MEGA DEBATE: Traditional Muslim vs. Reformist Harvard Academic

Here I go. In three, two... I gotta have that title handy. Three, two, one, ready, set, here I go! Hey everybody, tonight we're debating religious freedom, conquest, slavery, and sexual ethics. And we are starting right now with Dr. Javad's opening statement. But first, I want to quickly read his biography. So I'm going to first start by reading his biography and then kick it over to him for his opening.

Dr. Javad Hashi is a PhD candidate in the study of Religion and PR, in particular Islamic Studies, at Harvard University, former fellow of medical ethics at Harvard Medical School, and practicing Emergency Physician. In addition to his medical training, Dr. Hashi has obtained bachelor's and master's degrees in Arabic and Islamic Studies from UC Berkeley and Harvard University respectively. Dr. Hashi is currently completing his doctoral dissertation on the topic of jihad in the Quran. His research interests include Quranic studies, Islamic intellectual history with a focus on Islamic modernism, and the intersection between religion and violence. He recently took up a position as research director at MPAC, the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Although today he is not representing MPAC, but instead here representing himself as an independent scholar. Dr. Hashi can be followed on Twitter at @DrJavadTHashi, which is linked in the description below, by the way, folks, as well as on YouTube with the handle @ImpactfulScholar, which is also linked in the description, folks.

With that, we'll kick it over to Dr. Hashi. Thanks for being with us. The floor is all yours for your 20, 25-minute opening statement.

Thank you very much, James, and thank you, Daniel, for joining me. Um, hopefully my slides are showing okay. So today, okay, perfect. So I'm going to start now. So today, we're going to be debating two, two religious worldviews. The first of them can be called a very reactionary form of traditionalism, uh, that is represented by Daniel. And the second is Islamic modernism, which I will be defending.

Islamic modernism is a rationalist movement that arose in the 20th century, which seeks to strike a middle road between fundamentalism and secularity. Islamic modernists believe in the need to rethink Islamic norms and reinterpret foundational texts in order to make them align with the spirit of the Quran and the needs of the modern day. It is sometimes also known as Islamic rationalism or liberal Islam, but should not be confused with philosophical liberalism or progressive Islam, which has gone in a postmodernist direction. My general outline will be as follows: I will raise five general arguments for Islamic modernism, for specific arguments that Daniel will need to refute, and three arguments against Sunni traditionalism.

My five general arguments for Islamic modernism: why it's a better paradigm is because it's more historical, more Quranic, more rational, more moral, and more family-oriented. The four specific arguments for Daniel to refute will be on sexuality: that the Quran mandates that sexual intercourse can only take place within a marriage contract or a nikah. On religious freedom: the Quran allows the freedom to choose or leave a religion, and apostasy laws are therefore anti-Quranic. On warfare: the Quran categorically forbids wars of aggression. On slavery: the Quran does not allow the enslaving of prisoners of war.

Now, as far as my specific arguments against Sunni traditionalism, Sunni traditionalism is built on four, uh, kind of legs of the stool, and I will knock down three of them. So the first one is when it comes to the Quran. Whereas Islamic rationalists view the Quran as clear and accessible, traditionalists view the Quran as quote, "dim, ambiguous, and incomplete without the Hadith and tradition." But this leads to an infinite regress, since you need someone to interpret the interpretation of the interpreter.

The second leg, the Hadith, can be knocked down because no narrator criticism was done on the very first level, that is, of the companions. So no Hadith can actually be authenticated. The third leg can be, uh, topped down, knocked down, Imam consensus because it's not based on anything absolutely certain. There's no certain source to base it on, and therefore consensus is based on circular logic. We'll go into this in more detail later.

Here are my general arguments on Islamic modernism. Islamic modernism is more historical because Islamic modernists are actually originalists who use the latest historical critical scholarship to figure out what the actual historical Prophet Muhammad preached so that we can follow and honor that. We follow the original teachings of God and His Messenger as found in the Quran, whereas traditionalists follow their sect's later tradition, which took centuries to develop and rely on post-Quranic sources such as their own sect's Hadith canon, the Tafsir, and Fiqh, none of which can be traced back to God and His Messenger, and actually diverges from the Quran. Traditionalists anachronistically back-project these sectarian and culturally situated ideas onto the Prophet.

Both Islamic modernists and Western historians alike agree that the Quran is the earliest source and goes back to the Prophet Muhammad. Professor Patricia Crone even credits Islamic modernists for signaling this trend of going back to the Quran as a historical source. Islamic modernists love, respect, and follow the Quran more than any other group, and you will see that today when I will be the one pointing to painfully obvious readings of the Quran, whereas Daniel's position will often line up with the Hadith, medieval commentaries, and historical tradition.

The reason why we can't rely on the classical commentaries alone is because, as Western historians have noted, as well as Islamic modernists, the classical commentaries are full of imaginative and manifestly improbable readings in which the exegeses are imposing meanings of their own. And there are many scholars who have said the same thing. As F. Rahman noted a long time ago, they never allowed the Quran to speak for itself, but instead read the Quran through the later tradition, especially through the Hadith. And that's why we will not be able to avoid the Hadith debate today, since all the problematic stuff actually goes back to the Hadith and not the Quran.

Now, from a historical perspective, the Hadith are full of mass forgeries and historical anachronisms, and many Hadiths seem to depart radically from Quranic teaching. Hadiths, therefore, in general, reflect the views of later Muslims rather than the words of the Prophet. And there's now universal Western skepticism on the reliability of Hadith reports. Now, this is not only a Western invention. In fact, this idea of doubting Hadith goes back to the early periods of Islam with the Islamic rationalists, and it was the Islamic modernists of modern South Asia who were amongst the first to question Hadith, which even A.A. Goldziher credits them for in his monumental Muslim Studies.

Now, there's also a religious problem with Hadith, which I've already talked about, is that there was no narrator criticism that was done on the first level of the chain of transmission. So there is no way to know if these traditions were honest, or these transmitters were honest, or had accurate memories, other than, of course, blind and magical belief. This topples the entire edifice of Hadith, since it rests on that first level. The second argument against, and that's the second argument of Sunni traditionalism, which I've already raised.

Now, Hadiths from a religious perspective, it's okay to use them. Not Islamic moderates are not necessarily Quranists or Quran-only. I'm certainly not. I think it's okay to use Hadiths in a very limited way, but not to derive key theological and legal beliefs from them. Those must be derived from the Quran, and we certainly cannot decide matters of life and death based on random Hadiths. Instead, we should reject any Hadith that conflicts with the Quran or human reason, science, or history. And this was an approach of early Hadith criticism by the Islamic rationalists, such as the Mu'tazila, as well as the early Hanafi. Imam Abu Hanifa actually took this approach, and this is one of the reasons he was declared an apostate, disbeliever, and heretic by the proto-Sunni traditionalists. Abu Yusuf, his student, actually said that you should reject any Hadith that contradicts the Quran.

The second argument that I'm bringing forward is that Islamic modernism is more Quranic. That is because we believe that the Quran is clear and accessible as scripture, and we place it above all else, and we seek to imbibe its true spirit. Whereas traditionalists devalue the Quran, thinking its meanings are ambiguous, dim, and partial without the Hadith or tradition. Traditionalists abrogate, or cancel out, or change the Quran's meaning using their sect's Hadiths, which are full of mass fabrications and anachronisms, and rulings of their legal schools, as well as an indefensibly circular concept of consensus. In practicality, all of these Hadith, legal rulings, and consensus become more powerful than the Quran. In fact, they made Hadith equal to the Quran and said it was similar to the speech of God. In fact, they raised Hadith over Quran, as this saying, it was just very famous in the Islamic tradition, goes: "The Sunnah stands in judgment over the Quran."

In a recent interview, Dr. Jonathan Brown endorsed this dual scripture model and recited these two sayings, which are very well known in the tradition: "The book did not come to rule over the Sunnah, but the Sunnah came to rule over the book." "The Quran needs the Sunnah more than the Sunnah needs the Quran." And hermeneutically, or from an interpretive standpoint, "The Sunnah of the Prophet is more powerful than the Quran." We find these statements to be damning. In fact, they said that the Hadith could abrogate the Quran, and this was endorsed by, for example, Imam Ghazali, who said the Hadith can abrogate the Quran. Even Imam Shafi, who said that it can't, still did it, but he just called it something else, he called it uh, specification.

This is because they imagined that the Quran, the Quranic speech, was dim, ambiguous, and incomplete, which placed meaning largely in the hand of the interpreter. And this was also endorsed in the recent interview by Dr. Jonathan Brown, in which he said, "The interpreter has all the power. It doesn't matter what the Constitution says, he says what matters is the interpretation of the Supreme Court." Which really means, it doesn't matter what the Quran says, it matters what the Ulama say.

So my first argument against Sunni traditionalism is that the Quran is viewed by them as dim, ambiguous, and incomplete, and requires an interpreter. But this also entails an infinite regress, as I've already said. Now, they gave a lot of power to the interpreters who already had a general idea of what the law should look like, and then they massage the meaning of a text to accommodate that prevailing legal culture or the law that they were trying to, uh, result in. In fact, we see this from this fourth-century text, this damning quote, where it's said very, uh, openly: "Every Quranic verse that conflicts with the view of our legal school must be taken as abrogated or canceled out, or as rejected, or better yet, should be reinterpreted so as to agree with our school's opinion." This is not just a Hanafi view, but Shafi did it too.

And the problem with this is that Hadiths are, uh, mass fabricated, as even traditional, uh, reports in the traditional canon will let us know. Pious fabrication was also a major problem, as this early Hadith scholar said: "I have not seen the pious in any regard being more dishonest than they are in regard to the Hadith." This is why the Islamic rationalists of old had a low view of what they viewed as the literal traditionalists, and this is what we agree to, as one, uh, classical rationalist said: "He said, 'The stupider the madhhab, the more prominent and trusted he is among them.'"

This is why Islamic modernism is simply more rational. Islamic modernists have a high view of human reason, which is God-given, endorsed by the Quran, and is what differentiates us from the animals. And we consider it the only means of properly approaching scripture. As rationalists, modernists are open to outside knowledge and wish to advance collective human reason. Whereas traditionalists, especially literalists like Daniel, devalue reason and are literalists who would rather follow unreliable and absurd reports, uh, which lead to absurd and even morally atrocious beliefs. As literalists, such traditionalists reject any outside knowledge and are parochial in their thinking. Meanwhile, Islamic modernists look to the expansive and exhaustive Islamic tradition. And in this sense, we're actually more traditionalist than them. We look for insights from the Islamic rationalists and the philosophers who they condemn as blasphemous idolators. Meanwhile, modern-day kafirs like Daniel reject 90% of our tradition. We actually claim to follow and get inspired from the first and original theological group, which was the Qadariya, or the people of free will, not like the Sunni tradition which became fatalist. This is one of the earliest identifiable theological movements in Islam, not Sunnism. This group was absorbed by the Mu'tazila, or the Islamic rationalists, who preceded Orthodoxy by far. And Mu'tazila were a major force in Islam for several centuries. The Mu'tazila had a very high view of human reason. They followed the Quran along with moral reasoning and human reason.

So Islamic modernists are open-minded and are open to outside knowledge and wish to advance collective human wisdom. Also, like the classical Islamic philosophers, this is the attitude that the classical Islamic philosophers had. They were open to knowledge no matter where it came from, and they would view it very critically. If it aligned with truth, they would accept it. If it didn't, they would reject it and warn against it. But they believed that philosophy was obligatory, and it was important to advance the collective wisdom of humankind, which is a trust given to us by posterity and by God. In fact, Ibn Rushd said that it was obligatory, there was an obligation to study philosophy, and that's why the Islamic rationalists and philosophers advanced philosophy and science, uh, in the Islamic world, unlike the Hanbali literalists.

So the Islamic philosophers and the Islamic rationalists had a high view of human reason. Meanwhile, the semi-rational who would later form Orthodoxy had only an instrumental use of reason. Where the Hadith literalists, who were always the minority, the Hanbalis, they had a very low or dim view of human reason. And Daniel, like I said, is a Hanbali or a literalist, and they had the view that anything that was, uh, from a foreign source was by definition anti or un-Islamic because it came from a foreign source. In fact, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the eponymous founder of this school, said that debate, argument, and rational theology are all forbidden. In fact, he would be opposed to Daniel being here today because he is engaging in reason and debate. The Hanbali scholar Ibn Qudamah said that rational theology and philosophy are all bad. I said logic is bad. And for him, the foreignness of a doctrine is sufficient proof of evidence of its inherent un-Islamic nature. A Hanbali scholar in the 18th century said, "Logic is pure haram. Reason is actually bad. You shouldn't use reason. Have faith, submit, and acquiesce. People are led away from the truth by reason, so don't use reason. It will, if you strengthen your rational side, strengthening that will harm your religion."

So this is the anti-intellectual approach of the Hanbali, and this is just a literalist approach to religion. And in fact, Daniel endorses this in his book, "Muslim Skeptic," where he defines what it means to be a Muslim skeptic. It's not being a skeptic at all, it's being a literalist. He says, "Don't use your mind, just follow the texts." And he's talking about dogmatically accepting Hadith. And the problem with that is that it makes means that you have to accept even textual reports that are absurd. Imam Ahmad said, "Even if the ears are repelled by this textual report, if you're disgusted by it, you must still believe in it." And this, of course, is not how the Islamic rationalists viewed it. If they saw an absurd Hadith, they would just say, "This is not possible that the Messenger of God could say something like that."

Now, the Hanbali, because of this, believed in an anthropomorphic God because they were accepting all these random Hadith reports. Here's Ahmad Hanbal, who affirmed that God has a face, eyes, curly hair, mouth, voice, five fingers, and even shockingly loins. They even accepted, uh, this report about, uh, God appearing in the shape of a young boy with beautiful curly hair. And this report was accepted by Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and even Ibn Taymiyyah. Here's the receipts for that.

They also believed that the Earth was flat, and this is their view of the Flat Earth theory. And they believe that God sat above the throne, put his two feet on the footstool. This Flat Earth theory was pushed by al-Suyuti, even in the 15th century. He wrote this book on Sunni traditionalist astronomy in which he pushed out this view of the Flat Earth, and he, of course, forbade logic and philosophy. This Flat Earth theory was, uh, supported by the Saudi Grand Mufti, Ibn Baz, or at least it's reported that he did. He definitely doubted the moon landing. So this is the anti-scientific approach that they have. Here's Daniel expressing doubt about the moon landing, so it's the same kind of approach. Also, Daniel denies evolution, not just human evolution, but all forms of human, uh, all forms of evolution entirely. So he's a creationist, much like a Christian fundamentalist. This goes against the rational strains and the better strains of our tradition, which always accepted that sometimes you have to use figurative interpretation. And here's a verse backing that up as well.

Now, from a meta-ethical standpoint, uh, we also believe that you need to use moral reason. Not only science informs your worldview, but medical moral reasoning should as well. And that's why Islamic rationalists or modernists are ethical objectivists and moral universalists. Using human reason, human beings can work out at least some shared moral truths. We embrace natural law and believe that that the moral law is inscribed in our hearts, discoverable by human reason and our moral intuitions, which are God-given gifts. So we believe that you're supposed to read the Quran ethically on the assumption that it is ethical and has something ethical to say. Meanwhile, Sunni traditionalists are ethical subjectivists. They believe good and evil are based on God's arbitrary will because it is arbitrary, morality is unknowable except through divine revelation. Ethical reasoning has virtually no role to play. God could have said, told you to smash infant skulls into rocks, and that's in the Bible, and that would make it right. This is a strict Divine Command Theory. And of course, this is why they side with slavery and enslavement and sex slavery because they, they think that this is, uh, prescribed in their revelation.

Now, the problem, if you don't use any moral reasoning, is that you need tons of texts to inform you on every little thing. And this is why you need to have mass generation of textual reports or Hadiths. And you're forced to accept even weak Hadiths, as Imam Ahmad would accept weak Hadiths even over moral reasoning. Now, this is not the approach of the rationalists, who believe that the Quran itself endorses scripture and wisdom, hikmah. So the Prophet was sent to teach scripture, al-kitab, and wisdom, al-hikmah. And as for, as a beautiful example of the Prophet in the, that's mentioned in the Quran, this is not about following these random, atomized textual reports that talk to you about how to grow your beard and how to sit on the toilet. Instead, it's about following the ethical example of the Prophet and the virtues that he embodies. The very next verse speaks of the Prophet's bravery and faith. That's what it's telling you to embody. And similarly, we know that we're supposed to follow the beautiful example of Abraham. It's not this textual, all these random, atomized textual reports that we have that we follow Abraham. It's the example and spirit of Abraham that we're supposed to follow.

This is actually the earliest usage of the word Sunnah, which just meant good ethical practice. In other words, what would the Prophet do in a current, in our current situation? That's what we really should ask. In other words, what would the most ethical person do in a situation? That's why Islamic modernists tend to be virtue ethicists, and I surely am one. Religion is about instilling the right virtues in yourself: bravery, compassion, kindness, etc., so that you know how to act ethically in any given situation. In other words, you can't just offload your ethical deliberation to a Mufti for a quick yes or no answer. Islamic modernists are anti-clerical and oppose the excessive legalism and abuse of rules which plagues Islamic traditionalism. Modernists read the Quran as agreeing with Jesus' critique of the rabbinical approach to law, which unfortunately our Ummah took up. The Quran tells you to do good, enjoin right, and forbid wrong. These are generalities that seem to imply that people already knew what these things are, and that they know it in their hearts. God commands justice and virtue. It seems to say that you are, that people already know what this would mean. That's because the soul is inspired to understand what is right and wrong. This is already inbuilt into our soul, as the Quran says, "The sense of good and evil, of right and wrong, is breathed into every human soul from its very creation." And this lines up with the earliest usage of the word Sunnah, which did not yet refer exclusively to the prophetic practice tied to the individual, atomized, and decontextualized textual reports. Instead, it was a much more generalized thing and just meant good ethical practice.

And we can see this from the Sunnah of Umar, the second Caliph. He frequently departed from the specific rulings of the Quran and the Prophet because he felt the circumstances had changed. In other words, he used his moral or ethical reasoning. He changed the rules when it came to arms distribution, the Zakat distribution of war spoils. He suspended the Quranic penalty for theft during the year of the drought. He increased the penalty for public intoxication, and he changed all sorts of other rules, including putting in some protections for slave women. So we believe in doing contextualist readings. We believe in trajectory hermeneutics, where we have to understand the social historical context in which a Quranic rule was issued in order to grasp the Quran's ethical trajectory, and then that's what we apply: the ethical trajectory, not always or not necessarily that specific ruling, because the circumstances have radically changed today. We also believe that the Quran embraces legal minimalism. Unfortunately, our tradition went in the legally maximalist direction based on rabbinical Judaism, but the Quran actually leaves a wide space for robust moral reasoning. And so we believe that you follow the spirit of the text over literalistic adherence of the letter of the law, which is just a bunch of Hadith reports. The Quran calls for faith, virtue, doing good, and social justice. These are the ethics that we call to.

For Islamic modernists, the Quran is accessible and clear, where to read the Quran ethically to determine its ethical trajectory and apply that to our current circumstances. For Sunni traditionalists, on the other hand, traditionalists on the other hand, Hadith trumps Quran, since the Quran is dim, ambiguous, and incomplete. Established law derived from local practices trumps Hadith and also generates more Hadith claims of consensus. Meanwhile, trump everything, which is just the consensus of one's own sect's jurists. So Quran is less than Hadith, is less than Fiqh, is less than Asma. As far as Asma is very problematic. Now, Imam Ghazali and others said of the Ummah, that is the, and by the Ummah, he just means the sect scholars, is infallible. So once Imamah is actually superior than the Quran. And here's Sheikh Yaser saying that Imamah is the highest form of Islamic law and actually trumps Quranic verse. And here's Daniel approving of the high place that consensus is in our religion, or in the Sunni tradition. But the problem is that consensus, there are all sorts of problems with consensus, but the main thing is that there's no grounding for consensus. There's no sound basis for this doctrine of consensus, and so it falls apart. It's circular logic. In fact, the Quran opposes this idea and says, "Were you to obey most of those on Earth, they would lead you astray." So this is the third argument against Sunni traditionalism, Daniel, that Daniel should address. In fact, this idea of consensus has its correlate in rabbinical Judaism, as well as Catholic understanding, in which they also have this idea of the infallibility of their Imamah. But the Quran actually goes against this and says, "They take their rabbis and their monks as lords apart from God." And that's indeed what has happened.

To summarize, traditionalists ignore the Quran, which actually goes back to the Prophet, and favor Hadiths, which were mass fabricated in a much later period, and consensus, all of which was rooted in local customs and practices. And that's why there's a discontinuity between the Quran and early Islamic law, which many Western scholars have also noted. In fact, the raw material of this early Islamic law was formed to a great extent from non-Islamic sources, that is, from Christian Rome, Zoroastrianism, and Persia, and Jewish law. These outside laws include the laws against apostasy, rules of imperial warfare, laws regarding slavery and concubinage, laws of divorce, veiling, etc. These are the influences that are at play.

Islamic modernism, my fourth argument, is that it is more moral. Islamic modernists have religious viewpoints that line up with our innate God-given moral sense and moral reasoning, whereas traditionalists force themselves to accept morally atrocious viewpoints in order to conform to medieval tradition. And that's why they approve conquest, slavery, sex slavery, and all of these other things that come from imperial conquest. The early Islamic empires modeled themselves after neighboring Roman and Persian empires.

And my fifth argument is that Islamic modernism is actually more family-oriented. Islamic modernists stress the importance of lifelong monogamous marriage, forbidding premarital and extramarital sex, or easy divorce with obligations of the father as a lifelong partner. Whereas the medieval Islamic tradition endorsed absolute sexual debauchery that leads to the disintegration of family life. What are the family values that Daniel speaks of? The medieval Islamic tradition allowed unlimited sex slavery, eunuchs to guard the sex harem, polygamy was normalized, along with easy instant divorce for the husband, child marriage. This is not, these are not good values. The values we should look for are in the Quran. And the key value that we should look at is insaniyah, or humanism. This is based on the idea of basic human equality, which is, uh, endorsed in the Quran in multiple places, where we are told that we all come from the same soul. Unfortunately, the Islamic tradition not only said that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims, but they said that Arabs are superior to non-Arabs, and they would oppose the proponents of equality, who were considered to be blasphemous innovators. This is endorsed by, uh, the Sunni mainstream. Here's Ibn Taymiyyah saying it's Sunni orthodoxy to believe that the Arab race is superior to the non-Arab races, and that's because of the quality of their minds. Here's Islam Q&A, a Salafi website, saying that this is unanimously agreed that the Arabs are superior. And here's a Hanafi, uh, website saying the same thing. But we don't believe any of that. That goes against the Quran. We believe that all human beings have, uh, exceptional human dignity and exceptionality because God himself has honored them. And this is because we are God-breathed. "Anyone who kills a soul, it is as if he kills all of humankind." This makes our human, uh, lives inviolable, and also makes so you can't enslave anyone.

Now, as far as slavery, it was a deeply ingrained institution and a social fact during the Prophet's lifetime. However, the Quran does not allow the enslaving of prisoners of war. Similarly, the Quran mandates that sexual intercourse can only take place with a marriage contract. Now, freedom of religion, liberty, is because of free will. God gives us free will, so no one can compel us. If God didn't compel us, and so that's why there's no compulsion in religion. "Would you compel men till they become believers?" "If God had willed, He would have made all of those on Earth believe altogether." And this is actually echoed by John Locke, all the way in, uh, when he defended it in modern liberalism. But anyway, this is an idea that goes to the Quran, specifically.

The Quran allows the freedom to choose or leave a religion, and apostasy laws are therefore anti-Quranic. We also believe in Sulh, or the idea of peace with all, universal peace. Specifically, we believe that the Quran categorically forbids wars of aggression. These are my specific arguments for Daniel to refute. Again, uh, sexual intercourse requires a nikah. On religious freedom, apostasy laws are anti-Quranic because the Quran allows the freedom to choose or leave a religion. On warfare, the Quran categorically forbids war of aggression. On enslavement, the Quran does not allow the enslaving of prisoners of war.

I, I argue that Islamic modernism is more historical, more Quranic, more rational, more moral, and more family-oriented. And these are my three arguments against Sunni traditionalism. Overall, my religion is the pious and ethical Islam of the Quran and the Prophet, which is affirmed voluntarily by the heart and conscience of the true believer, spread by beautiful preaching and good example. Whereas Daniel's religion is the imperial religion of the Umayyad and Abbasid tyrannical regimes, which favored authoritarianism and utility over godliness and piety, thus favoring caliphal dictatorships, slaving empires, concubinage, sex harems, aggressive imperial warfare, and state-enforced belief.

Now, when it is said unto them, the Quran says, "When it is said unto them, 'Follow what God has sent down,' the Quran," they say, "Nay, we follow that which we found our forefathers doing." When the Quran-centric people like us say, "Follow what God has sent down," the Sunni traditionalists say, "Nay, we follow what we found our forefathers, the Salaf, doing." "They have taken their rabbis and their monks as lords apart from God." And "The Messenger will say, 'Oh my Lord, my people have abandoned this Quran.'" Thank you.

Thank you very much for that opening statement. We are going to kick it over to Daniel, but want to give you guys a quick heads-up, folks. In terms of the format tonight, we're going big. This one is a six-hour, if you include the breaks, it's close to six hours long tonight. This is our second longest stream we will ever have done. But more interesting than that, I've got to tell you, folks, these two men have a history. I'm not exaggerating. For years, this has been piecing together, you could say, culminating, coming toward this one weekend. We're going to have a two-part debate series, where tonight we're going to have this monster debate that's close to six hours. Tomorrow night, we're also going to have another debate with these gentlemen. You don't want to miss it. Hit that subscribe button so you don't miss either one. We're going to kick it over to Daniel for his opening, which is 25 minutes as well. Thank you very much, Daniel. The floor is all yours.

Sure. So I want to just, oh, before I get to the opening, can I just make that introduction to myself? Yeah. So, um, everyone's familiar with, uh, my debates, hopefully, on modern-day debates on, on my channel, Muslim Skeptic. The topics that we're going to be discussing in this debate, things like slavery, minor marriage, concubines, religious freedom, conquest, slavery, I've covered in many debates already, and I've given moral justifications for them. I'm not really going to focus on moral justification in this debate. Rather, I'm concerned with the actual debate topic, which is establishing, you know, what the Quran endorses and what the historical Muhammad, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, what he actually, what his beliefs and norms actually were. So that's, um, so for justification, consult my other debates. For moral justification, that's not what I'm going to be doing in this debate. I'm just going, I'm trying to determine historically what does Islam actually say and endorse. That's what the debate is about, as opposed to justifying it or giving a moral explanation to like a broader non-Muslim audience. Okay, so, uh, should I share my screen now?

Ready for you. Okay, one second. Sorry, sorry, James. While waiting, want to remind you, folks, if you haven't yet, hit that like button. We appreciate that support. All right, ready for you, Daniel. The floor is all yours.

Okay, you can see. Yep. Right. Alhamdulillah. Today's debate is about traditionalism versus modernism. When I refer to modernism, I mean liberal reformism, meaning the liberal reform of Islam. To understand liberal reformism, we have to understand something called the historical critical method, or HCM. Liberal reformers like Javad, like, uh, to use the historical critical method for their ideological agenda. So let's first get a better understanding of HCM, and then we can talk about how liberal reformers selectively use that method to promote liberal reform of Islam.

Religious people believe that their scriptures and doctrines can be traced to the founders of their religion. Jews think the Torah and keeping kosher go back to Moses. Christians think the Bible and the doctrine of the Trinity go back to Jesus. Buddhists think that the Tripitaka goes back to Buddha. The historical critical method, however, says, "No, you may think your religious doctrines go back to the founders, but probably they do not." This is the fundamental premise of HCM. HCM says all religious traditions assume that their doctrines go back to their founders, who have access to divine revelation, but in most cases, this is false. If you look at the historical evidence, most scriptures and doctrines cannot be traced to the founders, and there's plenty of evidence showing how these things were developed over time, far after the founder lived, and then these scriptures and doctrines were back-projected onto those founders.

The historical critical method was pioneered in the 19th century and was primarily used to undermine traditional Judaism and Christianity. Later, it was also used against Islam. But initially, Western academics assumed that Islam was very different from Judaism, Christianity, and all other religions. These academics said that when it comes to other religions, their doctrines can't be traced back to Moses or Jesus, but when it comes to Islam, the Islamic tradition should be considered largely historically accurate. For example, the 19th-century French academic Ernest Renan said in his book, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, quote, "In place of the mystery under which the other religions have covered their origins, Islam was born in the full light of history. Its roots are on the surface. The life of its founder is as well known to us as that of any 16th-century reformer. We can follow year by year the fluctuations of his thought, his contradictions, his weaknesses." Clearly, Renan was not a fan of Islam, but he acknowledges that Islam is not like other religions. Its history is not a mystery. Uh, other academics like Theodor Nöldeke and Julius Wellhausen make similar statements. These aren't friends of Islam, but they admit that as far as historical preservation is concerned, Islam is in a different category from other religions.

Then in the 1970s, you get a new wave of Western academics who challenge all this. People like John Wansbrough, Patricia Crone, Michael Cook. These academics say, "No, we need to be more critical of Islam." This is because the earliest Islamic texts were written roughly 100 years after the Prophet's death, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, around the year 750. So how can we know that those texts are accurate in describing the origins of Islam and the Islamic doctrines in the time of the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam? People can forget a lot in 100 years. A lot of the doctrines could change in 100 years. So we have to be radically skeptical of these texts and not just assume that they actually go back to the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam.

So historical critical academics were radically skeptical of the Islamic tradition. Three of their main points were: Number one, Muhammad, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, and Mecca didn't actually exist. The Quran, Hadith, and other scriptural texts are an amalgamation of Arabic literature compiled over time, well after the life of the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam. The basic Islamic account of the Prophet's career and his life events are just mythology. Historical critical academics, academics said, if we want to learn about the origins of Islam before 750, we have to look at historical sources from non-Muslims or datable inscriptions from before 750, because this material predates Muslim sources.

Now, since the 1970s, much has changed. Many of these claims against Islam had to be thrown in the trash. They claimed that the Quran was just Arabic literature compiled over time, but paleographic and radiocarbon evidence has proven that the Quran dates to the time of the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, and did not change over time. Second, it's also been proven that the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, actually existed, not just because the Quran mentions him, but also because 7th-century Christians are mentioning him. Third, the claim that we don't know the early Islamic history has also proven mistaken. Historians have verified the basic details of the Prophet's career in Mecca and Medina, sallallahu alaihi wasallam. So the three main claims of these hyperskeptical academics have all been debunked, and the historical critical method as applied to Islam has been nothing but one failure after the other. That's the track record of HCM as applied to Islam.

But, but the proponents of HCM are not ready to give up just yet. Sure, they've abandoned their main claims against the Islamic tradition, but now they've moved on to secondary claims. They say, "Fine, we accept that the Quran is authentic, but the Hadith are fabricated. Fine, we accept that the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, existed, but other Islamic doctrines related to patriarchy, conquest, slavery, etc., those were invented later and back-projected onto the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam." This is what Javad claims, and it all revolves around the 100-year gap where allegedly there's no evidence showing that early Muslims supported these traditional Islamic doctrines. But is this true? Is there really no hard evidence that Muslims prior to the year 750 supported patriarchy, conquest, slavery, etc.? This is what we're about to debunk, inshallah.

Now, let's be clear, uh, the historical critical method has been a failure when applied to Islam, but that doesn't mean Muslims have to reject HCM completely. After all, HCM has done a great job proving one very important Islamic claim, namely that Judaism, Christianity, and the Bible have radically evolved over time. So as Muslims, we don't reject HCM out of hand. There's nothing inherently wrong with looking for historical evidence for religious claims. That being said, despite some valid aspects, HCM also has some fundamental problems. One fundamental problem is language. Historical critical academics are not trained in the interdisciplinary studies of language and the biological and etymological foundations of language use. This is a glaring deficiency because HCM academics are very interested in interpreting the Quran. The problem is they have a very simplistic understanding of language.

When you read the Quran, clearly there are multiple interpretations of some verses, but what's the correct interpretation? Are all interpretations equally valid? According to interdisciplinary scholarship on language, understanding the meaning of a text is about understanding the intentions of the author, and you cannot understand the intentions of the author without understanding his beliefs and norms. If you're clueless about the beliefs and norms of the author, you still might be able to get some meaning from the text, but your interpretation is liable to be inaccurate, or you might even understand something as the opposite of what the author intended. Imagine a boat. The beliefs and norms of the speaker anchor the meaning of speech. If you detach the boat from the beliefs and norms of the speaker, then the boat becomes unmoved and can easily be carried off and lost at sea, or even capsize.

Now, let's apply this to the Quran. Take the verse, "Don't drink wine." How do we interpret this? Does it mean don't drink wine specifically, but beer is okay? Does it mean drinking wine is okay as long as you don't get drunk? What exactly does the Quran mean? Well, beliefs matter. If the speaker believes that there's something uniquely bad about wine specifically, and other types of alcohol are not bad, then the speaker might be just prohibiting wine but has no problem with beer. But if the speaker believes that what is bad about wine is that it can intoxicate you, then when he prohibits wine, that prohibition also applies to other intoxicants, including beer, as well as meth or cocaine, for example. If the speaker believes that wine specifically causes cancer, but beer doesn't, then the speaker's intent might be to ban wine as a means of preventing cancer, but he has no problem with beer. Also, in the future, the speaker might allow wine if a new type of wine were invented which does not cause cancer. So the beliefs of the speaker matter. The norms of the speaker also matter.

For example, take the Quranic command, "Do not kill." Does this mean we should not kill animals? Well, to properly interpret this command, we have to understand the norms of the speaker. If a Buddhist or a Jain says, "Don't do not kill," that means don't kill animals because Buddhists and Jains are vegetarian. But if a non-vegetarian says, "Do not kill," then we would interpret that as don't kill humans, but animals are okay. When the Quran says, "Do not kill," we know from Hadith that the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, ate meat. If there were Hadith saying the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, refused to eat meat, then we would interpret the Quranic command "Do not kill" very differently.

In Islam, the relevant beliefs and norms are those endorsed by the Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu alaihi wasallam. In traditional Islamic scholarship, these beliefs and norms are determined largely on the basis of Hadith. But if we eliminate all the Hadith and evidence using HCM, the interpretation of the Quran becomes very difficult. Interpreting the text gets radically subjective. Imagine if we tried to interpret Hitler's Mein Kampf without referencing the actual beliefs and norms of Hitler. Is it possible to read Mein Kampf as a love letter to the Jews? Yeah, if you're creative enough and you're willing to engage in enough textual mental gymnastics. Obviously, I'm not trying to compare the Quran to Mein Kampf, but what is analogous is detaching text from the speaker's beliefs and norms. That's exactly what liberal reformers want to do with the Quran. Liberal reformers make claims about the Quran, but they don't recognize that interpretation of the Quran becomes radically subjective if you don't take into account the beliefs and norms of the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam. This is a methodological point the liberal reformers fail to recognize. They don't want to recognize this point because they want to give their liberal interpretations unhindered by historical reality. They want to do goofy textual gymnastics in order to reinterpret the Quran in a liberal fashion with absolutely no concern for the beliefs and norms of the Prophet himself, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, because those beliefs and norms would block their liberal interpretation. So this is a fundamental problem.

So now that we've covered language and the importance of knowing the beliefs and norms of the author, how do we know the beliefs and norms of the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, other than the Quran? Muslims know the beliefs and norms of the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, through Hadith. And obviously, I believe that these sources are valid, and I include them in my analysis. But I'm going to steal man the liberal reformist position and bring other evidence. Liberal reformists like Javad rely on HCM to reject Hadith and Tafsir literature as later fabrications. Obviously, I don't agree. But the reformist argument is so weak that even if we put the Hadith aside, there's still plenty of evidence that shows how the beliefs and norms of the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, are consistent with traditionalism as it stands.

Historical critical academics use a few different sources to understand the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, but they use these sources inconsistently. One major source of information about the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, is to compare Islam to other religions in late antiquity. This is a valid source for understanding the beliefs and norms of the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, but historical critical academics are very selective in their comparisons. For example, the historian Fred Donner. Donner proposes a radical thesis that early Islam was ecumenical, meaning that Muslims saw Jews and Christians as fellow believers who could attain salvation. Donner supports this thesis by noting how Islam shared certain doctrines with 7th-century Judaism and Christianity. Jews and Christians wanted to conquer the city of Jerusalem, and the early Muslims also wanted to do this. So according to Donner, maybe they united in this ecumenical fashion in pursuit of a shared goal. But Donner is cherry-picking because when we look at 7th-century Judaism, they were extremely sectarian and would never have even conceived of uniting with each other for the purpose of conquering Jerusalem or anything else. So why was early Islam influenced by the Jerusalem doctrine, but was not influenced by the rampant sectarianism? Donner cherry-picks whatever supports his thesis and ignores everything else. This is inconsistent and not very intellectually compelling.

Another source that Western academics use inconsistently are reports from 7th-century non-Muslims. This is a valid source, but it's also not used consistently. Again, to use Donner as an example, Donner wants to show that there is this believers' movement with Jews, Christians, and Muslims all working together. So whenever he finds a 7th-century report from a Christian saying that Muslims prayed in a church or collaborated with Christians, Donner says, "Aha!" and he cites that. But when the source says that Muslims were destroying synagogues, they were breaking crosses, they were taking half the wealth of Christians as jizya, Donner ignores all of that, or he dismisses it as an isolated exception. So this is just post hoc reasoning and, and the most egregious kind of cherry-picking.

A third historical, a third source that historical critical academics use is archaeological data, such as radiocarbon data, manuscripts, paleography, inscriptions, and other physical artifacts. Again, this is a valid source, but Western academics don't use them consistently. For example, proponents of HCM often claim that there are inscriptions that resemble the traditional Shahada, but some of

The inscriptions don't mention Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam. They take this as evidence that the early Muslims didn't really emphasize belief in Muhammad as the messenger sallallahu alaihi wasallam, but were mainly concerned with monotheism. Which is why they built bridges with Jews and Christians and formed this ecumenical Believers movement.

Someone might be duped into thinking this is a solid theory, until you realize that the same academics systematically ignore other authentic sources that do mention the importance of Muhammad as messenger sallallahu alaihi wasallam. So, these are three sources of evidence besides the Quran that are valid, and we can use them to understand the beliefs and norms of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam.

The problem is that Western academics are not using these sources consistently. But there are actually deeper problems. A huge problem is that the HCM academics ignore evidence from biology, psychology, and quantitative social science. This is problematic because the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam was a human, and as such, he shares a biological and psychological similarity with humans today. And humans, as a matter of biological fact, have specific beliefs and norms.

Biology, psychology, and the quantitative social sciences provide a vast amount of information that can help us understand the beliefs and norms of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam and the earliest Muslims. Beliefs and norms that are extremely relevant to this debate. People across space and time share similar beliefs and norms about patriarchy, gender roles, exclusivism versus pluralism, about punishing certain sexual behaviors, about war, about slavery. Not only are these beliefs and norms shared across humanity, but they're also shaped by different types of societies. But this evidence is ignored by Western Islamic Studies.

In the quantitative social scientists, researchers analyze a large amount of data collected from thousands of cultures around the world. They then infer patterns and trends that allow them to categorize these societies. Societies fall into four categories: hunter-gatherer, pastoral, agricultural, industrial. We have statistical data about the patterns of beliefs and norms across these four categories. What do all pastoral societies have in common? What do all agricultural societies have in common? This is data that can help us better understand the beliefs and norms of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam and his companions, simply because they lived in a pastoral, patrilineal society. We can make many accurate inferences on the basis of this data. But this data is ignored by Western academics and Islamic Studies. So, this is a major methodological problem with HCM.

So, to recap, we have identified three major problems with HCM scholarship, and we outlined the seven types of evidence needed to determine the beliefs and norms of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. We can visualize it like this. Now that we've covered HCM, let's talk about liberal religious reform and how reformists like Javad selectively use HCM for their political ends.

Liberalism is a project that emerged in the 18th century in the Enlightenment. Philosophical liberalism has always aimed for civilizational progress. Civilizational progress is about scientific advancement and human rights norms. As such, liberals have always had a problem with traditional religions because traditional religions' doctrines conflict with science and liberal human rights norms. So, liberals have always had it as their goal to destroy traditional religion. But liberals realize that it's difficult to convince society to completely reject religion. What we need to do is to get people to gradually change their religion. This is called liberal reform. You usually remove traditional doctrines that conflict with science and liberal human rights. In Europe, liberals just first reformed Judaism and Christianity. Then, in the 19th century, colonialism spread liberal reform throughout the rest of the world.

Liberal reform can be understood like a very simple computer program or a bot. Take any doctrine like polygyny (multiple wives). Step one is deauthentication. The liberal bot will try to de-authenticate polygyny by saying that polygyny is not actually found in the Quran, that all the Hadith that support polygyny are fabricated, that polygyny was developed 100 years after the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam, etc., etc. HCM is obviously useful for this deauthentication step. But sometimes deauthentication doesn't work. Polygyny is found in the Quran. So then the bot is programmed to go to step two: reinterpretation. The liberal bot tries to reinterpret the Quranic verse and do all kinds of goofy mental gymnastics to say that the verse is not actually about marrying multiple wives, it's about gender equality and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But sometimes the reinterpretation step doesn't work either. Maybe the verse is too unequivocal and too hard to deny. So the bot moves to step three: temporary concession. The bot is programmed to say, "Fine, polygyny is something authentic and it was practiced in the time of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam, but this was only a temporary thing for those times and that context. In our times, in our context, polygyny is unacceptable. And if we really focus on the message of the Quran, we'll see that it's all about gender equality and giving women their rights. That's the core message of the Quran. So clearly Islam wanted to eventually ban polygamy."

So, this is the three-step liberal program. This is the basic script that liberal bots have been using for 300 years to strip away all non-liberal religious doctrines. The thing is, is once you start using this program, there's no stopping. The program can be used to destroy literally every single religious doctrine. Liberal reformers get their foot in the door with doctrines like slavery and minor marriage, basically the most politically sensitive topics. They pressure traditionalists to renounce these sensitive doctrines, and some traditionalists unfortunately cave. They'll say, "Well, maybe the Hadith are not authentic," or "Maybe Islam always meant to abolish slavery," "Maybe minor marriage was only meant for ancient times," etc. But once the traditionalist concedes on one doctrine, he has no principal basis to reject further reform. So, once the traditionalist throws out slavery, then the liberal reformer attacks the next most politically sensitive issue and says, "Well, you were willing to acknowledge that slavery was a relic of the past, why not polygyny? Why not hijab? Why not banning? Why not the banning of alcohol?" And on and on.

Maybe the doctrine of heaven and hell was just a temporary concept meant for people 1400 years ago who couldn't understand higher ethics. But in the 21st century, we obviously understand higher ethics and don't need to be scared like children by the concept of Hellfire. So even the concept of heaven and hell should be reformed. Or maybe even the concept of worshiping God. People 1400 years ago needed this metaphorical idea of God and worship. But in our time, people are more rational and intelligent. We don't need a concept like God in order to be good people. As long as you believe in some higher power and are nice to others, that's all you really need. In this way, liberal reform completely destroys religion. And that doesn't mean the liberal reformers themselves are atheists. Some of these liberal reformers might even practice religion. The problem is, they're using a methodological approach that, when taken to its logical conclusion, obliterates religion.

