Islam's Historical Problems w/ Michael Jones

📺 Full Episode: kzbin.infoecOUWsqgTJ8?...
Michael describes the issues Islam has with historicity and the poor moral examples of their major figures.
🟣 Join Us on Locals (before we get banned on YT): mattfradd.locals.com/
🖥️ Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
🟢 Rumble: rumble.com/c/pintswithaquinas
👕 Merch: shop.pintswithaquinas.com
🚫 FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔵 Facebook: / mattfradd
📸 Instagram: / mattfradd
We get a small kick back from affiliate links.

[@MrDaftFunk]

Islam is literally Arab Mormonism (or the other way around).

[@user-de1sj5rn2b]

According to john of damascus, islam is a heretic christian. He called it as ismailiyah, or ishameli christian. The word ishmael refers to ishmael which is the ancestor of arabic tribes.

[@batmaninc2793]

Shout-out to Dr. David Wood of Acts 17 Apologetics.

[@batmaninc2793]

Mohammad didn't just deny the crucifixion, he also describes the Holy Trinity as "God (Allah), Jesus, and The Blessed Virgin Mary" (Sura 5:116). Mohammad also said that if he were a false prophet of God that God would seize his right hand and cut/severed his life artery/aorta (Edit: Sura 69:44-46). Guess how he died. A Jewess-whose brother, uncle, and husband were slaughtered by Mohammed's army at Kaybar (Kai-bar), and Mohammad for some reason allowed her to cook for him-fed him poisoned lamb. Before he died later on, because poison doesn't always work like it's shown in Hollywood, his last words were that he feels, "my aorta is being cut because of the food I ate with your son at Kaybar". Also worthy of note that Mohammad wasn't the only one to eat the food and also die from it's poison, because one of his own men saw Mohammad eat the food and he followed suit. As she's quoted as saying, "If you are a prophet, the lamb would warn you. If you are just a man, you will die."

[@snokehusk223]

Best scholar on islam.

[@SaintCharbelMiracleworker]

He has a new channel Apologetics Roadshow

[@ATageH]

He was embarrassed by Mohammad Hijab in their debate

[@TruePT]

He’s definitely a real one!

[@MrMustang13]

This guys spot on with his assessment. Us as Catholics need to definitely get back to going on the offense (dialogue wise) against Islam and Muslim teaching.

[@alonzoharris9049]

You don’t stand a chance. Will you do the same as Michael? These poor fallacies to try to ‘refute’ Islam. Trying to appeal to emotions instead of trying to make a logical argument? Trying to appeal to morality. Yet he believes his god commanded numbers 31:18?🥴

[@MrMustang13]

@@alonzoharris9049 Islam is the most illogical ideology out there. Islam is a hodgepodge of heretical Christianity, confused Judaism, and Arabic paganism. Go dance around the Kaaba all you want, you’re just following an old pagan practice.

[@knstntyn]

@@alonzoharris9049 I agree, the morality argument he is making here is not a good one. I'm sure there are bigger differences that could be debated maybe more like the crucifixion argument. Judging from this snippet it doesnt seem he has thought things through.

[@psgaming101craup4]

@@knstntyn Nah is fine there are legit ethics in islam that are problematic and feels like a perversion. Also Alonzo is a troll dude he is on every christian channel either attacking the trinity or type blasphemous comments and the guy hardly touches grass.

[@SaintCharbelMiracleworker]

@@alonzoharris9049 If Mohammed was alive today he would be wanted for slave trafficking, pedophilia and war crimes. He was pure evil yet muslims believe he was sinless. No comparison between how Mohammed lived his life and how Jesus lived His life. I know which one I believe, imitate and follow.

[@andys3035]

The church Father St John of Damascus who had to deal with Islam during his time said the following: "As long as you say Christ is the Word of God and Spirit, why do you accuse us of being associators? For the word and spirit is inseparable from that in which it naturally has it's existence. Therefore, if the Word of God is in God, then it is obvious he is God. If however, He is outside of God, then according to you, God is without word and without spirit. Consequently, by avoiding the introduction of an associate with God, you have mutilated Him. It would be far better to say that He has an associate than to mutilate Him, as if you were dealing with a stone or a piece of wood or some other inanimate object. Thus you speak untruly when you call us associators; we retort by calling you mutilators of God." He absolutely thought Islam was a Christian heresy, specifically a branch off the Arian heresy.

[@alonzoharris9049]

John of Damascus believed in three gods. His writings also shows that he has no clue about Islam. He is clearly not informed in Islamic theology.

[@kyrptonite1825]

@@alonzoharris9049 He believed in One God. Furthermore, let’s go to the Islamic “Word of God”, the Quran (which in some Hadiths at the Day of Judgement intercedes for Muslims and appears as an old man). As you probably know, between Sunni and Shia there is a controversy on Quran Createdness. The Shia believe this, even though the Quran says it’s eternal, eternally spoken, which kind of contradicts the Quran. But if the Word of God is eternal, and God is completely One, that means there is a separate eternal thing besides God. And saying this is an “attribute” of God (God’s Word), makes no logical sense as a comeback. Or is the Word with God but also God?

[@Jay33_]

@@kyrptonite1825 Sam Shamoun also made an argument like this. Very problematic for Muslims.

[@chemnitzfan654]

​@Alonzo Harris why are you lying about stuff?

[@termination9353]

The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.

[@ApostolicEchoes]

Their belief that Allah only protected 1 of his 3 revelations is also hilarious. The Quran mentions the Injil (Gospel) and Torah yet they claim we have neither today due to the corruption of man. So why should we believe in the 3rd? Especially when it has no continuity to the first two. It’s a new religion all together.

[@alonzoharris9049]

There is no continuity in Christianity. Your doctrine of the trinity was invented in the fourth century. The trinity is three gods.

[@ApostolicEchoes]

@@alonzoharris9049 “Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.” ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭48‬:‭16‬ ‭KJV‬‬

[@kyrptonite1825]

@@alonzoharris9049 The Trinity was Defined, but was always in the Apostolic Tradition, believed by the earliest Christians. Also we Catholics Obey the Oral Tradition and the Church Magisterium as well as the Bible. I will believe the Church that has Authority from Christ, and can be seen with men who knew the Apostles directly, and we can see in the Bible, over some man centuries later combining a bunch of religions together. Matthew 28:19 (RSV) Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 1 John 5:7 KJV For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

[@miguelfernandodelmoral2641]

@@alonzoharris9049 People were being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit, One God in the very first century all across Palestine, the Levant, Egypt, Anatolia & Greece

[@Iesu-Christi-Servus]

Actually, there is a good claim of continuity once the Qu'ran is scientifically translated (cf Bruno Bonnet-Eymard's translation), but that continuity consists in returning even further to the flesh than what the judaizers tried out, but this time through Ishmael, instead of elevating to the spiritual.

[@tylerfoss3346]

Hilarie Belloc certainly considered Islam a heresy. In fact he considered it the only heresy to begin outside of Catholicism.

[@patrickpelletier9298]

Wait, why am I just now seeing this? Two of the most theological educational channels that also evoke laughs

[@legendman97]

It would be great to make a whole podcast on the origins of islam and how its a Heresy. Because its not well known.

[@ashokafulcrum4795]

Islam can only cure 6 of the 7 sins, the sin of Pride however, is it's fundament.

[@SaintRegime]

Check out Dr Jay Smith at Pfander Films and al-Fadi at CIRA International and Thomas Alexander's series of Islam Origins.

[@berserker9682]

Just dive into the worldview itself its internally inconsistent. Also its theology took several U turns over the centuries (Asharis vs Mutazillites). They reject secondary causation (free will) and affirm real attributes, which you cant do if you affirm absolute oneness, because it creates distinctions and thus multiplicity. Also add in the fact there has been no continuity in formal Authority and is more divided and has lots of unresolved theological conflicts. The thing is, nobody speaks with infallible Authority. Therefore nobody knows the real meaning, hence its all speculation what their scholars claim. Ofcourse Protestants struggle in these debates. However Orthodox and Catholics have no issues with them, their arguments dont work against us.

[@alonzoharris9049]

The trinity is three gods.

[@Halo-wp3zh]

@@alonzoharris9049 you refute zero of his points there

[@miguelfernandodelmoral2641]

@@alonzoharris9049 The Trinity is One God, creator of heaven & earth. All things seem & unseen.

[@kyrptonite1825]

Yeah, just to add some things, I’ve seen them argue about Faith Alone, or about the Compilation of the Bible and Dogmas and such, as well as things like Christians “not having things like Hadith”. But it’s funny because Catholics do have Traditions and can argue against those things easily. Also, just so you guys know the Bible is Preserved, there might be slight translation differences, that don’t change the meaning of the Text, but there are so many manuscripts, we see the Bible is the same as it was back then, and the Bible is Compiled by the Catholic Church (which we believe has Authority from God), and the Quran being “perfectly preserved” is a myth. People who actually study the Quran throughout history, notice changes in the things the Quran says, and also notice that the Hadiths say large parts of the Quran went missing, and there are also multiple translations of the Quran as well.

[@kyrptonite1825]

Also, the Quran says I’m pretty sure evil comes from God. So what’s their answer to the Problem of Evil? Or the the Createdness of the Quran controversy?

[@brettbarnard4501]

Comparison should be made between the Quranic verses about Jesus (in the 5th and 19th surahs) and the gnostic gospels of Thomas and James. There are a LOT of similarities to be found here

[@Fateh-mw3lp]

Exactly

[@cyntogia]

I've often said that Islam is the single worst fan fiction in history.

[@ninjaked1265]

Nah, Mormonism has them beat

[@thebumblebeemovie3514]

PFFFT 🤣 OMG that’s a perfect way to put it! And I disagree: the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Scientologists have em beat 😂💀

[@SaintCharbelMiracleworker]

They are a bit confused about Our Lady. They think she is Miriam the sister of Moses.

