Mohammed Hijab – My Debate Confessions – I’ve Been a Bad Man

			Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh how are you guys doing a quick one. Actually, this is not
going to be a quick one because I'm going to do a quick review before I do so, hijab 10. And you get
10% of these premium black seed products. Another thing I wanted to say was, in addition to this
		

			100 Hamdulillah, you guys have been able to raise money, 55,000 pounds for a life village, which
will have
		

			amazing economic benefits for this village, which can now I mean, you don't understand how amazing
this is because people in Ghana now in tamale, they'll be able to educate themselves and to do all
these things. You can get school built with that money, we're going to have a mechanical borehole,
boreholes, and so on. All of that installed in the area. What I wanted to speak to you guys about
today, it was my five years is half a decade now. And the debates I've done, I've done many informal
debates, but I've done six, six formal ones, major formal ones. Yeah. Obviously, the main one that I
done with the most views and the most controversy was the one with David Wood. That's one debate and
		

			done a debate with with. I'm not I'm not an order here, but I've done a bit of law school on
liberalism, I don't debate with Edward tabash on atheism. I've done a debate with
		

			a Shiite debate. I forget the guy's name, actually. But he was one of the shy people, Melissa. And
I've done two of those, actually, which I would consider to formal debates with this year. And
obviously the one with cosmic skeptic as well. So these are six debates in Oxford University, hosted
by the forum at Oxford University for so these are the six major debates had done in the five years.
Other than that, you know, obviously, I've done a lot of informal stuff. And what I wanted to put to
you is that there's a recurring trend as to what happens usually after these debates, these debates,
if you add them together, we're talking about 10s of millions of views. Yeah, not just on my
		

			channel, but on whoever's channel that they went on.
		

			And they were translated into many languages, many of them have been translated into many languages.
So we're talking about audiences from across the world. Yeah.
		

			And my own personal experience with them is that a lot of people have actually converted to Islam
from them. And that's not just me saying this, I can provide evidence as if one want me to look into
my inboxes. And I've become Muslim after watching the David Wood debate, etc. That has happened.
Okay. A lot of people have from the Muslim community, obviously have
		

			with especially the David would debate have felt Okay, they had some doubts, which were then
dismissed. And, and so these are some of the positives. But in terms of from the other side, what
are some of the recurring themes that we find from the other side, some of the recurring themes
relate to my demeanor, how I actually interrogate my opponent, how I actually deal with my opponent.
Now,
		

			most people will not deal with my arguments. Because if you think about all of the arguments I've
ever put forward in public debates, yeah.
		

			When there's a controversial backlash, it's not usually on what I am putting forward in terms of
content. Like, for example, with the David Wood debate, I made three arguments, one from Scripture,
one from rationality, and one from history, that the Trinity was a historical development, that it
wasn't something which was there from the very beginning and over 300 years, it was developed. That
was my argument. And that it rationally, it doesn't make sense. That was another part of the
scripturally. It's not something which is naturally inferred from the plain reading of the text.
That's something else I said.
		

			And these three arguments interlinked, whereas the post debate backlash on the arguments that I
made, there isn't really much I'll be honest with you, there isn't much. There's usually an attack
on how I dealt with David Wood. I'm very Oh, he's very obnoxious is very bad man is very, okay.
Okay, no problem. I haven't got a problem being labeled a bad man, and the hypocrite and dishonest
and obnoxious. Let me just put that out there for you guys. I'm very happy that you guys have to do
that. Because
		

			at the end of the day, that's not an that's not an argument against my argument. That's not a
counter argument. Same thing now, with tabash. And law school, by the way, I have a very cordial
relationship, especially with Edward tabish. I still speak to him on emails, there wasn't really
much of an issue. And he did attempt in his debate to deal with my arguments. He did attempt to deal
with the actual argument. The argument I usually put forward to atheists is a contingency argument.
I've written a book about it. And, you know, I feel confident about that argument. I feel it's a
strong argument. So I put the argument forward. And that wasn't refuted. Sorry, that was attempted
		

			to be refuted, but I don't think it was successfully reviewed. So with with law school, the
liberalism thing was a back and forth. And actually, if you think about that debate with law school,
on liberalism, there was actually agreement on that debate that liberalism is based on axiomatic
presuppositions, therefore it can't be used as in you know, a
		

