Transcription
Daniel quoted Iban Abbas as saying, "We changed our scriptures." Now, I didn't know that Iban Abbas was a greater authority than Allah and Muhammad. Notice I'm going to Alan Muhammad. He's going to Ibn Abbas and Bartman and everyone else. Very, very strange. Why is the Christian the one quoting Allah Muhammad and the Muslim is going everywhere but Alan Muhammad? Maybe it's because Alan Muhammad agree with me as I've shown.
In a clash that shook the foundation of Islamic apologetics, two intellectual heavyweights, David Wood and Daniel Hakikachu, went head-to-head on the modern-day debate stage. One defends the words of Allah, the other tries to escape the Islamic dilemma. Verses were quoted, accusations flew, and the very words of Allah were put to the test. But did Daniel really understand the dilemma, or did David expose a fatal contradiction at the heart of Islam? Stick around because after we look at this important highlight of the debate, I'll be sharing key insights you won't hear anywhere else. Link to the full debate in the description. Welcome to Eden Reactions. Let's dive in.
[Music]
Means alteration which leads to distortion. In multiple passages, the Quran accuses Jews and Christians of engaging in of the Bible. Muslim scholars hold that this has two meanings. Tar by text alteration and by oral misinterpretation al by text alteration means the text of the Bible has been altered. For example, Christians edited the New Testament to justify the divinity of Christ by adding phrases like Jesus saying, "I and the father are one." Tarif by misinterpretation means the interpretation of scripture has been altered by Jews and Christians to justify new doctrines. So for instance, one might say that the Bible's interpretation has been twisted in meaning to justify the trinity or the infallibility of the pope. Note that the two types of aren't mutually exclusive. They both could be true. The concept of found in three the concept of tar is found in three sources. the Quran hadith in the views of the earliest Muslim scholars and views of later Muslim scholars. Muslim scholars debate whether tahar in the Quran means by oral misin interpretation or by textual alteration. This is also debated by western academics. The reason is that Quranic verses dealing with differ in some details. uh for example Quran 279 we read so woe to those who write the scripture with their own hands then say this is from Allah in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. Here the Quran describes meaning Jews and Christians fabricate scripture textually. The Quran also contains verses whereab twist scripture interpretively such as verse 378. And indeed there is among them a party who alter the scripture with their tongues. So you may think it is from the scripture but it's not from scripture. And they say this is from Allah but it's not from Allah. And they speak untruth about Allah while they know.
Christian proponents of the Islamic dilemma are so desperate to deny these verses that they claim that modern Muslims only invented this concept of biblical corruption and then back project it onto the Quran. But this is a complete and utter lie. From the earliest times, Muslim scholars asserted the Quran rejects the authenticity of the Bible due to tar by textual alteration. I'll prove this to you. First, even among Western academics who specialize in the study of the Quran, the overwhelming majority view is that the Quran teaches that the biblical text has been subjected to by text alteration. Hava Lazarus Yafa, Jewish professor and head of department for Islamic civilization at Hebrew University and the leading specialist on the Quran's view of the Bible writes, "In the Medina and suras, the accusation of forgery is a central theme. In the Quran, the accusation that Jews and Christians had falsified their scripture is a central theme. And the contradictions between the Quranic and biblical stories and the denial of both Jews and Christians that Muhammad was predicted in their holy scriptures gave rise to the Quranic accusation of the falsification of these last by Jews and Christians respectively. Charles Adams says the Quran particularly charges the Jews with having corrupted or altered their scriptures. The state of existing scholarship is summed up by Wed Salah, a leading western academic in the study of Quran and professor at the University of Toronto. He does this in the context of a 2016 review of a book written by Gordon Nickel. Nickel says or lead says uh Nickel is thus too dismissive of the position of the majority of scholars who have worked on the verses in the Quran that discuss tampering i.e. The majority view is that these verses do imply an accusation of textual tampering and not merely corruption of meaning or other lesser forms of tampering. Contrary to what Nickel suggests, the scholarly consensus is that the Quran does indeed make the charge that Jewish and Christian scriptures have been textually corrupted.