Two examples of religious reformers are Sayyid Ahmed Khan and Muhammad Abduh, who were big fans of colonialism and promoted the reformist project on behalf of their colonial masters. Interesting. Javad identifies with these specific liberal reformers, and he says he's following their legacy, and he really is. Javad, like all liberal reformers, should be seen as a colonial agent. Liberal reform is all about Western domination because traditional religious people don't want to abandon their traditions, but the liberal hegemonic West forces them to do so via colonialism and neo-imperialism. This results in civilizational genocide and it licenses white supremacist domination over the entire world, including the Muslim world.

Now, with Javad specifically, he's going to use this reform script. He's going to deny the authenticity of texts and reinterpret them. He may even resort to step three. We've already seen it in his opening. He's going to selectively use HCM to undermine traditionalist doctrine he doesn't like, such as slavery, patriarchy, conquest. Javad denies the Hadith that support these doctrines, and then when it's pointed out that these doctrines are actually supported by the Quran, he'll engage in all these kinds of goofy gymnastics to reinterpret the Quran to match his liberal ideology.

Here's how we can visualize this: You have traditional Islamic doctrines that this debate is all about: gender roles, patriarchy, restrictions on sex, restrictions on non-Muslims, conquest, slavery, concubinage. These doctrines are supported by the Quran and Sunnah as they have been understood for centuries. Javad will use HCM to attack the Hadith by saying they cannot be reliably traced back to the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam, and he'll attack the Quran by doing his goofy gymnastics.

But are these the only proofs that support the traditional doctrines? No. We also have biology and quantitative social sciences. We also have other HCM-approved sources like archaeology, late antique religions, and contemporaneous non-Muslim writings. These are the kinds of evidence that Javad selectively ignores, despite calling himself an academic. In reality, Javad brings nothing new. He just regurgitates the 300-year-old script. He's like a trained seal, basically. This is Javad's scholarship, quote unquote. This is the type of scholarship Western Islamic Studies produces, just ideological propaganda. Everyone knows this. These academics pretend like their religious studies degree is some kind of deep, sophisticated science when it's just liberal propaganda. It's basically one step up from feminist dance theory. That's the best way to look at it. It has all the objectivity of interpretive dance. Ultimately, Javad is an ideological activist masquerading as an academic. But more than that, we must recognize Javad as an agent of colonialism, and his mission, whether he recognizes it or not, is to destroy Islam through this liberal reformism. He's engaged in the genocidal work of neocolonialism. And this is one of the many reasons that I don't consider this an intrafaith debate, but an Interfaith debate between me as a Muslim and Javad as a non-Muslim mortad. Thank you.

You, you got it. Thank you very much for that opening. Want to give you guys a heads up in the chat on the format for tonight. As tonight is a very special debate, in particular, we had just gone through the general statements, you might say, for each of our speakers. We are now going to have three separate parts, covering respectively gender and sexuality, then religious freedom, and then conquest and slavery. So, we're going to go into part one on gender and sexuality. This will be 10 minutes from Javad. Want to remind you folks, if you haven't yet hit that like button, we appreciate that support. Javad, thanks very much. The floor is all yours. We had it there, and then the, uh, slides disappeared. Sorry, I was on mute. I'm sorry. Just one second. No problem. We don't start the time yet. Uh, okay. Thank you. Uh, I'll start now. All right. So, Islamic modernists, we affirm the ontological equality of women, and this is based on the Quran. The Quran endorses basic human equality since we all come from the same soul. And, uh, the most noble of you before God are the most piously righteous of you. So, we're all equal. In fact, God has made you spouses from your own kind, and because it's from your own kind, the relationship should be one of affection and mercy, not domination or sexual exploitation.

Unfortunately, the pre-modern Islamic tradition didn't go in that direction and said that the woman was not created of the same kind, but was actually created from the rib of man. In fact, was created from the worst, most crooked of the ribs. And because of that, this idea was used in the medieval period to stress women's status as a lesser creation and subject to male control. Women were considered inferior in almost every sense. This was an explanation for why women have unsteady morals, were unruly. This is why they were a fitna, harmful, they were deficient in intelligence, deficient religion. And this was all backed up by Hadith that were generated. Eve was created wise, but was then made foolish. She was actually locked into perpetual immaturity. That's the view of women. Women are ungrateful. They are actually going to be the majority of the followers of the Antichrist. They're going to be the majority of the followers, sorry, the majority of the dwellers of Hellfire. In other words, the pre-modern view was that women were ontologically inferior creatures. This is because they were created from the rib, and that's why you need to confine your woman. So, a lot of neo-traditionalists today would like to argue for complementarianism, which is the view that husband and wife will have equal but different roles. This is actually a very modernist view. The pre-modern view was actually one of complete inferiority of women, and that was expressed by Ashraf Ali Thanvi, who was a major traditionalist scholar in South Asia. This is what he said: "Ladies, how can you be equal to men? You have been kept at the rear in virtually everything. Men are superior to women in respect to their natural capabilities, in their intelligence, bravery, power, intellectual capabilities, strategic planning, etc. Man is the leader, and woman is the subject. It is safe for a woman to be subjected and obedient to a man." So, this is the view of the pre-modern tradition, which can only be called misogynistic and led to the complete objectification of women.

Let's take a look at that. Now, Daniel, in his book, and always is talking about secular liberal societies, how they objectify women and commodify sex, and how you can only have safe sex in marriage and through a marriage contract. I actually agree with him on this. But this is actually a very modernist take. It's the modernists who say that any sexual intercourse requires a marriage contract, and sex outside of marriage is not permissible. Meanwhile, the pre-modern, medieval Islamic sexual ethics was that you can have sex with whoever you want outside of marriage, primarily an extra-maritally, that is, with sex slaves. You can have as many sex slaves as you want. You can have an entire harem of sex slaves, thousands of them. There were, in fact, sex markets where you could go purchase girls and women, and even boys and eunuchs. We'll talk about that shortly. In fact, the entire institution of marriage was influenced by the institution of concubinage. The parallel between wife and slave was simply assumed. A man owns both his wife and his slave. In fact, the marriage contract was a sale. It was a sale of the wife's vagina or bud, or which is also vulva, actually. And this sale basically allowed the husband basic control over a wife's sexuality and physical mobility in the same way that a master has control over a slave's mobility and sexuality. And this led to the complete objectification of women.

Now, Daniel talks about the commodification of sex. He's worried about Netflix and Tinder and all this kind of stuff, and I agree with him. But then how come he doesn't isn't bothered by this sexualization and objectification of women? Here's Ibn Umar, who is a, who the Prophet's companion, who would put his hand between the breasts and buttocks of a slave girl before he was purchasing them. And this is a chain that's authenticated by Al-Albani. And he would shake the breast of this woman. And when he would explain himself, he would say, "She is but an item for sale." In fact, the idea of examining the goods before you buy them, this was widely accepted by Islamic jurists, who said that this verse about covering up modestly, 33:59, was actually only for free women. It wasn't for slave girls, and slave girls were not allowed to cover up. This was forbidden because for slave girls, the awrah, or the amount to cover, was just between the navel and the knees, and the breast could be uncovered. In fact, as Jonathan Brown writes in his book, buyers at slave markets could press in the buttocks and breasts of potential slave girls, no problem. And the Islamic jurists justified this. They were okay with the sex slave trade. They're okay with sex slave markets. And you see here that I had to edit out these pictures. These women were just completely uncovered. This is the sex ethics that he's trying to back up. He talks about family and having kids and all this kind of stuff. But here you have the medieval scholars. Here's Imam Ghazali saying, "Yeah, you can have coitus interruptus with your slave girl, that is, ejaculate outside of her so that she doesn't dare get pregnant." So, this of course had a corrosive effect on family life. In fact, it destroyed married and family life. In fact, Sultans even ceased to contract legal marriages. Why would they do that when they could just have harems full of slave girls, hundreds, thousands of them, who, who actually they couldn't have sex with all of them? So, this forced many of them to, uh, they were like going into adultery and have homosexual affairs. Here's Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan, who is Daniel's buddy, who says himself that he wouldn't have wives if he could, he would just have concubines. And you know what? That's what the Sultans did. They had 700 female slaves, they had 4,000 sex slaves, and they even had 8,000 young boys. We'll talk about that shortly. But this all makes the Playboy Mansion quite mild in comparison. In fact, we're talking about Saudi Arabia, the Ikhwan, the founder of modern-day Saudi Arabia, which propagates the ideology that Daniel follows, which, by the way, was backed by the British. He owned 3,000 people and he distributed slave girls to his close collaborators. This is what Daniel follows. You can look at this disturbing documentary that shows a slave market in 1964 in Saudi Arabia. Here are some pictures again. Look how they're uncovered. This is the ethics he's talking about. One harm led to another. They actually had to, if you had a harem full of sex girls, then you needed eunuchs to guard them. Eunuchs were people who were forcibly castrated, their balls were cut off or the penis was removed, and they would guard the cage, the harem, full of slave girls. Now, the jurists didn't allow the Muslims to actually do the castration, but they had no problem with importing them or having non-Muslims do that, so that it was actually widespread in Islam.

Pre-modern Islamic societies. Another evil that was prevalent was pederasty. Daniel tried to deny this in the debate with Inspiring Philosophy, but what Islamic scholars forbade was simply the, the actual act of anal intercourse. They didn't have a problem with pederasty in general. In fact, they said that writing pederastic love poetry was perfectly okay. Daniel has a problem with Western media when it talks when it has Miley Cyrus and the sexualization of young girls, etc., and I have a problem with that too. But then surely Daniel should have a problem with his medieval scholars like Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani arguing that love, pederastic love poetry is okay. In fact, this was completely normalized. Images of an adult male pining for a teenage boy and begging for a kiss or a lick kiss did not arouse disgust at this time, and this was widely accepted. In fact, this major Hanbali scholar said there was nothing reprehensible in loving a boy chastely. There was this idea of chaste love of young boys. In fact, there was an entire genre of man-boy love, chaste martyr, which you would become a shaheed for this love if you died for that. Pederasty was, in fact, widespread in pre-modern Islamic societies because of this normalization by our Islamic scholars. And it was only in the modern period, actually, it's in the modern period that Western visitors came and were horrified by this widespread pederasty in pre-modern Islamic societies. And it was actually the Islamic modernists who actually were embarrassed by this and said, you know what, these Europeans, they're actually right, this goes against our religion. And so it's the case that the Islamic modernists are the ones who work to change the attitudes and change this normalization of normalizing pederasty. Should we oppose this just because the West is the one who brought up the critique? Surely not.

In some pre-modern medieval Islamic sexual ethics allowed concubinage, sex slavery, and normalized eunuchs and pederasty, thereby destroying the concept of monogamous marriage or a stable family life. It's the Islamic modernists who argued for sex within the bounds of marriage and the requirement for a marriage contract, even with your slave, who then became your slave wife. Here's the evidence from the Quran. It's clear as day, no textual acrobatics, as Daniel says. Verse 4:25: "And whosoever amongst you has not the means to marry free believing women, then marry the believing young women among those whom your right hands possess. Though so wed them, give unto them their proper brides' wealth as marry chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." That's the end of Daniel's entire argument. And when they are married, then they become slave wives, of course. And the Quran condemns those who follow their lust and just have sex with concubines without that marriage contract. Here's another verse in Surah 24 that says, "And marry those who are single among you, and marry the righteous among your male slaves or your female slaves. And let those who are unable to marry be chaste." It doesn't say go and have sex with the concubine. It says be chaste. And Daniel was making fun of chastity in his last debate. "And as for those among the ones whom your right hand possesses who seek a contract of marriage with them, if you know of any good in them, and compel not your female slaves into fornication if they desire to be chaste. And whosoever compels them, this is condemned." And Daniel says that it's okay to rape your slave. Muhammad Asad says the above verse reiterates the prohibition of concubinage by explicitly describing it as whoredom. Let's look at that word. It doesn't just mean literal prostitution, as unfortunately the medieval exegetes took it. Here's a narration which clearly shows that it's talking about any extramarital sex, zina. And we know that from the Quran itself, because the word is used in reference to Mary, not unchaste, 19:20 and 19:28. And here's an Arabic dictionary that shows it just, it doesn't mean literal prostitution, it means fornication and adultery. It's using whoredom in that general sense. The Quran says in verse 4:3, "Marry either a free person or marry from those amongst whom your right hands possess." Again, it's always, "Take them in honest wedlock, desiring to be chaste in honest wedlock and not in fornication." This is repeated throughout the Quran. "Give unto them their brides' wealth." Again, the same verse, "not as fornicators or lovers." This is clear as day, no textual acrobatics. Daniel says that you can just compel, and he laughs at this, that you can, it's just like giving somebody a burger for somebody to have sex. It's like forcing them to eat a burger. But the Quran says, "And compel not your female slaves into fornication if they desire to be chaste." Here's Daniel having a big problem with, you know, why can't we rape our sex slaves? It's a big problem for him.

Anyways, these are some other issues that I want to talk about: the easy, instant divorce for men, polygamy with wives under rotation, and child marriage. But we don't have time right now for that. But I will say this: the medieval tradition was based on an ontologically inferior status for women, who were likened to slave children and foolish people, even locked in perpetual immaturity. The legalization of concubinage had a hugely deleterious effect on women and married life. While elite men could have wild sex with hundreds of slave girls and go to sex markets to purchase more women, free Muslim women were locked up in their homes because they were the fitna, remember, not the sex-crazed men. The medieval tradition was full of sex harems, concubinage, eunuchs, man-boy love normalization, and other debauched ways which Islamic modernists got rid of and replaced with a monogamous, lifelong marriage. Islamic modernism is more family-oriented, while the medieval Islamic tradition endorsed absolute sexual debauchery. On sexuality, Daniel will need to prove or disprove this. The Quran mandates that sexual intercourse can only take place with a marriage contract. And how will Daniel respond? "Nay, I follow what we found our forefathers doing." Thank you.

Thank you very much for that opening statement as well. We're going to kick it over to Daniel for his 10-minute opening statement as well. Do want to remind you folks, actually, let you know for the first time, I put a poll in the live chat. If you would like to vote on which speaker, when it comes to gender and sexuality, you identify with most. The questions are Javad, Daniel, or neither. That poll is in the live chat. So, come on over to Modern Day Debate if you're watching it live over at Daniel's channel or any other channel. It's occasionally other channels stream our content. But we're going to kick it over to Daniel. Thanks very much. The floor is all yours. Can you see my screen? Yes. Yep. Okay. Do the Quran and Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam endorse patriarchal laws, meaning laws which give men authority over women and laws which restrict sexuality? Patriarchy and limitations on sexuality are obvious when reading the Quran and Hadith.

Verse 4:3 says that men have the right to marry up to four wives, and they can also marry their slave girls. Nowhere are women given the same right to marry multiple husbands. Verse 4:11 says that sons are due twice the inheritance of daughters. Verse 2:82 says that one male witness is equal to two female witnesses. And verse 4:34, we read, "Men are authorities over women by right of what Allah has given one over the other and what men spend from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in the husband's absence what Allah would have them guard. But those wives from whom you fear arrogance, advise them, forsake them, and strike them. But if they obey you, seek no means against them." So, this verse clearly distinguishes different gender roles. Men are described as authorities, and men have a specific role of spending on their wives. The verse also gives the husband the legal right to spousal discipline. The verse does not give her the same right. Verse 2:228 reads, "Wives have rights similar to their obligations according to what is recognized to be fair, and husbands have a degree over them, a darajah." So, this is clearly not gender egalitarianism. This is patriarchy.

We also find patriarchal dress codes imposed on women. In verse 33:59, women are instructed to make their outer garments hang low. In verse 24:31, Allah instructs women to not display their beauty and to draw their headscarves over their chests. There is no equivalent set of instructions for men. So, in numerous verses, the Quran affirms patriarchy. In Surah 66:10, the Quran even describes the wives of the Prophets Noah and Lot as being under them. The Quran also prescribes legal punishments for those who engage in illicit sex. Refer to verse 14:4, 15, and verse 4:16, and verse 24:2, which prescribes lashing and confinement for fornicators. Also, refer to the 80 or so verses of the Quran concerning the condemnation of homosexuality.

Now, moving on to Hadith, we see many indications of patriarchal gender roles and restrictions on sexual behavior. The Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam had multiple wives. There's no record of any women of his time having multiple husbands. Numerous Hadith describe how women were involved with cooking, cleaning, and raising children, meanwhile men worked as merchants, farmers, and soldiers. There are authentic Hadith that condemn women's leadership, and other Hadith that describe a man as the head of the household. Hadith also describe the implementation of the hudud punishments for illicit sexual behavior, including homosexuality.

Now, liberal reformers like Javad want to deny the Hadith in order to rip the Quran from its lived context so that they can do a bunch of goofy gymnastics to somehow prove that the Quran is actually against patriarchy and against legal restrictions on sex. This is not hard to do because when you detach the Quran from the beliefs and norms of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam, you can stretch and distort the text to mean almost anything. So, other than Hadith, how do we objectively understand the beliefs and norms of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam? Biology and natural psychology are critical. Research on the biological foundations of human behavior is usually referred to as cognitive science. Such research draws on various forms of evidence, including observation of primate behavior, psychological experiments with children, cross-cultural surveys, and neuroscientific studies. Islamic Studies academics usually ignore all this data, but it's critical for understanding the beliefs and norms of the earliest Muslims.

What this research establishes is that humans are naturally inclined towards patriarchal behaviors. Biologically, women are attracted to powerful men. Men are attracted to women who are chaste. Women desire to enter into dependent relationships with men who are higher status than themselves. Veiling for women, male guardianship, the practice of gender separation, and many other sexual restrictions are also biologically rooted in what are known as mate-guarding instincts. Certain sexual practices also trigger natural disgust reactions in humans. These include incest, promiscuity, bestiality, and homosexuality. This biological response explains why all pre-modern societies put restrictions on various consensual sexual behaviors and even legally punished them. Purely on the basis of all this natural biology, we should expect that the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam endorsed patriarchal norms as well as laws restricting sexual behavior.

Now, let's consider data from the quantitative social sciences. A huge amount of research proves that agricultural and pastoral societies are highly patriarchal. This is because in these societies, there are bigger families with more children. More children means women are pregnant more often and have more children to take care of. This means women are highly dependent on powerful men. Pastoral societies are especially patriarchal because not only are women dependent on more powerful men, but men in pastoral societies go the furthest in using their power to restrict female sexuality. The reason for this is that pastoral men have to leave their wives for long, very long periods of time to graze animals or conduct caravan trading. To ensure the paternity of their children, the men in these societies enact especially strict sexual restrictions on women. Harvard Professor Joseph Henrich makes this argument in a recent influential paper. Obviously, the Prophet's society, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, was a pastoral one, so we can expect that it upheld these patriarchal beliefs and norms as well as sexual restrictions.

Now, what about archaeological data? When researchers examine rock inscriptions, they found that tribes in the Arabian Peninsula up to the 7th century and thereafter were patrilineal. Arabs would inscribe their genealogies in rock, and those inscriptions have lasted until today. These genealogies only mention male family members on the family tree. This means they were patrilineal. You don't see female family members mentioned anywhere. Why not? If the pre-Islamic Arabs and the earliest Muslims were gender egalitarian, why not mention mothers and grandmothers? Also relevant is that the inscriptions only mention male leaders. None of the inscriptions before the year 750 or after mention a single female leader. If the earliest Muslims were truly gender egalitarian, why do we not find a single rock inscription with the name of a woman leader? Also, these rock inscriptions were carved by men, not women. This indicates that men were more educated and more mobile than women of the time, a clear mark of patriarchy and gender roles.

We can also look at contemporaneous non-Muslim writings. One interesting piece of evidence comes from a text from the year 676, written by an East Syrian priest. The text warns Christian women not to marry Muslim men, who are referred to as pagans. The text has no warning to Christian men not to marry Muslim women. This obviously indicates that Muslim men were marrying Christian women, but Muslim women were not marrying Christian men. This gender difference represents Islamic patriarchal norms.

Finally, let's look at other religions in the time of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. When we look at Judaism, Christianity, and even Zoroastrianism, religions with severe restrictions on women's dress and sexual behavior. Jewish scriptures place strong restrictions on women's education and characterize women as deficient in intelligence. Both Judaism and Christianity give husbands the right to discipline their wives. Zoroastrianism required wives to be obedient to their husbands and also to veil. The ancient Semitic Mesopotamian religions of Assyria and Babylonia, which influenced pre-Islamic Arabia, enforced veiling for free women and instituted male guardianship. In Greco-Roman religion and culture, women were taught to ideally stay secluded in the home and were discouraged from going to the marketplace or engaging in trade because it was believed such transactions were too complex for women. The Byzantines and the Sassanians punished sexual infractions like adultery and homosexuality with flogging, bodily mutilation, or death. So, we have, so we have all these religions from the same time period as the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam, and we see an endless amount of evidence for patriarchy and legal restrictions on sexuality.

To be clear, my, to be clear, my claim is not that all these religions are the same. Sorry, to be clear, my claim is not that all these religions are exactly the same as Islam in every way. My claim is that these religions have beliefs and norms that are analogous to what the Quran and the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam endorse. And of course, the historical critical method agrees with me on this. Now, does this mean I agree with HCM academics that Islam borrowed these beliefs and norms from late antique religions? No, not at all. The best way to explain this is by way of analogy. Evolutionists point to humans and chimps and say, "See, they have many similarities. That's evidence that humans and chimps have a common evolutionary ancestor." In response, Christian creationists don't deny there are similarities between humans and chimps. They just say this is evidence that humans and chimps have a common Creator. Analogously, when we see similarities between these religions, that's not necessarily proof of borrowing. It is evidence of a Creator who has sent revelation to many, many people over time with similar rules, not to mention the shared human biology that these religious rules are meant to regulate.

Ultimately, there's no HCM academic who claims that the earliest Muslim community was non-patriarchal. Historians may quibble about whether or not thousands of patriarchal rules, whether some of the specific rules really existed at the time of the Prophet or were later developments. For example, all the historians agree that the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam endorsed punishments for certain sexual behaviors, but they won't agree on the details. Can I just finish the last? You've got already 30 seconds. We'll kick it over to Javad. Do want to remind you a couple things in particular, folks, for tonight's format, we have got a long one. It's going to be in total, not including the breaks, 5 hours and 25 minutes. So, believe me, we are just getting started. Our guests are linked in the description. You can hear plenty more from Daniel as well as Javad by clicking on those links below. We're going to kick it over to Javad for his five-minute rebuttal. Javad, the floor is all yours.

Wait, we doing the break? Uh, we're doing the rebuttal first, then break. We can do the break. Hadith was rebuttal, and then after these rebuttals from each of you guys, we do the 10-minute break, and then open discussion. But okay, go, go ahead with the rebuttal. I thought it was before you. And do you mind putting your mic on mute just because it's the background a little bit? And I, I will do the same for you. Uh, okay, I'll do that. Just, uh, it might have actually been noise for me, but let me just double check. I, I don't think my mic is making. I got you. I got. Let me just double check. You're on the format because I, I know that you had said that it was important for, for your prayer time, Daniel, and I wanted to make sure I got it right, and I might have screwed this up. So, let me just double check really quick. If, if you need to go for prayer, the prayer hasn't actually come in yet. That's the thing. It's like in five minutes. So, I wasn't sure because we started late. That's why. What we could do is, I think you had said right before the Q&A. But you are right, we did start late, and I do want to respect the fact that you have a consistent time that you want to. I could, I could go pray. Okay. We're going to kick it over to Javad. The floor is all yours, Javad, for your five-minute rebuttal. Uh, thank you so much, James. So, I'm going to ignore the ad hominem attacks and just deal with the intellectual arguments that were raised. Uh, so, and if, if Daniel, if you don't mind being on mute right now, um, so, number one, as far as Daniel and I, just made some notes. So, Daniel's, uh, recap of HCM, I mean, I can't take any of that seriously. That's not a serious, um, summary of HCM. He portrays it as if initially, uh, scholars thought that, uh, everything is, uh, you know, historical and authentic, and then all of a sudden, the 1970s, everything changed. Nobody would take any of this seriously. He missed out, he named like three scholars, missed out all of these names of major scholars, basically. I mean, Goldziher, Schacht, I mean, Spuler, Mu'awiya, I mean, the list can go on and on. It was not the case that, uh, they said that everything was solid and good, and then in the 1970s, it changed. No. And, and, and then he's trying to portray it as, oh, then they got refuted, and that's how reliable HCM is because they got manuscript evidence. No, actually, there were scholars who defended the authenticity of the Quran way before the manuscript evidence came out. So, it's actually the historical critical method that actually allowed us to say that, no, the Quran is earlier, and one of the major reasons is simply historical anachronisms. The Quran is devoid of historical anachronisms, whereas the Hadith is full of historical anachronisms. So, that's something that, that Daniel should address. Now, but I've made a purely religious argument that Daniel should address, which is the fact that the whole, even from a religious perspective, there's no narrator criticism done on the first level, on the chain of transmission, which is the level of the Companions. And so the Hadith corpus would fall apart because of that.

Now, uh, the other thing is, um, I'm not even, I've, if you notice today, I've been taking a very Quran-centric approach. I've been citing the Quran. So, Daniel needs to argue with the Quran. I've cited verses for him, 4:25, 24:32 to 33. So, he needs to address those, and we'll see that throughout the debate, I will be looking at the Quran. Now, I think he also came to the wrong debate because he seems to be portraying me as some postmodernist in multiple ways. Number one, he thinks that I'm going to say that interpretation is just open to interpretation, the interpreter is king. No, I'm actually going in the opposite direction. I believe the Quran is clear. As rationalists, we believe the Quran is clear and we should follow it. Whereas it's actually the traditional, and this is part of, uh, the Sharia, you know, I had this in my slides. You see that the traditional Sunni traditionalists said that the Quran is dim, ambiguous, and unclear, and therefore requires something else to interpret it, which was the Hadith and the tradition. And then Imam so, it's actually a reversal of the argument. Then he talks about textual acrobatics. It's in fact, the, I've actually shown it, and I will continue to show it. It's actually the traditional Islamic scholars who engage in textual acrobatics. And in fact, we, I showed you the quote in which they said, if a Quranic verse goes against our view, then we consider it to be abrogated, or we reject it, or we reinterpret it. And this was not only Hanafi scholars, have shown that Imam Shafi did this as well, and this was widely accepted. There's a whole book on it by Wansbrough that I recommend that you read. So, it's actually them who are engaging in textual acrobatics.

The other way that he's kind of mistaken me is, I think he's thinking that I'm going to be pushing out some progressive sexual ethics or anything goes. But I'm a modernist. So, I'm actually arguing that, uh, sex has to be in the marital relationship. You have to have a marital contract. Uh, so, again. And then the other way that he's, I think he's thinking I'm coming to the wrong debate. He's insisting that I'm saying that any form of patriarchy is bad. That's not necessarily the case. Modernists have argued, modernists are not about destroying any and all patriarchy. They do say that there's possible benign patriarchy. They're not about full equality. This is a progressive move. But what modernists are about is about improving women's rights, and they believe that the medieval tradition got this wrong, and that they didn't interpret the, uh, women's rights correctly from the Quran. And Daniel himself, in his book, says that you don't have to be a feminist in order to argue for women's rights. So, this is what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the medieval tradition got it wrong. And how did they get it wrong? Well, I've told you how they got it wrong. They got it wrong because they said that sex slavery, concubinage is okay. And yet that violates Quranic verse 4:25, clearly says that you need to marry believing young women and not to take them as fornicators or lovers, and to marry them as married or chaste women. So, that's what I am arguing. Uh, so, the real debate is not, so modernists are actually striking a third way between, uh, fundamentalism and secular liberalism. And so it's this third way that we should be addressing.

Now, Daniel is trying to portray it as if he's the traditional calling for socially conservative views, traditional views. But actually, the medieval tradition allowed you to have sex with as many people, sex slaves, as you wanted. It was, pederasty was normalized, you had eunuchs. This is sexual debauchery. It's not the kind of sexual ethics. So, unfortunately, this is not going to work in this debate because I actually know the Islamic tradition. So, you know, he's going to have to use a new script for this. Uh, he also had some strawman arguments. He said that I'm claiming, he said that, oh, there is early evidence for sex slavery in the first century. I never said otherwise. I'm arguing that the Quran itself says that you need to have a marital contract. That's it. It's clear that after the Prophet, that was not followed. That's the gap that modernists are identifying. There were many verses of the Quran that he cited, unfortunately, I don't have time to go through all of them. But for example, verse 4:34, he's trying to, uh, justify, uh, beating your wife. There's a very good article by Sahar Bahloul on this, which shows that it's not about beating the wife. It's actually about if a woman approaches, uh, sexual immorality, that is adultery, in that case, it's actually, this is actually the community, the state ruler who can enforce strikes on her. And this is based on the other verse in the Quran about lashing people for having sex outside of marriage. Now, again, I'm not a progressive who's saying that you can have sex outside of marriage. No, I'm saying that the medieval tradition is the one that's sex, that unfortunately allowed sexual indecency. As far as his arguments about Ayn Rand, we might deal with that tomorrow, when I'll actually show that it's Saudi Arabia and his ideology that has been getting the backing of the British for decades and decades. Finally, I would just close by saying that what I'm arguing for is the ontological equality of women. I'm against the ontological patriarchy that, uh, that the medieval tradition had, which had women as inferior creatures. They were dumber, they were, uh, perpetually locked in immaturity. And that is what I'm arguing against. And that's what led to all of these other evils where they couldn't understand the Quran, which, and the Quran focuses on taking care of vulnerable parties, which included women, included divorced women. So, while Daniel and his bros are talking about no strings.

We had it there, and then the, uh, slides disappeared. Sorry, I was on mute. I'm sorry. Just one second. No problem. We don't start the time yet. Uh, okay. Thank you. Uh, I'll start now. All right. So, Islamic modernists, we affirm the ontological equality of women, and this is based on the Quran. The Quran endorses basic human equality since we all come from the same soul. And, uh, the most noble of you before God are the most piously righteous of you. So, we're all equal. In fact, God has made you spouses from your own kind, and because it's from your own kind, the relationship should be one of affection and mercy, not domination or sexual exploitation.

Unfortunately, the pre-modern Islamic tradition didn't go in that direction and said that the woman was not created of the same kind, but was actually created from the rib of man. In fact, was created from the worst, most crooked of the ribs. And because of that, this idea was used in the medieval period to stress women's status as a lesser creation and subject to male control. Women were considered inferior in almost every sense. This was an explanation for why women have unsteady morals, were unruly. This is why they were a fitna, harmful, they were deficient in intelligence, deficient religion. And this was all backed up by Hadith that were generated. Eve was created wise, but was then made foolish. She was actually locked into perpetual immaturity. That's the view of women. Women are ungrateful. They are actually going to be the majority of the followers of the Antichrist. They're going to be the majority of the followers, sorry, the majority of the dwellers of Hellfire. In other words, the pre-modern view was that women were ontologically inferior creatures. This is because they were created from the rib, and that's why you need to confine your woman. So, a lot of neo-traditionalists today would like to argue for complementarianism, which is the view that husband and wife will have equal but different roles. This is actually a very modernist view. The pre-modern view was actually one of complete inferiority of women, and that was expressed by Ashraf Ali Thanvi, who was a major traditionalist scholar in South Asia. This is what he said: "Ladies, how can you be equal to men? You have been kept at the rear in virtually everything. Men are superior to women in respect to their natural capabilities, in their intelligence, bravery, power, intellectual capabilities, strategic planning, etc. Man is the leader, and woman is the subject. It is safe for a woman to be subjected and obedient to a man." So, this is the view of the pre-modern tradition, which can only be called misogynistic and led to the complete objectification of women.

Let's take a look at that. Now, Daniel, in his book, and always is talking about secular liberal societies, how they objectify women and commodify sex, and how you can only have safe sex in marriage and through a marriage contract. I actually agree with him on this. But this is actually a very modernist take. It's the modernists who say that any sexual intercourse requires a marriage contract, and sex outside of marriage is not permissible. Meanwhile, the pre-modern, medieval Islamic sexual ethics was that you can have sex with whoever you want outside of marriage, primarily an extra-maritally, that is, with sex slaves. You can have as many sex slaves as you want. You can have an entire harem of sex slaves, thousands of them. There were, in fact, sex markets where you could go purchase girls and women, and even boys and eunuchs. We'll talk about that shortly. In fact, the entire institution of marriage was influenced by the institution of concubinage. The parallel between wife and slave was simply assumed. A man owns both his wife and his slave. In fact, the marriage contract was a sale. It was a sale of the wife's vagina or bud, or which is also vulva, actually. And this sale basically allowed the husband basic control over a wife's sexuality and physical mobility in the same way that a master has control over a slave's mobility and sexuality. And this led to the complete objectification of women.

Now, Daniel talks about the commodification of sex. He's worried about Netflix and Tinder and all this kind of stuff, and I agree with him. But then how come he doesn't isn't bothered by this sexualization and objectification of women? Here's Ibn Umar, who is a, who the Prophet's companion, who would put his hand between the breasts and buttocks of a slave girl before he was purchasing them. And this is a chain that's authenticated by Al-Albani. And he would shake the breast of this woman. And when he would explain himself, he would say, "She is but an item for sale." In fact, the idea of examining the goods before you buy them, this was widely accepted by Islamic jurists, who said that this verse about covering up modestly, 33:59, was actually only for free women. It wasn't for slave girls, and slave girls were not allowed to cover up. This was forbidden because for slave girls, the awrah, or the amount to cover, was just between the navel and the knees, and the breast could be uncovered. In fact, as Jonathan Brown writes in his book, buyers at slave markets could press in the buttocks and breasts of potential slave girls, no problem. And the Islamic jurists justified this. They were okay with the sex slave trade. They're okay with sex slave markets. And you see here that I had to edit out these pictures. These women were just completely uncovered. This is the sex ethics that he's trying to back up. He talks about family and having kids and all this kind of stuff. But here you have the medieval scholars. Here's Imam Ghazali saying, "Yeah, you can have coitus interruptus with your slave girl, that is, ejaculate outside of her so that she doesn't dare get pregnant." So, this of course had a corrosive effect on family life. In fact, it destroyed married and family life. In fact, Sultans even ceased to contract legal marriages. Why would they do that when they could just have harems full of slave girls, hundreds, thousands of them, who, who actually they couldn't have sex with all of them? So, this forced many of them to, uh, they were like going into adultery and have homosexual affairs. Here's Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan, who is Daniel's buddy, who says himself that he wouldn't have wives if he could, he would just have concubines. And you know what? That's what the Sultans did. They had 700 female slaves, they had 4,000 sex slaves, and they even had 8,000 young boys. We'll talk about that shortly. But this all makes the Playboy Mansion quite mild in comparison. In fact, we're talking about Saudi Arabia, the Ikhwan, the founder of modern-day Saudi Arabia, which propagates the ideology that Daniel follows, which, by the way, was backed by the British. He owned 3,000 people and he distributed slave girls to his close collaborators. This is what Daniel follows. You can look at this disturbing documentary that shows a slave market in 1964 in Saudi Arabia. Here are some pictures again. Look how they're uncovered. This is the ethics he's talking about. One harm led to another. They actually had to, if you had a harem full of sex girls, then you needed eunuchs to guard them. Eunuchs were people who were forcibly castrated, their balls were cut off or the penis was removed, and they would guard the cage, the harem, full of slave girls. Now, the jurists didn't allow the Muslims to actually do the castration, but they had no problem with importing them or having non-Muslims do that, so that it was actually widespread in Islam.

Pre-modern Islamic societies. Another evil that was prevalent was pederasty. Daniel tried to deny this in the debate with Inspiring Philosophy, but what Islamic scholars forbade was simply the, the actual act of anal intercourse. They didn't have a problem with pederasty in general. In fact, they said that writing pederastic love poetry was perfectly okay. Daniel has a problem with Western media when it talks when it has Miley Cyrus and the sexualization of young girls, etc., and I have a problem with that too. But then surely Daniel should have a problem with his medieval scholars like Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani arguing that love, pederastic love poetry is okay. In fact, this was completely normalized. Images of an adult male pining for a teenage boy and begging for a kiss or a lick kiss did not arouse disgust at this time, and this was widely accepted. In fact, this major Hanbali scholar said there was nothing reprehensible in loving a boy chastely. There was this idea of chaste love of young boys. In fact, there was an entire genre of man-boy love, chaste martyr, which you would become a shaheed for this love if you died for that. Pederasty was, in fact, widespread in pre-modern Islamic societies because of this normalization by our Islamic scholars. And it was only in the modern period, actually, it's in the modern period that Western visitors came and were horrified by this widespread pederasty in pre-modern Islamic societies. And it was actually the Islamic modernists who actually were embarrassed by this and said, you know what, these Europeans, they're actually right, this goes against our religion. And so it's the case that the Islamic modernists are the ones who work to change the attitudes and change this normalization of normalizing pederasty. Should we oppose this just because the West is the one who brought up the critique? Surely not.

In some pre-modern medieval Islamic sexual ethics allowed concubinage, sex slavery, and normalized eunuchs and pederasty, thereby destroying the concept of monogamous marriage or a stable family life. It's the Islamic modernists who argued for sex within the bounds of marriage and the requirement for a marriage contract, even with your slave, who then became your slave wife. Here's the evidence from the Quran. It's clear as day, no textual acrobatics, as Daniel says. Verse 4:25: "And whosoever amongst you has not the means to marry free believing women, then marry the believing young women among those whom your right hands possess. Though so wed them, give unto them their proper brides' wealth as marry chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." That's the end of Daniel's entire argument. And when they are married, then they become slave wives, of course. And the Quran condemns those who follow their lust and just have sex with concubines without that marriage contract. Here's another verse in Surah 24 that says, "And marry those who are single among you, and marry the righteous among your male slaves or your female slaves. And let those who are unable to marry be chaste." It doesn't say go and have sex with the concubine. It says be chaste. And Daniel was making fun of chastity in his last debate. "And as for those among the ones whom your right hand possesses who seek a contract of marriage with them, if you know of any good in them, and compel not your female slaves into fornication if they desire to be chaste. And whosoever compels them, this is condemned." And Daniel says that it's okay to rape your slave. Muhammad Asad says the above verse reiterates the prohibition of concubinage by explicitly describing it as whoredom. Let's look at that word. It doesn't just mean literal prostitution, as unfortunately the medieval exegetes took it. Here's a narration which clearly shows that it's talking about any extramarital sex, zina. And we know that from the Quran itself, because the word is used in reference to Mary, not unchaste, 19:20 and 19:28. And here's an Arabic dictionary that shows it just, it doesn't mean literal prostitution, it means fornication and adultery. It's using whoredom in that general sense. The Quran says in verse 4:3, "Marry either a free person or marry from those amongst whom your right hands possess." Again, it's always, "Take them in honest wedlock, desiring to be chaste in honest wedlock and not in fornication." This is repeated throughout the Quran. "Give unto them their brides' wealth." Again, the same verse, "not as fornicators or lovers." This is clear as day, no textual acrobatics. Daniel says that you can just compel, and he laughs at this, that you can, it's just like giving somebody a burger for somebody to have sex. It's like forcing them to eat a burger. But the Quran says, "And compel not your female slaves into fornication if they desire to be chaste." Here's Daniel having a big problem with, you know, why can't we rape our sex slaves? It's a big problem for him.

Anyways, these are some other issues that I want to talk about: the easy, instant divorce for men, polygamy with wives under rotation, and child marriage. But we don't have time right now for that. But I will say this: the medieval tradition was based on an ontologically inferior status for women, who were likened to slave children and foolish people, even locked in perpetual immaturity. The legalization of concubinage had a hugely deleterious effect on women and married life. While elite men could have wild sex with hundreds of slave girls and go to sex markets to purchase more women, free Muslim women were locked up in their homes because they were the fitna, remember, not the sex-crazed men. The medieval tradition was full of sex harems, concubinage, eunuchs, man-boy love normalization, and other debauched ways which Islamic modernists got rid of and replaced with a monogamous, lifelong marriage. Islamic modernism is more family-oriented, while the medieval Islamic tradition endorsed absolute sexual debauchery. On sexuality, Daniel will need to prove or disprove this. The Quran mandates that sexual intercourse can only take place with a marriage contract. And how will Daniel respond? "Nay, I follow what we found our forefathers doing." Thank you.

Thank you very much for that opening statement as well. We're going to kick it over to Daniel for his 10-minute opening statement as well. Do want to remind you folks, actually, let you know for the first time, I put a poll in the live chat. If you would like to vote on which speaker, when it comes to gender and sexuality, you identify with most. The questions are Javad, Daniel, or neither. That poll is in the live chat. So, come on over to Modern Day Debate if you're watching it live over at Daniel's channel or any other channel. It's occasionally other channels stream our content. But we're going to kick it over to Daniel. Thanks very much. The floor is all yours. Can you see my screen? Yes. Yep. Okay. Do the Quran and Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam endorse patriarchal laws, meaning laws which give men authority over women and laws which restrict sexuality? Patriarchy and limitations on sexuality are obvious when reading the Quran and Hadith.

Verse 4:3 says that men have the right to marry up to four wives, and they can also marry their slave girls. Nowhere are women given the same right to marry multiple husbands. Verse 4:11 says that sons are due twice the inheritance of daughters. Verse 2:82 says that one male witness is equal to two female witnesses. And verse 4:34, we read, "Men are authorities over women by right of what Allah has given one over the other and what men spend from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in the husband's absence what Allah would have them guard. But those wives from whom you fear arrogance, advise them, forsake them, and strike them. But if they obey you, seek no means against them." So, this verse clearly distinguishes different gender roles. Men are described as authorities, and men have a specific role of spending on their wives. The verse also gives the husband the legal right to spousal discipline. The verse does not give her the same right. Verse 2:228 reads, "Wives have rights similar to their obligations according to what is recognized to be fair, and husbands have a degree over them, a darajah." So, this is clearly not gender egalitarianism. This is patriarchy.

We also find patriarchal dress codes imposed on women. In verse 33:59, women are instructed to make their outer garments hang low. In verse 24:31, Allah instructs women to not display their beauty and to draw their headscarves over their chests. There is no equivalent set of instructions for men. So, in numerous verses, the Quran affirms patriarchy. In Surah 66:10, the Quran even describes the wives of the Prophets Noah and Lot as being under them. The Quran also prescribes legal punishments for those who engage in illicit sex. Refer to verse 14:4, 15, and verse 4:16, and verse 24:2, which prescribes lashing and confinement for fornicators. Also, refer to the 80 or so verses of the Quran concerning the condemnation of homosexuality.

Now, moving on to Hadith, we see many indications of patriarchal gender roles and restrictions on sexual behavior. The Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam had multiple wives. There's no record of any women of his time having multiple husbands. Numerous Hadith describe how women were involved with cooking, cleaning, and raising children, meanwhile men worked as merchants, farmers, and soldiers. There are authentic Hadith that condemn women's leadership, and other Hadith that describe a man as the head of the household. Hadith also describe the implementation of the hudud punishments for illicit sexual behavior, including homosexuality.