[@skmcee7863]

This is not true lol, there’s two different Mariah’s

[@skmcee7863]

Mariams*

[@kyrptonite1825]

@@skmcee7863 Then why does the Quran mention Mary as the Sister of Aaron and daughter of Imran? Seems like a mistake. The Quran mentions Mary, Mother of Jesus as the same as Miriam sister of Moses. There’s also a Hadith which states that some Jews told Muhammad that a man named “Ahmed” was mentioned in the Torah. This is then found in the Quran. There is nothing in the Torah about a man named Ahmed. Furthermore, there are other weird verses as well: Surah 33:53 O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that [behavior] was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of [dismissing] you. But Allāh is not shy of the truth. And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allāh or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allāh an enormity. Come on, this seems so obviously to be someone writing down what they want to happen. “O Prophet, why do you make impermissible that which God made allowed to you, seeking to [simply] please your wives. God is All-Forgiving, All-Merciful. Allah has already ordained for you [Muslims] the dissolution of your oaths. And Allah is your protector, and He is the Knowing, the Wise. And [remember] when the Prophet confided to one of his wives a statement; and when she informed [another] of it and Allah showed it to him, he made known part of it and ignored a part. And when he informed her about it, she said, “Who told you this?” He said, “I was informed by the Knowing, the Acquainted.” If you two [wives] repent to Allah , [it is best], for your hearts have deviated. But if you cooperate against him - then indeed Allah is his protector, and Gabriel and the righteous of the believers and the angels, moreover, are [his] assistants. Perhaps his Lord, if he divorced you [all], would substitute for him wives better than you - submitting [to Allah ], believing, devoutly obedient, repentant, worshipping, and traveling - [ones] previously married and virgins.” [66:1-5][iv]. This is after Muhammad is caught having se_ with one of his slave girls, and then his wives nag him to promise to stop seeing her. But then this verse shows up. Why does Muhammad get more than 4 wives btw? Quran 33:37 And ˹remember, O Prophet,˺ when you said to the one for whom Allah has done a favour and you ˹too˺ have done a favour, “Keep your wife and fear Allah,” while concealing within yourself what Allah was going to reveal. And ˹so˺ you were considering the people, whereas Allah was more worthy of your consideration. So when Zaid totally lost interest in ˹keeping˺ his wife, We gave her to you in marriage, so that there would be no blame on the believers for marrying the ex-wives of their adopted sons after their divorce. And Allah’s command is totally binding. So, in the Hadith Muhammad sees his adopted son’s wife very loosely dressed. Muhammad very noticeably likes her, so his adopted son divorces her. Muhammad then Marries her, probably getting strong pushback, so he releases this verse. And then after this verse, because it seems this still didn’t work, suddenly Muhammad banned adoption in Islam. The Quran also says that Muhammad, if he told false prophecy, his aorta would be cut. The Hadiths all talk about him exclaiming his aorta is cut on his death. Talk about God being ironic in His Judgement. There’s also a Quran verse (can’t find it), talking about women giving themselves in marriage to Muhammad, and Aisha remarks that it seems God is readily granting his desires. He even has s-x with a woman whose family he ordered to be killed, and someone is up all night outside his tent worrying in the Hadith. Ibn ‘Abbas said: Sawdah feared that the Prophet was going to divorce her, so she said: ‘Do not divorce me, but keep me and give my day to ‘A’ishah.’ So he did so, and the following was revealed: ‘Then there is no sin on them both if they make terms of peace between themselves, and making peace is better.’ [4:28] So whenever they agree to make peace in something, then it is permissible. This is a, I’m pretty sure Sahih Hadith. Sawdah was old and fat at this point, and Sawdah was fearing a divorce from him, so in order to not be left a widow without money or anything, she gave her Marital rights, to Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha. And he agreed to it, and said this is allowed in the Quran.

[@yohanneslong1970]

Their belief also mention that Our Lady will be married by their fake prophet in Jannah and I don't want to explain anything afterwards. Of course not all Muslims agree or know, but their belief told them that.

[@hakikisaputra4133]

@@yohanneslong1970 in what verse of Qur'an or from what authentic hadith ?

[@ArleneAdkinsZell]

Wow, so clearly stated, thank you.

[@SUPERHEAVYBOOSTER]

Now that you've had Michael Jones on...we'd love to see E. Michael Jones come on!

[@Goodsuh]

Lol KZbin would pull that down within a split second of it being uploaded, yet this Muslim guy can praise child marriage all he wants… man

[@alexs_toy_barn]

Muslims do believe that Jesus was crucified, just that he miraculously was replaced with Judas halfway thru, so he didn't die on the cross, which is absurd

[@Miolnir3]

how convenient

[@Poohbellany]

Interesting, how do they explain that Mary could not identify her own son at the crucifixion? Since she was definitely there all gospels confirm this fact lol

[@justsomevids4541]

No the verse says he wasnt crucified. It was someone else from the start. They believe God+Jesus deceived everyone

[@R-rr1]

They should give us the rest

[@St.AdalbertOfPrague]

Their book does not deny the crucifiction. It only denies, that the Jews crucify him, when it was Allahs wilk and doing all along. It is the clear reading of the sentence. Lord have mercy on us. Mother Mary pray for us.

[@joshuaracey7967]

I wish I could like this twice. Apparently I watched it already, but I needed to again. Also, Matt: however you classify Islam, do you classify Mormonism in the same class? I saw elsewhere that you would not call Mormonism a cult.

[@borneandayak6725]

Just watching Dr. Micheal Brown debating Zakir Hussein. Brown just crushing him, defeated him.

[@BlueMarbleApeMan]

This is why I take issue with Vatican II saying Muslims worship the one God. The problem comes in because Muslims have their own alleged revelation. So, the question needs asked: If Muslims worship the same God but with a misunderstanding of Him, then from where does their revelation come? If they do believe in God and it comes from Him, then that means Islam is valid. If it doesn't, then it either comes from a demon or Muhammad's imagination. If that's the case we can't say they're worshiping the same God.

[@SuperDarkMan12TV]

Not only that, they actively reject Jesus is divine. How is that not rejecting the one true God?

[@justsomevids4541]

Saying that they believe in the same God doesnt mean muhammad was a prophet or that their "revelations" are from God. Important distinction.

[@SuperDarkMan12TV]

@@justsomevids4541 how can you believe in the same God when you actively reject Jesus' divinity?

[@justsomevids4541]

@@SuperDarkMan12TV Same as the Arian heretics in the 4th century. I wouldn't say they worshipped a different God. They just dont fully know who God is

[@MidnightIsolde]

I think that paragraph in the Catechism is just a tactful way to say that many Muslims sincerely believe that they are worshipping the God of Abraham. This is what they've been taught since childhood in their families, culture and community, so they do honestly believe it. But, they're misled in practice and theology, which is very unfortunate. Plus, because of their teachings, they can have an animus against Christian teaching on Christ, which ultimately hurts they ability to know Him.

[@aislinndeweston4140]

@Matt Fradd You Discovered yet that the studentville area had a very large ceramics factory at 1 time?

[@jake9886]

We need more crusades

[@skp8748]

Youd get crushed again

[@jake9886]

@@skp8748 The dirt worshipers aren’t very good at fighting anymore lol

[@skp8748]

@@jake9886 dirt? Yeah you and which lgbtq army

[@jake9886]

@@skp8748 We know about your chai boys and goats.

[@skp8748]

@@jake9886 that's afghan warlords on US basses that are now in the west because they'll get capital punishment by the Taliban

[@hggfhh4449]

IP will have a debate with Daniel Hadiqichu( spelled wrong last name) on child marriage in islam. April 22 on Modern Day debate. May have to give money to watch on that day but will be publicly available on that channel eventually. It's a good cause. Free speech. And public debates.

[@johncopper5128]

Thank you.

[@WineSippingCowboy]

Although Mohammed had a Christian wife, Fatima, Mohammed based his understanding of Christianity ✝️ through Nestorianism, a heresy! 😖 He also thought The Holy Trinity was Father, Son and mother of Jesus. Interview of Dr. David Wood on Islam was great 👍

[@skp8748]

😂 how are you just going to lie

[@vch309]

​@@skp8748?

[@lizmonard]

Whatever happened to Robert Spencer? Has he been silenced, haven’t heard his name for years. I agree that it was Satan appearing as an angel of light (Gabriel) who appeared to Mo. I don’t believe he made it up.

[@jaredgilmore3102]

He's still around, does a weekly show Jihad Watch with Dr. David Wood, worth checking out and staying informed on what the news forgets to mention.

[@jonhilderbrand4615]

Michael, if you haven't debated Hikajou (?) yet, be forewarned: He (and most other Muslim apologists) will flat out lie at the drop of a hat. Make sure you do the research on him. Blessings, my friend. Love your work!

[@thebumblebeemovie3514]

Wait I thought they just twisted everything they say. You mean they will blatantly lie about something in the middle of the debate? I mean it’s not impossible but I figured the apologists would be smarter than that.

[@jonhilderbrand4615]

@@thebumblebeemovie3514 Yes, they will. The volume of authoritative works is so incredibly huge that no one person can know everything about the system, which means even a highly intelligent Christian apologist cannot possible know everything about it. Heck, the Muslim apologist probably doesn't, either. Add to that the fact the necessity of knowing Arabic, or at least a working knowledge of the pertinent words and phrases, is a must. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard a Muslim say, "Well, you have to know the Arabic." This is especially evident in the numerous English translations of the Quran, many of which will deliberately mistranslate the more troublesome passages so that they sound more innocuous to Western ears. Spend a little time investigating, and you will soon realize why Allah is known as "the Greatest Deceiver"!

