The Muslim Lantern vs Andrew Wilson & Jay Dayer | Debate Analysis

how's everyone doing all right uh who are these people yeah okay so that's a very important question uh the reason uh behind this debate I'm going to explain in a bit but don't be uh as a Muslim do not be wasting your time and going checking these people out just people who talk about irrelevant things most of the time right one of them is a preacher and the other one is someone who just most of the time debates uh um liberals or debates uh you know uh girls like that do all of this stuff only fans or or whatever these stuff are you know that's what he does essentially uh the red pel kind of space but he also says he's a Christian debates behalf of Christianity Etc but don't just the purpose behind me uh analyzing the yesterday's discussion is not that you go check these people out the purpose is actually the opposite is to show you that these people are not worth worth our time we always get people who say okay why don't you discuss with the preachers why don't you discuss with the well-known famous people so this is just a demonstration to show the people that this is how they are and why we don't waste our time discussing with them most of the time and we try to discuss with sincere people so that is the first thing the second thing is if you ever see my name in the title in any of these channels of these Christians whatever is don't be clicking on it right because they will be using my picture my name Etc trying their best to uh you know drag you because it's about views and and likes for most of these individuals and it is not about uh it's not about you know the truth what is true and what is not true so uh what is the uh background of what's Happening yesterday I had this kind of two debates with two of these Christians one after the other and I think some of the people may have seen it most of people maybe have not seen it because I didn't announce it so I was in on sneo stream he told me uh he wants to make a debate between Christians and Muslims because his audience is always telling him uh you guys are speaking to people who are not uh you know good Christians or this or that so why don't you debate or discuss with these people right so uh I said to sne okay if you want to do that uh I'll do it on your channel I usually don't debate as you guys know we just have discussions but we did it because of sneo audience we can let them know that like we're not avoiding anyone essentially so there was a a debate shuttle with this guy first one Andrew Wilson and then something happened where didn't work out so we we had to bring a a replacement for him and bring another individual and have a short or or a debate as well with them so I'm not going to be playing the whole thing you can see on on sneo uh platform if you want I'll play the relevant most important part parts not the waste your time Parts if you want to see the whole thing you can see it on Rumble sneaker's kind of platform wherever it is but uh I'm just going to be uh commenting on some of the what happened in the debate SL discussion and the reason also as I said I made this video is that you shouldn't be going on uh the Christians channels and watching this debate right you want to go on the main Channel which is Rumble where it was streamed fully you can do that or you can you're welcome to watch here the review or the analysis of the discussion anyways how's everyone doing alhamdulillah I can see some of the mods here and that is good to hear uh who saw yesterday's uh discussion debate sorry okay appreciate it okay there are some people who did all right not me not me some people did some people didn't alhamdulillah traveling and I'm going to be traveling again soon but alhamdulillah it's all good is this a spoiler it's an analysis of the discussion so uh it's on sneaker's uh platform okay should we get right into it uh let's get right into it maybe inshallah play some parts of it I'll be skipping over as well uh some parts and yeah let's try to get right into the analysis as you say I watched you debate Christian children thank you that is the uh summary of what happened so we going to play that for people to see okay all right uh let's do it inallah uh okay uh let me share the screen let's see all right uh let me do it this way okay uh let me play the audio let me know if the audio is all good can you hear that or no uh the food amazing people some of this people met very welcoming very accepting even though they've been through with this vicious history is very well known the I always play everything on x2 so you can save time you know all right so is the audio good I can increase it if it's not it's a bit quiet okay uh where is the audio size that happen Etc they still very optim how about this people uh beautiful country beautiful mountains great weather like everything was great you know okay is that bitter that's the highest volume kind of thing I believe uh that's the high I can do I believe this is the rumble audio you see I cannot increase it more than this it's good okay it's too fast maybe 1.5 it is 1.5 now all right let's play insh as long as you can hear it then it's good all right so uh yeah here BOS sneak was asking me about my experience in Bosnia because I was in Bosnia Etc then we'll get into important parts right as I said I'll be scrip like skimming through and skipping Parts because uh if I find them irrelevant I'm going to skip them because right now the debate have not yet start zero complaints literally uh so ald I think you enjoyed it as well that was my experience yeah it it was great um all right for for time sake Let's uh let's let's get right into the into the discussion SL yeah so I want I want to make sure though that we're clear uh before the debate starts that uh there is a trinity portion of this and there's an age of consent portion to this starting with the age of consent portion that portion you're on defense and on the Trinity portion I am on defense I want to make sure that we're clear on the rules well yeah we didn't really speak about which one is first by the mind you want to start with ag we can start um the other other things is that we had a bit of a okay so the topic here that he wanted to discuss was the age of consent there was a call that he made uh to sneo I was with him in Bosnia at that time and he thinks that we made stipulations or or agreed upon terms and that we didn't all all what I said in that discussion is that we shouldn't talk about the prophet Muhammad uh insult the prophet in that discussion that we'd be having and uh the the topics which is the age of consent and The Trinity so that was the agreement that we had all right let's continue listening when you called sne when we were in Bosnia we mentioned one of the conditions to be which I want to highlight is insulting of the Prophet M it is not something that I would personally accept that's a religious tenant of ours as Muslims generally that Allah says in the Quran if you hear whether it is the vers of Allah or your religion being mocked that you do not be present in that place so if okay well the thing is is uh like I told you on the phone when we were discussing this because of the sensitivity of how sensitive Muslims tend to be about this I need to be able to openly and freely speak exactly what it is that I think and why it is I'm making an argument if you take offense to that there's nothing I can do about that that but I'm going to speak freely in this debate yeah okay so it's not uh speaking freely or not speaking freely you can speak freely academically mention facts mention sources mention evidences but insulting and speaking freely are two separate things yes but the problem the problem yeah of course we all know here what is the difference between insulting and speaking freely but uh this individual and I knew this this tactic that he's going to take is going to try to be insulting offensive so he can try to get a reaction for views right I know that he's probably going to try to do something like that which is why of course I said that could with anyone we have discussion with anyways and as Muslims that should be like a a you know a well-known condition like a condition that know by default if you're going to engage with anyone problem is is that these are subjective metrics and what you subjectively consider to be offensive I can't do anything about like I could I can't objectively note what would be considered offensive to a Muslim if I talk about Muhammad I can't I can't behaviors I'll give I'll give you a few examples for instance you all right so he say subjective so I'm just skipping so we can save time he said this subjective so I give him some examples of what I mean so he doesn't say it's subjective cursing words cursing slurs make fun of the prophet's actions or behavior specifically make fun of his looks right uh these insinuations these types of things is on talking about objectively talk about facts you're welcome to do that all right so the looks of the Prophet talking about insulting using insulting terms and words very clear right none of that is subjective right and I think you're a very smart person so to say that you're not able to distinguish between why is an insult why I think that's that's really true I think you can I'm not talking about the Muslims who go get offended by anything you say I'm not that type of person but when you get uh insulting and malicious that's a very clear thing that we both know what it is it's not very clear and I'm not willing to conc that I'm clear on what that means because it is a subjective metric and what you may consider insulting towards your profit may not be what I consider to be an insult towards your Prophet so this is a subjective metric if there's anything I say which you take offense to that is not on me I'm not constrained by your religious tenants in order to have Interfaith dialogue I'm going to have to uh you know depend on reason and logic and and rhick and sometimes rck to even dialogue you must risk offense again I'm not talking about me personally and I give examples of what I mean by offense you you still say subjective see even though you give examples if I mean exactly he says oh no no is being subjective so what can we do kind go a c subjetive someone saying higher the volume you can higher the volume on your side that is the highest volume that we can uh do okay now you're interrup me interrupt you so that that should be also important the discourse I would like you speak I don't mind but You' also allow me to speak and if we do now this is a very important point I want everyone here to pay attention to this point right because it's going to be brought up later in in a few minutes right look here I make a very important Point let me rewind again look let playtive because okay now you're interrup me I interrupt you so that that should be also important in the discourse I would let you speak I mind but you also allow me to speak and if we do in the discourse see constant interdictions and interjections and interruptions then we'll start timing the discussion I believe that's very fair other than that like every single thing you're going to interrupt when I speak that's not going to happen trying to take control of the discussion something I can easily do too but it just becomes nobody is interesting so here I make it very very clear like everyone here have heard me say this as as explicit as clear as possible that uh we're going to have a discussion but if you do interruptions like he was doing in the beginning before even the debate started I told him that we're going to time the discussion right everyone hears that is that clear is that clear point I want everyone to pay attention to this point it's very important point because we'll show the the hypocrisy on lie of a lot of these uh missionaries Christian preacher whatever term you want to use for them of how they try to twist realities right so here I clearly made that point and uh I said to him we're not going to be trying to take control I can try to take control and do this game as well shouting and screaming but I don't do it and he heard it very clearly now he's saying you can try so that's exactly what he wants to do right he's not looking for a fair discussion he's looking for oh trying to take over and control the discussion okay so here we made it clear if there's interruptions we're going to time the discussion let's continue that no this is the thing here's an attempt of you trying to kind of make me do that but that's how I do again uh the idea about the prophet mammed is very important otherwise I can well let me well here's the thing I'm going to get into my opening statement here and if there if if that I'm gonna risk offense if it's offensive to you there's nothing I can do about that I'm gonna go ahead and get my opening statement before do before do opening statements um so let let do each topic 45 minutes uh ideally we do a free flowing I don't really like the timing but if it gets uh if there's too much interrupting then we're gonna have to do timing okay now again I'm gonna I'm gonna even emphasize the point here you hear sneo saying the exact same thing again loud and clear if there is Interruption it's it's not only me who said it but the host said it as well we said it twice me I said it he heard it very loud and clear the host repeats the same exact thing if there is interruptions then we're going to time the discussion it's going to be free flaw in the beginning but if there is interruptions then we're going to time the discussion very clear right from me and from the host okay all right let's move forward but ideally it seems like we're on the same page that we're not going to do that um Muhammad Ali do you want to be specific like what would you at what point where religiously would you have to to leave the call because it would be um we're not supposed to as a Muslim you're not supposed to engage in conversations where it's offensive yeah so uh for instance it's a very common thing where where you find Christians and atheists in generally using the word pile continuously uh making uh as I said slurs or just cursing words discussing individual all of these things right just usual cing words that you would use towards the prophet which doesn't really add to the discussion right it doesn't improve anything to it doesn't add any input towards the discussion that we're having so what we're saying is criticism that does not add to the discussion you have a talk about the discussion itself I talk about the actions the prophet did you describe exact specific actions that's up to you as well which probably he would do that's fine but to add your own kind of insults with it and call him this and call him that and he was this and he was that no to that extent then islamically I'm obliged it's not even look it's not even a choice right this is this is Islamic if the prophet or the religion is insulted I'm not allowed to be present in that place whether people like it or not that's a different story it's not like he's gonna personally specifically try to hurt my feelings right even if he insults me I probably wouldn't care that's like it's GNA I'm gonna laugh at that but I'm not talking about that we're talking about religious ten now which is to do with the prophet I also hope that we keep like with discour with one another because I'm not going to insult him okay so uh of course the reason I'm mentioning this is because this is our religion Allah says in the and he sent or revealed to you in the book If you hear the the verses of Allah or the Hadith or the Quran being insulted you do not remain or sit with these individuals right but this is this is the best they can do is just to insult like they don't not have a objective standards of discussions in which they can engage in they just want to insult that's the only thing they want to do right so first here uh I make it clear it's about insults make in fun of the prophets be be uh as an individual insulting him or his his U how he's created his uh you know talk about his body talk about this and all of these like ridiculous things which don't add to the the discussion right and I also mentioned insulting individuals right we don't insult one another right it's very important because you will see the exact opposite of all of these points that we're showing right now in the discussion okay let's continue so I hope that he doesn't do that with me as well specifically person no I the agreement that I would not insult you you see I made the agreement that I would not insult you that's what he said okay personally and I most certainly will not um I I am going to dive into my opening statement if you consider it to be offensive there's nothing I can do about that but I would like to get to stop having the meta conversation I didn't make any agreement to whatever subjective metrics might consider offensive I hope that it doesn't offend you but there's nothing I can do if it does so yeah that's F I didn't say you had an agreement we started talking so we can clarify this point right so we don't have problems when we start discussing but there's some things for instance right like you say uh the word pedophile for instance uh that has a distinct meaning and if it's a key point to an argument to make this claim and it's mapped on to reality I don't see how how that's risking offense to you if it's critical to the argument structure that I'm making this specific yeah you can you can use that language uh I personally disagree that this is the case therefore I consider it an insult that's a discussion maybe that we're having I don't know if it is or not but generally you can say that's an active pilia you don't you see here so I I allow him some space I say you don't need to use that ter and attributed to the prophet you can say the specific Act is this right so so that way you avoid direct insults and this is very clear for anyone who's trying to be of course respectful in the discussion it's not difficult to be respectful but this is how we see from these Christians when we engage with them sadly they they're unable of remaining respectful anyways you want to skip all of this about the same thing I appreciate that you see like a reasonable individual whichever one you prefer Let's do let's do 45 each and Andrew does that sound and now here we talk about the timing 45 minutes an hour if we needed more timing does okay let's get into the beginning yeah again I'm not my purpose here is not even to be insulting it's to give what I consider to be credible here he says his purpose is not to be insulting purpose of the statements and The Logical argumentation that I have formed and and that's the purpose of the debate in order to have discourse because we're dealing World debates are about world the a profit that is part of my Paradigm it is part of your Paradigm that this is not true and I don't know how we can have a conversation me yeah I'm talking about intentional insults and I'm not talking about things that I might personally subjectively find the people generally want this okay about the 45 minutes if we feel like okay yeah so I tried to keep the opening statement somewhat concise that way I'm not Gish Galloping all over the place and that way my opponent can take a single point at a time I think that that's the fair way to do things and I'm paraphrasing here I'm not saying these child I'm inserting this word because I think that under the criteria he as long as it doesn't physically or psych he started this go back to his opening stat visual that way I'm not Gish Galloping all over the place and that way my opponent can take a single point at a time I think that that's the fair way to do things I also have a visual demonstration all right so here he he says he started essentially when he says I'm going to do it concisely this and that this the beginning of his opening statement in regards to the idea of child brides and prepubescent sex children my opponent has stated and I'm paraphrasing here I'm not saying that these are his exact words sex with a child is okay in a marriage context as long as it doesn't physically or psychologically damage a child though he didn't use a specific word child I'm inserting this word because I think that under the criteria he presented it would qualify as a child though I don't think he owned the position opting instead make claims the semantics were correct I'm ready to defend those semantics I have a clip here for proof that this is indeed what my opponent has said on this topic which I'm happy to send over as soon as the opening is done to give you an overview of the absurdity of this position Muslim Lantern and God logic were tempting to argue the position of sex with nine-year-olds in this case it's because God logic had brought up IIA uh I am confident that God logic considers Muhammad to be pedop in class sources Placer at about n years old it wouldn't really matter though Muslim Lantern does or does not believe is's age is this all right so here he he tries to claim said something which I've not said and you guys watch my videos you already know I've not said what he said I said right this this idea about the child Etc all of that we don't need to repeat what he said so here he starts with a strowman argument then he says I'm going to send a clip there was no clip that was sent where I said that uh okay let's continue with his opening statement and then he goes into something which is irrelevant uh he does not need to stand by the idea that he believes that all I need is that he's on record saying that he believes the age of consent itself just based around puberty with no real clarification we'll that us begin with some of what this has to me a prepubescent vaginal which I'm going to represent all right so here he goes into speaking about things which I'm going to skip right he talks about body parts and he talks about sizes of body parts and uh then he claims this is damage will happen if this happens in that specific age all things which typical uh uh Christian Missionary uh debate tactics you can call it right so you skip over all of this nonsense uh people are asking where can you watch the full thing as I said it's on sn's platform Rumble uh.com you can go there if you want to see the full thing but this is the the behavior of these people here with this socket now stop talking about body parts making measurements of body parts now the reason for that is because we have a medical document the damage threshold that ml is talking about here is much different than how ml presents it or that Muhammad also demonstrating the physiology and the difference of problems of the pelvis during child birth for so here he talks about oh the the size of the body part of a prepubescent girl versus uh an adult male and if intercourse happens what are the medical problems are going to happen we don't need to to play that part anyways but this is what girls the size of the birth now is arbitrary pre and girls are observable in the size of variable difference why waiting position job