Speakers Speak!

Adnan Rashid


Channel: Adnan Rashid

File Size: 59.55MB

Share Page

Episode Notes

Suboor Ahmed SC Dawah


WARNING!!! AI generated text may display inaccurate or offensive information that doesn’t represent Muslim Central's views. Therefore, no part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever.

AI Generated Summary ©

The title of the book "Art of the Prophet Muhammad wa ban" is discussed, highlighting its meaning and diacritical marks. It is not all Christian's beliefs and is a historical book. The speakers stress the importance of history and the need for clarification on the title. The use of apps and other technology to communicate with customers and employees is discussed, along with the challenges of working from home during the pandemic and the impact on productivity. The future of technology and communication are discussed, acknowledging the potential for increased competition in the marketplace.

AI Generated Transcript ©

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

Assalamu Aleikum Welcome to Speaker's Corner live SC live we are today going to be doing a post debate commentary on a discussion you had Adnan this Sunday and that discussion. There's a lot of positive comments and people are very interested in asking questions related to it because it was a very informative and rich discussion. So just summarize what you spoke about. It was a very painful discussion. In my opinion, it wasn't it wasn't much of a debate because I've had debates, decent debates with decent Christian scholars and activists. I've had debates with people like Dr. James White, that is a very good gentleman green Samuel green. I've had debates with Rudolph Bush off in

00:00:43--> 00:01:18

South Africa. I've had debates around the world with many deselected well respected, established Christian scholars, even a Unitarian scholar I had a dialogue with his name is Anthony buzzard. So I've debated people like this. So when I go to the park, I see a completely different quality of people, unfortunately, a very, you know, illiterate, uneducated, Ill mannered bunch of people. And then I have to really switch my method of dealing with these people. I really have to go into a very,

00:01:19--> 00:01:57

how can I put it? A very, you know, his corner mode Speaker's Corner mode. Yeah, exactly. Thank you for helping me that Speaker's Corner mode. Because in Speaker's Corner, some people understand a certain language. So that's the language I speak with them. And I have no respect for people. For people like this, I have no respect for people like this, I will always do that to them, you know, if I tell them to shut up, if I tell them to get lost, if I tell them to, to just go and learn and study before you start speaking on Islam and the Quran, I don't apologize for that. I stand by that because this is what they deserve. This is what they deserve. You will never see me talking like

00:01:57--> 00:02:37

that to Dr. James White, or Samuel green, or Rudolph Musharraf, and people like that, who are respectful. They are dignified. And they are not spin doctors. I mean, we don't agree with them on major things, but they're not spin doctors, some of these people in Speaker's Corner, they have an audacity to lie to your face. And then when you ask them straight questions, they will evade questions, they will not give you answers, they will not give you answers. So this is a very, very painful exercise, which we have to go through sometimes in Speaker's Corner. So today, we're going to do a post discussion, commentary wasn't much of a debate. I don't think there was a debate,

00:02:37--> 00:03:00

debate is a much more worthy exercise. That particular exercise was unworthy of my attention, but I was there. So let's talk about it. There were some things that came up interesting things that we want to address as soon as possible in sha Allah Tala. So maybe we can look at some clips, and then do a commentary on those clips. Let's see what we have

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

to watch is the dating four.

00:03:04--> 00:03:28

Point is watching everyone will you will see what I'm talking about. What is the dating? Cannot? Wait, I will, what is that? What is the date you can answer? What is the dating for dating is to give an approximation, a range of when this particular the manuscript which was written on was likely came into being that's what it's for. Okay. Repeat, repeat that not,

00:03:29--> 00:03:30

not the ink that.

00:03:32--> 00:03:47

You see. So what was happening there? Were discussing one of the oldest extent, Quran manuscripts in the world, which was written by one of the companions of Prophet Muhammad, who says so not me.

00:03:48--> 00:04:30

Professor, David Thomas, from the University of Birmingham said this in one of his interviews to the BBC, that the person who wrote this particular parchment, you can see it on the screen, may well have known the Prophet of Islam Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu sallam, okay, and that particular parchment was the point of discussion. So just so when I kept saying yes, before that, yeah, someone could turn around and say Adnan, what's your credentials even speak about this. Okay, my credentials are, I'm a historian from the University of London. When I say the University of London, I qualified my credentials. My qualification is from the University of London, I took my degree in history from

00:04:31--> 00:04:59

Birkbeck College, the University of London, I took my masters in history from the University of London. So a School of Oriental and African Studies, I am still pursuing further studies, and you have something haunting us about and I have debated this topic for more than a decade. Okay. I will Yeah, something that's about to be published. Yes. There is something that's about to be published, peer reviewed. Inshallah we looking forward to that. Okay, when when it's out. We'll talk about it. Okay. So the point is brought

00:05:00--> 00:05:49

The sisters, the issue here is that we were discussing that parchment, that particular manuscript of the Quran. And every time I mentioned that it was written by one of the companions of the prophet, a prophet of Islam, Prophet Muhammad, due to the carbon dating, because what is the carbon dating, which he agreed to the carbon dating was between two dates. The earliest date allocated to this particular Parchment is 568. C, two years before the Prophet of Islam was born. And the latest date given to this particular Parchment is 645 C. So what the scientists or scholars are telling you is that this particular parchment, the material, okay, the material, sometimes you really have to be

00:05:49--> 00:05:57

simple with these people, the material this, okay, the parchment was produced between these two markers

00:05:58--> 00:06:46

568 C, two 546 45 C, okay. In between these two dates, the parchment was produced and that's the animal was killed the animal where the leather with a skin came, because what is what is the parchment. Okay, so just about those ranges. Yeah. Why are those ranges significant? Those ranges are significant because this is what the carbon dating is giving us carbon dating. Radiocarbon dating basically gives you an estimate, historically, when was the prophet around? That's the entire length of the Prophet's life. He's alive in he was alive in these two dates. He was born in 570. And he died in 632 CE. So the dating of the parchment covers the entire length of the Prophet of Islam,

00:06:46--> 00:06:51

Salah Lada Solomon, this is one these Christian missionaries took their heads, and they were like, no,