[@1901elina]

@@thebumblebeemovie3514 look up taqiyya. Especially "non-prudential taqiyya"

[@funker1916]

Have the real Michael jones on

[@Polones12]

Micheal Jones Jr looks very young this days

[@alyu1129]

Michael is pointing out that Jesus's crucifixion is about as real and confirmed as any historical event can be so Islam goes against that by simply making an assertion with absolutely no proof. The Islamic version is in fact, a conspiracy theory with zero proof. Surah 4:157: And for their saying, "We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of God. In fact, they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them as if they did." The claim is premised on the unsubstantiated and highly unlikely assumption that Allah fixed it so that the Romans could not recognize who they crucified. Ehrman et. al. are saying that is nonsense. The Romans wrote that they crucified Jesus who was a known personality. On what basis can anyone say they got the wrong man? None because a Quranic assertion has no weight. The Gospel accounts of course 100% support the crucifixion of the real Jesus. They provide details of the trial. The leaders of the Jewish community were there and Jesus's mother and disciples were there. These were people who have known him forever. They even asked Judas to positively identify Jesus to be sure. With a kiss, remember? John who was also present at that incident wrote that Jesus repeatedly (thrice) identified Himself. The final time saying, "I TOLD YOU I AM HE." They definitely recognized Jesus plus He repeatedly confirmed His identity. Michael is saying that the Islamic claim is false based on the above. I agree because conspiracy theories need proof. The Quran is claiming a "Mission Impossible" type substitution. Big claims require big proof. The Islamic version has zero. Proof is especially important since it CONTRADICTS OTHER SOURCES including John's eyewitness account. The Quran was written maybe 700 years after the incident. It is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. Simple as that. I guess Muslims will believe anything the Quran asserts BUT NO ONE ELSE has reason to, especially when the claim contradicts other sources. A claim like that need not even be offered the benefit of the doubt because it is a random claim unattached to anything In the real world. The Quran is supposedly Allah's verbatim dictated word so it cannot be wrong in any instance. One error and the Quran is already disproven

[@catherineangela6145]

Thank you for pointing it out! All we can do is pray for them

[@MidnightIsolde]

Indeed. For me this is also why Christianity has a better claim of legitimacy because it allows for faith AND reason. Whereas on this topic (which I'd argue is of paramount importance when considering Islam versus Christianity since they both make claims about Jesus), Islam demands blind faith alone. That to me indicates Islam is more incongruous with Truth because real Truth should have reason and faith go hand in hand.

[@skp8748]

​@@catherineangela6145watch Prof Ali Ataie on the crucifixion on the channel Blogging theology.

[@skp8748]

​@@MidnightIsoldenope. Not true

[@bengreen171]

You realise that appealing to what the Romans wrote in relation to Jesus is problematic for Christianity - because a crucifixion is nothing compared to a resurrection, and no Roman ever wrote that Jesus resurrected. Also, all the circumstantial details surrounding the Crucifixtion are found nowhere outside the New Testament. As you say - Big claims require big proof. Christianity has no big proof. The gospels are not eye witness accounts. The Bible is full of things that have no historical basis.

[@hdhh0]

And ˹on Judgment Day˺ Allah will say, “O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you ever ask the people to worship you and your mother as gods besides Allah?” He will answer, “Glory be to You! How could I ever say what I had no right to say? If I had said such a thing, you would have certainly known it. You know what is ˹hidden˺ within me, but I do not know what is within You. Indeed, You ˹alone˺ are the Knower of all unseen.

[@Ammar-kx7ve]

1-the Quran doesn’t deny the crucifixion but claims it was someone who was made to look like Jesus (must likely the snitch). 2-(65:4) is more inline with the biblical teachings than your believe seriously read your book. 3-how cloud they deny the crucifixion if they are copying and it’s such a central part of Christianity? If you claim so then isn’t Christianity is a Jewish copy? 4-your belief is definitely and historically is not what Jesus believed according to dr.bart the one you talked about

[@francismcglynn4169]

‘Woe is me, that I sojourn in Meshech, that I dwell among the tents of Kedar.’ ...“The one desiring to be faithful to his God should find himself among likeminded brethren, colleagues and countrymen who together strive toward goodness, righteousness, and faithfulness. Instead, it is like being an immigrant in a foreign land, living in a culture with no rights and vulnerable to unceasing injustice and scornful taunts. Meshech and Kedar are obscure places outside of Israel’s boundaries. Kedar was more a transmigrating shepherd tribe in Arabia than it was a settlement. Both could possibly have been stopping stations for exiles on their “trail of tears” to Babylon (Isa 21:13-16) and for those returning from the exile. Like the petitioner in the psalm, Isaiah feels like a stranger even in his own country when he is confronted with a vision of God in the Temple: ‘Woe is me. I am doomed. For I am a man of unclean lips, living among people of unclean lips’. (Isa 6:5” [Keith Ruckhaus, As Though We Were Dreaming: A Commentary on the Songs of Ascents for Lent (Eugene, OR: Resource Publications, 2013), 34.]

[@hdhh0]

On the Day of Judgment you will see those who lied about Allah with their faces gloomy. Is Hell not a ˹fitting˺ home for the arrogant?

[@ABLEARC]

We're binging your videos tonight but the way you broke down why the woke left is so excited and passionate for Islam basically being the CRT or oppression model is the chief kiss explanation.

[@drigondii]

Early responders to Islam characterized it as the Mohammadan heresy, which was a derivative of Arianism.

[@skp8748]

They called everything that wasn't Paul's falsehoods heresy

[@catherineangela6145]

The comment section is interesting more than the video

[@kyrptonite1825]

Here’s another interesting fact: look into Islamic apostasy laws.

[@macmac1022]

I want a debate about if questions are arguments. My claim is they are WAY better then arguments. To show the power of the question and a lot more then just that I am going to ask a question. I am hoping this is a super easy question to answer and peeks interest. If I can ask you a question and read your mind with science and logic that you will have the wrong answer pop in your head right away ( most likely for most people anyways) would you then pay close attention to my questions and answer them?

[@ElliottWong2024]

Hi Mac Mac. I know what I am about to say will have nothing to do with your question (I didn't even understand it). How are you my friend. It's been a long time since we last interacted.

[@termination9353]

How do 2 blind men follow Jesus? How does a deaf man hear Jesus? Why use seven brothers in a question when a two-brothers example would have made the same point? What did Jesus write in the dust with his finger? What was Mary Magdalene's "special part that would not be taken from her"? Why does it say that the "disciple whom Jesus' loved outran Peter? Why did the people rumor that the disciple whom Jesus loved could never die? What was the "word" the centurion's servants were trying to get Jesus to reveal to them that had healing powers? What did Jesus mean by use of the term 'cockcrowing'? What "sign" were the Pharisees looking for from Jesus if miracle healing did not count? When the Pharisees spoke of "less the second mistake be worse than the first" what 'mistake' are they talking about? What made Mary Magdalene out to be a sinner? When the angel asked, "Why seek ye the living from among the dead?", who were the "dead" the angel was referring to? Since book of Acts shows apostle John and Mark to be the same person, how then did we end up with two distinct gospels from the same author? How can two sisters both be named Mary? What is the meaning of the term 'quicken'? How can the narrative read that Jesus performed "many miracles" in-between the first and second miracle? Why is it noted a division of geneology by 14 generations? Why does Jesus make a healing mixture of spit and mud when Jesus had demonstrated he could heal by words alone?

[@macmac1022]

@@ElliottWong2024 >>Hi Mac Mac. I know what I am about to say will have nothing to do with your question (I didn't even understand it). How are you my friend. It's been a long time since we last interacted."" No problem. Well it would help if I got notifications for your replies. Only reason I saw this is because I got a notification from termi. The question is can i read your mind :) .

[@macmac1022]

@@termination9353 >>How do 2 blind men follow Jesus? "" By sound? >>How does a deaf man hear Jesus?"" He cant, hes deaf. >> Why use seven brothers in a question when a two-brothers example would have made the same point? "" ?????? Got some context so I know what you are talking about? >>What did Jesus write in the dust with his finger?"" Dont know. >>What was Mary Magdalene's "special part that would not be taken from her"? Why does it say that the "disciple whom Jesus' loved outran Peter? Why did the people rumor that the disciple whom Jesus loved could never die? What was the "word" the centurion's servants were trying to get Jesus to reveal to them that had healing powers? What did Jesus mean by use of the term 'cockcrowing'? What "sign" were the Pharisees looking for from Jesus if miracle healing did not count? When the Pharisees spoke of "less the second mistake be worse than the first" what 'mistake' are they talking about? What made Mary Magdalene out to be a sinner? When the angel asked, "Why seek ye the living from among the dead?", who were the "dead" the angel was referring to? Since book of Acts shows apostle John and Mark to be the same person, how then did we end up with two distinct gospels from the same author? How can two sisters both be named Mary? What is the meaning of the term 'quicken'? How can the narrative read that Jesus performed "many miracles" in-between the first and second miracle? Why is it noted a division of geneology by 14 generations? Why does Jesus make a healing mixture of spit and mud when Jesus had demonstrated he could heal by words alone?"" I will answer the rest if you tell me what you point is. I noticed you did not even answer my single question, so why should I answer yours?

[@termination9353]

​@@macmac1022 How do 2 blind men follow Jesus? "" By sound? Not blind. Surveillance agents spies. How does a deaf man hear Jesus?"" He cant, hes deaf. Father had son fake evil spirit possession. >> Why use seven brothers in a question when a two-brothers example would have made the same point? "" ?????? Got some context so I know what you are talking about? Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother; so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. Last of all, the woman died. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.” -Matthew 22:25-30 - >>What did Jesus write in the dust with his finger?"" - Dont know. He wrote the Torah law where both man and woman are to be stoned. The whole situation was a set up. There was no adultery. Some woman was just hired to stand there and be quiet. -" tell me what you point is." Why have none of these questions been noticed and raised and why have none of them been answered after all this time - but mostly how is it, with all this supposed interest, these questions are so easily overlooked? -"you did not even answer my single question" Please rephrase the question.

