Mohammed Hijab – Trinity Series #03
AI: Summary ©
The speakers stress the importance of specific tactics and strategies, including embarrassing someone back, embarrassing someone back, and even using rhetoric in a specific situation. They also discuss the need for a culture of "we" and the importance of showing proper behavior and style in conversations. The conversation touches on the concept of "we" and the "wh knowledge" of the concept of the Father and the Son, as well as the potential for conflict between the two. They end with a future series and a video about eschatology and the "wh knowledge" of the concept of the Father and the Son.
AI: Summary ©
As-salamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.
How are you guys doing?
Welcome to the third and final session of
the Trinity but more specifically actually this is
going to be an interactive session where we're
going to be doing some debates and interesting
things together.
I want to start this session in a,
you can call it unconventional manner by talking
about debates in general, debates in general.
Not talking about whether we should be doing
or not.
I think we've passed that stage.
Of course debates can be sometimes detrimental.
For example if you're doing them with your
wife, if you're doing them with people that
you shouldn't be doing them with.
But sometimes debates can be useful which is
why, for example from my perspective, we mentioned
the Qur'an.
وَجَدِّلْهُمْ بِالَّتِي أَحْسَنُ And debate with them in
a way that is better.
But I really wanted to just think about
debates in a different kind of way because
debates, there's an aspect of debates which is
I would say empirical and more like a
science.
And there's an aspect of debates which is
more like an art.
And everyone here, if you want to get
into this, we have a world class debater
in the audience as well.
We've got Sabur Ahmed who's been involved in
no less than 200-300 informal debates and
multiple professional and formal debates.
So he's going to be in the room
too and I'm looking for your contributions in
this matter.
But debates, I don't know if you would
agree with this Sabur, but I think there's
an aspect of it which is more scientific
or more like a science and more an
aspect of it which is more like an
art.
Which brings me to, I'm going to call
this the general template.
The general template.
And there's two things I want to cover
before we get started.
The general template, which is I'm going to
tell you three things you should be thinking
about before you get into any debate.
And number two, rhetoric.
Which is in many ways, you could argue,
in some instances even more important than the
arguments that one can make.
And I'll define that for you and I'll
tell you why that's important.
And then we'll go into some of the
sparring rounds if you like.
You can test out using this template and
using what we talked about.
And also using session one and two, the
arguments that we've already gone through in terms
of the Trinity, as the topic of discussion.
So in terms of the general template, the
way I like to think about it, behind
the scenes a bit like Sabur, a bit
like many other people, when people are doing
high profile debates, this is the template I
give them when we're doing the training with
them.
Number one is, there are three things that
you need to have before you go into
a debate.
Number one is the arguments.
Number one are arguments.
And depending on the format of the debate,
you want to have more arguments or you
want to have less arguments.
I mean, the general rule is, less is
more.
And this is what Sabur always used to
advise me when I used to go into
debates, is less is more.
It's better to make two or three good
arguments that the audience can remember, than to
make six or seven arguments that the audience
will not remember.
Sometimes we think that the more arguments we
make, the more clever we will sound.
But sticking to two or three arguments can
be good.
And connected to the arguments that you make
is the counter-arguments, all the objections that
you're going to be handling.
Because don't think that you're just going to
a debate and the other person, the interlocutor,
is not going to have their own arguments.
So you have this first sub-section, which
you can call it arguments.
And underneath it you have arguments, your own
offensive, if you like, arguments.
And then you have counter-arguments or objection
handling.
So these are the two aspects, there's no
other thing.
So the first thing we said was arguments.
The second thing is strategy.
Now a strategy is an overarching way in
which someone achieves a particular objective.
I know Sabur has so much information about
it, he's read all of these guys, the
strategists, and he's become very obsessive about the
matter, and military strategists, and this and that.
But a lot of the same thing applies.
And most military strategists say there's a difference
between number two and three, which is tactics.
There's a difference between strategies and tactics.
And we'll talk about the difference in the
context of the debate, and also in general.
But a strategy is that you have a
plan to get to your destination.
Now let me give you an example of
a strategy.
For example, 11-a-side football.
For example, a counter-attack strategy.
We were just talking about, for example, we
were watching Morocco in the World Cup and
how they were responding.
They kind of understood how to deal with
the bigger teams, like Portugal and Spain and
so on.
So whenever they get the ball, they would
counter.
So you could call this, and many fighters,
we were talking about fighting before this, because
the big fight is coming on the 14th,
that there's a counter-attack strategy.
And many fighters, I was just talking to
Roy Jones Jr., one of the great boxers
of our time, and Carlos was there filming
it as well.
And he said that he would just counter,
so much so that some of his opponents,
because he kept countering, countering, countering, they didn't
want to punch in the first place.
It debilitated them.
So the art of countering is wait for
your opponent to make the argument first.
You stay quiet.
You wait for them to make the first
move.
And then, from whatever they've done and said,
then you respond.
So you're waiting for them.
You kind of know what they're going to
do.
And based on what they've said, you're going
to counter them.
So the thing is, never interrupt your enemy
when they're making a mistake.
So this is number two.
Number three is tactics.
Now tactics are specific ways which you enact
your strategy.
So for example, in a football context, passing
in a particular manner, crossing in a particular
manner, that's not a strategy, that's a tactical
thing.
Or for example, in a debate context, body
language, using particular cues or particular insults, and
we'll get to insults in a second because
you might think, what the * is he
talking about?
People that tell you are ad hominem fallacies
and stuff, throw that in the bin.
Throw that thing in the bin.
Ad hominem fallacies when you attack the person,
sometimes you need to attack the people.
And we'll talk about that, especially in the
art of humiliation.
And this might sound completely off-key, but
there is a time when you need to
humiliate somebody in a debate and that's how
you win.
It's part of the strategy where you may
say, well, that's not my style.
I say, respect to you.
Respect to you.
However, if you need to do it, you
might be at work, you might not even
be in a debate context.
Somebody might be humiliating you, a co-worker
is actually humiliating you.
And the most appropriate response is to humiliate
them back.
And this is in fact what happened in
the Qur'an, where Noah said that if
you try and mock us, we will mock
you as you mock us.
So mockery, there is a place for that
in debates sometimes, there is a place.
Arguable, and some people will remove it completely
from the repertoire, and I appreciate that, but
as I say, debating is more like an
art than it is a science and you
can do what you want with it.
Can I just add something to that here?
Of course, of course.
So a good way of thinking about it
is a strategy is to, for example, put
your opponent in a dilemma where they are
going to make, you're not giving them a
problem to solve.
You're basically telling them it's either going to
be this way or that way.
So for example, you cite a particular academic
and you say to them, well, you need
to prove that this academic that you were
refuting is actually wrong.
Now, if he doesn't attack the academic, you
can say you're a coward.
And if they do attack the academic, you're
basically saying you're taking on an academic, you're
giving them a dilemma.
So that's the strategy.
