Dismantling Islam with Jay Smith: Session 2

I've got a lot of material yet to get through. We have two hours, so we're going to go to Muhammad now. We've shut down the source material, we've shut down Mecca. Let's see what we can do with Muhammad. And as I said, just follow the evidence on the ground. What do they claim? Well, they would say, Muslims would say, that Muhammad was the first, sorry, the last, not the first and greatest Prophet, born in Mecca in 570, died in Medina 632. He modeled his Islam, received the Quran. Everything we need to know about him, we can find in the S of ibam, as I've debunked that already, and the Hadith of albari. Look at the dates, 833 and 870. Much, much too late for. Unfortunately, these references are all in the nth Century, 200 years after the fact. So, is he referred to in the sth century, in the time period he supposedly lived? Let's look at the coins. Let's look at the rocks. Why? Because the coins and the rocks are from that time period. They don't disintegrate, they don't deteriorate. The Muslims could not destroy them like they destroyed everything else. What do you think that 600,000 Akbar that even um uh albari was given, and he retained only 2%? What happened to the 98%? It was destroyed. That's why we don't have it today. Wholesale destruction of anything that did not agree with their narrative, which means all the umed dynasty material has all been destroyed. But you cannot destroy coins because they're metal, and you cannot destroy rockins because they're rock. So let's go back to those coins, and let's go back to the rocks. If we're not going to cry out, the rocks are going to cry out for us. Why are coins important? They were invented by the lydians in the 600 BC. They were used for commerce, but not just for commerce. Coins created and maintain the identity of a new ruler that comes to power. Whenever a ruler comes to power, he didn't have internet, he didn't have newspapers or television like we have today. The only thing he had at his disposal would be coins. Knowing that the coins would get in the hands of everybody there, he would then use coins to introduce himself as the new ruler. Because that, so what he would put on the coin is very important. First of all, he would put his image and his name. Now, you know that Islam does, now does not allow images, right? Yet these coins that we're going to find, look at all from the 7eventh century, all have images on them, and they all have the name of the ruler on them. And then they would write the religion, the religion that that ruler belonged to. Very important in those time that you were belong to a religious faction. They would put the date of when they were minted, and then they would also put the mint name, the name of the mint where they were created. So the problem for the numismatist is this. I started getting into this in 2020, looking at the coins, and I noticed that a lot of the numismatists, they're the experts of coins. Coins were putting the coins up there, but they were giving and they were trying to impose an Islamic narrative onto the coins, and they were having a dilemma. So I contacted them, and some of them contacted me. Odin La Fontaine was one of the major ones from Paris. He'd been working on these for 25 years, and Odin was kept on saying, Jay, every time I look at the coins, I have them in my hand. He owns these coins, he's bought them, they're in Arabic, they're from that time period, and from that place, but they didn't make any sense. I said, what didn't make any sense? I says, does it the Islamic narrative? So I will throw out the Islamic narrative. Standard narrative is from the 9th and 10th Century. Forget that, and just start from the sth century. Read what's on the coins, tell me what you find, then let's start from there, which is what every historian should do, every numismatist should do. So what he did was this. He went back to the seventh century and he started to doing all that. But unfortunately, for many of the numis betist, they don't have a chance to do that. Because if you do not use the Islamic narratives, if you do not lose the Islamic traditions, you'll be ostracized and you'll be thrown out of academia. So let's see what the numus are finding, and here's what they find. According to Islam, everything took place in those two cities there. I've finally got a pointer that works. Look at this, isn't that great? So there's Mecca, there's Medina over there. There's Mecca. There's a gentleman here, just raise your hand who has this in his truck. So be careful, don't let him, let him catch you. There you go. This man right down here with the white hat, thank you so much. This is an industrial laser. So there's Medina, there's Mecca right there. Can you see? That's where everything takes place. If that's where everything takes place, then the coin should be from there, and well as well, right? Because you have Muhammad there, you have Abu bakar, umaran, and Ali from 624 to 661. They should be making coins to announce who they are. Everybody announces who they are using coins. But here is the problem. Look where the mins are. Tartus, hims, balbec, deas, J. I'm destroying them. Forget, I will stop saying them. You can just read them on there. Notice they're all in what is today Syria and Jordan, and up in the north. Have I said that before? Today, up in theth, up in the north, up in the north. What about the eastern ones that were carryover from the assassinate period? Well, they're all in what is today, what is that Iran and Iraq. Nothing down in Mecca, Medina. Why are none of the mints further down south? Know the reason. There's just no water. If there's no water, there's no food. No food, no people. No people, no towns. No towns, no towns, no commerce. No commerce, no coins. That's why there's nothing from down there. The coins will tell you. But let's look at the coins because the coins are from the 7th Century. They are in Arabic, and they do talk about the rulers of that time in that place. And what we notice is that when Muhammad dies, there are no Islamic coins whatsoever. They don't exist at all from 632, nor from 64 42, or from 650 up until 661. We don't see anything Islamic on any of these coins. That's telling right there. Once we look at the Assassin Empire, they cease to exist. So therefore, their coins no longer are important. But what's interesting is when we look at the coins that are from the Arab area and from that time, they're all Christian. Notice that. Here's one right here. Do you see the cross? Look what the the red squares are. See the cross? There's a cross, there's a cross. And on the back side, this is front, this is back. Front, back, front, back, front, back. So you see crosses. These were all Christian rulers up until 661. Okay, certainly by the time Muya comes to power, he is a good Muslim. He starts the um kit. He's there in Damascus. He minced lots of coins. We know lots about Muya because a lot of his materials still exist today, and we can see his coins. So look at this coin. We're now 660. Muhammad died in 632. We're 30 years later. The first caleff of the umay cipit, and he minc coins. When you look at his coins, notice he is has crosses above his head. He has a fire altar on the Eastern coins. And what's interesting, he has the word mahmed. So here's a picture of Muya. This is my own coin, I own it. Now, there's a cross there. See another cross, another cross, another cross. You're looking over here, cross, cross, cross, cross. Front and back. Look at this coin here. He minced this coin in 663. That's Muya. He has a cross above his head. He has a cross behind, another cross above the M. M is 40 num, that means the denomination. But what is this written down below? Mahmed. That's Muhamad. Are you seeing that? There's the crosses. Cross, cross, cross. Muhmed. There's the name Muhmed. There's the name Muhammad. What in the world's going on? How could there be a Muhammad with a cross? That's me. That's me. Sorry, don't touch that button there. So how could Muhammad have a cross? Obviously, this is not the Muhammad of Islam, right? So who's an Arab speaker here? Do you speak Arabic? God bless you. You're going to be Abdul for me right now. Okay, Abdul. I don't know what your name is, but you're Abdul today. All right, Abdul, what does muhmed or Muhammad mean in Arabic? Aet? No. What's the word mean? Mahammad. The praised one. The praised one, or the anointed one. The word itself is not a name, it's a title. If you go up on fander Films, PF a n d e r f f i l Ms, I'm doing a whole series on the name muhmed right now. We're putting it up there every twice. I put up three videos up there, they're going viral. And what we're doing is we're tracing the name m Muhammad. Muhammad is well known, folks. We have been able to trace the word Muhammad all the way back to 1400 BC. So this cannot be the Prophet Muhammad, right? He didn't live in 1400 BC. We've traced it back to the time of David. Look at, look at Song of Solomon 5:116. For he is altogether lovely, he is altogether mhmad. There it is in Hebrew. It's the same word in Hebrew, mahmad. The the altogether lovely, the praised one, the anointed one. We're tracing it all the way up into the 4th century AD, and we're finding out that mmed, the praise, is referring to Jesus himself. In Arabic, it refers to Jesus, the praised one. Are you following this? So by the fourth Century, on the church uses it in Arabic for the name of Jesus. So who do you think that is on that coin? Jesus. Isn't this great? Just follow the coins. Now, to underline that, let's just see if this Muya really is a Christian or is a Muslim. So here is an inscription that he writes in the DI, which is at a diamond Di, and there he gives his name. Well, that's off, folks. I don't know what happened, but that got off. So that means the next one's going to be off too. When you look there, it should be right here. Mia, and there you have the the servant of God right there. And what is he? That's really off. Um, somehow between me putting it on this computer and taking off the other one, if you look right up here, it's supposed to be tur around. What do you see right up there? A cross. There's the cross, folks. He is a Christian servant of the Believers. Of what Believers? The Christians. Muya was a good Christian. They were all Christians via. There we don't find any reference to anybody called Muslim at all in the 7th Century. We don't find any reference to a religion called Islam in the 7th Century. Not one. They were all either Christians or zans or pagans. And he's called the servant of Allah, abdah. Many people say, well, that must be Islamic. Allah is the word for God in Arab. It's the god, it's generic. So the Jews use it, the Christians use it, the zians use it, even the pagans used it. There is no Allah of Islam this early, not in the 7th century. And certainly we're talking about 30 years after Muhammad by this time. So then we get to this coin here. This is the coin of Justinian II, who is the Byzantine emperor. And he has a picture of Heraclius there and his two sons on. They're holding crosses on an orb, and there's another cross on the back side. So they're obviously Christians, the Byzantine Christians, right? Well, Justinian II demands tribute from a guy named Abd al-Malik. There's Abd al-Malik here, and so he introduces this coin in 691. Notice he's got Heraclius here with his two sons, but what's missing on their orbs? The cross has been taken off. And notice the backside, the cross has been made a mockery. He's mocking the cross, he's mocking Justinian, Christianity, he's mocking the trinitarian, the trinit, the Trinity of the Byzantines. What's more, he introduces the Shahada. There is only one God, but God and the praised one is the messenger of God. So who is the praised one he's talking about here? Hold on to that. Hold on to that. Because he introduces this coin in 691. Justinian goes to war with him. He loses the battle. Abd al-Malik wins the battle, and he introduces this coin. There he is. That's Abd al-Malik with his sword, showing that he's victorious. He has a Shahada around there. He has a mockery of the Byzantine cross on the back. This is a victory coin, which rubs it in even more against the Byzantines. That's in 693. Then in 696, he introduces this coin. I own this coin. This is my coin, by the way. I had to pay for that. We're trying to tell people, buy up these coins because the Muslims now, they know what we're, how much damaging they are. They're going to buy them all and melt them down. So if you have any money, buy these coins. This is a gold soar. This year, there you see the shahada. There. What's interesting, look what's all around them. It's all attacking Jesus Christ. Say not three, for God is is one, and he has no son. That's attacking the Trinity. It's attacking the divinity of Jesus, and it's also attacking his sonship. It's against us, folks. It's against the Trinity. For those who are the associators, who do you think the associators are? The mushk. We are the associators because we supposedly elevate Jesus to the status of God, we associate him with God. This is an attack against Christianity, attack against our Lord and our Savior, putting on the coins now. At the same time that that's been brought up, I want to just go and just review it real quickly. So conclusion on these coins. All early coins show a clear Christian identity on both sides of the coin, on in the west and the zorin in the east, from 624 to 660. Early Islamic coins just do not exist. Why? Since they control so much of the land in the midst in the of Syria and Iran, they should be full of Islamic references to Muhammad, references to the shahada, references to certainly people called Muslims and a religion called Islam. Nothing whatsoever on any of those coins from 640 to 660. The Arab proxy states coins seem to be quite Christian and certainly not Islamic. During the Rashidun period, when we get to Mah, they're all using Christian symbols. He was using Christian symbols up to 680, writing mhmed while holding a cross, proving that this is a reference to Jesus. Abd al-Malik then introduces Muhammad, the Shah, and mocks Justinian II. It's possibly, some people believe, is the first Islamic coin. I would say it is not Islamic because Islam has yet to appear. You'll see that on the inscriptions. That's for not for another 40 years. 693 to 696, Justinian II attacks Abd al-Malik, loses the battle. Who then Abd al-Malik wins the battle, adds his own image and the Shahar, either to confront or to claim messiahship. By 696 to 705, the Arab script includes the shahada with no associates, attacking us, attacks Jesus' divinity, attacks John 3:16, the sonship of Jesus, and the Islam superiority, but doesn't call himself Muslims yet, nor Islam. The superiority of the non-associators. While Allah's name is introduced early, it's Naan in Arabic for God. Muhammad's is not. Doesn't the numismatic evidence support the archaeological and documentary evidence also? This suggests that Islam's anti-trinitarianism was not introduced by Muhammad, but possibly by Abd al-Malik. He is the one that introduces the anti-trinitarianism, and he does so in 696. This is nothing more than Arianism, which has been around since the 4th Century. We've had attack and attack and attack all the way for the centuries before against Jesus' divinity. Why are we surprised? It's showing its face again in the 7th century, and by somebody who is much stronger than Arian. Now, he is the caleff who controls from Tripoli all the way to India, and from Turkey all the way to Yemen. A man of that stature, a man of that importance, who's attacking the Trinity. Now it's going to stick. Can you then understand why we have to go to Abd al-Malik and see what he's doing? This the sth century coins confront the traditional 9th and 10th Century Islam narrative right at its very traditions. Now let's go to the rock inscriptions. When you look at the rock inscriptions, all written in Arabic, but they're all using Nabatean Aramaic, which is the Arabic from up the north again. It's not the Sabean Arabic which should be there in Mecca, Medina. So it's the wrong place. It's much too far north. Notice where are all these inscriptions in the 7th Century? They're up here in Jordan and down here in Yemen. See that? Jordan, Yemen. What about here? Those are 8th and nth Century inscriptions. All the early inscriptions are too far north or too far south. Dr. Ilal Linston has done the best work on these rock inscriptions, and he looked at the first that 100-year period between 640 AD and 740. And what he wanted to do, he's looked at 30,000 of these rock inscriptions. He wanted to find out how Islam came to be in the rock inscriptions because you can trace the evolution of Islam just by looking at those inscriptions. And he noticed that prior to 690, all of the inscriptions are just pious formulas, but they're not as Islamic. Nothing Islamic about him. So up until 690, when you get the end of the 7th Century, that 60 years after Muhammad died, if he did live, there's nothing Islamic. From 690 to 710, then you start seeing this Muhammad who is introduced on the coins. He also introduced it on the Dome of the Rock, and he also introduces on the protocols, all in 691. When you get to 710, this character who possibly is Jesus, is now being made into a prophet of Islam, but not Islam yet, just the prophet of the Ishmaelites or the prophet of the Hagarenes. From 710 to 720, Muslim rights begin to appear. What we call Muslim rights begin to appear, such as the pilgrimage, the prayer, and the fast. It's not till 7:30 that the name Muslim and Islam are introduced. So what did they call themselves before that? They called themselves Ishmaelites, in the line of Ishmael, as Arabs. They called Hagarenes, who is the mother of Ishmael, Hagarene. They called themselves M, which are the people of Hagar. And they called themselves Mun, which means people of the Hij, people of the Exodus, nomadic, they're always moving, always moving. They were also called by others, Sasid. Is that me again? They're also called Sasid. So these are the names that they are given. But they don't introduce this name Islam on the IRA inscriptions until 7:30. Folks, that's a 100 years after Muhammad died. Do you see a problem here? So conclusion, it was only in the 730s onward that there is evidence of a popular devotion to Muhammad as a prophet and messenger, which makes the Islamic traditions incredibly awkward. Furthermore, there is a 100-year silence prior to this that indicates that Islam did not exist as a distinct religion until long after the time of Muhammad, which casts doubt on whether he had any part in starting it. Now, before we go any further, the name Muhammad does occur in Christian writings in the 7th Century. So let's now look at them. For let's start with what's in a name. As I said earlier, Muhammad is not a name, not and not in the seventh century. It is a title meaning the praised one or the anointed one. So almost anyone can use this title in Arabic, including even when referring to Jesus Christ. To understand this point, let's look at the Quran itself and at the Dome of the Rock to unpack the references to Muhammad in each. So when we look at the Quran, notice if this is the most important man in the history of mankind, if the Quran is what his revelation, then why is it we only find four references to him? Four references. Moses is is referred to 136 times. Jesus or Isa is referred to 93 times. Abraham is referred to 79 times. Pharaoh, who's not even that important, is referred to 74 times. Yet Muhammad's only referred to four times. What does that suggest? Not very important. And when you look at the four references, they're right there on the screen. Chapter 3, chapter 33, chapter 47, and chapter 48. Only chapter 33 could possibly, could possibly be the Prophet Muhammad. Hold on a minute. You're going to see why that's important because we know the Quran is not from the seventh century, as you're going to see in a bit. All of these references that are in the Quran come from the 8th and 9th century. So none of them refer to a person called Muhammad who lived in the Hijaz in Arabia. They most likely refer to instead to the blessed one or the praised one, as we have noted. That is what the word Muhammad means. Who could very well be Jesus. Conclusion, if this is not the prophet for Mecca at all, then Muslims cannot use the Quran to support Muhammad, the Prophet's existence in the 7th century, and one of the foundational pillars of Islam begins to fall. Now let's go to the Dome of the Rock. Now remember, if you go to the Dome of the Rock and you ask, or ask any Muslim, what's the importance of the Dome of the Rock? What will they tell you? It's where Muhammad went in the middle of the night, woken up in Mecca, was placed on the back of the winged horse called the Buraq, and he flaps up, down, or flies up to Jerusalem to where the Rock stood, where is the Dome of the Rock is today, and then he ascends to the seven heavens, meets Allah, who tells him to pray 50 times a day. Comes down two heavens, meets Moses, who says, no, it's way too many. See if you can get him down. So he bounces back and forth between the seventh and the fifth heaven, getting it from 50 to 45 to 30 to 15, down to five prayers. Once he gets it to five prayers, okay, that's enough. So he heads on back down to Jerusalem, gets on the back of the wing horse, and flies back down to Mecca. That's known as the Miraj. That's why it's the third most holy shrine in Islam. That's why they want to keep the Dome, the the Dome of the Rock, they want to keep the the holy