Now, liberal reformers like Javad want to deny the Hadith in order to rip the Quran from its lived context so that they can do a bunch of goofy gymnastics to somehow prove that the Quran is actually against patriarchy and against legal restrictions on sex. This is not hard to do because when you detach the Quran from the beliefs and norms of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam, you can stretch and distort the text to mean almost anything. So, other than Hadith, how do we objectively understand the beliefs and norms of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam? Biology and natural psychology are critical. Research on the biological foundations of human behavior is usually referred to as cognitive science. Such research draws on various forms of evidence, including observation of primate behavior, psychological experiments with children, cross-cultural surveys, and neuroscientific studies. Islamic Studies academics usually ignore all this data, but it's critical for understanding the beliefs and norms of the earliest Muslims.

What this research establishes is that humans are naturally inclined towards patriarchal behaviors. Biologically, women are attracted to powerful men. Men are attracted to women who are chaste. Women desire to enter into dependent relationships with men who are higher status than themselves. Veiling for women, male guardianship, the practice of gender separation, and many other sexual restrictions are also biologically rooted in what are known as mate-guarding instincts. Certain sexual practices also trigger natural disgust reactions in humans. These include incest, promiscuity, bestiality, and homosexuality. This biological response explains why all pre-modern societies put restrictions on various consensual sexual behaviors and even legally punished them. Purely on the basis of all this natural biology, we should expect that the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam endorsed patriarchal norms as well as laws restricting sexual behavior.

Now, let's consider data from the quantitative social sciences. A huge amount of research proves that agricultural and pastoral societies are highly patriarchal. This is because in these societies, there are bigger families with more children. More children means women are pregnant more often and have more children to take care of. This means women are highly dependent on powerful men. Pastoral societies are especially patriarchal because not only are women dependent on more powerful men, but men in pastoral societies go the furthest in using their power to restrict female sexuality. The reason for this is that pastoral men have to leave their wives for long, very long periods of time to graze animals or conduct caravan trading. To ensure the paternity of their children, the men in these societies enact especially strict sexual restrictions on women. Harvard Professor Joseph Henrich makes this argument in a recent influential paper. Obviously, the Prophet's society, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, was a pastoral one, so we can expect that it upheld these patriarchal beliefs and norms as well as sexual restrictions.

Now, what about archaeological data? When researchers examine rock inscriptions, they found that tribes in the Arabian Peninsula up to the 7th century and thereafter were patrilineal. Arabs would inscribe their genealogies in rock, and those inscriptions have lasted until today. These genealogies only mention male family members on the family tree. This means they were patrilineal. You don't see female family members mentioned anywhere. Why not? If the pre-Islamic Arabs and the earliest Muslims were gender egalitarian, why not mention mothers and grandmothers? Also relevant is that the inscriptions only mention male leaders. None of the inscriptions before the year 750 or after mention a single female leader. If the earliest Muslims were truly gender egalitarian, why do we not find a single rock inscription with the name of a woman leader? Also, these rock inscriptions were carved by men, not women. This indicates that men were more educated and more mobile than women of the time, a clear mark of patriarchy and gender roles.

We can also look at contemporaneous non-Muslim writings. One interesting piece of evidence comes from a text from the year 676, written by an East Syrian priest. The text warns Christian women not to marry Muslim men, who are referred to as pagans. The text has no warning to Christian men not to marry Muslim women. This obviously indicates that Muslim men were marrying Christian women, but Muslim women were not marrying Christian men. This gender difference represents Islamic patriarchal norms.

Finally, let's look at other religions in the time of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. When we look at Judaism, Christianity, and even Zoroastrianism, religions with severe restrictions on women's dress and sexual behavior. Jewish scriptures place strong restrictions on women's education and characterize women as deficient in intelligence. Both Judaism and Christianity give husbands the right to discipline their wives. Zoroastrianism required wives to be obedient to their husbands and also to veil. The ancient Semitic Mesopotamian religions of Assyria and Babylonia, which influenced pre-Islamic Arabia, enforced veiling for free women and instituted male guardianship. In Greco-Roman religion and culture, women were taught to ideally stay secluded in the home and were discouraged from going to the marketplace or engaging in trade because it was believed such transactions were too complex for women. The Byzantines and the Sassanians punished sexual infractions like adultery and homosexuality with flogging, bodily mutilation, or death. So, we have, so we have all these religions from the same time period as the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam, and we see an endless amount of evidence for patriarchy and legal restrictions on sexuality.

To be clear, my, to be clear, my claim is not that all these religions are the same. Sorry, to be clear, my claim is not that all these religions are exactly the same as Islam in every way. My claim is that these religions have beliefs and norms that are analogous to what the Quran and the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam endorse. And of course, the historical critical method agrees with me on this. Now, does this mean I agree with HCM academics that Islam borrowed these beliefs and norms from late antique religions? No, not at all. The best way to explain this is by way of analogy. Evolutionists point to humans and chimps and say, "See, they have many similarities. That's evidence that humans and chimps have a common evolutionary ancestor." In response, Christian creationists don't deny there are similarities between humans and chimps. They just say this is evidence that humans and chimps have a common Creator. Analogously, when we see similarities between these religions, that's not necessarily proof of borrowing. It is evidence of a Creator who has sent revelation to many, many people over time with similar rules, not to mention the shared human biology that these religious rules are meant to regulate.

Ultimately, there's no HCM academic who claims that the earliest Muslim community was non-patriarchal. Historians may quibble about whether or not thousands of patriarchal rules, whether some of the specific rules really existed at the time of the Prophet or were later developments. For example, all the historians agree that the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam endorsed punishments for certain sexual behaviors, but they won't agree on the details. Can I just finish the last? You've got already 30 seconds. We'll kick it over to Javad. Do want to remind you a couple things in particular, folks, for tonight's format, we have got a long one. It's going to be in total, not including the breaks, 5 hours and 25 minutes. So, believe me, we are just getting started. Our guests are linked in the description. You can hear plenty more from Daniel as well as Javad by clicking on those links below. We're going to kick it over to Javad for his five-minute rebuttal. Javad, the floor is all yours.

Wait, we doing the break? Uh, we're doing the rebuttal first, then break. We can do the break. Hadith was rebuttal, and then after these rebuttals from each of you guys, we do the 10-minute break, and then open discussion. But okay, go, go ahead with the rebuttal. I thought it was before you. And do you mind putting your mic on mute just because it's the background a little bit? And I, I will do the same for you. Uh, okay, I'll do that. Just, uh, it might have actually been noise for me, but let me just double check. I, I don't think my mic is making. I got you. I got. Let me just double check. You're on the format because I, I know that you had said that it was important for, for your prayer time, Daniel, and I wanted to make sure I got it right, and I might have screwed this up. So, let me just double check really quick. If, if you need to go for prayer, the prayer hasn't actually came in yet. That's the thing. It's like in five minutes. So, I wasn't sure because we started late. That's why. What we could do is, I think you had said right before the Q&A. But you are right, we did start late, and I do want to respect the fact that you have a consistent time that you want to. I could, I could go pray. Okay. We're going to kick it over to Javad. The floor is all yours, Javad, for your five-minute rebuttal. Uh, thank you so much, James. So, I'm going to ignore the ad hominem attacks and just deal with the intellectual arguments that were raised. Uh, so, and if, if Daniel, if you don't mind being on mute right now, um, so, number one, as far as Daniel and I, just made some notes. So, Daniel's, uh, recap of HCM, I mean, I can't take any of that seriously. That's not a serious, um, summary of HCM. He portrays it as if initially, uh, scholars thought that, uh, everything is, uh, you know, historical and authentic, and then all of a sudden, the 1970s, everything changed. Nobody would take any of this seriously. He missed out, he named like three scholars, missed out all of these names of major scholars, basically. I mean, Goldziher, Schacht, I mean, Spuler, Mu'awiya, I mean, the list can go on and on. It was not the case that, uh, they said that everything was solid and good, and then in the 1970s, it changed. No. And, and, and then he's trying to portray it as, oh, then they got refuted, and that's how reliable HCM is because they got manuscript evidence. No, actually, there were scholars who defended the authenticity of the Quran way before the manuscript evidence came out. So, it's actually the historical critical method that actually allowed us to say that, no, the Quran is earlier, and one of the major reasons is simply historical anachronisms. The Quran is devoid of historical anachronisms, whereas the Hadith is full of historical anachronisms. So, that's something that, that Daniel should address. Now, but I've made a purely religious argument that Daniel should address, which is the fact that the whole, even from a religious perspective, there's no narrator criticism done on the first level, on the chain of transmission, which is the level of the Companions. And so the Hadith corpus would fall apart because of that.

Now, uh, the other thing is, um, I'm not even, I've, if you notice today, I've been taking a very Quran-centric approach. I've been citing the Quran. So, Daniel needs to argue with the Quran. I've cited verses for him, 4:25, 24:32 to 33. So, he needs to address those, and we'll see that throughout the debate, I will be looking at the Quran. Now, I think he also came to the wrong debate because he seems to be portraying me as some postmodernist in multiple ways. Number one, he thinks that I'm going to say that interpretation is just open to interpretation, the interpreter is king. No, I'm actually going in the opposite direction. I believe the Quran is clear. As rationalists, we believe the Quran is clear and we should follow it. Whereas it's actually the traditional, and this is part of, uh, the Sharia, you know, I had this in my slides. You see that the traditional Sunni traditionalists said that the Quran is dim, ambiguous, and unclear, and therefore requires something else to interpret it, which was the Hadith and the tradition. And then Imam so, it's actually a reversal of the argument. Then he talks about textual acrobatics. It's in fact, the, I've actually shown it, and I will continue to show it. It's actually the traditional Islamic scholars who engage in textual acrobatics. And in fact, we, I showed you the quote in which they said, if a Quranic verse goes against our view, then we consider it to be abrogated, or we reject it, or we reinterpret it. And this was not only Hanafi scholars, have shown that Imam Shafi did this as well, and this was widely accepted. There's a whole book on it by Wansbrough that I recommend that you read. So, it's actually them who are engaging in textual acrobatics.

The other way that he's kind of mistaken me is, I think he's thinking that I'm going to be pushing out some progressive sexual ethics or anything goes. But I'm a modernist. So, I'm actually arguing that, uh, sex has to be in the marital relationship. You have to have a marital contract. Uh, so, again. And then the other way that he's, I think he's thinking I'm coming to the wrong debate. He's insisting that I'm saying that any form of patriarchy is bad. That's not necessarily the case. Modernists have argued, modernists are not about destroying any and all patriarchy. They do say that there's possible benign patriarchy. They're not about full equality. This is a progressive move. But what modernists are about is about improving women's rights, and they believe that the medieval tradition got this wrong, and that they didn't interpret the, uh, women's rights correctly from the Quran. And Daniel himself, in his book, says that you don't have to be a feminist in order to argue for women's rights. So, this is what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the medieval tradition got it wrong. And how did they get it wrong? Well, I've told you how they got it wrong. They got it wrong because they said that sex slavery, concubinage is okay. And yet that violates Quranic verse 4:25, clearly says that you need to marry believing young women and not to take them as fornicators or lovers, and to marry them as married or chaste women. So, that's what I am arguing. Uh, so, the real debate is not, so modernists are actually striking a third way between, uh, fundamentalism and secular liberalism. And so it's this third way that we should be addressing.

Now, Daniel is trying to portray it as if he's the traditional calling for socially conservative views, traditional views. But actually, the medieval tradition allowed you to have sex with as many people, sex slaves, as you wanted. It was, pederasty was normalized, you had eunuchs. This is sexual debauchery. It's not the kind of sexual ethics. So, unfortunately, this is not going to work in this debate because I actually know the Islamic tradition. So, you know, he's going to have to use a new script for this. Uh, he also had some strawman arguments. He said that I'm claiming, he said that, oh, there is early evidence for sex slavery in the first century. I never said otherwise. I'm arguing that the Quran itself says that you need to have a marital contract. That's it. It's clear that after the Prophet, that was not followed. That's the gap that modernists are identifying. There were many verses of the Quran that he cited, unfortunately, I don't have time to go through all of them. But for example, verse 4:34, he's trying to, uh, justify, uh, beating your wife. There's a very good article by Sahar Bahloul on this, which shows that it's not about beating the wife. It's actually about if a woman approaches, uh, sexual immorality, that is adultery, in that case, it's actually, this is actually the community, the state ruler who can enforce strikes on her. And this is based on the other verse in the Quran about lashing people for having sex outside of marriage. Now, again, I'm not a progressive who's saying that you can have sex outside of marriage. No, I'm saying that the medieval tradition is the one that's sex, that unfortunately allowed sexual indecency. As far as his arguments about Ayn Rand, we might deal with that tomorrow, when I'll actually show that it's Saudi Arabia and his ideology that has been getting the backing of the British for decades and decades. Finally, I would just close by saying that what I'm arguing for is the ontological equality of women. I'm against the ontological patriarchy that, uh, that the medieval tradition had, which had women as inferior creatures. They were dumber, they were, uh, perpetually locked in immaturity. And that is what I'm arguing against. And that's what led to all of these other evils where they couldn't understand the Quran, which, and the Quran focuses on taking care of vulnerable parties, which included women, included divorced women. So, while Daniel and his bros are talking about no strings.

Nikah and, uh, you know, uh, actually hiding the wealth. Actually, Daniel and Muhammad Hijab were talking about that. How you can hide your wealth from your wife and give it to your bro instead? No, the Quran goes in the opposite direction. The Quran says, verse 9:71, "The believers, both men and women, are guardians of one another." It talks about them being garments for one another, taking care. So, the Quran is all about taking care of vulnerable women, divorce, um, orphans, etcetera. And so that is the emphasis that I think is missed, unfortunately, in the medieval Islamic tradition that I'm trying to bring to light right now.

There was a lot else that I wanted to, uh, bring up, but, uh, you know, you can only go over so much. And the only thing I would say is the mental and textual, the goofy acrobatics. We'll see that on the other side. And it's the medieval tradition who didn't want to interpret the Quran directly and instead uses the Hadith and later tradition to do textual acrobatics. And, and the methodology is simp. So, he had a bot. I'll tell you what the medieval exegesis bot was. The bot was this: "Does, oh, the Quranic verse goes against the law that I want? Therefore, I will consider it to be abrogated." And they abrogated 200 verses of the Quran on warfare because of this. Now, if some of them said, "Oh, maybe it's not abrogated, then we reinterpret it, then we specify it, then we look for another interpretation, we superimpose a Hadith upon it." So, the bot is actually the medieval exegesis. Whereas the modernist is actually trying to understand the Quran in its historical context and actually see what it meant, um, and, and go for capital T, True Truth. Whereas the postmodernist, along with the medieval exegesis, who honestly sounded like postmodernists, said, "The interpreter has all of the tools, all of the power." And that's what we saw with Jonathan Brown, as well as the medieval exegesis. That's what they believed. And that's why the Hadith and the tradition were used. Uh, do I have any more time? Uh, I think your time is out. But, uh, James dropped off. Oh, that's not good. Yeah, James has dropped out. So that's, uh, strange. Yeah, he's having connection problems. On my side, it's fine. Like, my, I'm still streaming. But, oh, looks like their, their, their stream is down. Yeah. Wow. That's not good. Not at all. Looks like it froze a while ago, actually. Well, I got your whole rebuttal. It was, it streamed fine on my side. I want it on the, uh, on the modern day debate one as well. We'll see where. Let me, let me ask where it stopped. How's your day been going? It's been going great. I'm, yeah, it's wonderful. This is, he said one out of 200 chance, but when you say that, exactly, just asking for it. Yeah, actually, my computer also like slowed down considerably. I guess it's this streaming or I don't know what it is. That's strange. It's not like you haven't streamed before, so, like, out of the ordinary for you. Is that laptop slowing down? I don't know. Yeah, it was slowing down. It was like, uh, my Acrobat was like not opening up. I'm texting James too, and he hasn't responded. Let me just call him. Yeah, he was calling me during your rebuttal. Daniel, hey James, basically my computer. Oh, yeah, no problem. So, Zoom link, you'll send again. We, we have to rejoin that. All right, okay. Yeah, yeah, he's here. I don't know what happened. I heard a funny noise, and then I looked at the screen, it was black, and then, uh, for like several minutes, I was trying to contact you guys because I knew something was wrong. And now it's just saying, "Please wait." With, okay, so I think I just got back again. Uh, hopefully, I don't know. All right, just get, send, we'll look up for the link, and then, uh, we can just rejoin. Okay, great. We'll just wait for you in the same chat. That'd be ideal. Okay, thanks, James. Don't worry about it. Thank you. Bye. All right, did he say to wait here? Here, or? Yeah, just, we have to wait here. He'll join the, cuz the Zoom room is still the same. I think. All right, so everyone watching, I'm just going to talk to people who are in my chat. Oh, looks like on that, I was cut off. I'm almost immediately. Yeah, anyone who wants to support our channel, just, there are no super chats. You can go directly to MuslimSkeptic.com and go to the Donate tab, and you can, uh, you can have the, uh, donate button right there to contribute to us. Yeah, it's very interesting chats you guys are leaving. Me no, I'm not going to ask that. Yeah, I love you guys too. Yeah, the problem James had is that his computer restarted. His computer just crashed, and then now it's like updating. So he has to go through like Windows 10 updates, I guess. So I think, uh, the lesson is, restart your computer before. That's what I did. I restarted my computer before the debate so that that doesn't happen. Yeah, so this is the first time we've had this kind of problem, but makes it more memorable. It was thundering here in the, uh, where I'm at, so I was worried that the electricity would cut out for me. So we'll see. Alhamdulillah, it hasn't happened. Good luck. I wonder if this, I don't think this has happened ever in a modern day debate. Yeah, I don't remember. I hope his laptop didn't just explode or like, just cuz he actually said his screen went black, so that's really bad. A lesson to have a backup computer, maybe. All right, James, I'm back now. His screen is black. Oh, whoops. Let's see. That was frustrating. Can you guys hear me? Yeah, we can hear you, James. I was told by multiple people that I only had one minute, and then it was cut off. So I do need to do that again. You already streamed it. It's, it's streamed on, on my side. So my stream has to hear it twice. I don't want to hear your stream twice. Is, is James even, is your stream back, guys? Just listen what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna give Javad a chance. And I'm sorry to do this, Javad, because I know that you just did it for five minutes. I know it's Daniel, that you already just heard it, and so you probably don't want to hear it again. My audience, I have 13,000 or 1300 streamers who just heard it. They don't need to hear it twice. Daniel, I'll just repeat it exactly the same. You need that. And you also had, all due respect, Javad, like, this is not fair to my listeners. It's, I know that your listeners are going to have to listen to it for five minutes again, and I apologize. Ten minutes. He's saying that he, none of his, his rebuttal got played on your stream. The rebuttal, rebuttal only five minutes. That was way over five minutes. He was talking for 10 minutes. I don't, I don't. Yes, you talked for 10 minutes. I, I do. I timed it. I thought I was like, is this 10-minute rebuttal? All right, gentlemen, just so we can get started. So what I want to do is first, I apologize for whatever just happened. I, I honestly, I'm not sure what just happened. I've never had that happen. The other thing is, it's five minutes. I know that it's something that your audience probably doesn't want to listen to, Daniel. And it, I think it, to be fair, Javad, I think it probably did go over five minutes. I always guessing by the went way over. It was 10 minutes. I, I was, I was planning on getting cut off, so I didn't, I didn't realize. That's fair. Not a big deal. I'm not worried about it. What we're going to do is the saved version because what I'm going to have to do is I'm going to have to like splice these together on Modern Day Debate because now I've got two separate streams. Is the saved version is going to be the one that uses only five minutes? So I do, I know that like, like I said, Daniel, I know that it's a, uh, for your, for your listeners, it's, they don't want to hear it again. But at the same time, it is also like, kind of Javad may feel like, oh, dang it, James, like, I felt like I did a good job and now I have to do it again because your computer screwed up. So I, I do feel like I owe it to Javad. So, but okay, but I should get the time that I lost. You guys were very strict in cutting me off on my rebuttal. We were not strict. You, 10 minutes. You, you got Daniel, you, you had extra. You had an extra. You had an extra two minutes. And then you also, instead of giving your bio, you also talked in that time. And we're giving a lot of, uh, topic related. I am willing to give you an extra minute if you'd like. I mean, you're so generous, Javad. You're the most generous morod I've seen. Okay, so go ahead. Go ahead for five minutes. No problem. And then I only get a five-minute rebuttal. He gets 15. Okay, that's fine. I promise to make it right afterward. I'm trying my. What I'll do is if I have to go back. So Javad, I have to be really strict that this has to be like literally five minutes. That's fine. I can give you that. And Daniel, I know that it's a pain to listen more than once. But what I'm going to do on, and what each of us, Daniel, can do is each of us can cut out Javad's original whatever that was, eight-minute rebuttal or whatever it was, such that both of our streams only show this five-minute one. And I know that for live audience, it's kind of like, no problem, James. Go ahead. That's fine. What I'm gonna do is, okay, let me just go on and explain. Everybody might screw up, folks. I'm figuring what went wrong. Thanks for your patience. That was definitely a technical error of some part on my side. I don't know what it was, but I'll figure that out and get back to you on what it was. So we're going to go to Javad's opening statement. I know that if you're listening live, you have already heard this Javad rebuttal. If you are listening live, you've already heard this rebuttal. But I do want to give it to Javad just because it basically, I, I feel like it's a pain that. Go ahead. It's fine. I, uh, I'm fine with it. James, sorry about that. No problem. No problem. I don't want to be petty about it. Just go ahead. No problem. We'll kick it over to. So we'll now kick it over to Javad for his rebuttal. Javad, the floor is yours for five minutes. And James, if you could give me a one-minute warning, that would be great. Thank you very much. So, uh, in my rebuttal, I'm not going to address the ad hominem attacks. Instead, I'm just going to address the intellectual arguments. I would say that I wholly disagree with and I don't know what to do with the summary that he gave of the, of historical scholarship, which simply was not accurate. He portrayed it as if, uh, so Western scholars started out with fidelity towards the text. And he used Ernest Renan's quote, which is honestly considered a joke in Western Academy, not in a joke in the sense that he was a, a bad scholar, but in the sense that it's almost every academic paper starts with that quote and says, you know, we don't really believe that. Um, but in any case, there was a long list of scholars, I mean, Goldziher, Schacht, and these people were already problematizing the Hadith long, long ago. And, uh, debates was not the case that it went all of a sudden in the 1970s to just, yes, in the 1970s, there was a strand of historical scholarship that became extremely skeptical and revisionist. And that strand, many of its major arguments got refuted, although they did benefit the scholarship as well. But that's, that was just one strand. And there were other strands that were arguing in the opposite direction. So there were people who were defending that the Quran actually goes back to the Prophet Muhammad, specifically because of things internal to the Quran itself, this is before the manuscript evidence came out. So this is a portrayal of, oh, historical scholarship just got refuted by, alhamdulillah, the Quran manuscripts. No, that's not the case. Instead, it was the fact that certain scholars made certain arguments and those ended up being correct. And that is, for example, that there are no historical anachronisms in the text, uh, there's archaic language, etcetera. Uh, so, and in any case, what I'm arguing today is a very Quran-centric approach. I'm arguing from within the Quran to to argue my specific points. And that's where I think Daniel may have come to the wrong debate because he seems to be implying that I'm some sort of postmodernist where I just take the text and say that the interpreter can mean, make it mean whatever he wants to make it mean. In fact, I'm arguing that the medieval exegesis are the ones who did that. And I showed you the quote in which there was that text in which it says that if the Quranic verse opposes our view, then we simply consider it abrogated, or we reinterpret it, or we reject it. And so it's actually the medieval tradition that did that. And we'll see that. And that's what they use the Hadith for in order to cover up or change the Quran. So we need to argue about the Quran. And when you look at the Quran, the specific claim that I've made in this debate is verse 4:25 is the key one, but there are other ones that I pointed to as well that show that you need to marry a slave girl. And that it, and it says that, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers, take them as married or chaste women, give them their bride's wealth." So this completely rules out concubinage, which is called, uh, I mean, this is, you know, sexual indecency. And that's where I would say he also has come to the wrong debate where he's trying to portray it as I'm pushing out some sort of progressive sexual ethics. I'm the one saying that you need to have, uh, sex within marriage and have a marital contract. And it's, in fact, the pre-modern Islamic tradition which allowed, uh, this kind of sexual debauchery, including unlimited sex with sex slaves, multiple wives where you can just have one on rotation due to instant divorce. You had, uh, pederasty that was completely normalized. And then you had eunuchs that were guarding your, your slaves. And even there was some, uh, homoerotic business with the eunuchs as well. So it's, this is the pre-modern tradition. It's not this idea of marriage, sex within marriage, which Daniel usually tries to propagate. That's actually a very modernist argument. So that's what I'm arguing today. Now, he raised many different verses of the Quran. I can't go through all of them. All I will say is as far as verse 4:34, which says to supposedly beat your wives, there's a really good article by Sakib Hussein, an academic article, which shows that that's not the case. That's talking about lashes that the woman gets if she is convicted of adultery. But that's a very, uh, complex argument, and you need to look at that article. It's not goofy textual acrobatics. It's actually looking at the Quran on its own terms, which is what I'm arguing for today. Lastly, I would just say that what I am pushing for, whether it's a patriarchy or not, that's not the issue. The question is, are you for ontological equality of women? And I am. I'm saying that the Quran is endorsing ontological equality because we all come from the same source. Women are not inferior in that sense. And that's what the pre-modern tradition believed. And that's what Daniel needs to defend here today. So whether it's patriarchy or not, for me, you can have a patriarchy. And in any case, the Quran was revealed in a deeply patriarchal time. So certain things are definitely historically contextual, such as inheritance and testimony and all that kind of stuff. But what my point is, is that the medieval tradition went in a very misogynistic direction in the worst-case scenario. And the reason they did that is because they believed in these kind of ideas that women are literally inferior. And so they missed out on these things. And I would say, as Daniel has said in his own book, you can be for women's rights without being a feminist. So I don't have to be a postmodernist, a feminist, completely against patriarchy 100% to argue for women's rights and argue that the medieval tradition fails to uphold the rights that are in the Quran. And the Quran is deeply concerned with vulnerable minorities, including women, divorced women, orphans, uh, slaves, uh, poor people, travelers, all the vulnerable categories the Quran is concerned with. And the basic relationship that the Quran, 30 seconds, between men and women, that's five minutes for me. I have five minutes on my rebuttal. AG, that we give a 30-second grace period. Start. Garments for one another. That's all I'm saying. The basic relationship is of garments for each other and guardians and caretakers for each other, not of dominance and sexual exploitation. Thank you. And we'll kick it over to Daniel for five minutes as well. And that has that flexible 30 seconds at the end. Thanks very much, Daniel. The floor is all yours for your rebuttal. Okay, so this is the definition of Gish Galloping. Like, his entire presentation has been Gish Galloping, bringing all these kinds of other issues and topics that have nothing to do with this debate. The debate topics, let me remind you, Javad, they're about patriarchy, restrictions on sexuality, restrictions on non-Muslim practice, conquest, and slavery. That's it. Don't bring like theology into it. Don't bring all of this, uh, bizarre, uh, issues related to free will and rationalism. Like, this is something that is way beyond the scope of the debate. So your entire opening is Gish Galloping. And that's what we've seen in your first section too on patriarchy. Um, also, uh, you're wrong about Islamic modernism. It actually emerged in the 19th, the late 19th century under colonialism. There was no Islamic modernism before that. So you're factually wrong there. Uh, you keep endorsing this view of a Quran-only understanding. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of language. You can use, you can, if you say, "Oh, I want to just understand the Quran on its own terms without looking at the beliefs and norms of the author of Muhammad," you can reinterpret it in any other way other than the intent of the author. What is so important about the life of the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, is that he is the one who is the messenger who brings the Quran, and he exemplifies the Quran in his behavior. As it said, he is the walking Quran. So we need to understand the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, and how he acted, what were his beliefs and norms, how did he live life, how did he set up his community? That is critical for understanding the Quran. If you take that all out and you say, as you've done multiple times, that we need to look at the Quran only, then you can't really understand the language of the Quran in the first place. You come up with all of these bizarre, uh, interpretations that frankly, no one is following or understanding. Also, your portrayal of Islam is just Islam is a pure denigration of all Muslim societies prior to modernity. Your whole speech, basically, in these, these two openings, has been pure hatred, pure racism, pure colonialism. And if you actually look at the atheists in the chat, they are cheering you. They love what you're saying. You're like worse than apologists. You're worse than these Islamophobes in the way that you're portraying the majority of Islamic society. You keep wanting to talk about rational speculation, but what does rational speculation have to do with this historical critical method? You claim to be an academic, you claim to be a historian. What have you said about history? You're doing is engaging what you call rational speculation or rationalization of the Quran with no interest in history. You want to look at rationalists. You prove to me where Ibn Sina or Ibn Rushd and all these other rationalists that you cited, show me where they oppose slavery. Show me where they opposed, you know, the, uh, different, uh, hudud punishments. Show me where they opposed patriarchy and conquest. Show me that if, if they're so rational. You're saying that Islamic modernism is not liberalism. That is completely false. Also, you're making this big deal about Ernest Renan. You're saying that he was considered, he started being considered a, or he was a joke. But when did he start becoming a joke? Prior to the 1970s, everyone is citing him because he's making a distinction between Islam and other religions. I'm not saying that Orientalists prior to the 1970s thought everything in Islamic tradition was accurate. That's not my claim. You just strawman that entire claim. I'm saying I'm pointing out this distinction between the, uh, prior Orientalists prior to the 1970s and the ones afterwards. Uh, yeah, so your whole presentation is like disgusting Islamophobia. It's literally being paid by the US government because of your employer. Yeah, you're just a pure morod who clearly hates Islam and you have this extremely negative portrayal of Islam and Islamic history. Pederasty was normalized. What are you talking about? Where's the evidence for that? Don't cite poetry like that's like if I cited rap music and I said like rap music about killing and murder and drug dealing and that represents, you know, the ideals of American culture. Like that's, that's basically your argument. Show me the proof that pederasty was normalized. Yeah, the scholar, some scholars did say that young boys resemble females, and therefore there could be attraction on the basis of them resembling young females. That's not normalizing pederasty, the action. That's not saying that this is something that you can act on. And it, and that was normalized by the tradition. This is nonsense, pure nonsense. Yeah, so your complex arguments, as you call them, about the Quran. Yeah, they're complex because no one can understand them. You keep citing 4:34 of the Quran about marrying slaves. Where does it say that you have to marry your, your female slaves? And the fact that you're citing this verse, it presupposes that you have female slaves. So I guess you concede the later part of this, this debate where we're going to argue about having female slaves. So you can see that female slaves are permissible to own, right? That's, that's basically a concession on that point. And, uh, yeah, you want, you say you cite Sakib Hussein. That article is trash. It engages in the same textual gymnastics that that you're engaged in. Uh, yeah, your, your caricature of Orthodox Islam is exactly that. It's just a ridiculous caricature, Gish Galloping, Islamophobia. That's all your presentation has been thus far. And like I said, you're like a pure mortad who hates like the vast majority of Islamic tradition. Like, what I'm representing is 99% of the Islamic tradition, and you're portraying that as like pederasty. Time. We're going to kick it over to actually right now. We're doing a quick change up. In particular, we're jumping into the open discussion, which is generally most people's favorite part. So gentlemen, if you can do me a favor, if we can keep this on the rails, if it won't go too far in terms of interrupting, the floor is all yours. So Daniel, what I would say to that is that it's actually you and I have multiple screenshots of Islamophobes who actually love and promote you. And you talk, you mentioned apologists. Apologists actually is telling pearly things that she wants, he wants you to be on that channel because you do such a bad job of representing Islam because you're the one who justifies sex slavery. You justified having sex with a 5-year-old, 6-year-old. You're the one who gives the worst possible interpretation of Islam. Meanwhile, I'm actually saying that the Quran doesn't say any of this. I'm actually the one who's saying that true Islam, understood through the Quran, doesn't say any of this. Now, as far as the Islamic tradition is concerned, I'm actually gymnastics, mental gymnastics, not mental gy. That's how you're doing it. Yeah, you didn't even cite the right verse. I said verse 5:425. So how do you explain verse 4:25, which says, "Don't take them as fornicators or lovers"? And says to, no, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I say? But look at 4:25, okay? And tell me why does it say, "So wed them, marry the believing young women, so wed them by permission of their people, and give unto them their proper bride's wealth as married, chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers." So please tell me why it would say that if you can just have sex with them. It's not requiring it. That's the point. It does say, "Do not take them as fornicators or lovers." No, no, that's your bizarre interpretation. It means prostitution. Zina is, does not mean sex with someone that you rightfully have a relationship with, whether that's through marriage, a marriage contract, or ownership. Zina, you don't even understand what Zina is. That's your problem. Like, this is the exact. It, look, this kind of, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of specific words. How about history? Do you want to talk about history? Say them. You care about history. Uh, of course, I care. So you're saying that no his, no historical tradition can get something wrong? You said that Jesus, that Christians believe in the Trinity. Do you think that Jesus actually preached the Trinity? You yourself have said that history. No, I, I acknowledge that the historical. Yeah, so you acknowledge the fact that a tradition can get things wrong, correct? So therefore, it is possible that Jesus could preach something that his immediate followers could get wrong. Similarly, it's possible. Yeah, so it's possible that the Prophet taught something that. That's the question. That's the question. You have to refer, you have to refer to actual history to determine that. But you don't want to look at history. Let's look at history and see what the Prophet. Let's see what the Prophet actually. That's my whole point. So first of all, you're so, you, and you have always, you keep saying that you want to avoid theology, you want to avoid scripture. I'm telling you, let's take a look at this verse 4:25. Okay? You don't want to deal with that. You want to look at pop science and pop culture. You, you follow things like, uh, the, the kind of academic books that you cite. I mean, what can I

We're going to give Daniel a full one minute, then we're going to come back to you, Javad, for a full one minute as well. Or is Daniel all right? So, I don't know why you're talking about slavery. That's not the point of this part of the debate. We're talking about patriarchy. You say that you agree with benign patriarchy. I ask you to define it. You won't define it. Patriarchy means authority of men over women. This is what patriarchy means. So, if you agree with that, and you think that that represents the Quran and the, you know, beliefs and norms of the Prophet wasallam, then we're agreed. Like, debate conceded. No problem. We'll go to the next section.

I want, we also were supposed to talk about sexual restrictions. You say that you're a modernist, so you're not a, uh, progressivist. You actually do believe in sexual restrictions. So, do you believe in lashing, the punishment for fornication as mentioned in the Quran? You know, acknowledge, like, give us a better sense of what your modernism actually amounts to. Do you believe in lashing? That's in the Quran. Uh, having women be secluded, uh, for engaging in lewd behavior? That's in the Quran. So, acknowledge that those sexual restrictions. Acknowledge the difference when it comes to inheritance. Acknowledge the difference when it comes to witnessing. All of those gender roles are in the Quran. So, where is the acknowledgement of that?

All right, thank you. So, uh, I did not say that I agree with patriarchy. What I said is that I'm okay with the possibility of benign patriarchy, and I'm not here to debate patriarchy. You try to jam that in initially when you were trying to use your clout and weight to, like, decide how the debate would go because you were scared to debate me. You're the one who was insistent. Yeah, you were so. This is how you, this is how you insisted on that. Now, what I'm arguing is, I'm, and I showed you, and I tweeted back, and I said, this is what I will be arguing. My argument is that the premodern Islamic tradition violates the Quranic ethic and goes against what the Prophet Muhammad taught, and it goes against women's rights from that perspective. So, I'm not here to say whether about gender roles and all that kind of stuff. What I am here to say is that when it comes to sexuality, the premodern Islamic tradition was all based on sex slavery. Okay? That was how marriage was also aligned with man and the woman. Now, you asked me about fornication, and what I say is, I do not support marriage, uh, sex outside of marriage, and I do think that there should be laws against that in a society. Now, that doesn't mean lashing because we don't need to. The, just like when you go to war, you don't need to have, uh, time, time. Yeah. So, look at you running. Like, you won't even answer simple questions. Like, tell, tell us about the gender roles. Tell us about patriarchy. What does benign patriarchy actually amount to? You just want to talk about sex slavery. That's, that's a separate part of the debate. Why are you running, Javad? Why can't you answer simple questions? Tell us what you mean by benign patriarchy. I defined patriarchy by referring to the Quran, by referring to Hadith, by referring to all of these historical sources, all of these late antique religions. You seem, you say that you're a historian, but you don't care what all these other religions in the Byzantine Empire, the Sasanian Empire, the Greco-Roman traditions, all of them are patriarchal. Patriarchal. All of them had, you know, this permission of men to have sex with slaves. All of them had punishments for sexual, uh, fornication and homosexuality. What do you say about homosexuality, Javad? What do you say about these sexual issues? Stop trying to change the topic of the debate. This is the problem with you. Stick, stay on the topic. Stop Gish Galloping. That's all I'm asking. It's very, very simple.

All right, my turn now. So, I'm not Gish Galloping. I'm staying right on point, which is about sexuality. And what I'm saying is that the premodern sexual ethic that you are trying to defend, all is not this family-oriented, marriage, have kids kind of. That's exactly wrong. The, the reality is is that it allowed sex with concubines, Unix, all this kind of stuff, okay? And this is based on your interpretation of the Quran because you insist that the medieval exegetes had to get it right. But I'm showing you the clear verse, which I'm going to show again, which clearly shows that you have to marry them. And you cannot answer that because you know that concubines, if you're having sex with them, that's your lover. And that's exactly what the Quran is saying against. This is not textual acrobatics. You're the one who's dodging this verse because you don't want to, uh, actually interpret it. You want to interpret it away. Now, and, and so that's actually you who's guilty of that. I'm not running away from anything. I'm telling you that your sexual ethic that you should be, uh, talking about is actually very, you know, it's, it's not something that is family value oriented or not. So that's what I'm saying. Now, as far as laws against adultery, I actually do think that that should be illegal. However, I don't think that you should lash people. I certainly don't believe in stoning. Just like when you go to war today, you don't use horses and arrows, right? Those were punishments at that time. Now we have different punishments and different laws. So if they had, like, you know, a penalty, especially if you get divorced, these are things that you can talk about. But again, I'm being very clear. I'm not dodging anything. You're the one who's dodging. You can't deal with that verse. That verse, you just can't do.

Thank you for that. That is over a minute. Sorry about that. That's way over a minute. So, okay, again, dodging the issue. You didn't tell us what benign patriarchy means. Do you believe in criminalizing homosexuality? Do you believe, um, that there are mandatory dress codes in Islam? These are the verses that I cited. You didn't address any of those verses, any of the verses on gender roles, mandating gender roles. Is that something that you believe in? Those are the specific debate topics. You're Gish Galloping by talking about other issues. You want to talk about one verse, and it's again, it's based on your radical subjective interpretation. Uh, in that verse, you're saying that this means, um, slave women? No, there's different interpretations from the exegetes. None, no one had that interpretation that you have. So, this is exactly the problem because you are not actually grounding the discussion or grounding the interpretation of the Quran in the historical practice of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. That's what I'm doing. You're avoiding that. So, tell me, should the adult? So also, you're saying that it doesn't even matter what the Quran says because now we're in different times. So, everyone who's listening, remember the three-part strategy, the three steps for these liberal bots. So, he couldn't answer the question with step one, deauthentication, because it's in the Quran. He couldn't reinterpret lashing. So, that's step two. So, then he goes to step three, and he says that, oh, it's not applicable to our times. So, that this is, you know, exactly as I predicted. You're a liberal bot.

Time. I give you the same extra 20 seconds as I gave Javad in the last one to make up for it. All right, Javad, now we're going to go back to one minute again. Javad, the floor is all yours. So, we're talking about bots. Remember, bots is how the medieval exegetes interpret verses, and that's how Daniel interprets this verse. He looked at it, he was stunned, he was like, oh, it said believe lovers, and he didn't, he paused, he didn't know how to respond to that. So, actually, they look at the Quranic verses and then they say, oh, we have to interpret this away. In fact, it's the medieval exegetes who would say that this verse is abrogated if it goes against my view. You haven't dealt with that at all. They would reinterpret it. They would reject it. But this verse is clear. Now, you say you needed to ground it in historical practice, which you're actually grounding it is in the medieval tradition, the exegetical tradition, which I've already questioned. That's the entire debate that we're having. So, you can't just presuppose that the exegetical tradition is correct. You have to prove that the exegetical tradition is correct, and I'm showing you that it's clearly not because of these obvious verses in the Quran. So, this is the problem. You can't deal with the obvious verses of the Quran that repeatedly say, uh, that you have to marry them. And so this is a problem. Uh, you know, you just presuppose that that's correct. Now, as far as the Prophet's practice, after the Battle of Badr, he, for enslaving anyone after that, and that's what I'm showing you that there was a progression in the ethic, okay? And you don't appreciate that because you just presuppose that what the medieval exegetes said was correct, and that's just the traditionalist argument to fall on 1400 years, quote unquote. And then I say, oh, actually, this other scholar said something different. Oh, well, ignore him, he's just a Shiite. What does he know? I'm just going to follow my sect, my jurist, my exegetes. You know, no, no, you didn't show anything. So, you still don't have answered. Should homosexuality be criminalized? Did the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam have the belief that homosexuality should be criminalized? How about promiscuity, fornication? Should it be criminalized? Did the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam have those beliefs? Did the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam have the belief in gender roles? Did he have the belief in mandatory, uh, veiling for women? These are the things that you can't answer. So, you just avoid it. You want to talk about one verse and then get into this theory of abrogation. I don't have to defend the everything in the exegetical tradition. I don't have to defend, like, that ridiculous Gish Galloping opening where you're trying to strawman every single traditional position. I don't have to defend that. The whole point of my opening and the whole strategy that I presented in the first two sections is I'm looking at the historical tradition as with historical critical method, approved sources, like late antique religions, like the contemporaneous non-Muslim sources, like the, um, the archaeology. You're not addressing any of those historical sources.

Time. So, actually, what you've done by talking about the late antique practice, which is what you point to, the Romans and Sasanians, you actually prove my point for me. That was exactly the prevalent. Can you please mute because I don't need to hear your snorting? All right. So, this is a, this is, uh, the practice at that was in the milieu at that time, and that's of course what the medieval exegetes adopted. That's a point in my favor. You're presupposing that the Quran can't have a higher ethical belief. That's a very secular belief. I am a believer. I believe that the Quran has a higher ethic that it wouldn't tolerate sex with concubines like you imagine. So, you are actually proving my point. As far as late antique practice, um, as far as mandatory veiling, I'm sorry to say, Daniel, but it was only free women that were veiled, not the slave girls who would walk around in the markets uncovered. Even their breasts could be exposed, and you can touch their breasts and take a, take a test of them to see how they feel. That is the tradition that you need to defend and argue about and then say, oh, well, they did for 1400 years, so it must be okay. That is the traditionalist dogmatic mindset that I'm opposed to. Now, you want me to talk about homosexuality because I, I know. Okay, fine.