[@igorlopes7589]

2:19 Funny, because I remember ramadan celebrating ramadan as a religious feast but not celebrating easter and christmas as religious feasts

[@mattvanwyhe6158]

Don't forget that they believe that there were Samaritans during Moses' time, which is some 400 years I believe before their ethnicity even existed.

[@kyrptonite1825]

@Sefa D No, it’s historically accurate. Samaratins did not exist until after the Jewish Monarchy broke into two, historically. Way after Moses.

[@funnemonke2]

was Michael sick in this? his voice seems to e cracking a lot

[@igorlopes7589]

2:12 Exactly, they don't care about actual truth and actual justice, only with their class warfare of the opressed rising against the opressors. This ignores any nuance that someone who is (perceived as) generally the "opressed" can individually opress someone who is (perceived as) generally the opressor. Also, the problematic truth about Islam is deliberately obfuscated because again, what matters isn't truth, it's being against the "system of opression"

[@richarddunn9286]

I group muslims with protestants- they faithfully follow what one man thought about Jesus

[@5BBassist4Christ]

Mohammad unfaithfully followed what he thought about his sex slaves and child-bride.

[@mige8492]

Do explain what you mean? That makes no sense

[@richarddunn9286]

Muhammad compiled the Quran orally, and since I'm not a Muslim I believe much of the Quran consists of his own personal thoughts about God and Jesus. That's not vastly different to how Protestant leaders have labeled their thoughts as dogmatic.

[@kyrptonite1825]

@@mige8492 1. Muslims listen to a man centuries later on what Jesus was like. 2. Protestants listen to Martin Luther’s ideas centuries later on what Jesus taught, such as faith alone, and Scripture Alone. Instead of what Christians had believed for centuries. If that makes sense.

[@kyrptonite1825]

By the way, as another question to Muslims. What evidence do you have for Miracles Muhammad did? And where are the Bible verses mentioning Muhammad?

[@The_Mosaic]

Same arguments work against thw old testament dont they?

[@Iesu-Christi-Servus]

Actually, the author of the Quran knows perfectly both the old and new testament. The reason he denies the resurrection of Christ is because he wants to take the christians sacraments away as he knows they are deeply connected with the death of Christ on the cross. I also want to focus on the fact that most people study Islam like modernists, they reject the miraculous elements in it but take the more probable naturalistics elements as granted. But it is completely arbitrary. Quran has to be studied scientifically and in order to do that, you must get out of the vicious circle everyone unintentionally falls into, that is to say the meaning of the Quran depends on the Sira, but the Sira also depends on the Quran, and therefore, you ought to accept the muslim narration, else you could barely say anything. French scholars such as bro. Bruno Bonnet Eymard and Mohammad Amir Ali Amor-Moezzi made huge discoveries about the origins of Islam. The first even produced a scientific translation of the Quran from the critical text alone (which is a monstrous work of a lifetime), and it actually makes sense and is fluid to read, whereas all mainstream translations are contented to copying and translating what muslim sources already say and they continuously contain ruptures in meaning. Bonnet's translation is so obviously the right one as it brilliantly shows how the author of the Quran deeply connects with the old testament and pretends nothing but to repeat what was told before him. Discovering his works is highly recommended for studying Islam.

[@alonzoharris9049]

The trinity is three gods.

[@Iesu-Christi-Servus]

​@@alonzoharris9049 The Trinity is three things inasmuch as the body, soul and spirit are 3 things. Islam says that the God is loving - who did the God love before creation? If you say nobody, you introduce a change, which is impossible in God. And if you say, "The God loved himself", then Trinity is what begins to appear, because in order for the God to love himself, there must be another person who is consubstantial with him and who coexists with him eternally - this is called a Son [the Father's Monogen], for he receives the divine nature of the Father by generation. " _Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning._ " Jc 1:17 There are 2 types of natures, one type existing eternally and therefore unchanging, and the other type obtained existence by creation. By saying, "You are from beneath; I am from above." Jn 3:23, Jesus reaffirms this distinction. The claim cannot pertain to being a greater man, or an angel, as the biblical tradition considers even the angels "from bellow", because having a created nature. Arianism in general claims a difference in nature between the Father and the Son, inasmuch as the Father has the unique attribute of being unbegotten. But Jesus claims his substance is "from above" (uncreated and existing eternally). It would not follow to call Christ the Son if the Father did not communicate him His own substance by generation. And thus this distinction of arianism necessarily implies that all the begotten beings are the same in nature which is an absurdity. But on the trinitarian side, because what has no beginning also begets without a beginning, it logically follows that, if the Father begets the Son (which is clearly claimed several times), then the Son exists eternally, else there would be a variation of nature. " _The Son being the brightness of His glory and the express substance of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much *superior to the angels* , as He has *by inheritance* obtained a more excellent name than they. The Son Exalted Above Angels. For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”?_ " Heb 1

[@Jay33_]

Wait, so are you on the Muslim side? I cant tell with this reply.

[@Iesu-Christi-Servus]

​@@Jay33_ I'm on the side of truth and justice (Christianity). This is why I also want to do justice to Islam defending it when it is unjustly attacked, or attack it where it is unjustly protected, and thus I consider the mainstream Islamic narrative (a prophet who started from scratch in a pagan environment in mecca, etc...) as the biggest falsification in history. Scholarship now reveals that the religion of perfection (this is how 'Islam' ought to be translated), started as a heresy of the Judeo-Christian communities who lived along the trade routes of the Red Sea, but mainstream Islam was established sometime during the Umayyad caliph Abd al-malik. When I said people study Islam like modernists, I mean people for instance accept things like the fact that Muhammad was an orphan who was raised by his uncle, he was born in Mecca, he fled to Medina, etc... But they instantly reject supernatural elements such as the fact that Muhammad's wife, Aisha, could find a needle in the bedroom during the night thanks to the light emanating from her husband. Or that Muhammad flew on a winged donkey from Mecca to Jerusalem. What Bro. Bonnet Eymard did to study Islam is rejecting all the Sira. In order to study Islam, you must know all the languages around in the 7th century. All the main words of Islam; Quran, Surah, Haya (verse), Hajj, Umrah, Salah, Zakat, are words that come either from syriac or hebrew. The oldest records of arab writing originate in christian land, Syria, as a variation of Syriac writing. The contraction of letters under the hurried reed pen of writers probably created the arab writing. Chrsitians are well-known for creating alphabets and teaching literacy to the people they evangelized using Sacred Scriptures. The thesis, which is now academically accepted, is that Islam started out as a judeo-Christian messianic heresy. Arabs were certain that by rebuilding the temple (Dome of the rock), the messiah would return. Some preacher was accompanied by a christian monk, St John Damascene, who completely ignored the words 'muslim' or 'Islam' in his list of heresies, says the preacher out of which the heresy of the Ishmaelites was born was helped by an Arian monk. Nestorian sources also report a christian monk's influence in the genesis of what would become Islam, but say he was Nestorian. It must be noted that some Nestorians at the time were still in the Judaizing controversy St Paul treated in his letters. Sassanians and Byzantines were in a huge conflict. They were militarily exhausted, but still both financially powerful, they tried to drag as much of the Arab tribes to their side. They both sent preachers in center arabia, which had remained neutral, in order to excite all the Arabs who had messianic expectations, saying it was the end of the world, if you join us against our enemy, you will be on the good side, and God will reward you. It's not entirely certain what degree of control they both had on their preachers. The Lakhmids became vassals of the Persians, while the Ghassanids were vassal of Byzantium. Nestorian sources report that even in the Nedj, a few tribes had converted. Furthermore, a huge part of the south and east of Arabia was nestorian Christian, and probably quite hostile to persia as they originate from populations who fled the persecution under Shapur II (310-379) in the persian empire. Arabs of Yemen converted to Judaism under the influence of rich Jews who fled to the oases of the trade route around the Red Sea after the destruction of the Temple (70 A.D.) They were certain God would allow them to return one day to rebuild it. Masruq (an arab converted to Judaism who ruled Yemen in the 6th century) was overthrown and killed during a special military operation led by King Elesbaan of Abyssinia (Christian miaphysite) in 525 because Masruq started to actively persecute a nestorian community in Najran from 519. It goes without saying that the operation was sponsored and conceived by the Byzantine Empire. Elesbaan established a Himyarite Christian noble to rule in Najran and Yemen. His dynasty certainly was still in power by the time of Islam, even through Masruq's successors (the jews), later regained the control of south Yemen around 570 A.D., thanks to... guess who ? The persian sassanians ! No-way they were going to allow Christians who were hostile to Persia to root their control over this commercial hub of Yemen and threaten their south. Under Khosrow II, the byzantines were defeated, as Khosrow's forces captured much of the byzantine territories. Khosrow gave the administration of the city of Jerusalem to his Arab mercenaries. From this point, it is not certain how events connect chronologically. The Arab tribes were organized in bands of different clans, and started to fight each others for the control of the City. This event retailed in the Muslim narration correspond to the civil wars out of which the Umayyad dynasty would emerge. Meanwhile, Khosrow II was assassinated, it resulted in civil war in the Persian empire, and the byzantine could recover all that had been lost. But Byzantium was not in a better health, so the Arabs took power over the byzantines in the levant. It was the time when Mu'awiya took power, he is described as praying in a christian way and he minted coins with crosses. The word 'Muhammad' was written for the first time on the Dome of the rock and meant "the desired one" (cf Mc 9:7). It is very likely that the word 'Muhammad' refers to the Messiah they expected. The coins minted by the caliphs before Abd al-Malik used crosses as symbols. Then, under Abd al-malik, the confusion started to arise. New coins were minted representing a beared-man with a double-edge sword, with the inscription "In the name of God, there is no god except God alone, 'Muhammad' is the one sent by God." It could still be the messiah who brings not peace but the sword, a double-edge sword as in the Book of Revelation. Then under the Abbasids at Baghdad, the falsification became complete, as Muhammad became personified and was connected to the preacher, helped by a monk, who excited the arabs to conquer Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple through the Covenant with Ishmael (Surah 2:127). A version of the Quran with the diacritical signs and vowels was created to burry the truth under the sands, the truth about the fact that Islam was not an independant religion but a Christian heresy whose imminent messianic expectation had failed. The Sira (biography of the prophet) was writen in order to explain all the contradictions and incoherences subsequent to the falsification of the narrative, such as the mosquito parable, or the city of Surah 2:126 as being Mecca. I'll explain bellow.