is to go with any what ofms now here is a very understand that I'm not going to go with any whatab isms uh so if you say what about the Christians though it's irrelevance this is that is for me to defend in the next portion of the debate on the Trinity this is purely for him to defend the Islamic position on underage marriage it is not to do what aboutism it is not to say what about the Christians though what about them over there though that's all logically fous argumentation designed specifically tocate away from the points which are being made which is the justification inside of the worldview for why it's okay to have sexual intercourse with girls as young as seven eight n years old why that's okay why that's moral from their Paradigm I do not have to defend a paradigm here it's not important that I defend the Paradigm here it's only important he defends his the Paradigm I'm defending is the trinity in the next debate so he can ask whatever questions that he wants in regards to clarification on what it is that I'm asking him but it is not at all pertinent in any way shape or form whatever he thinks the Christian belief on this is that is not what I'm here to defend he is here to defend the Islamic Paradigm with that I'll yield my time now you see he uh this is no argument essentially all he did is he spoke about body parts prepis and uh and then uh he talked about girls and this and that and if intercourse happens what are the medical damages of that that's essentially all he said and then he jumped into what trying to add a condition oh you I'm not going to allow you to talk about Christianity right I'm not gonna allow any he called whataboutism he's trying to use a fallacy there what aboutism which which is when you bring things which are irrelevant say what about something which is irrelevant to the discussion of course me bringing up Christianity is not irrelevant to the discussion because this is a Islam and Christianity discussion and if you want to talk about the age of con then you should allow me to talk about the Christian age of consent right why are if you want to attack the prophet and call him all of these words and slurs and all of these things then why don't we look about your own Christian tradition and what is the age of marriage or age of conent whatever term you want to use in your religion so he tries there to say oh he's not allowed to talk about he's only going to defend he's not allowed to talk about the Christian tradition and the Christian position he should only talk about the Islamic position and you see this is the the most laughable thing I've seen in my life imagine you having discuss debate with someone a Muslim versus a Christian and then the Muslim in the end of his opening s says look you as a Christian you're not allowed to talk about Islam all you're going to do is to defend your position of Christianity and I I don't want you to mention anything to do with Islam on the topic that we agreed to discuss now this condition was never agreed upon was never highlighted was never brought up right now he's just trying to insert it within his opening statement and the reason is is he's scared he's frightened and I'm going to show you in a minute uh why he's frighted I'm going to demonstrate now to you the notes that I had which I didn't even get to display the discussion that shows the age of consent to the age of marriage and all of that in Christianity which is why they're terrified and scared to allow me to also talk about it in their own position so Christians become atheists that's what they do whenever it's time to defend Christianity oh I'm sorry I've become an 8s you just defend your position and I'm going to attack your position and you just say yeah thank you please attack me uh and I'm going to defend only this is how the most laughable and absurd thing I've seen in my life but listen let's let's continue to listen so he's done with his opening statement okay all right you see in his opening statement I didn't even say a word his full opening statement I didn't jump or interrupt or say anything let's see now what's going to happen here perfect amazing I love uh the ending of his talk because it shows that how hypocritical Christians are he's trying to put a new condition that we didn't agree upon is oh you're not going to mention Christianity and that is not gonna happen I'm gonna mention Christianity to show how Andre it took me what 20 seconds 20 seconds to be interrupted in my opening statement like this is how uh these Christians debate right you're not even allowed to finish your opening statement 20 if it doesn't take you even 20 minutes they get triggered straight away because they know they're being refuted and like oh oh no no no I got to stop him now from speaking otherwise I'm going to look bad so this is very sad it's very sad that you guys can see 10 seconds yeah 10 to 20 seconds right we gave you five minutes interrupted this minute he's already interr give you five minutes uninterrupted sneo highlights then why you like not even allowing 10 seconds I think it's fair Andrew Andrew he gave he did give you five minutes un interrupted it's it's completely fair for him to give that his his time in his opening statement okay so he muted now all right thank you for muting him I thought muted him but he muted himself that was him he mut himself all right so he muted himself okay same thing right great now I'm going to start again while I would say this is what we see Christians trying because they're running away they want to run away from the fact of all Christian history Church fathers what they believe about the age of marriage or the Bible says about the age of marriage instead of Mak this a Christian Islam versus Christianity which was the the the whole topic of the argument he trying to make it now no just speak about Islam no no this is Islam versus Christianity thing people watching you are Christians they have Christian positions you might disagree you might shake your head that's ER 11 I'm going to mention the point anyways for the benefit so now the discussion has not become Islam versus Christianity now the discussions have become no position atheism versus Islam right and this guy has in his tag the word Christian and he talks about Christianity and he's a Christian and all of that and then when it comes to him representing his position no no no sorry we're not we're not going to uh represent that position it's very sad and laughable in the same time so of the viewers to see the hypocritical nature of the people who accuse the prophet of something that they themselves are doing now uh you mentioned few things which are I don't really need to deal with very very low laws trying to you know instigate some sort of reaction with the measurements and stuff like that irrelevant not going to deal with that a according to the Muslim beliefs were not prepubescent according to the agreement of Muslims that was not the case so all of your argument about the prepubescent stuff doesn't work because that was not the case with in fact the prophet waited after he made a contract with her with her until she reached the age in which she was then uh past puberty essentially what we believe as Muslims so now um I completely refuted his whole opening statement which was about prepub and uh discourse and he talking about the prophet and the prophet's uh marriage was not when the Intercourse when intercourse happened she was not preus so his whole argument is gone so he tries to make all of this argument and talk about measurements of the prepubic and the meure what what the measurements are and all of this all of the argument that he was making has no relevance to the prophet and and the marriage so that his whole basically point is being is refuted as simple as that so your argument is again I didn't even see an argument all you did is just said science says one two three this is what we have with Christians they don't present anything from their own faith they just like with all the respect speak speak speak empty speech about okay oh this is what happens when you have intercourse and this length and that L is argument there is zero argument that was presented so on the other hand I'm going to present actual arguments now first morality is objective in the belief of both Muslims and Christians morality sources from the Creator in the belief of both Muslims and Christians so the reason this whole idea of the age of marriage not age of conent because Muslims don't have an idea of age of conent that's a western concept they have idea of age of marriage and Christians have idea of age of marriage but it seems like it's changing these days so this argument is not even an argument against Islam per highlight why first as I said so here I said some a very very important Point like the discussion of the the marriage of the Prophet is to do with morality uh so their claim is that this is an immoral Behavior it's a wrong Behavior it's immoral and we both believe as Muslims and Christians morality comes from God you don't make up what is right and wrong yourself right it's not your subjective View and beliefs of what what is correct and what is not correct morality sources from the Creator it's not your subjective personal opinion of what you think is moral immoral right and that's why it's very relevant to bring the Christian view into this it's important for the debate the discussion because otherwise if you're just an atheist I'll tell you I don't care God said X is allowed and therefore it's allowed done but you have an objective morality as a Christian I have an objective morality as a Muslim so let's highlight your objective morality and see your objective standard and then highlight the Islamic objective morality and I will defend my Islamic objective morality morality is objective and resources from in order for you to claim something is morally incorrect morally wrong you need to prove your objective morality I Christian in your case and this Pro that Islam doesn't have an objective morality and then which then we can talk is that specific actual intercourse that happens whether that be before or after puberty whether it is right or wrong where did you bring this objective moral claim as a Christian you should find that in the Bible so I would wait for you to present me with your lovely evidences from the biblical tradition what is the morally age acceptable age for intercourse and if you cannot do that then you're just saying your own personal subjective moral opinion and we don't really care about that like just like anyone else's subjective moral opinion that's number one why this is not argum against Isam because you've not proved your objective morality number sure so I'm highlighting why his discussion is is useless because he needs to First establish objective morality and what is the objective age from his standard and then say Okay based on that objective morality X is right or X is wrong to a Muslim can believe now we talked about me and my Bel which I can highlight in a second talk about the points the things I believe in my position but that's not what we're discussing now I'll present it anyways it doesn't matter uh a Muslim can believe I'm talking a Muslim I'm not talking about myself now a Muslim can believe the age of was different than what we say contract at six and consummation at n a Muslim can believe a different number why a Muslim can believe a different number and can still be a Muslim because this is not Faith issue we have six articles of Faith as Muslims number seven is not thee of we don't have that so information about prophet of the information about the wife of the Prophet is not essential to the belief and the Creed of a Muslim if he wanted to say okay I don't this specific report I believe it otherwise he's not going to be a Muslim therefore it's not an argument against Islam you're arguing against something that is not a credal issue in the Muslim faith to begin with so it's irrelevant it's irrelevant AR losing debate from the beginning for you there are many Muslims who do believe or there are Muslims Muslim who do believe otherwise that her age was not specifically that and they talk about how the ages the date of birth was not recorded as it is recorded today they have Hospital and writing the names and this and that so the numbers and the ages and the date of birth was not as accurate as it is today however I hold the position that she was six with the uh contract and nine of the cons that's my position but I'm making a more important point now which is that it is not arguing against Islam because I can still believe otherwise and be a Muslim and it's not arguing against the religion of Islam because you're attacking something is not AE Foundation the third reason that does not dis now this is a very very important point right we uh as Muslims most of us I I would encourage people to accept the a is mentioned by herself in in bukari but it's the important Point still stands is it is not a someone is a Muslim or a non-muslim if he believes the specific age of that age so in Islam what this qualifies or makes someone a cafer or disbeliever is the disbelief in in issues to do with the six articles of Faith believe in Allah his books his me Messengers Etc six articles of Faith this is how a person becomes a disbeliever whether to disbelieve in one of these or a particular important details to do with these things now the Hadith the narration about the age of is not even to do with the prophet let alone is the six Articles of of Faith it's not even the prophet himself it is about which is his wife so if someone were to believe a different age and he would only be doing that because he's worried about how people look at him today and this and that anyone who understands history will understand we don't need to try to change the age anyways that's why my position Remains the Same and I'm going to highlight why in a in a minute with the notes that I had uh but the important point is this is whatever age you're believing it's not a credal issue in Islam but I'm debating what I'm trying to debate with him is the Trinity the core Foundation of his religion because we are refuting the the faith now ref refuting Christianity while these people are just trying to do L laws they're not trying to uh disprove Islam because they know they can't so it's just oh let's do emotional types of arguments to try to get people agitated that is their own goal nothing more nothing less qualify uh does not argument against Islam is because that does not disqualify Prophet Muhammad from being a prophet with the Christian biblical standards objective morality of Christianity you have prophets in the Old Testament sleeping with their own daughters you have prophets committing polytheism you have prophets killing and committing ad adultery and they'll C the prophets of God according to the Christian narrative in fact you have Isaac and rebea Isaac Mar rebea at the age of 140 and she was three or all the way from three to 10 you can choose whichever one you like and I can demonstrate that with evidences if you like you're welcome to ask and I'll give you sources and reasons and evidences for that so we have already an example of someone who did that was not debunked or criticized by God or corrected by so in reality uh you don't have any objective source so here I mention the third point which is a very important Point according to the Christian standards of what is a prophet what is not a prophet they had all the prophets doing all of these things you know the incest and all of these things with their daughters committing Poli everything and then you had the the marriage of Isaac and Rebecca with with the 40 and3 with the biblical standards which we can highlight in a second this is their own standard God did not deun this or say this is wrong and this is that that's why you have rabbis believing uh the age of three under the age of three there's no problem if someone were to do something because this this is their position literally so uh you have uh a very very important point being highlighted here which is that according to the Christian tradition what disqualifies someone from being a prophet is not that it's not an immoral act or behavior even if you estab you've not even yet established this immoral but if you said the prophet did this or didn't do that you already have examples of your prophets doing that so if that does not disqualify the prophet from being a prophet of God in your faith then you don't have an argument against Islam there there's no argument there because if you still accept that okay he's still a prophet or can be a prophet therefore you got no argument against Islam so this essentially refutes his whole case whatever he can bring up in this discussion is irrelevant because as we said the the the age itself is not a credal foundational issue he needs to establish objective morality for a correct age from his tradition which he cannot do and third their prophets already do all types of things and they're still considered prophets so what else can I do you know this is this is more than enough for anyone who has any reasons a mind to understand who claim that this specific AC is wrong I'm waiting for that objective source which should be the Bible or a divine revelation in which morality sources from so that is the first thing I'm going to say uh the second thing that I'm going to jump into is uh my specific position why is my specific position my specific position because you would like to know my specific position so I I'll make it concisely in points and then perhaps maybe I'll let you come in because I don't want to take a very very long uh segment okay my position is the following Islam allows marriage there is no sex or or intercourse or any of that before marriage so we don't have the idea of AG concept we have the idea of marriage does not allow interos marriage as Christianity but people do not keep to that thing the second thing is a kid because you've not defined and I would like your definition of the word and the your definition of the word child and when is an act consider exact specific age which you would consider and then you give me the objective morality for why where you came with these numbers from right hopefully not just your subjective opinion so uh second thing a kid is someone who's under puberty and adult is someone who's gone through puberty uh in marriage in Islam it has to be with the agreement of the father there's something called the in Islam was the guardian of the girl and without his agreement any marriage in Islam is void Prophet said there's no marriage without the agreement and the blessing of the the guardian in this case the father right so this is our position any marriage without the agreement to the father is void let's I think there was a lot of points there um all right so here I was highlighting our Islamic position on on the idea of the age and and the discourse at all of that uh obviously I didn't have enough time so I was just like spoke maybe the same amount of time as Andrew so then sneo told me to to stop so until here things will get Missy just right after but I'm just letting you know this is the uh reasonable part of the discussion you can say if you could wrap up this last one so we can let him respond all right make number four I've got like four and five I don't know if he wants all of them or not I'll just make number four if there is any type of harm uh both the husband or the wife the man har any type of harm that is established with evidence is with proof so if we were to accept and this is why I'm going to shatter his whole argument right now in a second if we were to accept his argument that there was a scientific harm on a specific age of a girl that we can establish then Isam is har and not allowed and therefore you have no argument there okay I'll give him all right so then I conclude the whole discussion and debate also with a reputational point his whole argument was about uh scientifically if intercourse were to happen before puberty and all of that what is the damages scientifically we said islamically we have a general rule you're not allowed to harm anyone else or yourself so if you can establish that harm will take place without a shadow of a doubt when a specific intercourse takes place then with the agreement of all Muslim Scholars that is not allowed that is Haram so you have no case to argue against Islam done so what I've done in in my statement there is to refute his uh whole opening statement and the whole topic of the discussion why it's not even argument against Islam and I think he realized that very well and that's why he will start now to to play some tactics and then you're going to see these tactics I'm sorry for what you faced yesterday it's okay I'm completely okay don't worry there's nothing to be sorry about all right now the floor say okay so unfortunately we have to go back to meta here for just a second have meta conversation about the so here so you say let's go back now and make conditions again we we've done opening statements so let's go back now and make new conditions so the the Trinity is a Christian doctrine it's not a Muslim Doctrine so I would be on defense for that portion so for me to say what about Muslims believe though has nothing to do with the Trinity so because it has nothing to do with the trinity in good faith I would just simply defend the logical position of the Trinity what he's doing is engaging in I have to do what bism is in order to defend my worldview also even if I was immoral had no moral Paradigm whatsoever it completely didn't believe in any sort of higher power nor objective morality I could still be able to prove inconsistencies in your moral worldview sir so if it's inconsistent from your worldview and you Advocate that it is indeed moral I could still prove that without having any objective standard for morals at all you understand that right you understand how debates work so now look what he's done even if I have no worldview even if I don't okay so look at me as an atheist essentially that's what he's tried to say you know ignore Christianity don't do whataboutism it's not even the what about is which is fallacy he's trying to bring up because the points I'm bringing are relevant to the discussion I never agreed that we're not going to present the objective uh worldview of Christians in which he's arguing from that the what the prophet did was immoral that is necessary to the discussion and the debate right so he just what he just wants to do is to just argue and attack and me allow him okay go ahead please argue attack do whatever you want to do right so uh this is how Christians are they they don't want to defend their own positions and actually since we are here I'm going to now demonstrate to you guys and show you why he did not want to do that let me read some of what I have prepared from the Christian tradition the Christian Perspective right of the age of marriage or age of consent whatever term you want to use right so uh let me read some of this uh briefly one second right let me get this here right second I spent some time collecting the stuff but then they ran away in the end and I was not able to demonstrate to them their objective Christian standard of uh age of marriage or whatever it is okay so uh we talked about first of course we talked about Isaac and and Rebecca and anyone can look at the calculation of the ages of the two uh if you want a specific article on that let me just post it even on the comment in the comment section now for anyone who is interested right now so you can go back to this time stamp in 826 you'll see I put the uh article in the comment section and whoever would like to read the calculation why do we say that her age undoubtedly was uh from 3 to 10 maximum you can go to 10 when the discourse happened between uh Isaac and Rebecca in the biblical tradition so that's the first thing that is the first thing we presenting from a Christian tradition we don't have the Christian gods refuting that or calling that an immoral Behavior right other than that okay let's go to the Christian uh perspective first is that we highlight that this idea is not new the age and we highlighted this many times before in previous videos I've done that is that this idea of age of marriage or age of consent or whatever it is if you look at it historically it's not new to talk about these ages uh 10 or 12 or seven or eight this is not something new that that was the case for all history now we're talking generally now not not Christianity but we're talking generally for all history what is the sources for that you can see in the US until 1965 the age was 10 in most of the states and seven in Delaware in the UK it was uh in the 1800s or 1900s it was seven years old where is the the uh uh references for that first I'm going to call some academics now so professor of of History Margaret Wade she says um in her book amid eval miscellany by Margaret Wade uh page 52 it needs to be remembered that many medieval widows were not old uh were often married between the age of five and 10 and find themselves widows in in their teens so they were of to marriage this professor he is telling you professor of history that the people were married between five and 10 in medieval times and they find themselves where where do their te okay number two uh Professor Richard Worley BR Ley and Professor Steven smallbone uh in their book U inter internate child I'm not going to mention the p word causes investigation and prevention uh in page 10 they say in medieval and and early modern European societies the age of marriage remained low with documented cases of bride as young as 7 years old although marriages were not typically consummated until you reach the age of puberty so he's saying there was marriages at the age of seven but typically generally it was until puberty right but we have people at the age of seven but generally typically it was until puberty right uh okay who else Professor Richard A boser is a chief judge in the US court of appeals in his book six and Society volume one page 54 he says the law govern in the age of consense has changed drastically in the United States during the 19th century so he's saying the age has completely during the 19th century changed drastically it was not the same most codified statutory age of consent during the 19th century uh the usual age was 10 years old same thing that we're making so we got academ I got many many many more academics but we don't need to mention all of them this is what I was about to mention so what are the references the evidences like you have for example another uh the American B Association General in August 1996 you see them saying one 275 English common law uh criminalizes statutory rape between uh a man below the age of consent which was first set at 12 1576 or 1576 common low age of consent was lower to 10 10 years old 17 in the 1700s and 1800s the statutory uh stays at the age of consent was 10 to 12 or 12 right this is in the 1900s we're talking about 50 years ago you know we're talking about 60 70 880 years ago we not talking about 1,400 years ago that was the age now I can present many many more academics that say the same thing in in their books Mike a miles senica Elliot Susan Ambrose meral D Smith Melissa hope Edward D wood Paul S I can all and on what are the physical evidences and sources that we have for example I mentioned this all the time the Professor William Blackstone in his book uh com commentaries on the British law uh of England page 110 where he speaks about the law in England in the 1800s 1900s in which it was 7 years old the age of marriage he says a girl can be given a marriage at the age of seven uh you have a uh the New York New York time newspaper New York Times newspaper that is dated uh in October 1990 uh sorry 1895 so the end of the 1800s what does this newspaper says it's titled Purity uh Congress meet page 16 it mentions that the age of of marriage was 10 years old there and seven in Del in some of the states so everything that we're telling you now is historically documented anyone can pick up this New York Times newspaper and read the article it's available you can read it now historically so all of these things that we are highlighting now this is human history I'm not yet to talk about Christian narrative this is all human history why do I need to debate and argue the prophet's age was different this was all human history and all of these nations that we're talking about were Christian nations by the way they were all Christian nations okay but you see the hypocritical nature of these individuals who try to argue to argue against Islam and Muslims here let's talk about now the Christian position just very briefly let me highlight the Christian position that Christianity was no different if you read the Bible Ezekiel uh chapter 16 verse 7 to8 and excuse me for the language but this I'm just reading the Bible it says he grew and developed and entered puberty your uh um breasts anyways had formed and your hair had grown referring to pubic hair H yet you were uh naked and I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love so that you are old enough for love he's talking about Pub pubic hair and the growth of chest and all of that which is all of it signs of puberty and then he says old enough for love then I spread I'm not I'm not going to keep reading this I don't know how they read this stuff for to their own children by the way this is the Bible I'm not not even reading like I'm going to stop reading here because I'm even ashamed of reading and stuff anyways okay is this our own position we're trying to say that puberty that we're demonstrating here in the Bible is the Muslim position or no no no let's read the biblical commentaries with this H John gel exposition of the whole Bible a commentary it says the breasts were Fashions swelled and stood out uh came to proper size and I like I even cannot even read this and then Express of puberty which in females was at 12 years of age okay Ezekiel commentary Dr Mal and we want to highlight to YouTube that this is we're just reading sources here so that's a disclaimer reading sources here these are not positions we encourage every everyone to follow the laws of their own country and we're just reading historical and religious sources uh unbiasedly we're not taking these are positions of our own okay Ezekiel a commentary by Dr Paul M Joyce you are at the age of Love pu puberty then he says puberty emphasis here is more on sexual intercourse so uh I can read many many many many more uh like for example the abing Old Testament commentary uh the Jewish Study Bible Bible the uh Song of Songs confidential commentary all of these say the same thing they all talk about that puberty this verse here is referring to puberty and old enough for love is referring to puberty so that is the Christian Bible the Christian tradition there you go doesn't give a age it just talks about puberty talks about being old enough to have intercourse what in under what position are you as a Christian coming and arguing against Islam is a question like I I'm even ashamed of reading your commentaries on these issues let alone even like take that as a position and try to criticize the prophet Muhammad from doing anything uh of course we know the age of of uh Mary and Joseph that Joseph Joseph was in 80s and 90s while Mary was 12 and you have many sources for that you have uh mentioned in in the history of Joseph the carpenter which they will call Apocrypha and Apocrypha historically always means something that is concealed or hidden does not mean something which is not a Canon of scripture that was used later on if you open dictionaries for example the uh uh and and previous dictionaries you will see like syvia Frankie or Diana web or zlatko py I don't even say how to say pronounce some of these names of these dictionaries which talk about the definition of Apocrypha or these academics we talk about that Apocrypha refers to something which is concealed at Hidden and later on they started using it as something which is not biblical so you have the history of Joseph the the carpenter says that she was 12 and uh Joseph was 80 or 90 you have the Catholic encyclopedia and he was a Catholic by the way which says the same thing that it was 12 that's why you have a list of church fathers who believe that Mary was 12 when she was with Joseph the carpenter so the these are your beliefs this is Mary who's the mother of your God essentially she was 12 which church church fathers believe that Mary was 12 year year old uh you have Sarah of Alexandria youus or you have uh youus you you have many many many Church fathers I have a list here of eight or nine Church fathers that believe that do you guys know that Augustine you know they mention always this Church Father St Augustine they call him Saint Austine himself by the way he had an individual who was like a mother to him was called bonica and he was engaged to a girl when she was 10 years old and he was in his 30s Augustine himself mentions that in his book confessions so you have your Saint who you call Saint Augustine the one who has all of these commentaries on your religion he was engaged in his 30s and he had an engagement to the girl so I don't understand Christians under what world view are you coming and trying to criticize the age of marriage or this that to do with the prophet do you see guys why he was scared for me to bring up any of this the reason he was scared for me to bring up any of this information is because they know how it is in their own tradition they know it's a disaster in the Christian tradition so if I start bringing sources I'm talking about what they believe they're not going to be able under any condition to criticize the Muslim position and that is why he was terrified for me to talk about that age in Christianity that is the real reason he was trying to put that condition and tie my hand so I don't talk about their own uh tradition but it's good for us as Muslims here to see and any Christians who might see this video to see the double standards whenever you want to mention the name of the Prophet check your tradition first before you come and talk to us about this age and that age and all human history is we said not just that like for example you guys know that they accuse the prophet Muhammad Alam and use the r word that rhymes with the grape right they use that word about the prophet even though it was a marriage except by the community and all of that that grape juice you know whatever term you want to use it is exactly presented within uh Christianity and I'm going to show it to you right now so when we go to for example H in numbers uh chapter 31: 17 and 18 where Moses tells the army with the command of God of course to go and Slaughter the males and then it says keep the little ones and he used the word t and t is only used for children so keep the children for yourselves now T is children in you can open Le lexicons and you can open you can see that te in Hebrew refs to an empor child for example an English and Hebrew lexicon by Professor cing Newman it says te child or infant a complete Hebrew and English pocket dictionary of the Old Testament 1905 by by Carl fand or whatever the name is it's a step children and little ones you open a compendious Hebrew lexicon by Samuel Pike it says stuff little ones or children I can go on and on and on and give more more uh to show that here is Moses essentially telling the the men in the army take the little children as captives for yourselves you're going to take the little children do what with them says that the girls that have not known a man keep them for yourself the Virgin little girls essentially what are you going to do with them again as captives you're going to say to them oh let's play cup of tea and drink a little bit you drink some tea and I'm going to drink some tea is that you going to do what are you going to do with them now I'm going to tell you what you're going to do with them according to the Bible I don't even need to use my own position I'm going to show you a demonstration of what you need to do with them with the biblical narrative what the Bible says that you're going to do with your captives when you capture them let's read what it says and by the way that's why you'll see commentaries like Jubilee Bible 2000 you'll see Webster Bible you see Living Bible they will trans it as little girls other comes are going to trans translate it differently but if you go to the Hebrew and check some of these translations I mentioned they translate it correctly in accordance to the Hebrew now what we're going to do with them you go to Deuteronomy chapter 21 verse 10 to to 14 and it will say to you exactly what you do with these little girls that you take as captives now it says when your lord gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners you may see among them beautiful women that you like and you want to marry take care all home or she will shave her head cut him F fingernails and change her clothes she will stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month now after that you may marry her later if you no longer want her so if you don't need this prisoner anymore you are to Let Her Go free since and look at this translation here you forced her to have intercourse with you this is the good news translation good news translation you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her what does it mean to force intercourse remember the the grape juice that we're talking about so now we have in numbers 31 17 and 18 says that you can take uh tough little children pubescent and then in in Deuteronomy it says to you exactly what to do with them what do you do with them it tells you exactly what you do what to do with them now if you go to other translations they're not going to translate it correctly you're going to mistranslate the word here to do about forcing they going to say he because he humiliated her because you humbled her how do you humiliate her and humble her tell me when you take that little girl for marriage even if you want to use the ter marriage marriage what are you going to do with them in marriage what what happens in marriage if you take these little pral little girls for marriage what are you going to do with them but it's not only marriage it's also the the grave that we were talking about and how do you know the word used in Hebrew Anna a an n a h or i n n a is used there for forcing is used in other parts of the body Bible to mean force and grape where is that it's used in uh judges 25 in Genesis 352 in Deuteronomy 22:28 in Ezekiel 2211 in 2 Samuel 13:14 the same word is used about something which is forced about humiliation and all of that but whichever way you want to translate it the verse say that you take them home with you for marriage or whatever purposes what you going to do in the marriage what you going to do with these little girls that is the Christian position so whenever you see Christians coming and criticizing the prophet Alam of doing something the reality is they have that in their tradition and what they're trying to do is to impose that which in their tradition on the prophet it's called projection you project your own faith upon other individuals you try to hypocritically argue from a position that you yourself are ought to hold and that is what he was scared and that's why he didn't allow me to speak about the Christian position because this cooking that I'm cooking right now going to use the term cooking was going to happen to him people were going to see the Christian position going to see you're going to ask him under what position are you arguing what what are you you arguing against Islam using what this is your Christian position you have even worse than your Christian position what what are you using to argue against Islam so it's it's incredibly hypocritical and that was what I wanted to demonstrate in the discussion now and we say even today right if we want to talk about the age of marriage today wherever it is anyone can go and go uh just Google age of consent today you'll have the world population review and it will give you a list of the countries and that is today the age of consent is all the way between 20 to 20 12 between 12 to 24 or something today and the average is like 14 or 15 in the world today we're not talking about 1,400 we're not talking about all of that we're talking about today the average is 14 15 today we're talking about a fact you know you can just Google right now the the the age of uh consent whatever it is worldwide so if this is the case today then what are you guys talking about like from like which position are you coming to argue against Muslims and Islam so uh yeah so essentially that was the the what I wanted to present in which he didn't even allow me to present due to the fact that he was scared so let's let's come back a little bit to what he uh like this part is not really that important and relevant we'll skip through it and we'll go to debate number two quickly you have a proposition my job faly the proposition I don't have to give you a counter proposition I don't have to give you counter worldview totally unnecessary just like with the Trinity a secist is able to fify the Trinity just as well as an islamist is so can we have the debate now uh you'd like me to speak I disagree with the Notions that you've made I've not made a proposition for you to revie anyways I was just literally giving my position am I didn't even finish it because of time so I did not give a proposition you highlighting you've not highlighted inconsistencies you mention harm I've already told you there's a general rule in Islam if there is harm it's not allow Therefore your argument falls apart it's irrelevant so that's not an inconsistency that you provided talk about specifically about the prop we haven't got the debate yet I I need the agreement first that I don't that it's not necessary for toal okay can you tell me why it would be necessary for me to have an objective moral stance or give you one in order to find inconsistencies or refute whether or not inside your own ideology this is permitted by your own logic can you explain that to me you know how logic Works yes I'm gonna repeat myself again this is a debate between Muslims and Christians Islam Christian you're making so now look it's become no debate between Islam and Christianity and Muslims and Christians now it's become a debate between I have no position you have a position I'm going to attack your position uh which is like hilarious and funny I'm not going to lie made on a specific proposition of age of consent in Islam I was very specific it says age of consent in Islam we didn't say that we just said age of consent even in the beginning of the discussion we said age of conent didn't say in Islam only it's not only even even in Islam is fine you can discuss in Islam and I'm going to discuss in in Christianity you're a Christian why do you want to escape your own world view because you know what your world view is about it okay now you're interrupting I love to speak it's necessary for us to come to everyone who watches this and everyone who watches this I believe including that sne who brought you for this discussion believes that this is versus Christianity if it's not there's no point of having it only reason I'm having this discussion I respond you like me to respond or you responding the reason is very simple the only reason I'm having this discussion anyways because when we have discussions about Islam with Christians we get the uh comment trolls in sne community saying why don't you discuss or debate with someone who's knowledgeable so that's the whole reason we brought that as brought you specifically as a representation of Christianity when I check your Twitter you have Christian there so this is a Christian versus Muslim thing if it's not if you're an atheist as you said and you don't even understand the problem with being an atheist and argu for that position then you morality is subjective and if your morality is subjective then I can simply say I disagree with your subjective morality I don't need to convince you with anything if you're coming with objective morality and that is the position unless you disagree that morality sources from God you're making a moral you have objective you can still have inconsistencies in objetive Len you still have you can still have inconsistencies even if you believe morality is objective logic AG okay great so then all we need here is a proposition all we need here is a proposition that's it can you give us a all I want is a proposition from you that just clarifies that the age of consent in Islam does not exist and that you're going to defend the age of consent and when it's appropriate to have sex with with uh you know people under the age of whatever uh that's all I need I just need the the proper and regardless of what my moral stance is you're on defense this portion of the debate so here uh he says that okay I just need you to say your position I I agree I was about to say my position in my opening in the end of my opening statement I I was literally saying what is my position it's Islamic position but I didn't even get to finish that so it's not like what he's he's here trying to pretend as if I'm not going to present the Muslim perspective of course I'm going to but in the same time I'm not going to allow you to run away from representing your position right it's only fair that both of us engage in our positions right you're your your worldview here I disagree I didn't say that this isan disagree I'll tell you now if you allow me to speak right interrup of course I allow him to speak you guys can see and every few minutes you see this guy again interrupting me every every few sentences every few seconds speak now uh this is not a defense attack this is a discussion about the idea of the age of that's what I agreed agree I'm just I'm going my hands for you see here now he says that's illogical so he agrees that we didn't agree on that my hands he didn't agree with me Ty my hands for him he agrees that this is the case but he says no that's illogical you you're just going to tell me my position of course I'm going to tell you your position this is an argument to the idea of the age marriage age of consent whatever term you want to use and we're saying why is the Christian position versus what is Muslim position Trinity I'm not using any the it'll just be purely my theology purely what I believe you can purely attack it they'll be no what about Islam because I have so here I'm gonna skip through guys because all of it is just back and forth of him not wanting to do it and it's literally going to be a waste of time so I'm going to skip through it but I just want to highlight a few things that happen all right I'm going to speak the way hypocritical I never agreed tell me how it's hypocritical it does when when you resp to hypocritical about me asking you to defend your worldview Paradigm hypocrisy that's something I would like to do I don't need to do but I would like ising the why do you think what about them over there we're talking only about this one tell me how it has anything to do with Christianity few things about is from ISL Paradigm so here I'm explaining how I responded from Islam Paradigm so I'm defending the Muslim Paradigm I'm not saying I'm not going to do that people seeing if and if position I'm doing it right now and if the position of Christianity was that morality sources from God and the Bible shows that you can have intercourse with those people who are under the age is not immoral and you can Muslims for something is not immoral for you makes sense very simple if the Christian position is that this is a moral Behavior then what are you attacking as a Christian it's a simple thing right unless you're arguing against the Christian position as well because if the Muslim position and the Christian position is the same then you are essentially attacking your own religion and that just stupid so you got to First highlight what is your position and that your position is different from our position and then you argue for where your position is morally right and our position is aor a correct it's a very simple thing but he seems not to understand basic logic he's accusing me of not understanding logic it's like me saying I believe X is perfectly moral but you you cannot do it you for you it's immoral claim was not that's one that or can you not and I'm going to reclaim all 45 minutes because we can now he's trying to reclaim all the minutes of the debate which is like obviously I don't think it's worthwhile to go back on the time but so I was sure I was under to the debate sure happen We're not gonna go back on the time logic let's stop Christian position versus there's just the Christian position of the Trinity yeah we're he didn't ask you he just said he didn't ask you a question I was asking a question but I want please can you position he inters there's just the Christian position of the Trinity and he PRS as if we're gonna get into that we'll get into that okay please can you let theost finish anyways ask you a question if you are okay um defending the age of contos of Islam um without you know are you Christianity Andel yeah well his job is to defend the Islamic position not to his what about isms are meaningless to me I just want the defense of the Islamic position I'll give him the defense of the Trinity from the Christian position I won't bring up Islam at all it's totally irrelevant to debate whether or not the Trinity is logical illogical or whatever has nothing to do with Islam why would ever have to do with Islam he never presented aone of that would Beary for all right so I'm going to speak uninterrupted as I allow you to speak uninterrupted that's what happens with Christians when you discuss see he's getting frustrated here even I do allow him to speak when it's my turn to speak because he wants me to speak the way he wants so it's very sad to see Christians they liberal they turn atheist oh I'm atheist now please don't mention Christianity because if you mention you're G to expose my hypocrisy you're gonna expose I'm accusing you of something that actually exists within Christianity so please please just talk Islam Islam only no Christianity please so we're not going to do that we're not going to let you hide behind the bush we're not going to let you try to pretend as if this is just an Islam thing in your portion you've made that condition upon yourself that you don't want to mention anything to do with the trinity in Islam there's no Trinity in Islam there's nothing to mention whether you want to mention or you don't want to mention that's up to you you want to bring vers of the qu which you think the Trinity exist you like to do that so here I I'm clear that I'm not giving you a condition when it comes to the Trinity when we have a discussion that you don't talk about Islam you're allowed to do that all you want right let's skip some more necessary for you to point to seem like you don't you come and there is the position not GNA happen Christian versus Muslim because Christians Christian show me where that was ever stated anywhere Channel my my Twitter handle is pale clock so that you can't ask your questions whatever number so here I was proposing that everyone will have his own time just like we agreed as you guys I highlighted for you in the beginning of the stream few times and I showed you the clips I mentioned this Nico mentioned this if there is interruptions and we could have continuous Interruption someone saying why is he still interrupting exactly that's why I said let's do timing he didn't want to do it he started getting frust frustrated and mad he trying to get me mad he's the one who turn frustrated and mad and angry this is what ended up happening to him so you can have time and you can speak about whatever you want to do and I'll speak about whatever I want to do if you don't like that then you're just whining and crying with all du respect about I can speak about I cannot speak about I don't have a discussion allow people to watch a discussion and listen to different points of views or not that's your position Market as a discussion or Market it as a debate I was let's have a formal time then let's have a formal time you have your time have no specifically GRE no no no no no no no we're not going to have formal time look here now he tries to pretend as if we didn't say if interruptions happen we're going to have time look at him lie now to his teeth and he repeats that lie I'm not going to keep showing it but he repeats that lie 15 times oh we never agreed that if there's interruptions we're gonna have time look not to have a formal time in this unless in a debate unless it gets I look he says that was not agreed to you got I've showed you the clip but you see thewind I don't care what you said here we shed it up before we got here I don't care what you said here he was listening to it he didn't do any uh uh commentaries and said no I don't agree with that but now he's trying to say and pretend as if we didn't bring this up before the start of the debate so anyways all all this portion mostly is just about any you bring up anything other look anytime you bring up anything other than kti I'm gonna cut you off what kind of debate is that you know what kind of discussion is that it's honestly hilarious not well then we don't have terms for the debate dude the ter I'll give you the terms and you say if you disagree you'll have your time I have my time you present your case I'll present that's not what we agree this is how I don't understand under any world view how is that not fair you have your time I have my time and each one would present his case this is all done under false pretences it's okay be forced into fallacious forms of argumentation to that meeting yes or no okay well if you don't want to keep wasting more time because I I don't want to reset the clock and and do this again uh then we shouldn't keep on discussing the terms of the debate and we should just get into the topic conversation we have to have Clarity on the terms just fous time was something else here's what this guy Andrew here's what this guy Andrew is trying to him being a Christian does not have to represent the Christian position you mention so here we just talk about what we talked about before waste of time really I'm literally asking you an opening question right this second Andrew We're not gonna continue this if if you can't be civil now here he he started he said that he's not goingon to insult the prophet then he started talking about some body parts relation to the prophet and he asked me a question about that you see him now turning back on what he agreed upon in the beginning of of the discourse and even here sneo highlights that this is not a uh it's not a not any respect any form of respectful behavior and we agreed we're not going to do that but this is how they turn when they like especially if you're gonna say so he we established in the beginning this whole conversation we've been trying to talk about the things that were established again before this even started before I took down the timer you said that we weren't gonna do the cursing and we wen't gonna get on civil like this I'm not cursing do you understand that what cursing means no that's no he says cursing and cursing are different anyone is welcome now to go in Google and understand that both cursing and cursing is synonymous like it's so ridiculous how he's trying to argue here against nio just like semantically that oh it's actually cursing and cussing do two different things since when they are the same exact thing and he knows exactly what we mean when we said when we said about cursing but this is it turning into children cussing not curse to curse somebody to actually curse them you saying the f word really sneo the f word that's too much I can't say I can't say the f word you can you can say what you want to say Christianity they cannot speak without using the f word according to like this is a waste of I mentioned the prophet body part specific do with the relev of whether now I don't want to bring the part discussion 45 minutes AG you can 45 show you lying actually someone can clip that because I guys clipping culture in which I said before we started before he started his opening statement I made it clear that if there was interruptions it's going to be uncontrolled we can have each timeing remember guys I made that point very importantly to show that he's going to lie in the I disagree with this oh this is not allowed the video but now he's crying now he's crying about it because he doesn't want me before we ever did the bate look now he's saying that there's nothing that we create new conditionals dummy now he's saying create new conditions and you see he calls me dummy he starts insulting and he's going to say oh that's not insult that's not offensive it's subjective like these people they cannot stick to their own terms remember in the beginning he said I agreed I'm not going to insult you he said that word for word I agree that I'm not going to insult you but look at him doing the exact opposite of what he said he's going to do that's not how it works we also we said we W into the insult either it's true that's not true you agree with me there are dumb people in the world right I I was about to say there are dumb people in the world I was going to highlight who the dumb people are but because I'm a respectful individual I didn't do that you know right we said we won't get to the adom attacks Andrew it's not an adom if it's true now can you can you please answer my opening question can we actually get to the debate or can't we I made my position can I have time you can talk we can have a cross simple question then here's my simple question to you do you think that if reason that mhammed now I'm going to skip because he's going to ask question terms before the debate which terms when you lose when you question mentioning the word logic I'm not going to be I'm not going look look look look at this I think this is exorcism happening in real time look ask question ask me a question your I'm have my time he's saying name three laws of logic I was just about to name them I said it's pointless so I named two I said identity now now look at how he's going to behave now look exorcism in real time pay attention you want me to I'm not going to be I'm not going to bew Identity you want one more time just one more time I'm not going to be I'm not going I I honestly this man I don't know maybe he's in his 50s but I don't understand what what kind of behavior comes out in discussion of an individual like this be falling into I'm not this is just demonstrates how more sorry no we're not doing time response we're not to it okay we're not friends now look he curses me neither oneck should be neither one of you no we're not doing time response we're not doing time we agre not to do time don't lie and say we did neither one of you should be doing that neither one of you [ __ ] should be you see he doesn't only curse me now he cursed ni as as well and you see lying and saying that you didn't agree to that because you definitely agreed to it we also agreed to not do the insulting and but the seems like it's going in circles here come on I call my friends [ __ ] all the time he calls his friends F wordss all the time there you go all right so uh the rest of the discussion is just this back and forth on what we agreed upon what agreed upon he gets insulting agitated angry interrupting that was it and then sneo realizes that there's no point so I want to highlight a very important point here by the way present anything you've never debated in your life toward the end thousand everyone has mod day debate and after I just want to highlight I'll propose one more time like we can we can go to the Trinity or or we can just end this look sne here is is clear as clear as the sun what does he say we can either move to the topic agree on timing each one will have his own timing like I proposed or uh we move to the next topic which is a trinity or we end this discussion so sne here proposes what ending the discussion pay very close attention it's going then says yes it was never part of the debate okay let's do it let's end first part ofate definitely not gonna have the second part you want keep the terms what we to okay if you're not going to keep the terms We're not gonna have the debate okay com on he says appreciate you coming on and he leaves everyone sees that he leaves the discussion sne he leaves because there's no point now that guy goes on Twitter and lies he makes a tweet and he says we lied and then he says in his Twitter replies that sneu kicked him off welcome to Christianity he literally agreed towards the end of the discussion look if we don't agree on the terms what is going to happen Okay we're ending the debate because we're not going anywhere he says yes let's end the debate it's useless then he accuses sneo of kicking kicking him out like outward lying welcome to Christianity guys so this is the first debate K like that I had yesterday uh this is the most of the summary of it we're going to do the other debate perhaps quickly as well but I will need to pray uh before that you will see in in sn's video he tries to bring him uh a few times he tries to bring him again he calls him few times because he's trying again with him he he brought me after the discussion to say some things so he said he tried to call him two or three times to bring him back he refused to come back so then siko ended up looking for someone else which is is the second debater in which we're going to highlight so I was debating two people and and that night after past midnights in the UK time but right now uh you guys give me like uh five minutes to pray and then I'll I'll come back again I'll keep this the live stream Going H you can guys say your uh you know your your opinions on the discussion and chat with each other while I come back inshallah right let me uh stop the share screen for a second and stop the camera okay and I'm going to come back in a second inallah give me five minutes e e e e e e e all right we are back let bring the share screen again uh let's try to find the next debate okay uh was the beginning of the next it okay uh this is the Trinity versus to I think he's going to bring a piece of paper or he has it already Okay so this is the beginning of the next quote unquote debate and discussion for anyone who's coming on these debates to debates were happening happened yesterday already on sneo platform and uh this is just a review of the discussions I'm mentioning the most relevant part the parts where you're not going to waste your time essentially if you don't want to like waste your time I'm mentioning the important Parts this is the second debate we already seen how the first debate went uh agreeing to terms and then breaking terms making up terms alongside the debate lying insulting uh shouting and screaming behaving like there's some exorcism happening to you that was the first debate summary of the first debate refusing any reasonable conditions like you have your time I have my time I'll answer your questions in my time and you answer my questions in in your time and that's it like this is how a reasonable discussion is going to happen if you're going to interrupt every second so uh this was the first debate the second debate there you go let's have a look how the first second debate goes okay let's start he debate let's get a opening statement from I'll start with Jay yeah so the doct eternity is a doctrine that is not derived from philosophy it's not derived from saying Paul primarily is not derived from the Council of NAA the doct Trinity is taught in the law and the prophets in fact if you go back to my Daniel heiku debate in the first 10 minutes I hold up a whiteboard that shows all the passages from the Torah and in the prophets that we derive the doctrine of the Trinity from mainly from Jud actually Jesus of the Old Testament this might sound surprising because people think that the doctr of Trinity is something that's unique to Christianity or that Jews don't believe in this nowadays so therefore Jews could not have taught it back then in fact many Jewish Scholars today I referenc many of those in that opening statement of the Daniel debate I can refer to them now this would be Benjamin summer alen seagull uh Schaefer Etc boyarin all of those Scholars admit that the early Church's view is not that distinct from the Judaism of the time of Christ in recognizing more than one person in the Trinity no I'm not saying that the Jews were allari I'm not saying that I'm not saying that Jews necessarily exception Unitarianism I'm saying that these Scholars prove that in the time of Christ there was not a generic Unitarianism that characterized what it is to be quote monotheist they didn't see a contradiction or problem between the idea of quote monotheism and the recognition of the father as the arc calls and F the angel the Lord as his messenger which rece through all throughout the Old Testament who so now you see how how he strowman the position he comes and he says look the Trinity is not came from philosophy because he knows it's come it comes from philosophy and it doesn't come from the scripture then he goes into the Old Testament he tries to say that the Jews somehow believe in something and then here he clarifies I but he puts that word very sneakingly and say in a very sneaky way oh that the Jews they did not believe in the Trinity I'm not saying that they believed in the Trinity but I'm saying that they did not believe in the monotheism that you're trying to say which is the Muslim monotheism they believe that the father was the superior essentially and the spirit was the messenger this and that or the father was the founder of everything bring me which Jewish today believes that like more than one deity all of them explicitly say there's one Creator they might have politicism in certain things and acts of worship and this then given attributes to rabbis and Priests and this and that but in reality you're not going to have to believe in the Trinity and he's admitting to that but he fals he makes the viewer first believe that the Trinity is in the Old Testament so he started with that waffled some names of some Scholars and then he said oh I'm not saying that they believed but that the position was not that the absolute monotheism that the Muslims are presenting and yes we don't disagree with that the Jews have certain types of politicism like worshiping the rabbis and Priests from the type of making them uh authority over what is permissible and impermissible like that is a Muslim position for example so we never said that the Jews have absolute pure monotheism today nobody have said that we're saying Muslims have absolute pure monism that doesn't mean that they believe in Trinity or there's anything in the scripture that points you towards the Trinity so if he's admitting that the Trinity doesn't mean the Jews believe in the Trinity then the Trinity still is not scriptural where is your evidence the Trinity is scriptural can you bring it up and show it to us since you're saying it's not philosophy who was called God who was called Divine who was called the messenger of the Covenant who is called Yahweh in Exodus 3 Exodus 23 throughout the Psalms and many theop passages and many times in the prophets Jesus predicted especially latter Isaiah to be a messiah that would be worshiped so a lot of these references to the Trinity are primarily grounded rooted in the Torah and the prophets Islam however when it argues against references to the Trinity because he knows there's no such thing the Trinity does so on the basis of it not being aware of or not being I think he muted him by mistake sne up muting him like mistake I think but that's such a a nice kind it's not me that muted him by the way but it's nice hearing him kind of speak what he doesn't speak right that was funny I'm not going to lie begotten Theos so the Eternal beginning all that is already at the beginning of the Gospel of John again every chapter whether it's John 5-9 where Jesus identifies himself as the one at Mount Si talking to Moses the one that gave the law Jesus ref himself as the Son of God many times over which means that his God is Not Allah because Allah has no Sons so Jesus many many times over throughout the gospel says he is the Son of God and that he makes us by Grace sons of God this proves that there is not the same God of Muhammad and the same God of Jesus Jesus is not referring to Allah as his father Allah has no Sons uh so when we come to the time of the early church fathers they unanimously teach the deed of Christ the uh Triad as look they they he says here the church fathers listen to what he says unanimously teach the Divinity of Christ and the Triad which is a trinity essentially he's using a different term look oh the the Holy Spirit has BEC cified by the time of n not and the de of the Holy Spirit and the Triad you have the father Son and the Holy Spirit essentially he's saying that the UniFi uh unified in that belief the you can read the church fathers fromus to Ignatius to Clement you can read sir cian you can read acius all these Church fathers Alexander writing prior to the time I see the of Christ and what would become the doct or known as the do Trinity so the Trinity is not something foreign to the scriptures it's rooted in the Tor it's rooted in the prophets root in new test root the teaching okay keep that in mind yeah he claims that they are unanimous in their agreement okay CH himself and I would add that when we compare it toin the Quran the Quran makes many mistakes first of all about what the teach they say that we take our monks as Lords we do not they take okay so here he brought the Quran says that we take you take your your monks as Lord yes it does and our explanation understanding for that the Jews not the Christians the Jews take their monks as Lord is because they make permissible impermissible for them there is a narration about that in which like people from the Israelites came to the prophet or and then he said to them that you don't they say to you that is permissible so you do it and they say to you that's imp impermissible so you don't do it so to us that is a form of worship is where you place anyone other than is the ultimate authority of what is allowed and what is not allowed so no the Quran doesn't teach anything wrong there next point they think that the Quran thinks that we take Mary as part of he lies there and claims that the Quran says that we believe Mar is a part of the Trinity nowhere in that verse that the Quran talks about the Trinity the Quran talks about the trinity in other places where Allah says do not say three any type of three and then in another complete different verse Allah specifically speaks to Mary and uh uh sorry spef specifically speaks to Jesus and and he says to Jesus did you say to the people to take you and your mother as Gods nothing about Trinity there why he didn't say you and your mother and the Holy Spirit is the Triune it doesn't say that Allah is referring to the Roman Catholics which exist today which anyone can can Google them and see them there's many Christian groups that existed and exist even today that pray to marry and to us in Islam if you pray to anything other than God that is a worship there is a form of worship and they call her the mother of God and all of that so uh the Quran is completely clear there did you say to the people to take Mary as the mother of God and pray to her or the Roman Catholics no has nothing to do with the Trinity the Trinity is completely mentioned in a different chapter of the Quran where Allah says do not say three but here he makes up the same old arguments of the Mary is a part of the Trinity which we refuted hundreds of years but he still repeatedly continuously makes not the Quran also is itself confused in two areas that I always like to highlight which is that it claims that prior Revelation confirms it backs it up and many times over like in uh sah five it says that you can look to the previous Revelation confirm the new revelation but the old Revelation contradicts it and when Muslim see the contradictions now here he misunderstands what the Quran is saying he's saying that the previous Revelation confirms the Quran what does that mean that that there will be uh when we say confirming we're saying the Quran is confirming that there were previous scriptures that was that was revealed that's what we're saying saying the Quran is confirming that there was previous prophets that were there and I explained that point to him but he's even misunderstanding what the Quran is saying so when it says the Quran is Quran is the one confirming the previous uh there was previous scriptures that came down on previous prophets they do the same move of in the debate to say well we reject all the times that it contradicts but we accept all the time that it is with our Revelation well that is a circle that's arguing for the thing that is a circle no no this is a circle look see circle now you said oh in question we want to know how does the PRI Revelation confirm the new revelation which the Quran says it can do if the prior Revelations are corrupt and how foolish it would be to look to a corrupt book to supposedly prove an incorrupt book so it makes no sense so here do you see now the problem with his argumentation he thinks the Quran is saying that the previous scriptures confirms the Quran meaning that the previous scriptures proves the Quran to be right he's already misunderstanding what we saying we are saying the Quran confirms the previous scriptures meaning that there was previous scriptures previous prophets that were said he twisted the argument upside down he thought we're saying the opposite and then he was making an argument for something fous that we don't even believe it and he started saying oh uh this is a circle bro what what Circle are you talking about you don't even understand what the Quran is saying in that verse nobody tries to prove the Quran using the Bible nobody says that the Bible and the T and the in anyways which what we talk about are proving that the Quran is from God nobody uses the argument so this is an argument that a no muslim makes it's a complete strowman and felicious argument and he's even misunderstanding what we believe as Muslims and that's why he is arguing in a vacuum he's arguing in a circle you know that's on the face of it I would also then argue that the doctrine of tanzi that's derived from doctrine of tan talk about all nothing like creation 42 and I think around 110 somewhere in there it says Allah is absolutely nothing like creation as many times over we utilize terminology language and so forth to liken Allah to a created thing to say that Allah is merciful that he is just he all these things Allah has a has a Shen so here he says we say there's nothing like Allah but then we say because Allah has attributes of love and mercy and knowledge and all of that that means Allah is like us you see this is the level of argumentation of these Christian they think they got something to prove but like such weak argumentation like we say yes we have knowledge Allah has knowledge does that mean Allah is like us of course not because Allah's knowledge is eternal always existing in the past Allah knowledge is not deficient he doesn't forget Allah's knowledge extends to the to everything so it's not limited that knows some things and doesn't know some things Allah's knowledge is not dependent or our knowledge is dependent Allah's knowledge extend to the hypothetical scenarios and situations things which didn't even yet happen or appear so how would you even come and say therefore Allah's knowledge is like our knowledge we have knowledge that is the exact opposite limited dependent not Eternal all of that so if you don't understand that and apply that to all the mercy the attributes like the mercy the mercy of Allah is perfect it's not dependent you can apply that to every attribute of Allah Allah has the attributes and his attributes are unique in their existence they're not like ours and I already made that point for him but he knows that but he's just pretending that that therefore we're like Allah so forth things that come up in the accepted Hadith well all of those things are contradictory to the notion of T that God is a pure Unity or pure oness this is why Muslims for centuries have debated among themselves whether the attributes are really distinct and you have people like Jake salois and others who say oh yes Allah has a has a sh we don't know the modality but he really has these things real attributes and yet we're said to be only a religion of perfect unity and perfect Oneness yet he's many well the same problem no he says people debated in history that the attributes of Allah are separate from Allah who did that like which which uh Orthodox position that Muslims held ever that the attributes of something separated from from it and I make this argument for him and I say to him let for example love and mercy or hate or any of that you cannot separate that from me as a being or as an individual so this idea of seating attributes and claiming there's multiple gods because there's multiple attributes such a ridiculous thing to make a ridiculous argument but these are the level of argumentation that you have with the attributes and the dependent relationship of the attributes on all it Essence and amongst themselves is no different than the question that we have about the persons of the Trinity it's just simply that you said that we you see he says there's no different than what you say about the Trinity and why do they say that they have an issue they have an issue of polytheism they have an issue of three Gods so what they're trying to do is to uh compare three Gods to attributes three attributes which is absolutely Absolut abely crazy right why do we say that they have three guys three gods they say they are distinct the three they're fully God 100% all of them they're fully gods and that the they all have independent Wells nobody says the attributes are fully Gods on their own nobody says the attributes have their own distinct well and make their own decisions so these people try to make these fallacies of equivocation all of these stupid fallacies and the reason they do that is because they know they have an issue of polytheism and they're trying to then say that Muslims also have an issue of polytheism problem that you don't have to answer when you have the exact same problem in relationship to the attributes in Allah's Essence and they're dependence relationship and if you don't think there's a dependence relationship then I'll just simply say Do you believe that they are then a or self-existent if they're self-existent then you have uh what 99 Gods so you have the same problem but a double standard as to how you answer that I'm not saying that you believe that the attributes of persons I know you don't believe so here he gives two options either the attributes are depend or or or independent if they're independent their own being if they're he makes up this all of these philosophical rhetoric and all what we're saying is that the attribute are existent within the being they're not separated from the being and they're not separate beings therefore you cannot say they're dependent and independent and attribut just existed an entity and that's it like just too much talk essentially that's what he's trying to do to confuse people believe that but the same problem of the one and the many and the dependence status between the attributes and the essence is a problem that you cannot answer because within Islam there are countless multiple contradictions how much talk about you're good give you a yeah you're good I thought you said five minute opening or whatever that was good that was concise I think that's fine you want to respond all right so note I did not interrupt him in his yapping session yeah I allowed him to say whatever he wanted to say even though it was false and that's why right now I'm commenting on everything that he was false falsely say right now look at him not even allow me to get my opening statement in look this is uh how behave in this questions look yeah okay during my response I want to ask you questions if that's fine right I just want to ask first question is what is the trinity in your belief why is the Trinity just because we're talking the so here I just ask for a definition Give me a definition what is the Trinity your Bel because you said you found it present in the old T what is the Trinity the doct that God is first and foremost now look I ask for a definition he's going to just say some muffing and he's not going to give a definition identified with the person of the Father the father is what we call the arcade the F The Source the cause the Supreme beginning of uh the other two persons and that's revealed to be the person of his eternally begotten son who had as the Lord Jesus Christ and with his eternal holy spirit so they are three in one they share a common essence or nature in that they come from the father and they derive the same nature from the father as Jesus says in John 5 and six but they're also really and truly distinct which is why we see Jesus for example praying to the father asking things of the father and so forth so the Bible We Believe teaches both of those things that he has one and three and it's not a problem for monotheism because actually the word monotheism is a really late term That You Don't See until the 1600s so I'm sorry I didn't get I wanted this a very simple definition not not a whole lecture on what the father is and father isn't and the I just wonder why is it just say tell us you know what is the Trinity I'll give a definition I just give definition on his behalf and try to get him to agree you can confirm with me you said few things I understand them but I wanted like a concise definition you tell me whether this is like represented of the Trinity or not you have uh God the Father God the son God the Holy Spirit okay father is not the son son is not the Holy Spirit three persons in one being so there one being but it's there's three persons that are within that one being and um the they are Co equal coeternal so they share they are equal in in everything and they're Eternal the same way is that is that a good representation of what the Trinity is so here I said they're equal in everything they are the same way very clear well uh some of that terminology is a little ambiguous which is why I gave you a specific monarchical trinitarian definition so the model that I gave you was a definition it's called monarchical trinitarianism and it's distinct from a lot of Western trinitarian theology that you might find in Roman Catholicism so I was being very precise in the response that I gave no no but do you agree not told do you agree if you say something is ambiguous you can tell me that this specific part is I don't agree with IG then you can clarify what I've said is that the definition of the trity or I just want a concise definition is it that there are three I'm just trying to get to a simple definition of the Trinity so we can move on with meting his points he refuses to give that definition and just continues to try a waste time by Ying essentially persons in one being the equal Eternal and they're not the same like the father's not the the but they one very simple do you agree with that what did he say I want everyone to pay close attention he said what sure so they are Co equal they coeternal he never says that they're separately this this that he doesn't say anything here he agrees with the definition I gave he says sure now let's see how he backs up on that definition and backs up on his statement that the church fathers agreed with the Trinity was let's go that okay so because this is how I see people anyone who've seen Define the Trinity def it that way so I just wanted a agreement with that okay so that's the Trinity now you quoted John one and you tried to say the scripture shows the Trinity Etc quoting John one is not evidence for the Trinity the Trinity says three persons in one B person is separate from the Being John one doesn't say that it says in the beginning was the word the word was with God and the Word was with go was God the word became FL among among us if this is what you're referring to that's not three persons in one it does not talk about the fact they're distinct persons in one entity I didn't say joh you see he interupts me now where I'm speaking he's going to pretend as if I'm asking him a question you don't know how but look he's not allowing me now to have my opening statement no it's my Mye you you said you want a conversation you now he says I said I want a conversation all I said I'm gonna ask you a question and you're going to respond how is that a conversation but this is it we know how the Christians pretend Allah sadly in these discussions no no I said I'll ask you a question within my time because you made many points I have to respond to them well but I didn't say that the Trinity is three persons in John one I said that so here I'm being clear okay whatever you understood I'm telling you now to shush and let me make my open as well but what you're saying is a strong man it wasn't no we'll have it back and forth after I'm done but I did allow speak for like five minutes and make so many points got back and forth is only when you so now he's trying to what what interrupt and lie so he doesn't this is they're so scared of just allowing us to speak like I don't know if that's not even clear for the people to understand that to recognize what is true what is false it's very simple one side would let you speak the other side might even let you get a sentence in because they're afraid of what you're going to say you ask the question I'm confused you don't want to thought you open yeah I have an opening statement I'm saying within my opening statement I'll ask you questions for clarification that's it so you respond to the question and the question was what is Trinity because it's the debate of the topic that's it so I need the clarification here I clarify it was just about the Trinity now stop talking let me make my point corresponding to all the points that you made right and then we can get into back and forth no problem I don't mind all right is getting a little little bit this is from the video Itself by the way seems before before you continue is does that sound okay for both sides okay so he said here is going to allow me now to to make my opening statement three minutes now let's listen if um you know with your with your question there uh while you were speaking it kind of gave the impression that you were looking for back and forth okay his head this is I went I didn't want like everything I mentioned then you will come or then not going to be open statement right so uh you said that church fathers were unified so now here he agreed that he's going to let me speak now let's watch him do the same exact thing again and interrupt mid the talk have a look the idea of the Trinity that's is false he said the church fathers are unified remember I made that point for you guys are you watching for a reason look now he's gonna claim he didn't examples there just another strong here he interrupts me again I'm not gonna be able to talk if you everything I say that you're going to okay so I can't can we get can when we can you write down what you believe oning un and then we can have an open discussion about that once I'm done with opening okay sure very simple I said just write down what I disagree with and that's it okay clarify what you why you said about the and then he said I strowman him so I just wanted him to explain okay what is your position then on the church fathers regarding look at him do the same thing again and try to get agitated you say about the chur fathers right so it's a fallacy of ambiguity to say that I mean that they don't have debate I said that they're unified on teaching the three persons and that there is the Dy of Christ they do teach those things they also have debates on these topics too they have a unified agreement on what the Trinity is they no that's not what I said I ask a simple question do they have a unified agreement to one the the Trinity is or they don't have a unified agre just it say so no question you know good so we have that established that the church not is there a unified teaching of unity in a law no so there's debate over you know that so you're trying to pin me into say something I'm not saying that's not my my question to you're not answer my question now he jumps into Islam which has nothing to do with one you know that is question making a simple question for a complex that's that's the problem always questions like we allow to speak you it is a simple question question is a simple topic it's either the church fathers agreed on what is the concise definition of the Trinity or they had disagreement on what was the definition of the Trinity simple but notice the interruptions by the way this is just supposed to be my opening statement if you don't know you know you heard him y for five minutes continuously without interruptions but look at him not even allowing me to get a word in I'm asking I'm asking a simple question question is fallacy I asked did the church fathers finish question and stop interrupting uh I asked a simple question do you can say no you can say that's ay whatever people can make a judgment I ask do you know guys why he doesn't want to answer because he knows the church fathers explicitly and clearly have different positions in the Trinity Church fathers who belied in subordination subordination Church fathers who believe Jesus was created Church fathers who believed the father had more knowledge than the son all of that he knows this is the case and none of these things all of these disagreements attack the Trinity and that he because he know that he knows that very well that's why he's like you know what no no I'm not going to say that they had the same agreement because I'm I'm going to catch him on that if he does and if he says no he's losing either way that's why he doesn't want to answer that question question did the church bers have an agreement work on your audience they don't work over here okay so you just this is how questions are always you try to have the questions allow a complex question fallacy and make it an either order that's why you keep saying it's a simple question a simple it's a difficult question look you're interrupting a l is a simple question about Allah and his attributes is that a simple question yes yes I'm simple so there's not debat much yes the question about Allah is is a simple it is a simple question I'm going to respond but you allow me question you know okay again this it's not going to work okay you're interrupting and this is not a discuss allow me to speak stat there's right now right so here this is supposed to be my opening statement and I don't like how the moderation was going on here from sne I gota be fair he's not he was not being fair because this is supposed to be my opening statement he shouldn't be all allow him to jump every second but sne has got pressure from his own audience that he's not being a fair moderator therefore sneo is caving in and being unfair towards me now in the discussion which is sad but I I understood was going on anyways is that a FY is the false either or FY I'm not going to join I'm not gonna you won no I can speak my opening statement without you asking me questions it's my opening statement not yours so I never told him in my opening statements you can be asking me questions all I said is I'm going to ask you a few questions and just respond to the questions two questions I asked uh what is the Trinity he didn't answer that so I gave him a definition instead second question I asked to him L the CH farther unify I know I made a statement then he jumped in so I asked him the second question okay are the CH far unified or not yes or no simple questions you know but then he just yaps yaps yaps tried to take my opening statement away so uh I don't I don't get to respond to the uh red herings strowman arguments that he was making asking questions playing games dude come on okay to make this Fair how about this can you ask a question and because uh Jay is saying that it's a complicated uh question can you respond to it uh in under a minute you can ask a question again it's complicated you can have a minute to respond to the question no look look I'm not going to ask him any questions because what he's trying to do is just waste time he I was making a point then he said representing okay go ahead and represent yourself he doesn't want to represent himself I'm saying I you a super prec I don't want to represent myself and I gave you a super precise definition of the the question I asked I give you a five was about the church fathers not the here's my argument anyway okay so you can stop questions I'm gonna I'm gonna say my opening like you did like I love to speak instructions another five minutes it's your fault that you ask you mean another stupid to ask questions in your opening now he says another five minutes who clearly never give me a chance anyways to start my opening statement at all right okay I'm continue with my opening statement responding to whates minutes the now he he ABS about 10 minutes 20 I never said anything about 10 20 minutes I never said any of that I'm Contin to do that you've already gone for what four or five minutes it's not my fault you ask a question he says I've already gone for four four or five minutes which was clear that he is the one going on why is niik mute he's trying to be unbiased because a lot of his Christian audience is accusing him of being biased which he's clearly now being biased against me in a way you know but they wouldn't mention that of course but been talking not me it's a waste of time I'm not going to waste my time allowing you to speak so now I'm going to continue I'm going to continue with my proposition you're not going to keep jumping saying you're misrepresenting me strong man you're going to listen like I listen to you and then we can have a discussion and can have one to one back and forth okay we'll give you two minutes um to finish your statement No at least three minutes two minutes is fair three he made he made multiple points okay okay uh so now finally I get three minutes to speak you know okay okay without interruption I'm gonna continue now with this okay Church fathers were in complete disagreement on uh their beliefs and what constitutes there's many quotes that I have over here I can demonstrate that so to try and come and say this kind of a unified agreement or whatever it is that's completely not true they had complet different beliefs from one another I'm going to read some of these positions so Ignatius for example have a position of subordinationism you can lead in his letter to magnesians chapter 13 uh be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ to the father so he believes that Jesus Christ was subject to the father uh you have Scholars who say these positions it's not it's not me taking a quotation out the context like some people try to come and pretend for example Virginia crowd says in St Ignus and Christianity in Antioch in page 143 none of these passages after she's mentioning some passages of the beliefs that Ignatius had adds to the understanding of the Trinity meant to ignatious we are forced to conclude it was a very undefined belief ined so he didn't have a defined Bel William Shel says in ignatious commentary page 20 Ignatius casually uses Tran formula he makes he does not he makes little of them theologically he does not make theological arguments in regards to the Trinity uh so this is not a a specific person I can do the same thing with now so here I I give an example of Church Father I had many quotations of different Church fathers and Scholars speaking about them of how their positions were not TR clear TR trinitarian positions where they had unified beliefs like this guy was saying you know I don't have much time I can do that he's welcome to ask I can give the quotations of every single one of them some of them would believe that the son was cre by the father some of them would believe the father is superior to the son they're not they're not Co equal as doct of the Trinity says now he says oh the Quran says that it confirms the previous scriptures yeah we we know what it means but confirms the previous scriptures I already mentioned this the scripture is changed and if it is changed they ever would disagree with that then we completely disagree with it now what does confirm mean it means it confirms that there was previous Revelations that was revealed to the previous prophets and it confirms the existence of previous prophets that's what confirms means doesn't mean that we say that everything in there is completely cheing uh trying to equate an attribute to a part which is something that we don't believe in as mus the yes three minutes interrupt you got one more minute he tell look interrupting me in the minute in the still in the two minutes it's very difficult for them to remain silent and allow the other person to speak with it his time they can't it just burns so much like the truth Burns so much that they gota interrupt somehow while you speaking you know yeah so uh we don't believe attributes are parts we don't use that terminology when it comes to attribut of Allah to say that just because God has attributes that therefore God has many Parts is ridiculous to say that we say Allah is not like anyone and we have an attribute has attrib he's like us no we believe for instance our knowledge is limited is is dependent on Allah we don't know the the future and we forget the all the attribut of God the way Allah possesses them is perfect the way Poss them not an attribute is something that does not exist in abstract exists with something and that something remains one nobody says that having attributes makes me more than one I have love compassion hate so here for example I give examples for why having multiple attributes does not mean you're multiple different beings you know or many things in one nobody says that old that no one says therefore I'm 100 or 200 because I have different is ridiculous yeah just put say black can exist within itself so here I give an example for the attribute we say that black which is an attribute and anyone can Google that if people don't know it's an attribute and black does not exist in abstract it has to exist within something as an attribute so you have to say the shirt is black or this or that so it's an attribute that exists within something that doesn't mean there's two things now a Sher and black and you know and two beings the black being and the Sher right this is his argument essentially you have an attribute as if it's a a different thing and I also give the examples of love and mercy and how attributes does not mean distinct like different beings or something has to exist in a Shir or an object attribut do not exist in okay uh J we'll give you three minutes now look how he misunderstands this and he thinks I'm talking about Allah when I'm talking about an attribute and how attributes do not exist in abstract like he will confuse the sh with Allah I think he does that intentionally anyways but this is the level of IQ argumentation you know that's fun because he aded that my look look look at the behavior this is my time dude shut up uh this is the Christian kind of behavior do parts of a shirt like attributes like call the color black those are parts and by the way I didn't argue that you look the the he says the color black is part which is completely incorrect anyone can Google that and do some research on that color is not a part nobody says a color is a part color is an attribute and you don't need to use the the color you can use the love Mercy or anything else this is so frustrating I know we got to be patient though what can we do thought all I had Parts I know that you don't think he does my argument is that you contradict when you say that he has attributes that are dependent do you believe that the attributes are self-existent or they do they depend upon Allah's Essence and amongst themselves in a defendant relationship okay um so here I'm allowing him to speak I'm not interrupting him because he said shut up and he said his time and this and that this is my time so you see how I'm I'm respectful I don't speak because it's not my time so allowing him to speak the way he wants because I don't want him to use and say I'm interrupting him that's the difference between the way I was discussing with him and the way he was discussing sure okay well then then the three minutes is is for you respond to the question it's not four he asked me a question in his opening I can ask him a question and then we decided to go three minutes back and forth so I mean if we're gonna do we literally it was not working so we said do do time now he wants to bring it back to the same thing questions then because he wants to constantly constantly interrupt essentially we can't do the three minutes interrupt it again so okay I'll let you respond to this mus answer question I'll 30 seconds to respond oh yeah he mentioned something about uh so now it turned into a question and answer kind of thing the color being a part I I mention many attribut like love and hate and this and that that's that is a strong man uh are they depend is it a defend question to respond to dependence or not dependence we don't use the terminology Allah doesn't use you see very very now here you break the philosophical mumo jumbo rhetoric sophistry by saying simply we don't talk about Allah as attributes except what he reveal revealed to us it's very simple it's a very simple uh argument or I don't use it I believe it's an attribute and an attribute exists within the the Creator we don't use the term dependent or independent to are they distinct what do you mean by by the way you do you do use that terminology in debates because Jake used that terminology in many Jak I'm not Jake I know but but you're saying you guys don't use that terminology he did I'm talking about now he brings a complete different person or this person said this like what's that got to do with me and my discussion again I'm asking him what do you mean by dependent because if you mean dependent that there is the existing vacuum separate from the Creator we've already responded to that by say that attributes do not exist in vacuum they're not abstract standard to where in his position I don't have to answer these question I don't know the say I didn't say I asked said we don't have to answer that I depend I asked you what you mean by dependence look how he just jumps off talks over that's that's their behavior are they are they say you have to clarify what do you mean are they you're not respond to you if you don't Define the terms of what you mean by assay and independent I'm not going to respond to you use vague terminology try to get me to say yes or no and then say therefore this is your position clarify what you mean by your words and I'll respond to you are they self exist what do you mean by self exist do they exist all themselves you don't know that word they exist within the as I said to you I already responded to that that they exist by themselves I told him attributes do not exist in abstract but he still responds ask the same question over and over over over goes in his Circle he talks about circles and he loves going in cir they exist with Allah and there is nothing that exists separate from his attribut you make argument here trying to separate I don't so here I'm obviously moing because it's not and I'm saying what is this AK thing like okay you don't know what and I he I say it's not it's not and then he says you don't know what a school is like these people are so this is what they do they pretend that they don't know these are classic debates that they kill each other over the relationship that was that was a really funny part hearing him speak that but destroyed broken unsophisticated Arabic and that's why I I called him out to him pretending that he knows the Muslim theological schools used to believe you'll see now you all do does Allah have an uncreated foot okay so you talk about who what do they believe now look at him caught on the spot it's a very interesting part of the debate watch this part where I catch him on the spot he knows he doesn't know what the M believe he have five principles he doesn't know what they are that's why I ask him now what are the five principles of the give me the four principles of five principles okay like let's let's see what again why he stutters he stutters just keep it in real time because he doesn't know look give me the four principles of five principles of why why does he stutter like that he stutters like that because he doesn't know what the and he wants to go into a complete different topic AR and I was about to ask who are the as well you mentioned them you You misspelled the name you don't even know what they believe that's what you said so present me what they believe you don't you're not no I don't have to Define your schools for you you don't have it doesn't matter the four principles when you can't it doesn't matter what the what the five principles of are I'm just saying that they used to kill each other over these debates what debates you don't even know what they believe if you don't know if you don't know their position you don't know what they believe then why you making a claim that they used to kill each other over this and that you don't even know what they believe at least tell me what they believed and how is different from the other group and why this is a problem for us as Muslims you don't even know the positions you you can't notice he won't answer the question he doesn't know what the word self exist you're incorrect about what's your I don't care what's your position I don't care about that I don't care that I'm wrong about the Islam position what's your position look simple position what is my I believe whatever the Quran says I believe in and that's it is you give me a question and then I respond to what is the relationship of Allah to his attributes are they say or not I responded to you you're deflecting know the attribute is not separated everyone knows this no they don't you're saying you're saying your schools don't debate this this is problem you don't even know what my but believe you don't even know look at this Behavior everyone knows this no they say toool don't debate this this is problem you don't even know what my SCH believe I don't know what's what's going on to this guy but do matter maybe I don't know anything that's a fallacy that doesn't your position sure you don't know anything machine all right thank you for I'm a fallacy machine that's his argument you're a fallacy machine okay you can't answer this basic question can you you don't know the relationship of all's attributes for the fourth time I responded to you what do you mean by that deflected I told you the attributes of Allah are not something that we say is a part or separated from Allah we don't believe that we believe like cannot separate my love and hate from you a sorry so here he said I explained to him multiple times we don't say their parts we don't say they're separated then he say these are parts of you like these guy I don't know like they have brain cells and actually ears like Allah give you two ears and one mouth you know two ears to listen more than you talk but it doesn't seem like they're they're paying any attention to what I'm saying rul you aart so it shows that you are saying you said the parts you now look he says I said the parts and he calls me useless it starts with insults of course typical Christian Missionary and we say typical Christian because we show that example of another one in the beginning of the stream doing the same thing so I don't want to tell me oh why are you saying this we say this because this is what we generally get of course there's good Christians but this is what we get sadly like a kid like a child you just exposing your ignorance attributes are not Parts human beings have attributes you contradicted yourself problem you're doing that is because you you know the is that this is why I had to deal with yesterday look look look this is what I had to deal with watch you know the TR is that back to theend I honestly look I don't I don't even to comment on this right but this is this is what we deal with you know this is the representatives of Christianity by the way the people the Christians said we want this guy to come right so this is what they want to represent them basically have endent existences independent Wells they separate from knows what the worded he didn't know earlier Jesus worship they're not independent that's not our I'm frustrating to him that's not an attribute of IND the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit look again he what he does is he tries to speak over so his audience doesn't hear what I'm saying that I'm frustrating to him that's not an attribute of an individual you don't even you commanding the Holy Spirit we have the son commanding the Holy Spirit I genuinely don't know like how how these guys have actually people who watch them I generally don't know have how they have people who watch them at got their own channels honestly yeah s sudu moderating yes he's supposed to be moderating and I wait for him to actually give each one his time because he sees him interrupting but as I said sneo wants to also appear to unbiased to his audience we're gonna get to the time bit in a second I I hope so we are going to get to a Time bit in a second get an acting like a child and I think you gotta relax you're saying this because you literally didn't answer any of the questions I asked you about the attributes you said shirts he said I literally did not answer any of the questions he asked me about attri when I literally repeated the answer like four or five times I think defin so black is part of your shirt show me the existence of black where is that so he says Blackness is not a part anyone can go right now is a color a part of something or is an attribute of something and he will see the ignorance of the basic knowledge of this guy that has they he has zero knowledge basically I give an example again I say it's not a partisan and I gave him the attributes of love and hate if you like have an issue with black okay take the other analogies that I gave you with love and hate okay what is just trying to make the point closer to him that's it canuse the analogy to a creature when Allah is nothing like creatures now he says I use the analogy to a creature the analogy of the attribute was to explain to him that attributes are not Parts nothing about Allah right now just an analogy to explain the attributes are not parts then he say you said you made an analogy with Shan Allah and this there nothing like Allah like these types of levels of argument I don't understand how people watch these people like generally give like they can understand we can have attributes and Allah can have attribut attributes that does not what we mean no muslim SCH in Islamic history said nothing like means he doesn't have attributes the attribut of Allah are Max perfect we can have attribute but limited attri well this is the second time I explain this part to him I know you believe that but understand the how is there a comparison of all to creatures when he's nothing like creatures you compared it to your shirt and the parts of your shirt what do you mean I did not compare Allah to my shirt that's why there's no contradiction you just misunderstanding what I did I made an analogy for the attribute not about Allah what do you mean by nothing like what do you mean by that hly ating what do you mean by there's nothing like Allah what we mean by there's nothing like it says Allah is nothing like creatures okay and I responded to Allah nobody you gave an analogy of a creating in it part no I didn't do that you're on my shirt I said colors don't exist in abstract has exist has to exist with something your the shirt is is a cre you see he wouldn't let you get a word in even because he knows he they they actually believe being angry and loud and talking over means winning the discussion right they genuinely think uh they don't know that they look like idiots and they look like Angry moronic Behavior where they're not even allowing the other person to finish his sentence they think that this actually means oh I'm I'm winning you know by talking over the other person a color black is Anri an no you're just not answering you're avoiding it so you're using creative things with an analogy to Allah who's nothing like creatures all right let's do timing because as you can see it's just because he says look I'm asking for time because I'm running where he literally just interrupting every sentence I make you know funny Christians man okay let's try to reduce that but that's fair we'll go we'll resume from Jay's question and then we'll do 30 seconds back and forth each time gonna be specific with the timer so Jay can you repeat your question okay this is way better now finally we get some moderation and 30 seconds the question was very explicitly you made an analogy to Allah and his attribute and now look at him now when there is timing how the discussion goes on right that is what they try to escape they don't want the timing because they know if the minute they allow you to speak they're going to be completely refuted let's watch now when the time segment starts yes to a shirt with part and accidental things like colors when the Quran says twice that Allah is nothing like creatures so your analogy doesn't work and it doesn't tell us anything how do you resolve that 30 seconds okay I never made that he doesn't understand what he's talking about I made an analogy for him about the idea of an attribute the attributes now the analogy to do attribut not to do with Allah he's completing the two the idea is that attrib interrup interrup come on yeah he can he cannot stop interrupting do do not exist in abstract they have to exist within something they're not separable they're not parts and that's how we look at is not like anything maxf like simple it's very very simple people listening can doesn't critique okay do do you want continue the question thing so I I should give a question now okay okay okay so now let's let's L respond with the question but we have to do interrupted or else this is this a waste of time so I'll let laner POS a question here you could also respond to what you wanted in the last one but 30 seconds back and forth Lan uh go ahead right so he agreed that the Trinity means that the three persons areal we look at Jesus in Mark 13:32 who explicitly mentions and says that he does not know the hour while the father knows the and I can bring a