Please stop using music in your intros so that us who consider Music haram can watch your videos and share them even if you personally don't consider it haram.
What an absolutely puerile argument. You are trying to suggest the quran is accurate or corrects an error in bible by critiquing biblical commentaries. Surely the logical reasoning is that it is the commentary that may be faulty not the biblical text. You also want to rely on tasfirists who were not contemporary to the event and not a single one of their sources goes back beyond the 6th century so how can their opinions be authoratitive on events that took place 1400 years before that gap is as old as islam is today. Arguing the biblical text is wrong because a commentary interprets figures within it as potraying something different just does not make sense. An analagous example of this faulty or deliberately faulty interpretation is the lie that some muslims, full of hatred, fabricated against the words of a Saudi monarch. Making up the most crazy soliloquy about the house of saud having Jewish roots. The king simply said something along the lines of; "we should not fight with Jews as we are brothers" (referring to the lineage of ishmael and isaac) but some psychotic people have interpreted this as meaning 'we' (house of Saud) are brothers because we also are jews. You are suggesting we should believe this twisted version over what the king actually said and meant. Or as you argument here suggests because the interpretation is wrong so is the King's utterance ? The first approach would be to take the biblical text as it is and it is clear and straight forward. Nor can you compare texts of other books of the bible such as Deutoronomy as the authorship of Jonah is different and the events centuries apart and thus ideas, idioms, figurative speech would have changed in the way it is understood. So meaning in the different books are not always comparable. Let me pre-empt the dawaist retort "ah so you admit the bible has different authors", . Yes because it was written by different people at different times with the exception of a few books. They were then canonised. Which also is another error in the quran as it claims all these books were revelations by G_d, they are not and were never seen as that. The book of jonah gives a figure close to the quranic estimate . But Appearing centuries later quran is just a copyist version and a poor one at that. In the story of Jonah or Yunus The quran's author misses the most salient points of this story. Whilst they caught the part about the kikayon (ricinus plant) they totally failed to comprehend the significance of its allegorical example and thus completely omits the last paragraphs or Jonah 4 in which G_d and Jonah discuss G_d's mercy and compassion extending to even animals and all his creations. Those last few lines are so significant they encapsulate the whole idea being conveyed in the book of Jonah and the rest of it provides just context for this ending. This narrative is totally missing from quran and in fact author of the quran is far from merciful as it narrates "they enjoyed for a while" thus the mercy shown the people of Nineveh was a temporary reprieve. Or how about the suggestion in the quran that the ship was overladen but this was not discovered until it is into its journey when they cast lots and Jonah was thrown overboard to save the ship. Ships may have been smaller then but one man lightening the burden seems unlikely especially if it was not noticeable at port and there was no change in conditions or water density (e.g. sea to fresh water ). In that event why didnt they jettison the cargo (which they tried first in book of Jonah)? This illustrates quran version is a poorer copy because even if abridged it does not make sense why the ship came in to distress. So much for corrections, quran version is comical ! Notably this story challenges quran in other ways too. Who wrote this story? It has always been acknowledged that maybe Jonah or a recorder told this story in fact the story may be entirely allegorical and the events never happened. But since it features in the quran we can assume authorship is claimed by G_d . The quran mentions Taurat, Zubr and Injil as the only books and revelations but Jonah is in non of these it is a separate book that was canonised. Additionally if in its original form authorship is from a man then the challenge to write sura or ayat as good as the quran is annihilated as the author of the book of Jonah did just that as quran gives a close copy of this same story in terms of prose and meaning. G_d of quran plagiarises the book of Jonah and claims it as his own. But let us go with your approach that the text becomes faulty because of some commentary. Do you accept that when the quran says Jews take Ezra as the Son of G_d that the commentary that suggests it should mean 'some Jews' and not all Jews is flawed . Oh but wait we dont even need to critique the commentary as the quran text is faulty as the statement it makes is not true. This is pretty desperate reasoning !
Well said brother, another thing is that they believe their Quran is perfectly preserved which is huge lie. The basis for all modern Qurans we see today was compiled in 1924 in Cairo, Egypt. Only 100 years ago. Pre 1924 Qurans were dumped in the Nile by the Cairo Quran preservation comittee. In addition, what these scholars used in 1924 to compile the modern Quran wasnt even based on manuscript evidence but secondary literature.
