Adnan Rashid – Live Q & A

Adnan Rashid
AI: Summary © The speakers discuss the history and influence of Pashto's language, including its impact on society, liberalism, and socialism. They note the rise of online dating and the impact of past language changes and culture. The speakers also touch on the definition of God and the holy spirit in the Bible, with a recommendation to stay in touch with the program. They also mention a video game called "God Perfect" and suggest staying in touch with the program.
AI: Transcript ©
00:00:01 --> 00:00:34

As salam o aleikum, welcome to this live stream. We are doing this on ignorance channel and my channel and I thought, You know what, we're going to talk to the audience. We're going to have a conversation. We're going to invite people on to speak to us about what's been going on. You just came back from Africa. How's Africa? Amazing as always beautiful. And a lot of dialogue going on a lot of people exactly accepting Islam and very, very soothing to the soul. Mashallah,

00:00:35 --> 00:00:48

you know, when we talk about Africa, people think is one continent Yeah. As they're not as in one culture. Same very similar. You've traveled west east, south north, what would you say?

00:00:49 --> 00:00:53

I will say that the Muslims are, you know,

00:00:55 --> 00:01:21

Muslim Muslims are losing out big time. When it comes to you guys. Listen, can we see? Oh, I think she's still going live. No, no, no, no, no. Stop going Life. There's an issue. Because even when we're back, we're back. We're back live. We're back. Nobody's showing this. That's the batteries wasn't showing that for but that's fine. Don't worry about it. Don't worry. It's just a technical glitch. Can you guys see us clearly it looks

00:01:23 --> 00:02:05

alright, no problem. Okay, can you just can you just do the technical then sway out bro. Yeah, but don't turn the camera. Okay, yeah, we got some shooting mode. Someone. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Okay, so we absolutely Africa, I think Muslims are losing out big time. Not doing enough. Dawa. I was in a masjid there. And I saw new Muslims reading the Quran, Al Fatiha and showing us how to pray, how to read the hours. And when you know what not when we when we when we when we announced that we're going to send an imam to you. They were so happy. They were so happy. They were screaming with joy. Hello, when I announced that we're going to send an imam to you to teach you more. So

00:02:05 --> 00:02:44

these are these are people who want to learn Islam and they want to be Muslim. We are the criminals who are not reaching out to them. And how are we going to face the Prophet sallallahu Sallam on the Day of Judgment when we are questioned about this. So we the Muslims are not doing enough. We're not doing enough. We need to be more and more in Africa and places like that. Where people are waiting for Islam. Yeah, we just need to take the message to them in sha Allah. Absolutely. Absolutely. Let's start bringing in some guests. We have a brother here, Hassan Abdullah hoodie and keep your question short, rather than very straight to the point and we will do our best to answer them to the

00:02:44 --> 00:02:45

best of our abilities.

00:02:47 --> 00:02:53

Yeah, okay. Why? Why did they keep doing that? Yeah, that's a technical issue. You We can hear you can see you How are you doing? Brother?

00:02:55 --> 00:02:58

I'm good. Alhamdulillah? How are you guys? Saramonic?

00:02:59 --> 00:03:00

Salaam, brother.

00:03:02 --> 00:03:21

Quick question. I don't want to use up this question to ask another question. But what is the what is the topic related to on the question I can ask? Any any question? This is just a general live, you can ask any question we will do our best to answer if we can. If we if we can answer we will answer in German. And as to why. Alright, my first question is that

00:03:22 --> 00:04:09

I've seen I think your debates and you mentioned that okay. The there's the Christian fathers haven't mentioned that the Jesus and God the Father are Co Co equal co eternal is there but co equal is out there. But there's some people who said that no, there were some people like Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Ignatius to Phyllis Anatolian who said that actually they are co equal. So maybe please clarify like, what's the thing that is going on around? Yeah, very good question. We asked them to produce the evidence show us where they said they were they actually said that God the Father, and God the Son are co equal, equal as in status and importance. Okay. What we do find in the writing of

00:04:09 --> 00:04:54

these early church fathers is that these Church Fathers, even those who declared Jesus to be divine in some form, did not have the audacity to put Jesus on par with the Father. They were subordination is, including the person. Most Christians use to substantiate the doctrine of the Trinity. And I'm talking about 1,000,000,000,002 trillion is the first person to have mentioned trinitas, or the word trinity. And even he himself was a subordination is because he believed that father was the supreme deity. Then came the son from the essence of the Father and then came the Holy Spirit from the essence of the sun. So he believed in a hierarchy. So the church fathers in the first three

00:04:54 --> 00:04:59

centuries did not have the audacity in my personal opinion and according to

00:05:00 --> 00:05:44

Why research to declare Jesus to be on par as an equal to the Father, I'm still waiting for those quotes. People claim all sorts of things. What they do is, a lot of these Christian missionaries and activists, what they do is they just mentioned names, they throw names at you, you know, to sound flashing, to sound convincing, they will throw all sorts of names at you, Ignatius Polycarp, de tullian. Titian, for example, I'm giving you exotic particles. Okay, Clement of Alexandria, they will throw these names at you without reading what they actually say. Right? So when the throne names that you always ask them to read, what are you actually referring to? Are you actually

00:05:44 --> 00:06:05

addressing the question? Are you addressing the point? What is my point? My point is to show me one statement from a church father, from the first 300 years, where one of them said, God, the Father, and God, the Son were equal on par with each other. I'm still waiting. This is what I mean. I hope that answers your question.

00:06:06 --> 00:06:09

Yes, and, and to follow up with that,

00:06:10 --> 00:06:40

like, answer, there's like, what person did send me some quotes. He said that Polycarp wrote that all those, and unto all those under heaven, who will yet believe in our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, and in his father who is in for the dead polycarb letter to Philippians. And there's one other Justin Martyr so doesn't like, doesn't actually answer the question which you had that was not absolutely not mentioning them together in a sentence doesn't necessarily

00:06:43 --> 00:06:56

indicate that they are equal. What I'm because because the doctrine of the Trinity, by necessity, states, that God the Father, and God, the Son, are equal, on par with each other.

00:06:57 --> 00:07:04

Oh, equal, and CO eternal. This is the wording shows that in the writings of the Church Fathers,

00:07:05 --> 00:07:34

show us that it is not existent. This is a later development. And this is what the historians of Christian doctrine, have to say, this is a later development. This is not something that was understood or declared by the church fathers in the first 300 years. This is clearly a later development of the fourth century, even within the fourth century, church fathers are debating this notion of equality between the good between the Father and the Son,

00:07:35 --> 00:07:59

even in the fourth century, of the Church Fathers don't have the audacity to say that. So this is just a game. This is just a game. The reality is, we don't have any church father, on the first 300 years, who said, who had the audacity to say that the Father and the Son are equal on par with each other.

00:08:00 --> 00:08:05

And this is what we call ship. This is what we call polytheism. This is what we call

00:08:07 --> 00:08:10

basically ascribing deities,

00:08:11 --> 00:08:56

or putting other deities next to God Almighty, the creator, whom the Christians call the father. Okay. I hope that answers your question. The big line of questioning, to go ahead with the next question very quickly, unless you have some counter argument. Yes, I know, the follow up question is that, but it does mention you think you want specific wording, but doesn't saying that person said, Okay, our Lord and God with capital G. Jesus Christ isn't that actually does mean that the equating him with God the Father, this is the problem now. Yeah, capital G, for God has to be shown in the writings of the church fathers. Because in the Greek language, as far as I know, where all the

00:08:56 --> 00:08:56


00:08:57 --> 00:09:01

what are the capitals? Right. So capital G is

00:09:02 --> 00:09:13

an addition. It is a development, it is something new that came up, right? Because Because the Bible says human beings are gods, the Israelites are God's.

00:09:14 --> 00:09:35

In the book of Psalms, Psalm 82, verse six, it states that Israelites are Gods what does that mean? Are the gods on par with the Creator, the father? Absolutely not. No one No Jew would ever claim that because to the Jews, it just blasphemy to claim that the Israelites are on par with God the Father.

00:09:37 --> 00:09:57

So this capital G thing, it is later, it is not from the first three centuries in the fourth century, okay. Yeah, capital came in capital G. came in in the fourth century, when they started to put Jesus Christ on par with the Father. Okay. This is when he became God with capital. Thank you, Brother Hudson.

00:10:00 --> 00:10:11

just no question just wanted to say. Zappala Baraka Luffy calm down and under shade and several Hamad Rashid, I actually like, I have like a whole list of playlist of your history historical videos.

00:10:15 --> 00:10:19

Pardon the wrong thing to do. It's a very good thing to do. The

00:10:24 --> 00:10:25

right thing to do.

00:10:27 --> 00:10:28

Allah bless you, thanks so much. God bless you.

00:10:30 --> 00:10:42

Okay, so I would again request that brothers keep the questions short so that we can give short answers to take as many questions as possible possible inshallah. Okay, so.

00:10:46 --> 00:10:46


00:10:48 --> 00:10:48

you're the

00:10:51 --> 00:10:52


00:10:53 --> 00:11:02

I'm from Holland. And I want to say, Barack lo Pico. Hi, Kamala, I've got two questions. One is,

00:11:03 --> 00:11:12

how did the Islam spread? After the Prophet Muhammad SAW Allah and Islam? I want to know how fast and

00:11:13 --> 00:11:24

yeah, the first question I want to know that after his death. So when you ask this question, How did Islam spread? What do you mean by that territorially? Oh,

00:11:26 --> 00:11:40

no, no, no, the territorial how they win the geography. You're, you're asked, How did the geography of Islam spread? It was by by invasions. By wars. Okay. Yeah.

