Channel: Adnan Rashid
University of Leicester, 2012
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
This audio is brought to you by Muslim Central. please consider donating to help cover our running costs and future projects by visiting www dot Muslim central.com forward slash donate.
Ruby. Give me the shape on you Raji.
What Guru philic eater Happy melkonian eating Tibet mean? Lena mckennan Shanti
on it in me
on it in on.
on academic on booking hawala hain wehlener Jada
that be my Canon casia
Nicola de Pon it on a 20 on a tennis me
welcome Donna Seon see
sunny for the journal bocchetta Thanks decades said he.
Well who's z cabbage is Nicola de Tosa on a cable carbon journey
for cooling wasabi welcome
Tony oh man
Tony oh man so man felon Kelley man young woman
but that being all my hat
on oh yeah mama Yamanaka ha ha
boom Kim was so
okay bill the
fascia what's a lay on okay fine okay
can this all be
on me ne
ne ne ne
ne ne ne
ne T was Zach Ashima
me Johnny Jett
The levy fee and
Nanaia oolaboo boo,
Zamboni banning him for way too
much heading Oh mean are we
Very nicely citation, which basically went through the story of Jesus as Alexandre was mentioned in the Bible and mentioned in the Quran.
In that case what was
the speaker will probably do more justice to the topic
straightaway and will begin to talk.
This will lie to him, In the Name of Allah, the most magnificent, Most Merciful.
All praises are due to
Allah, the Lord of the worlds, the creator, the Sustainer and the designer of this universe.
Ladies and gentlemen, Bergen sisters salaam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato, who may the peace and blessings of God Almighty be upon you all, I am privileged to be here again, once more at the University of Leicester.
And the topic today, I will be addressing is, who was Jesus?
We heard some of the powerful verses of the Quran.
And the translation was
seen also. And
one wonders as to how a man
born in the middle of seventh century Arabian Desert,
know all of this?
How could you have known a man called Jesus and the story of his mother, Mary, and the story is about the Jews, the story of Solomon, David.
So the story of Abraham,
the story of Moses and the Pharaoh, and Joseph and his king,
and other stories about Jesus Christ, which cannot be found in the canonical gospels,
and the list goes on. The same man talks about other
things. Or if he's the author of the Quran, which is not the case, as we believe.
Then how did he get this revelation? How did he get this information which can be found in the Quran,
and he's the earliest source we can trace for this book.
The Quran eventually ends with the prophet of Islam.
If we trace back the chain of the Quran, the transmission, we come to realize that this text in the best Arabic language,
goes straight back to the prophet of Islam.
Through an uninterrupted chain of transmission, he taught his companions who were almost 100,000 people, and every single of them had to memorize the Quran,
at least some portions of it. And there were those who memorized the entire text of the Quran. And then those people in the 1000s, transmitted to the Quran to their companions to their students. And then
the chain comes to our day uninterrupted.
But kuranda preserved in two ways. One was the oral transmission, which is more important because the Quran is essentially a recitation. And the other way of preserving the Quran was through the manuscript tradition, which is also another lecture in itself.
So who is Jesus? How do we know that the Quranic world version which was put in front of you there, from the chapter 19 of the Quran is the true version? And how do we know the version we find in the gospels? Is not the true version? Or how do we know that the version
presented in the canonical or non canonical or historical books is not true? How do we determine this? Jesus is one of the most important person to walk the face of this earth. There are 3 billion people on the face of the earth to believe in Him
in some form, or another, Muslims and Christians and if we were to put the Protestants and Catholics together as Christians, then that makes almost 3 billion people on the face of the earth.
Definitely more than 2 billion people. They believe that Jesus Christ was one of the most important people to walk the face of this earth.
The Christians and the Muslims are unanimous on one point and that
point is that the personality of Jesus Christ
is a very important and significant personality in the history of mankind.
Then there are other commonalities such as the Muslims believe that Jesus was a servant of God. The Christians believe that it's clearly stated in the Gospels. The Muslim believed that Jesus was a prophet of God. The Christians believe that.
The Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was born of Virgin Mary, the Christians believe that
the Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was the Promised Messiah to the Jews. And the Christians believe that the Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was one of the mighty messengers of God.
In fact, one of the top five messengers, the Christians also believe that.
So where do we depart?
Where do our ways apart from each other? Where do we differ? This is the this is the point. This is the question, which I want to address in this lecture today.
The point of departure or the point of dissent or division, or disagreement is the divinity of Jesus Christ. This is where the Muslims and the Christians are divided. The rest is all clear. We are in agreement in most things, as far as the personality of Jesus Christ is concerned, the point of dissent and division and disagreement is the notion of his divinity, that he was God in flesh, he was walking the earth as God, very God, and very man at the same time.
So this is where the problem is. This is where the Muslims, the Christians have disagreed for centuries. And this issue is dealt with conclusively. And if we establish that this area is controversial, not only islamically, also biblically,
then we can possibly join hands as brothers in one faith.
It's very possible that the Christians and the Muslims can be united under one umbrella, and that umbrella is the
true belief in God, which is what Jesus Christ brought. And he said, that I am not here to do my will, are made to do the will of my Father.
And this is exactly what Islam is submitting our selves or our deeds or desires, to the will of God Almighty. This is exactly what Islam is. So when we say that Jesus Christ was a Muslim messenger, he was a Muslim Prophet, we're not claiming that he was a Muslim in the sense that he came from Arabia with a peculiar way of life, riding on a camel and told people that there is a new way of life for you now know, he was a Muslim in the sense that he believed in exactly the same religion, which was proposed, or which was preached by other prophets and other times in other places, such as Abraham, Moses,
Joseph, Noah, and Mohammed, exactly the same message. Here, O Israel, the Lord, our God is One Lord. That was the message.
And this is what the prophet of Islam preached to his people. So how do we determine as to who is right and who is wrong, when it comes to the divinity of Jesus Christ, the point of crucifixion is not so significant for the Muslims. It's not so important for the Muslims, there are prophets who were killed in the past by the enemies. And if Jesus was put on the cross, it doesn't really make a difference. As long as he was a prophet if he was killed, it makes no difference. He was a martyr. He gave His life in the way of God. So the point of crucifixion is not so important for the Muslims. For the Christians. Understandably, the point is very important because the Christians believe in
this crucifixion in a different way than the Muslims do. Muslims don't believe that Jesus was crucified because that's the Quran, clearly, in explicit terms state. The Christian on the other side, however, believe that Jesus died for our sins on the cross. He gave his life to save us from the eternal Doom which was facing mankind.
And because of that sacrifice, we are all free.
And that sacrifice is referred to as atonement
Atonement of our sins.
But if Jesus was not God, then that sacrifice doesn't actually mean anything.
The point of division, the point of
dissent here is that Jesus is God. And because he was God, he gave himself on the cross. He gave His life on the cross willingly, being God, he killed himself or he got himself killed, to save mankind.
This is where the point is. So if we,
established that Jesus was not God, he was only a prophet and a messenger of God, then I can see the Christian and the Muslims coming together on one platform and believing in God as He wants us to believe in it.
It's very simple. So the main issue is the divinity of Jesus Christ. And again, the divinity of Jesus Christ is dealt with conclusively. Then the doctrine of the Trinity falls apart itself. it crumbles.
So how do we determine as to who is giving us the real true version?
About the reality of Jesus Christ? How do we know which information is trustworthy? And which is not?
Should we trust a book which came
five to six centuries later? The events is this describes? Or should we believe the record which are written very close to the time of Jesus Christ?
Why should we believe the Gospels before gospels, which we find in the Bible today, the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Luke, Mark, and john, these gospels in the epistles of Paul, and other writings in the New Testament, they were written very close to the time of Jesus Christ. And the Quran was revealed almost six centuries later, which book to believe? How do we know which one is a true one? But but the Quran makes an amazing point. It makes a very, very profound point in the verses which are recited in your presence there. The Quran states that the groups, some of the groups, they differ among themselves, they differ on the issue of Jesus Christ and his reality.
Is that true?
Prophet Mohammed a theologian. Did he have access to any books in Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac? Were there any Arabic books written at his time he was reading from? Was there anyone dictating these teachings to him at a time where he could know that the group's referring to the Christian groups that differed among themselves about the reality of Jesus Christ? This is a very profound, important theological point as far as the Christian history is concerned. How did you know this?
was a theologian? Was he a historian? Was he a man who studied the Gospels extensively?
inform you on something Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, that there was not a book written in Arabic.
Up to the time of the Prophet peace be upon.
There was no book available in Arabic language. It wasn't a written language at all. The first Arabic book ever written in the language of the Prophet was the Quran.
In his language, there was no book available in the Arabian Peninsula.
The Arabs followed an oral culture, they were linguist par excellence in
an oral spoken way, but they never wrote down they memorized even the genealogy of the horses, they would memorize them. They own genealogies, they preserved them through memorization, the poetry was memorized.
But when it came to writing books down, these were an unlettered people. They were illiterate in the sense that they didn't know how to read or write.
But were they illiterate in the sense of having no literature? No, not at all. They were definitely very literate in that sense, because they were played parks along. So they knew exactly how literature works on the language works. But they never wrote it down. So the prophet of Islam had never
any access to any books he could read from, about the lives of life of Jesus Christ, and the points of dissent about the Jewish religion, and some of the claims made in the Jewish books. For example, one of the claims made in the Jewish books is that Jesus Christ was killed by us.
In chapter four, verse 157, the Quran states that they claim the Jews in nocturnal mercy, we have killed the Messiah. They don't say that in the Gospels. It's not in the Gospels. It has to be found in the Talmud, a Jewish commentary on the oral tradition of the Jews.
called missional. Talmud, the Talmud states that the Jews claim that Jesus Christ was killed and was hung on a tree because he was a liar.
He was a liar. That's what the Jewish Talmud states, he was a magician. And he was a false messiah. Hence he was killed.
But the Quran defensive.
The Quran says, No, that wasn't the case. Your claim is wrong. Well, Mark otahuhu wa sallahu wa kenshoo Bella, they killed him not they crucified Him not rather, to was made to pay so to that, and they are in doubt about this incident. As far as the life of Jesus Christ is concerned, they are following
doubt. They're not sure as to what happened. This is why the gospel records are not in genetic material major points.
The Gospel of john
states that the ministry of Jesus Christ on earth was about three years. And the other gospels, the Synoptic tradition says otherwise.
So we do we find the true version about the life of Jesus Christ, how do we know
the truth is in the Quran, or in the Gospels.
But the Quran makes very important point. And we when we studied the Quran can realize easily that these things could not be known by a man in the middle of the seventh century Arabian Desert because he had access to no books. These are the most primitive people, arguably, on the face of the earth.