And the tactic within that is, for example,
use of certain words in a rhetorical way.
So for example, really, you want to attack
that guy?
Like, really?
So always think of it from the perspective
that tactics are kind of dispensable, but the
strategy is indispensable.
And the strategy has to begin off with
how you want the audience to feel about
that person.
Because people don't remember what you say.
They remember how you made them feel and
they remember how you made the opponent look
like.
That's what's most important.
This is a phenomenal point, because it's what
you're saying here that this should be almost
quoted that, you know, tactics are dispensable, but
strategies are indispensable.
This is a very important thing.
Tactics are the most of the three things
that we spoke about, malleable things.
And arguments, on the other hand, and strategies,
they're not that malleable.
You've got to have one strategy of dealing
with the situation, otherwise you're aimless here.
So this is the three, you've got to
think about any debate, you've got to think,
what are my arguments?
What are my counterarguments or objections?
Number one.
Number two, what is my strategy?
And number three is, what are my tactics?
Now the second part of what I'm going
to talk to you about is rhetoric.
Now rhetoric is such an important thing.
And I'll tell you something, I mean it's
so important, it's one of the ways that
scholars of Islam say that Islam proves itself
and that the Qur'an itself is from
God.
That how to prove the Qur'an is
from God through the rhetoric, the balagha, it's
called balagha in Arabic, of the Qur'an.
And therefore, from our perspective as Muslims, the
most rhetorical book, from a linguistic perspective, is
in fact the Qur'an.
But somebody could argue that if the Qur
'an is so rhetorical, the verses of the
Qur'an, that sorry to say, seem quite
mundane in terms of their information.
How can you allege that such verses are
using rhetorical devices?
For example, لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَضْدِ الْأُنْثَيَينَ, that to
the male is double of what the female
has, or the inheritance laws, or this or
that or the other.
These are mathematical things almost.
Now by the way, even those verses have
a rhyme scheme etc.
But before that, the Arab rhetoricians, they have
a particular definition of rhetoric which I think
is quite interesting for our purposes, which is
that rhetorical speech is speech which is مُطَابَقًا,
it is in line with the situation which
is happening at that current moment.
So for example, what is the most appropriate
use of language in a news forecast?
Like someone is telling you what the weather
is going to be like in the next
couple of days.
Let's say for example just normal weather like
17 degrees or whatever.
If someone were to start speaking in a
very persuasive manner in this context and started
flaring their arms and saying, oh the weather
is going to be 17 degrees Celsius, would
it make sense?
And it would to the end user kind
of seem a little bit off-putting.
You wouldn't want to see that person again.
Or you would assume that person doesn't know
how to react or doesn't know how to
use words in a particular situation.
So when you consider that true rhetoric is
when you use certain words appropriately in a
specific situation, then let's go back to the
inheritance verses or any other verses that speak
about things which are seemingly mundane, which are
actually guidance for us etc.
But those are rhetorical from that angle, not
necessarily from the angle that they are using
lots of emotive language or persuasive devices.
Cicero had a very interesting understanding of rhetoric.
Cicero basically emphasised the role of emotion and
just exactly what Sabor mentioned that people don't
remember what you say but they remember how
you made them feel.
So Cicero is talking about if you want
to be rhetorical, you have to engage emotionally
with the audience.
And that's in fact what Aristotle said as
well and he called that pathos.
Pathos is your ability to engage emotionally with
the end user.
And you will find that this is all
over the Qur'an and this is where
the real study of the Qur'an, one
day we will go through this together and
we will talk about how the Qur'an
uses rhetorical devices.
For example, how many rhetorical questions are in
the Qur'an?
The calamity.
What is the calamity?
What will make you know what the calamity
is?
Can you see?
Three questions and it's all building suspense.
When I used to teach English, I used
to teach kids rhetorical devices in English.
That was one of the things I used
to teach them.
Basic things, you've got to have some of
them up your sleeve.
Emotive language, rule of three, alliteration, assonance, sibilance.
It's so easy to do.
All you've got to do is to use
big words.
Sometimes it's good to use big words and
sometimes it's not good to use big words.
Sometimes I intentionally use big words as a
means of amusing the audience.
Why do you want to pontificate in a
sesquibedalian way?
Whatever, what's he saying?
Is he even speaking English?
So you can throw that in, it's like
salt in the food, but as my dad
would tell me, if you put too much
of it, the food becomes ruined.
So you can do whatever you like in
terms of rhetoric, there are lots of things
you can do.
But the main point is to engage the
end user in some rhetorical way.
It's a bit like music actually, very similar.
Music, the reason why people listen to it
is because they're using chords, they're using instruments
and they're using voice and lyrics in combination,
in concert with one another to engage with
a person emotionally.
In many ways, music is one of the
best expressions of rhetoric humankind has ever known.
Even though I'm not talking about halal or
haram, I'm just telling you.
Like the idea is, why have they got
5 billion views on YouTube for a music
video, 6 billion, how many people on the
earth anyway?
How could that even be the case?
Even the children are listening to this, babies.
I don't know how that happened by the
way, some tracks have got 6 billion views.
But the point I'm making is because the
combination of chords that are being used, they're
doing something to a human being.
But what's more impressive is, without any chords,
the Qur'an for instance, just uses words
and the combination of words is having such
and such an effect on human beings.
That's really where the miracle of the Qur
'an is by the way.
Okay, so what we're going to do in
the next 20-30 minutes is, we'll have
the class divided into 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and Ali's going
to come so it's going to be 10,
so 5 and 5.
So we'll have 4 for now and then
4 vs 5 and then when Ali comes,
5 vs 5.
And I'll give you 5 or 10 minutes
just to prepare with the person next to
you, your arguments, your strategies and your tactics.
And we're going to have one-on-ones,
Christian vs Muslim and then we're going to
switch.
So everyone's going to get a chance and
I'm going to time this one so everyone's
going to have 2 minutes.
I'm thinking 90 seconds to 2 minutes, maybe
90 seconds even, to make a point.
And then that person's going to make a
counter argument and then we're going to switch
over.
And I'm going to give this, the left
group, the initiative, meaning you're going to make
the first argument, you're going to start and
you're going to have the counter.
And you're going to go back and forth
twice and then we're going to switch over
and do the same thing again, using the
arguments that we've already spoken about in the
first and the second session.
So I'll give you guys a good 5
-10 minutes to prepare for the arguments and
then I'll give you guys the initiative, Christians.
And then you guys will respond in kind
and then we'll switch over.
Alright, so we're going to start with you
Shamir, against you Hassan.
I'm going to start with you, one and
a half minutes, try and get everything done
and then we'll see your counter.
Go ahead.
So you say in our religion we believe
in 3 gods in one, but in your
religion you believe that God has multiple attributes,
many attributes, more than 3, but then somehow
they're all in one God, so you also
believe in many in one being as well.
Is that correct?
No, that's totally different.
You believe that 3 persons has one God,
but we believe one God with some attributes.
