The Islamic Dilemma | GodLogic vs Daniel Haqiqatjou [ Full Debate ]

Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Uh, God bless everybody for being here. Um, man, it's an awesome debate. Awesome debate. Uh, I want to thank Daniel for, uh, the opportunity and, and, you know, having this discussion, uh, talking about the Islamic dilemma. Pretty, pretty famous, pretty popular, uh, you know, topic that we're dealing with. And, um, interestingly enough, Daniel just had a debate with David Wood on this subject. He just had a debate with David Wood on whether or not the Bible, um, you know, confirmed or is confirmed by Islam by the Quran. And so, um, you know, we know what, what, what comes with this.

My favorite topic is the Islamic dilemma, other than the deity of Christ. And this is why because anybody, anybody can simply get this argument. Whether you are a Jew, a Christian, atheist, it doesn't matter. Muslim, you don't have to be super religious to understand this argument and this dilemma that Islam has placed on itself. Here it goes. It goes like this.

As you guys already know, uh, the Quran confirms the previous scriptures. It confirms the Torah, the Gospel, the Psalms, the Bible. It confirms the Bible. Says that the Bible is true while at the same time it says, uh, while at the same time it contradicts the Bible. And so we're at a dilemma here. We're in trouble here. The Quran is saying that a book is true while contradicting that same book at the same time. Meaning that because the Quran contradicts the Bible, which it already says is true, that would mean that the Quran is false for going against what is true.

Now, our Muslim friends like to say, "Well, the Quran is talking about the original Torah and Gospel. Um, you know, that, that was revealed originally to the prophets, the original scriptures, not what you have today. What you have is a corrupted version of that." So, the Quran is not confirming what you have. What you have is a corruption. Well, okay, that's fine because according to the Quran, it's confirming the Torah and Gospel that's in the possession of the Jews and the Christians. They have it with them. Ba yade. You have chapter 3:3. It says, "We have sent down the book in truth confirming that which has, uh, which is between your hands." Bana yadehi. And we revealed the Torah and the Gospel of four time as a guidance and light for mankind. Uh, chapter 2:41 it says, "Believe in what I have revealed confirming that which is with you." Matthew 7 verse 157 those who follow the unlettered prophet whom they find written with them maktub and indom written with them in the Torah and the Gospel.

So, according to the Quran, the Torah and the Gospel were present with the Jews and Christians in Muhammad's time in 7th century Arabia. So if the scripture was corrupted, as our Muslim friends would like to say, as some of them do, maybe not all of them, you know, we'll see what happens. Um, but if that's the position that they take, well, then that would just mean that Allah is saying that corrupted books are true. Allah in the Quran is confirming corrupted scripture. So the Quran would still be false for confirming corrupted books. That's another way to go about it. Or if the Bible is truly corrupted, then the Quran is false for saying that the Bible is true. So either way you go, if Bible good, Quran bad. If Bible bad, Quran still bad. That's the Islamic dilemma.

And so this has been, it, it's, it's grown. It's been popular. It's growing in popularity. Um, that is catching the attention of the, uh, is catching the attention of the top Muslim debaters because a lot of Muslims are leaving Islam because of the Islamic dilemma. Just on my live stream alone, we have Muslims, especially, uh, new converts to Islam. Once they hear the Islamic dilemma, they're, they're saying they can't, they can't be a Muslim anymore. They, this is a dilemma that they can't get out of. Islam is obviously internally and logically false. So they leave Islam because of this, or even long-term Muslims leave Islam and denounce Islam because of this dilemma. It's so obvious. It's so clear.

But it's not just the Quran that attests to this. Even though all over the place, it's everywhere. What we're going to be seeing today, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to be seeing. I'm going to give you exactly what I say. The Quran says what I'm saying. I'm going to show you from the Quran. I'm going to show you from what Muhammad is saying. My opponent is going to give you things that he cannot show us from the Quran, that he cannot show us from Muhammad. He cannot show us from Hadith. What he's going to be doing is giving ad hoc interpretation, right? Reading into the text, doing is of Jesus instead of exegesis.

So I'm going to give you, for example, that according to Allah, he cannot stand people who like to pick and choose from the scripture, that what they like to believe in. They, they agree with part of it, so that part's good, and the other part I don't like that, so therefore it, it's corrupted, it's wrong. Chapter 2 verse 85 literally says, "Do you," speaking to the Jews regarding the Torah, right? But he lays down a general principle. "Do you believe in part of the scripture while rejecting the rest?" What's the consequence? Allah continues to say that those who do so among you will be disgraced in this life and have a severe punishment waiting for you in the hereafter.

So with that being said, according to Allah, you cannot pick and choose of the scriptures the parts you want to believe in and the parts you disagree with and disbelieve in. You have to believe in it all. And if you don't believe in it all, you're disgraced in this life and in the next life, you have a severe punishment waiting for you. So that's chapter 2 verse 85. You cannot believe in part of the scripture. You have to believe in all of it.

What about authority? The Quran says that the scriptures of the previous, uh, uh, the previous people, the people of the book, the Jews and Christians, that these scriptures are authoritative. We are to judge by them. We are to stand on them. We are to recite them in truth. Chapter 2:44. According to the Quran, it says in chapter 5:43, we all know these verses in context dealing with the people of the book, Jews, Christians, and then also dealing with the Muslims in verse 48. 43 addressing the Jews says, "Why do they come to you for judgment?" Talking to Muhammad, "Why do they come to you for judgment when they have the Torah in which Allah's judgments are in? Even still, they turn away." So, they still have the, they have the Torah, they have Allah's judgments, and yet they're still turning away from it, going to Muhammad, trying to seek a different judgment, trying to trick him and play games.

So fortunately for us, this is what we have here. The Quran just affirmed the authority and the truth of the Torah that the Jews have in their possession during Muhammad's time. Well, it even goes on to quote it in chap in chapter 5:45. We just keep reading. He even quotes the Torah talking about, you know, an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. That law, you guys are familiar with what we have here. Quran. The Quran fits that. So with that being said, we have the Quran affirming the authority of the Torah.

What about the Gospel? Verse 47, same chapter, chapter 5. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed in it. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed in there, they are of the wrongdoers. They're the rebellious ones. So according to Allah, if I'm going to be a good Christian, I have to judge by my Gospel. Whatever goes against the Gospel, I have to judge it as false. I cannot deviate from it. And then verse 48, backing up everything that I'm saying, says to Muhammad that he's revealed the Quran to him. He's revealed the book to him, confirming the scriptures that came before him or ba confirming the scriptures that's between his hands. And then it goes on to say, "And it is a mahimon over it." Ibn Abbas interprets that to be trustworthy. It's a guardian over, it's a protector of the previous scriptures. So it's a protector of the previous scriptures, a guardian of it. If our Muslim friends want to tell us that our scriptures are corrupted, then I guess the Quran did a terrible job at it at being a guardian. It's a terrible protector. It did a bad job at guarding our scriptures if they ended up getting corrupted. And we can't get back to the truth unless we read the Quran. No, that's not what the Quran says. I'm going to believe what Allah says. I'm going to believe what the Quran is saying consistently and what it says in, in its context. That the Quran is a guardian of the scriptures. It confirms them, attests to their truth, attests to their preservation, attests to their authority, right? And we are to judge by them and stand on it.

Chapter 5, verse 68. We're still in chapter 5. Keep going. Say to the people of the book, you have nothing to stand on unless you observe the Torah and the Gospel and all that's been revealed to you from your Lord. So according to the Quran, I have no foundation unless I stand on the Torah and the Gospel and all that's been revealed. I got to stand on the Bible according to the Quran. So when Allah is very clear, the Quran is very clear, very explicit that one, you cannot pick and choose out of his scriptures what you choose to believe in. Two, you, according to the Quran, the Bible is authoritative. It is preserved and it's guarded by the Quran in the way that the Quran tells you go back to your scriptures. Stop deviating from them. Stop trying to go away and rebel against Allah. Go back to your scriptures and adhere to them. Stand on them. Judge by them.

How much time do I have left? >> Five minutes. >> Five minutes. Okay, cool. We're good on time. We're good on time. On top of that, we can go to the Sunnah. We can go to the Hadith because there's narrations where we get clearly that Muhammad himself is affirming the scriptures that's there in his time. According to the Hadith, the Jews come bringing an example of a couple who committed adultery. And they come to Muhammad trying to seek a different judgment. This is the context of chapter 5:43, the background. And according to this Hadith, you find this narration in Bukhari and Sunan Abu Dawud. According to the Hadith, listen to this. The Hadith has Muhammad asking them, "What does your Torah say? What does it say in your law? What does it say in the Torah? Bring the Torah." He tells them, they bring the Torah and as they're reading the Torah, they try to hide the verse when it comes to stoning, but they say, uh, remove your hand. And so they see the law of stoning. Whatever the law was going to be regarding stoning, Muhammad was going to say, "Judge by that." Why? Because of the authority of the Torah. Muhammad believed in the Torah. He believed in its preservation. He believed in its authority, which is why he didn't give them a Quranic judgment. He didn't listen to Gabriel to see what he was going to get from Allah and say, "Okay, I got a ruling for you." No, he said, "Bring the Torah and abide by that."

So, we have Muhammad, we have Allah very clearly and explicitly affirming the preservation and the authority of the previous scriptures. So, what do we need to do here? What we need to do is analyze according to the Quran. Is it the Christian view? Is it a Christian view? Or is it an Islamic view? Is it a Quranic view that the Bible is the word of Allah even to this day? That the Quran is preserved even to this day. That the Bible is authoritative even to this day. Is that a Christian view or is that an Islamic view? Is that based in the Quran? And is that based in the Hadith? And what we're going to see in this debate is that this is based right out of the text of the Quran and the Hadith. The only thing we do around here is we just read. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that opening. Want to do a quick intro. But first, before I do, just want to say the only thing we do around here is we just read. Thank you. Thank you very much for that opening. Daniel will have his 15-minute opening statement as well. I think people could hear everything that you had said. It's just that it does kind of go up sometimes and then goes down. But folks, if you are new here, welcome to Modern Day Debate. I'm your host, Dr. James Coons. We are a fully neutral debate platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. And want to let you know, folks, right now, we are still doing a 24-hour flash sale for Debate Con 6. It's in Nashville, Tennessee. The significance, the reason we're doing this flash sale today only, where you can get the link. I'm going to put our email list link in the live chat right now. If you sign up right now, you can still get the discount code. We will email that to you at the end of the debate. Then you can buy your discounted Debate Con 6 tickets for Nashville, Tennessee this November 15th and 16th. Daniel Hakeik Juul will be there as well as Apostate Prophet and many others. Want to say also folks, we have a lot of housekeeping stuff. If you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button as we have many more debates six tickets for Nashville, Tennessee this November 15th and 16th. Daniel Hakeik Juul will be there as well as Apostate Prophet and many others. Want to say also folks, we have a lot of housekeeping stuff. If you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button as we have many more debates coming up. With that, we're going to kick it over to Daniel for his 15-minute opening statement. Thank you very much, Daniel. The floor is all yours. for nationals 15. >> I hear some background >> be there as well as topic and many other >> I do hear someone might have a TV on the in the background. All right, we're ready for you. Daniel >> might need share my screen. So, can I just get that? >> You got it. And folks, I'm going to put that link, as I said, in the live chat as Daniel loads up his slides, that link for our email list. This is the insider code. In other words, only people on the email list are getting this code for this discount for Debate Con 6. And I want to say folks, do appreciate serious questions. We do prioritize serious questions. So, please uh, I know you might think it's funny to throw your poop at the debaters with insults, but we really do want serious questions for the Q&A. We won't be able to get through all of the questions for the Q&A as we have a strict 30-minute limit. Floor is all yours, Daniel.

Okay. Alhamdulillah. Let's stop calling it the Islamic dilemma because it's not really a dilemma for Islam. We should call it the autistic dilemma because it's only a dilemma for Christians who pretend to be autistic in reading the Quran as uncharitably and irrationally as possible. For example, Quran 3:34 or sorry, Quran 3:3, Allah has sent down upon you, oh Muhammad, the book in truth, confirming what was before it, and he revealed the Torah and the Injil. Autistic dilemma. People read this verse and say, "See, the Quran says our Bible is the true divinely inspired word of God." But as Muslims, we scratch our heads and wonder, "Where does the verse say all that?" Autistic dilemma people also cite Quran 5:47 and let the people of the gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein and whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed and it is those who are the defiantly disobedient. Autistic dilemma people say, "See, the Quran says we have to judge Islam according to the Bible." But again, where exactly does the verse say this? So the autistic dilemma rests on two, on these two claims. First, the Quran confirms their Bible, including the entire ity of the Old and New Testaments as the true divinely inspired word of God. And second, the Quran also commands Jews and Christians to judge the validity of Islam based on their Bible. The supposed dilemma is that if we judge Islam based on the Bible, it refutes Islam because the Bible, for example, refers to Jesus as the son of God, which contradicts the Quran. So this allegedly puts Muslims in an impossible situation. Either Muslims must admit that the Quran is wrong when it asserts that the entire Bible is true, or Muslims must accept the entire Bible is true and the Jews and Christians are entitled to judge Islam based on their Bible. But when Islam is judged by that Bible, Islam is proven false.