You see the Aztecs at the time, they had a civilization in South America. When Christopher Columbus and his entourage, they landed in America as the soul of the Aztecs and the pyramids and all of that, okay, they had some civilization, the herbs are none of that. In the desert. These people were only points.
And that's it.
So he had no access to these books in Hebrew, in Aramaic, or in Syriac, the language languages the Christians, and the Jews were using at the time to put down the scriptures, or to write the scriptures. He had no access to these books. How did he know these minute points, theological points in the books.
They claim that we killed the Messiah. It was impossible for him to read the Talmud. Because Firstly, the Talmud didn't exist in Arabic language. And even if it did, it wouldn't be allowed by. It wouldn't be allowed for the Arabs to read Talmud because the Jews are very, very strong on that point. Talmud cannot be taught to Gentiles. That's very clear. So how do you know this point?
Then how did he know that the Jewish scriptures they insult Mary and Quran defends her in chapter 19, the verses which are recited in front of you here Mary is defended as one of the most pious, God fearing woman on the face of the earth ever lived.
One of those women who ever lived so now the point is, why would the Quran which was revealed to an Arab man who knew that the Jews always discriminate or discriminated against the Arabs? Praise a Jewish woman? Why would the Quran do that? And the mother of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him is not mentioned anywhere in the Quran. The mother of a Jewish man called Jesus, a Jewish woman Mary is mentioned not only mentioned by name, there is a chapter in entire chapter dedicated to her life and her situation and opposition and what you went through when Jesus was born.
So how does the Quran or Hadith the Prophet Mohammed know that there was dissent division among the Christian early Christians about the life of Jesus Christ?
how did how harder is unknown?
Where did this information come from?
When we studied the early Christian history, we come to realize that after the disappearance of the disappearance of Jesus Christ, many Christians are writing books.
In the name of Jesus Christ. Luke when he begins his gospel, he states that many people wrote about Jesus Christ. So I thought I should write a book about or my memoirs about him as well. And these writings, today known as gospels were known after the second century see, they will known as the memoirs of the apostles.
They will not even known as the Gospels or as the Word of God.
came to be known as scripture
in the third century and in the fourth century, up to the second century, when early church fathers were writing about these gospels, circulating within the Christian communities, they would refer to them as the memoirs of the apostles. And when the early church fathers use the term scripture, they were always referring to the Old Testament, even Paul, in his epistles,
or in one place, particularly.
Second Timothy 316.
The Book of Second Timothy, chapter three, verse 16, Paul stated that All scripture is God breathed, and is good for correction, righteousness and education. All scripture. So now Paul is writing about scripture. With scripture was Paul referring to this is a question here, he was referring to the Old Testament and the Christian world. The Christian scholarship is unanimous on this point, because the New Testament wasn't even panning down yet. It wasn't even written. The first gospel was written in the year 60. See, even Paul is thought to have died. So when Paul was writing this epistle about the Scripture, he was referring to the Old Testament. Likewise, in the second century, when some of the
Christian church fathers were writing about scripture, they were referring to the Old Testament, the New Testament wasn't even collected didn't exist. There was no such thing as the New Testament in the second century CE II, because there are so many books circulating in the Christian world, in the name of Jesus Christ, and all of these Christians are reading different records and different versions about the life of Jesus Christ, and subsequently, consequently, believing in different things. Some believe that Jesus Christ was a messenger of God, a prophet of God, wasn't God in flesh, people like AB unites over a lie in the second century See, and Eusebius, one of the early
church historians, he says this, that this group of creatures, they were actually Jewish, and they follow the Jewish law. And they were practicing Jews. And they claim that Paul had corrupted the religion, the teachings of Jesus Christ deliberately. And hence, he was an apostate. Paul was an apostate, according to me unites, because what Paul does, in the book of Romans, chapter 13, he's telling Christians effectively, whoever follows him in the Christian world, that you don't have to follow the Jewish law anymore. You don't have to circumcise yourselves. You don't have to follow Jewish dietary laws, Jesus has died for your sins on the cross, that is enough for you. But Jesus,
on the other hand, in the Gospel of Matthew, according to the author of the gospel states, in chapter five, verse 17, that Think not
that have come to abolish the law and the prophets, rather have come to fulfill the law and the prophets. And anyone who teaches others to go out of this law, even on a more minor point, will be considered least in the kingdom of heaven. This is exactly what Paul did. And Paul did more than this. He abolished and demolished the entire Jewish law.
He said, You don't have to follow it. He told this to Gentiles,
and to the Jews.
You don't have to follow this law anymore because Jesus Christ died on the cross.
For this reason, every night in the second century, a Christian group who were practicing Jews, who believed in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, he was the Promised Messiah, he was a prophet of God, and he was a messenger of God, and He was born Virgin Mary, this is exactly what the Muslims believe in, and have unites for effectively Muslims, before Islam, before the prophet of Islam.
They believe Paul was an apostate, and it shouldn't be followed. We should believe in Jesus Christ as a messenger of God, he was born a Virgin Mary, and we should follow the Jewish law, which he came to uphold and affirm
that we are other groups, the hellenized Christian group, the Christians who were Gentiles in a region, and they were heavily influenced by the Greek philosophy.
They believed in a triadic formula in some shape or form.
As to what the reality of this triadic formula was, wasn't clear at that time. Because origin an early church for the writing in the third century CE II writes, that Holy Spirit is still a contested issue within the church. We still don't know to this day as to what the reality of Holy Spirit was, or is, we have to carry out careful inquiry into the scriptures to determine the reality of Holy Spirit. So origin writing the third century, doesn't claim the Holy Spirit is God or the third person with the Trinity
We don't know what the Holy Spirit is, we know. And origin was the most learned man, arguably in the Christian world at the time.
The master or one of the biggest libraries in the Christian world, the library of Syria. And origin was the teacher of pamphlets and the pants and pamphlets was a man who was a teacher of a man called Eusebius of Santeria, who was present in the Council of Nicea. In the year 325, Stephen Constantine intervened and tried to unite two major Christian groups.
Who were these Christians? What was the dispute about in the fourth century about the nature of the dispute was about the nature of Christ.
One group was saying that Jesus Christ is God of very God, he is of the same essence of the father. He's got the same essence, he is co eternal, co equal, is equal to God the Father absolutely equal, Jesus Christ, even though he was born a Virgin Mary, even though he was nurtured in her stomach. And there were, there was a time when he was three months, there was a time when you were six months, and there was a time when he was nine months. And then he came out and a presenter followed. Think about these things. Yeah, even though that happened, he was still God, in flesh. So Mary effectively gave birth to the second person of the Trinity, in a natural, physical way.
And the other group of the Christian they were saying, This is blasphemy. This is Cofer. This is shook. polytheism are the worst kind, because Jesus never claimed to be God. And he had a beginning. He was because and hence he had a beginning and he had a beginning, then he cannot be God, because God doesn't have a beginning. He is the first is the last and there is no one else beside him. quoting the book of Isaiah, chapter 44, verse six, there is no man us beside him. And that's the Father,
the first person of the soul called Holy Trinity.
This is all this was an amazing point of division among Christians, two major groups of Christians in the fourth century. And this is exactly what the dispute was about at nicea.
And a council was held. Constantine, who had allegedly converted to Christianity, at the time, wanted to unite Christians in his empire. And he asks them to come together and sort your problems out. What's the problem? Why can't we unite? You follow the same books, same religion, same person, what's the problem? So they came together, majority of the bishops in this council were ariens, those who believed that Jesus was not God. minority of Bishops were those who believe that he was God.
majority of the Christians in the fourth century, up to the time of Theodosius, who governed in the year 380 onwards,
the majority of Christians at that time were Unitarians, they didn't believe that Jesus Christ was God didn't believe that. This is clearly affirmed by some fourth century authors such as Jerome,
who wrote that every way around him, he sees arianism the whole world around it around him. His area, areas are those people who followed a man called areas who had those beliefs, which I just mentioned, the people who didn't believe that Jesus was God, because he had a beginning he was forgotten.
So in the fourth century, in the Council of Nicea, these people got together. And then, having seen the dispute among Christians, Constantine, who had no knowledge of Christianity whatsoever intervenes, and then he forces the council to submit to a conclusion and the conclusion was that the Father and the Son are of the same hyperostosis in Latin, and have the same musas in Greek, same essence, they are exactly the same thing to different persons, but the essence is exactly the same. Constantine stipulated this and this is clearly a found by a scholar core, his name is Jerry Lee Kelly wrote a book titled, early Christian doctrines.
So this is a point that cannot be contested historically. So a pagan Emperor, arguably, who inserted this term with within a Christian creed, which he himself later regretted, because when he died Constantine, on his deathbed, he was baptized by an arien Bishop, a bishop who believed that Jesus was not God. For that reason, the successor of Constantine was constantius, his son, who was an area constantius was an area he wasn't a Trinitarian or a binary terian.
how did Jesus
came to be known as God?
flesh to the Christian believes that in the early for centuries.
The gospels say that the Old Testament say that Jesus, Did Jesus ever himself claim that an explicit clear words No.
To the contrary, amazingly, amazingly,
all the Christians in the fourth century, up to the fourth century, the majority of Christians who were Unitarians, they never believed that Jesus Christ was God. They were quoting from the same scriptures that trinitarians according from the binary carians, Trinity didn't exist up to this time, out to the time of the Council of Nicea, as a doctrine of the Church, or as a doctrine of the Christian world, Trinity the Trinity didn't exist. There were individuals who believed in it, there's no doubt about that. But as a as an established doctrine of the Church, or of the Christian world, it didn't exist. It was only finalized in the year 381 C, in the creed of gneisenau constant
is called massino constantinopolitan Creed,
which was a development on the creed of Nicea in the cradle it in the year 325. Steven Constantine added the term Houma OCS, only two issues were dealt with. Father is the God, okay, and Jesus is also God, of very god of the same essence. And what about the Holy Spirit, it was clearly stated, and we believe in the Holy Spirit, how we believe in the Holy Spirit, what the Holy Spirit is, whether it's God, whether it's an angel, whether it's a person wasn't clarified. In the 325, see,
the position of the Holy Spirit was clarified. According to the trinitarians, in the year three at once he when he was clearly put down in that creed in the year 381 see that the Holy Spirit is also God, the third person on the Trinity. This is when Theodosius passed laws to force this doctrine, doctrine down the throats of the Christian masses. And now, division descent wasn't allowed. It was illegal to believe in any other doctrine than the doctrine of the Trinity theodosian code,
Book Two, book 16 chapter two article one clearly states that, that anyone who believes in another doctrine and the doctrine of the Trinity will be considered a heretic and will be hunted down as such. So no other books are allowed to be read, apart from the books which were accepted by the church, and no other doctrine was allowed to be preached, except the doctrine of the Trinity. And from now on, from the 381 c onwards, there was only one doctrine. Anyone else believing in anything else other than the doctrine the Trinity was hunted and persecuted, hence the doctrine of the Trinity, and is following up to this day.