So-called Islamic dilemma is not a challenge to Orthodox Sunni Islam, but rather to the heretical sect of Quranism, which relies solely on the Quran. In Sunni Orthodox Islam, religious teachings are derived from the Quran hadith and the statements of the Salah, meaning early Muslims. Basing Islam only on the Quran is considered disbelief in Sunni Orthodoxy. Therefore, even if the Quran were ambiguous about the Bible's authenticity, hadith and commentary from the Salaf clarify the matter that the Bible has in fact been textually altered. This nullifies the Islamic dilemma entirely.
Problem two. The second problem is that the Islamic dilemma depends on what the Quran confirming the Bible means. There are two possibilities. According to Christian apologists, confirm means that the Quran validates everything in the Bible, every verse, every jot and tit. Muslims say no, the Quran only confirms the Bible in the sense of validating its most important recurring teachings. The word confirmation itself is ambiguous even in the English language. Consider this simple example. Suppose there's a murder case and the police are interrogating two witnesses, Bob and Jane. Bob testifies that a tall man in a black suit shot the victim in the stomach. Jane testifies that a tall man in a navy blue suit shot the victim in the chest. Can we say that Jane's testimony confirms Bob's testimony? If by confirm we mean that Jane agrees with everything said by Bob, then there's no confirmation. After all, Bob said that the killer had a black suit and shot the victim in the head. Whereas Jane said that the killer had a navy blue suit and shot the victim in the chest. However, if we look at the most important recurring facts, then we can say that Jane's testimony does confirm Bob's testimony. They both testify that a tall man in a dark suit shot a person in the torso.
The third problem for the Islamic dilemma is an extension of the second problem. Christian apologists claim that the Quran confirming the Bible is a total validation of every word of the Bible. But there's one verse that completely destroys this argument. It's Quran 3:50 where Jesus speaks to the Jews and says, "I, meaning Jesus, have come to confirm the truth of the Torah which preceded me and to make some things lawful to you which used to be forbidden. I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. Fear God and obey me." This verse is significant because it uses the same con construction that the Islamic dilemma people cite. Christian apologists mention every verse with but they skip this one for some reason. They conveniently skip it because it destroys their entire argument. Jesus is saying, "I confirm the Torah, but I'm going to depart from it. So obey me." So why would Jesus say that? Why would he confirm something but at the same time undermine its validity by saying he is the final authority? Isn't this a contradiction? In reality, this is the Christian version of the Islamic dilemma. And the people who first posed this dilemma were the Pharisees when they attacked Jesus. This is alluded to in Matthew 12 and John 5. The Pharisees accused Jesus of violating the Sabbath in order to discredit him. They basically said, "You claim to confirm and fulfill the law." Such as what it said in Matthew 5. You confirm that the law is valid, but you're also contradicting the law. This is a clear contradiction. Therefore, you cannot possibly be the Messiah. Today Christian apologists are following their spiritual predecessors and making literally the same exact argument against the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam. You're confirming prior scripture but also contradicting it. This disqualifies you. But in both the case of Jesus and Muhammad, there is no dilemma just as Quran 350 explains.
Um, I don't think Daniel really understands the argument very well. Uh, he says, "We're saying this in an attempt to rescue the Bible." But did did you catch the statement of the Islamic? If we have the inspired, preserved, authoritative word of God, Islam is false. If we don't have the inspired, preserved, authoritative word of God, Islam is false. Either way, Islam is false. What's the point there? Well, if the Bible is the perfect word of God, Islam is false because it contradicts the Bible. If the Bible is a giant corrupt mess, Islam is still false because Islam affirms the inspiration, preservation, and authority of our scriptures. So, attacking the Bible does not does no good unless you show that the Quran is not affirming the Bible.