00:06:52--> 00:07:37

no, I mentioned this, you know, every time I was mentioning this, that this parchment was written by a companion of the Prophet sallallahu Sallam Prophet Muhammad, they were like getting agitated, you know, they didn't like those words as if they don't like the truth. And if Nakayama Josie or Atala, one of the scholars of Islam, he said, one of the biggest signs of a dead heart is that when the truth is spoken, it gets really ratcheted, right? It rattles it doesn't accept it doesn't accept the truth, even though they know is the truth and they don't accept it. They don't accept it, or they don't acknowledge it. So in this case, there is no doubt, according to the experts who do

00:07:37--> 00:08:26

radiocarbon dating. And if the latest date of the production of this parchment is 645. See, that's almost 13 years apart from the death of the Prophet of Islam. So the Prophet dies in 632. The parchment was potentially produced within 10 years of his death, if we take the later date, the lat the you know, the latest date, if we don't take the earliest date. So amazingly, for some reason, he kept saying, or it could be earlier, or it could be earlier. And this is why I questioned him in this very clip, that what is carbon dating for? Is it for the production of the parchment or is it for the writing, and he acknowledged that it is for the parchment it is for the material not for the

00:08:26--> 00:08:46

writing. Because parchments are reused are reused, they are sold there, they were in business. It was an expensive enterprise. Each page came from one goat, and they could be written over, they could be written over but these these this parchment doesn't look like that one, okay. It's not a palimpsest. This Parchment

00:08:47--> 00:09:23

is not a palimpsest, multiple authors, not multiple transcriptions, okay. For example, a script was written and then it was wiped clean with water and then there was reduced that's called palimpsest. This is not a palimpsest. This is a parchment used only once to write the Quran. It was produced within in between these two dates. But that was the point of discussion. So the reason why these Christian activists and some of these unfortunate characters, these spin doctors, the reason why they can't accept the truth is that they would have to accept now that there is a Quran

00:09:24--> 00:09:26

that was written by

00:09:27--> 00:09:59

or within the life of the prophet Sallallahu sallam, by one of his companions, by one of his companions, they simply cannot accept that. So why why they say it could be earlier because it goes two years earlier, before the life or before the birth of the Prophet salallahu Salam. So they take that those two years and they say, oh, no, it could be earlier. So this is the level of intelligence so before earlier, yeah, change this to Yeah, yeah. So how much of the Quran do we have? We have all of it from the first century.

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

All of it if we put all the manuscripts together, and there's a reason why I kept asking him one of those questions, I hope SC Dawa has that clip where I was asking for. But before we get there, I want to clarify this very quickly. So why was that clip played?

00:10:16--> 00:10:51

There? I'm asking a question, what is the dating for? And then he explained the dating is for the production of the material on which the writing was transcribed, right. So the dating is not for the writing. And he deliberately, he deliberately having clarified that he deliberately kept saying, it could be earlier, the parchment could be earlier, the parchment could be, it is possible, the parchment was produced before the Prophet was born. But it was used when the Quran was writing, no scholar on the planet,

00:10:53--> 00:11:34

on this earth, only these Christian missionaries will claim something like that. No scholar claims that the Quran came before the Prophet of Islam. Have you heard of any serious academic serious scholar minus Christian missionaries? Right? Have you heard of anyone saying that the Quran came before the Prophet of Islam? So they don't, they don't and that sounds ridiculous. And this brings us on to the next point, which is about what about the Bible? And we actually have a clip here because they talk as if we are in such problematic waters, but they themselves are standing in a very precarious situation. There is no comparison. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. So if

00:11:34--> 00:11:38

you could please play the video, so we could react to the

00:11:41--> 00:12:20

corruption coming to the issue of corruption. He says the Quran says the books of the Jews and the Christians are corrupted and then he's contradict himself. He's not listening to me. I never said the Gospel of Thomas is the Injeel the Quran is referring to he asked me a question. He asked me a question, show me a gospel where the Trinity is denied. And I showed him the gospel of Thomas. That's all I was saying. The Quran doesn't mention any gospel by name. The Quran doesn't even acknowledge the authenticity. The Quran states that whatever they possess, there are remnants of the teachings of Moses and Jesus there, even though they are corrupted. The Quran makes a very

00:12:20--> 00:12:42

categorical claim in chapter two verse 79, that the books that Jews have written with their own hands, and then they claim these books are from God are actually not from God. Actually, they are not from God. So what books that scripture of the Jewish people, right so the Quran, what is the Quran saying, what is the Quran saying then what is the contradiction? There's no contradiction.

00:12:43--> 00:13:32

Okay, here we are discussing something very important. The Christians nowadays have found a tactic to attack Islam and Muslims. So they know the Scripture is corrupt. Okay, they know this scripture is corrupt, they know that they cannot deny that and they don't like to discuss it, no doubt. And who is saying this, they own scholars are saying this look at this. One of them Bruce Metzger. You can see his name there. Bruce M. Metzker. This is the author. This is the author Bruce M. Metzger, a believing Christian who died a Christian. He authored this book that text of the New Testament. It's transmission, corruption, and restoration. So they own scholars are writing books on the corruption

00:13:32--> 00:14:13

of the New Testament. And it's alleged restoration, restoration by who modern scholars, modern editors, modern modern people who are studying these manuscripts. Now that the text has been corrupted, we need to restore it. So there is a restoration process, which, which is what Bruce Metzger discusses in this book, they know the book is corrupt. So how do they and they know this is one of the biggest stumbling blocks when they give their Dawa. Or when they preach the gospel, gospel to the Muslims, what they call preaching to the Muslims or preaching the gospel to the Muslims, and they think they are doing that in Speaker's Corner. For some reason people think some

00:14:13--> 00:14:55

people think that they're actually preaching the gospel, the gospel of love, most importantly, to the Muslims. And when you look at the behavior, and you know, the people I'm talking about, there is no love there. So they know the Scriptures are corrupt. So how do they play games with Muslims? They will come to the Muslims and they will say, You know what, your Quran endorses our Scripture. Yeah, yeah. How can you be corrupt? Even though they know they are so disingenuous, even they know even though they know that the scriptures are corrupt, the New Testament is corrupt, so altered beyond recognition beyond repair. They say to us, look, the Quran reaffirms the injeel. But the question

00:14:55--> 00:14:59

really is how many what NGO? How many gospels were there? Thank you. So this is the discussion. I

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

We were having in that particular clip, he claimed that the Quran is endorsing the New Testament. But I was saying to him, the Quran uses the word in Julius ingenia, the New Testament

00:15:13--> 00:15:31

don't know, they don't know what language Jesus spoke, tell him to present the evidence that we have evidence that this is the language Jesus spoke evidence. Remember the word evidence when he claims Jesus spoke Aramaic or Greek evidence? If there is no evidence, there is nothing.