So what about those Christians who were in majority in the fourth century, after the fourth century, they believed that Jesus Christ was not God. And the people who were claiming that Jesus Christ was
God are very God and he was at the same essence the father, were in minority. And both groups are quoting, quoting from the same gospels now amazingly, there were other gospels, other records, which were which were thrown out by the church. There were almost 200 documents in the early for centuries, for centuries, which were attributed to Jesus Christ. Am I boring? You guys? Are you going to sleep? Or are you sure?
Are you awake? Is this too much information?
Am I making sense?
For this, please stand up.
All the way to stand up because you need to be awake.
I cannot sit down please.
How did the Christians come to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity or the divinity of Jesus Christ?
I'll take you back to the Quran.
The Quran amazingly, makes a very powerful point. Apart from the point you saw mentioned in Surah, 19, Chapter 19. That there are groups who differ with each other in this regard about the reality of Jesus Christ for Allah, Allah.
does what the Quran says right?
groups of Christians, they differ with each other by a lot. This is a humble challenge to all of you to go and study the history of
Christianity for the first four centuries, and all you will see will be dissent, division and different doctrines and different documents read by different Christians in different places at different times. How do the Quran know that?
How did the Prophet know that? That they differ with each other? He had no access to any Christian histories. The text of Eusebius wasn't even available to Christians, let alone to an Arab in the city of Mecca in the seventh century. How do you notice it's a very, very profound point. And then another place Koran makes makes an even more powerful point. Pay attention, chapter four verse 171 of the Quran
for sale Mohammed Yana kita all people of Scripture la COVID roofie Dini do not transgress limits in your religions. Wala Taku Allah Allah lol Huck, and do not say of God except the truth. Jesus is the son of Mary was a prophet of God, he was a messenger of God. And then he makes a very powerful point Amina will lie What do you believe in a line His messengers, pay attention chapter four, verse 171, believe in align His messengers, and say not three, say not three do not say Trinity. Do not say
it will be better for you desist. This is a will be better for you. Wow. So what is the problem here? What is the Quran trying to say her?
What is the point the Koran is trying to make? Koran presents a dichotomy here. There is a dichotomy.
And that is that if you believe in Allah and His messengers, first answer is believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not three, the next verse, very next part of the verse. So what is the dichotomy here? Can anyone help me from the from the crowd, from the audience? There is a dichotomy here.
You know what a dichotomy is? Okay?
Sorry, two opposing ideas, two opposing ideas. The Quran is saying, believe in Allah, God and His messengers, and say not three. So what are the two opposing ideas?
Okay, anyone else?
Yeah, is almost there, the ball is almost there is right?
It's very simple. Okay. God is saying here in the Quran, believe in a line is messengers. And if you do that, say not three, you will not say three, you will not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. Okay. And if you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, then you are effectively rejecting God and His messengers. Why? Because God never sent the doctrine of the Trinity down, never revealed it, the messengers never preached it.
Hence, it is man made.
And if it is man made, then it is not from God.
And if you believe in God in His messengers, you can never believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. And if you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, then you are effectively rejecting the teachings of God in his messages. Because the doctrine of the Trinity does not originate with God and His messengers. Is that clear?
Is that dichotomy present in the Quran?
Or am I twisting the words? It's very clear, chapter four, verse 171. believe in Allah and His messengers, and say, No, three, because if you believe in them, if you will believe in them, you will never say three, you will never believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. Now comes the point. Did Jesus ever preached the doctrine of the Trinity? No, never. There is not a passage and the entire Bible, which can be forwarded to substantiate the doctrine of the Trinity.
And the Gospel of Matthew again, Chapter 28, verse 19, some Christians come up with this passage and say, here we have a trialing formula.
Here we have a trading formula, where Jesus Christ allegedly told his followers, his disciples, to go in the land and preach or baptize people in the name of the Father, the Son in the spirit. And because of this, this is a doctrine, or this is the doctrine of the Trinity being preached in the gospels, or in the Gospel of Matthew in particular.
But scholars, recent scholars, Christian scholars, assert that this passage is a later in such This was added later on. Grant Stanton from the University of Cambridge. He wrote a book Jesus and Gospels and in this book, he stated that this passage, this particular verse in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 28, verse 19, is a later insertion is an interpolation. It doesn't come from Jesus. To the contrary, Jesus said it
In the same Gospel chapter 15, verse 24, here O Israel, sorry, I was not sent to anyone, but to the last half of the half of Israel.
So if you are sent to the Lordship of the house of Israel, then why is he telling his disciples to go and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Spirit? That's a clear contradiction there in the Gospels. And that's why scholars believe that this was a later idea, in certain like, another verse, which was added into the text of the, the New Testament, in the fourth century, to substantiate the doctrine of the Trinity. In the fourth century, the Trinitarian debate was at his height. That's when this text was added into the Scripture, as evidence. And this text can be found in the first epistle of john, chapter five, verse seven, whereby was clearly stated
that there are three ways that we're witnessing the heavens, the Father, the Son, and the spirit and these three are one, this particular verse was added later on, by a scribe in the fourth century, doesn't exist in the early Greek manuscripts.
So the Christian would desperately attempting to put something in the scripture to substantiate the doctrine of the Trinity. But they weren't successful. There is nothing today in the Gospel, or in the Old Testament, to substantiate the doctrine of the Trinity or the divinity of Jesus Christ. To the contrary, there are very, very explicit verses in the New Testament and the Old Testament, which clearly state that Jesus Christ effectively denied his divinity if he was divine with capital D. way. That is the point now, where does he deny His divinity?
In the Old Testament, there is nothing about his divinity doesn't exist. In the Old Testament, we find one God, and that is the that's the God of Israel young way below him or the father with capital F. In the book of Isaiah, chapter 63, verse 16, will read that Father is the God of Israel. Is that clear? Does everyone understand that? Yeah. Isaiah 6316, father with capital F is the God of Israel. Okay. Now, same book, the book of Isaiah, chapter 44, verse six states that he is the first, he is the last, and there is no one else beside him.
Again, the father, is that clear? Now we come to the New Testament. What does Jesus say about this particular doctrine of the divinity of God the Father,
Jesus speaks to a Samaritan woman. In the Gospel of john, chapter four, verse 21, onwards, he has an interaction with this woman, and she is a pagan woman. And he tells her that we worship what we know and you worship what you know not. And remember woman, salvation is of the Jews. Salvation is of the Jews. Okay? salvation is of the Jews. Why? Because they worship the Father and spirit is there. So now Jesus is saying, effectively salvation is of the Jews. If the Jews have the wrong concept of God, if they believe in one God, who is the father and don't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity I, my question is, how do they have the salvation? But it doesn't end there. He goes further, Jesus
speaks to the Jews. In the same gospel, chapter eight, verse 54, the gospel of john, speaking to a crowd of Jews, he tells them that I do not glorify myself, which is my father who glorifies mean, of whom you say is your God, speaking to the Jews, again, speaking to a Jewish crowd crowd, Jesus tells them that father with capital F is your God. He confirms that the Jews do not worship a trinity. They don't believe in other persons, they don't believe in the Son and the spirit. They don't know them as divinities, they don't know them. They only know one person one being in that's the Father. And Jesus confirmed that in the Gospel of john, and the Old Testament tells us that too. Now here's
the problem. Now, here's the bloke, a Jewish man comes to Jesus Christ. In the Gospel of Mark, we are told, Chapter 12, verse 29, and he asks Jesus as to what the first commandment is, and Jesus tells him, quote in the book of Genesis, the famous Shama, here, O Israel, the Lord, our God is One Lord, the Lord our God is One Lord. worship your God with all thy mind with all my heart with all that soul. Okay? worship Him, with all thy mind with all thy heart with all thy soul. And now this man the questioner is who is
Who is he?
Maybe you need to stand up again or
going to sleep? Who is he?
Who is he? The questioner Who is he? Hello?
He was, he was a Jew, right? The questioner was a Jew. And what was the question? What is the first commandment? And Jesus tells him here, O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord. Now what does the Jew believe in?
As far as the Jew is concerned? Who is God? Who is God?
the father with capital F, because Jesus said that to them. In the Gospel of john chapter eight, verse 50, was 54, that Father is your God, you believe in the Father. Okay. Now this Jew, when he asks this question, in his mind is only one person and one being, and that's the Father. So when Jesus tells him here, O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord. He is thinking of the father. He's not thinking of the Son, and the Spirit, is that clear. And then he responds to Jesus saying, you have spoken the truth, Master, there is no one. He's the there is no one else beside him, he's alone.
Again, speaking of the Father, he's alone, there is no one that's beside him. And then Jesus tells him, then you just tell them that you are close to the kingdom of God.
Okay, you're close to the kingdom of God. So now, if Jesus himself was God, he was divine, now was the time to tell him that hold on a second, you're a Jew, and outcome with the new covenant. Now, you've been worshipping the father all the way, now is the time for you to realize for you to see that I am all for divine, and so is the Holy Spirit. So you need to worship as to as well with the Father, we are all called eternal, co equal, he didn't do that.
He effectively confirmed the Jewish belief that you believe in one God and that belief is true.
That belief is true. So if he was God, this was the time for Jesus Christ to preach his divinity, he did not preach his divinity.
Then we see in other places, he effectively denies the god ship or
the divinity of the sun, because he himself of the sun with capitalists, in the Gospel of Mark, chapter 13, verse 32, we are told when he was asked about the hour, the judgment day, he said, of the hour, no one knows.
Not even the sun, and not even the angels except the Father in the heaven, with capital of the Judgment Day, no one has knowledge except the Father, God Almighty in the heavens, okay, the son with capital S, doesn't know. Now here is a point, you must understand this point, pay attention.
Jesus is speaking as a man at the time, the Christians will argue, hence, he didn't know about the hour. Hence, he had no knowledge of the hour, because he was speaking as a man, not as God. But my question is, does the sun ever cease to be God?
Because there are three persons in the doctrine of the Trinity, God the Father, God, the son, with capitalists, and God, the Holy Spirit, with capital H and capital S, okay. And all of these persons are fully divine at all times, co equal, co eternal. Jesus Himself can become a man, but does God the Son ever cease to be God?
Jesus doesn't say that, I don't know the out of the hour, he says, not even the son knows of the hour. Only the father, now not only excludes himself from that knowledge, he excludes the Holy Spirit as well, because he's only the father knows, even the Holy Spirit doesn't know. Because the word only means only only the father knows, so effectively is denying the divinity of himself, and the Holy Spirit. And he's saying father is only one who has that knowledge.