Mount, why? Because of that event, proving that that event must have happened. Do you think it's that, that that event did happen there? How can you prove it? You can't. You just don't like it, do you? Just look at the Dome of the Rock, read the inscriptions for heaven's sake. Why hasn't anybody, why haven't Muslims done this? Why is it we have to do it? Just go to the Dome of the Rock and read the inscriptions and see if there's anything at all in any of those inscriptions about this event called the Miraj. Not one word. So what is on those inscriptions? Again, let's not look at the Dome of the Rock, but what you need to do is you need to look at these two ambulatories right here. See these two where the green lels are? Those are the two ambulatories. That's the only original part of the building that still exists today. The Dome of the Rock has been destroyed and rebuilt 11 times. So the only thing that's left are the original amator, and that's where the inscriptions are. You need to look at those inscriptions. And when you look at the inscriptions, they say things like this: Say not three, for God is one. He has no associates, and he has no sons. Where does that come from? That's in the Quran, isn't it? Today it's in chapter 4, verse 171. But no associates is not there. So this is a precursor to what was then later introduced in the Quran. But who is it confronting? Say not three, God is one. That's the Trinity, right? So it's confronting the Trinity. He has no associates, nor is he. That's attacking us, or it's attacking Jesus as the associate of God. And he has no son, that's attacking his sonship. It's all attacking Jesus Christ, am I correct? And it's right there on the inner ambulatories. Then what's next? For neither does he beget, nor is he begotten. That's now found in chapter 112 of the Quran. And then you have the shahada that follows it. M. There is only one God, but God, and the praised one is nothing more than the messenger. So who is that referring to? Well, the whole, all the other inscriptions are referring to Jesus, right? So who is the praised one? Jesus, of course. The praised one is nothing more than a messenger. He is not God. He is not part of the Trinity. He is does not beget, nor is he the Son of God. It's attacking all four of those areas, which are absolutely foundational for our faith. Jesus has to be the Son of God, has to be the Messiah, has to also be the anointed one, and has to be God. We have to believe in all four. That's why this is so pivotal, and it's right there, built on the Dome of the right on the rock where Mount Mariah is, where the Jesus is going to return again as the Messiah. So it's also confronting the Jews, but it's built looking down on the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which is the pilgrimage center for all the Christians at that time. So this is not only a political statement, it's a theological polemic. Politically against the Byzantines who are in the north, and a pic polemic against all Christians. That's why it was built. That's why it's the biggest structure of his day. He's living in Damascus. His sanctuary is in Petra. Why doesn't he build in those two cities? Because he's in a, it's a plum against us. Now, he's still not a Muslim, folks. He's still a Christian. He's an anti-Trinitarian Christian. So this is a sectarian argument. So the Quran verses in these scriptures are not the same as that which we have in the Quran today. They have been evolved into what we have in the Quran today, and are thus possibly the precursors to the Quranic verses which were written later and then changed to refer to the prophet. Conclusion, if correct that then Muslims cannot use the Dome of the Rock to support Muhammad's existence in the 7th century either, and another foundational pillar of Islam begins to fall. Even further, however, what about those references to Muhammad that you find in the 7th Century? Let's take a look at them next, because there are references to this ban. There are exactly five of them. Let's go through five of them. All in the seventh century. Well, no, one is in the 8th Century. 634, Thomas the Presbyter talks about a battle between the Romans and the Tay Muhammed in Gaza. Now look at the word Muhammad is with a T. That's the Persian spelling. So you can already see this is a a Persian Muhammad. A Persian means in what is today Iran and Iraq. Too far north, right? More than that, he's having a battle in Gaza. Did Muhammad ever go up to Gaza? And did he ever come from Persia? Absolutely not. So this is a, this is not the Muhammad of Islam. It's much too far north. In 636, you have a fly leaf which refers to the Arabs of Muhammad who had killed many Syrians in Yuk. Yamuk is way up in Syria. Since when? When did Muhammad of Islam go all the way up to Syria and kill many Syrians? He didn't have any battles with Syrians. Nowhere in any of the maazi documents do you see this. Again, way too far to the north. In 660, you have Seos referring to the Ishmaelites. An Ishmaelite, not an a Muslim, an Ishmaelite called Muhammad, using the Persian spelling again, who along with 12,000 Israelites is attacking the Byzantines. Look historically and ask, when were there ever 12,000 Israelites attacking any Byzantines? None exist. It's not even historical. It's way too far north. So obviously Seos either didn't know what he was talking about, or he's actually someone later on introduced this at a later time. And then you have 690. You have John bar Pena. Now thou we're starting to possibly see a man named Muhammad who would would make sense. But look at the date. We're talking about the late 7th Century. He refers to Muhammad, who's a teacher and leader of the Arabs. This is the first real good reference. But again, way too far north, and no suggestion that this man was a Muslim or that he came from Islam at all. And then we get to John of Damascus, 7:30, who writes the, he writes this famous book, The Heresy of the Ishmaelites. In 7:30, Heresy of the Ishmaelites. He doesn't say the Heresy of the Muslims or of Islam. He calls them Ishmaelites. But look and see what he says. He refers to this Muhammad who has who has written these ludicrous books, and he names the books he has written. The Book of the Cow, that's Surah two. The Book of the Woman, that's Surah four. The Book of the Table, that's Surah 5. The Book of the Camel, that's Surah. Nothing. There is no camel Surah. So this is not the Quran we're looking at today. There's 114 Surahs in this Quran. This book only has four Surahs, one of which doesn't even exist. So it's obviously this is not the Muhammad who received the Quran that we know about. 100 years earlier, because now we're in 7:30. Muhammad's been dead for a 100 years, and still they don't have the full Quran. Ooh, I love this. Makes my job so easy. No, seriously, it does. And you can use this. So when you look at these references to Muhammad, place them where they're supposed to be. Place, show that this is not the Muhammad of Islam. Too far north. Every reference to Muhammad in the 7th Century places him in either Gaza or Jerusalem or Damascus or inira, which are situated too far north, and probably referred to another Muhammad known as the praised one. So let's now conclude with these coins and these rocks. There are no coins anywhere in central Arabia, and the Arabic coins which do exist are all further north and are not Islamic at all, but Christian or Zoroastrian up to and including the reign of Muya, up to 680 AD. It is only with the coins introduced by Abd al-Malik in 691 that we begin to possibly find a pre-Islamic coin, yet they still could be referencing Jesus or even the caleff himself, though they are distinctly anti-Trinitarian. The rock inscriptions are similar to the coins, with nothing Islamic prior to 690 AD. That then references to a Muhammad from 690 to 710 AD. Muslim rights are then introduced. The pilgrimage is then introduced. Prayer and fast are introduced in up to 720, and finally the names Muslim and Islam referencing a group which is which is not Christian from 720 to 7:30. The Quran and the Dome of the Rock do not refer to the Muhammad of Islam. 7th Century written references to Muhammad place him way too far north. So in conclusion, these all suggest that there was an interesting clash between different sects within Christianity, the Trinitarians versus the anti-Trinitarians. Surprise, surprise, we've seen that happen since the 4th Century. This happens, it even happens today with the Jehovah's Witnesses. They're still confronting our view of Muhammad. They're still using the Arian controversy. So why are we surprised that this doesn't raise its head in the 7th century Christianity and the Trinitarians versus anti-Trinitarians, with the latter, the anti-Trinitarians, establishing its own religion at the end of the Umayyad Dynasty in opposition to Christianity. Now we're talking about at the mid s, mid 8th Century, which then morphed into the Islam of today during the initial 100 to 200 years of the Abbasid Dynasty, rather in the 9th to 10th Century. Can you see what's going on? We're looking at an interesting Christian clash, that's what we're looking at. So what about the Quran then? Okay, hold on to your seats now. We really get into the juicy stuff. This is my favorite material. This is where really things, the rubber hits the road. Let's now look at the Quran itself, and let's start with the whole problem of what, what they mean. Now, what do Muslims claim? Well, they claim a number of things. Number one, every Muslim has to claim that the Quran is uncreated, exists eternally in clay tablets in heaven. That's in chapter 85, verse 22 of the Quran. The Quran was sent down to Muhammad between 610 and 632, that 22-year period. That the Quran was completed by Uthman in 652, and that the Quran has never changed in the last 1400 years. So just memorize those four things: uncreated, sent down, complete, and unchanged. Can you memorize those four? Hugely important. We're going to come back to it because this is what Muslims have to claim to support their Quran, their primary revelation, and only. So let's look at what the experts say. So do the Muslims say that? And yes, they do. Let's see them. Here's one here. This is Fethullah Gülen out of the Gülen movement out of Turkey. The Quran's text is entirely reliable. It has not been altered or edited or tampered with since it was revealed. All Muslims know only one Quran, perfectly preserved in its original words since the prophet's death. When revelation ended, therefore, there's one Quran, unaltered, unedited, and untappd. So he's saying much the same thing right here. You again, Suzanne Haneef. Now she's a convert to Islam. She says, the Holy Quran is the only divinely revealed scripture in the history of mankind which has been preserved to the present time in its exact original form. You getting that? Now, she may not know what she's talking about, but this man certainly does. Abdullah Yusuf Ali. Very clearly says so. Well, has it been preserved both in memory and in writing that the Arabic text we have today is identical to the text as it was revealed to the prophet. Not even a single letter has yielded to corruption during the passage of the centuries. This man should know. Why? Because he is the one that translated into English in the last century. He is the one whose translation we use all over the world. So he should know what he's talking about here. We get Mawlavi Muhammad Ali, who is one of the Ahmadiyya sect, one of the principal guys from there. The Quran is one, he said, and no copy differing in even a diacritical point. The diacritical points are the dots above the line and below the line. The three dots above N and the two below B. Those three dots. He's saying not even one of those has changed. There in are and always have been contending sects, but the same Quran is in the possession of one and all. A manuscript with the slightest variation in the text is unknown. Now we get to Dr. Shabir Alides. A good friend of mine, I've debated him six times. And look what he says. He's from Toronto, though he's from India. And he says categorically, we have the copy of the Quran dating from 790. Look at the date, late 8th Century, in the British Museum. That's the MS 2165. Metal Cod. I'm going to show you a picture of it, folks. That's 1300 years ago. Notice the date he puts there. Ah, that's interesting. And we can compare that with what we're reading today, and we find them to be exactly identical. But then he decides to change his mind. But what is important to notice is that throughout the ages of Muslim history, the Muslims have not quarreled over what is the text of the Quran because the text was known through memory work and through the written materials handed down right from the time of the Prophet Muhammad. As I said, the two copies that were made 1,400 years, he's put 100 years earlier, correcting himself. One which is in Tashkent, Russia. Folks, Tashkent is not in Russia. For example, has been demonstrated by Ahmed von Denffer in his book on Al-Quran to be an early copy from that time, and we find no difference from that copy to what we're reading today. Dr. Yaser Qadhi, probably the most famous Muslim cleric today on the Quran, got his doctorate at Yale University in 1995. This is what he says. Uthman standardized the copies of the Quran, and from his time up until our time, there has not even been two copies of the Quran that are different, even one letter or one word. The Quran is the most protected of all scriptures, and God has protected his Quran from any kind of alteration, deviation, miswriting, because he says he is going to protect it. That's in chapter 15:9. All Qurans, even up to our time, conform letter for letter, word for word with the with Uthmanic script. That's the 652 text to this day. There is no different version of the. There is but one Quran. Are you getting the same message? Are you hearing it? These are the scholars. Now let's look, let's go to the pundits on the internet. These are the guys, these are my friends. Let's see what they're saying. Are we ready? This is going to be a video. Just listen to their claims. Our claim, the Muslim claim, has been for the last 14 centuries that the Quran is absolutely word by word preserved. Word by word. And frankly, you know, the Quran has been preserved. We believe word for word, letter for letter. Have no doubt whatsoever that the Quran has been preserved to the letter, to the dot, and to the sound. When we talk about this, their Quran is exactly the same. The Quran shall remain uncorrupted, untouched, and unchallenged until the day of judgment. The Quran that we read is exactly the one that was given to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, word for word, letter by letter, Surah by Surah, is revealed to the prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and preserved word by word, letter by letter, half by half. Even the pronunciation is preserved. Okay, I think they're all speaking from the same sheet, are they not? Why do they make these claims? They have to. Don't get upset with them. It's the Quran that makes these claims. It's the Quran that says in chapter 85:21 and 22, this is the glorious Quran, inscribed in the preserved tablets. If you look at any tap, preserved tablets means eternal tablets, so it's eternal. Chapter 10, verse 15, bring us a Quran other than this or change it. Say, it is not for me to change it on my own accord. Chapter 18:27, and recite what has been revealed to you of the book of your lord. None can change his word. So it's the Quran making this claim. No man can take, change one word. If you change one letter or one word, it's no longer eternal. If you change one word or one letter, then you're also confronting Allah. Why? Because Allah says very clearly, verily, we it is we who have sent down the Quran, and surely we will guard it. So Allah himself guards the Quran, so that not one word, not one letter will change. So don't get upset with Muslims for making this claim. They have to. God bless them. Thank God we don't have to make these claims. Please, people, we do not believe the Bible is uncreated. It was created. We know who wrote it. We even know the men's names. We know when they wrote it. We know put their names to many of the books they wrote. Sent down? Not sent down. Inspired by God? Yes. Complete in its autographic form, in its original form? Yes. But we don't have the autographs. We don't have the original forms. Change? Yes, we know where it's been changed, and there's a big debate within Christianity as to which verses we're talking about. 40 verses that are in doubt. And that's why we would not make these claims. So if you don't, if you don't believe it, don't make it. Please don't make these claims. However, since we don't make these four claims, we don't have to defend it. They do. They make these four claims, they have to defend it. Therefore, our remit today, what we want to do now, is I want to ask any Muslim who's watching or any Muslim who hears about this, to first of all, I'm, I'm not going to try to critique eternality. I can't critique that. I can't critique even sent down in the seventh century since I'm not there in the seventh century. But I can critique the next two, complete and unchanged. So what I'm going to demand, and you demand the same thing of every Muslim you meet, one manuscript of the Quran that's complete, that means 114 Surahs, that's from the 7th Century, not modern ones, 7th Century, that's exactly like the scon that I have in my hand today. That's all we're asking. That should be simple, cuz they're making that claim. Not one word, not one letter has changed in 1400 years. Therefore, it should be exactly like the Arabic that I have in my Quran today, word for word, letter for letter, the same. Otherwise, if there's any difference, even one difference, even one letter, it's no longer eternal. Man has changed it. God is no longer, uh, powerful enough to defend or guard his own Quran. So let's look at where we go to find out the Quran's creation. When you look to that, you can't go find anybody from his time period. You need to go to Al-Bukhari, and we know that Al-Bukhari is writing about this way back in 870. So the whole reference of how the Quran was put together comes from Al-Bukhari, volume 6, Hadith number 509, and Hadith number 510. Those are the only two places you can go to to find out about this whole story. Interesting, but that's 240 years after the fact, suggesting that maybe Al-Bukhari got a few things wrong. What did he do? What did he say? This is what he said, according to chapter 6:509 and 510. When Muhammad died in 632, there was no Quran written down, and they had a battle in Yamama. So immediately when they went to, people went to that battle, 70 of them died, and with them went their memories. So there was a crisis. They had to write it down. So he takes, he goes to the secretary of Muhammad named Zayd, and asks Zayd to write it down. And Zayd says, I can't. What the prophet never did. Nonetheless, do it anyways. So he finds the acquiescence, and he writes it down, taking it from memory of those who did exist. He took it from bones, from stones, from pieces of rock, and also from bark. And then he put it together, and he gave it to Abu Bakr, who was there with Umar. Umar gives it to his daughter named Hafsa, who used to be the wife of Muhammad, and she stuck it under her bed. Rather odd, isn't it? If this is the only written text of the Quran in existence, why would you stick it under your bed and forget it? Isn't that odd? You'd want to make copies of it right away, right? If this is the stand, this is the first written Quran, why were not copies made? That's the first question you need to ask your Muslim friends. Nonetheless, because it was sitting under her bed, 20 years later, in comes, I once want to go, 20 years later comes Uthman. He is now in power. He's the third caliph, and he sends Ubayd up to the north to fight against the Azanis. They're fighting, they win the battle, they then go along with the Iraqis and the Damascans, the Syrians, and they go into a mosque to then pray because they won the battle. As they're praying, those from Medina hear the Iraqis and the Syrians reciting different Qurans, and they start beating each other up, and they're going to blows. And then they go back down to Medina, and it goes down to Uthman. He says, we've got to do something. We cannot have different Qurans. I've just heard different Qurans being recited. We must write it down. So this will never happen again. And Uthman agrees. So he wakes up Zayd, who goes and gets that Quran that's sitting under the bed for 20 years of Hafsa, brings it back out, and rewrites the Quran again in the Quraish dialect. Now stop and think. Hold on, hold on. You speak Arabic, right? Okay. In order, and the reason why Muslims say he had to write in the Quraish dialect in order to have dialectical differences in Arabic, what do you need? The D, the KAS, and the F, which is means the three vowels. D, the A sound, the KAS, the E sound, and the F, the U sound. There were no D, KAS, and F in the 7th century. You didn't know this. This is new to you, but any scholar knows this. Any scholar knows there were no vowels in the 7th century. So how could there be a dialectical difference? Muslims have never answered me. I've asked this for 40 years. And then he says, write it in the Quraish dialect. That's a non-secular. But who is writing this down? It's Al-Bukhari who's writing this down, and he is in the ninth century, redacting it back to the 7th century without realizing there were no D, KAS, and F to make.