00:15:32--> 00:15:52

So here again, the point stands that, which Injeel is the Quran talking about? It's a very interesting question. Yeah. And then later on, he raised in the point that the Quran says what they find in the hands, okay, so he's trying to claim that if you are arguing that the Quran

00:15:53--> 00:16:38

is saying that the current scriptures of the Jews and the Christians are corrupt, then the Quran at the same time is referring to what they possess in the hands. So there seems to be a contradiction. But then I explained to him that the Quran cannot possibly be referring to your scripture. Okay. Why? Because you do not have the NGO. The Quran mentions the NGO, where is the NGO? And what NGO are we talking about? We are talking about once upon a time the original NGO we that was given to that was given to Jesus Christ? How do we know that that they don't have it? Firstly, I asked him a question in this very discussion. What language did Moses speak? Jesus, Moses, oh, we start we

00:16:38--> 00:17:21

started with Moses. Right? There's a reason because the Quran mentions the Injeel and the Torah. Right? Okay, the Injeel in the Torah. So Torah came to Moses injeel came to Jesus. So we started with the Torah. So torah was revealed upon Moses, I asked him, do you agree? He said, I agree. Was it given to him in his language? Do you agree, I agree. He said that right. Then I asked him, What language did Moses speak? No answer. Playing games, playing games. He says, How is that relevant? How is that relevant? So this is what I want people to understand. Yeah, these people, when they know they had, they don't have answers, they will never give you answers. Okay, they will never

00:17:21--> 00:17:40

speak, they will never say we don't know. Because they look bad. Because then what is the consequence? If he says, we don't know what language Moses spoke, then we don't know what language the Torah was given to Moses in? We don't know, right? And if that's the case, then we don't know what

00:17:41--> 00:18:12

the Torah of Moses looked like. We don't have it. So what you do have other remnants of the Torah, the traces that have survived? The last, let's say, 2000 years or so the last 3000 years? Okay. 3500 years, depending on when Moses lived, right? So if you have the Torah, if you claim that you have the Torah, you definitely don't have the Torah that that was given to Moses, because you don't know what language Moses spoke.

00:18:13--> 00:18:59

And you don't know what form the Torah was given to him in, okay. And if that's the case, what you possess cannot possibly be the Torah of Moses. Okay, then if that's the case, then Injeel is the same. I asked him what language did Jesus speak and there's another relevant difference here, which is the author of Injeel the one who sent it down, from our perspective, from their perspective is God but who authored the Gospels? This is the okay that question is irrelevant, but it comes later. The first question is, what is the injeel? Yeah, what injeel what is the Quran talking about? The Quran clearly mentions that the Torah was given to Moses, and the Injeel was given to Jesus we can

00:18:59--> 00:19:49

read verses from the Quran. Okay. The Quran clearly mentions that the Torah was given to Moses, and the Injeel was given to Jesus. And if that's the case, which Torah which injeel. Clearly, the Quran is talking about the original Torah, and the original NGO. And the Quran also acknowledges the originals don't exist. Why? Because what the Jews and the Christians are writing with their own hands, is not the original. In chapter two, verse 79 of the Quran surah baqarah verse 79, Allah tells us that we'll be on to those who write books with their own hands, and then they say these books are from God will be on to what the right will be on to what they earn from it. So the Quran

00:19:49--> 00:20:00

in chapter two, verse 79, categorically state the books, some the Israelites are writing in the name of God or not actually from God, and that's confirmed by G

00:20:00--> 00:20:14

Jewish scholars themselves, they know they don't have the original Torah of Moses. So Injeel is exactly the same. We don't we do not have the original injeel of Jesus Christ, what we mean by that, and I'm sorry to stop you there. Yeah.

00:20:15--> 00:21:00

I had to step out there for a second. But yeah, coming to the questions that we had about this injeel situation that you're referring to. So you're saying then they the Injeel, that the Quran is referring to is not the gospel that is in the hands of the Christians, even at that time of the Prophet Muhammad? wa salam? Yes, absolutely. Because because Allah is telling us, there was an injeel that was given to Jesus. And the Christians clearly do not have that NGO. So when the Quran says, you can confirm from them, that there was an NGO given to Jesus is because there are traces of the Injeel in the box, we accept that we accept that there are remnants in what they possess, not

00:21:00--> 00:21:38

only in the canonical gospels, but even extra canonical Gospels have remnants of the message of Jesus Christ of the true message. And I give an example of the Gospel of Thomas, the reason why the Gospel of Thomas was rejected, because it contradicts the Trinity. It contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity. And there are other problems with it, no doubt, we don't have to accept it as the word of God. But we're saying there are remnants of truth in it. There are remnants of truth in the Gospel of John, there are remnants of truth in the Gospel of Mark, for example, when a Jewish man came to Jesus Christ and asked him, What is the first commandment? And Jesus said, hero, Israel, the

00:21:38--> 00:21:57

LORD our God is one Lord, that is definitely from Jesus Christ. Because the Quran confirms that the Quran tells us and by the way, we the Muslims, we use the Quran as the criteria. We don't use other sources to judge what may be true in the gospels or extra canonical gospels

00:21:58--> 00:22:01

or not. Okay, because the Quran

00:22:03--> 00:22:46

to be clear with that, but there are none in reverse. If a Christian is telling us we should have accepted, so if he was saying the Prophet Muhammad SAW Islam was saying, except what the Christians have at that time, at that time, they were following the Trinity. Is that right? Okay. First of all, which Christians exactly what I'm talking about exact which Christians when we're when were the Christians homogeneous? Exactly. When were the Christians one body, one church United upon one scripture, one text, never. To this day. Christians are not united on this scripture. Yeah, they are united in the New Testament. But some churches have extra books in there. long list of books, for

00:22:46--> 00:22:51

example, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has 83 books in the Scripture.

00:22:52--> 00:23:28

The Catholic Church has 73 books in the Scripture. The Protestant Bible has 66 books in the Scripture. Yeah, majority of these differences are to do with the Old Testament. No doubt, the New Testament is pretty much uniform. But the question is, how about the first 300 years of Christianity? With the Christians United upon one list of the New Testament, the New Testament? Listen to me very carefully ESSID, our team and everyone else, the New Testament did not exist before the year 367 CE.