None other has that knowledge. And then in the Gospel of john again, when Mary Magdalene, his companion comes to him, she asks him, or he talks to him, and he tells her, go to my disciples, and tell them that I ascend onto my father, to your father, to my God, and to your God.
And there are many more examples I can give from the Scripture, which, in explicit terms, deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. And these are the passages which were being used by the Unitarians in the first four centuries, and they were in majority and they had scholars with them, par excellence. Some of the scholars were
Major scholars major biblical scholars in the world, the time Eusebius was one of them who was present in the Council of Nicea, who inherited the largest library in the Christian world. And he was against the idea of adding this term Houma OCS in the creed of Nicea, these are very, very important technical historical points, which the Christians are not aware of today, the Christians when they read the Gospels in the Bible, they read it as a book of God, which came directly from God in a box, and then the box is open. And here we have the word of God, lo and behold, it wasn't like that, ladies and gentlemen, because there are many more gospels in circulation. And these four
gospels were chosen by a bunch of men. In the third and the fourth century, somewhere, they decided that the coming Christian generations will read these gospels as the Word of God, God has nothing to do with it. Jesus never left any instructions as to re as to which gospel should the Christians read later on? He never said you should read the gospel of john, Gospel of Luke, Gospel of Mark Gospel of Matthew, and leave the gospel of Nicodemus out leaves the gospel of Philip and Thomas, and Jane and the list goes on. The list goes on. So who rejected those gospels? And who accepted these ones is the question and why can we trust them? Why should we trust them? Do we know who they were? Do you
know who rejected these Gospels and we accepted the others? Do we even know?
We know where the Quran came from? The Quran came from Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi salam. And this is clearly confirmed by Christian scholars, such as Montgomery Ward, and Richard Bell, who wrote a book on the Quran titled an introduction to the Quran. So ladies and gentlemen, I want you to open your hearts. And think about these realities which I have presented in front of you today. These are not minor points where you can simply neglect this guy, this Muslim fundamentalist extremist or whatever, okay? these perceptions are there. Yet his camera, he doesn't know anything he doesn't know about our and he doesn't understand how we feel about the Gospels. And what our
belief about the Gospels is and our religion and our doctrine. That's not the case, I have studied extensively. And I've debated major Christian theologians in the field of Christian theology. And I still
am waiting for some answers from these theologians to this day. So I hope you enjoyed the lecture today, and I am expecting a very
interesting and engaging q&a session, please do ask questions. And I'll do my best to answer your questions. And Please be assured that I will never be offended by any of your questions. If you have questions on other things, then you may bring them on, and inshallah I'll do my best to answer. Thank you very much for listening. So I want
to do is we'll go straight into the q&a session, if anybody wants to write their questions down, and they can pass it over to the front. Otherwise, everybody can just put the hand up. And the speaker will choose anybody who's to answer questions.
I haven't been yet. I have to confess, I came ahead of time, I was ready to start later on. Okay. So I mean, probably might have missed a very important aspect of your lecture. My worry has always been
the doctrine of Jesus dying on the cross, and how Islam has been able to explain, but sometimes I may confess that I really do not see the distinction. And it appears not to be too convincing. How this is different from Christianity doctrine. And then from Islam, it's an app I was taught
that Jesus was lifted up to the heavens, and then his facial expression was put on another person, and that person was the one who ended up on the cross. I need some clarity. Thank you for asking that question. It's a valid question and very good question. We don't believe that, by the way, is what the commentators on the Quran are suggesting what the commentators do, they try to make sense of some of the verses of the Quran, okay, and they gather information and disregard. So when this statement was made in the Quran that he was killed, not he was crucified, not rather was made to appear. So some of the commentators assumed that it must have been someone else. It must have been
someone else. But that wasn't the case. We don't have any authentic information from the prophet in disregard. Okay. What the Quran is saying that it was made to appear. So is the point of the Gospels. The gospels made this appear in that way. The gospels are the ones the records, which are telling us that Jesus was crucified. So this information was spread randomly in the Christian world, okay. Now because the gospels are written and the Christian started reading them, and then the Christians because of the gospel records came to believe that
Jesus Christ was crucified, or even some of the people who were alive at the time, the time of Jesus Christ, a rumor was spread by the Jews possibly that Jesus was crucified. But he wasn't crucified, he was lifted, he was raised above by God Almighty alive, and we believe is still alive to this day. And he will return to fix the record to put the record straight. Okay, and he will come back with a specific job.
Because it's the Word of God.
Sure, this is? That's a very good question. It's a valid question. Thank you for asking that question.
The reason why I'm non Muslims should believe in the Quran is because the Quran puts a challenge could on challenges mankind that this book is divine, it was sent down on a man in the middle of the Arabian Desert in the seventh century. Now you read the book and see whether it can come from
a mind, which had never been to a school and Academy, or the man who can even read and write. Okay, I've lived in a village in Pakistan, fortunately, for two years of my life, best time in my life, by the way, okay. And because you're so relaxed, everything everyone, everyone, when you come across someone, you see a smile. Okay? So I saw a shepherd in that village, okay. And he was a very simple guy, very patient down to earth, polite, simple guy.
I couldn't imagine this Shepherd thinking about the heavens expanding and, and child taking shapes and form in mother's womb and describing this reality accurately, absolutely, accurately. And then talking about the very minute and important points of the Christian theology and the Jewish theology and talking about atheists and refuting the disbelievers on many different funds. I couldn't imagine such such a simple guy coming with this kind of stuff. Likewise, Prophet Mohammed was alive in the seventh century when these means we're, you know, today in a village God, do you find internet, the right one click, everything is in front of you codified articles that she's called dah, dah, dah,
dah, dah, you can start reading, start learning Hebrew on the net. That wasn't the case. In the seventh century, people were very, very primitive, as far as availability of books is concerned, okay. And for this reason, the prophet of Islam couldn't have known all of these, all of these things. For that reason.
Montgomery Ward, Professor, and the University of Edinburgh, stated that when we accuse Mohammed of imposture, of being an imposter, we raised more problems than solutions. Because then we have to explain the contents of the Quran. How was this man able to gather so much information and authenticated and leave the false information out and put the authentic, authentic information in there, and today, scientific research is confirming what was put in the Koran. It was only in the 1940s when the scientists were by using 100 inch inch radius poker telescopes realized that the heavens are kind of receding from each other, you know, the stars are receding from the heavens or
expanded, depending on how you see it. Okay. The Koran book this fact down
within the text, 14 centuries ago, how do you know that? Did he have those telescopes? Impossible, and embryology embryonic stages in a mother's womb, described in the Quran, named Ronnie embryology of the Quran. Quran describes the stages absolutely accurately. And if you studied the science of embryology and contrary to some some of the Christians and Jewish and atheistic scholars, they assert that Mohammed was copying from Galen and Aristotle, Galen and Aristotle who had written on embryology already, but when you actually look at Galen and under startle, they made major mistakes. Aristotle believed that a child a fetus is formed by a mixture of semen and menstrual blood, which
is an absurdity. Okay. GALEN, on the other hand, he asserted on the first in the very first stage of his embryology that his study is based upon dissections, by looking at the fetus, and the Quran talks about the mitzvah stage, the first stage is microscopic,
naked, I cannot see that stage. For this, you have to go and see a research piece we have produced on our website.
Ira ira.org.uk. And if you go to the research section, you'll find a paper on embryology in the Quran. And all of these issues are dealt with. For this reason, when you study all of these things you come to realize impossible for a man in the seventh century Arabian Desert
Angel are gone.
not the devil. You mean? That's fine? Yeah, I will I won't be offended by that assertion. That's a good point. But when you look at the words of Jesus Christ, and we believe his words, that there will be many false prophets after me. And you will know them by the fruits. By the fruits. Yeah. So you will know the fourth profit from the right one from the fruits, those profits bring right now, not to offend anyone. This is a classic cut historical fact. And I recently completed a book on this very topic, the fruits of Islam. Okay.
There is almost a consensus among academics in the Western world and in the eastern world, she wanna make this distinction, okay, that Islam arguably brought some of the best fruits in the history of mankind, spiritually, materially, and educationally Muslims
brought knowledge to mankind, which was absent prior to the advent of the Prophet of Islam, Prophet Muhammad, okay. When you look at the Christian history, Christians were
heavily persecuted minority, or, in some cases, majority, up to the fourth century, we know that the Roman Emperor, Nero, and then Marcus Aurelius. And then these years and Diocletian, these prosecutions are very, very heavy on Christians, okay. But when the Christians came to power, the point is, how did the Christian bring other people into Christianity.
And scholarly point in this regard is that the Christians are forcing people into Christianity. And the Christian world was the most
unstable world. In the history at the time, for example, you had witches being burned alive, up to the 18th century in Europe, here, Christian Europe, you had heretics who are burned alive on a massive scale. You had scientists who were burned alive for having opinions in the Christian world, and who was doing it, the Catholics and the Protestants, both were doing it, who were following the Bible. Now, you may think, well, it doesn't have anything to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ. That's a fair point. I'm willing to concede to that point. However, if you look at the text of the Bible, the text of the Bible provided that precedence for the Christians to do these things. For
example, Paul, when he states in the book of Second Timothy 316, that all Scripture, all Scripture, specifically talking about the Old Testament is God breathed, and good for education, correction, and righteousness. Find all Scripture. So the Book of Leviticus is good for education, correcting and righteousness is that true? In the book of Leviticus, for example, Chapter 21, verse
nine, we read that if our daughter if if a priest daughter, prevented her father by sleeping with another man, by committing adultery, not the son, the daughter in particular, she's to be burnt alive, is the Book of Leviticus, chapter
verse 14, same book, the book of Leviticus, if a father marries a mother and a daughter at the same time, they ought to be burned alive. So this burning issue came from the Bible, the Presidents from the Bible. So the Christians are using these methods of punishing people from from the Bible, and reformers are doing it. Calvin did it in Geneva, he burned one of the Unitarian Christians alive, Michael servetus, who simply wrote against the doctrine of the Trinity, and he was burned at stake with his books. And his book is the most rare book on the face of the earth today,
errors of Christianity or errors of the doctrine of the Trinity, there are only three copies in the world today. So systematic was the destruction of these books at the hands of the church. Okay, so the Christian world was very much disturbed, and the Muslims, they brought some civilization and education to the Christian world. Why Islamic Spain along the loose way, the Muslims govern for almost seven to eight centuries. And the the knowledge and the civilization and the peace and justice of Islam came from Baghdad to Damascus, to North Africa into Spain, where Jews, Christians and Muslims to gather free of any persecution and pressure studied natural sciences collectively for
the common good of mankind. And then this knowledge was later transmitted to Western Europe, Christian, Western Europe. And then we had the 12th century Renaissance, from which came the 16th century Renaissance. Even at that time, knowledge of the Muslim science was taken, but the ethics and morals weren't. That's why we still had which is burnt alive. The last which in this country was burnt alive in the year 17. At 1726 in Scotland, the lot lost which to be burnt alive in
Britain was in Scotland 1726. And up to the year 1790, a woman could be burned
alive for killing her husband, if a woman killed her husband. She could be burned to live according to the law of England, when Edward Gibbon was writing, when Isaac Newton had already died, when enlightenment writers were writing about enlightenment, okay, so this is why, because of the oppression of the church, we had a revolution in Europe at the time, which was known as the secular revolution. Some of the things that came forward, they said, separate the church from the state, okay, church, in your home, state has nothing to do with the church. For that reason, we have to have individual freedom which was absent in Christian Europe at the time, Islam give that individual
freedom to people to carry out free intellectual inquiries into the cracking, collected connecting principles of nature. So the fruit of Islam, I can go on and on and on. This is my field. I'm a I'm a historian, or student of history. And I've recently finished a book on this very fruit. So Prophet Mohammed, if he will an imposter. And if he was inspired by the devil, God forbid, then his fruit definitely should have been very bad, or at least worse than the Christian fruit. But on one side, we have the fruit of Paul, not Jesus, because Jesus never preached what Paul preached, okay, Paul, and his fruit could be seen in the Christian world, and the fruit of Islam, and the preservation of
the Quran could be seen in the Islamic world. So if we There is no doubt about one fact that the Koran is better preserved in the Bible, the most hostile Christian evangelical evangelical fundamentalist writers, they accept this fact. One of them is Keith smaller recently wrote a book he said the Quran is definitely there's no comparison between the Quran and the Bible, when it comes to preservation. So my question is, was the devil more powerful than God? was he able to preserve his work better than God's work?