Sense of this, there could not be any dialectical difference that early. But see, as scholars, we know that, and that's why we're laughing all the way to the bank. So that's the first problem.

And then he says, "Now that you've written it down, send it to five cities." So this is what he does. He sends a copy to these five cities: Mecca, Medina, Basra, Kufa (which is today Baghdad), and Damascus. So two are left in Arabia, one, two are sent to Iraq, and one was sent to Syria. Why? So that they would be the repositories of what Abu Bakr should have done. This is what he's doing 20 years later. So that these would be the standards, so this will never happen again. There will be no other, other Qurans, right? That's why they're sent there as the standard.

But then we look at the traditions. There are later traditions, and we find, "Hold on a minute. Something is happening at the end of the 7th century. A new Quran is introduced in Damascus, written by Ubayy ibn Ka'b, and it has 116 suras. Today's Quran only has 114. So it's two suras more than the Quran we have today."

And then in Baghdad, another Quran starts to appear in the late 7th century, written by Ibn Mas'ud, and it has 110 suras. That's four less than the Quran we have today. Another Quran was introduced in Basra there in Iraq, and it has 114 suras.

But Dr. Arthur Jeffery, who in the last century went to look at the traditions, just to find out what the differences are between these four Qurans—the one by Ubayy, the one by Ibn Mas'ud, the one by Ibn Amir, and also the one by Zayd, who was there in Medina—and he found 15,000 differences. Have you heard this before? 15,000 differences between these four Qurans. This has been known since the 1930s, folks. This is nothing new. But Muslims haven't heard this. Muslims need to hear this.

It gets even worse. What we now know is there are at least five Qurans in the 7th century from Mecca, Medina, Basra, Kufa, and Damascus. Why can't we find even one of them now? One of those Qurans exists today. We're talking only 1400 years ago. And look at those cities that they belong in: Basra, Baghdad, Damascus, and also Mecca, Medina. Those are Muslim cities. They've always been Muslim cities for 1400 years. There have been no floods, there have been no fires, there have been no battles. I don't recall anybody destroying any Qurans in the last 1400 years. Why can't we find one of them? Muslims need to answer that. Not one exists. That's the beginning of the problems. That's just the beginning.

Let's now go into the 8th century because in the 8th century, something completely happens that really shuts everything down. And this is known as the Qira'at. How many know what I'm talking about when I use the word Qira'at? No one? Okay. After today, you're all going to know what I'm talking about. And it all had to do with one girl who's only 5'2", who's on my team. Her name is Hatun Tash. This woman has destroyed the Quran because of what she found.