00:23:31--> 00:24:16

Do you understand my claim, hundreds of years later? No, the books were there. The books that can be found in the New Testament today. They were there they were scattered all over the Christian world. The compilation, the compilation, the combination, one package or one canon, known today as the New Testament did not exist before the year 367 ce Shavon what happened in the year 367. See a man called athanassios You know, this is these are the things Christians need to know. These are the things Muslims need to know. Okay, and some of these Christian missionaries have an audacity to come and point a finger at the Quran. You know, they think when they attack the Quran, they will save the

00:24:16--> 00:24:58

the New Testament they will save the Bible from attacks. Okay, so the best form of defense is to attack this is the strategy they using nowadays. They don't want to discuss the Bible. They don't want to discuss the New Testament, they will go and talk about the Quran. Okay, and Wallahi we would love to talk to them about the Quran. We want them to talk more and more about the Quran so that we can expose them how hypocritical they are. Okay, when we use the same criteria on the New Testament, they apply on the Quran and which we stand up to. Okay, the criteria they use, we fulfill it. Okay, by all standards, but when we apply the same criteria to the New Testament and the Bible in general,

00:24:58--> 00:25:00

they run away. They don't

00:25:00--> 00:25:28

Want to talk anymore? That I want to address the topic? Okay, so the New Testament came about in the year 367. See, what do I mean by that? I mean as a compilation, as a combination of books, as one block of books, okay as scripture, strictly speaking, it was in the year 367 C, when a man a bishop called Athanasius, wrote a festal letter.

00:25:30--> 00:26:23

Okay, in this letter, he gave the list of the canonical Books 27 Books of the New Testament, canonical, canonical, canonical means authoritative books that can be regarded as scripture as the word of God. And then he gives the list 27. And then he writes, add no more to it, and take out no more from it. This is the fountain of salvation. In other words, as late as the year 367, see, almost 330 years after Jesus Christ, Christians are still debating as to what may be the word of God. And there was a long process, how they came up with these 27 books and why they took out so many other documents that was circulating the Christian world, some of them more popular than the

00:26:23--> 00:27:12

gospels we read today. For example, one of the most popular texts within the Christian world was the darky. Or did the key di, D, A, C, H, E, Google it right now? Check it out. That document was more popular among the Christians than some of the gospels were? How do we know that? We know that from the manuscript evidence, we find plenty of manuscripts of this document called the donkey are called, for example, Shepherd of Hermas that can be found in one of the oldest Bibles in the world. The oldest complete New Testament comes from the fourth century. It's called it's called the Codex cine Atticus, and there are two very correct British libraries in the British Library. You can see

00:27:12--> 00:27:20

it in the bridge. There are two extra books there. Okay, there are two extra books in it get some water for me as possible.

00:27:21--> 00:27:59

But mashallah, you know, it's Masha Subhan Allah He had in your knowledge on the matter for us lay in a layman folk, you know, because that's the people who are watching. I'll ask you a few questions about that situation. Like you said, like, you know, as you said that the who were the authors of these gospels, because we're told it's Mark, Matthew and Peter and now the layman hears that. And he thinks Mark wrote his gospels. Is that the case? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. When people this Christian bible thumpers Bible bashers, when you see them in Speaker's Corner, and other places, when they come and say, Oh, the gospel of Mark The Gospel of Luke Walla, he either they are

00:27:59--> 00:28:46

ignorant, or they don't read the sources, these four documents were found to be anonymous, and none of them made second century, no names are given to them. For as late as the second century. The first person or one of the first people to give names to these gospels was a man called happiness. Pappy Papyrus of propolis, who was alive in the early second century CE II, he is the one who attributed these names to these documents. No Christian scholar on the planet can claim with confidence that the gospels were written by the people they are thought to have been written by. So you're not saying this, the Christian scholars themselves have made salutely There is no name for

00:28:46--> 00:29:32

any author of these gospels. Is that what you're saying? As late as the second century? Absolutely. It was in the second century, when the names were given to these documents by a man called Papyrus. I've heard Hierapolis. So he called them he called them Mark, Matthew and Peter's Alright, yeah, he gave the name to the Gospel of Matthew. And I don't know if he discussed the gospel of Mark, I don't remember clearly. But he definitely discussed two of these gospels. And he gave the names to them, that these are the people who wrote these gospels, okay. Otherwise, these were anonymous documents written by unknown people. So Luke, basically, who is thought to have written the Gospel of Luke and

00:29:32--> 00:29:59

the book of Acts. Basically, Papyrus says that he was a physician of Paul. So it's the Gospel of Luke and Matthew discusses if I remember correct correctly, okay. So these are and now who the hell is Papyrus is the question. That was my question to you that what do we know about puppies? Do we don't do Christian scholars have any details on it? We don't know. We don't know anything about puppies except few references in the history of Eusebius

00:30:00--> 00:30:08

who had a 250 years later? Happiness was around in the early second century. And it is thought it is claimed that he was killed.

00:30:14--> 00:31:03

So not happiness. Happiness tells us that James was killed the brother of Jesus Christ, okay, that's another matter I just conflated. Sure. Okay, so you CBS is writing in the fourth century? He writes about puppies, obviously copying from early sources, no doubt, but who the hell is puppies? How can we trust puppies? So the Christian world has put their trust in these documents without even checking the sources? Pretty much who told us that John wrote the Gospel, if you go to the new Jerome's commentary, new Jerome's commentary, a very authoritative commentary on the Bible. If you go to the Gospel of John, the commentary on the Gospel of John, by the way, this new Jerome

00:31:03--> 00:31:50

commentary has been edited by Raymond E. Brown, okay, one of the biggest scholars in the Christian world. He was a Catholic, no doubt, but he was well respected. Among all circles, Protestants, as well as Catholics, Raymond E. Brown, edited this new Jerome's commentary, very academic. In the section on the Gospel of John, there is a part there is a chapter that deals with the authorship of the Gospel of John. And then there he discusses that the the authorship of the Gospel of John is highly disputed. There are three candidates that are thought to have written the Gospel of John. One is John the son of Zebedee, someone called John, John, the son of Zebedee,

00:31:52--> 00:32:34

John, of Ephesus, and John of John the presbyter. John, when I say, John, I have to put John in inverted commas, you know why? Because we don't know which John, which John, now, Christians, when you go to them and ask them about the gospel, they will say, Oh, God inspired, they are God inspired. They are they have been inspired by God. These people, the authors were inspired. God is inspired. They were they were inspired by God. But I asked him this question, if you don't know who the author was, How can you claim that that author was God inspired? If you don't even know the name? So they don't know any history on these people, but they're saying that they're inspired by