00:11:41 --> 00:12:03

unashamedly Muslims went out, attacking the Persians, and the Byzantines, the Romans, because they were already threatening the Muslims. The Persians had already threatened the Muslims with extinction. So did the sorry, the Romans. So as far as the Muslims are concerned, after the Prophet peace be upon him, had

00:12:04 --> 00:12:49

passed away, salatu salam, they were fighting an existential threat. So okay, we're out, confronting the Persians and the Romans simultaneously. And on top of that, the masses of these countries, they started to welcome the Muslims. We have historic testimonies from the lands of Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Egypt, were the natives of these lands, who were Christians, but different to Romans. In their Christianity, they started to start with the Arabs, the Muslim, because they saw them as liberators from the tyranny of the Roman clergy and the ruling class. So this is all the territory of Islam spread, because Muslims are fighting

00:12:50 --> 00:12:55

a war of survival, they wanted to survive and they went out, taking on the enemies

00:12:57 --> 00:13:16

and gave this Allah subhanaw taala gave them the order, like in the Quran, is there something like, okay, there are verses where Allah says that if you are attacked, defend yourself if you are threatened, defend yourself. Absolutely. There are so many verses in chapter four, we have verses,

00:13:18 --> 00:14:02

verses of one verses where Allah has commanded the believers when you are attacked to defend yourself. That's it. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I'm sorry. I mean, like to spread the message everywhere, like, go into other areas, like other lands. You see, this is this is why I made a distinction between the spread of territory and the spread of the faith, the spread of the faith, the spread of the faith is different to the spread of territory. You can take a territory, but the people of those lands don't necessarily they don't have to necessarily accept your faith. They're not convinced, if they're not convinced, can the Muslims force the masses to accept Islam? They faith? Absolutely not.

00:14:02 --> 00:14:53

The Quran is very categorical about that, that you cannot force your faith Islam upon others, it is absolutely prohibited. It is forbidden in Islam, to force people to accept your faith, okay? You can influence people with your love, with your justice, with your good behavior, with your moral values. You can influence people and encourage them. But can Muslims under any circumstances force others to accept the faith? Absolutely not. This was very clear to the companions of the Prophet Muhammad, and people who came after them. Okay, so these are two different topics, the territorial expansion of Islam, and Islam as a faith. How did how did Islam as a fate spread? One book, I strongly recommend

00:14:54 --> 00:14:59

is preaching of Islam by a professor Thomas Arnold. It discusses this topic in detail

00:15:00 --> 00:15:06

and get the second edition 1919 13 Second, expanded edition.

00:15:07 --> 00:15:11

The book is more than 100 years old, but it is packed with information. Okay?

00:15:12 --> 00:15:17

The arguments are not necessarily valid, but it is packed with information.

00:15:18 --> 00:15:26

Okay, thank you very much. That was the political outcome. And may Allah bless you all Inshallah, thank you very much. Thank you so much

00:15:31 --> 00:15:33

Okay, next question.

00:15:34 --> 00:15:51

Next we can go to this brother. slough Aleikum Warahmatullah wabarakatuh on some I know this brother hiding him the largest collection I'm fine, how are you? Nice to see you, man hamdulillah Nice to see you Mashallah. Both of you Masha Allah.

00:15:52 --> 00:16:37

At the moment, she's mashallah you've influenced me into getting back into reading a lot and desert Mala head for that. You suggested a book called servants of Allah, which I bought about a month and a half ago, that book is extremely beneficial. And it really got me back into reading. Unfortunately, when you get to an age of 50, you seem to stop, you know, picking up the books and so forth. But that really has kind of like, kindled my fire to continue to read and learn. And BarakAllahu Li, T for for doing that. My question is, I'm trying to learn more regarding the history of lighting India and Pakistan, what book would would you recommend to purchase? To learn the

00:16:37 --> 00:16:51

history of the between both of the countries India and Pakistan, and post colonialism? You know, before the British started to influence their so called democracy? What book would you recommend?

00:16:53 --> 00:17:01

Are you asking about specifically the independence movement? Or you're talking about events after 1947?

00:17:02 --> 00:17:04

Yeah, post 1947.

00:17:05 --> 00:17:40

So a bit of everything, read a book that actually describes the, the movement and then the result and some of the aftermath. If that, if that makes any sense. There's a very good book by Stanley Wolpert. And it is titled shame full flight, shameful flight. Okay, that book discusses the events just before the partition, and just after the partition. Okay. So it discusses, it describes events that caused the great catastrophe of the Punjab, when

00:17:42 --> 00:17:48

basically, there was a genocide that took place in 1947 in the Punjab,

00:17:49 --> 00:17:56

resulting in a million deaths. So he describes the events that caused or that led to

00:17:57 --> 00:18:01

that particular catastrophe shameful flight is the title of the book.

00:18:03 --> 00:18:16

I'm ordering it just now right now on Amazon. I just found it now on Amazon and purchase that book. And yeah, that was bad. And I really appreciate your time and keep up the great work. Keep it going just Alchemilla slow.

00:18:19 --> 00:18:21

Okay, the next question is, how do we do this?

00:18:24 --> 00:18:25


00:18:27 --> 00:18:29

Shall I sit there? Yeah.

00:18:30 --> 00:18:38

Okay, I'm gonna change my position. So let's go to the next question. Inshallah. Thank you, brother, Muhammad.

00:18:43 --> 00:18:44


00:18:51 --> 00:18:53

brother Rohan Han

00:18:55 --> 00:18:56

Alaikum salam.

00:18:58 --> 00:19:47

As I'm fired from the Riddler, I just have to say that I've really, I'm really influenced by to you, I'm actually an Indian. So when I saw your lectures and I heard your lectures about the history of Islam in India just got really interesting. So, I have one question, which is basically, I am sort of having confusion, which is, when I see like our culture in India, basically like, you have a lot of Mughal architecture, you have a lot of Delhi Sultanate architecture. So like, I'm confused if we shouldn't be like, crowd of them should we cherish these things, but at the same time, they like for example, they have Muslims which are not permissible according to Islamic law. And a lot of them do

00:19:47 --> 00:19:59

have motifs such as the Cypress, Cypress, which is which is originating from Zoroastrianism and even the quarter Islam mosque, it does have some like remnants of the idols left inside of it.

00:20:00 --> 00:20:20

So I'm confused as should we like, be proud of this stuff? Or should we see this as something which is condemned double like? So I just wanted to know the answer to that. The basic answer is that no one is perfect. No Muslim dynasty, no Muslims of Bonn. No Muslim king or ruler

00:20:21 --> 00:21:05

was perfect. So whenever they did something good due to Islam, then we should be proud of that. But if they stepped outside of Islam, or they did something wrong, okay, for example, there are examples of medieval kings doing all sorts of stupid things, okay, by our standards today, we can't be proud of those things. But if they build masjid, for example, badshahi Mosque in Lahore is a monument or the Jama Jama Masjid of Delhi. Okay, it's a huge achievement, we should be proud of that. We should be proud of that history, no problem. But when it comes to building mausoleums, and putting things on them, that are not necessarily Islamic, we don't have to own those things. We can call them

00:21:05 --> 00:21:51

mistakes. We can call them errors, we can call them passion, or or anything, for example, right? If Shah Jahan built a tomb for his wife, because of his love, there's something personal. That's not necessarily Islamic that I mean, the architecture was inspired by Islam. The calligraphy on Taj Mahal is inspired by Islam, but the act of building a mausoleum of that scale, we you bankrupt the state. Okay, we don't agree with that. That money could have been better spent on poor people. Okay, but, but Shahjahan didn't see it like that. Right. So we don't have to agree with Sharjah on building the Taj Mahal, at the expense of poor people who would be starving otherwise, okay. So we

00:21:51 --> 00:22:43

own what is qualified Islamically whatever is controversial and doesn't fit into the Islamic morals and ethics. We don't have to own it, we don't have to own it. So we highlight what was done correctly, what was done rightly. And we also dis own, what wasn't done correctly. Okay. So there are there are many, many examples I can give you. So at the same time, don't always think that the Muslim rulers of India or angels, as if they landed from the heavens with a halo around the head, and they came to do everything perfectly? No, they were not angels. They're as perfect as rulers anywhere in the world. Okay. So so yeah, there are some good rulers and we shouldn't be proud of

00:22:43 --> 00:23:18

them. Generally speaking, not everything to date. But generally, for example, orange de Belem good, we don't need to be apologetic, apologetic about him, right. He's tarnished. He's attacked. He's hated by by the right wing element in India. But at the same time, do we get pressurized and start this owning entirely? No. We cherish his good deeds, we celebrate them at the same time, his errors in his mistakes, we highlight that we don't agree with that stuff. That's it. We have a balanced approach, which is not gonna help Brother Rehan Khan.

00:23:19 --> 00:23:24

Question assalamualaikum right, young kid, Masha, Allah.

00:23:30 --> 00:23:33

Okay, brother, Abdul Hamid, salam alaikum brothers.

00:23:35 --> 00:23:43

How you doing? I'm doing good. Actually, I'm a bit sick. But I'll ask my questions. Yeah, so I wanted to ask some more about this, actually.

00:23:44 --> 00:23:53

So in terms of universal common ancestry, if you make the exception for humans, can you still say that it is true, except for humans? Is this like allowed in Islam?

00:23:55 --> 00:24:05

Okay, so there's something too, before we answer this question, we have to ask another one. Right, which is, what is the evidence for universal common ancestry?

00:24:07 --> 00:24:08

Now, technically?