quote from a church father right now who's explaining that this superiority of the father over the son they not equal because one of them knows when hour is going to happen the other doesn't know J say so remember he was in the beginning with the definition of the Trinity the Trinity say that they equal now look at him backt track his position human nature it's irrelevant because he have both natur Divine and human you can come and say this the human nature so how does Jesus not know something and you claim he's equal the father and the ho SP doesn't know as well because the ver says only the Father Knows Mark okay you have a question to follow up I know he supposed to answer right question answer did you what was the question the question is how does he say yeah and no I don't answer the way he thought I was going to answer I answer it according to the way St Basel does in letter 235 and6 where he says that the limitations there is a form of rhetoric or exaggeration which Jesus does in many places where he says for example that there's none good but the father does that mean that no one else is good no it's rhetoric because in other places he also qualifies that and says that the son also is good he says that people are good the holy spirit is good a good man will do this or that so no when he says things like that we have a consistent exegetical pattern as to how we explain those passages and we don't believe the Bible contradicts so there are passages that talk about the subordination which if he understood what monarchical trinitarianism is we recognize the subordination of the son to the father ah which he says he recognizes and agrees that the son is subordinate to the father done debate is over from our perspective if you say that the son is subordinate I.E submitting to the father that's it done that's what we're looking for we don't need anything else we worship the superior being that everything submits to including Jesus your God so now what they say rhetoric so they have no answer to the question because they know oh it's a fallacy it's retric oh it's actually exaggeration you know when he said nobody knows he's just exaggerating when he said he doesn't know not the sun specifically saying the son doesn't know this actually means he knows according to this guy you know but then he goes on to explain oh it's rric but in the same time we agree that the son is subordinate to the father so he admits that the son is submitting to the father un subordinate to him just fantastic love to hear it but not according to Essence so he doesn't understand that that's different that's a different theology than he has he thinks that distinction entails like differences in terms of ontology we believe that just as he says not to do with Essence knowledge is to do with Essence knowledge is to do with Essence but he's trying to run away from that no this is to do with Essence that know is one of the essential attributes of God like you cannot be God without knowledge a son can share the same nature as his father he can be subject to the father that do doesn't mean the father has more human nature than a son that's an analogy your position by the way doesn't make sense in terms of analogies because you said you made an analogy to help me but your very analogy doesn't work because Allah's attributes and his existence are nothing like the things things in the created order so your analogy doesn't work that was the critique that over a minute that was a bit over a minute I'll L if you respond in a minute yeah okay uh I very very simply this how Christians try to run away from the scripture I just said I can present quotations can present commentary people explicitly say this is an issue so here I don't only say that look the verse is problematic because Jesus says he doesn't know I can I can present CH father saying that saying that the father is superior because he knows everything while the son doesn't know so that was a position that was held by early Christians we're talking in the first 300 years it's not like my position or something so it's an issue for Christians and Christianity that that one knows something well the other doesn't know something but they Jesus says there's no one good but father he means ultimately good yes there's no one perfect so that is here we have no issues we need he says there's no one good by God he means ultimate goodness right there's no issues with that statement we don't say that it's rhetoric his goodness except the father we agree there's no issues there so that verse that Jesus says doesn't have an issue we also agree when he says he doesn't know that he doesn't and you cannot be God and you don't know something because God knows everything all the time so you cannot run away from the subject and you said by the way the son is subject to the Father the exactly subject to the father they not go equal in he shakes his head when I say the son is subject to the father what else do you need guys like what a beautiful debate where the guy completely admits and agrees that uh Jesus his God submits to another person right so we don't need anything more than that in the sense that they are equal in every position everywhere every shape and that's why we say this is what I said in my definition of the Trinity that he agreed with in the beginning what you call the father is a true God what Jesus is someone who subjected to him that is Bel okay uh J you respond a minute yeah but you're missing the point that at the beginning I said that I wouldn't immediately commit to your understanding of the words coequal because in some ways they are equal in terms of he didn't say that I said to him clarify the ambiguity he didn't say that power in terms of nature but that doesn't mean they're equal in every sense so that's why I was hesitant but even if he says that we happy so if they're not equal in every sense one is superior to the other what else do you guys need that is what we've been saying from the beginning they're not equal someone submits to the other to agree to your tricks of terminology there with making it simple and making it easy that's why I use monarchical Turner which again to use the analogy of a father or a king and his son the king and the son the prince possess the same Natures the king is not more human than the son and yet the son still is subject to the father this is orthodox reism I'm not a Roman Catholic so this is our position which I stated from the very outset in the first five minutes but you just so so the person submits to the king so Jesus submits to the Father the way the person submits to the king that's what else do you need more than this guys like isn't this fantastic just for us as Muslims is exactly the position that we hold if you submit to the Creator as your king submit to the Creator because he's Superior to you that's it you canot then claim that the two are equal or that the two are God about that but when you gave your anal so they're equal but not equal that's what they keep saying you know did one but not one again of the attributes you didn't answer the question you avoided it you ignored it and you want to switch over into the question of Jesus knowled which is fine I don't have a problem mentioning the fact that Jesus uses rhetoric and exaggerated language all the time he says if your hand caus you to sin cut it off he's not saying literally cut your hand off he's also not saying that no one is good but the father in rhetoric so in the same way he can express that the father is the sole source of all existence goodness knowledge Etc and yet at the same time the other passages also confirmed in John 5 and6 that Jesus has all the so when he says if your hand causes you to say cut it off it means what it means stop your hand from from doing it so there is a meaning given when he says I don't know what is the meaning is he giving that he knows the only possible meaning that he's given is that no nobody knows including himself and the Holy Spirit and then he says only to even emphasize more that only the father has this knowledge all the same Powers knowledge and uh activities as the father everything the father has has been committed to the son so you selectively choose the passages and I want to go back to my question then how do you know which passages are the correct passages in the Bible and which ones are the corrupted ones when Allah's word cannot be corrupted and I'm told in let's C that that was that was well over a minute L if you respond to that question I'll give you 90 seconds right I'm very happy that look he shows he changes his position he agreed when trity he sh his and he said yes now he knows that this going to be problematic so he admits that they're not equal I'm happy that's it that's what we're all trying to show interrup don't interrup shut up like you said to me I'll say the same to you with your own statement here I give him Taste of his own Med medicine just like he said shut up in the beginning give it back to him said that they are not equal yes they are equal exactly as Muslim the father you call the father Superior to what you call the son you give an of King son exactly the king commands the son is superior to the son is not equal to him so I love that inter inter do you see how how the itch it's like the holy spirit makes them itch whenever you speak that they have to jump and interrupt I can I don't even open my mouth whenever it is their timing I allow them to finish whatever they have to say I allow them to speak make their questions respond and give their answers we're not afraid of anything as Muslims we have nothing to fear or hide from said don't when it comes to rric they run away from anything which is for example I'll bring him now John 173 Jesus say explicit there's no true God the only true God is the father he says the only true God the father is the only true God and he doesn't which means that any other is false we have all over the Bible Jesus making statements that can be divine I can say as well any can say okay whatever verse you to bring up is also R play this game whichever ver see that is a problem now with trying to pretend anything that disagrees with you is retor I can also bring all the verses that agrees with you and supports your position I just sayri I disagree we can play this game if you want to run away from metaphorical is this and that we can play this game with any verse like you just call ITC so the game with playing with these that don't agree with you you tried to escape the position and the fact that J was subordinate submissive so you have people arguing it in the council and other councils because they believe they was subordinate didn't believe he was equal you have tons of hares due to that because the Trinity makes no logical sense now you lied by the way you said there's a verse in John that they have the same power they have the same knowledge they have the same wisdom whatever it is go ahead and read that verse for us exactly what it says now you said in the Quran responding to what you said which ver which verses are which vers are not whoever agrees with the Quran we believe that is therefore accepted and true whatever disagrees we reject whatever doesn't agree or disagree about is position given by the prophet J I'll give you I'll cut you off there J I'll give you 90 seconds to respond yeah this go find games because he knows that nobody interprets any text as if every single phrase or idea that is expressed is in that single text the Trinity is a Doctrine that's derived from all the texts of the scriptures not from this or that verse so he's setting up a false criteria so here I never told him bring me one verse to show the Trinity but he brought zero verses that demonstrates the Trinity for me to use the exact terminology in any single verse Jesus says in John 16:15 that everything that the father has has been given to the son that means all of his existence all of his powers all of his now he says whatever the father's been given is been given to the son is referring to the kingdom is referring to the Kingdom of Heaven he tried here to pretends that he said word for word power wisdom and knowledge I have the same power wisdom and knowledge as God he never said that but this is what he inferred from the verse and the verse is generally just talking about the kingdom were given to the people it doesn't say that all the attributes of God I have them but anyways I ignored even that misrepresentation attributes the son also shares I answered his question when he asked what you guys hear this let me repeat again for you to hear to the son that means all of his existence all of his powers all of his attributes the son also shares I answered his question when he asked coal yeah coequal so this is just a bit of the example of the father in The a bit of Holy Spirit itching so don't don't be too much concerned being distinct persons same in nature equal in nature equal in nature means that equal in the power that proceeds from that nature so yes throughout the Gospel of John every chapter every book excuse me every chapter in the book of John includes a reference to the de of Christ and or a ref to the Triad no Goofus that doesn't mean the word Trinity is in the book it means the concept the teaching of the Trin is in the book just like it's throughout the now he says look no Goofus that doesn't mean the word Trinity is in the book can someone bring one statement throughout these hours one hour we've been talking with him that that I said to him where is the word Trinity in the Bible you see how he makes a strowman argument that I never made and then starts to refute it because he's being refuted Old Testament not the words it doesn't have to have the words that's your criteria that you are made up for me now I asked you a specific question about you going to the Tex TT and the prior Revelation and what your your your criteria was you ignored it you didn't answer I to know what is your criteria for knowing when in the Old Testament it's true and when it's false is it not the Coran the very thing in question 90 seconds for lantern all right so clearly he said it is not from a part of things is DED from everything it is not he's essentially saying it's not clear which is what we love to hear is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not clear in the Bible that's that's why I said I can present many quotes from church fathers which they disagree with one another what they believe the son was and the father was you had all of these councils you all these disagreements heretical people who were killed because the idea of the Tre is not there I never asking for the word he like tried to throw as I ask where trity I said that's why I started by defining he didn't answer John 173 because he knows it's a thorn in his side when I said Jesus said the only true God is the father he did not respond to that all he completely ignored that I responded to his question about the vers which vers he ignored John 173 because he know that it's a destroying his whole theology when it says the only true God is the father and I have a Church Father which even says explains that ver vers and says how it CHS the that the father is superior and the ultimate God I said to whoever agrees with Islam generally the Quran and we will accept that this statement is true so when it says 64 there one said that is true no problem anything we should disagree we were rejected like if something says Jesus died we say that FAL is corrupted that is change nowal schols agree that the the Bible has corrupt I don't need to do any a lot of research regarding that now when you said God's words doesn't CH change that verse you quoted is talking about Allah's promise and you're quoting it out of uh out of context like I said I don't change my words I keep my words we're talking about promises we're not talking about the revelation of the scriptures because the Quran already explains the revelation of the previous scriptures is has been changed now he said whatever the father has been given being given to me that's clearly not the case because Jesus did not know and he said he didn't know he said only the father what he means by that is not talking about okay now there's two verses in the Quran says the the the words of Allah is not change one is referring to the Quran mentions the verses of Allah specifically referring to the Quran clearly the other one refers to the promise of Allah or the Judgment of Allah and he tries to misrepresent that at the words of Allah meaning the previous scriptures of course the Quran is clearly saying the previous scriptures are corrupted so he's not referring to that and you can open any to see that but then he knows that this is the case so he's tries to twist the verse uh to me that is talking about the Torah and gospel for somehow and we see him doing doing that J 90 seconds yeah notice he did not answer the exact challenge I gave him I asked him what the Epic criteria was and he said that the Quran backs up the promises of PR Revelation when it's with so in other words the Quran pre the Quran by citing the Quran passages like this guy see like what's wrong with this guy you know why is this guy like behaving like a in the Old Testament and yet we read in the Quran that it actually says that you can go to the PRI re to see that the new revelation is consistent with it we have revealed to you Prophet The Book of Truth confirmation in the previous scriptures and a supreme authority upon them so you judge between them now this was a really really funny part because he was asking me for what is the criteria of accepting and rejecting and he quoted the criteria himself chapter 5 of the Quran verse 48 that he's quoted the criteria where Allah says that the Quran is a Criterion over the previous scriptures and it says also do not follow the judgments of the Christians and the Jews do not listen to them stick to the Quran and the Judgment of Allah so he brought a verse that fut him and he was reading it and it was really funny I was I laughed so much when he brought this verse I was like no way this guy is bringing a verse against him and reading it what Allah has revealed and now he's admitting what was his Source many scholars say the Bible's corrupted oh really so many scholars who are atheist unbelieving is what you go to not to your Prophet Muhammad who said that you can go to the prior Jewish Torah scriptures and Christian scriptures those scriptures confirm supposedly what's in the Quran you just said no they're all corrupt so Allah and Muhammad are directing me to go to a corrupt book to prove your book you don't see how silly that is and then when I ask for we see we told him clearly we're not trying to prove the Quran or the Bible Nobody Does that I don't know in which world view you live in you know standard you said the standard is the Quran but the thing in question is the Quran so you're in a circle a circle and it's a fallacy to appeal to authorities to say we all know that's a fallacy I know you guys don't know what falles are they har in Islam right logic is Haram so what's the standard again okay 90 seconds for Muslim L he said I didn't give I clearly did I said AG Quran it is we accepted disagre reject he said Quran proves nobody here talking Pro the Quran nobody's also talking about uh the Quran proving the Bible you're just misunderstanding things here and you're just completing terms that you're just going around the ccle nobody's talking about anything proving I explain to you what the word confirmed their means you clearly don't understand what you're saying there's nothing there that says that is proving it the person you did is you mention I was laughing how could you read this verse I think it's supporting you first the chapter five the ver which you were reading is refuting you is literally saying to judge between them with the Quran with what Allah has red to you and do not listen to their desires and the next verse is the same thing and you read yourself for this is a supreme authority over it which means that whatever the qu the case is a supreme authority over the Bible that's exactly what saying all this time I'm laughing how could you read that verse I think is supporting you now this is just this is completely ridiculous so now uh the Quran says it's also corrupted it's mentioned multiple parts for example the Quran says in Chapter 2 vers 75 and mentioned chapter 2 vers 7 how they write the scripture with their own hand and claim you said logic is no one say anything about is again coming back to 17 uh chapter John 17 verse three wherec says the only TR again you're avoiding the question you're running away from the question also we have in John chap 20 ver Jesus says he has a God he says I'm going back to my God and your God how can you be God and you have a God he didn't say I have a person I have a father he said father UNG God so he has a God above him and he believes the only true God is the father and he doesn't have the knowledge of the hour and this is what we mean by him not being the father okay J 9 second after this I'll go J then Lance 9 second each and all right so here we're finally approaching the end of the discussion where he is ref yes he's exactly refuting himself by bringing a rest is against him and then quoting it we can do closing statements finishing with Muslim Lantern because Jay D started so let's go 90 seconds Jay now yeah the argument in both of those passages is not judge the prior Revelation on the Quran the argument is that that you can go again to uh 285 the messenger believes in what has been revealed to us from his Lord as so so do all the Believers his angels and his books the books that are referenced in many other passages as well this includes 6115 182 seven these are the words of Allah previously in the Torah and the inil they cannot be corrupted and changed he believes they corrupted and changed why because atheist Scholars said so and guess what the same atheist Scholars don't believe in his books and his Quran they all the time reject so it's a double standard they always do this they have a double standard of citing The Atheist Scholars to reject the Bible but also reject the Quran and your Quran does say many times over that I can go and check the previous Revelation to be consistent and then when we find out that it's you see is a lie you can go check the previous Revelation to see if the Quran is consistent there's nothing in the Quran that says that of course he just makes up lies as he goes consistent you say oh that's because it's corrupted so I'm supposed to look at a corrupted thing to confirm in a non-corrupted thing that makes no sense that's why when I said what's the Epic criteria to know the Quran is true he said the Quran that's a circle you explicitly affirmed the very thing I wanted to affirm that it is a circle you said no one wants to know no one's asking what's true I'm asking how do we know it's true what do you mean no one's asking this question I'm asking you this question for the third time how do we know it's trueth and in regard to