You see, this is the point so so the Devil Devil was more successful than God Almighty in preserving the message.
Okay, this is this is the this is the very point the Quran when you study it.
The information there is from God because devil couldn't have known things which are in the Quran, for example, how does the how they expect the devil to know when the heavens are expanding and how the child is born, and the stages within the stomach of the mother and good things in the Quran. For example, worship one god devil would never come to you and said, You worship god alone. Devil would come to you and say, worship three persons in one God, that's from God. That's what devil would do. devil wants to misguide you, not guide you. His job is to come and destroy your faith, destroy you so that you end up in Hellfire? That's what the Quran says, believe in a lion is messengers. And if
you do, you will never believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. devil will come to you and tell you Jesus was God in flesh, he walked the face of God. Okay. But the Quran in the gospels tells you No, that wasn't the case. He never claimed to be God. Give me one straight from the Gospels. Jesus on the day of judgment will stand in front of Christians currently, and ask them where did I say that I was God. If Jesus asked you this question, or any of the Christians in the audience on the Day of Judgment, where did I say I was God?
What are you gonna say? Which was
he said, I'm God.
Okay, how can we have a similar
right we have to honor the sun.
And obviously, we should worship the sun as well. That's a very good point. very fair point. But we have the same honor in the Quran. We have a trinity in the Quran. Did you know that ontologically there are three persons mentioned in the Quran before the Muslim stone which
let me clarify myself, okay. That was a joke. Listen, don't do that. Okay.
In the Quran in chapter four, we are told, yeah, you under the hammer to LA to Rasulullah marimon. Come over you believe, obey Allah obey His Messenger, and those who are in power, Trinity, a triadic formula, Allah, His Messenger and those who are in power, that we worship at Trinity. I can argue a standing here today that God uses exactly the same terms for himself and for the messenger A to A to obey Him and obey me. ontologically in this verse in nature, both are exactly the same, but are the same. No, no. This is exactly what Jesus said Father is greater than
father is going to the night ontologically Jesus and the
Father, we're not saying this is a false claim. Okay, this this gentleman country?
Yes, it depends what you mean by honor. It depends. If you honor a messenger of God, you're honoring God. Okay? Because in the Quran again, we are told that if you
obey the messenger, if you obey the messenger, you obey God. So does that mean that God is asking us to worship the messenger in order to worship God? Now, God is saying, OBEY Him, because obey him would mean obey me. So honoring Jesus Christ, yeah, would be honoring God Himself. But that doesn't mean make Jesus and God the same. It doesn't make them the same person, or same beam. It doesn't make make them like that. These were later assertions added by later hellenized Greek philosophers who were highly or deeply inspired by Greek philosophy, and others who were accused of judaizing Christianity, the Trinity Unitarians, who said, No, Jesus is not God, in any sense. The entire text
of the New Testament goes against that assertion. Why were they arguing in this way? And they were closer to the time of Jesus Christ than you and I, then exactly what was in the Scripture. They had the manuscripts we don't have today. They are the books in their possession we don't have today. They knew exactly what they knew Greek. They knew Latin. They knew exactly what the early church fathers were writing, and they were in majority. Unitarians in the fourth century were in majority.
So how did they know this? Why are they claiming this quote in the same gospel, the same word, which we quote today, all the Christians use today? So Christians have grossly misunderstood, misunderstood, and the Quran came to correct that mistake. The purpose of the revelation of the Quran was to come and correct mistakes made by past generations Koran condemns the Jews criticizes them, stating the you twist and manipulate your words, the Word of God don't play games with the Word of God. Likewise, Quran corrects the Christians on the divinity of Jesus Christ, on the divinity of a holy trinity. For example, Quran clearly in chapter five verse 72, states, those of
blasphemers who say, Jesus God, Jesus, the son of Mary's God, laqad cafaro Medina call in the law, who was number one, and the Quran states, the Messiah said Paul will call him Messiah but Israel, or the law of Beaver Bochum, Messiah told the children of Israel,
Hero Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord.
That's exactly what he did. Okay. And Prophet Muhammad was definitely not copying from the Gospel, he had no access to Gospels. The first time gospels were translated in Arabic language was in the eighth century, ninth century, sorry, in the time of Mahmoud, two centuries after the death of, of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. The Muslims don't have any access to these Gospels. Yes. Can I come back to you, you had your hand up?
Jesus is confronted by the Jews Yes.
Most assuredly. Before Abraham was I am I am. That's a very good point. Ego I mean, in Greek.
Thank you so much for asking this question 634.
whereby the Quran is stating that the words of Allah cannot be changed, okay. here Allah is talking about the words of Allah. Okay. The gospels are not the word of God.
The energy, yes, the NGO. When Allah says the God, the words of God cannot be changed. Yeah. What am I saying here? That when Allah preserve them, for example, and in the Quran, the promise is there, Chapter 15, verse nine, God promised in Nananana de la Nicaragua, in Allah will have a loan, we have revealed the scripture we will guard it against corruption. That's a promise made in the Quran. And the Quran is guarded To this day, okay? very powerfully, there is not a word which was added into the Quran against the wishes of God or the Prophet. So here, the Quran is making that claim.
The Bible is not from God, because the New Testament was written by different people. This is another point. Now this is another lecture in itself. When was the first time when the gospels were regarded as scripture? I addressed this point briefly, that up to the second century, some of the Christian church fathers, they would refer to the Gospels as the memoirs of the apostles. I really strongly recommend that you read a book
titled, Jesus and gospel, or gospel and Jesus Christ. But these are two books written by the same, the same author. His name is Grant Stanton. And he addresses this quite extensively gives all his evidence that in the second century, these gospels weren't even regarded as the Scripture. The Old Testament was the Old Testament was unanimously accepted as scripture by the Jews and the Christians. As far as the New Testament is concerned, it was still in under construction, it was still some books are still being regarded somewhat thrown out some, there are different let's list from early church fathers, for example, Eusebius, he had his own cannon, he had his own list, and
his list missed some books. He threw out some books from the New Testament. He said, The Book of Revelation, for example, the Second Peter is not canonical is not from God, okay. It's a forgery, like then we are origin here, his own list of books, authoritative books, and he accepted some and rejected others. Then we had marcion as a church father, he had his own list and accepted some rejected others for and then we have a manuscript for the fourth century, Codex Sinaiticus. Have you heard of it? Isn't the British Library, okay? We have two extra books in it. Okay. Now this was scripture, qualified with an intention to codify scripture. Okay. In this particular manuscript, we
have two extra books, the shepherd of hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas this little bar was non existent in your gospel. So in our in our gospels are being added in and thrown out by different people. It wasn't the fourth century.
The Canon you follow today is the canon of Athanasius, who lived in the fourth century, prior to the canon of Athanasius. There was no consensus among the Christians as to what authority books are, okay. And when the Christians came to regard these books as inspired Word of God is another lecture in itself. When was the first time so there was read the Quran is a different story altogether. Koran, when the Prophet revealed, he received revelation, his companions, hundreds of them, they would, they would be around him and they would see the revelation coming down, he would start to sweat, he would go read, and he would, his body would go very heavy, so much so that if he was on a
camel, the camel would sit down, and he would receive the revelation, he would utter him, he would read it, and then a scribe would surround him, and they would pin it down straightaway and memorize what he recited. Okay, and then 1000s upon 1000s, they memorize the Word of God, exactly, straight from the mouth of the Prophet, and that's how the Quran was preserved. Okay, so there are there is no comparison between the preservation of the Bible, and because the Bible was not the word of God. That's why it wasn't preserved. This is exactly what my argument is. The Quran was preserved, because God promised that it will be preserved.
Or Sure, okay, I am statement in this gospel, the gospel of john doesn't actually prove that Jesus was claiming to be God, because if you go to the gospel of john chapter 10, verse 34, okay, where again, the Jews, they accused him of claiming to be God, okay. They said, you make yourself God. And how did you respond? How do you respond? He responded by saying, it is stated in your scripture that you are all gods.
It is stated in your scriptures that you are all Gods quoting from the book of Psalms, Chapter 82, verse six, if you go to Psalm 82, verse six, it clearly states that all Israelites are gods.
Okay, all Israelites are gods. Okay? So he rebuked he refuted the Jewish claim that you are the ones who claim to be Gods not I am only claiming to be a son of God. So if you keep reading, he simply affirmed that I am the Son of God. And in the first century Judaic context, you simply can't divorce Jesus Christ and His context from reality. Okay, if you consider Jesus Christ, and if you want to understand him, you must go back in the first century, and studying the society around him, the language, the expression, the feelings and the sentiments around him. How did the Jews express themselves? What did it what what was the term Son of God?
used for? What did it mean in the first century, to the Jews, Jesus was a Jew, there are Christian, major Christian scholars and Jewish scholars in the field. They assert that the only fact we can establish about the life of Jesus Christ is that he was a Jew, who was the Masonic figure who preached a radical message in the first century and he was crucified. That's what the historian says.
This is where the point is.
The Quran says he wasn't crucified, even though even though it appeared a pitch saw to the Christians and the Jews that he was crucified with.