00:24:10 --> 00:24:25

So you said something? No, I just want to say I don't believe in universal common ancestor. But I just wanted to say the example. Yeah, well, if we were to do this in a propositional way, and make a presupposition and say, Actually, universal common ancestry is

00:24:26 --> 00:24:52

pretty solid. Now, the question is, if we make the exception for humans, can we believe in universal common ancestry? That's one option. Another option is we can say universal common ancestry is contested or this philosophical assumptions, and then we can answer this question or we can answer this question by saying as universal common ancestry is a poor model of phylogeny. So, you know, there's different ways you can approach it. So which way do you want to approach it? You want to approach it from the perspective

00:24:53 --> 00:24:59

of if it's true, then can we do this or do you approach it from a

00:25:00 --> 00:25:43

Do you just want my approach? Or how I would do it? What would you like to do? Actually, I'd like to know your approach about this. Okay, so what I would say is universal common ancestry is anchored on the idea that biochemical genetic, anatomical, physiological, linguistic similarities is due to common descent. That's the general idea that similarities are due to common descent. Now, that's an assumption. That's not a conclusion, the way that they explain it is that this is a foregone conclusion. And it's almost done in a circular way. Similarities is due to common descent, these two similarities exist, therefore the similarities are due to common descent. If we accept the general

00:25:43 --> 00:25:52

idea that similarities are there, that doesn't mean it's common ancestry. So for example, have you heard of called Linnaeus?

00:25:54 --> 00:26:00

Yes, the father of taxonomy. There you go. The father of taxonomy. So do you know that he was a Christian?

00:26:01 --> 00:26:16

Yes, I do know that actually. And he was a creationist. Yeah, but he did. Classifications without assuming that it was due to common ancestry. Excellent. So today's system, we what do we call it? Linnaean. And then

00:26:17 --> 00:26:47

taxonomy. Classification. Yeah. That's suffocation? Yeah, taxonomy. The Linnaean system existed before after Darwin. Before dawn, before Darwin, excellent. Who? Where did he put humans and chimpanzees? I mean, he put them in the same group based on similarities based on similarities. Now, like I've said previously, to atheist I've debated on this atheists, academics and others on this. They say, Well, why are we so similar genetically? Well, we're so similar genetically, because we're anatomically

00:26:48 --> 00:27:33

do you expect our DNA to be random to be like a jellyfish when we're similar to a chimpanzee? Anatomically, of course, the genetics are going to be similar. But the question is, how is this evidence for universal common ancestry? And there's two further assumptions that they have? Right? These are complete assumptions. And there's zero evidence for them. The first assumption is transition probabilities are one. And origination probabilities are close to zero. Okay, these two things, Have you have you come across these two probabilities before? Ah, I think yes, I did. Okay, so transition probabilities is the probability of something transitioning into something else? Okay.

00:27:33 --> 00:28:19

They assume it to be one. So a small organism over millions of years can turn into an elephant by assumption. Okay. That that's they believe that's true. That's transition probabilities of one. They believe the origination probabilities is close to zero. Do you know what that means? The idea that origination probabilities are close to zero. Can you explain it? Okay, origination, your origin of life, they believe is close to zero. Which means the origin of life is extremely unlikely. Yes, but due to the assumption of naturalism, I think they have to stick with it. Excellent is due to the assumption of naturalism. So when you take naturalism when you take origination probabilities close

00:28:19 --> 00:28:39

to being zero, which is there's no evidence for when you take transition probabilities being close to one. And you couple that with the assumption that similarities is due to common descent, universal common ancestry is a foregone conclusion. However, if these layers of assumptions and sub assumptions are there, that's enough for us to challenge universal common ancestry the way is taught?

00:28:41 --> 00:29:19

Yes, definitely. Yeah. So according to that, the way I would answer it is, I would say, even if universal common ancestry was true, we can make an exception for human beings and we can accept the rest theoretically, so there's a yes to that. However, I don't believe that's the case. And you can challenge each one of these presuppositions in a different way. For example, you can challenge challenge the origination probabilities being close to zero, the different models that they have for abiogenesis. Or you can challenge the transition probabilities being close to one by challenging natural selection and random mutations. Right. You can say natural you can bring me all the schools

00:29:19 --> 00:29:55

which are similar to each other. Give me one shred of evidence that natural selection created that forget similarities. Remember this golden nugget and I want to end upon this because I don't want to unless it comes up again, because I rather get into other questions. Remember, this golden nugget? Similarities does not justify common descent. Transition justifies common descent and transition is natural selection, meaning the onus is on the Darwinists to prove to us natural selection can create an organism and develop it as opposed to a priori assumptions that this is the case.

00:29:57 --> 00:29:59

Do you see the point? Yeah, I don't see the point.

00:30:00 --> 00:30:16

So this is how this is how you take out the foundations, you go right to the root of the issue. This is the trainee and approach, you go right to the root. You don't even need to challenge the assumptions. archy all you need to do is point out the assumptions. And I'll guarantee you most of these atheists have never heard of these things.

00:30:17 --> 00:30:53

They'll never get into this for granted. Yeah, they'll take it for granted. Yeah, Keith Ward, his book is, I'm sure you've heard of him. I'm sure you've read it. He also explains that similarities could be due to common design rather than common descent. Yeah, it's equally equally, you know, valid as an inference. We would say it's more than it but anyway. Well, yes, absolutely. I also think I'm gonna stay in queue. So I can ask another question later, unless I have time to ask another question. What do you think? Yeah, did you okay, that's fine. Did you understand what was being said? Was anything unclear? No, actually, I understand it very much. I can write it down if

00:30:53 --> 00:30:54

you want. Yeah.

00:30:56 --> 00:30:57

Zach, Lucky brother.

00:30:59 --> 00:31:02

Okay, can you see that Caroline Pinker's book there the

00:31:07 --> 00:31:08

symbol shows up.

00:31:11 --> 00:31:24

So welcome, brother Adnan and better Cebu. And actually, I watched a lot of videos from brothers about about evolution. And really, it clears a lot of questions, and you guys are doing a tremendous job.

00:31:26 --> 00:31:31

After that, I have just small question to Brother Adnan. I think he's an

00:31:32 --> 00:31:33

expert in that area.

00:31:35 --> 00:32:24

You know, we have more this, like, different shaycarl bony and different models. So normally you personally, which mod is you follow, like is ruling on this and this is, you know, finding to you? Or in which contemporary models you you're considering. He was like El Imam Bukhari or, you know, that era, you, you follow them? And like, why, what why you choose because, you know, like, common people as we don't have enough knowledge, right. So we it's a very, it's like a notion to know, to validate somebody's Absolutely. You see, the beauty of these sciences is that

00:32:25 --> 00:33:11

it doesn't depend on one person. Okay. So we cannot take one more HUD, this is opinion on a given Hadith as the ultimate ruling, okay. So, always every single Maha this has to be tested against the opinions of other scholars. So if you if I was to give you a short answer, I pretty much trust shekel Bonnie's categorizations. In this current day and age, I believe he was a very highly qualified scholar of Hadith. But at the same time, he was not the last word on the science of Hadith, because there were people who came before him, who were also highly qualified. So if there is a dispute between shekel Bonnie Rahmatullah Leigh, and scholars before him, had the theme before

00:33:11 --> 00:33:24

him, then we have to really refer to other scholars to explain who may be right or who maybe, you know, mistaken. Oh, may be correct. So shall Barney is pretty much

00:33:25 --> 00:33:34

a very trustworthy source when it comes to the rulings on the size of bodies, but at the same time, keeping keeping in mind, not every single one of his rulings was,

00:33:36 --> 00:33:39

you know, 100% Correct, because he may have,

00:33:40 --> 00:34:12

you know, given rulings that clash with other rulings, or the rulings of other magazine, okay, but we have classical magazine, we have many, many big names and the pastor's really mama Dobby, for example, in hydrolysed, Kalani, okay. And we have a list of scholars a plethora of magazine we can refer to, even in modern age. Okay, shake up the maxilla bud, who is from the from the from Saudi Arabia. He's a scholar of Hadith. We had one in Pakistan, shekels, where are these eight?

00:34:13 --> 00:34:46

These collars, clearly are not, in my opinion, in my humble opinion. They're not as, as experienced or as as big as shackle bunny in the signs. And these, this is my personal, humble opinion, I may be wrong in this. Also, just to one follow up question with this. Like, you know, there's a science of this, right. This is very detailed. And so, I mean, is there any effort done recently to to make some artificial intelligence based, you know, like,

00:34:49 --> 00:34:56

based on the enumerator like these were the people they lived there and because everything can be made digital, right.

00:34:57 --> 00:34:58


00:34:59 --> 00:34:59

The Oh,

00:35:00 --> 00:35:07

Almost all the classical books have been digitally digitized. You can find them on.

00:35:08 --> 00:35:13

on platforms like maktabah Sharmila al maktabah The Sharmila, you can find

00:35:15 --> 00:35:29

almost every single classical book on LM Rachel, all the major books have Rachel on these platforms, okay? But there are some modern efforts as well she has a Baron is a recently he did amazing work on a mirage wall.

