Confident Catholic Attempts To Disprove Islam Using Catholicism! Muhammed Ali

Hello. Can you hear me? >> Hi. How are you? >> I'm okay. I'm all right. I'm surviving. How are you? >> Good. I I'm Catholic and I'm not going to say that I know a lot about Islam, but um I know a lot about church history. So, um I was interested because, you know, growing up in America, you get a lot of this uh I would call it Islamophobia, a lot of this stereotyping, a lot of uh stuff that I think is really unfair. And it makes me think like there must be something more to this. If so many people hate this group there, there must be something that they're on to. And especially, of course, if you look at Christianity and Islam, we're really the only two contenders. >> Sure. >> For worldwide, right? So, and and I also was interested when I studied church history that there were a lot of disputes between Christians and Muslims as sort of cousins or brothers like, you know what I like that we we we recognize or Catholics recognized I think it was called Muhammadans as like a heresy not a different religion like when we would talk to Hindus or Buddhists or something like that and I think that's probably on both sides that you would see us as having a lot of commonalities. >> Yeah. I mean commonalities I would we wouldn't say a heresy but we would say a commonality. Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't know if you it's probably a different language that you would use there. But what I'm curious about is when and it's hard to get this um I've talked with a few uh Muslims. >> So you know that the the church's tradition from for Catholics is that we have a magisterium. We have we would say and Protestants disagree of course that we have an interpreter who would we could look to to interpret and with the bishops interpret the scriptures. And I understand but Muslims don't have that. Is that correct? And have never had that >> like a >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, so, so the first thing is like commenting a little bit on what you said before, the idea of that if so many people say something then it must be true. No, it's just the fact that this is how brainwashing works. When all the media repeats when the all the media repeats the same lie then the average Joe starts to think that this there must be truth to this claim because all if every TV channel I open every general I'm reading saying the same thing but what they don't know is that they're all are run by the same people and the same people are telling them to say the same thing. >> So I wouldn't say that yeah that there's if there is so many people saying something >> that therefore it makes it true. What makes something true is the evidences when we look at them. >> Also, the idea of being the only two contenders. I'm not sure about how how accurate this is. You look at America today for example. America today is run >> by a boring country in the Middle East essentially, right? You have black >> lobby, right? So, do you talk about who's running what? Like I I may disagree with that a little bit. Okay. So what you're saying an interpreter now to get to >> Yeah, I agree with you and I do think that's a genuine weakness of Christianity that it is subject to this sort of uh takeover. Muslims are stronger and have remained stronger. Whatever you want to say about the truth of the Quran or the Bible, we h I would have to look as a westerner and Muslim nations and say they have protected the basic truths about the family and the structure of society in a way that we just have to say we have not been able to do. Um, and so I do respect that tremendously. And even online, Muslims are genuinely far more polite and far more like normal seeming than Christians online, which maybe just an online thing, but so I'm interested. So in this in this >> Yeah. Like you're you guys are usually the opposite of the stereotype of what we're supposed to see is some guy with a scimitar. You know what I mean? Like and well done. Like good good for you. Uh but what I'm say my question is so so this thing of like you don't have an interpreter of the Quran who's like you know we would have the like the pope and the bishops and we have a certain thing right >> you don't have that and you have a split from early on between Shia and Sunni >> no >> which no >> no that's not the case we do have an interpreter of the Quran and that interpreter of the Quran is the prophet so Allah tells us in the Quran explicitly in multiple places. So, so we have six ways can say around six, five, six ways to explain the Quran. This has always been our tradition. So, first is explaining the Quran with the Quran. Allah says in the Quran that there's two types of verses, foundational verses and verses which have more than one meaning. And the people have >> When you say Allah says that, do you mean the Quran says that or someone else's? Yes. Okay. >> Yeah. Whenever we say whenever we say God said something or Allah said something is the Quran the Quran unlike the Bible for example it only has God's speech doesn't have anybody else's speech every word in the Quran is Allah's words is God's speech Allah may quote someone in the Quran but still his words it's like me quoting you still my words so all the speeches in the Quran is God's words the hadith or the sunnah is the prophetic tradition is what the prophet said what the prophet taught we separate that from the Quran when I say Allah said now I'm referring to specifically the Quran whenever you Okay. Yeah. I just don't know the lingo, you know. >> Yeah. No worries. No worries. No worries. No worries. So Allah says in chapter 3 of the Quran verse 7 that you have foundational verses of the Quran and verses which have more than one meaning. And the people have diseases on their heart. They go to the verses which have more than one meaning and they pick like they try to misinterpret the verse so they can find something evil. But Allah tells us what we can do. What we can do then is we take the verse that has more than one meaning and return it to the foundational verses because the foundational verses would explain the verses that have more than one meaning because there's other verses that talk about the same thing and if you follow them you would realize what the meaning is if you look at the verse that allows more than one meaning if that makes sense. So we have foundational verses in the Quran clear explicit and verse which has two meanings one align with the rest of the verses and one doesn't. So you interpret that verse in line with the other verses. That's the right way of interpreting the Quran. Interpreting the Quran with the Quran. That's the first way. The second way to interpret the Quran or understand the Quran is the sunnah is the life of the prophet is his tradition. What he taught us. Allah tells us in the Quran explicitly that the prophet Allah sent down revelation the reminder to the prophet so we can explain the Quran. Allah also says in the Quran that the prophet will teach us the Quran. He will teach us the wisdom. He will teach us how to understand and apply this religion. And Allah tells us in the Quran that we have in the prophet the best of example in the prophet Muhammad we have the best of example of how to practice our tradition and religion. So first here is the first interpreter. We don't need for example a pope because the prophets already showed us a prophet a messenger of God which is higher than than a pope or an imam or a sheh or whatever. The last and final messengers already showed us how to practice the religion. Then we have his companions. the companions of the prophet. Allah says also again in chapter 9 of the Quran verse 100 that that the first group of companions from the people who migrated and and the people who supported the prophet if we follow them Allah will be pleased with us. So following the companions and their example as a whole will Allah will be pleased with us if we do why companions were there when the revelation was coming down. The Quran was revealed in 23 years by the way. The companions were there when the Quran was coming down. So they saw >> the reasons of relation, the context and all of that. >> They were also the direct students of the prophet of course. So he taught them how to understand the verses of the Quran and he explained the Quran to them. >> So can can I just without saying like you're right or I'm right. >> To me this sounds similar to the idea that Jesus is a messenger. Of course we say he's more than that but okay. But then he had the apostles who he taught, right? So that's similar to the companions, right? And you have the scriptures themselves which are seen as I understand the difference like we're not saying God literally wrote it >> in Greek but it's inspired right so it's similar and yet we still need an interpreter we say God gave us an interpreter like so the companions in this in a sense the apostles had a structure that was continued through the bishop of the church. You don't have anything like that. Correct. >> Yeah. So, so the the problem with what you're saying is that there is day and night difference between the Islamic position there and the Christian position. >> First is that Muslims have every detail about the prophet. We're talking about how how he used to sleep, which side some narrations describing how many white hairs he had in his beard or something. one of the companions like to that extent what the prophet ate what the prophet what he drank what he did with with his wives everything to do with prophet Muhammad's life and we have it historically reliably attested so it's not just we don't have like manuscripts like when in the case with Christianity that comes 400 years later we have nothing from the first 150 years this is the case with Christianity have nothing from 150 years we don't have this issue we have not just that we this clear description to do with everything with prophet's life. So we can understand and learn but also we have the the uh authenticity historically that traces back to prophet Muhammad. So likewise with his companions >> now if we look at the Bible we know that all like I'd say all Christian scholars to do a textual criticism agree unanimously Christian ones that are conservative and atheist ones that that the four gospels were not written by the disciples. They believe that these were not written by the disciples. The names are attributed to them later on. I can give you names now. I mean >> I think there's some controversy but like Luke was not one of the apostles. >> Yeah. >> Luke for sure was not one of the apostles but Mark was not also one of the apostles. >> Right. That's true. >> One of the apostles. So you have a student of Paul and a student of Peter. That's what you have allegedly. Right. But also that assumes that the gospel of Luke was written by Luke. I'm I'm contesting this idea to begin with. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's not in there. I think it is >> also Matthew. >> No, no, none of the disciples start by saying my name is this and I'm writing this gospel. Doesn't exist. >> These names are added late later on. >> This one, look, you don't have to take my word for anything I'm saying. By the way, I have an entire video which is called Yeah, I have an entire video which is called do Muslims believe the Bible is corrupt. The first section like an hour is all Christian scholars, conservative Christian scholars, the defenders of the Bible, >> the most popular ones that are not in the forefront admitting to what I'm telling you. >> So, you have that I understand there's this idea of traditions that may a letter may have been attributed to Paul but it's part of the Paul line school. >> No, we're not talking about Paul. I'm talking about the four gospels now because we're talking about the disciples. Paul is a different story talk about but right now I'm specifically referring to the gospels talking about the people who were walking with Jesus, right? Disciples. >> Yeah. >> So, so first we already know two of them are not even disciples. But I'm saying it's not even written by the students that that they're attributed to. So you have Daniel B. Wallace, you have Philip Comfort, you have Bruce Medgar. They're all conservative scholars. They're the defenders of the Bible. They're the ones who by the way revise the RSV and and all of these men. They're the ones who are revising your Bibles. >> So they all agree >> that they all say that the four gospels are not written by the anonymous >> anonymously authored and they would admit to the following. For example, again, like I say, it's not my words. You might you don't need to. It's not my words. It's the words of the Christian scholars that are conservative. The ones that looked at scripture. Why do they say this? I'll give an example. Mark, we already know Mark is wasn't a disciple. He wasn't walking with Jesus. He didn't admit Jesus. He's not he's not a disciple. Okay. >> Matthew is allegedly a disciple of Jesus. >> Yeah. >> Okay. But do you know that 90% of the book of Matthews is copied from Mark? How could 90% of a person who was a person was a disciple will copy 90% from someone who came later on who is a student of someone who didn't he probably didn't even meet. >> So >> I mean these are theories. These are theories but I I I've studied these theories. Yeah. >> No, no, it's not theories. It's copied word for word. >> I mean you can >> Well, it could be the other way. >> Mark and the Gospel of Matthew. >> There are many similarity, but it could be either way. But I I understand theories. >> The reason it cannot be other way because the earliest gospel is Mark. You're welcome to search it. Now you you cannot say that Mark is coping from Matthew when Mark was earlier than Matthew written. This is the this consensus. >> But this is all based on theories and speculation. >> No, no, it's >> I understand scholars. Scholars. Yeah. >> No, no, it's it's not it's not theories. It's based on carbon dating the manuscripts of the written works. >> How is that? >> Oh, no. We don't have any of the original manuscripts. >> No, I know you don't. But what you have is that the earliest attested to gospel written you have quotes of church fathers or whatever. The earliest attested to be writen, the first gospel attested to being writen by consensus of scholars. You can say I don't I'm going to throw all the scholars on the bus. The consensus of scholars and you welcome to fact check me now is that Mark is the earliest written gospel. So if if Matthew whoever is written yeah is written by anonymous author because if it comes after Mark anyways it cannot be written by disciples because it comes later later on that whatever the book of Matthew which is written >> copies 90% of Mark that's why scholars they say it cannot be from from Matthew. But that's not the only reason I mean let me ask you this question very basic from the book itself. I'll give you just one example. I mean, scholars use many evidences, but the problem is people don't research. By the way, towards the beginning of this video, people were commenting. One one person was commenting, "I showed your video, the video I'm telling you about to one of my Christian friends and and she's like completely shocked because people don't actually research what scholars say about manuscripts. We do even though it's Christian scholars, >> but I I actually see what they say. So, when when it comes to Matthew, I'll give you an example. So, we already agreed that two of these gospels are not written by the disciples. So you cannot make a comparison >> by the apostles. I would say >> disciples. >> Disciples would mean I mean in Catholic understanding an apostle is different than a disciple. >> I think you might have it backwards. Disciple would mean follower. >> Apostle would mean one of the 12. >> I know. I know. >> Oh, okay. No, I think what I'm saying is it's not written by the direct companions of Jesus because we were those apostles. >> Yeah, you could. I I think it's the other way around. But whichever way you want to use it is fine. So >> okay, >> it's semantics obviously which whichever word we use. But the point I'm making is that they were not the direct Yeah. They were not the direct >> people that were walking. >> Yeah, I agree with you about that comparison. Yeah, you were making a comparison. I'm showing >> nor was Paul a direct >> though we call an apost Jesus. Yeah. >> Yeah. He never met Jesus. Yeah. >> So coming back to to what I was saying now for example the gospel of Matthew. Okay. Now one evidence the scholars give that you can see if you're writing gospel of Matthew right you're you're Matthew you're writing and then there is an incident with Jesus comes and he says something to you how would you write that you're going to write and Jesus came to my shop for example and he said to me x y and zed and I said to him x y and zed and then I stood up and and followed him correct >> I is that common to sense I I think it was written I think all this was written after >> after. >> Okay. So, it's not written by Matthew then. So, it's not written by Matthew then. >> No, I think it could have been written by Matthew. I don't think it was written like I don't think he was keeping a note. I'm not sure if that's what you're trying to say. >> No, no, I'm trying to say it wasn't written by the disciple Matthew. So, it wasn't it wasn't he wasn't supervising and saying write this or he wasn't writing it himself. >> I don't >> if he did. >> Yeah. But that's what I'm telling you. If he is, then when he's recording, he's going to say, "Jesus came to me and he said this to me and I >> Oh, I see what you're saying. You would use first person." >> He's speaking the first person. Yeah. He's speaking the first person is what I'm trying to say. >> Like Paul does. You're saying Paul clearly >> Exactly. Exactly. >> in the letters. Yeah. Except he's not writing a letter. >> The gospel is >> Yeah. I mean, >> retelling a biography, right? >> He wrote some letters. He wrote he wrote to Corinthians, to Galatians, all of that. When he wrote letters, he spoke obviously in first person. I tell you this, I tell you that, right? He's writing is clearly speaking in the first person. >> I'm just saying a biography. >> You wouldn't nec if if you take the Gospels as a biography, you might not have yourself as a character in it even though you witnessed it. >> But you're the one you're you're writing your meeting with Jesus. How are you going to write it? Are you going to write and Jesus met Matthew and Jesus said to Matthew and Matthew Matthew said to him and you're writing this? You're Matthew? How would that make any sense? >> Uh yeah, I I don't know. You you you're right to say like you look at genre studies and things like that. It's no problem for >> Yeah. Basically Christians to do that. >> I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah. >> Sometimes it's theory, sometimes it's