Okay, let's go ahead and let's announce what we're talking about. In the 7th century, the Arabic that existed only had consonantal texts. There were no damma and kasra, fatḥa. There was no diacritation. There were no dots. Dots did not exist on any of the earliest manuscripts. I'll show you the pictures, you'll see why. There, it was basically the same consonantal text that the Syriac uses. And the Syriac was the language of the Byzantine Christians. Syriac and Arabic are from the same root, so they would use the same consonantal text. But they had taken off all the dots and the vowels, and they had no dots and vowels. So basically, they only had 16 letters in the Arabic in the seventh century.

But when you read it, you couldn't read. You didn't know what you were reading because one little bowl like this could be five different letters. So there was a dilemma. Now, let's just see what I'm—here's the dilemma here. Do you see? Notice there are no dots and vowels. This is a—I'm using the wrong thing. This is an 8th-century manuscript. You notice no dots, no vowels. That's the Samarkand manuscript, that's in Uzbekistan. Notice here, the Sana manuscript, no dots, no vowels. You see? How do you read that? You're Arabic speaking, can you read it? No. Nobody, any other Arab speaker, nobody can read it because you don't know what you're reading. You have to have something to delineate the different letters.

So, for instance, let's just look at this here is—um, Arabic today. This is the Modern Standard Arabic. Now has 28 letters. But there are six letters that don't need dots: the Alif, the Dal, the Lam, the Mim, the Nun, Ha—sorry, the Ha, and the Waw. Those are the six letters. The other 22 all need dots in order to be able to read them today. Today, in Modern Standard Arabic. Back in the 7th century, all you had were little—little smiley faces like this, just a little bowl.

Now, in order to be able to read and distinguish which letter it is, you had to start adding. So they put one letter and became the N or the N. Two letters, but became the T or the T. Three letters, but became the TH or th. One letter below, one dot below, became the B or the B. And then two Ls became the Y. So you now have—yeah, five different letters for just one smiley face. Every Arabic word has three smiley faces or three letters. If you look at an Arabic dictionary, they always start with three letters. So if you start putting your dots and vowels where you want to, just willy-nilly, then you can start to come up with all kinds of ones.

What's more, you have to also have the three vowels. This is where you get your dialectical differences. There's the ḍamma, there—that's the U. There's the kasra, that's the E. And there's the fatḥa, that's the A. U, E, and A. So you get those three letters. Now you can start putting together words. If you put together words, uh, with the ḍamma, fatḥa, and the diacritical marks, you can come up with 19 different words just by using three letters. Before the 7th, before the 8th century, though, you could only have one word. Now, suddenly, that's proliferated to 19. And some have been able to find as many as 33 words.

So here's the difficulty. Okay, I'm—I'm—I'll just look at the slide here. I'm just going to show you these people here. So here you have Ibn Nafi'. Your name is Nafi', just pretend you're a man, okay? Your name is Nafi', and you come from Medina, right? And you decide to put your dots where you want to. Your name is, uh, Ibn Kathir, and you come from Mecca, right? And you decide to put your dots where you want to. You don't confer with each other because you don't know each other. You, however, come from, uh, Damascus. Your name is Ibn Amir, right? And you put your dots where you want to. You come from Kufa, and your name is Asim, okay?

So we have now four different people with four different Qurans with their dots and their vowels where they want to. But you never look at each other's Qurans. You don't even care because you have students under you, you have students under you, you have students under you, and you have students under you. You have many students, in fact, you—you have 91 students, right? So in the 10th century, there were 700 of these Qurans. All of you decided to put your Qurans together. By the 10th century, there were 700 different Qurans. They needed—they had a problem. So a guy named Ibn Mujahid, that guy you see right up there, in 936, before he died, he then chose those seven. Those are the Qira'at. Those are the cream. These are the ones that when Muhammad was praying in the mosque, receiving these revelations, people were hearing him pray and they said, "I don't understand what you're saying because I come from Damascus or I come from Kufa or I come from Cairo." And so he went to Jibril and he says, "Could you, could you repeat what I'm saying in seven different Arabic or seven different dialects?" Which Jibril did. And these are the seven. Those are the seven that Jibril gave him. Gabriel, as we know it. Jibril, then.

But the problem is this. You will see these seven on—on Wikipedia, but you won't have any dates put on their names. I had to put those dates on. I had to find those dates for each one of them. Do you see a—a problem with those dates? Did these seven know Muhammad? Did these seven even live at the time Muhammad lived? Could they—were they there so Muhammad could check whether they got him right? No. Look at the death dates: 785, 738, 770, 736, 745. These are all 8th and 9th century. None of these men knew Muhammad. None of them lived in the same century as Muhammad. So how could these seven have come from Jibril in the early or the mid-7th century when these are all 8th and 9th century? That's what Muslims don't know. You've got to tell them.

So that's the first problem. But here's the biggest problem. Where is this book? This is the one that everybody uses today. This is called Hafs 'an 'Asim. 'Asim, mean from you. Hafs, one of your students, one of your 91 students. This is the one that is chosen for the whole world in 1985. Hafs 'an 'Asim. Where's this? Do you see it on that list? You need this one there, right? Plus, we need yours. See, you're from Cairo, and your name is Warsh, right? Just say yes. You're Warsh, and you die in 812. You die in 796. Just say yes, okay? So 796, late 8th century. You're into the 9th century. 812. You two are the two most popular Qurans we use today. 93% of all Muslims memorize your Quran. 3% of all Muslims, all the ones in North Africa, memorize your Qurans. So where are they on that list? They're not there. You've got to get them right.

So in the 12th century, another man named Al-Shatibi was then commissioned to choose two of the disciples of every one of you seven. And this is what he came up with: another 14 Qira'at, or another 14 Qurans. Notice we're now in the 12th century. We're 500 years after Muhammad. And he chose the two that you have: Shu'bah and Hafs, from 91 others. And throughout the other 89, what happened to those 89? What was wrong with them? He doesn't know because he never looked. He never opened one page. So why did he choose Shu'bah and Hafs? You should know, since you're Asim, you know why. You're not—you're afraid to tell me. It's because these guys had more students than anybody else. They were chosen for popularity, no textual. No one looked at any text whatsoever. Your students were popular, therefore they were chosen. And you were chosen because you were popular. It had nothing to do with accuracy. No one opened up one page, nor read one line. They just chose how many students they had. Is that the way you choose a text? Is that what we do with the Bible? Thank God, we don't do that with the Bible. But that's what you did. Or I should say, that's what Al-Shatibi did.

But that's still isn't good enough. You have seven over here, you have 14 here, now you have 21, right? 21 different Qurans. So that's still not good enough. In the, uh, 15th century, in 1429, another guy comes along. His name is Al-Jazari. And he decides to choose another three kids and another six of his students. Now you have 7 plus 14 plus 3 plus 9. How many? 30. 30 different Qurans by the 15th century. Have any of you heard this before? No two of those Qurans are the same. But no one seemed to know that. No one seemed to know that until I ask. We start asking, "Well, where is this one? That one is the one that was chosen in 1985 as the universal Quran." How many differences would you guess between that one and the other 29? 7? How about one? Would one hurt? Of course it would, because God's word can't be changed, right? How about two? How about three? How about 93,000? 93,000 differences we have found between Hafs and the other 29. Can you see that this is a problem?

Now, my colleague Hatun Tash went to North Africa a number of years ago, in 2012. She went down there to do some teaching. She's from Turkey. Uh, she doesn't know hardly any Arabic. And so she wanted to get an Arabic Quran for the missionaries that she was teaching. And so she went into a—oh, let me just find here. She went into a bookstore and she asked the guy behind the bookstore, "Could you give me an Arabic Quran?" And the man said, "Well, which one are you talking about?" I said, "What do you mean, which one?" "Well, I have Hafs over here, I have Warsh over here, I have Ibn Kathir over here, I have Qalun over here, I have even Juma." She said, "Well, what in the world are you talking about? Give them all to me. They're only a few dollars. I'll take them back to London, show them to David." So she brought him back to London, showed them to me, and I started laughing because I had never realized that these Qurans still existed. See, those of us who've done scholarly work on it, we know about this. This is well known within Islamic, uh, history, but not by those on the street.

And she said, "Well, how many should I find?" I said, "Well, you can go up on Wikipedia. There are 30 of them. Go up and grab them." So she starts sending people to, uh, Jordan and Morocco to, and she would just write all the different names. "I need Qalun, I need Hisam, I need Ibn Ward, I need Rifa'i, I need even Juma." And she started collecting them. By 2016, she had collected, uh, 26 of them. Here they are. These are her Qurans. No two are alike. But everyone is memorized by a different person, by different parties, by different classes, by different peoples in different places. That's why they have to be used today because whole families memorize, and you cannot memorize his if his is different.

So let me just give you some examples of what difference we're talking about. And this is the only Arabic, I promise. This is the only Arabic I'm going to make you read. On the left, you have Hafs, right? And you notice, if you look there, let's just point this out. You notice here's the word I'm looking for, and it's—there's a fatḥa, fatḥa, fatḥa. You see there's an 'a'. So it's *qatala*. *Qatala* means "he fought," right? In the Warsh, it's the same verse. You can see it's been changed to a ḍamma, kasra, and a fatḥa. So two different vowels are added. They took two vowels off and added two more. Now it's *qutila*. So in this, it says, "And how many prophets fought with whom were many worshippers of the Lord?" *Qutila* in Warsh now says, "And how many prophets were killed with whom were many worshippers of the Lord?" Now, hold on a minute. Does that change the meaning? It does. If you're a prophet, I would rather fight than be killed. Thank you. So huge difference for the prophet.

Here's another example. Over here, you have *'abidun*. So there you have a 'b' that has a fatḥa above it. Over here, the 'b' has been taken out, the dot has been taken out from below and put above it. So now it's *'indahu*. So now it becomes *'indahu*. So instead of *'abidun* becomes *'indahu*, which instead of "here slaves" becomes "in the presence." And they make the angels who are slaves of the Beneficent Females. And they make the angels on this side who are in the presence of the Beneficent Females. Two problems: Are the angels slaves of Allah, or simply in the presence of Allah? Problem two: Is it the slaves or those in Allah's presence who will be made females? If I were—were an angel, I would prefer being in God's presence rather than his slave. And secondly, if I were an angel, I would prefer if only the slaves were made females. Thank you, because I'm a male. So coming and going, you've got huge problems with this theologically speaking and practically speaking.

Now, let's look at this one here. You have *ihsan*. There's an Alif with a kasra below it. It's now—the Alif has been taken off over here, and it becomes *ḥusn*. Starting with the H. So here, the Alif with it makes it "doing good." It's referring to a son of a parents. And over here, it says "beauty." So on this side, in—in the Hafs, it says, "And we have enjoined on man doing good to his parents." On the Ali, it's now, "And we have enjoined on man beauty to his parents." Listen, I have three sons. I don't care whether they're beautiful or not. I want them to be good, right? So that's a whole difference in practice.

Here's another example. You have *khala'iq* over on this side, which means "creatures." In the Warsh, you have *khali'in*, which means "the innocent." So it says in Hafs, "Indeed, they who disbelieved among the people of the scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures." In the Warsh, it has been changed. "Those are the worst of the innocents." It's talking about us, the Christians. Are we the worst creatures, or are we innocent? And if we are innocent, what in the world are we doing in Hell? So that's how theological and doctrinal differences for us as Christians. Now, I've just given you four out of 93,000, just to give you a little smattering of how damaging these are. That changes the text. When you change the text, you change the meaning. When you change the meaning, you change the theology and the doctrines. And in some cases, you change the practices.

So I'm going to show you what happened when that's Hatun Tash there, amazing girl. She's become a legend there in England. She was my colleague, but she decided to go and buy, take all these down, and then we decided to put them up and show them at Speaker's Corner in 2016. Look what happened when we showed them for the first time for the world to see. Okay, we ready for the video? Yes. There is only one Quran, right? And that every Quran in the world is the same. Of course, that's what you've been told. Of course, you have been told a lie. Right? Okay. So there are two Qurans today, right? More than two? More than two? Three? More than three? More than three? Four Qurans? That's approximately 26 of the 26 different Qira'at.

[Music]

You guys get these Qira'at? Get these Qira'at and read them. We're just showing you. Oh, go ahead. Start going. Things it says they were two [Music] different. The prophets fought, but by the time you got to they were killed. Your Quran, you must better go. We're going to make it more, more difficult for you. Okay, just a review. You notice what happened when we showed them up? They tried to grab, as we were trying to show the difference, they tried to grab the papers from us. Fortunately, we had them cellophane-wrapped so they can't tear them. But notice the man that was standing there at the bottom right, this man right here, that's Muhammad Hijab. Muhammad Hijab is the most popular man on the internet right now. Uh, he has a following of half a million. He was there in the crowd. He and he was there filming us. And he realized this is a problem. He quickly stepped out the back and he started calling all the Muslims to him. What was he saying? "Don't look at what they're showing you. Do not listen to what they're saying."

