Dr. David Wood Vs Jake Brancatella | Is There an Islamic Dilemma? DEBATE

Wait, wait. So this is this is after Jesus says this is my blood of the new covenant. It was after that.

>> Matthew 23. >> Matthew 23. >> So before he said this is the new covenant in my blood before.

>> Oh, so this is time-bound then. This is time-bound. This means Oh, wait, wait, wait. So when he said when he said >> wait, you don't know that. You don't know that covenants are time-bound. You don't know that covenants are time-bound in the Bible.

>> Oh, so that's what the Muslim position is. So part of Islamic law, according to the Quran, is an authority over you and is being forced upon you. Correct.

>> Dude, that's the penalty for us not following our our book. It's going to >> Answer the question. Yes or no?

>> Dude, I this this is >> It's hard on you. I know it's hard on the mushroom.

>> It's not. It's hard to It's hard to fathom what in the name of common sense you're talking about. We are going to jump right in into this. So want to let you know for this debate, we will have, "Is there an Islamic dilemma?" as the topic. This will be between David Wood and Jake Branatella. For their introductions, Dr. Dr. David Wood earned his PhD in philosophy from the University of Fordham and currently runs the YouTube channel Road Show Apologetics, which is aimed at challenging Islam. Please welcome David Wood. And then Jake will be going second. Jake Branatella has debated popular atheist and Christian intellectuals and runs the popular YouTube channel Jake Branatella 2.0, which focuses on making an intellectual case for Islam. Please join me in welcoming Jake Branatella. I'm going to hand it over to David for his opening statement. This will be 15 minutes. Thank you very much. The floor is all yours, David. Check. Check. Thank you, James. And a special thanks to Jake for showing up and debating like a man. Unlike that coward Shake Uman, aka Shake Iban Chicken, aka Shake Iban Runnin, aka Shake Uman Bolt, who keeps pretending he wants to debate when all he really wants to do is play history's dumbest game of hide-and-seek. I invited Shikman to join us here at Debatecon. He did not show up. Speaking of people who didn't show up, uh, let's talk about the elephant in the room. You've probably heard about the death threats from all the brave TikTok jihadis who promised to brutally murder me here in Houston, even though they already doxed me at my home address and could have faced me at home instead of bothering all you lovely people. I don't really care if they threaten me, but uh, I, you know, I know I tick a lot of people off. But when they start going after people's wives and families, that's a different story. Since I remain convinced that you can't back down from cowards who threaten women and dox families, because backing down will only encourage more threats and more doxing. My friends and I responded to the threats and doxing with episode one of Quran Demolition Ranch and with a video of me spitting fire like a dragon on some Qurans and with International Zoot Remembrance Day and with coming soon, our top hundred ways to zoot the Quran. So now that I've made my position on threats clear, does anyone want to take this opportunity to saw my head off? Anyone? Anyone? Isn't that interesting? For more than 15 years, keyboard jihadis have uh been telling me, "If you come to this place, we're going to kill you." 100% of the time I show up. 100% of the time they don't. It's like you can't find an honest jihadi anymore. So, TikTok jihadis are hiding. Dawagandis like Shake Uran are hiding. But fortunately, Jake is here. So, we can put everything else behind us. Not in the zoot sense, but we can put everything else behind us and have a friendly intellectual debate on the Islamic dilemma. One of the most powerful arguments in the universe. Contrary to popular Muslim belief, the Quran does not claim that the Jewish and Christian scriptures were corrupted. On the contrary, the Quran affirms the inspiration, preservation, and authority of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. But the Quran contradicts the Jewish and Christian scriptures on basic doctrines. This puts Muslims in a dilemma because there are only two possibilities. Either Christians and Jews have the inspired, preserved, authoritative word of God, or we don't. It's one or the other. On the one hand, if we have the inspired, preserved, authoritative word of God, Islam is false because Islam contradicts what we have on basic doctrines. On the other hand, if we don't have the inspired, preserved, authoritative word of God, Islam is false because Islam affirms the inspiration, preservation, and authority of our scriptures. So, if we have the word of God, Islam is false. If we don't have the word of God, Islam is false. Either way, Islam is false. Therefore, Islam is false. Pretty straightforward. Islam self-destructs. Our Muslim friends, however, don't want to admit that their religion self-destructs. So, they have to twist Allah's words in the Quran. But here's what I find remarkable. The harshest, most negative language the Quran uses about any of Allah's books is used not of the Torah, not of the Zabore, not of the Gospel, but of the Quran itself. The harshest, most negative language the Quran uses for any of Allah's books is found in Surah 15:90-91. We'll read three translations. Yusf Ali: "Of just such wrath as we sent down on those who divided scripture into arbitrary parts. So also on such as have made the Quran into shreds as they please." M.H. Shakir: "Like as we sent down on the dividers, those who made the Quran into shreds." Palmer: "As we sent down punishment on the separatists who dismember the Quran." Oh my goodness, the poor Quran has been shredded and dismembered, according to the Quran itself. I bring up these passages. I bring up this passage for two reasons. One, if the Quran had said these words about the Torah and the Gospel, this would be the go-to passage for Muslim debaters on the Islamic dilemma. If this passage said that the Torah or the Gospel had been shredded and dismembered, Muslims would point to it and say, "See, the Quran claims that the Bible's corrupted." But the Quran never says anything like this about the Torah or the Gospel. It only says this about the Quran. Two, what is this passage talking about? The Quran was shredded. It was dismembered. What happened to it? Well, you might think this has something to do with, as we eventually find out, entire chapters of the Quran being forgotten or large passages being lost because the only people who had them memorized died in battle, or verses being eaten by a sheep, or Caiffman burning all the Qurans to cover up the differences, things like that. But most of that happened after Muhammad died. So, it doesn't seem like that's what the passage is talking about. And Muslims certainly don't want to believe that this refers to the corruption of the Quran because there are verses like Surah 18:27 where Allah declares, "And recite what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord. There is none who can alter His words." Obviously, if no one can alter Allah's words, Surah 15:90-91 can't be about the corruption of the Quran. So, what does it mean? Good luck getting a decisive answer from Muslim commentators. As is so often the case, you can go to five different commentaries and get five different explanations because they felt pretty comfortable making things up. But the explanation that seems most plausible is found in Tafsir al-Qurtubi, where Qurtubi comments, "Ibn Abbas said, 'They believed in part of it and disbelieved in part of it.'" Shredding the Quran, dismembering the Quran means believing in parts of it and disbelieving in other parts. And Qurtubi adds, "It is said that they divided it, meaning they believed in what they liked of it and disbelieved in the rest." So their disbelief nullified their belief. There were people who only believed in the parts of the Quran they liked. Shredding the Quran then means cherry-picking. Why do I find this so significant? I find it significant because believing in parts of the Quran while rejecting other parts is exactly what Muslims do when it comes to the Islamic dilemma. They reject some of the clearest verses in the Quran because those verses affirm the preservation and authority of the Torah and the Gospel. They deny the clear meaning of those verses, which means Jake here, by this definition, is a Quran shredder. He's a Quran dismemberer. People get mad at me for how I treat the Quran when Dawa clowns threaten people's wives, but I just do physically what Muslims do hermeneutically. We're all Quran shredders. Let me show you what I mean. Remember, shredding the Quran, dismembering the Quran means believing in parts and disbelieving in parts. Interestingly, Allah said the exact same thing about Jews and the Torah. In Surah 2:85, Allah is criticizing the Jews of Medina for following parts of the Torah and not following other parts of the Torah. They were picking and choosing. Allah condemns them for this. He says, "Do you then believe in part of the Book and disbelieve in part? And what is the recompense of those who do so but disgrace in the life of this world? And on the Day of Resurrection, they shall be consigned to the most severe punishment." Allah says as clearly as he says anything in the Quran that he will send Jews to hell if they reject any part of the Torah. What do our Muslim friends say? They say that Jews should only believe in the parts of the Torah that line up with Islam. This means, of course, that Muslims tell Jews to do something that Allah says he'll send them to hell for doing. And it means that Muslims reject what this verse actually says because they don't like it. They're dismembering the Quran. And they do this with dozens of Quran verses. Let's consider a few examples. In Surah 4:47, Allah says to the people of the Book, "Oh you unto whom the Book has been given, believe in what We have sent down, the Quran, confirming that which is with you." Talking about our scriptures is Allah confirming that which is with us. Allah says yes. Muslims say no. Who speaks for Islam? In Surah 5:43, some Jews come to Muhammad to settle a dispute. Allah responds, "Why do they come to you for judgment, O Muhammad, when they have the Torah before them? Wherein is the judgment of Allah?" According to the Quran, do Jews need the Quran? No, because they have the Torah. According to Muslims today, do Jews need the Quran? Yes, because the Torah has been corrupted. Why do cherry-picking, Quran-shredding Muslims say the opposite of what Allah says? What about Christians? Just a few verses after Allah tells Jews that they don't need Muhammad, Allah commands Christians in Surah 5:47, "Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are no better than those who rebel." According to the Quran, should Christians judge by the Gospel? Absolutely. We're rebels against Allah if we don't. According to Muslims today, should Christians judge by the Gospel? Of course not. The Gospel's been corrupted. Look at the very next verse. Surah 5:48. Allah says, "And We have sent down unto thee, Muhammad, the Book in truth, confirming the Book that came before it, and as a protector over it." The Quran confirms the previous scriptures and protects them. How does it protect them? Read the context. Verse 43, Jews don't want to judge by the Torah. The Quran says you're going to judge by the Torah anyway. Verse 47, Christians have to judge by the Gospel whether they like it or not. The Quran protects the previous scriptures by enforcing them on Jews and Christians who don't want to follow them. If the Torah and the Gospel have been corrupted, Jews and Christians have nowhere else to turn. Because in Surah 5:68, Allah tells Muhammad to say, "Oh people of the Book, you have no ground to stand upon unless you stand fast by the Torah, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." We have no ground to stand upon unless we stand fast by the scriptures revealed to us. Perhaps the most amazing fact here is that the Torah and the Gospel were authoritative even for Muhammad. When Muhammad was having doubts about his revelations, he was commanded to go to the people of the Book for confirmation. Allah tells Muhammad, Surah 10:94, "But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you. Certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord. Therefore, you should not be of the disputers." Why would Allah tell Muhammad that he could only confirm his revelations by going to people who have a corrupt book? Doesn't make sense. There are plenty of other verses we can go to, and I'm sure we'll get to more Quran verses as the debate proceeds. But to clarify the problem, think about the two relevant bodies of evidence and the two main hypotheses under consideration here. The two relevant bodies of evidence are first, the Quran contradicts the Torah and the Gospel. It contradicts the Torah and the Gospel on basic doctrines, tells different versions of Bible stories, usually taken from the Talmud and apocryphal sources that were circulating in Arabia during the time of Muhammad. The Quran doesn't line up very well with the Torah and the Gospel. Second, the Quran affirms the inspiration, the preservation, and the authority of the Torah and the Gospel over and over again, like a beating drum. Those are the two relevant bodies of evidence. Now for two hypotheses that are supposed to account for this evidence. My hypothesis goes something like this: The author of the Quran believed that just like the Quran, the Torah and the Gospel are the inspired, preserved, authoritative word of Allah. He knew that Jews, Christians, and Muslims had different beliefs, but he attributed these differences to Jews and Christians misinterpreting and distorting their scriptures, not to Jews and Christians corrupting their scriptures. Sadly for the author of the Quran, these different books don't actually agree on their core doctrines and stories, but he didn't know this because he couldn't read them for himself. It's what I think is going on here. Notice it fits all the evidence. I'm not sure exactly what Jake's hypothesis is, but a common Muslim hypothesis would be: According to the Quran, Allah gave different revelations to different groups of people, but they were all corrupted except the Quran. Jews and Christians received the Torah and the Gospel through Moses and Jesus. But Jews and Christians corrupted the Torah and the Gospel. The Torah and the Gospel are no longer reliable or authoritative. So, Jews and Christians must now judge by the Quran. Both of these hypotheses can explain the first body of evidence, namely the Quran contradicting the previous scriptures. But only one of these hypotheses can explain why the Quran consistently affirms the preservation and authority of the Torah and the Gospel. The Muslim hypothesis just doesn't fit this evidence. As a rule, if you've got two competing hypotheses and one hypothesis does a significantly better job of explaining the evidence, go with the hypothesis that does a significantly better job of explaining the evidence. Thank you very much for that opening, David. We're going to kick it over to Jake in just a moment, but do want to say huge thank you to our sponsor, Uncensored America, which is linked in the description box, as Uncensored America also supports fair debates, including on the controversial issues. Check out Uncensored America in the description box. And with that, we're going to kick it over to Jake for his opening as well. Couple of quick housekeeping things, folks. If you can, please refrain from streaming on your phones unless it's just a short one-minute TikTok type of stream or video. And with that, thank you very much, Jake, for being with us. We give you a chance to plug in. Also, folks, if you're watching at home, hit that like button. We do appreciate that support. Last of all, both of our guests, David Wood and Jake Bronatella, are linked in the description box. You can find out more at their channels by clicking on those links below. Got the timer set and ready for you, Jake, on your first word. Okay. Is there an Islamic dilemma? No. And you will soon see why. So, what is the supposed Islamic dilemma? According to David Wood, the Islamic dilemma is that the Quran affirms the inspiration, preservation, and authority of what the Jews and Christians consider to be the Torah and the Gospels. But at the same time, the Quran explicitly contradicts these texts. So, the Quran is contradictory because it affirms outside sources while simultaneously contradicting them.

>> One sec, Sean, just to be sure that the >> mic >> Oh, the microphone is. Sorry about that. Jake, if you were actually able to start from the very start. I'll restart the timer. That was only about 30 seconds and we'll start from the beginning on >> that is now on. Should be. Give it a test just to be sure. >> Testing. Testing. Okay, that's good. Okay. Okay. Is there an Islamic dilemma? No. And you will soon see why. So, what is the supposed Islamic dilemma? Well, according to David Wood, the inspiration the the Islamic dilemma is that the Quran affirms the inspiration, preservation, and authority of what the Jews and Christians consider to be the Torah and the Gospels. But at the same time, the Quran explicitly contradicts these texts. So, the Quran is contradictory because it affirms outside sources while simultaneously contradicting them. As you've just seen from David's opening statement, he typically presents several verses from the Quran attempting to justify his claim. I will respond to these, but before I do so, I'd like to provide positive arguments from the Quran that clearly debunk his Islamic dilemma thesis. I will start in reverse order and address the ongoing authority claim of the Islamic dilemma. David claims that the that according to the Quran, the Torah and the Gospels are ongoing authorities for the Jews and Christians to follow today. Many of the verses that David cites to support his claim refer in context to laws in these scriptures being applied and followed. Now, I am going to make a bold claim. I am going to get David to do something that he has never done before in any debate on this topic. My argument will force David to admit that there are several verses of the Quran that are inconsistent with his reading of the Quran and the Islamic dilemma. Have you ever seen David admit that certain verses of the Quran say that the Torah and the Gospels of the Jews and Christians are not fully inspired, not fully preserved, or not fully authoritative? I haven't. But you will witness this today. To illustrate this point, let's look at what I call David's theme dilemma. One of David's top three verses of the Quran that he says every Christian must know puts him in a dilemma. That is Quran 9:29. It says, and I quote, "Fight against those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth, i.e., Islam, from those who were given the Scripture. Fight until they give the jizya willingly while they are humbled." According to this verse, Islamic law requires that Jews and Christians pay the jizya based on rejecting Islam and not accepting what Allah and His Messenger deem prohibited. This contradicts David's claim about the Torah and the Gospel being ongoing legal authorities. Why? It's pretty simple. Jizya is part of Islamic law. It is not a legal requirement in the Torah or the Gospels. Therefore, the Quran is obliging Jews and Christians to follow at least one aspect of Islamic law instead of the laws in their own respective scriptures. Notice that one of the reasons for doing so is precisely because Jews and Christians refuse to accept what Allah and His Messenger declare unlawful. In other words, they must pay the jizya because they reject Islamic law. If the Quran allowed Christians and Jews to reject Islamic law and follow their own laws for salvation, then this verse wouldn't make any sense. So David has a dilemma. Either this demand is consistent with his interpretation of authority, or it is not. If David says this demand is consistent with his claim, then he has conceded the Islamic dilemma is false because it entails that the Torah and Gospels are merely partly authoritative, but not entirely. There are aspects of which the Quran is authoritative over the previous scriptures. Well, that's just what the Muslim position is that David has always criticized. David needs to also respond to his own argument regarding Quran 2:85, which we just heard. Are you saying that the Quran says you must only follow parts of your books but not all of them? On the other hand, if David says that this demand is inconsistent with his claim regarding ongoing authority, then you have also conceded the Islamic dilemma is false because it's an admission that this verse contradicts your interpretation of the Quran. But I will make another bold prediction. David will opt for the second option. He will admit that this verse of the Quran contradicts his interpretation of the Islamic dilemma. However, David will claim that this just means that the Quran is contradicting itself. This means that even if I were to show you or David a verse that verbatim stated that the original Torah and Injil are no longer fully preserved or authoritative today, David would just say that this doesn't defeat the Islamic dilemma because it contradicts other verses in the Quran. I will deal with this ridiculous assertion more fully later. However, even this is an unprecedented concession because it requires that David admit that at least some verses of the Quran are inconsistent with the Islamic dilemma. It's not just this verse that contradicts David's claims about ongoing legal authority. Quran 7:157-158 says, and I quote, "Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written, i.e., described in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them from what is wrong and makes lawful for them what is good and forbids them from what is evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have supported him, so they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him, and followed the light which was sent down with him. It is those who will be the successful. Say, 'O Muhammad, O mankind, indeed I am the messenger to you all. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered prophet who believes in Allah and His words and follow him that you may be guided.'" These verses make it abundantly clear that the that the Jews and Christians find the messenger in their scriptures, and the prophet himself is the one who determines for them what is lawful and unlawful. In this verse, the prophet is the one who relieves, who who relieves for the Jews and Christians some of the burdens and shackles which were upon them. This is related to the laws that were prescribed to them. We will see examples of this in just a moment. The second verse requires that everyone must follow the prophet to be guided. He was sent to all of mankind, not merely the Arabs. There are many more similar verses like this in the Quran. One example of the prophet and the Quran abrogating certain laws for the people of the Book is found in 6:146. And I quote, "And to those who are Jews, We prohibited every animal of uncloven hoof. And of the cattle and the sheep, We prohibited to them their fat except what adheres to their backs or the entrails or what is joined with bone. By that We repaid them for their transgression. And indeed We are truthful." These are dietary restrictions that Allah required the Jews follow on account of their transgression. This is contrasted with the new dietary laws in the prior verse that only list pork as forbidden. Quran 6:124 also mentions the change in Sabbath laws. The Sabbath was only appointed for those who differed over it. The Sabbath was only appointed for a specific group of people. The Sabbath and the laws surrounding it are no longer required to be followed. There are plenty more examples of the Quran intentionally abrogating laws from previous scriptures, but that should suffice to make the desired point for now. Even before the coming of the prophet Muhammad, parts of the Torah were already no longer authoritative for the Jews. In Quran 3:50, Jesus says to the Jews, and I quote, "And I have come confirming what was before me of the Torah and to make lawful for you some of what was forbidden to you. And I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. So fear Allah and obey me." Close quote. In this verse, Jesus is making lawful for the Jews some of what was previously forbidden for them. This means some of the laws from the Torah were no longer authoritative for the Jews to follow, even during Jesus' time. How could the Quran require the Jews to follow all of the Torah during the prophet Muhammad's time if it acknowledges it already abrogated laws from the Torah prior to his coming? David will respond again, as I predict, by claiming that the Quran contradicts itself. He cannot read the Quran consistently. Even if the source is not divine, according to David and other Christians, they should at least attempt to operate on the principle of charity, where one does not claim that a singular author constantly contradicts himself within the same sentence. This is not an honest scholarly attempt at reading a source. David's response results in the absurdity that the Quran contradicts itself when it tells believers to follow the entire Quran while at the same time it abrogates certain verses within it. For example, the Quran initially allowed drinking alcohol and later prohibited it. How could we follow the entire Quran if some verses allowed drinking alcohol while others prohibited it? It's simple because we recognize one verse was for a specific time and context, and the later verse regarding prohibition was for all time going forward. There is no contradiction at all. A contradiction only exists in the minds of those who are so uncharitable with their reading that they could create a contradiction about literally anything. Let's look at some biblical examples. Mark 2:7 says that only God can forgive sins, but John 20:23 says that humans forgive sins. That's a contradiction. Or even worse, this demonstrates that the apostles are themselves gods. These are the types of low-level, uncharitable readings that are equal to David's reading of the Quran. Nobody should take such readings seriously. A more serious dilemma would be Matthew 23:1-3, where Jesus commands people to practice everything that the Pharisees tell them. However, Jesus also disagrees with how the Pharisees apply certain laws, like divorce. Another contradiction. Or maybe when Jesus said that you should follow everything that the Pharisees tell them, he didn't actually mean everything, did he, David? The Quran really doesn't contradict itself, though. Quran 5:43 says that the Jews should judge by the Torah in a specific context regarding stoning, which agrees with Islamic law. It doesn't require that they must observe the entirety of the original Torah. As for verse 47, the next two verses make it abundantly clear that the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is supposed to judge between the Jews and Christians by the Quran. The Quran supersedes the previous scriptures. Verse 68 commands the people of the Book to uphold the Torah, the Injil, and the Quran, and that it is the Quran that increases them in disbelief. David's ridiculous reading is that the Quran tells the people of the Book to follow all laws of the Torah and all laws in the Quran while explicitly abrogating laws from the Torah. So, the Quran contradicts itself within the same verse. How can we take such a reading seriously? David also typically uses Quran 10:94 in an unqualified sense to say that the Torah and Injil are authoritative over the Quran. But the context is about the stories of the prophets in previous scriptures. If David grants mere partial authority, then he has conceded the dilemma. If he insists on total authority, then he is refuted by all the points we've already mentioned. Likewise, David also usually mentions Quran 2:85, which he did today, claiming that the Jews must follow the entire Torah, not merely parts of it. However, in context, this is referring to a specific law in the Torah, which again the Quran agrees with. As we've already seen, Jesus and the Prophet Muhammad abrogate laws from the Torah. Therefore, it isn't a wholesale endorsement of following all laws in the original Torah. As for 3:55 and 6:114, which David sometimes mentions but didn't today, these texts do not require that elevating and supporting Jesus's followers over the disbelievers means that they that historically there were always the majority and those in power. David fails to provide an argument for that. However, it's referring to rewarding the true believers for being upon the truth and being part of the upcoming ummah of Muhammad. As for inspiration, David typically mentions Quran 33:4 and 38:4, but the Quran is extremely clear that the original revelations were oral revelations to Moses and Jesus respectively in their own languages. The Quran states in 57:27 and several other verses that the original uncorrupted Injil is a singular oral revelation given to Jesus, most likely in Aramaic, not four Gospels written by other people about Jesus in Greek. As for preservation, David's main argument is that the Quran states that Allah's words cannot be changed. But the context of these verses is that Allah's promises are always fulfilled. Quran 6:34 makes this clear regarding Quran 15:5. Imbary says, and I quote, "None can change His words," i.e., He is saying that there is no one who could change what He has informed in His books about anything which is bound to happen during its time or has been postponed. It all happens as Allah says it would. As David haded, many would be familiar with Quran 2:79. It says that the people of the Book write the Book with their own hands and then claim that it is from God. This is understood as textual corruption, not merely corrupting the meaning of the text. Interpreting this verse, the companion Ibn Abbas criticizes Muslims for asking the people of the Book about anything because we have the uncorrupted Quran while they corrupted their own scriptures with their own hands. There are many examples of the Quran intentionally correcting material from the Bible that demonstrates it isn't naively endorsing the Bible wholesale. Aaron doesn't commit idolatry like the biblical narrative. Solomon never apostates. Joseph's prophecy doesn't fail, but it is fulfilled in the Quran. David claims these differences are merely unintentional. There are several reasons why this response is unconvincing. However, in the case of the main argument I've presented here, David cannot claim that the disagreement is merely unintentional. The Quran clearly abrogates previous laws and advocates for Jews and Christians to follow the laws in the Quran. Instead of claiming that these differences are unintentional, David must claim that the author of the Quran contradicts himself. This response is even less plausible than the response of the Quran intentionally editing biblical narratives for the reasons I've already outlined regarding the uncharitable and ridiculous reading of David. Thank you very much. All right, we are going to thank you very much for that opening. We're going to kick it into the 10-minute rebuttals. And as we switch it over to David for his first rebuttal, want to say a huge thank you to our sponsor, The Gospel Truth. The Gospel Truth Debate Conference is happening in one week in Dallas. Check that out, as The Gospel Truth also believes in fair debates, even on the controversial issues, and they are linked in the description box. With that, we'll kick it over to David Wood. And as I mentioned, folks, it'll be a 10-minute rebuttal. If you're watching at home, hit that subscribe button. We do appreciate that support. >> Ready. >> Thank you, Jake. Um, he said I was going to have to agree that at least that the Quran's contradicting itself. To be clear, I have no problem with the Quran contradicting itself. Does it pretty regularly? But, uh, I don't think what he presented contradicts anything in my view. Um, so looks like Jake is a false prophet because I didn't see anything that conflicts with the Islamic dilemma and what he said. Um, he says Surah 9:29 shows that Jews and Christians have to be violently subjugated for rejecting Islam. Keep reading the passage. It explains why we have to be violently subjugated. The next verse says that Jews call Ezra the son of Allah. Hint, they don't. Uh, and that Christians call Jesus the son of Allah. The passage goes on to say that by speech, we are trying to put out the light of Allah with with our mouths, and that Allah is not going to allow us to put out his light. That's why he sends Muhammad to subjugate us. This is what we're preaching. And according to Islam, what we're preaching does not line up with our scriptures. We're distorting and misrepresenting what our scriptures teach. That is exactly that is exactly my view of the Quran. So no conflict there. Uh, he quotes Surah 7:157. Awesome, awesome, awesome verse. Says that those who follow the messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find inscribed in the Torah and the Gospel that are with them, it is they who shall prosper. So this is another verse that is one of our fundamental verses of the Islamic dilemma. So no conflict there. He quotes Surah 3:50. Another awesome verse. That verse says that Jesus came and confirmed the Torah. But Jake says that Jesus was changing rulings in the Torah. He was uh lightening some of the uh, you know, dietary restrictions or something like that. Um, I wouldn't have a problem with that view. It would be similar to um to abrogation. You even have that within the Quran. So if you go to Surah 4:43, Muslims are allowed to drink alcohol as long as they don't show up to prayer drunk. They have to sober up first. According to Surah 5:90, Muslims are allowed to drink. Muslims aren't allowed to drink alcohol at all. So you can have these kinds of changes, and I, I don't see why that means that they were corrupted or something like that. Allah can just change his uh change his dietary restrictions and so on for groups at different times. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about like fundamental doctrines and so on. That's what we're talking about with the Islamic dilemma. Um, Surah 5:48 actually explains differences. So Jake thinks if you if Jews have a rule and Christians don't or Muslims don't or something like this, that these are all that someone has revelations that must have been corrupted or aren't authoritative. Um, no, read Surah 5:48. I quoted part of it. I quoted I quoted part of it. That's where Allah says that he sent Muhammad with the Quran confirming the scriptures that came before it and as a protector um over these previous scriptures. But the verse continues and it says that Allah gave a different law to different groups specifically to keep them as different groups. He didn't want one big group. He wanted multiple groups with different laws on on certain issues so that they would remain different groups and they would compete with each other in good works. This all fits together and it's straight out of the Quran. So no uh no issues with the Islamic dilemma there. Um, Jake says that the Quran is clear that the Torah and the Gospel were oral revelations. So we've got a problem there, right? Well, um, let's just read some passages. I already read Surah 4:47. "Oh you unto whom the Book has been given, believe in what We have sent down, the Quran, confirming that which is with you." Talking about confirming what is with us. Surah 2:41, "And believe in that which I have sent down, confirming that which you have with you, and be not the first to disbelieve in it, and sell not My signs for a paltry price, and reverence Me." Surah 2:89, "And when there came to them a Book from Allah, the Quran, confirming that which they had with them, and a foretime they used to ask for victory over those who disbelieved. So when there came to them that which they recognized, they disbelieved in it. So may the curse of God be on the disbelievers." Why is the curse of God on us? Because we had the revelation, we know that Islam lines up with it, and we rejected it anyway. Surah 2:91, "And when it is said unto them, 'Believe in what Allah has sent down,' they say, 'We believe in what was sent down to us,' and they disbelieve in what is beyond it, although it is the truth confirming what is with them." Whatever, whatever the Quran is confirming is something we have. Surah 2:97, "Whosoever is an enemy of Gabriel, he it is who sent down upon thy heart, Muhammad's heart, by Allah's leave, confirming that which was there before, and as a guidance and glad tidings for the believers." Surah 3:50, it's what Jake quoted. "And I, this is Jesus speaking, and I come confirming that which was before me, the Torah, and to make lawful unto you a part of that which was forbidden unto you. And I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. So reverence Allah, and obey me." I mentioned I wouldn't have a problem with this actually referring to Jesus uh coming with some revelation that altered dietary restrictions for people who want to enter into the Christian covenant. However, uh, I don't think you can build a case on this because Muslim commentators themselves can't agree on what this is what this means. You can look up the commentary. Some think that Jesus was lightening the dietary restrictions from the Torah. Others think that Jews made up extra dietary restrictions as time went on, and Jesus was simply clarifying them and telling them to go back to what was revealed, not to what people invented later. So, uh, I don't know. I don't have a preference, but I don't think you can build a case on this when uh, when there's no disagreement. I mean, when there's no agreement on it. Surah 6:92, "And this the Quran is a blessed Book that We have sent down, confirming that which came before it, that thou mayest warn the mother of cities and those around her. Those who believe in the hereafter believe in it, and they are mindful of their prayers." Confirming that which came before it. Surah 10:37, "This Quran could not have been fabricated by anyone apart from God. Rather, it is a confirmation of that which came before it and an elaboration of the Book in which there is no doubt from the Lord of the worlds." Surah 12:111, "Certainly in their stories, the stories of the previous messengers, is a lesson for those possessed of intellect. It the Quran is not a fabricated account. Rather, it is a confirmation of that which came before it and an elaboration of all things and a guidance and a mercy for a people who believe." 35:31, "And that which We have revealed unto thee, Muhammad, from the Book, the Quran, is the truth, confirming what came before it. Verily, God is of His servants Aware, Seeing." So, we ask the Quran, what are you doing with regard to the previous scriptures? It replies over and over and over again, confirming, confirming, confirming, confirming, confirming. We ask Jake, "What's the Quran doing?" H maybe confirming some parts or something like that. But, uh, you know, correcting, correcting, correcting, correcting, correcting. Just weird how Allah can't say what he means. So I'd have to say according to Surah 15:90-91, Jake is dismembering the Quran yet again. Um, Surah 7:157, look at what it says. "Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find inscribed in the Torah and the Gospel that are with them." Oh, it's just oral revelation. Inscribed. That means written. Inscribed in the Torah and the Gospel that are with them. The Torah. Remember all these verses confirming what's with you. Confirming what's with you. Confirming what's with you. What's it talking about? Something inscribed. This is a written document, not simply some oral tradition. And Jake says that Surah 2:79 is about textual corruption. Oh my goodness. Oh my goodness. Talk about going to an ambiguous verse. You've got over a dozen interpretations of this verse. Uh, there is one. Some of them are quite plausible. This refers to someone writing some commentary but then passing it off as the word of Allah. There are Muslim commentators who even say Muslims do this whenever they write something else and then they treat that as if it's the word of Allah. So if writing something and claiming this is from Allah, treating it like it's the word of Allah means that the text has been corrupted, well, the Quran's been corrupted too, because Muslim commentators say that Muslims do this as well. Um, but if you go to Surah 2:79, whatever interpretation you want to go with, the one you absolutely cannot go with is the interpretation that this refers to Jews somehow corrupting the text of the Torah. Just says someone writes something and says it's from Allah. Don't even doesn't even say it's the Torah, right? Just says they write something and say it's from Allah. Woe to them. Okay. Does that mean they corrupted the Torah? Well, suppose some Jews in Medina did that. How would that actually corrupt the Torah? The Torah is around the world. You could you could change the Quran right now. You could change the Torah right now. You could change the Gospel right now. It doesn't change these books around the world. These books are all over the place. Um, so it wouldn't work even if you thought that's what it meant. But there's a bigger problem. Some of the verses that I quoted, like I quoted 2:41. Yeah, that's the same chapter. Surah 2:79, right? Jake says this is saying that the Torah has been corrupted. That's what the verse is about. Just six verses later is Surah 2:85. That's the verse where Allah said, um, where Allah said, "Do you believe in part of the Book and not in all of it? If you only believe in parts of it, I'll send you to hell." So unless Allah is just completely mental and he forgot that he said it's corrupted six verses earlier, Jake's the one who's got a problem, uh, with contradictions here. Thank you very much for that rebuttal. We'll kick it over to we'll kick it over to Jake for his 10-minute rebuttal as well. And then just want to make sure everybody's comfortable. If you do need a Kleenex, uh, do raise your hand. We've got a Kleenex box in the room. I know that it is chilly in here. So, if you do need a Kleenex, please slip your hand up and we'll pass that uh Kleenex box to you. And then just a reminder, folks can refrain from eating in this room. Uh, water is no problem, but just want to refrain from eating in here. And then I've got the timer set for you, Jake, on your first word. And if you're watching at home, folks, do appreciate your support. Hit that like button, as it really does help get the stream out to more people. And then Sean, ready for Jake's mic? Thank you. Good to go. Check. Check. All right. Well, David, I really thought you were going to give a better response than that, honestly. But since we're in Houston, I think it's official. You are Texas barbecue chicken, my friend. Listen, David does not even understand his own argument. He does not even understand the Islamic dilemma. So, I have to explain to him what his own argument is and then explain why my response completely obliterates the Islamic dilemma. So, David focuses on three aspects: the inspiration, preservation, and authority of the previous scriptures. I'm focusing on the authority aspect. Okay? And the question that David's going to have to answer is, is the Quran merely affirming that the previous scriptures are partly authoritative for Jews and Christians, or is it affirming the entire authority of them? If you say that it's affirming the entire authority of them, then all I need to do is show one example where the Quran is mentioning that previous laws were abrogated for Jews and Christians, not just Muslims, for Jews and Christians. Okay? Now, with the demand and the dilemma, I don't know, maybe David wants to actually become a themi today. He has that option available to him. I don't think based upon his original presentation, I don't think he's interested in doing that. But he went on to say, "Oh, well, this is all about what the Jews and Christians claim that Jesus is the son of God and all these kind of things." All of that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what the reason is, but if you want to actually know, it's in the verse itself. It says because they don't accept Islam and because they don't accept what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful, meaning they do not accept the halal and haram of Islamic law, and in virtue of that, they are required to pay the jizya. Now, jizya is not part of the previous scriptures in terms of their laws and requirements. So that means that the Quran is saying that Jews and Christians are obliged to follow at least one aspect of Islamic law. What does that mean then? That the Quran is an authority over the previous scripture when it comes to legal rulings. David never answered that. All he did was tell you, well, it's oh yeah, it's because Jews and Christians said, you know,

Ezra or Jesus or the Son of God. Doesn't matter. The point is that they are being forced to adhere to one aspect of Islamic law, which means that the Quran is an authority over those previous scriptures. He mentioned, uh, Quran 3:50 about Jesus, um, making some of what the previous Jews were obliged to follow, making some of that permissible for them. And he says, "Oh, well, I don't really have a problem admitting that interpretation."

Again, what you don't understand, David, is that if you admit that according to the Quran, that Jesus is abrogating certain laws from the Torah or from the Old Testament for the Jews, then that means that the entirety of the Torah could not be followed by the Jews even at the time of Jesus, because he was already abrogating certain laws from within it. So I don't understand why you have this trouble of actually understanding my argument. Maybe it's because you don't really understand your own argument well enough.

Now, you, uh, also said that you accept abrogation in the Quran. That's fine. Then you have to explain how you don't have the same dilemma that you claim when the Quran says to follow the Quran, the entirety of it, yet it abrogates certain portions of it. So how is, how can you follow all of it while not following all of it at the same time? It just shows that your reading is ridiculous.

Um, you said that abrogation doesn't equal corruption. My argument about abrogation is not to establish the corruption of the previous scriptures. No, it's to show you that they are not fully authoritative according to the Quran. And if they're not fully authoritative, then we just bring your argument about Quran 2:85 and 10:94, where you say that these texts demand full authority. Well, full authority means that all of the laws must be upheld. You can't say that, oh, uh, some of the laws are upheld and some of them are not.

The whole context of Quran 2:85, as you rightly cited, is that the Jews were only following some laws and some parts of their books that they wanted to follow, while they were conveniently rejecting following other laws. So that means that according to your interpretation of Quran 2:85, Quran 10:94, and other places, the Jews and Christians, according to your understanding of the Quran, must follow all of the laws in their own books. But this is a question for David to answer.

Quran 10:94, you said, says that the Prophet Muhammad and Muslims, if they doubt about the revelation of the Quran, they're to go to the people of the book. And that determines that the previous scriptures are actually authorities over the Quran. Well, the question is, if we were to do that and we were to check, what would the Muslims follow? Because the laws in the Torah are not the same as the laws in the New Testament. Okay? And we understand this, even if you look at, for the example that I gave, the laws on divorce, uh, in the New Testament, most people interpret that Jesus says that you can only divorce in one case, which is for adultery. But that's not the case in, um, the Old Testament and the Law of Moses. So what are Muslims supposed to follow?

If we go and we check and we see that the Torah has one set of laws, and the Injil, or what you're claiming the Injil has, the Gospel of the New Testament has another set of laws. What are the Muslims supposed to be following according to David? Well, he's going to say, "Well, the Muslims are supposed to follow the Quran." Well, if they're supposed to follow the Quran, then how could they be checking the previous scriptures and comparing it if they're not really authoritative over the Quran? So David needs to explain to us what he actually means when he says that the Quran is affirming the authority of the Torah and Injil, or the Torah and the Gospels, or New Testament, however way he wants to say it.

Um, at some point, it seems like he's actually conceding the Islamic dilemma because he says, "With the Islamic dilemma, none of what I'm presenting actually touches the Islamic dilemma." It does, David, or else you don't understand your own argument. He says that the Islamic dilemma is concerned with fundamental doctrines. So, wait, hold on a second, David. Are you saying that the Islamic dilemma is only concerned with affirming parts of the previous scripture, the ones that deal with the fundamental doctrine part, but it's not affirming all of the nitty-gritty laws? And if so, why do you never say that when you actually present the argument?

Well, it's because that's not what your argument is. Your argument is that the Jews and Christians must actually be following in totality the laws in their respective scriptures, not just some of them, because Quran 2:85 is actually explicitly refuting that. So, David, you have not actually dealt with the dilemma at all. All you did was say that, oh, well, here are the reasons why this was required. The fact that it is a requirement shows that it is the Quran deems it an authority over previous scripture regarding the laws.

And then another question is about the Injil and the Torah. Okay. You're saying that they're both authoritative. You want to say that they're authoritative for their own respective groups. The Jews have one set of laws. The Christians have another set of laws. The Muslims have another set of laws. I showed you that this is not the case because Jesus is abrogating certain laws in previous scripture. We have the dilemma showing that the Quran is actually enforcing its law upon Jews and Christians. You can't back out of that, Dave. That's one of your favorite verses of the Quran that you want people to know about. So now you have to stand by it and accept that actually, yes, you are correct. There is an aspect of Islamic law that is being required for Jews and Christians to follow. Once you admit that, that's one hole in the balloon, and the entire balloon pops.

Most of the debate usually focuses on the, uh, corruption aspect or debating over the inspiration and what the inspiration is referring to. All of that is fine, but I think the clearest thing in the Quran to deal with this is the authority aspect. And that the Quran views itself clearly as a legal authority over previous scriptures, not the other way around. And that not the entirety of the previous scriptures are still authoritative today. So David, you need to actually respond to that argument.

You said that Jake thinks that if we have different, uh, laws, that there's corruption. No, it has nothing to do with corruption. It's about the authority aspect, David. So, please, I know that you said you're Dr. David Wood, your PhD. Please track the argument. The argument is about the authority aspect, not the corruption aspect. But it has implications for that, because if you admit that the previous scriptures are merely partly authoritative according to the Quran, then we can likewise read those same passages as being partly inspired or partly preserved.

Thank you. >> Thank you very much for that rebuttal. >> Next, we're going to go into cross-examination. So, this will be a total of 50 minutes. Each speaker will have 25 minutes to cross-examine the other. We'll start with David cross-examining Jake. If you guys can take the high chairs and want to remind you folks, please do try to avoid eating up the speaker's time. So, if, um, this can get lively, so I just want to make sure that whether it be, uh, cheers or, uh, jeers, whatever it is, just want to make sure that we're not, uh, speaking over our speakers. So, I've got the timer set for 25 minutes. And this is, uh, pretty strict in terms of we would like you guys to maintain just questions when you are asking the other and then just answers when you're responding. Ready for you, gentlemen. Go ahead, David.

>> Um, yeah, I don't know exactly what you believe on, uh, some issues. I have a couple questions for clarification that, um, they'll become clear in a second. Um, so I'm assuming that do you believe that Allah's speech is an attribute?

>> Uh, what do you mean by Allah's speech? Like, like, is the speech of Allah, is that one of his attributes? I've heard them say that. I don't, I don't know if you believe that.

>> Uh, yeah, I mean, it's ambiguous whether you mean, uh, in general his ability to speak or a specific act of speech, but yes.

>> Um, do, do you believe in, like, a, like a heavenly tablet?

>> Uh, again, what do you mean by heavenly tablet?

