Muslims VS Christians /w Brother Maverick and Brett Keane

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(01:39):
Music. What's going on?

(02:41):
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the Cross Unit and
today's special edition of Dawa Dissection.
Man, we are going to have a great 1 today.
There have been for the last hour or so.
I have been battling behind the scenes.
Ladies and gentlemen, it seems like for whatever reason, the
enemy definitely doesn't want this dream to happen.

(03:02):
Today we had caught pretty much a disaster.
All my links cross unit that live forward slash prey, cross
unit that live forward slash call, cross unit that live
forward slash discord. None of them seem to be working.
I looked, I checked a couple of websites, it looks like the DNS
cache protocol behind all of them is not working.

(03:24):
I don't know why it was working last stream and when I was going
to do the test, all of my machines except for one obscure
browser that really people don'tuse was able to get through
right. So I had to put like the random
raw link in there and just pray that people are able to at least
click it or copy and paste it like kind of back in the day.
Sorry about that guys. I don't know what's going on

(03:45):
with it. I don't know why it's acting
silly. I'm going to be working on that
today after the stream and and pray to God that maybe it's
just, you know, it's down. I I don't know what the issue is
at this point. There's nothing I can't I can do
a graph that apologetics. We're waiting for him to call
into the show. Oh, he's here.
Grafted is here, thank God. All right.
So I'm glad they were both able to find welcome, Grafted and

(04:07):
welcome Prophet Daniel. Actually two of the coolest guys
I've ever met. Prophet Daniel, you guys are on
the opposite side. So it's going to be interesting
to see this conversation today because I will be acting or so
long as Grafted is here in a more of a moderation stance.
So I'm excited for that. Welcome both to you gentlemen.
How are you doing today? Hi.
Hi. Good evening.

(04:30):
Just that you can only hear me. I'm doing well.
And greetings as well the prophet Daniel.
I hope you are doing well. Prophet Daniel, are you there?
Can you hear us? Yeah, Yeah.
OK, excellent. Yeah, we can.
Hear you. All right, cool.
All right, guys. So let's start off with today's
verse and then from there we're going to move on.
I'm going to give you guys a little bit about what's going on

(04:51):
because Grafted doesn't have toomuch time.
First of all, I want to thank both of them for being here,
especially to Grafted because itis very much later where he is.
He's from South Africa, so whether it be 2:00 for me, it's
like 9:00 for him. I think they're even more ahead
than the United Kingdom. So we're going to get this going
from the Book of Psalms chapter 84 verses 11 and 12.
For the Lord God is a son and shield.

(05:11):
The Lord bestows favor and honor.
No good thing does he withhold from those who walk is whose
walk is blameless. Lord Almighty, blessed is the
one who trusts in you. Again, that's from the book of
Psalms, ladies and gentlemen, chapter 84, verses 11 and 12.
Now the thoughts on today's verse was these promises are
made to the true worshipper of God.

(05:33):
Psalm 8410. The worshipper delights to be in
the presence of God and yearns to be with God in worship.
The worshipper trusts fully in God as the source of strength,
hope, victory, and joy. For this kind of worshipper, God
has left an incredible set of promises very similar to Romans
832 through 39 and its hallmark passage in Romans 28.

(05:55):
God promises to work out things for good and bless those who
love Him and are called according to His purpose.
Paul goes on to say that God will graciously give us all
things in Christ. Romans 832.
Notice how this is very similar to our Psalm today.
No good thing does He withhold from those who walk whose walk
is blameless. Why these lavish promises?

(06:18):
Because God is for us. He is our Son and shield.
He lavishes His grace and His glory upon us.
He will not withhold any good thing from us as we seek to have
a walk that is blameless. Here's the prayer guys, and
we're going to get directly the business.
All right. Oh, dear Father, how can I thank
you? You have.
You have lavished your grace upon me in Jesus.
You have promised me victory andheaven.

(06:39):
I praise you for your grace. I thank you for sharing your
glory with me. I rejoice knowing that you long
to bless me now. Dear Father, help me through
your Holy Spirit to be faith, tobe the faithful person you long
for me to be. Make my life a holy praise unto
you in Jesus name I pray Amen, Amen and Amen.
Thank you guys so much for joining me through the prayer

(07:01):
and through today. Now GOD TV radio is here.
That's that's actually good to see ladies and gentlemen, this
is how today is going to go today the verse is obviously
clear. Sarat 1094 affirms the Bible
prove me wrong now, although that is the title of my stream
grafted apologetics asked me very graciously if he could
start dipping his toes in the water, so to speak into kind of

(07:22):
these conversations that usuallyturn into debates.
You call them whatever you want.Ladies and gentlemen.
I just call it a search for truth and the reason being is
because no matter what we owe itto each other to be
intellectually honest. We owe it to each other to be
spiritually honest. And you know, for many of us, we
have seen where that trip has LED us where there'd be
atheists, whether it be, you know, Muslims and and and people

(07:46):
turn into Christianity from all places.
And then, you know, there's a lot of Muslims who will say the
opposite. So you know what prophet Daniel,
you go ahead, give you know, give us a little bit about
yourself. You know a minute what you
believe. You know what your background is
and you know, don't dox yourself, obviously, but just
tell us who you are. And then right after that graph
that you introduce yourself. Everybody knows God, TV, radio

(08:07):
on myself, but I am very, I'm very much looking.
I've been looking forward to this all week.
So go ahead, Prophet Daniel. Introduce yourself, brother.
Hey, thank you very much, Maverick.
I'm audible just to check. Yes, very much.
So OK all right, OK, so all good.
Thank you so much for letting mein.
And I recently became friends with GOD TV radio Brad.

(08:28):
And you know, we had a conversation backstage to, to
join your stream and you've beengracious to us in and I did have
a conversation with you like a couple of couple of weeks ago
or, or maybe a month at most. And I've been looking forward to
communication from you. And yeah, I myself, I'm a broad
Muslim. I have been researching the

(08:51):
Quran for the past 20 years, like active research books on
the Quran that go on to become the commentary on three
different subject areas. One is creation of the cosmos,
the other is the origins of lifeand the third is the Sharia.
What's, what's Sharia is basically from the Quran.

(09:12):
And I've also translated the Quran in modern English and it's
ongoing work, which I'm quite busy on, you know, these days
and it has been have been in therecent years.
And I'm actually relaunching myself into the YouTube world.
I did this like 3 years ago whenI wanted to just jump in and

(09:36):
have a go at the atheists. And I had a debate on direct
make vision channel on Quran andscience.
But after that, I thought it wasa hard, it was hard work to keep
up the YouTube channel. So I, I kind of, I kind of went
back to what I was doing becausethe things that I was doing at
my end were really important andrequired me to be dedicated.

(10:00):
Right now I'm back and I see YouTube boiling with a lot of a
lot of content and a lot of claims and a lot of accusations
on the Koran and which I see thetraditional Muslims are failing
to keep up because the traditional Muslims rely on
traditions ever more than they rely on the Quran.

(10:21):
Yeah. So I, I kind of see that where
they're coming from and how theyfail at substantiating, you
know, a proper defence of the Quran.
So I thought now there's no going back from here.
So I'm trying my best to, to, to, to, to have my presence on
the Internet. My channel is Prophet Daniel has

(10:43):
spoken and I've got a lot of content there, but very few
subscribers. So I would appreciate you
giving, giving out a shout out for your viewers if whoever is
interested to, to follow me. So thanks.
We sure will. Yeah, we will do all the
introductions and show the channels after the introductions
are done. Grafted apologetics.
If you would give us a brief intro as to who you are and what

(11:05):
you believe. Sir, please.
I'll say good evening just because it is evening on my side
or night time. So good evening everyone.
Just to give a brief introduction to myself, I would
call myself a surface level apologist.
I'm I'm wouldn't not classify myself as a polemicist at all.
I guess just for your information, Daniel, the the

(11:29):
main can you just. Update up your voice please.
I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry.
I disturb you can up your voice.Is that is that better?
Yeah, I can. I can.
I can hear you fine now. I guess it's maybe something
going on his on his end. Yeah.
OK, gotcha. OK.
Then can you just? Be your voice.

(11:52):
Yeah, I can hear you. Yeah, you're good.
OK. Yeah.
So. Yeah, I, I, I got into
apologetics because I actually had a very close Muslim friend
effectively not attack my religion, so to speak.
But he shook my world when when I found out about the the
Islamic narrative that the Biblewas corrupted.
And so I myself have also come from a place of doing much

(12:15):
research, looking into every kind of claim made about the
Scriptures as well. And so I've largely been an
apologist, not a polemicist. But as Pragmatic has explained,
I'm kind of dipping my toes intothis because I do feel that the
Islamic dilemma, at least in thesense of the claims that he

(12:36):
makes about the Bible, is something quite close to home
for me. But ultimately, all I do really,
for those watching is apologetics.
All I'm really interested in is edifying the church, edifying
the believers, and having conversations in interfaith
settings that will, you know, plant seeds, seeds in the hearts
of those who hear. My ultimate goal is that
whatever conversations happen, happen for the glory of God,

(12:56):
minds and hearts are open to receive the gospel.
This is not so much for me aboutforcing me kind of you and
anyone, but it's really just having this on this dialogue.
And I'm sure that's exactly whatBrethematic wants to facilitate.
Amen. Yeah.
Amen. Amen.
Yes. Thank you, gentlemen.
God save your radio. Did you want to say anything
before we start or oh wait, it would probably help if out.

(13:19):
I'm sorry guys, anybody will be able to join, but after the main
conference, go ahead. Go ahead.
Brett, you were you were muted on my side.
I don't know why. Are you able?
To hear me now, Yeah, We can hear you.
Yep. I was saying that I'm happy to
see you. I hope you and the family's been
doing well. Also happy to see you as well,
Prophet Daniel. And nice to meet you, Mr.
Apologetics. Hopefully you'll be able to

(13:39):
clear up your mic so I can hear you a little bit better.
Though on my end, it's rough. It might be fine for brother
Maverick, though. Yeah.
Yeah, I can hear him. I can hear.
I mean, I can hear him clearly, but I don't know, maybe it's I.
Don't know. That could be 80s medal ruined
my hearing, I don't know, but I hope you all are doing well.
And. And I guess let's rock'n'roll.

(14:02):
All right, ladies and gentlemen,well, today is going to be
exactly what you see. So Rotten 94 affirms the Bible.
And before we start, I do want to say a huge appreciation to
Prophet Daniel. Let's go ahead and let's look at
Prophet Daniel's channel. We're going to feature and we
are going to talk about both channels here because I do have

(14:23):
apologize guys. I was going through lots of
technical difficulties where allmy domains just decided that
they weren't going to work anymore right at the last
second. None of my custom URLs are
working. So it really does suck when
stuff like that happens at the last second.
But you know, it is what it is. The show must go on and we have
to adjust fire, as we say in theArmy and continue moving.

(14:46):
So that's Prophet Daniel and grafted apologetics.
All right, here we are. So ladies and gentlemen, here
are both channels. This is grafted apologetics.
Go ahead and give them a sub. Please check them out on
YouTube. It's a great channel, very young
channel. Both channels are very young as
well as Prophet Daniel has spoken.

(15:07):
Again, very young channels. Ladies and gentlemen, here's the
thing, I do not, I will never tell anyone not to sub to
someone's channel, even if they don't believe what I believe in.
Why, brother Maverick, why do you tell people to go ahead and
sub to people's channels if theydon't believe in Jesus Christ as
the Messiah? Because at the end of the day,
there's nothing for me, in my view, that's going to change the

(15:27):
truth about Jesus Christ. Whoever you sub to, if you're
doing so in the spirit of finding the truth and you truly
do have a relationship with Christ, no amount of subbing to
anybody else's channel is going to change that.
So that's the way I look at it. Sub to both of them, ladies and
gentlemen. They are great guys.
Now we're going to do like this guys. 5 minute opening

(15:47):
statements again. And the reason I'm saying that
is because that debate between Daniel E Kakuchu and and and
David Wood the other day, I think they had like 20 minute
opening statements. I felt like my eyes were
bleeding by the eyes. Like that is way too much.
So yeah, at the end of the day, we are going to do 5 minute
opening statements. Does anyone have a preference on

(16:09):
who's going first? I'm happy for Daniel to go
first, OK? Yeah.
Oh, thank you. All right.
I myself have no issue. You guys do things the way you
do, all right? So the rules for here are going
to be simple. Prophet, Daniel and grafted.
Whatever you guys say has to be in relation to Surat 1094.

(16:33):
Whatever you say, I want you guys to be able to provide
evidence for right. I don't want statements like,
oh, well, we know that, you know, Surat 1094 is Jen is, is
affirming the Bible, but generally not specifically, not
completely stuff like that. We want facts because like you
said, Prophet Daniel was something that was very

(16:55):
important. A guy who holds your name, you
know, one of your counterparts in the Muslim world, he did
through your own admission, he did a horrible job during his
debate. I mean, beyond a horrible job
And, and even Muslims it's, it's, it's caused what the
Christian world is calling a lotof Dawa infighting, right?
And, and people are in the Muslim world are fighting so

(17:18):
much over how to solve this Islamic dilemma that I want very
little repeat of what happened between him and David Wood.
So whatever you guys say, be ready to defend.
If not, I'm definitely going to hammer you both hard on cross
examination. So be ready for that.
I will write down if you guys say something or try to sneak
past, I will hold you guys to it.
And I'm going to be I am a Christian, ladies and gentlemen,

(17:39):
but I right now I am acting in in the role as a moderator and I
am not favoring one side. I am favoring.
I want straight facts, I want professionalism and I want you
guys to be say what you're saying, but be able to prove
what you're saying through some sort of scholarship, patristic
sources. I don't care what it is, but
just because I said so, I believe so I don't I don't want

(17:59):
to play that. Does that sound fair to both of
you? Yeah, yeah, sure.
All right, Prophet Daniel has spoken.
I am going to bring up the timer.
We said 5 minute opening statements.
Hang on. It would help if I.
It would help if I start. OK, your time starts now.
Go ahead, brother. Yeah, OK.

(18:23):
What I see is the Quran is mostly taken out of context and
this particular verse is also taken out of context.
And the context for this particular verse and why it was
given basically comes way above.If you go to verse 56 for
example, in the same Surah, that's where I find the previous

(18:45):
context ending. The verse 56 says it is he who
gives life and gives death and to him you all shall be brought
back. That's the end of the context
and the new context begins in verse 57.

(19:05):
So verse 57 is where God is saying, oh mankind, there has
come to you a counsel from Almighty God, from your Lord as
as healing and as as guidance and mercy for the believers.
So that's where the context is pitched about the the Quran

(19:26):
itself as being healing and guidance and mercy.
OK. And when we in verse 58, it goes
on to affirm this, it says it's the favor of God and his mercy
and the believers. I mean, people shouldn't
generally be happy about this reception of divine guidance or

(19:53):
divine communication. And it's better than all the
other stuff, the worldly stuff that you can potentially amass.
So the premise is being set for the Quran in verses 5758, which
mostly I've seen nobody highlight this.
In who are going, who are going on providing A defence to

(20:16):
Islamic dilemma that they don't emphasize the context behind the
Quranic quotations. Not just this, each and every
one of them. I happened to watch the debate
as well and I saw nobody delved into the context of the Quranic
verses. And then you have in verse #65
it's again being restated and reemphasized.

(20:38):
So if you go to 65, God is saying to Prophet Muhammad let
their accusations on you or off you not grieve you.
So when Prophet Muhammad is presenting the Quran to people
in Makkah, what they are doing is basically giving out

(20:59):
objections. This Surah is early Medina Surah
as well. So it's it's like a transitory
period, late Makkah and early Medina Surah.
So when the Quran is being recited to people, people have
accusations to make to Prophet Muhammad that he's inventing
these things, fabricating these things out of his own volition
and then attributing it to God. So God in 65 goes on to say

(21:23):
don't grieve because what they accuse you of all the honor
belongs to God and God is hearing on all knowing and then
he goes on to provide what I sayis two of the stories of the
past when messengers who came from Almighty God were also

(21:46):
rejected. Like one of the stories is of
Noah who was rejected by his people and the other story is of
Moses when he was rejected by the Pharaoh and his people.
So after these two stories comesthe worst, which is being taken
out of this context, and the worst is 94.
So in 94, we get to see if you are in doubt, OK, regarding

(22:17):
this, regarding the divine communication that I'm making to
you, ask those who read the bookbefore you, OK?
They will confirm to you. God says they will confirm to
you that divine God has been making divine communications in
the past. So it's not out of the ordinary
happening to you. It's not, It's not, it it, You

(22:40):
don't have to doubt about this communication that you're
receiving to be your hallucinations or from a
different source and what and what not as they accuse you that
you're listening to other peopleand then making these things up
for yourself. Nothing of that is at play.
But what is at play is this divine communication that I'm
sending to you, which you can bythe way, confirm.

(23:02):
If you had a word with the people of the book, they will
confirm to you that God has madedivine communications to people
in the past. And then God says, therefore the
truth has come to you from your Lord.
Do not be in doubt. And we have the confirmation of
this exactly this exact words inverses, for example, say 21,

(23:27):
seven. But God goes on to say again,
your Muhammad, your time is up. Previously.
I have communicated to people, people so there.
Are also. People are messages people.
Daniel, I'll give you, I'll giveyou 15 more seconds.
Yeah, So there is also another Ali in the Quran in chapter 40,
chapter 16, verse 46, which alsogoes on to emphasize to Prophet

(23:50):
Muhammad. Don't doubt the communication
and I've done this previously tohuman messengers and there's
nothing out of the ordinary happening to you.
So this is what the context is. It's not about confirmation of
biblical stories all. Right.
Thank you, Prophet Daniel, for your opening statement.
I appreciate that. Having said that, let's move on

(24:11):
to grafted apologetics. Your opening statement on
Serrata 94 and its affirmation of the Bible or not Go ahead.
Thank you so much. Appreciate the time.
And again, thank you so much to the Prophet Daniel for doing
this in my conversations with the Maverick, right?
The the kind of framing that I spoke to him about was that for

(24:34):
me, it was effectively just to look at the approach that people
take with Islamic dilemma is concerned.
My opening statement is not really going to deal with
necessarily debunking, reacting to anything.
I'm clearly making an approach statement here in my opening
statement. And ultimately the way I see
Muslims handling this is that when we speak on the dilemma,
the Islamic dilemma, it's often framed as an internal critique.

(24:56):
The interesting thing to me so far is that it seems that, and
I'm not going to make any kind of assumptions or judgments, but
that you are taking this from effectively A Quranist only
perspective. We can get into that later, but
for the most part, soon as they're going to try and force
the Christian into an internal framework or some kind of
internal critique, right? Which is basically to say that,

(25:17):
well, if you're going to critique the the Islamic
narrative, you have to do it from inside of our framework.
You have to take out our interpretations.
And for the most part with this opening statement, I'm going to
say that to a degree this is an internal critique, but also to a
degree, this is not an internal critique.
The reason for this is that the Quran, the Quran in its subject

(25:38):
matter, in what it speaks about,points to an external reality.
So it's not fallacious for one such as myself to say, yes,
there's an aspect of this that'sinternal, but there's an aspect
of this that I have to go and measure the claims of the Quran
from outside the Quran. And this is the thing, if the
Quran is making claims about subject matter, people, stories

(25:59):
that have to have some kind of external verification, in other
words, the people of the book, then we have to actually judge
the Quran by external literature.
And so the, the issue that I bring up here is, of course,
that how many Muslims say that the Quran is not doing an
absolute confirmation of scripture, but only a general

(26:21):
confirmation of scripture? What I'd like to investigate
then and get onto a neutral framework of is what does that
mean? If the Quran is saying not all
of scripture is true, which aspects of scripture is not
true? If not all aspects of scripture
can be trusted, what is it that constitutes corruption?
Is it? And I mean, I know that the
Quran speaks about tarif, right?We have mentions of interpretive

(26:44):
or revisionist corruption that the people of the book.
Then what they do is they give new interpretations.
This doesn't have an effect on textually what's happening, but
they also then depending on how I guess the the interpretations
of the Quran take place by Muslims, some things will also
constitute textual corruption. The reason that this is going to

(27:07):
be relevant to Surat in 94 is because Surat in 94 is a direct
command to the Prophet to speak to the people of the Book using
these scriptures to confirm stories presented to him or
stories presented through him tothe people.
You will find in tafsir or executed with scholarly

(27:28):
interpretations that some peoplesay this is directly aimed at
Muhammad. In other words, it's not simply
just communication for his own comfort, but it is that Allah is
testing the veracity of his own stories to Muhammad.
And what this is going to mean is story about Moses and as you
said brother Daniel. It's also going to be stories
about other prophetic figures that we find in early Judaism

(27:50):
scriptures. Noah.
I would also even like to make the case and note that although
Sudafin is a middle to make making period Suda which you are
100% predicting, there are otherSudas that unanimously or
against the major consensus seals such As for example Suda 7
Suda Lewin that speaks about earlier prophetic figures like

(28:10):
Abraham, Adam, Lot and so forth.And so it's not just these
stories about Moses and nowhere that have to be taken into or or
measured right to valid valid give validity to Mahmoud's words
and to to his prophethood. But it is also the people of the
book that have to expand on and explore and judge the stories of

(28:33):
Kaya prophets. And so if the scriptures are
corrupt indeed, as the Islamic dilemma dictates, and if Allah
is giving a valid command as Sudha T-94 dictates, how can
they do this if they've got corrupted scriptures?
My fear is that the scriptures are not corrupted.
You have to grant the Torah. And if you're granting the
Torah, then we still have an Islamic dilemma because the

(28:55):
Quran contradicts stories on theperfect figures in the Torah.
I will consider the rest of my time.
All right. Thank you so much, brother
Grafted for the opening statement.
Very well thought out on both sides, gentlemen.
So here's what we're going to do.
I'm going to give you guys both half the chance now for counter
rebuttals. Prophet Daniel, I would assume

(29:18):
that there are things in there that you want to rebuttal.
Am I correct? Actually, the debate is now
spilling out to other parts of the Quran.
But we're going to stay on set 94, correct?
So yeah, I mean, if you want to address that and only that,
that's fine. I have no problem with that.

(29:38):
OK. All right.
So yeah, do you want me to go? Ahead.
Yeah, I will start your time. Give me a second because I'm
printing out the questions for you guys for both sides.
When for the cross exam? Yeah, go ahead.
So yeah, I mean, I've noticed this in my recent interactions
with other Christian preachers and who who are bringing this

(29:59):
objection to the table that theykind of assume, assume here at
this point in time that the Quran is somehow asking Prophet
Muhammad to go and validate its intubation from from the earlier
books and have a sort of comparative validation of its
stories, which is not the case. And I've been, I try my best to

(30:23):
tell them that this is not the case because the Quran never,
never, ever asks Prophet Muhammad to go and validates its
validate its stories. With the Bible, for example.
It never does that. What it does here is in fact, it
gives him assurance that the divine communication that he's
receiving is from Almighty God and not, not anything else like

(30:47):
people would say, oh, he's getting that from a devil or
from his friends or he's just hallucinating.
He's struck with magic and what and what not.
All of these accusations came tohim from a range of different
people in Mecca and Medina, for example.
So the Quran, whenever prophet as a human being, you can, you
can, you can sort of understand what would go on into a human

(31:14):
being when he's being given so many allegations, right.
So as a human being, sometimes when you're not, when the spirit
is not there with you, you kind of doubt to what is happening to
you. So that's when God says do not
doubt. I have done this previously.
Previously I've spoken to human messengers, given them good mind

(31:35):
communication. Nothing out of the ordinary is
happening to you if you if you are in doubt, just go and talk
to people of the book. They will tell you yes indeed
God send messengers before you may have had a streak of
prophets with us who received divine communication from
Almighty God. So this is the subject matter of
1094 and it is not validating stories from within the Bible.

(31:59):
So the premise that people bringto the table pitched on this
particular verse that the Quran should validate stories from the
Bible, and yet it says the Biblehas been changed.
This premise basically falls apart because because the Quran
is not asking to validate its information from the Bible, it's
only telling Prophet Muhammad, but nothing out of the ordinary

(32:21):
is taking place with you. I have done this in the past and
it's happening now with you. If you are in doubt, just have a
word with people of the book. They will confirm to you that
God indeed has communicated to people who are human beings and
given them divine communication.So this is going to be my part
of my reputation. All right, go ahead.
Graft the counter, remodel any points that you want to make and

(32:42):
then we're going to move into cross.
Sure. I want to just make a really
quick point. So just in what you've seen in
the opening statement, right, that this is the kind of
communication that's taking place between Allah and Muhammad
is that it's not Muhammad being asked to verify stories, but
he's being asked to verify a specific type of communication
that would line up with what early prophets such as Noah or

(33:05):
Moses had. And so if you are saying that
this is what Allah is asking himto do to, to, to clarify his
doubt by checking that he went through the same kind of
rejection as other prophets, then again, this is where I, I,
I bring up. I don't know if your position is
that you are Quran only or if you do actually follow other,
you know, Islamic literature, but the majority of scholars are

(33:31):
all saying, no, Mahmoud's not doubting.
He's not doubting. Some of them even say this is
directed to other people, the other people of the follow the
followers of Muhammad and that even they should still then go
to the people of the book, checkthese things, check and verify
the stories in the scripture. So if this is something that is
exclusive to Muhammad, why do you have, you know, Tarsi

(33:53):
exegete saying the opposite? And also, again, coming back to
the topic of this debate, Suratin 94 affirms the Bible.
If Muhammad is just being asked to match his experience as a
prophet with other prophets, it still validates the Bible.
It still validates the narrativeof the Jews and Christians as
per the order what their prophets went through.

(34:15):
So the way you're explaining this, this, this doesn't act as
a reductio. It doesn't serve as a negation
of the validity, the preservation of the Christian
scriptures as per your answer tothe 294.
But again, let's come back to it.
What does that mean? If if this if this command to
verify the stories themselves goes beyond Muhammad as per
Islamic exegetes, and I'm talking about Jalali, I'm

(34:37):
talking about Ibn Abbas. How do they who are not going
through the same experience, verify that message by the
people of the book? They would say have to grant the
theories of the Bible as presented by Jews and
Christians. Thank you.
All right. Thank you so much, gentlemen.
I really do appreciate the clarity and the articulation

(34:58):
from both of you. Now we are going to move on to
the and I'm I'm, I'm not trying to rush in any way guys, but I
do know that brother Grafted hasa limited amount of time because
I, like I told you guys earlier,it is late by where he is.
So we're going to respect that. I'm not going to necessarily end
the moment that he gets off, butI want the bulk of this stream

(35:22):
to be surrounding this conversation.
So I did print out five questions and these are only in
regards to 1094. Gentlemen, if here at the end of
the day concerning the Islamic dilemma, I know that staying on
1094 in and of itself may be impossible, right?
Because you may have to go to other parts of the Quran.

(35:44):
You may have to go to and that'sfine.
I have no problem with that. So long as the core of your
messaging stays on 1094, that's fine.
And the reason I'm doing it thisway is because usually we will
talk about the Islamic dilemma and we never get past Surah 547,
right? I'm sick of talking about Surah
547. I wanted to go to one of the

(36:04):
other verses That is one of the core tenants of the Islamic
dilemma. So I do have a list of five
questions. If we do have time for more, I
will do more. Also, ladies and gentlemen, if
there are any super chats and there are questions, let title
them to who it is that you want to title them for.
If it's for grafted, say it is for grafted.
If it is for Daniel, say it is for Daniel.
All super chat questions will beread so long as they are as they

(36:27):
are. Respectful.
Ladies and gentlemen, don't super chat.
I don't care how much money you donate.
If you super chat and you say something stupid, I'm not going
to read it. I'm sorry.
OK. So be respectful because I've
seen some really stupid questions and I've seen
Christians doing it too. We are not going to sit here and
pretend like Christians are perfect because I have seen
Christians say some out of pocket stupidity that you have
no business saying about Muslimsor anyone else for that matter.

(36:48):
Do not super chat if you're going to say something dumb.
Telling you right now this question number one, are you
both comfortable with 2-3 minuteanswers for these questions?
Sure. All right, if you need more,
we'll we'll go case by case basics.
OK, so let me hold on. Let me blank the clock here.

(37:09):
Question number one, in Sarat 1094, the Quran tells Muhammad
if you are in quote. If you are in doubt, ask those
who have been reading the book before you.
End Quote. This question is for brother
Daniel. Who are those who have been
reading the book and what book is being referred to?

(37:31):
So it's it's pretty simple. People of the book who read the
book is in reference to the Abrahamic faiths.
So in among Abrahamic faiths, God had sent plenty of books
beginning with Abraham himself, whose accounts are found in the
book of Genesis. And then you have Jacob, you

(37:55):
have Joseph also in Genesis. And then from Moses it begins
and the books are Exodus and Deuteronomy.
In Exodus you have the first statement of the the the 10
commandments or the commandmentsthat God gave to Moses on the
Mount Sinai. And then you have it restated in

(38:16):
Deuteronomy. I'm I'm sure Exodus and
Deuteronomy also include other stories about that time period
about the event of Exodus itselfand their and the stories of
their wilderness. But the Torah is in between it.
Like the Torah is within the Exodus account, some chapters in

(38:39):
Exodus and also some chapters inDeuteronomy.
Not the whole of Deuteronomy or the whole of Exodus makes up the
Torah. And then you also have the
prophets beginning with obviously Samuel and King David
himself who was a prophet in theQuran.
And you have Solomon. And then you have the prophets

(38:59):
of Israel with Elijah. Elijah and lots of other
prophets such as Odate and goingall the way to Isaiah, Jeremiah.
And then you have John the Baptist and Jesus in 1st
century. Obviously those accounts are
documented in the gospels. So these are the books that God
makes a reference to. OK, brother.

(39:21):
Daniel, thank you for your response.
Before I move on to brother grafted, remember earlier when I
asked you and I told you when I asked for whether it be cross
examinations, rebuttals, openingstatements, I want you to be
prepared to be able to show how you know these things are true.
So you did say a lot about what books it is that so route 1094

(39:41):
was referring to. Can you show me though anywhere
in the Quran or can you show me any sort of evidence Quran wise
in in the Quran because you do believe that the Quran is the
word of God, correct? Yeah, I did.
OK, so if you believe that the Quran is the word of God, can
you show me in the Quran anywhere where it corroborates

(40:05):
that specific answer that you just gave?
I mean, you talked about the book of Genesis, you talked
about Deuteronomy. You talked about a lot of
different things, but the the the Quran, as far as I've ever
seen right, has never been. As specific as what you're
talking about, right? And because we're kind of diving
into this kind of general affirmation, but not complete
affirmation of the Bible. So my question to you, my follow

(40:27):
up question to that before we get to Brother Grafted is where
are you getting that answer from?
Oh you have. The Quran makes references to
the scriptures of Abraham where it says Sofa Ibrahim and Sofa
Mosa. Obviously God says God gave
Moses the Torah and God gave Zabur the Psalm to David.

(40:53):
And we also have the accounts ofGod saying that he communicated
to the prophets. And Elijah is mentioned by name,
not so much Oded or Samuel, but we have the mention of Samuel in
a subtle way not mentioning his name.
And we don't have Jeremiah or Isaiah mentioned but we have

(41:13):
those accounts mentioned in the Quran about them, so without
mentioning their names. So mostly when the Quran talks
about that information it does not necessarily bring in the
prophets name but we we have instances where it does bring in
some of the prophets name such as Elijah.
And I understand that, but but the reason I'm asking is because
the the the Surah 1094 is very specific.

(41:36):
It doesn't say those who have been reading the books or the
the revelations before you. It's not even plural.
It is literally just saying ask those who have been reading the
book, right? So it's not it's not saying
certain revelations. It's not saying this and that.
It is saying literally been reading the book.
So it is obviously here referring to one specific text,

(42:00):
right? So then you would have to say to
yourself, now where are you getting this idea that all of
those revelations that you namedare specifically what it,
because there's nothing in the context of Surah chapter 10 that
tells you, OK, these are all thedifferent books that we're
talking about. So talk to the people who've
been. Do you understand where I'm
coming from? That's what I'm asking you.
Got you. Yeah, got you.

(42:21):
It's it's a very generic referral to the book.
The book really means the book of God.
It could be the Gospel, it couldbe the Quran, it could be the
Torah. It could be it's just a book of
God. So you're basically saying
you're, you're essentially saying you're not sure then, and
that's OK if you're not. You're not sure It's it's just a

(42:42):
it's, it is a generic referral to the book of God.
It could be Torah, it could be constable.
So it could be both. It could be both.
OK. Grafted on the same question, do
you have any follow up to his answer and then we'll move on to
the second part of the question.As of now, no.

(43:02):
No. OK, so you have nothing to add
to his answer. Hello.
No, no, OK. All right, OK.
All right. So for the second part of this
question then for the Christian side, for Brother Grafta, do you
agree that this refers to the Jews and the Christians of

(43:25):
Muhammad's time? And if So, what does that imply
and how do you know? Yes, this doesn't this that's
basically direct itself at the Jews and the Christians of
Muhammad's time. First of all, this can easily be
necessitated by the fact that they are you know is a direction
towards those people like Mama has to actually go and question

(43:46):
them. How do I know because you've got
have seated exegetes who say thesame thing.
They say that he is being asked,or at least the command was for
him, although he did not doubt and did not need to go and ask.
The command is clearly directed that way.
The third way that I know is by just general inference.
It necessitates that the people of the book would be people

(44:08):
accessible to Muhammad. This is the relationship
established between him because they have to affirm his
prophethood. And I'm just talking about the
general flow of what's going on there.
But, and, and I mean, I could even point to a bit of what
Daniel's answer was that in order for Muhammad to be able to
confirm this prophetic relationship he's experiencing

(44:29):
with Muhammad, he needs to be able to have access to the
people of the book in his time. Now and thank you for your
answer and a quick follow up nowand I, and although I do in in
theory agree with what you're saying, my question to you is
how is there any way for you to be able to show the audience
that what prophet Daniel said isincorrect?

(44:53):
Is there any way for you to say,hey, listen, this is how we know
he wasn't just talking about some general affirmation, right?
Whatever they're saying is was revealed to Abraham, which is
news to me because I've never heard of anything being revealed
to Abraham that Moses had the Torah, David had the Psalms.
Right? But what I'm asking you is, is
there something in your mind that makes it clear that this is

(45:15):
talking about all the the Torah,the Psalms and the Gospel, the
New Testament? The New Testament specifically
is confirmed. I'm sorry with the New Testament
specifically concerned there's nothing clear about that.
I would say of course to that that I never made the statement
that the the New Testament was being confirmed with at least
within the bounds of Surat in 94.

(45:37):
I what I did necessitate was that it would at least have to
be the torture. Reason being is because it deals
with the early prophets and thatwas also something that I didn't
used. The Islamic consciences that
early to middle period making suitors such as 7 and 11 were
revealed predating suit at 1094.Which means that Muhammad had at
least revealed stories about Abraham, Noah, Adam, Lot as well

(46:01):
as Moses in the same kind of corpus before being asked to
check this with the people of the book.
So how I could then be sure of this is that I would simply
refer to the Tafseer exegetes once again.
Do you want me to pick a specific one out?
Sure. Whatever you want.
Yeah, OK, cool. So I'm going to use even of us.

(46:24):
OK, you have, you have 90 seconds, just so you know, 90
seconds. OK, cool, cool, cool.
There's no worries. So basically what we see here
with even of us is that he is saying that in fact it is not
directed at Muhammad because youknow, he did not talk, but it it
says and I'll and I'll put it inquotes rather so until 94.

(46:46):
Even if I says rather allow us addressing with these words the
people of the prophet. Verily the truth from my Lord.
In other words, Gabriel with theQuran from my Lord containing
the events of past nations. So being out of the doubters if
again, and I won't necessitate this, if this command, at least
according to exegetes, is not necessarily just for Muhammad,
but for his contemporaries, theywould need to be able to confirm

(47:11):
this as well with people contemplating to them.
I can use another, I can use another, another which would be
Maduri 1794, which is to back upthe specific line of thinking,
which is that it is as regards to the reference of the people
of the book. It is because they possess the
knowledge of the scriptures, whereas the common people of
Arabia lack this and therefore they were strangers to the voice

(47:34):
of the Quran. So you actually have a
juxtaposition between the the knowledgeable ones and the
common people. In other words, you have two
classes of people at the same present moment to be able to
have this interchange dialogue. Thank you so much.
All right, right on time too. All right, we're going to move
on to question #2 gentlemen, forProphet Daniel, if the book is

(47:56):
claimed to have been corrupted before Muhammad's time, why
would God instruct him to confirm his revelation with
people reading that same book? Are you good with the question
or you want me to repeat it? Oh, I got, I got your question.
Excellent. OK, Yeah, Yeah.
So I mean, I don't necessarily see a problem with that or a

(48:17):
logical fallacy of any kind. And also that early Muslim
opinions about what this could mean or their interpretation or
their understanding could well differ from what the Quranic
impetus was at that time when itwas communicated to Prophet
Muhammad very specific, because Quran says very specific for in

(48:38):
Kuntafishak, if you are in doubt, it didn't say if the
believers are in doubt, right? So it was very specific to
Prophet Muhammad. It was for in Kuntafishak Kimim.
So it was directly communicatingto Prophet Muhammad saying, if
you are in doubt about this divine communication that you're
receiving because of all of these accusations, do you have
you have to face from the people.
So don't fall in doubt. Just go and have a word with the

(49:00):
people of the book. They will tell you previously
prophets, human messengers were provided divine communication.
So even if the Quran, Quran doesbring the premise that the Bible
has been corrupted, it is not posing an logical sort of
problem to Prophet Muhammad to go and verify prophecy in

(49:23):
general from the people of the book.
He could go and just talk, tell them, I mean, what do you think
about the one communication thatGod makes with people?
And they they would tell Jews and Christians both would tell
them, yeah, indeed, God has communicated previously to human
messengers like Moses, like all of the prophets of Israel.
So this would be a general affirmation or assurance to

(49:45):
Prophet Muhammad that God indeedcommunicates to human beings
through in a divine mode, in a divine, in a divine way.
So, so I don't necessarily see aproblem why God would not tell
Prophet Muhammad to go and validate divine communication,
not the content, but divine communication when God goes on

(50:08):
to say in the Quran that the Bible has been corrupted.
So I don't see necessarily any problem with that.
So. All right.
Do you have a follow up to that Brother Grafton?
Yeah, I just want to and look, of course I understand that the
word these stories is in parentheses, but if the doubt is
about the stories and not the communication, then surely this

(50:33):
would affirm that the Bible has to have stories confirmed by a
biblical paradigm. When this command is given to
Muhammad to talk to the people of the book, you saying no, it's
just a method or mode of communication.
When I take what the actual texton pseudo United States, and

(50:53):
again, I do, I do obviously acknowledge that I, I, I see
some words on parentheticals. But if this the context is the
stories that are in doubt, that it is specific events that are,
are, are being doubted, then youhave to run that by scripture,
not just simply people's generalknowledge of Oh yeah, yeah, God
spoke to prophets. But what does that mean?

(51:14):
How does that prove propheted toMuhammad?
This is not even confirming his prophecy to people of the book.
This is not like, oh, people of the book should believe me
because I'm getting these stories from God.
This is not even about that. So this is this is generally
when people are making objections to him, accusations

(51:35):
to him that he's he's manufacturing it or he's
streaming it out, he's hallucinating or he's getting it
from the demon or whatever it is.
That sort of a doubt is dispelled when he goes and has
an affirmation from the people of the book who know that God
does divinely communicate to people.
It's not about validating stories either, because the
Quran would have directly told him that if that was the case.

(51:58):
But the Quran has the opposite thing to say, that some of the
stories in the Bible are corruptso.
So why would the Quran do that? You could never do that because
literally right before 1094 it is telling you the story of
Moses and the Pharaoh. I told you the context of it.
The context is the context begins from 50 word 57 onwards.

(52:19):
So in the context, God provides this look, this is not something
new that is happening to you. Noah, our full time was
rejected. Moses was also rejected.
So this rejection of yours should not come hard on you.
Don't grieve, take it easy, don't grieve and don't doubt
this is God who's giving you this divine communication.
So that's the subject matter actually you got to be focusing

(52:39):
on. No, I understand what you're
saying and I was tracking along with that context that you
established. My point was the stories
themselves. I mean to be giving Muhammad
some type of comfort and assurance that he is receiving
divine revelation. My point, or at least let me
rephrase the question I was asking.
If he's asking the people of thebook generally, did people
receive divine communication from God?

(53:02):
How would that prove or put anything at ease when the
stories are what are leading up to Surat in 94?
In other words, he would at least have to make them familiar
with Moses and prior early prophets within the the corpus
of the Torah. This is what he has to check and
run by them. Whether or not it is chicken,
hey it does the storyline up. It is hey Jews and Christians.

(53:26):
What did this prophet experience?
How did God speak to this prophet?
They would still have a scriptural reference in order to
give him that answer. That's what I'm saying.
So do you then see that this is still going to affirm the Bible
as the topic of this debate is? Not necessarily, as I would say
these are generic assurances that God is wanting them,

(53:49):
wanting him to have. And this has got nothing to do
with asserting that he was a prophet of God.
It was an assurance given to Prophet Muhammad himself and not
so much as proof making to otherpeople of his time.
Yeah. Daniel, real quick, I, I, I want
a, a clarifying statement. If you would you, you have said
at least two or three times in acouple of your follow-ups that

(54:12):
God has made it clear that the Bible is corrupt.
You said that I want to say at least twice.
Can you clarify where you're getting that from?
Well in the in the chapter 2 youhave clearly people, God telling
people that they wrote the book from their own hand and then
they claimed it to be from God. There is clear verses of that

(54:35):
nature apart from the reef. Obviously the reef is
decontextualizing the the words of God.
But God does clearly say in the Quran that people wrote books
with their own hands and he saysmisery to those who write stuff
with their own hands and then attribute it to God, misery to

(54:56):
misery for them for what they have written and misery for what
they're what the gains they are making with it.
So, so it's it's very specific thing that goes back to.
Yeah, I know you're talking about, I think it's Sarah 279 or
something like that, right? Is that the one you're talking
about? I, I, I could be wrong off the
top of my head, 270-8278 And thereason, the only reason that I

(55:18):
asked and, and as I'm, I'm stepping in as moderator now,
ladies and gentlemen, because this very same point came up
between Daniel Hikakichu and David Wood Wood where he Daniel,
that Daniel from that debate made the same assertion.
And then David Wood made it clear that that was not talking
about textual corruption of the existing scriptures, that it was

(55:40):
talking about people who were writing random other things and
claiming that it was the word ofGod and then profiting from
that. So that's why I was asking for
a, a clarifying statement, Prophet Daniel, because I don't
want anyone to be misled about what those verses are actually
saying. And I have actually at length
spoken about how Sarah 278 is not in even, not even remotely,

(56:02):
not even according to Muslim scholars talking about the Torah
and the Gospels being textually corrupted.
It's talking about people writing completely separate
texts and pretending like those things are from God.
So I wanted to make that clear. No longer going to interfere.
We're going to move into the second part of this question for
can I just say something? Sure.

(56:22):
Yeah, there's a problem when people read the early literature
of the secondary sources of the commentators, the exegetes and
the hadith literature about this, because that's where the
deviation is happening, because they are giving, they are
reading things that are totally unrelated to what the Quran has
to say. Because some of the exegetes,

(56:43):
what if they what they're saying, even including the
earliest ones, Ibn Kathir or even at Tabari for example, they
don't line up with the context of the Quran itself.
So it's not a good idea to back interpret conclusions onto the
Quran from the view of the earlyexegetes.
It's a bad idea or even from thehadith.

(57:04):
I mean, not a very bad idea and that's fine.
I, I, I and that's, that's you're welcome to your opinion.
But at the end of the day, we don't only have that.
I just, I can look at the plain reading of the Quran and tell
you that if this was God's word,and, and again, because you're
approaching, you're, you're directing it to me.
So I will answer you if you're saying that this is God's word.
I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that Surat 278 would

(57:25):
be so vague about what was beingchanged.
Because if it was the Gospels, if it was the Torah and it was
the Jews and the Christians attempting to change those
things, I promise and assure youthat God would have been
extraordinarily specific about what they were changing.
But nor does Surat 278. That says nothing of the sort.
Surat 278 says that they wrote things.
No, but it's not. It says that they wrote things

(57:46):
with their hands and claim that it was from God.
It never once said, I want you to show me where it says that it
that it accused the Jews and theChristians of changing their
scriptures, their scriptures. Yeah, of course for that you
have to read the context of 278.If you read the context of 278,

(58:06):
it becomes apparent of what the Quran is actually directing
people to realize what was changed.
So you have to go like maybe 10 or 15 verses before and and read
the story that comes in the Quran and then you can make out,
oh, this is the story that Quranis talking about that was that
describes changed or altered. OK.

(58:26):
So you know what, we're going toput a pin in that.
We will put a pin in that because I definitely will speak
to you about that. But I'm not going to take
Grafted's a limelight away. So the second part of this
question, because we are only onquestion #2 before grafted, what
does. So we're going to start again
from the beginning because I know it's been a while.
So the entirety of the question is, for the Muslim side, if the

(58:46):
book is claimed to have been corrupted before Muhammad's
time, why would God instruct himto confirm his revelation with
people reading the same book? Prophet Daniel essentially said
that's not a contradiction, it'snot a logical fallacy because
God made it clear, apparent according to Prophet Daniel's
explanation, that the Bible is corrupted according to God.
Now for the Christian side of the opposite side of that same

(59:07):
question, what does this instruction tell us about how
the Quran viewed the Bible in the 7th century from your
estimation? OK, so assuming that it is not a
contradiction for the Quran to be calling the Torah, there's a
bird, the gospel, whatever the corpus of the Bible is, at least

(59:27):
according to the understanding of the the maken allex right to
call. It means that you don't see an
issue with God effectively giving them.
And I mean, the gospel is even called a guidance and a light,
right? So it's almost like saying,
well, it's at some point it's stopped being a guidance and a
light. Not only that, the gospel comes

(59:51):
to confirm the Torah. So you've got a confirmation of
something that God actually was affirmed to applaud and the
guidance and the light now just completely gone to the the Jew
and the Christian. Understanding, absorbing,
digesting this claim from the Islamic polemic stance, It
completely makes God look inconsistent.

(01:00:13):
That's just what it does. I'd like just to answer your
question rather nothing. That is how it would appear to a
Germanic Christian. I agree, but I'm the moderator
so it doesn't matter what I think.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is for the audience.
Here's the thing. I listen, in case you guys
haven't noticed, and no matter who I agree with, I'm going to
be fair across the board. I pray to God that I'm doing
that fairly. If either one of you feel like

(01:00:35):
you've been treated unfairly, especially you, Prophet Daniel,
please do not hesitate to let meknow.
I will check myself if necessary.
I'm a human being and I am far from perfect.
I am not Jesus Christ #3 for both sides.
Prophet Daniel, I'll let you go first.
What historical manuscript evidence exists for the state of

(01:00:55):
the Bible during Muhammad's lifetime and doesn't match what
we have today? Please cite specific examples,
pro or con. OK, you're you're asking me what
specific document existed duringProphet Muhammad's?
Time. I'll repeat it.
I'll repeat it. What historical manuscripts,
What historical manuscript evidence exist existed for the

(01:01:19):
state of the Bible? OK, So what manuscripts were
they utilizing for the Bible andits canonization during
Muhammad's lifetime and does it match what we have today?
Please cite specific examples. Pro or against I?
Think it would be fair to say that in that part of the world
people in the Jewish and the Christian people had synapticus.

(01:01:41):
I think the manuscript was whichthey were referring to in that
part of the world. And I'm sure that the the copy
did not include but some some ofthe books of the New Testament
at that point in time for the Christians.
But but regardless, I think I think the Jewish people

(01:02:04):
basically they were working on proto Mesorique texts at that
point in time, but the Christians had the synapticus
with them, which the Jewish people were not really in
complete agreement, but the Christians themselves lacked.
Some of the books that we find today as part of the Canon in
the Christian in the Christian Bible did not were not part of

(01:02:25):
the synapticus manuscript or or the book you can say at that
point in time in 7th century. So that's fine.
I mean, the Quran has no no qualms with it.
The Quran doesn't make any. It has a thing of importance
because the Quran understands the premise of the Quran is
look, the Quran is a Muhammadan Ali.

(01:02:45):
It's a guardian scripture over the previous scriptures and then
it clarifies things that have gone wrong in the Bible.
It gives you a correction of what God truly wanted to
communicate and then goes on to say, look, the Bible is indeed a
communication by Almighty God, which the scribes have handled
it falsely, but you still find in a light enlightenment and

(01:03:10):
guidance and the law of God is intact.
So when God is telling us there's enlightenment, there is
guidance, and the law of God is intact, then that's what it is.
So there is no confusion here orthere is no fallacy here.
God, the Quran does provide us aclarification of the accounts

(01:03:30):
that went wrong. So we have it from the Quran and
the Quran has a position of Muhammad Ali, a guardian, takes
over the Bible. So when as a Muslim I look into
the Bible in the guide from the lens of the Quran, it's a great
thing. I mean, I love the Bible, I
study, I cherish the stories in the Bible.
There is great learning in the Bible and it's.

(01:03:51):
Because of the Quran. I read the Bible.
It's not because of a Christian telling me or a Jewish man
telling me to read the Bible. It's the Quran that's asking me
to go and read the Bible and andbecome knowledgeable of, of the
history of God's communication to Israelites.
And it's beautiful. I learn a lot of details from in
the Bible, in the gospel, the gospel is man.
It's incredible amount of information.
We will go on to benefit societies today if we

(01:04:12):
implemented them. So there's so much there as
rightly so God says that his enlightenment fee, he who don't
want know what God says in it isenlightenment and guidance.
So I mean without question, that's true.
So you what what you're saying without question what is true?
I'm sorry, just just what you were your your.
There's guidance, enlightenment in the in the Bible without

(01:04:35):
question, you know, right? Brother, Brother Grafton, I'll
repeat the question for you. What historical manuscript
evidence existed for the state of the Bible during Muhammad's
lifetime, and does it match whatwe have today?
Please cite specific examples. All right.
I guess I'll answer first, but if it's OK with you about
America also just went out, maybe just question one or two

(01:04:57):
things that Daniel mentioned. Please go ahead.
Yeah, Yep. OK, cool.
We would have sources that largely line up with the Bible
that at least between the the Bible that would have been
existing at Muhammad's time and our earlier manuscripts, right,
the Karima Gospels, which spreadthroughout the Ethiopian area.

(01:05:19):
We have of course an ethic as we've got and This is why I
asked if I could just question on something.
Total necessity texts were not something that were only started
in that kind of middle century period where, you know, Muhammad
was active. Proto Masoretic texts could even

(01:05:41):
be defined as texts that would line up as early as the Dead Sea
Scrolls but lined up with the actual finalized Hebrew
Masoretic text. So when you say they were
Masoretic texts being developed,like I'm just saying this
upfront, this doesn't kind of infer or this doesn't follow in
any way. And I'm not saying that this is
your claim, but I just want to make it clear.

(01:06:02):
This doesn't infer any kind of differentiating or developing
manuscript that would differ or break continuity with what was
already established in the Jewish or Christian worlds.
These texts go as far back as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
But basically we have the section, we've got the Cynicus,
we've got the Vaticanus, we've got the Grima Gospels and

(01:06:23):
largely the artistal variance, yes, but nothing affecting the
actual message, the core dogma, any doctrine, any actual truth
that would be found within our Christian and or Jewish Bibles.
No real serious variation between those early manuscripts
and what we've got today exists.You're correct.

(01:06:43):
I didn't claim that, Sir, no. No, I'm not saying you did that.
It was just the proto, the protomethod.
It could be seen as a misleadingclaim.
I just wanted to. I'm not.
I'm not accusing of anything. So yeah.
All right. So you want to move on to
answering the question now, Grafton?
But so I feel like I did, but maybe I just no, I mean I think.
You did. I don't know if there was

(01:07:03):
anything you wanted to address directly or you guys want to
move on. I do want to at least one other
thing right in. On one hand, I do feel like it
is quite a hectic question. Like from the Islamic paradigm,
I don't see how Daniel would be able to provide the manuscript
evidence you're asking for. But in the same vein, I also
don't feel like Daniel, you really answers the question

(01:07:24):
other than kind of just like appealing to the claims of the
Quran. And that's a problem for me
because it is circular and I couldn't go back to the opening
statement I made. I know, maybe you misunderstand.
Yeah, sorry. Hold on and I will.
I will chime in. I will chime in to say that he
did talk about the Codex Sinaticus.

(01:07:47):
He did talk about how there wereCodex Sinaticus, how there were
stories such as the Common Johannium, which was one thing
that Muslim apologists love thatthey try to assert as biblical
corruption. Although the Common Johannium
was already an oral tradition. And then the, and the, the Latin

(01:08:08):
manuscripts, it was not in the Koine Greek.
And so, you know, outsiders willlook in and say, well, that's
corruption. Now you look at it however you
want. But he did talk about the
Konasan Atticus, which was in existence at the time of
Muhammad. So he, I mean, he did, he did
answer, he did start appealing to emotion a little bit of how
much he loves. He did talk about, you know, he,

(01:08:29):
he, the, what's disturbing to me, brother Daniel and I will be
honest with you and a lot of your answer, regardless of what
we're talking about, is you're appealing a lot to this general
affirmation, which to me, I'm sorry.
And I and, and, and complete transparency, ladies and
gentlemen, And I, I think I've talked to brother Daniel about
this before. I don't know that I've talked to
brother grafted about this before, but I use when I I have

(01:08:53):
a very interesting use for AI that I've actually shown people
here on the chat how to do and I've shown people how to
appropriately right now, if you want to manipulate AI, if you
want to do the Lily Jay, do whatever you guys want to do,
right? But this is a quick intermission
to let you guys know that I am going to be taking a transcript
of this and I'm going to be running it through a computer

(01:09:14):
engine because as a Christian, anybody can point to me and say,
well, you're not biased. And guess what?
They would be right, right. I can't take the transcript of
any Muslim and Christian and be be accused of being fair in my
assessment because as a as a person who has a a relationship
with Jesus Christ, I know that I'm not going to see things in a
way that a lot of people on in the outside are going to see it.

(01:09:35):
So I'm going to run it through. But I will tell you, brother
Daniel, in that same vein that you continue to appeal to this,
I wouldn't say very new, but it's it's growing in popularity,
right? And I know that Dean responds is
is trying to hammer this point home.
And I don't know why, because he's failing miserably like he
does and everything else, as well as Libiano as well as

(01:09:56):
Daniel Hikachu that they're they're appealing to this sense
of general affirmation of the Bible, right.
And when asked to actually provethat they're not able to.
And I, with all respect, I don'tfeel that you have sufficiently
even remotely approached how to show in the Quran that it

(01:10:16):
generally affirms anything, right?
You've spoken about things, you've spoken about different
books you've said, and you say things like read in context or
whatever. But at this point, I'm just, I'm
being honest with you as an outsider looking in, not
participating, that you continueto mention this general
affirmation. But we have yet to see how the

(01:10:37):
Quran only generally affirms theBible, but not completely right.
So again, that's that's just a side note.
We're going to move on to question #4 which Daniel will be
able to answer for Brother Daniel.
How do early tafsir sources suchas Al Tabadi or Iban Kathir
interpret Sarah 1094 and do theyindicate the book was authentic

(01:11:00):
at that time? This is a tough question for me
because I don't as a norm read. I don't as a norm read other
exegetes or I I never I to be honest with you, I never read
the Quran from someone's point of view except for translations

(01:11:24):
for example. So I did read the translation of
the Quran from Abdullah Yousuf Ali when I was growing up.
Are you Quran? Only, yeah, I, I prefer that
position, all right, I, because Quran is the communication of
Almighty God and people may havesaid hundreds of things later on
about it, but those things do not necessarily become true

(01:11:47):
about it and. So you disagree, so you so you
disagree. To be clear, you disagree with
Daniel Hikakichu then because inhis opening statement he said
that not only is it not only do real Muslims According to him
have to follow the Quran, but also the hadith and the tafsir.
That's that's his statement. I know.

(01:12:09):
The fact of the matter is I'm not popular among Muslims
because, OK, no, you know, they,they kind of don't like my
approach into the Quran. I see.
To be honest with you, to be honest with you, I was brought
up in a Sunni environment, went to the Sunni mosque, my friend,
my community, they were also Sunni Muslims.

(01:12:31):
And the increasing narrative that I get to listen today on
YouTube about Sunnis is remotelyeven not linked to the Sunni
community that I came from, actually.
So in my community, reading the hadith or the exiges of the
previous people wasn't a norm. It wasn't common.
Nobody did this and I never saw my family, any of the family

(01:12:53):
members doing it. We have hardly time to read the
Quran, let alone reading the books of Hadith, which are like
30 times larger than the Quran. And these exigencies which we
know, we, I mean, we don't, Muslims in general don't relate
to the Quran through these people.
It's only you can say in religious institutions is where

(01:13:16):
this this sort of a process is followed because they want to
they want to know more about theQuran.
So they go to this College of the past and they study them and
they they also might preach in the mosques, which is
understandable. But as a common Muslim, a common
Muslim hardly has time to go andrefer to the books of Hadith.
I'm sure all of these people, they have not read Hadees

(01:13:39):
themselves. I'm sure even Hakika Ju has not
read Bukhari the whole Bukhari even once.
I can, I can challenge you on this.
Don't. Don't say that.
Don't say that to him, you'll probably start swearing at you.
No, I can challenge him. I'm sure.
I'm 100% certain I should not say 100 because I'm not God.
You're not 999990 I knew it. I knew it.

(01:14:00):
I knew it. I knew it.
But he. Hasn't he hasn't read the Buhari
cover to cover once? Even once OK hasn't so full.
Full transparency, ladies and gentlemen, I've looked at Sahib
Bugatti and I looked at it. I was like, yeah, I'm not
reading all that. I will reference.
I will reference it when I need to, but I'm not reading anything
from cover to cover. There's no way I'll be.
It'll be there forever. Yeah.

(01:14:23):
So you are. So are you.
Do you consider yourself a Shia?I don't.
Are you like you're not Sunni, obviously.
I'm not a, I'm not a Shia. I, I, I was brought up Sunni
Muslim, but I would consider myself Sunni Muslim in
comparison to Shia, for example.But according to the Sunnis
these days I get to listen to them on Internet.

(01:14:43):
I'm not even Sunni. You know what I mean?
I don't care about, I don't carebasically being Sunni or Shia,
basically. That's wrong.
This is not even a theological distinction.
It's a political distinction that happened in, in very early
Islam. It's got nothing to do with
hadees because the Sunnis rejectthe Hadees of the Shia.
The Shias reject the Hadees of the Sunnis.

(01:15:04):
They're both in fact are hadees rejecters, right?
So why? Why accuse me of rejecting the
Hadees? Because you do it yourself.
So what I'm saying is. So to be fair, we can basically
say that you'd you don't, you will have, you don't care
essentially what the early top series say about the Quran.
Is what you're saying basically right?
Yeah, because God does not require me to believe in all of

(01:15:26):
those things. He requires me to believe in the
book of God, which he says. It's pretty clear God has
clarified it. God has elucidated it, so I
don't need a different source. I mean, I have done my works, my
books, and my translation without reference to all of
these earlier material. Absolutely.
Fair enough, Fair enough for brother Grafted.

(01:15:46):
How do you respond to later Islamic claims later, not at the
time of Muhammad, but later Islamic claims of textual
corruption in light of these early tafsir interpretations?
From a personal level, it would probably be with big scrutiny
and, and the reason for this is because I'm going to take it

(01:16:09):
based on the manuscript evidence.
As well. As the lateness of some of the
scholars, for example, I take like even Kathy, he was a very
respected exegete, a very respected scholar, but like his
time of birth and and how late he is compared to the actual
companions of Muhammad. The you can literally see the

(01:16:30):
gap in the narrative, right? I, I mean, I know that like,
yeah, I probably would myself will be out on the screen and we
ought to provide like the evidence, but I'm just saying
you, you can see that it's, it'sa lot more like the later
exegetes that are, are, are, arecreating this narrative of at
least complete textual corruption.
I know that the Quran makes claims of people producing new

(01:16:52):
manuscripts, writing everything with their own hand.
Yes, of course. But this doesn't an actual
original textual corruption, or at least not a wholesale textual
corruption. I don't see that narrative
anywhere within the Quran. I don't see a wholesale.
I see interpretive and I see in the states of reproduction.
Excellent. Now brother grafted, that kind

(01:17:14):
of takes us back to I do have a follow up question for you and
then I'm going to turn it back over to brother Daniel to follow
up with anything he may want to say.
You said you don't see wholesalecorruption of the Bible, right?
That kind of takes us back to Surat 278, right?
In in in reference to 1094, ladies and gentlemen, we're not
off 1094, but Brother Daniel opened the gate for 278 talking

(01:17:38):
about textual corruption or how he thinks it means sexual
corruption. How do you respond to that
Brother Grafton? Fully honest who?
Who? Transparency, initially I've
expected this to be something more like a panel discussion as
opposed to like a full on debateand that might be my own force

(01:17:59):
not seeking clarity with BrotherMaverick in the beginning about
the format of the stream. That's fine.
But I was actually going to press on this and it is that
again, coming back to my openingstatement, I am willing to grant
a portion of the Islamic dilemmaas being an internal critique,
but there has to be some kind ofexternal measuring factor.
And so I guess it's like if you open up to 78, then I have to

(01:18:20):
ask what constitutes corruption I'm speaking from If you are
taking this purely as just the context of the Quran and the
Quran calls X corruption, what is that?
What constitutes corruption to you?
So that verse is very specific. It might come with a shock to
you, but that's very specific. It goes back to the times of

(01:18:44):
wilderness when the Israelites, the Hebrews, after having come
from Egypt, we're battling hard,obeying Moses, and Moses went to
Mount Sinai. So what the Hebrews do is they
create a golden calf and they worship it.
Moses comes back, drops down thetablets, breaks them and

(01:19:06):
admonishes them and punishes thethe evildoers.
And then the Hebrews continue todo malevolence that there was a
story that really happened at that time, which is found in the
Quran because God is narrating the truth.
But the same story as comes in the in the Genesis account.

(01:19:28):
I'm not sure it whether it is inGenesis.
I'm I'm certainly sure it's not in Genesis.
It I'm not, but I'm not sure whether it is in Exodus or in
the later book. I think in Leviticus.
I'm not sure which exact book itis, but the story of the red
heifer is what I'm what I'm referring to.
I think it's, it comes in numbers, I suppose numbers.
So and the book of numbers is where the story comes the red

(01:19:51):
heifer and the context in Surat Bakara is about red heifer,
right? So you know exactly what the
Quran is talking about. It's not a very generic
statement that the whole book has been corrupted.
It's it's a very specific account where the Quran says
they wrote it from their own hands and they called it upon
God. So woe for them for what they've
written and woe for what the thegain that they've made.

(01:20:14):
So this story, as is reckoned, Ithink it's in the Book of
Numbers, but you can always verify how it goes, is like
this. So the Hebrews, they basically
carried the culture of the Egyptians, and they were even
ranting on Moses. Oh, why did you get us out of
Egypt? We're comfortable there.

(01:20:35):
We're eating fish, we're eating that, we're eating this.
So we're comfortable. We had easy life, but you guys,
you got us into trouble and we have to suffer these wandering
in the wilderness and all of that sort of stuff.
And they go, they carried this culture of Egyptians.
They had affinity too, because they had gotten used to the the

(01:20:59):
religious culture and tradition of the Egyptians and that's why
they worship the calf and they had the affinity towards bull
worship as the Egyptians would do, right?
So God wants them to clean themselves from these foreign
cultures and foreign theologies.So what I did doing is the

(01:21:23):
Hebrews commit a murder and whatGod does is look.
Get a bull. Get a.
Bull and kill the bull and I'm going to lead you to something.
So they do it reluctantly as theQuran says the Quran gets this
story in very good detail and precise detail.

(01:21:45):
The Quran says they did it although reluctantly.
So once they do it, God's God says in the Quran, take, take
the meat of the of the bull and put it on the corpse that was
dead. And when they did that, the Corp
stood up and he witnessed who had killed him, right?
So a secret that the Hebrew elders wanted to keep a secret.

(01:22:10):
God brought that secret. He unveiled it, right?
He unveils it through this miracle, right?
And the miracle was a lesson forHebrews to learn that this
theology, the Egyptian culture is not the appropriate thing.
They should get rid of it. So God taught them a lesson how

(01:22:32):
to kill the bull and not actually worship it and actually
in fact eat it. And through this he brought
something that they wanted to keep a secret to light.
But Hebrews was so skilled, theycovered this their their guilt
of when they documented the story in Numbers, they still
called it up and called it like a ritual parity.
So this is what the choir is alluding to, right?

(01:22:53):
Very specific. It's not making a general
statement. Very, very specific.
Oh, OK. So yeah, go.
Ahead. No, go ahead, go ahead.
Again, coming back to what? 279 is coming back.
It's a obvious textual target, but this is exactly where I
would go. A part of this has to be
externally examined. Where do you find a textual

(01:23:17):
either overwrite A textual copy that differs from what the Quran
says existed. Yeah, this is how we'd actually
constitute corruption. To simply just take the Kuran on
its own internal claim would effectively be fallacious.
It's like me telling my when my daughter sees daddy someone
touched me, I'm like, yeah, yeah, yeah, my daughter sees it
happened without actually going and looking at the external

(01:23:38):
evidence. For all I know, my daughter
could have a wild imagination. You understand, like that
becomes circular. And so this is what I'm saying.
Like if a claim of textual corruption is being made my
again my critique becomes how dowe measure that externally?
Right. Yeah, Yeah, you can.
You can measure it externally. The way you can measure it is go

(01:24:00):
back to the Bible and you have Jeremiah stating the same exact
thing that the Quran says. So Jeremiah says the pen of the
lying scribes has written these lies.
So why do you even call yourselves wise men?
Because God will punish these wise men who have corrupted the
Scriptures. So Jeremiah, he's telling the
exact same thing that the Quran says.
So why do you even think it's anIslamic dilemma?

(01:24:21):
It should basically be a prophetic dilemma because
Jeremiah goes and says the same thing.
Well, I think, I think what he was alluding to brother Daniel
and and and again, not because I'm trying so like, and you
referenced you the things that you referenced, right.
And you're talking about rewrites and all these other
things. But the reason that we're saying
is, and that's why I was so staunch about making sure you

(01:24:43):
provide evidence, because you're, you're kind of referring
to things, right? But you're referring to things
without saying. And this is how we know, right?
Because my issue with, I mean, one of the many issues is, and I
think what kind of brother Grafton was trying to get to
this is 1 specific example is like for, from the way that I
look at it, we have the Dead SeaScrolls, right?

(01:25:03):
And the Dead Sea Scrolls, we already know how old they are.
And the Dead Sea Scrolls containthe Torah, which includes the
Book of Numbers, which you were speaking about, right?
And in the Dead Sea Scrolls we find the same ritual
instructions as we do in the modern mesoratic text, right?
And that predates Mohammed by over 600 years, proving that the
Jewish account was already like today's.

(01:25:25):
So there is no sign anywhere in history manuscripturally of a
later rewrite. That's why I said when you make
the assertions that you make, you have to have evidence
because nothing that you're saying is reflected in actual
evidence or history. But I, but I digress.
So did you have anything else to, to follow up with Brother
Grafton? Because I, I know that, I know

(01:25:46):
that there's, you know, we have one last question.
I know you got to get off soon. And there's one more question I
wanted to get to SO. I'm happy to keep staying.
All right? Cool.
Especially. No, that's fine.
Mind me later cross examination could take place this later on.
I might just touch on some stuff.
Yeah, please. Of the conversation, please.
No, you are welcome to stay as long as you can, I just didn't
want to violate your time or disrespect your time.

(01:26:07):
Thank you. No problem, Daniel.
Again, if you're going to appealto Jeremiah, you can, Especially
as someone who feeds purely of just the context of the
scriptures and you don't feel anexegetical commentaries or
anything else to lay the contextfor you.
Then you're going to have to prove what you are saying from
the context of Jeremiah that this is lining up with what the
Quran is saying. Because now you're stitching a

(01:26:29):
confirmation context between twodifferent passages across two
different textual corpuses. Because you're requesting me to
do so. I wouldn't.
I wouldn't bring up Jeremiah unless you're requested me to do
so. Because you asked me how can we?
You gave me an example of, you know, someone touching your
daughter or how you can validateit.
That's why I'm bringing it up because I don't even go to, I

(01:26:49):
don't necessarily feel obliged to go and refer Jeremiah because
in this particular matter, because even the like, I kind of
understand where you guys are coming from.
You have the impression that 279it means that somebody in 7th
century during Prophet Muhammad's time were

(01:27:12):
proliferating scriptures by writing it and selling it and
making it, making it a business.It's a fallacious account that
even though it's come up in Islamic secondary sources or
existences of Islamic sources, it's a fallacious account.
I mean, people would not normally do that and you know,

(01:27:32):
making money out of duplicating scriptures, they wouldn't do
that. So it's not about making money.
Somebody writing scriptures on papyri and selling them off
during 7th century Arabia. It's not even that because
you're obsessed with this idea. You want to back projected.
But go just just look at the Quran, what it's telling you

(01:27:54):
will find evidence, you will find meaning in what I'm telling
you, right. So the accurate thing, what is
happening is not even in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
So even Dead Sea Scrolls are post data to Jeremiah, for
example. Jeremiah actually, you know, way
before in history is telling youthe scribes have corrupted the

(01:28:16):
scriptures. So we are not even looking at
proto Missouri texts, we are looking at proto sectarian
texts, right? Go back way back.
So when the first time the scribes wrote it, they wrote it
wrong. They hate their crimes, they
hate their guilt. The first time, the very first
time writing it, did it. Daniel, I'm gonna stop you.
I'm. Gonna.

(01:28:36):
Stop you. I'm gonna stop you right there.
I, I, I asked you. Hang on.
Hang on one second, Brett, because again, you are making an
assertion absent any actual historical evidence.
You can make the claims about the scribes of the book of
Jeremiah, but you are saying we'll look back.
No, you're making the assertion.You have to make it clear.

(01:28:57):
What are you referencing? What in history are you talking
about? Not just Prophet Daniels
interpretation of this is what happened because I think so.
Just like you made another falsestatement.
Well people didn't normally do this.
People have been falsifying the word of God and selling it for
profit for centuries. So I don't understand where
you're getting that from. Your own Quran makes it clear
that these people wrote down text saying it was from God and

(01:29:20):
profited from it. Now you're saying that what's in
your own Quran? It's your statement that you're
saying people didn't do it. The Quran is saying that people
were writing scripture down, claiming it was from God and
profiting from it. Nobody was profiting from the
Torah or the Bible. So that's already false
assertion #1 and false assertion#2 is that you're saying that

(01:29:42):
the scribes are hiding their crimes, the scribes of the Book
of Jeremiah, absent any historical evidence.
So if you're going to make thoseclaims as a moderator now, I'm
going to hold your feet, your feet to the fire on that.
What is your historical evidencethat these scribes copied the
stories wrong? What?
And I don't want to know. I don't want to hear.
Oh, well, if you look at it, no,no, no, no.
I want to know what I don't knowif you can, You can appeal to a

(01:30:04):
scholar. You can appeal to some
historical documentation. You can appeal to to manuscripts
being found that have been proven to be altered.
But you don't get to just say that and then just skip past it
like you didn't just say what you just said.
OK, I'm not even alluding to manuscripts that have been
changed or altered, all right, or proliferated.
I'm not even referring to that. I'm, I'm referring to a credible

(01:30:26):
source. Who can be more credible than
the prophet of God himself, which is Jeremiah the prophet.
Jeremiah the prophet says the scribes handled it falsely.
Not his document, not his, not the book of Jeremiah, but he's
talking, he's making a referenceto the documentation of the
scriptures before him. So he says the scribes have
handled it falsely and God is going to punish them, right?

(01:30:49):
So if you, if you study the Jeremiah's words in context, go
to Chapter 7 seven Jeremiah and read the context and you will
see Jeremiah making references to their false sacrifices
sacrificial system, right? So Jeremiah clearly goes on to
say this false sacrificial system that you've gotten in the
scriptures everywhere in the OldTestament is just false.

(01:31:12):
Your scribes have handled it falsely.
Do. You OK, so right, OK, but do you
know, do you even OK, so first of all, this is ladies and
gentlemen, This is why I'm that I moderated and I'm glad that I
know you do understand what you're.
The insinuation you're making isa complete falsehood because
Jeremiah's statement that you'realluding to that you're trying
to twist to make it mean what you want it to mean does not

(01:31:32):
mean that OK, Jeremiah's statement was a prophetic
rebuke. It was not a textual criticism
in the modern sense. Jeremiah was calling out
religious leaders who were misusing, twisting, and
misapplying God's law much like the Pharisees did while claiming
to uphold it. Okay, I mean, you can say not
all you want, but at the end of the day, I mean, you can

(01:31:54):
disagree, but This is why I asked you for proof, because I
knew that you were going to go to the Bible again.
But in what you're doing, in other words, is you're trying to
make it seem like Jeremiah was saying something he wasn't
because you want it to mean that, right?
But what Jeremiah was saying is about corrupt handling and
teaching. It's not about someone secretly
rewriting Genesis or Numbers. There's no, as a matter of fact,

(01:32:15):
here's the thing. And This is why I asked you,
because I knew you were going todo this.
There is no, and I repeat no, and I challenge you to find it,
there is no archaeological or manuscript evidence showing the
Torah text in Jeremiah's day wasaltered.
Not a single manuscript of all of them, right?
And that's a huge problem for you.
Well, thank you. So that at the end of the day.

(01:32:35):
I agree with you. I agree with you because you're
not listening to what I'm saying.
I'm not saying somebody altered the text.
What I'm saying is for the very first time when the scribe wrote
it, they handled it falsely. But the very first time.
That's not what he's right. That's not what he's talking
about. Right, sorry.
So you're saying the very first time when the accounts are being
written of the wilderness, for example, the very first time

(01:32:57):
that they're writing it as he prescribes, they are hiding
their guilt from the get go. And that's what Jeremiah is
telling you, the pen, he says very, very specific, the writing
pen of the scribes handled it falsely.
So. So there's the reason.
Why? I asked you to go into the
context of Jeremiah to support textual corruption.

(01:33:17):
You'd have to literally read what Jeremiah's talking about.
If if it's a prophet like Jeremiah that is actually
calling this out, it still seemsvery inconsistent and ad hoc.
And this is not me trying to just simply discredit you for
the sake of this. You literally have earlier
prophets who could have called the same thing.
Jeremiah's not one of the earliest prophets, right?
He's like 6 BC you've got centuries between the exodus

(01:33:43):
where these scriptures would have been falsely written down
in the 1st place. Like God had so much time to
call that out. Right.
And and and and to and to and to, yes, and to and, and to
piggyback onto Grafton, because I know Grafton wasn't ready for
a full debate today, but I want to make it clear to everybody in
the audience because I don't want anyone to hear something
about the Bible and actually believe it if it's not true.

(01:34:05):
Research this for yourselves, ladies and gentlemen, because
nothing in the text, nothing in the text in the book of
Jeremiah, right? Nothing insinuates from that the
very first time the Torah was written describes falsified
nothing. That's what that that is brother
Daniel inserting his own an ideainto the verse because the
Hebrew phrase in Jeremiah chapter 8, verse 8, lying pen is

(01:34:28):
a prophetic metaphor for perverting God's word in
application and interpretation. And there's not an
archaeological claim about altered parchment or about
anyone lying from the very beginning.
And his brother Grafted said Jeremiah came much, much, much
later, much later than than thanmost of the early prophets.
Right. Six BCI did 6-7 BC around there

(01:34:51):
and I'd have to look it up. It's the exact year, but that
what you're saying is completelyfalse.
Again, I understand that you're reading it the way that you want
to. You saw a line pen.
You're like, oh, they're writingit wrong.
But that's that's I'm sorry if if you look at it, especially in
its context and you look at the ancient Hebrew and you look at
the translations and you look atthe lexicons, you'll see that
what you're saying is completelyfalse.
So. Yeah, just one point.

(01:35:11):
Briefly, the context. For the context, you have to
read Chapter 7 in Jeremiah. I know.
I know, I know. Yeah, I I, I, I don't even.
Ladies and gentlemen, I don't even recommend reading Chapter
7. I recommend reading the entire
book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah, right?
Don't just read Chapter 7, Read all of it and then look at the

(01:35:32):
Hebrew lexicons. Look at what is said in
apologetics. Look at what is said by the by
the by the linguistic experts. Look at what is said by the
historians, Look at the originalmanuscripts and you will see
that that's completely false. I think that that's what it's
very popular in Muslim circles, that that's what people try to
do. They like to they like to look
for exact words and then say, you see, this is what this

(01:35:52):
means. And then they'll they'll say
like for what they do with Surat278.
And they will make the the the assertion that the Bible is
corrupted because people were writing things and saying it was
from God. But then they will say, well,
yeah, we don't, we can't say that it it says that they
changed their scriptures, but we're just going to assume that
that's what they're talking about.
Absent they they have to completely ignore the plain

(01:36:12):
reading of what the Quran actually says to make that leap.
But it is what it is. I've been a boy.
Go. Ahead, go ahead.
I'd like to ask a question real quick.
I I have noticed Daniel and you know, I love you brother, but
you do seem really really like dead focused on that Jeremiah
verse. I'm curious what you get from

(01:36:33):
the verse Second Timothy 316 allscripture is God breathed.
What do you get from that? What does that mean?
Yeah, look, personally, I will answer that in a in a moment,
Brad, Personally, I've not seen Muslim people make bring this
argument to the table. I'm not even seeing Daniel

(01:36:53):
Hacker. Joe when he was debating David
Wood brought this up. The Jeremiah thing brought this
up. This I think is because my focus
has been in getting a very good biblical understanding.
All right, So I I've written these things in my in my in my
commentary, in my exigencies, right on the Quran.
I've written these things, the the fact of the marriage that

(01:37:14):
Jeremiah is very specific about the scribes writing down with
the lying pen. You can't interpret this as just
an interpretive thing that was happening with the Hebrews at
that point in time. He makes a reference to the
scribes and the and the lying pen very specific.
So context specific Jeremiah, the prophetic words are far more
important than what we might find in Timothy, in the

(01:37:37):
apostleship of Paul, for example, or in the you know of
even if the words came from the disciple of Jesus Christ, for
example. Daniel, Daniel, Daniel, you're
going off on a very wide tangentand not even, you're not even in
the same baseball field anymore as what Brett asked you.
He asked you a very simple question.
You have even said that the Bible is beautiful and it is in

(01:37:58):
Scripture and there's a lot of truth.
But here's the problem. The fact of the matter is that
even many Muslims have admitted for whatever reason that yes,
the Bible is now or at one pointwas God's pure word, right?
And then, but then the, the Quran will also say, but God's
word cannot be altered. But God's word cannot be
changed. And then the Quran claims that
it is the guardian of the Bible.But then that makes the Quran a

(01:38:20):
very crappy guardian if the Bible has been corrupted.
So I don't understand this is this and and and here's the
thing to go back because you youcontinue to try to appeal to
Jeremiah 88. Here's here's the problem with
what you're saying. And I don't know if you know
this or not. So I'm going to give you
directly from a debate brief that I had because Muslims have
tried to use this. And there's a reason why you
know how I know that because I have a debate brief talking
about it. So Jeremiah 88IN context reads,

(01:38:43):
how can you say we are wise and the law of the Lord is with us?
But behold, the lying pen of thescribes has made it into a lie.
Now here's the two bullet pointsthat show historically why what
you're saying is false. The scribes here are the
professional legal interpreters of the law in Jeremiah's day,

(01:39:04):
the same class of leaders that Jesus rebuked centuries later
for nullifying God's Word with their traditions in Mark 713,
which is why I made that correlation earlier to the
Pharisees. This was the same sort of
situation. The lying pen is a metaphor for
twisting the meaning of God's law through false
interpretation, not erasing or rewriting the actual Torah

(01:39:25):
scrolls. Now if we look at Hebrew Ling
linguistics, the key phrase ET shakur literally means pen of
falsehood, A poetic idiom. The Hebrew does not say, rewrote
or change the text, but speaks of handling the law deceitfully,
just as in Jeremiah 2336 where the burden of the Lord is
twisted by false prophets. But even worse for that, again,

(01:39:48):
when I asked you for evidence, you provided none because
there's no evidence of textual tampering.
In Jeremiah's day. The Torah existed in stable form
by this period. We know that from the discovery
of Katef He Nam scrolls in the late 7th century BC which quote
numbers chapter 62425 and 26 almost word for word as it is

(01:40:08):
today in today's Hebrew Bible. Now these silver amulets predate
Jeremiah and prove the textual continuity later on, the Dead
Sea Scrolls from the 3rd centuryBC, 1st century AD, preserved,
preserved, excuse me, the Torah text that matched the mesoratic
text in substance, showing no evidence of a rewritten or

(01:40:28):
original to hide guilt. It makes absolutely no sense.
And this goes on and on and on and on.
So what I'm trying to tell you is that you're plain reading of
it is you're reading your your myopic view into it.
But when you look at what the actual Hebrew actually said,
again, the key phrase ET shakur is not talking about that.
It's talking about the IT is talking about the the
professional legal interpreters of the law in Jeremiah's day.

(01:40:52):
This is not talking about the scribes who wrote the book of
Jeremiah. So I have absolutely no idea
what you're talking about. OK, but to be very specific to
your question, all scriptures are inspired of God.
That's very true. So God is the one who inspires
scriptures, There's no doubt in it.

(01:41:13):
Right, but but the book of Jeremiah is in the Bible, which
is God's scripture which you admitted to.
Yeah, yeah. OK, Yeah, Let me finish.
Let me finish my response. I I do, I do ask my children to
write the Quran because I want them to write the early Quran
with their own hands. And they make a lot of mistakes,
right? So those are typographical or

(01:41:36):
unintentional childlike mistakes, which cannot be, which
cannot become a standard scripture for future reference.
All right. But if I insist all my children
have written this text and it isa standard reference, then I
will be in on the wrong, correct?
But now I'm not even making a reference to rewriting or
altering the scriptural physicalcopies.

(01:41:58):
I'm not making a reference to that.
What I'm saying is the very first time that the scribes
write down, that's when they're hiding their guilt.
And to be able to debate this subject matter, I don't even
have to be a Muslim. And I don't want to be like a
Muslim debating this subject forreasons that I don't want to
impress upon the Christians thatI am somehow an enemy of the

(01:42:22):
Bible. I'm not I'm a believer in the
Bible, right? So I, I don't even have to be a
Muslim to go and debate the, the, the corruptions in the
earlier in the first, in the very first documentation of the
Bible. I can be an atheist or a secular
scholar who can debate this premise that the original
writings of the Bible are not inspired.

(01:42:44):
We're baiting of God. So there is words of God, no
doubt. As a believer, I would I would
give that, I would grant it and I would believe in it.
But there's also writings of thescribes, their own
interpretations, their own explanations, which are which
can easily be falsified, for example.
So I don't I don't necessarily have to be a Muslim.

(01:43:04):
I'm not arguing that the scriptures were rewritten and
therefore it infers in some formof physical evidence, which is
not the case. I I agree with you there is no
physical evidence of corruption of that level.
We do have variations and we have evidence for those.

(01:43:24):
But what I'm saying is, according to Jeremiah describes
when they wrote it for the firsttime, they mishandled it.
I need to. I'm sorry, but I.
May I ask Apologetics as well asDaniel a question real quick?
Sure. I I'm pretty sure Brother
Maverick will know where I'm going on this as well.
But being that all of us in hereare theists and we believe in

(01:43:46):
God and we believe God is not anArthur of confusion.
He's not going to let us live down lies and He's going to
protect His word and His information from your view of
the personality of God. What would He do to a person who
deliberately tries to twist his words?

(01:44:07):
And necessary to both of us, right?
You can go first if you like apologetics.
I'd like to hear what you guys think on that, and I'd love to
hear brother Maverick, even though I'm pretty sure where he
would go with it. Yeah.
So just to answer your question,God will curse anyone who adds
to the book. I mean, that's pretty much

(01:44:27):
something that we can see that these the principle of that is
found at the end of Revelation. Like anyone who adds takes away.
I'm not saying that this is a wholesale.
Like. You know, statement, but if the
principle is there that people that add people that change,
they get rebuked, they get cursed, God does not deal well
with him. And I don't think that God would
allow people from the very onsetand get go to do that with his

(01:44:47):
Word, with Revelation. And I want to tell you that I
agree with what your response was.
How about you, Mr. Daniel? Yeah, I would.
I would say what? As Jeremiah himself says, the
wise will be put to shame. They will be dismayed and
trapped since they've rejected the word of God.
What kind of wisdom do they think they have?

(01:45:08):
So I I completely agree God is going to punish them and God has
punished people in the past. May not be those exact tribes
who but but eventually God will punish them.
And that's why we have hell firewith God Almighty.
It's for a reason and eternal punishments are for a reason.
Those punishments are for severecrimes.

(01:45:29):
So those punishments are not forunintentional crimes, not for
people who make typographical errors and unintentional errors,
not for that, but intentional crimes who are hiding their
guilt, as we can see in the story of Red Heifer.
So I mean, look, I, I, I mean, Ido understand that people that

(01:45:50):
there is among Christian community, there is not a
consensus that the Bible is the word of God for orbiting like it
is in the Muslim community. For example, Christians do
understand the inerrancy side ofthe Bible.
But I'm, I'm, I'm also aware that some, that some Christians
believe orbiting word of God Bible to be the word orbiting
word of God. But if you want to like analyze

(01:46:12):
the biblical writings from even from a secular point of view,
you will certainly find you willcertainly find passages which
you will go on to understand, asJeremiah himself said that the
scribes handled it falsely. So you have to be, if if you go
with the critical approach of the Bible, you would realize

(01:46:33):
what what prophet Jeremiah is talking about.
You don't even have to come froma Muslim premise to be able to
see those things. Brother Maverick, were you able
to hear my question? Because I'm pretty sure you
would have a showroom. I I didn't.
Can you repeat it? Because people always want to
call me. Literally nobody calls me all
day until I'm in the middle of if I'm at work, I'm going to
call. People are blowing up my phone.

(01:46:54):
If I'm just driving around, nobody cares to talk to me.
When I'm in the middle of a livestream, everybody wants to talk
to me. When I'm getting dressed, doing
something that's not important, nobody wants to call me.
It's always the same thing. I'm sorry.
Go ahead and go ahead and ask your I'm so sorry guys.
Go ahead and ask your question. It's a short question.
Anyway, the point was as to apologetics and Mr. Daniel and

(01:47:14):
including the audience out there, what would God do to
someone who deliberately tries to add or take away from the
Scripture from a Muslim point ofview as well as a Christian?
And they both agree that God would lay up the smack down on
someone who attempts to do that.And even if they to do
something, God would correct it eventually it would be fixed,

(01:47:37):
right? Right.
There's no way he's going to lethumanity live in a lie, right?
He's a good God. He's not here after confusion.
What do you think? Well, the the Bible what what
God's opinion. I know what the I know that the
the Quranic version of people who try to alter the scripture
is very unforgiving. I know that in the Bible, God's

(01:47:57):
approach to that is very intolerant, but almost
pragmatic. Like the Bible literally says,
once you have added to Scripture, you have nullified
Scripture, right? Once you step outside of
Scripture, you have nullified scripture.
So essentially what what God is telling you is that you know
enough about Scripture to try tonullify, to step outside of it,
to add your own traditions, to do all the things that you do No

(01:48:18):
problem, go ahead. But don't sit there with that
look on your face when you're standing on a day of judgement
wondering why you are not spending eternity with me,
right? It is very simple in
Christianity. Very simple.
There is nothing about it that is ambiguous.
Once you have added to Scripture, you have nullified
it, meaning God is basically telling you.
The same way that I tell my kidsyou're going to do what I say

(01:48:40):
you're going to do. If you don't want to, that's
fine. You can go live out there in the
world, but you will not be doingwhat you want to do here.
Very simple. And don't come crying to me when
you don't like what's out there.Heaven and hell is very much the
same. Do not come crying later on when
you thought you knew better thanGod.
Because we live in a world full of people like that, right on
all sides. Everybody thinks they know more
than God. Everybody thinks love is love.

(01:49:02):
Everybody tells you to follow your heart.
Everybody tells you that sin is OK.
Everybody tells you that the Bible is an ancient book that
cannot be applied to today's standards.
OK, keep believing that if you want to.
But the Bible is very clear about that.
You nullify my word when you addto it or when you when you step
outside of it. Very clear.
Yeah, I I just need to say something quickly and then this

(01:49:23):
might sound harsh, but there there was something that you
said and it just made me remember like we need to bring
things this back in. But what you said, I can't get
that boss. You said according to Jeremiah,
according to Jeremiah, your words were that he there wasn't
tutual corruption, but that the original revelation of God was
scribed down wrong in the 1st place.

(01:49:43):
They hid the original word from God.
He did hiding their guilt and wrote the very first actual
textual version in an incorrect state.
Where does Jeremiah ever tell usthat?
You can't say a statement like according to Jeremiah because
you know that like how that follows it creates problems with
the Quran in and of itself. If from the get go the Torah is

(01:50:05):
wrong, then Jesus can't have come confirming the Torah.
That's that's huge problems withthe Quran.
But that'll be that I find it very interesting and, and graph
that is makes a great point. I find it very interesting that
again and, and, and I want you guys to notice this pattern,
ladies and gentlemen, 'cause it happens every single time, every
time we ask for someone. And, and this is not a shot at
brother Daniel. I I love brother Daniel.

(01:50:27):
I love speaking with him. I love his approach.
I love his his, I love his intent.
But I will tell you that I find it extraordinarily interesting
that we have two scenarios that always end up the same way.
When an atheist or a Muslim wants to question a Christian
about the Bible or about Jesus'sdivinity or about an occurrence

(01:50:50):
in the Old Testament or whatever, never once, never will
you hear a Christian saying, well, in the Quran, we don't
need the Quran to defend the Bible.
We don't. We don't ever end up having to
appeal to the Quran to talk about the Bible in its socio
historical or archaeological or manuscriptural context.

(01:51:10):
We don't have to do that. What I find interesting is that
we are here talking about Sirata94 and once again look at what
we're talking about, the book ofJeremiah, the Book of Numbers.
Why are we here again, ladies and gentlemen?
Why? If the Quran is the absolute
word of God, are we always circling back to the Bible?

(01:51:31):
Why? Right it does.
It doesn't make any sense. You don't.
The Bible doesn't need the Quran.
We don't need the Quran. We can, we can talk about
supposed biblical contradictionsall day long, and I never have
to bring up the Quran. Never.
Having said that, let's move on to question #5 This is for both

(01:51:52):
sides. Brother Daniel, I will pose this
question to you first. If Surat 1094 affirms that
Muhammad's revelation should align with the book the people
of the book possessed, this is what the group was called, the
People of the book. So if Sarah 1094 affirms that
Muhammad's revelation should align with the book that the
people of the book possessed, what are the theological

(01:52:15):
implications if there are contradictions between the Quran
and that book? Now, mind you, I have very
carefully worded this question to make sure that we're not
calling it the Bible or the Tarah or the NGO or the Zabir or
anything. It is a very simple question.
What are the theological implications if there are
contradictions, which we know there are, between the Quran and

(01:52:38):
that book? Go ahead.
Rather, Daniel. I think I kind of answered this
from the get go today, but because the Quran does not ask
Prophet Muhammad to validate thestories in the Quran with the
Bible, I kind of answered this from the get go.
And I've been emphasizing this. But I do understand that you

(01:52:59):
framed these questions before coming to the debate before the
stream. So I can understand where this
question is coming. From, yeah, just elaborate a
little bit. I know you did that.
In all fairness, I know I heard you say, but just elaborate
because you did say that it doesnot pose A logical
contradiction. So I remember what you said,
yeah. So can you, can you elaborate
more on that? Gotcha.

(01:53:20):
I will just provide a confirmation.
I will steal my new position now.
OK, but if that was the expectation, if the expectation
was the Prophet Muhammad had to validate these stories from the
biblical point of view. And now we see the
contradictions that the Quran does not agree with the Bible on
several different storylines andeven theologically with the
Gospel accounts, not necessarilywith the Gospels of the synaptic

(01:53:44):
Gospels, but you can say arguably with Gospel of John and
sometimes with the Gospel of Matthew as well, but especially
with the canonized books of the New Testament from Paul and
other writers. Then you would say, OK, there is
a, there is a theological difference, a Jew from a Jewish

(01:54:05):
position. There's also differences, but
they're not detrimental differences theologically
speaking. There might be differences with
stories, but they're not so muchconcerning theology itself
because a lot of the stories of the Old Testament that also are
narrated in the Quran, they're not theological stories, but

(01:54:26):
there are stories where believers derive lessons of
faith and longing in God and self sacrifice and worship God.
Hold on, I'm. Gonna reign you in here for a
second for a second for a secondbecause you're, you're, you're
going on on a very broad tangent.
Now here, here's the question. It's, it's, it's not, it is not

(01:54:46):
that deep. What are the theological
implications if there are contradictions between the Quran
and that book that because Surah1094 affirms that Muhammad's
revelation should align with thebook.
OK, and that's, that's what 1094is saying, right?
So, and I know you continue to try to kind of sidestep it and

(01:55:06):
say, well, there's nothing saying that Muhammad had to
verify or affirm those books. But here's your problem.
Surah 1094 affirms that Muhammad's revelation should
align with the book the people of the book possessed.
So what are there? There is no question about what
it says. It says it right there.
What are the theological implications if there are
contradictions between the Quranand that book?

(01:55:28):
That's it. I wait, I, I don't want a
history lesson about all these things and, and the theological
I I want to know what are the implications if those books
contradict one another, For example, because we are making
on our side the assertion that that book is the Bible and we
have history and manuscript evidence to verify that through
any number of manuscripts, right?

(01:55:49):
Because we are making that assertion, we are telling you
that verses like 1094 affirm that book.
But then later on in the Quran we'll disagree with the
fundamental aspect of Christianity, such as the deity
of Jesus Christ and the crucifixion and his sonship to
God. So what I'm asking you is what
are the theological implicationsif there are contradictions

(01:56:12):
between the Quran and the book that it is affirming in 1094?
So I mean, going with your own premise, it's 1094 is not even
talking about Jesus, right? It's talking about Moses and
Noah, correct. If even if I want to, even if I
want to steal my new position, it's still talking about Noah
and Moses and not so much about Jesus at all, for example.

(01:56:33):
So if you want. To wait, where, where, where do
you, well hold on, where do you,where are you pulling that
interpretation from? It's saying the people of the
book, which would be the Torah according to other passages in
the Quran, the Torah and there'sa beer and the Gospel or the
Injeel. So the Injeel right when I'm

(01:56:55):
talking to. People, when I'm talking to
people, they give me a very specific, you know, context.
They say, OK, these stories. No, no, Daniel, stop.
Listen. Stop, Daniel, stop.
I'm not asking about what happens when you talk to people,
brother. I'm trying to be patient here.
I'm asking you a very simple question because the book we

(01:57:17):
already have established the you're again.
You are. You're reading your own
understanding into it. This is a very simple question.
You don't get to start out by saying, well, it's only talking
about the Tarah. No, it's not.
It's been made clear that it is talking about the previous
revelations, the Ingeal, the Tarah, the Zabir.
Right now, we can have a later discussion about whether or not
you think the Ingeal was this magical fairy tale that was lost

(01:57:39):
to time that no one ever got to set eyes on and that only Jesus
Christ had, which is a complete fairy tale because it's been
made clear that Jesus Christ read from the Old Testament when
he gave sermons. But I digress.
That is not saying there's nothing in there saying you are
now changing position again. You're saying that it only
refers to the Tara. No, it doesn't.
I'm asking you simply, simply ifthose books, and I know why

(01:58:01):
you're doing that, because if you include the NGO, if you
include the New Testament, then you have to you have to
acknowledge that it is includinga book that contradicts it, even
though it affirms that book. My question to you is there's no
question about whether or not the Injeel of the gospel is
included in this book with the people of the book possessed.
My question to you is what are the theological implications if

(01:58:23):
there are contradictions betweenthe Quran and that book?
You are basically taking my own premise I clarified to you in
the beginning. That includes the gospel, right?
I, I clarified that to you. I said the singular, you said
it's a singular book, but I saidit's in a generic sense, It can
include the gospels, the Torah and other books.

(01:58:45):
Any precisely I said to you, anyone that has a book of God,
the prophets, right. OK, this is what I said.
And my premise has been that this is not about validating
Quranic stories. However, you're I know where
you're coming from and I'm telling you if I want to steal
my new position, this context isnot even about Christ.
It's about Moses. So that's what I'm telling you.

(01:59:07):
But that's not even my premise. My premise is it includes the
gospel, but your own premise that where you come from, it's
actually the story of Moses, noteven about Jesus.
So if that makes. Sense.
No, it doesn't, because the question was what are the
theological implications if there are contradictions between
the Quran and that book? I would say that the two

(01:59:28):
accounts contradict right so then so.
Then what are they? So then, what theological
implications does that have for Islam?
OK, if you for for a Christian who is a polemic of the Islamic
doctrine, he would say the Quranis false, right?
But that's not how a Muslim would see that, because the
Muslim would see that I'm. Asking, I'm asking you from the

(01:59:50):
Muslim perspective, if if you are agreeing that the people of
the book had the book which is the Bible, then what are the
theological implications for Islam if there are
contradictions between your bookthat you consider the book of
God and another book that it affirms that disagrees with your
book. And then one of those two, I

(02:00:12):
mean, to be to be really blunt, one of those two things would be
false. So the same, the same would
apply to 1st century the Jews. The Jews would say, oh, Jesus's
message doctrine doesn't align with the Torah, so he's
necessarily false. So they didn't, they didn't
believe in him and they don't even believe in the Gospels even
to this day, for example. So these are the predicaments

(02:00:34):
with people of the book who havea position to cite from the get
go. So what I'm asking you guys to
do is forget about Islamic dilemma for a minute and study
the Quran from a textual critical point of view and also
approach the Bible from a textual critical lens.
And then you would be able to see what each of these

(02:00:54):
messengers were doing. Even Jesus himself, he said I've
come to fulfil. I've not come to abrogate the
prophets, but I've come to fulfil.
But yet he goes on provides it was said you it was said to you
of the old times, but this is what I have to say to you now.
And we see all of these things happening.
And even in the Quran, the Quranalso brings this thing to to the

(02:01:15):
table. It says Jesus said the same
thing to the to the Jewish people think not that I've come
to destroy, but I have to come to confirm the same very words
Mossaddiq Kalima that the Quran uses for itself.
Jesus also uses the same words in the Quran, Mossaddiq Kalima,
which means a confirmation of what has been given thus far.
So I don't necessarily see a contradiction or a theological

(02:01:40):
development of the Quran becauseI'm coming from a different
premise. And obviously people polemics of
the Quran, they come from a different premise.
But we have to be more critical and keep our presumptions aside
when we approach the scriptures and critically study them.
And then we can align as to whatthese scriptures are actually

(02:02:01):
talking about. And going from your own premise,
if I apply that to Jesus, it becomes Christian dilemma, for
example, if I want to do that, but I understand it's not a
Christian dilemma, it's actuallya Jewish dilemma because they
are not updating their faith-based on the future
prophetic dispensations. So.

(02:02:21):
OK, yeah, I guess that's as close to an answer as we're
going to get. Brother.
Grafted, same question for you. If Surat at 94 affirms that
Muhammad's revelation should align with the book the people
of the book possessed, what are the theological implications if
there are contradictions betweenthe Quran and that book?
Well, from the approach I've stated in my opening statement,

(02:02:42):
right, I would affirm that at least what is supposed to
actually confirm would be not just the stories of Moses, but
the prior early prophets as I have shown with evidence,
Abraham, Lot, Noah, etcetera, right?
If those contradict with what the people of the book have, the
implications are huge. What it means is not necessary

(02:03:03):
that the Jews have to update or take faith or abandoned what
they've had because the Quran isquite clear.
When we look at Surah Al Maida chapter 5, verse 68, it says the
people of the book, the Prophet,has to say this to them.
You have nothing to stand on if you do not stand on the Quran,
Gospel by default. The implication is that they
have to abandon the Quran. They have to take it as a

(02:03:24):
revelation that is not applicable to them, but from
within the Quran's or at least Islam's own paradigm.
If the Quran is to be the final revelation, all of a sudden
that's cancelled because it doesn't finally apply
universally. It's not final for everyone.
There are huge collapsing implications with what happens
here in their contradictions, and obviously I'm not saying
they are. I'm just granting the premise,
if that anyone can argue for anycontext.

(02:03:46):
Oh no, it's just Moses. Oh, it's just a thing that
Muhammad has to affirm for himself.
But just following the premise, the grant falls away.
Everything is falsified. May.
I ask one really, really challenging, difficult question
for Mr. Apologetics real quick. That'd be fast.
My question is where is your YouTube channel so I can

(02:04:06):
subscribe to it? Oh, grafted apologetics is
exactly as his name is here. It's it's adopted apologetics
SA. So there's an SA at the end for
South Africa. Yeah, but, but even if you look,
if you look, if you look, Brett,if you just type grafted
apologetics, he's the first one that pops up.
Like you can type and say, yeah,but it'll pop up right away.
I I don't even know that there'sanother one.

(02:04:28):
Well, it's nice meeting you again, Mr. Crafted.
I'm going to find you out there.Hopefully it'll come up just
like a Mr. Brother, Maverick says.
And that's been a great discussion so far.
I'm glad everybody is interceding here.
Brother Brett, do you have any? You've been listening very
quietly. Do you have anything that you
want to say? Do you have any questions you

(02:04:48):
want to ask for both gentlemen? They have answered, They have
gone through all 5 essentially 10 questions, 1, you know, one
part of for each guy. Do you have anything that you
want to add? Because I know even though
you're not, you are an atheist, become Christian, but you are
very knowledgeable on this subject matter too.
And the way you do it is you like to phrase questions in such
a way that it kind of holds Muslim theology to their own

(02:05:11):
standards, which I love. So if you want to go ahead and
bring those up right now becausenow Daniel is here, feel free.
We only have a little bit of time left, less than an hour.
So if you want to go ahead and chime in, you are welcome to.
I guess I could ask one of the classics that I did in the past.
Obviously Muslims respect Jesus Christ and they see him as a

(02:05:34):
teacher, a prophet and all that.But my curiosity is why, if he
was just simply a prophet or a man who you know is clearly sent
according to the Quran as a messenger and such, why was he?
Why was it necessary for him to be born of a virgin?
And I, I know Daniel, you and I kind of got onto that a little

(02:05:55):
bit. And you mentioned Adam and Eve,
that Adam didn't require like a biological father.
But the fact that Adam and Eve were created was a miracle in
itself, the way God did it compared to the way we're used
to it being biologically. And I feel the same way about
Jesus, that it was divine. Why did Allah choose to do it

(02:06:16):
that way? Why not just let him be born
like Muhammad was? Yeah, OK.
I think the I, I did tell you these things, or maybe it was
another different stream that I was talking about these things.
So I'll, I'll kind of reiterate it.
So the story of Jesus really begins with his grandmother.

(02:06:42):
If you want to call it from the apocryphal works, her name was
Annie or Hannah. You know, it's up to you.
I think it's Hannah. So Annie also called as Annie,
she actually dedicated her childwhen she was pregnant to the
temple services of Almighty God,not intending that the child
would be a female child. But when she when she birthed

(02:07:02):
the child, the child was found to be female.
And she was like taken aback. But God said, don't worry,
there's no difference between the male and the female in what
they can do for God. So God embraced the child for
and approved the dedication of the child and took Mary under

(02:07:25):
the temple services. And that's when Mary was
inducted into the temple services and assigned under the
care of Zechariah the prophet. And then this is where all this
is where it all begins. God says this child is dedicated
to me. So she remains A perpetual
virgin. Unlike some of the accounts that
she got married to Joseph and had children with Joseph, the

(02:07:45):
Quran is not sort of approving of that.
So she's a perpetual virgin, a child dedicated to God, and God
made her assign by having a virgin birth from her, and made
her son Jesus also a sign for humanity.
So what is a sign for humanity is the creation promise of God.

(02:08:12):
That God can actually bring out a child from a virgin is a sign
for people. It has scientific impetus.
Like, for example, we also know parthenogenesis that happens in
nature that amounts to virgin birds.
Like, for example, you find thisphenomenon in some of the
creatures of God, like in including some of the honey

(02:08:32):
bees, right? So God brought this out as a
miracle, a miracle child, as a sign for human beings who would
go on to do genetic research, for example, You know what I
mean? So there there is impetus in
there. The one explicitly calls Jesus
and her mom Mary as a sign for people for humanity.
So that's the that's the impetusright there.

(02:08:55):
And I just wanted to cover one of the questions if I have the
permission that Grafted basically made a remark to at
the end that he brought up this verse from Surah Maida from
chapter. 5. Which again needs to be looked
at in its own context, so. Go ahead.
Oh by the way, I haven't been able to find the YouTube

(02:09:16):
channel. We might be getting the
different preferences or something like that.
Yeah, because when I search it, I I search it and he pops up
right away. So I just type in grafted
apologetics his his handle is Grafted Apologetics SA.
But yeah, it's a, it's a first channel.
It's in the chat by the way. Yeah.
And I I I put the link. I put the link directly in the
chat for you. All right.

(02:09:37):
Thank you. No problem.
So the can I? Can I go ahead and answer?
Him. Yes, please.
Yeah. OK.
So the phrase that in Sotomaya chapter 5 is you have no basis
until you establish the Torah. It's not talking about the
stories or theology or other aspects of the religious

(02:10:02):
doctrine. It's very specific.
It wants the Jewish people to establish justice and fairness
from the doctrine that's found in the law of Moses.
So it very clearly says you haveno premise for salvation with
God unless you fulfill, you fulfill the covenant of the

(02:10:24):
Torah that you do. Your affairs, your juridical
affairs, your legal system should align with the
expectations that God has set for you in the Torah.
So that's what it means. And the same thing applies for
Christians as well. So Christians should have their
legal system in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

(02:10:47):
So until you do that, you would not have a premise with God for
salvation and the same would apply for the Muslims.
Until we institute the statutes of God's law as found in the
Quran, we would lose our premisewith Almighty God.
So it's a, it's a parallel teaching to all of these

(02:11:08):
different faiths that God has given the law to, that they are
expected to establish law, the legal code as in a jewelry equal
system and processes. If we don't do this, each of us
will be held accountable before God, the Muslims, the
Christians, and the Jewish people.
I just want to respond to that. I'm more than happy to grant
what you're saying and that thisis not a general, you know,

(02:11:30):
criteria to judge by it and thatit's specifically within
doctrine, within instruction. I was answering and bringing it
up within the premise of the question that should there be
contradictions the the the people of the book would be
forced to prioritize the torn and the gospel over the Quran
and rejected if I could do this.No.
The Christians are entitled to abide in their covenant with

(02:11:52):
Almighty God and they will stillhave salvation.
They don't have to necessarily become Muslims.
Muslims will still have salvation and Jewish people will
also have salvation. But salvation is detrimental.
If a Muslim asserts or Prophet Muhammad was the son of God or
God himself, then a Muslim salvation would be in peril.

(02:12:14):
So the same thing would apply toa Christian.
If Christian would assert Jesus was God himself, then his
salvation would be in peril. And if Jewish people had
blasphemed the theology and blasphemed the Spirit, for
example, they would they would also have their salvation in.
Peril so, but certainly this is God doesn't blasphemy the

(02:12:35):
covenant that the Christians have.
Sorry, can you can you rephrase me?
You said that yes, and you stickto them and you produce, for
example, blasphemy in their government, right?
This is what's going to take theproblem for them.
Christians affirming the divinity of Jesus does not
constitute A blasphemy within our covenant.
That's what I understand that side of the story.

(02:12:57):
I mean, Christians are sort of have this perception that Jesus
was divine, which is again debatable going into the
Gospels. So you don't have to debate this
from the Quran's side of view, Quran's premise or Quran's
perspective. There is a debate within within
the gospel. So there's Unitarian believers
who believed that Jesus will notdivine.
We also know the 1st century Christians, there's EB and ISIS

(02:13:19):
Nazarenes who did not believe that Jesus was divine, neither
had any redemptive value for hisresurrection.
So we have all of these different traditions within
Christianity where there's a disagreement.
So that can be a debate separately conducted, not
necessarily from the premise of the Koran.
The only reason I would challenge this is because you've
made the comment on Surah 568, right?

(02:13:40):
The people of the book have the scripture and the scripture is
called Jesus God. Literally you've got Peter
saying our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
So to to to lump the IBM as in we'd have to assume that
collects the same scriptures as what mainline Christianity has.
I don't want to get into it necessarily for saying what I'm
saying. I've only brought the Surah up
in light of that and that excretion.

(02:14:02):
It was just useful to the payments that he brought forth.
And I want and I want Daniel, hold on before you go on.
And I, and I want to chime in onsomething that I noticed very
blatantly, which I, I find ironic and, and, and comical
simultaneously. And brother Grafton and brother
Brett, you guys let me know if you agree.
I find it very interesting that an individual who does not

(02:14:23):
believe in Jesus as God will appeal to an early church father
who is not a writer of the Bibleand say, but they early
Christians, people who came 5060100150 years later, didn't
look at Jesus as God. But when we asked you earlier
about hadiths which were supposedly written to help
understand the writings and the and the figures of the Quran,

(02:14:44):
you say, well, I don't have any.I don't, I don't look at those
people. I don't care what they say.
I only look at the Quran, right?I only look at the Quran.
So I don't look at the hadiths in reference to the Quran, but I
will look at early church fathers and early church figures
in reference to the Bible. Completely hypocritical.
I have to say. Brother Dan, I'm not saying
brother, you have to hold. On hold on.

(02:15:05):
I'm not. Saying hold on Brett, go ahead.
Let Brett first. Goodness gracious, go.
Ahead, Brett. No, Yeah, I was trying to stop
him. Brother Dana, I love you, but
goodness gracious how you're getting a discussion here.
I would have to say, and it'll be quick, what's good for the
goose is good for the gander, would be my response.
Brother Maverick. Yeah, that that to me is it's
it's you. You, you cannot say I am a

(02:15:26):
Muslim who is Quran only and I don't and I have very little
regard for people like Adan Kafir and Ibani boss.
OK, great if that's your stance.But you do not get to hold that
stance in regard to the Quran. And then later on say, but I
will appeal to figures outside of the Bible in reference to
appealing to things about the Bible and especially about
something as important as the deity of Jesus Christ.

(02:15:48):
So it's, it's very hypocritical,a very hypocritical that a
Muslim would say, I don't look at Hadis because I don't need to
ensure that's fine. But if you don't look at Hadees
in reference to things about theQuran, how can you have the gall
to sit there and look at something that and, and again,
to say nothing of the fact that you didn't actually name any of
these people. You just said there were people
in the 1st century, 2nd century church fathers, whatever that

(02:16:09):
didn't believe in Jesus God. You didn't name any of them, but
you appeal to them for their belief in what Jesus was God or
not. But God forbid you look at any
of the early Muslim scholars whoeither knew Muhammad or knew
people who knew Muhammad. Completely hypocritical.
Go ahead. I, I will, I'll yield back.
Yeah, yeah. So what?
Let me clarify this because you've taken a very in a

(02:16:31):
confedding way. I don't necessarily make that as
a proof or some form of evidencethat we have to look at these
early church schisms and, you know, make that as evidence that
Jesus was not God. That's not my approach.
My approach will be very biblical, very gospel based
approach to argue over whether Jesus was divine or not.

(02:16:52):
So just to clarify, I'm not. I'm applying the same standards
I was I was. I would apply to myself and to
my faith. I'm same.
I'm keeping the standards the same.
I just brought that as a reference, not to make a
evidential proof kind of things,just to clarify if you're
misunderstood. There was no misunderstanding.
It was it's, it's all, all due respect, brother Daniel.

(02:17:12):
It's irrelevant because the premise is the same.
If you refer to a certain group of people who were not directly
involved with Jesus Christ or the writing or were divinely
inspired writers of the Bible. But then you appeal to these
people and say, but even they said and didn't look at Jesus as
God. But earlier on in the debate,
you were very clear about havingvery little regard for what Ivan

(02:17:36):
Kathir said. Again, it is exactly the same
situation. But when it comes to your
purview, to your paradigm, you don't want to look at it like
that, right? You didn't want to look at the
hadith, you don't want to look at the tafsir, but you want us
to look at something similar forChristianity when it goes to
your point. So I understand that it was one
specific instance, but you didn't even understand the

(02:17:56):
hypocriticalness of what you said and that and that's all I'm
saying. I.
Also, before we get too far ahead, Apologetics never got the
opportunity to respond to my question.
You know, we kind of went so farinto all these other
discussions, Apologetics never even got an opportunity.
And I wouldn't be absolutely surprised if he's forgotten

(02:18:18):
completely what I even asked. Go.
Ahead answer No, please go ahead.
Let me try to let me try to clarify my question a little bit
and why I even bring up this classic thing.
Even if the Bible didn't exist, even if all these church folks
did not exist of the past or modern days, if I were to be a

(02:18:40):
person who observes the Quran, Iwould find very quickly that
Jesus seems extremely extraordinary compared to a lot
of the other prophets or figuresor whoever is mentioned in the
book. And the fact that not only is he
born of a virgin, but he's able to do these supernatural things,
and then he returns in the end of the book to claim souls.

(02:19:04):
It is almost as if the Quran is trying to say that there's
something more about Jesus than just being a dude.
What do you think about that? I think that what you're saying,
especially in light of the fact that like if I accept the
payments that the Bible, churches, the churches edition,
the Jews, all of that doesn't exist immediately.
My thinking is that the Messiah is much more than what the

(02:19:26):
traditional understanding, at least chronically, of the
Messiah. Was that?
Yeah, I mean, there's no, there's no doubt about that,
that Jesus painfully in a very special light.
And even the fact that he comes back to say that the jaw is
pretty, it's pretty convincing of like he's, he's one of the
standards. And I wouldn't necessarily do

(02:19:49):
any further conclusions. I haven't, I haven't given this
any thought, but I wouldn't do any further conclusions other
than whatever you say that I would actually emphasize
something much, much more important than than the
traditional Islamic understanding.
Well, I appreciate your responseand I also appreciate yours,
Daniel. And Daniel, I am, I am very
patient. Lindoor, I understand you told

(02:20:11):
me quite a few times you're still working on the language
and all that and there's that barrier.
So I appreciate your time as well.
Yeah, I appreciate your serviceshere, Brad.
You're a wonderful person for sure.
Are we, are there anything as far as you know?

(02:20:31):
What? Let's do this, ladies and
gentlemen, because I think it's been very productive.
Brother Daniel, you are you havebeen very gracious.
I really do appreciate you. I first of all, I like you.
I told you before that I like you.
Even though, even though I listen, ladies and gentlemen,
here's the thing. I have a lot of friends who are
not Christian, very good friends, OK?

(02:20:53):
I do not have to be in the presence of someone who shares
every theological point in agreement with me for me to like
you, right? You can disagree with me.
Jesus was kind even to people who didn't listen to him.
So who am I who is so much less to be unkind to anybody?
I like Daniel a lot. I always say to people,

(02:21:15):
especially at my job, even if I disagree with everything you
say, even if I disagree with your approach on things.
But if I feel like your heart isin the right place, if I feel
like you're doing it from a, from a place of, of good
intention, then I, I respect that all day long.
And I do believe that that's to be true of prophet Daniel.
So thank you, my brother. And because you are here in what

(02:21:35):
would be looked at as enemy territory, I will go ahead and,
and, and you were gracious enough and you were brave
enough, which is what more than I can say for many, many people
who spend most of their time in my comments section, in my chat
section. You know, dropping their troll
bombs and getting ignored for the most part or just getting
decimated by other Christians inthe chat that I don't even pay
attention to anymore because it just has taking a life of its

(02:21:57):
own. And I guess that in a lot of
ways that's a good thing, right?When you have a chat where most
people aren't even talking to you.
I think somebody said a long time ago, when your chat is
blowing up and literally nobody's talking to you, that's
how you know you've got something special.
So I thank God for that, BrotherDaniel.
I'm going to go ahead and give you a 5 minute end statement to
finish clarifying anything you want or just just talk about
anything you want or wrap. It doesn't even have to be about

(02:22:19):
1094. It'll be 5 minutes and I'm going
to give Grafted 5 minutes and then we're going to wrap it up,
ladies and gentlemen. Yeah, thank you so much, brother
Maverick, you, you're a wonderful person.
And I'm just, I'm just discovering you guys from a
couple of months. My channel is only a couple of
months old and I'm pretending toYouTube after a break.

(02:22:41):
So it's wonderful to discover this community.
And I've been speaking to some of the Christian brothers from
different channels. And obviously what happens is we
boil down to disagreements pretty quickly and we tend to
disengage. I, I don't necessarily see that
to be a, a, a thing of faith to do.

(02:23:05):
People of faith should heart should have or inculcate
bravery, truth seeking, courage,engagement, discussion, even
debates. I mean, I don't necessarily see
debates as a thing of win, winning and losing.
I see them as tools and processes where truth can be

(02:23:31):
elucidated much better and criticism can be taken or
advanced in a better way. So I see these tools as very
important tools for human development and progress and
learning, and even to see compatible positions between
differing groups and between thedissenting groups.

(02:23:51):
So these tools are very important.
These are modern tools. People back in the day did not
debate, did not engage. People just were buyers and they
went their own ways. But we have also the different
side. Even in ancient times, people
have converted. Nations have converted from
paganism into Christianity and from paganism and Christianity

(02:24:11):
into Islam. All of those good things have
happened in the past. So it's basically God who has
the power. He veils the power over people
and turns their hearts. As long as people are sincere
and asking guidance from Almighty God, I'm sure that's
how God works with sincere hearts.
So that's why God and Jesus evensays be like children, come like

(02:24:33):
children to me with good hearts,with pure hearts and absorb the
information in on its on its premise, on its face value.
And then then God can reform, bring about a great reformation
in people. I necessarily see these two
faiths as complementary faiths, Christianity and Islam.
Islam doesn't have the premise, but some extremist Muslims,
fanatic Muslims may assert all Christians go to hell.

(02:24:55):
That's not my premise because that is not the premise of the
Quran. There is salvation for Muslims,
Christians and Jewish people andalso non ever having people in
the Koran. So as long as people believed in
one God believed in judgment dayand did the right thing, being a
good neighbor, being a good citizen, that's what fetches a
salvation. And in this paradigm we can all
cooperate with each other for the glory of God's Kingdom.

(02:25:18):
There's challenges that is facing Muslims, Christians and
Jewish people, the Abrahamic faith.
So we should be addressing the challenges that face us as a
common threat rather than shredding each other apart and
destroying each other, which is not a good thing.
But I do recognize that that happens.
But as we modern day believers, I think we have all the all the

(02:25:41):
talents in the world that we canpossess to change this
historical antagonistic narrative into something
fruitful going into the future, collaborating, cooperating, and
working as a common force for the glory of God's Kingdom.
So that's my opinion. Thank you, Thank you, thank you,
Thank you, Brother Grafton, you go and go ahead and begin your
outro statement. Thank you so much for the

(02:26:04):
opportunity, Daniel. I kind of do feel.
Bad. This does feel like.
It was an imitated degree and I I honestly thought it would be a
really just kind of general conversation.
That being said, I don't know, Rick, I do feel that being kind
of taken back and quote of quitean actual debate format re
energized me and kept me away long enough to go all all the
way. So I think that my closing

(02:26:26):
statement shouldn't match the energy of a of a debate.
But before I do that, prophet Daniel, I really think that
you've been grateful. I really applaud your attitude.
You've earned this out from me. I've already done it while you
were doing the closing. I welcome you back to YouTube
and I hope that it's extremely productive for you.
Now in closing, examining the closing segment that Brother

(02:26:46):
Daniel made right, which was that he was taken out of
context. He attempted to re establish the
context which started from verse57 and 58.
And that it was basically aimed about what was going on with
Mama being effectively the guidance for mankind and how the
stories of Noah and Moses would serve as a comfort.

(02:27:06):
That despite dejection, God was giving him the divine
communication that he could thengo and confirm with the people
of the book. The issues that we have
encountered and we have gone on many tensions still do not
resolve only gate that Suraheen 94 affirms the Bible.
But what do I mean by this? Even if the prophets just knows

(02:27:29):
this and just know were being mentioned and Muhammad had to go
and confirm that with the peopleof the book.
It is the book upon which they would base the verification.
If you had to just wholesale come to someone and say, hey,
did God speak to Moses and they're like, yes, that doesn't
immediately like follow that. Oh cool, now I'm a.
Prophet as well, just because. God spoke to Moses.
No, they need a measuring standard.