			It cannot be used as a kind of barometer for all kinds of morality and so on and so forth. Yeah. My
two other debates now with the Shia have a straightforward argument that the two debates of the Shia
was the same argument that all of the all of the in the foundations of the religion are found in the
Quran. Like for example we have had these would have been the hadith of gibreel you know that we
believe and when I when the professor was asked when a man and took me Malema like Kitty Hawk were
to be heroes Allah who were Yamanaka ricotta Hideyoshi, that you believe in Allah and the messengers
and, and you know, the books and the angels, and these are the we call the pillars of men of Islam.
		

			My argument was, okay, we have the all of the pillars of Islam of a man in the Quran, but we don't
have a madman Quran. And he explicitly stated Anyway, you know, so you have to try and infer it or
try and squeeze it in trying to do an Icee. Jesus, that was the argument. So was the argument
refuted? No, it wasn't, and it continues to be made. And the argument was made twice. And you know,
if I have a CSI again, and I just debate them with about this, I probably make the same argument
because why should I fix something which is not broken? I might phrase it differently or something.
But I think it's a very strong argument.
		

			My debate was, was was skeptic was the same thing. I put for the contingency argument in terms of
the backlash I got. You're just honest, man. You're bad man. You're you. You stop the comments. You
know, you misrepresented me. You misquoted me. Okay, let's grant for the sake of argument that I did
all of those things. Okay. I'm a bad man. I'm dishonest. I'm a hypocrite. I'm a thug. I'm violent.
And all of those bad things, which by the way on your morality cannot be described as bad. It's just
all of those characteristics, from your perspective can't be bad. Because on what On what basis? Is
it bad, but all of those things, right? I'm a thug. I'm all of those things. I'm yeah.
		

			Okay, but what happened to my contingency argument? What happened to my argument for Islam being the
truth? What happened to the arguments that I put forward for you? Because at the end of the day, I
didn't get any from from all of the reactions I've gotten. I didn't get one hour, his argument was
wrong. Even when, when when he tried to, in his post debate,
		

			commentary tried to refute me on points of difference on the logical forms of the organs of P, if p
entails Q, and p is true, and Q must be true. And I said no. So yeah, obviously, it's if that form
is correct. Yeah. And he said, You're inconsistent. Okay. Even if I wasn't consistent there. For the
sake of argument, let's I was inconsistent, no problem. How does that disturb my contingency
argument?
		

			Because we misunderstood each other on that point, that was the only substance based thing that you
said, in your in your post debate, discussion? How does that disturb my, my main contention, just to
remind everyone of what the contingency argument is, because I think it's very important, you know,
		

			is that there can't be a world of just possible existences.
		

			And possible existence is not just one thing, possible existence is not just a find is something
that can be any other way. It's also something which is dependent IE reliant on something else in
order to exist. So these two definitions must be put together in order for you to understand what
monkey will dude, all possible existence is it's not just something which could have been any other
way. But it's something which is dependent. So let me put this straightforwardly for for anyone to
understand for any atheist, me, because I think what's been lost in translation here is the actual
argument too much. That being said, Oh, you said she said he said, You're a bad man. dishonest. You
		

			know what? Okay, I'm a bad man. Pretend I'm a bad man. I'm a bad man. I for the sake of argument, I
agree. I know even for the sake of argument, I don't consider myself a good man. Yeah, I don't I
actually don't i don't have a high
		

			regard for I don't think I'm not a bastion of impeccable virtue and character. I'm not saying that
this is the representation and archetype. No, we say that that's Prophet Muhammad wa sallam anyway.
So I don't I don't have any moral obligation to be a good man to anyone. Yeah, but my arguments are
my arguments. So what is the argument? The argument is that dependent things cannot depend upon
dependent things ad infinitum. That's the argument.
		