That's not something that you think, it's a
different thing.
It's attributes and your God and your gods
are 3 persons, so how can you compare
these 2?
Well we believe that these 3 beings, they
are 3 different persons but their wills cannot
be different, whereas you believe that some attributes
are greater than others.
You believe that God's love is greater than
his anger, for example.
So your attributes, some are greater than others,
whereas we believe all of them are equal,
all 3 persons are equal, whereas you believe
that some attributes are greater than others.
If they are 3 persons and they have
the same will, so what's the need for
them to be 3 persons with one will?
So as a human being we can think
that 3 persons could have 3 wills.
If there is 3 persons with one will,
what's the need for that God?
Well, they have 3 different wills but they
never contradict, so it's not one will, it's
3 different wills but they never change it.
So what's the relationship between these 3 persons?
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,
yeah.
Who is the more powerful?
They're all equal.
So how can be a Father and Son
equal?
They're just equal.
Father himself, when you say Father, he's Father,
he should have an upper hand, so how
can Son order the Father, do this and
don't do that?
Well, this is who God is, that's what
it is.
That's totally ridiculous, how can you justify this,
bro?
Come on.
Let's move on, Zubair.
Continue the argument, continue the argument, just let
it flow, go on.
You're representing IRO, bro, don't start.
Don't start, you'll get sacked for the second
time.
You've got to pay me for this.
You wanted to represent IRO but it depends
on the Trinity.
Okay, so just like you're saying that just
as we believe 3 in 1 and 1
is 3, you have the same principle where
you believe in God's different attributes.
So what's the difference?
Okay, this is very typical of Christians as
we can see and you're no different from
any other Christian that I've met, thank you.
So thank you for being consistent, that's the
first thing I would like to say.
Now the second question I want to ask
you is as follows.
Do you ever get angry?
Yeah.
Do you get happy sometimes?
Do you get sad sometimes?
What are you trying to say?
Again, Christian logic, they don't have patience but
expect patience from Muslims.
So here we go.
If when you're angry and when you're sad
and when you're happy, you don't suddenly become
different human beings, the same way with our
God, the different attributes does not define him
as different centres of consciousness, different wills or
different anything like when it comes to your
belief for example, it's completely different.
You're saying that we have 3 centres of
being, we have the Father, we have the
Son and we have the Holy Spirit.
All 3 are separate beings but they have
the same will.
Our one is we only have Allah and
he has different attributes.
Just like a human being has different attributes
of anger, sadness, he wills, he doesn't will
or whatever, it doesn't define him as an
individual, it's the same with Allah.
Let's see the buyer's response.
Let's have one more response from the buyer
and then we'll move on to the next.
So basically what you're saying is that the
same way that we believe that 3 is
1, you're saying we can argue that we
don't know how, we can't explain to you
how, however, just how you say God has
hands, God has sights, hearing, it's the same
principle, we don't know how.
Alright, let's go to the next guy.
So just to add onto this is that
as Muslims and Christians, I'm trying to build
bridges here, we both believe in a multiplicity
in God, we both agree on this, correct?
You believe in many attributes, let me finish,
you believe in many attributes and we believe
in wills and I'm here to tell you
as you're a man that uses the arguments
of contingency, why do you believe in God
with parts?
Why is it 2 hands, not 3 hands,
4 hands, 5 hands or 6 hands?
And I ask you this because this goes
against the law of the principle of sufficient
reasoning.
Why is it that number?
And if you need me to teach you
the principle of sufficient reasoning, I'm fine to
teach you that as well.
Explain it to me.
Okay, that went a different way but you're
saying that why does God have different attributes?
What I'm saying is we both agree in
multiplicity and what we agree the most is
because of the books.
What do you mean by multiplicity?
More than one, you believe in parts within
God, you believe in more than one hand,
you believe in 2 hands, I'm saying I
believe in a will, you believe in 2
hands and I'm saying why 2 hands?
Huh?
Pardon?
Are you ethereal now?
What are you then?
Actually let's ask him, what is your criteria,
are you ethereal now?
Why does that matter?
Did you just tell me?
I need to see who I'm debating, I
need to understand.
I have different debates and arguments.
So what are you?
Expose yourself in front of me.
Who are you?
Who are you?
This is embarrassing, this is what the Muslims
do, they have these little arguments but when
we get to the nitty gritty they have
nothing.
Embarrassing.
Get out of here man, get out of
here man.
Just calm down a bit.
You're being very…
So I'm saying parts, do you not believe
in parts?
Okay.
Do you believe in mercy also?
Do I believe in mercy?
Do you believe in mercy?
Why does that matter?
Let him respond, let him respond.
Let him respond, go on, go on, go
on.
I don't see the point of your argument,
like what are you trying to say?
So you have a problem with comprehension?
Just make your point properly.
So my point is a very simple point.
We believe in many, me and you, as
Muslims and as Christians, we believe in multiplicity.
You're not one to show who you are.
It's up to you.
Just make your point clearly.
So what I'm trying to say is we
both believe in multiplicity, so we believe in
parts within God.
I'm saying is, if you're going to have
an argument with my parts, I'm going to
say the same problem because you used the
contingency argument to prove God.
And I'm saying that will go against the
principle of sufficient reasoning because why is it
that many parts?
Why is it two hands?
Why is it mercy and right?
Why can't there be another attribute?
Why is there three God in you?
I'm saying because the books are divine.
I agree, brother, I completely agree.
I agree.
Let's get Furqan involved.
Next.
So, you have...
No, let Furqan come and then you can
come back.
Furqan and Tariq.
Yeah, Furqan and Tariq, yeah.
So, you're continuing with Abdul Rahman's argument.
Can you explain why two hands, not three?
How does that negate the oneness of God?
If you talk about parts, how does that
negate?
The problem here is that you're saying that
God has attributes.
The question is, are those attributes independent of
God or are they...
They're part of his essence.
They're an intrinsic part of his nature.
So, you can't have an empty air essence.
So, you're saying God is made of different
parts?
No, I didn't say that.
Okay.
There's one God.
He has one essence and he has different
attributes.
They're part of his nature.
So, as the brother said earlier, Allah's anger
can't detach itself and become a separate center
of consciousness and his mercy can't detach itself
and become a separate center of consciousness.
But whereas you have that problem because you've
got three centers of consciousness, which have a
potential for discord.
Let's go back to the brother's argument.
He said that when God's angry, he's not...
He's not a different God.
He's not different.
So, when God's angry, he's not happy, let's
just say.
Does that mean that God is overtaken by
certain emotions?
Not at all.
Explain that.
Explain yourself.
For instance, when God is angry, he cannot
be merciful.
It's not true.
It depends on circumstances.
So, when God needs to show mercy, he
will show mercy.
When he needs to be just, he'll show
justice.
So, you know, you can't...
They're all...
Sorry, are you debating me or are you
talking to them?
So, we don't have this problem.