Time. That's right. Yeah. So, uh, again, you want to talk. I bring up mandatory veiling. You quickly switch to slavery. Why can't you address the actual issue? Do you agree with mandatory veiling for women? What does, what does the Quran say on that? You know, if you want to just look at the Quran, show us your textual gymnastics with the Quran. I'm grounding in history. I'm looking at what the actual, uh, uh, Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam practiced, what all of these other religions in the, in the, uh, at that time period in the late antique time period practiced. This is all proof, okay, for the traditional understanding because it's something ubiquitous. What about the biological evidence? What about makeup guarding biologically? Why do we see the same kind of veiling practices, the, uh, the punishments against homosexuality, against fornication? All of these are found throughout premodern societies, not just Muslim, not even just late antique. These are something things that are universal. Your whole thesis is that these fundamentalist Muslims in, you know, the, in the Umayyad period just invented these kinds of punishments, but that thesis is completely debunked by the fact that you have all of these independent cultures and religions who have very analogous punishments for sex, these kinds of sexual behaviors, the same kind of patriarchal gender roles, the same kind of patriarchal, uh, forms of dress. You're not addressing these. So, your entire argument is that you're doing of past peoples that the Quran is actually reforming because you presuppose that the Quran cannot have a higher ethical, uh, intent. So, you're actually a very secular atheist in that approach that you have toward the Quran. You're saying the Byzantines do it, the Persians do it, all these ancient societies do it, so it must be the way it was. Um, now, as far as, now, again, you cannot deal with the Quran evidence. You have to say that I'm dealing with the historical evidence, the biological evidence. I'm showing you the Quranic verse, and then you have to go to the exegetical tradition. So, you can't really deal with that at all. Now, as far as, uh, mandatory veiling, the reason why I brought it up is because you actually sell a false goods to people. You claim that this is what Quran does, and so the society is much better. This is your whole, your career is made after made out of this, but in reality, it was just free women who were veiled at home, and meanwhile, you could have these slave girls walking around. It's not irrelevant. It's totally relevant. So, what I believe, I, and that verse doesn't even say to completely veil, by the way. That's your interpretation with exegetes who used to argue if you can have one eye or two eyes showing. That's the exegetical tradition that you're talking about. Yes, I do believe that Muslim women on their own accord should dress modestly. That's a part of our religion. We should all dress modestly. I don't agree with half of the things that you, uh, uh, bros do when you propagate and try to use sex to sell your YouTube videos. Yeah, so like, you just contradict yourself with every single response. If you were, if you care, care about higher ethical intent, then why do you even care what the Quran says? Because if I establish that this is what the Quran means, all you'll do is say that, oh, well, what about the higher ethical intent? So, this is, why are you even pretending to care about what the Quran says? Why do you even care what the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam said or did or believed? Because anything that contradicts your liberalism, you'll say, oh, well, we have higher ethical principles. This is your get out of jail free card that you're going to play every time to get out of these questions that you just can't answer. Again, I repeat, what about the criminalization of the, of homosexuality and fornication? Did the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam endorse that? Did the Quran endorse that? Concede, say yes or no, and then, okay, fine, higher ethical intent, engage in your, uh, theological hermeneutics, whatever. No one cares about that. And also, your whole approach has nothing to do with the historical critical method. The historical critical method doesn't care about higher, higher ethical principles. It cares about what did the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam actually believe? What did he do? You're not addressing that.

Time. So, Daniel has this imaginary thing of modern liberalism, but in reality, this is the approach of the Islamic rationalists of old who believe that you need to use your ethical reasoning when interpreting a text because you'll have interpretive choices before you. We saw that with the verse that we looked at. The verse, at least if Daniel was honest, he would say, you know what, you could take the verse in the way Javad is saying it. He won't admit that, but that's the reality. So, you have an interpretive choice to make, and when you have an interpretive choice to make, you should use your ethical reasoning to make the right decision. You should stop and look and say, hey, why are my mullahs saying that you can't masturbate and look at pornography, but they were saying that you could, which I don't agree with, by the way, but then you can go and have sex with a billion slaves? That doesn't compute. You should expect that the Quran, as an ethical text, has an ethical import, and I'm saying that yes, as an Islamic modernist, not as a historical critical scholar, I use my historical critical scholarship in conjunction with my views as a believer. So, you do historical scholarship first, and then you base your theology on the findings, but there is still theological work that goes in afterward, and I'm coming to you as a believer today. I believe that the Quran has an ethical intent, and we need to discover that and follow that. So, you're acknowledging that you're, what you're saying has nothing to do with the historical critical method. Um, none of these rationalists, okay, that you cite, had anything to do with the historical critical method. That wasn't even their approach. They didn't even care what the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam said or believed. These rationalists, and also you conveniently skip the point where, where are these rationalists or these even Mu'tazilites? Where are they actually saying you can't have sex with female slaves? Okay, you found some random citation that we haven't confirmed. Show me the official position of the Mu'tazila school, the rationalists. Show me what the Mu'tazila said about mandatory veiling for women. Show me what the Mu'tazila said about spousal discipline or quote unquote wife beating. Show me anything. Show me anything. But it's ultimately irrelevant because all you're doing is avoiding the main topic of the debate. You're not showing us what the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam believed. You're bringing no historical evidence. You keep appealing to higher ethics as your get out of jail free card, and these textual gymnastics that are laughable. No one is able to follow them. So, this is, you only use historical critical method when it suits you to get rid of Hadith, and then you go to your higher ethical principles. You're not an academic. You're not a historian. You're a propagandist. You're this kind of agent mortad.

Time. All right, when all else fails, then you just call your opponent a murtad and think that that's a reasonable way to debate. But I know that you're getting upset, Daniel. So, that tells me where you are in this debate. This is the verse. There's no textual acrobatics. You can't deal with this verse. I'm not doing higher ethical reasoning here. I'm looking at the verse and saying this is what the verse says. Now, if you do have another interpretive possibility, then you use your ethical reasoning. But this verse is pretty clear. You said, I don't care what the Prophet said. What the Prophet brought was the Quran. I deeply care what the Prophet brought, and I think what the Prophet brought was was deeply ethical, and that's what I want to follow. Not what the Roman and the Sasanian and all these other cultures that you're bringing in premodernity, all of them believe. That's not what I want to follow. I want to follow what the Quran says because that's what the Prophet brought. Yes, it's the historical critical method that lets me know that that's what gets goes back to the Prophet Muhammad, but and that, that's a good thing. But and it also tells me that the Hadith comes from a later period. But you can just base it on a Quran-centric approach and look at the Quran, and it's crystal clear right here. You can't deal with it. Your entire purview is based on concubinage. Yeah, again, not telling us anything about sexual restrictions, not telling us anything about gender roles, not telling us anything that's relevant to the topic of the debate. It's just you want to make the entire debate about your goofy interpretation of of one verse. It's not. We're not even in the slavery section. Like, what, what are you even doing? Uh, what about all of these other patriarchal issues? Like, why can't you address a single question that I'm putting towards you? So, so, you know, this is, uh, very disappointing, Javad. I expected you to have some actual respect for history, some of these other historical sources. Like, it's very sad, like, that this, the debate is not even on the topic because I guess you don't, didn't understand the topic. Like, that's it's a very simple question. Does Islam, the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam, and the Quran endorse restrictions on sexuality, criminalizing homosexuality, criminalizing fornication, mandatory dress for women? Answer those questions. Why can't you answer them? Where, show me these rationalists, okay, fine, rationalists. Where did they say anything contrary to what I'm saying? Did Ibn Sina say anything contrary with these specific issues?

Okay, so Daniel is all over the place. He continuously claims that I'm not dealing with the topic, but the topic was sexuality, and what I'm saying is your premodern sexuality was all based on this institution. So, you can't deny it. You're the one who insisted on the format because you wanted to make it advantageous to you. But in any case, as far as your question about homosexuality, I don't know if you even know the literature at all. There's not an example in the time of the Prophet of him punishing homosexuals or people who engaged in lewdness. It doesn't exist in the literature, okay? This is even according to traditional scholars. All right, it was at a later point in time, and it was probably an edict of the early companions. Now, as far as punishments for zina, yes, the societies had those, okay? Um, and we have to decide as modern people how we implement that. That's another step. What I'm trying to tell you is that your interpretation, uh, that you, that the thing that you sell is completely bogus because you're not, you're talking about being historical. Be historical. Your entire thing is about family values. How can you have family values when you believe in sex with concubines, sex with harlots, and all, and sex trade, and all that stuff, and you just want to avoid that? That has to do with sexuality. That's the basis of your sexuality. So, defend that. Yeah, I mean, family values. Like, do you think my understanding of family values is like Leave It to Beaver and like 21st century family values? This is a straw man on your part. I think that having, uh, uh, female concubines is part of family values because you have a commitment to the concubine. If she gets pregnant and she has a child, you have responsibilities towards that concubine. You have responsibilities towards that child. You have to keep, maintain those concubines. That is consistent with my understanding of family values. But your entire argument is so bizarre. It's like a straw man. I don't have this, you know, Christian conservative Christian understanding of family values. It's pure straw manning. And again, Gish Galloping because this is not what the debate is about. Um, also, the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam, it's not about whether he actually had any Hadith punishment against, uh, homosexuals. It's about what he endorsed. What would, what did he endorse, and what was his view? And this is represented in the Quran in the verses that I cited, along with all of these other religions that are in time that have the same exact perspective. That is not correct at all. The Quran, you didn't bring any verse that shows to punish homosexuals, and the proof that you would have is actually reports, and the reports would say they didn't even be clear about what the punishment was. They disagreed on it. You had that funny quote where you were the terrible quote where you're talking about bungee jumping. They either said that you should be thrown off a cliff or that you should have a building, uh, smashed on you, and they disagreed. This was not the Prophet, and doesn't go back to the Quran. So, that's a bunch of nonsense. And then you mentioned the rights of slave women having a child. That's the rule that was instituted by Umar al-Khattab, the second Caliph. So, you can see that there was a development in the ethic. So, that's okay to do to develop the ethic. That's what the modernist says. The rationalist says that you follow the Quranic ethical trajectory. So, you know, if you want to defend, uh, a rule, then you have to defend the idea that you can have a progressive ethic when it comes to that and better things and fulfill the Quranic ethic in the correct direction. But we'll, of course, debate slavery itself in the final part of this. Daniel, you know, verse 4:16, if two men commit a lewd act, punish them both. Third is in the Quran. So, you know, you don't understand the Quran. You don't even understand what the Quran says, but you want to have a Quran-centric view of the Quran. Okay, that's a fancy word for a bunch of BS. So, yeah, I mean, I don't know what more to say. Like, you don't care about the history. Like, the, when the actual historical critical method, actual historians, not propagandists like Javad, they will look at Christianity, they will look at the Byzantines, the Sasanians, they will look at the pre-Islamic Arabs, they will look at their practices as evidence for what the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam likely believed and what the early Muslims actually believed. This is what your idol Fred Donner does all the time. He looks at these other religions, like Christianity and Judaism, and he sees what they believed in that particular historical context as evidence of what the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam believed. But you don't want to address that fact because it speaks against your position. If we do that kind of analysis, all of those religions were patriarchal in the way that I am.

We're going to jump into the Q&A. We have just run out of time for the open discussion. We're going to read through these fast. I want to let you know, folks, here's how this is going to work. We have 10 minutes of Q&A at the end of each of these three parts of the debate. We are basically at the end of part one, except this last 10 minutes of Q&A regarding point or part one content. We're going to do two parts after this, each with 10 minutes of Q&A. We may not have a chance to read all of your questions, so I do want to let you know we're going to move fast. Based on how this 10 minutes ago is all have a better idea of how many we can get in. First Muhammad, thanks so much. Says in the Quran, God said that the Messenger will say, "Quote, my people took this Quran forsaken," unquote. What do you think this means? Daniel first, then Javad second. We need really short and pithy ones. If, if you're, yeah, it's referring to deviant murtads like Javad, and actually, it's actually talking about the community. If we look at that verse, and that's exactly what Daniel has done. He's abandoned the Quran, and unfortunately, that's exactly what happened. Like, he quoted that verse right now about, and claimed that, oh, that's definitely about homosexuality. Even the exegetes didn't say that, but this is the shoddy, uh, uh, Islamic scholarship of Daniel, who knows nothing about Islam.

This one from Muhammad says, Daniel, just like how people worship money without calling it a deity, where do you draw the line between following the Prophet or idolizing/worshipping? Well, the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam is not a god. He's not omniscient. He's not all-merciful. He doesn't have the attributes of God. He's not the Creator. So, we make a very clear distinction between the Creator and the created, and we direct all of our worship, um, and obedience to the Creator, Allah. Um, and Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam is a prophet, just like many of the other prophets that were sent to humanity, such as Moses, Abraham, Jesus, peace be upon them all. These are all human beings that are meant to be living guides that we follow. And that's why it's so important to understand what did they actually believe? What did they actually do? As opposed to referring to your intellect and these higher ethical values and trajectory. This is all worship of the self. What Javad is engaging.

This one from Muhammad says, Daniel, Surah 3:6, AA, Surah, God said, "Quote, the words have been fulfilled on them, so the majority they say will not believe." And then it says, Sunnis claimed the majority of Mecca believed in the end. Did God not say the truth? No, it's, I think it's referring to, I don't know the verse off the top of my head, but I think it's referring to the majority of humanity, and also could be referring to humankind as well. So, um, Jinn is another category, that they can choose to believe or not believe. So, this is not necessarily referring to people in Mecca. Do I get to answer any of these questions or they not for email? Earlier, they're not for you. I do have, I do have a challenge. We're trying to fit all these questions in just 30 minutes of Q&A.

No problem. This one from Muhammad says, eat meat because their Hadith, there's a Hadith that says so, but God, God saying legal to you is the meat of animals in the Quran. And then says, "Goofy gymnastics." I don't think either is that like a counterexample to my point. I think it was targeting you, Daniel, but I'm, it's hard for me to tell. It's hard to understand. Yeah, we're not debating eating meat, but I did use the example of interpreting the language of the Quran. Like, the Quran says, "Do not kill." So, assuming that there wasn't any other verse, um, in the Quran about slaughtering meat and eating meat, assume that there is no other verse. The verse just says, "Do not kill." How would we interpret that verse? So, without having a grounding in the actual beliefs and norms of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam and the earliest Muslims, we wouldn't be able to understand. Does that "do not kill" mean do not kill humans, and do not kill animals, and do not kill, you know, pests like roaches and bugs that come in your house? Don't kill anything. Um, is that what it's meant? What it means, or does it mean do not kill humans? You have to have those beliefs and norms, uh, of the speaker, of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam, to understand the meaning of the verse. Otherwise, you cannot properly understand it. You can get some meaning, but you have this radical subjectivism that can creep in.

This one from Joshua the King says, will Daniel debate Javad on the topic of child marriage alone? We can talk about other debates. Look at how this debate is going. The guy is all over the place.

This one coming in from they had no username. They say, Javad, I know that I don't know what all these words mean. So, if this is an insult, forgive me. They say, I know you're, um, munafiq. M-U-N-A-F-I-Q. It means hypocrite. This is, this is one of Daniel's. This is what Daniel preaches and teaches, and so he calls people munafiq and mad. Um, but yeah, that's what it is. Okay, they, so they say that, and then they say, and Allah has exposed you all in Surah Al-A'raf. So, clearly, it's funny watching you move and setting off all the red flags of the munafiq. They say, I just want to say, no matter how much the Washington think tanks pay you, it won't help you in the end. Homonym attacks, as is standard of this type of people. I mean, we're in a debate of intellect. Like, even whatever we may have had before this, this is the time to be decent. This is the time to talk to your interlocutor with a decent level of minimal decency. And I to do that, accusing them of supporting pasty.

This one coming in from Thunderstorm says, I didn't accuse you of supporting pasty. They say, great dessert, desert. Let's see, like the food. I'm just confused. They say, this one says, yeah, no problem. Just please don't forget to read it out. So, the, now they're calling you a zindeeq. Is this bad? Yeah, these are all bad. These are his fans, incels, who love to use these kind of words. Oh, oh, respect. Incel. That's an incel. This is a respectful debate, Javad. Tonight, but they say, so the, you're right, Daniel. Javad can hear it. They say, much appreciated. Okay, then XXWLZXX says, I see James wearing a good suit. So, thanks for your kind words. Like, says James, you're the GOAT of moderators. That's kind. I want to say, he is. The debaters are the, the lifeblood of the channel. Check out Javad and Daniel's links right now, folks. And if you're listening via the Modern Native podcast, because a lot of people listen to the podcast instead of YouTube, you can find our guest links in the description box there. You can find their Twitter, for example, for Javad and his YouTube. And then Daniel, you can find his YouTube.

Muhammad says, Daniel, you call Javad an apostate. Daniel, you associate things to God. You associate the accounts of Abu Hurayrah and others to revelation. And then they say, Sher. No, no. I, everything that I'm citing is from the Quran. Um, I'm, I actually care about the beliefs and the norms of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam and the actual history of the early Muslims. I actually care about that. I wish I could say the same about my opponent, but I can't. So, how is, I care about the Quran? Do you place the Hadith over the Quran? Do you believe that the Sunnah abrogates the Quran? I just follow what the Quran says, and the Quran says, follow the Quran and follow the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. Obey the messenger. Obey Allah and obey the messenger. That's what I'm all about. And who are then obey those who are in authority over you and obey those in authority amongst you. So, the, you're not interrogating me. You're not interrogating me.

This one I do have to be sure that we get to this. Zade Barot says, Javad, can you read the Quran in Arabic? Of course, I can. I've studied Arabic for the last decade. Josh says, Daniel, you were using Bruce Renden as a source for justifying child marriage, who himself argued that pederasty was normalized. Total hypocrite. No, Bruce Renden, first of all, you can cite an academic source without saying that everything in that source is correct. You know, in this debate, I'm going to cite Fred Donner. I don't think everything that Fred Donner has said is correct. I think most of it is trash. But Bruce Renden didn't cite any kind of data, any kind of statistics, any kind of actual evidence that pederasty was normalized. When you say normalized, it means that it's being practiced everywhere and no one has a problem with it. In reality, you have the Islamic Orthodox scholars constantly denouncing that kind of behavior and that kind of practice. Javad, like the only historical evidence that people cite are these love poet, poetry, um, and and that love poetry. Don't interrupt. Love poetry. Don't interrupt. We're not interested in your answer. Yes, I have. Yes, I have. Yes, I have. Don't interrupt. Don't interrupt. Yes, it is true. Don't interrupt. Don't interrupt. Yeah, so it's like it's like citing Tupac rapping about murder and drug dealing and thinking that that represents American ideals. Like, this is nonsense. Oh, rapping. I mean, murdering and selling drugs is normalized because look, Tupac and Biggie are rapping about it. Like, that's basically the argument from Bruce Renden and others.

This one coming in from Muhammad says, Daniel, we got that one. This one from JN, thanks for your kind words. Says, thanks James for giving Muslims a platform. Of course, we hope you feel welcome, folks, whether you be atheist, Muslim, Christian, name it. We're glad you're here. Holy Humanist. Niah Khan, Daniel's old friend, says, his name is Ridan, apostate prophet. At least have enough decorum to say it right. Your names aren't immune to mockery. Shame on both of you. Did both of you make fun of apostate prophet? I thought it was just Daniel. Did, did you too, Javad, call him apostate prophet? I don't think I did. But if I did, it was accidental. I didn't. I would never call him. I think they call him apostate or something. I don't believe in doing that at all. So, if that was the case, I apologize. I meant to call him apostate. That's what I thought I called him. He's got thick skin because using because using nicknames like that is un-Quranic. So, I apologize if that was the case.

This one from Abab. What about Abu Lahab? The nickname for the uncle of the Prophet that's a nickname to mock him for going into the fire. How about that? Javad, have you memorized? Have you memorized that Surah of the Quran or you're not done with the short Surahs? Have you memorized it? So, so you think that, let's keep moving. You, yeah, sure. Daniel, Daniel, Daniel. This one coming from I want to give you. I'll give you a chance really quick because I mean, but I got to tell you, we're going to be here so late, you guys. It's 30, it's 30-minute Q&A for each section. It's a 10-minute. Yeah, so we're basically, we're, we're at the end of this one right now. I hate to do that, but so let me just be sure I've got all the ones in a row. At least we got that one. Got, okay. So, folks, I am going to read more questions. So, we didn't get to all the questions for this particular topic. So, I got to give you a heads up, folks. From here on, caution. If you send in a question, we may not get to read it, and that includes super chats. I just want to let you know that we're going to try to, but we do have limited Q&A because we want to get the, you know, we want to make sure the speakers get enough time for their dialogue and speeches. We're going to jump into the next section of the debate.

Oh, are we already? Oh, sorry. I wasn't. Now you're mute. Are you on mute? Oh, sorry about that. No problem. Um, so what are we doing next? I apologize. Next up is part two. So, the way this is planned, as of right now, just to give you guys a heads up. So, folks, you've seen the first third of the debate. How have we been here for three hours? It was really just that tech meltdown. We started a little bit late, to, uh, uh, but I know that we've, I've stuck to the format. We maybe went like two minutes over for the Q&A, but I am going to let you know, folks, we're going to jump into the second, the second part. Are you guys okay with doing the second part, running through the entire second part, and then taking a break before the final part? Which by that, I mean a 10-minute break. Okay, you guys got a lot of endurance. This is going to be, oh, this, it's good. This is actually so we don't have the 20-minute openings. That's right. This is just 10-minute openings. So, 10-minute opening from Javad. Then want to let you know, folks, for part two, we're of course going to have the same 10-minute opening from Daniel, then five-minute rebuttal from each, then 45, maybe even 40 minutes of open, open dialogue, then 10 minutes of Q&A, then we'll take a short break and go to our final part three. So, Javad, thanks very much. The floor is all yours for that 10-minute opening. And if I could get everyone on mute, please. Thank you.

Sure. All right, I'm just going to share my screen. Please don't start my time until I begin. Thank you. All right, so the, uh, idea is very simple. The Quran endorses free will. God does not force humans to believe. So, you should not force them to believe either. Unfortunately, the Sunni tradition went in the other direction. It went into complete fatalism and denied free will, and it also denied secondary causality, which is honestly very silly. But we Islamic rationalists argue that it is our unique gift of intellect from which our free will stems, that differentiates us from the animals. It is what makes us humans. Since this world is a place of trial and affliction for humankind, any forceful imposition or oppression for the sake of faith annuls the meaning of this divine test. Daniel believes in spreading jihadist Islam, the Islamic system through jihad, and he does not think that Islam respects freedom of religion. And he has this really weird question. He says, if we demand, as a matter of principle, that worldly rulers tolerate every and all beliefs equally, then why wouldn't we demand that of God as well? In fact, he's arguing directly against the Quran, which says that God granted human beings respite until the day of judgment, and that then he will judge them at that time. But until then, they are free to disbelieve. The Quran says, "It is the truth from your Lord, so whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Verily, we, God, not Daniel, we God have prepared for the wrongdoers of fire." So, God will deal with the disbelievers. Your duty is only to convey. If they turn away, then your duty is only to convey, and ours is the reckoning. "Yours is only to proclaim, and ours is the reckoning. Bear them patiently and take leave of them in a beautiful manner. Leave to me the deniers. Be gentle with them. Truly, with us are the faithful and hellfire." There are approximately 200 verses that talk about this kind of religious freedom, that your job is only to convey the message. And the Quran says, "Would you had had your Lord willed, all those on earth would have believed altogether. Would you then compel men till they become believers?" The Quran says that God himself could have made you all one religious community, but he will otherwise. You are not their guardian. You are not a dictator over them. "Whosoever wishes, let him pursue the way unto his Lord, and whoever is astray cannot harm you." This is very important. It's, "Whoever is astray, say, verily, I am but a Warner. Whosoever is astray is only astray to his own loss. He won't hurt anyone else." And this is repeated in the Quran. Daniel doesn't agree with this. Daniel, he says, because he's talking about those premodern cultures that the Quran is trying to reform, he's saying, religion is a source of order and cohesion, and those who leave the religion, they pose a major threat to that social order and that social cohesion. Every society punishes defectors, often with death. This is actually arguing against the Quran. It's agreeing with the Meccan idolater pagans who believed and accused the Prophet of upsetting social cohesion and daring to apostatize from the pagan faith, and so they actually did try to kill him and persecute his believers. So, that's the kind of ethic that Daniel agrees with. In fact, the Quran goes against this and criticizes the Meccan pagans and justifies Jihad in defense of religious freedom. "Permission to fight is granted to those who are fought, who are expelled from their homes without right, only for saying, 'Our Lord is God.'" The next verse says, "Were it not for God repelling people some by means of others, then monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, wherein God's name is mentioned much, would have been destroyed." The Quran is saying to defend religious freedom and worship. And then it says here that God only tells you to fight those who fight you on account of your religion and expel you from your home. That's because religious persecution is greater than killing. And it says, "They will not cease to fight you until they make you renounce your religion." It's criticizing them for not allowing them to leave the religion of the idolators. And the Quran says, "Fight them until there is no religious persecution, and your religion is for God." And it repeats this. In fact, the Quran says, "Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion." Daniel would, if I said this, and he didn't see this in the Quran, he'd say, "Oh, this is something very modern and liberal." In fact, the Quran says, "Let there be no compulsion in religion. The truth stands out clear from error." Here's a historical critical scholar, Professor Patricia Crone, who has a great article on this. She says here, "It is explicitly ikrah or coercion by humans as distinct from God, which is being rejected." This is the seemingly obvious reading of the verse, no textual acrobatics, no goofy stuff that he, Daniel, is talking about. In fact, religious liberty, she argues, is not a modern.

Liberal invention in fact, Church fathers such as Tertullian and Lactantius agreed with this idea that you can't force religion. It was only after Constantine converted and then Theodosius the First came and they had power, then they started compelling people to believe. And interestingly enough, the medieval exegesis, where did they borrow from? They borrowed the same ideas to justify forced conversion. In fact, the jurists were well aware. Patricia Crone writes that the verse could be read as a universal grant of tolerance, incompatible with the duty to execute apostates and wage jihad against non-Muslims.

So what did they do? They do what they always do. Remember those bots that Daniel was talking about? They just said it was abrogated and canceled it out because this was their guiding principle. The principle is that every Quranic verse that opposes the opinion of our scholars, then it is taken to be abrogated or reinterpreted. And we saw this with the verse that I quoted about you have to marry your sex slave. It's not anything as a sex slave, but anyways.

So in the Quran, religion is a set of beliefs about a single universal God, freely chosen by the individual. Of course, the now, initially both Christianity and Islam began as freely chosen systems of belief. But once Christianity and Islam became the official state religion of empire, religion now performed the function of nationality. Under those circumstances, religious freedom became undesirable. Pat Crone writes, in short, there cannot be religious freedom where the political empire is based on religion. This was why the medieval exegesis had to interpret the no compulsion verse by recourse to far-fetched interpretations. This is the people who are doing acrobatics. And what did they do? They used their battering ram of abrogation. They said that the verse was abrogated and that the prophet was commanded. They used another verse to abrogate it. In fact, those who said they said, either it's abrogated or we reinterpret it, we neutralize it. But that's the strategy that they used. And they, of course, superimpose this Hadith, which is a Hadith that says to go fight people until they become Muslim, which effectively inverts the Quran. It says that you actually fight people to coerce them, which is the opposite of what the Quran is saying.

As far as apostasy is concerned, leaving belief, going back to paganism, there are actually eight verses on this, and none of them say any temporal punishments are mentioned. In fact, it just says the same thing that God will punish them supernaturally, not human beings. "Whosoever turns back on his heels will not harm God in the least. It's the same thing that your disbelieving does not harm anyone but yourself. It will not harm God in the least." This is repeated repeatedly in all of these verses. "Upon them shall be the wrath of God, but no legal punishment. There is no doubt that in the hereafter, they are the the losers." And in fact, the verses say that they will die naturally. "Whosoever among you renounces his religion and dies as a disbeliever, their deeds will come to naught." This verse points to an apostate's natural death as opposed to his or her execution or killing. And in fact, the Quran says that repentance is better. It's very mild. "If they repent, it would be better for them. But if they turn away, God will punish them in the next life." The Quran leaves open, except those who repent after that apostasy and make amends, for truly God is forgiving, merciful. This wouldn't make sense if you had to execute apostates. In fact, there are verses that talk about people who repeatedly apostatize, and they mention no legal punishment against them again, simply just, uh, uh, repent and make amends. There are multiple instances of apostasy even in the traditional sources, and it shows that the prophet did not punish them. In fact, here's a medieval Islamic scholar who says, "It is not mentioned in any of the well-known writings that the prophet ever killed an apostate." In fact, Imam Shafi said, "Some people believe, then committed apostasy, then profess belief again. However, the messenger of God did not put them to death."

So then, if the prophet never punished people for apostasy, when did the apostasy law emerge? It was during the reign of Caliph Abu Bakr, in which the Wars of Apostasy took place. And these weren't really technically apostates; they were convicted of what was called political treason. And that's when this first precedent was set. And Professor Fred Donner agrees with it that this is the first precedent for this. During the apostasy wars, nonetheless, there still wasn't a fixed legal punishment. Professor Michael Penn, who he selectively quotes, actually shows that there was no fixed capital punishment at this time for apostasy in the first century of Islam. And it was actually the laws of apostasy and blasphemy were actually produced during the Abbasid period and later back-projected onto the distant past. And in fact, blasphemy came with the so-called historically spurious pact of Umar. And I wonder if Daniel will agree with any of these, uh, conditions that non-Muslims are supposed to deal with: no new churches, forbidden to publicly display their religion, wear distinctive clothing like Jews wearing yellow turbans. I wonder if he's going to defend all of this.

As far as blasphemy, the Quran says that all messengers were mocked before you, so be patient. God will deal with the blasphemers. You don't need to deal with them. Instead, believers are told to take to pardoning, turn away from the ignorant. And should temptation from Satan provoke you to respond aggressively, seek refuge in God and respond to people with peace. Forbear them and say peace. Pardon them and forbear. Forgive. So, our job is just to invite to God's way with wisdom and beautiful preaching and to be patient. So, Islamic modernists revere the Quran more because we follow it as clear scripture, whereas traditionalists abrogate or change its meaning using their so-called Hadith, which talk about apostasy laws, and these were obviously coming from a later period. So, my religion is the pious and ethical Islam of the Quran and the prophet, which is affirmed voluntarily by the heart and conscience of the true believer, spread by beautiful preaching and good example. Whereas Daniel's religion agrees with the Meccan idolators who forbade freedom of religion and persecuted the prophet. Daniel's view agrees with imperial religion, which favors authoritarianism and utility over godliness and piety, thus favoring caliphal dictatorships, slaving empires, concubinage, sex harems, aggressive imperial warfare, and state-enforced belief. My specific claim for Daniel to refute is on religious freedom. The Quran allows the freedom to choose or leave a religion, and apostasy laws are therefore anti-Quranic. And Daniel will reply, "We follow that which you found our forefathers doing. Can you find anyone in the 1400s?" blah blah blah. Tradition, tradition, tradition. The Quran says, "Follow what God has sent down." Thank you. I I can't hear anything. James, we can't hear you. Forgot to unmute myself on Zoom. Do want to say, folks, a couple of things, housekeeping-wise. If you haven't already, consider checking out our podcast at Modern Day Debate. Look us up on your favorite podcast app right now. You can find Modern Day Debate whether it be on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, you name it. That we're going to kick it over to Daniel for his opening. Thanks very much, Daniel. The floor is all yours.

Do the Quran and the Prophet (peace be upon him) endorse legal restrictions on the religious practice of non-Muslims? Do we actually think that the Prophet (peace be upon him) instituted religious freedom when he came to power? This is obviously absurd. Religious freedom is defined in the U.S. Constitution as, "Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Obviously, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established Islam as the law of the land. No Western academic has ever denied this. Establishing Islam as the law of the land in and of itself is discriminatory against other religions. So, case closed. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was clearly discriminatory and violated religious freedom simply by establishing Islam as the law of the land. Debate over.

But let's steelman the liberal position and say, well, maybe truly violating religious freedom is not about establishment, but it's about prohibiting the free exercise thereof by putting discriminatory restrictions on non-Muslims or by punishing apostasy and blasphemy. Liberal reformists claim the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not endorse these things. So let's check the evidence. Consider Muslim treatment of the mushrikin, i.e., the polytheist Arabs. The Quran denounces the mushrikin and commands the Muslims to fight and subjugate them. The starkest example of this subjugation is in verses 9:17 and 18, which prohibit the idolaters from managing Mecca and the Kaaba. And the Kaaba, this is a major restriction on the religious freedom of the mushrikin because Mecca was their holy city and the Kaaba was their holy shrine. The Quran and the Prophet (peace be upon him) command the forceful seizure of these polytheistic shrines and destruction of their idols. We know this happened because the Quran mentions it and the Hadith elaborate. But we also have no record of polytheistic religions being practiced in Mecca or the Arabian Peninsula more broadly after the Islamic conquest. In the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), polytheism abruptly stopped right after Muslims took over. Why would this be the case if the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a pluralist who respected religious freedom?

Now let's add biology and quantitative social science. Cognitive science says that humans intuitively believe in ingroups and outgroups from childhood. We all instinctively divide the world into groups defined by shared blood, culture, or religion. This biologically rooted ingroup loyalty remains. It explains why groups tend to subjugate outgroups, whether through warfare, discriminatory laws, slavery, etc. Since hunter-gatherer times up to the present, humans have banded together along lines of race or religion, or bloodlines, to or culture. And this biologically rooted ingroup loyalty explains why groups tend to subjugate outgroups through warfare, discriminatory laws, slavery, etc. Since hunter-gatherer times up to the present, humans have banded together along lines of racial religion in order to fight outgroups for power and resources. In hunter-gatherer societies, the conquerors just kill the defeated group. But in pastoral and agricultural societies, they have much larger populations and thus fight larger-scale wars. Rather than just kill the defeated, the conquerors extract economic benefits from the defeated, usually through tribute payments, but sometimes through slavery and concubinage. These policies are obviously discriminatory and are meant to prevent the defeated group from gaining power and eventually becoming strong enough to overthrow the conquerors. This is a universal pattern in human civilization, which is why the discrimination against religious outgroups that we find in Islam is not the novel invention of intolerant Muslims 100 years after the Prophet (peace be upon him). It's a biologically rooted instinct that the Quran and the Prophet (peace be upon him) endorse.

In the Quran, verse 9:29, we read, "Fight against those who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture. Fight until they give the jizya willingly while they are humbled." Here, the Quran endorses the in-group fighting the outgroup until the outgroup is subjected to discriminatory laws that force them to pay the jizya, tribute, and assume a subjugated dhimmi status. This is the biological basis for religious discrimination against non-Muslims.

What about punishing apostasy and blasphemy? These practices in traditional Islam also have a biological basis. Part of the ingroup loyalty that we have already discussed is the intuition that we should protect our ingroup from destruction. This means protecting our ingroup from physical attacks, but also protecting our shared way of life. This has been studied in psychological research on conformity. From childhood, humans intuitively believe that they and other group members should conform to the group's distinctive way of life. Humans naturally get angry and shun or attack those who violate the group's shared lifestyle and rebel. Ingroup conformity is an extremely powerful biological instinct that has been manifested throughout human societies in the form of blasphemy and apostasy laws. When people blaspheme or apostatize, this poses a serious threat to the ingroup. The biological instinct is to deter such threats by instituting legal punishments.

Now let's look at these legal punishments in late antique religions. In the Bible, Leviticus 24:16 prescribes the death penalty for blasphemy. Daniel 3:29 also declares universal prohibition against blasphemy with severe consequences. Rabbinic Judaism imposes the death penalty for blasphemers, but if the Jewish authorities cannot impose the death penalty, then the blasphemer is expelled from the community. The Greco-Roman religion was polytheistic, yet still had blasphemy laws. This is why the Greeks executed Socrates because he was discouraging people from worshiping their gods. The Romans subordinated the Jews and destroyed the Second Temple, forcing them to pay the tribute tax. They also executed Christians for refusing to worship their gods. Christianity is also famous for punishing blasphemy and apostasy, as well as discriminating against non-Christians. This is found in early Byzantine Christian law codes, such as the Code of Theodosius and Justinian, which bar heretics and pagans from having any places of worship and barred Jews from public worship, professions, and holding positions of high status, though they were allowed to have their own places of worship. Even Zoroastrianism persecuted non-Zoroastrians in order to maintain political dominance. This is reflected in the famous execution of Mani, the founder of Manichaean religion. They also persecuted Jews and Christians. What about the pre-Islamic Arabs? They tortured and killed Muslims for renouncing their gods. The Quran mentions the persecution polytheists inflicted on Muslims, such as verses 2:217 and 2:240. The religious persecution was so severe that the Muslims had to flee to Abyssinia and eventually to Medina.

Now, contemporaneous non-Muslim accounts. Christians writing in the mid-7th century described Muslims as invading, plundering, imposing jizya, and even implementing the death penalty. In a 688 CE text, John bar Paya says the Arabs "inflicted the death penalty on anyone who acted brazenly against Islamic law." Thomas the Presbyter wrote in 640 about the Arabs ravaging entire regions in Syria where Jews and Christians resided. Sebeos, the bishop, mentioned similar things in a text from 660. The Christian Chronicles describe how the Muslims invading Persia killed bishops, priests, and deacons in church. But not all the non-Muslim accounts mention bloodshed. Some of the accounts say that the Muslims supported the churches. In the letters of Bishop Isaac from the year 650, the author mentions how the Muslims did not force the Christians to abandon their faith. Now, liberal reformists will point to this and say, "See, that's religious pluralism." But if you read the rest of the text, it says that the Muslims gave the Christians a choice: they could remain Christian but pay the Muslims half their possessions as tribute, or they could keep all their possessions but convert to Islam. Another text attributed to Isaac of Rodi, written in 689, says that the Muslim governor of Egypt restored churches and even allowed one new church to be built. So, this is evidence of religious pluralism, right? Well, the same text mentions that the governor also ordered the breaking of all the crosses in Egypt and putting notices on all the church doors denying the Trinity and declaring that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the great messenger. Another Chronicle from as early as 650 from a Coptic Christian describes how the yoke laid on Egyptians by the Muslims was heavier than what the Pharaoh laid upon Israel. The chronicle mentions how Umar, the companion, actually preserved the churches, but he also exacted taxes, and many Christians either fled or apostatized and became Muslims. There are many early non-Muslim accounts, and they all have a similar message: Muslims are conquering lands, they're levying tribute taxes, they're breaking crosses, they're attacking houses of worship, and treating non-Muslims as a second-class outgroup. Now, the Christians may have greatly exaggerated details for political purposes, I grant that, but it would be bizarre to read all these accounts and think that they somehow represent religious pluralism. What they actually represent is the reality of one religious group in competition with other religious groups, in engaging in warfare to seize power, seize power and resources, while keeping the conquered people subjugated.

Finally, let's consider archaeology. After the Islamic conquest of the Arabian Peninsula, we see no more rock inscriptions with polytheistic names or even Jewish or Christian names. If early Islam was this bastion of pluralism, why do we find only Muslims carving religiously inscribed inscriptions from that time period, but no pagans, Jews, or Christians? Also significant is the Dome of the Rock, built in 692. The Muslims deliberately built it on the Temple Mount, which was considered holy by Jews and Christians. To add insult to injury, the Muslims added Quranic inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock that denounced the Trinity. Not exactly a gesture of good interfaith goodwill. A final example of religious intolerance were the apostasy wars of the first Caliph, Abu Bakr. These wars are verified authentic by historians, including Fred Donner. The fact that apostates were attacked and killed in these wars is a major historical evidence against the religious freedom claim from reformists.

So, do I get my five-minute rebuttal now, James? Yes. One minute. I was just unmuting myself because I got myself unmuted on both OBS and then Zoom. Now, want to say, folks, we're going to kick it over to Javad for his rebuttal as well. As if you haven't already, we appreciate it. Hit that like button. Thanks so much for your support, folks. Javad, the floor is all yours. And can you give me a one-minute warning, please? Sure. Okay, thank you so much.

So, Daniel tries to stack the cards in debate by trying to give me as extreme a position as possible, whereas my, so he wanted me to defend, be, you know, feminist and say completely that patriarchy is always bad all the time. And now he wants me to say that I need to endorse full religious liberty, modern liberal, like as modern liberals would have. Obviously, that would be ahistorical to do that. But what I am doing is I'm criticizing the traditional, the medieval traditional Islamic view, which Daniel holds, and saying that that doesn't match up with the Quranic ethic that the Prophet Muhammad brought. And I'm being extremely specific on that. And that's about religious freedom when it comes to wanting to convert to another faith. What I'm saying is that there is no apostasy law in the Quran. And in fact, it shows that you can even die as an apostate because it says that you should repent. So Daniel cannot prove that apostasy is punished in the Quran because it says the exact opposite. And that's what he's trying to get away from. Instead, what Daniel does is he relies on, "This is what the Romans did. This is what the Sassanians did." It's ahistorical, as if the Quran can't elevate the ethic. That's a very secular, atheistic kind of idea. The Prophet, even from a historian's perspective, the Prophet wanted religious freedom because he was denied religious freedom. Once Muslims came into power, just like Constantine came into power, all of a sudden the discourse shifted. So because Muslims had empire, they suddenly shifted when it came to that. And that's unfortunate.

Now, he's being ahistorical again by claiming that the Prophet established Islam as the law of the land. No historian, serious historian, would say that. Instead, as Nikolai Sinai has said in his article very recently, as many other scholars, and Juan Cole has said this, many scholars have said this, the idea that the Prophet was some sort of supreme king or emperor is a later back projection. Instead, he was considered, he had like a senator-like status. He was the leader of his Banu Hashim tribe, and they had to listen to him, but the other tribes did not have to listen to him. And we know that because when he wanted people to free slaves, he had to actually negotiate with them and tell them and bribe them to free the slaves. And we'll talk about that in the next section. So, the fact is that this is ahistorical.

Now, the other thing is, so what I am arguing specifically is that the Quran does not punish apostasy, and he needs to prove that. Now, he used the verse 9:29, which is actually what Islamophobes always do. And the reason why Islamophobes use this is because literally every single other verse when it comes to religious freedom and warfare always has mitigating verses right next to it. And in fact, Patricia Crone noticed this and said, "Quote, only the jizya verse 9:29 seems to endorse word of aggression at first sight, but if read as a continuation of the rest of Surah 9:1-23, however, it would be concerned with the same oath-breaking polytheists as the sword verse." In other words, you have to read the Quran collectively. Now, if you read the Quran holistically, you will see, and we'll talk about this in the third part of the debate, the Quran never allows wars of aggression; it always says self-defense only. Are we to presuppose that only one verse we pick out and we dump all the hundreds of other verses, or do we reconcile the verse and say this is obviously talking about people that you're at war with? And even the exegesis says it's about the Byzantines, and it was talking, and the Byzantines we know attacked and were intent on attacking the believers, and that's what that verse is talking about. So you can't just take one verse. And that's the textual acrobatics that we see that the medieval exegesis do. They allow even half a little bit of a verse to abrogate dozens and dozens and dozens of verses. And so it's actually the other side that is doing the textual acrobatics because again, he cannot prove that apostasy law is in the Quran.