			Because if you have dependent things dependent upon dependent things, ad infinitum, okay, then you
have in this analogy, like dominoes falling upon each other. So let me give you another analogy,
right.
		

			If you go to the sea, if you go to the sea,
		

			you and I will be justified in believing that the sea has a sea floor. Yeah, we will both be
justified in believing that the sea has a sea floor. But why would we be justified in believing that
having not seen the sea floor itself? we infer that from the fact that our mind, yes.
		

			Almost intuitively, realizes that there can't be just water, balancing upon itself an infinite
infinitely there.
		

			Must be some kind of foundation here, right? So we say the same thing applies with existence in the
context of existence, in the context of existence. Everything that exists, that we can see and feel
and have experience with is dependent. So this this teacher is dependent, is this camera, this phone
is dependent on some kind of charge, and so on and so forth.
		

			This is very important. The argument here is, there cannot be just a world of dependent things
without there being one independent, that holds all the dependent things up. And we call this up in
Quranic terminology, or the maintain of the one who rises everything up.
		

			It's also referred to as a summit, these are all cryonics images. That's our basic definition of
what this is, basically. So the argument is, in order for you to refute my position, you have to
show how it's possible for there to be a world of only dependent things with no independent thing at
all. Okay, because the moment you say this is the independent thing, then you've lost your atheism.
You're no longer an atheist, you've become at least a deist. you've entered in to I'm not saying
this is all what God is, by the way. Yeah, I'm not saying oh, God is only the independent one,
though. We have so many things, so many attributes of God, which can be understood ipso facto
		

			through Quranic understanding, but that's beside the point. So the argument has not been refuted,
I'm afraid. The argument has not been revealed. There has been no, in fact, what makes me really
upset with my final debate is that there has not been even an effort to refute the argument. There's
been more of an effort to refute me, oh, you're dishonest, man. There's a misrepresentation. You
know, you're Batman. Okay. All of those things are fine. I know, you're gonna say that. Yeah, you
can call me whatever you want. But my argument is robust. And you know, what, it's not my argument.
The reason why it's so robust, is because it's been persistent throughout the ages. This argument is
		

			one that's been made throughout the Hellenistic period, throughout the medieval period into the
Enlightenment period. And currently made for you know, in popular academics, so it's something and
this is in an Eastern academic tradition, and Western academics. This is something which is
effectively irrefutable. So the argument has not been refuted. atheism hasn't got a leg to stand on.
Yeah, you misrepresented me. You're a bad man, you're blocking the comments, hold comments for
review. Okay. All those things. I agree I do, I do want to make this review. Because you know why?
Because when I see a lot of people coming in, and start saying, your profit is a p word, you're this
		

			and that. And I can't delete all of that. I'm on the go. And this and that. So what I say what, I'm
going to hold it for review, I've got some people that are managing my admin say, look, if the if
the comments are conducive, put them through if they don't do something, you know, do what you want
with them. I believe them or delete them. So yeah, we don't need we have no obligation to allow you
to insult us. I'm sorry. And if you think we do, yes, because you have your religion, I have mine,
you have your way I have my way. But so just to kind of finalize this. Yeah, the six major debates
that I've done, and the three major books I've written, I'm sorry to say all of them have. The main
		

			arguments I've made throughout my works, either in formal debates, or my books have not been
refuted. And it's not because I'm very clever. And it's not because I'm clever. I'm just standing on
the shoulders of giants. I'm taking examples, and arguments which have been made historically, and
continue to be made. Now, for millennia. For millennia, these arguments have been made for 1000s of
years. So all I'm doing is presenting them to you. I don't expect you to be able to deal with them,
because no one has been able to deal with them before you do you get it. But at least have the
integrity and decency to try and challenge you. Try and change the arguments. Okay, you know what, I
		

			might not agree with Muhammad hijab. He's a bad man, blah, blah, blah. However, his arguments, deal
with the arguments. Stop dealing with me, you okay? I'm a bad man, you won. I'm a bad man. I you
know, I put my hands up. I'm a very bad man. I don't even want you to think of me as a good man,
your wife, as the Arabic poet said.
		