We believe in one God with one center
of consciousness, whereas you have three gods with
multiple centers of consciousness, which always have a
potential for discord.
Even though you may argue that they have...
Their will is...
They can't disagree with each other, but there's
still the potential there for discord.
Ali, Ali versus Sabor.
Let's go, let's go.
I'm just going to...
No, you're the leader.
I'm taking your argument.
Let me just get this party started.
The way it starts off with...
This is how it should be.
Let Ali start, let Ali start.
Go.
Because the Christians have the initiative.
We show love.
You start, please.
Please, you start.
Are you giving it to him?
Yeah, yeah.
Because we love our enemies.
So, the fundamental problem with the Christians is
that they say that there's the Father, the
Son, the Holy Ghost.
They're co-equal and co-eternal.
They have three separate wills, yet they always
determine the same thing.
And there's a contradiction in that.
How do you explain that?
What's the contradiction?
The contradiction is if the Father wants it
to rain and the Son doesn't want it
to rain, then you can't have it not
raining and raining at the same time.
According to our beliefs, we believe they have
one will.
So, we wouldn't say the Father will have
one will to rain.
We believe that wherever they decide in totality,
there'll be one will.
So, there's not like the Father one will
and the Son has one will, the Holy
Spirit has one will.
We believe their will is in sync.
Okay.
So, I'm going to have to educate you
and then refute you at the same time.
So, firstly, the problem with what you just
said is that Christians do actually believe there's
three entities with three wills.
And what they...
Do they have three separate wills?
Yes, they do.
Do they believe that?
Different opinion.
Okay.
I'm a different creed to them.
Okay.
So, let's just say we stick with your
heretical view.
Let's not stick with the view that they
have three separate wills because that can be
easily refuted.
So, you're telling me there's three entities which
are co-equal and co-eternal with one
will.
Yes.
Right.
How does that work?
It works very perfectly.
Jesus, He died for our sins.
He loves us.
It's pure love.
Oh, you need to defend it.
No, I'm defending it very well.
I mean, I'm very...
No, but you're doing alright.
There's one will.
Don't veer off.
Keep being a Christian for a bit.
There's one will.
I don't need to get upset about this
because I'm very sure about my faith.
It's very simple.
You just said it very well.
I believe what you just said is what
we believe.
Okay, fine.
So, when we have in the Bible, thy
will be done.
Who's saying that?
The son or the father?
Who says that?
Who says that?
Jesus says that.
He says what?
Jesus says, thy will be done on us.
He's talking about all three of them.
Oh!
Yeah, he's talking about all three.
Right, okay.
So, why is he referring to another entity?
Why not say my will?
Why say thy will?
He's talking about collectively the Holy Spirit, the
Father and Himself.
What's the evidence for that?
You just stated it.
What can be asserted without evidence can be
dismissed without evidence.
So, what's your evidence for that?
I think it's very clear that I just
said that all of their three wills are
in sync.
But I would like to ask you, do
you believe that God has parts?
Okay.
So, that total non-segue into a totally
different topic is irrelevant.
What does non-segue mean?
There's no link between our discussion and you
moving on.
But do you know what?
I'm happy for us to have that discussion.
Go ahead.
So, that's what I'm saying.
We've already talked about the three wills are
one.
So, let's move on from that.
So, you said that you believe that God
has two hands.
I didn't say that but I believe that.
Okay.
So, you believe that God has two hands.
Yes.
So, is that necessarily true?
That God has to necessarily have two hands?
Why not three hands?
Because that's what's stated in Revelation.
Okay.
So, then why do you have a problem
when we say the Father, the Son and
the Holy Spirit are three different persons?
You deem them as to be three different
persons being parts, whatever you want to call
it.
But when God, when Allah has two hands
or has a shin or has a foot,
we don't have a problem with that.
So, don't you think it's like you have
an issue with us but then when you
have the same problem, you know, how would
you explain that?
Well, the simple way of refuting what you're
saying is that we have a coherent understanding
of what God is and you have an
incoherent one.
For example, we believe God has different attributes
but those attributes do not contradict each other.
In your case, you have a co-equal
eternal being which is the Father, the Son,
Holy Ghost are, you know, equal to each
other yet they have different...
Well, you're saying they have the same will
but traditional Christianity says that they have separate
wills.
But the problem there is if they are
to decree something then they can't always agree.
And if they are to always agree then
you have to give evidence for why you
can never have discord.
Okay, let's stop there.
That's good, mashallah.
That was very, very good.
Really good exchanges.
I think you can see the benefit of
this, right?
You know, if I said to people that
Allah's hands are not His attributes, would that
be correct?
Well, in the Atharic creed, the hands are
the attributes.
Yeah, the thing is, for example...
What kind of attribute though?
Because we know there's...
Some of the Mufassirin, they call it power.
Yeah, but in the Athar, for example, Al
-Tabari, the one who has done Tafsir, he
has a book called Al-Tafsira.
He has a...
And in his time, he actually said Sifatul
Yad.
He actually called it the attribute of the
hand.
So what significance does the hand play?
Because the Ash'aris say it's a power,
then you can say it's an attribute.
So the Ash'aris will say...
Some Ash'aris say it's power, yeah?
But we don't believe that.
But it depends on now if like...
Because, you know, the word Yed comes in
different...
There's Yed, Yadan and Eidi.
There's three types of way this word comes
in Arabic language.
Yed means one hand.
Yadan means two.
And Eidi means many.
So like, for example, you know in Surah
Al-Dhariyat, where it says...
بَنَيْنَهَا بِأَيْدٍ وَإِنَّ لَا مُوصِعُونَ The heaven that
we've created, and it says this word بِأَيْد.
Eid actually means with hands.
That's what it means.
But not even Mohsen Khan, who is like,
you know, he's a Salafi, Athari, translator.
He doesn't translate it with hands.
He translates it with power.
Very interesting, yeah.
Because...
He's an Ahmad Ash'ari?
No, because with this one, he looked at
some of what the Salaf said, and undoubtedly
in this ayah, it does mean that.
However, the issue, and this is the argument
of the Atharis, they'll say like, well, in
the Quran it says بَلْ يَدَاهُمَا بِسُوْطَتَانِ And
that's Christian saying, yeah?
Allah's hand or title.
No, Yahud.
قَلَتَ الْيَهُدُ يَدُوا اللَّهِ مَا غُلُولَهِ غُلَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ
وَلُعِنُوا بِمَا قَالُوا بَلْ يَدَاهُمَا بِسُوْطَتَانِ Some people
talk about stinginess.
They say, if you say that a hand
is power, this is the Athari response to
Ash'a, if you say a hand is
power, then how can you have two powers?
It doesn't make sense.
Although the creation of Adam, that one's a
big one.
For Ibn Taymiyyah, I think that's the evidence.
He says, بِمَا خَلَقْتُ بِيَدَي He says, like
about Adam, I created him with both of
my hands.
So, the Athari creed, there's no doubt, some
of them do mention that it's a sifah,
sifat al-yed.