[@Iesu-Christi-Servus]

@@Jay33_ But the history and geopolitics of the time is not the most interesting part. The most interesting is Bonnet's translation of the Quran itself. His method consists in studying the Quran from its raw text alone excluding the Sira interpretations. If you have a basic knowledge of arabic, you will know that there are diacritic signs, dots, used to differentiate 10 calligraphies of consonants. Now the raw text of the Quran did not contain either vowels (similar to hebrew Scripture), neither diacritical signs. For example, in Surah 2, it retails the story of Abraham from the Book of Genesis. The mainstream translation of the verse 26 say this: « _Surely Allah does not shy away from using the parable of a mosquito (some say a gnat) or what is even smaller_ (some say bigger, others say above). _As for the believers, they know that it is the truth from their Lord. And as for the disbelievers, they argue, “What does Allah mean by such a parable?”_ » Bro. Bonnet Eymard noticed that, if you change the diacritical sign, you can turn the word _baeudatan_ (mosquito) into _taeudatan_ (moral teaching / counsel), and then his translation of the verse reads as follows: « _No, God does not make a revelation to teach the lesson that comes out of a parable. Those who have faith know that it is the law [of truth] from their Lord. While the apostates say: "What did God mean by this parable?"._ » And then, put in context, it becomes perfectly coherent, the author of the Quran doesn't pretend to bring forth new revelation, but to repeat what was said in the Book of Genesis, when Abraham's first son, Ishmael, received the sign of the covenant with God before Isaac. Verse 124 and 126 of Surah 2 go on explaining this. Mainstream translations: 124 « _And when his Lord put Abraham to a test with certain Words! And he fulfilled them. He said, "I am going to make you an Imam_ (some say leader of nations, but it's literally 'imam' of peoples) _for the people." He said, "And from among my progeny?" He replied, 'My promise does not extend to the unjust."_ 126 _Abraham said, ‘My Lord, make this city safe and provide with produce those of its people who believe in God and the Last Day.’ God said, ‘As for those who disbelieve, I will grant them enjoyment for a short while and then subject them to the torment of the Fire- an evil destination.’_ » Bonnet Eymard noticed that without vowels, it's easier to recognize 'Ummah' (community/multitude/many) instead of 'Imam' in verse 124. Then, the intention of the author to retail the story of Abraham becomes coherent, " _I shall make of you a multitude of nations_ " (cf Gn 17.4), Abraham answers " _And what will be my progeny?_ ", " _My covenant does not end due to those who are in the darkness_ " (the author's pretension, by taking this oracle tone, is to claim the covenant would return to Ishmael in the case Isaac's line falls into the darkness, the author knows perfectly the Pauline doctrine in Eph 5:7-8, where the light is the faith of the believers, and galatians 4:21-31 when Paul already used an aggadic argument to extend the spiritual covenant of Isaac to the gentiles, the huge difference is that Isaac isn't named in the story, and its author is transferring the privilege of Isaac to his brother without giving any justification for this banditry). On verse 126, instead of bilad (city), which is a rupture in the context, you can obtain, by changing the vowels and diacritical signs, the Hebrew word Yeled (meaning: child). Then the demonstrative pronoun used connects with the previous verse, and it becomes coherent within the context. Bonnet Eymard's translation goes as this « _In this time, Abraham said: Lord, consecrate this child_ [aka Ishmael] _as a faithful child, and provide his people with palm, all of those among them who will be believing to God and to the Day that is to come. God said: "But anyone who has apostatized, I will let them for a short time. Then, I will keep them for the fire and evil is the destination._ " » I will stop here, but there are many more. You can see the method - it requires using every language around in the 7th century, because the author of the Quran was influenced by them, it makes even more sense as the Christian sources report the preacher was versed in monotheist biblical revelation by a Syriac monk. Moreover, no one dared translate the letter A.L.M which repeats on the beginning 29 surahs. Bonnet Eymard was quick to understand what those abbreviations means He went to a rabbinic specialist and asked if there existed a list of Hebrew abbreviation traditionally used by rabbis in their copies. He looked at A.L.M and found: "Al-le-môshaot", which means, " _God of salvations_ " (cf Ps 68:20)

[@thebumblebeemovie3514]

Can we just agree that everyone in favor of promoting Islam in America should reevaluate what Islam stands for? If woke gets their way, then we need to be EXTREMELY cautious about Islam in America…… the American country was founded on the ideals of freedom and capitalism, not totalitarianism and socialism….

[@Adnankhan-fd1zr]

😑 Islam doesnt claim that crucifixion never happened but theperson who was crucified wasnt jesus but someone else who was given jesus's face while jesus was ascended to heaven to protect him from the attackers

[@James_Dakota]

According to Muslim apologists, there is no explicit verse where it states another man took the place of Jesus. If so, Allah is a deceiver and ultimately created Christianity.

[@radirandom133]

​@@James_Dakotafalse.

[@James_Dakota]

@@radirandom133 It’s true. And I have to give credit where it’s due: Muslim apologists are tricky there!

[@radirandom133]

@@James_Dakota The verse says appeared. Shubiha means appeared. So of course historians will record it. Also, Allah didn't deceive anyone. Allah of course communicated in some way to the apostles or people that he isn't dead. Later, people like Paul or anonymous authors made up these false doctrines

[@James_Dakota]

@@radirandom133 Exactly! Appeared. Muslim apologists agree with you. :P

[@aaronhanson5014]

How dare you have the Hagia Sophia as the background of an Islam video. That is a CHRISTIAN building!

[@ecclesiaxxi6210]

true, it was stolen, like everything else they have (that they want to boast about anyway).

[@patrickvernon4766]

Who’s more in trouble than the Catholic Church? Maybe focus on that.

[@kafon6368]

I think their debate on child marriage might be on the premise of "a girl under 16 is betrothed to a boy under 16. Girls at the age of 16 are to be wed to that boy when they both reach that age or older." Because this was how marriages used to be. Not taking sides here. Don't come for me.

[@kyrptonite1825]

They do appeal to cultural relativism, but where it gets weird, is that Muhammad was over 50, and it wasn’t just an arranged Marriage, he actually consum__ the Marriage when she was nine and didn’t quite hit pu__ty yet.

[@justsomevids4541]

They allow babies to be married. And prepubescents can have intercourse.

[@MrSophire]

Saw the debate, it was for marriage between girls (key word) as young five to men. Basically if she bleeds she breeds. 🤮

[@ninjaked1265]

Betrothal is different than marriage

[@misericordepourlhumanite]

Hi, I am a Muslim apologist and I enjoy watching Mat Fradd and other Catholics apologists such as Trent Horn and Michael Lofton from Catholics Answers. I have really learned a lot on Catholicism by watching your content over the years. I find Catholics who don't want to call us Muslims to convert to Catholicism not to be consistent and charitable. If you believe that your religion is the Truth you would want to share it to others. However I think that your characterizations of Islam and Muslims is not fair. I know some Catholics like to bring up the issue of the age of Aisha when she married the Prophet Mohammed (peace and blessings be upon him) but can they point me to a criticism on the age of Aisha of a Catholic Saint before 1905 ? Catholics Saints were very vocals in the past in criticizing Islam, they've criticized many aspects of the life of the Prophet of Islam but never this aspect before 1905. Not a single time. Why is that ? As for your objections I will let brother Daniel Haqiqatjou answers them in his future debate with you God willing. However regarding what you seems to portray as a woke-Muslim alliance, I think you don't see the bigger picture. It is the GOP which have been pushing for years a naturally conservative constituency (U.S Muslims) toward the Democrats. Many practicing Muslims just don't care about politics anymore. We also see Wokes as being more dangerous than Republicans as they are corrupting the souls of our youth with their liberal leftist propaganda. GOP candidates who are bashing Islam and Muslims are the best recruiters of Muslims voters for the Democratic Party.

[@vaderkurt7848]

I agree with you that whole aisha age thing Every Muslim knows about it as far as I am aware and is pointless to bring it up even though I will keep this honest I just find the whole aisha thing to be a bit disturbing, but other then that is not worth bringing up. I believe there are fundemental flaws with Islam that is worth addressing that isn't going for low blows. The problem with current polemics against Muslims which is mostly from protestantism is really uncharitable towards Muslims. I mean ya sure if there is troll in the comment section is best to remove that troll and let the people in that are willing to have genuine and charitable discussion. The beauty of Catholicism and the fullness in truth does not need to resort to tactics that a lot of protestants like resorting to against Muslims.

[@femaleKCRoyalsFan]

I don’t remember any Catholic Saints getting married to an elderly man at age 6 and then being raped at age 9. Yes she was RAPED because a nine year old cannot consent to sex! By the way the Catholic Saint Maria Goretti she refused sexual advances of a older man who was probably around 19 or 20 years old and she was only 12 !

[@paxvobiscum9859]

​@@vaderkurt7848 It is never pointless to criticise sin (immorality). We are called to actually hate sin (though not the sinner). I hope I don't need to point out that grown men having sex with children is a gross perversion of God's natural order. So it is gravely offensive to God. This should concern you much, much more than "offending" Muslims.