00:35:31 --> 00:35:40

And there may be other scholars around the world who are doing the same work. But I agree with you that maybe someone needs to really start categorizing ritual. And

00:35:41 --> 00:35:48

someone needs to make it easy for students to follow. For example, if someone wants to check a particular

00:35:49 --> 00:35:52

personality in the chain of Hadith, okay, let's say

00:35:53 --> 00:36:31

I'm the loving Yusuf who was one of the teachers of Imam Bukhari. So people want to check on him, they they write his name in the search engine, and all the scholars have regional elmora Jarl, for example, the opinions about Abdullah bin usage should come up, okay. But then again, this doesn't mean that a student can read these opinions and give a ruling. Now, ruling or ruling can only be given by a Muhaddith, a qualified scholar of Hadith who has deeper understanding of these opinions and the authenticity than a layperson who might be reading it online. But it's a good idea to digitize

00:36:33 --> 00:36:34

or maybe categorize

00:36:35 --> 00:36:36

his works

00:36:37 --> 00:37:28

and make them approachable make them accessible for students, but at the same time with caution, only scholarship supervised opinions and rulings Is there is there any possibility in Islam and in Islamic fiqh to have a ritual AI based what is like a computer who can know right? It has to be him has to because human mind is stronger than your computer, no matter how powerful your computer may become, it will never reach the cognition of a human mind okay, this is why because computer is a product of human human mind not the other way around, okay. So, so, so, it is the human mind that has created the computer to do a particular job and it has limits a computer has limits, while human

00:37:28 --> 00:37:46

mind has has stronger capacity to what we call cognition do computers or cognition? Absolutely not. Another question. Yeah, no, yeah. Do you ever walk around you're staring at different objects and then you get this thing appearing from your eyes memory full Yeah.

00:37:49 --> 00:38:03

Exactly your your content you remember things from 50 years ago or 20 years ago? You know, human nature. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. But only one thing which I'm concerned like with different models seen and like you know,

00:38:05 --> 00:38:06


00:38:07 --> 00:38:24

everybody like this who disagrees with another mod is or another opinion they like they blame others for biasness like, you know, if there are two groups historically right, not not on all cases, but like for some cases like in human

00:38:25 --> 00:38:31

humans have some tendency to be a biased person right. So, for example, if somebody is

00:38:32 --> 00:38:54

is given is given more British to our days, which is opposing another group, right. So another group will come up and say, No, this because you are biased this more this was bias, right. So how do you manage to only only a Marcus can say that a laborer? Only one? Yeah, only a mohawk. There's only

00:38:56 --> 00:39:02

if two models see each other, like this Mateus was biased. So this is why

00:39:03 --> 00:39:19

we disagree with him. Like yes, based on the biasness also, like possible, it's in milady. So I think there is something called like, if some body in the chain of narration is

00:39:20 --> 00:39:21

has views,

00:39:22 --> 00:39:50

you know, in favor of one party and or in opposition of one party. So they try to use it they still can. This is why this is this is why we have the science of gr What are DL gr is criticism criticizing someone and da DL is moderation. Okay, ta DL is basically doing justice to that criticism. Is that criticism valid. So it is impossible for

00:39:51 --> 00:39:59

let's say a plethora of scholars to criticize someone and deem someone unworthy of being added to reports

00:40:00 --> 00:40:49

And then that person to be valid, or that person to be someone trustworthy, okay? Or report worthy. So this is why the science of hadith is very, very powerful, you can actually see through the opinions of the scholars and see why they reach those opinions. And by the way, when someone criticizes a particular person in a chain of Hadith, and doesn't give his reasons, then that criticism is not even valid. So, this is why it is not just simply a matter of being biased, and having an opinion of a particular individual without giving your reasons as to why you are criticizing such and such person for let's say, for lying, possibly, for being a forgetful person,

00:40:49 --> 00:41:38

someone who makes his chains, someone who is simply not trustworthy, you have to give your reasons, if you don't give you reasons, what we call Jara Mufasa, jar Mufasa or jar Mufasa okay, this means detailed criticism, if details are not there, that criticism is not even considered criticism. So, the possibility of being biased is there, but one has to see the reasons as to why as a scholar has an opinion on a particular person. So that will that will help you decide whether the criticism of that particular model on a particular personality was valid. This is why other scholars come along and they do ta deal. They do justice, they do moderation, if they see a criticism of a person, okay,

00:41:38 --> 00:42:26

they will say hold on a second, this is far fetched, this is going too far. And they will try to rescue that person if that person deserves rescuing, if later scholars or other reviewers, you know, we have nowadays in academia, a system called peer reviewed. Okay? We have peer reviewed journals. They are published by academic institutions like Cambridge, Harvard, and they have journals. These journals are articles published by research scholars, they call a review journals because other peers, other scholars and academics review them, and approve them to be worthy of publishing. We had this system more than 1200 years ago in the history of Islam, where we had this peer reviewed system

00:42:26 --> 00:42:53

of Hadith or discussing the ritual, the men of Hadith. So if someone was approved by other peers, like scholars of Hadith, then that person would be acceptable. But if majority are saying this person is not worthy of acceptance, this person is not trustworthy. Therefore his Hadith is not acceptable, then it would be accepted. I hope that answers your question. And the details are far too too many for me to discuss in this short sitting.

00:42:56 --> 00:42:57

I have other questions, but

00:43:01 --> 00:43:10

thank you, someone asked me about recommending a book on auto ministry. So I advise this one off man's dream is a very good

00:43:11 --> 00:43:21

treatment of Ottoman history. Caroline Finkel is the author. Okay. You might be asking, isn't she biased? Or this is a Western historian?

00:43:22 --> 00:43:39

Well, I'm saying this is an information packed book. You'll get a lot of information on Ottomans and you don't have to accept every single conclusions he draws. But learn the history at least from books like this, and then you can expand your research, Charles, starting with these kinds of books.

00:43:40 --> 00:43:41

Okay, thank you, brothers.

00:43:45 --> 00:43:48

Uh, Salam aleikum, philosophy in depth.

00:43:50 --> 00:43:52

Salam aleykum. How you doing? Brother?

00:43:54 --> 00:43:55


00:43:57 --> 00:44:05

Can we stick to one question? Yeah, one question and a quick question so that we can take as many as possibilities yeah, there's quite a few people trying to enter Go ahead, bro.

00:44:06 --> 00:44:20

Okay, then I will ask a question. Two brothers a warden. Sure. Recently, I had heard about Raven's paradox in science, right, which challenges scientific method.

00:44:22 --> 00:44:26

But I had also heard the response from Karl Popper

00:44:27 --> 00:44:59

that science is only function is to falsify things. So as a student of philosopher philosophy of science brothers award, do you agree with popper that sciences only work is to falsify the things or for example can add it also has another follow up question. Okay. Does Muslims can we can we stick to one question because we want to move on. So normally, it is related to that because I want to ask you that will Muslims use

00:45:00 --> 00:45:12

Scientists to just falsify theories like evolution at that set, and they don't have to prove anything, because Cooper popper has said for sciences only function is to falsify things. Yeah. Okay. So long story short,

00:45:14 --> 00:45:23

poppers falsification or sometimes known as naive falsification? Whatever it's called this is this is 40 years old, 50 years old, is old.

00:45:24 --> 00:45:33

Most I think philosophers of science would probably say that it was too simplistic, and they would believe in something

00:45:34 --> 00:45:38

closer to scientific holism. Right, rather than falsification.

00:45:39 --> 00:45:51

What I would recommend is there's a book by Oxford University philosophy of science, a short introduction, very simple, sort of entry level book into this area,

00:45:52 --> 00:46:07

poppers basic idea that that's all that science can do, is problematic, because it can't even do that it can't even falsify, because the idea that can falsify categorically, is giving

00:46:09 --> 00:46:52

this idea that scientific conclusions, even if the negations can be concrete, can be eternal can be applied in the future. But we know that there are times where a scientific theory can come back, like what's that guy in the Bible comes back Lazarus? Is it Lazarus, he comes back in the Bible, right? It's like it can be resurrected. For example. Lamarckian evolution was falsified popper. At that time, I've never heard proper say this. But see, if popper was asked about Lamarckian evolution, he would have said, well, it's been falsified by Darwinian evolution. But today, we have the revival of epigenetics. We have the revival of Neo Lamarckism. So Lamarckism is, is evidence of

00:46:52 --> 00:47:01

the idea that science can falsify categorically is also false. Yeah. So I would say called poppers ideas are interesting, but they are out of date.

00:47:03 --> 00:47:06

Make sense? Then, then what about ravens paradox?

00:47:07 --> 00:47:15

Yeah, these are, look, these are complicated things. I'm not saying there's an answer that solves this this issue. What I'm saying is,

00:47:16 --> 00:47:18

it's not easy.

00:47:19 --> 00:47:25

If you have two bad choices, there's still two bad choices. Right? It doesn't mean you have the entire picture.

00:47:26 --> 00:47:35

But do you understand why the idea that something is has been falsified categorically why that's problematic in the example I gave of Lamarckian evolution.

00:47:37 --> 00:47:43

Yes, what other somebody are trying to say that because even if someone negates something, then it

00:47:44 --> 00:47:57

has to be universal also, but universe there, but there are no universal designs. So negation should also be a universal. Yeah, it cannot be universal light with particular. It can't be I wouldn't say universal say categorical.

00:47:58 --> 00:48:07

By see ultimate, ultimate, ultimate Eagle, ultimate hop. What is the difference between categorical and universal? What was different?

00:48:08 --> 00:48:10

Every categorical is not universal.

00:48:11 --> 00:48:17

It's okay. Okay. It is more precise, I think to say categorical, because,

00:48:18 --> 00:48:19

in essence,

00:48:21 --> 00:48:29

I mean, I don't think getting into the difference between the two is gonna make a difference, but it's just more precise to be saying that science cannot falsify categorically.

00:48:31 --> 00:48:44

As opposed to saying science can or cannot falsify universally, same, same sort of thing, but category that we're trying to see science cannot categorically say Lamarckian evolution, or another thing in science is false.

00:48:46 --> 00:48:47

Okay, does Accola for your answer.