It's like an attribute.
How?
What's the definition of an attribute?
So, Ibn Taymiyyah would say that it's a
sifat al-dhirtiyyah.
Remember how we divided attributes into intrinsic attributes
and action-based attributes?
Ibn Taymiyyah believes that al-yed, or al
-yedan, or al-aydi, actually, al-aydi not
necessarily as we mentioned, but these are attributes.
And the left one is different from the
right one, even though there's a difference of
opinion among the Atharis on this point.
Which attributes do they have?
So, the way that he would say it
is that at least functionally you can describe
it.
So, for example, Allah mentions in the Quran,
بِقَبْدَتُهُ So, Allah, for example, creates with His
hands.
سُبْحَانَهُ الَّذِي بِيَدِهِ الْمُلْكُ وَهُوَ عَلَيْهِ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ
He creates, He possesses, He destroys.
But can we not say Allah can do
that without His hands?
Yeah, but some of the things that are
mentioned are specific to the hand.
Like for creating Adam with His two hands.
Now, what does it mean?
We don't know, but what we do know
is this, not this.
That's what we know.
And it's not any of the hands.
I remember you telling us that basically there's
a book where it says we understand some
of these attributes with our worldly experience of
these times.
Yeah, the قَدْرَ المُشْتَرَك Now, this becomes problematic
because you say قَدْرَ المُشْتَرَك on the thing
which has a جَارِحَة implication.
What we know is a قَدْرَ المُشْتَرَك can't
be a جَارِحَة which means a جَارِحَة is
a bodily part.
Whatever the قَدْرَ المُشْتَرَك is, it's not a
bodily part.
That makes sense.
It's not the functions of it.
Yeah, they will say that you describe it
through it.
The maximum you can go is the functions,
I think, at this point.
I think something that's important is while everybody
here was having these back and forth discussions,
one element of a debate tactic, not strategy,
that you guys didn't use is to buy
yourself time by asking the other person what
do you mean.
For example, some of what you were saying
was incoherent.
It was actually incoherent.
Until the end, I didn't understand what he
was trying to say.
Why was he saying why is there two
hands, three hands?
No, what you've done was good, but you
should say define.
I mean, that's even better.
Define it and what's your source?
One of the easiest ways of buying time
is to say what you just said is
incoherent.
Can you say it in a coherent way?
So, you've sort of told the audience this
guy is talking nonsense.
But then I told him do you have
a comprehension issue?
And I flipped it back at him.
Yeah, I think there's a lot of good
things that you've done.
There's no question.
I think there's a lot.
You've got a style.
You just have to refine it.
But I think you've definitely got a style
and you were definitely on the offensive.
It was good.
You just need to not look obnoxious.
Fair enough.
I think that's what it is.
I've got the same problem.
I sort of disagree with you because initially
what you have to do is when you're
getting into the rhythm of it, then you
do overdo it.
But then over time as you mature as
a debater, you turn it down.
He's definitely got a style though, hasn't he?
It's better to come across overconfident than come
across underconfident.
Between the two.
Bilal, you shouldn't let him dominate that much.
I think in the next round you can't
let him dominate that much.
In the sense that if you see him
asking too many questions, a big red flag
should be in your mind.
Alarm bells should ring.
When they're asking ten questions to one, he's
outstriking you.
You've got to think of it like that.
Remember, asking questions is one of the most
important things you can do.
Because the ones who ask questions look like
they're in control.
You can answer questions because if you don't
answer them, sometimes you look weak.
But you're always stronger at asking the questions.
You're always stronger at asking the questions.
The ratio of questions and answers, you've got
to keep it at least at 50%.
Do you know what I mean?
You've got to be asking as many questions
as you're answering, at least.
But in reality, you should be trying to
go for 70%.
You should be out-questioning him if that
makes sense.
The question is like a jab.
You have to out-jab your opponent.
It's the most important thing you can do
in a thing.
What other feedback do you have, Saboor?
I think Tariq, that was one of your
best parts.
I really liked that performance.
I think you really, mashallah, developed a really
excellent style there.
It was really good.
Hussam, I liked the comedic side of you
came out.
It was funny.
Shamil was good as well.
That was nice.
Mehmet was really good, mashallah.
I was nervous, mashallah.
No, you were nervous but it didn't look
nervous.
And you definitely were, you're going in to
impose yourself.
You were imposing.
And you thought, okay, I'm going to ask
this, I'm going to do that.
It was good.
You hit that well.
You said you were nervous.
I didn't sense that.
I don't know why I get nervous, man.
As soon as I get into a thing
here, as soon as I know what I'm
saying, I'll start to get, I'll lock myself.
You didn't show it.
It's a very positive debate.
I thought I showed it.
The fact that you didn't show it is
quite powerful because if I sensed that, I
would know I stand by the father.
I was surprised, Ali Dawa, your defence of
Christianity was not bad at all.
No, I was just going around.
No, it was good.
I was making stuff up.
It's a very difficult position to defend the
indefensible.
It's very difficult.
The only thing you could do is say...
What we're trying to do is still man
them.
He got the strongest argument and he was
representing their strongest argument.
That's what the whole point is.
And even the whole thing about three wills,
at one point you said it's a heretical
view but it's not actually.
That's the mainstream view.
The fact that all three wills are one
will.
Yeah, that's the mainstream.
The heretical view is that all three are
not.
I didn't know that.
I just made that up.
For Khan, it was good but we want
to see more landed.
Next round, we want to see more landed.
Are we Muslim?
Next round, then.
Yeah, yeah.
You guys.
And Zubair, same thing.
I want to see more punches and stuff.
Questions.
At least, when you guys are preparing for
it now, you should have at least three
questions that you just jam your opponent with.
Just focus on three questions.
Same thing with For Khan.
Three questions and don't settle for whatever they
have to ask.
The moment you settle with their answer to
their question, then you're giving them too much
too early.
Do you know what I mean?
See, I'm not really convinced by that.
You can just throw that in.
It's a good tactic.
I'm not sure I'm convinced by that answer,
to be honest with you.
Whatever they say.
Whatever they say.
Two plus two equals four.
I don't know if I'm really convinced by
that.
Maybe it sounds horrible, but you can say,
I'm not convinced by that.
Because now we're living in an age of
quantum mechanics.
You can say what you want.
You know what I mean?
But if you show that you're not fully
convinced, make them work for it.
So these three questions, jam them.
That's what you need to prepare.
Remember, this round there should be questions.
So everyone should be coming in for questions.
If you have questions, you're going to do
very well.
Can I go against someone else?
Should we mix up?
Stay in the same group, but jump all
your positions.
I want to be on the Christian side.
You are Christians now.
So we'll switch.
You guys are Christians, you guys are Muslims.
I want to take that guy.
I've got my eyes on him.
Fine, fine.
Sit where Mehmet is sitting.
Is it Mehmet or you?
Why do we have to swap?
No, we don't have to swap.