Now, that was in 2016. Four years later, he had a problem because he was going to explain it to them. He couldn't. So in June 8th, 2020, he had a dilemma. He needed to figure out what to do. And so he decided to go to do a Zoom call with Dr. Yasir Qadhi. You saw earlier in that film clip that I showed you, Dr. Yasir Qadhi has a doctorate from Yale University in 1995 on this very material. Therefore, he's the world's leading scholar on the Qira'at, on these readings, these different readings. So Muhammad decided to go and ask him a question. And he's going to hold out his hand and ask, "Which Quran are you going to put on that blank sheet of paper?" He wants to know because if this is the eternal Quran that cannot be changed, not one word, not one letter, not even one dot, then which is the one that was eternal, that was sent to Muhammad, that was written by Uthman, sent to Muhammad between 610 and 6232, and then written down by Uthman in 652? That's what he's asking. A simple question, right? You would think it's a simple question. Watch what happens. Let's go ahead and run this. It's about 7 minutes long. Gives me time to sit down. And, uh, "What is your position in relation to preservation of Quran? Is, for example, do you see it as preserved from Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala, or do you not see that as?" "What's your?"

"Okay, so, uh, first and foremost, Allah says, so we believe as a matter of theology, as a matter of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala has preserved the Quran, no question about it. Now, as for the issue itself, every single student of knowledge knows who studies that the most difficult topics are, and the concept of, and the reality of, and the relationship of the, and the preservation of the. Is it one? Is it three? Is it seven? And the relationship of the to the. This is a topic that, when you're the beginning, beginning student of knowledge, you're like, 'What is all of this going on here?' When you go a little bit more, you learn to simply memorize what your teachers say and regurgitate it out, and you don't fully comprehend. When you do a deep dive, is when things get very, very awkward and difficult. And this isn't new. This is from the time of the. This is not a joke, brothers and sisters. The issue of caused confusion to somebody whom the Prophet said, 'If you want to listen to the Quran directly, listen to.' I mentioned the crisis that happened to me at Yale, my first year at Yale. It wasn't a crisis of faith, by the way. I—it was very clear about this. People misinterpret it. It was a crisis of my understanding of knowledge. It was a crisis of what my teachers taught me. Alhamdulillah, from alhamdulillah, as somebody who memorized the Quran as a teenager, alhamdulillah, in my entire life, I have never doubted that the Quran is divine. You cannot doubt that. Any—you listen to it, you recite it, you just cannot doubt that. It's never been an issue. This was the issue that the issue of, and preservation, and, and relationships between them. These are very, very difficult issues. And the most advanced of our scholars, they are not quite fully certain how to solve all of the unanswered questions in there. These issues should only be discussed amongst people who know what the are and who understand some of these questions that are being. Traditional understandings of cannot answer some of these pressing questions that are now being poked by our, uh, people outside of, by our academics, not our, by their academics outside of the faith tradition. You see, in a Muslim environment, there's always some respect that we have for the Quran. We should. In a Muslim environment, we'll press a little bit and then we'll say, "Okay." And that's great, alhamdulillah. When you go to academia, they don't have that red line, and they're going to just, you know, the, the, the famous story of the emperor with no clothes. They're going to just point out, "No, that doesn't make any sense." "Well, that's not true." And this, and that. And they'll bring issues which I'm not going to mention explicitly, that you know are true because they're in your own books. And it's very clear to you and to every single very advanced student and specialist that the standard narrative has holes in it. That's what I'm going to say. The standard narrative does not answer some very pressing questions. You know, these are now well known within the Western academy, that they're bringing forth issues. Their level of knowledge now is leaps and bounds above what it used to be, you know, 100 years ago. You know, and by and large, our in the Eastern world are not aware, by and large, of what's going on in the Western side of things, and they're not answering those questions in a manner that it needs to be answered. And this is something all of us that are in academia fully acknowledge. We actually issues of the relationship of the origins of the, and all of this should only be discussed amongst those who are familiar with this science. It takes a while. I can't answer this question in a 20-minute interview, nor is it wise to do so. Which is why I never brought this topic up myself. You will not find one lecture of mine about this issue. It should never be brought up in public. And I don't like these idiots, and they are idiots. W—this is not something you discuss amongst the masses. It's not wise. You don't understand, let it be. It's wise. That's why I never did it. It's the Western academics, these, these problems are now becoming mainstream. Twitter has so many accounts of Quran experts, and they're non-Muslims, and they're just saying things."

"Let me ask you one question to try and make this as specific as possible. I think if I were to give you a blank mushaf and tell you to write what is from Allah into that mushaf with no human interference, would you write something which corresponds?"

"It's not an easy answer. It's not an easy yes or no. It is enough for the Muslim to believe that I—this should be an easy yes or no though."

"Yes, I—I have to. Okay, very well. So, yeah, Muhammad, after we get off this phone call, me and you, let's have a number of discussions. No problem. I'm very open with advanced students. But these issues should not—"

"Look, it is what is going to be written. It is what—"

"What would you write? Let's not—you're pushing me, and I'm saying it's not hikmah to listen. I have a condition, like I said, everything I say is going to be fact. The Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah. The Quran is preserved. The Quran is known. The Quran is, and alhamdulillah, all of the are the Quran. All of the are authentic, alhamdulillah. Leave it at that. Beyond this, honestly, I have no problem. We'll have a discussions or take my class. But is enough for the Muslim to know that the Quran is the speech of Allah that has been protected, and what we recite is the Kalam of Allah. That is enough for the Muslim."

"If I could pick back here just a little bit, I know, I know this is—I don't want to make it uncomfortable, but it's just, just to make things clearer, right? If, if, if someone gave you a Quran which is empty in terms of there's no, there's nothing on it, and gave you a pen, obviously you're half of the Quran. But the question is, would what you write in that mushaf correspond with any, anything that we have in terms of the—"

"Is who's going to bring a new Quran? We're going to have the Quran there, but, but which will it be in? It'll be probably a mixture, right? It's not going to be necessarily—"

"Yeah. Okay, so let's leave it at that. It's going to, it's not going to be the exact."

"But you would have something which you could say is fully recognizable by the average Muslim, obviously."

"So when you write, so, yeah, so, so just to be clear, if you write down, it might not be a standard."

"Exactly. Yes. But what you recognize is recognizable. And you believe, and you believe that everything within that is Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala?"

"100%, as Allah is my witness, 100%."

"That is the—"

"Okay."

Did you see that? Did you catch it? Let me just review. That was kind of hard to listen to to get everything. But did you notice what he was admitting? First of all, he says that Muhammad put out his—he put out his hand. He said, "Which is the—which one are you going to write on it?" And he said, "This is the most difficult topic for Muslim scholars for the last thousand years. You don't tell this to converts. You don't even tell this to intermediate students. You only do this with advanced students, and then you do a deep dive. Take my class." He must have said that three times in the 28 minutes. I've just given you seven minutes of it. Scholars for the last thousand years have not solved the problem of the Qira'at at all. Muslims have a respect for the Quran. When he was talked about Yale, "We have a respect for the Quran. There are certain questions we just don't answer. We put a red line here." Did you hear that? But at Yale, there are no red lines. You can ask anything. Muhammad Hijab, was that when you had your crisis of faith? He said, "No, not crisis of faith, crisis of knowledge," is how he put it. And then he probably gave you the most explosive line: "You in the East, your standard narrative has holes in it." Ooh, I love that. I just started clapping. Which narrative? Standard Islamic narrative. S.I.N. has holes in it. So he coined the phrase. We're running with it. Since 2020, Western academics, he said, have jumped leaps and bounds on this issue. They look at the rest of us like an emperor with no clothes. He said, "I've never lectured on this subject, nor will I ever." This is the man who did—got his doctorate on this subject, and in the last 25 years, he's never done a lecture on it. Why? If he's the world-leading authority, why will he not do a lecture on it? You'll see why. The subject should never be brought up in public. "Don't ask me to say what should be written on the blank mushaf." And finally, he said, "When pushed, it will you recognize it as the Hafs 'an 'Asim?" He says, "Parts, yes. There will be, but there will be others as well." In other words, a little bit of Qalun, a little bit of Warsh, get all of them and just mix them up, and that's the Quran you have today. I just started clapping when I saw that. He had no idea what we know. He had no idea that there are 93,000 differences between these. You cannot just mix them all up because no longer is there one standard Quran. Now, because of that, because of that, within two weeks, we were looking at their both their sites, and there were hundreds, hundreds of Muslims in the comment section saying, "Because of that interview, I have now left Islam. I have now left Islam." And they said, "It is you, Yasir Qadhi, who has always told us, 'Not one word, not one letter has been changed.'" Remember, we just put that video up of him saying that. He used to always say that. And now you're saying there are many words, there are many letters that are changed. And because of that, my blood is going to be on your shoulder. There were hundreds of these. After two weeks, they had to shut down all the comments. It became so disastrous for Yasir Qadhi and Muhammad Hijab that within two months, by August, they deleted it off both their channels. But I have it. Hatun has it. David Wood has it. We keep it in every debate we go and repost it back up again and let the whole world see it because one girl, 7'5", destroyed the preservation of the Quran just by asking a simple question: "Give me a Quran in Arabic." And the man said, "Which one?" Can you see how much damage one little girl has done? She's on our team. She was with us here in California.

Now, what about the Qurans themselves? What about the earliest manuscripts? Now we're going to jump back. Now we're giving a totally different argument. We're going to go back to the manuscript evidence. See, we have manuscript evidence, do we not? For the Bible, we've got the Sinaiticus from the 4th century. We've got the Alexandrinus. We have the Vaticanus also from the 4th century. We have the Vaticanus from the 5th century. The three Metropolitan codices. That is two to 300 years before the Quran, right? And they're all complete, are they not? That's why we can look at it. But we have over almost 235 manuscripts of the New Testament alone before the 6th century, either complete or partial. If we can come up with that many manuscripts that all agree with each other from before the 6th century, all we're asking Muslims is one manuscript from the 7th century. That shouldn't be very hard. And remember, our manuscripts, when they were first written, they were written on papyrus, which are these interlocking leaves, which disintegrate. They're just leaves. They disintegrate after 100 years. So we would not expect before the 4th century to find a complete manuscript because, except for Oxyrhynchus, where they've been able to find some, a good number of them, most of them are just fragments, like the Bodmer papyrus, which is in Switzerland, or the John Rylands manuscript, which is in Manchester in England. Those are just fragments from the 2nd century. So we would not expect to find anything that was complete until you had somebody like Constantine, who was large enough and big enough and powerful enough to then commission 50 manuscripts written on parchment. Parchment means animal skin. The Sinaiticus took 56 different gazelles to write. To have that codex, you have to be pretty rich to get 60, 60 gazelles and to be able to cure them and then to keep put them into a codex. So that's why it was someone of his stature that was able to commission that, and that's why we have the Sinaiticus, and the Alexandrinus, and the Vaticanus.

By the time you get to the seventh century, we're talking about the Caliphate of Uthman, right? He was like Constantine. He had all the material in the world. He had all the riches. And he is the one that tells—where they're the ones that tell that there were five of these manuscripts, all written on parchment, on animal skins, and they were sent to the five cities. Where's one of them? You see, they have no excuse. They can't say, "Well, it's because they were written on papyrus and they disintegrated." No, these were written on parchments.

So now let's look at the six earliest manuscripts. They do have—all written on parchments. These are all written on animal skins. And let's see what we're going to find. So let's go ahead and look at them. These are the six that I introduced in a debate I did with Dr. Shabir Al-Al in 2014, we're talking about nine years ago. I introduced them for the first time. And I got them because we finally had two Muslim scholars, Dr. Tayyib Al-Ali and Uthman, who actually went and did study on these six manuscripts from 2002 to 2007, published their work in 2009, and we were able then to get it in English by 2014. So I immediately challenged Dr. Shabir, the world's leading authority and best debater they have on these manuscripts, and he will not debate me again because of what happened in 2014. All I did was show these manuscripts. You're going to see them for now.

That's the Topkapi manuscript. This one here, the Topkapi manuscript one is in the Topkapi Museum there in Istanbul in Turkey. And you notice that has no dots or vowels on it. You notice that, except there's a dot there, there's a dot there, there's a dot. Ah, there's a—there's a medallion there, but it's not in the right place. It's been introduced. It's interposed after the fact. That's where the beginning of a sentence and a new verse begins. But you notice that that's been in a different color and it's been added at a different date. So these are later additions. Over here. Well, let me, before I finish this, this one. We just have a fellow in our team who is just finished his doctorate on this manuscript. I was with him yesterday, and I can't tell you what he's told me because he hasn't published yet. What we're not going to tell you is this is at least from the mid-8th century, 750. So this is 100 years after Muhammad. It is the best manuscript they have. It's about 99% of the of the Quran, except there are 2,240 manuscript variants, that means words or phrases different in that manuscript than the Quran I have in my hand today. So this is not perfect, nor is it early, and it's not the Quran that we have today.