00:48:48 --> 00:48:53

Science can never be categorical, can it? No, that's the point. Yeah. Yeah. That's it.

00:48:55 --> 00:49:10

If brother Adnan will give a brief overview of how Western philosophers take history, because in Hadees, we use testimonies. So it's an optional, you can answer it or not, I will leave the study. Thank you, brother. It's better if we go to other questioners. Okay. JazakAllah monster that question but

00:49:12 --> 00:49:15

thank you very much. Thank you, brother. So I'm gonna go

00:49:31 --> 00:49:39

Okay, so we're going to go to brother, a Salam aleikum. Wa Alaikum. Salaam, how you doing brother

00:49:43 --> 00:49:46

in immersion? I'm not Persian Dawn Pakistan.

00:49:49 --> 00:49:59

Yes, President. So I mean, I'm not trying to let you to ask questions about evolution. I'm more more for history. So

00:50:00 --> 00:50:14

What I want to ask is when by the way someone they come I want to ask is, how do you saw my family? We come from Otago originally. And I've been told that we're from the churchy ethnic group.

00:50:15 --> 00:50:46

And I want to basically learn our history because I'm really confused. Honestly, growing up in New York, we're not around many churches, there's many more Punjabis, and so on. And the Punjabis, they refer to us as Pashtoon. And I'm very, I'm very interested in history. I love history. Watch the lectures, like I watched the whole album ghee lecture that you did, I even debated my uncle's body, but he refused to acknowledge what I said. But anyways,

00:50:47 --> 00:50:49

just give them a book by ordered trash.

00:50:51 --> 00:51:03

I plan on reading that too. But I want to learn more about you know, my ethnic group, how do I do that? Okay, so if you are from church, which is currently attracted, yes. Can

00:51:04 --> 00:51:06

you see when you say the history of church,

00:51:07 --> 00:51:56

it's not very easy to explain that history. I'm sure there is history of church, and the people who inhabit territory of church, mostly the upper stones, okay. And that's why you have there's a place called good whiskey, or which is very close to church, right? So, for stone tribes have inhabited this place for a very long time. And unfortunately, the history of the persoon people is not very clear. It's not very clear. There are history that had been written off the Pashtoon people by many stones, but there are very, very huge leaps. Okay, very huge leaps from when they're talking about a particular group of the stones, and then they take a huge leap, attributing that group to certain

00:51:56 --> 00:52:25

individuals in the past, right. For example, it is reported or it is claimed that there are stones today that come from a man called case of the Rashid by someone who was a companion of Khalid bin Walid, for example, okay, or Some even claim that he was a companion of the Prophet salallahu Salam, this is very difficult to prove some question. Some questions even claim that they are the lost tribes of Israel. Yeah, I've heard that.

00:52:26 --> 00:52:50

Some, some have even gone as far as to do DNA tests. And they claim that they have found DNA, the partially Jewish DNA, or something like that. But look, these claims cannot be very clearly substantiated. The history of the Western people is a very, very interesting area that still needs to be researched properly, academically, right?

00:52:52 --> 00:53:01

A British colonial officer called Olive Carroll has written a book titled the protons and indoctrinate

00:53:03 --> 00:53:50

some history of the Western people in that book and it's not entirely accurate. Then if you want to go back to the 18th century history, written by one of the barstool leaders ruling some of the Indian Territory, his name was Hafez Ramat Cong Rohilla. He had written a history of the persoon people titled Kalasa, Tolan, Saab, I actually possess one of the manuscripts of that particular book in my library. That's how I know about it. It has some interesting history again, going back to case bin Abdul Rashid and, and even discussing the Israelite connection. But unfortunately, the Pashtoon tribes are so diverse and so mixed up. It's very difficult to point out one particular origin for

00:53:50 --> 00:54:37

all those tribes, because I believe there are Turkic people mixed with the Palestinian people, ethnically speaking that makes more sense. Yeah. Okay. The area of Azerbaijan current devotee of Stan in Pakistan, these people are actually originally are Turkic here, they are the descendants of Timor, okay, they are Central Asian in origin. Likewise, if you go to para GNR, which is in current de Pashtoon territory, there are a group of people called tourists, they speak Pashto, they speak the language of the pustules but they are originally Persian, they are from the Persian stock, right? They are not Pashtoon. Then we have people like use of these who is a SWAT and that

00:54:37 --> 00:54:59

territory, generic be pure for stones. Right. So this is a very contentious issue. It's very much debated. I hope scholars take it up and start producing some academic studies on the origins of the Pashtoon people and do some DNA testing and find out what actually is the origin of the person people some people even claim the stones or the remnants

00:55:00 --> 00:55:01

The Greeks. Yeah, but

00:55:03 --> 00:55:04

the Greeks who ruled

00:55:05 --> 00:55:47

the current de Pashtoon territory of Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Greeks ruled for 200 years. territory. The question is where did where did all those Greeks call? Once they were, they were overpowered by other civilizations of Central Asian Dynasties like the cushions. And in the Citians, and others who came later on where did the Greeks go? So a lot of there are a lot of theories, I find the Greek theory to be very strong. Because when you look at the Palestinian territory today, and the appearance, you see them to be very similar in the, you know, appearance to some, I mean, European people, they are blue eyes,

00:55:48 --> 00:55:55

very fair skin. So it makes sense. Because where you find the Pashtoon people today,

00:55:57 --> 00:56:16

these were the hotbeds of the Greeks for 200 years. And Greeks were here in huge numbers, they came with the armies, they got married to local people, and they intermingle. So the history of the persona is a very, very interesting area. And that needs to be

00:56:17 --> 00:56:47

studied academically, I'm still yet to see any satisfactory study of the origins of the Pashtoon people, interesting people very strong, very powerful, very martial people, very strong people, culturally speaking, the language is very strong, the culture is very strong. And the persona are known from the very early period, I mean, going back to the Delhi Sultanate period, and during even during the Mughal period, the stones are very prominent, historically speaking, militarily,

00:56:48 --> 00:56:55

you know, as a group of people as a martial people. It was Musa was showing me this picture of ancient Greeks were in the hole.

00:56:56 --> 00:57:31

Yeah, I mean, it this is a funny thing. I don't know if you've seen this hat, the persona for call call, or the call is actually Greek. Oh, my family. Where's that? Yeah, I mean, check out check it out. Google COSIA. The word COSIA. Okay, you sia that was a Greek hat, the Greek used to where we're talking about two 300 BC before Christ. Okay. And look at COSIA and look at the Bacall, the barstools way today, it is absolutely identical. It's exactly.

00:57:32 --> 00:58:13

So relax. One more thing. Yes. Go ahead. Very quick for me really quickly. So the Punjabis and the push stones in New York, the elders, they always told me I'm push stone stops in churches, so on and so forth. But I did some study myself, and this is push stones come from certain tribes. And my family name is Sheikh Siddiqui. And I'm like, how am I I don't want this I'm really confused. Like I'm trying to figure out where we come from, who we are, so on and so forth. As I said, prayers to people who speak Pashto as a language are generally called posh tones, but not every single one of them, or not every single tribe that speaks Pashto is originally from the same stock. Okay. The

00:58:13 --> 00:58:53

origins of the language is also a very good topic. Okay. So we don't know how the questions started to speak Pashto and what tribes actually constitute the original questions. These topics are very interesting topics and to this day, there is no you know, no records. Yeah, okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry to be I'm trying to be vague. But that's not my okay. Let down but it is still an honor to talk to you. Honestly. I really appreciate what you do. Thank you so much. I want to slowly go to the next question. So for Mr. Seymour.

00:59:03 --> 00:59:05

Suddenly Cumbre, the RF while it's

00:59:07 --> 00:59:24

probably hamdulillah What's your question? Brother? My question is, so I live in Ottawa. And I was wondering, do you guys know any Dawa programs in the area? Or do you guys know any good pamphlets I can.

00:59:26 --> 00:59:48

I can copy or photocopy so I can hand out to non Muslim houses. Get it Get in touch with Ira Canada. I era Canada. Okay. You will come across a brother called us manually. And he's got brilliant stuff for you. You can pick those get in touch with him and he's doing some good work in Canada. Okay. He's based is based in Toronto.

00:59:49 --> 00:59:57

Wants to or a Canada? Yeah, I era. I era Canada. Okay. Okay.

00:59:59 --> 00:59:59

Thank you. Bye lovelies.

01:00:03 --> 01:00:07

Thank you, brother. Next we go to

01:00:11 --> 01:00:21

Muhammad. Sounds more kohnstamm How you doing? Brother Muhammad? Allah? How are you guys? Very good global l Mahavira. lohagad.

01:00:24 --> 01:00:30

My question is, they say seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave.

01:00:31 --> 01:00:40

Okay, so your name is Muhammad yet? The craters? Okay. I actually didn't know that. It also means an institution.

01:00:41 --> 01:00:46

And every cradle is an institution if people realized

01:00:48 --> 01:00:49

my HUD

01:00:51 --> 01:00:55

okay, what's that? Mean? I can we go?

01:00:57 --> 01:00:57

What's your?

01:00:58 --> 01:01:05

What's your question? My HUD? This This mod is different. How's your name spelt in the Arabic brother? meme? Ha.

01:01:06 --> 01:01:15

I'm Pakistani, actually, are you you got to learn how to write your name man in Arabic? Because it's another big name. Go ahead, brother. What's your question?