So now let's look at how truly autistic this dilemma really is. Let's evaluate the first claim. The Quran confirms the entirety of the Bible as a true word of God. First, we have to understand the complete context of the Quranic message. The Quran presents a general outline of history. Allah sends a line of prophets with the same core message focused on three points: Monotheism, the Last Day (meaning resurrection, judgment, and reward or punishment), and moral conduct. Or what's in 7th century Arabia, most people were idol worshippers. They rejected monotheism in favor of paganism, denied the Last Day, and engaged in moral crimes like fornication and female infanticide. They also denied that Allah sends prophets to guide humanity. Thus, when the Quran stresses monotheism, the Last Day, and good deeds, it highlights teachings common to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but absent from Arabian paganism. Relevant verses illustrate this, such as Quran 2:62. The Muslim believers, the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabians, all those who believe in God, in the Last Day, and do good will have their rewards with their Lord. No fear for them, nor will they grieve. Verses like 5:69 to 12:6 and 3:13 through 115 give a similar message. The Quran also teaches that the most important prophets have divinely inspired scriptures like the Torah of Moses and Injil of Jesus. These are not necessarily written books but maybe oral texts that are passed down through memorization like the Quran, which refers to itself as a book (kitab), but it was an oral text that was memorized during the Prophet Muhammad's life (sallallahu alaihi wasallam).

Now, the question is, is the Torah mentioned in the Quran identical to the Old Testament, and is the Injil identical to the New Testament? There are two main possibilities. First possibility: The Quran views the Torah as equal to the Old Testament and the Injil as equal to the New Testament. This is the position of the autistic dilemma people. Second possibility: The original Torah and Injil underwent significant textual alteration with additions and deletions, producing the present Old and New Testaments, which contain fragments of the Torah and Injil. This is the view of most Muslim scholars, including some of the earliest exegetes. Let's evaluate these two possibilities. If someone claims the Torah and Injil are the same as today's Bible, this means they were never altered. But is this what the Quran actually says? Absolutely not. For 1400 years, Muslim scholars have discussed previous scriptures under the heading of tahreef, which is the Quranic term for scriptural corruption. In several passages, the Quran accuses Jews and Christians of tahreef, whether textual or interpretive. This concept of tahreef appears in three sources: the Quran, Hadith, and the views of the earliest Muslim scholars and the views of later Muslim scholars. Let's look at these sources. The verse which most strongly expresses the notion of tahreef is Quran 2:79. "So woe to those who write scripture with their own hands and then claim this is from God in order to make some small gain. Woe to them for what their hands have written." Here, the Quran describes Jews and Christians fabricating scripture textually. The Quran also contains verses where tahreef twists scripture interpretively, such as verse 3:78. "And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the scripture with their tongues. So you may think it is from the scripture, but it is not from the scripture." These verses describe tahreef as creating false versions of their scripture, whether by writing or by speech. These verses are definitive proof that according to the Quran, when Jews and Christians say something is scripture, Muslims should not automatically accept that it's from the authentic Torah or Injil.

Autistic dilemma people are so desperate to deny these verses that they claim that modern Muslims only invented this concept of biblical corruption and then back-project it onto the Quran. But this is a complete lie. From the earliest times, Muslims understood that the Quran describes Jewish and Christian scripture as corrupted. You don't have to take my word for it as a Muslim. Even according to non-Muslim Western academics who specialize in Quranic studies, the overwhelming majority affirm that the Quran teaches that the Bible has been subjected to textual alteration. Professor Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, a leading specialist on the Quran, writes, "The contradictions between the Quranic and biblical stories and the denial of both Jews and Christians that Muhammad was predicted in their holy scriptures gave rise to the Quranic accusation of the falsification of these last by Jews and Christians respectively." Sandra Keating writes, "The formulation of the doctrine of tahreef gives us a strong indication that Islam was from its inception supersessionist, the view that the new revelation sent by God would replace the corrupted scriptures possessed by other communities. In this sense, the Quran could be seen as a corrective as well as a confirmation of what had come before." Wed, professor at the University of Toronto, says, "The majority view is that these verses do imply an accusation of textual tampering and not merely corruption of meaning or other lesser forms of tampering. The scholarly consensus is that the Quran does indeed make the charge that Jewish and Christian scriptures have been textually corrupted."

Now consider the following Hadith. Umar came to the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) with some written scripture he had gotten from the People of the Book. He read it to the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) and the Prophet got angry and said, "Are you confused about your religion, Umar? I have brought Islam to you clear and pure. Don't ask them about anything unless they tell you something true and you disbelieve it, or they tell you something false and you believe it." In this Hadith, we see that the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) explicitly rejects the trustworthiness of Jewish and Christian written scripture because they alter those texts. Outside of Quran and Hadith, there are statements from Ibn Abbas, the most authoritative exegete amongst the Prophet's companions (sallallahu alaihi wasallam). He notably emphasized textual alteration and in multiple authentic reports warned Muslims not to trust Jews and Christians. He says, "Allah has told you that the people of the book have changed some of Allah's books and distorted it and written something with their own hands." The earliest works of exegesis also contain references to tahreef, for example, the Tafsirs by Tabari and Jafari.

So let's look back at the two possibilities. First possibility: The Quran views the Torah as the Old Testament and the Injil as the New Testament. Second possibility: The original Torah and Injil underwent significant textual alteration with additions and deletions, reducing the present Old and New Testaments. Given all the evidence from the Quran, Hadith, and Tafsir, the second possibility is the only plausible solution or position. This means that the Quran does not confirm the entire text of the Bible is true, and therefore, there is no Islamic dilemma.

Now consider this. Christian apologists who claim the Quran does confirm the entire Bible are essentially saying the Quran teaches biblical inerrancy. This is absurd because many Jews and Christians don't even believe in biblical inerrancy. Biblical inerrancy is the belief that every word of the Bible is literally true. Many Jews and Christians believe in the general truth of the Bible, but they don't believe that every word of the Bible is true. This is because of well-known biblical contradictions. For example, in the Old Testament, who kills Goliath? 1st Samuel 17:15 says David. 2 Samuel 21:19 says Elhanan. How does Judas die? Judas, Matthew 27:5 says he hanged himself. Acts 1:18 says he fell and his bowels spilled out. What about Jesus's genealogy? Matthew lists 27 generations between David and Joseph. Luke lists 42. Thousands of such contradictions led many Jews and Christians to deny biblical inerrancy. Notable authorities rejecting it include early church fathers like Origen and John Chrysostom, and later figures like Luther, Calvin, Unitarians, and the modern Catholic Church. The irony is that proponents of the autistic dilemma deny that Muslims can take this same stance. Their view is that for the Quran to affirm the truth of the Bible, that means affirming that every word is true. But this is not the same standard of truth that they afford to other Christians. For other Christians, there's no problem in believing the Bible is generally true without affirming that every single word is true. But Muslims have a parallel stance. We acknowledge that the Bible contains truth, but that doesn't mean every word is true. In other words, we reject biblical inerrancy. Yet, the autistic dilemma people claim this is somehow incoherent. Well, if it's incoherent for Muslims, it's also incoherent for many Christians.

So now we're in a position to understand what verses like Quran 3:3 mean. When the Quran says it confirms the previous scriptures, it does not mean that the entire Bible should be taken as true. It simply means that the Quran confirms the Bible's most important repeated teachings as true, namely monotheism, the Last Day, doing good deeds. These are the teachings that the Quran explicitly affirms in the verses we saw earlier, such as 2:62. Some Christians respond to this argument by saying that the divinity of Jesus is the most important teaching of the Bible. This is simply false. First, no such teaching is found in the Old Testament. Second, even in the New Testament, this teaching is not clearly expressed. Rather, the New Testament contains contradictory material. The ambiguity of the Bible allows Christian groups like the first-century Ebionites and the later Unitarians to cite Luke 7:16, John 4:19, and Matthew 13:57 in claiming that Jesus is not God, but rather simply a prophet and Messiah.

Finally, what about the judgment verses like 5:47? The Quran does encourage the People of the Book to judge by their scripture. However, the question is, what does this mean? The autistic dilemma people say that this means that Jews and Christians should judge the truth of the Islamic message based on their scriptures. First of all, nowhere do the verses say this. Christian apologists have simply invented this out of thin air. When we look at the relevant judgment verses Christian apologists cite, they are mostly found in the fifth chapter of the Quran. And when we read the whole context, it's clear the verses are telling Jews and Christians to judge by their Bible, which means make judgments according to your biblical law. Yes, 5:47 tells the people of the book to judge by their scripture. But read two verses earlier in 5:45, which says, "And We prescribed for them in their scripture a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds an equal retaliation. Those who do not judge according to what Allah has sent down, they are the unjust." So the judgment being referred to is judgment for criminal violations. And if we were left with any remaining doubt, look at the few verses later in 5:48, which says, "To each of you people we prescribe a law." So the context of these verses are legal, and the Quran is telling them to punish crimes using the biblical legal standards like stoning or eye for an eye. This understanding of the verses is backed up by Hadith. For example, the Hadith where the Jews in Medina go to the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) and ask him to judge in the case of adultery. So the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) tells them to bring the Torah and implement the punishment prescribed in the Torah, namely stoning. Christian apologists love to cite this Hadith, but they completely miss the point. The point is that the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) is telling them to judge according to the legal standards of the Torah. The context is that seventh-century Jews and Christians rejected Islam because they said, "We have our own holy books. So why would we abandon them and follow Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wasallam)?" The Quran's response to this is, "You claim to care about your holy books, but these are hollow words because you're not even implementing the laws in those books." This is like the debate modern Christians and Muslims have. Christians criticize Islam for punishments like blasphemy, stoning, and lashing. And Muslims reply, "Hey, you have the same punishments in your Bible, but you don't apply them. So your claim to love God and follow his commands rings hollow. If you care about scripture, why not actually judge by it by implementing laws such as veiling, banning usury, punishing fornication, etc.?" This is what the Quran's judgment verses are about: Jewish and Christian hypocrisy, not the idea that the Quran tells them to evaluate the truth of Islam according to the Bible.

And a final note, let's not pretend the Bible isn't corrupted. Academic research confirms massive discrepancies across manuscripts, whether the Dead Sea Scrolls, Masoretic Text, Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, Peshitta, Ethiopic Bible, and more. Christians are embarrassed by these many versions and won't admit that the Bible has been corrupted. What burns them up is that the Quran exposed this 1400 years ago before modern manuscript discoveries. So, how could a 7th-century Arab know of this textual corruption without supernatural knowledge? Christian apologists can't cope with the implications of this. So they invent the false claim that the Quran confirms the entirety of the Bible as true. This is ultimately what the Islamic dilemma is: a coping mechanism to avoid admitting the Quran debunked their religion and their Bible centuries ago.

Thank you very much for that opening statement. Folks, want to let you know housekeeping stuff. If you did not know, Debate Con 6 is happening in Nashville, Tennessee, November 15th and 16th. We're having a flash sale right now. Why, you ask? Why right now? It's exactly 60 days from the conference. Exactly. Right now, linked at the top of the chat is our email list. If you sign up for our email list, we will send you those discount codes. We're only going to send emails very sparingly for discounts on merch or Modern Day like Debate Con. You don't want to miss out. Get your discounted ticket tonight. With that, we're going to kick it over to Avery for eight minutes for his rebuttal. Oh, I can't hear you yet. You might be on mute. Let me check really quick.

>> Here we go. Can you hear me now?

>> Perfect.

>> We all good. It's not going in and out. It was kind of like it would be like every like 20 seconds or so. So, we'll test it out.

>> Okay. We'll test it out. All right. So, let me know when I can start.

>> Ready for you.

>> All right. Awesome. All right. So, uh, going to work a little bit backwards here. Uh, Daniel, you said that, uh, you, you posted those, you know, manuscript variances as corruption and saying that the Quran already called these, these things out, these variances that we have in, in our manuscripts and that equals corruption. And so I'm just saying if that's, if that's your standard of corruption, then I just want you to do this with me to the camera and wave. Bye-bye, Quran. Because you have so many different textual manuscripts in your Quran. Hafs, Wars, uh, Al-Kisa'i, Khalaf, uh, uh, Qalun, Duri, you have so many textual variances in your with your Qurans and variances that even your some of your scholars say contradict one another, change the meanings. If you're saying that textual variance equals corruption, the Quran is corrupted then. Bye-bye, Quran. What are we doing here? But I don't think that that's what you would want. That's the angle you want to go with. But you said that. So I guess the Quran's corrupted now.

Um, you also said, uh, you said that the idea that the Quran is, is saying that the Torah and the, and the Gospel is the Old Testament and the New Testament, that we have that, that that's what the autistic dilemma is. That's what the, the autistic side says. Well, then I guess according to your, you're saying that some of your Muslims are autistic. Um, and so we, we go to Sahih Bukhari, for example, in number 2125. Sahih Bukhari 2125. And the English translator, uh, puts this in. Watch this, guys. Narrated by Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-As, and I asked him, "Tell me about the description of Allah's Messenger which is mentioned in the Torah." (Parenthesis: i.e., the Old Testament). So I guess you got some autistic brothers on your, on your Muslim side that's over here translating the, the, the version of the Hadith, translating in Arabic and putting their two cents in, saying, "i.e., the Old Testament." And you got more, you got English translators. I'm looking at probably like four of these right now where your English translators, Muslim guys, these are Muslim English translators translating the Quran. They keep saying, "Old Testament Torah, Old Testament, i.e., Torah given to Moses, i.e., Old Testament, Old Testament, Old Testament, New Testament." What are you talking about? So it looks like you got a whole field of autistic Muslim scholars and Muslim translators thinking, "How dare they think that the Torah given to Moses and the Gospel that the Quran is talking about is referring to the Old and New Testament?" How, where in the world would they get that from, Daniel? I, I don't know, man. Maybe, maybe from the autistic side, I guess. I don't know, man.