One minute warning. Oh, okay. So, wow, I ended up early on time. Now, he did mention, uh, so the Arabian pagans, he says that they suddenly converted to Islam. That is not correct. Historians now say that's a later back projection. And in fact, this is similar to in the Bible how it shows that all of the Canaanites were wiped out. It's a similar thing that's going on in the Islamic tradition, but suddenly we don't apply the same standard, right? But in any case, it was actually a very gradual shift from paganism to Islam, and that's what the tradition was trying to plaster over, which is why it portrayed it that way. But if you look at the sources, it doesn't make any sense. Then he also cited all of these sources very inconsistently. He's looking at like Michael Penn's work when, and all this kind of stuff, and he's just quoting it selectively. I'd rather take Michael Penn's own assessment of the sources, which actually shows a very much more balanced assessment of the sources and shows that actually there's a lot to show that the tradition actually got it wrong, and there was ecumenical stuff going on. But that's not the debate we're having today. That was the debate I had with Shadi Al-Musri.

Well, kick it over to Daniel for his five-minute rebuttal as well. Thanks very much, Daniel. The floor is all yours.

Okay, um, so conveniently, Javad ignores the verse that I cited about Allah saying that the idolaters cannot manage the Kaaba. They cannot manage, um, Mecca. So this is a major violation of religious freedom. He didn't, he needs to answer, like, did the Prophet (peace be upon him) endorse establishing Islam as the law of the land, as the official religion of the state? Javad, I'm asking you this question specifically. Let's see if you can answer a very clear question: Do you think that any state can establish Islam as the law of the land, as the official religion? If you do think that, that's a violation of religious freedom. That's a violation of secularism. Do you believe in secularism? This absolute secularism? And are you really claiming that the Prophet (peace be upon him) 1400 years ago advocated the secularism that we find in the Constitution? Be a real historian. Stop being a propagandist and an answer these historical questions, okay? And then, do you also endorse, like, do you think that the Prophet (peace be upon him) endorsed laws favoring Islam at the expense of others? Explain that. Explain all of these historical sources that say that the Muslims were taking jizya, that they were exacting taxes, that the Sahaba in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and immediately after are taking jizya. Explain these. Now, yeah, I agree it's not a contradiction to the traditional narrative that Muslims can cooperate with Christians, that's, and actually, um, help them in certain cases and ally with them in certain cases. That's not against the traditional perspective. So if you want to cite Michael Penn, for example, yeah, I agree there are those examples in the historical record as well. But that does not contradict, that's not a problem for the traditional perspective. What is a problem for your liberal perspective are these Muslims from the earliest period, right, in the time of the Prophet and thereafter, who are taking over the Kaaba, taking over Mecca, who are taking over, like imposing jizya? That is a problem for your interpretation.

Um, so you cite Hadith very selectively, as usual. You want to cite Hadith about apostasy. You're cherry-picking. What about the Hadith that say to kill the person who changes his religion? That is a Sahih Hadith. Why do you? So again, this is the cherry-picking that you have been engaged in. And then, I mean, how hilarious, like this is a real memeable moment. You think the Prophet (peace be upon him) was like a senator? Like you are really a murtad. Like you are a shameless murtad to even even think about uttering such a blasphemous statement about the Prophet (peace be upon him). Like you really, I mean, you're so far away from Islam. Maybe you need to think about like what you really think, what you understand about the Prophet (peace be upon him) because if you think that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a senator or who is akin to a senator, like people have to go and ask, he has to go and ask people's permission like a senator would. Like this is such a blasphemous view and it's so insulting. Like this is, I haven't even seen some Islamophobes say make a comment like this. And maybe it has something to do with your advisor, Juan Cole, that you always like to praise and brownnose. Juan Cole says in his book that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was like Martin Luther King. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was like this, you know, proponent of multicultural diversity and gender diversity and religious pluralism. This is like what your advisor says, also completely devoid of any historical knowledge. Look at what the Prophet did in Mecca. What is Fat'h Mecca all about? Explain that. Or do you deny it? Do you deny the Quran? Because the Quran is explicitly referring to taking over the holy shrine and the holy precincts of the polytheists of the mushrikin. So explain that. Like how is that conformant with religious freedom? How is that like being a senator or like being like Martin Luther King? Like this is a joke. This is all revisionism. You shouldn't call yourself an academic. You shouldn't call yourself a historian. You're a propagandist, and you only use historical critical method for your very limited goal of denying these texts.

Okay, fine. But in this debate, have I rested my entire argument on Hadith or on texts or of these other texts? I haven't. So why do you keep bringing them up? Why do you keep making that the point of the debate? I'm looking at the history. I'm looking at the sources that you supposedly should be looking at as an academic historian. I'm basically debunking your entire career, Javad, because I'm actually debating you on your own turf. I'm debating you with the historical critical method. I'm debating you with the historical resources, and you just want to avoid that and start talking about this ridiculous Gish gallop, mental gymnastics. You go on and on and on about like these verses with your interpretation that I can't follow, and I doubt anyone else is following what you're saying about, you know, these Quranic verses. Such a bizarre argument. So I am not impressed, unfortunately, with your performance, Javad. James, do I get my one minute now, or how are we still just unmuting myself? What was the question? One minute. Why did you get one minute? That was the rebuttal. So we get open discussion, or do you want a break? Oh, I was saying that we go to open discussion, but I don't think that we can do that without doing how we did last time with a minute each. And I see, oh, yeah, yeah. So that we don't talk over each other. I'm okay with doing it, two minutes each, but it's up to you, Daniel. Do you want one minute, two minutes, one minute? Let's boring. Let's split it. Let's do a minute and a half. One minute. Come on, it's open discussion. Why can't you discuss? Two minutes is a lecture hour. We don't need this. Just respond. Respond to the points. Was it? We, it's fine. I'll let James decide. That's fine. I'll go with what James. Why don't we split the difference? We'll do, I think it was, Javad wanted two minutes, Daniel, you want one minute. We'll do one and a half minutes. Go ahead. Is it making me work really hard tonight here? Okay, so are we going now, or are we breaking? I didn't know. We're going right now, and I've got the timer. I'm going to have one timer that's got the 45 minutes, and then I'm using my phone for the one and a half minute limits. Okay, great. Thank you so much.

So, it's unfortunate that Daniel continuously does ad hominem attacks, and that's what you do when you run out of intellectual argument. He also tries to misrepresent me as if I'm trying to be disrespectful to the Prophet when I was saying that he was like a senator. I didn't mean that he was literally a senator. In fact, what I actually meant to say, he was like an episcopal figure. That's the word that just wasn't coming to my tongue. That's the word that Nikolai Sinai writes. So he was a religious holy figure who had control over his Banu Hashim tribe, and he had to use, he was a prophet of persuasion and a prophet of love. That's how he convinced people to follow him. So he wasn't an emperor as was later portrayed. They portray, they back-projected him as a Caliph, which he was not.

Now, Daniel is coming to the wrong debate because he's trying to make it out. He again, I told him, I'm not a philosophical liberal; I'm actually a post-liberal. So I don't need to show that secularism existed in the time of the Prophet. All I have to show is that the pre-modern tradition got it wrong, and that the pre-modern tradition didn't acknowledge that the Quran acknowledges freedom of religious belief and doesn't have an apostasy law. That's the part that Daniel has to rebut, and he can't do that. So he has to go to all these other things. And then claim Gish gallop. As far as the public space, you're actually right that the, that in, sorry, the part about the Kaaba, that is correct. The Prophet did clear out, did, uh, bar them from that because that was considered a public space. And you're right, that does create a hurdle for somebody who's trying to advocate for pure secularism. But what I am arguing is that the Quran endorses religious freedom to convert out of your faith, and that is the argument. So he has to show that because I'm trying to criticize the pre-modern tradition, I'm not trying to defend secular liberalism. I'm a post-liberal. The other thing is, I would point to the Constitution of Medina, the Constitution of Medina shows a bilateral relationship that the Prophet enacted between people and so between people of different religions.

Time. It is time. Yeah. So, so do you think that the Prophet Muhammad, when he's conquering Mecca and destroying all their idols, and he's preventing the mushrikin from establishing, like, their rituals and their prayer in Mecca, like this is like a senator? Like, is this like Martin Luther King marching, as Juan Cole, your advisor, puts it? Please answer this question. Do you, are you even familiar with your advisor's work where he compares the Prophet Muhammad to MLK and he compares the conquest of Mecca to like an MLK march? Please tell me if you agree with that, because I want to see what kind of historian you really are.

Javad, um, also the Kaaba is a public place. He cleared the idols because he's trying to make a public place. The Kaaba is not a public place, dude. Do you even know what the Kaaba is? You know what happens in Masjid al-Haram? You think that's a public place that anyone can go and do whatever? Like, this is a joke. Um, yeah, I mean, I don't know what else to say. This is embarrassing. We get over Javad.

All right, so, uh, again, these are not arguments when you call a joke question, your, this kind of ad hominem attacks. But in any case, um, first of all, what I would say is the historical, historians actually question the picture that the traditional narrative portrays about the Arabian pagans being these crass idolaters, and they even question whether there were idols present in that time. So that's the first point we need to understand. And the second point is, um, that, uh, what Juan Cole said is he used the word peaceful cavalcade, is what he used. And that is correct, that there wasn't bloodshed and fighting, and he didn't enslave the population of Mecca like Daniel would want. He didn't rape the girls as Daniel would want. Instead, he granted a blanket amnesty to the people of Mecca, which showed the mercy of our Prophet. And also, again, there's no proof in the Quran, which I would repeat, that you could force your belief onto anybody. And as far as, he didn't actually, Juan Cole said more resembling, he didn't actually say that it is exactly that. Okay. And, uh, Professor Hell is a, uh, well-established historian, tenured, respected, unlike you, who has no specialty. But actually, that's a personal attack. I thought I'd take that back. Okay. So in any case, um, I don't know what else I need to rebut. Okay, that's fine. I just would just say that where is your Quranic evidence for apostasy law? You can't find it. So you need to go to something else.

We'll hand it over to Daniel. One second. Just want to remind you folks in the chat, I don't think we're going to have time for any more questions. I'm sorry about that. So please just keep in mind that if you submit a question, whether it be as a normal chat or a super chat, I don't think we're going to have enough time. We just have limited Q&A tonight. Go ahead, Daniel.

Yeah, there is proof of imposing your religion on others. I cited it when the, when Allah is saying that the, uh, when Mecca and the Kaaba is restricted only to believers and not idolaters, that is imposing your religion on others. That is the proof of it in the Quran, amongst many other things. You have completely avoided mentioning whether or answering the question that I posed to you: Can the Prophet (peace be upon him), did he endorse imposing Islam as the law of the land, the official religion of the land in the Arabian Peninsula? Did he endorse that? You're not answering that question because you can't answer it. You have the, the answer is obvious. Of course, he did. And that's a clear violation of religious freedom. That's the imposition of religious values. So that's exactly, I'm answering exactly the point that you're making to me, but you're avoiding answering my question. And you want to say that, oh, I'm engaged in ad hominem attacks. You're constantly attacking me and saying I support rape. Like, how, what kind of worse ad hominem is there than that? So tell me, is there an endorsement by the Prophet (peace be upon him) on discriminatory laws, on the jizya, the concept of jizya, and having a tribute tax? Address all of these historical sources from Christians that say the jizya was imposed. Address all the historical sources that say the Muslims took over religious sites. Explain the Dome of the Rock. Explain the Dome of the Rock. These aren't later developments 100 years after the Prophet (peace be upon him). These are within 50 years, within even two years. Explain the, explain the Wars of Apostasy. Like, how is that not a clear proof? And your idol Fred Donner has the archaeological evidence establishing that.

One and a half. Go ahead, Javad.

Okay, thank you so much. So you just asked, what about the Wars of Apostasy? That's a great example. So just because the fact that Abu Bakr did that doesn't mean that that is what the Prophet would do. In fact, we know that's the case because other companions severely disagreed. So you can't use that as proof of that is what the Quran or the Prophet would want. In fact, there are scholars who have said that he went in a different direction, he had a different Sunnah than the Prophet when it came to that. So you can't just use the example of the early Muslims like that to prove your point. What I am arguing is that what the Quran says, which is what the Prophet Muhammad brought, does not punish apostasy. Again, you're trying to pin me to the claim, which is a ridiculous claim, that the Prophet, I'm not saying I'm not this naive liberal who's trying to say that all modern liberalism is in the Prophet. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that the Prophet endorsed religious freedom, the right to change your religion. This is in recurring discourse in the Quran, and that's why there's no law against apostasy. That is what you need to show. Okay? And as far as I was talking about the Constitution of Medina, which shows that there was this relationship of bilateral mutual rights and not this imposing Islam like you say. And this kind of imposing Islam kind of mentality that you have is completely ahistorical. That is imposing this Islamist mentality onto the early period. The Prophet Muhammad didn't operate that way. It took some time for the Caliphate establishment to become in that imperial kind of sense, but certainly not in the Prophet's time. And we know that from the Quran itself in verse, in Surah 5, in it's around verse 40, around there, 45, 48 around there, it shows how the Prophet actually was an arbiter, religious arbiter between different signs. He couldn't just dictate his terms.

Yeah, so this is nonsense. Like the, you're, you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You're saying the Prophet Muhammad established, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

All right, let's go point by point here. You mentioned jizya in 9:29. Yes, that was how you deal with people who wage war against you, and then you impose jizya, which was an institution that pre-existed Islam that you deal with when you have conquered people who fight you and then you conquer them. And this was an institution that existed. However, contrast that with the people who didn't fight in the Constitution of Medina, which didn't have jizya, and they were on equal footing, and it was a bilateral relationship. So Daniel needs to understand that point. Now, again, I'm not arguing for modern secular liberal religious freedom. That is ahistorical to do that. What I am saying is that we have many things in that early period that we can use for inspiration and know that the pre-pre-modern Islamic tradition went in a different direction. And the specific thing is the Prophet not punishing apostates. You claimed I used a Hadith in my opening here. I did not use a Hadith. Instead, what I used was the words of Imam Ash-Shafi, who said that "Some people believe, then committed apostasy, then professed belief again. However, the messenger of God did not put them to death." And meanwhile, I also quoted another scholar in the fifth century who said, "It is not mentioned in any of the well-known writings that the Prophet killed an apostate." So if you think that that is what the case was, why can't you find? How can you reconcile the fact that these scholars are saying that apostates were not killed? Okay? And that is why there was actually in the early period about whether that punishment is to be implemented as a hudud punishment or not, and that it could have, and there were scholars who said that it was a later ijtihad of companions, and they were actually right. It was.

So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so you just asked, what about the Wars of Apostasy? That's a great example. So just because the fact that Abu Bakr did that doesn't mean that that is what the Prophet would do. In fact, we know that's the case because other companions severely disagreed. So you can't use that as proof of that is what the Quran or the Prophet would want. In fact, there are scholars who have said that he went in a different direction, he had a different Sunnah than the Prophet when it came to that. So you can't just use the example of the early Muslims like that to prove your point. What I am arguing is that what the Quran says, which is what the Prophet Muhammad brought, does not punish apostasy. Again, you're trying to pin me to the claim, which is a ridiculous claim, that the Prophet, I'm not saying I'm not this naive liberal who's trying to say that all modern liberalism is in the Prophet. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that the Prophet endorsed religious freedom, the right to change your religion. This is in recurring discourse in the Quran, and that's why there's no law against apostasy. That is what you need to show. Okay? And as far as I was talking about the Constitution of Medina, which shows that there was this relationship of bilateral mutual rights and not this imposing Islam like you say. And this kind of imposing Islam kind of mentality that you have is completely ahistorical. That is imposing this Islamist mentality onto the early period. The Prophet Muhammad didn't operate that way. It took some time for the Caliphate establishment to become in that imperial kind of sense, but certainly not in the Prophet's time. And we know that from the Quran itself in verse, in Surah 5, in it's around verse 40, around there, 45, 48 around there, it shows how the Prophet actually was an arbiter, religious arbiter between different signs. He couldn't just dictate his terms.

Yeah, so this is nonsense. Like the, you're, you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You're saying the Prophet Muhammad established, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him) established, um, you know, religious freedom. Answer the question: Did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses. Just making ridiculous statements about like the Prophet Muhammad is like a senator or he's like Martin Luther King with the freedom march to the conquest of Mecca. Like this is, this is really laughable. Um, yeah, so just answer, like, was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims? Right? Was that the case? Name me one single pre-modern society that had this kind of religious freedom that you're describing, that didn't kill apostates, that didn't kill blasphemers. Name me one single pre-modern society that had. Name even, like the Mu'tazila school. Name any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, "Oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates." Cite me some sources. Cite me some history. You're a historian, right? So let's see it.

Okay, so I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical. The Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi Musri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state like Daniel thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and there were, and he's right, for example, like when it comes to the Kaaba, there were the verses 9:17 to 18 that you have to look at. So, no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to, and Daniel runs away from this, he's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's defending apostasy, he has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, you need, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're, you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened. The first precedent was during Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the Wars of Apostasy, which Umar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point, so he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate by, and people saw it, by the way, when you were to stack the deck and have this, and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm going to defend my own points, not go by your dictate.

Time. Yeah. So you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, who, like Umar? None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something egregious against the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of, um, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Um, again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet (peace be upon him)

And that's why they disagreed with Abu Bakr. No, no, this is, this is all nonsense. Yeah, the Prophet, Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, might himself not have implemented the hadith, and he might himself not have killed an apostate. That doesn't mean that's the norm that he endorsed or the law that he endorsed. He explicitly says, "If someone changes his religion, meaning apostatizes, then kill him." That is the, uh, Hadith that. And again, your bizarre interpretation is through word games, whatever. Like, the point is the history. You are not able to address it. I think that's clear now to everyone. You want to talk about, yeah, there are agreements with Christians or with other religious groups. That's called a, that's called a treaty. You think the traditional Islamic position is that we don't accept treaties? Like, we don't, that's not part of like acceptable Islamic tradition. Of course, you can have a treaty with any other, uh, religious group, even with, uh, polytheists. Like, that's, that's not up for debate. Like, no one is disagreeing with that. That's not a, a counterexample to traditionalism. The counter, the counterexample to your reformism and this bizarre claim of religious freedom are the verses that I cited: taking over Mecca, taking over the Kaba, destroying the idols, imposing, uh, Islam as the law of the land. Tell me one society that did not impose a religion as the law of the land. Give me one example of that. You want to reduce, uh, uh, religious freedom to a debate about the death penalty. This is, uh, this is very selective of you. Okay, my turn. Yep. It is indeed selective of me because Daniel has videos and he defends the law of apostasy. That's what the main point is. That's what I said that I was going to debate today. So that's not being selective, that's being strategically selective to show that the pre-modern tradition could get things terribly wrong. So the point number one is, I showed multiple verses that show that you can change your religion, multiple verses that show that apostates can change their religion, and God simply says, the Quran simply says, to make amends, repent, and come back to the fold. Daniel has failed to show any single verse that says to punish apostates. Point number two, I've shown you how Imam, no less than Imam Shafi, said no apostate was killed, and the classical scholars agreed that they had to deal with this inconsistency, and so they had to explain that away. Number three, I have shown that the companions, sorry, that the early scholars disagreed about whether this was an Ijtihad of the companions or a ruling from the Prophet, and there was a debate about whether it was Hadith or not. The point I'm trying to show is that it doesn't go back to the Prophet Muhammad. It was as Patricia Crone has said, that she's not some crazy Islamic liberal modernist trying to reconcile anything. In fact, she was very critical and even, uh, had some, uh, harsh words to say, but she says that this was obviously a viewpoint and makes sense that was adopted once Muslims became an imperial power and modeled themselves after Rome and Persia. So all that evidence that Daniel brings, that every other imperial society did it, yes, that is proof of why they decided that it has to be the case, and then they read back, read that back into the Quran, but they can't find a single verse that says that you kill apostates. It says the opposite: make amends, repent. Want to let you know, folks, I just put a poll in the live chat on who you agree with more on religious freedom, Daniel or Javad. So if you're watching live at another channel, this is your chance. Come on over to Modern Day Debate, put your vote in the poll. We're going to kick it over to Daniel for the next minute and a half. Yeah, so this is just, everyone go to the description of the video on my channel. What does, what is the debate topic? Please check this, everyone, for me, because am I like debating someone else? Like, did I fall asleep and that, and now I'm debating someone else? Because I thought the debate was about religious freedom in general. Like, that's, that's what I thought the debate is about. Uh, Javad, like, why are you avoiding these questions that I'm, uh, giving you? Do you believe in imposition of the jizya? Do you agree with that? Why are you avoiding? Do you believe in the imposition of an official religion, like Islam, as the law of the land? Do you believe in that? Are you avoiding answering this because you're worried about your boss? Because, like, is this liberal progressive group of deviants, and if you put statements like that on record, they'll boot you out? Like, why don't you answer these questions? Uh, why can't you stick on the topic? You have to narrow the scope to something that you imagine the debate to be instead of actually addressing the debate topic, religious freedom. If you didn't want to debate that, why did you agree to the debate? Okay, you could have said no. Daniel, you're, you've limited the debate. Or you, you've talked about, you want to talk about religious freedom. I just want to debate apostasy. Why didn't you say that, Javad? So this is embarrassing. Like, address the questions. Like, can we impose a religion, official state religion, as Muslims would? The Prophet, Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, say, "Oh no, do not impose Islam as the state religion." I don't believe in that. You should just be a senator like me or Martin Luther King. Over, Javad. Sorry. Okay, so I clearly said to you, tweet at Haku, despite my reservations about the way the points are articulated, I wish to move forward with this and will therefore accept your conditions as stated. This is when you were trying to strong-arm. And that's why, who cares about what description you put in your box? You put such a, everybody laughed at how you advertised the thing, and, and in a slanted way, and, and what description you put. I said, as long as you know that my own explicit positions are as stated here. And that's where I defended exactly what I'm saying, which when I said religious freedom, I'm talking about the law of apostasy in specific. And the fact is that if the tradition got that wrong, then that's a major blow against traditionalism, and we're debating modernism versus traditionalism. And this is a key plank of modernism. You've said it yourself, this is a key plank. It's in your book. You, you actually have videos on this. The problem is that you're struggling right now to defend your view in the Quran and the Prophet's example. So you are struggling, and you have to then claim that, oh, I'm Gish Galloping. I'm literally on point as can possibly be, and I'm, and you can't defend it. You could just admit it that, look, I don't have the proof, I don't have the evidence of that. Then just admit that. But, but this is completely on point. Again, the Quran endorses the freedom to change your religion. That's called religious freedom. Okay, I'm not talking about in the modern liberal secular sense of, you know, we're talking about court cases and all that. No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the decision to leave your religion, which you deny, and you've had videos where you deny it. The Quran endorses it. The Quran even talks about apostates who leave the religion. Does modernism, your modernism, accept jizya? Does it accept a state religion? Answer the question. Why can't you answer the question? Does modernism accept discriminatory laws against non-Muslims? Except, you know, answer that question. It's very simple, Javad. So you said you'll move forward with the debate as defined with those questions. Okay, so that means you consented to the debate topics that we agreed to. Like, why are you trying to renege on that now in the middle of the debate when you're getting, you know, embarrassed like this? So, you know, when we're talking about, here's another question for you. So you say that you assume that the Muslims adopted the ideas and practices of Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians well after the Prophet, Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, right? So you say that after the Prophet, Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, after 100 years, then the Muslims started adopting Jewish blasphemy, the idea of blasphemy punishment, killing apostates from Christians, from Jews, from the Byzantines, from the Sasanians, from whoever. Why did, why didn't the Prophet, Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, adopt those values or those norms? Why, why weren't those what that influence that you're describing? Why wasn't that the influence of the time of the Prophet, Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, and the time of the earliest Muslims? Uh, when we look at the Quran, it seems to be in line with those values. When we look at the Quran, it seems to be in, or the practice of the early Muslims, it's in line with punishing apostasy, punishing blasphemy, jizya, discriminatory laws against non-Muslims. That's all consistent. My narrative is the traditional narrative is consistent with the actual historical sources. Your narrative is opposed to that. So this is the point that I'm trying to make. But again, answer the question: Does modernism accept jizya, state religion, discriminatory laws? Fine. Okay, so first of all, I would ask, as far as discriminatory laws, Daniel, do you support the Pact of Omar's restrictions where Jews and Christians have to wear yellow turbans and do all these distinctions? They can't ride on horses, they have to ride on donkeys. Let me ask you that question. We'll see how extremist you really are. As far as jizya, modernists say that jizya is a historical construct at the time, and you can clearly see that, as you yourself say, was, uh, prevalent at that time and was considered just at that time. Now it is no longer in the culture. Just like, are you going to defend slavery? No, you're going to say that slavery, we don't do anymore because there's bilateral agreements. Correct? So therefore, if they're, bilateral, don't, don't interrupt. So if you say, so if you say, okay, then we'll see how extreme you are if you want to bring back slavery. But if, if, if you can say that slavery, we don't bring back anymore because of bilateral agreements, then we no longer do jizya either. As far as state religion, I already told you that the Prophet didn't impose Islam in the way that you think it does now. As far as you saying Jews, and you also don't understand nuance at all. Nowhere did I say that 100 years afterward that that happened. Rather, it was a gradual transition, as you see that initially the precedent was set by Abu Bakr, but it wasn't a fixed law at that time. It took some time for it to develop. And this idea of that following the Jews and the Christians, they're actually Hadith reports, not taking those as historical to make this argument. I'm saying that there are Hadith reports that you yourself have used that say that we will, this, um, will follow the Jews and the Christians, and even follow into the lizard hole. That actually is an argument in favor of what I'm saying, that there's no reason to presuppose that the Muslim ummah will remain on track like you wanted to. In fact, the Quran itself, as we showed, shows that my people will abandon the Quran, and that's indeed, indeed what happened. As far as why I'm not insisting that the Quran, okay, Daniel, like, what does even keeping on track with the Quran mean? Like, if you have this idea of, well, there are higher ethics and we can just, you know, use our individual reason, guess what? Individual reason can be very subjective. If you're influenced by the culture, the fiqh that you reference can be corrupted. So what does even keeping on track with the Quran and Sunnah mean? That's what tradition is. Tradition is keeping track. So you're on the one hand criticizing tradition, but then you're invoking the concept of tradition as peace, as staying on track from the other side of your mouth. So this is, um, this is really, you know, speaking out of both sides of your mouth. But as for the Pact of Omar, like, this is not the topic of the debate. You know, those kinds of restrictions in the Pact of Omar, it's consistent with the Quran. It's consistent with the quranic verse that says, "make them humble." It's his actions were consistent with that verse of the Quran. Uh, you haven't addressed that verse of the Quran. Um, so I mean, the tradition is consistent. Your bizarre liberal interpretation of religious freedom is not consistent with the Quran. It's not consistent with the actual historical evidence. You still haven't addressed the non-Christian sources or the Christian sources that are describing the Muslims as taking jizya. You haven't addressed, you know, the state imposition of law. Can, is Pakistan like, is this the Prophet, Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, would have a problem with Pakistan being an Islamic Republic? Answer that. All right, I don't know where to begin here because, uh, the argument is, uh, going off track. Daniel says that I can't bring in the Pact of Omar because it's not the topic of the debate. But wait a second, Daniel, I thought the topic of the debate was religious freedom, understood in the most expansive and grandiose way possible. Well, if that's the case, then that's directly relevant. Then you should be talking about Jews having to wear turbans, yellow turbans, because that's what you would believe if you want to hold on to the pre-modern tradition. Thankfully, the juristic discourse wasn't the only one that the pre-modern Muslims followed, and there were other better discourses. Um, in any case, uh, as far as jizya, I've already answered your question. It was a historically contingent thing. So no, I don't think that it would be implemented today. As far as verse 9:29, I already told you that's for con, for societies. It was talking about the Byzantines, and it was a bilateral thing. So, but you have to look at all the other dozens and dozens and dozens of verses on warfare which say that you can't attack, you can't aggress, and you certainly can't force your religion onto other people. So I don't know what else to say, really. Um, I mean, again, the Quran, I'm looking at the Quran. And as far as you asking why isn't that the Quran took up the Roman and the Persian influences, that's a really secular atheistic question. The Quran has a divine intent behind it, does it not? So it can rise above the ethic. This is a recurring theme that we've seen today. So, and even Patricia Crone says that now she takes a historical, uh, approach and says that it actually emulated the early Christian view of religious freedom, and then once Islam became an empire, like post-Constantine Christianity, then moved in the imperial direction and instituted, uh, a ban on apostasy. So there's an explanation either way, Daniel. But this is not mental gymnastics. This is Quran versus Go. Ah, Daniel. Yeah, so this is the bot, the liberal bot saying, oh, well, Javad, we don't apply it today because we have multilateral agreements. The debate topic is about the Quran and what the Prophet, Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, endorsed. It's a historical question. You do this liberal bot move, step three of, oh, it was a temporary issue and now we're in a different time. This is the bot. So if we can remove, you know, this, this requirement of jizya and subjugation of these other religious groups, then why not remove, you know, the laws against fornication? Why not remove the laws against homosexuality? Like, why can't we, you know, we're in different times now. We have paternity tests, so we can determine paternity through paternity tests. So fornicate with whoever you want. That was, uh, the do not approach. Zina is only a restriction for that time when there is no paternity test. But now we have paternity tests, so go wild, do zina all you want. This isn't this the trajectory that you're talking about? Isn't this the higher ethics that you're talking about? We're rational. Many rational people today think that should be no problem. Two consenting adult love is love. You know, that's, that's the higher ethic and the rational view that so many rationalists today support. So why don't you have the same kind of argument for, uh, zina, for fornication, for adultery? Why not adultery? For homosexuality? Let's remove all of these laws, Javad. Let's remove all of these restrictions, because we're in a different time. All right, so let's talk about how the tradition implemented this apostasy law. Number one, they decided that the Quran, as I've argued in my first argument, is ambiguous and impartial and incomplete. So that was the first point I made against traditionalism. Daniel has not addressed. Then the Hadith canon comes along and supplements the Quran. But I've already said that the Hadith canon is problematic because their first narrator, the first chain in level in the chain, there's no narrator criticism done on that, and so that collapses. So you can't use those Hadiths that you quote about changing your religion for that fact, because your Hadith canon collapses because of that. Number three is then they said, oh, well, there's ijma, there's consensus upon executing the apostates. But in fact, you can't ground ijma on anything because it's circular logic. There's nothing, and you haven't dealt with that argument either. As far as, you know, why would we accept, uh, jizya, taking away jizya, not now, and not doing the other things? Well, that's obvious. You have to take a look at the text and decide what are universal principles that are timeless and what is historically contingent. Just like you do. I don't think that you advocate the jihad is waged by horses, right? When it says, "prepare your steeds for war," you don't do that, right? So similarly, modernists have always said that you're not going to lash people today, you're not going to amputate their hands today, because those were punishments that were of that time, just like you don't use steeds of war like horses at that time. So as far as the bot is concerned, actually the classical exegists are the ones who use the bot. If you just look at the verse, "Let there be no compulsion in religion," and read Patricia Crone's article on this, she shows the exegetical tools that they did. First, they said, "Oh, this verse is abrogated, canceled out." That's the bot again. But if not abrogated, they said it's only to people of the book, or they restricted it, or they reinterpreted it. That's the bot. Yeah. Uh, so again, like, well, Ramadan, why do we need Ramadan? You know, what if the economy can really benefit if people are eating and drinking during Ramadan? So they'll be more productive. This is what the dictator Borba argued, that his entire country, Muslim country, should not fast Ramadan because we're in a different time. We're in a different time period, and we have to raise the GDP. Everyone needs to eat and drink so they'll be good workers and improve the state of the economy. Why wasn't he this brilliant reformer and rationalist like you, Javad? Or do you actually agree with Borba? Should we think that, oh, well, no fasting in Ramadan? This is something, this was something from the past, just like there are horses in the past mentioned and fighting with swords and spears and arrows, that's from the past, right? Now we're in a different time, we're in a different context. Times change, so we don't actually need, um, we don't need fasting in Ramadan. That was just for those times when people wanted to focus on God. Now we can focus on God through meditation, through different kind of self-care techniques. We don't need Ramadan. Like, why can't you, what what blocks that kind of argument, Javad? Like, this is the problem. This is why you're a liberal bot. This is why your methodology results in the complete destruction of Islam because every single rule within Islam, Ramadan, fasting, and Ramadan prayer, Hajj, even belief in Allah, belief in the Quran, belief in heaven and hell, they can all be portrayed as some relic of the past. Now we're in different times, we're in different contexts, we have to adapt. So Daniel is now showing his fetishistic nature, which is not Muslim skeptic at all, but just fetishism, which is just follow Hadith textual reports, and then you have to accept that God has a face, curly hair, was a young boy. You have to accept all this, like Imam Ahmed Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyyah did. But the fact is that all people have to make interpretive choices, and even Daniel does this. I, I want to, you're asking me questions, I'd like to ask you. Yes or no: do you support Jews in your Islamic state having to wear yellow turbans? Yes or no. If the answer is no, then we show that even you take interpretive choices and decide what is universal, what is for all time, and what is historically contingent. All people need to make these interpretive choices, and the classical exegists made tons of interpretive choices. They abrogated 200 plus verses to justify imperial warfare. So everybody makes exegetical choices. What the modernist does as a rationalist, we believe we have ethical reasoning. So the reason why we don't abolish worship is because we don't touch worship. Worship is between us and God, so we keep that the same. But when it comes to change circumstances in our relations with human beings, that's something that we evaluate, but we maintain the quranic spirit and the ethic of the Quran. So I'll give you an example. You guys in your podcast talk about how you can screw women by divorcing them and keeping all the wealth and not and and making sure to get the minimum bare minimum that you can give to them in divorce. This is the Dawah Bros who do this. You've had no strings attached on your channel very supportively, and I would say that this goes against the quranic ethic. The quranic ethic is about taking care of divorced women. I'll give you another example. Fazlur Rahman brings up this example. Time. Okay, I'll give it up in the next one. The example that I want to give. Yeah, so you're not following the Quran. Like, okay, fine. Any issue that has to do with, like, interaction with other people, this can be up to reform. So what is all this, uh, bluster, like hot air from you about, oh, we have a Quran-centric approach? As soon as the Quran, like the issue, the jizya, as soon as that contradicts your modernism, you want to eject it. You didn't answer the, or you didn't explain how that same logic doesn't apply to zina. It doesn't apply. The Quran mentions zina, it mentions, you know, not approaching zina. Why should that not be considered a relic of the past? Explain it. Like, why is that so, uh, special that we preserve that, but we can dispense with the jizya? So, yeah, this is all just Gish Galloping. You know, what about the ethical reasoning that people use about gender transition? Like, oh, we have these trans kids. You know, this is our modern time, so we have to support trans kids. Do you support trans kids, Javad? Are you a rationalist? Like, is the Quran, is preaching mercy and rahma? So, is that a part of the evolved trajectory of the Quran that we have to accept trans kids? Give me a principled rejection of that if that is not your position and explain. And also, you're building up me with a straw man. You're saying my argument has to do with, did I cite ijma in my opening? In anywhere in this debate? You just projected that onto me. You're debating something else. Like, we're talking, we're debating religious freedom, not these other issues. All right, notice Daniel said I didn't quote Hadith or ijma. Then what did you quote, Daniel? Did you quote any Quran? Oh, wait a second, no, you didn't. Why? Because the Quran goes completely against your view and has no rule of apostasy law. So great job on that defending that viewpoint. Now, as far as your question, I wanted to finish with the example I was giving. So in the early period, the zakat that you gave was 2.5%. But Fazlur Rahman says that's clearly not enough in our today's day and age to take care of all the groups that are meant to be taken care of for zakat. So that means that the zakat should be much higher today. That's how you apply the ethical trajectory of the Quran. That's what makes the difference between people who are rationalist believers and use their brain, and the fetishists who say debate, logic, theology, philosophy, all of these are haram, science, anti-science, let's believe in Flat Earth, let's deny the moon landing. Now, as far as how we deal with new situations, this is very easy. We use our, it's not easy actually, nothing is easy. You have to do deep ethical reasoning. But this is the, uh, model that we use. So this is the fundamentalist paradigm. I hope you can see my image here, but the fundamentalist paradigm is anytime you get an earlier. Okay, there way. Make it any bigger, otherwise I can. Yeah, yeah, sorry. Me? No, we don't have time for another presentation. Javad, finish your point. You have like five seconds. I am finishing my point. You're not my boss. All right, here. We can't see your screen. Like, we can't just automatically like show your screen whenever you want. Like, we have to technically go back and like change the settings. Did you not get that? It's not a big deal. I didn't, I didn't know that. A little bit blurry. Creator. Okay, is it better now or not? It is definitely better now. It's a little bit too zoomed in. Okay, you zoom a little bit. Is that good? Maybe a little bit more zoomed in, just slightly. Just slightly zoom. Okay, right there. I just need one minute for this. That's it. So you already had a minute and a half. Like, are we just extending your time at your, at your decree? I need 20 seconds because I was setting this up. I need 20 seconds. Can we give him 20 seconds? Daniel, just because the set. That's okay. I can do it on my next. Okay, 20 seconds. Go ahead. So the outside critique is just reflexively rejected by the fundamentalist. But when the modernist gets a critique, they ask first, is it critically, is the critique scripturally valid? If yes, we change our position. If no, then we ask, is the critique philosophically valid? If yes, then we change our position and we, sorry, if yes, we reevaluate the scriptural data and then go in the circle again. If it's not philosophically valid, then we say no, and we keep our original position. So there is a sensible paradigm that we follow. It's not just fetishism like you follow. Yeah, so you're, you're talking about like, this is our last, last one started. So we go to Dan's last one and a half minutes. Okay, so I mean, I'm just, I'm a broken record at this point. Like, you haven't talked about imposing a state religion. Is Pakistan, would the Prophet, Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, approve of Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or any of these governments that have Islam as the law of the land? Would he approve of those? You can't answer that question. You've avoided it. That's pretty obvious. You also have all of this stuff about, uh, rationalist speculation and deep ethical reasoning. You've never defined this. You've never actually explained from first principles, like, what is this deep ethical reasoning, this rationalism that everyone supposedly knows? Like, you've just presupposed, like, this is obvious. It's from my perspective, your rationalism is just liberalism. It is just this kind of script, this liberal bot that you rehash. Like, you're one of these, you know, guys that you think that you're a real independent free thinker while just regurgitating all of the status quo, all of the same indoctrinated lines that liberals who have been brainwashed by liberal hegemony spout off on. Like, that's, that's all you are. Like, what is this deep rational, a deep rationalism that just happens to coincide with everything that 21st-century liberals approve of? Wow, that is so deep and ethical. Like, this is just a joke. Like, you're, you're a trained seal. That's why I said in the opening, you've been very well trained. This is a great opportunity to go into the Q&A as well. As want to let you know, folks, we don't mention it often, we do have channel memberships at Modern Day Debate. You can see at the bottom right of your screen. We have both Patreon, which you can find linked in the description, and channel membership. So you can click that join button, it's right under this video. Check out the perks, we just updated them. And we're going to jump into the Q&A. Want to say thanks so much for your question. Is this one first coming in from? Do appreciate it. And like I said, folks, we're a little bit behind in the sense that, let me just pull this page up here. I think I'm trying to find it here. We do have limited time, 10 minutes for each part. And so I'm going to move as fast as I can. Want to give you a heads up, if you put in a super chat now, it's like a near zero chance we're going to be able to read it, just because we have so many. And so thanks for your patience. Coming in from Muhammad, thanks very much. Says, in 425, a slave wife has half the punishment of a free wife. That distinguishment is the difference between wife and what your right hands possess. Not sure who it was for though. I think that was for me. So yes, that's the exact point that you could have a, that's why they're differentiated in the verses that Daniel talks about. Either that, or it's because it's before those verses were revealed. But that shows that there is a distinction between a free wife and a slave wife. The later tradition unfortunately understood that if you married someone, you couldn't have, they still weren't your slave. Um, and so that's why they disallowed marriage to your own slave. And that was a, uh, exegetical mistake or an interpretive mistake. This one coming in from. Do appreciate your question. Pardon my interrupting you there, Javad. I didn't mean to cut you off. Josh says, Daniel's idea of Islam is doom scrolling for Chan and watching manosphere videos and throwing some Arabic words in the mix. They say he's the Islamic Alex Minassian. I don't know who that is, but go ahead. Is this true, Daniel? Are these things true? I mean, the great scholar has to be like a 4chan guy? Like, this kind of rhetoric is so stupid. Like, you can't address these people. Can't address, uh, all of these citations? Like, we're looking at the Quran, we're looking at Hadith, we're looking at all of these other religions, all of these pre-modern religions. Were 4chan basically like incels and whatever? Like, all, what about all Christianity? What about the Byzantine Empire? What about the Sasanians? Were they, uh, doom scrolling 4chan? Like, this is so, so stupid. Yeah, go ahead. This one from Yahya Osman says, was there a harem culture, eunuchs, etc., among the Sahaba, or did it come later? Can Surah Ma'idah verse 5-7 also be addressed? I think should I address Surah Ma'idah? And that's the point I brought against Javad, and he said, oh, it's been abrogated. How convenient. Like, everything that goes against his quranic narrative or his, uh, sexual gymnastics is abrogated, or it came earlier. It came earlier, and then there were later verses. Yeah, that's called abrogation, buddy. So, buddy, buddy, let's say, let's stay courteous. We're talking on an intellectual level. There's no reason. Yeah, accuse me of rape a few more times. Promote rape. Call me an incel. Call me an incel a few more times, and then we'll be courteous. What a joke. That kind of move works with like low IQ morons, but not with me. There's no punches pulled kind of words. Yeah, I've been calling you that for years. You have no argument. You have no argument. We do have to move. Can we, can we both respond to that, by the way? Please. I do, I like, I hate to do this, but I, I do, just because we have so many questions and only minutes each for each part, I should say this. One from Muhammad says, Quran 46:12 says God said, quote, "And before the book of Moses," unquote. God called the Torah God's word. The book of Moses is the Quran, the book of Muhammad. I don't understand revelations. Yeah, it's not relevant. Like, okay. This from Dr. Omar. Yeah, this is Dr. Omar Muslim Theologian says, Daniel still can't read 425 or answer about chronology. Daniel keeps Gish Galloping about Ibn Sina, Greco-Romans, etc. Dr. Javad is on topic. No, like, he, it's Dr. Javad that's bringing up the rationalist throughout history, and he's saying that that's how he defined his modernism. So I just questioned him on that point. Me to some other rationalist within history who has these same views as you do regarding religious freedom, regarding patriarchy. You haven't been able to meet that challenge. So that's a glaring, difficult, that's a glaring, uh, gap in your position. You don't need to, you can use the tools of rationalism to come to a different, uh, opinions on the specific topics. That's ridiculous. You can use the same methodology, arrive at different conclusions. Tool, the tool of Ibn Sina was, uh, just Greek philosophy. Like, we got one for you. Sure, says Javad. Everything you're arguing for the good parts, quote unquote, of Islam, why not Judaism or Christianity or atheism? Why can you deny Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, to say you're a Muslim without any roots? I don't really understand the question, but I have never condemned Judaism or Christianity. I believe they are virtuous religions. And so I don't understand the question, to be honest. This one coming in from Anan Yamu says, Javad, the Prophet, peace be upon him, had a concubine named Maria al-Qibtiyya, and she bore him a son. He eventually freed her. Your whole argument crumbles. Okay, so that argument, and I wish Daniel had actually brought this up because this was the obvious argument to bring up, but in any case, it doesn't crumble anything. In fact, she's listed by Tabari and others in the list of his wives, and there was this debate about whether she's a wife or if she's a concubine. The confusion is, and there's even places that say that she was married. Um, the reason for the confusion is that the, uh, the classical scholars had forbidden you to marry your own slave, and so they didn't have that category. You were either, either a free person and married, or you were a concubine. But she was likely a slave wife, and then, like you said, she was freed. So all, so number one point, you had to have a marital contract. Number two, all of his slaves were freed. So what's the argument here? And then after the Battle of Hunayn, no one was enslaved after that. My arguments all check out. This one coming in from Ponim says, Daniel, we did I read this? They say your version of traditionalism is the same as radical where the Quran is below Hadith, even which takes priority? Why not modernist? I don't know. They say I don't know what that means. Like I said, the Quran and Hadith, the Quran and the, um, example, the Sunnah of the messenger, Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, they go together. So much of Islam is what the Prophet, Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, practiced, you know, his lived example. You have to have that lived example to understand the Quran. So you can't say, oh, we just have a Quran-centric and we get rid of Hadith, we get rid of Sunnah, we get rid of all this, because then how can you understand the, um, the example of the Prophet, Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam? How can you understand the Quran without that Sunnah, without that example? The whole argument that I'm making, there's a reason why I'm not getting into the depth of Hadith because this is not a debate on Hadith. That's what Javad wants. That's why he's Gish Galloping. His argument is so weak that I don't even have to, I don't even have to use Hadith. I can just use sources that he accepts to prove that the traditional, the traditional view, religious, the debate is religious freedom. The debate is religious versus religious freedom. Yeah, so what about the rest of religious freedom? Can you address that? I'm asking. I've already told you that I'm not expecting that modern liberal idea. I'm telling you that the tradition got this wrong. You can't defend that. So can, that's literally what I tweeted. You want to debate, you want to debate like the very granular details of all the, of the entire Islamic tradition? You want to debate all those details? We don't have time. We don't have this is a five-hour debate. This is, this is a five-hour debate, and we can't even talk about such a limited Q&A. We do have to go. Lante says, question of Daniel, what school of Fiqh do you follow? Why in your website there is no Islamic reference in reading list? Yeah, so I follow the Hanbali school of thought. I'm also studying the Hanafi school of thought. I studied the Hanbali school of Fiqh for many years, and now I'm studying the Hanafi school. As for the reading list, it's meant for challenging liberalism and challenging these liberal, these liberal adults like we have here. So that's what the book list is based on that. This one coming in from Raj Wood said, believing slave woman versus non-believing slave. Dan, do either of you know what that means? No. This one coming in from Alante says, question for Daniel, what school of thought do you follow? Do you use Usul al-Fiqh? Is that how it's pronounced? Yeah, yeah. So that's a part of Islamic traditionalism. They say, why don't you have any Islamic sources in your site reading list? Again, I, I explained that. So one, the site is not about teaching Fiqh. It's not about teaching, you know, these traditional sciences. That's not what Muslimskeptic.com is about. Alante says, no, this is the real question. They say, question for Daniel, what school of thought do you follow? Wait, okay, that's the same question. They said, Daniel, Allah is compassionate. They emphasized our Prophet, peace be upon him, in parenthesis, was compassionate. Don't you dare mock and turn into sarcasm every Surah in Quran starts with, "In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful," except one. Compassionate Imam, quote unquote, term rejected as bid'ah. Sorry if I'm mispronouncing. I know I've got to be mispronouncing something. You did a good job. Worry about. Yeah, worry about spelling. This guy seems to have a problem spelling. Compassionate. So worry about spelling, and then figure out what sarcasm means, and then maybe you can understand what compassionate in my usage of compassionate Imam actually means. This one from Dr. Omar, Muslim Theologian, actually, we might actually for the last section of Q&A, folks, we might actually be able to take some questions because we're actually catching up here. Dr. Omar, Muslim Theologian says, Daniel was not able to discuss 425 in last section here. He cannot establish apostasy from Quran. The word of God is too difficult for him. Yeah, yeah, that's sure the case. How about Javad? Is not able to discuss religious freedom. He's not able to address all of the verses that I cited about jizya. About, he hasn't addressed any of these. Okay, now you're interpreting my answer. You're not getting questions because no one cares what you think. Let me actually explain what. Well, this person is critical of you who's giving the question. Yeah, so let me address. Let me address. Come on, James, he's interrupting me during Q&A. Should I interrupt Daniel? A chance to respond, given that 425 about slavery, the first section is about patriarchy and gender roles and restrictions on sexual liberty. That's the, that's the first topic that we debated. Javad wanted to jump the gun and talk about female slavery because he can't address the actual topic. Like, are you noticing the pattern here? You want to, I just, I, I can't, I, I can't help but sympathize with Javad for wanting to jump in when you sometimes jab him while answering the question. Is jabbing me? The question is jabbing me. I know, but it's that's why. But I, I get why Javad wants to jump in because occasionally you'll slip in a jab while you're answering. And so I do, to be fair. Pseudonym says, if my freedom is apostasy, why are you Muslim? That is an extremely strange question. But I guess they're asking me, am I reducing freedom of religion to simply the law of apostasy, as Daniel is trying to portray it? What I'm saying is that there, the entire quranic discourse on this issue revolves around the idea of being free, being freely able to decide to leave the religion. This is what jihad was mandated in the Quran for. So it's not just a minor throwaway issue. It's not just one verse here, one verse there. It's almost 200 verses or so. And that's why the classical exegists, they had to use their bots, and as their bots, they said, all of these verses are abrogated. Now, the ones who didn't say that they were bots as well, what did they go? They went to the next step and said, actually, going to reinterpret them. But they somehow magically came to the same interpretation as those who claimed that all 200 verses were abrogated. So the scripture didn't change the law. The law dictated the scripture, and they used hermeneutical tools to back that on. And Bernard Haykel has an excellent book on that called The Logic of Lawmaking in Islam, where he shows that this is all just interpretive strategies. It's the law that drives the interpretation of the text, not the text the law. Alante says, the first Hadith taught in Hadith studies is, quote, "The merciful will be shown mercy by the Most Merciful. Be merciful to those on the earth, and the one in the heavens will have mercy upon you." Then it says, Sunan al-Tirmidhi 1924, Sahih. Is that a question or that was all they put? I'm not sure who that was for either of you have an idea. Well, I mean, for God, do you accept that Hadith, Javad, or is it probably something that someone made up? I wasn't listening. What Hadith was it? Can you repeat? About, uh, have mercy. I believe that you can use Hadiths religiously as long as they don't contradict the Quran. Do I have historical certainty that the Prophet Muhammad said it? No. This one coming in. Actually, that's it for our Q&A for this. So we're going to jump into the break. So we've got a 10-minute intermission, folks. This is a great time to grab a snack, go to the restroom, whatever it might be. We are going to be back in 10 minutes for the final section, which will be on conquest and slavery, which will be followed by a 10-minute Q&A as well. So if you have a question, we might be able to get it in there. Certainly the ones that are already in the list right now, we can. But I do have to warn you that like with that gentleman, thank you very much. I give you a chance to unwind, do whatever you need to, and then folks, we'll be back in 10 minutes. Thank you, James, and thank you, Dan. My pleasure. I will be here entertaining you all in the next 10 minutes. I will, uh, let me see if I can find that magic trick. Uh, for real, it's not real magic. Two seconds. All right, you know, I don't know if this will work. I haven't done it in a long time. Okay, but I do have to say, Zade Barat, thanks for that. I appreciate it. In the live chat says, enjoy the rest of that turkey avocado. James, I appreciate that. Is, I, I already finished it. It was great. Now I have to remember how to do this trick. Daniel really wants to see this trick. He's, he's excited. So it's not real magic, Daniel. Okay, so, but, uh, let me see. I'll do some entertainment. I'm trying to remember, you know, who I learned this from. No joke, I learned this trick from the evangelist Ray Comfort. So if anybody, I know that the atheists for sure know in the, in the chat who Ray Comfort is, and I maybe even Muslim folks in the chat do. I don't know if they do. Um, because I know that like in the atheist community, it's hard to top Ray Comfort in, in terms of like, public enemy number one. A lot of people are not a big fan. A lot of atheists, I should say. I think Christians are generally, you know, positive about Ray. But, uh, let me see if I, if I can remember how to do this. I think it's, okay, so, uh, yes, so so nervous. I haven't practiced in like maybe like 12 years. I got this cloth. Can you see like purple, kind of like, ah, like simple. And now the trick is to make it disappear. So I am sticking it in here in my, hopefully you had seen it. It's a little bit tough. The camera's not great. Sticking it in there in my fist, like pack it in real tight, and then voila, it's whoa. It's, uh, it's the most simple trick. Don't ruin it.