01:01:17 --> 01:01:26

I mean, I didn't know. That's what I was interesting to find out anyways. So my question is, I don't know how things are over there in the UK. But here in the United States, at least,

01:01:27 --> 01:01:34

a lot of Muslims are like, very, it's being influenced by the left wing. And there's like a

01:01:35 --> 01:01:47

surge of younger Muslims sort of leaning, like, you know, more towards the left wing and being influenced by the left wing and, by extension, adopting some of the,

01:01:48 --> 01:02:38

I guess, principles and values that the far left advocates for such as Marxism and communism and stuff. So my question is, what is like sort of the Islamic approach towards these ideologies? Like is, does the economic system that a Muslim, I guess, believes in whether we'll be it capitalism, or communism, or whatever? How does that impact us? And how should we sort of give Dawa to our colleagues, especially in university because I'm a university student? And so how should we go about doing this? How should we like, give them down and say, communism, it's not like the solution to whatever evil is the capitalism has produced and being a Marxist is not again, also not a solution

01:02:38 --> 01:03:20

to whatever else so Yeah, listen, this starts with childhood, you know, when you leave a vacuum, an intellectual vacuum, it will be filled by something. When you send your kids without any basic Islamic education, to universities, in schools, they will be exposed to all these ideologies and whichever one comes across, first they will adopt it. Unfortunately, when there is empty space, it will be filled by something, right? So this is why it starts from childhood, parents need to start focusing on the education of the children, give them a good knowledge, a good understanding of the Muslim civilization, teach them the history of Islam, the history of Islam, Islamic civilization,

01:03:20 --> 01:03:26

how Muslims did economically how Muslims really intellectually homelessness produced, created huge libraries.

01:03:28 --> 01:04:19

Lack of knowledge, when it comes to the Islamic civilization, on the part of young students, is what causes them to fall into feminism, liberalism, communism, fascism, I mean, if the unfortunate, right things and all these isms and schisms, so how you give Dawa to these people is tell them, is Islam lacking? Economically, intellectually? is Islam lacking? The answer? If they are believers will be absolutely not, then you tell them you don't need to be a feminist, or, or a communist or a socialist, you don't need to be that because Islam has a solution. Islam has everything Islam has economic policies is policies for us. Islam has political advice for us. Islam has moral values for

01:04:19 --> 01:04:42

us to follow. Islam has everything for us. We're not lacking on anything. So if that's the case, then why would you need feminism, socialism, communism, why would you need that? And especially when these ideologies have failed, where they were adopted? Communism is a failed ideology. It has failed. It failed as soon as it started.

01:04:43 --> 01:04:59

Look at the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, okay, look at socialism, what it did to the countries where it was adopted as an ideology. Okay, and liberalism is failing right now in front of your eyes, as a system and capitalism.

01:05:00 --> 01:05:11

So what is the solution? The solution? is Islam? The solution? Is there are people adopting Islam as a solution, having tried all these things. So this is what we do our we explained to them.

01:05:13 --> 01:05:37

Let them ask questions. What are your questions that Islam cannot answer? And if you are if you are qualified, if you if you are someone who has knowledge of Islam as a system, you will be able to answer all these questions. So I think it's lack of knowledge on the part of all the students and youngsters who end up in these isms and schisms. I hope that answers your question, brother Maha. Sorry for being vague.

01:05:38 --> 01:05:51

No, it's okay. About a couple of weeks. Also, can you pass on a message to brother behind the job if that's okay. Yep. You want to know you want to pass on a message to mom with a job? So he's not here? He's not supposed to wait one second.

01:05:56 --> 01:06:21

Go ahead for the mod sorry. I was just gonna say I was just gonna say the the man I forget his name Jonathan something who accompany Jordan Pearson in his in the latest podcast. Yeah, he made a he made a video addressing some of the points and he like, I guess, for lack of a better word, slandered brotherhood job in a lot of things. I was hoping if he could react or you guys could react to hit the video he made on his channel.

01:06:23 --> 01:06:44

I might do that. Okay. Yeah, I'm like, some of his points of wanting to then we will do it inshallah. It definitely he misunderstood and misinterpreted a lot of things. And he, I feel I feel he slandered brotherhood job. And I'd be like, it'd be appropriate if him or both of you or whoever can respond to it and sort of address those points. Thank you so much. Okay. No problem. Thank you, brother.

01:06:45 --> 01:06:49

Thank you, brother, Mohammed. May Allah bless you. Let's go to

01:06:51 --> 01:06:52

is good one.

01:06:54 --> 01:07:03

Thank you have one question for you. As a question, what the familiar. Yeah, I am. Terry Terry. Okay.

01:07:04 --> 01:07:11

We know, you know, from work quickly, I have one question as a Christian, why do you switch on your camera?

01:07:15 --> 01:07:15


01:07:16 --> 01:07:47

I'm not important. I'm not important. I have one quick question. Right. So as a Christian, you must become Muslim. And that's what that's what they say. That's what they say. So I'm going to quickly ask because I don't want to take too much of your time. As a Christian, I think one of the common objections, Islamic objection is, is God one or three. Right. So I'm going to put my question in a syllogism. And try to see how you respond to that. If God Islamic god is not comparable to anything in the creative border,

01:07:48 --> 01:08:05

therefore cannot be qualified or, or not, cannot be compared to anything in the creative border. And since the concept of enumerations, and counting is part of the creative border, isn't it not inadequate to say God is one as a true statement?

01:08:07 --> 01:08:07

No, it's not.

01:08:09 --> 01:08:57

It's not absolutely not one means one, as an entity, as a principle as an existence, one UK not divided. The point here is that this God is not divided into persons into entities into different forms. Okay. One means one being one existence. One I understand, I understand. I just want to make sure which premise Do you disagree with? First premise is God is not comparable to anything in the creative order yet or cannot be qualified by anything within the creative ordered premise number two, yes. So I just want to see which premise you disagree with premise one, you agree with premise two, since the concept of enumerations, or counting as part of the creative border? How then can you

01:08:57 --> 01:09:32

say God is One is an adequate, I don't obligation deduction? I don't agree with your deduction, you're you're assuming that the concept of counting is only part of creative order? I don't have to agree with that. Okay, so you're against the second premise, which is counting the concept of enumerations. And counting is part of the creative order. So you're saying counting is eternal? Not necessarily not. I'm saying. It doesn't have to be part of the creative order. It doesn't have to be it can be part of God's knowledge, God, is God able to count?

01:09:34 --> 01:09:48

Well, my concept of God and your concept of God is totally different. Yeah, but I'm asking, I'm asking you putting a premise forward and I'm challenging it. Is God able to count before is, is he able to count? What would he be counting?

01:09:49 --> 01:09:59

Question is, before he creates anything, is he able to count he has a knowledge of it. I believe he has a knowledge of that. But your God also had the knowledge of creation.

01:10:00 --> 01:10:42

But creation is not eternal. So I'm not quite understanding what you're trying to say because he knows it and makes the concept of enumeration eternal. I'm saying it's part of the creative order. So how can you use enumeration? Is enumeration a form of knowledge? Yes, it is. Okay. And we believe God is eternally knowledgeable. I totally agree with that. I'm not I'm not arguing just knowledge. enumeration is part of God's knowledge is part of argument. Yeah. It's my argument was predicated on one thing, since God is not comparable to anything in the creative order. And since the concept of enumeration is part of the creative order within the creative order, isn't that all cases? So you

01:10:42 --> 01:11:10

disagree with the second proposition? So you're saying it's eternal? The concept of enumeration is knowledge is God. enumeration is knowledge. God's knowledge is eternal? Full stop. That's my interesting and interesting way of saying things. So so so basically. So you're saying that concept of enumeration is eternal? And, okay, what about the concept? Because it's the knowledge of God. Okay.

01:11:11 --> 01:11:42

Christians believe that God was knowledgeable at one point, and, and he became more knowledgeable, he became more knowledgeable. At another point, we don't believe that. That's okay. So it follows by what you just said. Thank you for clarifying. Thank you for clarifying. So it follows by your own deduction, what you just stipulated that God also knew that we would have hands, feet, etc. And we should use that same standard. And when it says God has hands and feet, we should use that into human standard. That's a non sequitur tool.

01:11:45 --> 01:11:48

Sorry. Okay. I'm sorry, maybe? Maybe I've been

01:11:50 --> 01:11:50

one second.

01:11:51 --> 01:12:14

That's noncircular. Okay. So let me just give you an example of my younger brother is growing every year by half a foot, right? The tree in my backyard is growing by half a four, I deduct that this correlation is due to causation. There's something about that tree that's making my brother grow. That's a non sequitur is completely non.

01:12:15 --> 01:12:32

Said, That makes no sense. He actually, I lost a few brain cells. You just told me what's the point of this? Like, what is the point? Are you trying to prove God is not one? Because I don't think Chris, I don't think Christians agree with that either. No, no, no, as a Christian, first, let's start with the end.