in regard to John 173 I said monarchical trinitarianism Jesus does submit to the father that doesn't Jesus does submit to the father so when Jesus says the only true God is the father he's submitting to the only true God perfect like I I love what this guy was saying I I love his his points he has a different nature than the father any more than a son to a father means he has a different nature by the way he says athe scholar say the is corrupted even Christian Scholars say the is corrupted we're not even saying atheist Scholars saying both atheist and Christian Scholars are saying this okay most 90 seconds because heiz interrup interrupt you see he interrupts my 90 seconds again they cannot hold themselves they cannot allow you to speak and now he's interruped because he knows I'm and and other verse also has nothing to do with what you saying the books the words again inters again so the books are previous Revelations have been revealed to previous prophets we talk about the words again look this guy he canot he's he's like burning inside can you can read it in context and everyone can read that so now he mutes him which is perfect but on the Discord I still heard him and he kept making noises interrupting noises uh so he can interrupt me where I'm speaking and also he wants to speak over me so his audience uh who's listening to him cannot hear me because he's not muted for his audience he reminded me of the verse of the Quran where Allah says about disbelievers do not listen to this Quran make noises to people do not hear when people recite the Quran he's exactly doing this in real time when I'm speaking about the Quran or speaking about Islam he just speaks over it so people do not hear the truth so people do not hear the Revelation so a such a childish behavior that you go to the extent that you need to be muted so you don't interrupt the other person even though it's being Ed you can read it and you can see it's exp talking about the problems you see how interrup he is because he knows he's being destroyed now say scholar says the Bible yes so you agree I'm happy you agree that the scholars and Academia agree that the Bible has been Chang corrupting there's no original ET now see he submits and agrees that the the scholars say that the Bible is corrupted what else do we need so from this debate we got his admiss admission that the son submits to the father that the father has the ultimate knowledge and submits that the one true God is the father we got that admission which is what we looking for and we got the admission from him that the scholars in the fields of textual criticism agree that the Bible is changed what else do we need what else more do we need more than that and we showed his interrupting behavior and childish uh attitude this before how so here I mention I mentioned that there are atheist Scholars many and I mentioned them before in my video especially in my video about the Quran it transmission and preservation Etc where I mentioned the names of SCH follow who are not Muslim who say who examine the manuscript and say the Quran is preserved they're not Christians and they're not Muslims many people I can mention ition many many names of different people who do believe or a or Muslim acemic the Quran is preserved the whole book WR that the manuscript for examp how they show the preserv Quan never said the B is consist saying we talking about how to prove the qur we talk the corupt has nothing to do with proving the Quran proving the Quran has I have a video my channel everyone is welcome to watch it's called comp evid the truth this we see the prophe in the qu we say all these different things I don't you mean by Pro talk about different now uh we are talking about the corruption of the Bible the has been changed has been corrupted accepted I'm happy you through your religion under the bus oh I agree that the is I want Christians to listen to this he's through everything under yes we agree to the father EXC that's believe as Muslims Jesus is submitting to the father that's what a Muslim is Prophet M submitting to Allah muslim okay I'll giveing statement to J let's do five minutes each five minutes for okay so that's the End closing statement five and five minutes five minutes so bear with me his five minutes should I do X2 for the last five minutes what do you guys think I'll leave it up to you should do X2 and keep it one 1.5 you lost brain cells listening to this guy what can I do X2 X2 X2 X10 I don't think it is X10 sorry guys all right so let's see what is the maximum X that we have here is X2 sorry you gotta bear with two and a half minutes listen yeah 615 again neither the pass he's talking about confirm what he's saying 6 so by the way all he's going to do he's going to repeat what he said before that's it word of the Lord is perfected in truth and Justice none can change Allah's words he just admitted that the words of Allah in the previous you heard him say in the last SE there that those vers those vers of the books the the the prophets which he just said is corrupted of course I didn't say any of that his own Quran says the word of right there cannot ever be corrupted so he's smarter than Allah and the prophet according to his attachment to unbelieving Scholars what I pointed out was his double standard and the fact that he's gonna appeal to the same Scholars there schol like the Quran this is a fallacy of authority appealing to scholar is a fallacy of authority if you think that proves a position you argue that there's a bunch of Scholars that debate the early church so what but has nothing to do with proving a position you can bring in Scholars to back up a position but they don't prove anything called the fallacy of appeal to Authority so multiple times he madees he doesn't even know what they are I them out and he laugh and talk he said I made many falles talking about this problem Allah's relationship look this is his whole argument fallacies fallacy circle circle fallacy Circle Indian accent or hand movement shaking of Holy Spirit that's it summary of His argumentation inter now AB metaphorically inter inter but he doesn't grant that to us when we talk about these where Jesus clearly clearly exaggeration we're allow to I don't metaphorically anything and I've done I've not done that in the discussion and by the way he did TR to say that I have to prove in John of HP hpis is mentioned Hebrews one identified the son is the Eternal son of the father and he's equally Divine he constantly misunderstood what monarchal because he doesn't know what it is because it recognizes this distinction between the father and the son in terms of monarchia that doesn't mean that there's a difference in essence so whole argentation entire time was assuming that distinction between the person necessarily a distinction of di of essence which I said from the very opening statement is not our position so again Allah words are not corruptible he believe they've been corrupted Allah is one but you heard use analogies to the of his shirt who help me but his own Quran says all is nothing like things in creation I'm pretty sure shirt is a creature I'm pretty sure black is a part or an attribute of a shirt so your own analogies refute you and that's why I'm constantly calling you on a double standard I'm not saying you don't answer by staying your position but like many people are no good at that you think answering your position is refuting an argument calling out a contradiction I'm arguing your position contradicts I'm not asking you to restate the position I'm saying your position contradicts in many ways these things contradict the word of Allah cannot be corrupt or change you just said he says here he points out contradictions and I responded to his contradictions and they're not contradictions because he's misunderstanding the verse but he says you not responded how did I not respond when I showed that your contradictions are not contradictions right change okay I'll give a final statement all right we're finally done with that minut you can keep three to four we'll keep mind to as well as I said only specifically ref to Quan and the other one Jud so I read for him chapter six of the Quran and how the context shows us talking about the Judgment of Allah or the promise of Allah which is he's trying to misc Jud and it says the prise of has the word of your lord has been fulfilled why is that talking about the talking about the Judgment of Allah or or the promise of Allah Etc say 1.5 okay I'll do 1.5 no problem do this do this do this here by the way look I told Hime as well here I told told him to mute him let me do 125 for me because he was muting me in my final statement you saw I allowed him full 5 minutes to speak but because he knows I'm refuting him he was interrupting me in my final statement and he had to be muted but I want you to keep attention he will continue to speak and I can hear him in the Discord the audience cannot hear him you guys will not hear him now but I could hear him in the Discord so he was interrupting me and also not allowing his audience to listen to what I'm saying because he knows he's losing yeah I'm resetting look you'll see his mouth moving time God can you please mute him that's why I was asking M again again we say this very very very simply uh the verse of the Quran I mentioned it I mentioned the verse and open ex open the exes of the scholars nobody have said in Islamic history that this is referring to the previous scriptures and I give evidences why this is not referring to the previous scriptures that they are corrupt and I give evidences he gave an Evidence by himself misquoting the verse in chapter five also I gave chapter two of the Quran verse 75 and verse 79 which was clearly this guy doesn't know why he's talkinging about now he said oh we do metaphor when did they do a metaphor oh if you're this if you're that you don't even know I am that's that's the problem you come to argue with me I from the Quran and Hadith I only state I only state I'm a Muslim I don't do other than that I talk about using the Quran Allah says in the Quran Allah says in the Quan you see he's interrupting me now I can hear him by the way in the Discord he's not like us so any attribute Allah will have in the Quran it is it is not like us now he says he doesn't understand this he doesn't understand that this is just a what we call what we call UK waffle in the UK just someone waffles few words he thinks he's making big words we can confuse the audience oh this palac and and and he says I'm not good as debating when I've already responded he said there a contradiction in the Quran that verses contradict one another I showed him the verses are not talking about the previous scriptures they are talking about the promise of Allah so there's no contradiction so I was refuting him you came to the black and white sh all I already told him this an analogy to do the attributes not to do with Allah so not try to say the sh is Allah and if you don't understand that then I don't think you should be debating anytime in the future with all due respect now the last thing I'm tring to say look Jay left defending Jesus he admitted that subordinate he started use some oh the Ence is not this this it doesn't matter what we can see reading the verses in scriptures before all of this philosophy have been introduced and brought into the picture is that clearly Jesus was subordinate and that's why we have the earliest groups like The ibites and nazarin whoever they would call heretical did not believe the tritan beliefs we had the church brothers and I said I can easily give more quotes they didn't agree with the concept that Jay has in his mind so simply Jay has put Jesus under the bus from a position that he believes in the Trinity and he clearly admitted he doesn't know the hour it is not the same I think is he's contradicting himself he says he doesn't know the hour but in the same time they're not equal but at the same time they're the same Asus keeps contradicting himself and going into Circa so is it metaphorical or he doesn't really know the hour and their subordinate to one another he doesn't know his own positions and with that we conclude we ask people to worship the creator of Jesus the Lord of Jesus who he said he's coming back to he say I'm going back to my God we ask you to worship that Lord that Jesus came to and he said he's going to worship he's going to go back to that is the Lord that we call you to Worship the Lord of Jesus Moses no Prophet Muhammad and peace be upon all of the prophets and Messengers and I conclude here with this cooking and because it's burning in the kitchen now all right okay wait before before um um before all right so we concluded here but you will see Jay is not going to be happy with us be concluding because he knows that he's been refuted right left and center and he submitted that that Jesus subord to the father and submitted that the Bible has been corrupted in Academia and he knows that he just has a losing position and he made no arguments against Islam he just talked about shirt black shirt and attributes that's it what give me one point that he actually made that makes any sense that is a reputation of the Muslim position nothing so he knows he been cook that's why he will try more and more to prolong but of course I'm not going to give him that chance the debate is done we give our final statement hang up hold up Jay I want to get because we um there was interruptions um I did say that it was gonna be the closing statements but because it seems like there's more do you think we could do one more back and forth two minutes each is that okay with both parties no I think that's it's good to edit here I don't want to go we're going to go in a in a circle with this guy of course he doesn't to go anymore it's a waste of time repeating the same thing every time we no I have 38 says the know so now after doing an open a closing statement he seems like he want to do another closing statement you know I do I do appreciate you coming on it was nice to meet your problems I'm not cry you're the one that I'm not crying sounded very sad it seemed like he's been shattering inside I want play one more time when he says he's not crying listen to it like sounds like music to the ears he knows body we already had aate so now you're losing yeah look at him now look at his Expressions I do appreciate you coming on it it was nice to meet you your problems I'm not cry so it's I love it I love it you're the one all rhetoric Jay no he's saying I'm using retc a minute ago he's saying I'm not able to I don't know how to use philosophy this and that now look at he's saying I'm using rri I'm not crying okay all right it was nice to meet you and I I appreciate you coming on here this is much more civil than the earlier debate I hope to do this again I think this this was um it was fastpaced and it was it was enjoyable any on thank okay all right so he ends up doing sneo ends up doing two polls one poll in his community which is uh his community in Twitter in which who won basically and majority of sneaker's audience are Christians anyways I don't believe majority of of his audiences Muslims but anyways like that poll he Jay loses that poll so sneo makes another poll which is a general poll where anyone can uh uh vote and I was winning in that poll so Jay what he did is he went on Twitter and he begged his audience on the live as well please go vote that I want the debate you know so it was really funny seeing that uh him knowing for a fact okay let's stop sharing the screen by the way it was really really funny him knowing and and admitting uh defeat by big is and his audience oh please vote that I actually won the discussion even though you guys know I didn't even announce this debate I did not tweet about it I didn't do any of that so because I'm not trying I'm I want more non-muslim audience than I want Muslim audience we can give them the message of Islam so uh okay so let me read the super chats that came by the way and you guys can tell me what you thought about this uh discussion and we'll end inshallah this stream all right uh here that's a very very important thing I want people to read this super chat it's amazing after watching the debate yesterday I know now why you're not debating it is just a waste of time exactly what ends up happening people talk they want to talk over you they want to act like children H they ignore the points that you make they just want to pretend they won and then you get their audiences oh they won the it's not a seek people seeking the truth the reason I don't do thebat is that and as I mentioned to you in the beginning the only reason we I talk to these people is because sneik wanted that because his community kept bringing that up but here this is a perfect demonstration for people who just watch the debate 247 is the debate is not about knowledge it's not about seeking the truth most of the times it's just about wasting time and just waffling 247 so that is why I don't engage in them and I engage in this course and discussion where you allow the other person to speak and you have a conversation okay all ridiculous ideologies brought by the Christians is usual using insults great my brother uh hello brother big fan of your videos want to ask how to memorize Hadith bothering me that have much knowledge unfortunately well you memorize Hadith like you memorize the Quran you'll have to memorize the text of the Hadith uh and the source is always good which which book is rated in but that's might be difficult um trying to recall the information understanding the Hadith and what it says would help you recalling it when the topic is brought up inallah welcome okay I couldn't believe when he start talking about private part size exactly they are they are uh they behave like Clans sadly is life will be saved yeah I'll keep the life public inshallah uh because it's it's a debate review of topic I want to practice Islam but but me in a western school with revealing women and swearing plus more taking a hit any tips well you can always uh change where you study and go to a different place uh please never delete this live yes the live will be public inah don't worry uh appreciate your patience brother uh I'm that's a bit exaggerated but okay welcome welcome the only benefit we get is really funny memes it's not seek seek speaking the truth sadly okay please videos upload videos to like two videos a week and I think that's enough alhamdulillah for the people to watch clown will win a debate with a doctor I don't know about that okay uh what do you guys think let me should I do a poll for you guys or what do you let you say what you want to say instead I don't think a poll is necessary you can just tell me what you think any notes that you have before we end the stream I wanted to watch it with you guys we can uh enjoy it together inshallah and make comments uh the the best Debaters uh struggle to form a coherent conscience answer to any of your questions explanations can be to the great this is thing it's about making it simple because the truth is simple and they hate Simplicity they just want to just make rhetoric philosophical retoric just some nonsense and then try to avoid the truth and answering and responding to simple questions because people get lost in the details and that's what they want they want to uh confuse the audience in the details do a poll okay I'll do a poll if you guys want but it's anyways it's a Muslim audience okay let's do a poll let's do a Paul sneak or or this days kind of uh W or L kind of thing let's do W or L right let's do it in that way all right give me a second there you go there is a poll uh can I make the time or no I think YouTube does the time on its own maybe all right did the poll start yes I can end the poll when I want yeah okay there's a poll do it in the funny way you know of the way that sne does it most of these streamers do it yes yes that's a good point actually let's see how many people are hate watching okay 7% so far okay EXC I love it is is great L for lovely W for one and L for lovely whichever one you you're going to debate you've enjoyed it essentially H was the debate W or L for you well I think that it was great on both uh both times I think it was great um I was happy about it because in the first discussion we showed how he came back and changed his own positions in which he promised and how he was scared of representing the Christian position uh with the second guy he admitted that Jesus is subordinate which is what we want and admitted that um the Bible is corrupted according to Academia he had zero points to make also in the first debate uh how I already gave three points to demonstrate that the idea of the age of marriage anyways it's not an argument against Islam it's not a foundational Creed argument and from a Christian position you can even argue against it so I was was happy overall anyways yes sister inshallah towards September maybe towards mid to end September because I'm going to be traveling again next week it wasn't even planned the plan was to speak to the first guy but he left and then the second guy I don't even know who he is but a very important thing I mentioned to the Muslims before I mention again do not go be watching these on their on the channels of the Christians do not give them any air basically uh as long as you you've seen the discussion you can watch it on sneakers platform if you want or here I've already give you the summary or almost the full of the second debate you're not going to really miss anything important in the other Parts okay seven we have seven around 7% uh watching you can say are non-muslims which is good I like it it's interesting I'm happy that there are people hate watching uh and I hope to continue to hate to watch until Allah guide them to the truth inshallah so that is not not it's not an issue that we have people hate watching okay we'll stop at 1,000 it's I think it's 7% anyway anyways 1,000 votes is enough okay we stop it at 1,000 and it is 7 93% W and 7% love or lovely all right brothers and sisters I hope you enjoyed this almost three hours I hope you enjoyed this breakdown of the discussion uh that we had uh debate that we had and also the beneficial points that I mentioned specifically in the beginning of the stream and how useless most of the time debating is which is why I do not do it and I think this is a good demonstration for you to know why we don't do it not because we're afraid of anyone we can easily do this and have discussions and refute them and make them look like they don't know what they're talking about uh but it's a waste of time waste of resources but it has own benefits that can be done if you do it correctly as well but most of the time it is not beneficial which is why I avoid it okay I'm not a sister well Nal is a female name in the Arabic but no problem brother is the same thing maybe it's a uni name right anyways brothers and sisters for listening anything I said correct is from Allah anything I said wrong is from me and the live will stay inshallah uh and