Chat if you know how it's done. Don't ruin it in the chat. But that's a, that was really good for someone in practice. That's really good. I appreciate that. Is, uh, but yeah, I want to say, folks, I want to remind you, hey, you know, you love debates and, uh, we highly encourage you, hit like. Whether you're here or at Daniel's channel, hit like because we think debates are a good, good thing at Modern Day Debate. The more you hit like, I'm very serious with this, I think it really does make a difference. And Daniel, I'll get your opinion. Like, as a YouTuber, I think that, you know, I mean, it's probably, it's not too surprising that if people hit like more, YouTube probably recommends a video more to, to new people.

Yeah, yeah, definitely. Like, share, leave a comment, engage in the chat, you know, all of this engagement will help the video reach a broader audience. And give me a second, James, you did a trick. I need to do a trick too now. You've got me. I got the bug. Just one second. Let me, what a treat this is. I have a really good predictor that that video will get a lot more views in the subsequent days. So pretty crazy. Is that, uh, I think it makes a difference. So are you ready? Was that the trick that you like turned your camera off or was, yeah, was, is this, oh, you got the trick. Yeah, yeah. I have to take off my earphone so I won't be able to hear you if you say something like, stop it. But, uh, should be entertaining. Hold on. Okay. What is the trick? Drum roll.

Juggling. Wow, very nice. Oh, okay. You can do a trick too. Is there a name for that when you like throw that one up extra high? Sorry, what was that? Is there a name for it? Like when you, it was like out of the normal cadence, you threw one like especially high. Is that, yeah, but I dropped. So, yeah, there's all kinds of tricks you can do. Like a rainbow. Do you, is this, no, no implication there. Wow. I, is this something you regularly practice? Yeah, I learned in, uh, high school. You can just pick it up. Like juggling three balls is very easy. The challenge is getting to four or five balls because your hand, your hand speed has to be really fast. So I did a lot of juggling in college. There's a juggling club. You can juggle pins, you know, with a partner. You can throw pins and, wow, yeah. It's like, it's good exercise. It really gets your hand-eye coordination really solid and it's a lot of fun. That's really, really cool. Pins especially is like, whoa, okay, that's pretty cool.

But yeah, it's, uh, in terms of folks who want to say, we really do want to provide a neutral channel here at Modern Day Debate. We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from. You know, I've got to, I've got to tell you, I, well, that's actually one thing too. So a couple things. One, if you happen to be a Muslim debater or or maybe a Muslim who's like, I'm, I'm really interested in debate. I read this stuff all the time and I'd really like to, you know, actually make the case. And it might be something like tonight where it's two Muslim guests. It might be a Muslim versus atheist. Might be Christian. As I do want to say, if you email me, I want to put the invite out there at moderndaydebate@gmail.com. We are happy to have new Muslim guests. And not only that, I want to say this is that if you're, let's say a Muslim and you're like, man, I went on a channel and I didn't feel like they treated me that well because let's say, say in theory, I'm not saying that all channels do this, but I just, I'm always turned off if a person goes on a channel and I, this is one of the reasons I started Modern Day Debate is that I would see, let's say Christians go on and I'm not trying to paint a, you know, I'm not trying to say this is true of all atheists. It's not. A lot of atheists will give you a very fair shot. But in this particular case, I, I, I saw an atheist channel where, you know, the Christian would go on a debate and then, you know, like the atheists would come out with an after-show right after and be like, oh my gosh, that was so bad. And I was always like, oh man, it's like, how is the, you know, like, like the Christians like going on this channel in a way that is like promoting a channel that's regularly putting out atheist content and so that some Christians were kind of uncomfortable. They kind of turned off by that and they're like, why would I want to go basically promote an atheist channel by going and helping them create content? And that's why at Modern Day Debate, we've wanted to keep it as neutral as possible. We don't have any videos that are saying like, hey, we're going to make the case for atheism. We're going to make the case for Christianity or or Islam in a in a vacuum. Like we only have debates. So if there's anybody making a case for Christianity or Islam or atheism, it's always going to be someone else giving arguments against it. And so that's why I do want to say, like, if you are a Muslim debater, we hope you feel welcome here because I just think you deserve better. Whether you're, and that, that's true for everybody. So let's say theoretically, if you were an atheist and you went onto a Christian channel and then if the Christian channel channel, let's say came out and they're like, oh man, that was so bad by that atheist. I'd be like, okay, I was like, you know, they came on your channel. Like, can you, can you do them a little better than that? Uh, and so I do want to say, you know, folks, we do hope you feel like it's fair. Anyway, thanks for listening to that spiel.

Daniel. Yeah, no problem. Yeah, people are asking me to do, do the pen trick. So I got to, oh, wow. Please. The fans, you know, are you not entertained? Can, can juggle, can flip a pen. We have tricks here from the moderator. This is the most exciting debate ever in history. This is, yes, we are lifting it up. We, it's, uh, taking it to the next level. And so, yeah, I, I definitely, oh, by the way, James, on the, on your stream, I think my name is under, uh, Javad. Javad video. So people are gonna think that I'm this. All right, he's not here to defend himself. Yeah, I'm not gonna say anything, but they'll think that I'm him. I've updated it. And I also want to apologize. One thing that people in the chat said, James, Daniel's slides aren't showing. And I wrongly assumed. So, you know, we're not supposed to assume, but I did it. I assumed that you just didn't, uh, that you didn't have slides that you're reading off a Word document. And then I found out they said, no, no, no, James, like he does have slides and it's, it's not that he purposely didn't show anything because he doesn't, doesn't have them. He has them. He just maybe forgot to share. And so I'm sorry that I dropped the ball on that. And so I'll try to remember. There was only like, it was one section. I can't remember what it was. So it wasn't the whole debate or anything, but there was one where I, I slipped up there. I'm sorry about that. Was it just, was it two? Because we've done three sections so far. We have the fourth one. But, uh, so did it show for the intro, but not like the two other sections? No, I think it showed for the intro and then the first 10-minute opening for part one. And then I think it was the, uh, opening for part two that I, like I said, I'm sorry about that. That's my job. Like I should be giving a friendly reminder. And so folks in the chat, thanks for letting me know that I should do that. I always feel like, yeah. Anyway, so, but, uh, yeah, it's technical glitches. Happens. Happens to me all the time. So no problem, James. Oh, yeah. And then there's that too. The whole technical meltdown. You know, what's crazy? I'm really grateful. Here's why I'm grateful. Not that it happened, but that, um, on the Modern Day Debate side, and I'm sorry for everybody on, like, who has to watch it elsewhere, is that on the Modern Day Debate side, we didn't lose the stream. Which is crazy because my, my computer literally shut down. And maybe YouTube is just getting better, but my computer literally turned off and the stream somehow we reconnected to the original. So I'm grateful for that. Uh, that's great. No, so there, it's just going to show black for that whole period that you're off. I will edit that out. I'll cut it out. But yeah, there is going to be like, probably three or four minutes where I was gone. Yeah, I see. Yeah, at least four minutes. Okay. But all right, Javad, my guess is you're ready to roll. Uh, I guess so. I was like, well, what even part are we doing now? It's just, uh, but okay. I think we're at the last part. All right. Let me just make sure I got the right PowerPoint. Okay. I think I am ready. Are we live or what? Oh, yeah, we're still, we're live. We're live. We're in that intermission and we're going to start it up. So folks, we are entering into part three. And like I said, folks, this is, uh, I had told Javad in an email, I said, this is a really interesting story because these gentlemen have a history. They've been tweeting going back and forth in the past, disagreeing. And so this is an interesting debate both in terms of its subject matter, but also in terms of the fact that these guys have a genuine story. This one is part three, Conquest and Slavery. We're gonna have an opening by Javad and then of course by Daniel as well. Those will each be 10 minutes, followed by five-minute rebuttal and 45 minutes of open dialogue, followed by 10 minutes of Q&A, and then our concluding statements for the night. So Javad, thank you very much. The floor is all yours for your 10-minute opening state.

Thanks, James. If I could also get that one-minute warning. Thank you so much. And I'm just going to share my stuff. Okay. All right. Oh, wait. Is that, I got to close this box. Just give me one second. Uh, oh, all right. All right. Uh, you can see my screen. Good. Yep. Okay. I'm gonna start now. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. So the Quran is a book of peace. God is described as peace in the Quran. Heaven is the abode of peace. Mecca is the heavenly peace on Earth. Islam is peace and believers are told to spread peace. It's only sinful human beings who break the peace and shed human blood. Human life or human souls are sacred because they are God-breathed. Whosoever kills a soul, it is as though he kills all of humankind together. Therefore, the default position in the Quran is one of sanctity of life for a human soul, a human being. Do not kill a soul which God has made sacred. And this is repeated in the Quran. It's called enough. Unfortunately, the tradition went in a different direction and they used this Hadith to do it. They claim that you don't have the sanctity of life if you're a human being. It's only something that you opt into instead of being the default condition. It's an opt-in. If you convert to Islam, if they do it, if they convert, then their blood and property are sacrosanct. So this is unfortunate. In fact, if you were a non-Muslim living in a non-Muslim land, you were a Kafir harbi and your blood was listed to be shed. You had no sanctity of life. And unfortunately, this was the default position, whereas the Quran considers all human souls to be universally and permanently sacred. In the medieval Islamic tradition, it was the legal contract of Dhimma that protected the life of the non-Muslim on a provisional basis. The Kafir dhimmi was protected, but in a subservient state. And they, of course, superimposed this Hadith which inverted the Quran, as we saw, because the Quran says there's no compulsion in religion. The Quran also says that God divinely willed religious diversity. Had He willed, He would have made you all one religious community. So why are fundamentalists arguing that they want to make the entire world Muslim and Islamic and dominate the entire globe? This is a wrong understanding. Unfortunately, the Quran actually says that we made you peoples and tribes so that you may come to know one another, to love one another, not to conquer one another and hate each other. The Quran actually, as Professor Patricia Crone says, says that when it comes to warfare, the Quran actually endorses the Golden Rule. The basic principle is that you want to treat other communities as they treat one's own. Fighting in the Quran, she says, is declared legitimate in self-defense. The Quran insists on tit for tat. Go no more proportionate retaliation. Meanwhile, it's the medieval exegetes who have to postulate endless abrogations to make things fit into their imperial agenda. That is offensive Jihad, not Jihad. The default state in the Quran is a state of peace, and therefore one should peacefully preach the message. Patience in the face of insult and injury is a higher level of piety. However, according to the Quran, sometimes war is indicated to protect people from oppression and religious persecution. Even then, however, peace should always be sought and the door to reconciliation left open. It is, of course, permissible to defend yourself. And this is repeated in the Quran repeatedly that you can defend yourself. Uh, and whoever defends himself, there's no, nothing wrong with that. But what is wrong is to retaliate more than equal retaliation or to initiate aggression. Whosoever is retaliated proportionate to what injury he received. So equal retaliation actually precludes initiating aggression. In fact, the Quran endorses a very clear non-aggression principle. This is not textual acrobatics. This is clear as day. Fight in God's cause against those who fight you, but do not aggress, for God does not love aggressors. In fact, here's an even clearer verse, Surah 4:90. If they let you be, do not make war on you and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them. Oh, let's do some textual acrobatics and understand this verse. No, it's clear. The Quran endorses a peace principle. If the, even if you fight a war of self-defense, if the enemy inclines towards peace, then you incline towards it because the Quran endorses peace. If they cease fighting you, what has passed will be forgiven them. So the Quran has this peaceful and forgiving attitude, and this is repeated in the Quran. So these are the Quranic principles of war: sanctity of life, non-aggression principle, proportionality principle, the peace principle, and the truth of God. These are four months in which fighting is forbidden in order to cool things off. And of course, these were abrogated by the medieval exegetes. Now, if you want to look at the Prophet's life story, we can do no better than looking at Ibn Qayyim's statement, which says, quote, to anyone who carefully considers the life of the Prophet, it will be clear that he did not ever force anyone to adopt as a religion, and that he, the Prophet, only fought those who fought him. This is an 8th-century scholar. Hmmm. Every Quranic verse, this is what the exegetes did. What did they do with all these clear-cut verses? Well, they followed the, the principled rule, every Quranic verse that conflicts with the view of our legal school must be taken as abrogated or better yet, reinterpreted so as to agree with our position, which is of course, waging offensive warfare. This is an 11th-century scholar who said that Jihad goes into four stages. And you can see how textual acrobatic they are here. They actually put in the fourth stage of Jihad, they put verse 21:90, which they claim abrogates 21:91, which was defensive war. What makes this even more ridiculous is that they didn't look at the rest of the verse, which actually says, against those who fight you, but do not aggress. This is just a shoddy cut-and-paste job. The exact textual acrobatics that Daniel accuses me of. Now, if the wars of conquest weren't advocated by the Quran or by the Prophet, how did they come about? They were actually not initiated by the Prophet, but were actually an extension of the so-called Wars of Apostasy under Caliph Abu Bakr. And this is supported by several historians. Whereas the Quran restricts the penalty for unbelief to the next life, the medieval Islamic tradition said that the penalty for unbelief was that we wage war and kill you, subject you to Dhimmi status, execute you, or enslave you. And that leads us to slavery. So when it comes to slavery, the theological basis against slavery is in the Quran. It is not for any human being to say, be my slaves instead of God. In fact, it's Pharaoh's Sunnah to enslave people. He's the one who enslaved the children of Israel. And his Sunnah was, we shall kill your sons and spare their women. This is what, unfortunately, the medieval Islamic tradition accepted. So my overall claim is that the Quran evinces an emancipatory ethic, which was unfortunately not followed by later Muslims who instead followed Pharaoh's Sunnah and supported a massive slave trade. The Quran actually calls the emancipation of slaves to be the steep path. And what will explain to you the steep path? It is the freeing of the slave. What is true piety? It's not just formal acts of ritual worship. Instead, it's to give wealth despite loving it for the emancipation of slaves. Islamic modernists since the 19th century have argued that it is simply nonsensical to argue that the Quran calls for the emancipation of slaves while simultaneously calling for enslavement. This would make the Quran contradictory. The conservative traditionalists on the other hand made the absurd argument that abolishing slavery would take away from Muslims the ability to earn good deeds by being able to free slaves. So you need to have slaves in order to sometimes free them. Just imagine if someday we had a major technological advancement that allowed us to with a snap of a finger get rid of poverty altogether. Should we do it? The Islamic modernist would say, of course, that will be a fulfillment of the Quranic ethic. The fundamentalist on the other hand would say, no, let's keep people in poverty so that Muslims could still get the reward of giving charity to to the poor. The Quran repeatedly says to emancipate slaves. This is all over the Quran. Yet there's nowhere that it says to enslave anyone. In fact, what's interesting is that the medieval tradition understood that all of these various forms of enslavement, including debt bondage, punishment for a crime, kidnapping, etc., all of these were banned, but for some reason, they allowed enslaving prisoners of war, which was the one door that the Quran specifically mentions is closed in verse 47:4. No textual acrobatics, then free them, the prisoners of war graciously or ransom them till the war lays down the burden. Thus shall it be. There's no verse that says to enslave prisoners of war. This is actually in the Bible. But why are there no such verses in the Quran? We really need to ask that question. In fact, it was the Sunnah of the neighboring Byzantine Empire to execute prisoners of war, ransom them, or to enslave them. Similarly with the neighboring Persian Sasanian Empire, to execute, massacre, enslave captives. I wonder where the early Muslims got this from. Meanwhile, the Quran actually says to treat captives with mercy, give them sustenance, treat them well, and then at the end of the war, to free them either graciously or ransom them. The obvious interpretation, this is not textual acrobatics. Medieval Fiqh texts say the obvious interpretation of Quranic verse 47:4 is that the Imam is only entitled to pardon captives, captives, or release them on ransom. In fact, this was the earliest opinion according to some sources. Al-Hasan al-Basri backed this up. The prisoner of war should not be killed, but he may only be ransomed or set free by grace. We even have sources that say there was an Ijma or consensus of the companions. I'm not rooting my claim in Ijma, by the way. These are early figures who endorsed this, this obvious reading. Imam Shafi, now coming to the Prophet's life story, we say that Imam Shafi shows he said, we know not of any evidence suggesting that the Prophet captured and enslaved any single person after the Battle of Hunayn. In the Battle of Hunayn, 6,000 prisoners of war were taken, and they were all released without ransom. Even there are Hadith reports. I'm not taking them as historical, but they show that there was no enslavement after that. Now, unfortunately, the pre-modern exegetes just took this as limited to Arabs and said that Arabs are a noble race because this was a Sunni orthodox view that the Arab race is superior to the non-Arab race. I wonder if Daniel Haq agrees with this. So they limited this ethic to the Arabs. But they, anyways, there were some scholars early on who held that the Prophet's emancipation at the Battle of Hunayn was a momentous day and that there was a command to set free all other Arabs previously enslaved and forbade other, uh, future enslavement into perpetuity. As far as the Prophet himself, he freed all 12 of his slaves that are reported to him, although there's a difference, but he freed all of them, that's for sure. These are the different that the Quran only offers two of them, which is to free or ransom them. And here's a professor saying, although the verse is clear, it's the later Islamic tradition that went in the opposite direction. In fact, this is the same guiding principle, the bot. Remember, this is the exegetical, uh, medieval exegetical bot, which said every verse that conflicts with the view of our legal school, we take it as abrogated or reinterpreted. They actually nullified God's word, as even this professor says, jurists found reasons to nullify God's seemingly clear instructions to free prisoners of war. Such exegetical exercises had the paradoxical outcome of seeming to mock the Quran. The instructions given to the conqueror of Sin, Muhammad al-Qasim, read like a cruel parody of 47:4, bind their bonds and grant freedom to no one of the enemy and spare none of them. These are historians who are saying this. The medieval exegetes expanded it to four options, but then actually reduced it down to just enslavement or mass execution, going exactly against 47:4. Imam Malik said you could not reject, uh, release prisoners of war, and so did Imam Abu Hanifa, and some said that this was completely not allowed to ransom or free people. The justification for enslavement at this time is not the kind of utilitarian ones that Daniel gave. Instead, it's considered a penalty for unbelief because you're considered dead if you are an unbeliever, and then you can enslave or kill them. But this is philosophically incoherent, and we can debate this in the open discussion. It's there. Unbelief that justifies it. Imam Shafi even said that the prohibition of killing women and children in war is as a directive is based on financial consideration. Women and children, Shafi explains, are property, and property should not be damaged. This is the weird utilitarian direction that they went in. As far as the precedent for, uh, this taking prisoners of war as slaves, it was actually Abu Bakr who during the Wars of Apostasy took women and as prisoners, and other companions opposed this. This was Abu Bakr's Sunnah, which went against the Prophet's Sunnah, and we can disagree with this, just as public companions did. And he based this on public welfare and reciprocity because he was basing it on what the Romans did with prisoners of war. They executed them. In fact, Khalid ibn al-Walid, who came after him, returned the prisoners of the people of the Ridda and demanded that no one, no Arabs could be enslaved. There are sources that say that Ali actually extended this to non-Arabs as well. My overall argument, whereas slavery was a de facto reality in the time of the Prophet and mentioned as such in in the Quran, nowhere does the Quran endorse slavery. Not a single verse says to enslave prisoners of war. In fact, the Quran says to free them after the war. The Quran is anti-slavery and pro-emancipatory in its message, repeatedly stressing to free slaves and even marry them. The Prophet freed all of his slaves. The Prophet freed all the prisoners of, I'm sorry, that give you that one-minute warning. I just, so just 30 seconds. These are my specific claims for Daniel that the Quran forbids wars of aggression and does not allow for enslaving prisoners of war. These are what he needs to rebut. And of course, he'll respond this way. Thank you. And we'll kick it over to Daniel. Pardon that. Sorry about that. I'm just trying to keep an eye on the live chat just for questions as well. As we're, we're going to kick it into the 10-minute opening from Daniel as well. The floor is all yours, Daniel. Can we just make sure that I'm sharing the screen this time? Yes. Okay. Just let me know when to start. Ready for you. Do the Quran and Muhammad, peace be upon him, endorse imperial warfare and slavery, including slavery which permits masters to have sex with female slaves? First, let's look at the Quran. Traditional Islamic scholarship says rules of warfare shifted over time. There were three phases. First, while in Mecca, Muslims were small in number and weak. As such, they avoided violent conflict, but rather patiently withstood attacks. In the second phase, after migrating to Medina, the Muslim community was permitted to fight back against aggressors in defensive Jihad. In the third phase, once the Muslims had grown strong in Medina, they were permitted to engage in offensive wars of conquest against even those who had not attacked them. The traditional scholarship argues that these last verses permitting offensive Jihad abrogated the earlier verses. The verses that endorse conquest are 9:29, 9:5, and 2:193. We saw verse 9:29 in the last section. Verse, uh, 2:193 reads, fight them until there is no more fitna and until worship is acknowledged to be for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. Verse 9:5 reads, when the four forbidden months are over, wherever you encounter the idolaters, kill them, seize them, besiege them, wait for them at every lookout post. But if they turn to Allah, maintain the prayer and pay the prescribed alms, let them go on their way, for Allah is most forgiving and merciful. On slavery, verse 33:50 says, O Prophet, indeed we have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hands possess from what Allah has returned to you of captives. Verse 8:67 reads, it is not right for a Prophet to take captives before he has conquered the battlefield. Verse 4:74 reads, when you meet the disbelievers in battle, strike them in the neck, and once they are defeated, bind any captives firmly. Later, you can release them by grace or by ransom until the tolls, toils of war have ended. Uh, verse 4:24 through 33 gives several rules about the rights of slaves and prohibits prostituting slaves. Obviously, the verse presupposes the permissibility of owning slaves, including female slaves. Regarding masters being allowed to have sex with slaves, the Quran uses the term milk al-yamin or right-hand possessions, which is the term for female slaves. Verse 4:24 explicitly makes sex with female slaves lawful, as well as verse 33:50 mentioned earlier. In Surah, the believers are described as guarding their chastity except from their spouses and their female slaves. Same in verse 70:29. Those are just a few of the many verses endorsing conquest, slavery, and concubinage. The traditional position says these verses license offensive war, slavery, and concubinage. Liberal reformists do goofy gymnastics to get out of the clear meaning of these verses. So who is right? As usual, let's look at the beliefs and norms of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and the actual history of the earliest Muslims. As for biology, we've already discussed the in-group versus out-group instinct that all human beings naturally have. Not only humans, but even animal species have these instincts. For example, chimpanzees instinctually get into groups and engage in conflict with other groups over resources and power. Each group seeks territory, food, and mates. Each group also seeks power over other groups to prevent them from attacking and to limit access to resources. This also involves females, because female chimpanzees stay in areas with abundant food and water. When a group of chimpanzees takes the territory of another, it also takes control of females in that territory. Groups struggle for resources and power because attaining these things is required for survival and reproduction. Groups that don't engage in this behavior die out very quickly. These behaviors are found in other species as well as in humans. This is why conquest, slavery, concubinage are found in every pre-modern civilization without exception. These behaviors are required for survival. And even modern superpowers engage in this competition for power and resources. Within the quantitative social sciences, researchers note that hunter-gatherer societies, pastoral agricultural societies, industrial societies, they differ in how they engage in war and domination, but regardless of the kind of society, they all engage in aggressive expansionism. It's built into human DNA as well as the universal cultural consciousness of humanity. This is very important when we study late antique religions. The Hebrew Bible endorses conquest of others and even genocide of certain groups like the Canaanites and the Amalekites. The Bible praises Jewish kings like David for their conquests. These kings are allowed to conquer other people for power and resources. The Bible also endorses slavery and holds that female war captives may be used sexually, either as sex slaves or as forced brides. Later Rabbinic law also endorses slavery and assumes that a master can use slaves, female slaves, sexually. Jews in the late antique period permitted sex with slaves. In the Greco-Roman religion, it's no secret the pagan Greeks and Romans engaged in constant wars of conquest and enslaved entire populations. When the Romans adopted Christianity in the 3rd century, they retained the same policies but with alteration. The New Testament doesn't establish a clear position on war, but from early Christian times, many Christians argue that defensive and offensive warfare are permissible. The New Testament clearly endorses slavery, and there are no verses that ban sex with female slaves. Later Christian Romans like the Byzantines endorsed taking slaves in war, but did not allow males to have sex with female slaves, although it's unclear whether they permitted forced marriage of slaves. Zoroastrians also endorsed imperial warfare as well as slavery. They also permitted male masters to have sex with female slaves. The polytheistic Arabs constantly warred with each other, took slaves, including sex slaves. Sometimes weak tribes voluntarily submitted to slavery in return for protection. These subordinated groups were known by names like Jar, Mula, and Thaqif. This is the context of the world at the beginning of Islam. From a historical critical perspective, it's expected that the early Muslims would endorse norms on warfare, slavery, concubines, analogous to the norms found within literally every other religion and culture. Further evidence comes from contemporaneous non-Muslim accounts. An account of the Battle of Gabitha is a very early fragment from 637, only five years after the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, that describes the Muslim conquest of Syria. Another document written by a Christian apologist called the Doctrina Jacobi, dating around 640, mentions Muslims. What's interesting is that the Christian apologists argue that the Muslim Prophet is a false prophet because he came armed with a sword and was involved, quote, only in shedding of men's blood. We already mentioned the account from Thomas the Presbyter in 640, describing how the Muslims invaded Byzantine territory as well as Persia. In the Sebeos document from the 660s, the bishop describes how a band of followers obedient to Muhammad, peace be upon him, quote, began to go up to the land of Palestine, plundering, enslaving, and pillaging. So this Syriac Christian account not only describes the Muslims as engaging in conquest and taking slaves, but he also attributes all of this to the Prophet, peace be upon him. The Khuzistan Chronicles, written in the 660s, says about the Muslims attacking Persia, quote, neither walls nor gates, armor or shield withstood them, and they gained control over the entire land of the Persians. End quote. The Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephrem from the 7th century is a Syriac Christian text describing how Muslims attacked Christians and took the conquered people as slaves and concubines. Many, many other texts all describe the same thing. Now let's look at archaeology. The archaeological record proves that Muslim armies took over and replaced the religious sites of other groups. The biggest example is Masjid al-Haram, which was the primary shrine for the Pagan Arabs. We already mentioned the Dome of the Rock from 690. Also, the Umayyad Mosque was a cathedral that was converted to a mosque in 710. The Ibrahim Mosque in Palestine was formerly the Tomb of the Patriarchs, a site sacred to Jews, Christians. In Persia, numerous Zoroastrian fire temples were converted into major mosques. This is all hard evidence. Another piece of hard evidence is coinage. Minting coins is the mark of an empire ruling over large territories. The Sasanian empires had coins, but starting in the 650s, the Muslims conquered Persia, took the Sasanian coins out of circulation, and replaced them with newly minted coins with Islamic symbols. In the 690s, Muslims did the same to the Byzantine Empire. It was as if the Muslims were saying, we're replacing these empires, and we're going to be an empire like they were. There's also the building of forts and garrison cities. The aim of establishing garrison cities is to maintain long-term permanent control over vast conquered lands. Examples of these cities include Kufa and Basra, built in 638 to control Iraq, Fustat, built in 641 to control Egypt, and Qairawan, built in 680 to control Tunisia. Finally, archaeological data proves the earliest Muslims practiced slavery. Inscriptions from the first century of Islam mention slave-related terms like mawla. Also, the fact that there are no rock inscriptions in the Arabian Peninsula after the Islamic conquest dedicated to polytheism, Judaism, or Christianity further proves hard evidence that that's what we're talking about. Hard evidence that the Muslims in the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and immediately thereafter were engaged in conquest. So let's see if Javad, who is supposedly a historian, will get off of the goofy gymnastics and the ad hominem and the Gish galloping and the straw man arguments against the Islamic tradition and actually address the hard evidence. What about these late antique religions? What about these contemporaneous Muslim accounts? What about the coinage? What about the inscriptions? What about the Dome of the Rock? What about Masjid al-Haram? What about, uh, the Great Mosque, which used to be a cathedral and it was made into a mosque? These all predate 750. So within 100 years of the Prophet, peace be upon him, these, these things are there. There's hard evidence. We'll jump into the five-minute rebuttal. Javad, thank you very much. The floor is all yours. Uh, before you do that, I need to, uh, share the screen, please. You bet. It's not allowing me to do it right now because I think he has to stop sharing. Think, let's see. I think Daniel, you're there. You go. Okay. So if you just give me one second as I pull this up. Okay. So thank you very much. So Daniel, again, we're going to see who's the real bot when it comes to interpretation and interpreting things away. He cited three verses that say that, uh, this abrogated, canceled out, nullified all those peaceful verses about not aggressing in war. He cited 9:5 and 9:29. That is Surah 9. Surah 9. This is Islamophobes who quote 9:5 and say that this, kill them wherever you find them. But let's actually see. 9:5 is talking about the, the Surah starts out, it's talking about those whom you made a treaty with and then they violate it. In fact, it says, don't wage war against except those idolaters with whom you made a treaty and who thereafter commit no breach against you, nor support anyone against you. Those you don't attack. Fulfill the treaty with them. Use lethal force against the idolaters wherever you find them. But if they repent, then you stop fighting. It doesn't even say to convert to Islam there, by the way. And if any of the idolaters seek safety with you, grant him safety so long as they remain true to you, you be true to them. The Quran is only talking about those people who broke the treaty. It's right there. How could there be a treaty with God and His Messenger for such people who break their treaty? How, when if they were to get the upper hand over you, they would not respect any tie with you of kinship or treaty. They are the ones committing aggression. The Quran makes sure to mention that it's not a war of aggression. Why would the Quran go out of its way to say that? And if they, and they break their oaths after the treaty with you and attack your religion, and then it's talking about fight them so that they may desist. Will you not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges and proposed to drive out the Messenger and did attack you first? So this is Sam Harris, by the way, who also uses another verse. So it's, it's not talking about offensive Jihad and wars of aggression. It's against that. Then Surah 2:193 is what he cited. This is 2:193. It appears in this passage, "Do not aggress, verily God does not love the aggressors." Deleted by Sam Harris and also by Daniel Haq. Persecution, religious persecution is worse than killing. But do not fight near the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. But if they cease fighting, then God is most forgiving and merciful. Fight them until there is no religious persecution, fitna, and your religion is for God. Fight against them until idolatry. This is how Sam Harris interprets it. But this is not the word. It's not shirk or idolatry, it's persecution, it's fitna. So that does not support Daniel at all. And then the verse even says that religious persecution, fitna, is greater than killing. This is 2:217, which explains what fitna is. "And they will not cease to fight you until they make you renounce your religion." It's giving a definition of fitna in the Quran itself. Then Daniel actually quotes 2:432 and 33 to justify having sex with slaves. Dude, that's 4:25. I already showed you that. The very next verse, "Marry the believing young women, so wed them, give them their proper bride wealth as married chaste women, not as fornicators and lovers." Taking a concubine is taking a lover. Okay? And then he cites, amazingly, he cited 4:74, which I already told you, 4:74 about taking prisoners of war. Dude, that's the entire verse that I quoted to you that says to free slaves. And finally, he cites 8:67. 8:67 came long before the verse 4:74 and is, and doesn't even actually say to take prisoners of war. So that's not a good argument. That's pretty much all I have because I addressed all of the Quranic verses that he brought forward. And you see that he's the one who's the bot who doesn't interpret. And I mean that, he follows the exegetical strategy that if a Quranic verse goes against you, then you abrogate it. And they abrogated almost 200 verses, or you reinterpret it. This is the strategy of the medieval exegetes. I'm showing the Quran. I'm basing my argument on the Quran. I believe in the Quran. I believe in the Prophet Muhammad. I don't have to believe in the later medieval tradition, which accepted, as Daniel himself says, the Roman and the Persian example. These examples, the Quran has a higher ethic, and you should believe that the Quran can have a higher ethic if you're truly a believer. And it's not just me who's saying it. Historians have also said it. Read Patricia Crone on this. She says the Islamic modernists are 100% right. She actually said, initially I read the modernist Shel and I said, oh, I think he's being apologetic. But then I read it a second time and I realized, you know what? He's being apologetic, but literally everything he said is right. And that's Patricia Crone, who's no pro-Islam Islamic person. So, uh, really, I have the Quran on my side. Daniel does not. He still can't even defend the idea that you can have, uh, sex with a slave without a marital contract because 4:25 clearly says that you must. There's not a single verse that Daniel has shown that has proven his point that you can take sex slaves, that you can, you can have sex with slaves, you can conquer people, wage wars of aggression. None of this. He can't prove any of it. That's all I needed. We can't hear you, James. We'll kick it over to Daniel for his rebuttal as well. The floor is all, it's 10 minutes. Let's see. I think this is, we're on rebuttal already, or five minutes? Five minutes. Five minutes. Oh, he went way over five minutes. Did I go over five minutes? Because I was supposed, I thought it was 10 minutes. Going way over time. I thought it was 10 minutes because he went for 10 minutes. It's not me. It's, I, I should be called out. So that's not fine. Maybe, maybe both of you for a second, please. I'm just trying to like get my bearings straight. It's like, were we just on the, that wasn't the rebuttal. That is the rebuttal. That was the rebuttal. I don't think you went. Did you go? I don't think you went over. Maybe I'm mistaken. I thought, yeah, maybe it doesn't matter. It's fine. He can talk. It says on my, like, I had it set where it says, set a timer for four minutes. He can talk all he wants. It's okay. So I'll set, I'll talk for five minutes. Okay? Like, I'm gonna check and if you, if I'm, if you guys are wrong this time, I'm gonna rub it and rub your faces. Yeah, I, I could be wrong. Let's go to Daniel for five minutes. Okay. Let me start my time. Okay. So my question for Javad now, do you think Islam was the first society to abolish slavery? Like, as a historian, please tell me, uh, because this would be breaking news. You know, Islam is the first society. The Quran is the first emancipation document of history. Please, you know, make this claim as a historian so all of your historian friends can laugh you out of, off of Twitter or out of Harvard. Like, people need to realize that this guy, he's a Harvard academic. Like, this is an embarrassment. I'm also a Harvard graduate. This is like the best you can come up with, you know, when you have this kind of interpretation of the Quran, um, and you're saying, oh, well, these verses came later. It, I've noticed something with your, um, goofy gymnastics, Javad. Whenever there's a verse of aggression in the Quran, just what you presented right now, you say like, kill them wherever you find them, for example, or even Jizya, you say, oh, it's for a specific event, or it's just for this specific battle, or oh, it's just for that specific time. What is your evidence for this? Who knows? It wasn't presented. But whenever there's a verse about peace, whenever there's a verse about mercy, oh, then that's universal. That's for all time and place. You know, this is just post hoc reasoning. You have established no principles of interpretation. You haven't established any principles of reason or higher ethics. These are just pretty words that you refer to, and you think that you're convincing people. No, it's a joke. No one can follow your argumentation because it seems all post hoc and selective cherry-picking. Um, so, you know, this is, this is the trend for this entire debate. Exactly as I predicted, goofy gymnastics. You haven't even acknowledged this claim that I made at the very beginning. Like, we're still on this issue of, do you accept, do you concede that language understanding a text requires understanding the intentions of the author? Do you accept that? Like, why, why can't we even agree on this basic point? Like, this is an established scientific academic fact. You refuse to address it because as soon as you accept that scientific academic fact, then it becomes very pertinent, what is actually the beliefs and norms of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and what does the history actually say about the historical Muhammad, peace be upon him? You don't want to get into that debate, as you've admitted multiple times now. You don't want to have that debate. You want to talk about very granular, specific, narrow issues because you can't address that larger argument. Me on the other hand, I'm coming to this debate with the exact topics that we agreed to in advance: religious freedom, patriarchy, gender norms, restrictions on sexuality, conquest, slavery, sex with female slaves. These are very broad topics. And if we want to address broad topics, we have to appeal to large amounts of historical sources, contextual sources. We have to look. We can't just say, oh, this verse, I think it means this. I read someone in the 9th century who had this interpretation of that verse, and therefore this is what it actually means. Like, this is, this is embarrassing. Like, I can't believe that you are taken as a, a serious historical scholar.