[@vaderkurt7848]

@@paxvobiscum9859 I agree with what you said, but my last point stands if you are going to convert the heart and mind of a muslim straight up pointing out that every muslim knows at this point is not the way to go.

[@alonzoharris9049]

The argument against the marriage of Aicha is woke. That’s based on modern pagan standards. The same Michael believes his god was inside Mary. He believes god is the oldest being. He is talking about ethics lol.

[@thewestisthebest6608]

2:44 If Jesus doesn’t sit on the throne of your heart the devil will Now there’s groups followed Jesus. Both follow the devil even if they don’t realize it and so both identify with each other

[@bengreen171]

hilarious irony as IP disparages Islam for historical blunders and problematic moral views. It's like he's never read the Bible.

[@davecorns7630]

so many voice cracks

[@ej7465]

A good father with a young daughter wouldn’t want any grandpa sleeping with his daughter. That’s why good fathers hate !slam.

[@skmcee7863]

This is a terrible argument (I am not a Muslim). Jesus being historically crucified is not at odds with Islamic theology because Quran 4:157 says that it was “MADE TO APPEAR SO”. Historians are not going to consider theological aspects when considering history, that’s quite literally something they are not allowed to do. So if Islam is true, Jesus being historically crucified is not at odds with the faith. You’re better than this, Michael.

[@coolservantjesusswag2936]

I don’t think you understand the ayah. Basically allah is saying he replaced him with someone else(Jesus Barabbas), so isa the islamic Jesus never made it onto the cross. He was saved by allah sometime between his imprisonment and the crucifixion. So the crucifixion of Jesus would be denied in the quran. Also, if muslims say the quran is a book that has scientific miracles then isa who is merely man has lived outside time, matter, space and defied all natural law(like humans needing oxygen to breathe) for 2000 years.

[@skmcee7863]

@@coolservantjesusswag2936 This is funny since the first sentence you typed contradicts the rest of what you said ie. you don’t understand the Ayah at all. It does not say Allah put someone there in place of Jesus, it simply says “it was made to seem so”. You seem to then contend the Quran being scientific by saying Jesus has been existing although he was a normal man… this is embarrassing, are you contending with the Quran’s internal coherence by saying God can’t make a human not die? 😂😂😂 I guess Christianity is false because Heaven is not scientifically verifiable?

[@coolservantjesusswag2936]

@@skmcee7863 I think you are responding just to respond because nothing you wrote sounds like you understood anything I wrote. Have a nice day!

[@skmcee7863]

@@coolservantjesusswag2936 Amazing way to dodge and deflect from a clear and sound refutation. I’ll dumb it down for you - the text does not say Allah put someone there who looked like Jesus, it doesn’t even say Allah made it to appear so, it simply says “IT WAS MADE TO SEEM SO.”.

[@kyrptonite1825]

@@skmcee7863 Can you explain why Dhul Qarnayn (Alexander the Great), was a pagan and not a Muslim like the Quran said? And don’t say he wasn’t Alexander, the sun-puddle story is literally a very popular story around the time of Muhammad’s life in Arabia about Alexander, this is what the early Muslims thought it meant, and also, Dhul Qarnayn literally meant at the time of Muhammad, Alexander the Great. This was the name for Alexander the Great in the time of Muhammad. Or what about the Islamic doctrines from apocryphal sources and medieval works like the Infancy Gospel of St Thomas. Or the addition of things from the Talmud, Jewish mythology, Christian heresies, Christianity, Arabian paganism (like the Kaaba and the whorris and the Hajj), Judiasm, from different legends around the time (there is a Hadith where pagans say Muhammad believed everything he heard and wrote it down, clear legends), and even literal Jewish commentaries? Seems like a mixing of different stories and religions at the time, and the type of religion that would come out of Arabia at the time. Another thing is there’s a Hadith about Jews telling Muhammad a man named “Ahmed” is talked about in the Torah, they were likely tricking him; and guess what, the Quran talked about a man named Ahmed in the Torah. And there is no man named Ahmed mentioned in the Torah! Unless all People at the time of Muhammad suddenly changed the Torah, and somehow all of the older ones as well? Also, why does the Quran mention milk coming from between the blood and poop, and not the utters? Why does the Quran also mention the sun setting in a murky pool, and btw, the Hadiths double that this seems to be literal. Why does the Quran mention sem_n coming from between the backbone and ribs? Or the Hadith that says the Temple of Solomon and the Kaaba were built 70 years apart. Yet apparently Abraham built the Kaaba? Or why Mary, Mother of God, is described as the Sister of Aaron and daughter of Imran, like Moses’s Sister, two different people with many years between them? Why does the Quran mention Haman being the Pharoah’s prime minister, when he lived in Babylon, like a thousand years later? Why does the Quran mention the Pharoah of Moses Crucifying people when, it didn’t exist as a form of torture yet, it wasn’t invented yet. Why does the Quran mention a Samaritan man at the golden calf? Samaritans didn’t exist yet. Why does the Kaaba not mentioned before Islam in the Bible or in historical records? Why does the Quran contradict the Bible and say Ishmael was actually the chosen son? Despite it being the second born chosen for the Patriarchs? Like with Jacob and Essua. Why does the Quran say The water test of Judges 7:1-8 was commanded by Saul instead of Gideon. One more thing (I know, I’m just hitting you with a bunch of things, sorry): Quran 33:53 O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that [behavior] was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of [dismissing] you. But Allāh is not shy of the truth. And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allāh or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allāh an enormity. The Quran is so obviously historically and scientifically inaccurate.

[@pumpkin4391]

We don't want child rape to happen, nor de we wife abuse to happen, nor do we slavery to happen. Simple as that.

[@Bunyourdesires]

What? 😂

[@trillmoney263]

But you let homosexuality happen, you let transgenderism to happen, you let sanctions and created economic warfare to happen.

[@trillmoney263]

Nor do we wife abuse to happen But we can hit the kids beating up the kids is good growing up

[@trillmoney263]

We don’t want child rape to happen But let’s take them to gay pride parade rallies and make them gay

[@trillmoney263]

Nor do we slavery to happen Yeah let’s create socialism Let’s make everything free

[@corallarson7231]

I heard someone put it this way, if Christianity is the main thing, then Judaism is the prequel and Islam is the fanfic 🤷🏼‍♀️😅

[@mmurqus6560]

This man (michael jones) takes vocal fry to even higher heights! Intolerable! Cannot listen for even one minute!

[@Frosee14]

That was so boring (watches 10 more times)

[@kyrptonite1825]

Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri: Once Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) of `Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." Sahih Al-Bukhari 304

[@ial4910]

So far what i have been able to dissect is fallacious reasoning from inspiring philosophy

[@runachan2910]

Where are these fallacies?

[@FH_official1199]

The first fallacy and really the only one I noticed from the video was the post hawk fallacy. To claim because the Quran came after the Bible and that it shares similar stories therefore the Bible and Quran are related

[@runachan2910]

​​​@@FH_official1199 He didn't say "after the Bible" he said that it has elements from later forgeries that spread at the time. It's different. I'm not arguing whether or not it's true. I'm saying this isn't a fallacy when you hear the books he mentioned and look into them Edit: I'm not being an "apologist". I'm a non-muslim from a Muslim majority country, so if I wanted to read into Islam, for knowledge, I have to be EXTRA careful not to insult any of the two side. Honestly, thanks for responding to my (super) late comment 😊

[@FH_official1199]

@runachan2910 This is still a post hawk fallacy. Furthermore, how would it be possible for scripture that came way after to copy certain elements. The Quran itself NEVER recognises any of the gospels you have today, whether that be canonical or non. Furthermore, this also includes the forgeries. With all that in there, you as Christian, I am assuming, have no leg to stand on to criticise us or our scripture.

[@FH_official1199]

@@runachan2910 as for seeking knowledge about Islam. I would recommend talking to an educated Muslim about their beliefs as you understand it a bit better than if you seek your knowledge from a Christian

[@termination9353]

THE QURAN DOES NOT SAY JESUS WAS NOT CRUCIFIED - The Qur'an says Jesus did not die on the cross. It is the Hadith interpreters that misinterpret this to say Jesus wasn't crucified... but it doesn't say that. What the Quran is saying is Jesus "RESURRECTED" off the cross. Jesus did not die, though it looked that way to thee onlookers.

[@apan990]

either way still false, every historian will tell you Jesus did in fact die on a cross, and that he was later seen again. id rather believe the eye witnesses who saw his death and resurrection, whether it be christian, jew or roman, and their disciples who were passed on this message and wrote these events on paper for us to see 2000 years later, as opposed to some random bozo in a cave 600 years after Jesus death, and who ZERO connection or knowledge of him whatsoever.

[@termination9353]

@@apan990 Paul has zero knowledge of Jesus ministry also.

[@apan990]

@@termination9353 o_O you understand Jesus appeared to him ye? that he was persecuting christians until his conversion and vision of Jesus. sure he didnt personally know Jesus , but he died in 65ad, Jesus died in 30 ad, so he was very aware about Jesus' ministry lmao.

[@termination9353]

@@apan990 The book of Acts says the Apostles did not believe Paul's conversion story.

[@noelg.3632]

@@termination9353point out the verse lol

[@josephayala1511]

Way too insightful

[@TyronSmith-yo5tt]

Maybe the quran is true and the gospels are invented by the piso family as roman literary entertainment. The romans were big fans of the gladiator arena. It would be entertaining for roman emperors to read books about conquered jewish wannabe messiahs. Flavius Josephus aka Gaius Calpurnius Piso.

[@Curious_Mind7-7-7]

Thats hilarious, the quran being true ? LMAOOO

[@TyronSmith-yo5tt]

@@Curious_Mind7-7-7 The quran isn't true I was being rhetorical.