(02:27:50):
And when the Quran says these stories, you, you, you
understand just purely. And and if I take the position
of a Quranist, I would follow logically that oh, OK, well,
what he has as revelation has tomatch what they have.
And so the Surah is obviously affirming that what they have is
what is to be judged against andnot the stories that Muhammad

(02:28:12):
has received in an independent context, not any kind of claim
that the Quran has made about textual corruption that can be
read or imported into scripturesin the Bible such as Jeremiah 8.
You know, this is a inconsistentmethodology, sorry, methodology,
especially from the position youhave taken.

(02:28:33):
So I would implore you once again, take the position you've
taken. Once again, simply read in
context and afford the same privileges to the Bible rather
than importing in the Islamic reading and looking for
confirmation in the Bible. If you could do it along the
course of this debate that you could confirm the Quran 279 by
using Jeremiah 88, why can't thepeople of the book confirm

(02:28:54):
Muhammad's stories by their own scripture?
So in closing, it doesn't make sense.
It's not consistent. You've demonstrated in principle
what the people of the book would have done to verify
Muhammad and it would not just simply be Oh yeah, God spoke.
It would be to make sure there were no contradiction following
the things that other Daniel said.
The people of the book would be forced to reject moment.

(02:29:15):
They would be forced to reject the Quran, especially especially
if the Quran it's not telling them that they could affirm it.
But this is the dilemma once again, if it was telling the
action of these stories are valid, then 1094 is simply
affirming the Quran. If it's not affirm, sorry, the
Bible. And if it's not affirm in the
Bible, then Muhammad is literally acting for legacy and

(02:29:37):
being like, hey, did you speak to Moses school?
I'm a prophet. It doesn't make sense.
We need a we need a stronger standard of verification.
I appreciate your your your approach.
I appreciate your perspective. I appreciate that you are able
to see things from such a wide, diverse range.
But nothing about 279, nothing about what is found in Numbers,

(02:29:58):
nothing about Jeremiah 88 will certainly disprove that Surati
94 does not affirm the Bible, and that is my case.
Thank you so much. Thank you, Brother Grafton.
Yeah. You know what, brother Brett?
Do you have anything to say before I make closing
statements? I've already told you I love you
and all that, right? There is one thing I'd like from

(02:30:19):
you, brother Maverick and the others can look at it if they
want. I don't know if you heard but I
recently have created like A blog website and while I was
sitting here quietly and listening to these folks, I
actually created a post and embedded your video.
I was curious what you thought of it, if you let me know if you
like the appearance. Did you did you put the link?
Oh, you didn't got TV? OK, I'm saying Blogspot.

(02:30:41):
That's nice. I like it a lot.
All right, guys, I'm gonna show the world now because my face is
in it and damn it, I'm going to be egotistical for five seconds.
So here we're going to look at it together.
There's what brother Brett did. So he put it on God,
tvradiosblogspot.com, Christianity and Islam,
navigating the debate with respect and insight.
I like it. I like, I actually love it.

(02:31:01):
This is very nice. I like it a lot.
Yeah, this is very good, Brett. And you know what I did?
I was going to give you a call later on anyway because my like
last three weeks have been hell.Actually, the last two days I
ended up spending in the hospital.
Oh, and that before anything else, ladies and gentlemen.
So I did want to explain becauseI'm there.
I'm, it is very likely that there are people in the chat who

(02:31:24):
read the post, So I wanted to let you guys know what had
happened. Early Wednesday night I was off
going into Thursday morning veryearly in the morning.
Around 4:30 in the morning, my daughter, my 12 year old
daughter, was sleeping and aboveher, her bed was a piece of
furniture from IKEA that she'd had for years that had been

(02:31:45):
mounted to her wall for years. And apparently it had been
overloaded and overfilled to thepoint where the brackets
weakened and unfortunately it decided that it was going to
give out while she was sleeping.The piece of furniture with
everything included inside probably weighed about 6065 lbs.
Came off the brackets and landedcompletely on her head.
Split her head open. We had to call for emergency

(02:32:07):
services and, and, and the ambulance came and got her.
She ended up having a concussion.
They they, but she was fine enough to where they didn't do
any Mris. So they sent her home.
They put staples in her head. The next day she woke up, she
had a very hard time. She couldn't stay conscious.
She could barely follow my finger.

(02:32:28):
She could barely speak. She was very dizzy.
We had to contact emergency services again.
They, they took her back to the hospital and they ended up
seeing that she needed ACT. They did ACT through the glory
of God. There was no fracture in her
skull. There was no brain bleed.
There was no, you know, nothing like that.
Apparently the concussion, the, the effects of the concussion

(02:32:51):
didn't really take hold until the next day, which is why she
was so tired and what not. But they did say that she was
not in the clear. Having said all of that, there's
nothing scarier than something being wrong with one of your
children. Unfortunately, my wife and I
have endured that on more than one occasion, but definitely not
more than other people and I do recognize that.
I really want to thank all of you from the bottom of my heart.

(02:33:15):
Usually posts outside of my normal community posts don't get
a lot of attention and I don't care about that.
It is for whoever wants to see it.
But that post got tons, and I domean tons of attention to the
point where last I checked, I, and I didn't even check it
recently, but it got hundreds oflikes right away.
And, and it's so many. I want to say over 100 comments,

(02:33:35):
people praying, even Muslims, which I, I appreciate all my
Muslim brothers and sisters who were in there.
One, one Muslim said, I don't agree with anything you present,
but you know, but I will pray for your daughter.
You know, we got dozens of comments, over 600 likes and
everybody just sending their prayer.
And I really do appreciate that because, you know, at the end of

(02:33:56):
the day, guys, I would do the same for you.
And I really do appreciate that you guys did it for me.
Everybody Christian, even peoplewho were not, you know, who, who
had no faith in God said, you know what?
I, I will, I don't believe in God, but I will send you good
vibes and I will send you my thoughts.
And, and I really do appreciate all that guys, you know, I, I
really do. At the end it showed me that,
you know, even though we are fallen people at the end, people

(02:34:17):
still understand that, you know,a person's child.
There's nothing more important than that.
I don't care if something God forbid were to happen with, I
don't know if they have children, but with, with Daniel
Hikaku or, or or Libyano, Orthodox Muslim Dean responds,
Ali Dawa, any one of their children.
If, if I found out, God forbid that any one of them was sick or
injured, I would be on my knees praying because I don't give a

(02:34:39):
damn what they believe in. I don't care if they look at
Muhammad as a prophet. None of that matters.
The only thing that matters is the health of that child.
And I really do appreciate that from everyone of you guys.
Some some maintenance stuff outside of that, all of the
links, ladies and gentlemen, forcross unit dot live, which is

(02:35:02):
cross unit dot live forward slash call, cross unit dot live
forward slash prey, cross unit dot live forward slash discord.
I have gone through a company called Rebrandly which is why if
you guys noticed in the chat or who are the ones who are in the
panel with me here today at the last second I had to put like a
strange looking link which is very different than the way that
I normally put it. The reason that was was because

(02:35:23):
like before every live stream, Iwas testing everything out and I
noticed that no matter what device, what computer, mobile
device, whatever my phone the the call in was not working.
The discord invite was not working, the prayer submission
was not working but the normal links were working.
So I have put in a request with rebrandly because I did purchase
that domain. Cross unit dot live is mine

(02:35:44):
legally. I purchased it and that's why
I'm able to make the links look cool.
Unfortunately none of them are working.
I I use the website if you guys ever have an issue like that.
I did use a website called, but what is it called here?
What's my dns.net? And what you do is you put your
domain in there and you check through the CNM if it is

(02:36:07):
working. When I put Chronos unit dot live
in there, there were as a matterof fact, I'll show you guys.
I don't know what's going on, but when I put it in there, as
you guys can see, all these red XS is where it's supposed to be
working up into and including South Africa, funny enough, and,
and, and it's not, and it's not none of them are working
Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, everywhere in the UK and

(02:36:32):
Europe, the Middle East, it's not working anywhere.
So, and I don't know why it happened to me at the last
second, but as you guys can see everywhere that it says it was
not working. So I had to send a, a, a request
to them and let you guys know. So I will keep working on that
because I did see someone earlier say I need that prayer
submission request. I want to submit a prayer
submission request. Guys, I feel horrible.

(02:36:52):
It's not something that I did. I promise you, as you guys can
see, they will fix it. They have to because it's a paid
service. I paid for that domain, so it's
mine. They need to make it work.
And we'll get to, you know, everything in God's name.
I know that the enemy doesn't want these conversations to
happen. I know that Lucifer does not
want pleasant conversations between Christians and Muslims
on the Internet. Too bad.

(02:37:12):
You're not going to stop us. We're going to keep doing what
we're doing. Gentleman on the panel, I love
each and everyone of you. I thank you, guys.
I appreciate you guys. I will be live, God willing.
3:00 PM Central Standard Time. Ladies and gentlemen.
If the links are not fixed by then, I will go ahead and paste
the regular ugly looking video ninja link.
At least you guys will be able to call and until we get it
fixed, we get it fixed. It will be fixed eventually.

(02:37:33):
If I have to, you know, purchaseanother domain or whatever, I
will, but I don't want to be that hasty yet.
Does anyone want to say anythingbefore I get off because I got
to get ready for work and be there all night and pretend like
I want to be there. The only thing I've got to say
is if you need any help with your website as you can see if I
got a little bit of skill. Yeah, for sure, yeah.
If, if they don't, if they get back to me and they don't and

(02:37:54):
they don't give me a satisfactory answer or they
don't fix the DNS issue, which is obviously it's not on my end
because there's nothing that I'mdoing that's causing this to not
work all around the world. So it's definitely a them issue.
But I will, I will for sure pickyour brain because I was going
to call you later anyway becauseI know there was some other
stuff you had told me about uploading to an alternative
website and stuff like that. And you were saying that stuff
gets a lot of views and stuff. But I just haven't been able to

(02:38:16):
concentrate on anything like that.
But I will. I will get with you later on.
Brother Mike Yetner is in here. What's up, Brother Mike?
Hey brother Maverick, I was justlistening to your explanation.
I was letting my wife listen to and she wanted to make a comment
to about your daughter's head injury.
OK. So here's my wife.

(02:38:36):
Her name is Sophia. Hi wife.
Sophia. Oh, he disappeared.
It's OK, he'll be back. He can start talking when he
comes back in because I, I thinkhe was passing it off and
probably pressed the hang up button because it's like right
there at the bottom. Brother Daniel, do you want to
say anything else before we get off, brother?
Hey, God bless you and your family.

(02:38:57):
And I mean as parents I always worry about my kids, but things
happen and that's just part of life I suppose.
But God bless you and your children and look after your
children as well. Likewise, my brother, and God
bless you and your children as well.
Love you man. Thanks, Grafted.
Go ahead, brother. Sure.
Let's literally say that this coming down, I'm going to drop

(02:39:19):
down. It is just passed, it is like 20
minutes in the night for me and I also have to get done for
work. But just one thing that I want
to ask, what is your daughter's name?
Because I would like to also just keep him.
Playing Lexi, Lexi. Lexi, Yeah.
Lexi OK, I'll I'll make sure to play.
For her. Do I?
She's on Lexi. Hang on.
Let me see how she's she'll she'll probably show Lexi.

(02:39:41):
I don't know. She may be here or she may be
talking to her grandma. She's talking to her grandma.
Oh, come here. Everybody wants to know how
you're feeling. No, I'm.
Literally, come on, I'm. Literally fine.
You're fine. Say say I'm fine.
Say thank you for all the prayers.
Thank you for the prayers. How many staples did you get in
your head? 5. 5 But then they had the the
brain scan guys and they saw that there was no brain in

(02:40:02):
there, so I didn't get it. You.
Actually feel. More like I don't care if
you're. On street we will fight for.
Not everyone. You're not even funny, but
you're. Joking.
Everybody's laughing, so obviously it's funny.
It's a. Matter of like 5 days it became
unfunny like the last two times.What's up, brother Mike?
You're back, man. You're not muted.
You can unmute. I just wanted to show respect.

(02:40:25):
But yeah, I don't know what happened when I was turning my
phone over. I don't know if I accidentally
hit that. Yeah.
Disconnect button. But as soon as I put in my
earbuds for my tablet, I heard that I got disconnected and I
didn't know that. So my wife was talking to a
blank screen. I was like, oh man.
We called back and I told. You all the story all over
again. So here she is.
All right. Really.

(02:40:47):
Hi. Hi.
Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you too.
I'm just I was telling my husband that I had a traumatic
brain injury back in 2011. Oh, I'm sorry.
No, hopefully, thank God. You know, hopefully nothing near
my case happens to your daughter.
I hope that she gets has a full recovery.
But I was telling him that they didn't tell me this until months

(02:41:09):
later that the 1st 72 hours are crucial when I they kick me in
for my traumatic brain injury. They just did a CAT scan.
They did not do an MRI. They said I was fine.
They sent me home that first day.
After two days I started having seizures and then by 6 months
they they said I started developing a personality change
and they said that that's very normal.

(02:41:31):
And they said that had I had an MRI within the 1st 72 to 96
hours that it could have all been avoided.
Wow. But because they didn't, they
said that most of the damage is irreplaceable.
Irreparable. By six months.
Yeah, that's terrible. That's what I was saying.
You know, thank God that she's doing well.

(02:41:53):
But personally, I would recommend that the doctors do an
MRI, OK? Because, you know, at this point
it's the juncture where anythingthat's happening in her brain,
it is repairable. But by 6 months it's pretty much
all the synapses have closed offand it's there.
It's beyond repair. Yeah, OK.
And I appreciate that yeah. And I'm very sorry you went

(02:42:14):
through that. But I'm I'm through the glory of
God. You're still here and I'm I'm
glad that obviously you're awareof the injury and the changes.
And so obviously, you know, you are you know you are lucid and
that's that's what's really important.
But yeah, I appreciate that we are following up my.
Family has told me, you know, they're like, I'm not the way I
used to be, that they tell me stories about who I was before,

(02:42:34):
but I have no memory of that person.
And it's because of my personality change that that's
when I met Mike and that's when we started dating.
And then because my ex-boyfriend, he couldn't stand
the fact that my personality changed and he broke up with me.
And then a couple of months later, that's when I met Mike,
and that's when we started dating.
God literally desire everything for a reason, right?

(02:42:55):
Yeah. But yeah, hopefully she has a
full recovery, but I would recommend the MRI.
OK, yeah. And yeah, we were going to do it
anyway because she's she's got follow up anyway.
And then there's some other issues going on too, because we
went to the hospital the first time, they didn't even do ACT,
let alone an MRI. They were just like, Oh yeah,
she's fine. And that's why she ended up back

(02:43:16):
there. The Yeah, so we were, we already
are unfortunately having to speak to an attorney about that
because and and, and not becausewe're interested in the money at
all, but because if they're doing that to her, then it's
obviously a common practice and they're doing it to it.
And it was a Children's Hospitaltoo, which is even scarier.
So your. Trials on any type of like
government or basic insurance, they're not going to do the care

(02:43:39):
that they should. Yeah, and and you know, that's
the thing, we don't, we have really good insurance.
They just didn't do it. You know, I think it was out of
laziness and anything. And that's that to me pisses me
off. But, you know, that's that day.
Yeah. But yeah, 100% correct.
We are on the same page. We're going to do, we're going
to have it done in MRI anyway because she's following up with
we're, we're following up with our family doctor regardless, so
that all that stuff's going to happen.
Yeah. And then we're going to go from

(02:44:00):
there. But yeah, I, I thank you so
much. We appreciate your testimony.
And I'm very, very, very glad and grateful to God that you are
OK. Yeah.
God be with her. Thank you so much.
God bless you guys. God.
Bless you too, brother. Matt.
All right, Mike. Thank you, brother.
I appreciate it man. No worries.
All right, ladies and gentlemen.Well, that's going to be it.
Gentlemen, take care of yourselves.
Be safe. I'm going to be at work, Brett.

(02:44:21):
I'll reach out to you in a couple hours, around like 7-8
o'clock, depending on, you know,what time I get out of roll call
or whatever. And I got some other stuff to do
for my other job, but because there's always something.
But yeah, we will. We will talk soon.
As for brother Daniel and brother Grafton.
Grafton, have a great night at work, brother.
Brother Daniel, God bless you and your family.
Same thing to you, Brett. Same thing to you, Grafton.
Love you guys. Appreciate you guys, man.

(02:44:41):
Be safe, be good, be blessed. I'll see you.
Want to see you. And thank you guys so much for
your preparation and for your participation.
Love you guys man. Thank you.
All right, ladies and gentlemen,but that is it for today.
I have to get ready. There's a couple of things going
on in the background that I alsohave to get ready for, so I will
go ahead and leave you guys. Interestingly, today viewership

(02:45:04):
was low, but not for any other reason.
I listen, I don't care. It is what it is.
I'm glad that I get viewership at all, and I'm grateful to the
Lord for it. Tomorrow we'll be live, 3:00 PM
Central Standard Time and we will go from there.
I'm going to go back to 3:00 PM guys.
I'm not going to do 2:00 PM anymore.
I don't think it works as well as the other time.
So we'll we'll go back to 3:00 PM and we're going to stick to
3:00 PM. And even if there are only two

(02:45:24):
hour streams, so be it. That's what we're going to do.
As always guys, be safe, be good, be blessed.
I will see you guys when I see you and remember that Jesus is
King and the only way to heaven.Have a good one guys.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Muslims VS Christians /w Brother Maverick and Brett Keane

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

All Episodes

Muslims VS Christians /w Brother Maverick and Brett Keane

Stuff You Should Know