Just debate him from there.
But I might think.
Okay, fine.
Alright guys, we'll give you five minutes to
prepare.
Five minutes.
We're going for round two now, guys.
And we're going to start in the red
corner.
The one and only, the undefeated, the undisputed,
the man, the Darwinian delusions, Saboor Ahmed.
Mr. Deluded.
Let's go.
So what I find quite interesting about the
way that Muslims argue against Christians is that
they give themselves a get out of jail
card that they deny the Christian audience.
So when it comes to the atheris, the
mutaridis, the asharis and even the mutazilites, there
are differences of opinion.
There are certain things which are mysteries about
God and those mysteries about God cannot be
adjudicated by the evidence.
In fact, you can have many different interpretations
and you have many different schools of thought
within Sunniism.
Yet when it comes to, for example, the
concept of the Trinity, there are certain things
that I am ready to admit cannot be
explained and those things are a mystery.
So the same mystery that you allow yourselves
in terms of your school of thought, you
deny the Christians.
So can I answer this pathetic question?
In my opinion, his divine mystery, if that
was the belief you've held, I would have
no problem.
My problem is with the set of information
you have, it's already contradictory.
The problem isn't that we don't have enough
information about the Trinity that we can't understand
it.
The problem is with the information we have
of the Trinity, it's already a contradiction.
How can you have three wills and they
can't...
What if they disagree?
What will happen there?
Let's say, Saboor, let's not use you, my
good friend.
I think you've misunderstood my example.
I'll tell you why you've misunderstood my example.
Why did I misunderstand it?
Because I feel like you thought your arguments
were incoherent and you're trying to maybe try
to somehow catch up together.
I'll explain why.
Carry on.
Do you agree that the Mawtaridis, the Atharis,
and the Ashiris are all Ahlus Sunnah wa
Jama'ah?
Ahlus Sunnah wa Jama'ah.
Unless you believe they're innovators, unless you believe
they're hereticals.
How does this link with this question?
You're talking about divine mystery.
Divine mystery.
Please, please.
I'm saying your Trinity, with the amount of
information we have, it's a contradiction.
I can see this is making you uncomfortable
but we need to stick with this conversation.
There's a level of discomfort.
Can I just say a point?
Mr. Saboor.
Mr. Masters.
Let me say my point.
When it comes to Ahlus Sunnah wa Jama
'ah, Muslims agree that there are three schools
of thought.
Now, since there are three schools of thought,
those are three schools of thought that are
using the same evidences to come up with
different inferences.
That means there are certain things that cannot
be adjudicated by the evidence alone.
Likewise, with Trinity, there are certain things that
are not explicable.
That's what I'm saying.
So just be consistent.
What I'm saying with the set of information
you have, Mr. Christian, Mr. polytheist, if you
want to go at it, is that it's
already a contradiction.
We don't need to, it's not like we
lack information or that we have a problem
that Insha'Allah one day we'll have, we
lack knowledge.
It's what I'm saying, with the amount of
knowledge we have, we can see this is
a contradiction, brother.
That's not actually true.
I'll put it to you another way because
you clearly didn't understand my first example.
I don't think you're understanding your argument, Mr.
Saboor.
So, as a Muslim, you believe that we
have free will and a free choice and
we also are predetermined in terms of our
actions.
But you would say it's an epistemic issue,
not an ontological issue.
You would say it's just a case of
we cannot understand, not that there's a contradiction
in reality.
Likewise, likewise, with the Trinity, there are certain
things which we cannot understand, but those things
may be contradictory on the veneer, apparent level,
but not at an ontological level.
Mr. Saboor, so here you try to bring
me something such as my first point perspective
of believing there's a free will and then
the law of what's called causation that makes
me believe in what's called what do you
call it, predestination.
You're giving me these high level epistemology to
the Bible that's changed, corrupted.
Is that the epistemology, Mr. Saboor?
Is this what we're doing today?
Come on.
This is rather embarrassing.
And to use that as an example is
embarrassing.
There may have been a discussion amongst Christian
writers and theologians in terms of the compilation
of the Bible.
But I'll tell you a relevant difference.
I'll tell you.
But there's a relevant difference.
There was never a time there was never
a time that the Christians had a discussion
whether the Quran was created, the Bible was
created or not?
Ali get in Ali Ali Ali go You're
coming with rhetoric but it's good because the
way you're doing it you're messing up the
line it's good tactics but if they catch
you on it because he's asking a valid
question you're not answering but you're doing a
good job at not answering No it's good,
I like it because rhetoric is very important
in debates you've basically got us all laughing
I don't care about your reply anymore It's
how they see the person feels I just
survived because this argument is so incoherent I
just survived No your argument is good it's
just that he's not answering it No because
the thing is what you're asking is true
just to carry on the debate so can
we say for example that when it comes
to the Maturids, the Ashurids, the Athurids we
do not have a difference on who Allah
is rather what Allah is the answer you
should have given yeah that's what I'm saying
so what we're saying is the following when
it comes to your belief and your creed
of beliefs you have a problem of who
God is we don't have a problem of
who God is Maturids, Ashurids, Athurids rather in
your belief system you have a problem of
who God is you will say God is
a man he can be fully man, fully
God some of them Catholics believe that there
is one will I'm assuming the Protestants the
others they believe that there are separate wills
so when it comes to who God is
you have a big problem the problem with
that is you start off with a flat
footed assumption and this is why you trip
over the way that you began your introduction
into the Trinity shows that you don't understand
it in the first place the Trinity does
not say that there are three Gods it
says that there is one God and there
is no contradiction in the idea that there
is three co-eternal co-equal beings with
one will what I'm saying is the following
I was answering your question about the three
different groups so I was saying that we
don't have an issue we're in sync when
it comes to who Allah is when it
comes to what-ness what Allah is is
a different story what you're saying, what your
problem is of who God is so what
I'm saying is for example if the father
for example when Jesus says so they may
know you the one true God he is
now talking to another being and saying you
are the one true God so you have
an issue with the who-ness now because
who is God, is Jesus God?
we believe it's co-equal, co-eternal so
they're all one being is Jesus God?
is the father God?
they're all God who's the one true God?