			Clearly lay a smell almost enough attune to it later on Tila that even about a lot. I say bad
things, you'll be able to see this. about Allah. So about God Himself. Obviously, you're an atheist
here watching this stuff. No, probably don't believe in God. But for us, God is the be all and end
all. Yeah. For us. God is he is the axiom axiom. Or the the I feel like the the light that makes
everything else possible to see. So if you're going to say, if you're going to belie God, then by
virtue of that fact, you're going to be like human beings who call to his way. Yeah, or promote God
in any way. So it makes sense, right? No problem. Do so this is my last message. I've got published
		

			works. I've got six debates. If someone is serious about wanting to to refute me. Yeah. It's been
watched 10s of millions of times, all of those debates to go on 10s of millions. Yeah. If someone is
serious about wanting to refute me
		

			Then be very serious by making an academic response to the main argument. And let me be very
specific here. If I made mistakes in my presentation, that does not affect be very Be very careful
what I'm saying. If I make mistakes in my presentation, which does not affect the veracity and
robustness of my main argument, you're reviewing those mistakes is not tantamount to you refuting my
argument. That's just you refuting me, my fallibilities, you're just outlining my fallibilities. So
this is my message to everybody. Look, the arguments are there. And you know what? Last thing I want
to put this to everybody here to the atheist community to those who consider themselves liberals to
		

			those things of Shia to all of those who have ever debate.
		

			Here's what I say to you guys.
		

			I want you to remember this.
		

			Yeah, I know you're waiting for me to to engage here. But guess what, screw just, you know.
		

			Yes, yes. What I want to say to you is that when you refuting me, refute me on the basis of
disproving my main argument,
		

			such that we are refutation, I'm telling you, as reviewing your refutation will nullify the
argument. So for example, if I say for 300 years, or for about 300 years, or for X amount of years,
x hasn't happened, or let's say this, use a real example. Or let's say the Trinny, irrationalism
it's not something you can rationalize free and 100. Free. That's my argument. So you have to show
me a way where it is recognizable. David wouldn't do that his his followers didn't do that.
		

			There has been things that are written on it, you know, and academically, but it's not respected.
		

			Outside of krisztian echo chambers. So once again,
		

			atheism, when I say is God, how did we, how did we get here? How did we get here? You said, Okay,
what are the options? I've all came from nothing, or the universe was always here. But what's it
dependent on?
		

			So we go back to a contingency standpoint, you have to give us some kind of rationalize. If you
don't want to, then you have to defeat what we're saying. You don't okay. I'm an agnostic. No,
probably can be an agnostic, but you have to defeat what we're saying. Why is it that the
contingency argument is, for example, there's other arguments, but I'm just giving you this one. Why
is it wrong? Why is it wrong? Why doesn't it work? What do you see the point? So instead, okay.
		

			The polemic when I say okay, well, there's nothing in the Quran about the Imams explicitly, but
there is about this, you have to show Actually, there is something in the Koran, they'll just prove
it straight away. Actually, look at this verse, it says, you know, x,
		

			or your criteria is wrong. And this is why your criteria, so you have to be robust. Yeah. So, in a
nutshell, what I want to bring to the people is, I know it boils the blood of the people who cannot
refute robust arguments to see me do I do? I know it does. And you know, what, if I was on the other
side, I probably have boiled boiled blood as well. And I'd be beating myself up and speaking about
this man's debates, one year, two years, three years, five years after he died. You know, and you
know what, I'm very happy that you do that, because it shows me it's successful. Because if my
database was not successful, you wouldn't even talk about it.
		

			But here's my challenge to all of those people that are against what I believe in. You have to
disprove my main arguments, and they're on the public record, and they're also unwritten form. So it
shouldn't be that difficult. And that's how you're going to show me that I'm not only the I'm wrong,
because I know I'm wrong. Yeah, I'm very bad and wrong, but what I believe in is wrong. And there's
a big difference between the two dishonest man misrepresent this and that you know, problem, but
always what I believe in wrong, you're gonna have to show me the evidence for that was Selam Aleykum
warahmatullahi over against