So, Daniel quotes uh he he only quoted one verse, which I brought up in my opening statement. There's only one verse that even sounds like it's talking about a text. In other words, all the other passages he uh cited 5:13 and um 378 and so on. 378 is clearly talking about um misinterpreting or or misrepresenting the scripture. It says uh they distort the scriptures with their tongues, with their speech. So that's clearly talking about that. Other verses like 5:13, it's ambiguous. When it says we, you know, we distort the scriptures or we forget part of it. I'm like, is it talking about um in our interpretation or in the actual text? Well, that would be ambiguous. 279 is the only one that sounds like it's talking about a text. So, let's go ahead. And I said in my opening, what happens when you read the verses that come before it and the verses that come after it? Let's see what happens. Oh children of Isra I'll read verses that come before it. Starting at verse 40, same chapter. Oh children of Israel, call to mind my favor which I bestowed on you and be faithful to your covenant with me. I will fulfill my covenant with you and of me alone should you be afraid. And believe in what I have revealed, verifying that which is with you. And be not the first to deny it. Neither take a mean price in exchange for my communications. And do not mix up the truth with falsehood, nor hide the truth while you know it. Notice it says, "Don't hide the truth while you know it." Meaning they know. And keep up prayer and the poor rate and bow down with those who bow down. What do you enjoin men to be good and neglect your own souls while you read the book? Talking about their book. Then you get to verse 79. Woe then to those who write the book with their hands and then say this is from Allah so that they may take for it a small price. Therefore, woe to them who for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. Daniel says this is talking about uh the corruption of the Torah. So many problems, so many problems with claiming that. First, just say it. It says people write the book with their own hands and say this is from Allah. Would that mean that the Torah had been corrupted? Just just let me ask watch watch how quickly they'll their reasoning ability will click in. If I write something right now on a piece of paper and I say this is the Quran, has the Quran been corrupted? Would that change any copy of the Quran in the entire world? Suppose I wrote an entire book and corrupt and actually corrupted the Quran. Does that somehow magically corrupt the Quran around the world? No. How does everyone understand this instantly except Muslims who have they why do they go to 279? Because they have to. There's nowhere else to go in the Quran to try and argue for this. And it makes zero sense, especially when we read the Quran in context. You got verse 79. Guess what happens just six verses later? Just six verses later, I quote it where Allah condemns the Jews for only believing in parts of their book. What does he say? Do you then believe in a part of the book and disbelieve in the other? What then is the reward of those among you as uh as do this but disgrace in the life of this world? And on the day of resurrection, they shall be sent back to the most grievous chastisement. Is Daniel and telling me that Allah is insane? That's what it that's what it sounds like. If you say in verse 79, he's saying your book's been corrupted, you just have to believe in parts. And then just six verses later, he says, "If you only believe in parts and you don't believe in every word of it, I will send you to hell." In other words, if you're interpreting verse 79, which just so you know, you can go to 10 different Muslim commentaries and get 10 different interpretations of this. You have tons of them. They'll say that this refers to Jews writing blessings and then selling the blessings. Has nothing to do with the corruption of the Torah. You'll have um you'll have commentaries that say this is about them writing a false description of Muhammad to say, "Oh, no, the actual description of the prophet who's to come is totally different from from this guy Muhammad, which has nothing to do with changing the Torah." So, you have all sorts of you have all sorts of Muslim commentaries that go completely against him. Why does he just pretend that this obviously affirms the textual corruption of the Bible? Because he has to. Even if it contradicts what Allah says. six verses later doesn't care. You have to attack the Bible. But Allah just keeps going with this verse 97. Whoever is an enemy of Gabriel, for surely he revealed it to your heart by Allah's command, verifying that which is before it and a guidance and good news for the believers. So it says the angel Gabriel affirms the previous scriptures. Verse 101, and when there came to them an apostle from Allah verifying that which they have. So Muhammad verifies the scripture we have. And then verse 121 very uh important because Daniel actually quoted uh Daniel actually quoted surah 3 which talks about um people reciting reciting our book. Verse 121 refers to uh people of the book reciting the book with a correct recitation. How can you recite the book with a correct recitation if the book has been corrupted? Makes absolutely no sense. Um, Daniel quotes again ver verse 513. Read the read the subsequent verses. This is clearly talking. Put it this way. You could read that in either way. Guess what? Same thing with 5:13. You can interpret that as distortion of our interpretation or distortion of the actual text. Keep reading in surah 5. What happens when you get to verse 43? Allah tells the Jews, "You don't need to go to Muhammad. You've got the Torah." That makes no sense. If the Torah has been corrupted, you would need Muhammad to tell you which parts have been corrupted and which parts were still reliable. Few verses later, verse 47, let the people of the gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. Why are we judging by that? Shouldn't we shouldn't we need to go to the Quran to find out which parts we're supposed to believe in? And then you get to same chapter verse 68. 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." That is a strange, strange thing to say. If earlier in the book, you're saying your book's been corrupted. Very, very strange.