00:32:34--> 00:32:43

God? Yeah. They are literally claiming that some people are inspired by God without knowing who they are. It's like me, I say,

00:32:44--> 00:33:15

let's say if I didn't know JK Rowling, or if I mean, there are hundreds of books behind me. Right. And I don't know many of these authors. I don't know them. Okay. Let me pull one book out. Okay. Just random book. Okay. Andrew, Irvin, I don't know who the hell that is. I don't know who that guy is. Now I start claiming this book. I like it. I love it. The author is God inspired Ladies and gentleman, lo and behold, the author is God inspired. We don't know who

00:33:16--> 00:33:58

the author is God inspired. And we don't know who that is. I don't know who the hell this Andrew Irvin is. I don't know who is Tom, Joe. George Carey Murphy. So this is exactly by Allah, I challenge any Christian scholar in the world to take me up on that question. If I'm misrepresenting your faith, please correct me. Please correct me. Take me up on the challenge. debate me in public. And tell us who wrote the Gospel of John, tell me with John wrote the Gospel of John and give us solid evidence that you possess. Okay. You have an audacity to point a finger at the Quran. You have an audacity to point the finger at the Quran and start questioning the the authorship of the Quran

00:33:58--> 00:34:01

and throwing stones exactly.

00:34:02--> 00:34:43

You can ask for that no, sorry, sorry to cut you there in reverse because you know, we have to be fair to represent a by the way we've invited any Christians if you're out there by all means you can join and ask these questions but on their behalf, if they were to ask us Adnan that, what proof do you have the people who wrote the Quran were inspired by God in that sense, if they will, we don't claim that they were inspired by God. But what do we know who the people were who wrote the Quran? How much do you know about them? They might ask, okay, we know who wrote the Quran by many, many methods. Firstly, we have manuscripts from the first century of Islam. Some of them carbon dated,

00:34:44--> 00:34:59

very bad news for Christian missionaries, and how they won and they, you Yeah, sorry. It's not like the Christians with the manuscripts. Yeah. But then they make different versions we have, look, look we have hundreds of not not as in it gives one

00:35:00--> 00:35:21

narrative of the Quran Yes. Give multiple No no, no no no most Christian scholars or sorry, more most non Muslim scholars who have studied the Quran, and have published on it. They agree that the text of the Quran is static from the first century onwards, from the first 100 years of Islam,

00:35:23--> 00:35:52

in particular, the mid first century of Islam when the companions of Prophet Muhammad were alive in the 1000s Are you listening everyone pay attention. We have manuscripts of the Quran, from the lives of the companion of the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu sallam, they have been carbon dated radiocarbon dated with 90% precision actually 95% precision, this one, the one you can see on the screen was

00:35:53--> 00:35:57

written by one of the companions of the Prophet of Islam.

00:35:58--> 00:36:57

Okay, it is highly likely, high potentiality. Highly possible, because we don't know the exact name of the person who wrote the manuscript. But because of the radiocarbon dating with 95%, precision, scientifically tested, this particular parchment, that material was produced between 568 to 645 C, that's the entire length of the Prophet's life. And even if we were to take the latest date, which is 645 C, given take few years, the manuscript was written by someone who knew the Arabic language, who knew the text called the Quran, and transcribe it on that particular material. And that person, if he was alive at that time, around 645, C, would have definitely seen the Prophet of Islam because

00:36:57--> 00:37:15

this parchment is written by an adult, and the Prophet died in 632 CE. So the difference between the death of the Prophet sallallahu Sallam the date of his death, and the latest date of that particular parchment you saw on the screen is 13 years.

00:37:16--> 00:37:25

This particular parchment, this was according to the radiocarbon dating of Oxford studies,

00:37:27--> 00:37:33

with 95% position, this particular parchment was written

00:37:34--> 00:38:06

around 13 years after the Prophet of Islam passed away and it was written by an adult who was a scribe. This has to be a companion of the Prophet of Islam, salatu salam, and every single word in it, put it back up, please, very quickly, every single word on it, the page on the left, under those zigzag lines, you see the chapter of the Quran, Pa and some of you may be able to read Bismillahi Rahmani Raheem,

00:38:07--> 00:38:15

ba, ma NS Allah. Allah Ecole Quran Lita spa, is there.

00:38:16--> 00:38:39

It is there. You can read it clearly word by word. It's exactly the same as our Quran is written today. Exactly the same. We have a copy of the Quran carbon dated radiocarbon dated with 95% precision coming from the life of the prophet potentially or from his companions. Definitely, no doubt according to the latest date.

00:38:41--> 00:38:47

Then the Christian missionaries have an audacity to point the finger at you and say, you don't have the original Quran.

00:38:49--> 00:38:52

I think we have a clip on the actual question, you know that

00:38:53--> 00:39:11

you were debating the person you were debating actually asked this question to you. And that was the Yeah, it could be older. Now you explain something. I'm going to play the clip in a moment. But you explain something that about what is old? And what could be new and why. So I'll just play that clip. And then by all means, give you a commentary on it.

00:39:12--> 00:39:27

Stick to the parchment without parchment, which is from the lives of the companions of Prophet Muhammad, whatever we possess in that. Is there a word a word, or a sentence different to the modern copies of the Quran variants and compare it to what we have today? Oh, wait.

00:39:29--> 00:39:37

I'm waiting. I'm waiting. I'm waiting. I read. I read it on video, go and watch my video. I put it I put it up and I read word by word.

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

Okay, here you see the shame shamelessness of these people is that they, firstly, they know they're lying. Okay, because I challenged him on this. And I was asking him a specific question that parchment, that page of the Quran or two pages you saw there on the screen. I

00:40:00--> 00:40:42

asked him, the way they have been written, or the way the words have been transcribed, he knew exactly where I was coming from and what I was asking for one hour or one long hour, this guy was evading the question. He was not giving the answer. The answer was, there is no difference between your modern copies. And that particular parchment from the Quran. Exactly. There you go. Thank you very much for doing that making it easy for us, Allahu Akbar. Now, you can see on the screen ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, this was my question to him, which he was deliberately not answering. My question from him was that the way this parchment has been transcribed by one of the

00:40:42--> 00:41:05

companions of Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu sallam, and the way our copies are transcribed today, as you can see, in that text under the cuttings of the manuscript, which is our modern texts, and what you see in the cuttings is the texts written by a companion of the Prophet of Islam Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Sallam okay, I asked him, Is there any difference?