Over on the right side is the Samarkand, which is in Tashkent. They thought that was considered to be the greatest of all the manuscripts until they started looking at it and they realized it only goes up to chapter 43. There's 14 chapters in the Quran. Of the 43 chapters, only one chapter is complete. 16 don't even exist in the 43, and the others that do are full of what we call manuscript variants. There is so many grammatical errors in this Quran that has become an embarrassment for Muslim scholars. They're no longer using it. This is dated to the mid-8th century.

Then we get to this one here, that is the Ma'il manuscript script, which is the one that is in London. It's called the 2165. It also only has goes up to chapter 43. There's 114 chapters. You notice it has a slanted script. So that's a much earlier script, yet it is full of manuscript variants, much like this one over here on the right. So that's the one in London. This is the one in Paris, that's called the Petropolitan manuscript. It also doesn't have any dots or vowels. None of these have dots or vowels. None of these have dots or vowels. This is before dots or vowels were invented. But it is the late 8th—sorry, that is the late 8th century. This is the early 8th century, about 72, 7:30. It has only, only has 23% of the Quran, and there are 93 variants, manuscript variants, that means words or phrases different in that text from the Quran we have today.

Then we get to the Husayni manuscript. This is the manu—this is called a monumental text. It's there in, uh, in Egypt, in Cairo. It is a 9th-century manuscript, not an 8th-century. And if you can look, you notice there are coverings, coverings, coverings. Can you see coverings? Hundreds of cover coverings, proving that it has been changed and manipulated over the centuries.

Now we find the most exciting manuscript. This is the Sana'a manuscript that was found in Yemen, there in the Sana'a mosque. When they were cleaning the dome, they came across a trap door. They opened the trap door and thousands of manuscripts fell to the ground. Not surprising, because when manuscripts start to deteriorate, they don't burn them, they don't destroy them, they put them and they store them up in mosques. The problem is, when they came to this one, it had no dots or vowels. So this is a very old manuscript, and they couldn't read it. So they brought—they flew down three Germans, Dr. Von Bohmer, Dr. Olga, and Dr. Garrett Pinn, in 1981, to look at this manuscript. They took pictures. These are their pictures. This is not the original manuscript. These are their pictures. And notice here is chapter 19. Right at that yellow mark, it jumps to chapter 22. What happened to chapters 20, 21? 20 begins over on this side. But can you see there are two different scripts? There's 60 years between these two pages. That's dated to 705. This is dated to about 765 to 770. So there's 60 years difference between these pages. What's more interesting? See, every time you see an orange mark, every time you see an orange mark, that's a manuscript variant. That means words and phrases in that script that are different from the Quran we have today. Thousands of these that they've been able to find. Dr. Garrett Pinn and his wife, Dr. Elizabeth Pinn. So, no, what do we know? None of these six manuscripts, the earliest manuscripts we can find, are from the 7th century. None of them are complete. None of them completely agree with each other. None of them completely agree with the current 1924 Hafs standard. All of them have hundreds and even thousands of subsequent manuscript variants.

So when was there a complete Quran? Well, before we get into that question, let's go back to the Sana'a manuscript and let's ask another question. Because as they were looking at this manuscript, they noticed that it had a subtext. Can you see there's a writing underneath and there's a writing above? When you write on animal skin, you—if you decide to change your mind, you can wash it off and then write over top of it. And when it's washed off, you've pretty well washed all the ink off. That's okay. When immediately happens, the problem is, hundreds of years later, the ink starts to bleed through. So when they looked at it, they saw they could see an undertext underneath. So when they put it under ultraviolet light, you could see a complete text. So Dr. Garrett Pinn and Elizabeth Pinn decided to separate the two. Dr. Asma Hilali also did the same. And what they found is the undertext. The topper text, remember, is dated 705, so it's the earliest manuscript we can find anywhere in the world. The undertext, however, is only made up of 63 verses. Yet, by comparing the undertext with the upper text, there were 70 variants just between the two texts. Undertext would have been written about 690, so that's a 7th-century. This is the first 7th-century Quranic script we can find. Comparing it to an 8th-century upper text, there are 70 variants where there are verbs and nouns 25 times that are missing articles, participles, conjunctions that are missing prepositions, isolated letters 29 times don't agree, and expressions, entire sentences, 16 times, entire sentences don't agree. This is not a school text, like Asma Hilali claiming that these were just—students writing with their own pens. They didn't know what they were writing, so they just washed off and wrote the real text above. No, you don't waste parchment on students because that's animal skin. That costs—those are hugely expensive. So obviously, this was a nascent. Dr. Elizabeth Pinn got it right. This is a nascent Quran with corrections, then washed off and rewritten over. In 705, this is the time of Abd al-Malik, remember? Abd al-Malik is the same one that builds the Dome of the Rock, that introduces the coins. He is also the one that is looking for an identity for himself. When you're looking for identity for the Ishmaelites, what do you do? You need a text. Looks like this is the beginning of that text. We're now seeing it, the evolution, just on this one manuscript.

Now, talking about carbon dating, we need to be careful with that because when, when they went to the Sana'a manuscript, they decided to send four fragments of the same page to four different laboratories there in Europe. They went to Lyon in France, Kiel in Germany, Zurich in Switzerland, and Oxford. And this is what they found. The one that was there in Lyon, they dated that script from 393 up to around 550. The one in Kiel dated from about 405 up to 460. The one in Zurich dated it from around 460 up to 550. And the one in the Oxford in England dated the exact same fragment from 500 to 550. You notice they didn't agree with each other. That's the first problem. What's more, notice they were all dated between 390 and 550. Note when the life of Muhammad. I've just put up there. There's the life of Muhammad, 570 to 632. That's 80 to 200 years too early. These all predate Islam by a good 80 to 220 years. Notice when the Quran was written, right up there where I've just circled. These texts, therefore, are 100 to 260 years too early. So you cannot say that these were written at the time of Muhammad. They are pre-Islamic, pre-Muhammad, and of course, pre-text.

Now we get to the Birmingham Folios, which you all heard about in 2015. This was all over the news. They have finally found the Quran that Muhammad probably read. Dr. David Thomas said, "The writer of this manuscript could well have known the Prophet Muhammad. He would probably have seen him. Probably he would maybe have heard him preach. He may have known him personally." And that really is quite a thought to conjure. Here's the manuscript we're looking about. What do you notice about it? It's only two pages, front and back. Is that the entire manuscript of the Quran? Absolutely not. And you need to read what's written on those two pages. It's easy. You can read it in Arabic, though there are no dots and vowels on it. You can see pretty well where they come to. Really, those two, those two pages, front and back, two folios, are really only 33 verses taken from Surah.

18, Surah 19, and Surah 20 today. But in those three suras, you have 343 verses. So this is only 10% of those suras, and they do not follow in sequence that you find in the Quran today. What's more, take a look at the content. Surah 18, 17-31 is about the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus. That's a pagan story that comes from 512 AD. This is pre-Islamic, is it not? Chapter 19, 98:91 comes from Protoevangelium of James. That's from the 2nd century AD. And then Surah 4:20, I:1 to 40 is a story of Moses, excuse me, which comes from the Bible itself. What does that tell you? Looks like if you're putting together a Quran, you need to borrow. Where do you borrow from? Pagan sources, Christian sectarian writings, and Jewish writings, right? You have to have what's already there. If you're borrowing, they have to pre-exist, right? And of course, they wrote in Arabic because there were Jews who were Arab, there were also Christians who were Arab, and there were pagans who were Arab. So what you're looking at is basically the very raw material, the very documents from which the Quran was, was finally created. But notice they're not in sequence. So these are just bits and pieces thrown together, which then finally made the Quran in probably the 8th century.

Now we get to Dan Brewbaker and we get to this book. And this is a book I want all of you, bias in the back table. This is his book. Dr. Daniel Brewbaker did his doctoral thesis on looking at the manuscripts. He was the first in the world to actually go to all the manuscripts, get invited into the different museums and the different schools, and to film them, to photograph them. He was only interested in the R, in the Continental text, those manuscripts that I showed. So this has nothing to do with the dots and vowels that we talked about earlier. This is not Kufic, the 8th, 9th, and 10th century. He's looking at the earliest manuscripts which have no dots and vowels. And he wanted to film them. And what did he find when he filmed them? He found that there were lots of them have insertions above the line. See that word there? There's another word above the line. Here's another one. So insertions have been added. That means their text is changing. Then he found hundreds of erasures. See, there's an eraser, there's an eraser, there's an eraser, there's an eraser. These erasures are censoring the text. When he looked at the insertions and he found what was left over, every one of those insertions then made and standardized the text to the Hafs 'Uthmani text, to this book here. Every time you see an insertion, it, and now standardized it and censored it so that it equaled this book here. When he looked at the erasers, what was left behind now supported this text here, the Hafs 'Uthmani. He also found hundreds of erasures overwritten. So they erase, they overwrite on top. There's a whole word with just three letters overwritten here. They even changed a different color. Here you have a whole word that's just re, that's just of, written the CF, the, and the HFF, and the lam, just three letters. In every case here, you find overriding with erasers. There's the overriding, then the erasers. You see, see the erasers underneath in two complete lines that were written over top in a much later ink. In every case, when this was done, this is called censorship, standardizing the text so it now paralleled this text, the Hafs 'Uthmani. Your text, sorry, it was your text. You're awesome, aren't you? It almost sounds like awesome-y. Didn't mean that, but you can take it if you want it. And then many times, especially in the Kufic script manuscript, he found these coverings. See, covering there on with paper. See your covering? Look at this one. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight coverings. What's left over? Just looks like chicken scratches, doesn't it? The one in the middle, this one over here. Look at the covering. There's a covering, there's a covering, there's a covering, there's a covering. All these coverings, wholesale coverings. Why are they covering it? To censor it so that what's left over now supports this text here, the Hafs 'Uthmani text. In every case, it censors it. Here you can see selective covering, overwritten. They just wrote over top of it. They didn't even bother to show that this is, they were censoring it. Then you get to these tapings. When Dr. Brewbaker looked at this, he thought maybe that was for damage. But when you looked at the backside, there was no damage there. That's censorship. They were covering in a whole section so that it fit the, the, the Kufic text.