real, but >> true. Sure. No, no, no. I I think I think with all respect to you, I'm not saying that in in any bad way. I think Christians are not only wear red on these topics, but you also brush them under the carpet with all respect and under the bus when they're highlighted. >> So, because because for example, Yeah. So, so but yeah the reality is if you're a truth seeker you go with the evidences and the evidences is that when you go for example the book of Matthew it's one example maybe scholars like GB Phillips and and others they highlight this and they say look you have in the gospel of Matthew chapter 9:9 you have let me read it for you actually word for it give me one second that would be actually even better so you can understand what I'm saying so Matthew 9:9 here's what it says and Jesus went on from There he saw a man named Matthew. But Matthew is the one writing. He's supposed to say he saw me. >> No, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. He told him, "Follow me." So, he told me to follow him. He told him, "Follow me." And Matthew got up and followed him. It's not I got up and followed him. You could these are the re reason scholars will clearly show you. Look, this is written by someone other than not only the fact that it's 90% of it is copied, not only the fact that it's later on, but also that the writer all of these are evidences. There's many more that the scholars used. Now, you might say, okay, you might shake your head and do like, okay, maybe this. But the question is, what evidence do you have that any of the disciples have written anything? That's that should be the burden of the proof is not on me to show that they didn't write it. You supposed to show evidence that any of these people have written anything. So, I'm going to ask you the question, >> where is the evidence? Because now you're not only not given evidence, but you're kind of not accepting the evidence that shows you contrary to your position. So you should have evidence there. So why is the evidence that you have that any of the disciples have written anything? >> Well, I I I don't really actually think it's like a central teaching of the Catholic Church that Matthew wrote Matthew. It's just called Ma, the Gospel of Matthew. It's attributed to him. I I think that we would say this is apostolic. And I do think that there's historical evidence that like these writings come from very early after the time the Lord walked the earth. um >> 100 years later. >> No, I think I I I like we don't have any extent manuscripts, but I I do think there's a lot of evidence that >> you know what is described there as the time. I'm not sure whether you disagree with me, but like the events of Jesus's life are described fairly accurately what was going on at the time. Um Oh, you But don't don't Muslims believe that Jesus was walked the earth at that time? >> Yeah, we do. But don't believe we we we do we do we do by the but you're not conceding to the point when you said that you don't believe the church believed that Matthew is written by M. But that's the whole point I was making to show that the the difference because the main point I'm going to take you back quickly and then I'm going to come back to where we are now. >> Take you full circle that comes back to the idea of interpretation and interpreters. >> We have a reliable Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So we have a reliable historical narrative where it shows in the life of the prophet exactly what he did historically reliably and what his companions did >> and therefore we can use that because they have shown us the understanding of how these verses are interpreted. Then Allah tells us in the Quran >> that if you disagree over anything return it to these sources. >> Allah tells us that in chapter four. So if a Muslim comes and says I understand this verse this way I'll say okay who of the companions understood it this way or the students or did the prophet understand it this way? The answer is no. And my understanding I have evidences for then I can use that as evidence against the other Muslim saying your understanding is inaccurate. Therefore, it doesn't matter if we had Yeah. Therefore, it doesn't matter if we had different people disagree on different things. Now, the last thing I want to say quickly, >> sure. >> Yeah. So, we don't believe we believe in Jesus. We believe he was the Messiah. We believe in his second coming. We believe in his miraculous birth. >> We believe he was sent by God. We believe in all of that. We believe he came to the children of Israel and he preached to them. But >> we don't believe what people what Christians hold today in their hand that they call the Bible is a historically reliable attestation of what he said and did. >> And we I would also make the claim that you don't have any evidence to support that. >> Mhm. Well, I mean I I couldn't go through all of the evidence, but I mean I think there's >> any evidence. But well, the problem with this argument is you don't have any other document about Jesus other than the New Testament. >> Sure. So So that the Yeah. So the thing >> So you're saying this isn't true, but you don't have any. >> All right. >> Other gospel, right? >> Sure. >> Yeah. Yeah. So So in Islam, our religion is not about fail following any human being. It's about submission to the one true creator, God. Now in Islam, we don't need for example a bio full biography of Abraham, of Jesus, of Moses, of Noah. We don't need that because the these previous prophets and messengers sent to the children of Israel. >> Jesus himself, if you take the Bible to be reliable, he says >> that I've been only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He says that in Matthew 15:4, he's speaking to theite woman. So he's only sent to those people. We don't need to have like a full description of his life. Now the Quran does have has information about some of the teachings of Jesus mainly for the Christians who we believe have kind of changed the identity of Jesus and his message. So the Quran has some what makes the Quran reliable. It's not about how many years was it before or after. It's about that we can establish that is divine speech from God with evidence. And if you can do that the minute you do that then what God says is historically accurate and not any anonymous writing. That's the reason we accept it. But I'm not telling you you have to take the Quran as a historical source. I'm telling you you as a Christian because that has nothing to do with me as a Muslim. What happens with a lot of Christians is that they start thinking about Muslims when when they're asked about Christianity. No, no. You have to think as a Christian. Christianity has nothing to do this. So as a Christian, if I have zero sources to the life of Jesus, what he did, and I I cannot historically accurately know what he said or did, then how can I base my entire salvation on a book which is not historically accurate regardless of Islam? Because like I said, Islam is not Christianity. This is a religion religion. Someone comes and ask me about evidence for Islam. I'll speak about Islam. I'm not I don't need to go to Christianity. >> So that's that's the point I'm making. Point I'm making is that Christians do not have any evidence to to show us or show anybody that this is literally what Jesus said or that this is historically attested or attributed to Jesus. I mean, I I have >> I I have a uh a formal like education, not primarily on the Bible, but I I do think that textual analysis, genre analysis, all this type of stuff has occurred. And I I do believe we've kind of weathered the storm fairly well, that the New Testament holds up fairly well. There are some things we have to like still have faith in the resurrection, but it holds up fairly well. Now, you might say, "No, it doesn't." But like, that would take years of us like looking through the evidence. And I'm not saying there weren't criticisms and that there's texts, textual varants, and we don't have the original manuscripts. A lot of things that maybe Christians believe we have the original copies are not true. But I don't think that that means there's no evidence just because you don't have all of the evidence. I think you would admit that there's some evidence. You might say it shouldn't be sufficient for belief, right? Isn't that what the argument would be? >> But my but my question has more to do with >> I would disagree. >> Yeah. Yeah. Sorry, I'll just answer this very very quickly. >> Yeah. >> I disagree that absolutely doesn't hold up fairly well at all. And that that is the point I was making in the video which I'd recommend you watch the Muslims the Bible because what I do >> is because when you say hold up fairly well according to who? Can you mention any names of the conservative scholars that say this? textual criticism scholars that are respected. >> I can't remember all their names, but I I do think there was >> the way that when science encountered the New Testament like the they it was mostly Protestants. Um they attacked it pretty hard and then there was a way in which actually a lot of their criticisms turned out not to be very substantial. But that's just scholars. No, I'm thinking today, can you can you give me a name of one scholar that that claims that what you said holds a fairly well meaning that we don't have great corruption in the manuscripts? Can you bring me one person? >> Oh, I mean all Catholic all Catholic theologians. >> No, I