized in the West as, you know, a mental disorder." And they don't even call it pedophilia if it's like, you know, marriage consummation after puberty and all of that. He's being incredibly stupid and appealing to a concept in psychology that has nothing to do with what we are actually talking about, which is, uh, that is about the terminology of pedophilia and what exactly pedophilia is technically, uh, used for at what age, uh, it would be pedophilia, and whether pedophilia is a mental disorder where, uh, people who are into little children, um, have this, this obsessive attraction to little children or not. That is a completely separate issue and has very little to do with what we are actually talking about, which is that marrying children is harmful, and he advocates for it. His Prophet Muhammad did it, and it is horrible. It, whether it is a mental disorder or not, whether it is technically called pedophilia or something else, has nothing to do with the actual point here. This is, uh, it's still weird that this is a debate that we're having in the 21st century, that, uh, that there are people who are defending this. And guys, don't, don't miss the overarching problem this creates for Muslims. This, uh, I mean, the fact that Muhammad had sex with a little girl. The Quran claims that Muhammad is the pattern of conduct for Muslims. Muhammad is the pattern of conduct. Who is this guy? He saw a little girl and said, "Give me that body." Yeah. We saw a little girl and said, "Give me that body." Like, it's kind of case closed, right? Yeah. Warrior said, "What is your name, apostate Prophet?" That's a weird question. It's like saying, "What is your name, David?" Yeah. What is my name's name? My parents gave me, just like AP. Yeah. Carla Magna TV says, "The true test of a Muslim's faith is whether you are willing to defend having sex with a prepubescent girl is okay." And we all know Daddy Nikikichu is an extremely faithful Muslim apologist and has thus done a terrible job. Thanks, everybody for witnessing this brutal stuff. I have a final word. Whenever you're reading, do your final word now. Speak. These dawah lies have got to go.

[Laughter]

Thanks everybody for for watching. Let me know what you think. Uh, and you're not allowed to think anything at all except that that IP did an amazing job. I personally am not allowed to do to think anything either except to think it was a fantastic. It was a brilliant demonstration of why Islam is horrible. IP did an amazing job, and I would ask you to also put this in the comment section and say, "Wow, I'm amazed. He did an amazing job." Fantastic. Someone just posted, "She just called me IP, man." Oh, AP. You guys need to get significantly different names. Whenever I say IP, I think it sounds like I have to. Oh, okay. I pay AP. We all P. Um, Abdul said, uh, uh, "Check out Ali Dawah's new video supporting secret second second wives." We've already talked about that, but yeah, we might need to, I don't know if you're planning on going live on Saturday, but that would be a pretty good, uh, topic for Saturday. Yeah, we will do that. We will, uh, talk about that next, probably. Um, the topic is that, and other Muslim apologists argue that there is nothing wrong with having a secret second wife, or even third wife, or even fourth wife, while being married to somebody who is completely unaware of those otherwise. So, and their wife, you have a family, and you go and you also secretly marry other women while keeping that completely, keeping that secret from your first wife, who knows nothing, who thinks, "Oh, you are my only man, my only husband." You're like, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, totally." And you go on to your other wives to have sex with them. And they were saying it is, it is perfectly acceptable in Islam to just lie to, flat out lie to your wives about your, about even having your other wives. You're allowed to, you're allowed. And they were, and they were lecturing. They're sitting there with four Muslim women and basically telling them, "You, you need to stop being so selfish. You need to stop being so selfish and wanting this man all to your, all to yourself." And it was the attitude seems to be, uh, "We're men, and we're made to want lots of women, and you're a woman, and you're made to want one man, so you need to put what you want aside so we can do what we want." And, interesting stuff. But yeah, we need to talk about that. Yeah, yeah. Cheating is okay as long as you do it with a marriage. Any promise to Allah? Yeah. All right. Thanks everybody for joining this amazing show today. Uh, I think that this was, this was very, very important. This debate is seriously, um, the best thing that I've seen in terms of, uh, dealing with people like Danny Kikichu. I'm not exaggerating. I, I love it. I hate my expectations were high, and it's, it's even better than I expected. I'm very impressed. I myself could have never done a great job, something remotely as good as, uh, Michael did on that day with Daniel Kikichu. David would have done a terrible job. David wouldn't have done, uh, something as amazing. I would not have done nearly as good a job. I would have, I would have found like, probably two or three studies or something like that. Side of them. There's no way I would have gone through everything on the topic. But that's, I mean, that's what IP does. It's like, I mean, he'll, it's, I mean, it's very interesting. So you'll have, you know, people saying, "Christmas is pagan," and so on. We hear this. We hear this all the time. Don't know where it actually comes from. What's the evidence? But IP will like, read everything that's ever been written on the origins of, on the origins of Christmas, and they'll say, "Actually, this didn't, that's this didn't have pagan origins. That's a myth." And I've read everything on the topic. So show me something. Show me something that that actually, uh, goes along with you. But, uh, he's been doing that for years. Anytime anything someone brings up, and that he wants to study, he will go out and read everything on that topic. And, you know, what's funny? Um, I do this thing. I told my wife about this. As soon as I learned how, how he thinks and operates, how he deals with stuff that he hears online or from other people, what I do all the time is I see claims made by people, and then I'm like, "Is that true?" And then I made the, go online and start gathering some of the research, some of the sources, and then I skim through it and I'm like, "Okay, okay, I got the idea." Yeah, it's, it's nonsense. Uh, uh, obviously nonsense, stupid. And then I never, never talk about it again. But as, said, as David just explained, he, he does an extreme form of that. Instead of just looking it up and thinking, "Okay, nonsense, whatever," he goes and he's like, "Okay, here's the source. Here's what he is. That. So let me read this through all the pages and highlight this and this and that, and then that and that, and then when did that start, and how did that start, and who started it, and what does it actually say? What do all these other sources say about this?" And so on. And he completely destroys it. And the, uh, of course, the, uh, the dawah fans are looking at this. They only have one way of reacting to things. So they're going to respond by insulting him, talking, talking trash to them, not realizing, guys, if you were, if you had an ounce of common sense, you would be trying to befriend him really quickly and be as nice as possible so that he focuses on someone else who's annoying him. But if you become the guys who are annoying and insulting him, my goodness, have you, have you not learned your lesson after that debate that we just watched? Um, but I don't know. See what happens. He made him look like an idiot, and it was amazing. All right, thanks everybody for watching. Thanks for being here again. David, we will be live again on Saturday. And is there anything else that you want to tell the people of the world? Stay away from child marriage. Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely. And stay away from Islam.