Um, you said, uh, you said, "Nowhere, nowhere does the Quran say to judge the Quran used in the previous scriptures." Now, I, I couldn't wait for you to say that because you actually do have the verse. Not, not only does 5:47 say this, that you have to judge by the Gospel and the, uh, the, you know, they're supposed to judge by the Torah and stuff like that. And I agree with you. And in context, it deals with with their laws and things of that nature. However, to get more specific to your claim, you got chapter 10 verse 94 that says, talking to Muhammad, "If you are in doubt about that which we have revealed to you, what's he supposed to do? Go and ask those who have been reading the scripture before you. Truly the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt." So according to this verse, what is Muhammad supposed to use to judge the Quran in case he's doubting what the Quran's saying to him? He's supposed to use the Bible. He's supposed to use the previous scriptures to judge the Quran to make sure he's all good and to make sure that what he's receiving is indeed from God. Because this is the premise of it. If Muhammad is in doubt, not saying that he necessarily is, but if the case, in the case that he's in doubt of the, of what the Quran is telling him, then what he can do to clear up the doubts, what can he use as a verifier? What can he use as a clarifier, as a truth standard, as a foundation? Go to the people who've been reading the scripture before you. They're using the Torah, Gospel. And on top of that, what's so, what does this do when he goes and checks with them? If it lines up with what, if the Quran lines up with what those previous scriptures have, then Muhammad will know that he has the truth and he'll have no reason to doubt. If he goes and checks and he sees that the Quran does not line up with what they have, then he'll have good reason to doubt and therefore know that the Quran is false. So, your Quran does use the previous scriptures as a standard for judging the Quran. I can't, I mean, I, I understand why you would say that. Maybe you weren't aware of that verse, but that verse is in there. I told you guys, what, what did I tell you? I told you that throughout this debate, I'm going to be able to show you exactly what I say is there. Daniel's not going to be able to show you nothing of what he's saying is there. So, he, in his entire time was talking, was trying to give us, was trying to give us the, uh, the angle that the Quran is not confirming everything. It's confirming only the, the, the, the major teachings, the, you know, the common teachings, monotheism. It's confirming some of it, not all of it. Well, 2:85. "Do you believe in some of the scripture, part of the scripture while rejecting the rest?" Those who do so among you, Daniel, according to Allah, you're disgraced in this life, my guy. And you have a severe punishment waiting for you because you keep picking and choosing what parts of the scripture you want to believe in and the other parts you don't, you don't want to believe in. And on top of that, you're trying to say that the scholars had the opinion that that that the scriptures are corrupted. It's the autistic side that says that the, according to the Quran, the scriptures are not corrupted. Well, again, I guess according to the autistic side, like Ibn Abbas and Bukhari, I guess they're on the autistic side because Ibn Kathir, he reports that there's three opinions. 700 years after the Prophet, 700 years later, is still reporting that there's no consensus of the scholars on whether the scriptures are corrupted or not. He gives three opinions. The first opinion that Daniel's purported, that says that the scriptures are corrupted textually. The second opinion is that there's only minor corruption. Not is mostly intact. There's only a little bit of minor corruption. Mostly intact. And that there's one copy that that is unadulterated. And then there's the third side. We're not supposed to say three, but here's the third opinion. The third opinion is that the scriptures are perfectly intact textually, but they're only distorted or corrupted by interpretation. Guess who had this idea? Al-Razi. Guess who else had this idea? Bukhari. And guess who else had this idea? Ibn Abbas. So I guess Bukhari, Razi, Ibn Abbas. They are on the autistic side. So if that's the case, I want to hear you say throughout this debate, I want you to say Ibn Abbas is on the autistic side. I want you to say that Bukhari is on the autistic side. That your Muslim scholars are on the autistic side that hold that the scriptures are textually preserved, but only distorted by interpretation and apparent meaning. I want you to, I want you to say that. I want to hear you say that later on in this debate.

Ladies and gentlemen, I, I also want you to tell me, tell me that Muhammad is on the autistic side. Why in the world is Muhammad going to the Torah to use it for judgment if he thinks it's corrupted? Matter of fact, guys, guess what? Ibn Kathir, not only is he saying that these are three opinions, but he even gives the reasons why they give their opinion. You guys want to know what the reason was, the textual evidence, the evidence they gave that it was textually corrupted. The first position, none. Had nothing, no Hadith, no verse to back up their position. But guess what the autistic side used? Bukhari, Ibn Abbas, Razi, and the others. Guess what they used? They used chapter 6 verse 115 that says, "None can alter the words of Allah or change any of them. None can change the words of Allah." They used that. Sound familiar?

>> Time with that. We will jump into the open dialogue. Gentlemen, I'm sure this can be a productive response.

>> Oh, you're right. Sorry about that. Daniel will have his 8-minute rebuttal as well, and then we'll have the hour dialogue followed by a 30-minute Q&A. I do want to warn you folks, the Q&A is strictly 30 minutes. So we may not get to all of the super chats. You've been warned. We're going to try to as fast as we can. We're going to prioritize real questions or insults for the Q&A. Might not get to all the questions, including all the super chats, because we do have a cut-off strictly at 30 minutes. Daniel, the floor is yours for eight minutes.

I need to share my screen.

>> You got it. And folks, that link for our email list where you can get the discount code for your Debate Con 6 ticket is linked at the top of the chat right now. Folks, sign up for our email list. You don't want to miss it. The flash sale is today. We are 60 days out from Debate Con 6. Sign up for our email list. Get that insider discount code. As folks, it's coming fast. Don't forget to book your flights. Flights are going to go up in time. Don't forget to book your room. All that stuff. Don't let it sneak up on you. And frankly, folks, I am very serious when I say that we may really sell out. Like, no joke. Uh, we do have 300 chairs there. And I'm like, "Wow." We've had our first 10 days were the biggest opening we've ever had, including back in February when we had Alex O'Connor booked for it. Is right now we're like, "Wow, this is, uh, Debate Con just keeps on growing." So you don't want to miss it. It's going to be amazing. You're going to see Daniel Hakeik, Apostate Prophet, Andrew Wilson. It's going to be a big massive debate conference. Daniel, I'm ready for you whenever you. There you go. Okay. All right. Here we go. Thank you very much, Daniel. The floor is all yours for your eight-minute rebuttal.

Okay. Thank you, um, James, and thank you, Avery, as well. I want to thank you for, uh, doing this debate and I want to just say that I don't consider you to be autistic. You know, this is just rhetoric and you personally, I don't think you're rhetoric, uh, or autistic. I think you're a very intelligent young man. So I just want to clarify that. Um, okay, so Bay Adhi means what? Um, this is a question that I have for a lot of the Christian apologists because they keep translating this as "between their two hands," and this is not actually correct according to Arabic grammar or like basic translation. Um, so I want to understand from Avery how is he keeping how does he keep translating Bay as "between their two hands"? Maybe we can get to that in the open dialogue. Avery also says that he's going to show us from the Quran. He's going to show us only from the Quran. We're only going to read tonight. But I don't know. A lot of the things that you're claiming, Avery, uh, are not found in the words that you're reading. For example, show us where the Quran says that the entirety of the Bible is literally true. Where? Show us. None of the verses that you cited, uh, actually claim that. Uh, show us where the Quran says to judge the truth of Islam according to the Bible. None of the verses in Surah Ma'idah in the in the fifth chapter actually say that. Um, so where, what are you reading? I want you by the end of this debate to prove to me that that's what the Quran says. To show me exactly those words because you say you only are reading, but we didn't read any of that in the verses, and some of them I even displayed on the screen. You just read them. I displayed them on the screen and we didn't see, uh, what you're claiming in those verses.

Um, then you cited, uh, 2:85. "Then you are those same ones who are killing one another and evicting a party of your people from their homes, cooperating against them in sin and aggression. And if they come to you as captives, you ransom them, although their eviction was forbidden to you. So do you believe in part of the scripture and disbelieve in part?" So again, this is talking about law, applying laws. And that is what, as I mentioned in my opening statement, that's what all of these judgment verses are about that are referring to the people of the book. Judge according to the law in your books, the biblical law. And even in the verse that you're citing as some kind of gotcha, we can see very clearly if you read the whole verse that it's about applying the Mosaic law or the biblical law only in that context. Where are you getting this idea that this means everything, judge everything according to the scriptures? That's not in the verse. The verse is talking about that this particular legal issue about ransom. So this, I'm not reading any, anything into the verses. You're reading things into the verses, Avery. Uh, he also, okay, so this, I, did I mention this? Yeah. So in general, when the Quran talks about picking and choosing, it means picking and choosing between past prophets and the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wasallam). So in general, um, that's the bias that is being pointed out to in many of the other verses as well. Uh, Hadith on 5:43 of the Quran. Um, so I cited this Hadith in the opening statement, different versions of the Hadith, and Avery also mentioned about the Jewish adulterers and the Jewish community in.

Medina comes to the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, and they ask for a judgment in the case of these two adulterers. It's a legal judgment, and the verse that this hadith is explaining is about providing a legal judgment. Not to judge everything in the world, not to judge Islam, not to judge the Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu alaihi wasallam. That's something extra that you're adding, like an extra little spice. That's not the actual wording of the verse, and the hadith clarifies that it's about legal judgment. In fact, when we read the entire context of those verses surrounding 543, 545, 548, it's all about legal judgments of the Jews and the Christians.

Uh, Avery wants to talk about the variance of the Quran. Okay, Avery, here's a challenge to you. You said that the different variants of the Quran, the, you know, Muslims know about them. In fact, I have many friends who have memorized all ten, and they can recite them, and they lead prayers in Ramadan. Uh, tell me, Avery, since you're an expert, what is the biggest difference in meaning between two variants amongst the, this is my challenge. What is the biggest? And I'll reciprocate. I'll give you the biggest differences in the variants between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint or the Dead Sea Scrolls or any of the other variants that we can talk about. And we'll compare, like, what is, what do we really mean by variant when we talk about the Quran versus when we talk about the Bible?

Um, he says that hadith translations say Old Testament. Yeah, everyone knows that there's a lot of poor-quality translations of hadith, especially online. Uh, that's no surprise there. I also want to emphasize that, and meaning the changing, the distortion, and corruption of scripture, of written scripture. This is not just in 279 of the Quran. This is also in the hadith that I cited from Musnad Ahmad, and this is very significant because it shows that the idea of corruption of texts, uh, and scripture is not something that later scholars came up with or later scholars said. This is found in the very words of the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, to Omar. And then, of course, Ibn Abbas also has that position, and I gave you the direct words of Ibn Abbas, uh, citing the, uh, textual corruption of the scriptures of the People of the Book.

Uh, Avery makes a big deal about verse 1094. So if you're in doubt, oh Muhammad, about that which we have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the scripture before you. So Avery says, "Oh, this shows that the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, has to refer to the scriptures to judge everything, to judge and to understand and to verify everything." Where are you getting this? Where are you getting all of this, uh, noise? The verse is very simple and straightforward. Nowhere does the verse say that everything about, about the past scriptures are true. But as I mentioned earlier, the Quran recognizes and states that previous scriptures have certain true ideas. There are certain true ideas, like the fact that there is a line of prophets. There are different prophets, and they had their, certain tests in life. They had certain trials and tribulations. They had certain, uh, approach to their people. And there are true stories of the prophets found in the previous scriptures, in the Bible. Unfortunately, there's been, uh, alterations, but that doesn't mean that it's all false, and it doesn't mean that it's all true. So, nowhere in this verse, in the verification verse, do we find this kind of autistic interpretation that Avery wants to give it.

Uh, Avery also says that Ibn Abbas says that Muaymin means guardian. Uh, I believe that this is an error on Avery's part because as far as I can tell, we go to Ibn Kathir, we go to the Tafsirs of Ibn Kathir, and we see what Ibn Abbas says about Muaymin. It means a judge over what came before it from the scriptures, a judge, a criteria. Avery says that Ibn Abbas says Muaymin means a preserver or a guardian that preserves. But actually, when we look at Ibn Kathir, Ibn Abbas says that Muaymin, according to Ibn Abbas, is a, uh, judge over what has come from the previous scriptures. And this is all, you know, all Muaymin is a complex term, but it has multiple meanings. It can mean guardian, it can mean criteria, it can mean protector. Over those are all related things. Um, so I will acknowledge that, yeah, there are some interpretations that say guardian, but it's also, you find the majority of commentators saying it means a criterion. The Quran is a criterion over the previous scriptures.

Um, and then let me see if I had any other points for you. My notes. Yeah. And Ibn. Okay.

>> We will jump into the open dialogue. I trust that this can be productive, gentlemen. You're both veteran debaters. Uh, I know you get passionate. If it has to be the case, I will jump in and set it to two-minute segments. Last but not least, folks, Debate Con 6 flash sale for tickets. You don't want to miss it. Check out that link pinned at the top of the chat. Gentlemen, the floor is all yours.

>> Thanks. Uh, so I want to, if we can, let's talk about 1094 really quick. Uh, well, I wanted to clarify. I did not say that Ibn Abbas said that it's a guardian. I said he said that it's trustworthy. Not I said others say that it's a guardian and then the word

>> Where does, where do you get that?

>> The, the, the word guardian, the word Muhammad literally means guardian. If you go to the corpus, it pulls up and it translated as guardian. And so

>> I thought you said Ibn Abbas said that.

>> No, I said Ibn Abbas says trustworthy.

>> Where, where does he say that?

>> You'll find that in certain Tafsirs. So if I were to

>> Which one?

>> I looked at Ibn Kathir, and Ibn Kathir is one of the major Tafsir. It didn't say guardian or trustworthy. I didn't say Ibn Abbas says that.

>> So which one?

>> I'm saying Abbas. One of the opinions of Ibn Abbas about, uh, Muhammad is trustworthy. Uh,

>> Ibn, Ibn Abbas is an exegete, but he doesn't have like an, a Tafsir that we can open up like a book. Ibn Kathir is the comp, is the Tafsir that will record the opinion of Ibn Abbas and other scholars. So which are you talking about? Are you talking about, are you talk, which like, which Tafsir has this opinion of Ibn Abbas?

>> Are you saying that in, in, he says that Abbas says that it's a judge over the previous scriptures?

>> Yeah.

>> Can we see that really quick? Uh, just go to Ibn Kathir online, you can find the translation. Just, I'm not sure if it's in the abridged version, but there is a translation of the verse, and it'll, it'll bring up the different, it's like a big block of text, and just control F, Abbas. Here it is. So, so it says here, um, so, and Muhaimin over it means entrusted over it, according to Sufyan. I'm just going to skip down to where they mention Abbas. Okay. Uh, it says, um, Sufyan Al-Thawri, who narrated it from Abu Ishaq from Al-A'mash from Ibn Abbas. Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn Abbas said, Muhaimin is the trustworthy.

>> Yeah. So keep reading. Keep reading.

>> That's what it, okay. Um, so that's Ibn Abbas's opinion. And it says, "Allah says that the Quran is trustworthy over every divine book that preceded it." This was reported from. So now they're talking about other things. So says that is trustworthy.

>> Keep going. Keep going. Ali, do you see that?

>> Okay. Yeah, I see.

>> Narrated from Abbas means

>> All right. So Al-Fi says that Abbas said that Muhaimin means dominant over the previous scriptures. These meanings are similar, as the word Muhaimin includes them all. Consequently, the Quran is trustworthy, a witness, dominant over every scripture that preceded it. So it looks like we both were right about what Ibn Abbas is saying. Right? I wasn't wrong. Uh, the full context shows that it's a comprehensive meaning. So it's, but the ultimate point is that the Ibn Abbas thinks the Quran is dominating, is judging over the previous scripture.

>> Not judging. It doesn't say anything about judging the previous scripture, just that it's dominant, it's the final revelation. I can understand him thinking that it's dominant in that way because it's the final revelation, but not, it doesn't say judging over the previous scripture. The Arabic is

>> Yes.

>> Well, Hakim can also mean judge, like it, it can judge openly. Yeah.

>> I, I, I disagree.

>> The Arabic. You disagree with the Arabic. You disagree. You know, you know Arabic. I don't think that's what the

>> We're gonna get an Arabic debate.

>> It doesn't, it doesn't mean that in Arabic. That's the point.

>> Dominant. No, the, the word here. Yeah. It means dominant. Just like they said. He doesn't say judge.

>> So, but if, but this is, this is my point. If you're saying that, uh, that the, that the Quran never says for the previous scriptures to be used as a judge over the Quran in 1094, I, I would like, I would like us to have a discussion about that. When it tells Muhammad, you agree that it's talking to Muhammad if he had a doubt about what the Quran is telling him. Is that correct?

>> Say that again.

>> In 1094, do you agree that Allah is addressing Muhammad if he has doubts about what Allah is telling him in the Quran?

>> Yeah, the verse, I mean, that literally that's what the verse says. Okay.

>> It's not about what the, what the Quran says. Let's read it.

>> It is, it says, "What if you are in doubt about that which we have revealed to you." What's being revealed to Muhammad?

>> Okay. Yeah. So if you're in doubt about that which we have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the scripture before you.

>> Okay. So what's that supposed to do for Muhammad? How's that supposed to help him?

>> It's supposed to for him to see. We can go to the Tafsirs of this as well. The Tafsirs say that if you are in doubt, like about your path as a prophet, that you face tribulations, that you have companions die, that you're facing this kind of opposition from the people, that this is also what previous prophets have experienced.

>> Right. And my question to you is, where does this verse say that, oh Muhammad, judge your message, judge the, the Quran, according to the previous scriptures in the sense of evaluate if it's true, like the, the message of the monotheism of the Quran, the, uh, laws of the Quran. Judge all of that according to the previous scriptures. Where, where do you find that in the verse?

>> Are, are you, well, it says if you're doubting that which we have revealed to you. What was revealed to him is the Quran. Correct?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. So if he's doubting the Quran, Allah tells him what to do if he doubts the Quran. Go and ask those who've been reading the scripture before you. So you're using the Quran, the previous scriptures to verify and judge the Quran to make sure it's in place. That's why I asked where

>> Where does it say everything? Where does it say everything in the scriptures? Everything in the scriptures is true. That's why I asked you.

>> Well, I, I'll get

>> And to judge Islam to judge Islam as a whole according to the scripture. Daniel, I, I promise you, I will get there. I'm building up to that. That's, that's why I'm asking you the question. I'm not asking you as an interrogation. I'm trying to build a point here. Okay? And and vice versa. I'll let you, of course, I'll let you do the same thing. So, so he's supposed to, it helps him by being able to go back and check the stories of the previous prophets to, to see that what's going on with him and what the Quran is saying is in line with the previous prophets. Is that correct?

>> You could say that.

>> All right. So, if Muhammad sees that he's in line with the pre, stories of the previous prophets and what happens to them and their journeys and what the Quran is saying, then he'll have no reason to doubt what the Quran is saying, right?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. That means the opposite is true, that if he checks and he sees that this doesn't match the stories of the prophets and what the Quran is saying is not in line with the stories of the prophets, then Muhammad would have a good reason to doubt what the Quran is saying and know the Quran is false, right?

>> If that were the case, yeah.

>> So if that's the case, what, according to this verse, is the judge on whether or not the Quran is true? Is it the Quran itself, or is it previous scriptures in this case?

>> No, you're equivocating. Like this is

>> The, the, the, I'll explain, like the, the Bible contains evidence supporting Islam. The Bible contains evidence supporting, like the prophet's message, the prophet's life. That, that's evidence. That doesn't mean the Bible is the final criterion. The, that nowhere in this verse, again, I ask you, where does it say judge Islam according to the scripture? It's saying if you have doubt, you'll, you'll find evidence. If there, you have doubt, then ask those who have been reading scriptures.

>> Like if I have a doubt about something, like if I have a doubt, for example, about, like, you live in Georgia, right? You live on the East Coast, right?

>> Yeah.

>> If I have a question or I have a doubt about, well, you know, what's the, um, GDP of Georgia, for example. I have a doubt about it. I can ask you about it. I can say, ask those who have been in this country or in the state in Georgia. Ask them. Does that mean that I think that everything that you say about Georgia is correct and everything that you say about everything in, in life is correct, just because I'm asking you, just because I'm asking you for evidence or information because I have a doubt about Georgia? You're in Georgia. I'm going to ask you about it. That doesn't, because you have some information that could help me with my doubt. That doesn't mean that you're the judge over everything that happens in Georgia. You're the judge of everything that happens in life.

>> I got you. So you qualified it. I like your example with this qualification. Let me grant you this. Right. So pertaining to the facts about Georgia, what's the authority on the facts about Georgia? Is it you or is it me?

>> I don't have to, uh, be committal to you being the authority.

>> When you said that,

>> I just say that you have evidence. Where in the verse does it say the previous scripture is the authority? I keep asking you these questions. You don't answer. You don't answer the question.

>> No. No. Where? Okay. So, where, where does the, where in the verse says the scripture is the authority? Where?

>> Let me just say it because I believe that this is where this

>> Say no answer. No answer. Where in the verse does it say the scripture is the authority?

>> Can I talk? You're kind of interrupting me right now.

>> You're not answering my question. I asked.

>> Answered your question. You don't answer my question.

>> I do need to. All right, let's hear from Avery.

>> I appreciate it. Yeah, it's all, it's all good, man. No need for, you know, we good here, dog. So, uh, I, I gave you this verse here. And the reason why I gave you this verse, and you're having trouble with it, because you know it says exactly what we're saying. You know where this is going. You already acknowledged, Daniel. You already acknowledged that if Muhammad's doubting what the Quran is telling him, then to help his doubts, he can find evidence of the Quran from the previous scripture, and that would remove any doubts. He'll know that the Quran is true. You also acknowledged that if he checks and it's not in line with the previous scriptures, the stories of the prophets, then he'll know that the Quran is not telling the truth and he'll have good reason to doubt. So based on that, which is why you didn't answer this question because you know the problem here. Based on that, we see what the authority is. I'm trying to help you see it. Based on that, if the Quran is in line with the previous scripture, Muhammad will know it's true. If the Quran is not in line with the previous scripture, then Muhammad will know it's false.

>> So the judge and authority based on that text and based on that framework on the truthfulness of the Quran. What's the, what's the judge?

>> Here, let me. So now let me explain it slowly so you can understand, Avery. If the Quran is saying that you consult the previous scripture and you will have evidence and it will help with a doubt, that does not say that that scripture is the authority. And the verse does not say that the only evidence is coming from the previous scripture. I didn't say this is

>> Yes, you implied it because if the Bible, if let me finish now, if the Bible is the authority, that means there's no other evidence or there's no other authority that can confirm the doubts or to or can provide evidence for the doubts. If the Bible, if the previous scripture is the authority, but there is other authorities. There is the authority of God Almighty, the one who's revealing it. There is the authority of other evidence, other ayat, other signs and evidences, not just, not just the previous script. Plenty. Yeah. The, the verses of the Quran say to look to the heavens and the earth, to look to the. Yes, it does. To to see signs. Yet.

>> No, don't interrupt. See, I, I don't interrupt you. You told me, you tell me to be quiet, right?

>> We'll give Daniel a chance to quick wrap up and then come back to. So as I mentioned, the verse nowhere does it say that the scripture is the authority over the Quran or over the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. And the analogy that I gave that you just ignored is that if I ask you, Avery, as a resident of Georgia, tell me about, what's the GDP in Georgia? That doesn't mean I'm making you the authority over all facts of Georgia. I just can, if I have a doubt about it, I can ask you. I can consult with you. And that doesn't make you the authority. It doesn't mean that you're the only evidence. You're the ultimate arbiter of what is true or not. Do you, do you understand that analogy, Avery?

>> Yeah. So, here's the here's the problem. Uh, you won't answer the question. And the reason why you won't answer the question, Daniel, is because you see the problem. You don't even know it, but you just admitted that the Bible, the previous scripture, is the authority on which Muhammad is to judge whether or not the Quran is telling him the truth or not. Matter of fact, going even further, even with your example, you're demonstrating what the evidence is. Now, you now you said my example, the analogy. Tell me, give everybody a chance.

>> It's okay. So, let me just, let me just lend this. You said, well, there's other evidences that he can go to. Is that what the verse says? Show, show. Look, do me this favor.

>> This is theism that we're talking about. This is the Quran. Answer the question. Otherwise, you got to go to two-minute segments.

>> The Quran is very clear here. If you are in doubt, Muhammad, do this. Go to the people who've been reading the scripture before you. Show me anywhere in the Quran where Muhammad, where where Allah tells Muhammad, if you're in doubt about that which we have revealed to you, do something else.

>> Yeah, I can pull up you some verses.

>> Go ahead. I'm waiting. [Music] No, but while I'm pointing that out or while I'm pulling that up, can you explain to me the variance, the biggest variance between the brother?

>> Why, why you mentioned it in your response? Why can't you give me an answer?

>> The reason why I mentioned variances in the reason why I mentioned variances in my response is because you brought up variances to equal corruption. So I'm showing you how you're, you're shooting yourself in the foot by saying because there there's textual variances that that equals corruption, and the Quran is calling that out. Well, if that equals corruption, then the Quran's corrupted because it has textual variances. It's not about how big the variances are and how many are there are. Let's compare. It's not about that. That's irrelevant. The fact that the Quran has variances in its text means that it's corrupted according to your standard. No, the variance, the variance in the Bible between the manuscripts are so vast, like there are entire sections that are added to the Gospel of Mark, for example, the ending of the Gospel of Mark. What is the analog of that in the Quran? Is there an entire chapter ending of the Quran that's been added that's in one versus another?

>> Brother, so, so the challenge was, so the challenge, hey, I let you talk. I let you talk. So the ch, let me clarify the question so you understand.

>> Give me an example that is analogous

>> To the biblical variance where there is a vast difference in meaning that actually changes, or a difference in variant that changes the meaning. Give me one example. You claim that there are some. So give me one example. That's it.

>> Sure. I got you. In H's Quran, in chapter 37:12, it says that Allah speaks to Muhammad. He's the speaker. In the context, Allah says to Muhammad, "You wonder why they mocked." You wonder why they mock. In the, um, in the Quran, and Alasai Quran, it says, "I wonder why they mock." Allah saying that he wonders. Would you, would you agree with me that there's a big difference between Allah doing something and Muhammad doing something?

>> No.

>> Okay. I, you know, maybe

>> That's not a big difference. Like the differences, the differences in the Quran here. Is that similar to the difference when it comes to the ending of Mark? An entire ending of a of the Gospel of Mark being added?

>> An entire going, an entire ending of a gospel. And the earliest church fathers had no clue about this ending. It wasn't, and it's not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark. The entire ending was added.

>> And that ending is significant. Why? Because it's, it's about the resurrection of Jesus. It has great theological significance. Or let's talk about the, uh, variations between

>> Can you find the verse?

>> Uh, in Mark?

>> No. Can you find the verse that tells Muhammad if he's in doubt about what Allah has revealed to him, do something else, because that's what you're supposed to?

>> Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. I'll give you examples of that. You want

>> On top of that. Do you agree?

>> What about here? Let me ask you a question. You want, you want verses.

>> I know, but just give me a second. Do you also agree that there's a difference that meaning changes between Muhammad doing something and Allah doing something? That that's a meaning change?

>> What is the theological significance of that? Explain it to me.

>> No, no. Do, do you agree that

>> I don't understand. Yeah. I, I acknowledge. No, no. See, you, you don't, misunderstand me, Avery.

>> I acknowledge that there are differences between the that changes the meaning. Yes, that changes the meaning. So, for example, they did versus you all did, for example,

>> Or do, sorry, you, you th, those kinds of differences exist between the obviously any, like, uh, 10-year-old madrasa student who's memorizing the Quran knows that there are differences in the, and yes, it's a technical difference in the meaning. But my, my, uh, challenge to you is more specific. Give me a difference in meaning that is theologically significant, that is equivalent to the type of theological significance of an entire ending of a gospel about the resurrection and or the, uh, pericope adulterae, the, uh, passages in John about, do not he who without sin should cast the first stone, basically erasing the, uh, Mosaic law when it comes to stoning adulterers in this passage. This is erasing thing, uh, in John, it's erasing the Mosaic law, the punishment for adultery for sexual crimes. That is extremely significant theologically because it's about the applicability of the Mosaic law. Uh, and there's nothing like that in the Quran. If you find me a passage in the Quran where there's a verse because in one, in one variant, it says that, yeah, don't apply the Sharia, like, don't, don't lash the fornicator, like, find me that. That would be an analog. That would be something comparable in the Quran. All you can say is

>> Yes, please give me an example like that.