Daniel quoted Iban Abbas as saying, "We changed our scriptures." Now, I didn't know that Ibn Abbas was a greater authority than Allah and Muhammad. Notice I'm going to Alan Muhammad. He's going to Iban Abbas and Bartman and everyone else. Very, very strange. Why is the Christian the one quoting Allah and Muhammad and the Muslim is going everywhere but Alan Muhammad? Maybe it's because Alan Muhammad agree with me as I've shown.
Um, so again, the the the takeaway here would be every single thing the Quran accuses Jews and Christians of doing, distorting their scriptures, misinterpreting their scriptures with their tongues, with their speech, writing, going to other books and saying this is what Allah this is what Allah says when it's not what Allah says in the book. Every single thing that the Quran condemns Jews and Christians for doing, calls calls us unbelievers for doing, Daniel has done in this debate. And there isn't one of his followers on the planet who will care even slightly. I just want to point out in uh the historical background of Surah 9:31, which says that Jews and Christians take their priests and rabbis as lords. Someone objected when that was revealed and said, "What do you mean? Jews and Christians don't worship their priests and rabbis. So, how are they taking them as lords?" Muhammad said, "They do worship them. They worship them every time Allah says something and a priest or rabbi says something different and they go with the priest or rabbi." According to Muhammad, when Allah says something and you listen to a human being tell you something different and you go with what the human being says, you are worshiping the human being. So Daniel's followers right now, if they agree with him, are worshiping him. Welcome to Sherk Central.
>> What we just witnessed was a clash of foundational worldviews. But let's break it down. One, Daniel claimed the Quran only confirms the main teachings of the Bible, not every word. But that's not what the Quran says. In Surah 547, Allah commands Christians to judge by what God revealed in the gospel, not parts. If that gospel was corrupted, Allah is essentially commanding believers to follow a broken message. That's not a confirmation. That's confusion.
Two, Daniel repeatedly turned to Ibn Abbas and modern scholars to justify his position. But David's point is sharp. If Allah and Muhammad were clear, why would we need academic footnotes to interpret divine commands? The moment you elevate scholarly reinterpretations over Allah's plain words, you commit the very sin surah 9:31 warns against taking rabbis and scholars as lords besides God.
Three, the dilemma is internal, not external. Daniel tried to shift the debate to the Bible's reliability. But the Islamic dilemma isn't about whether the Bible is true or false. It's about the Quran affirming it while also contradicting it. If the Bible is true, the Quran is false. If the Bible is false, the Quran is still false for affirming it. You don't escape the dilemma by attacking Christianity. You just prove the Quran stepped into a theological minefield.
In the end, the debate didn't just reveal tension between two religions. It revealed a deep and unavoidable contradiction inside Islam's own truth claims. If you found this insightful, be sure to like, comment your thoughts, and subscribe for more bold breakdowns here on Eaten Reactions. Until next time, truth matters.
[Music]