I think this debate has really exposed you as a charlatan. This is not academic at all. You can't publish any of this kind of stuff, and this is why I want, this is why I agreed to have this debate with you because I want to expose, like, what is the reality of Harvard academics. Like, they, Harvard academics are, are not people to be intimidated by. Uh, these Islamic Studies scholars, they're people like Juan Cole saying that the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, is like Martin Luther King, or he's like a senator, and he, he has this peace march into Mecca. Like, this is the kind of nonsense that your institution, your departments produce. And every traditional Muslim, you know, even like a first-year student of Islamic Studies can completely destroy all of your arguments. They just need, you know, certain pointers. I'm, for example, debate, I'm bringing all of these historical sources from your own academics, from your own books that are seen as authoritative by your side, and you can't even address any of those. Like, this is a complete debunking of your entire claim to be this historical critical scholar. No, it's a joke. You're a propagandist. You're a trained seal. And this is why it's so easy. I can, are you going to address the inscriptions that are explicitly using slave terms? Are you going to address the coinage? Are you going to address Kufa, Basra, Fustat? Are you going? These are not like 100 years after the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam. These are directly after the life of the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam. And you have all of these contemporaneous Christian sources that are describing what the Prophet is all about. Why, why do you think the Christians are saying the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, is, you know, a, a prophet of the sword? Like, where did they get that idea? Like, within two years of his lifetime. Like, you, a, a real historical critical scholar would take that as a lot of evidence for what the actual beliefs and norms of the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, were. But you're a propagandist, so you dismiss all of that and you ignore it. And fine, we're going to jump into the next section. Want to remind you folks, thanks so much for all of your encouragement, your likes, and your shares. It means a lot. So thank you guys out there. We're going to go into the, I'm barely hanging in there, guys. I can't believe it. You guys are on the East Coast. Discussion. Let's go. Let's go. Excited. James, open dialogue. It is 45 minutes. Yeah, but we'll do it, uh, one and a half minutes each, please. That's right. I've got the timer set. Here we go. Okay, I'm, thank you so much. I'm afraid that Daniel does not listen carefully to arguments. So he's asking, talking about inscriptions that used slave terms. I've already said that Abu Bakr started the precedent, uh, about enslaving prisoners of war, and other companions opposed that. So I'm not making a claim about the post-prophetic period. I'm actually saying that the tradition went in a different direction. I'm claiming, making claims about the Prophet and the Quran using the Quran. Now, he asked me about how I interpret my, the problem of interpretation. Actually, he's going in the postmodernist, post-Gadamerian way, if I understand him correctly, that in fact that inter, it's an interpretive circle. Then because then if you have to use the Hadith to interpret the Quran, then somebody has to interpret the Hadith, and it's an endless cycle. This was actually one of my arguments against traditionalism. We believe that the Quran is clear and accessible because God is the one who inspired the Prophet, and therefore it had to be understandable. This is what the rationalists said. As far as post-hoc explanations, it's actually the medieval tradition that relies on this. In fact, we've seen this how you haphazardly apply Quranic verses. You ask me where did I get the, uh, context for "kill them wherever you find them," verse 95? I got it from the Quran itself. Look at the passage. I showed you the verses. Were you not paying attention? Verse 95 is embedded in Surah 9, early, which said it's only against those who violated the treaty and initiated aggression. As far as Islam abolishing slavery, I have not claimed that Islam abolished slavery. What I have claimed is that, and the reason why there's a difference between saying that you want to abolish. So if you look at this, Professor Richard Epstein talks about the Roman law in the sixth century. He said slavery is, in fact, a positive legal institution. And what you discover very quickly is that it was such a pos. Okay, so I'll have to finish that point. Um, on the second, I want to answer the question of why didn't he just abolish slavery. Yeah, how does that make any sense? Like, you're saying that Islam did not abolish slavery. I thought that was your whole argument. I thought the whole ethic of the Quran. Don't interrupt. The whole ethic of the Quran is abolishing slavery. This is like the most apologetic type of nonsense. Oh, there's so many verses in the Quran that say to free the slaves. Well, there are also many verses in the Quran to give zakat, to give charity. Does that mean the Quran is against private property? Like, you need to give up all of your wealth because the Quran is constantly saying to give charity? Like, this is the kind of argument that apologists 50 years ago would make, and now you're regurgitating it and you're calling yourself an academic. That is a joke. Um, circular. You said that I'm being circular because I'm trying to interpret the Quran with Hadith. Where am I referring to Hadith? I'm referring to historical sources. I'm grounding all of my points in historical sources. You're just straw-manning me. Like, you, you had a script for this debate, and you're not adapting to the actual arguments that I'm making. Where is the, all of the Hadith that I'm citing? Where's the circularity? Javad, and you're lying. Patricia Crone did not appeal to higher ethics in interpreting Quranic verses. She appealed to history. She actually was a historian, unlike you. So you're lying about Patricia Crone. I'm not a fan of her, but like, you're misrepresenting her. So please explain how Islam is not the first to abolish slavery. Did not abolish slavery, but the Quran also somehow, uh, is abolishing slavery according to the clear verses. So this is a contradiction. You need to explain it. Yes, thank you very much. So I never claimed that the Quran, slavery. What I did say is that the Prophet, the Quran forbade enslaving anyone. That's a difference. So there were de facto slavery, there were already slaves at that, in that, already existed, and the Quran said to emancipate slaves. We can look at what Professor Richard Epstein says about Roman law in the sixth century. He writes, no jurist could simply overthrow it, and it was probably something of an act of courage to even speak against it. And that's what the Prophet Muhammad did. By the way, Dr. Douglas Bradburn asks, why didn't George Washington just abolish slavery? Because he was opposed to slavery. Well, he couldn't, because they were property according to the laws of the land. They were human property, and they were owned. So the only way to free the slaves was to emancipate them. You had to actually compensate the people. And that's what the Prophet Muhammad did. So in the Battle of Hunayn, he had, he couldn't force the other people. Only Banu Hashim listened to him, and the rest, he had to ask them by persuasion, and then he had to say that I'll give you six camels or something, that's what it was to, for each slave that you free, I'll give you six camels. So you had to use persuasion and encouragement. That shows that he couldn't force them into, uh, free slaves. This was the case with George Washington. This was the case with, uh, Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln couldn't even free slaves himself. You could only free slaves in the states that were rebelling, not in the states that were part of the Union. The British Empire took a hundred plus years with its Navy and army to force in, uh, uh, to end the slave trade and to abolish slavery. The Prophet Muhammad didn't have any of that. He, the only people who would listen to him directly were Banu Hashim. I'll wait for James to tell me that the time is here. Okay, so time, time. Okay, thank you. Yeah, so I'm waiting for this amazing new research, Javad, that you're hopefully going to publish in some reputable journal, that Islam was the first society to forbid the taking of new slaves. This is going to be a great groundbreaking paper. You're going to win, you know, all kinds of prizes for this amazing insight that you have. Islam was the first society to forbid taking new slaves. Wow. I'm just so amazed by your insight, Javad. That Quranic analysis that you did was so brilliant. I'm waiting for it to see on the pages of the top journals, maybe Arabica or Islamic Law and Society, maybe International Journal of Middle East Studies. Can you publish this there, Javad? I'm really looking forward to it. Uh, so this is, you know, this is complete nonsense. And yeah, the, the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, also encouraged giving charity. He encouraged, you know, giving your wealth for the sake of Allah. The companions were giving their wealth for the sake of the cause of Islam. That wasn't an abolishment of private property. So, yeah, you encouraging, you're encouraging, uh, the freeing of slaves, but that doesn't, where is, where is the prohibition of taking slaves? Especially when we see the historical record, we see the rock inscriptions, we see all of the, uh, non-Arab, the Christian accounts, we see all of that history. Once again, you cannot address a single one as a so-called historian. This is sad. Go ahead.

So I'm not going to get into ad hominem. All I'll say is that I'm doing my dissertation right now, and it's in a good state, and I'm at Harvard. And so I don't really think you can, uh, question my credentials from that standpoint. But I can question your sloppy and dishonest citations. So I'm surprised that you haven't made this sloppy, uh, claim, but you've made it in the past. You cite Lawrence Kee's "War Before Civilization" to claim that all pre-modern societies took sex slaves. You said this is why Key argues all pre-modern civilizations took sex slaves. That's not what Key argues. I looked it up. You're, you're, you're so bad at looking things up. This book is not even about pre-modern civilizations. It's about prehistoric civilization, primitive civilizations before written history. That's what this book is about. And even in the page right before it, he actually says that there are people who did not take sex slaves. He, so this argument that you have is, and you just told me, oh, Islam would be the first to ever ban enslaving women. Key, on the page right before the one that you cite, says there were societies and civilizations that did not enslave women, did not take slaves. So this is the exact opposite of what you, what you are saying. So, uh, you, you cite stuff very sloppily. And this is not even, you know, "War Before Civilization." You cite stuff like "Guns, Germs, and Steel." You're talking about being academic. So I mean, this is a sloppy, uh, citation, just like you do the sloppy citation with the Rind study that they've been talking to you about, that you just, you know, you should actually look at what you, what you write. He's talking about primitive warfare conducted by prehistoric and primitive societies. And in some, this is what he writes on page 113: "In some primitive societies, women were spared injury or capture by enemy warriors, and they could enjoy immunity from harm." And you know what you said? You said, "Either take concubines or your people get wiped off the face of the earth. There's no third option." And you're claiming that Key is saying that. You said, quote, "This is why Key argues all pre-modern civilizations took sex slaves." He did not say that. Then you use the quote very misleadingly. Key is not saying what you're saying. I'm sorry, you're ignorant, Javad. What Key says, yeah, the societies that didn't take the slaves, they didn't take women as sex slaves. You know what they did with them, Javad? In the pre, you know, in these hunter-gatherer societies, they killed them. They killed the women. They massacred everyone. So the societies that didn't take slaves were killing them. That's what Key says. You're, you're appealing to your credentials at Harvard. I'd recommend not citing that because basically you're bringing down Harvard's name. And that's good. You know, people really need to understand that this is what, uh, Islamic Studies academics are all about. Like, this is the level. Like, it's a joke. Like, you having a degree or a PhD from Harvard. Now people will realize that it means nothing. It means like the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, was like MLK or a senator. Like, that's what they're going to associate with Harvard. Your Harvard PhD now. Um, as a, as, as for, so societies that Key references, they're hunter-gatherers. 99.5% of societies in history were hunter-gatherers. And like I said, they all, uh, if they didn't take slaves, most of them didn't take slaves, they would just massacre, they would kill. Um, so by killing off all the men, even if they didn't actually kill the women, the women would die without the men being there. Like, that's the consequence of, uh, not having men to protect you or men, uh, to provide for you against the forces of nature. So this is like not really a point in your favor. If you want to go back to Key, time.

All right, yeah, let's, hold on. Let me share my screen again. All right, let's see Daniel's shoddy, uh, citations. He says, "A good book I recommend is Lawrence Kee's 'War Before Civilizations'." And he explains that pre-modern war was, it's not about pre-modern war, it's about prehistoric war. And he's actually trying to make the argument that they were not noble, quote unquote, savages, and rather that they were quite brutal. So he's not trying to justify, he's trying to show that they were actually more ruthless. But he's, he's contrasting that with pre-modern civilizations, which Daniel is trying to actually lump in. And then he says, "This is Daniel on the last paragraph right there. This is why Key argues all pre-modern civilizations took slaves." Again, "this was a necessary aspect of war. If you did not take concubines, you were at a major disadvantage militarily because you either take concubines or people get wiped off the face of the earth. There is no third option." So given that stark reality, yes, taking slaves was not only morally justified, it was morally necessary. And that's what his argument is. But really, what Key says, Key says the opposite. Key, Daniel, just repeated it again. He said, you know what they did? They executed women. No, on the page before, quote, "It's in red here. In some primitive societies, women were spared injury or capture by enemy warriors and could enjoy remarkable immunity from harm." Just admit that you got this wrong. Be honest. Seed the arguments. This will be better for you instead of attacking and being ad hominem. This is not ad hominem. This is showing how you don't cite things correctly. So that's what I would say with the Key arguments. As far as, uh, why the, okay, yeah, this is a sideshow. Like, like you had that slide, is that slide like from the, for the debate, or you just had that in your pocket to show that I'm, I'm bad with citations? Okay, no. I, I said exactly what Key says. I cited it properly. The alternative for not taking the females, once all the men are dead, uh, within hunter-gatherer societies, that means the women and children are soon going to follow as well. So this is, it's essentially a death sentence. So whether they take them as slaves, whether they kill them, whether they leave them to the forces of nature, um, this is irrelevant to the overall arching, overarching point that I was making in that debate. If people want to understand my views on the moral necessity of slavery throughout history and the justifications for that, go to any of these other debates. Harris Sultan was the one that we specifically debated on this issue. And I, where I think the Lawrence Keeley citation was from. Um, so and then Key is not the only source, by the way, on pre-modern warfare. So that's another thing. Like, I'm not, I'm not mischaracterizing the historical record on this. But you want to make this debate about like scrutinizing every single word I've said in every single debate. Okay, that's interesting use of your time. I'm trying to talk about history. I'm trying to talk about the actual debate topics. But if you want to, you know, bring up some more citations from debates from two or three years ago, go ahead. You're, you're kind of like Sophia, that feminist that I also debated, who is obsessed, still is obsessed with me, or Mike Jones. Like, he's citing like my debates from five years ago as like some kind of winner against me. It's a bizarre debate tactic. Like, I try to focus on the things that you say in the actual debate, the things that you cite in the actual debate. Maybe it'd be smart to address that. A lot of backpedaling there. Basically, Daniel is backpedaling and trying to get out of it and just not being honest and admitting that he made a mistake. That would be more honest of him. But I'm not just bringing it up just to say that you're sloppy. Your moral argument rests on it. This is what you said. You said it's morally, not only morally justified, but morally necessary. And then you double down on it right now. You said that in pre-modern societies, if you didn't do that, then all the women would be killed. But the problem is that the evidence that you're using, that is for prehistoric societies, hunter-gatherers, as you said, it's not the case for pre-modern civilized, quote unquote, societies. Because in that case, and this is we see that in the Islamic medieval tradition, the problem is that it wasn't only the women on the battlefield that you would take, but it was actually in conquered territories. That was, as, uh, Clarence Smith actually talks about this. He said this is one further step that the Islamic tradition took. Not only the people on the battlefield, but it was people in those conquered societies, in their countries. So you were taking them out of their homes where they lived. You're going to conquer that territory. And it says the medieval Islamic tradition said you could just take all the women and slaves. That's not, they weren't going to be killed or executed. They were living in their families and in their homes. So the entire moral justification that you raise for saying that slavery is morally justified and necessary goes out the door. So just admit that you're not actually using moral arguments for anything because you're a fideist. You just believe that the text says that, so you must follow it. And then you use not, uh, reason instrumentally. But the reality is that even Imam Ahmed Hanbal said that you can't even do that. Don't do reason. Debate, maybe that would be better for you. But the reality is that the Quran itself says that you need to free slaves at the end of the war. You take captives, you free them at the end of. Oh, Javad, Javad, Javad. You think that people in conquered societies, so all the men have been killed in agricultural or pastoral societies, all the men have been killed, and then the women are in their homes, and they can just live without men there? There's no need to enslave them, because they can order Uber Eats and they can, you know, get all their needs met. You know, by who? Not the men, they're all dead. So what are you talking about? You have no conception of history. You have no conception of pastoral or agricultural societies. Like these quantitative and social science, quantitative social science I mentioned before that academics ignore. Like you're a great poster boy for that. Like you don't even understand, like pre-modern society and these kinds of civilizations. Once all the men are dead, the women will die soon after, even in agricultural and pastoral, even in industrial societies, if all the men today died, who's going to maintain the infrastructure of society? Like this is a very obvious point. Women would not be able to survive if all the men disappeared. So the humane option is actually to take them as slaves, to take them as, you know, concubines. That's, that is the humane way to do things. And that's what Islam prescribes. And that's what the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, did in his life. If it's so wrong and it's so inhumane, well, he did it. He owned slaves. So explain that. Explain how that can be possible. Um, and then the other point that I want to make is, yeah, so which pre-modern society didn't have slavery? Which pre-modern society, these civilizations didn't have, uh, concubines? You still haven't answered that. Okay, so this is very interesting. This is now where Daniel actually becomes the apologist of the apologetic person. And he's arguing that there are humanitarian reasons for taking slave women, which is funny because the medieval tradition didn't do that. The medieval, although there are some that raised this argument, the real argument was that when you're a non-Muslim, your penalty for unbelief was death, and slavery is like death. And so that's the reason the justification they gave. If it was really about being humanitarian and merciful, then why did the medieval exegesis exclude Muslims from this? So Muslims went to war with each other all the time, and yet the Muslim jurists say you cannot enslave Muslim women. You cannot enslave other Muslim women. So if this was a humanitarian reason, what happened? Did they just execute all the Muslim women and children? No, they saved them. So your moral philosophical argument collapses on its head. You have to then say, if it's a mercy, then it should be, we should be merciful to the Muslims too, and we should have the same rules for the Muslims. This shows actually that the medieval exegesis understood the mus, medieval scholars understood that this is a harmful thing, and we don't want it on our people. The only thing that prevented them from applying it to others was unfortunately their religious chauvinism, where they were like, our people are more human, and we saw that they said that the blood of only a Muslim is sacred, not of a non-Muslim. And this unfortunately goes against the Quran, which sanctifies all human beings, because we are, like I said, God breathed. Whoever kills a single human being, kills all human beings, according to the Quran. So this is the reason why they said it. But you're being an apologist by raising this argument. Just be honest. The penalty is unbelief. It's a penalty. It's like death for them. That is the real, if you want to be the real hardcore non-apologetic answer, like you love to do and smear the name of Islam everywhere. Like that's how much time. Yeah, no, this, your status, it's like you are as a slave, it's the status is like you're a non-person. That is known. Like, that the jurists cite that. Um, this is not like a gotcha moment. Like, I'm not trying to make a humanitarian, uh, defense of slavery. I'm just pointing out basic historical facts, basic sociological facts that you ignore in your analysis. The thing about the, um, the point that I am making is that it's about survival. It is about, it's a necessity to take slaves. It is a necessity to take sex slaves. That's why every single pre-modern society did it. Explain to me if it's not a necessity, if it's just some kind of barbaric thing that was introduced later in Muslim society. Tell me why there's no single pre-modern society that did not enslave. Explain that. Why is there no society that didn't have expansionist conquest? Why when we look at Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, all of these civilizations and religions, they all have a conquest doctrine, and that's represented in their texts. It's represented in their actual history. It's represented in the archaeology. All of them have that. You, if you want to make the claim that Islam was the first, uh, religion, the first culture that banned conquest, and oh no, we can only have peace, if that's really your claim, publish it. You know, you'll become a famous, world-famous, the greatest historian ever who has discovered the first and only civilization that banned enslaving people and banned conquests. What an amazing genius who has proven this from Harvard. Show that. Show the evidence. Wow. Okay, such ad hominem. But so, I, I think you did raise one great question, which is why this is actually the tra, the, what's called the slavery drome that Dr. Jonathan Brown raises in his book on slavery, which is a more serious take on this issue. But there are, uh, scholars who have written on this topic. I recommend two articles: one is by Michael Rota called "A Moral Psychology and Social Change: The Case for Abolition," and the other is by Nigel Pleasants, "The Moral Argument Is Not Enough." Both of them are answering the question, why did it take until modernity for people to realize that slavery is bad, totally bad, and we should ban it and abolish it? So the answer to that is simple. You need certain factors to arrive for moral realizations to take place. Prior to that, what most people thought was, they thought slavery was like poverty. Poverty is bad. It's not a good thing, but we practically don't have any reason way to get rid of, uh, poverty. So that's what they dealt in slavery. It's not a great institution, but we can't get rid of it. So what can we do? In fact, like I told you, it took the British army 100 plus years to get rid of it. But, so that's how they dealt with it. And then Rota and Pleasants talk about why when you have in your society, and he talks about moral psych, you like moral psychology a lot. So they talk about groupthink, and how groupthink leads to motivated reasoning, and that you would have powerful reasons to use motivated reasoning to justify your society taking slaves. And that's exactly what happens. And that's the exact same way that, and they give examples like, when there are, when, so in order for there to be the moral realization and that moral blind spot to be removed, you need to have the economic conditions and the technological advance to make an alternative possible. And that's only, all a joke. Did chimpanzees do? Chimpanzees have motivated reasoning, Javad? Are all these animal species that are taking territory, warring with each other, like, are they using motivated reasoning? Like, this is something biological, dude. Like, this is something that is so basic for you to deny is just blowing my mind. I can't understand how you consider yourself a, a historian or a serious academic. Um, the slavery was necessary. Slavery, what you had, this is why all of these societies had it and practiced it. It was part of their doctrines. It was part of their religions. It's part of their scriptures. It's in the Hebrew Bible. It is being preached by, uh, these, uh, major Zoroastrian priests. It's found in the Greco-Roman religion. It's found in the Assyrian and Babylonian religions. All of these religions have this, these exact doctrines. Now, they're not exactly the same as the Islamic doctrines, but they're analogous. As I mentioned, and I cited, uh, Sean Anthony, Professor Sean Anthony, who makes this point, like there are analogues. And that's how a real historian, not like you, a real historian thinks is about the analogues between these different traditions and how there, there can be interrelations and connections. So this is something that I want you to address again. What about the Dome of the Rock? What about all of these, uh, garrison cities? What about this hard archaeological data? Why can't you address that, Javad? You're the historical critical academic. Address it.

Okay, so what I'm going to address right now is the claim that, why are all these societies enslaving and have slavery? Well, that these are actually arguments in favor of the argument I'm trying to make, that this explains why they couldn't just get rid of slavery at that time and interpreted the Quran a different way. I'm not claiming that Islam abolished slavery, or I'm saying, or even stopped the enslavement. I said the Prophet and the Quran said to stop not enslave and free people. That's the argument that I'm making. And you're showing that there were severe historical and economic reasons and pressures that were acting on the early Muslim community, which prevented them from seeing that and implementing that. And that's exactly what I was showing you in the two academic, uh, philosophical articles that I cited to you, which explain moral blindness. And there was motivated reasoning, and it was only until it became economically feasible and technologically possible to free slaves that all of a sudden those moral, that moral reasoning kicked in. And it only kicked in in those places where slavery was not present. And it's also untrue that slavery existed in all societies at all times. There are certain societies in which it, it died down and it went away. There was serfdom that replaced it. There were other forms of which can be called non-free labor. But there are other forms that happen. So that's not the case. And it's all based on technological and economic factors. Now, what the strange thing is that throughout this debate, you are, I mean, you made the amazing claim that we should look at Christian sources to understand the Prophet and the Quran. This is actually the 1970s, Crone and Cook, that Hagarism that you're arguing for. You are the one who's arguing that you're saying that we should look at the Christian sources to understand that the Prophet Muhammad was the warlord and he must have had wars of aggression. Meanwhile, I'm pointing to the Quran and saying, this is what the Quran is saying. This is verse after verse after verse. So we've ironically switched the roles, at least as you imagine it, of Orientalists. And I'm the one saying, look at the Quran, look at what the Quran is saying, whereas you are saying, no, the Christian early sources say that Muhammad was a warlord, therefore he was a warlord. Whereas I'm pointing to the Quran and that's saying that's the earliest source that we have, the most accurate source that we have, and that's saying that you can't wage wars of aggression. You couldn't even cite a single verse. You cited three verses, 95, 92, 9, and 219. I agree, Javad. Patricia Crone and other serious historians agree with me. I, I acknowledge that. Thank you for conceding that. Uh, you know, that needs to be the highlight of this debate, that all the historians, all the historians agree with me. And and my points. Yes, thank you. That's exactly the point. You are a propagandist. You're an activist, right? You're an activist. And unfortunately, you know, academia seems like they don't have the highest standards anymore. If you were a historian, you would also agree with me. But since you want to just get into this goofy gymnastics, this radical subjectivity of your personal interpretation of the Quran that no one in history had, none of these sects of Islam who bitterly fought over every single major point of creed, yet they all somehow agreed that, yeah, of course Islam didn't abolish slavery. Yeah, of course Islam didn't abolish conquest. Yeah, of course that's something that's permissible in Islam. Yeah, of course that's what the Quran endorses. Yeah, of course that's what the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, endorsed. All of these people, the Islamists as well, disagree with you. You're the only one who has this bizarre interpretation, and you're suffering from a kind of denialism. You don't want to accept that you're a propagandist and you're a liberal bot. But this is an intervention for you, Javad. That's what you are. You're nothing more than that. Stop claiming that you're a historian. You still refuse to address the Dome of the Rock. Address the inscriptions. Address the historical evidence. Look at these contemporaneous sources, these Christian accounts. Why can't you have an answer for this? How are, how are you an academic and you haven't, you don't have any response? Like, that's shocking to me. I thought you were going to put some kind of debate and some pressure on me on these points, but you're not. All right, so first of all, it's not my solitary opinion. This is the viewpoint that Islamic modernists have raised since the 20th century, 19th and 20th century. And, uh, this has been backed up by historians, Professor Juan Cole, who is a serious tenured academic. And not only just him, there are several Muslim academics. They're not, uh, YouTube content creators like you. I apologize, but they're actual academics. Now, you make the, uh, argument that chimps, uh, take slaves or something, or, you know, dominate people. Okay, that's strange. So chimps commit zina, and they commit rape. And so maybe that should be morally acceptable, and the Quran should accept that. Then you, then you claim that, oh, these other societies, they all did that, but the Quran is bringing a higher ethic. Surely you believe that the Prophet was divinely inspired and had, uh, certain ethical ideas in mind. This is what the rationalist believes. Now, as far as the secular historians, you're right, secular historians will not use that kind of assumption. And that's why it's more impressive that Crone actually agrees with me. When you say Crone agreed with you, no, she didn't. She reversed that. That was in Hagarism. She moved away from Hagarism after that. Everybody knows that, for God's sake. I'm quoting what she quoted near the end of her life when she started reading Islamic modernists and said, you know what, they're actually right, even though I thought they were apologetic, they're actually right. She said that on Jihad. She said that on freedom of speech, sorry, freedom of religion. She said that on all these things. As far as the Dome of the Rock and these inscriptions, I have talked about them. I'm telling you that you should look at what those scholars whose books you actually looked at, hopefully, look at what they themselves say. Michael Penn is the one who wrote this book. You should see his assessment. I agree with his assessment. His assessment shows that they actually shared mosque and church spaces. Yeah, I, I, I'm saying that Mike, people like Michael Penn, like Juan Cole, yeah, they're academics. So what? They're not making the strongest arguments. There are other academics who are actually looking at the historical sources and are making stronger, more compelling arguments. Like someone like Sean Anthony is in another league than Juan Cole. Like Juan Cole is the guy literally saying that the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, is like MLK doing a freedom march. This is like, this is a joke. So why are you citing that, oh, Juan Cole agrees with you? Big deal. Like, so what? That's actually a point against you. Um, and then this kind of stupid argument that, oh, well, chimps also do zina, so are you saying that we should follow chimps and everything? No, don't be an imbecile. The argument, if you can follow it, is that these kinds of, uh, instincts for conquest, for dominating the outgroup, for defending the ingroup, these are biological instincts, and that's why we see them universally. That's the argument. So it's not this kind of later accretion that these Muslim intolerant fundamentalists just invented it and back-projected it onto the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam. That's what the biological point rebuts. Obviously, whatever, uh, animals do, that doesn't mean we follow it. It's just a proof of the biological basis. And the Quran and the Sunnah and the example of the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, endorse certain biological instincts and not others. We always refer ultimately to the Quran and the actual historical lived example of the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam. Go, Javad.

So, thank you so much. So you keep insisting that I talk about the Dome of the Rock. The reason why I was ignoring it, I had to be selective about which arguments I rebut, and I didn't really understand what your point was. It's well-known, and you should know this, that it's Abd al-Malik at, uh, this is when it was, uh, the shift happened, that the exclusivist shift happened. This is well-known that it was a Marwan imperial project. This is actually cited as proof by the historians and scholars to show that there was this shift towards a religiously exclusivist direction. So this is not a point in your favor. They had mosques that were sharing spaces. Like I told you, that was Michael Penn, the one that you relied upon, and now suddenly Michael Penn is a joker too. He's a Stanford historian. He's a joker. Uh, uh, uh, uh, Juan Cole is a joke. Are you serious? Sean Anthony would not agree with that. Sean Anthony deeply respects Juan Cole. Juan Cole is a tenured professor, had a professorship at Yale. Okay? So, you know, you don't know what you're talking about. You're, you're not someone to speak. You don't know the literature and you don't know the scholarship. And anyways, I don't know what the Dome of the Rock matters. I've already told you that it's the Quran that says that you can't keep them enslaved, that you have to free them, and that this wasn't followed post-prophetically. So what would the Dome of the Rock inscriptions help you with? I don't know. You're just saying that the early Muslims did it, but I already accepted that fact. So you haven't rebutted my argument. You haven't dealt with my argument. And the reason is that you can't deal with the Quranic evidence. The Quranic evidence that shows you that you have to marry a slave. You haven't dealt with that. 4:25. You haven't dealt with 47:4, that you have to free the slaves. And you say that this is a modernist, uh, interpretation. This was the obvious interpretation as the, the fiqh texts I told showed you said in the medieval times, this was the obvious interpretation, which is why they had to take it as aboga. So you're all over the place. You cannot prove your argument. And so I don't know what to say. Yeah, so the, this is why you're not, you can't be considered a historian because you don't even take the actions of the, uh, companions of the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, within a year of his life, you don't take that as evidence of what the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, actually believed. No historian accepts this. No, certainly not a historical critical historian says that, oh yeah, the pro, we can't use the actions of the Sahabah one year after the life of the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, to understand what Muhammad's policies were, what his beliefs and norms were, sallallahu alaihi wasallam. Like, that's, you know, that's ridiculous. Which historian has said this? This is a rep, this is a, uh, rebuttal, a repudiation of the historical critical method from you. So thank you for doing that in this, uh, debate. Um, also, there's many people who criticize, you know, the conclusions of some of of these, uh, people like Sean Penn, or Michael Penn, sorry, and Juan Cole. Read, uh, Joseph Spur's article. He talks about Tilman Nagel. He talks about the German Orientalist Tilman Nagel and his recent work showing that this pan-Abrahamic thesis is complete garbage. It's complete nonsense. Fred Donner is a joke. Like your idol is a complete joke. So you can, you can cite Yale. Oh, he's a professor at Yale. Or you Chicago. Big deal. Like, this is actually worse for their reputation that such people make, uh, historically baseless claims that we're laughing at. Plenty of people, over a thousand people are laughing at that in this stream right now. You know what people are laughing at? Is the fact that you cited Joseph Spur, who's a Christian Islamophobe, pro-Zionist, and doesn't know Arabic and is not taken seriously by anyone in Quranic studies or early Islamic history. Whereas all the people that you cite are at Stanford and well-respected. As far as your claim that, oh, historians would look at prophets' companions. No serious historian on Earth would say, oh, we look at what the Prophet's companions say, and then we use that as historical evidence for what the Prophet said. That goes against historical critical scholarship. That's like in Jesus studies, you would never do that with the, just because someone else says, you don't take that for granted. In fact, this argument is so weak because we know that the Prophet's companions themselves argued with Abu Bakr on this very point, according to the same sources that you rely upon on the two issues that you're trying to cite this as an example. Number one, the apostasy issue, and number two, on taking them as slaves. On both of these issues, Omar and the other, uh, uh, companions disagreed with him. So how can you, they said that this is not the Prophet's Sunnah. So this is a weak argument from a historical perspective, and this is a weak argument from a religious perspective. So you really have no serious leg to stand on. And you cited Michael Penn yourself. It was on your slide. And then all of a sudden, I said Michael Penn said this, and then you said, oh, he's not serious. Let me take Joseph Spur, who can't speak Arabic, who can't read Arabic, he's a Christian Islamophobe, he's terrible. I can't believe that you would cite Spur. You actually don't know the academics. That's what I think is the truth. Now, Spur cites Tilman Nagel. Is he a joke too? He's like the leading German Orientalist. He's one of the leading academics in Germany in Islamic Studies. Is he a joke too? He's just in that article, he's just conveying what Tilman Nagel says. And Tilman Nagel is basing his argument on an actual, uh, analysis of the verses of the Quran and the historical record, and he shows that Donner is a complete joke, much like you. Your, your claim basically, like your, what your claim amounts to is that as soon as the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, passed away, the entire Muslim community rejected his message of peace, don't enslave, don't conquer. They just immediately all collectively decided, we're going to ignore what the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, said and do the exact opposite. And they went into the exact opposite. And this, what the Christians cited in their works, what the, you know, these garrison cities, the coinage, this is absurd. Like, this is a conspiracy theory. There's no historical evidence for that. You want to cite certain, uh, Hadith contrary to your rejection of Hadith, but those Hadith don't prove that the Sahabah were saying that, oh, if we do conquest, we're violating the Quran. Who says that? No one says that. This is all a fantasy. You're, this is completely absurd. Like, I'm flabbergasted that these are the kinds of arguments you're bringing to counter my points. And furthermore, do the beliefs and practices of Jesus's direct apostles actually tell us about Jesus's message? Can you answer that, Javad? Like, if we want to know about Jesus, if we had some kind of manuscript that showed what Jesus's direct apostles believed, would that tell us more information about Jesus or not? Oh, once again, Daniel, see how he deals with. I'm answering you, Daniel. You raised a lot of points, and I have bullets here. So, first of all, you say Fred Donner is a joke. Fred Donner is the dean in Islamic Studies. You said Sean Anthony is the real serious guy. I like Sean Anthony a lot. He's a great scholar. Let's ask Sean Anthony. We'll tag him on Twitter afterward, and we'll see what he thinks about Fred Donner. Okay? Just. And as far as, uh, Nigel is concerned, he's known for being an Islamophobe, okay? Or Nagel, sorry, he's known for being an Islamophobe, not an Islamophobe, but hostile to Islam, okay? So that's not a surprise. And Islamic, uh, studies scholars, they disagree with each other all the time. That doesn't prove anything. But it doesn't mean that he says Fred Donner is a joke. That that's your interpretation. No serious academic would say, a University of Chicago tenured professor emeritus is a joke. I'm sorry, that's just you who would say that. Meanwhile, you're claiming Joseph Spur, who's at a Christian university, a Christian Islamophobe, doesn't read Arabic, is not an Islam, is not considered in Islamic Studies or Quranic Studies. You think that he is the standard? I'm sorry, let's ask Sean Anthony about that. Now, that doesn't mean that Sean Anthony will necessarily agree with my arguments. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that academics disagree all the time, and you can't just dismiss Juan Cole as a joke, Fred Donner as a joke. Anybody who disagrees with you is a joke. That's not how academics work, unfortunately for you. And no, I'm sorry, nobody would take the Prophet's companions as automatically expressing the view of the, of the Prophet. And I've already explained it to you. You haven't dealt with this counterargument that the companions themselves disagreed and said that Abu Bakr was not doing the right thing when he was treating them as apostates and taking them as slaves, and that's why Omar reversed the decision and freed those slaves. Exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. Yeah, this is like some genius insight.

From you, the Sahabah disagreed. There was, they had during the time of the Prophet, sallam. So, what like this is not, you have to show that they actually claimed your claim. Your claim is that they were violating the Quran. Okay, so are they, the question is, are they evidence? You're saying that it's not automatic. Okay, fine, it's not automatic. I'll concede that, but that's a straw man. I'm not saying that we take what the, what the companions did and it's automatically that's what the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam believed. I'm saying it's evidence. And, and that's, that's the point. Just like we want to know what Jesus believes, and you avoided this conveniently. If we want to know what Jesus believes, then there's evidence of what he believed from his direct apostles. If we want to know what the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam believed, there's evidence based on what the early Muslim community actually did within one year, two years, three years, four years, five years of his life. That's the evidential argument. That's a real historical argument. If you were a real historian, you would be able to handle that kind of argument and provide counter-historical evidence. But whenever I push you on that, you just want to refer to Hadith, but you don't accept Hadith. So this is just cherry-picking on your part. Refer to actual historical evidence. That's, that's what's missing in this entire debate. You have no historical evidence. You just want to debate traditionalism, this straw man of traditionalism that you've created for yourself, as opposed to defend the historical facts that no one disagrees with that I've brought before you. You don't want to address those things because they prove the traditional perspective. They prove the traditional narrative. We'll kick it over to Javad one last time, and then Daniel one last time. If I remember right, we started with you, Javad, with your first minute and a half. And so, Javad, one last time, and then Daniel one last time before we go into the Q&A. Thank you very much.

So, this is not cherry-picking. This is the standard approach that's considered dominant now in Quranic studies in early Islamic history, which is to take the Quran as our primary historical document that goes back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is for a variety of reasons that we've already talked about that Daniel does not dispute. So that's why I look at the Quran to see what the Quran says on slavery, on sex slavery, on conquest. This is the standard strategy. You are right that we look at other historical pieces of evidence and we use them cumulatively, but the Quran stands as first and foremost, number one. You keep saying that I cited Hadith. I don't know what you're talking about from that perspective. But the fact that I quote unquote reject Hadith, I neither reject Hadith from a historical perspective nor from a religious perspective. I consider it a historical source that tells us about what early Muslims believed, but it doesn't go back to the Prophet Muhammad necessarily. Most likely, a lot of them are forged. In any case, the point is that this is all historical information that we use. The fact of the matter is is that when we do that, we see that the Quran clearly says that you cannot take slaves, uh, you cannot take slaves from the captives and that you need to release them. This was the obvious interpretation. It was stated in medieval fiqh books that this is the obvious interpretation. It's in the exegeses as well, who say that that's why it's abated. Okay, so this is not textual acrobatics. The fact that the companions deferred away from this Sunnah, this is well-known. The companions themselves would say, "You're going, this is Abu Bakr's Sunnah, it's going in another direction." So they had, and, and, and they went in a different direction. So this is not a proof text for you. The last thing that I would say is that, uh, your whole premise is based on Sunni traditionalism where you take the companions as being, uh, completely upright and, uh, and that this is a credal matter, and you never even dealt with that issue.

Have to switch over to Daniel. Yeah, I mean, this is really stupid at this point. But if it's the obvious interpretation of the Quran, then it should have been an even more egregious violation when you have all the companions. You keep citing Omar. Omar also was at the head of all of these conquests. You realize that, right? He was at the head of, he was directing a lot of these conquests. He was at the head of taking slaves as well. So what, why, what is this point with Omar? Omar also did all of these things that you say that, oh, they, they clearly disagreed with Abu Bakr on. Like, what are you even talking about? Um, the other point that I want to make is, what was the point? Yeah, you, you were saying that, give me one second. I'm messing. Yeah, I lost my train of thought. But yeah, if it's the obvious interpretation of the Quran, like, it's not obvious. If it were obvious, who else is citing it? Who else is saying it? You have like one random citation, and I don't trust your translation because you've, you've shown like your goofy interpretation of language. You have no consistent Usool principles of interpreting language. So any kind of citation from Arabic from you actually should be disqualified on that basis alone. You haven't presented an actual theory of language. I have presented one. I say, look at what the people actually did in order to understand the author's beliefs and norms and therefore their intentions. That's, that's a consistent Usool.