Now we decide to take this down to Speaker's Corner and to introduce it. In 2019, you're going to see me and Hut and Huton up on the ladder. While we were there, the man who is responsible for all of the manuscripts worldwide on the Islamic Awareness website, his name is Mansur Ahmed. You've already seen him in some of the clips before. He comes and puts his ladder next to mine to confront me. And he decides to go one step further. Watch and see what he does. He's going to make a claim in this where he's going to claim that we don't have to worry about these manuscripts. We can trace the Quran all the way back to Uthman, all the way back to 652. I'm going to hang him on that by asking three questions. You're going to see me ask: Is, can you provide a manuscript from the time of Uthman, complete, 114 suras? He can't. Can you provide one from the 7th century? He can't. Can you provide from even the first century of Islam, which goes from 622 to 719? I gave him two extra years. I gave it 721. Look and see what happens. Our Quran that we read today has a continuous textual tradition in our manuscript tradition. So now what we establish is this, the Quran, when we, in the manuscript traditions, by those isolated errors, trial and error, we have it orally, in my written form, that the Quran we read today is the Quran that has been transmitted by our generations of Muslims from day one, from the Prophet, peace be upon him. Quickly, very quickly, before you leave, how far does that tradition go back to? That is why, how far does that tradition go back to? Absolute certainty of our textual and oral transmission of the Quran, because not did you see he's saying textual and oral? Also, do you have a textual tradition that goes back to 652? Look, do you have a textual tradition that goes back to 652? Yes or no? Any text. Does you have a text all the way back to? Any text of the Quran that you examine? Any text? So when we examine the Quran in the manuscript traditions, we have almost a quarter of a million manuscripts of the Quran across the world in libraries. You're not answering the question. Do they go back to? Do they go back to 652? You are interrupting when I'm speaking. Well, answer the question. So we have from our textual tradition alone, more than 99% of the Quranic text from the first Islamic century. Okay, tell, explain. When the first Islamic century goes to? It goes from 662 to 22 up to 721. So we're talking about the 8th century, am I correct? If you go to IslamicAwareness.org, in which we have tabulated and shown Quranic manuscripts all around the world with references, which ones are dated, which ones are paleographically dated, you will see the amount of first century within Islam, first century Islam, the Quranic that we have. You have dozens of them. Are okay, here we go. Have you heard the claim he has made? Do you have 114 suras of the Quran in one manuscript that is from the mid-7th century? Yes or no? No. Do you have a complete Quran from the time of Uthman, 114 suras, in our hands today that we can look at? Do you want an answer or do you want him to waffle on? No, you don't. We have at the moment. You must be a Christian, right? Question. Do you want an answer to this? Okay, let's continue. On his answer is no. They do not have that. Do you have a complete Quran from the 7th century at all? Do you have a complete Quran that's 114 suras from the same century that Muhammad lived? Yes or no? As I said, from the first century of Islam. The first century goes up to 721. That's the 8th century. So your answer is 8th century. Are you, do you have a complete Quran by the 721? Yes or no? Yes or no? Yes or no? The guy who is demanding a complete Quran from you. You know, the answering the question is yes or no. Let me respond to you in time. Right. If you examine the manuscript traditions of Jewish scripture. We're not talking about Jewish scripture now. And we're not talking about Jewish scripture. We're talking about Quranic scripture. Because we don't make this claim, only the Muslims make this claim. It is the Muslim that just now said that we can go back to the first century of Islam. That's AH, which goes from 622 to 721. And that we can find a complete manuscript. Tell me where. Give me the name. Did I not say? Of course, you did not listen to what I'm saying. That's why you need to. Oh, you're going to change it now. So you don't have a manuscript. Do you have a complete manuscript in the first century of Islam? Chicken. Not say you. Come on. We have more than 97. Not complete. Of the text of the Quran. Which is not. That's all I need to hear. Now, did you notice he cannot claim a complete manuscript? He cannot claim because there is no complete manuscript. He wants to take it back to the first century. Ah, what he's not telling you is that almost every one of these manuscripts are from the 8th and 9th century. What we're looking at today are the earliest manuscripts. There is nothing earlier than the Topkapi. There is nothing earlier than the Sana'a manuscript. When you look at those manuscripts, how many variants do we have? Go ahead, Mansur. Give us the number that Dan has found. We've been asking now for an hour and a half. And listen, you can do the same thing. When Muslims make these claims, just shut them down and just say, "All right, you are the ones that claim, man, that 652. You can't come up with a manuscript. Let's try the 7th century." They can't come up with the manuscript. Let's try the first century. AH, which goes up to 719. I gave him two extra years. He could not find any manuscript. But look what he said at the very end. "We have 96% of the Quran." What is he talking about? To understand, you need to go up to the Islamic Awareness website. And that's what he's talking about. This is what he's put up there. That's the 96%. Not one manuscript, but 63 fragments that they've grabbed and pulled together to make 96% of the Quran, assuming that all of these fragments are earlier than 719. So we decided to do some work on this. And we went through every one of those manuscripts. And most of them down here, if you look down here, they're only a few, one, one, one or two verses. This one up here is half the Quran. That's the Topkapi manuscript, 2165. That's the biggest one they have. So we wanted to date them. We wanted to find the datings. If he was correct that these are before 719. And this is what we found. Of the 63 fragments, 20 that you see going up right now are tentatively dated with disagreements between scholars. And yet, therefore, no one's come to any conclusion on them. So why did he use those 20? Because he needed them to fill up this 70, the 96%. Nine of them, including the Topkapi, the most important one, the one that gives them half the Quran, right there, is after 719. It's dated to 790, the late 8th century. Uh, the late 8th century. And the other 34, no one has done any work on. So none of them, they should have used because no one's come to any agreement on them. Since no work's been done on them, they just grabbed them because they needed them so they could fill up their 96%, knowing that, in hoping that no one would ever check them out. We've checked them all out. Which means, in other words, that none of them are really valid, since all of them are either late or tentatively dated or have no supporting evidence. Therefore, you need to make sure Muslims don't pull the wool over you. This is the best they've got, and they can't even come up with one manuscript within 100 years of Muhammad. Can you see a problem for them? That's why they're no longer making these claims because we've shut this down.

So how in the world did this Quran come into being? Why was this one chosen? You'd like to know the story, don't you? Well, let's go back and ask that question. To understand that, you need to go back to Cairo. You go, need to go back to 1924. In 1924, the students, high school students, were coming and they were having standardized tests there in Cairo. And they were answering with 30 different answers. Because if you have 30 different Qurans, seven of the Kufic, 14 of their disciples, another three Kufic, and six of their disciples, but coming from all over Egypt and other parts of the Muslim world, you're going to have 30 different answers. You can't have standardized tests. So they decided to go to Muhammad Al-Husayn Al-Hafiz, who is a cleric, well-known scholar in Al-Azhar University there in Cairo. And they asked, they decided to ask him, which is the Quran that we can use for standard tests? And he gave him this one here. This is it, right here. This is the Hafs. This is your students' Hafs, right? Or you are, you're Hafs. So this is your Quran, right here. They chose this one here. As it, why do you think they chose his Quran and no one else's? Not popularity this time. It had to do with the Ottomans. The Ottomans had chosen it. It was the Ottomans who back in 1299, when they started putting, finding all these different Qurans, and also by the time the 15th century, 1429, when they saw there were now 30 different Qurans, decided to choose this one as their official one, mainly because Hafs, you live very close to them, and also you are the easiest to memorize. So between the 1300s up until 1924, that 700-year period, they started standardizing all the manuscripts. Now, can you see why those manuscripts are standardized? Why? Because they controlled all the manuscripts for 700 years. They controlled the manuscripts. That's why they were putting insertions and erasing and writing over top and didn't really think anybody would check them out. They were standardizing the text for 700 years. So that in 1924, Al-Husayn had no other choice but to use this one, because all the other manuscripts fit this one with all the corrections. You can see they're, they're easy to see. You all saw them with your own eyes, didn't you? The insertions above, the erasers, the rubbing out, or the coverings, hundreds and hundreds of coverings. So what did they do with the other 29? They took the other 29 and they threw them into the Nile, thinking that would get rid of them. Not very smart, is it? What they didn't, what they didn't realize is about Hatun. Hatun Tash, and in 2012, almost 80 years later, decided to ask one simple question, "Could you give me a Quran?" And now we've been able to find all of them. We've been able to find all 30 of them. You can buy nine of them on the internet right now. These different ones. I want to show these two right here because these are your two. Yours is this one, written in 796. Yours is this one, watch, written in 8212. This is yours is from Cairo. Yours is from Kufa, which is today Baghdad. How many differences between these two books would you guess? One, two, three, four? More than 5,000 differences between these two books. That's why you have to continue reading it. If you're a Hafs family and in North Africa, you have to keep memorizing this because you cannot change. You've, it's been passed down from family to family. No wonder then, no wonder these are so damaging, completely damaging. And it doesn't matter whether you throw them into the Nile, you don't get rid of them because you have to figure that Hatun Tash will find them in a few years. Now, that was so successful in Cairo that in Egypt, in 1936, they decided to make the Hafs 'Uthmani the official text for the entire country. And they call it the Farouk Edition, named after King Farouk, who came to power that year. That was so successful in Egypt that the Saudi Arabian government in 1985 decided to make the Hafs 'Uthmani, your text, the official text for the whole world. To stop this problem. How many people are sitting in this room tonight who are, who were alive in 1985? Just raise your hands. Ooh, look at all of you. Every one of you are older than the canonized text of the Quran. Doesn't that make you feel old? So here's the thing. Where did the Quran come from? Let's go ahead now. You want the big question. Where did they put this material from? To do that, we need to start with this man here. And this is the man that opened up a whole can of worms back in the 1970s, Dr. Gunther Luling. He's a German historian, theologian, philologist, Arabist, and Syriac scholar. He was a theologian in 1970 doing his doctoral thesis. And when he was doing his doctoral thesis, he was looking at these beautiful poetry that's in the Quran, which about a third of the Quran is beautiful poetry, no doubt about it. You've been told that, haven't you? And of course, it is beautiful to you. As an Arabist, and this is what Muslims claim is the reason why this had to come from God, because how could Muhammad, who could not read or write, write such beautiful poetry? You're going to hear this claim all the time. Well, he said, "Hold on a minute. I've seen that before." So he decided to look at these texts, these poetry, and then he started to lift out the dots, the five dots, and lift out the three vowels, and replace it with Syriac dots and Syriac vowels, and found that all of this beautiful poetry could be traced back to St. Ephraim and other Christian hymns written in the fourth, fifth, and sixth century, all written in Syriac, showing that this was nothing new under the world. The poetry is beautiful, but don't give credit to Muhammad for it. Give credit to the Christians that wrote it. It all came from us. A few years because of that, he was thrown out of the university in Germany, thrown into obscurity. By 1972, he was on welfare, not permitted to go. Remember, if you get X-men Opus in Germany, the highest grade you can get, you were given a professorship in any university. He was, he was not given any professorship because of what he found. It was so damaging. I went to see him in the late 1990s and, uh, I wanted to, I was visiting another scholar there at that time, and I asked him if I could look at his doctorate. And I saw the, I don't speak German, but I could see the first sentence was 400 words long. I wasn't about to even try to get that translated. But I said, "I would like to get this translated into English. Would you mind?" So I took it back with me back to England, and we translated it with German scholars there, and then we handed it back to him. He sent it over to, needed to get it published. And because of that, it went into the English-speaking world so that everybody could read it. And he was resurrected, brought back into academia. So that by the time he died in 2014, he was a happy man. All because we got it written in English. There's his book called "A Challenge to Islam for Reformation." Because of what that book did, this man named Christoph Luxenberg, I can't show you his picture because he is, there is a death threat on him, decided to go one step further. When you look at the Quran, about a quarter of the Quran just makes no sense. The scholars don't know what to do with it. They can't understand it. So you got to do something with it. How can you find out what it is? Well, Dr. Christoph Luxenberg decided to do what Gunther Luling did earlier. And he went through seven different processes. Uh, he first looked at the 10th century and couldn't find any help. He went to the Lisan al-'Arab, which is the dictionary from Ibn Manzur in 1290, couldn't find any help. He tried to look for homonyms and synonyms, roots in Aramaic, and suddenly he started finding help. Therefore, he said, "Well, if these are Syriac, like what Gunther Luling found, let's try to lift off the diacritics and put Aramaic diacritics." Went to Aramaic roots and different diacritical marks, then retranslated the Arabic words into Aramaic with semantics of Syriac Aramaic words. Went to the, uh, the 10th century Syriac Aramaic lexicon. By the time he went to the seventh process, he was able to reproduce all 25% of the dark passages. And guess what he found? Every one of these passages are Christian lectionaries, Christian homilies, and Christian hymns, all about Jesus Christ. Everything was about Jesus. It's not what he found, it was who he found. He found Jesus all through these texts, these dark passages.

Conclusion: When you look at the four periods of textual evolution, if you look at the Quran, you'll notice in the 7th century, you had the Aramaic text from those who were outside of the cities. They were the ones, the Israelites. They did not belong to the cities. They were not part of the seminaries. They did not speak Syriac. Therefore, they were not part of the discussion, the theological discussions happening in the cities. But they were Arab. They were Arabs. And so when they then lifted these writings in the 7th century, when Abdul Malik came to power and was their greatest champion, they then took these Aramaic writings and they took, threw off the vowels and put their own writings on, their own dots, their own vowels in the 8th century to create their own text. That was done in the 8th and 9th century. By the time the Kufic and the Hafs were then added up to the 10th century, you then had 700 different Qurans, which then had a whittle down to 30 Qurans, which then in the 2nd, uh, uh, the 19th century, last century, sorry, the 20th century, last century, then had to be whittled down to one Quran. So you can see there are basically four different canonical canons of the Quran that we can trace through that period.

Finally, before I go on, remember I told you to memorize those four words that most Muslims claim for their Quran. I said the Quran, they claim is eternal, right? That it was sent down, right? And that it was complete at one time, and that it has never changed since that time. Those are the four claims that Muslims make. Well, I think today we've pretty well refuted all of that. It was not eternal. There's no way you can say it's eternal because it's been changed, manipulated, and hid, and deleted, and corrupted all the way through the last 1400 years. Uh, excuse me, 1300 years. So we cannot say that that's their word of God anymore. And we cannot say the same thing about our Bible. Well, we will not make those claims for our word of God. But remember, our Bible is not the only word of God we have. We have another word of God, a greater word of God, the Logos, who took on flesh and dwelt among us. In John 1, wasn't he also the word of God? Yes. So let's apply these four criteria to him and let's see if they work. Is Jesus eternal? Yes. Was Jesus sent down? Yes. Is Jesus complete? Yes. Has Jesus ever changed? No. The four things Muslims need for their holy, their greatest revelation, we have in Jesus Christ. Folks, the four criteria Muslims are looking for in their Quran, their primary revelation, we already have in Jesus Christ, our primary revelation. Therefore, we need to bring them home to a much greater and better revelation. His name is Jesus.