there's only one God so they may know
you the one true God he's referring to
the father because here you're saying Jesus is
God then Jesus comes and refers to the
father and says you are the one true
God and Jesus whom you sent so this
is, it's not the same when you're using
this criteria for us because we say with
the Ash'aris and the Maturidis, we don't
have an issue of who Allah is, rather
what, when it comes to his attributes etc
you guys have an issue of who God
is, if I go and speak to a
Catholic he'll tell me something totally different to
you, so this is where I would, I
don't know, that's what I would say that's
good, that's good very good very good, very
good, very nice very solid you know what
it is, I didn't know no, no, very
excellent Furqan and Bilal, let's go go one
conversion come to this side please so
you say
that we believe in three persons right, and
they are three separate persons within one God
you say why is that, why is there
three, but in your with your God he
has multiple attributes so just like that, we
can also say there's one God, one divine
God within three persons like what's wrong with
that how many persons sorry the father, the
son the Holy Spirit three persons within one
divine God yeah but you keep saying how
many persons sorry, there's three persons how many
persons do we have you have one person
how many do you have that's why I
like that you have three persons but then
you have attributes right different attributes no, no,
no, I'm not saying you have three persons
I'm saying there's different attributes right, and we
have different persons right no but they're different
right are the attributes different you can bring
persons with attributes, I don't know what's wrong
with that it's like bananas with apples what
is wrong you're saying that it's wrong, you
tell me I find it wrong because we
believe in one God we may have different
slight differences of who God is yeah but
we don't disagree the fact that he's one
you guys would say there's three persons that
are different but at the same time they're
the same no, no, no, we don't say
they're the same we say there's three different
but it's one divine entity how does that
work can you explain that can you explain
that I mean that's what the Bible says
right you believe in the Bible yeah just
like you believe in the Quran, so there's
certain things in the Quran that you just
believe you have faith in it, you don't
understand it ok, but the thing is the
one thing I believe about the Quran is
that there's one God so you're saying from
the Bible you're not sure if there's one
God or three Gods no, no, no, you
said there's three persons within one divine, yeah,
that's proved right so there's three Gods?
no, no, no, there's three persons within one
divine entity so there's one God, we believe
in one God right, and three persons what
I'm saying, what is wrong with that with
that I mean whatever, if you want to
call it one person, we can say you
believe in one person, we believe in one
person but there's but there's three persons no,
no, no, your understanding of person you're saying
that, you're attributing you're saying, you're equalling God
with person right, in that sense yes, there's
only one person with one God, but in
our definition of person we don't use it
as for one God so we have three
persons but one God just like you have
different attributes of God I'm getting more and
more confused so you're saying we believe in
one God, which is one person one God
equals one person, yeah?
no, no, no, so I think the understanding
is you understand the definition of person that's
different from what we understand so you're equalling
what's your definition of person?
so with my definition of person is that
there is three persons right, and each person
is the Father, the Holy Spirit and the
the Son, right?
and they have different functionality each person has
different functionality and that defines that person but
they come under one divine entity this is
much much better this round, from both of
you actually, and it's obviously difficult for you
to defend this Bilal, you've got the the
short straw depending on your Christianity did you
notice Furqan that when you started asking so
many questions it changed the whole game it
changed everything brother the first round compared to
the second round it's a different person no
pun intended I think it has a lot
to do with the fact that what we're
defending you started off asking questions and that's
where you had him most in the ropes,
when you started asking so what's wrong with
that?
the first part of the round you've done
really well what's wrong with that?
when you put the onus on the other
person it does actually get them to think
a lot more and it's hard for them
to think and get a good answer within
seconds so the fact that they're even hesitating
and thinking about that that optically looks quite
good on the camera that's a good point
but it can backfire because if the opponent
has a pre-made nice little answer you
give them a chance for a monologue and
then it looks like they're schooling you so
you have to time it somebody was doing
this last time I forgot who it was
they were asking why and the other guy
he's giving a very good answer you don't
give him time why is it a dangerous
one?
the more open you leave it the more
you can give them a chance to say
whatever they want to say the more specific
it is how do you define?
because you asked that question how do you
define a person?
that's more difficult because now you're looking for
dictionary definitions this person has to be well
read to answer your question one more thing,
this is important when asking a question before
you give them time to speak you need
to colour what they're about to say so
what you say is what you previously said
was incoherent can you try again?
these small things make a huge difference you
may think it's just a sentence because then
they're not only having to give a new
reply they also have to defend their previous
reply you're putting a lot of pressure on
them it's good, Zubair ready?
I'll go against Mehmet who?
Ben or you?
me and you brother the Christian stuff how
are you doing brother?
how are you going to defend your...
I was going to say Alhamdulillah you go
first yeah?
Mehmet?
so I'd like to ask you a question
and honestly I'm genuinely here to learn about
your religion as well and my question is
as follows does Allah require his hands his
attributes or any other thing that he says
that belongs to him in the Quran in
order to execute a creation?
I don't know what you're saying, explain to
me again ok so for example Allah says
in the Quran that he uses his hands
to create right?
so can Allah create without the use of
his hands?
Allah can do what he wants but my
question to you is what do you believe?
do you believe in the Trinity?
ok so before we get to my question,
before we get to your question and what
I believe and honestly your question is a
valid question and I will get to that
but what I want to discuss here firstly
is the foundations of your belief just before
we get to the Trinity because I need
to understand exactly your point of belief or
your way of thinking about your religion before
we understand Trinity so would Allah regardless of
whether the hands are sentient or not would
they require it to exist for him to
execute a creation?
we believe in Allah and we believe in
one God and he can do whatever he
wills, now what you tell me logically is
it logic to believe in one God which
is free and three in one if I
ask a five year old or ten year
old girl A equals five B equals five
then A equals B so explain to me
if you're saying what's your belief in the
Trinity do you believe three is one or
one is three, do you believe the father
is God do you believe the son is
God do you believe the Holy Spirit is
God explain yourself I understand you're passionate about
something which is not true but what we
need to get to the bottom of is
how you see your oneness of God because
if I explain the Trinity to you just
like you didn't understand the question you won't
understand the Trinity and its concepts so unfortunately
before we move on you would need to
explain to me, so just before you continue,
allow me to complete it honestly I genuinely
want to understand what you're talking about because
I don't want to die not knowing the
truth, do you see what I'm saying can
I ask you a question, no but before
you do, just explain to me does Allah
require his hands to create, that's all I
want to know we can't visualize how Allah
creates what he creates but let me just
so without his hands he can't create, is
that correct you answer my question you give
me a chance to answer my question, is
the father God is the father God is
the father is the father is the father,
again if I explain this to you the
problem will arise in anything that I say,
you won't understand what I'm explaining to you
until you tell me if God requires his
hands to create because let me continue I'll
give you a simple statement, if the father
is God and the son is God then
you're saying the father is the son essentially
that don't make sense if the father is
the son what's the point and you also
believe that the father eternally begots explain to
me about what I believe I'm asking you
and you're not telling me you don't know
unfortunately you don't know what you believe this
was a good round obviously with Mehmet you're
very good at imposing yourself very good I
believe that's a very strong argument can I