We'll jump into the Q&A. We're going to move fast through as many questions of yours as possible. Can we take a break? I got to go to the bathroom and pray. Pray as well. We'll do a short intermission. Can we do 10 minutes because I got to pray as well? It went much longer. Like, do that. You're on the West Coast. No, no, no. Like, you need to pray. It takes 5 minutes. Go ahead. But 10 minutes, like, let's. Daniel, you were late. You were also, uh, got. Okay, but it's 2 minutes late. I was 3 minutes late. Like, why didn't you, late, set that up with the, why didn't you set up the prayer time before? We don't want to limit. Have, have your, have your 10-minute prayer. That's fine. Just interesting that you didn't anticipate that. It's the bathroom as well. Okay, go to the bathroom. We are going to be starting the Q&A in a bit, folks. So we do happen to have a good amount of questions to where I don't, I wouldn't recommend submitting any more questions just because I don't know for sure that we'll read them because we have such a limit, limited time. It's 12:09 a.m. where I am, and this is, it's already gone to six hours. So, folks, I hope you have enjoyed this. We are, we still have more, so don't leave yet, folks. It's going to be tremendous. This last part, I'm going to have a little bit of melatonin because in about half an hour, we'll be done, and I have to warn you in advance, folks, I'm not going to do an after-show. I've got to get to bed earlier. I have got to wake up at a decent time tomorrow. So, like, 2 a.m. for you? Is it 2 a.m.? Or you're not on the East Coast? Oh, I'm behind you. I'm an hour behind. So I'm, it's 12 a.m. here. Wow. Yeah, that's 1 for me. Yeah. This is, is this like, you're like, post-dinner time? You're just kind of. No, I haven't had dinner. I haven't had anything. So, well, yeah, let's see. I mean, I had a small little bit of Subway sandwich. Which kind of sandwich? Uh, it was the California Turkey, I think, or something like the Turkey Cali, and it was good. And I mean, I'm, you know, I don't actually go to Subway that often, believe it or not. I actually only go maybe once a week. If I'm traveling, it'll be more, but not your everyday. Ashley, thanks for your super chat. I can read this one, uh, because it was addressed to me, and I didn't read it early. I appreciate your kind words, Ashley. Thanks for, uh, being so patient with me. I sometimes wonder if I, so, you know, so I think, yeah, Ashley, I think I told you one time that there was a gentleman that I, like, you know, like my, we clashed a particular debater. While you're looking at him, he's on screen, right? Look at that smile. And because one time I went off on Ashley, and I felt bad. I worry a little bit. I'm not, I've never, maybe as a kid, I was, you know, a little bit temperamental. I had a little bit, you know, but I don't think I'm too bad. You know, I'm generally a happy person. Once in a while, I just fly off the handle. I don't know what is. I honestly think I'm a little burnt out. I really do. I think that once I'm done with this program, I'm going to be happier, uh, and less burnt out. And I do think it is the burnout that once in a while I'll go from like peaceful, happy to like quiet, you know, shut up. Like, and I don't, I don't take any pride at. I really do feel a little embarrassed and sad. But I also went on. Yeah, there's somebody in the live chat that I got in a spat with tonight. And, uh, yeah, I, I've got like typing in the live chat. Yes. Wow, you really multitask. Well, that's amazing. Normally, it's always like a greeting of like, hey, so and so, how are you? I hope you, you know, we, we're glad that you're here. So that is me typing in the live chat, folks. If you ever see that, that's me. There's nobody else that has control of the account. And I just like it to like greet people and kind of say like, hey, like, we are, we're happy to have you. And then, but this was a regular. I can't remember what he said, but yeah, it spiraled into, you know, me saying I'm triggered and, you know, telling him like that you're cringe. So is that what the young people say today? Daniel, they say you're cringe. Not you personally, I'm saying what they say to people. You know, hey, you're cringe. Yeah, there's all kinds of expressions that I'm learning. That's when you realize that you're old. So I never knew what no cap meant. Have you heard of no cap? No cap? Yeah, no cap. No, you say something. No cap means like, no lie. I'm not lying. I'm telling the truth. Wow. I haven't even heard that. Ashley, have you heard that? Uh, she's in chat. She's a regular. So she's been on for debates. We appreciate you, Ashley. And, uh, and they've been live debates. And certain, General Shane, have you heard that? He's in live chat right now, folks. If you're, if you're watching over at Daniel's channel, tell me. I'll pop into the chat over there and you can tell me if you've heard of these phrases. These phrases. Cringe is like, cringe, based. Uh, this is, let me, what else? Let me pop over there, uh, because I've, yeah, I'm trying to think of the most recent that I've heard because those are like, those, those have been around for a while. Uh, what are some of the like, really new ones? Uh, bussin. Bussin. Bussin. Really? Something's bussin? That's funny. Yeah, it's bussin. I guess. Is in my generation, we had the word cool. Like, oh, that's so cool, right? So bussin means cool, I guess. That's fine. Okay. Bussin. Why? Wow, man, things are changing fast. It seems we're dinosaurs. We're old. We're like the grandpas, grumpy old men. Just, it's crazy. I don't feel old. I still feel like, and I know I don't look like a guy in his like early 20s, but I feel like that. I always feel like my mentality is behind my body, you know? Like, you never, like, your, your brain doesn't change as much. I still feel like, or I'm just like kind of like a, so much to learn kind of guy that, you know, is pretty inexperienced. Oh, my laptop ran out of juice. Oh, so I, uh, you know, I, oh, I know why. It's because the cord, it wasn't even plugged in. Okay. But it seems like things change faster nowadays. Yeah, maybe this is the nature of social media, and there's just so much content now that everyone has access to, so you can't follow the subcultures like you could in the past. You just have such a diversity of media, uh, so it just multiplies all the subcultures, uh, as opposed to in the past where there was limited forms of media. The internet just changed everything. You know, I've tended to think that the internet, one huge thing the internet did was like an abroader principle. It helped people find each other. So, for example, like a buyer and a seller on eBay, or flat earthers, because, you know, you would have been afraid to tell your neighbor next door that you're a flat earther, but you could go to an anonymous chat room and share that you're a flat earther and you can find other ones. I don't know, but all right, let's get to it. Oh, no, hold on. All right, well, wait, we're going to start the Q&A right now, right? Yeah, yep. Okay, they're all going to be for Daniel. His F. I got to grant that to you. Do you agree with minor mer? Do you think that the Aisha was nine years old? Yeah. Ten questions. Half of them, half the questions don't make sense. That's, I, I wonder what people are doing when they're typing in the questions. Yeah, no, no spell check. Yeah, exactly. Two seconds. What happened? It is late. So I guess that's one of the reasons. That's true. My laptop, it, it died, and now I've got, but I got a spare right here that because I can't even get it started up. This is, uh, you guys have, it's true, you know, like Javad said, he told me, he's like, this is going to be a really long debate. You know, it's going to be really long. James, and I was like, oh, don't worry about it. I'm young and spry. And now here I am. I'm, you know, let me just, okay, I'm almost there. But yeah, Javad, you're on the East Coast, right? So it is like 2 a.m. I'm on the West Coast now. Oh, okay. Well, then good. We try to pray before, like midnight is the issue. I'm for the final prayer. For the final prayer. Yeah, folks, I appreciate your questions. We all appreciate them. Also, thanks for hitting like. Seriously, we really think it makes a difference. So, and it really does. Like, when I don't worry, this is loading. When I look at the likes and I say, hey, folks, can you hit like? It means more than you know. And then I see them go up and I'm like, oh, thanks. Like, someone really, you know, people really do that because it's like a personal favor to me where I'm like, thanks for really doing that. So we're almost to 400. Last I checked, so we appreciate that, folks. Is your laptop really going to die? Your power cord is not working. I've got it now. Thanks for your patience. I remember we were going to start with the super chat. So someone, Elante, says, this Muhammad, they put in quotes, already asked like seven questions. Okay. Minecraft player says, anyone want to play Minecraft scavenger hunt? Thank you for that. Dan, the another one says, Daniel, is it true under Islamic law, dhimmi can't build or rebuild places of worship, can't ride horses, and have to be humiliated while playing while paying jizya? Uh, from the traditional, uh, scholarship, um, the exact rules can vary. So, um, certain things were found in Sham, you know, in, uh, the Syria region, Palestine region, that weren't necessarily applied in Iraq, that weren't applied in Persia. The con, these conquered territories weren't necessarily applied in Egypt. Um, so there's, there's a, uh, difference of opinion amongst many of the traditional scholars throughout history on, um, what exact rules to apply for the dhimmi. Like, is it wearing different kinds of clothes? So Christians, for example, did they have to wear a belt, uh, to distinguish themselves from the Muslims? Where could they actually build their homes, not even just their churches, but were they limited to certain parts of a city? Um, these kinds of rules, there's a wide variety, uh, that, uh, span across the Islamic empire, which, you know, span from, you know, Andalusia all the way to, um, East India. So these kinds of differences are there. But the overall principle is based on the Quran. It's, and that's the verse that I cited multiple times, which specifically talks about exacting tribute, jizya, from the dhimmi and also keeping them in a, in a subjected status, subjugated status. So everything is consistent with that. Legatus says, Javad, do you think that religious tolerance extends to Satanism and Pastafarianism? So I believe, like the Quran says that religion, as far as belief is concerned, is a matter of the heart and the conscience. So according to the Quran, there could not be anything possibly worse than what the Arabian pagans believed. It was the shirk of the highest type. And yet, and they were even persecuting the Prophet, and the Quran allowed them and said in more than 200 verses that you have your religion unto me, my religion, and unto you, your religion. And so yes, I believe that you have freedom of conscience according to the Quran. That's when it comes to belief. As far as actions are concerned, no, the pagans could not persecute the believers. That's when, uh, jihad in self-defense and against, uh, uh, religious discrimination or persecution justified a, uh, a just response back. You got it. This one from Picture of Iraq, no username, says, oh boy, the CIA is definitely going to take you out the payroll. You're supposed to be an insurgent to convince Muslims, but no Muslim believes your clear kafir. You say only the atheists are clapping for you. I don't know who that's for. That's for Javad. That's actually for Daniel. Daniel, they believe that you're an agent and are trying to. That's why they encourage that you go on to different podcasts to describe Islam in this hor. I'm not the. Okay, if it's for me, then I'll respond. Like, I'm not the one who's on the payroll of an organization that is getting funding directly from the Department of Homeland Security. That's our argument for tomorrow. That's our argument tomorrow. No, no, I'm responding to the claim. I'm responding. I'm responding to the claim. I'm responding. People are accusing. Are you going to show your face tomorrow? Are you going to show your face tomorrow? After this, you both work for the CIA. Okay. This Zulu True Solo says, SP, it's SP or spy, actually. We don't realize it. We're both undercover. Zulu Zolo says, ask Javad, one could say about his argument, one could meditate instead of pray Salah and fulfill the general principles of Salah instead. So I believe as Daniel said, so he was asked right now about, should you implement dhimmi laws? For example, a turban for Jewish people, a a belt for, uh, Christians? So you have to make interpretive choices and interpretive decisions. That's the case, no matter if you're a fiqh scholar or if you're a rationalist. But what the rationalist believes is that use your ethical reasoning to arrive at a conclusion. And we are just open with the fact that you have to make these interpretive choices. And when you do, you do so ethically. Now, modernists have always said that when it comes to worship, acts of worship, we don't change those. Those are fixed. In fact, that goes back to the rationalists who said that revelation is meant to augment what our moral reasoning cannot attain to. So our moral reasoning can tell us that we need to thank the benefactor, that is God, but it doesn't tell us how to thank the benefactor. And so revelation that tells us how to do that, in what way to worship Him. And so that's what we follow. So that is fixed and does not change. You got it. Thank you very much for your question coming in from PHX 576 says, question for. They say Javad script. They say, why do you act or no, they're saying question for Javad. And then they're saying, this is your script. They say, why do you act tough on Twitter with slander and personal attacks, but play victim here? And why do you offend, defend garbage such as apostate Prophet, sorry, Ra'd Al-Mahdi, who attacks Islam? Why do I defend people like apostate Prophet? I have never defended apostate Prophet. However, I don't believe in using nicknames. Now, I'm not perfect. Uh, sometimes I will fall prey to that, even in this one conversation, I can fall prey to the weaker parts of our soul. But I do try and debate to be decent and cordial. I did see, I've watched Daniel before in debates, and I thought that he usually conveys, conducts himself in a good fashion, and I planned on doing that here. As far as my behavior on Twitter, I think I'm in general courteous, but I'm not perfect, and I work to improve myself, and that's all I can say to that. But I do think that we should treat each other with decency and cordiality. Dude, for two years, you've been harassing me, calling me scared, calling me, you know, I'm an arrogant buffoon, all of these kind of terms. Called you an. I never called you an arrogant buffoon, that's a lie. Called me worse. You called me what? Much worse. You called me ISIS. You said I'm going to strap a bomb to myself and blow myself up. I'm one step away from that. I didn't call you ISIS. I called you ISIS light. And we'll talk about ISIS light. Yeah, because you defend what can be worse than that. What can be worse than that? That's your. You defend, you defend having sex with six-year-olds. What could be worse than that? Be worse. You don't use any ad hominem. Gentle. I have all night tomorrow says another question for Javad, is it not problematic that you reject Hadith chain claims? They say, but could the same not be said about the Quran's chain and compilers? This is a standard traditionalist argument. The argument is very simple. It's that, oh, if you doubt the Hadith, then you're also doubting the Quran because it's carried by the same people. Professor Shaan Anthony, who Daniel praised immensely, uh, just responded to this actually very recently, or at least I saw the tweet very recently where he explained it very simply, and you can watch Dr. Joshua Little on this as well. The people who carried the Quran were not the same people who carried the Hadith. There was some minor overlap, but in general, there were two different groups of people. The method of preservation of the Quran and the Hadith was completely different. The Quran was at a very early stage. It was part of a caliphate project to control, to compile the Quran, whereas actually the evidence shows us that there was likely a ban on writing down Hadith in the early period, in fact, probably throughout the four, uh, early caliphates, there was a ban on writing down Hadith. So it's the exact opposite of the case because what historians want, you want a written text as soon as you possibly can because that stops oral tradition from shifting and doing drastic shifts, which is exactly what we see when it comes to Hadith. So it's the exact opposite situation. And the proof is in the pudding. You can just look at the historical anachronisms or lack thereof. The Quran is absolutely doesn't have these historical anachronisms, whereas the Hadith literature, including the Sahih canon, is full of them, as even Jonathan Brown had to admit in an article which he was writing for academic press. This one from Elante says, my Central Asian brother, Usenov, is correct. Thank you for that. Dr. Omar, Muslim theist, says, Daniel, do you believe that Hadith abrogate the Quran? Yes or no? No Gish galloping as you have done all night long. Yes or no, period. So the Quran and the Hadith should be taken together. They're both a part of revelation. How many times do I have to answer this question? They're both a part of revelation because the Quran says to follow the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam. So there are things in the Quran that are explained by the actions of the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, his statements, and the things that he approved of. Like, you people have a very simplistic understanding of traditional Islam, and this debate wasn't about extrapolating or explaining all the nuances and details of and all of these, uh, Islamic principles, but even from your questions, it's clear that you have this very simplistic understanding of what the Islamic tradition is all about. So do you think, yes, that it can abrogate? Does abrogate? Sorry, Javad. I didn't dodge. I very clearly. Eric the Great says, how would both Javad and Daniel deal with the issue of apparently contradictory Hadiths and Quranic verses on relations with Jews and Christians? Some seem to promote both religious pluralism and Islam-only perspectives. So I think this question is for both of us. You can go first. Daniel, go ahead. Yeah, so there are verses of the Quran that will praise Christians and Jews, or people of the book, for certain, uh, practices that they have. But there are many more verses that will criticize them for, for example, changing the religion or engaging in kinds of shirk. So, so Islam has no problem, and even the earliest Muslims had no problem with collaborating or having treaties with, uh, non-Muslims, whether Jews or Christians. So that's not really a contradiction, uh, in for Islam. It's not a contradiction for the traditional perspective to have those kinds of verses found in the Quran. So for my answer, it was for me too, that question. Just real quick, uh, it's very simple. You can just look at verse 3:113 of the Quran. It says, they are not all alike. Of the people of the scripture, there is a staunch community who recite the revelations of Allah in the night season, and then it condemns others. So that's the, it's very simple. The verses are, some of them are praising a group, and another group is blameworthy. So that's very simple how to reconcile that. As far as Hadith, Hadith are also contradictory. Are actually directly contradictory, and those are what we actually used to go into a completely religiously exclusivist direction. From a historian standpoint, you would not take these, uh, as, uh, saying what the Prophet Muhammad, uh, preached. Elante says, Daniel, know that I pray for you every day. I criticize you out of love as a Muslim brother. Please get legitimate mentors. You are a talented and charismatic person. Don't waste your talent. Wassalam. I appreciate that. That's very kind of you to say. Um, I take all, uh, seriously. So I have mentors, and I could always use more mentors. So Javad, make dua for me. Pray for me. I appreciate that greatly. Le says, great debate. Heard a nice quote. I'd like to share. Quote is, quote, inspiration is a luxury, motivation a privilege. Neither are necessary. Let's get to work. Thanks for sharing that, Leith. And BiteMeXD, you know it's going to be good when that's their name. Thanks, says James. This is for Coffee. Thanks for your support. Want to remind you, folks, our guests are linked in the description. What are you waiting for? If you want to hear more, you certainly can hear more from Javad and from Daniel. Click those links in the description box, including at the podcast. Elante says, we Muslims are grateful for hosting this debate. Generosity is a trait of a Muslim. Someone is triggered in comments, LOL. Don't worry, be happy. Thank you for that. I, a lot of triggering in the comments. Ella Rante says, compassion does not reduce testosterone. No MGTOW, which if anybody's new to that, this is one of those young people phrases. Daniel taught me this. This means Men Going Their Own Way. No MGTOW, just nor Red Pill innovations into Islam, please. We are masculine. Instead of talking about it, okay? No thoughts. Okay. Any, any real questions? Daniel, or Dr. Omar. Muslim theist says, Daniel, throughout tonight, Dr. Javad showed numerous Quran verses. You couldn't answer any of the Quranic verses. You wasted the time of viewers. Okay, I answered every single Quranic verse. I showed every, many Quranic verses that show, uh, defending all the positions that we were supposed to debate. What Javad did is engage in goofy gymnastics. That was the entire. I anticipated that. That's what he was going to do, and that's what he actually did. No one could follow these convoluted, uh, acrobatics that he was performing throughout his presentation of the Quranic verses that somehow are endorsing all of these liberal values. Like, that is a complete joke. I responded to all of his verses and I showed contrary verses that show that explain how his interpretation is absolutely incorrect. Not to mention all the historical, biological resources, the archaeological record, the contemporaneous Christian sources, all of that shows that his interpretation is detached from reality. It's just interpretation in his head and performative. Like, Dr. Omar, whoever this guy is. This one coming in from Eric the Great says, to both speakers, what are your thoughts on the recent alignment between Muslims and Christian conservative parents in the West against LGBT ideology in schools? Do you want to go first, or should I go first? I think your views are, uh, well known on this. Um, so this is an extremely sensitive topic, and I am representing EMPAC outside of this debate, and, and so I can't really say too much without, you know, as a, as a nonprofit, you represent them. From my own personal perspective, what I would say is this, um, I do think that, uh, Christians and Muslims have a lot in common, and, uh, religious liberty is very important, and that, uh, Muslims, Christians, all believers should have freedom of religion and not be forced, uh, in certain ways, and I do think that that is going on right now. Uh, at the flip side, I do think that, uh, we have to coexist with people, and we can't kill them. Um, and Daniel seems to have an issue with even that. He was criticizing navigating differences on that front, and we can look at what he said just a few years ago to see what he was saying on that. And that, that I think is, uh, just a little. I've never said I've never advocated killing anyone. I've never advocated anything illegal. Try to, try not to be a Fed for a minute. Hey, hey, don't interrupt my answer. The question was for both of us. So you said you're dumb. Piece. Let me respond. I never advocated for killing anyone. Stop being a Fed for a minute and implying that that's what I have said. I think it's great that Christians. Well, let me answer. I think it's great that Christians and Muslims are collaborating to fight back against this. I think it's very telling that Javad avoided giving a direct answer, but he did imply that religious liberties are being violated. So are you aligning with the right wing, the far right, Javad? You think that parents should protest at these school boards for against this trans curricular or whatever? Wow, you're a far-right extremist, Javad. This is a big revelation to EMPAC and all of your followers. One, I don't consider myself left or right. I believe that we should be principled in our advocacy, no matter what. And I don't believe that we should be aligned with the Democratic party or the Republican party. This one coming in from Elante says, we don't learn Islam from chimpanzees. I think that's with regards to your chimpanzees, Daniel. Yeah, you, you look at animal species, uh, to understand what are biologically intrinsic instincts that humans have, biologically rooted behaviors, instincts, beliefs, emotions. This is standard within the study of psychology. So anyone who knows anything about psychology knows that you look at childhood development, you do all kinds of, uh, experiments on psychology, look at brain imaging, uh, hormonal imaging, or hormonal studies. All of this gives us information about what is actually natural to human beings, and we can understand, uh, different religions, we can understand world history by understanding human biology. This is something critical, and we can understand more about Islam, we can understand about other religions on the basis of these biological insights. That's not to say that everything that a chimpanzee, uh, does or behaves in, it means that that's what Islam endorses. This is a straw man. This one from Pseudonym says, Daniel, you're supposed to be against evolution. Why use biology, DNA, chimps in your Islam? I explained it. I explained it in the, uh, second presentation, uh, where I made the analogy with evolutionists who say, oh, chimps and human beings have similarities, that's evidence of evolution in a common ancestor. And the creationists, I'm a creationist. They don't deny the similarity between chimpanzees and humans, but they say, no, this is not evidence of evolution. This is evidence of a common creator. Uh, and, and the same thing when it comes to, uh, biological insights to help us understand certain aspects of Islam. Uh, the same, uh, God, the Creator who revealed Islam is also the one who created human beings with a certain biology, with a certain psychology, with a certain set of instinctual beliefs and norms. Like, that's the logic of it. There is a correlation and actually a, um, confluence in that way. So this is a very coherent and compelling, uh, worldview or paradigm to operate in understanding Islam. Last two questions. Arba Ashra says, Daniel, chimpanzees are actually a matriarchal culture, and they eat their own poop. Um, they're matriarchal. Um, so I don't think that is correct. Maybe you're referring to bonobos, um, but it doesn't really matter. Like, that's not the point of the argument. If you read, uh, actual psychologists and these biologists, they'll point to all kinds of animal behaviors. It doesn't mean that everything that we find in the animal kingdom is applicable to humans. Like, this again, is not the argument. You have to, I guess, have a certain level of education or intelligence to understand this argument. Maybe there are like people who haven't gone to college, so they can't understand or follow a basic argument. But you keep people are repeating the same points over and over in every debate. And last, Chocolate Water says, 425 only limits the sexual intercourse of the one that cannot afford under a contract. Concubine still has an owner. Did we forget that? Also, Surah Nisa came after Numun. That one is for me. And what the verse says, as I already have shown, is that if you cannot afford to marry a free wife, a free woman, then and only then do you marry a slave girl. And that means that the options are only those two, not to take her as a concubine. So the, uh, the person who's asking this question is simply presupposing that you can have a concubine. That's the entire debate, and the verse wouldn't make any sense. It would say, don't take them as fornicators or lovers. So that argument simply doesn't hold water, and I'll show that again in my concluding statement. As far as the order that I used, the order that I use, like I said, I told you my source already. You can look at Sinai's chronology and see that. So can a, can a slave give meaningful consent? We, I, I think you already, uh, so the verse says that you cannot force people, you cannot coerce. It says, do not coerce. And I already showed you that verse, and I'm going to show it again. Once, even if the slave says yes, even if she says yes, is that a real consent? Because she's a slave. How can she give meaningful consent? You're 100% right, which is why the slavery should be abolished. Why follow the Quranic ethical tract? The Quran says that you shouldn't enslave further and you should emancipate. I already answered that question by telling you that the Prophet was, didn't have the capacity to abolish slavery because you had to compensate the people who had slaves, which is exactly what the Quran said to do. We got to save some juicy content for tomorrow. So I do want to, we do want to go into the conclusions, which are 10 minutes, first by Javad and then by Daniel. So let me set the timer here. Do you want to say thanks for all of your support, folks? If you have a friend who enjoys topics like these, hey, consider sharing this debate with them. And we're going to kick it over to Javad. The floor is all yours. Sorry, if you can wait just a second, I'm figuring out how to do this again. Um, okay, and then please do give me the, uh, one-minute warning, please. All right. Oh, wait, sorry, one more time. These pop-ups just are so annoying. Okay, all right, I am ready. Okay, got it. Thank you. Yep, I'm going to start now. Thank you so much. Uh, so I just want to show this is the exchange that we had, uh, on Twitter where I said very clearly, and I listed out my explicit positions are stated here, and, um, they are here, and the, this is exactly what I have argued today. So Daniel, who tried to stack the deck against me, unfortunately, you didn't look at what I read, or you were not careful, but I have stayed on track completely. In any case, I raised five general arguments for Islamic modernism, which was part of our debate, by the way, if you notice right here, and the thesis I would defend will be the following: Islamic modernism is more faithful to the Quran and the Prophet than conservative traditionalism and a better way forward for Muslims. So we were to argue which one is better, modernism or traditionalism, and that's what I did in my opening statement. I raised four specific arguments that Daniel would need to refute. Let's see how he did on that front, and three arguments against Sunni traditionalism. So let's take a look. Let's grade Daniel. Let's see how he did. Well, these are more of the, my own. This is less for him to refute, but these are my arguments for why Islamic modernism is better because it's historical, it's originalist, it's more Quranic. We've clearly seen that I'm the one who's been continuously quoting the Quran and going back to the Quran. It's more rational. That's not even debatable. It's definitely more moral. It doesn't have, you embrace raping, uh, people and that kind of thing, and is definitely more family-oriented, as we saw the pre-Islamic, uh, sorry, the pre-modern Islamic tradition, uh, allowed you to have, uh, concubines, eunuchs, normalize that, and also pederasty and rape before homosexuality by Khallad Al-Qasri, where he specifically says in the introduction that I am not only using poetry, but he's actually using multiple streams of evidence, including the juristic literature to make his arguments, as well as, uh, travel, travelogue literature. All right, the four arguments that I specifically raised for Daniel to refute, he was unable to refute any of them. Number one, on sexuality, the Quran mandates that sexual intercourse can only take place within a marriage contract, Nikah. This was shown in multiple verses. I'll show the strongest verse, but there were multiple verses. He was unable to deal with this. His entire argument was, this is how Muslims did it, therefore it must be true. This is how the tradition interpreted, and only you are coming up with this random interpretation. First of all, it's not just only me. It's since the 20th century, it's modernists have argued this. And the fact is that our entire debate was about whether or not the tradition is correct or not. You can't just presuppose that the tradition is correct because it's the tradition. That's question begging. And your entire argument has been question begging. On why, why did you even come to debate then? The whole question is, is the tradition right or wrong? On religious freedom, the Quran allows the freedom to choose or leave a religion, and apostasy laws are therefore anti-Quranic. He could not show any proof from the Quran that apostasy laws are shown to be, uh, something that there's a legal punishment for. I showed eight specific verses and a multitude of verses that show that you are free to choose your religion. On warfare, the Quran categorically forbids wars of aggression. I showed that. And on slavery, the Quran does not allow the enslaving of prisoners of war. He actually cited 47:4 in his favor, which is against him. So I also raised four arguments against Sunni traditionalism. I knocked down, uh, the Sunni view, a traditionalist view of the Quran, which is their theory of language, by the way. He said I didn't address that point. They actually view the Quran as dim, ambiguous, and incomplete, that God's speech was incomplete and impartial and dim, and therefore had to be through the Hadith and the tradition that you understand it. But this leads to an infinite regress since you need someone to interpret the interpretation of the interpreter. He did not deal with this argument. The second argument was that Hadith criticism is flawed from the very beginning because no narrator criticism was done on the very first level, that is of the companions. So no Hadith can actually be shown to be authenticated. Instead, they simply just waved the one hand and said, all of the companions are Ulama, but that, that is that they're upright, but that doesn't sell anything about their memory. So this is completely flawed and circular logic, especially because they didn't even narrate, they would refuse to narrate reports that spoke ill of the companions. So that's circular logic, even though of course many reports survived that show that companions did lie, did fight, did do all these things. Finally, I attack Ijma, or consensus, that consensus supposedly gives certain knowledge according to the tradition, but in order for it to grant certain knowledge, you have to have ground Ijma itself in certain knowledge. That is not the case because there is no Quranic verse that's not open to more than one interpretation that you could ground that in. That's not me saying it. This is actually the traditional scholars who said that, and you can read H.A. article on this, which tries to take a positive spin on it, but it itself says that. And you can also read Hanan's article on this, which shows that they were unable to ground Ijma in a Quranic verse, and not even a mutawatir Hadith. Therefore, consensus is based on nothing other than we have Ijma, which is circular logic. So this is the language theory that the, uh, Sunni traditionalists took, that the Quran is dim, ambiguous, and incomplete, which placed all of the interpretation in the hand of the interpreter. So they are the ones that do, do textual acrobatics here. Jonathan Brown saying that the interpreter has the power, it's not the Quran itself, which is the opposite of what Islamic rationalists said, who said the Quran is clear and accessible by its very nature because God made it that way. Here is the guiding principle. This is the bot that Daniel keeps talking about. This is the medieval exegeses, and what Daniel himself does. So every Quranic verse that conflicts with the view of our legal school must be taken as abrogated, or better yet, should be reinterpreted. Now let's go to the individual arguments. This is the verse that Daniel simply could not deal with. It says, marry the believing young women, so wed them and take them, uh, as, uh, give them their proper brides' wealth, as marrying chaste women, not as fornicators or lovers. Let's, uh, hope that somebody clips out that part when he, I asked him, are concubines lovers? And he paused completely. Obviously, they are. And then the next verse says, do not do indecency with them. Those who follow their lusts are misguided. This is obviously talking about having sex outside of marriage. Also, uh, let there be no compulsion in religion. There are so many verses. I mean, how can I cite all of them? But here I would just cite that these verses are saying that anyone who goes astray only leads themselves astray and is not a loss to anyone else, which goes against Daniel's entire argument, which is how harmful it is to social cohesion. So this may be the argument when you're running an empire, but not the Quranic ethic, which is something deeper and we believe divinely inspired from God himself. It's no loss to anyone, and this is repeated in the Quran. As far as prisoners of war, it says to release them. It's clear as day, then free them, the prisoners of war, graciously or ransom them till the war lays down its burden. This is the obvious interpretation, as this medieval fiqh text says, this was the earliest. This is not a random opinion that Daniel keeps trying to show. This was an opinion that we can find in the early tradition itself. This is the earliest opinion, and in fact, there was said to be a consensus about this, but then the tradition went in a different direction. So we have to ask the question why that is. Uh, these are early figures who adopted this obvious reading, and of course, then the tradition went in the opposite direction, and we know that Imam Shafi, he said that I quoted a Hadith. I didn't quote a Hadith. I quoted Imam Shafi, who said that no single person was enslaved after the Battle of Hunayn, and we know that the.

Prisoners after Hunain were freed. So these are my basic arguments, uh, that are, uh, citing Quranic verses. Daniel was allergic to Quranic verses and instead he cited what the Roman Empire did, what the Assyrian Empire did, what, uh, uh, monkeys do and apes do, um, and biology. These are the arguments that he brought up because, and then he kept saying that I'm not here to do theology or something. Well, you were in the wrong field then. I mean, this is about Islamic Studies, and you should bring up serious arguments from Islamic Studies to do that. He has no idea about the historical record or the historians. He started citing people and saying that I'm a joke, but then by the end of the debate, he said all of Fred Donner is a joke, Juan Cole is a joke, Sean, uh, uh, Michael Penn is a joke, uh, even Patricia Crone should be a joke because she cited all of. And the person he did cite was the actual joke, who was Joseph Spurl, who doesn't read Arabic and is a Christian Islamophobe. Um, in any case, the fact is that we didn't have serious engagement. Um, the only thing that he could possibly say is, oh, why didn't the Prophet abolish slavery or Islam? And he's trying to claim that I said that Islam abolished slavery. That's not what I said. There was de facto slavery, and you couldn't just simply wave your wand and wish away slavery. In fact, it took the British Army 200, 100 plus years to do that with their army. So how could we expect the Prophet to do that when he wasn't a caliph as the tradition tries to imagine? In fact, it was the case that you had to compensate slave owners, uh, and that's exactly what the Prophet did in the Battle of Hunain. He tried to get them to do it on their own accord, but they didn't do that, which shows that he couldn't just command them to do that. He had to bribe them by giving them six camels each, and that's how the other tribes, uh, agreed to free their slaves. So that argument just goes down the drain that he didn't have the power to do that, um, but he could encourage them, and that's what the Quran did.

Now, why didn't the Islamic tradition go in that direction or the other directions that I've pointed to? Well, it's obvious. Daniel himself has raised the arguments for all of those things. There were deep economic, imperial reasons that were at play. That is exactly what motivated the early Muslims. Those were extreme pressures on them to generate different interpretations and interpret the text in a way, which is why, by the way, all, uh, early Islamic historians of early Islamic history and chronic study specialists agree that there is a divergence between the Quran and early Islamic law. That's, for example, why stoning is not in the Quran, but Islamic law does stoning. And so what did they say? They said they used that principle of, let's just make up abrogation. So some of them said it's abrogated, some of them said, oh, actually there was a missing verse of the Quran that said to stone them, and then it got abrogated, and then we don't read it at all. This is the bot that Daniel is talking about, all the ridiculous types of interpretive moves that they had to do. As far as the Hadith is concerned, the Hadith from a historical standpoint comes from a later period. I raised arguments against the Hadith from a religious perspective, but Daniel was totally unable to address them because he's not actually informed enough to do it. That's the reality. Um, the studies that he relies on, unfortunately, are honestly in the realms of "Guns, Germs, and Steel." It's not real academic scholarship in my opinion. He looks up like, you know, pop science and that kind of stuff, and he denies the moon landing. He has conspiratorial takes, all this kind of stuff. So I think when he says that academics are jokes, I think we really should think about it seriously.

So that's all I would say. Lastly, what I want to say is that I am approaching all of this from a deep love of the Prophet and of the Quran and of Islam, of my religious community. I have dedicated my life to fighting Islamophobia and clearing up misconceptions, whereas Daniel is the one who Islamophobes continuously ask for him to come and be represented. Apostate Prophet wants Daniel to come and represent on, uh, these podcasts, and that's why he asked him. Meanwhile, he tries to dismiss me and say, don't listen to him. So this shows you who the real quote-unquote agent is. But we'll talk about that tomorrow. I wish it didn't get ad hominem like it did, but unfortunately, it went in that direction. I believe that I raised all of the arguments using the Quran as my guide, and I, I hope that I've spread some truth and love today. And lastly, I would say that we don't need to be beholden to the Islamic tradition. We can love and respect what was good of it. There was a lot of good in it, including from the Islamic philosophers and rationalists, which Daniel considers to all be kafir and blasphemous. So when he says that you're insulting the Islamic tradition, what about all of that? But we can love what's good in it and correct what's wrong with it and use the Quran as our guide. Thank you very much. It's over to Daniel for 10 minutes as well. The final statement of the night. What are you guys turning your cameras off? What are you doing over there? There. Okay, so go ahead, Daniel. Um, I need to share my screen though. Can we not start the time until you got it? Um, let me see. The zoom is the thing that. Do you see that? Uh, oh, one sec. Hopefully. So it said an, no, an encoder error just happened. So hopefully we don't. Don't. Why is my camera? Is my camera not showing for you? No, it's not showing. Oh, no, it stopped on my end. Just short of having Daniel's. Okay, what we're going to do is we're going to have to start the whole debate over. I'm just kidding. Uh, it's just that this last 10 minutes, I'm going to have to edit on there, and, uh, but that's okay. So what I'm going to do is just let me just be sure that I'm live on my side, and then I'm going to have to kind of stitch them together afterwards, and that's not a big deal. We, we'll survive. Uh, looking to see where, where's the, the new live stream? Wow, that's, uh, two seconds. Sorry about this. Like, lot of, uh, boy, bear with me. Sorry about this, guys. Problem. Some, uh, it takes about 20 seconds for the stream to show. So let me just check that it's showing on the side. What says I can't. By the way, did all of my, uh, conclusion even come or not? Maybe mine got cut off. Yours definitely didn't. Yeah, it didn't. What? It did show. Yours did not get cut off. Okay, cool. I'm trying to figure out. I'm like, how is it? OBS, I'm confused. That. I think, uh, let me just double check that this is actually working. I realized even if I didn't get my closing at this point in time, H, I'm all somehow streaming. And Dan, have you done, uh, as long a debate as this before? No, no. All right, thanks for your patience. And here we go. Daniel, the flo. Oh, wait, don't start the time because I have to share my screen and stuff. Are, are we good though? Yep, we're ready. Floor is all yours. Going to share. Can you see? Ready? Okay, so, uh, to recap the basic argument here, uh, Javad came into this debate expecting that I was going to make like this huge defense of Hadith, and you can see from all of his arguments, he's referring to the tradition like he's engaging in all this kind of criticism of Hadith and the traditional scholarly Hadith, uh, sciences, but he miscalculated because that wasn't my argument. So his whole debate was like a misfire. He ignored the actual arguments that I made in this debate, and here is the structure. You know, this, the debate was about these topics at the top: gender roles, patriarchy, restrictions on sex, restrictions on non-Muslims, conquest, slavery, concubinage. It's kind of cringe for Javad to go back and say, oh no, but I didn't really agree to the things that I agreed with. Like, that is really looking bad on your part because you're conceding that you could not actually debate the topic that we agreed to, and the topics that we told James to moderate in a debate. So look, this is like the whole core of my argument. This is the core of the debate, and it shows Javad's failure. Um, you have the traditional Islamic doctrines. There is Quran and there is Hadith. Yeah, of course, those are valid, important sources. Those are critical sources for that support the traditional Islamic doctrines. And Javad says I didn't cite Quran. I cited plenty of Quran, and the Quran, the Quranic verses that I cited, they're so obvious that I have to give an hour-long, uh, you know, this kind of acrobatics, goofy gymnastics to explain how they really are in line with liberalism. No, I just cited them, and that was enough. Javad thinks or claims that he is making a Quranic argument, but he's not, because he constantly is talking about how, well, if the Quran says something that I don't agree with, like imposing the jizya, um, or or lashing the Zani, then we have to refer to higher ethical principles. Like that's his get out of jail free card, and it shows that he has no concern for the actual words of the Quran despite all of the lip service. But again, going back to this chart, you have the traditional Islamic doctrines. I supported them with all of these other evidences, and these are academic evidences that any other academic, you can bring any academic, like bring, uh, Michael Penn, bring, uh, Robert Hoyland, bring, uh, Juan Cole, you know, bring Mustafa Akyol, the guy who dodged me and he, you know, blocked me on Twitter, he won't agree to a debate. Bring any of these guys, and I'll cite the same academic sources, the same historical sources, and all of those sources de facto support the traditional narrative, the traditional Islamic doctrines. And this argument was completely ignored by Javad. And his cope for that is to say, oh, I'm Quran-centric, so I'm not going to actually address any historical evidence or biological evidence or all of these reports from non-Muslims. So this is such a cope, it's so cringe, as we're talking about. And, and it also makes no sense. If you claim to be a historian or a critical academic, then these are the kinds of evidences that you should be concerned with. Um, and I can understand why Javad wanted to avoid them because if you go actually to these sources, this historical evidence, it proves that the traditional, uh, doctrines, the traditional Islamic doctrines on all five of these topics is in line with what the Quran endorses and with what the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam endorsed. And that's the entire topic of the debate. Uh, so I'm very happy, you know, that Javad made such a big blunder, um, in mis or misanticipating what my argument was going to be. Um, now let me get another chart. Actually, yeah, so this was his whole approach. He wanted to, uh, dismiss the Hadith. His whole presentation was about attacking the Hadith. It's inauthentic because of historical critical method, whatever. And then engage in this radical subjective reinterpretation. He didn't give us any principles to interpret the Quran. He didn't acknowledge that, well, the Quran has to be rooted in actual history or the actual views, beliefs, and norms of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam. He didn't acknowledge that point. He didn't address that point. So this shows that all of the verses of Quran he cited, so what? Like anyone can cite anything. Anyone can say anything about anything. Like I said, we can have someone who comes and interprets my Quran and says that, oh, this is a love letter to the Jews. We would laugh such a person, uh, out of the building. And this is exactly what Javad has been engaging with or engaged in this entire debate. Uh, so let me stop sharing now. Uh, so hold on. So, uh, the rest of the, um, points I want to make is that, okay, Javad was Gish Galloping the entire debate. He did not address the debate topics. The debate was not about justifications for slavery or concubinage or conquest. I've covered that in other debates, but even then, we got into some of those issues, and Javad still couldn't answer a lot of the points that I made, like about marrying, marrying female slaves. Marrying female slaves, okay, where's the meaningful consent there, Javad? Like your feminist academic, someone like Kesha Ali, that you cited, would still consider that to be rape because there's no meaningful consent. You, you know, very, uh, conveniently avoided that issue. Why? Because you know that you can't address it, because your liberalism would mean that the Quran is endorsing rape. When, so this is, this is your inconsistency. Also, your, your portrayal of Islam is a pure denigration of all Muslim societies. You're like the worst Islamophobe because you're portraying all of traditional Muslim society, the vast majority, 99% of Muslim history are Muslims like me who believe, yeah, there's no problem with conquest. We're proud of what the early Muslims did. We're proud of all the, we're proud of that tradition. We're proud of the Hadith. You're portraying them as pederasts, you're portraying them as racists, rapists, like you're portraying them as misogynists, and in this most vile way. So this is pure hate, pure racism, pure colonialism. You're really showing that you, or showed that you are this kind of fed, and we'll talk about that in tomorrow's debate, inshallah. So you kept appealing to rational speculation, but you gave no principles for what is reason, what are these higher ethics? You didn't lay that out at all. You appealed to rationalists, um, but again, there was no, the, the rationalists all agree with the traditionalists on these five issues. So what's your point? Um, you said that, well, rationalists will not, will will say that, well, the worship of God, that's something immutable. We cannot interpret those things away as being relics of the past. Well, many modernists disagree with you on that. There are perennialists who disagree that you have to pray in this way, you have to worship God in this way with five prayers, you have to fast in Ramadan. There are many modernists who claim to be just as rational as us, Javad. They don't accept this principle of, oh, the worship, that that's something that we don't change. And also, you didn't give any kind of principle to justify why we can't, you know, no longer practice fasting in Ramadan, why should we pray, the five prayers, why can't we get rid of these fornication rules, the prohibition of fornication, why can't we get rid of the prohibition on of riba? We, we're living in different times in a different context. Why can't we just abrogate or or not abrogate, but reform all of those rules and say those are relics of the past? We're in different times. You didn't give a principle to distinguish from that. This is exactly my point. Your methodology, this liberal reformism will lead to the entire destruction of Islam and the Quran. And this is why you are a, you know, a modern colonialist, as I've explained multiple times. You're, this is what your project is. It's a, it's a cultural genocide, it's a religious genocide of Islam. And people need to recognize that about your project, about the project of this Islamic Studies Western academia. This is what they're engaged in. And Muslims are, it's going to be a very easy time, inshallah, to show how ridiculous this kind of project is and how baseless, how, uh, without principle, just as I've been able to do, alhamdulillah, in this debate. So, you know, no coherent principles, no consistency. You say you're Quran-centric, but then when you're cornered, you say, oh, but the Quran, we can put that aside with that for certain things are are just for that time, and we're in a different time. You're get out of jail free card. This is, uh, very inconsistent. It's post-hoc, it's not rational at all. It's the opposite of rationalism, actually. You don't own, just like you don't own academia and the historical critical method, like you just butchered the entire name of the historical critical method in this debate. You don't own rationalism. Nothing that you said was rational. It was all a jumbled mess, goofy. No one followed anything that you were saying. So how much time, James? Let me check. Your 59 seconds. Yeah, so, um, I also want to note that Javad, not once, I'm pretty sure not once in this debate did he say alaihi wa sallam for the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, not once. I don't remember him saying that at all. He's just referring to the Prophet sallallahu alaihi as a senator and like with absolute disrespect, you know, this is really disgusting and it shows the kind of person that Javad is. He's a modern, he's someone who believes in evolution, so he rejects explicit things in the Quran. He said he, he believes in human evolution, so he doesn't believe in any of these, uh, um, accounts in the Quran of the prophets of Ibrahim, of Isa, of Jesus, you know, he doesn't believe in any of these kinds of accounts because he is a liberal modernist. He thinks these are all just metaphors. This is why he's apostate. This is not something that, or a zindiq. This is not something that I just made up. It's based on his deviance and heresy that we call him an ex-Muslim. Want to say thank you very much for tuning in tonight, folks. We are going to have the second debate tomorrow night. If seven hours wasn't enough for you, don't worry, there's more tomorrow. Tomorrow these men collide. Want to encourage you, check out their links in the description, folks. Thanks for letting me know in the live chat, in your, uh, polite feedback on the fact that that closing by you, Daniel, we did have it captured via stream. The only problem is, for some reason, the video wasn't updating. But I can fix that later. I'm just going to basically pull it from your channel and then put it in a little upload from my channel. So long story short, want to say thank you very much, folks, for tuning in. Any last words if for we let you go for the night, gentlemen? Um, no, I, we said everything. Six hours, seven hours, that was pretty long. Well, thank you very much. Uh, thank you, Daniel. Thank you, James. Forgive me if I stepped out of line anywhere. No, no, everyone was good. And, and same with me, forgive me if I've stepped out of line. So for real, thank you guys. It's been a great time to have you. We'll let you guys go to sleep, and we'll see you tomorrow. Folks, tomorrow at 8:00 PM Eastern, these two gentlemen collide one more time. So, folks, thanks so much for all your support. Please do subscribe if, if you haven't, as we have many more upcoming debates, including tomorrow night, and we'll see you then. See you. So are we no longer live now?