>> So, no. So, the reason why I'm not gonna waste my time chasing that rabbit trail is because that's a goal shift. That's not what you asked at first. What you, what you challenged me on to do immediately, you challenged me to show you a, a change in the meaning when it comes to the textual variances. And I did that. And it's, and it's actually, if you're trying to say that it's not significant that Allah is the one that is wondering and Muhammad is the one that's wondering, whichever one is wondering, whoever's the one that's surprising, you're saying that it's not that big of a difference between Allah and your prophet, just a mere man. That's not a theological difference. I

>> What aspect of theology does it affect?

>> Just, just one second, please. Just one second, please. I, if you want to say that, that's that's fine. You, you can have your position if you want to do. Look, I, I, I'll, I'll do this right now. We, and we got each other's context now. I will be open to having a debate with you on textual variances. And if there are meaningful differences, theological differences, textual diff, contextual differences in the Quran, I will be glad to have a debate with you on that. But right now, that's not the debate. Daniel, let's focus on our debate.

>> So don't tell me what the debate is. The debate is about the, uh, of the previous scriptures. So the variance of the Bible is extremely relevant to this debate. I'm sorry you're not prepared to have that debate. But we are talking about the variance and the distortion and the corruption of the Bible. That's literally what the Islamic dilemma is about.

>> I guess the Quran scripture.

>> No, no, because again, I said very clearly, show me the biggest difference in meaning. That was the challenge. Show me the biggest.

>> I said the Quran is confirming corrupted scripture. D. So, so what, so what is the theological significance of, uh, the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, being surprised or

>> That doesn't matter.

>> It does. It does. Because I give, I'm giving you the depth of differences between the manuscript variance in the, in the Bible when it comes to the Old Testament, when it comes to the New Testament. I'm giving you these major differences and deviances because we're talking about corruption of the Bible. You can't cope with it. You can't handle it.

>> You know what? You know what? You, you, you're right. Daniel, you got it. There's, according to you, there's major differences and and variations in the Bible. And the Bible is corrupted because of that. Guess what, Daniel?

>> Thank you.

>> That means that the Quran is confirming a corrupted book. And therefore, the Quran is false. You're

>> Nowhere, nowhere does the Quran confirm the Bible as fully true.

>> Let me land, Daniel. You got to let me land. So according to the position that you're positing, you're still in the pot of the Islamic dilemma. You're not out of it because now you're just on the side that says, "Well, the, the Bible's corrupted." Okay, cool. The Quran is confirming corrupted scripture. Simple as that. Matter of fact, let me ask you this. When, when did these variances happen? Did these variances, these corruptions, did these meaningful variances happen, um, before Muhammad's time or after Muhammad's time? What do you think?

>> Before and after. It's still happening to this day. And why, you say like these supposed corruptions like it's a fact. Like, are you denying it? Are you denying, are you denying that there are variants of the Bible? Yes or no?

>> No. No. I'm not, I'm not denying that there's textual

>> Variance. Thank you. Thank you. You're not denying the, the biblical corruption.

>> You don't deny the Quranic textual variances.

>> So, so you believe in you believe in biblical corruption, but the Quran, you have the Quran recognizes.

>> No, that's your position. You say variances are corruption, which is why the Quran's corrupted. So, the variance of the Bible, how do you explain that? How is that not corruption? You've been asking questions. You've been interrogating me. But whenever I ask you questions,

>> Gentlemen, just one second. Okay.

>> Just hold on one second.

>> All right, just take a deep breath. Okay, so Daniel, I think you're saying, "Hey, Avery, you've asked me questions. I want to ask you some questions." Is that what you're saying?

>> He's asked me. He's been dealing with his question. I, I maybe I didn't start that sentence with Daniel. If I said Avery, sorry. Like, I actually, like, I'm not being facetious. I'm so tired. I can't tell. Um, but Daniel, I think you said you just want to ask some questions. And, um, Avery, uh, you're kind of like, "Hey, Daniel, you're interrupting me." So, I get where both of you are coming from, but, um

>> Are there any time? We're fine. I just

>> This is going to happen.

>> Yeah, we'll try to limit it. We'll try to limit it. So, Avery, here's a simple question. Has to do with my opening statement. Do you believe in biblical, biblical inherency?

>> Are you going to get the verse?

>> Oh, you, you want that? Okay.

>> Yes. You think about, you think about biblical inherency as I read this verse.

>> The Quran says there 217. And we did not send before you except men to whom we revealed. So ask the people of knowledge if you do not know.

>> Whoa.

>> Yeah. So that's 217. Whoa. Blew your mind, right? And then, uh, 16:43. And we did not send before you except men to whom we revealed our message. So ask the people of knowledge if you do not know. That's

>> Exactly what. What is that word? What does that mean?

>> It's people of knowledge, people of remembrance. Translated.

>> The reminder. Who are they? Who are the people of the reminder that Muhammad, if, if you don't know, where are they supposed to go? To the people of the reminder? Who are they?

>> People of knowledge.

>> Who are they?

>> People of knowledge. People of knowledge. It could, it could, it could be Christians. Yeah, it could be Christians. Thank you so much.

>> But this is not a go. This is my point. Is the point that I'm bringing you

>> Daniel. See, you're you're asking me questions and you don't let me finish the point.

>> No, Daniel.

>> You don't let me land.

>> I was on your point, bro.

>> Okay, go ahead. Go ahead, Daniel. We'll give you a chance to wrap up. [Music]

>> So, you asked me what other verses exist. You challenged me and you said, "What other verses exist where the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, is being told to ask others?" And your point was that there's no, your implication was that there are no other verses. So I find these verses where the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, is supposed to ask, not the scripture, but ask others, ask people of, um, and again, that's as a reference point, it's a data point in order to, uh, answer a question, not that those people are the ultimate authority. So, for example, if the, if the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, or someone had a doubt about whether alcohol is prohibited, prohibited,

>> Do they go, would they have to go to the Bible and see, okay, is alcohol prohibited? And then based off of that, take whatever the Bible says. Is that what is that what you believe in?

>> Can I respond?

>> Yep. Okay. I'm, matter of fact, let me just answer you fully. Uh, yes, I do. I do believe that. Now, let me respond in full. Daniel, you went to verses that literally says to come to us if you don't know. Come to us. You're literally proving my point that the verifier of the Quran, the determining truth of the Quran is us. You got to come to us. Even when you talk about, that's why I had you say what the ver, what the word is in, in the Arabic is Al-Zikr. The people of the reminder, that's us. That's our book. So you need to come to us if you do not know. Now, by the way, my question was not, show me where else in the Quran Muhammad says to ask or Muhammad is told to ask someone. I didn't say that. My, my question, my, my challenge to you was, is show me in the Quran where, if you don't know or if you are in doubt about what the Quran is saying, to do something else other than come to us. That's what I challenged you on. So you gave me two other verses that proved my point that we are the judge. Our scripture is the judge of the Quran. And if the Quran is out of line with it, then guess what? The Quran is false. So you gave, now we got three of them. 217, 1643, and chapter 10 verse 94 that says use the Bible as the judge of the Quran.

>> So this is just, you're multiplying the autism here. Where in any of these verses? Where in any of these verses does it say that the, the scripture is the final author, the previous scriptures are the final authority, are the only authority? Where, again, you keep, uh, failing to acknowledge the, uh, point that I'm making.

>> Can you, here's a question for you, Avery. If I ask you something about anything that you might have more knowledge than me about, does that mean that you're in authority over every, every piece of knowledge?

>> No. No.

>> No. Okay. So, if I ask you, even about something that you might have more knowledge than me about, and I ask you, the fact that I'm asking you does not in any way imply that you are an authority over that subject, correct?

>> Just because you might have more knowledge. So how is it the case that when the, when the Quran is saying, if you are in doubt, oh Muhammad, about that which was revealed, then ask those who have been reading the scripture, those who have, or those who are, for example, in the other verses, what, why does that mean? Why are you extrapolating and saying that that means that the scriptures are the judge and the authority over all of Islam?

>> Explain how that how that's different than the example of me asking you about Georgia.

>> I got you. So, so I like your example, and that's a fair question. So Daniel, look, I'mma go with your analogy. Now follow me. Okay? If, um, let's say that you're asking me about a subject, right? You're, uh, I'm telling you about a subject, and, um, you're asking me about this subject, and when you ask me something, I say, "You know what? If you're doubting what I'm saying, if you, if you doubting what I'm saying or you don't know, then go to this person. Let's say go to person, go to, I don't know, Jeremiah, right? Go to Jer. If, if you're doubting what I'm saying, go to Jeremiah." So, would you agree that that I'm implying that Jeremiah is an authority on what I'm saying, that when you go to Jeremiah, you can go, and he's going to say the same thing I'm saying, be in line with it, and you'll know that you can trust what I said about this subject? Or if he says something different, you'll know that I'm false about the subject. So what do you mean by authority?

>> That b, when I say if you're doubting what I'm saying, you can go to Jeremiah. If you're doubting what I'm saying, go to Jeremiah. So if you go to Jeremiah, I'm implying that he's the authority of what I'm telling you about, and he can confirm for you and be in line with what I'm saying so you can know that you can trust me. Right?

>> Okay. Now I understand where the misunderstanding is. You're equivocating on the word authority because if I say that, yes, I'm an authority, that can mean two things. I'm an authority on, um, Texas, for example, because I live in Texas. That can mean I just have a lot of information about Texas. I'm knowledgeable about it, and people can ask me. That's one idea of authority. Another idea of authority is I am the authority. No one can disagree with me. No one can have a different opinion. I am the absolute authority, and anyone who is going to differ from me is going to be, uh, known to be completely wrong. So you see, there's two different, uh, con, uh, connotations of authority, and you're equivocating between those two. That's your problem. So I acknowledge, so the questions I answered when you were asking me those questions, I am understanding authority as, yeah, the scripture has information, true information about the prophets, and so it is an authority in that sense, in the sense that it has information. But that doesn't mean your connotation of authority, authority in the sense of the final arbiter, the decider, the ultimate judge, that's the connotation that I reject, and it's not in the actual verses that you're citing.

>> Okay. So walk with me on this. So if, if I tell you, if you're doubting what I'm saying, Daniel, you can go ask Jeremiah. I'm sending you to Jeremiah, and he's going to be the authority on whether or not you can trust me. Correct?

>> Yes.

>> So if Jeremiah says anything different from me, then that means I'm not trustworthy, right?

>> I, it depends. It depends on what else I know about you. It depends on other factors.

>> On this subject, brother, no, look, I'm being very specific on this specific subject. I'm saying, look, if you're doubting what I'm saying regarding this, then you can go ask Jeremiah. So, when you ask Jeremiah, if he says, if what he says is in line with what I say, you'll know that you can trust what I said. If what he says is different from what I said, then you can't trust what I say, right? Because I sent you to him as the authority to, as trust, right?

>> It's a data point. It's a data point. But there could be other data points.

>> But like if I, if, if I say, like, if a Buddhist comes to me and says, "I don't believe in Moses." Or a Buddhist comes to you and says, "Hey, Avery, I don't believe in Moses." And then you say, "Well, if you don't know much about Moses, go ask the Jews." The Jews consider him the greatest prophet. Go ask the Jews. Does that mean the Jews are the authority on the end all be all of Moses and the prophets and God? That's what that would mean.

>> Yes, it would mean that they're the authority because they have the Torah, in which they have the story of Moses in. That's where it's at. So if you, when you, when you, when you're saying, "Hey, man, if you're doubting what I'm saying, then you can go ask these people." Right? So, so the Jews, so the Jews would be the authority on Moses, on God, because Moses is the prophet of God.

>> Ba, based on that statement, Daniel, based on that statement, if you say, "Hey, if you're telling stories about Moses, and you say, hey, if you're doubting what I'm saying, you can go ask the Jews who have the Torah." So, you're pointing to the Jews as the Torah, as the authority of what I'm telling you. And so if what I'm telling you doesn't match what the Jews have in the Torah, then what I'm telling you is false. If it matches, then what I'm telling you is true. But the, the Jews will say that Moses is the prophet of God, not the prophet who was sent by a trinity.

>> So they will they will disagree. They will, the Jews will disagree on your theology.

>> Depends on the Jews.

>> No. Yeah. It depends. Exactly. It depends. Exactly what I was, what I'm telling you. It depends. The context matters.

>> Yeah. But what, what I'm saying is, Daniel, is that I'm not talking about like going into actual theological view of the Jews. I'm talking about just the statement. I'm talking about the statement. What does the statement, what does the statement imply? The statement implies

>> It's ambiguous. It's ambiguous. That's the whole point. Yeah, it is.

>> Brother. Okay. Because I can, if someone

>> Exactly. In the example that I gave you, if someone comes to me and says, "I have a question about this," and I can tell them, "Hey, go ask someone else. This person is an authority on that subject." That's ambiguous. Do I mean that's he's an authority in the fact that he has more knowledge? He has more knowledge. But that doesn't mean he's the authority in the sense that whatever he says is the end all be all of everything.

>> On every, on every religious matter. The Quran is the Quran is saying consult. It's saying consult the previous scriptures. Not in the sense that the previous scriptures are the authority on all religious matters. Like, how, how are you not getting this?

>> So let's, let's, let's be clear on this. Let me ask you this. What, what does doubt mean? What do you, what do you, how do you, what do you interpret doubt to mean?

>> Doubt can mean like you don't have some knowledge. You're lacking in knowledge.