[@Repose_]

You don't need much to disprove Islam. That Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity is paramount in a sincere and humble study of the scriptures. The way they get around this is saying that "those parts were corrupted" but we have evidence from the earliest Church Fathers that those scriptures existed in the first century, meaning they couldn't have possibly been changed within living memory of the apostles. Islam is a religion of the world for men of the world. Polygamy is tolerated. Fasting is counteracted by intense gluttony later in the day. Alcohol and unclean foods are forbidden because the Prophet himself did not like them. They have no conception of sacrifice, Priesthood, or a Temple, which is why it is laughable for them to claim to be "just like the Israelites". Without the Temple (destroyed 70 AD) and the New Covenant Church (the Heavenly Temple of Christians), they, like the Jews and the Protestants who reject the Eucharist, are left without a legitimate means of forgiving sins according to the old law which the Muslims follow (in parts) and sound reason which would give us a visible means of knowing we are forgiving (I.E. the sacrifices for sin in the Old Covenant or the words of Absolution in the New Covenant) Muslims also believe in a heaven of sex and alcohol because they cannot conceive of pleasure beyond the flesh. They only regulate this pleasure to some extent, but they do not see an end beyond this pleasure because they do not understand Christ Jesus beyond the flesh as they do not believe in His divinity. TLDR, Islam is not of God, but, like most false religions, their is some redeemable good we can use to pull them into the Church

[@Repose_]

@@sefad1157 Mohammed stated multiple times that if he was a false prophet, God would sever his aorta. After a Jewish woman cooked him lamb and poisoned it because he slaughtered her family, he complained that he felt his “aorta being severed”. He would live the last 3 years of his life in absolute agony, not dying in battle like he had wished for. Quran 69:44-46 Muhsin Khan And Sahih Bukhari 5:59:713

[@kyrptonite1825]

@Sefa D No offense, but what’s inherently wrong with alcohol? It only becomes sinful when you lose your sense of reason and your ability for free Will in Catholicism, or drunkenness is what’s sinful. I think in a temperate society alcohol actually brings people together by opening them up and gladdening their hearts, as long as they don’t drink too much, and get drunk. Also, what’s inherently sinful with eating pork? Why do some Hadiths say to sit down when peeing? Or to crush certain lizards, because they didn’t help Abraham? You get extra blessings if you do it in one blow according to the Hadith. I’m sorry, can lizards think now? There are even some weird Hadiths, where these people had this well with menstrual cloth, poop, pee, dead animals, etc, in there. The followers of Muhammad, asked him if they should perform ablutions in it. He said all water is clean, so they did. There was another instance where there was a dead camel in an oasis, which Muhammad again said it was okay to drink from. If you follow this advice you’ll die. There’s also weird verses about ablutions, about the devil peeing on your ear, about licking your fingers or getting someone else to lick them, because God hides a blessing in the food, and even one where it says if a fly touches your food, to dip it fully into the food, because there’s disease on one wing and a cure on the other (this is not scientific at all). Why does the Quran say you must not be in your period when you pray? Why are there so many weird things in Islam?

[@stephenfrancismoran6729]

Islam is a heresy, it has aspects of Arianism, Nestorian ism and other anti Christian heresies.

[@termination9353]

- The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.

[@tomrapp5120]

I mperialism S implicism L ogicanism A nimism M uhammadanism

[@devceropeolearw5441]

You worshipping three gods little bro what are you talking about

[@joshjonson2368]

​@@devceropeolearw5441 they also allow for money lenders despotic tyrants aka the Vatican and slavers to thrive, all the while pretending to condemn such things lol, never forget it's also a catholic that led to the eventual fall of Constantinople, Muslims just finished what they couldn't end lol

[@reeferfranklin]

Isn't Islam basically just reheated Ebionitism.

[@skp8748]

From the perspective of followers of Paul

[@blesswinjoy4146]

I made the video 1k by just one click 😁😁

[@MohamedShou]

Well alhamdulillah I believe in one God not in a centuries later Christian developed doctrine called “trinity” and other Christian doctrines that are problematic. But keep using secular liberal arguments I guess 🤷🏾‍♂️

[@James_Dakota]

“Centuries later developed doctrine”. The irony. 💀

[@skp8748]

​@@James_Dakotairony?

[@MohamedShou]

@@James_Dakota Yhh what’s the irony? Believing in One God is ironic?

[@mikeylejan8849]

Just like how Islam claimed Jesus was not crucified after 600 years?

[@skp8748]

@@mikeylejan8849 well no there was significant amount of Christians who didn't fall for Paul's heresy

[@mikeylejan8849]

Islam is a man made religion inspired by Arab culture and certain elements of Judaism and Christianity.

[@Bunyourdesires]

Lol

[@somedude8613]

I like how instead of defending his 3 in 1 shampoo god he attacks Islam. This guy will lead many of you astray.

[@James_Dakota]

Astray? Islam wasn’t the right path to begin with.

[@somedude8613]

@James Dakota Islam is the right path but I didn't even mean Islam. Even if we assume Christianity is the one true religion, his guy will lead you away from it. He advocates a joke version of Christianity. This guy will support transgenderism and carving kids' bodies. Just you wait I'm pretty sure he does but too afraid to admit it.

[@James_Dakota]

@@somedude8613 “Joke version”. What’s that? Michael is a liberal? Looks like I’ve been unknowingly following a liberal with conservative values for a long time!

[@somedude8613]

@James Dakota A secular version. A version where God has no authority whatsoever. The last thing he looks at is what the Bible says and even then he treats it as guidelines lol. Your god is a joke, your religion is a joke, the version he supports is a bigger joke and you clowns are following him lol

[@FleefromROME]

It's amazing that these two clowns are discussing Islam, yet their Church says: "The Church's RELATIONSHIP with the Muslims. The PLAN of SALVATION also INCLUDES...in the FIRST PLACE...the MUSLIMS." Catechism 841: "The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."(841) The Muslims, who do NOT have the "faith of Abraham" who in fact "believed God, DENY Jesus Christ of Nazareth as God incarnate; they DENY Him as the "Lamb of God who [took] away the sin of the world," (John 1:29) by His death and resurrection; Jesus is the Creator of the universe and Judge, but they don't believe that either. Yet, the "plan of salvation" has been granted to the Muslims by Rome. Again, without the Holy Spirit, because you're not "born again," you (Catholics) will say anything even if it opposes Jesus' own words.

[@vaderkurt7848]

Did you forget the word "Profess to hold the faith of abraham." It is fact that muslims worship God. "B but they deny christ" So do the jews are they not worshipping God? Is funny how a protestant is here lecturing Catholics of what they actually believe.

[@FleefromROME]

@Vader Kurt Really, Muslims "profess to hold the FAITH of Abraham?" How can that be? As I pointed out, Abraham believed God. Muslims do not believe God. What did Jesus say about those who DENY the Son? Take a look if you have the time. Catholics are so Ecumenical these days. Centuries ago, they were burning people at the stake and torturing them because they didn't agree with Rome's teachings. Catholics were killing Muslims, and Muslims were killing Catholics. Now, they are best friends. And yes, the minion of the Catholic Church denies Jesus Christ, too. They trust in their Tradition and the Sacraments believing that they can earn salvation. The Catholic Church is behind the call for the religions of the world to come together in unity and peace. Rome has been very tight with the Muslims - the Muslims who call Jesus Christ a liar. They definitely deserve each other.

[@kyrptonite1825]

1. They PROFESS to hold the faith of Abraham. This doesn’t mean they actually do, they just profess too. 2. Do Jews not worship God? They have a wrong doctrine on God, but worship the same God. 3. This isn’t saying all Muslims are saved, just that Muslims can be saved. Which is reasonable. What about people who can’t hear the Gospel through no fault of their own? The Church in Vatican 2 is inclusionary with this.

[@GuitarBloodlines]

@@kyrptonite1825 neither Jews nor Muslims worship the same God as Christians do

[@thepalegalilean]

​@SomeRandomGuy That is so stupid upon so many levels I'm not even going to approach how braindead that is.

[@sub7se7en]