Now, let's conclude with what we've seen today. These are the conclusions. When all is said and done, I looked at four areas. I looked at the source problem. I looked at the problem with Mecca. I looked at the problem with Muhammad. And I looked at the problem with the Quran. Let's look at the conclusions. Our remit, my remit today was to investigate both Mecca, Muhammad, and the Quran. To do that, we need to look at the sources where we get our information from. And we found that all the sources for the book, the man, the place, are based on traditions, standard Islamic narrative, which are 2 to 300 years too late and hundreds of miles too far to the north. Mecca proves was by far the biggest problem for a Muslim because it still exists today. The standard Islamic narrative refers to a place with much vegetation, existing since Adam and Eve, and with 300 prophets buried. Yet it's not referred to until 741, the mid-8th century. And none of the early maps show Mecca at all. Patricia Crona debunked Watt's land-based trade route theory in her book published in 1987, called "Mecca and Trade in the Rise of Islam." We debunked the Red Sea trade route via Arabia, proving it was all via Africa, not for Arabia, because Arabia did not have water, whereas Africa did. All of the 7th-century Qiblas were facing Petra up until 706, and not Mecca until 7:15. None of the surrounding empires ever heard of Mecca. And all of the stages of the Hajj were simply borrowed from other places, mostly from Jerusalem.

Continuing on Muhammad. When we looked at Muhammad, the coins proved that the area under Islam was either Christian or Zoroastrian up until 692. The rock inscriptions proved that Islam as we know it did not appear until 7:30. All of the 7th-century references for Muhammad are way too far north or refer to someone else, who is the praised one. The Quran. The six earliest manuscripts proved that men created six different Qurans between the 7th and 9th century. The Birmingham Hoard proved that Muslims built stories created long before the Quran. The 30 Kufic texts, which proliferated from the 8th to 10th centuries, proved that the Quran was evolving everywhere. Holding up the 26 Kufic texts in 2016 at Speaker's Corner opened up a whole can of worms for Muslim scholars. The interview between Muhammad Hijab and Yassir Qadhi on June 8, 2020, created a platform for us to go public with the Kufic narrative. The 29 Kufic variants dumped into the Nile in 1924 proved that when Muslims find problems with their Quran, they either burn them, wash them, erase them, cover them, or sink them to destroy the evidence. The 4,000 canonical variants prove that Muslims have accreted, deleted, and corrupted their text before standardizing it in the last century. The 63 fragments employed to just find just 96% of the Quran proves they still cannot find a complete Quran for over 100 years, as the fragments are tentative or have no sources. The Aramaic proto-Quran proves that when we go back to the original text, we will find Jesus.

So, possible overview: The 7th to 8th-century Arabs, in order to create their own distinct identity, needed a book, they needed a place, they needed a man. They had to be able to compete with us, who already have a book, a place, and a man. Our book, the Bible. The man, Jesus. The place, Jerusalem. They needed, therefore, the Quran, Muhammad, and Mecca. But it did not take 22 years, like Muslims like to believe or the standard Islamic narrative tells us, but centuries, proving that Islam is as man-made as any other religion, unlike Christianity. Now, we can use this material today to disprove the preservation of the Quran and Muhammad and Mecca. It is Islam and not us who are arguing from silence. Remember the debate I had? He was saying I argued from silence. We have flipped that on its head. Now we have the evidence. We have the stones. We have the coins. We have the manuscripts. We have the buildings. We have the Qiblas. What does Islam have? Everything. They're going to reply to you every time. They're going to answer you. They have to go to the 9th and 10th century. That means they are now arguing from silence. We no longer are, which makes my job so easy. These arguments hit at the very foundations of Islam, yet they are neutral and politically correct. That means anybody can use it. Why is the historical critique so popular? Why is this so popular? I've just come back from being in Italy, sharing this in Italy. I used it in Switzerland, uh, in September. I then went down to Nigeria. I went to Lagos, I went to Abuja, I went to Jos, which is surrounded by Boko Haram. When I introduced what I just introduced you tonight, they were dancing in the aisles because they need this material. They absolutely need it. More than you need it. They need it because Islam is blowing down, just blowing up, and taking over, not only the political structure, they're taking over land. This material is visual. Notice everything I've showed you has been on the screen. How many people, just raise your hand, how many people understood what I've said tonight? Wow, that's about 90% of you understood what I've said tonight. How many of those who have understood it could do it on your own using this PowerPoint in about another month or two? That's amazing. Do you see how easy this is? How many of you are, are actually happy you don't have to learn Arabic to use this material? The biggest problem we're having whenever we go on and we get people to go out into the Muslim world is number one, fear. They are fearful of confronting Islam. The second biggest problem is they have to learn Arabic. This is visual. Everything I've shown you, its coins, rocks, buildings, maps, timelines, and manuscripts. All you need to do is show your Muslim friends these timelines, these maps, these coins, these manuscripts. That's all you need to do and let them come to their own conclusion. You don't have to know any Arabic at all. Well, I did show you some Kufic and you did follow me, and most of you could see what I was talking about. But that's about all you need to know. You didn't really have to know Arabic. You just have to know what the slashes look like and why that they were differences between the two texts. Notice that everything we've known tonight is foundational to everything Muslims believe. It features one book, one man, and one place. Yet without any, any one of these three, Islam falls to pieces. They need all three. We take out even one, and Islam falls. It is historically neutral and therefore not Islamophobic or hate speech. Have I used any hate speech tonight? Have I used any Islamophobic speech? I've been putting this up on my YouTube site, Fander Films, back in 2020. I had 20,000 subscribers. In the last three years, I've gone up to 93,000 subscribers, about ready to go over 100,000. All because of this material. I have not got one strike in the last three years because how can you strike me with this material? This is neutral. I'm not using any hate speech. I'm not attacking Muhammad. I'm not attacking Muslims. I'm not talking about his sexual proclivity. I'm not talking about his violence. I'm just asking a much deeper question. Is it true? Prove to me that there was a man named Muhammad in the 7th century. That there was a Quran in the 7th century. That there was a place called Mecca in the 7th century. That's all I'm asking. That's all you need to ask. It is as neutral as you can get. But here's the problem. I don't want anybody but you to use it. I'll tell you why. When I left Speaker's Corner back in 2017, my last day there, I'd been there for 25 years, from 1992 to 2017, every Sunday taking on Muslims, hundreds at a time. Sometimes, when I left, the last man to see me, good say goodbye, was an atheist named Steven, who had been a thorn in my side for years. And he said, "Jay, please don't go." And I said, "What do you mean, don't go? You've been a thorn in my side. I'm probably the first person you want to leave." He says, "No, no, no. He says, you're the first Christian we've met that hasn't spent their time telling us their testimony, what God has done for them. For me, as an atheist, is I don't care about what God has done for them because he hasn't done that to me. But you, you're the first one that's actually looked at manuscripts, has looked and asked the historical question, has tried to prove that Jesus did exist at that time, doing these things, at that place. And now you've flipped that and now asking the same questions that you have supported for Jesus, you're asking of Muhammad. And this is what we want. We're asking Christians, could you please be it more simple? Tell us that it's true. Prove that Jesus lived then, that he did these things, that that happened at that place, at that time, with that man. And now you're doing the same thing with Islam. And I love this material. And I turned to him and I said, "Hold on a minute, Steve. I don't want you to use this material. You're an atheist. Your interest is just to destroy Islam. You want to destroy the, the book, the man, and the place. You want to destroy Allah. You want to destroy the Quran. You want to destroy Muhammad. You want to destroy Mecca. But what are you going to replace it with? You have nothing to replace it with. You don't love these people." But I do. Of course, I love them. I've spent 40 years with them. How could I hurt and destroy what they believe? They believe in God. I don't want to destroy that. I just want to take them from that God and bring them home. Take them from Allah, bring them back to Yahweh. They believe in revelation. These are the best people in the world because they're halfway there. They've just got the wrong book. And we need to bring them back to this book. Because I see what that book's doing to them. I see what it does to families. I see what it does to women. I see what it does to children. I see what it does to communities. We need to bring them home to this book. They've got the wrong Jesus. Isa is not the right Jesus. I want to bring him back to Yeshua. And they've got the wrong prophet. Look and see what he did to those who stood against him. I want to take him from Muhammad and bring him back to Jesus. But you can't, Stephen. You can't do any of this. You just want to make them null. Please don't use this. We have to use this, folks. This is our material. This is our debate. This really is our apologetic, not just a polemic. We're not interested in just a polemic. We want to bring them home to Jesus. Don't you? We want to bring them home because they have been gone too long. Let's pray. Our heavenly Father, what a God you are, Lord. I want to thank you that you are the one that came down to earth and you lived with us and you walked and talked with us for 33 years. But you don't leave us destitute. You then died and rose again, and only you can do that. Only you did that. And that's why we need to bring people to know who you are. We need to bring them home to you. We need to bring them away from Allah, back to Yahweh. Away from Muhammad, back to Jesus. Away from the Quran, back to the Bible. And away from Mecca, back to Jerusalem. Lord, that's our job. And you've, you've equipped us now. You've given us this material. I know that you had it put in the ground so that we could look at it. You put those coins there. You put those inscriptions there. You even put those manuscripts there so that we could use them today, knowing that this would be the debate in the 21st century. So, Lord, we ask those of us who are here and those of us who are going to watch it on YouTube, Lord, we ask that you really equip us not to just confront Muslims, but to love them. Love them home to you. May that be our volition. May that be on our minds and our thoughts. May everything we do represent you. And may the most important thing of bringing, of confronting their book, their man, and their place, is to bring them back to a better book, a better man, and a better place. And that's you, Lord. In Christ's name, we pray. Amen. Amen. All right. Well, uh, Dr. J, where can they find all of your materials? And if they want to do some deeper study? You go up on Fander Films. It's P F N D R Films, F I L M S. I should have written it up there. Um, I can probably still do that. But Fander Films is a YouTube site where we're uniquely confronting the historical critique. And we've been doing it since 2006. Remember, YouTube only existed in 2005, so almost as long as YouTube, for 28 years we've been confronting this material. Go up there. I try to put up a new video every two to three days, at least once a week, so that you can keep abreast of all that's happening. Right now, we're now following back Muhammad's name, looking and find the antecedence to this. Also, you can go up on Al-Faraj International, C I A, which is Al-Faraj's site. We work together. He and I, hand and foot. So both Al-Faraj International and on Fander Films, starting with a P. That's great. So you guys know where to find his stuff. Also, as you guys exit through these back doors, you're going to get a bag that looks like this. Pastor George Saig has created enough bags for everyone in this room to have one. They're totally free. And what we, what we want you to do with this bag is to take it and give it to a Muslim friend, give it to a Muslim neighbor, somebody that you know. Jesus told us about the three men who each received talents. Two of them invested their talents, and the one that was given one talent buried it in the sand. Let's be the ones that invested our talents. Because I don't know if you guys caught it, the heart behind this whole thing is the love of Jesus Christ. Before you guys go, would you join me in praying for Dr. J? Father God, we come before you this afternoon, Lord, and we just thank you, Lord, for what we've just learned. Father, we lift up Dr. J and the work and the research that he's been doing. And God, we just pray, Lord God, for your glory's sake, Lord God, and that this would continue, Lord. Lord God, that you would keep Dr. J safe from the threats that he receives on a regular basis, Lord God. That you would keep his family safe, Lord God. We pray that you would continue, Lord, to reveal more and more to him, Lord God, that he might be able to get this information, Lord God, as he shared, Lord, that this information is causing a rift in the Islamic world, and Muslims are coming to Christ. Lord, we pray for dreams and visions, Lord God, in the lives of Muslims. Lord God, we pray that by your Holy Spirit, Lord God, we know that we can give them all the evidence in the world, and that will break down some of these intellectual strongholds. But Lord, it's your Holy Spirit that needs to enter into their heart and their mind. Lord, it needs to be your love, love, Lord God, that captures their hearts. It needs to be a Christian that they see in their life who's not afraid to tell them the truth, but is also not afraid to welcome them into their lives, bring them to their table, and show them what the love of Christ looks like in action. Lord God, that we might provoke the Muslims to jealousy, as they see the love of Christ lived out in the people sitting in this room. Lord God, we pray for the Muslims, Lord, who are living in this city, Lord, in the SoCal area. Lord, we know that there are literally millions of Muslims living in the SoCal area, those from Somalia, those from Afghanistan, one of the most unreached countries in the world, from Pakistan, Lord, from all over the world. You've brought them here, right into our own backyard. Lord God, would you use us, Lord God, like I, like we prayed in the beginning, Lord God, would this morning be like a ripple effect out into the Muslim world, as Christians obey your command to make disciples of all nations? Lord, we thank you for the time that you've given us. We pray that you would be glorified as we go out these doors, Lord, as we enter the mission field. Father, we pray in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen. Right. God bless you.