00:41:06--> 00:41:49

In the way the words are transcribed in that copy of the first century? And the way we transcribe our copies today? Okay, he was not giving me the answer. The answer was, No, there is no difference. They are exactly the same. They are exactly the same. But you know why he wouldn't say that. You know why? Because that would pull the rug from his feet. The narrative the narrative they have built for the last two, three years. Yeah, that the Quran is not the same. You have 20 Quran you have 25 Quran, that narrative would be abolished, it would be dismantled. Now you can see on the on the screen there, start from Bismillahi Rahmani Raheem the one you can read. The one you can read on the

00:41:49--> 00:42:33

right the very first line the very first cutting, you see Bismillah Honda Rahim they're clearly you can see the cursor Bismillah R Rahman Rahim clearly right. Then we go on to the next word, that so the structure of the words the way they have been transcribed in the first century by a companion of Prophet Mohammed Salah Salem is exactly the same as what you see underneath. Bismillah R Rahman Rahim is written exactly the same same alphabets, same alphabets move on to PA look at pa in the first century copy written by a Sahabi of Rasulullah Salem and look at pa the way we read it today. Then next is Ma unzila. Look at the structure of the words the way they have been transcribed.

00:42:33--> 00:43:07

Exactly the same. Next worse. Next verse alagille. Khurana the Taj ca. You can see alayka in the first century copy, okay, carbon dated with 95% precision to the life of the prophet and his companions sallallahu alayhi wa sallam Radi Allahu Anhu much mine. And underneath you see the text, the structure of the text exactly the same move on Illa the keratin

00:43:09--> 00:44:07

a lotta skeleton, Lee maniac SHA, Allah, plus kirtan li Mei SHA, okay, exactly the same turns Elam okay medmen than zielen medmen halacha orba was sama wa T was somehow at Loyola Okay. So here, look at this done Zealand in the first century Kabhi medmen Is there halacha is there other is there was somewhat I mean, if you put the cursor on the first century copy, put the cursor above yes here. This is Calaca Okay. Firstly, firstly, this is done Zealand, then move move over to medmen this is medmen then halacha. Then orba. This is our da This is DOD. This is DOD. There you go was sama wa T. The next word was some Awatea or Allah was some artillery Allah that's all at the end. Okay. Then

00:44:08--> 00:44:48

the next verse are rush man who look at the rush man, written by a companion of the Prophet sallallahu Sallam and look at our ramen the way we write it today, exactly the same structure, Allah look at Allah, they on top and this Allah here, Allah Harish Rama know Allah Archie stowa Okay, is there is toa is there? Okay? Now Lahu maphis sama wa T Rama Ville RB Rama Bay now Rama Rama Tata Surah Amata Thara. Okay, so here we have the Quran from the first century of Islam.

00:44:49--> 00:44:53

And we have the Quran as we write it today.

00:44:58--> 00:44:59

So the point is

00:45:00--> 00:45:16

If I was asking this guy a question for one hour, a very simple question, very simply put, in many different words, for one hour, I was asking him the same question, are the words

00:45:18--> 00:45:35

transcribed in our modern copies of the Quran? Today? Exactly the same as they have been transcribed in that carbon dated copy, with 95% precision, written by a companion of the Prophet Muhammad Salah Salam, the same.

00:45:37--> 00:46:20

Are they the same the words and the sentences? He would not give me an answer. He would not entertain the question. He kept jumping on the diacritical marks. You know why? You know why? Just because it's a distraction. It's a distraction tactic. Why is it a distraction tactic? They have nothing from the first century. They have nothing from Jesus Christ. They have nothing from the disciples of Jesus Christ. They have nothing from the eyewitnesses. They don't have anything from the first 100 years of Christianity full stop. Full stop. What they do have, the earliest manuscript they possess of the scriptures. The New Testament is from the mid second century if we were to be

00:46:20--> 00:46:21

generous with dating.

00:46:22--> 00:47:09

Okay, it is a small fragment of the Gospel of John, a very small fragment of the Gospel of John, right. So this is why they deliberately distract you from knowing your history. Okay, so my brothers sisters, why? Why is he not? The next question is, you know what, what I will do next, I would ask him after having clarified the writing of the Quran, that is exactly the same to our modern copies. He would agree if he was honest, as we've just shown you on screen with evidence by showing you the physical physical copies from both periods, we have shown you that exactly the same as they are structured as words that transcription is exactly the same, the writing is exactly the same. Now

00:47:09--> 00:47:24

what was my point? My point was that once we know that both writings are exactly the same modern 2022 copies of the Quran are exactly the same as the first century copy of the Quran, written by a companion to the province of Salem. Now, where's the problem?

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

That proves that we have the text the original text written and read by the companions of the Prophet of Islam we have is that is that a correct? Extension? Brother Naveed from? I would I would say so. Yeah, we got we got a guess. So we'll just we'll bring him on hopefully, just before we go, because we don't have too much time left. But I did want to point out sorry. So we were to

00:47:48--> 00:48:27

before. Yeah, before we get to critical marks that he brought up. The important thing I just wanted to clarify this with Brother Adnan because it's important for the youth and you know, people. So what he was saying brother Adnan was that the old manuscript, if I can pull it up for a moment, yeah. Doesn't have diacritical marks. Yeah. Okay. Um, now, I remember you saying, yeah, the reason is it doesn't have diacritical marks is because the people of that time knew exactly what those words mean, they didn't need that guidance. Now, I think they fall short of understanding what that means, if you know what I mean. Like they don't seem to understand what the diacritical marks, they

00:48:27--> 00:48:35

don't the people of the time didn't need those. So would you just clarify that before we bring on this guest? I don't think they don't understand they do understand

00:48:36--> 00:49:18

a bunch of spin doctors. They are a bunch of liars. I'm talking about these Bible thumpers and Bible bashes these people I'm talking about them these missionaries, okay. Or the unfortunate characters we see on weekly basis in Speaker's Corner, I'm talking about them. They do understand, they do know they're not dumb and thick. They have the intelligence to come in, argue with us, they do understand, but they don't want to accept, they don't want to accept it is a death sentence to them. If they accept that we have original copies from the time of the Prophet of Islam, and his companions, that are exactly the same as our Quran today. Game over. Debate over there is no

00:49:18--> 00:49:59

discussion. We just showed you. A first century copy of the Quran karbonn radiocarbon dated with 95% position from the lives of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad wa salam. Okay, and then our modern copy is exactly the same in writing. Now coming to the diacritical marks, you know why he was going completely evading the question, because this is the point. I asked him this question, even the discussion. Did they know what they were writing? He said they knew what they were writing. That's it. That's the point. They knew this is the Quran. They wrote the Quran down and they passed it on. Now comes the new situation. What is the new situation for the Navy?