Quran is simply denying that fact.
Because they want you to prove him to be a liar.
No, no. When when Jesus was claiming to be the Son of God, yeah, he was effectively claiming to be the Promised Messiah, not God. Okay, the Promised Messiah, and the Jews are saying that this guy, this person is a liar. He's not the Messiah, he's not the Messiah. And the only way they can disprove him is by killing him by hanging a crucifixion. Because according to the Jewish law, one of the most cursed deaths was by hanging, or by being crucified. So they, as far as they were concerned, they were simply proving that's why the Jews laugh today. If they do, okay, or at that time in the in the past, they were laughing, he's a liar, he was crucified. You see, he was
Christian. The Quran defends the Quran. So no, no, no, you are wrong. He wasn't crucified. It appeared to you. So you thought that he was crucified. But that wasn't the reality. He wasn't crucified. What exactly happened? We don't know. The Quran tells us that he was lifted alive, he was lifted alive and he will be sent back again alive. He is with God as to where he is right now, exactly. We don't know. But he's alive. And he will return before the end of days and he will fight the Antichrist, who will appear near the end of days and which is what we're seeing, we're seeing signs of the return of Antichrist and, and you know, we can see the bankers running around in the
entourage. And you see, so these are the this is antichrist. I'm not saying the Antichrist system. antichrist is a person who will appear, okay. But his children, his entourage will appear before him to settle to set the stage for him. Again, that's happening in the world already. We know we can see oppression, killing, murders, famine, disease, and all these things are happening for a reason. Probably Mohammed told us peace be upon him in Boca Bukhari, that when earthquakes start to strike the earth, the world and they escalate. As if you know, when you break a beat, and all the beats
fall one after another.
These earthquakes will escalate in number numbers, and they will continue escalating. So this is exactly what we've seen, we've seen in the last 10 years, never in the history of mankind ever before so many earthquakes struck this planet, one after another with such speed. So maybe we are closing, we are coming close to our end.
So there are some more questions, if you don't mind. Sure.
That's a very good point. But women are not the only ones who get stoned to death. If If First of all, in Islam, the law is very consistent. Men and women are treated equally
in law. So if a couple is caught in adultery, they are both stoned to death, providing their court under other what is the definition of adultery in Islam? That's another question altogether. Now, you will not find any cases in the entire history of Islam, yet, where you can find 10 people thrown to death, you can count the number of people who are ever stoned to death in the entire history of Islam. Because the burden the burden of proof is almost impossible. Okay, it's more of a deterrent than a punishment. And those cases you can find people where whereby people were stoned to death. These are voluntary submissions, people came forward voluntarily. And they said that I have
committed the sin. I want to get rid of this sin. I want to meet God without this sin on my shoulders. And the Prophet, in fact, turned away from such people. He didn't want to stone them to death. He encourages people to go and pray to God and he's all forgiven, he will, he will forgive your sins. Go on again and again in different places states that those of you who have transgressed against their souls, go and seek forgiveness from God, He forgives sins, collectively. But if you are caught in the act, and if you're unfortunate enough to be caught in the act, then the penalties carried out now what is the burden of proof? proof? It's impossible for you to be convicted for you
to be found or caught in the act, you must be doing it publicly. Let me explain.
The burden of proof is you need for saying
pious adult trustworthy witnesses. And it's very difficult to find these people.
Okay, if you are if you are known to have lied ever in your life, and if there's anything dodgy about your character, then your testimony is not accepted by the court. Okay. And all of these qualities must exist in witnesses. Okay. Now, if all
Four of these people will be confronted by the judge one after another and the judge will ask them what did you see? So for example, to say to will say, we saw a man on top of a woman, and we saw them naked. Okay. And we saw the movie, for example, okay, I don't want to go into the grim details here. Okay? And the others to say, No, we saw this and that, all four of them, Listen to me carefully, all four of them only publicly last at times each. Okay, all of them for dragging the owner of a couple into the street. So if you
fail to substantiate your acquisition, through trustworthy, valid witness, you will be lashed for dragging someone because in an Islamic in an Islamic State, a woman or a man when they are slandered, then if you don't substantiate the slander, for example, if you call a woman,
for example, don't use the word, you know, like, usually in this country, or anywhere in the world today. You go and you can say to a woman, bi tch or something like that. Yeah, okay, something really derogatory, or all of these rap artists in America, they will disappear seriously, in an Islamic State. You see the way they're swearing and salt and curse woman in the rats. Okay. Islam would never allow that to happen. Okay, let me finish. So if someone says something like this, then the judge if a woman went to the court and said, I was called this on the street, okay? For example, a prostitute. Okay, the judge will invite the person to come. And now you need to show me four
witnesses to show to prove that this woman is a prostitute. And if you don't, you get 80 lashes. This was saying the word This was saying the word. Okay. So it's almost impossible to substantiate or to support your accusations. Is that the same question? argument, then you have to wait.
Okay, can I come back to this?
Sorry. Yeah, that's right. If you if you if you are single, if you are a bachelor, or if you if you're not married, then it's lashes at lashes are 40 lashes. And if you are married and committed adultery, then the punishment providing you found those four witnesses saying an old, trustworthy and truthful? Yes.
It says that if the husband does not have four witnesses that he can swear by the name of Allah, four times, and then that's going to be a good point. This is a very specific case. That's that's a very good point. Thanks for raising that point.
This is in case when a woman or a man accuses
or accuse each other of adultery. This is a very specific case. In general, if a woman is accused by someone else in the street, or a man is accused by someone else, then you have to produce four witnesses. But if a man comes along now, because this is a very exceptional case, now, if a man comes along, and he says, I saw my woman committing adultery with a man, I saw her in bed with a man. Okay? Yes. Which happens very often in this country, unfortunately, okay, and most of the murders in this country are due to domestic violence partners killing each other. I don't know if you know, you know about that, according to statistics, most murders in this country are because of
partners killing each other. And in Islam, if a man killed his wife, just because he saw her in bed with someone, he would be killed in return. Because in Islam is an eye An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, okay, so no one can take the law into his or her hands. So if a man saw his wife in the bed with someone, and he cannot find four witnesses, and this is an exceptional case, now, he goes to the judge, and he says, I saw my wife committing adultery, the judge will now ask both of them. And this is the only exception to that rule, which I described explained to you. This is the only exception, both will come in the court. And both will testify four times, they will invoke the curse
of God upon the liar. So a woman will say I swear by God, may God curse me from a liar, that I've never done this act. I was, I didn't commit adultery. The man will say, I swear by God, may God curse me. If I'm a liar, that I saw her in the app. And both of them four times testify against each other, then the marriage is simply broken the matter because there is no more marriages, no more marriages broken and they're both allowed to go away simple, because now is between them and God. Okay. But if a woman comes forward and she says, Yes, my husband is right, then she's stoned to death if she accepts if she accepts, okay, so now, this is again a very exceptional circumstance.
And this point in itself refutes those people who claim that
the testimony of a woman is
half of man's in Islam. That's not true. Because you just quoted a point in the Koran, where the testimony of a woman is absolutely equal to the testimony of man in an Islamic court. Can I go to some other people if you don't mind? Because you
Okay, then you have to we have to be fair if there are any more questions. Okay, that's the straw and then I'll come back to you. Definitely you.
Okay, there are things that Dan, thank you so much for that question. There are things or there were things in the previous scriptures and previous
which were allowed by God Almighty, for example, we read the story of Joseph in the Quran, whereby his father, mother and his 11 brothers were buying to him.
And then Quran tells us that when Adam was created, God commanded the angels to bow to him. And this bowing was the bowing of respect is called such that as me in Arabic, it was allowed for those people in the past, okay? But then Islam abrogated all these rules. Now people can no longer bow to anyone, even for respect is haram utterly haram and is considered worship in Islam. Now, if you bow to someone, or if it's an act of worship to someone else, okay, then it's utterly Haram. Someone is really enthusiastic to talk to me. Okay, so let me put them to rest.
for this reason, Son of God was a term which was used by the Jews, okay, in the first century, and Jesus appears to have conceded to it, but now Islam came and Islam. The Quran was revealed in the Quran states that no fun for God, no daughter for God, like the Arabs are claiming the angels of the daughters of God and the Christians are claiming the Jesus Son of God, no, none of these confusions anymore. Everything straightforward, clean, clean slate, and this is what the Quran says, you cannot refer to anyone else now as the Son of God, because this is where the Christians got confused. Now, there were two groups of Christian in the fourth century. Okay, one group was arguing that Jesus is
actually physically be gotten by God Almighty. Okay. The other thing No, no, no, no, this
term we got Are you punished? concerning? So this is prejudice.
Okay, so this big auction was not in the physical sense. It was metaphorical or spiritual sense. Okay. So this debate actually did exist in the fourth century among Christians, so called on this simply says, Don't say it doesn't exist anymore. Okay.
Is that Is this another question? Same question. Okay.
We're on chapter three, verse 59.
We can because the Christians totally reject and ignore the first century do that context
of the term Son of God. What did this term mean to the Jews in the first century, Son of God, in the first century, when Jesus was alive, literally, simply meant a man of God, a prophet of God, or a messenger of God, depending on depending on what the status and the context is of the situation, okay. But the Christians, they reject that context altogether. Most Christians believe you mean most Christians on the face of the earth, like most Muslims, don't know the history. Most Muslims don't know the history. Unfortunately, most Christians simply go to the church and take the Bible. The gospel was revealed by God, we read it simple. But when you go and scrutinize the history of the
Bible and the Quran, to be fair with both scriptures, you see two different realities. Sir.
Are you trying to say that the only begotten Son of God the Only Begotten means is in Greek?
Do you want to say that that was normal, the first century Jews to call themselves the only begotten Son of God? If so, then why is Jesus the only character in the Bible
It's called the only begotten Son of God. He's the only character in the entire Bible. And also we don't find any records of any other Jews in the first century or in the second century in the third century calling themselves the Only Begotten sons of God. Thank you.
It's in the book of Psalms. David was referred to as the only begotten Son of God. Are you? Are you aware of that?
Isn't the song?
No, you and today I've gotten the
Yes, I'll find I'll find for your camera. Sorry. Okay. It will get the reference right now. It's in the book of Psalms.
Begotten Son of God. Okay. And today I'll be gotten the, it was referred to it was this term was used for David. Okay.
Yes, yes, yes. Okay. It was used for David. And, and if the, if the New Testament uses this term, my contention would be the New Testament is not what Jesus preaching. New Testament is what those authors were preaching. But what the way those authors understood the life of Jesus Christ. It may be right, it may be wrong, how do we know they were right? How do we even know they were wrong? Okay, so we have to see them. According to the history, we have to weigh these records against the history of the first century. And then we see whether we can understand these terms or these expressions these authors used, and that time in the 21st century in a loosens, or should we
consider the first century that context to and when we do we see a different reality altogether. This is a very, very technical and important point is the Christian majority of them, unfortunately, missed altogether. Okay, they reject, and they turn a blind eye to the first history of first century do that context to all the terms used in the first century against or for Jesus Christ.