mean, yeah, but you you're not mentioning any scholars. So, I mentioned >> the Catholic Church has tons of scholars. >> No, no, we're talking about textual criticism scholars. So, people who study >> I don't know. I'm not familiar. It's not my specialty, but >> No, no worries. No worries. That's the point I'm making. That's why I said a lot of Christians are not wellversed. Why did I say the video was shocking to many people? Like when I mentioned to you Brutzker, you know Bruce Mitzker? >> Yeah, I'm familiar with that group. Yeah, >> because he's one of the most like well-known figure. Of course, he passed away, but he's one of the well-known figures. Now, the person who took his shoes >> is Daniel B. Wallace. Bruce Mezer was the mentor of Daniel B. Wallace. >> And Daniel B. Wallace >> is you can say the leading expert scholar conservative when it comes to New Testament textual criticism. And then you have also >> you have Philip Comfort who is quoted a lot by Bruce Mitzker in his books. So if you know Bruce Mitzker then you see the connections I'm making here to highlight to you how these are the four >> the the leading scholars. Now what do they say? They don't say it holds a fairy well. They would agree with the following. There are hundreds of thus says literally every single manuscript we have is corrupted. There's no perfect manuscript. We have to look at the differences and they all contradict each other. He says there's like 400 to 500 different variants. >> Yeah, that doesn't mean contradictions. But >> yeah, let me I'll answer that. But that's again this why I'm saying Christians are not are not wear because he says these variants are not the word Jesus and and T or the word Lord and Jesus for example. No, he's saying these are not the variance. He says what he considers a variance is is if if there's a thousand Jesus and a thousand Lord in a thousand manuscript, this is just one variant. is saying with this method of counting there is 400 to 500,000 violence. Then he says he speaks about the ones that are meaningful. They change the meaning and he speaks about the ones that are viable and nonviable. He says there are over 125,000 changes that are meaningful significantly change the meaning over 125,000. >> We're not we're not we're not talking about like that's what I'm saying. When people say holds a fairly well, I always ask them, okay, according to who? Who have you really read on this? You have like for example the Nestle Allen 28, you have the United Biblical Society. These are books which shows you the transcriptions and the differences >> in in in the meaning, right? We're not talking about just differences in word here, word there, scribal errors. We're not talking about that. Daniel Bis admits that when he says they were copying, for example, Mark or whatever, he also admits that the scribes were intentionally changing the writings. They were not like, for example, making errors. No, they found contradictions. He said when they were copying from one gospel to another, they found contradictions in synoptics. So we were trying to fix the contradictions by intentionally changing the words. >> You know origin of Alexander, you're a Catholic. You supposed to know origin. You know origin of Alexandria. >> Origin. Sure. Yeah. >> Yes. So origin of Alexandria is the founding father of textual criticism. He's the first one. You know he says he says and by we're talking about second third century scholars here. He said that the the deficiencies and the changes and the corruptions the manuscript have become so far and so wide at his time because of the arrogance of the scribes. Imagine he's talking in the second century telling you >> and third century is telling you that this is happening let alone what's happening now. So what a lot of people don't understand is that a lot of people have not done research truly about the extent to which the corrupt the Bible is corrupted. So when we say as Muslims let me highlight now what we mean there there is hearsay a lot of hearsay of course about Jesus after hidah there's so much hearsay that transmitted now some of these hearsay can be true but the point we're making is that you cannot use the bible as a reliable historical source for what Jesus said or didn't say or did or didn't that's the point >> but you would have no alternative either >> I would have the Quran which is sent for me today why do I need uh scripture that was for the If I have a scripture that was sent today where it corrects just like for example >> but no no one's going to make the argument that the Quran has firsthand knowledge. You're you're saying it's divine clarification but no one's going to make the argument that the prophet Muhammad knew what happened 700 years before him. >> I'm making the argument like I'm no >> but not in a normal human sense. Right. It'd be like Paul. >> Yeah. >> Isn't that >> No, it wouldn't be. No, it wouldn't be because Paul was a personal experience encounter when he was going on his road to Damascus. >> He saw light where he says in his letters, devil will come to you as the angel of light and then he says he saw light. But that's that's irrelevant. Point is, >> yeah, I I I understand the whole thing of like textual criticism. I would say from what I've studied, I think that the consensus of scholars is that the New Testament holds up pretty well. Now, if you say, well, what does pretty well mean? I think it holds up pretty well. it. It's like saying, "Is it hot in here?" Someone might say, "I feel like it's hot in here." Of course, as a Catholic, I trust the church. >> No. What do you think it means? >> Holds up pretty well. What do you think it means? >> Well, actually, I don't re I as Catholics, we don't really rely on the Bible like like Muslims rely on the Quran. We rely on the interpreters of >> the Bible. We just have a different system. Like so I understand that in in in the Muslim world to say you're a scholar is almost like like the Pharisees at the time of our you know of the Lord they had a kind of quasi religious view in Christianity. You realize scholars don't really have that we don't they're just secular. You know what I mean? They're not like part there are Catholic scholars. quoted. That's why all I quoted were conservative Christian scholars. I did not quote Bartman. >> I did not quote David C. Parker. I did not quote that. By the way, there's two schools. The conservative school >> and then there is the agnostic school. I did not quote anybody. If the agnostic school is much harsher than what I quoted today. >> Sure. Sure. >> You hear this and you think this is mind-blowing, but I haven't even talked about the other ones that are by the way Bartman would be debating against Daniel B. Wallace and Daniel B. Wallace defends the Bible against Bartman. So I could quote Bartman who is attacking the Bible but I didn't. >> I quoted the one who is defending the Bible. I'm telling you even those ones defending the Bible go to that extent. >> So now the problem with with Catholicism this idea >> is you have a circular argument. >> You say we don't rely on the Bible we rely on the church. We tell you where does the church get the authority from? It says from the Bible. >> Where does the Bible get the authority from? From the church. So you have a circular argument there where okay so where does the church get the authority from? >> From Jesus Christ. Before there was ever a Bible, there was a church. >> Before there was ever any New Testament, there was a church. >> So the church, >> the Bible comes from the church. It's not a circular argument, but I mean, you could say, I don't believe that Jesus founded a church and then I could quote something from the Bible. I get that you're saying, but the idea is that this was originally was the gospel was originally >> verbal oral oral tradition. I think probably that's true of the Quran. I'm not sure. >> No, no, no. I I'm I'm talking about the Bible right now. I'm asking you. >> Yeah. >> How do you know what Jesus did about a church or not? This is the whole point I'm making from the Bible. >> How do I know what? >> You said that Jesus is the one who gave the authority to the church. Where do you get that from? Where's the source that you you got this information from? >> Oh, yeah. So, it was written down in the Bible, but it originally happened. >> You're making my point. >> It happens. >> So, so the Bible gives the authority the church >> without it being written down. >> Yeah. So without without the information that Jesus have given authority to the church by uh given them authority in the Bible without this piece of information you don't have authority for the church. Do you see a lot of people don't and by the way I had a friend who's a Catholic who left Catholicism and became a Muslim because of this point only. I told him look as a Catholic the biggest problem with Catholicism is you have a circular argument. You try to give authority to the church using the Bible. You try to give authority to the Bible using the church. Okay. But wouldn't the Quran and Muhammad have this, the prophet Muhammad have the same >> No thing? >> No. No. No. No. It wouldn't because our problem is that the Bible doesn't give authority to the church because it's corrupt. If the Quran is corrupt, it would make sense. Then we cannot use it to give authority to Prophet Muhammad because it's corrupt. >> But if it's >> Okay. So, you're saying it's not a circular argument because the Quran is perfect. >> So, then