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

The new situation is new converts, Iran, Iraq, Central Asia, Iran, Syria, North Africa as far as Spain, new converts, now they're reading the Quran

00:50:14--> 00:51:00

and they are not Arabs, those who put down the first Quran, okay? In the texts we read day, okay, which is the original text from the first century from the lives of the companions of the Prophet Salah Salem, that original text, they didn't need to put down those ma marks because they knew exactly what they're reading. Okay, now diacritical marks came for non Arabs people who could not pronounce Arabic words correctly. So because Islam spread quite quickly around the world didn't it? Yeah dama Khasra Fatah sukoon they were added for the academies are dummies are non Arab people who cannot read or write or understand the Arabic language. So diacritical marks were added for new

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

converts for them to make sense of the Quran when they are reading it, okay. Now Variations

00:51:06--> 00:51:55

There are variations in reading the same text. There are variations, some words are read differently. It is possible a word is read as talamona. Okay? Or the same word might be might be might be read as you Allah Munna. Both of these read readings have been transmitted by the Prophet sallallahu sallam. Both these readings, all the variations that have been documented by us scholars from the very beginning of Islam. Because the Quran came down in seven different modes, the tribes of Arabia, they recited the same text you saw there on the screen, in different pronunciations in different ways. And those ways are accommodated by Allah. Because Allah knows and the Prophet of

00:51:55--> 00:52:43

Islam knew that the Arabs are very rigid about the language. So they didn't want to change the language. It's like a brother standing there give an example of tomato, tomato or tomato. Okay, Word, you pronouncing it differently, right. And some places you prolong the word. For example, okay. Or for example, one Kira, it goes as a viral mug dooby dooby la him? What a boring one Kara goes very viral mock Dubey, Allah you home? Are you home? So there is a slight difference in reading Allah, him and Ally whom these differences actually originate from tribal differences of the Arabs, in pronouncing words. Yes, there are some words that are read differently. These differences

00:52:43--> 00:53:20

actually originate from those seven modes of readings that were revealed by Allah and Prophet transmitted these variations to read the same text. The point here is that text is exactly the same. So it's nothing new. It's not like, it's not like we're trying to hide it. Islam wrote about this. We are scholars from the very first century of Islam to this day, have been teaching this in our institutions, these Christian missionaries, they think they have discovered something. And they don't they because they don't have original scriptures. They don't have anything. They don't want to hoodwink people through the ignorance Exactly. To go back.

00:53:21--> 00:53:32

Yeah, philosophy. Go ahead. And we have to end Yeah, yeah, we'll take philosophy. So just to finish off on the diacritical marks, and we have to obviously take the philosophy of in depth and then we'll have to finish up with

00:53:33--> 00:53:49

marks for those who are overseas. Look, Arabia is spread quite quickly. There were non Muslims or sorry, there were non Arabs who weren't proficient in the Arabic language. Now even today we have that we have people who are learning new and they can't pronounce it so these diacritical marks

00:53:51--> 00:54:39

I learned the Quran with the Marcus Ryan Fatah, I learned the Quran like that when I when I teach my children I teach them with a car Ada, a guide where you teach them O E O E, you know how to read an Arabic alphabet. Okay, Boo B, ba, right? Yah, hoo, T TA, okay, you're teaching them the sounds so that they can pronounce the Quran when really these sounds, and these, some of these pronunciations were added later on for non Arabs and where they differ slightly. Okay. In reading, though those differences actually originate from Arabian dialects and how seven modes of reading were facilitated. So if you read Yala Munna, Tala Muna, okay, they know or you know, there is no

00:54:39--> 00:55:00

difference in that we don't see any difference if the Quran is saying they know. And another another reading is, you know, it's the same thing. It's actually Gibson that actually gives that set 100 It's actually it actually shows you how powerfully the Quran is preserved Marshall even the reading is preserved even even the pronunciation for

00:55:00--> 00:55:39

Forget about writing, you know why he wasn't going there when I kept asking him the same question for one hour, you know why? Because that proves the writing is preserved the writing is there the questions they pose are on the reading, not the writing, the writing, there is no debate. There is no discussion on the writing among the scholars, scholars, a unanimous non Muslim academics on the Quran are unanimous that the Quran as it has been found in the first century copies is exactly the same as it is written today. Okay, there is no difference in the writing from the time of the Sahaba of Rasulullah. To this day, the reading the Quran, they vary because of the tribal differences among

00:55:39--> 00:56:04

the origin, the language. I mean, it would be pretty difficult to change a language where there was about over 1000 Sahabi alive at the time, correct. Three are pretty hard to hoodwink, 1000 people he's saying, anyway, we better move on to this guest for the none. We're already over by half an hour Sivan Allah, who hope you guys have been enjoying it and shallow, let's bring in philosophy in depth. And then we really need to end the show. I hope your question is relevant to the show philosophy in depth Go ahead.

00:56:06--> 00:56:07

So long while Google?

00:56:10--> 00:56:54

Actually my question is very general. My question is regarding radioactive dating. What is the opinion of Islamic scholars on radioactive dating? Because as far as Christians are concerned, majority of them deny it redirect back to dating. They have to deny it. We don't have any reasons to deny it. We don't have any reason we have no problem. I mean, I don't know any Muslim scholar who has denied the validity of radiocarbon dating. So yeah, it's not Quran and Sunnah for us, but it is, it is, this is why they give the percentage of precision. That's why I keep mentioning 95 precision 95% precision, that there is 95% precision in this verdict, that that parchment was produced during

00:56:54--> 00:57:35

the time of the Prophet sallallahu Sallam and his companions. Yes, just on this point, we need to be a little bit nuanced here. It's not that Christians don't accept radioactive carbon dating. There is a segment of Christians a small segment who deny that the first life on earth could have been young earth creationist, a young earth creationist, and even amongst them, not all of them. So they what they would say is that the first death did not exist in the world before the Melissa lamb, which is why they can't accept dinosaurs. And therefore they deny the carbon dating is not all Christians. And that would be very unfair to, you know, just brush them all with the same stroke.