Last few questions. time has run out.
Are you sure?
You don't have to stand out.
Okay, thank you. Very quickly, I'll try to take as many as possible in the last three, four minutes. Yes.
Okay, sorry. I have to go back to the lady because I just answer your question. You have many questions. We can talk outside as I'm happy to talk. No problem.
someone said young, okay.
Okay, that's not a problem, because in those cultures, it was an established practice.
Up to the year 1886, up to the year 1886. In the 19th century, the age of consent was 12. In England here, right here, where I stand right now, the age of marriage, the legal age of marriage.
Sounds to seven. Okay.
And we'll come back to it in a minute. Okay. So up to the age of consent, age of consent was 12. In England, and William Blackstone, who wrote a book on the law of England in the 18th century, he stated that
the age of consent is 12. However, the marriage of a minor, the marriage of a minor, someone below the age of 12, is imperfect, but valid, is valid, legally is valid. So you could be 910 11 get married to a man, and the marriage would be considered legal. According to the law of England, this is in the 19th century. Today, even right now, as we speak, there are countries where you will find the age of consent is 1214. And then if you go back to the canon law, Christian canon law, the Catholic Church, canon law, you will see the age of consent, there was 12, and some in some cases, 10. Okay, so it's not a problem. So simply the lack of knowledge when the Muslims they face this
question, they just go, Oh, my God, okay. And because we're living in the 21st century, one cannot imagine such a young, you know, girl getting married to a man at that age, because we living in the 21st century, here, we have to be 25 or go around the world first. And, you know, take different lands and different people and then get married at the age of 30 or 35. And then that's normal marriage. That's not the way Islam sees Islamic law is a totally different entity, and a totally different reality to liberal, secular laws in the West. Okay. Our perspective, our view is that when a woman when a girl is showing signs of womanhood, it's a very technical point here. When she shows
signs of womanhood, she's ready for marriage. Whether she has reached the age of puberty or not, is not important. He if she saw show signs of womanhood, and she shows signs of physical
capability of having a relationship. That's it. And who determines that? Who decides that the mother and the father? The parents in Islam? Okay, so why do you find 11 years old girls and 10 years old girls here getting pregnant? In the UK here, here pushing pushing times I've seen girls youngest 1112 and 13 getting pregnant and having children here. Okay. Because the girls have already, you know, the reality, the physical reality and natural reality is, there was a case in the year 2007, a judge gave community service to a man who was 20, who had a relationship with a 10 year old girl. Okay. And the court judge, he gave him community service, which was kind of very lenient sentence,
and the people have been crazy. Are you crazy? This guy was a pedophile. But the judge said, because the man when he was interviewed, he said, this girl when she came to me, she said she was 16. And the judge when he saw the girl, he said, Indeed, she looks 16. Okay. And, and he said, he said, a man she wanted, these are the words of judge this judge. He said a man she wanted a man she got. Okay. So that's why the the sentence was, was quite a lot. So the guy as far as he was concerned, he was 16. So, again, there are things people very often neglect natural, physical reality of different people in different places, and laws and legal things and traditions. So we have to take all of
these things into consideration. And it's very easy to understand. Okay.
Yes, him first and then you and then you.
Okay, thank you.
you seem to refer to them when you're trying to disprove
something that's false or something from an invalid source to try and good point. Thank you. And you see, the inconsistency in my approach is not inconsistent. What the reason why I'm using these scriptures to prove the very point with the fourth century arion Christians are trying to prove is because it is the text of the Bible and the or the New Testament is authoritative for Christians, not for me. I've studied the history of these documents, thoroughly a student of the Bible, okay, and I have studied with an open heart and an open mind, okay? And because you see it as the Word of God, okay, I don't know what your feelings are today after today's lecture, but you use it as the
Word of God. That's why I present the case to you from your authoritative sources. Okay. So if I presented the Quran to you, you would say Quran I don't even believe in it. I don't even know the Quran. I don't know, Mama. Okay, I know the Bible. So for that reason, I present my case from the Bible, give you some of the verses, which were used by early fourth century Christians to fight the case against the binaries and trinitarians because there were two kind of Christian binaries and trinitarians. There were those who believe that God the Father and God, the Son of God, and only fear didn't exist in the equation, okay. Then they were trinitarians. Later on, the Holy Spirit was
also added. Okay. So these Unitarian Christians who said, Father alone is God. And he's one being in one person. They are the ones who were using all these passages, according to you, if you go to the writings of the early church fathers, and see how they dealt with these divisions and arguments proposed against their position, you will see all of these verses quoted, so I'm not doing anything wrong. My approach is quite consistent. I'm making exactly the same case which they were making in the fourth century, the you the binary and those who believe that Jesus is God are wrong because of these passages in the in the Scripture, and father is greater than I was one of the biggest
problems. One of the biggest problems. Okay, then another passage, and the gospel of john chapter 17, verse three, that Father alone is the only true God. He is the only true God Morehouse and Latinos. This was a big problem for the fourth century by Unitarians or trinitarians. This passage in the Bible and the Unitarians are using it against them, and they were in majority. Next question, please. I hope that answers your question.
entity is comprised of Mary and Jesus and God knows, Jews called Allah. So just to
be sure, I said that Christians have methylation and also capital sector, Judaism
the Jews, our Christian
so when those Christians talk
Yes. Okay. There are two things here first Firstly,
what was the first point?
Yes, yes. The Quran doesn't say anywhere that Jesus and Mary and the Father are Trinity. It doesn't say that at all. No, it doesn't. Even indirectly Quran doesn't suggest that what the Quran says in chapter five, verse 116, and 17 and 17, that Jesus on the day of judgment will be asked this question. Okay. Now, the immediate audience, the immediate Christians, Muslims are facing in the seventh century, when they took Persia and buys, buys, buys and T Byzantium or the Byzantine lands in Syria and in Egypt, they were all Christians and Byzantines were child sidonians. You know, the Council of childhood on the 451. And one of the findings of the Council of chalcedon was what? Mary
is the mother of God. Theater costs, okay.
Theater costs here to talk. How do you pronounce it? Still tacos with your tacos? Okay, okay.
Okay, so she is the mother of God. Now. This is the point where the Quran is trying to address that Jesus on the day of judgment will be asked by God Almighty, that did you tell your people to worship you and your mother, as Gods beside Allah. Okay, Allah hain. Now the word the term Ilaha in Islam in the Quran is used in a very specific context. Li Li is someone you venerate, you pray to. Okay. And you worship. Okay. Prayer is worship in Islam. Okay. So, Catholics To this day, Catholics to this day they pray to me.
Right, I understand that. I understand that. But there are Christians, right now as we speak in Syria. They do consider married as God as well. Okay, there are Christians that are sects of Christianity in Syria, they refer to so whether Quran is referring to the Catholics or both Christians or whichever Christians, the term the very term, the mother of God is offensive to God. You're giving God a mother. Okay? It's very, very offensive. So God Almighty, what the Quran does, Quran uses comprehensive formulas to deal with many different problems, many different issues within the Christian theology. For example, when the Quran says, say that
the Quran doesn't go into as to how the Christians understand the doctrine of the Trinity. The Quran doesn't want to go into Houma, OCS hypostases and the Son and the Father and the Spirit or Mary or, or angels, because, you know, the doctrine of the Trinity. It came in many different shapes and forms as well. among Christians, yes, yes, yes. Yes. There were Christians who didn't actually believe in the Trinity. Majority of the Christians believe in today. They had a different Trinity. And sorry, they This was there was a group of Christians called
the mind. Sorry, no, no.
Okay, I'm not sure. There you go. That's, that's one case. But I'm talking about I'm thinking of another group.
I totally forgot about this group. There's a term they have a name it was a Christian sect, which worship Mary. Okay, as part of the Trinity, okay, with the Quran is not saying that anyway, Quran is not saying the Mary is part of the Trinity. Quran is simply saying those who worship Mary are simply blasphemy. Okay, in whatever shape or form you're worshiping her. It is blasphemy. As Same goes for Jesus Christ. Yeah.
Yeah, that's the one. That's the one I just explained. Yeah. Allah hain. That term in Arabic is Allah when Allah hain is someone you've ilaha illa He is someone you pray to someone you venerate, or someone you worship. So it's a very general open term.
Oh, there the sun, okay. Again, this is here. It's a it's a theological point God is addressing the Jews believe that Hosea is the Son of God in the very first century today context. You see the first century that there wasn't one Son of God, even Jesus in His in the gospels, he says that you are all sons of God.
You know that he is there, okay.
The Quran is making a general point that every single time
Jews had someone of high status, someone important in the history, they will refer to him as Son of God. So the Jews, the position and the status of their Israel is very special in Jewish history. Why? Coming back from the exile, Babylonian exile, put down the Torah, the Pentateuch, again, it was done by him. So he's seen as the father of the revival of Jewish tradition, in the sixth century BC was Islam. So the Jews refer to him as a very important person. And it's not a big problem if they refer to him as the Son of God. There are so many sons of God in the Bible in that sense, so it's not a big problem.
Okay? The comparison is not ontological here. The comparison doesn't here state that both are exactly the same sons of God, or kill the both are considered. Quran knows that fact because the Quran deals with the Jewish children in other places as well. Quran knows that the Jews never worshipped, obey, or their Jesus do right. So Christians do Christians worship Jesus Christ, the Quran deals with that point, specifically, la kotkapura la Vina called in Allah who will mercy. Those of blastomere who say that Jesus Christ, the son of me, is God. karandi is that point? chapter five, verse 72. But Quran doesn't say anything like that about the Jews, that those are blastemal
who say that, oh, there is the Son of God is God. So Quran makes that distinction. You understand? So Quran is not saying that ontologically Hosea and us are equal No. in their own context, the Jews when they say there is the Son of God are wrong, and the Christian in their own context when they say that Jesus is the Son of God or wrong period.
Because then again, to avoid then to avoid that confusion with the Christians out in the fourth century, one group is saying that he's literally the gardens of God, he was begotten. Okay, the other group is saying, No, no, no metaphorical spiritual, to avoid all of these confusions for the future generations. God is saying no more sons of God, period. God doesn't have sons, in whatever sense you want to call them sons. He doesn't have sons. So have no confusions pure, strict, clear monotheism, God is one he's alone is absolute, and he's unique. Don't have any confusions. He's one person being everything is one.
God who Allah Allahu Allah Samad lamea lindwall I'm unit one on yaku wanna say God is one he's absolute, an eternal, he did not beget nor was he begotten and there is no one like him. Period four verses. That's what God is.