your problem is not the circularity of the argument. The problem is that you think the Bible is not trustworthy. >> No, no. My my problem is the circular circularity part is where >> but then Quran Muhammad would be the same circle. >> Yeah. Sure. Sure. That that's what I'm okay. Try to get this with me. Uh and to understand where I'm saying the circularity. >> The circularity would only be if you don't prove either part. This is where the fallacy comes in. So when I try to prove a part the Bible, you go to the church. When I try to prove the church, you go to the Bible. This is where the circularity comes in. So you don't prove any of them independently with the Quran and prophet Muhammad. We already prove the Quran independently using the Quran itself. >> Do we bring the evidences that >> and you don't think that's circular? >> You prove the Quran by using the Quran. You don't think that sounds circular? >> That's not circular. Ultimate circular. >> That's not circularity. If the evidence No, absolutely not. That's not circularity. If the evidence in the Quran can be established objectively outside the Quran. >> Oh okay. So then you so what is that process called? >> For for example I'll give an example. So if the Quran makes multiple prophecies of the future and then we observe these prophecies then this is information in the Quran but proves the Quran externally by the events happening outside the Quran. So this is an example. >> Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> When we say the Quran Yeah. So when we say the Quran proves itself that's what I mean. I mean the information within it, we can make objective arguments outside of the Quran itself to prove that this must be the speech of God. >> But we would say the same is true of the scriptures. >> No, but >> I know that you disagree, but like it's not essentially different argument. >> No, no, it's not. It's not that we disagree. It's that the Quran regardless of evidence is historically preserved. So we can rely on it as a historically reliable source. The Bible isn't. But I also make the claim that the Bible doesn't have so two claims here. I I've already established the first one I would say from Christian scholarship but the one about the Bible is historically reliable but the second one I'm going to make is also that the Bible doesn't have any objective evidence for it truth and you're welcome to present one to me one the Bible because you have to prove the Bible now using the Bible >> of course the teachings of Jesus are okay the teachings of Jesus are the perfect articulation of and but this is just me saying this are obviously the teachings of God and they work themselves about in life. >> I was we were talking about objective evidences and that's what you it's not subjective opinion. I mean I can look at the Quran and say the Quran sounds like it's God's words. You're not going to accept that as evidence. So what we have is objective evidence that you can present as a Christian that the Bible is from God. By the way, I asked this question many times. Nobody >> Oh yeah, sure. So the uh conquering of the entire Roman Empire through martyrdom and love is unprecedented in history. There's nothing before or since. >> So if Constantine accepted Christianity, therefore Christianity is true. >> How does that follow logically? >> Well, that's one aspect of it. If the church took over the >> argument >> well I I mean I'm saying that the New Testament in the New Testament Jesus says go and make uh believers of all nations >> and that happened in a way which >> nothing prior to it can nor could possibly >> Jesus didn't go to other nations and spread the the gospel. That's >> no his apostles did. >> Oh okay. Okay. So you said Jesus. So but I'm saying okay you you're saying >> so he predicted that and you know the humble the meek shall inherent the earth all that stuff. >> He he didn't he didn't predict that. He commanded them to do that. So that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. He said go and and preach the religion. So you wouldn't accept when I tell by the way Muslims had the biggest empire in history. You could say and and we're talking about within 100 years from prophet Muhammad. you're not going to accept that as evidence because that's not >> I would say I would say that God worked through the uh Muslim thing. I wouldn't say that means Islam is true. But I do think that is that is something where the hand of God was working. So I wouldn't say >> Christianity true. >> How does that make Christianity true? >> Yeah. If if you don't say that it makes Islam true because >> Yeah. Because I would say the difference is >> gater empire by the way a way greater empire than was just constant the only reason Christianity spread in the Roman empire is because of constant and also it was the the demolish of Christianity because of course he's the one who established the council he's the one he was the emperor >> of course so when he when when he accepted the faith then the subject accepted the faith after him that's just common sense so but Muslims who actually did not have Constantine or or Kurusu or or any of these big big major empires except Muslims fought against the Roman emperor empire and defeated them actually in an army of both the Roman emperor. >> So if you really want to talk about expansion and whatever and and believers doing something would be the example not Christianity. I'm saying with Christianity now >> that's not I'm saying with Christianity now >> because you do not know what the first believers that were going around teaching were teaching. That's my that's again my point. You don't have anything reliable from that. I'm going to make that because I believe the followers of Jesus was preaching the same thing I believe. one true God worthy of worship in preachin. >> But I'm gonna ask the question. Yeah, I'm gonna ask the question again. That's not objective evidence, Ben, my friend, to say that just because religion spread in a particular place in the world that therefore this religion must be true. That's that's not that doesn't follow logically. So when I ask for objective evidence that from the Bible that proves the Bible, you have to give me an actual example. >> Oh, the miracles, the saints. >> What miracles? What saints? Oh, I could list thousands of testified miracles. >> Subjective. So nonver miracles is objective. >> No, no. Nonverifiable testimonies of believers that say, "Oh, we saw this or we saw that." It's not objective evidence. I cannot see it. Cannot test it. Objective. >> Oh, you can test. You can test miracles. >> Okay. Give me a miracle that I can test today. uh someone who's healed who prays to a saint who is objectively healed where you can medically like look at what the doctor said and then you see >> of course you a miracle you can >> yeah can you bring me a person who's not healed and then me and him can can I I can go to someone who I know who can test him and can do MRI scan and can see the sickness and then we can see him healed >> Eucharistic miracles you you can go see them yeah >> no no but to say just go see them and there are you're not given examples. You're not given anything we can test. >> I don't I don't have every miracle that's occurring. >> Okay. Okay. Anyways, I think I think I think Sure. I think my point >> there may be Muslim miracles too. So I'm not that would be evidence. >> There is but it's not evidence. No, no, no. We say there is by the way we we have some concept called kamat which is these miraculous acts that happens for righteous Muslims but none of us uses them as evidence because again >> like I said I cannot demonstrate it to you right now objectively. Therefore, I'm not going to come to you and be like, Ben, believe in Islam because Islam and scholar in Islamic history have had the following. >> Maybe maybe we're just speaking different languages. When you say prove it objectively, I'm not trying to play tricks with you. I'm just saying like maybe that means something different to you than it means to me. Maybe it's just a different worldview. You know, we're coming from different places. >> Let me define it. Objective is something that is not based on first person experience. that you and me can test out. You and me can agree this is consistent and rational that I can test out today and verify. If you don't have anything like that, you have nothing objective. >> Well, so I would think a miracle that you could investigate would be would meet that criteria. But I think there's much more to a religion than >> I'll tell you the miracles I saw. I'll tell you the miracles I saw. I saw this miracles of this African dude somewhere in Africa who says he has the Holy Spirit and he flies and there's two ropes tied in his back and he then he pretends that he's doing a miracle of flying. I saw that woman in the Christian government. She was going healing people and she was making these noises. I don't know if you saw that recently like this this woman that is related to Trump but she's like making noises and people people are falling. I'm sorry to say but this is this is what we've been seeing. I mean you talk about investigation this is the investigation I have done. Most people with all due respect, I'm not saying this to to disrespect you. Most people look at these things and laugh. They're like, "Come on, you're not going to mumble something and tell me this is tongues and I'm speaking tongues and people are being healed and whatever." Look, I've looked at >> I don't think that's a miracle. >> And by the way, I've seen actual examples of liars who've been exposed in many places in the Middle East where they go to churches, they pretended that they were Muslims. They wear an entire full covering and they go to the church and pretend and they're exposed later as Christians. So, I've seen many, many examples of lies. That's what I've seen. I haven't seen in front of >> Yeah. I mean, no one's going to argue that everyone who claims to do something miraculous is telling the truth. Like, that's ridiculous. >> Where is the evidence I can look at? >> Well, I I I I believe you could find tons and tons of verifiable people who are atheists, people who are >> I don't have it off hand, but uh if you look up Eucharistic miracles, >> Ben Ben, but we're coming back to the same point. You're telling me a personal who's an atheist had a personal experience. A person who's an atheist has a personal experience. I >> No. Examined like a like a examined something under a microscope and couldn't explain it. >> Okay. Give him one example. >> That's what I'm talking about. >> One name. One name. One example. I mean, you're saying there's thousands, but you're like the miracle of probably the most The miracle of Fatima is probably most >> The miracle of Adam is in the Bible. We're trying to prove the Bible. >> No, no. No, the miracle of Fatima in 1917 in Portugal in uh Fatima, Portugal, which I I know Fatima is a Muslim name. >> How and how can I verify? >> Well, there were accounts of people who went there to disprove it and said like I witnessed how how can I verify that those people were not people who are lying to support their belief or say like the people I were telling >> because they they were atheists. They were militant atheists, many of them. >> Yeah. How do you >> I mean, if you say like, well, how do I know something's true that someone said? Of course you you can always say I don't believe that. >> I'm not I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you cannot verify this information today. The people are not alive today. You don't see what they believe in. And you don't know if it's a forgery that someone has attributed things to people that haven't happened. So >> yeah, you do a newspaper from 1917. >> The miracle >> Ben Benos, >> but you really you really got to process information with me a little bit. Can I see the miracle of Adam with my eyes today? >> The miracle of Adam? >> Yeah. The actual thing happening that did didn't you say Adam or something? Was that what you were saying? >> Fatima. Fatima. >> Fatima. Okay. I thought you said Adam. Okay. Can I see that today with my own eyes? >> Uh, no. No. >> Okay. Then it's not evident. That's the point. Like the point that I keep making. >> But that's what an atheist would say. >> Something. >> No. >> An atheist would say, I need to see proof with my own eyes. >> No worries. Uh, and if a god exists, he'll show me with my own eyes. >> Can I answer that? No worries. Great point. Now, let me answer you. I can give an atheist another type of epistemological evidence that is not necessarily based on seeing, but it's objective. I'm not going to say to the atheist, for example, I'm not going to go atheist and say, look, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, multiplied water for the army when he was alive. Therefore, this is a miracle of prophet Muhammad. by the way more attested than any miracle you have cuz we have eyewitness accounts and their names and burgers and everything. I'm not going to >> denying that Islam there can be miracles. I don't believe >> no no the point I'm making I'm not going to say to the atheists that therefore Islam is the truth >> because he's going to say to me I haven't seen this >> and then I'm like okay >> but what I can give him is look here's I I'll give you a few examples because maybe that can make it helper help easier for you to understand. Sure. >> For example, in Islam, you have many things mentioned in the Quran about the natural world, right? Things that mention about mountains, things that mention about cosmology and stuff like that. Today, with our modern equipment, we are discovering that what the Quran is saying is true. So, it's something that prophet Muhammad could not have known at this time because information wasn't accessible. For instance, the Quran talking about the expansion of the universe. The Quran talking about embryology and the stages where the baby develops stage by by stage. The Quran talking about clouds and how heavy they are in way tons things that we discovering today in the 2000s and they say it was a marvelous discovery of asylum. Another example is the Quran mentioning historical events that he couldn't have access didn't exist in the Bible didn't exist in previous scriptures and the uh hilographics were dead because we didn't have the reset stone. So he couldn't have read it. The temples that information is in were buried under the sand and today we're discovering them. Another example of of that is the prophecies. As I said your prophet making multiple prophecies of the future that are all occurring in front of our eyes today. So it's written we have a carbon dated that time and it's happening today. This is what an objective evidence is because the atheist can see a carbon dated writing and can see today the event happening and can verify from the scientific magazine can look at the information happening. So he wouldn't come and tell me that oh I need to see because I'm like here see your own eyes. >> Okay. So you're saying Muslims have better luck with atheists than Christians? No they don't. No, I'm say No, I'm saying Muslims have evidence while while Christians don't. But >> but what you were just saying evidence is what I'm saying and what you don't. But I I'll look into those things. I don't think they hold up super well. Um but but what doesn't hold up? >> Here's my question to you. So >> if you don't need an interpreter, right, and I'm not trying to say like I have an answer to this. Certainly you can. There has been a debate. I think you call it Wahadism, which is saying like we need to conquer the world. like by the sword this more violent strain. Then you have people who say it's mostly an inner jihad that this stuff belonged to that time but doesn't belong to our time. We should talk with people and never conquer by the sword. Right? Who interprets what is correct? I I just think if you say I I just like when I talk to Protestants, they will say the Bible interprets itself. All the same arguments, >> but then in actual fact, you end up with people who totally disagree. And isn't that also true in the Islamic world? You have people who totally disagree, all of whom claim that they're correctly interpreting the Quran, right? >> Yeah. >> You don't speak with one voice. Muslims do not do not speak with one voice. >> Yeah. So, I'm sorry to say this, but I mean, a lot of the people are commenting this, but I'm just going to say it as well. Is is there's a lot a big sense of denial. And I think I could even bring up an atheist right now. Yeah. A big sense of denial. I could bring up an atheist right now and he will tell you okay I understand that this is objective evidence and I understand that a story that someone said that a group of people said oh we saw this is not objective evidence >> so you can say I'm just making a no it's not it's just a reality that objective has a definition in language and subjective also has a definition which is based on first person subjective experience what Christians do is that they have blind faith and they rely on first person subjective experiences and testimonies of others of first person subjective experiences that's the only evidence that Christians always present >> well Catholics rely an authority >> overtly. We would say we overtly rely on >> the living authority. >> If I could finish, >> yeah, if if I could just just so I can give the point. I understand the point you made with authority. That's why I was telling you that this is essentially the circular argument that you were making which is essentially you're given the authority using the Bible. So I told you prove the Bible then you just right now doing the circular argument by saying we have the authority from the church. You see you don't notice it happens subconsciously with Christians with Catholics and and and some Orthodox as well but they don't notice it. You cannot give authority to the church using the Bible without proving the Bible first and vice versa. This is a circular argument. So I'm I'm um when you say never conquer by the sword and you just mentioned I don't weird names you probably referring to people I'm not familiar with. I don't know what the word you use. You said the group of people >> Wahi like isn't there a kind of militant Islamic interpretation? >> No. No. Yeah. Some people you're talking about Wahhabi. That's what you're trying to say. >> Wahhabi. Something like that. I I know it's a small group. I know they get exaggerated, but they do claim they're reading the Quran. >> No, no, authentically. That's not >> No, no. That's not a sect in Islam anyways. That's not a sect in Islam. There isn't a There was never a se there was a person in Islamic history called Muhammad Abdu >> and then people viewed him some people viewed him as extreme and then they said they started using that word instead of extremism. Oh, we're going to call you this if you do something extreme. >> But there isn't a group which has for example set of beliefs. This is what we believe in. article number one for having they don't have like oh these are sets of books that doesn't exist >> so I think >> well it's a movement >> yeah I just want to bring >> like the people have are part of a movement right militant >> yeah I mean I mean >> jihadist is the people the IS people is a creation of both Israel and the US with the admission of Trump with the admission of Obama with the admission of Hillary Clinton we said we literally created them they talk about funding them you talk about arresting leaders among them who were from literally they were arrested and then later on discovered doubt these people are >> yeah so so they're used to make Muslims look but not they're not Wahhabis or whatever right they're not that of course >> I don't know >> let me explain one thing which is >> because >> I mean I think someone like Osama bin Laden thought he was a Muslim >> sure sure let me highlight yeah yeah of course he did so there there is people who do extremism but they don't have a name the name is extremism and extremism has no religion the crusades the KKK the bombing Huma in Japan and Nagasaki, the followers of the Nazis that had Christ under their belt or whatever. Anybody can make this argument, but extremism is extremism. Yeah. So I mean the point I'm making is extremism doesn't have a name. This idea of wahhabism or whatever extremism extremism is extremism. We can throw name. >> Well, my point my point is you don't have an authentic interpretation. >> So an extremist can point to the Quran and say look I this verse this verse this verse seem to endorse violence. So >> that's what we should do. And I don't know how you would push back against that. >> Okay. I just like >> Yeah, if you allow me, Ben, if you allow me, Ben, and if you allow me to finish my my point, unless you want to say something else, I'm I'm I'm happy to hear it. But the problem is I'm trying I'm trying to get to that part, but then you say something else, and it's very hard then for me to get to that part. >> No problem. >> No worries. No worries. >> I appreciate you having me. I'm starting >> I I appreciate it, but I'm trying to start with everything you said because you mentioned what happened, so I'm clarifying that. Then I'm going to the point about oh conquer by the sword and there's we say there's no such thing as the sword. I'm going to the second I'm hearing what you're saying. It's all in my mind. Then I'm going to interpretation. >> I'm a very logical person in my you know my speech. So I try to >> Yeah. That's that's what I'm asking about interpretation. >> Sure. Sure. So let let me but yeah I got to clarify what you say to the people watching. >> So when you say oh we don't there's they then you have saying by the sword and then the rest of Muslims saying by oh we don't have the sword. No we don't believe that. We believe in Islam that force can be used when necessary. Allah says in the Quran, fight those who fight you and do not transgress for Allah doesn't love those who transgress. Islam is not a pacifistic religion. It's a religion where you will defend yourself. You will remove persecution if someone is doing persecution or doing evil from other people. We believe in that. We don't have any issues with that. So no group ever says there's no such thing as a sword. There is a sword. Okay? But that sword is not applied with injustice. Prophet told us not to kill women, children, destroy crops, trees, kill innocent people. Does not unlike the Bible, by the way, which sadly says that you can, it talks about infants and camel and sheep and and crazy things, God commanding the murder of them, which doesn't exist in any other scripture of the other so-called Abrahamic faith. So when it comes to the interpretation, now I've already answered that question. If we can come back to what I said before, for instance, the idea of the sword, how is the sword applied? I'm right now giving you what the prophet said. Prophet said do not kill women, not kill children. So here is how we understand the application of the idea of the sword. Allah does not forbid you from those who don't fight you because of religion. Do not kick you out of your homes from being just towards them. Allah loves those who who are just Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion. Chapter 60 of the Quran verse 8 and N. Okay. So how do we know what to apply? We apply using the Quran. Allah tells us to fight those who fight and not to transgress. Allah tells us if people incline to peace then you also should incline to peace. Do you see it's very clear now? You cannot do the same with the Bible. Now you're saying oh but you can say >> are you telling me that Muslims all agree on this? >> Listen. Yes. The all Muslims have to agree on this. The all Muslims have to agree on this whether they like it or not because it's in the Quran. Chapter 4 of the Quran verse 59. So they can they can disagree all they want but the Quran itself tells you if you have any issues if you have disagreements over anything the criteria is the Quran and the prophet >> but like Sunni Shia right like that's been going on for what 500 years >> do you know about do you know about Sunni charism or no >> I tried to understand it it has to do with the followers right the companions >> and who is the authentic >> no no it has to do look there was a historical event and it's very hard you know, summarize this quickly, but let me try. >> I know. Yeah. >> Look, it's history. It's all to do with history. It's not a theological thing. It became a theological thing later. >> It was never a theological thing in the beginning. So, there was a >> companion of the prophet, the third caliphate. He was assassinated. >> He had a relative who was seeking justice for him, his blood. He wanted to punish the people who murdered him. Okay? He wanted to bring justice against the people who murdered him. And then the fourth caliphate who took took the leadership after him. He saw that militant groups that killed that third caliphate are still there. And now it's not a good time because we don't know exactly who did it. >> If we bring them all together, there will be rights. There will be issues. So we had two views. one person who needed revenge or avenges for his rightly so because he was killed peacefully in his house and the other side the other side said it's not the right time. >> Okay. >> So we had this disagreement now so that the person who wanted the the blood of that person back he did not he refused to give allegiance to the fourth caliphate. He's like I'm not going to give allegiance until the person is >> the the blood is is given back. Okay. >> Then they were trying to reconcile between each other. >> There were two groups trying to reconcile. They met each other and they sent people to reconcile and speak. Then you had the same militants. They attacked the army of one group and they said the other group is attacking you. And they attack the army of the other group and said the other group is attacking. Then fighting happened to protect the life of the prophet at that time. Right? This is the the of the of the j the battle of the j. So this is how issues were happening. had nothing to do with oh we believe in this you know you believe in that so because you we believe in this and you believe in that we're going to no it wasn't like that then later on the people who aligned with the fourth caliphate >> called themselves the ali the group means group >> we are the group of ali the group that aligned with the leader who said it's not the time right now okay then later on religious belief started to develop then started saying no no actually he was supposed to be the first caliphate but they took it away from him. No, he's actually infallible and he knows the unseen and he controls the universe and he's going to come back and >> and then all the people who come from his lineage are all infallible people that are divinely appointed by Allah like the pope idea that came later on. >> Okay, I'm talking hundreds of years later. So if that comes later on, that's not a disagreement because of the interpretation of the Quran. Okay, so I'm tracing you now back to the history. >> But it but it is a different interpretation, right? It's not because >> they both would claim to be Muslims, right? >> No, it's not because it's not based on the Quran. It's based on a historical event. So, if you go to the Shia, for example, by the way, I have a video on my channel already. I have many videos of course, but one of the videos I speak to girl and uh she uh >> you're Sunni, is that right? >> I'm a Muslim. That's what I am. That's what the Quran and Sunnah commands us to follow this. Allah says in the Quran, don't divide yourselves into six. Don't call yourself different things. Allah. Do you remember? You see, the way I answer that question is using the Quran. And this is what Muslims are supposed to do. They're supposed to respond and follow their faith based on what the text says, not what their opinions are. So the difference is Muslims can find out what the truth is. But a Christian can't. Christian has to rely on opinions. Has to rely on this church father or that church father's interpretation. No, a Muslim can trace back to the preserved text of the prophet and the Quran. So now the idea of I had I told you this discussion with you speaking to scholars of Shiaism and I told her you guys