>> Like, is there a preserved heavenly tablet that is Allah's book? They're Quran. I, I hear Muslims say that all the time, but there also Quran verses that sound like that.

>> Uh, there's a preserved tablet. Yes. Which contains the Quran.

>> Yeah.

>> Um, so it, it contains. So does it, it contains the Quran. Does it also contain other, like, does it contain the Injil and the Torah and everything or is it all?

>> Uh, so it contains all those. Um, so is that, is that in their languages? Is it like in Hebrew and Arabic or is it in some, like, heavenly language but then gets, like, translated for revelation?

>> No. Whatever the original revelation was revealed in.

>> So, so you believe the heavenly tablet is, contains, like, Arabic?

>> Yes.

>> Is that eternal?

>> No.

>> The heavenly tablet is not eternal?

>> No.

>> Okay. Interesting. Um, Allah's speech. Would you say,

>> Did you think it was?

>> Did you think we believe that?

>> I've heard Muslims say that.

>> I've never heard any Muslims say that.

>> Okay. So do you believe Allah's speech is eternal but not the heavenly tablet?

>> Uh, Allah's speech, that's why I asked you to, I'm not supposed to ask you questions, but in terms of clarifying, when we say we believe that, uh, Allah's speech is eternal, that's referring to his ability to speak, but we believe that he speaks by his will and power whenever he wills.

>> Um, so any particular act of speech is not eternal. It has a beginning in time, including the Quran. Interesting. So, do you believe, um, what do we have any access to the preserved heavenly tablet apart from what Allah reveals in books that that are that are sent down to us?

>> No.

>> So, the, so the, the books that we have are the sort of the only, uh, reflection of the heavenly tablet,

>> Uh, that we have access to.

>> Okay. Um, does Allah will the preservation of his speech?

>> Uh, in terms of what, what does speech refer to?

>> Like, I, I,

>> In general, everything.

>> Yeah.

>> Uh, on earth. No.

>> Okay. So, not on earth, but on the heavenly tablet, he wills the preservation.

>> Yes. It's preserved. Yeah.

>> So, the one we don't have access to, he wills the preservation of that. But the ones we do have access to, he doesn't will their preservation.

>> Exactly.

>> Well, that's interesting to know. So, um, one is technically useless to us, you would say, but the other one that we have, he has not willed the preservation of his earthly books.

>> Yeah. Well, that's because we don't believe in a concept that anytime that somebody is going to sit down at this table and start writing something with their own hand and claim it's from God, that they're going to be struck with lightning and killed. I mean, this is a ridiculous, uh, way to try to understand how God is preserving his, uh, word. We don't believe in that.

>> So Allah's, uh, preserving the Quran would not be sort of part of Allah's nature.

>> Uh, what do you mean by his,

>> Like, as far as you said preserving the earthly scriptures, um, is not part of Allah's will. So it's not something that, like, necessarily follows from,

>> It's not something that he has to do. So, it's his choice. Um, interesting. So, he can choose to, he can choose to protect his earthly revelations or not choose to preserve his earthly revelations.

>> Exactly. I don't see any reason why it would be required that God would have to preserve all of his earthly revelations. I don't even think you believe in that as a Christian. So the earthly revelations that we have are sort of, uh, inherently unstable reflections of the heavenly tablet, but they haven't, there, there's nothing within Allah's will that necessitates that they be preserved accurately. Uh, there's nothing within Allah's nature that requires that he preserve any scripture. He willed to preserve the Quran. He did not will to preserve the entirety of the original Torah or Injil or other revelations. So with respect to his revealed scriptures sent down, you would say his will is divided. He has willed to preserve the Quran but not the other scriptures. Correct? Okay. So why would you believe that he would will the preservation of the Quran and not the other scriptures that the Quran says it's confirming? Because the Quran is the final revelation for mankind. And it's applicable to all of mankind. Whereas the previous revelations were not. They were for specific groups of people for specific times. And that was part of God's plan. He always had it in that manner. Now, when the final revelation comes along and it's for all of mankind and all time going forward, he chooses to preserve that according to his plan. And yet in the, let me see how you would, let me see what you think about this. In, in the final revelation, he gives as one of the reasons Jews and Christians should believe in that revelation, that it's confirming ours. Wouldn't it have been good to preserve our scriptures so that they would actually line up instead of allowing ours to be corrupted so that they don't line up and then the argument doesn't work at all?

>> Well, I don't really understand how this relates to the, uh, Islamic dilemma specifically. I mean, it's not really directly on the point, but I'll answer it anyway. Um, God chose, we believe that God chose not to preserve those scriptures. Now, we believe that he preserved enough of them in order for the Jews and Christians, or previous peoples who followed previous books and, uh, uh, laws that he sent down, he preserved enough to be able to point towards the truth of the Quran.

>> So, the previous scriptures, the Torah and the Gospel and whatever else Allah has revealed, they kind of, uh, they have like an, like an expiration date, like milk, right?

>> I don't know what you mean by that. Well, they, they, you said they're just revealed for a certain place, for certain group at a certain time, and that they're, you know, they,

>> Yeah, that's what, that's what his plan was. That for specific groups of people, he revealed certain laws. You even agreed with that when you were citing, uh, Quran 5:48. I don't agree with your interpretation of that, but yes, he revealed certain revelations and laws for certain groups of people that was context dependent. Now, um, since these, again, since these revelations expire, then when Allah is saying in the Quran to Jews and Christians, "Hey, how are you rejecting this guy's revelations when they confirm your revelations?" And you said that you don't think that requires the preservation of the previous scriptures, but, uh, would you agree that, well, let me put it this way, if Muhammad came along and said, "Hey, look, I'm just, I'm just this guy from, you know, from Arabia and I'm receiving revelations and they actually line up. They actually line up with your revelations on all these, on all these fundamental doctrines and stories. Isn't that amazing?" Then they could look at those and say, "Wow, that, that is amazing. This guy came out of nowhere and his revelations line up with ours." But since Allah allowed those revelations to be corrupted and there it requires picking and choosing, well, this part is real, this part is not. That wouldn't that make Allah's argument circular? Like, we have to assume that it's from Allah and then go to our scriptures, take out all the parts that don't line up, and then we say, "Wow, it's amazing that the, what's left over once we take out all the parts that the Quran doesn't line up with." It's amazing that it all lines up after we take out all the parts that don't line up. What's, what's the question?

>> Oh, so the question is, so, so one, by not preserving the previous scriptures so that they don't line up and thus requiring that we assume that the Quran is the, is the correct word of Allah, then we go to our scriptures and we ignore the conflicts because we just toss those out because he didn't, he didn't, he didn't protect those. Then we're having to start by assuming that the Quran is the word of Allah in order to go and take out the parts that disagree with it. And this is supposedly, this is supposed to convince us that the Quran is the word of Allah because it lines up with what's left after we take out all the other parts. How would that not be circular?

>> No. Well, you're not merely, uh, attempting to be convinced by the previous scriptures matching up with certain parts of the Quran. That's not the, uh, merely the argument. We believe that the prophet, I know that you don't believe this, but from our paradigm, we believe that the prophet performed miracles. We believe that he had, uh, true prophecies and many other things that confirmed the veracity of his prophethood. So it's not, it's not, oh, oh, you have to just go to this one specific part of the previous scriptures and if that doesn't convince you that you're, you're damned to hell or something like that. That's not the point. No, I mean, if, um, because this is, you're talking about what you believe, but the Quran is presenting a case to Jews and Christians. "You Jews and Christians are wrong for rejecting this book." And we say, "Okay, why should we believe in this book?" And the response is, "It confirms your book." And we look and we say, "Well, there's a bunch of, there's a bunch of things it disagrees on, like really important stuff." And you're saying, "Oh, but you're supposed to, those are those have all been corrupted." Wouldn't that require us to assume from the beginning that your book is the word of Allah and that therefore we take out the parts that don't line up?

>> No, because there, as I was just presenting, there are independent reasons from the parts that line up or don't line up, and that what you just mentioned there are independent reasons that the Quran gives, not only for Jews and Christians, but for anyone who reads it, for why it's true and why the prophet was talking about this particular argument. Hey, you should believe in him and his revelation because he's confirming your revelation. I would, I'm looking at that. I'm going, this doesn't line up with my revelation. And your response is, "Well, take out the parts that don't line up with the Quran, and then it'll match up perfectly." Wouldn't that be true of any two books in the world? If I had one book and I had another book, would, wouldn't it be true that if I took out all the parts in the first book that don't line up with the second book, then that, then they would agree? And am I supposed to say, "Wow, this must be from God."

>> Yeah. If you believed, for example, that the prophet Muhammad was prophesied in the scriptures that you have now,

>> Corrupt scriptures.

>> Yeah, exactly. If you believed that he was prophesied in there and you could actually ascertain that, that wouldn't give you any pause to say, "Oh, well, maybe there's some truth to his message and what he's saying." And when he says that these other parts of it are actually corrupted,

>> If I found prophecies about Muhammad in corrupt scriptures that I can't trust, that would convince me that Muhammad is a prophet.

>> No. In the parts that are not corrupt.

>> In the parts.

>> Yeah. Exactly.

>> So, so just, just to be clear, like, if, if I came to you, just hypothetically, if I came to you and I said, um, "Hey, Jake, I, um, I affirm your book. I confirm your book." You would assume I'm talking about the Quran, right?

>> Yeah.

>> Me? Yeah.

>> Okay. If I said, "I confirm your book and to show you that I'm a prophet, you have to, we're going to take out all these parts that I don't agree with, and what's left is going to match up with me, and therefore you should believe that I'm a prophet." That's what the, that's what the argument of the Quran looks like to me for us. Would you be at all persuaded by that? It's like, uh, if I, of course, I don't believe I'm a prophet, but if I were to, or somebody in the modern day were to do something, either, um, uh, make a prophetic claim that you, you thought there was really no possibility that they would know that this was going to happen, or they performed some type of miracle or something like that, right? And they were doing these kind of things. And in addition to that, you, you, they made a claim directly to you that said, "I am actually prophesied in your book. Here's where it is." And they explain to you what it is. And then they say, "But by the way, these other parts of your book are corrupted and are wrong." I don't see any problem with that whatsoever because you would have independent reasons for believing what the person is saying, and he would be pointing to you the, to the parts that actually are confirmed in the Quran. And therefore, you're rejecting the other parts. If we're, if we're thinking of, so if we're thinking about actual doctrines and we look at, so if Muhammad comes along and he says, "Hey Christians, I affirm your gospel." And we go to the gospel and we see that Jesus is affirmed as the Son of God by the Father, by the Holy Spirit, by Jesus himself, by the angel Gabriel, by John the Baptist, by his apostles, by Martha, by the Roman soldiers, and even by demons as he's casting them out, and they're calling him the Son of God. And even his, even the people who rejected him, they still said that he was claiming to be the Son of God, and they're mocking him for it. And we see that all over the gospel that we have. And Muhammad comes along and says, "That's the worst possible sin." Where would, how, how are we getting that? Oh, this really is confirming our scriptures, and we should believe in him because he's confirming our scriptures. We don't have a problem with, uh, saying that it could be very possible that, uh, God was a father and had that name in previous scripture, and that Jesus and even others besides him could have been called sons of God. That in and of itself is not problematic. So something can be totally acceptable in one book of Allah and then the worst possible sin in another book.

>> Uh, exactly, when that word has a different meaning in a different context. For example, uh, we believe as the Quran, uh, says, even in its story about Adam, peace be upon him, um, and, um, the Shaitan, or El, was supposed to, uh, bow before Adam, and we don't believe that that is an act of, uh, shirk or worshiping, because God commanded it, and it was okay in that context. However, in the current Islamic paradigm, it is not permissible to go before someone and start bowing down before them because of that. And the reason is because throughout human history, that act has now become associated with worship and could have the wrong context. So in the same way, the term son could have a specific meaning at a particular point in time and there could be no problem with it. But then when the Christians come along and start using certain doctrines like found in the Nicene Creed, that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and this kind of thing, well, now it has a different connotation and different meaning. So to remove the possible confusion or errors from that, this language is no longer permissible to be used. So in, in, basically, you're saying for first-century, uh, Christians, you wouldn't have a problem with them calling Jesus the Son of God, properly understood.

>> Correct. And Islamic scholars discuss this. And, uh, it's surprising to me, although maybe Muslims haven't actually explained it or clarified it well enough, but it's surprising to me that people like you or other people who have been debating Muslims for such a long time don't actually know this. It's found all throughout our sources. I, I happen to find it very interesting that, uh, you would acknowledge that, um, Satan bowing down to a man would ordinarily be shirk, but Allah commanded it, and therefore it's okay. And therefore, if Allah says it's okay to call him Father and Jesus, uh, the Son, that it would be, no, I've heard that, I've heard that, I've heard people refer to, are those the fatherites?

>> You heard, heard what, sorry?

>> Um, I've heard people say those things. I didn't know it was, uh, like standard. So, were those, are those called the fatherites? I'm not familiar with the term. The people that say that it's okay for God to be a father in previous revelations.

>> I don't know anything about that term, but, uh, yeah, this is, this is standard doctrine. You can see Ibn Taymiyyah discusses this extensively. Classical Islamic scholars, this isn't like something that Jake came up with because David Wood or God Logic came along and said, "Oh, our book says that God is a father all over the place and Jesus is a son, or even besides him, there are other sons of God, and the Quran says this is so terrible." So how do you deal with this? And then we just came up with this ad hoc. No, classical scholars have discussed this. And this is, I, I use the example of making sajdah, or prostrating to an individual, which is also discussed that there are certain acts or statements that could have a particular meaning in a certain point in time, like the term gay, right? I mean, I don't want to go too far with it, but the term gay, or other, even English words, could have a certain meaning in a certain context and now could be used vastly differently when somebody says it, that now if you called somebody that who doesn't ascribe to that, now they're offended. So if it's, if it was okay prior to Islam to call someone son of God, why would Surah 9:30 call on Allah to curse and destroy Jews and Christians for calling Ezra and Jesus the Son of God? Well, it's again, it's not merely in terms of the term son of God. It's the meaning that is used behind it. So Christians like you and many in the audience who believe in the Trinity, believe that Jesus being the Son of God is not merely in terms of him being a human on earth or, uh, a righteous servant of God or something like that. Yeah, you believe in that, but it's more than that. You believe the idea that he's eternally begotten of the Father. And, uh, so this is a totally different meaning which the Quran is going to negate and say, "No, you cannot actually believe in this." It's not merely about the word, it's about the meaning behind it that the individual intends.