This is a horrible argument. At 7:07 the speaker says ‘the Bible is clear’, no it's not, it is clearly ambiguous on the matter, hence the employment of Rashi’s commentary. The whole argument is based upon the assumption that 120,000 refers to children. The evidence of which is simply an appeal to authority (Rashi and Calvin) and a poor attempt to provide biblical backing. To conclude, I personally find no major Issue with Islam. Apart from the history of Islamic racism (Arabic slavetrade), it's denial and obviously Islamic terrorism (every group has it's extremists), many of Islams teachings align with that of Jesus. However this is simply a false or at best intellectually dishonest argument. God is one and may peace be with you.
Arabic racism slavery has nothing to do with Islam. The Prophet Muhammad (saws) said in last sermon that an arab isnt better than a non arab nor the non arab is better than the arab, same for black and white, white and black. If people at later generations did this its not our fault we don't agree with them and Islam has nothing related to racism. May the peace of God be upon you.
@@kullerhck Hello friend. In my initial comment I said ‘Apart from the history of Islamic racism (Arabic slavetrade), it’s denial’ , so to be clear my issue is not simply with the historical fact that Islam lead to the largest slave trade of history and facilitated the second largest slave trade. It’s the denial of Islam’s part in it. Not the Arabs particular, Islam’s. Historically speaking Muhammad owned black slaves himself, along with Jewish and sex slaves. We simply cannot divorcé Muhammad’s part in the Arabic slave trade as he himself partook and Arab slavers saw no issue with it after Muhammad because he had slaves. Does this disprove that he spoke with the angel Gabriel (Jibrīl)? No. Does this prove Muslims are destined to the lake of fire? No. Does it prove that God (Allah) is displeased with modern Muslims? No. Like I said Islam aligns with much of the true teachings of messiah Jesus’ (ʿĪsā al-Masīḥ) so speaking as a disciple of Jesus I see only few issues with Islam as is comes to the relationship between God and Muslims (with is not what I would say from most Christians). However, to suggest we cannot blame Muhammad himself for the Arabic slave trade is to deny history. That being said may God Almighty guide you and bring you peace.
@@TheDoctrineDetectiveChannel Subhanallah, if you're going to comment about the fact that the Prophet Muhammad (saws) had slaves (not sex slaves, such a thing doesnt exist in Islam, owners are allowed to do sex with their slaves but it doesnt mean that a slave can be brought or sold with this only purpose), you should atleast also say the fact that slavery in arabia (even if not finished) was decreased during the time of the Prophet (saws), and that Him and MANY of his companions did free many slaves that they got during war or buy. One example is the example of Umar ibn Khatab who freed around 2000 slaves during his Lifetime if I remember correctly, Allah knows best. I don't deny history, but you should also not deny the other part of history. It isn't black and white, freeing a slave in Islamic history is way more incited than slavery itself. Look at many verses in quran saying how good is it to free slaves. May Allah bless you and guide you too.
@@kullerhck I'm not denying the other parts, I did no such denial. I am saying Muhammad owned slaves. That is a historical fact. Muhammad owned black slaves. Also historical fact. The fact he freed some or treated some with respect doesn't negate that he owned some and his owning of slaves was the justification used for the Arabic slave trade. In fact some Islamic sources are still used in Muslim countries to this day to justify anti-Black racism. I understand it was a different time, I don't hold it against modern Muslims and would never hold it against God. However what I can hold against Muslims is the denial of Muhammad’s involvement and the suggestion that the other things he did ‘makes up for it’, it doesn't and I find it quite disrespectful to suggest so. His actions lead directly or indirectly to the muder of over 500 million Africans and the enslavement of over 500 million more (as estimated by historians). If I was a Muslim and was truly about peace I would denounce this part of his history, just as I as a disciple (Christian) denounce the actions of the Roman Catholics and europeans. Nevertheless may the only true God still bless you and your family.
@@TheDoctrineDetectiveChannel I will never deny this, but not looking in context is a big mistake, the fact is that slavery was never induced or liked for most of early Muslims and ever Muhammad (saws). Talking about owning specifically black slaves is wrong when slavery during the time of Islamic ascension was mostly related to conquest of war prisoners, not ethnicity like what happened during later Islamic countries which were not "rightly guided" anymore and christian slavery. Comparing Muhammad (saws) to the Roman empire is nonsense, Roman Empire was never attributed as a divine guided institution by christians, the best example possible is the example of Solomon, David, Moses, etc. when you want to talk Muhammad (saws) to someone.
![How the Qur'an Corrects the Bible: The Exodus Narrative [Commentary]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/msAD4_BndDw/mqdefault.jpg)
You're videos start off with banger nasheeds, you should make a spotify compilation of all of them
Please stop using music in your intros so that us who consider Music haram can watch your videos and share them even if you personally don't consider it haram.