Sorry, sorry, man. Sorry.
We Okay, we believe in
everything in the Bible, as far as it's in conformity with the Koran. Wait, let me explain our view our yardstick is the Quran. So how do we know what's the truth in the Bible, in the Genesis or in the book of Revelation from Genesis to Revelation? Our yardstick is the Quran. If any teaching in the Bible is in conformity with the text of the Quran, which is definitely from God as we believe as Muslims, then we accept it and if it's an alien idea if it's something which was added later on, or it doesn't conform with the the teachings of the Quran, we don't accept it or reject it.
Not in the not the way it was put in Genesis, for example, in Genesis, we are told that God he, he made the heavens and earth in six days and on the seventh day he rested. Okay, yes, the Quran tells us he doesn't need to rest. He doesn't interest while all you need to know which Allahu La ilaha illallah wa Yoku, la una tanana, he doesn't sleep and he doesn't feel tired. So the Quran corrects the book of Genesis here as well, that you're wrong. If you think God needs to rest, he doesn't rest he doesn't get tired. He's omnipotent. He's the most powerful being
okay, this us is the US of Majesty is in the Quran as well in
the Quran, Allah Allah has to do we have revealed the Scripture and we will guard it against corruption in Semitic languages. The US of Majesty is us and the US of plural is released to these two us are distinct. Okay. One us is the US of majesty. And the other us is the US of plural. So in Semitic languages in Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic. This is what you will find, okay? Even when the Queen You know, when she's talking to us, you know, and, you know, so so this is us three.
But, but in Semitic languages, it's very clear that this is using the Quran. We don't say the god consists of plural pronouns.
These are a number of personalities. It's in the Quran. So that act is an act of majesty not an act of plurality. I hope that answers your question. Are you satisfied? Okay, thank you. Yes, please.
However, my question written down about
three or three parts you can ask me.
Yeah, no problem.
So, you said that before the Council of Nicea in 325, the teaching of trainings It was not really formulated as a as it individually. Sure, sure.
According to modern scholars like
he's wrong. Yes, it is wrong. Like
he's a professor of last year. I know Larry Hurtado, yes.
Can we can we go step by step? Yes. Larry Hurtado in his article on calls in his books.
Lord Jesus Christ.
I'm going to give you a reference from Larry Hurtado. In an article he wrote in the Cambridge companion to Paul, okay. He wrote an article on the Christology of Paul and he Derry asserts that Paul was buying material.
Yes, so so I my point is valid Yeah.
In the divinity of Jesus and actually worshiping Jesus.
That's a good point. But then there is another scholar. His name is James BG dung. Have you heard of him? Yes. Okay, Dan wrote a book to refute Hurtado and bolcom is a Balkan. Yeah, he wrote a book to refute both of these
conservative scholars to
point problems in the arguments. And the book done road is titled, did the early Christians worship Jesus Christ? Okay, have you read the book?
No, it's written by James digital. It was published in the year 2010. It's not a big book is it's about 200 pages. And it's a very, very good book. And in the conclusion, Dame James dg done he states having studied all the evidence presented by Hurtado and bolcom that the Christians today effectively have become Jesus old truths. Okay. You know, idolaters, the term idolatrous he coined a new term now for Christians. Jesus, Allah says he is himself as a Christian. James Digi, Dan is one of the leading scholars in patristic history in the world, not only in the UK in the world, is one of the most respected scholars in the Christian world. Okay. And he doesn't believe Jesus Christ was
God. And his studies, extensive studies led him to believe that Okay, so let me then come back to you.
Yes, okay. Let me let me quickly deal with this point. So atado. So we, if you go to James v DOM, he deals with every single point, one by one raised by atod, on Vulcan, and he refused them, in my humble opinion, successfully conclusively. And he says the Jesus, Christians today have effectively become these auditors what they have done, they have removed God the Father from the picture to whom Jesus Himself prayed, and the Jews prayed. God the Father is missing from the picture now, and the Christians whenever they pray, they pray to Jesus Christ. So they center of devotion, this is what he's saying. I'm not saying that he's right or wrong. I mean, this is what his study led him to
believe that the center of Christian devotion now is Jesus Christ, not God the Father, so they have effectively become Jesus orators, because they removed God the Father from the picture, and he refused a title and other scholars in this regard, carry on please.
Anyway, so you refer to
the first century, and you call them Muslims. Believe for exactly what the Muslims believe in you actually rejected the virgin birth. And they also called Jesus the Son of God. They believe that he became the Son of God after the baptism and the oath of but he also believed in his crucifixion and resurrection.
How can you really call them Muslims? They believe in all those things. Besides they rejected all of the Gospels. They were never part of the church. They were never part of the Christian community.
rejected by all Christians.
Hold on. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
These are too many points every single point I'll deal with no. Okay, every night, every night. First of all, there were two groups of urbanites. One group believed in the crucifix in the in his virgin birth. others didn't. Okay, that's clearly testified to by origin. The second third century church father, this is very, very clear origin stated that every Knights have two views on virgin birth. One group of urbanites believe in that and the others don't. Okay, then when it comes to crucifixion, that wasn't a big problem of big
benefit to them anyway, because they follow the Jewish law and they rejected Paul's version of crucifixion as a condiment for the sins. Okay, so they follow the Jewish law every night. And they believe that Jesus Christ was a messenger of God, a prophet of God. And in that sense, the when it when they use the term Son of God to explain or describe Jesus Christ, this is what they meant in the first century do that context. So Quran wasn't revealed yet for the evidence to follow. I am very sure that the Quran was revealed at the time of the urbanites, they would have wholeheartedly accepted the Quran, but they are still believing in what they are, what they have at their disposal.
Okay, so they're trying to make sense of the situation of Jesus Christ and all the reports they had at their disposal. So it's not a big problem. So
are you going to order 21 questions? Okay.
Then the second group
areas, yes, the father areas, the bishop.
Well, you said that they believe that he was adopted, and they meant the fit his physical birth of the Virgin Mary. However, the ariens actually believed that Jesus was the first creation and that he was also taking part in the creation so that he was created before the creation of the world. Okay. So obviously, they did not when they call them that the only begotten Son of God, they did not think that
he only started he came to respond to this pretty quickly. Okay, first of all, about ariens we have nothing, nothing whatsoever from ariens except few fragments of a man called Phyllis Trojans from the fourth century, who gives us the area and perspective, every single thing we know of aliens comes from the enemy. Okay, what you just quoted come from Atlantis, his because he wrote a refutation of ariens. Okay? Likewise, every knights, we don't know anything about every knights and even the gospel urbanites was the gospel of nazarenes, or the gospel, they were reading. And some scholars assert that this is the Gospel of Matthew, what they were reading was the Gospel of
Matthew. Okay, so again, so the point is ariens. And what we know about them today comes from the enemy, not from themselves. So we simply have to take every single piece of information with a pinch of salt. And even if they believe that Jesus was a first creation, that in itself was a point in the favor of this thing, because he was a creation, cause he was created, he cannot be God. That was the point that I mentioned. And I'm not saying you're in the right, in everything they believed in. No, no, no, what I'm saying is they were not trinitarians. They were Unitarians. Because they believe Jesus was created. Hence, he had the beginning. And God does not have a beginning. This was the most
powerful point they had in this trigger. And I'm going to get though,
was about whether Jesus was of a similar
with God, or of the same as
before in the area is believed that Jesus was of a similar essence. Yes, that's what believe that was that famous argument? No, no, no.
This is a mistake.
Let's go outside and talk.
I think we live
in the Bible, Doubting Thomas comes up to Jesus. And he says, My Lord, and my god in Greek property are small guys, oh,
My Lord and my God. And he said that to him, not drained out of
them. So he addresses Jesus. And when Jesus hears that, he says, You have seen me and that's why you have believed Blessed are those who will not see me and yet they will believe. Okay, so that was his reaction to Thomas's confession of faith.
And that verse is found in all types of New Testament manuscripts. Okay. That's a very good point. Thank you so much for making that point. Very quickly. To address this point. There are two points. There are two things you have to consider. First of all,
Almost all scholars on the gospel of john, who wrote commentaries on the gospel of john, even conservative scholars, even if you don't call them fundamentalist, or evangelical scholars, they all conceded that the gospel of john was written by at least two people. There is a doctor involved. Do you know about this?
Well, this there's a genetic, there's a consensus on this point. Okay. There is at least another hand involved in the Gospel of john. And some scholars assert that the prologue, and the end was added by this hand, and there were other chapter five, some words in chapter six, some verses and they were added by the reduction.
That's something chapter 20, verse 28, is the end is right near the end, okay. And this is what you have to learn the gospel of john amazingly, ends with an assertion that Jesus was the Son of God, not God. If Thomas in chapter 28, verse 28, was 20 is calling Jesus God, Lord, then the gospel of john surely should have ended with a statement that Jesus our Lord God, but it states These are not the Son of God. Okay.
Is that clear? So the conclusion goes against what Thomas said. Second point, Thomas, we don't know in what context and how he said it. If he said it, if he ever said it. We don't know whether it was sent by Thomas or not whether it was added by a redactor. Like the prologue, in the beginning of the Word, the Word was God and word itself was God. scholar. Some scholars believe this was added later on into the, into the prologue, this is written by someone else, not john. Okay. We don't even know who wrote the gospel of john. We don't even know that. Whether is the it was john the son of Zebedee, or john the son, john of Ephesus. Do you know? Yes, but there is a consensus that it was
written by an eyewitness.
Okay, do we know what john wrote? it? Doesn't matter? No, yes. No, it doesn't matter.
It does. It doesn't matter. Because if we don't know who wrote it, how do we even claim that it was written by a witness?
But then it's actually very true john with john is john the son of Ephesus, or john? Sorry, john of Ephesus, or john the son of Zebedee. Which one is it?
Which one because there are two.
What? You see, again, this is this is this is one of the problems, how can we even claim that this is not God? When we don't even know who wrote it? How can we even claim that it was inspired? How can we even claim that when we know there were two people writing the same Gospel to at least two hands? Before the manuscripts, you you mentioned the manuscript that it can be found in old manuscripts. Before that stage, two hands were involved.
And the list goes on and on and on. And you will you and I will be here for another 24 hours. If you continue like this. Thank you so much. Let's talk outside. Thank you so much.
the excellent talk. Very informative. And
we do have to remind you that we packed for live events in childhood love the talks going on, while on Wednesday at 145. Recorded in New Life, electric theater is the sherea the solution to the world's problems, and then got one on Thursday at the same time in the same lecture theatre, entitled The greatest man who ever lived with a question mark,
focusing on the Prophet Mohammed. So we welcome everyone to come and we invite you to come and have more dialogue in these in some of these events. Thanks, everyone, for coming.