>> What did the, what did the imaginary Jews who called Ezra the Son of Allah that we have no record of? What did they mean by calling him Son of Allah?

>> Uh, well, if you've read the, uh, exegesis from scholars, which I'm not a scholar and I don't claim to be. Uh, there are differing opinions about this, but one of them is that, uh, Ezra was an individual who actually, uh, was influential in, uh, bringing or quote unquote preserving the Torah at a time when it was potentially lost. And he was guilty of what Quran 2:79 basically says, that he, uh, corrupted the scripture when he was claiming that he was preserving it. So what do they mean when they call, but what do they mean when they call him Son of God?

>> What's that? Sorry.

>> What do they mean when they, because all it says, the only, the only criticism is,

>> They say they, they call Ezra Son of God. So it doesn't say what they mean by calling him Son of God, and we have no real record of them. It's all, it's all conjecture. But what, what do they mean by that? If it's, if it's calling for their destruction, because according to you, it's okay in certain contexts. But so this context, since it's calling for their destruction, what, what did they mean by it? Did they mean like Ezra part of the Trinity or something?

>> No. No. Uh, and also the, the other point is, you have to understand Quranic language. Just because it puts, uh, a phrase on someone's lips or, um, it portrays it as such, doesn't mean that the person even explicitly used those words. I'll give an example how Christians typically say that the Quran doesn't understand the Trinity because it believes that Mary is part of the Trinity, when there's a passage in the Quran that says, uh, portrays Jesus as saying at a later point that, "You take me and my mother as gods besides Allah." And Christians say, "Well, no, uh, we don't say that Mary is God." But that's not the point. The way that the Quran, uh, actually functions is that it doesn't need to. When it says that somebody says something or when it's portraying them as saying or believing something, it's speaking about the reality of their position. It doesn't mean that they have to explicitly be saying that Mary is God or that this person is the Son of God in this particular way. Is that their belief entails that, and it's speaking about the reality of their belief, just like when it says, "Have you seen those who take their own desire as a god besides Allah?" And in, in the context, it's clearly referring to, uh, naturalists who say that there's nothing but this life and there's no afterlife. Those people, those atheists, they don't go around and say, "Oh yeah, I believe my own desire is a god besides Allah." That's not the point. It's speaking about the reality of their belief.

>> Um, on just a little side note on, because you mentioned there they're like a hypothetical group somewhere that may have exalted the status of Ezra. Uh, in the Hadith, Muhammad says that that's going to be the accusation against Jews on the day of judgment. That, uh, Christians are going to be asked, "What did you worship?" They're going to say, "Jesus." And that, uh, Jews are going to be asked what they worship, and they say, "Ezra." So why is that sort of the blanket criticism of Jews?

>> Yeah. So, uh, if you go to, uh, the, the next verse, 9:31, which is directly connected with that, um, I would pull it up, but I don't want to waste your time. It explicitly says that the, the Jews and Christians have taken their own rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah. And do, do Christians and, uh, Jews actually go around and say that their rabbis and monks are their gods besides Allah, or their lords besides Allah? No, they don't. Again, it's speaking about what the Quran perceives as the reality of their belief. And if you look at the Hadith from the Prophet, which explains this, he was directly asked about it because some of the companions were confused. They didn't, these Christians and Jews don't take the rabbis and monks as their lords besides Allah. And he explained it. It's because they make what is halal haram, or what is permissible prohibited, and what is prohibited permissible. And when you take them and elevate them to that level of status, what is only due to God in the Quranic paradigm, then you are thereby making them lords besides Allah.

>> Um, one, uh, we're almost out of time here. Uh, did have one, one more thing I was wondering. Um, do you believe that, uh, Allah determines all human actions, or that we have, like, a libertarian free will? We can decide what to do, uh, that's not determined by God.

>> Could, could you define what you mean by libertarian free will? I know what I think it means, but what do you mean by it?

>> But it, it generally, you could, you could do otherwise than what you would do. If something, if there's some, if there's some prior cause that is causing and necessitating your action, then you wouldn't have libertarian freedom.

>> Let me just answer it this way. I believe that Allah creates our actions. I believe that, uh, everything is determined by God in the sense that from eternity, he knew that everything was going to take place and he willed for what is taking place now to happen. So if that answers your question.

>> So, so just, yeah, that was connected to what I was asking earlier, uh, because I was wondering it. So, um, as far as, uh, what we were talking about earlier, that Allah didn't will the corruption of his, I mean, he, he, he didn't will the preservation of his, his previous scriptures. If Allah is determining our actions, then you would say he willed the corruption of the previous scriptures through the people who were doing it. But he willed the preservation of the Quran through those people. So he willed the corruption of the previous scriptures.

>> I can give you a chance to respond and then we have to move over.

>> Okay. Sure. Yeah. If you mean by he willed it that he intended for that to take place and that he set up the circumstances for that to take place, and yes to both of that.

>> Thank you very much. That was an excellent cross-examination. We'll now switch it over where Jake will be cross-examining David for 25 minutes. The floor is all yours.

>> Okay, David, when you say that the Quran, uh, confirms the authority of the previous scriptures, could you define what you mean by authority?

>> Well, if a couple of senses there, but when Allah orders Jews to judge by the Torah, and when he orders Christians to judge by the Gospel, and when he says, "We have no ground to stand upon if we do not stand fast by the Torah, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to us from our Lord." And when even Muhammad is told, "Hey, if you're doubting, if, if you're in a situation where you're doubting, go to the people of the book," that sounds like these scriptures are authoritative. And when he can say to Jews, as he does in Surah 2, verse 85, "Hey, you guys are following parts but not following other parts. If you don't believe in all of it, I'm sending you to hell." That really sounds like the scriptures are authoritative to me. If you said otherwise, then I would say that Allah is a terrible communicator.

>> Okay. So just to be clear, by authority, you mean that each respective group, let's stick with the Jews for now. The Jews, when, when you say that the Quran affirms the authority of the Torah, that means that it's affirming that the entire Torah must be followed by the Jews. They must follow it entirely in all of their laws and all of its laws and all of its rulings. And if they don't, they're guilty of what Quran 2:85 is saying that they shouldn't do.

>> Um, I would, I would, if since we're talking about what the Quran is saying, I would have to allow that the Quran is saying sort of whatever the, um, current ruling is. In other words, I say that, that I would say that the Quran is authoritative for Muslims according to the Quran. That would, that would allow abregated verses and so on.

>> I'm speaking about the Jews. What is the Quran intending that the Jews do? Do they have to follow the entirety of their Torah, and they should not follow the Injil, and they should not follow the Quran?

>> They definitely have to follow all of the Torah unless they decide to convert to Islam and sort of become part of a different group.

>> I understand. But when I, I'm trying to drill down on what you mean by authority when you say that the Quran is affirming the authority of the Torah for the Jews. That's kind, that's kind of a question for you. If Allah says, "Hey, judge your argument."

>> It's your argument.

>> Yeah, but you're saying, you're saying Allah says judge by that book, and you better, and you better believe in all of it.

>> It means what do you believe it means?

>> It really sounds like he's saying you have to believe in all of it and you have to follow.

>> Believe in all of it. There you go. Believe in all of it means follow all of it. Correct. If you have like, if there was something because again, we're, we're looking at a Quranic perspective where Allah can tell you one to do one thing one day, and he can tell you something else two weeks later, and you're supposed to follow the most recent one. You still say the Quran, you still say, yeah, you, I'm saying if, if it's Allah saying it about the Jews, it seems like he would have the same perspective of the Jews. If, if he's the one who is revealing the Torah, and he's the one who revealed the Gospel, and he's the one who revealed the Quran, and even within the Quran, even though it's very short, he can say one thing one day and say something else later, and then say, I would still say that's authoritative. You would have to look at it and say, what, what exactly is, you'd have to believe in all of it, but you would, if there was some conflict, look for the most recent one. I'm assuming that's what it's saying. If it's saying something different, then it, it just seems incoherent. Okay. So, the Quran for the Jews, because it's clear to me, it's clear that this is the problem why you didn't understand my argument, because you don't have a clear position. You don't even know what, that doesn't have a clear position according to you.

>> You, no, no, no. You don't know what you mean when you say that the Quran affirms the authority of the Torah for the Jew.

>> Tells you if he tells if he tells Jews that they have to believe in all of it,

>> And they have to judge by it. He says judge by it. Do they have to follow all of the laws in the Torah and not follow laws outside of it?

>> If he says believe in all of it,

>> It's a yes or no.

>> No. It, it, it's like saying it with the Quran. Do you have to follow all of the Quran? You'd say no, right?

>> I went over that before in my opening statement.

>> Do you have to follow all of the Quran?

>> No, because there are aspects that are abrogated.

>> Okay. I'm saying if you're talking about what Allah's perspective is, I'd be fine with applying that to his meaning. Jews would have to believe in all of the Torah, but it would allow that. Okay, there's a ruling here that was abrogated by this later ruling. And so, you have to follow everything in its context. And therefore, okay, go with this one. I would, I would completely allow that. And if you say it's not saying that, then the Quran is just incoherent. It's telling Jews to judge by a book, and he doesn't say what he means. And he says, uh, "You have to believe in all of it," but he doesn't clarify anything beyond that.

>> Okay. So, that means that, that you're saying that according to the Quran, the Torah is only partly authoritative for the Jews, because they are not supposed to be following, Torah is authoritative.

>> The, is the entire Torah supposed to be followed or only parts of it?

>> You're, you're, you're conflating. Can you follow everything in here? If one, if one thing abrogates it, according to Islamic,

>> That's what it means to follow. Can you follow two contradictory laws?

>> You follow, you follow the book. I, you're, this is really weird. You're basically blasting Allah for saying, "Hey, you have to judge, you have to follow all of that. You have to, you, you have to believe in all of that book. You have to judge by it. You have to follow it." And you're going, "Well, what does he mean by follow that?" That's

>> Your argument. Your argument is that the Quran affirms the inspiration, preservation, and authority of the Torah and the Gospels. Torah. And let me finish. Let me finish. I'm getting, I'm getting to the question here. I'm getting to the question.

>> But you, as is being demonstrated now for the past five minutes, you don't even understand what you mean when you say that the Quran affirms the authority. I asked you, is it affirming that the Jews must follow all of the laws in the Torah today or only some of them? It's a simple one or the other. You got a serious issue here. I'm, I'm going to break it down for you. If, um, if you said, if you, Jake, said, "Follow everything that person says. He's your judge. What he says, judge by that. And you have to believe in everything he says." And he then gave you two conflicting things and he then gave two conflicting rulings or something like that, and you say, and, and I say, "Hey, you just said he's authoritative. He's authoritative." And you say, "Well, what do you mean by authoritative? You can't follow everything he said because he said different things." That would be a problem for the person who's saying, "Follow everything, believe in everything that guy says and follow him, right?" That'd be a problem for that.

>> But, yeah, but a better interpretation would be he doesn't really mean that you are actually supposed to be following.

>> Now you're now you're contradicting Allah. No, no, no. What I'm showing is that the verses of the Quran that I presented are clear in what they're intending and what they're meaning, which then have implications. I'm waiting for the explanation. Let me finish. Which then have implications for the verses that you are misinterpreting. You're saying that Allah is just, it foolishly, or whoever you believe wrote the Quran is just foolishly contradicting himself. No, a better interpretation is that what he actually means in context is not what you're claiming he means. So what he says, everything God said, you're supposed to be questioning me here, not not giving a monologue. Um, if Allah says in the Quran, "Hey Jews, you're following parts of your book and you're not following other parts. Do you just believe in parts and not in all of it? If you only believe in parts and not in all of it, I'll send you to hell." As far as I can tell, that is the clearest verse in the Quran. If you then come along and say, "Well, he doesn't mean that contextually, he means only believe in parts." Then you're saying, then any verse of the Quran, pick what you want, you could say Allah means the exact opposite of what he says. And this is from a God who brags throughout the Quran about being clear. I mean, just imagine I came to Muslims. I said, "Muslims, you have to, do you only believe in parts of your book, not the verses that are related to the Islamic dilemma?" Huh? Do you only believe in parts? What does Allah say about people who believe in parts? He's going to, he's going to send you to hell unless you believe in all of it. If you somehow interpreted that as, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, he's just saying believe in parts." I don't know what communication is anymore. And I don't trust your God at all. If he can say, "I'll send you to hell if you do this," and you say, "Yeah, that's, he's telling you to do it. He's telling you you better do it." Then don't tell me anything about shirk or anything about Jesus in the Quran or anything else, because your God just cannot say what he means. If he blurts, if he constantly means one thing, but he blurts out the exact opposite, then he's got some sort of cosmic Tourette syndrome, and that is not something we can trust, especially as the final revelation that we're all supposed to judge by. Here's the final book. You all have to judge by it. Allah can't, can't say what he means. He constantly says things that contradict him, but you'll get Jake there to tell you that when he says, "I'll send you to hell if you only believe in parts and not all of it," what he really means is only believe in parts. Um, weird stuff. So, what Jake is telling us is we don't believe what Allah says there. We believe what he says. And what did he say about going to a man instead of Allah? He said that would be worshiping him. So, if you agree with Jake, now I want all you to be aware you are worshiping Jake and guilty of shirk.

>> Okay, Dave, thanks for the rhetoric, but you're not really answering the question. But I'll give you an example to expose your hypocrisy. So Matthew 23:1-3 say, "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his

disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses. Therefore, whatever they tell you, do and comply with it all, but do not do as they do. For they say things and do not do them."

So, it's making a distinction between what they say and what the laws actually are according to the Pharisees and their hypocrisy and not following what they're supposed to. Now, according to Jesus, is in this passage here, is he affirming everything that the Pharisees believed in regarding their laws when he says, "Whatever they tell you, do and comply with it all."