01:12:33 --> 01:12:36

Okay, okay. So good question. Before I'm gonna

01:12:37 --> 01:13:19

let me respond to super quickly. As a Christian, I believe that when I say God is one, I'm using human standards, but God himself is not restricted to that. So when I say God is a God, he understands that he is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He gave us the knowledge of enumeration, which is part of the creative order. And we apply that to describe him using human standards. So when you're saying I was using a non sequitur, saying causation to correlation, that's that argument I was making. I was saying using the same human standards that applies to God, something that is within creation. So when it says something in creation hands, and I say your God has hands on my

01:13:19 --> 01:13:38

applying the human standard to that that's the point I was making. There was no, I was not making anything about causation argument. So I don't see the non sequitur in what you're saying. You misunderstood the point. Okay. I only mentioned causation and correlation. As an example of a non secretarial argument. I agree. I could use another thing. I'm simply saying, you know,

01:13:40 --> 01:14:19

humans are made of cells. Aristotle is a human, therefore, humans get cancer. That argument is a non sequitur. All right. I understand. Like your argument so far, the way you've explained it is a non sequitur until you explain why the premises lead to the conclusion so far, I don't see it. Okay, I'm gonna try one last time. And I'm gonna let you guys go. All I did, because I don't see you. Because the analogy you're using is not synonymous to what I'm using. Let me explain one more time. Since that's because it's a different analogy. I understand. But it's not even correlating to what I'm trying to establish. The point I, the only point I was making is that enumerations the concept of

01:14:19 --> 01:14:26

numbers relates to to create a border. So if I use God is one, and I say that's an adequate

01:14:28 --> 01:15:00

statement using human standards that I'm saying, okay, so I would say, I would also by comparison, use, God has hands using human standards, and say, and you will say, No, you don't agree with that. So no, I'm using human standards. And you're saying that that applies. And I'm using, I'm just finalizing, I'm using human standards, and you say it applies to God. And I'm using numerous data for hands and you're saying it doesn't apply to God. So I'm saying if we say we say none of the human standards apply to God, this is what we believe in. None of the human

01:15:00 --> 01:15:36

Standard, you're disagreeing. What's your first original statement? Cuz you said his knowledge is eternal so he could apply these qualifications himself. Well, yeah, the fact that Hans is also eternal, it was part of his, his consciousness and enumeration as part of its consciousness. So now you're disagreeing with your first original position. No, I'm not. I'm not maybe you're both in this consciousness now. Maybe you're not understanding, okay? The concept of knowledge. Okay. When it comes to God, it is eternal. I understand that. Okay. enumeration is, is part of that. And the fact that we have hands is also part of that you're trying to you're trying to limit it to creation,

01:15:36 --> 01:15:39

we're saying he's not limited to creation. Okay. Now,

01:15:40 --> 01:16:24

the concept of enumeration is God knowledge, which is eternal. Okay. And the fact that we have handles? Well, it's part of his knowledge that we've Yeah, absolutely anything that Brahmins didn't say, if you're using human standards and applying it to God, you accept one part, but you don't accept the other numbers, except we're not when women God speaks to us. He speaks to us in a language that we can relate to. I agree, I understand. But at the same time, God tells us that that language, okay does not necessarily apply to the domain of God. So you agree with me now. So you're saying is inadequate to say God is one when it comes to one, when it comes to God's being? And his

01:16:24 --> 01:16:32

person? We have been told? He is one, not divided by three into one? I'm not talking about that? Yeah.

01:16:34 --> 01:16:36

That's what you're leading to right. The problem?

01:16:37 --> 01:17:16

Find the guy having this conversation is because of your Trinity, we wouldn't be having this conversation if you didn't have the Trinity to defend, right? I'm not even talking about a challenge. I mean, this would be a non, this would be a non question. This would be Did you notice that you notice that you contradicted yourself with one statement, you said, is inadequate to describe God? And then you say, you could describe God with it? First, it's inadequate, then you're saying it's adequate. Which one? Is it? I am saying? I'm saying, God speaks to us in a language we understand in a language we can relate to as humans. But that does not mean that we can use that

01:17:16 --> 01:17:56

language to describe the reality of God, you're agreeing with me? My conclusion? No, no, no, that doesn't mean that God now is telling us that he's one. And then he's actually not one. He's three in one. You understand that? That's a whole different issue. That's a whole different issue. But I think, because conversation right now, I only came for the god of Islam to try understand your position, you said and once in one breath, you said one thing you say, is inadequate to describe God. And then the other says God is one then is adequate. So which one is is it inadequate? Or is it adequate? Okay, first of all, you can be on both sides. Come on.

01:17:57 --> 01:18:40

First of all, God tells us that he's one. He tells us all, Paul, who Allahu Ahad, this is what God tells us in the Quran, that he is one. Okay. Now, from that statement of God, we cannot possibly come to the conclusion that that one means three in one. I agree with one. I agree. I agree. I agree. I never I never made that argument. I never made that argument. Okay, that's fine. I'm just trying to say what is God is one mean, if you're using human standard, because in both cases, God had hands because using human standards, okay. And you disagree with that? Well, then I say God is one. And you're saying you agree with being consistent as human beings, as humans as humans? What do

01:18:40 --> 01:18:41

we understand as one

01:18:42 --> 01:18:43

as human?

01:18:45 --> 01:18:46

One example is one unit,

01:18:47 --> 01:18:51

as human, one unit, thank you. So as, as humans,

01:18:53 --> 01:19:33

the language that we can understand, to understand oneness, and I agree, and I agree, but at the same time to finalize, if you're saying you're using you, I totally agree with you. When you're saying you're using human standard in one case, I'm saying be consistent and use it for the other case, so your God has hands. So we're using human standards. So your God has hands like oh, no, no, he's not. Okay. You can explain to him, here's the thing, the Quran he mentions, Lisa, chemically, he shaved there's nothing like him. There's no I agree. I agree. I agree. That was part of my premise. So let me let me just learn here. So when we say that Allah, He has hands, we say Allah has

01:19:33 --> 01:19:45

hands. We say Allah has hands but we say the kg fear how he has hands how his hands are his hands like ours. We don't know. Don't go into that. So your thing now let me explain your thing.

01:19:47 --> 01:19:59

For us, we believe Allah exists, right? Do we exist? We exist. So us and Allah we both exist. Do we exist the way Allah exists though? No.

01:20:00 --> 01:20:38

We don't so that's the point. No like Wait wait wait I don't know what your name is I just want to make you just stipulate to my three premises and only conclusion that that could come from my three premises number one, that God is not comparable to anything in his creative order you agree with that? Counting is in look as part of the creative border therefore using God is one and enumeration is an inadequate statement you just existing is also part of the creative water so that also is that is the problem I'm not saying this is a problem for the Christian God this is a problem for the Islamic guy because you guys say there's nothing in creation that's comparable to him. We are God

01:20:38 --> 01:21:24

says He uses the sun to compare the Sqn the compared to his nature so we he says in the Psalms it says his the his creation reveals his glory. So we don't have that problem but you do because now you just said it's nothing creation comparable to him. I'm just going to finalize nothing is comparable to an enumeration in the concept that I wait. I'm gonna finally know whatever the Quran says about God is confirmed by the Bible. And I'm gonna get to the Bible second I'm gonna get this way with the Quran. Let me finish my enumerations wait with the view of God is directly consistent with the biblical view of God. Okay, the Bible says his creation, you the Christians broke away from

01:21:24 --> 01:21:46

the biblical tradition. Okay, so every single thing you're saying that the Quran says about God can be found in the Bible, the fact that the God, God is incomparable, is in the Bible. He says his creation reveals his glory. So he's comparable to the saints. It also says he's like nothing is like no one.

01:21:47 --> 01:21:47

But it says

01:21:49 --> 01:22:18

yes, some, some 34 element sums in the 411 says he is like the sun as for his nature, so I use the sun analogy to describe the operational relationship between the person and the Godhead. Like no one does the Bible to them. I just gave you a verse. Psalms 8411 says he is like the sun relating to the operational challenges. What are you gonna do with the passages where the Bible says God is like no one. I'm gonna repeat Psalms. Psalms 8411 says, he is like, I got it. I got it, are you?

01:22:20 --> 01:22:45

Why are you why are you telling me a verse will contradict that? Wait, wait, wait. I am asking you if the Bible says that God is not comparable to anyone or anything. What you're going to do is where's that? Where's that? I don't know what you're talking about. Okay, I'm gonna show you. Yeah, please give me that. I'm gonna guess he calls himself a man of war. Anyway, so you if I show you if I show you, okay, then what? If it says that God is not comparable?

01:22:46 --> 01:22:51

That's a whole different issue. If you can show me that. Guess he compares himself to crazy.

01:22:53 --> 01:22:56

Okay, if if I can show you that there is no one like him.

01:22:58 --> 01:23:17

I didn't say no, there's no one that I know that no one is, like I said he compares himself to creation. So it shows a distinction between our God and your God. We're seeing his person. His being it no one is like him. I agree with that. That's not the that's not what I'm saying. He's comparing he compares to himself. So

01:23:18 --> 01:23:22

how is the biblical narrative? In contradiction with the Quran?

01:23:23 --> 01:23:24


01:23:26 --> 01:23:43

the way the Quran says God is like no one, there is no one like him. There is no one like him. I agree. I would agree. The Bible agrees. I agree. Prawns is God is one the Bible agrees. Now, the Bible doesn't agree with the Bible doesn't agree with that way the Bible does not agree with that.

01:23:45 --> 01:24:18

does not agree with that. There is one he's a lot Here O Israel, the LORD your God is a God union union Adam and Eve are a cause you're putting that spin on it. Adam and Eve or God, brother, Genesis three Wait, brother, Adam, Eve. What is this? Oh my god. If someone was to read the bison, the problem with the Christian will never come to conclusion. I will give you the first instance of the word of God as it relates to persons. Adam if a card union, okay, okay. Let us create man, let us

01:24:19 --> 01:24:41

men, you know this union you speak of? If someone wants to read the Bible, they would not come to the conclusion, my friend. I'm a scholar when it comes to the Bible. I'm sorry. I'm a scholar. When it comes to the Bible. I can show you a sense of the tribal nature that's even worse for you because you shouldn't be believing if you're a scholar. I could go to Genesis to Revelation and establish the three persons please.

01:24:42 --> 01:25:00

Yeah, but but you're you're putting your spin on it. Let me just finish right. Okay, this way we're looking at Jeremiah 10. Six. Are you listening? Just listen. Just listen with patience. Please. There is none like you. Oh, Lord, You are Great and great is your name in my Amen. Amen. And never

01:25:00 --> 01:25:07

There's only one holy like the Lord in demand. No one besides You, are you Amen? They met one. I never disagree with that. Okay.

01:25:09 --> 01:25:58

You're shocked. You're arguing a point that ever made. Oh no, I said he's comparable. We have a conversation with me. Who is you here? God Yahweh, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Okay, wait, wait. Now you're claiming you here means the Trinity. The tribal nature? I don't understand it. Well, not a Catholic. Catholic. You're claiming you in the Old Testament. In First Samuel, two two. You're claiming you is the Trinity yes or no? I'm not sure what. Samuel which which verse? Not every single time it says you Father, Son and Holy Spirit Samuel. First Samuel. Okay. to chapter two verse two, then you know there is no one holy like the Lord with capital l wait, wait. Three Persons in okay.

01:25:58 --> 01:26:39

You're using the Lord had means three persons. Amen. Okay. Right. Now, we continue. You're digging a ditch for yourself never gonna be. I will take I'll take the Shahada. I'll take the shahada right now, if you could prove to me it's not the three persons, okay. Okay. Brilliant. Brilliant. Brilliant. You're going to take the chaga right now, right right now be showing me in First Samuel and the verse that you're telling, if you prove to me it's not the three persons because I could prove to you it is the three persons show me and I'll take the shahada right now, I'm going to show you that the Lord or God of the Old Testament and to go soon, so hear me out, hear me out. I know we

01:26:39 --> 01:27:09

have time. Don't worry, people are enjoying, I have to leave, I have to leave. So. Okay, you have to leave. The I'm going to show you that the Lord and the God of the Old Testament is one person and he's the father with capital F. I'm gonna show you. Okay. Go to the book of Isaiah. Now you do it, do it real quick. Just quickly. Open open it right now in real time Do it. Do it. Make your point, Brother, why you have to go now. Because I have I have a grammar that I need.

01:27:10 --> 01:27:14

Nothing. Nothing is more important than shahada, my grandmother if this.

01:27:16 --> 01:27:45

Okay, chapter 63. Can you chapter 63 Book of Isaiah, Google it. I'm going to read it for you. And I'm going to show you who is the Lord and God of the Old Testament. You're claiming three. And I'm going to show you how it's one and that's the father. Okay, now you're gonna you're gonna stay there. And not only that, not only that, Jesus is going to tell you who is the God of the Old Testament. Isaiah 63, Chapter 63 Verse 16, are you there? I can't see you.

01:27:47 --> 01:27:48


01:27:50 --> 01:27:54

Okay, you're there. But I would like to see you when you are listening to this.

01:27:56 --> 01:27:56


01:28:00 --> 01:29:00

The Book of Isaiah, chapter 63, verse 16, reads, but you are our father, with capital F, okay. Though Abraham does not know us, or Israel, Israel acknowledges you, Lord, our Father, You, Lord with capital L. Our Father, here in the book of Isaiah, chapter 63. Verse 16, God is telling Isaiah that he is the Lord and he's the father with capital F, okay. It doesn't stop there, my brother, we will go fast forward to Jesus and the Gospel of John. When Jesus is speaking to a crowd of the Jewish people, he tells them that it is not who I glorify myself. It is not me who glorifies himself. It is the Father with capital F, who glorifies me, of whom you say is that he is your God,

01:29:00 --> 01:29:29

the Israelites. Jesus. In the New Testament, in the Gospel of John chapter eight, verse 54, is telling the Israelites that I don't glorify myself. It is the father who glorifies me with capital F, of whom you the Jews say that he is your God. Jesus is acknowledging that the Jewish people in his time, no, only one person has God and that's the Father with capital F. What games are you playing, guys? Alright,

01:29:30 --> 01:29:59

so I'm gonna respond more quickly. I'm gonna let you guys go. Yeah. Okay. All right, wait before you respond, before you respond. Have I shown you that the God in The Lord of the Old Testament is the Father with capital F. If you claim to other persons, the Son, and the spirit, you're going to have to show me where those two persons have been referred to as Lord or God in the Old Testament, God Perfect, good challenge. So

01:30:00 --> 01:30:38

So this is what you accomplish. You showed me one verse, where the word Yahweh refers only specifically to the Father. That's not necessarily problematic. No, we just know we mean just when you challenge me to show you any verse where it says the Son in the Holy Spirit is called Yahweh, I'm gonna give you some study to voice speaks about the voice that Yahweh who is the Holy Spirit has walked in the garden of Eden in Genesis three, he is called Yahweh and I'm gonna call you, I'm gonna refer you to Deuteronomy 412, where the angel of the Lord the one who's spoken to Mr. Bush, who is Jesus Christ, and His pre incarnate form is called Yahweh in Deuteronomy 412. And in Deuteronomy for

01:30:38 --> 01:30:50

the three persons are called individually, Yahweh, I told you not to challenge me when it comes to these things at the bait rabbis at the bait the best of the best, you don't want to challenge these type of things. I'm saying

01:30:51 --> 01:31:07

something can you know, you know what Moses is called an exodus seven, one. He's not called Yahweh, what did you call Elohim Okay, and who is Elohim in the Bible in the Old Testament? Elohim it could be angels could be God could be false.

01:31:08 --> 01:31:09

him called Yahweh

01:31:10 --> 01:31:15

Elohim Yahweh. Yes, yeah, we call it Elohim. Yeah, yeah.

01:31:16 --> 01:31:45

Yeah, always sometime calling us I can use the same I can use the same deduction. And the same thing is that the same thing because the name is exclusive to him as for Psalms 87, verse 18, only you had that name and I just showed you three persons have that name. So only you refers to a corporate entity and finalising only you refers to a corporate entity, Father, Son, the Holy Spirit because only one person has the eternal name as

01:31:46 --> 01:32:12

Exodus, Exodus, Exodus, what? Exodus three verse 14 and 15 This is your eternal name, append exclusive name, and I showed you three persons habit. Wait, wait, wait, when Jesus said to the Jewish people in the Gospel of John chapter eight, verse 54, that is the father who glorifies me of whom you say that he is your God. Okay.

01:32:14 --> 01:32:17

Are you there? Yes, I'm there. That's that's the issue of

01:32:19 --> 01:33:01

these Jews. What were they reading the Old Testament, right? Amen. Okay, amen. Right. Now, why is Jesus singling out the father and not referring to the other two persons that the Jews believed in them? If Jews had the same reading, as you did later on the Trinitarians? If Jews had the same reading, why the * is Jesus not mentioning the other two persons? Good question. To keep it simple, because I don't want to take too much of your time. I want to make it clear. You went to John eight, you don't go to house by the roof. You start with the roots. You started Foundation, John 118. I'm finalizing. I didn't really make the point yet. John 118 says, The Son of God isn't

01:33:01 --> 01:33:11

the BISM the very nature of the Father number one. So if you want to build your house, make sure you build it on the foundation number one, and number two, that relates to the incarnation he was my position is not

01:33:13 --> 01:33:35

these are the games you guys play you understand? I understand if I was going to take the shahada, I was gonna take the shahada, which is you didn't you didn't accomplish your mission? Tom Cruise Mission Impossible? Well, I appreciate the time. Whether you take the shot or not, doesn't qualify your case, you fail, you fail, you still fail. I love

01:33:37 --> 01:33:39

Jesus is against you. Even.

01:33:40 --> 01:33:57

I just gave you a very powerful verse where Jesus tells the Jewish people that of whom you say that he's your God the Father, I agree. If there were two other people, Jesus would have said, that's your God, the Father, the Son and the Spirit that Shabbat claiming.

01:33:59 --> 01:34:12

And you know why? why that's the case. Because in the same book of Isaiah 44 Verse, you nobody says, Yeah, you're the first. You're the last. And there is no one else beside the Amen. Jesus called.

01:34:14 --> 01:34:21

Because in the same book of Isaiah, chapter 63, verse 16, the father is declared to be the Lord, Lord of the Israelites, the Father alone, the Father alone.

01:34:23 --> 01:34:23


01:34:24 --> 01:34:39

use, of course, he says that I just read see now is referring to the Father, and he's also referring to the Son of the Holy Spirit in that very passage, but I'm not gonna go there. I just want to finalize with this just finalize with this. I'm not gonna argue with you. I'm just gonna finalize with this. You can't argue with me. I thought.

01:34:40 --> 01:34:59

I thought you finished your point. Okay, no problem. Thank you guys for the opportunity. Again, I'm gonna go back because I tried different arguments. And this is an exclusive argument. No, no, God is one. I'm going to keep using this argument against one against one when one not three, not four, not five, learn

01:35:00 --> 01:35:38

I'm standing at an admission ratio when I click this people are going to see that you contradicted yourself he said it does apply and then you say it doesn't apply. So thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity if people think that good luck to them. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Yeah, okay let's let's go to the next question. Just ban this thing which keeps coming up there are some people who don't have anything better to do than post some filthy stuff in the comment section or problem no problem. All right. Should we end the * I think we should end Yeah, I know there are many guys we are so sorry that we couldn't take your questions. It's been one

01:35:38 --> 01:35:41

and a half hours Our plan was to go on for one hour is

01:35:42 --> 01:35:57

Yeah, and and you know what, we will we will keep coming back doing more of these because these are very good programs. Very good interactions. So stay in touch and keep watching Stay away from drugs kids. Stay with

01:35:58 --> 01:36:02

Hanukkah llama we conduct our children lie lie land. Now stuff we're gonna do will exotic

with Subboor Ahmad

Share Page

Related Episodes