Islam doesn't have historical issues. What does it say about the crucifixion? Let's actually take a look "and for boasting, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him-it was only made to appear so. Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever-only making assumptions. They certainly did not kill him." Quran 4:157 So it says they were bragging about killing Jesus, meaning they either genuinely believed they killed him or they were intentionally lying and spreading misinformation. Then it goes on to say they did not kill him nor did they crucify him but that it was made to appear so. What trickled down to us in terms of history? The boasts of these people and their claim of killing Jesus. Is it plausible that the boastful people mentioned in the verse orchestrated the incident to make it appear to others that Jesus was crucified? Absolutely. Is it plausible that that hearsay accounts of Jesus' crucifixions were not actually true, but were passed down as truth? Absolutely. We know that there were actually first century Christians like the scholar Basilides and his followers who denied the crucifixion. They believed Simon of Cyrene was killed in Jesus' stead. So does the Quran actually contradict history? Absolutely not. It's matches up with the popular narrative. That is that people say that people say he was killed but he was not. You want to talk about historical issues? I've got a nice one for you. We know that both the Quran and Bible mention the stories of Moses and Joseph. Joseph in Egypt was was during the Middle Kingdom whereas Moses' story occurred during the New Kingdom. Throughout the Old Testament the ruler during both of these eras is called pharaoh. This is very significant because the Quran does not do this. If one were to assume the Quran copied from the Bible then it stands to reason that the Quran would just copy that term for the ruler. I mean, it was common knowledge for anyone who knew anything about Egypt that their ruler is called pharaoh. What does the Quran do instead? For Moses' story the name is the same: Pharaoh. But for Josephs story the Quran uses king instead. Why is this significant? The ability to read the hieroglyphics was lost to history and so whatever information they contain was inaccessible. For most of that time anything we knew about Egypt came from outside sources, and the Bible and the Greeks were those sources. So if the author of the Quran was to write anything about Egypt it would have to have been copied from either of these two. And according to both, the ruler of ancient Egypt was known as a pharaoh. If it was copied from the Bible (or the Greeks for that matter) then both of the rulers would have to have been called pharaoh in the Quran. While we see that pharaoh is used for the story of Moses it is not used for the story of Joseph. By not copying what was, at the time, an established fact, the author of the Quran would have committed a major blunder. Now here's the kicker. It wasn't until the discovery of the Rosetta Stone and the advent of Egyptology that we were able to once again decipher hieroglyphics. We found out tons of information that was once lost to time, and among them was what the ancient Egyptians called their rulers. The term pharaoh for the ruler was not used for the ruler during the Middle Kingdom. During that time and earlier pharaoh meant great house and was used only in reference to the ruler's palace. What did they call their ruler? A king. It wasn't until the New Kingdom the Egyptians started calling their rulers pharaoh. Nobody knew this. The fact that the Quran got this right is absolutely astonishing. Not only does this demonstrate that the Quran did not not copy from the Bible, it also demonstrates the Quran correcting an error in the Bible. And it shows that the author of the Quran had to have knowledge of the unseen as this information was lost at the time the Quran was revealed. It did not come into light again until maybe the 18th or 19th century. Indeed, Allah does know best. And the Quran is the book in which there is no doubt. "This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah" Quran (2:2). The idea that the Quran copies from apocryphal works is honestly laughable. An literate man with no access to these works, nor the ability to understand them? My comment is plenty long as it is but I'll leave this video for anyone who's actually interested in hearing those ridiculous claim debunked: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iauopZZuq6p7raM His mentioning of Surah 65:4 just further demonstrates his ignorance on this subject. There is nothing in this verse that indicates that it is referring to prepubescent girls. On the contrary, the verse in Arabic explicitly states women. The misunderstanding here comes from the lack of understanding of the Arabic language. The verse explicitly states النساء (women) and not فتيات (girls). You could argue that perhaps the word النساء is a general term for females. No, النساء is specifically women and females is إناث. So in order for this verse to be applicable womanhood must be attained. There is nowhere in the Quran that says you're allowed to actually hit women. He's clearly referring to the verse in Surah an Nisa. The verse does not mean what he's claiming it does. This dude really should not speak on subjects he is ignorant on. "The morality that comes from Islam violates everything I know about ethics" You mean the modern liberal ethics that we're spoon-fed? There's a reason why this line of ethical argumentation was not used against Muslims by Christians until the last 1 or 2 hundred years. The Christian world didn't have much issue with Islam ethics until they abandoned their religious views and became influenced by modern liberal secularism. He is right though, we're vehemently opposed to wokeism. I would advise you to read the Quran from cover to cover. See if you do not realize that it is indeed revelation from your lord and a guidance to all of mankind. Learning about Islam from a Christian is like learning about Christianity from an atheist. It's absolutely ridiculous. Read our scripture for yourself in its entirely, and if there are any questions speak with a knowledgeable Muslim. Don't follow these wolves who present ignorance as if it's the truth. Peace.

[@vaderkurt7848]

Hello muslim friend. Most of this wrong. (As in regards to our faith) Strangely enough Basilides is a gnostic hrtic that were making these claims way after the event and gnosticism contradicts islam and their reasoning behind rejecting the crucifixion is different as well. The early Christians found that claim to be absurd considering in that account Jesus assumed the form of simon and started laughing, that is completely different from how it happens in the islamic denial of Jesus's crucifixion, but then again while islam borrows some elements from gnosticism, gnosticism as a whole still contradicts islam. " Old Testament the ruler during both of these eras is called pharaoh" Michael already responded to this. Pharaoh is mostly used more generally and I wouldn't go as far to say the quran is historically accurate since it does claim a pharaoh did die in the red sea. Islam does have legit continuity issues the things we are meant to do before the crucifixion had taken place to inherit the kingdom of heaven seems to be completely abandoned in islam and what was considered to be prohibited by Jesus was not ok is now okay again? "It's matches up with the popular narrative. " It is not the popular narrative it is in fact the least popular or even fringe in the same way that people believe Christ is a myth is fringe. "who's actually interested in hearing those ridiculous claim debunked: " Then why did it copy gnostic works of Jesus healing a bird despite no such thing had taken place? "The Christian world didn't have much issue with Islam ethics" This genuinely depends on which aspect because the christians of the past often studied natural law and moral law because Christians of the past did have moral problems with islam. As for the no hitting part are you sure about this? Because the sharia does permit to hit your wife if there is repeated rebelliousness as long as you do not injure her. with her without words, and may hit her, but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not (A: bruise her,) break bones, wound her, or cause blood to flow. (O: It is unlawful to strike another's face). He may hit her wether she is rebellious only once or whether more than once, though a weaker opinion holds that he may not hit her unless there is repeated rebelliousness."-m10.11 "See if you do not realize that it is indeed revelation from your lord and a guidance to all of mankind. " I read it and I am also not really compelled by it since it is a book that came way after the 7th century seem to start to clash what we know of Christ from both scripture (which even the quran says was right.) and historically. Islam is not as simple especially since the mere existence of the catholic church puts Islam in a weird spot and questioning why does Islam even exist when christ promised the gates of hell will not prevail? With that said we as catholics do give credit where credit is due, you do worship God, but misunderstand him and you are against secularism which at the moment is a way bigger threat.

[@andresferrer9890]

So simple huh ? 😂

[@sub7se7en]

@@andresferrer9890 Indeed. Alhamdulillah for the simplicity of Islam. "Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him." Quran (112:1-4)

[@fas1840]

It doesn’t make sense to take the word of a book that came 600 years after an event it allegedly describes and ignore all the early sources. Also about 65.4, Mo Hijab seems to agree with Michael

[@sub7se7en]

@@fas1840 It does make sense when it's revelation from God. The Quran isn't a history book. It's the verbatim word of God. God's word is greater than what Humans think is history. And all early sources don't agree. Like I mentioned in my previous reply, there were Christians who did not believe Jesus was crucified during the 1st century. The Church is responsible for annihilating many of these groups later on. I wouldn't be surprised to hear they burned their texts too. I don't know who said what in regards to Quran 65:4, but the first thing you need to understand is the context. The key contextual word is nisa (النساء) meaning woman. ن س و is a the root word for what? Woman and the derivations of woman. Every single word that uses that root falls under this rule. I already showed what the actual word for girl is and it's not النساء or any of its declensions. If you really wish to understand what the Quran is actually saying, sit down with a Quranic scholar. That's assuming if you want to study it in depth. If you don't want to study it in depth, that's fine, but you shouldn't take your knowledge of Islam from Christians. Like I said in the other comment, learning about Islam from Christians is like learning about Christianity from atheists. It's nonsensical. I hope this clears up the matter. Look at what actual scholars say on the matter rather than whoever you were talking about. Peace.

[@alonzoharris9049]

The trinity is three gods.

[@GuitarBloodlines]

no, no it isn't

[@kyrptonite1825]

@@sefad1157 “For I am, and I know, and I will: I am a knowing and a willing being, and I know that I am and that I will, and I will to be and to know. Therefore, in these three, let him who can do so perceive how inseparable a life there is, one life and one mind and one essence, and finally how inseparable a distinction there is, and yet there is a distinction. Surely a man stands face to face with himself. Let him take heed of himself, and look there, and tell me. But when he has discovered any of these and is ready to speak, let him not think that he has found that immutable being which is above all these, which is immutably, and knows immutably, and wills immutably.” The distinct realities inside of me, are not Full Persons, whereas the Three in God are Persons, but God is One in Essence and Will, etc. To better understand the Trinity, I’d check out Catholic Answers: www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/explaining-the-trinity

[@kyrptonite1825]

@@sefad1157 There I edited to explain it better. The three Personages in the Inner Life of God (Each Person is Fully God, not a part of God)? How can I be one, yet have three realities inside of me? I know, I will, and I Am. The difference is in God the Three Relational Distinct Realities are entire Persons. God is One in Essence, and Will, but Three Persons. You may be a being that is one person, and in Essence, but imagine a Being that is One in Essence but Three Persons. One God, Three Persons, is what we believe. It’s kind of hard to grasp, but obviously it doesn’t mean 1=3, and it isn’t a logical contradiction. I used the three rallies, being, knowing, and willing, inside of humans, to show that someone can have multiple realities in them; but still be one in essence, in God though, the Relational realities are entire Persons. t might be impossible with us, but not with God. And you also have to remember like a 2D being trying to understand a 3D being, you cannot fully understand God, you are a finite being, God is Infinite. This is considered the ultimate revelation, but it’s hard to understand, because God is Infinite. And you don’t need to understand it completely, but it also shows in the Inner Life of God there is Infinite Love.

[@kyrptonite1825]

@@sefad1157 good question, I personally think, Because each person is a reality inside of God. Is the knowing you, not fully you? Except remember each of the realities inside of God, unlike us, are Personages. If that makes sense, I didn’t explain it perfectly with the knowing, but hopefully it makes sense.

[@kyrptonite1825]

@Sefa D Personage and person basically means the same thing I’m pretty sure lol

[@termination9353]

@repton007 what's up?

[@nanoneuro]

Also come on man, have some real down to Earth Christians on ur show once in a while. Maybe spare us the effeminate celebrities.

[@nanoneuro]

Incredibly weak thoughts on Islam. Has it occurred to to u to work towards common ground?

[@siervodedios5952]

Christians and Muslims can't work towards common ground or goals as the two faiths are too different for that to work. Islam is a heretical false religion, light and darkness are not to intertwine like oil and water aren't.

[@Sobieskicharge]

Clear your throat

[@adamelmixrp7544]

Christianity is fake