believe in 12 people that are infallible called 12 imams or whatever after the prophet divinely appointed everybody must follow them. Can you show me in the Quran is nowhere you have an issue with the companions of the prophet because they had an argument with with Ali. They say most of them are disbelievers. I say Allah says in the Quran they are the examples for us to follow. I give you a verse before there's many verses. Allah tells us in the Quran in multiple places that they are are examples to follow and and if if we follow them Allah will give us paradise and he's pleased with us. They they talk badly some about the wife of the prophet. Allah in the Quran says the the wives are the mothers of the believers. So what I can do with the sh very easily is I'm like here's the Quran that you say you believe in and Allah says me and you should come come back to it. Here's what the Quran teaches. You can do that. I can do that. Anybody can do that. But now when it comes to the Bible where I can >> but they won't agree with you of course. They won't agree with you. >> Yeah. The truth is not based on people's preferences or opinions. >> I agree. Every everyone will have controversy. >> So if so, so if so if the text says thou shalt not kill and someone says no, I disagree. It doesn't say say we say you're you're you're mad because it clearly says thou shalt not kill. Irrelevant of what you think it says. It says thou shalt not kill. It's an objective statement. So you cannot just say because someone disagrees therefore that's an interpretation. No, an interpretation. Oh, >> it's based on evidence. >> It's not just based on somebody saying, "Okay, I don't agree like you with all the respectives been having in this discussion." It's not based I don't agree with these scholars. No, you're supposed to give evidence why you disagree. You're supposed to refute the evidence that I'm giving you. So, it's not just, oh, I think therefore that's an interpretation and evidence. Doesn't work that way. >> Okay. >> It's a different way of looking at. I don't want to take up too much of your time. Yeah. >> But I appreciate you. I I'm trying to grasp the differences. I take it for granted that >> no matter what the text is, you do have to interpret it. And there can be a multiplicity of interpretations. But you would say the Quran is unique and that it does not need interpretation. >> It already >> I think you would say it needs interpretation, but that it's clear enough that you don't need something like a magisterium. >> No, no. >> Or a teaching authority. >> No, I said it already has an interpretation. is preserved which is the prophet and the companions how they understood it. Yeah, I mean a non beyond the written that you need a like a you need, you know, you know what I mean by interpretation. >> We go back, we'll go back to this is where you go back to the scholars and the scholars have to use the evidence. We don't follow the scholars blindly. So the only reason I would follow a scholar if a scholar says for example do this or don't do that, he needs to tell me because the prophet said or because the companion's dead for example or because Allah said if he doesn't do that then I don't need to follow his words. This is how Muslims function. Christians don't function that way. And that's why every time I speak to a Christian, >> he's got his own understanding of the Bible and and there's like hundreds of videos online on my channel and like thousands online where you'll see literally every Christian has his own understanding of the trinity, of the Bible, of the divinity, all of that. >> Reason being is there is nothing that you can come back to that clarifies the text for you and and understanding. Now the last question I want to ask you is this. >> Sure. Sure. >> Because you said something important. You said you don't have a problem kind of admitting a sense of of divinity to Islam or something like that. What's your position? >> Well, that God's providence is working through. >> Yeah. Yeah. I don't want to Yeah. I don't want to miss Yeah. I don't want to miss you. So, I'm going to ask you the question. Is your position on Prophet Muhammad that he was a prophet and a messenger from God or not? >> I would say I don't know. But um I do think he was I I think the idea the the I I I think Islam has a lot of things I do think there is a lot of objective evidence I would call it that Islamic cultures have done a great job of preserving certain things that we in the west or Christians have not been able to preserve. So I have a lot of respect for that. I also know that Muslims agree in many ways the virgin birth, honoring our lady, Jesus as a prophet. So, I would say that's obviously not going to be a problem for me as a Catholic. Uh where that ends up going, I I I I do think that as a Catholic, we believe so, but this is like my authorities, right? That that the Bible was the full revelation. So that the idea of another book, whether it's the Quran, the Book of Mormon, or anything like that, is kind of that wouldn't fit in with that picture. But I'm a human being that that could be wrong. I just don't see much evidence for it. You know what I mean? So, um I don't know what God's doing with Islam, but I like a lot of it, and I think he likes a lot of it. Does that mean that Islam is true? I don't think so. But um >> so >> so I would be agnostic I think. >> Okay. Okay. So the the problem with that is that you need to know that would be similar to a Jewish person and Jesus came. I do not know you know he says a lot of interesting things. I do not know if it fits with my understanding of Judaism and Moses. I don't even know. I was saying you would say that guy is going to hell fire unless he believes in Jesus. It's simple. >> Oh yeah. No I don't believe that. But you could say >> salvation. Paul says there's no salvation except in the believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus or belief in Jesus. I don't know if you accept that part of the Bible. Yeah. Okay. >> No. >> Well, not not at this point. I don't know what to do. Oh, sorry. Okay. So, uh >> Well, I believe God can save someone through Jesus Christ in a non-explicit way. I don't I don't believe all Native Americans are burning in hell. >> Sure. Sure. Do you This is the difference between a Christian. This is the difference between a Muslim and a Christian. >> If you bring a Muslim a verse of the Quran, he's not going to say, "I disagree with it." because he doesn't have room to disagree with God's words. You submit to God's words because it's God's words and it's preserved. >> I like I like the submission thing. Yeah. >> Yeah. If a Muslim says that he's automatically a disbeliever in our faith. So my point is very simple. You need to know if >> I wouldn't claim to be a Muslim. I I don't think I've tried to claim >> No, I know. I know. No, no. I'm saying if if a Muslim says that about the Quran, but anyways, uh what I'm trying to say. No. >> Oh, yeah. Oh, I see you're saying I'm not submitting. Okay. Yeah. Yes. Yes, I think I'm interpreting but >> no worries. No worries. No worries. I'm saying you need to know because God warns you that when he sends you a messenger, you're supposed to follow them. When he says in do for example that if a a prophet speaks something and it happens, then it's the word that the Lord has spoken. So it's God speaking. >> If a pro if a true prophet says something, is God speaking to you? So if you're like, "Okay, God says follow Prophet Muhammad." But you know what? I'm not going to investigate it. You say, "I haven't seen evidence." You haven't researched evidence. >> I'm going to say respectfully. If you've researched, you need to actually research, do investigation. I have a video on my channel. It's called compelling evidence for the truthfulness. >> I'll take a look at that. I will I will. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, so look at the evidences. Don't don't like don't knock it until you try as as you guys say. >> Yeah. Fair. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Have actually a look because it matters because if you die today and he it's truly what God said and God said you'd be punished, then my subjective opinion doesn't change it. If God said if I die as a disbeliever, then I'm going to I'm going to be punished. Then I'm going to be punished. If he says if I die as a believer I'm gonna be rewarded then I'm gonna be rewarded. >> Can I ask you a question and I'm not like I'm not saying is it because there was a Catholic >> speak the last one if that's okay. >> Yeah sure if you don't mind just you just give me a yes or no. >> If I say I'm going to take a look at that but I don't have time but then I die. So you're saying that's eternal hellfire. Even if I intend to take a look at it >> the person who goes to hellfire is the person who have come across the evidences of Islam being the truth. So the criteria is you hear the message >> you would know it's the truth because deep within your heart you would know that that >> right okay >> and then >> same that's the same as >> okay you reject it you die upon upon rejection then you go to that is our criteria I got you okay I'll let you go thank you very much for your time >> no worries no worries there are a few people I I need to talk with in the backstage as well so I appreciate your discussion I hope I didn't say anything disrespectful that wasn't the intention and no absolutely the level of discussion all right by see event.