You can put a nasheed of some kind instead
Where is the background video from
@staff
@@Yeye0knn bro thinks this is discord 🤣
@@reisudesu 🤣🤣🤣
Ur voice lower than ur opening music
Salam
What an absolutely puerile argument. You are trying to suggest the quran is accurate or corrects an error in bible by critiquing biblical commentaries.
Surely the logical reasoning is that it is the commentary that may be faulty not the biblical text.
You also want to rely on tasfirists who were not contemporary to the event and not a single one of their sources goes back beyond the 6th century so how can their opinions be authoratitive on events that took place 1400 years before that gap is as old as islam is today.
Arguing the biblical text is wrong because a commentary interprets figures within it as potraying something different just does not make sense.
An analagous example of this faulty or deliberately faulty interpretation is the lie that some muslims, full of hatred, fabricated against the words of a Saudi monarch. Making up the most crazy soliloquy about the house of saud having Jewish roots. The king simply said something along the lines of;
"we should not fight with Jews as we are brothers" (referring to the lineage of ishmael and isaac)
but some psychotic people have interpreted this as meaning 'we' (house of Saud) are brothers because we also are jews.
You are suggesting we should believe this twisted version over what the king actually said and meant. Or as you argument here suggests because the interpretation is wrong so is the King's utterance ?
The first approach would be to take the biblical text as it is and it is clear and straight forward. Nor can you compare texts of other books of the bible such as Deutoronomy as the authorship of Jonah is different and the events centuries apart and thus ideas, idioms, figurative speech would have changed in the way it is understood. So meaning in the different books are not always comparable.
Let me pre-empt the dawaist retort "ah so you admit the bible has different authors", . Yes because it was written by different people at different times with the exception of a few books. They were then canonised. Which also is another error in the quran as it claims all these books were revelations by G_d, they are not and were never seen as that.
The book of jonah gives a figure close to the quranic estimate . But Appearing centuries later quran is just a copyist version and a poor one at that. In the story of Jonah or Yunus The quran's author misses the most salient points of this story. Whilst they caught the part about the kikayon (ricinus plant) they totally failed to comprehend the significance of its allegorical example and thus completely omits the last paragraphs or Jonah 4 in which G_d and Jonah discuss G_d's mercy and compassion extending to even animals and all his creations. Those last few lines are so significant they encapsulate the whole idea being conveyed in the book of Jonah and the rest of it provides just context for this ending.
This narrative is totally missing from quran and in fact author of the quran is far from merciful as it narrates "they enjoyed for a while" thus the mercy shown the people of Nineveh was a temporary reprieve.
Or how about the suggestion in the quran that the ship was overladen but this was not discovered until it is into its journey when they cast lots and Jonah was thrown overboard to save the ship.
Ships may have been smaller then but one man lightening the burden seems unlikely especially if it was not noticeable at port and there was no change in conditions or water density (e.g. sea to fresh water ). In that event why didnt they jettison the cargo (which they tried first in book of Jonah)?
This illustrates quran version is a poorer copy because even if abridged it does not make sense why the ship came in to distress.
So much for corrections, quran version is comical !
Notably this story challenges quran in other ways too. Who wrote this story? It has always been acknowledged that maybe Jonah or a recorder told this story in fact the story may be entirely allegorical and the events never happened. But since it features in the quran we can assume authorship is claimed by G_d . The quran mentions Taurat, Zubr and Injil as the only books and revelations but Jonah is in non of these it is a separate book that was canonised. Additionally if in its original form authorship is from a man then the challenge to write sura or ayat as good as the quran is annihilated as the author of the book of Jonah did just that as quran gives a close copy of this same story in terms of prose and meaning. G_d of quran plagiarises the book of Jonah and claims it as his own.
But let us go with your approach that the text becomes faulty because of some commentary. Do you accept that when the quran says Jews take Ezra as the Son of G_d that the commentary that suggests it should mean 'some Jews' and not all Jews is flawed . Oh but wait we dont even need to critique the commentary as the quran text is faulty as the statement it makes is not true.
This is pretty desperate reasoning !
Well said brother, another thing is that they believe their Quran is perfectly preserved which is huge lie. The basis for all modern Qurans we see today was compiled in 1924 in Cairo, Egypt. Only 100 years ago. Pre 1924 Qurans were dumped in the Nile by the Cairo Quran preservation comittee. In addition, what these scholars used in 1924 to compile the modern Quran wasnt even based on manuscript evidence but secondary literature.
Man like 17Nights
W
Haqq!