>> Of the truth of a thing, right? Of the truth of a subject, right?

>> The truth of, yeah. A particular subject.

>> Right. So you don't know about the truth of a subject. You may be right. You're you're in the middle. You don't know, right? Okay. So if I tell you, hey, in order to clear up your doubts about this subject, you can go there. What am I saying when I point you to some, something or someone as a way to clear up the doubts? Meaning this is a way that you can get the truth of the subject. Go here. Am I saying that this is an authority?

>> For the thousandth time, Avery, what connotation of authority? If you mean someone who has knowledge, can provide data, can provide evidence,

>> That they have the, that they have the truth. That they have the truth.

>> They have, they have truth about one certain subject. Not necessarily the truth about everything in the world. Not the truth about every single issue. And they're the ultimate judge.

>> Okay. Of that particular.

>> Fair. Okay. If, if that's, if you can understand that as being a possible meaning, then the verse that you're citing means that it means that the scripture is a data point. It has some truth, but it's not the ultimate arbiter of truth.

>> Of, of everything you're saying, right?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. So, let me go with you, even though I don't agree, but I can grant this position.

>> I don't want the entire, look, I don't want the entire, uh, open dialogue to just be on this one verse. So you're dominating the time like this is the subject that you started with at the, at 30 minutes ago. So I want to move on to another subject.

>> All right. Can I, can I say one last thing on it then?

>> Go ahead.

>> Okay. And I, I want your engagement on this, this last thing, and then we can go off. So with that being said, I can grant

For the sake of the argument that this is pertaining to a limited subject. Let's say particularly the stories of the prophets because in the context it talks about Noah and Moses and the Exodus and the Egyptians and Pharaoh and stuff like that. All that leading up and then boom, we get 1094.

If you're doubting what we have revealed to you, I would say pertaining to those things we just to just said, then go and ask those who've been read reading the scripture for you. Okay, cool. So if Muhammad's doubting, if he doesn't have the truth, if he's questioning the truth of what the Quran is saying pertaining specifically to the stories of the prophets, the Quran says, "Go ask those who've been reading the scripture before you. The truth has come to you from your Lord. So don't doubt."

So according to this verse, the data point of truth regarding this subject are the peop uh the the people who read in the scripture before you, right? The previous scriptures. That's the data point of the truth of this subject, right? >> Yes. They have a data point on this subject. Yes. >> Awesome. So, with that being said, if the Quran is not in line with that data point of truth, then therefore the Quran will be false. Correct? >> No. Depends on other contextual other data. >> Other data, >> Daniel.

So, this is I don't know what's so funny, but let's I'm thinking that we've got we've had hit the >> limit on this point because we've burned through 30 minutes of our open dialogue. So, again, I'll ask you, >> do you believe in biblical inherency? >> Uh, the Quran does. It doesn't matter what I believe. >> Well, I'm asking you, does do you believe in biblical inherency? >> My belief is is irrelevant to this debate, dude. >> Oh, I'm just wondering like is that a secret? Like, you can't reveal that? Yeah, it's a secret in this debate on whether I've been I'll tell I'll tell you what I'm an original. It's I'm an original Quran only Christian. So because >> So there are some Christians because the Quran affirms biblical inherency. I also believe and affirm biblical inherency. >> Okay.

So the Christians that don't believe in biblical inherency, they believe that the Bible is true in a general sense, but not every word of the Bible is literally true. Those Christians are those Christians suffering from some kind of logical dilemma. >> Uh yeah, according to the Quran, those Christians will be out of line and they will be deviants because they have nothing to do with the Quran. They have nothing to do with the Quran. They have nothing to do with the Quran. These are just Christians. These are just Christians who believe in the Bible being generally true, but they don't literally believe in every word being true. Are they suffering a logical this? They have they don't even know what Islam is. Let's imagine. Are they suffering from some kind of logical fallacy or problem or dilemma? >> Yes. According to the Quran, they are >> Yes, they are. So, they are. So, so they are logically they're log they have because you keep saying according to the Quran. I already said that they have nothing to do with the Quran. They have nothing. They have nothing to do with the Quran. Tell me tell me are they suffering from some logical problem. >> Okay, I got you. Got let me at least talk though. Goodness. So, look. Yes. According to the Quran, they have an error. They have a dilemma because according to the Quran, they're supposed to believe in every word in their book. They're supposed to stand on it and recite it in truth. And if they don't, if they believe in only parts of their scripture and reject other words, other parts of their scripture according to the Quran, they're disgraced in this life and they're going to go to hell in the next. So yes, they have a problem according uh to the Quran.

>> According to logic, your name is God logic, right? That's your channel. Okay. So, we're talking about logic. Okay. We're not talking about we're trying I'm trying to determine your standards that you apply to Islam and you apply to the Quran. We want to we want to understand logic. You're you're not >> uh like Quran logic. God logic, right? Unless you're you believe that God is Allah, right? >> I'm shake logic. >> Maybe you're going to become a Muslim and your God is going to be Allah and your channel is going to be changed to Allah logic soon. But but I'm asking you according to I'm asking you about logic. Is it logically incoherent to believe that the Bible is true in a general sense without every word of the Bible being true? Is that logically coherent? Yes or no? >> I I'll answer you fully. Yes. According to the Quran, >> yes or no? Independent according to logic. According to logic. Can you answer Can you answer the question according to logic? >> Look, Daniel, this is what you want. You're not. You're saying according to the Quran. According to logic. >> I got you, man. I got you. >> You don't. You just keep repeating the same thing. To avoid to avoid the fact that you can't answer a basic question. You don't know logic, bro. According to logic, you guys, take a deep breath. I just be sure we can hear. >> Yeah. So, let just let me respond and answer you. What you want to do, Daniel, and this is what I find with even the common Muslim. And when I said common Muslims because you're you're a debater, you're like, you know, half a million subscribers. You're one of the top guys. Seriously, no faciciousness. But then you have the common Muslims you get on TikTok, pop on the streams and stuff. And a lot of the times these guys, these Muslims, they wish that they could debate me or debate any of us away from Islam as if they were atheists. As if they're not bound to the criteria and the standards and the chains of Islam. But unfortunately I'm shake logic in this debate and I'm an original Quran only Christian. I am going to hold you to the standard of your book. This what this is what this debate is about. You can't escape from your from your religion. Your religion holds you to this. So anybody according to your religion, according to your Quran, according to your hadith, any Christian, any Jew who deviates or believes in part of their scripture is disgraced in this life and will go to hell in the next.

>> We read we read the context of the verses. They're all about legal judgments. They're all about legal judgments. So Avery, for example, you do you believe that user should be prohibited? Do you believe that adulterers should be stoned? Do you believe that women should veil? Because these are all things that the Bible commands. The Bible is commanding it. And many Christians have upheld this in history prior to modernity. Do you uphold the judgment of the Bible, Avery? Do you do you uphold it? >> Excellent question. I uphold all judgments of the Bible because the Quran tells me if I don't then I'm a wrongdoer. I'm rebellious. So guess what I'm going to do? Because it's not just illegal judgments. The legal judgments. Let me finish. It's not just about legal judgments. It's also about the the the affirmation of the Quran and Muhammad's prophethood. Muhammad is supposed to be mentioned in our scriptures. The Quran is supposed to be mentioned in our scripture. Literally says it in chapter 26 verses uh 192 to 196. It literally says the Quran itself is mentioned in our scriptures. 7157. Muhammad is written in our scriptures. So, it's not just about legal rulings. We are supposed to judge according to our scriptures. And if we do that, we're supposed to believe in Muhammad as a prophet because he's mentioned in there. It's not just about legal rulings. It's about all of this stuff. You know, the Bible, where does the Bible say, judge the truth of Islam based on the Bible? Show me the verse that says >> where the Bible says that. >> No, where the Quran, sorry, where the Quran says judge the truth of Islam based on the Bible based on the previous scripture. 1094 >> where it doesn't say that. It literally doesn't say that. >> It literally does. >> Where does it say judge the truth of Islam >> according to the previous scripture? 1094 does not say that. >> Okay, I got you. Let me let me explain how it says that. >> We're not going to go back. See, this is just a circle. >> Yeah, you give the same wrong answer that we've debunked like 30 minutes ago. >> That is wrong and debunked. Then you you struggle with this. >> You you saying that it does uh claim what it doesn't say. You say we are just going to read the words. We've read the words a thousand times by now and nowhere does it say judge the truth of Islam. Where does it say judge the truth of Islam? >> Okay. >> Can you read Avery? Like this is the autism that I'm talking about. This is autism. >> I got you. So let let me go let me go ahead and show you what the autism is. >> Give me 10. Give me the verse. >> You you yourself. There's >> Give me the verse. >> You got to let me talk. >> 1094 doesn't say judge the truth of Islam. >> Daniel, you got to let me talk. >> But this he's just saying the same thing over and over again. the same question. I'll give you that. >> So, it's he's just like grandstanding. He takes 5 minutes to >> if you want to call him out after like >> give me another verse. Okay, let's say 1094. >> Give me give me something else. >> If you want to call him out after he allegedly repeats himself and say like, "Look, he just repeated himself." You can do that, but I have to let him respond. >> Right. So, uh you you said you want like give me give you another verse like get away from 1094. G Avery, please please give me something else other than 1094 because you you need something else, bro. Well, look, I'll appeal to you. You gave me chapter 21:17 where it says, "If you don't know, come to the people of the reminder." You gave me 1643 that says, "If you don't know, come to the people of the reminder." So, you keep autism autism versus Hey, stop. Stop. You kept giving me verses. You keep I don't want to listen to a 5minut grandstanding session. Okay. Let's just have two minute sessions. Uh James cuz he just wants to just wax poetic now. >> Yeah. You just want to wax poetic for 5 minutes. We I heard this you you're repeating yourself. We have a limited time. You're panicking. >> I I Hold on. Not because I'm siding with Daniel, but because I did say earlier that I was going to put us into two-minute segments if there's too much interrupting. And you guys, >> you guys have just driven me crazy. >> Do it. >> That's fine. So, can I get my two minutes then? >> No. You've been talking for two minutes, >> dude. You've been interrupting me for two minutes. >> Yeah, because if I don't interrupt you, you're gonna go for 10 minutes. >> That's not true at all, bro. I talk I make my points in less than a minute. You're crazy. I just Oh, Zoe, I just love you guys. Okay, >> I love I love Daniel and he's fun. He's >> I just I just You guys have a You have a chemistry, you know that? Okay. But I just I just um I just want to have uh something that maybe What if we just did >> We could do two minutes, two minutes. >> We open to a one minute and then >> Sure. >> Yeah, I'm I'm down for that. Whatever works. >> One minute. Go ahead. So am I one minute? >> Yeah, finish up your point. One minute. Go. >> Thank you, Daniel. I appreciate it. All right. So, I'm just tell I'm telling you how it's saying that it's the judge on of the Quran on what is true. You yourself acknowledge that when it's doubt, doubt is lacking truth, questioning the truth. The Quran says, "Here's what you can do to get the truth. To know that that the Quran is telling you the truth. Come to us. Go ask those who've been reading the scripture before you. That means that the previous scriptures are the judge on the truthfulness of the Quran. See, less than a minute. Yeah. So, you didn't read from the verse. You said that means that was the key phrase. That means like that's your interpretation. That means the Bible is the judge of the Quran. That means is not in the verse. That means that you said that's your interpretation. I ask you what does the verse actually say? Where in the verse does it say, "Judge Islam and judge the the Quran on the basis of previous scripture." It doesn't say that. It doesn't literally say that. So, you're claiming that you're only quoting the Quran and only the words of the Quran. That's a lie. You're not. You're saying that means you're giving your interpretation. You're reading this kind of autistic reading of the Quran that no Muslim has ever accepted. No Muslim has ever read the Quran like this. When we go to all of the judgment verses that you've complet conveniently skipped over in surah al legal judgments, lex talionus, eye for an eye, stoning, uh the ransom, the the punishments for criminal acts. That's what all those verses are about. Christian apologists say, "No, all of those verses mean judge all of Islam. Judge the message of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him based on our scriptures." That is extra uh isog Jesus. That is adding projecting your Christian apologetics onto the words of the Quran. I cited hadith. You didn't address the hadith. I cited Ibn Abbass. You didn't address Ibn Abbass. You gave a partial quote from one of the taps. Where? By the way, >> better go over to >> Okay. Thank you. Uh Daniel, I I literally I literally gave you Ibn Abbass. I I didn't just give you an Abbass. gave you Bukhari himself who holds the position that the previous scriptures are fully intact textually and that they are preserved not corrupted textually but only misrepres uh mis uh interpreted and distorted in their apparent meanings. I g I gave you that. Now if you want to say again that Bukhari is autistic that Ibn Abbass is autistic then kal kalos be my guest all good. Here's your problem. Your problem is is that when I give you the verse, you just want to say, "Nuhuh. Nuh-uh. That's not going to help you here. Not against me. That might work against another Christian." Not here. According to your Quran, you Muhammad has to come to this previous scriptures to know if whether his Quran is telling the truth. And by the way, you said this is a Christian interpretation. Uh that that's not about other things. Ibn Abbass says that this is talking about Muhammad being mentioned in their scriptures. Uhoh. I guess it's not just about the laws. Uh oh. I guess it's not just about one little thing. According to Ibn Abbass, he says that it's about Muhammad being mentioned in their scriptures and they know this. This is as clear to them as their own children. Yet they still rebel and reject it and ignore it. So is Ibn Abbass wrong when he says that this is talking about Muhammad being mentioned in the previous scriptures? Is he wrong? You can go ahead and answer that. >> Yeah. Where does Ibn Kathir say that uh this verse means that you have to judge all of Islam and the truth of the prophethood of Muhammad peace be upon him based on the Bible. Where where does Ibn Kathir say that? This is ridiculous. Like you're again giving your own interpretation that has no basis in Quran. It has no basis in Tafsir. You're just making it up. And you keep bringing up this point that oh Bukhari records that the scriptures haven't been corrupted. What are you talking about? I gave you the citation of Ibn Abbass recorded in Bukhari the hadith or the narration rather the auth from Ibn Abbass that the previous scriptures have been corrupted. This is what Ibn Abbass says as recorded in Bukhari. So how can you say that Bukhari thinks that this that the scriptures have not been corrupted? This is nonsense. I gave you I cited this in the uh opening statement or the response period. Um, again, biblical inherency. Tell me, this is what I I'm surprised. I'm asking maybe in the chat, maybe in Avery's chat, someone can answer this question. Is the Bible inherent? Can you believe that the Bible is true in a general sense? And it is not literally true word by word. Not every word is literally true. Is that a logical belief or is that incoherent? Because if it's incoherent that means vast uh numbers of Christians are incoherent. Basically all the Catholics many of the Protestants as well some of the church fathers they're also in incoherent according to that standard of biblical inherency. Uh God logic conveniently avoids answering the question because if he says that it's illogical if it's illogical to believe in biblical inherency then that means there's no Islamic dilemma. And if it is ill illogical or if it is illogical that means that uh so many Christians are illogical and are also suffering from a dilemma. So this is a problem that he still hasn't addressed either. All right. So you said what am I talking about? Watch this. This is from Ibn Kathir. It says this talking about the three positions on the other side. Here's the third position he gives. Another party of hadith and fixed scholars said these changes took place during its interpretation and not during the process of its revelation. This is the view of Abi Abdullah Muhammad bin Ishmamail al-Bukhari who said in his hadith collection no one can corrupt the text by removing any of Allah's words from his books but they corrupted it by misinterpreting it don't do that Abu Bukhari you're on the autistic side don't say that and then if there in in chapter 3:78 in his Tafsir he quotes Al-Bukhari given this narration saying that this comes from Ibn Abbass saying that Abbass says that when they alter and distort none can alter or add or remove any of the works from Allah's books they only distort their apparent meanings so according to Bukhari and Ibn Abbass the distortion is not textual the distortion is interpretation So, are they on the autistic side? What? I want to hear you say because I asked you what I was going to say. Are they on the Did you not pay attention to my opening statement? Like, now I realize what your confusion is. Like, you're still stuck on an hour ago in my opening statement. I said that there's two different types of if you saw the slide versus means corruption that is through interpretation, whereas means corruption of the actual text. And I said that both there's both possibilities. And I acknowledge I I will accept that there are some scholars who said that is mainly al the interpretive uh corruption. Yeah, I acknowledge that. But I pointed out in my opening statement, you must have been asleep. You must have been not paying attention, Avery. I'm disappointed in you. I said that the majority of scholars say that there is also and there's both types of and so I acknowledge this in the opening statement. This is not a gotcha. Avery, you weren't paying attention while I was talking to you. Now again, I'm going to ask for a fifth time. Biblical inherency. Is it a logical contradiction to believe that the Bible is generally true, but not literally every word of the Bible is true? Yes or no? Can you answer that, Avery? >> Thank you. Uh, I I heard everything in your statement and you're very careful. You're very slick, Daniel, especially when you panic. You said that you acknowledge that scholars say mainly. So, there's some scholars that say it's mainly just by interpretation. That kind of implies that there's that they also believe in a textual corruption. Uh, uh, let me do this again. None can corrupt the text. This is Bukhari saying this. Bukhari saying this, quoting Ibn Abbass. None can corrupt the text. Bukhari didn't believe in textual corruption like you do, Daniel. Ibn Abbass doesn't believe in textual corruption like you do, Daniel. They only believe in Tarif al-Ma'na, right? The one that's about corruption by interpretation. And now what's the evidences they give? Oh, also Al-Razi agrees with this interpretation. So we got scholars that say this, right? What's what's their proof of this? The proof is 6115. None can change the words of Allah. They're using the Quran and they're using the hadith that says that Muhammad put the the Torah on the judgment seat. When you're talking about, oh, it's only about the laws. It's only about the laws. Guess what Bukhari and Abbass said? No, this is not just pertaining to the laws. It's pertaining to the the entirety of the authority and revelation of the Torah. >> Yeah. So, I read you from Bukhari. I read you from Bukhari. Okay. So I don't know what you're citing in Bukhari. I'm citing Abu Hurayrah. I read the hadith and I read the from the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam and I read the in Bukhari which says I'll read it again. This is Ibn Abbass recorded in Bukhari. Oh Muslims, how can you ask the people of the scriptures about anything while your book which Allah has revealed to your prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the scriptures have changed some of Allah's books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands. Uh >> oh. >> And said this is from Allah. So we have a minor gain for it. Won't the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them. This is Abu literally are reading the quote. It's about changing the book with their hands. What they write not just interpretation. This is recorded in Bukhari. So okay maybe there is another narration that you're re uh mentioning. I don't know what narration you're referring to but in this reference from Bukhari that is mentioned in all the Tafsir by the way of 279 the verse that you cited they all cite this statement from Ibn Abbass as textual corruption. This is very clear what Ibn Abbass actually held about the about the uh corruption of the Bible. Not to mention the hadith which so far in this entire debate you haven't even bothered to address the hadith of the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam when Umar came to him with written scripture written scripture and the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam said don't believe it we are at the end of our 60 minutes of Q&A or what is not Q&A open dialogue folks we're going to jump into the Q&A we're going to move fast because I promise these guys only 30 minutes we're going to prioritize serious questions we are not going to uh we don't want all the insults and all that stuff. Uh we want people to be able to say what they want, but we also want substance. Now folks, if you haven't yet, debatecon 6 that tickets link uh we will basically at the end of this debate and maybe even before I will send out the discount code for those tickets as right now we're having a flash sale today only. This one coming in from do appreciate it. Thank you very much. Let me just see where we are on the list. J49er says, "Question for Daniel. Both Ibn Taymiyyah in Majmu' al-Fatawa and Al-Shanqiti in Adwa' al-Bayan explain that bi-yadihi means present in front of them as in the present tense. How do you deal with that? uh bi can mean different things. It's an expression. Um and what Avery was saying as as a translation I pointed out is completely wrong. He was saying between their two hands. Uh and bayad, if you know Arabic, it doesn't mean their two hands because the preposition is a masculine singular, not a uh plural. So it at most can be between his two hands. the scripture between his two hands. So confirming that which is between his two hands, what is the his he referring to? So when there is no he that is being referred to then that gives us the clue that the way to interpret bi is not as actually present in your hands. It means prior prior scripture. The Quran confirms the prior scripture. That's the way to translate ba a day. And I acknowledge that bane a day can have different meanings in different context. But the fact that it's ba a day instead of what Avery is trying to imply like bay ad for example, that's not what the verses he cited said.

>> This one coming in from do appreciate it. Distract questions. >> Huh? >> Do does the opposite side get to give >> if you want a quick rebuttal but just because we have so many questions. uh if you can be as quick as possible so we can get through as many questions as we can in this 29 or so minutes left. >> Yeah. Yeah, just quickly. Yeah. Yeah, no, that none of it means what is before the scriptures. The words literally translate to uh uh literally uh between its hands. Oh, every time. It never means beforehand. So, I'll just say that real quick. >> What does it refer to? between its what is it referring to? >> A second rebuttal, bro. >> Distracting game says, "Daniel, you accuse Christians of uncharitably interpreting the Quran, yet you take the most uncharitable and out-of-context interpretations of Bible verses." The irony of that accusation is you do the same to the Quran. >> No, I don't have I don't have any kind of personal interpretation of the Bible that I've proposed in this debate or in any debate. When I cite the Bible, I don't just say, "This is what I think." I say, "Okay, here here's the verse. Here's what other Christian scholars have said, like the early church fathers. This is what the Catholic Church says. This is what the Orthodox Church says." I always bring authorities to my citations of the Bible if there needs to be any further interpretation of the verse. This is very different from Christian Christian apologists like Avery. They just want to impose their definitions and their meaning like what does authority mean? They just impose that on the verse and then they gaslight us into thinking that that's what the verse actually means. I cite the Tafsir. I cited hadith. I cited western non-Muslim Christian or non-western non-Muslim scholars for everything that I said about the Quran. Avery didn't have any kind of citation like that. He just imposed meanings onto the Quran and kept saying that's what that means. That's what this means. Like this is not serious.

>> This one coming in from do appreciate it. Suro Nim says God logic. What if I for the first time make the Christian dilemma namely saying I'm not here to out uh to out away the law but fulfill it. What verse is that? And is it misinterpretation among Muslims and Christians? Why or why not? >> If he's I didn't understand the question. If he's trying to what? >> They said don't worry I'm in the same boat. They said, "What if I for the first time make the Christian dilemma?" And they say, quoting Jesus, "I'm not here to do away with the law, but to fulfill it." What verse is it? What verse is that? And is it misinterpretation among Muslims and Christians? Why or why not? I I don't get the point of this question. I'm sorry. >> I'm not gonna lie. I don't I don't either. I don't understand it. Danny, you do you understand that question, man? What's the thrust of that? >> Uh, >> it's like he's trying to get you to acknowledge the verse in Matthew about uh I have not come to uh overturn the law. >> But what does that got to do with his mom though? He was saying something about the >> This one from Church Mouse. It says, "Avery, please say something about this. My son is autistic and it breaks my heart that in a debate he had to degrade people like this. They're asking you to shame Daniel. This one from Alb J Alb all says question for Pey Boo. Okay, I think that's supposed to be Daniel. Uh if the Jews Oh, no. Not no we're not talking. Rick Newton says, "Bart Ehrman, who is an actual biblical New Testament scholar, said the Christian doctrine is not affected. The variances quote unquote are letters and words in different order or mistakes really bad exegesis Daniel the of the Bible. Bart Ehrman says that the biblical variants aren't theologically significant." Like Bart Ehrman says exactly the opposite of that. He says that they're actually significant. The he he notes that there is this uh advancing Christology when you go from the synoptic gospels to the gospel of John. Like he's all about the biblical and the theological significance of biblical variance. So I don't know what maybe this is some bizarro world Bart Ehrman that no one knows about but the Bart Ehrman and our reality says that the biblical variants have great deal of theological significance. And that's why you have groups like the Ebionites for example or the Marcionites who come along in the first and second century and they have a completely different understanding of Christianity. They don't believe for example like the Ebionites that Jesus is divine or the Marcionites don't even believe in the God of the Old Testament. Like they have all of these different theological understandings because of the uh the gospels that they had in their possession, the the scriptures that they had in their possession. So Bart Bart Ehrman is all about that.

>> This one coming in from do appreciate it. J49er says, "Question for Daniel. Why do the Tafsirs of Ibn Abbass on Quran 2:79, 3:78, 22:1, and 27:49 affirm that the original scriptures were not corrupted? If you cite Ibn Abbass, why not do the homework and show his actual position?" >> I did show Okay, I read the statement of Ibn Abbass in the opening statement where he does mention textual corruption of the text. Literally read that. I read it in the open dialogue period citing the Bukhari citation and we can also read the Nasai citation uh that also quotes Ibn Abbass where he goes into depth about why the people of the book were corrupting their scripture. It's because they were afraid of their rulers. They're afraid their rulers were going to kill them. So they altered the text of the Bible. That's another narration from Ibn Abbass. So this idea that Ibn Abbass believes in like that the fact that the Bible hasn't been scripturally corrupted. Like there are all these narrations that say the exact opposite. So I don't know if I'm taking crazy pills or you guys aren't hearing what I'm saying. Like I gave you the act. You saw it on the screen. I showed it on the screen. How are you still questioning this? >> Can I can I give say something to that quickly? >> What have you got? >> Yeah. So yeah, Dan Daniel did not do his homework on Ibn Abbass's uh position because he he didn't even know that Ibn Abbass was on the side that believed in the textual preservation of the scriptures, but they were only corrupted by misinterpretation as Bukhari records. And Daniel, look, here's a point. I'm going to give it to you because you've never seen this before. If you open up chapter 3 verse 78 and you go to Ibn Kathir's Tafsir and you read he goes and he quotes Bukhari and he says Bukhari reported that Abbass said and then he gives that what Abbass how they only distort by misinterpretation. So if now if we're taking it, you know the other hadith that you're talking about here's what you have best case scenario you just have a contradiction between what I said before and what he's saying now or last or it can be reconciled in that it's not that because he's talking about 279 not that the the written book what they write with their hands is textual corruption of the actual scriptures but they're writing fake books and claiming it's from God which is what Wahb ibn Munabbih says that they rely on books they wrote themselves instead of the actual scripture. So if you check that out 378, he gives he gives you that position of of of them. >> Yeah, I'll look it up. But I again I'm citing you from Bukhari. I'm citing from from statement of Ibn Abbass where he's saying textual corruption like do you acknowledge that I read that? >> That's a from Bukhari. >> No, that's No, you said Nasai. You said from >> Okay. Well, what about Bukhari? >> Well, in Bukhari is I I just told you it's either because what he's talking about 279. So, he's not talking about them going and changing the actual scripture, but they're writing books themselves and propping it up as if it's the word of God. That's why uh Wahb ibn Munabbih says the same thing, saying that the words of God, the words of Allah, the Torah and gospel are intact exactly as Allah revealed them, but they rely on books that they wrote themselves. Okay. So that that's what that means. Or you just have a contradiction between two narrations in Bukhari about what says it's not a contradiction. If if one narration says interpretation corruption and another narration says there is textual corruption. Both can be true at the same time. I don't know why you don't accept this. >> Not of one negates the other. The the other narration. >> Where does he negate it? Where does he say that? Where exactly does he say that? >> So, so look if you if you read it, he literally says none can alter the words of Allah. They cannot change any of the words from his books. That's text. But they can only distort by apparent meaning. He says only. So >> whose words are these? Whose words are these? >> Ibn Abbass. >> This you're saying this is in Ibn Kathir the for 378. >> Yeah. Yeah, if you go to chapter 3 78, you just scroll down to where he he starts quoting uh Abu Bakar. He says, "Abu Bakar reported that Ibn Abbass said and then he and then he quotes him." Okay, this one coming in from Islam over everything says logic. If I was a prophet given book X, then people corrupted it after me and a later prophet came saying he confirms book X. Do you think he's confirming the corruption or the original truth? >> Yeah. If if if that prophet says, "I I'm confirming book X that is with you and what is with them is already corrupted before he got there," then he's confirming the corrupted scripture if they're corrupted. So, >> this one coming in from do appreciate it. J49er says, "Question for Daniel." I want to see if I got that one. Got that one. Corno says for Daniel, if Allah really wanted Christians, >> can I just respond to Avery because I for that Tafsir? >> So if you go to the Tafsir, it says Al-Bukhari reported that Abbass said the ayah means they alter and add >> although none among Allah's creation can remove the words of Allah from his books. They alter and add and distort their apparent meanings. >> But it says add. Okay. So, >> it can mean it can mean textually add. >> No, it literally look Daniel, it's literally negating a textual addition, bro. >> It says remove. It's negating removing the words of Allah. >> So, that's change. That's any change. >> That's removing. So, it's not negating additions like the addition of the ending of Gospel of Mark, for example. That's an addition. That's not a removal, right? So, it's not negating additions. >> Let's just let's be clear on that. >> So, this within this, I just read it. I can read it again. They alter and add although none, the negation that you're referring to says none among Allah's creation can remove the words of Allah from his books. Now, what does this exactly mean? Does it mean the book that people have the scriptures that they have with them? Or does it mean on the preserved tablet? Like that's a distinction. We'll just put that aside. We don't need to get into that technicality. But literally what this uh part of Ibn Kathir says on 378 is it's negating the removal. It's not negating the addition. >> Look at how what it says how they add. It says they alter and add although none among Allah's creation can remove the words of Allah from his books. So notice what he what he says there. He includes altering and addition in the context of removing words from Allah's books. And then he goes on to say how how what what's the altering that happens then? They alter and distort their apparent meanings. Not the text, bro. That is as clear as day. It's not It's not as clear. They saying alter and add. The negation that you keep emphasizing is from removal. Okay? So, you can add you can change the meaning of something by adding to it. You can change the meaning of something like if I say uh Avery is not a man. Okay, that means something. But if I say Avery is not a man to make up stuff about Ibn Kathir, like that's a different meaning because I added something to the end of that sentence that altered the meaning. So you got caught red-handed, bro. This is this is not what you say it is. >> Sure. Well, we'll agree to disagree for the sake of the time, man. This one from Corno says, "For Daniel, if Allah really wanted Christians and Jews to follow Muhammad, wouldn't he have preserved the Bible clearly and publicly so that everyone could see Muhammad prophesied in them?" Um, again, the the Quran says that they have changed the scripture with their hands. Um, so they have and some of the Tafsir say that this includes the descriptions. Um so uh in the Tafsir of Abu Ja'far one of the earlier Tafsir it's mentioned that they remove the descriptions in the text or is it one of the earliest Tafsir say that the descriptions of the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam have been removed from the text. So that is the problem. The Christians even up to this day and the Jews they continuously are altering their scriptures. That's why there are so many variations. That's why when you go to a bookstore or you go on Amazon, you want to buy a copy of the Bible, there's like 50 different versions on sale right now. Not to mention uh versions that are out of print. So, this is constant change and corruption of the text that the Quran is referring to that has happened not because of Allah, but because of what the Christians and Jews have decided to do with their religion. And to this day, they're doing it to this day. And that's why a muqaddim, a corrective, a criterion had to be sent by Allah to correct the previous nations. In the same way that Jesus was sent to the Jews to correct them on their misunderstanding of the Mosaic law, of the biblical law, Jesus came and corrected the Jews on their misunderstandings. And uh of course they ended up killing him according to the uh New Testament uh not according to the Quran of course but the Quran is the final criterion and that's the that's the message that is clear in the Quran that corruption actually did take place. I want to touch on this. I want to touch on this. This is a view where Daniel is going against one of the top scholars and the top hadith collector in Islamic history. Bukhari himself as I stated earlier Bukhari holds the position and I quote this is from Ibn Kathir. Now by the way for you you can find this in Ibn Taymiyyah in his in uh I don't know how to pronounce it correctly but it's Iqtida' al-Sirat al-Mustaqim volume 2 page 351. Okay, this is Ibn Taymiyyah giving what Bukhari says and he quotes, "No one can corrupt the text by removing any of Allah's words from his books, but they corrupted it." How? By misinterpreting it. So, Bukhari is on the opposite side of Daniel here. Why should we take Daniel's position when the when Abu Bakr I'm sorry, not Bukhari is on the opposite side? I mean, I'll help you out Avery. Like Bukhari is not the only scholar who had this position by the way. There are other scholars too like arguably Imam Ghazali another great scholar of Islam had this position as well that is only manif corruption in interpretation. So I acknowledged that there are scholars even great scholars who had the position of al-Ma'na only but the majority believed in al-Nass and both that's the majority position. So this is not an Islamic dilemma. So we don't believe that the scholars these like Ghazali or Bukhari are infallible on every issue. We don't believe that they can make mistakes. They can be mistaken on an issue like the corruption of the previous scriptures. So this is not a dilemma. Maybe you have an Islamic dilemma for uh those scholars in their position assuming that you've interpreted their position correctly, but it's not a problem. There's no dilemma for all of these other scholars because they're going by not only what the Quran is saying, the hadith, the early exegesis, all of this material that I presented to you, showing that there is and corruption of the text, not just interpretation.

>> This one from dots connected to Islam. Question for God logic regarding 1094 Quran 2:79 versus 3:199-202 contrasting groups are described hypothetically who is the prophet peace be upon him supposed to ask non-believers like you non-believers like you or the ones that recognized the truth of Islam like Abdullah ibn Salam. >> Yeah, good question. So let's let's see what Ibn Kathir says and then I want dots connected to Islam to tell me if I was wrong or not. Okay, so Ibn Kathir says uh in 1094 previous books attest to the truth of the Quran and then he quotes it. Now watch what he says in line with this. He quotes 7:157 that says, "Those who follow the messenger, the prophet, who can neither read nor write, whom they find written with them in the Torah and the Gospel, they are as certain of this as they are about who their children are. Yet they hide it and distort it. They did not believe in it despite its clear evidence." So according to Ibn uh Ibn Kathir, the people that Muhammad is supposed to go to are the people of the book in general, including the disbelievers, those who who reject Muhammad as a prophet.

>> This one coming in from do appreciate it. Dots. Oh, we got that one. This one from Inspiring Philosophy. Guys, stop interrupting each other. You're waking

"Up, James. That's funny, Michael. It's uh, this is the latest I've been up in a while. You guys are, you guys are young bucks. Uh, J49er says, "Slow tier Daniel." The Quran itself says the people of the reminder, Zakir, parenthesis, are also the Christians. Daniel clearly didn't expect us to know this, but now he's getting cooked."

">> Yeah, I got, I got so cooked, guys, because Oh, wow. I'm just burning up by by that. Gotcha."

">> Everybody clip it. Clip that. Clip that right there. He's >> this one from dots connected to Islam. Question for God logic regarding where did we get that one? Hope that we got that one. Okay, cool. Uh, this one from >> Benu Banga halfs. Maybe that's is this halfs for hadith? No. Okay, >> thank you. Wow, I have so much to learn. Uh, 21 196 versus Santa Palum sets Daniel ask for a different difference that affects theological difference. The halfs for Allah. Santa excludes Allah, which affects whether this is a legal matter or exclusive worship. Um, which verse you saying?"

">> Um, 21 196."

">> That's right."

">> What is the theological, I guess, a legal issue?"

">> Man, James, you struggle that, bro. That was, that's killing me. They said halfs 2 196 versus Santa Palum sets. Daniel asked for a difference that affects theological difference. The halfs for Allah. Santa excludes Allah, which affects whether this is a legal matter."

">> Oh, the son of a son manuscript, manuscript. So, I mean, we can read the verse. So, this verse is about Hajj and complete the Hajj and Omrah for Allah, but if you are prevented, then offer what can be obtained with ease of sacrificial animals and do not shave your heads until the sacrificial animal has reached his place of slaughter, etc., etc. So, I never said that there can't be difference in rulings um based off of differences in like that's something that's known. If you study Islamic jurisprudence, then you know that some of the between the between the jurists in Islam are based on different like that's something known. It's not like something that Christians discovered with the finding of a new manuscript from SA or anywhere else. Like this is something that is well known within the discipline of between the Malakis, the can affect the different uh rulings that come from the Quran and there are entire works that are actually dedicated to precisely this issue like the based on differences in, but that's again, very different, a world's difference uh between that and deciding whether Jesus is divine or not. Is Jesus the same as the father or not? Because Matthew says one thing or Mark says one thing and Matthew says something else. In Matthew, uh, Jesus says, "Why do you call me good? None is none is good except God." Implying that he is not the same as God. Jesus is not the same as God. This is what what it says in Mark. But in Matthew, uh, there's an important difference with that same situation. And someone comes to Jesus and Jesus says that uh none is good but God without that distinction between him and God that is found in Mark. So that is a major theological uh distinction between uh whether Jesus is God or not. But you don't find anything uh similar to that between the different variants of the um that oh, we read one and it says that Allah is one and another implies that Allah is three or there are multiple gods and we have to worship a pantheon of gods. There's nothing like that when you read the Quran. But when you compare the for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls to the M maseretic text, like that issue of a pantheon of gods literally comes up because of the different wording that's used in the Dead Sea Scrolls versus the Maseretic text."

">> So, that's the point that I was making."

"We've run out of time. I do want to keep the promise of letting these guys out of here at a decent time. I promise 30 minutes and only 30 minutes. So, folks, I'm going to let both of our guests go. I am going to be back in just a moment to let you know about updates for Debatecon 6 in Nashville, Tennessee. You don't want to miss out on this conference. I'm going to let you know about some juicy inside details, including a speaker that we are so, we're on the verge of booking. It's like unofficially, but it's believe me, you'll want to stick around for this juicy name that I'm about to announce. But I want to say huge thank you, folks, for your questions, but most of all, of course, thank you for our guests, Avery and Daniel. It's been a fantastic debate. I loved it. It was awesome. So, >> thank you guys seriously for being here."

">> Yeah. Thanks for having me, Daniel. Man, I had a great time. I would, if I could give one suggestion, Daniel, change. I know you said it was just rhetoric, but a lot of people, they actually have, you know, kids that deal with autism and family members. I would suggest just out of respect for them to change the method on how you approach this one. You know, that hurts a lot of people."

">> Yeah, I have relatives who have autism as well. Some people think that I have autism. I might be on the spectrum myself. So, uh, but terms like this, like even using the word stupid, like why should you call someone stupid actually? Because some people are have lower IQ, like they're they are medically stupid. Um, but we still use that word. It's part of our vocabulary. It's not a sensitive word. Why should we be sensitive about certain words and not other words? Seems inconsistent."

"So, I don't mean any offense to anyone who has autism. Some people claim that I'm on the spectrum. I don't take it offense to people using the word autism in that way. So, if someone has taken offense, I'm sorry about that."

">> I don't want to forgive me. I I don't want to I don't I want to let you guys out of here at the timing promise. I mean, if you want to keep debating, you can."

">> No, no, we're not. We're not. No, that was just a little >> But folks, I want to say stick around. I'm going to let that name out in just a moment. So, uh, stick around. We'll be right back. I'm going to let our guests go, but want to say thank you, Daniel and Avery. And folks, I'll be back in just a moment. >> God bless. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much, gentlemen, for being here tonight. [Music] Yeah, I'm not. [Music] [Applause] [Music] >> Okay, folks. Here we go. I'm going to tell you the name. I don't want to keep you on suspense. I mentioned that we might have uh, this is unofficial, so don't tweet it out. Don't I know you won't. I trust you. But we are on the verge of, we're currently trying to work out a debate uh featuring Just be sure that this is on here. Okay, good. Uh, we're basically trying to work out a debate featuring Myron Gaines and Jasmine Jafar at Debate Con. So, this will be a massive debate. Uh, basically, this would be on feminism, in particular, whether or not feminism is really good or bad for women. It's going to be controversial. It's going to uh, just shock and offend all of you. We're very excited about this. It's not confirmed. So, this is just in the works, but I'm very optimistic that it's going to happen. So, I've got a couple of other quick things. Is we recently did um, I'll put this in the live chat. I did recently come out with a, you could say, uh, moral value or principle that debate modern day debate is coming out with, namely that unless it was for the case of self-defense, I can't condemn that, but otherwise, uh, basically that's the moral principle is that excluding cases of self-defense, we think that political violence is wrong. So, we are openly saying that, uh, that is something that in the last week, I'm sure you guys have had the same experience of thinking, wow, things are just beyond way too far. Namely, violence is not okay, and modern day debate is actually willing to say, hey, that's actually something we're willing to build into our philosophy. You could say. So, that's really important. We have banned the Muslim apologist. Uh, so basically, you guys probably know of him. He goes by. Uh, I'll share like the post here. Uh, basically, I put this out in a post just a couple of hours ago because I was just like, "Yep, we're not going to allow guests on that are just saying that they think it's uh, basically he had said he wanted to give the assassin murderer a medal." And uh, I just put our link for modern day debate posts in the live chat because the Muslim apologist is not going to be until he changes his philosophy. If he changes, we're willing to work with people again if they change their philosophy and say, I agree political violence is wrong. I'm amazed at the number of people that have actually been challenging modern day debate. Well, some of them, to be fair, uh, are basically like, oh, you know, modern day debate, this is you're only saying that because and basically in the the link."