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

Brother, so

00:57:40--> 00:57:49

how can we I mean, this question also comes in my mind, how can we falsify redirect to dating because dating is telling us something which we can't confirm?

00:57:50--> 00:57:51

Why would we need to falsify it?

00:57:53--> 00:58:37

When it's overwhelmingly approved and methods that use are very plausible, you don't need to falsify it. So someone asked me a question to recommend a book on very good the history of the Quran. I think soldier of God, someone called soldier will call or ask this question. This is one of the books that I strongly recommend the history of the Quranic text, from Revelation to compilation from Revelation two compilation, get the second edition. This is the first edition. This image is the first edition, get the second edition. Okay, this book is a top book by Sheikh Mohammed Mustafa Al Azami. That's the author, mmm al Azmi. And as me get the second edition, this is one of the best

00:58:37--> 00:58:46

books on this topic that will give you the history of the preservation of the Quran and how powerful it is okay, you need to move on now in short, maybe we can take a couple of questions

00:58:47--> 00:59:08

because somebody has to go Okay, so we're gonna have to okay can we can we take a couple of Christians to ask questions and get I mean we don't we want to be fair, we don't want to rant on and then Christians and up Biomin guys Christians are welcome to join unfortunately at the moment they haven't joined remember we didn't advertise the stream we just decided to do it you know

00:59:10--> 00:59:10


00:59:12--> 00:59:20

if any questions want to ask any questions, please post them in the comment section or try to enter the studio maybe if you if you exit the

00:59:21--> 00:59:59

studio, I'll drop the link yet drop drop this to empty the studio and let's let's let Christians come in if there are any questions, let them ask questions and we will try to address the question as soon as possible be fair Okay, well give it a look guys we would do to finish 830 We went on to nine so we're gonna give five more 10 more minutes just to see if any Christians join Yes. By all means to be fair to be fair, we want to see their opinion you know, go ahead. So yeah, and we are going to be have the speakers speak segment on a seat our life regularly inshallah doing post debate analysis and allowing people to interact because this way inshallah the

01:00:00--> 01:00:04

All audiences at home can engage with the exact debates are happening at speakers corner.

01:00:06--> 01:00:14

Okay, so yeah, we're waiting for, like I said, we're waiting for the comments for a little while if there's any questions, by all means, if you don't want to join, you know, you can

01:00:16--> 01:00:28

if any Christian applies to enter the stream that the mentor inshallah Okay, yeah, yeah, by all means Yeah, you're welcome. I'll post the link again, it seems Christians are boycotting our streams

01:00:30--> 01:00:45

to be honest, to be honest, we didn't advertise it, you know that ahead of time, so to be fair to them. Yeah, absolutely. So if there are any questions, brothers and sisters or dear Christians, what is this? What do you think about Jehovah's Witnesses and their beliefs? I mean, it's a question

01:00:46--> 01:00:59

random, strictly speaking on the Quran, and one thing I wanted to very quickly highlight. Again, I didn't get the time to clarify that position in the in the beginning that the Quran does not endorse the

01:01:01--> 01:01:13

sorry. Yeah, yes. So it, David. David, yeah, go ahead. Yes. I'm not Christian, sorry. But we're to Islam I converted two years ago.

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

These few days. I'm like, pretty much concerned about this. Dawa issues or like Muhammad hijab against Sajid libcom. And

01:01:27--> 01:01:31

so I want to her heard your comment about

01:01:33--> 01:02:08

this, you're like, like that right now? Let me let I'll handle it as well. So David, to be honest, yeah. That's why we always keep the stream to a certain questions, you get it to do with it, because otherwise we could get any all kinds of questions, David. And the other thing is, look, David, there will be disputes among all of us. Yeah, we're tomorrow on the next day. We're brothers believe us. Yeah. All of us. So Inshallah, look, Islam is like that. You're allowed to have disputes, you're allowed to have problems and you deal with it, and then we move on. Islam is not dependent on Muslims. Muslims are dependent on time to this question, very, very, very precious time. So we can

01:02:08--> 01:02:19

No, no, by all means, I just just because David asked that, but like I said, David, this thing we're waiting for some more Christians to join David, I hope that answers your question. Yeah, Islam is not dependent on Muslims Muslims.

01:02:21--> 01:03:00

Very quickly, that the Quran does not endorse the Bible, the current Bible when they started when they tried to claim that just because the Quran mentions the Injeel in the Torah, it has to mean what we possess. That's not the case. The Quran mentions once upon a time original Injeel and torah, but the Quran at the same time, doesn't want us to throw away the baby with the bathwater. The Quran tells us that they still have remnants of truth, the Quran basically when the Quran refers to the Scripture, it is telling us to go and look at those parts. Where the Prophet of Islam for example, is mentioned. The Quran says you do know Mokuba and don't with Torah villingili. You will see

01:03:00--> 01:03:45

Muhammad mentioned with them in the books of the Jewish people and the books of the Christian people. When we go and check the books we find those passages even though they have been altered, they have been corrupted, they have been changed. We find the references there, in altered forms, in altered forms. So the Quran is not saying they are the messages of Jesus and Moses, the Bible does not contain the original message of Moses or Jesus or the Quran is saying the originals have been lost, but what they possess in the hands, there is still truth in them. And how do we determine that truth by using the Quran the final message to humanity from God Almighty. So we may have a question

01:03:45--> 01:03:55

or on that note Pune, Ellen. Hello Pune Do you have a question relevant to the to the debate or to say the post debate discussion

01:04:00--> 01:04:03

he decided to leave so I guess not I hope I didn't offend him by

01:04:04--> 01:04:38

what we do. Like I said next time guys, you know, advertise a little bit ahead of time. So inshallah if anybody wishes to join to ask specific questions they can by all means, and they welcome this idea look, everybody wants to get a piece of the pie in terms of getting involved this because gonna debates and discussions and give their perspective so speakers speak is going to be a regular segment of speakers gonna live in which we are going to be engaging with the previous debates and even older debates and speakers corner and allow people to come in and we're going to advertise it well in advance so more people can join in future inshallah does aka for everybody that was tuning

01:04:38--> 01:04:41

in until next time, Assalamu alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh