Michael Jones

Correct.

And I'm calling them out.

But now when you're talking about the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church is just responsible.

It's Christian.

But they're the mother.

They're the mother of Christianity.

I can say the same thing about the early Abbasid or the Umid Caliphate spreading through violence.

I mean, Robert Hoyland talks about that as in his book, In God's Path.

They took the commander of the army named Sergius and they put him in a dead camel and he suffocated to death.

Then they massacred Christians throughout the Palestinian region.

Listen, this is all in Robert Horland's book In God's Path.

He documents this.

I could also quote Tom Holland in The Shadow of the Sword, for example.

I could quote Clifford Backman in Medieval Worlds, in his book.

That's his book, The Medieval Worlds.

So this is... I could talk about numerous historians.

I could bring to Sean Anthony, Patricia Crone.

This is what historians talk about.

I apologize.

The problem is, is when we go into the data, it is not the Christian's fault.

You said that wherever Christianity spread, the native populations were destroyed.

They were.

That is completely false.

Modern historians now point out one of the main problems in the Americas was the introduction of diseases that wiped out 80 to 90% of the natives because they just didn't have the immunity.

The Europeans didn't know what was going on.

So there was no violence.

There you go.

Let me finish my point here.

Okay.

When the Puritans came over, they created the written language of Algonquian so that they could learn to read.

They made more written, Christians have made more written languages for people around the world than any other faith.

They were not wiping out people.

Meanwhile, when Islam spread, that's exactly what happened in the early Umayyad Caliphate.

Entire people groups were wiped out or were slowly assimilated into becoming Arab and specifically into that position.

So this is a problem.

So we can look at the actual historians.

And I want to remind people what I'm doing is I'm saying, here is what the historians say.

And unfortunately- You're historians.

Well, then you quote some.

When they were in control of Spain, they were using coercive tactics, as Richard Bachman points out.

Clifford Bachman points out in his book, The Worlds of Medieval Europe.

They were trying to Islamicize the region.

And they were going into the Christian regions and pillaging and taking slaves.

And that launched the Reconquista because the Christians were sick and tired of being oppressed and treated horribly.

Richard Backman even says in his book, The Worlds of Medieval Europe, Muslims started fleeing north because they thought they were going to get a better life up there than how they're being treated by the Almohads, for example, or the Almorvid Caliphate or something like that.

So this is—we cannot whitewash this history here and pretend like it's always good.

Meanwhile, when Christianity spread, it's always bad.

History is telling a completely different story.

So you mentioned incest in the Bible.

I want to go back to that.

I don't think that happened.

I'm not saying you don't.

I'm saying you brought it up as an attack here, just because it's in the Bible.

Not an attack, I'm sure.

Our Bible documents sin so that we learn not to be like that.

Lot is an example for us to learn by.

We don't have to sit here and defend all the immoral actions of the Old Testament.

And you know why?

Because the Old Testament is constantly saying, look how this man was set up, then he failed.

Look how this man set up, and then he failed.

It's pointing towards the future.

Towards the perfect man, Jesus, who's going to come.

Because Romans 3.23 says, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

So yes, Lot sinned.

He did horrible things.

When Muslims bring this up, it just shows they don't understand what's in our Bible and what it means and how we apply it.

So we cannot be uncharitable in how we understand these books.

It's probably getting that information from a great book written by William Cavanaugh.

You would probably enjoy.

It's called The Myth of Religious Violence.

And he goes through and focuses mainly on European conflicts and notes, we cannot really say that religion is the main driving force between all this harm and violence.

99% of the time, overwhelmingly, this is coming from Islam.

Again, you are generalizing way too much.

You are generalizing and you're saying, hey, what would one do?

No, I'm citing actual studies here and actual historians on books here.

Now, let me ask you a question.

Should apostates in Islam be killed?

Because according to Sahih al-Bukhari, yes.

That's violent.

You can't just leave Islam according to the main Hadith collection in Islam.

Sahih al-Baqari is very clear.

There are numerous Hadiths where Muhammad said, apostates of Alam should be killed.

i don't think it's necessarily needed in today's world where is the hadith that says it was just because of that reason and it's not a universal ruling i'm not saying it's not a universal ruling either that's violent though that that leads to violence that leads to oppression and discrimination in islam because of that doctrine that apostates of islam should be killed how can you say islam is not violent when that is in an integral that's an integral part of islam both your lord

So I specifically said earlier that I'm not going to just point to a conflict in the Middle East and say, therefore, Islam's fault.

Meanwhile, you're looking at colonialism and saying Christianity.

You're looking at things the Catholic Church said and saying Christianity.

So you are generalizing and trying to blame.

Meanwhile, let me finish because you've interrupted me so many times at this point.

Calm down.

Okay, you gonna let me finish now?

Yes, sir, go ahead.

All right.

I have a little ADHD too, so forgive me.

Meanwhile, meanwhile, I'm looking at what specific studies say, what specific books have pointed out.

I'm not saying everything that bad happens in the Middle East or in the Islamic world is Islam's fault.

However, that doesn't change that it is a contributing factor.

There are violent things in Islam.

like murder for apostates, like Surah 929, which calls for perpetual war against the non-Muslim world.

The Islam, the early scholars divided all of Islam into two houses, the house of Islam and the house of war.

There was a reason the non-Muslim world is called the house of war.

Again, I'm not saying you are a problem.

I'm saying if you go back to your house, if you turn around and you see all the Muslims on your side, there is a lot of violence.

There's a lot of call for issues that we Christians see that you may not be seeing.

What I want you back to see is I want you to wake up to what's going on on your side because I don't think you see it.

I think you're thinking like a Christian and I think that's great.

But turn around and get all your other Muslims to think like Christians because we want Christians

less violence.

We do pray for our enemies.

We are called to be persecuted for his name's sake.

But however, hold on, you said you'd let me finish.

Okay, however, when we turn and look at the Muslim world, past 25 years, over 60,000 Nigerian Christians have been slaughtered by Islamist groups.

The 2024 Global Terrorism Index

All the major terrorist groups are Islamists.

They're constantly targeting Christians, persecuting them in the Middle East.

I have one more thing to say, then you can go.

Grim and Finky have done a study.

Their book is called The Price of Freedom Denied.

They have found in their research that in the Islamic world, Shia or Sunni, very low, very low persecution.

People of the book, apostates from Islam, over four times the level of discrimination and persecution coming from Muslims.

This is a real problem here.

I'd love to sit here and say with you, yes, Christians and Muslims can work together.

We should be on the same page.

And I wish that was the case.

And I wish more Muslims were like you.

Unfortunately, the people in your own house are not.

And they're constantly attacking us, persecuting us, slaughtering us.

There was just a guy in France named Asher who has just had a machete in his throat the other day in France.

He was a refugee from Iraq.

They just killed him for preaching Christianity.

How am I supposed to say we can work together when this is what happens at day to day?

And they get death threats all the time from Muslims.

Okay, can I respond now?

Okay, I totally agree.

Oftentimes, there are other variables that are causing war.

Again, I will reiterate my point.

I'm not looking at something in the Middle East and going, Islam's fault.

I'm looking at specific connecting factors.

That's important.

Because again, we can go to issues in the life of Muhammad, the way he acted, the way he was a caravan robber, and the way he oppressed, and the way that he treated women, and the way he treated us.

How can we work together when people in your camp say they want to join my camp, and then people in your camp say they should be killed?

We can go to places in the Quran, like I mentioned, Surah 98, Christians are the worst of creatures.

We go to Surah 3-7.

Hold on.

I let you speak for a good five minutes, and then I let, and I didn't say anything.

Please allow me the same effect.

Appreciate that.

We can make connections here, which are alarming to us Christians.

The only reason I'm bringing all this up is because you said you want Christians and Muslims to work together.

And not kill each other.

Simple.

Exactly.

I completely agree.

The problem is, is when we go into the data, when we run the numbers, it is not the Christian's fault.

99% of the time.

Overwhelmingly,

This is coming from Islam.

And the reason it's coming from Islam is because of, we can see the specific doctrines in the Hadith.

You've just admitted to me, apostates should be killed in Islam.

That is alarming on so many levels.

You're saying you don't want violence, but your religion is demanding it.

If somebody, I have friends that are ex-Muslim or Christian, and they get death threats all the time from Muslims.

Now, you said we should work together.

Let me ask a question.

Let me ask a question.

How can we work together when people in your camp say they want to join my camp and then people in your camp say they should be killed?

This is not us working together.

This is one side trying to oppress, humiliate, subjugate us and wipe us out.

There's even a hadith that says the end will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews.

And they overcome those and hide behind rocks and trees, except this one tree.

That's post-antichrist.

But still, that is calling for violence that's supposed to come.

This is a religion that says we need to keep pushing violence.

The house of Islam needs to fight the house of war until the world is subjugated.

I wish we could work together.

But again, when I look into the world, when I look at who all the martyrs are, who are the terrorist groups, it tells a different story, different than what you're telling.

And I'm saying, clean up your house so that we can work together.

And then I would be with you on that.

I wish more Muslims thought like you.

I really do.

But again, I had a debate with a Muslim because he wanted to defend child marriage.

And if you go through the comments, all the Muslims are on his side.

You're the exception, Beck.

You're not the rule.

And that's why we Christians are standing against Islam and fighting and saying, we can't work with this side.

Please clean up your own house.

We do.

That Christian terrorist you mentioned?

Yeah, horrible guy thrown in prison.

But when things like happen in the Middle East, like Christians are attacked, I see the Islamic world celebrating.

I don't see the Christian world celebrating when that guy went into that mosque and shot it up.

People were mortified.

The Christian nation threw him in prison and treated him as a terrorist he was.

Meanwhile, when things like October 7th happen or bad things happen where Christians are being persecuted, they're celebrating.

I want more Muslims to be like you, Beck.

And then you can count it.

Let's talk about the father impregnating Mary at 14.

14.

14.

That's a bunch of BS.

That comes from a work called the Proto-Evangelium of James, a late second century work, which the Catholic Encyclopedia says is unreliable.

Scholars today like Michael Satlow and Ram Trapper will tell you that girls in Palestine in the time period of Mary were not being married until late teens to early 20s.

same for the wider roman world keith hopkins brent shaw note this it was not normal for girls in palestine to be married that young that is a huge cultural myth that is being spread around that i have debunked time and time again the father did not do anything it was the holy spirit in the bible who came upon her she was a virgin there was no sex involved i agree i'm still going god

I'll let you talk.

So this is a huge myth.

She was probably in her late teens to early 20s based on the cultural understanding.

You can check up the scholars I noted.

Again, Michael Satlow, Amram Trauper, Brent Shaw, Keith Hopkins.

Okay, with regards to Aisha's age, they did keep accurate records.

Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim.

After Islam.

Tafsir, every Tafsir.

from the earliest periods of Islam, say she was married to the prophet Muhammad when she was six or seven, because some differ on that, but they all agree he consummated the marriage when she was nine.

And the idea that she was biologically ready, absurd.

There's a great study called Evolution, Development, and the Timing of Purity published in 2006.

They note, due to lack of nutrition in the medieval period, girls were maturing slower.

No girl would have reached the age of anarchy before the age of 11, and that would have been 1% of girls.

Most were not getting their period until 14 or 15.

In the modern world, it has started to go down younger ages.

Better nutrition, better health.

But in that period, there is no way to think she would have been biologically ready.

And the hip development of girls, not even complete to the ages of 15 to 17.

That's also important.

13 was not normal, as I've said.

And as this idea about which religion gives more rights.

We don't need to go to ChatGPT.

ChatGPT has 50% wrong answers, according to some studies.

We can go to historians like Tom Holland, wrote a great book called Dominion.

He notes that, you know where the idea of witnesses comes from in marriages?

That's a Christian invention in the medieval period.

The reason why is because the church said, okay, Paul said there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, free or slave, we're all one in Christ.

Women are the image of God, according to Genesis 1.

They have rights.

Therefore, they get to choose who they want to marry.

And Tom Holland says they were stepping on the toes of patriarchs everywhere.

They were saying, these girls have a right to choose who they want to marry.

So they were marrying these couples in secret and they invited witnesses in to do that.

They started to destroy these old norms from the ancient world where women were property more than any other religion.

Tom Holland also notes in his book when the abolitionists showed up in Morocco, they were told you can't come here because banning slavery would be against our religion.

This idea, I mean, there's just so much.

You talk about Delaware being the average age.

Again, that was a cultural thing that allowed for early arranging of marriages.

If you read historians like Kim Phillips, she notes that often in times when these early arranged marriages throughout the European world and their expansion, when those were put into practice, it was about saying, hey, you can arrange this marriage early, sometimes between elites.

However, they would often include clauses that consummation,

could not happen.

She notes in her book Medieval Maidens, for example, that when the king of Aragon was giving his daughter away at a young age, there was a clause, you cannot consummate this marriage until much later.

She notes that consummation of marriages, again, was not happening until late teens to early 20s.

So it didn't happen at all?

It didn't happen at all.

I'm not saying it didn't happen at all.

So it didn't happen.

But here's the difference between these issues.

We don't go around saying people that committed child marriage are excellent moral examples.

The whole world.

But the Quran says Muhammad is an excellent moral example.

No.

The Quran says Muhammad is an excellent moral example.

That is wrong.

He is not an excellent moral example.

What he did was wrong.

It was a product of his time and culture, perhaps, or perhaps he was an exception in the culture when it was better.

But either way, it was wrong.

And when you bring up people in Christian history doing it, we'll just go, yeah, that was evil.

We condemn it.

They're not a good moral example.

But in Islam, you have to say he's a good example.

This is why I get Muslims all the time trying to justify his marriage when it should not be.

It should be condemned because it was wrong and evil.

There is no justification for what Muhammad did.

So this is also, again, a big misconception.

You're more likely to have a problem in a school than you would in a church, according to the numbers.

But you talk about truth.

I totally believe in truth.

But that's why I have to reject the Quran, because the Quran has in itself a dilemma, which means Islam must be false.

And this is a huge problem.

So let's just move off from the sociological stuff for a reason, because I really wanted to get to this to you today, because I want your opinion on this issue.

Sure.

So here's the problem.

If the Bible has been corrupted, Islam is false.

If the Bible has not been corrupted, Islam is false.

We call this the Islamic dilemma.

Have you heard of this?

I've heard it loosely.

Okay.

So let's go to places like Surah 447.

The Quran says it's confirming our scriptures, what we have with us.

Go to places like Surah 547, tells the people of the gospel to judge by the gospel.

Surah 568, O people of the book, you have nothing to stand on unless you observe the Torah, the gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.

Okay, here's the problem.

The Quran is talking to us and it says, judge by the gospel, judge by the Christian scriptures.

fine.

But those contradictions, Jesus is not crucified in the Quran.

He is, and he resurrects in the Bible.

He's the son of God.

The Bible contradicts the Quran.

The gospel contradicts the Quran.

So if I'm judging by the gospel, I have to judge the Quran false.

But if the Christian scriptures have been corrupted, then Islam is also false because the Quran affirms the inspiration, preservation and reliability and authority of our scriptures.

Therefore, Islam is false.

Why should we be Muslim when this is a huge problem within your own scriptures?

Because I know the ones you could go to and I don't know they work.

the council no i just looked not at the council no eating up so that's why they had the council there was about to be a civil war within christianity in its early it took you guys 325 years brother covered a lot of stuff there i'm going to address i'm going to shut up now i wrote notes do your thing let's go back to the islamic dilemma even if you're right there are places where the quran says the bible's been corrupted islam is false because the quran says for us to judge by the gospel and those corrupted scriptures

That's crazy, man.

That's crazy.

You got to actually address the verses.

Seward 29, 46 says, oh, say to the people of the book, we believe in what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to you.

So you're commanded to believe in our scriptures.

Believe that God sent these books.

Good.

Okay, that's not what it says.

It says believe in them, not in their current form.

That's a qualifier.

Let's not add to the words of Allah.

That sounds like we're committing shirk because you're going to become a partner with Allah.

That's a problem.

So either way, however, the verse you're going to is Surah 279, which just says that some people write the book with their own hand.

But that also implies that they have the scriptures with them because just six verses later, Allah tells the Jews,

believe in the whole book that I sent you.

So it's clearly talking about other things they're writing, not that they're actually corrupting the actual Torah itself.

And by the way, that's just to the Jews.

It never mentions Christians doing this stuff.

So according to the Quran, the Christians still have the preserved and authoritative words of Allah that we are supposed to judge by.

And if I'm gonna do that, I have to judge Islam as false.

This is the Islamic dilemma.

This is why we know Islam is false.

You brought up Matthew.

You said, but Jesus prayed with his face down.

But what did he say in Matthew 26, 39?

Father, remove this cup from me.

He can't be a Muslim because he called Allah father.

10 verses earlier.

What else did he say there though?

10 verses earlier, he instituted the Lord's Supper where he gave alcohol.

You were talking before the show, we got to reject alcohol.

Jesus said, you have to drink alcohol if you're going to be a Christian.

We have to partake of the Eucharist, which involves wine.

Let's talk about Nicaea.

Totally blown out of proportion.

Even scholars like every Muslim's favorite scholar, Bart Ehrman, notes this.

At the Council of Nicaea, it was a dispute over the Arian heresy.

Arius believed Jesus was a god, but not the god.

He was a created god.

Most of the overwhelming majority of the 250 bishops present there sided against him.

This was not a huge civil issue.

This was a minor sect that was rejected by them.

And the overwhelming majority sided with what the church had always taught, that Jesus is God.

He is the Most High with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

You brought up graven images in the Old Testament.

Okay, the thing about graven images, this is actually a misconception.

They never were banning just images.

This is something Islam gets wrong.

They were banning idols.

In the ancient world, this is a cool thing.

You might find this interesting.

They would make an image of the gods in the surrounding cultures around Israel.

And then they'd go through a ritual practice.

It often involved a mouthwashing ritual for some weird reason.

And then they said that the deity would be imbued into the idol.

His essence would be there.

God says, you can't contain me in an idol.

You can't make a graven image because I am the creator.

You're not going to contain me in a little idol, therefore no graven images.

That was not banning images generally or just pictures.

It was banning graven images.

That's something different.

You brought up the Ebionites.

Ebionites didn't come about till late first century, maybe second century.

They did believe Jesus was a man.

They were not a Muslim man.

They also believed they could become Christ's.

They believe that Christ was a heavenly spirit that descended upon Jesus at his baptism and left him at the crucifixion.

And they believe Jesus died and resurrected.

They were more similar to Gnostic groups, but different in some ways.

Some of them even rejected the virgin birth.

They're not your friends in this, I'm telling you.

And they were a late heretical group that came much later.

And again, that is just complete and total misconceptions.

We can actually argue that the Bible is one of the most reliable documents from the ancient world.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

The gospels go back to eyewitnesses.

Studies have just been done on this that we can actually argue there are reliable accounts there if you want to get into that.

Let me just say my piece here.

I wish more Muslims were like you.

I truly do.

I totally agree with you.

Unfortunately, that's just not what we get online from the Christian side, just in general.

i do believe that the way the bible was compiled the amount of time it took how long did it take to get the final version final version how many times after his alleged crucifixion you're asking two different questions here though how long before we got the bible we have today you're asking two different questions just canonized how long okay so let me answer both questions how long did it take the bible to be written yeah the new testament was written in the first century completely written and done all the books in what language

It was written in Greek.

All Greek, right?

Yeah.

What was Jesus' primary language?

According to modern scholarship, yes, he spoke both languages.

And like, if this was what we were seeing with Islam most of the time, I probably would not be doing a lot of stuff now on Islam.

In fact, Peter J. Williams... That's not what I've studied.

Peter J. Williams notes that the Sermon on the Mount was probably given in Greek.

Can you type in what was the... Jesus' primary language?

Primary language.

It will be Aramaic, but most scholars like Stanley Porter, Peter J. Williams, Maurice Casey will say he was bilingual.

Because they were there.

No, we can know from the actual research done on the New Testament and the culture.

But this is unfortunately not what we're getting.

I mean, just look at the numbers.

It's what we see coming.

You may not see it for coming from you because you're on that side, but we on the Christian side are getting an entirely different story.

Are you seriously about to see what I think you're about to do?

What am I going to do?

This whole conversation has been misconception after correct after misconception after correct.

Okay, so let me go through these points.

Go ahead, I'm gonna show it.

Let you talk for five minutes.

I'm gonna go backwards.

Let's start with Christmas.

I sell t-shirts.

You know what they say on them?

Christmas is not pagan because every year for the past 10 years, I have to debunk this myth yet again.

There is no source whatsoever that says Mithra was born on December 25th.

That is a lie.

And you said you speak for the Muslim world.

Christmas is a Christian holiday.

It has no paganism involved.

I have done countless videos debunking this time and time again.

There is absolutely no evidence that Christmas came from Mithraism or any of that nonsense.

Please stop spreading that nonsense.

It has been debunked by myself and historians like Thomas Schmidt, Philip Nothapton, many others for a long time now.

Pure nonsense.

You said Paul corrupted Christianity.

I wish you did, man.

Pure and utter nonsense.

Your own sources say Paul was an apostle.

It's in Tobit.

It's in life of Ibn Asaq.

He mentions this around like page 652, 653 in Life of Muhammad, that Paul and Peter went to Rome to preach for Jesus and Allah.

I really, because you, I've seen your stuff.

And I can even argue from the Quran.

Surah 355 and Surah 6114 say that talking about the disciples and the Christians of the first century, Allah is going to make them uppermost.

This is in Surah 61, 14.

Who was made uppermost?

It was the Trinitarian Christians, the people that believed Paul was an apostle of God.

I've seen your shorts.

You're a good man.

Why is Allah supporting someone you say corrupted the message?

That's insane.

You say, we're not following what Jesus taught.

Jesus taught we can pray to him.

You go to John 14, he says, John 14, 11, he says, "'Believe me that I am in my Father "'and that the Father is in me also, "'or else believe on account of the works themselves.'"

But there's so much more there that needs to be discussed.

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do, and greater works than these he will do because I'm going to the Father.

Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.

He's going to the Father, and he says we can ask him.

That's prayer.

He's saying that we can pray to him.

We are following exactly what Jesus taught in that.

Now, you are upset that we don't do certain motions.

I mean, Jesus never said that kind of thing.

You mentioned the Quran.

We can pray standing.

We can pray with our heads down.

It happens in the Orthodox and Catholic church, for example.

But you also brought up the Bible being corrupted.

I want to talk about that briefly.

I don't need to argue with a Muslim that the Bible has not been corrupted because I can go to the Quran.

Surah 98 says Christians are the worst of creatures.

As I said, the Quran confirms the preservation inspiration of our scriptures, for example.

It says things like Christians judged by the gospel, Surah 547.

Stand on our scriptures, Surah 568.

Surah four or Surah three, three to four says Allah revealed the Torah and the gospel.

And then the Quran says none can change his words.

So I can, if I want to argue with a Muslim, I wouldn't do this.

I was arguing with an atheist, but I, and I wouldn't do it when I do my series on the reliability of the gospels.

Surah 99.

go over tons of data showing reliability.

But when I'm talking specifically to a Muslim, I don't need to do anything other than appeal to your book, which says my scriptures have not been corrupted, which says they're inspired scriptures.

Where does that pull it up, please?

None can change his words and I can go to them.

And if that's the case, again, Islam has to be false.

Because if we have the inspired scriptures, they contradict the Quran.

Surah 98.

If we're to judge by those inspired scriptures, we have to judge Islam as false.

This is why everyone should convert to Christianity.

Because Islam is cooked at this point.

Surah.

S-U-R-

It says they're the worst of what?

When you go from one language to another.

Oh, for sure.

Oh, for sure.

Yeah.

Yeah.

This is why I constantly encourage people to get a lexicon, get an interlinear Bible and read with those words.

S-U-R-98.

S-U-R-A-H-98.

At least I have six.

This is one of the worst.

So which one is it?

The original name would probably have been Yeshu or Yeshu.

Probably?

Yeah, because we're talking about the Galilean dialect.

And so they would pronounce things.

Yeah, they would pronounce.

Surah 929.

Not Greek.

These are names.

But not Greek though.

Yeah.

Muhammad says, I have been commanded to fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Messenger of Allah.

He's not talking about Christians.

All right, so let me talk about some of this stuff.

Go ahead.

So, again, you're going back, you're saying there are verses in the Quran that say it's corrupted.

Again, if you're right, this is a major contradiction in the Quran, a major contradiction because, again, it says in Surah 29, 46, say to the people of the book, we believe in what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to you.

Our God and your God is one.

So your God is telling you to believe in corrupted scriptures.

Now, what does that mean?

I'll do this one time.

Okay, so Muhammad is going in Surah 5 to graves and saying, oh, dead people of the book, believe in the gospel and judge by that.

That doesn't make any sense.

He's talking to Christians in his day, and he's telling them to believe in scriptures you say have been corrupted.

And then he says in Surah 29 and 46, oh, by the way, Muslims, you should also believe in these books that have apparently been corrupted.

This doesn't make any sense.

Islam is cooked.

It has this major contradiction where it's confirming our scriptures.

But then Muslims come along and say it's been corrupted.

And by the way, there is no explicit verse in the Quran that says the Christian scriptures have been corrupted.

All Muslims can do is run to Surah 9, 27, which says that some write the book with their own hand when speaking of the

But then right after that, it tells the Jews to believe in their whole book, not in parts, not in the parts that have not been corrupted, the whole book, telling us that Allah, through Muhammad, believed that the books were there and uncorrupted and everyone should believe in them.

This is a major contradiction.

If rabbis corrupted it as you're saying it, Allah is confirming corrupted scriptures, therefore Islam is false.

This is why we have to reject this.

And again, you asked the question, let's go to this issue, why does God pray to himself?

Okay, this is modalism.

It was a saying we have in the church.

It's called, that's modalism, Patrick.

Okay, the reason why we say it is because it's a meme that goes around.

What does that mean?

Modalism is the idea that God is not three distinct persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

It's that he presents himself in three modes.

Sometimes as a father, sometimes as a son, sometimes as a spirit.

That was taught by heretics like Noatis and Sibelius.

They were condemned by the church.

We reject that.

So when people say, why is God praying to himself?

I don't know, ask the heretics.

No Christian believes that.

We believe in three distinct persons.

And by the way, the father prays to the son in the Bible.

If you go to Hebrews chapter one, he quotes books of the Psalms.

Psalms is a prayer book.

The father quotes Psalm 45 and Psalm 102 when speaking of the son.

Prayer is just how communication happens.

In the Catholic and Orthodox church, they can pray to saints, but it's just communication.

When the father, when the son is on the earth and he wants to communicate with the father, that's just prayer.

And when the father talks to the son, that's also prayer.

It happens in Hebrews 1, for example.

This has never been a problem.

You say, why are we not following Jesus?

Because we don't pray in a certain direction or cover our women?

We follow what Jesus taught us to do.

He said, partake of the Eucharist, baptize, spread the great commission, pray our Father who art in heaven.

Muslims don't follow Jesus because you follow superficial things, not what he actually commanded.

Nowhere did he command it.

We have to pray in a certain direction, let alone facing Mecca.

He didn't command women to cover it.

He never once said women have to... Not to be modest?

Jesus never... It's not in the Bible?

Jesus never said women have to cover.

Does the Bible command women to be modest?

In 1 Timothy, there is a verse about saying women need to dress modestly.

However, if you read the historical context, Paul is talking about not wearing excessive wealth.

That's mainly what he's focusing on.

Because he was saying, like, don't have these rich women showing up wearing all their jewels and jewelry.

It's disrespectful to the people that can't afford that kind of stuff, man.

So, no, there's no place where Jesus says you have to wear a head covering from the New Testament.

It comes in 1 Corinthians 11.

Now, here's the thing about 1 Corinthians 11.

It's one of the hardest places in the Bible to interpret and translate because in that same chapter, Paul says women have long hair and that's their head covering.

So I can't see that.

It comes, I believe, in verse 11.

So we have this concept in the church that also happened really much in the reformation, which is women can wear a head covering, but it's not a necessary teaching because they have that natural head covering of long hair.

Oh, you can't see that?

So this is a debated passage.

I'll admit that.

But again, it's not a universal teaching.

No, it's too small.

It doesn't go back to Jesus.

We are following what Jesus taught.

He said, pray to him.

He said, get baptized.

He said, spread the gospel, spread the gospel, which is that he died, resurrected and atoned for sins.

There's that.

If you Muslims want to follow Jesus, why are you not doing that?

I mean, there's issues here, but let's just look at the way things manifest in reality here.

It's the same God.

I don't say my denomination.

I just want to be clear.

I mean, there's been studies done on this.

There was a great study done by Davis Brown.

I've cited it numerous times.

He looked at three religions, Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity.

Buddhism was non-significant, didn't correlate with war and conflict at all.

Christianity, negatively associated.

Islam was positively associated.

And this was after controlling for variables like influence from outside.

So we can cite anecdotal evidence all day, but when we look at the raw data, we're seeing two different pictures emerge.

Again, I wish more Muslims were like you.

But there's a lot of cleaning of house.

It needs to happen on both sides.

But also, when the data comes out, there's definitely more positive benefits coming out of the Christian world.

Let's talk about that.

So this is the problem with the Quran.

In Surah 9, Muhammad is called the ear by his opponents, and the Quran addresses that because he's hearing stories and just believing them.

The story of Jesus speaking from the cradle, turning clay birds into real birds, this comes from a Christian fictional work called the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

And we have reasons to be alarmed.

Modern scholars are pretty much in agreement this is where the Quran is getting this from.

It's ripping off these fictional stories about Jesus and passing them off as if they were real ones.

You said earlier that Paul never met Jesus, how should we trust him?

Well, I mean, that's exactly why we should reject Muhammad.

He was just hearing these crazy stories and believing them and putting them in the Quran.

If we should reject Paul because he never met Jesus, all the more is we should reject Muhammad because he never met Jesus and he wrote hundreds of years later.

That's a problem.

And so this whole idea about the first miracle issue, this doesn't help Islam.

and make it look better.

This helps make it look more ahistorical.

We know it's getting their stories from these apocrypha, pseudepigrapha works that Christians wrote as fictional accounts.

Yes.

He was called the ear for a reason.

He was getting all his stuff from these oral things.

Illiterate.

That's proving my point, sir.

I'm not saying he's copying.

He's here because it's not a direct copy in the Koran of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

It sounds like an oral tradition he heard that was in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas that various sects may have been using, and then he puts it in the Koran.

But it doesn't matter at the end of the day.

That's not a fact.

That's your opinion.

You keep interrupting me.

Let me finish.

It doesn't matter because the Quran still affirms my scriptures and says to judge by them.

And the book of John is very clear.

Jesus' first miracle...

in John chapter two was turning water into wine.

Therefore, those miracles the Quran mentioned could not have happened because according to the Quran, my book is inspired inspiration scripture.

Even in the life of Ibn Asaq on page 102 to 104, he says the gospel of John contains the Injil.

This is in the life of Ibn Asaq, one of the sources, the Sira, okay?

So they're saying that this is a reliable source in the Muslim tradition.

If that's the case, again, you just created contradictions in Islam because the Gospel of John, which is supposed to be inspired scripture according to Allah, says his first miracle is turning water into wine, not speaking from the cradle.

Therefore, again, we've created more contradictions in Islam.

Let me explain why.

Christ is not a God who says, do as I say or else, but a God who says, come and follow me, do as I do, and together we'll change this world, washing one sinner at a time.

At the Last Supper, he put on servant's clothes and got down and washed the disciples' feet.

because the Son of Man came to serve, not to be served.

You want to change the world?

You live like Jesus.

You serve.

You surrender yourself.

You die to yourself.

That is what is the beauty of the Creator.

He leads by example.

He comes down in the flesh, lives the life we should have lived, dies the death we all deserve, and then leads humanity into a better world.

That's lacking in Islam.

Islam butchers that and takes that away.

It ruins this beautiful message that has changed the world.

And that's also how Jesus said it.

And I say peace and blessings to you.