Intro is kind of corny
You're kind of corny
nah intro is good
true ngl💀
Valid tho
This is a horrible argument. At 7:07 the speaker says ‘the Bible is clear’, no it's not, it is clearly ambiguous on the matter, hence the employment of Rashi’s commentary.
The whole argument is based upon the assumption that 120,000 refers to children. The evidence of which is simply an appeal to authority (Rashi and Calvin) and a poor attempt to provide biblical backing.
To conclude, I personally find no major Issue with Islam. Apart from the history of Islamic racism (Arabic slavetrade), it's denial and obviously Islamic terrorism (every group has it's extremists), many of Islams teachings align with that of Jesus. However this is simply a false or at best intellectually dishonest argument.
God is one and may peace be with you.
Arabic racism slavery has nothing to do with Islam. The Prophet Muhammad (saws) said in last sermon that an arab isnt better than a non arab nor the non arab is better than the arab, same for black and white, white and black. If people at later generations did this its not our fault we don't agree with them and Islam has nothing related to racism. May the peace of God be upon you.
@@kullerhck Hello friend. In my initial comment I said ‘Apart from the history of Islamic racism (Arabic slavetrade), it’s denial’ , so to be clear my issue is not simply with the historical fact that Islam lead to the largest slave trade of history and facilitated the second largest slave trade. It’s the denial of Islam’s part in it. Not the Arabs particular, Islam’s. Historically speaking Muhammad owned black slaves himself, along with Jewish and sex slaves. We simply cannot divorcé Muhammad’s part in the Arabic slave trade as he himself partook and Arab slavers saw no issue with it after Muhammad because he had slaves.
Does this disprove that he spoke with the angel Gabriel (Jibrīl)? No. Does this prove Muslims are destined to the lake of fire? No. Does it prove that God (Allah) is displeased with modern Muslims? No. Like I said Islam aligns with much of the true teachings of messiah Jesus’ (ʿĪsā al-Masīḥ) so speaking as a disciple of Jesus I see only few issues with Islam as is comes to the relationship between God and Muslims (with is not what I would say from most Christians). However, to suggest we cannot blame Muhammad himself for the Arabic slave trade is to deny history.
That being said may God Almighty guide you and bring you peace.
@@TheDoctrineDetectiveChannel Subhanallah, if you're going to comment about the fact that the Prophet Muhammad (saws) had slaves (not sex slaves, such a thing doesnt exist in Islam, owners are allowed to do sex with their slaves but it doesnt mean that a slave can be brought or sold with this only purpose), you should atleast also say the fact that slavery in arabia (even if not finished) was decreased during the time of the Prophet (saws), and that Him and MANY of his companions did free many slaves that they got during war or buy. One example is the example of Umar ibn Khatab who freed around 2000 slaves during his Lifetime if I remember correctly, Allah knows best. I don't deny history, but you should also not deny the other part of history. It isn't black and white, freeing a slave in Islamic history is way more incited than slavery itself. Look at many verses in quran saying how good is it to free slaves. May Allah bless you and guide you too.
@@kullerhck I'm not denying the other parts, I did no such denial.
I am saying Muhammad owned slaves. That is a historical fact.
Muhammad owned black slaves. Also historical fact.
The fact he freed some or treated some with respect doesn't negate that he owned some and his owning of slaves was the justification used for the Arabic slave trade. In fact some Islamic sources are still used in Muslim countries to this day to justify anti-Black racism. I understand it was a different time, I don't hold it against modern Muslims and would never hold it against God. However what I can hold against Muslims is the denial of Muhammad’s involvement and the suggestion that the other things he did ‘makes up for it’, it doesn't and I find it quite disrespectful to suggest so. His actions lead directly or indirectly to the muder of over 500 million Africans and the enslavement of over 500 million more (as estimated by historians).
If I was a Muslim and was truly about peace I would denounce this part of his history, just as I as a disciple (Christian) denounce the actions of the Roman Catholics and europeans.
Nevertheless may the only true God still bless you and your family.
@@TheDoctrineDetectiveChannel I will never deny this, but not looking in context is a big mistake, the fact is that slavery was never induced or liked for most of early Muslims and ever Muhammad (saws). Talking about owning specifically black slaves is wrong when slavery during the time of Islamic ascension was mostly related to conquest of war prisoners, not ethnicity like what happened during later Islamic countries which were not "rightly guided" anymore and christian slavery. Comparing Muhammad (saws) to the Roman empire is nonsense, Roman Empire was never attributed as a divine guided institution by christians, the best example possible is the example of Solomon, David, Moses, etc. when you want to talk Muhammad (saws) to someone.
Joester 💀
thats not joetar
🗿