Dave, >> um, as far as them sitting in Moses seat, I would say them giving the rulings of Moses and saying, "Therefore, you need to." Yeah, you you do need to when they're giving you the rulings of Moses, then you would need to do that. If they're just if you're just saying anything any of these guys say about anything they do, that wouldn't fit. >> Says whatever they do, comply with it all >> in Moses seat. >> Yeah. So, all of the legal rulings of Moses, are they still valid according to Jesus at that time? >> The rulings of Moses? Yeah, >> at that time sure >> all of them. There's no difference in the legal rulings of Moses and Jesus. >> The the Pharisees would have been giving the ruling like if you're saying >> what about dietary restrictions? >> What about them? >> Were the dietary restrictions of the Pharisees the same for Jesus and his followers at that time and you today? >> This is a message for David Wood. >> Nope. >> Isn't it? He's talk he's talking to He's talking to first century Jews. >> He's talking to first century Jews. >> He's talking to first century Jews there >> are supposed to be doing what? >> Do you think Jesus is telling me to obey the the the Pharisees right there? >> He says therefore >> he says to who? >> Jesus spoke to the crowds. >> The crowds was >> Were they all Jews? >> Were they all Jews in the crowd? >> The crowd there in Israel. Yeah, >> they were all Jews. There were no non-Jews in the crowd. Dude, I don't. >> So, you believe that the Jews today are supposed to be following the dietary restrictions of Moses? >> If if they were to reject the new covenant, what what else would you follow? >> This is Jesus. >> Jesus is talking to his followers. Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, >> "What what does this have to do?" >> It's my turn. that Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees, hold on, the scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses. Therefore, whatever they tell you, do and comply with it all."

So, the Pharisees the Pharisees had certain dietary restrictions. Was Jesus saying to the crowd to follow the dietary restrictions of the Pharisees? If if as far as they're telling first century Jews what the Torah says, then yeah, that's what they follow >> at that at that time. Dude, what? What? >> It's simple. Do you believe that the Jews at the time of Jesus were supposed to follow the dietary restrictions at his time going forward or not? >> Yeah, sure >> you do. You do. >> If you're a first century Jew, yeah, you should be following kosher dietary restrictions and >> and going forward until now. Jews today should follow kosher dietary restrictions. >> He was talking to the crowds. >> Yeah. What you said were Jews. >> He was talking to first century >> and I'm saying the typical Christian position. >> What dude? What are you talk? We're talking about the Islamic dilemma and you're asking about Jews today following >> because I'm showing you that you are a hypocrite when it comes to your Bible. You don't actually believe although you're affirming an absurd position and making yourself look ridiculous. You're God. You are what Paul says is a Judaizer, my friend. You are becoming a Judaizer in light of the Islamic. >> I didn't say anything about the new covenant which was >> this is related to the new covenant. Jesus is speaking to potential Christian. >> Really? This is after his death and resurrection. >> What do you What do you What do you This is in Matthew 23. >> Wait. So this is this is after Jesus says, "This is my blood of the new covenant." It was after that. Matthew 23. >> So before he said this is the new covenant in my blood before >> Oh, so this is time bound then. This is time bound. This means Oh, wait, wait, wait. So when he said when he said you don't know that you don't know that time, you don't know that covenants are time bound in the Bible. >> Oh, so that's what the Muslim position is that those laws are time bound. Meaning the Jews are not required to follow the dietary restrictions. Oh, they they they just believe in So they can just believe in parts and follow parts. According to surah 2:85, >> just like according to Matthew 23, they have to follow all of it. >> When Allah says when Allah says, if you only believe in parts and not all of it, I will send you to hell. >> And you're saying that's fine. >> Means what? >> You're saying that's fine. You're saying that's fine because you're saying that the Jews today don't need to follow all of it. This is Muhammad in 7th century Arabia >> saying to Jews that Allah will send them to hell for not following all of the Torah >> and it's referring to a specific law in that context which mentions in the specific law specific law. >> Yeah. You want to read it? >> I've I've read it. >> I do want to try to stick to the format of asking questions. >> Yeah. Uh yeah. This is this >> I'm going to read it. I'm going to read what it says. 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 it tells you what they're doing and what was forbidden to them which they were making permissible. That's the context. >> Yeah. And then >> so you want to strip it from the context. The criticism is if you're following parts of the Torah and not other parts that it seems like you only believe in parts and not in other parts. And what is Allah's criticism? Do you believe in part and do you believe in part and disbelieve in part? If you only believe in parts, he says he will send you to hell. So you're saying this is this is him saying, "Oh yeah, yeah, you're he is only requiring you to believe in the part that he mentioned, but other than that, you can reject all the rest. You can reject all the other parts." You're saying that as he says, "If you only believe in parts and not in all of it, I'll send you to hell." He's really saying, "Guys, I just mean you should believe in these particular parts." That's when in context when you're asking me a question which you're not supposed to do but when you're saying in the context he explicitly >> David he explicitly says in context the specific law that the Jews are not following. That's the context. >> He mentions he mentions he mentions different things because you for for for context everyone you had uh three Jewish tribes and two of them were aligned with one Arab tribe and another was aligned with another Arab tribe and so the Jews would be on opposite sides of fighting and Allah says wait a minute you're you're uh you're you're allowing people to be taken captive but you're rancing on them so you're following part you're not following other part but then the criticism because of their behavior is do you only believe in part of the book and not in all of it if you only believe in part I will send you to hell. And he's saying that what Allah is really saying there is only believe in parts. And again, if you want to say that's what Allah means, I have no problem with it. Do not ever, ever, ever expect me to take anything in the Quran seriously. Allah can say I'll send you to hell if you do this. And by when I say I'll send you to hell for it, I mean I really want you to do it.

Okay, David, I want to ask you about the vimi dilemma. It says in Quran 9:29, "Fight against those who do not believe in Allah or in the last day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and his messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth Islam from those who were given the scripture fight until they give the Jizia willingly while they are humbled."

So is this verse requiring that Jews and Christians, the people of the book must pay the Jiza? Uh Jews and Christians. >> Yeah, Jews and Christians were >> So Jews and Christians must pay the Jiza according to Quran 9:29. Correct. >> Jews and Christians. Yeah. According to that according to the whole passage because uh Jews supposedly say Ezra is the son of >> Are they supposed to say >> if if you can if Muslims are in a position to violently subjugate them, you're supposed to subjugate them because we >> So they're required to pay the required to pay the Jiza. >> If you subjugate them, what are you talking about? I'm not required to pay you Jiza. >> I'm saying that according to the Quran, it's requiring you to pay Jiza. >> The command is to fight them. That would be when you're able to fight and subjugate them. Yes. According to you guys are supposed to violently subjugate the world. >> Yeah. So the Jiza would be required to be paid. Is that part of the Torah or the Injeal? >> That's part of Islam because we are not following our script. That's the condemnation of Jews and Christians. We don't follow it. That's 566. That's 568. We refuse to follow our scriptures and we go around your scriptures. >> What are you talking about? Is it a part of you punishing us and keeping us? My goodness. Read the passage for once in your life. Surah 9 to the scriptures. Ask me. Let me ask you. Let me answer. You're not answering. Surah 9 verse 29 says this, right? Next verse. The the why why are we why do we have to be subjugated and pay the jiza? Next verse. Jews call Ezra the son of Allah. Christians call Jesus the son of Allah. Verse verse after that verse after that we take our uh our priests and our rabbis as lords apart from Allah. Then it goes on to say that by the things we say by the things we preach we're extinguishing the light of Allah but Allah will not allow. We're committing the worst possible sin that it's it's it's accusing us of sherk. We're all guilty of sherk. And because we refuse to stop committing sherk, Allah has to protect his light. So he sent Muhammad required to be paid according to your scriptures. >> No, it's a law. It's not your law. So it is is jiz part of Islamic law. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So part of Islamic law according to the Quran is an authority over you and is being forced upon you. Correct, >> dude. That's the penalty for us not following our our book. It's going to >> answer the question. Yes or no, >> dude. I This This is >> It's hard on you. I know. It's hard on the musher. >> It's not It's hard to It's hard to fathom what in the name of common sense you're talking about. You can't understand these guys. I want to give him I want to give David a chance. >> Allah Allah says Jews and Christians refuse to follow their book. We've we've told them over and over again, follow their book. Instead, they're preaching all this stuff. They refuse to go back to their book. Therefore, you know what? We can't let them continue. Subjugate them. And he says, "Well, paying the Jiza, which is being imposed on you for not following your book, that wasn't part of your law, so you're required to follow this." >> Yeah, there there are David, there are things in this world. If I go kill someone right now, I'm going to be punished. David, how could Islamic law how could Islamic law be forced upon Jews and Christians according to the Quran when you believe that the Quran is saying that their laws are authority for them and that's what they're supposed to follow? They refuse to follow and they're refused to follow our law and they're not supposed to according to the Quran we not supposed I know it's hard on you and they're not supposed to follow Islamic law but this is requiring you to follow Islamic law >> if you subjugate us oh my goodness what I don't even know >> exactly it's saying you're forced to obey Islamic law and you're saying according to Islamic law >> that's just that's just forcing that's just forcing that's just forcing us to become >> according to Islamic Let me answer if I didn't finish the question. According to the Islamic dilemma, the authority aspect means that the Quran is not a legal authority over the Jews and Christians. >> I do need this in a form of a question though, Jake. >> Yeah, I am going to ask a question. But no, you you're the one monologuing. The point is you're saying that the authority is actually >> I need questions though instead of points. I have to press you on this. >> Yeah, let me break this down. Muhammad comes along. He's the prophet. You've got all these Jews and Christians. >> What are you answering, Dave? >> You've got all what you just said. It wasn't a question. >> Yeah, cuz you didn't let me finish. You didn't let me finish this. >> Let me Let me respond then since you go for five minutes without asking a question. Um, according to Islam, according to the Quran, Jews and Christians refuse to follow our scriptures. We refuse, we refuse, we refuse. Uh, Muhammad comes along. You have to follow your scriptures. You have to follow your scriptures. You have to follow your scriptures. We refuse. We refuse. We refuse. And Allah decides this is this is too bad. They have to be subjugated because they can't go around uh spreading this stuff all over the world. He says that's that's not us following our law. Yeah. It's a punishment from a so-called prophet for refusing to obey our scriptures. He told us to go our scriptures. We refuse to go with our scriptures. Now you're monologue. Therefore, we have to monologuing, David. There >> I'm answering. >> Yeah, you're monologuing. Okay, >> I'm supposed to be asking questions. So, Jizia is a part of Islamic law. Correct. >> Simple yes or no. Is Jiza a part of Islamic law? >> Yeah. >> Okay. And Jizia, Islamic law is being enforced upon Jews and Christians. Yes or no? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So that means that the Quran is saying that it is a legal authority over Jews and Christians for requiring them to follow an aspect of Islamic law. Yes or no? >> For refusing to follow their own law. >> Yes. Any follow Islamic law. >> If a Muslim group takes over, yes, you impose Islamic law just like a group of Jews could impose Jewish law. >> Laws were an authority over the Quran and they refuse to follow them. If you refuse to follow the law, you're punished. This is what the >> So that means it's an authority over them. >> Oh, I know you're flabbergasted. >> It just has nothing to do with the Islamic off guard. >> Yes. Muslims are supposed to subjugate the entire world. I guess that doesn't mean you're going what he says in the Quran. >> I know you're going to rhetoric now because you're you're busted. You're completely busted. Everybody can see it on your face. >> We do need questions during the cross examination. >> What's that? >> We need questions. >> I thought it was done. Oh, you've got >> How much we got? >> We're running out of time. But >> again, Dave, Islamic law requires Jiza, correct? >> Yep. >> And your books don't. >> Nope. >> So that means our laws are being imposed on you, right? >> Yeah. Your laws, if you subjugate us, would be imposed on us. Yeah. >> Thank you. Good. >> We are at time. >> Thank you very much, gentlemen, for that crossexamination. We will be switching into the 8m minute rebuttals and uh the first minute rebuttal will or first 8minute rebuttal will be from David and then if you guys can uh if you can observe silence as David gets ready for his 8m minute rebuttal. And if you're watching at home, please don't forget to hit that like button as well as check out our guest links in the description box. Did you want to use your slides by the way for the screen? Okay, ready for you. All right, going back to uh rebuttals from earlier. Um surah 9:29 says Jews and Christians don't follow laws about uh says that uh we don't follow the laws about halal and haram. Um the Quran says repeatedly says we're not following the Torah and the gospel. Again surah 5 vers 66 surah 5:68 we're told we have to follow this. And the Quran's view, the Quran's view of what it's doing is enforcing um a punishment of Allah on people who refuse to to uh obey their books, which is very weird because apparently we're not supposed to obey our books. So what are we being punished for here? We're we're Our books are corrupted. Our books are corrupted, but we're not following corrupt books. So we have to be violently subjugated for not following corrupt books. Strange uh strange teaching. Um, Jake says, "If I admit that rules of the Torah wouldn't be followed after Jesus, then I'm uh admitting that not everything in the Torah is authoritative." I'm talking about what Islam teaches. Um, and they actually taught you could you would be part of you be part of the Jews. You'd be part of the Jews. You could actually convert. So, there was a there was a Jew who converted to Islam in Medina, Abdullah bin Salam. And when he converted then he still followed kosher dietary restrictions. So he didn't eat camel and he didn't eat rabbit and so on. And they actually said what are you doing? You need to become a full Muslim part of a different group. Now so just to be clear when we're talking about the Islamic dilemma again this is surah 5:48. Allah gave a different law to different people to keep them different different groups. This wouldn't be fundamentally different doctrines about God or the nature of God or things like that. wouldn't be different stories, but he can say, "Hey, here are the dietary restrictions for you. Ours are the dietary restrictions of this other group are a little different. Those those things would be completely normal." And again, they're even normal within the context of the Quran. Allah can tell you one thing one time and something else. The Quran is still authoritative. Um, what you have uh as far as Christianity is concerned, you have different covenants. You've got a you got a series of covenants in the Bible. The word testament, your old testament, new testament. Testament means covenant. You have a series of covenants in the Bible. You have a covenant with Abraham. You have a covenant with uh Moses and the children of Israel. Then you have even in the Old Testament, you're told a new covenant is coming. And so Jesus brings the new covenant. And then Muhammad believes that he's uh uh an extra stage beyond that. But didn't work out very well. Um, as far as the Quran containing abrogating uh abregated rulings, if I mean, if Jake seriously thinks the idea that the Quran has one ruling, you can drink as long as you sober up before prayer. Um, versus you're not allowed to drink at all. He would have a problem with saying that the all of the Quran should be followed. Um, I would just say it depends on it depends on what you mean. You have to follow all of the Quran and if something is abregating something else, then obviously you take that into context. Not sure what in the name of common sense that would have to do with corruption, right? If you wanted to say, "Hey, this ruling abregates that ruling and therefore you can't follow both of them." Well, guess what? If you were to say that about the Torah, that this ruling um came later or something like that, if you wanted to say that and therefore you can't follow all of it, okay, that makes perfect sense. That does not affect the Islamic dilemma at all. You could take that meaning of authority and just say the book is authoritative. There are rulings that were cancelled or abregated by later rulings or or a later messenger or something like that. That doesn't affect the Islamic dilemma. You need massive corruption of basic doctrines for the Quran's view of the previous scriptures to be correct. You need massive corruption of fundamental doctrines for the Quran's view of the previous scriptures to be correct. And he's saying, well, if you say, "You know, authority, authority, well, can you follow all of it?" Completely irrelevant. I could grant any meaning you want of authority as far as the book being preserved. The book's been preserved. Guess what? The book does not line up with Islam. The book contradicts Islam on fundamental doctrines uh multiple stories and so on. So take whatever you want if you want if you want to say if you want to go with a law and he says if you only believe in parts and not in all of it I'll send you to hell. Even if you want to interpret that along the lines of well you can't follow all of it because you got some different rulings here. Fine as long as you're not saying that involves the corruption of the text. Again even in Islam you have this ruling abregates that. You don't say that the verse that says you can drink as long as you sober up before prayer. You don't say it's been corrupted. You just say it wouldn't apply. Okay, you can just say that. Say that about any of the revelations does not change the Islamic dilemma. You can modify the the uh doctrine of authority. Um, you need to show that the Quran is affirming corruption. Never does. Again, as I pointed out in my opening statement, harshest language the harshest language the Quran uses of any book is used of the Quran itself. Said it was shredded. What's that mean? Apparently means that people believe in parts and don't believe in other parts of the Quran. The exact same condemnation that Allah gives against the Jews. They're only believing in parts. Um, but I guess if you think that means it's okay to just believe in parts and not in all of it, then I guess Muslims are out of trouble because they can just believe in the parts of the Quran that they like. Um Jake says uh Jake asked how could Muslims obey surah 10 verse 94 since the laws don't line up right that's the Islamic dilemma right it's saying go to that go to those guys with that book and you're going to see that it matches yours up we go and it doesn't match up right that's the problem that's the problem now if you wanted some wiggle room and you wanted to say, "Well, it doesn't mean like in every detail. We can have different dietary restrictions and so on." Fine. It's still putting their book as some sort of authority that's supposed to line up on yours. So, if you want to say dietary restrictions or, you know, differences like that are fine. Okay, cool. The books are supposed to line up. The books of the people of the book are supposed to line up. And that's the only way Muhammad could confirm his revelations if he was to doubt. In other words, Allah says, "Hey, if you're doubting, this is what you do." He's obviously giving his best way to settle Muhammad's doubts. And what is the only way that Muhammad can know that his scriptures are really from God? If they line up with the Torah and the Gospel. As Jake pointed out, they don't. Okay, that's the Islamic dilemma. Um, he asked, "Am I saying that the Quran is only affirming the doctrines and not other things like the laws?" No. I don't know how many times I can clarify this. The Quran isn't completely clear on everything that it's confirming. It's got to affirm doctrines unless you unless you think that Allah is changing his doctrines from time to time. Changing his rulings for different groups at different times. That actually makes sense. And we have that in the Bible. We have that in the Quran. If you're saying he's changing his doctrine of what God is and things like that, he's changing those from time to time. Well, you can you can say that. I think you're going to have uh I think you're going to have some problems. Um 30 seconds. And uh then he said he he's he's speaking about uh this issue of authority, not about corruption, but that this could uh have implications for corruption. Nothing on this issue of authority. The the only all I can see on this issue of authority here is that he's saying, well, sometimes rules change over time and therefore you can't follow all of them. You wouldn't follow the earlier ones. Great. I can grant all of that. Um, but if the Quran, if the Quran is affirming the corruption of the previous scriptures and simultaneously saying, "You have to believe in all of it, not just parts." And he's commanding Jews to judge by the Torah. And he's commanding Christians to judge by the gospel. And he's saying >> we have no ground to stand upon if we don't stand fast by our scriptures. >> If he somehow means your scriptures have been corrupt and you just need to go with the Quran, um, he's not the clear communicator he claims to be. We have to wrap up. Thank you very much for that rebuttal, David. We're going to switch it over to Jake's rebuttal as well. The timer is set for you Jake on your first word. I'll start it. And then folks, we are going to have five minute closings following this and then we'll have probably an abbreviated Q&A. It'll probably be more like 20 minutes. And with that, floor is all yours, Jake. Check. Check. It's not on. It's on. Okay, good. Man, so I thought this was going to be a better debate, Dave, but really it looks like I caught you off guard because no Muslim has come with the argument that I'm bringing. That's why you didn't really know how to respond. You said in part of the discussion period that you, Jake, or anybody can modify the doctrine of authority if you want. And the reason why he's doing that now is because the arguments I presented demonstrate that his original position on the Quran affirming the authority of the previous scriptures is gone. It's busted because David has become a vimeie today. He won't admit it, but he has. And it's really strange to me how he does not understand his own argument. He didn't have to he didn't understand it, but I had to explain it to him. Now he says that in order for there to be corruption or in order to disprove the Islamic dilemma, you need to prove massive corruption on fundamental doctrines. No, I don't. I only need to show one example of corruption or one example of it not being authoritative. One hole in the balloon and the entire balloon pops. Dave, I guess you don't know how arguments actually work. You said an authority. You said you can grant any meaning. And when I was pressing you for what you mean by it with your own argument, everyone could see during the question period that you were struggling to answer the question. You don't even know what you mean by authority of the Quran affirming the authority of previous scriptures. Uh, you said as long as Jake is not proving that something is corrupted in the previous scriptures, it's fine. No, Dave, it looks like you don't understand your own Islamic dilemma. But by the end of this, I guarantee you the narrative is going to change now. Dave is going to actually change what he's been saying for 20 years about the Islamic dilemma because it's not merely about corruption or preservation. You mentioned three prongs. inspiration, preservation, and authority. I've been attacking authority. It seems like you still haven't got that down. You said that doesn't prove corruption and refute the preservation part. I didn't say that it necessarily did explicitly in that part. It refutes your claim regarding authority. And I'll explain why that's important. You said, "How could Muslims follow 1094?" Well, that's the Islamic dilemma. No, it's not. Because according to Quran 1094, are they supposed to follow all of it or merely parts of it? You're granting and you said, "Oh, well, I could grant that it means that some laws are applicable, but not all of the laws necessarily have to match up." And this is where it comes in and how it's directly related to preservation. Because if you agree with that, then that means you're modifying your claim. When you say that the Quran affirms the authority of previous scripture, that means that it's only a it's only affirming part of the authority. Not all of the laws are considered an ongoing authority. So if you can take that interpretation, then I can also take the interpretation that when you say the Quran is affirming the preservation of previous scripture, it's only affirming parts of it are preserved. So that refutes your point, Dave. It's not too hard to understand. But again, you didn't see this coming. So now you gave everybody a free Texas barbecue. Now you're saying here that uh Allah isn't clear on what he is affirming or confirming. You just said that in his statement here. He just said that Allah is not clear on what he's confirming or affirming. Well, that's the Islamic dilemma is done then because your claim is that he is clear on what he is confirming and affirming and it is the entirety of our previous scripture. Now you say you don't know what Allah is saying. Well, I'm a Muslim here. I came here to teach you today, Dave. I hope you're going to learn. Now, you say nothing on this issue of authority has implications of preservation. I just explain how it does. Because when you say that the Quran affirms the inspiration preservation and authority of previous scripture, but now you're modifying authority to mean that it's only partly authoritative, not entirely, then I can say the same thing regarding the inspiration and preservation. How much time do I have left, James? Okay, three and a half minutes. Now, going back to the dilemma, Dave, I don't know if we have seen you officially become aimi yet, but you were so flabbergasted you don't understand the argument or you realize how it completely buries you that you're trying to act for the audience as if you don't know what it means. It's very simple. You just admitted that according to Quran 9:29, it requires that Jews and Christians follow an aspect of Islamic law that is not present in their scriptures. That means according to 9:29, at least one aspect of Islamic law is authoritative over and against previous scriptures for the Jews and Christians. that contradicts your authority claim because David's picture is that the Jews are supposed to follow all of the laws in the Torah, the Christians are supposed to follow the laws in the Gospels, and the Muslims are supposed to follow the laws in the Quran. Each one is allowed to follow their own separate laws. Well, how could that be consistent in saying that each group is supposed to follow their own separate laws while at the same time the Quran is saying no, in fact, because you're not following Islamic law, therefore you have to follow this aspect of Islamic law, which is the Jiza. That's a contradiction. And David will say, "Yeah, that's a contradiction. That's the Islamic dilemma." No, it's showing that your ridiculous reading of the other passages is not correct. That the Quran does see itself as a legal authority over and against the previous scriptures. That's why you're demanded to pay the Jiza, David. You're demanded to pay the Jiza, which means that the Quran is forcing Islamic law on the Jews and Christians, at least in one respect. But your claim is that the Quran doesn't do that when it affirms the authority of the laws of previous scriptures and allows Jews and Christians to fully abide and obey them. That's the contradiction, Dave. And I gave other examples of the Sabbath and the direction of prayer being changed and dietary restrictions. All of that is showing that your authority claim is busted. Therefore, it's only a part partly authoritative and the previous scriptures according to the Quran are also only partly inspired and partly preserved. How much time James? >> You have 50. You have 40. You have 50 seconds. >> Yeah. So, I want David to come up here and explain to me how Quran 9:29 is not an enforcement of Islamic law upon Jews and Christians. And if it is, how does that not refute his claim that they are fully authoritative for them and that they are not required to follow Islamic law in any respect? Quran 9:29 proves that they are required to follow Islamic law. We're waiting for your answer, Dave.

Thank you very much for that final rebuttal. We are going to go into the five minute closings. These will be brief. Each speaker has Each speaker will have five minutes to draw together the threads from this debate and then we'll have that abbreviated Q&A. So that Q&A like I mentioned instead of 30 minutes it'll probably be more like 20 minutes and maybe even as short as 10 minutes as we do want to keep on schedule. So, if you have a question, we will have during the Q&A folks form a line kind of hugging this side of the room here. All right, the floor is all yours, David. Well, Jake just destroyed Islam for us, and for that, we can all be thankful. Um, he actually proved that the Quran has been corrupted. We'll see how in a second. Uh, as for 929, I have no idea where he's getting the idea that I've never said that Jews and Christians would be required to to pay Jizian an Islamic state. They've only been saying that for years. Somehow, he thinks that's a problem for the Islamic dilemma. The claim that the Quran affirms the inspiration, preservation, and authority of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. All you'd have to do is add on if Jews and Christians refuse to follow their scriptures and you're in an Islamic state, they're going to be they're going to stop you from going around and preaching your message. Um, how that how that destroys the Islamic dilemma. No idea. Um, in my opening statement, I laid out my hypothesis. I said, "The author of the Quran believed that just like the Quran, the Torah and the Gospel are inspired, preserved, authoritative words of Allah." Um he the author of the Quran knew that Jews, Christians, and Muslims had some different beliefs, but he attributed these differences to Jews and Christians misinterpreting and distorting their scriptures. You could also uh put and there are some differences in the laws because Allah wanted there to be differences in the laws there. Um but he didn't attribute these differences to Jews and Christians corrupting their scriptures. And I said, sadly for the author of the Quran, these different books don't actually agree on their core doctrines and stories. But he didn't know this because he couldn't read them. He had to rely on hearsay. remember Muhammad is called the ear. Um, every time he would recite a new revelation, people would say, "These are just tales of the ancients. We've heard this before. We know who he's getting it from. He's getting it from that guy." And stuff like that. Um, so anyway, point is he didn't have access to actual uh scriptures in front of him. He couldn't read them. Now, um, Allah says repeatedly in the Quran that he confirms the previous scriptures. We went through a bunch of those verses. Um he gives Allah gives as his main argument his main reason for why Jews and Christians should accept Muhammad as a prophet and the Quran as the word of Allah that the Quran is confirming our scriptures. Uh apparently because we're not clear on the issue of authority, Allah's words there about confirming our scriptures are borderline meaningless. And so guess what? Jews and Christians have no reason apparently to accept Muhammad because his main reason is that he's affirming our scriptures and uh we don't even know what that means apparently. Um so I say that Allah confirms the inspiration, preservation, and authority of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Jake pretty much focused on challenging the issue of authority. I'm happy to modify the definition of authority because modifying it does not affect the Islamic dilemma at all. If you want to say dietary restrictions can happen, great. That's in that that's fine. Just the the Torah is the authority and so go with the final revelations in the Torah. The Quran is the if the Quran is the authority, then you would not go by abrogated verses. You'd go by the most recent ones. Fine. Does not change the Islamic dilemma. You can run the exact same argument and just saying here's exactly we'll go with Jake's meaning of authority, whatever he wants. In fact, you don't even that's how I formulate it. You can toss out the authority alto together. The debate topic is is there an Islamic dilemma. You can completely ignore the issue of authority and just say inspiration and preservation. You can run the argument with that. If the if the Bible's been pres the Torah has been preserved and the gospel has been preserved, the Islamic dilemma works. You can even just go with one verse of the B. You can just go with one verse of the Quran. You can say surah 5 verse47 Allah says Christians judge by the gospel. Okay, I'm going to judge by the gospel. What happens? I go to the gospel. I'm going to judge by that. What do I do? Well, I go to the Quran. It doesn't line up. So, I have to judge that that the that the Quran is false. Or I can reject what Allah says and not judge by the gospel, in which case I'm rejecting Allah. Either way, either way, I'm not going with Islam. You can do it with one verse. You can formulate the Islamic dilemma in a ton of different ways. So hasn't done anything to change the fact that the there is an Islamic dilemma and even going with some sort of say whatever you want about authority doesn't affect the Islamic dilemma. Um he he went on to say that the that the Quran is if the Quran is only affirming part of the authority of the previous scriptures then then he can say that that means only parts have been preserved. That's very interesting because there are parts of the Quran that aren't authoritative, the abregated verses. And therefore, according to him that we can say that parts of the Quran have not been preserved and they've been um they've uh they've been corrupted. And so what we have here um he says, "I'm saying Allah is some reason." He said, "I'm saying Allah is not clear on what he's confirming or not confirming." No, he says exactly what he's confirming. He's confirming our scriptures. I said, 'If he's not doing that, then he's just so unclear. We can't know anything he means. And if you're fine with that, if you're fine with that, fine. That's the takeaway of the Islamic dilemma would be, if Jake is right, Allah is a terrible communicator. He tells people to believe in things and judge by things that they can't. We can't trust anything Allah says. The Quran has been corrupted. Welcome to the Islamic dilemma.

With that, thank you very much for your closing, David. We have just one more speech. This is the five minute closing from Jake. And got the timer ready for you. And let me plug in. Let me get the projector going. >> I don't need to. >> Okay. >> Excellent. Then we're all right. >> You got me? >> Yes. Ready for you now. >> Wow. Guys, I made a shocking prediction and I was right. But trust me, um, go ahead, Sean. >> You good? ready. >> But I made a shocking prediction, guys. But trust me, I'm not a prophet. The prophet Muhammad was the last and final prophet which we are all required to follow today, including David. And what was that? We see, do you guys see what just happened here with David? He's telling you now, throw throw the authority part out. Why? Because he got busted on it. Oh, we can modify it or we could take a different definition or we could throw the ent entire authority part out. Why? Because I showed that your claim, first of all, you didn't even have a clear definition of authority during the cross-examination section. It was embarrassing. You're up here making an argument that the Quran is affirming the inspiration, preservation, and authority of the previous scriptures. And you don't even know what you mean when you say that. You don't even know what you mean when you say that the Quran is affirming the authority of the previous scriptures. And then when I question you on it, it's quick for you to actually crumble under the pressure under the dilemma which you crumbled under. And everyone can see now that David says, "Oh, in his closing remarks, it's all about well guys, we can modify the Islamic dilemma now. We can say you throw the authority part out or you modify it and say that the authority part is not in terms of all of the laws. This is what you don't get Dave. what how you don't understand how it has implications for the preservation and the inspiration part because the same verses that you use many of them anyway of the same verses that you use to affirm the inspiration and preservation of the previous scriptures are the same ones you use to say that the previous scriptures are constantly confirmed by the Quran. they're confirmed by it. And that confirmation is in terms of their inspiration, preservation, and authority. Well, if those verses are consistent with merely affirming that they're partly authoritative, then likewise, they would be consistent with merely being partly inspired or partly preserved. I hope you're taking notes, Dave. I don't see you typing. You should be because you haven't got the argument by this point. Okay, I know it's new for some people and that's maybe why it's going to take a while for me to keep repeating this for people to get. But I want people to notice very clearly David is warning all of you guys. Jake's argument just refuted my position on authority. We can throw that out now, guys. But don't worry, we still got the inspiration and preservation part. No, because as I said, the same verses that you use to confirm the authority when you're saying it's now partly authoritative, not all the laws need to be applied, then I can use the same interpretation that they're only partly inspired and partly preserved. So, I'm very happy that you admit that. And that's the Islamic dilemma. It's gone now. One hole in the balloon and the entire balloon pops. Now he's saying Jake proved that the Quran is not actually fully preserved because if partly authoritative necessarily means it's not fully preserved either. No Dave, it shows that you don't understand the context of the argument. that the context of the argument is when you say the previous scriptures are being fully affirmed and confirmed by the Quran and that therefore means that they're fully inspired, preserved, and authoritative. And now you have to modify it to say, "No, no, no. Those verses mean that they're only partially authoritative, not fully." Then that means I can say they're only partly inspired and partly preserved. It has no bearing on the Quran and the Quran's position of abregating certain laws in it. I'm not saying that in a vacuum proving that something is partly uh authoritative necessarily proves that something is only partly preserved in the context of the Quran. No, I'm saying in the context of your argument and the way that you use it. That's what the clear implication is. Now, I want to just give the last couple seconds here to say that I invite everybody to seriously consider the arguments presented on both sides. I hope that honest people would see that David really struggled in this debate. It's not something that he was used to, but I want to invite all of the non-Muslims to Islam. I want to thank you for coming and uh James for hosting. David for actually showing up for the debate. I mean now maybe he thinks that he should have been like some other DA guys who are running from people. I don't know. But um it's too late now Dave. We got the Texas barbecue. But thanks everybody for coming.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much for that closing. Like I said, we'll have the Q&A line up right here. We'll actually get started pretty quick. Sean, let me know when we are ready to start those questions. And then folks, I do have to mention that if you are in line for the Q&A, we can't do any follow-ups. It has to be just one quick question and out.

So even your setup, you have to try to keep it as concise as possible. Ready, Sean? It's a tremendous debate. Very thorough, very exciting. And we are ready. Oh, and then I'll also hold the mic. And also, no two questions. There's just one.

>> Uh, sorry, this is my first debate ever. Um, so you guys were talking about how Allah um will stopped willing the preservation of the uh Torah and the Gospel, but he continues to will the preservation of the Quran. Well, later Joseph Smith came to fix the corruption of other documents. How do you know that he wasn't fixing the corruption of the Quran as well and that Allah no longer wills the preservation of the Quran?

>> Is this >> seemed like it was for both of us? >> Go ahead. We'll give you each a chance. >> Sure. Sure check. >> Yeah. >> Is mine working too or go ahead. >> I think yours is on. Yours should be good, Jake. >> Okay. Check. Check. >> Yeah.

So, Joseph Smith, I mean, he was obviously a false prophet for other reasons. And I don't think that he spoke or claimed that the Quran uh was preserved or anything. He wasn't making any claims about that. He's coming from what he thinks is a Christian paradigm. So, I don't see how it has any bearing on the Quran. Um, yeah, I would I would just say that given what Jake was saying earlier, if um Allah doesn't will the preservation of his books as you know something that just flows out of his nature and he can say that one's corrupt that one's corrupt that one's corrupt something else comes along later. I don't see how you could avoid the idea that uh he decided to send the Book of Mormon and that all previous scriptures were including the Quran were corrupted. I don't know.

Apollo's Christian apologetics here. My question is for both of you, but mostly for Jake. It deals with rooting your interpretation in historical precedent, early reception history instead of hermeneutical gymnastics. Jake, you've implied that the Torah contradicts the New Testament. But during the second temple period, Jewish beliefs about Torah observance and the Messiah were far from uniform. Pharisees, Sadducees, Essens, Zealots, and everything in between. The Dead Sea Scrolls for example show some Jews expected a single conquering messiah while others expected two messiahs. Some like 11q Melkisedc even present a divine esqueological figure like Daniel Boyerin would say. Um, Isaiah 53 being messianic has roots in pre-Christian um interpretations of Isaiah 53 and the Tarum Jonathan say for example. Yeah. Yeah. So given this diversity of pre-Christian Hebrew Bible interpretations which did not uh which analogously did not exist for Christians at the time of the apostles. Um, the lack of early Muslims during Muhammad's time claiming corruption or abrogation towards the Torah and Gospels. How can the New Testament's portrayal of Jesus's teaching on divorce be called a contradiction toward Torah observance rather than one legitimate Jewish interpretation? Isn't the New Testament simply picking up one thread of interpreting the Hebrew Bible prophecy without nullifying the scripture itself?

>> Wow, dude. You got to take a breath, man. Uh, that's the problem for you because as I pointed out, the passage in Matthew 23 says that Jesus is telling the people, the crowds, which David claims they must be all Jews, but I don't think that you can definitively prove that, that all of them are being told to follow everything that the Pharisees tell you. So, we're dealing with the Pharisees. Now, if you want to say that there are different groups of Pharisees and the Pharisees may have even disagreed with one another, then that's a problem for you because according to David, they have to follow everything in what Matthew's gospel is saying. But yet, you have different groups of Pharisees disagreeing with each other. So, how do they follow everything? The obvious interpretation is that everything isn't meant to be taken so literally there. And if you can grant that, then stop having a ridiculous interpretation of the Quran. That's the point.

>> Ready? All right, this is for uh for Jake. So if >> it's a surprise, >> if the laws aren't being so if the laws of the Torah and the and the Gospel aren't being confirmed by the Quran because they're being abregated or corrected and the history, same type thing, what is left for the Quran to be confirming in these documents but doctrine?

Okay. Yeah. So the Quran is affirming a lot of things. It affirms uh the prophets for the most part from the uh Old Testament. It's affirming many stories about them. It's affirming uh the oneness of God. It's affirming that God sends prophets and that they are the ones that are being sent to actually provide guidance to mankind. It's affirming that human beings are responsible for the things that we do and we're all going to be judged accordingly on judgment day. It's affirming many things that we have in agreement with the Bible, but that doesn't mean it needs to affirm all of the nitty-gritty details.

Yeah, this question is for Jake. If a last word is perfectly preserved, why were multiple readings needed? And how can we know the original when manuscripts lack vows and dots?

>> Uh, I don't know what you meant by the first part of the question. If you could clarify, >> I think he was asking about like different uh readings. I think he said readings like different >> Different readings. What? Sorry, just repeat it. And and then he said uh and he said something about um the uh ear the original Arabic would have lacked the dots and therefore it could have been different words and so on. >> Yeah. So the Quran uh was primarily preserved not through uh text but orally. Okay. There's an oral tradition that Muslims have of preserving the Quran that was around from the beginning of the time. Then there was only a uh you know seeming need to actually fully document the entire Quran textually because many reciters of the Quran or many people that were memorizing it were there was a concern that they were going to die off and that the Quran would be somehow lost. So the primary way in which we believe that the Quran is preserved is orally the text is only um a part of it which is basically going to confirm the oral transmission.

Hey David, Jake. >> Uh, so this question is for David. So you've distinguished between acceptable legal changes like abrogation and un unacceptable large theological changes. So, how do you explain the largest theological change, which is Judaism being uncompromisingly monotheistic, worshiping one indivisible God, while Christianity introduces the Trinity? How is a shift from absolute monotheism to trinitarian theology not a far greater theological change than any legal abrogation?

>> Um, one of the uh earlier questioners actually pointed this out. It's actually um about two centuries. It's actually about two centuries after the time of Christ when rabbitic Judaism is solidified during the first century uh before the you know destruction of the temple and so on and then even before that um it was they started that's when they started talking about the two powers in heaven right and it's just because they're looking they're looking at Old Testament passages and you've got the Lord and you've got the angel of the Lord which means messenger of the Lord but the messenger of the Lord is also called Yahweh the Lord and so on. So they're looking at all these passages and then like for instance you have um God who says I'm going down to look at Sodom but then God Yahweh calls down fire from Yahweh in heaven and it was actually I mean it's Jewish commentators who said it looks like there two powers going on here but they so they didn't they didn't understand how to reconcile that said there looks like there's some sort of plurality going on here. Um, and so the the the point is in in first century Israel, it would not have been terribly out of place to say something like um in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God or even to talk about like father, son, and holy spirit or something like that that came along later and it's kind of when Judaism is setting itself apart from Christianity and making sure hey we cannot uh we cannot uh accept these doctrines.

I got a question for Jake. Um in SA 61:14 and 3:55 it it claims that Jesus and his disciples their message was going to be authoritative and supreme supreme and dominant over the unbeliever. So my question is when the in jail got corrupted did Allah fail his word? Did he did he fail his promise?

>> Yeah. So, uh, I actually mentioned that in anticipation. I thought David would actually quote those verses, which he usually does, but he didn't in his opening statement. And what I said is that um the question assumes that the disciples or true followers of Jesus becoming uppermost has something to do with their message being um the popular or the thing that's followed by most people or something like that has nothing to do with that. If you look at the exugesus of those verses of the Quran, nobody is mentioning that whatsoever. And even if you said that, it wouldn't be possible because at different times throughout Christian history, early Christian history, there were different uh groups that were the majority. And even the church fathers admit that the Aryans, not the uh trinitarians, were actually the majority for large parts of early Christian history. So, how could you? It would be contradictory if the Aryans were at one point were the majority and now the Trinitarians are and before that there could have been another group and you had the Ebianites and all these different groups. It it it's obviously not talking about in terms of earthly uh popularity and dominance. It's talking about their message being preserved, accepted, and those people being actually integrated into the community of the Muslims.

We have time for one more question. Uh, hi Jake. Uh, you brought up the Jizia uh, a lot in your arguments and we are told that the Jiza is because we Jews and Christians don't follow our scriptures. But the specific things that we are told we are condemned for are core doctrines from our scriptures such as Jesus being the son of God. How does that not fit exactly into the Islamic dilemma, which is that Allah tells us to follow our scriptures and then condemns us for believing things that are explicitly taught in our scriptures.

>> Okay, so the question assumes something that I don't agree with. The question says that the Jews and Christians are being told to actually pay the Jiza because they don't follow their scriptures. No, that's not what it says. It says, "Fight against those who do not believe in Allah or in the last day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and his messenger have made unlawful. They are being told to pay the Jiza because they reject Islam and Islamic law, not because they reject following their own previous scriptures.

With that, uh, we do have to wrap up. Just to keep somewhat on our schedule. So, please join me in giving a huge round of applause for both of our speakers.