attempt to how would you answer I'm going
to attempt I don't know if it's right
I just want to know if I'm cornered
with it I want to know your question
is basically does Allah does Allah require his
hands to create this is how I would
answer I would go down the route by
saying that Allah can create in different ways
so there is what Allah says in the
Quran he can do it via say it
and it happens be it then Allah has
told us that he created Adam with his
own two hands the way of his majesty
we do not but when we say hands
we do not equate it to our hands
or believe there's limbs and parts so we
would say that no not that Allah requires
his hands to create that's another expression of
him creating so he can say it via
be it is he can do it via
his hands he can do it via other
means ok so I just want to add
a small thing to that the easiest way
of doing it is simply saying your question
is incoherent because Allah is who Allah is
including his attributes so you cannot separate Allah's
essence from his attributes in essence what you're
basically asking is can Allah not be Allah
and do the action x you literally dug
your grave here so basically if I answer
it the way that I feel like I'm
copying out what he's asking is very valid
because Allah created Adam with his hands well
I mean you answered it you answered it
ok but don't forget Allah is Al Khaliq
Al Khaliq Al Khalaq these attributes mean that
he's a creator but he's asking a specific
way of creating with his hands he doesn't
only create with his hands so he doesn't
need his hands to create we have no
evidence in the Quran we have no evidence
in the Quran that Allah created the universe
with his hands but he's saying can Allah
create without can Allah create without using his
hands here's another way of putting it if
I was to ask can Allah do action
x if Allah is not all knowing and
eternal then the normal reply should be well
that is not Allah in the first place
and that's what I was trying to get
to ok so let's continue so his attributes
are inseparable from his being correct so therefore
whether the being or the attributes have sentience
or not do you mean with the being
the essence yeah I mean they cannot yeah
exactly the attributes are connected inseparable from the
essence whether the attributes have a sentient existence
or not or not what do you mean
by sentient it has it's own will as
in it has it's yeah exactly so why
is it a problem when we say that
we have the father, the son and the
holy spirit and they're inseparable beings whether it's
sentient or not does not matter they're just
inseparable what you're doing is that you are
making the son and the holy spirit have
a will, you're equaling it to God, we
say the attributes are not separate from God
you are separating the son and the holy
spirit from the father one more thing, Zubair
made this Zubair made this argument and I
want you guys to think about what's the
last arguments he made do you remember the
argument he made two really good arguments the
father is God and the son is the
God therefore the father is the son ok,
so that's the identification one and what's the
other one that you said the son is
the father no, no, no, it's not the
son yeah, that one, that's one what's the
second argument you made the eternal what begetting
these two arguments are missing which means it's
dependent one of the strongest arguments you can
make is to say like mainstream Christianity believes
that the father is eternally begetting the son
yeah so which means he's eternally generating, eternally
causing we don't have that with the attributes,
we don't have an issue like that with
the attributes yeah, it's another way this is
a huge, huge argument in many ways you
could argue one of the most important arguments
it's the arguments the Qur'an makes Surah
Al-Ikhlas, Surah Al-Qur'an you know,
so this argument I think was a little
bit missing in the exchanges it was good
that you brought it up because you thought
about it I think the reason was because
we allow the Christians to speak first that's
why we've still got one more round, right
Tariq versus Shumeir I was just going to
say one last thing and then I'll get
carried away one final thing before we go
I'd like to say this, look, we have
water water can be ice or it can
be steam and it can vanish so it
can have three separate versions of itself but
always have the same core just like the
trinity and I'll leave it at that inshallah
how do you answer that?
basically you're saying so God they can't be
all three at the same time yeah I
just want to add something, so Sabor is
defending Islam after I defeated him in a
debate Tariq versus Shumeir Tariq versus Shumeir and
then Hussam who left from this side?
Ali you go against Ali so let's go
Tariq versus Shumeir first sure right it's incredibly
arrogant from Muslims that they basically they say
that Allah's attributes this that and the other
and they're very uncharitable in their approach towards
Christians they say that we have a trinity
we've explained the trinity, we've explained the wills
very very eloquently the brothers have done a
great job and when we're supposed to know
about Allah and his creation and how he
creates in the Muslim perspective it's supposed to
be a mystery so how can something be
a mystery for you and then you know
you need to understand we can say exactly
the same thing we don't understand the exact
mechanisms of God that would be an intellectual
arrogance from us, but there are many things
about God and how his nature works that
we can't explain and you have this issue
too so I think it's really intellectually dishonest
of you when you're using this argument against
us Christians I would say that we don't
know the wholeness of God but we know
the wholeness of God whereas in Christianity you
don't know the wholeness or the wholeness so
my question is, let's just pivot away from
that since I've already answered that let me
just ask my question do you believe that
the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit are independent beings I don't believe I
heard a response to my question I said
that we don't know the wholeness of God
but we know the wholeness whereas in your
faith we don't know how God creates we
don't know the exact mechanisms but we know
who God is we know God is one
so we don't know exactly how the Father
and the Son and the Holy Spirit exactly
coexist it's a mystery and you're appealing to
the same mystery your wholeness is an internal
contradiction where you believe that three is one
and one is three so your wholeness is
a contradiction whereas ours, we believe in one
wholeness one God and we believe that the
wholeness we cannot understand how God does certain
things so back to my question is the
Father independent from the Son and is the
Son independent from the Father that's a mystery
that we we're the greatest philosophers in the
world is God independent?
does the Son is the Son eternally begotten
from the Father is the Son God the
Son is God so God is eternally begotten
from God which means that at least the
Son is not independent from the Father the
Son is dependent on the Father so therefore
the Son cannot be God there again we
go to we don't know exactly how and
you have exactly the same problem as us
I'm afraid so how can the Quran intercede
for you how can the Quran detach itself
and become another God on the Day of
Judgement we knew that the rewards come to
us you're saying that part of God detaches
itself and then intercedes itself Mashallah this is
actually very good on both sides and this
is how a debate would go a modern
debate that was a good round both of
you used arguments from what you would usually
use and definitely arguments from our side it
was good is everyone done?
Hussam vs Ali Ali let's go let's start
with Hussam Mr. Ali I've heard your friends
Muslim friends they were refuting Christians and they
were attacking Christians for believing on Trinity so
if you pretend for a few minutes to
be an honest person don't you think that
there is more yeah don't you think that
don't you think that there is more diversity
when it comes to God in Christianity than
Islam Islam has one God and Christianity has
three God and there is more diversity you're
right you're supposed to be a Christian no
I'm Christian you have more diversity of who
God is you're right you believe you have
one God and we Christians believe you're diverse
one God when it comes to God so
three people at least a trans woman you
know he was born a man with you,
you're taking God's nature and going against it
so what's your problem with three person being
one God with the same will, with the
same everything do they have the same will?
are you Catholic?
yeah good but what about others what about
the Shia you have different people you have
Avicenna you call him to be Atheist you
call him to be Atheist he's a big
philosopher so why you do Takfir of him
he believe the God in a different direction
so why ok so you guys believe in
one God we believe in the Quran why
you call Shia Kafir Ahlul Hadith call them
Kafir you don't know about your own religion
you don't know about your own religion six
he went through Tradition, Orthodoxy all the same
time come back to the Shia Shias are
good people yeah that's the one so what
about Sunni Sunni is even better so I
think when it comes to God you guys
you always think that what I would like
to you want God to be diverse yeah
yeah isn't that problematic because when you say
he's diverse we're saying does God have specific
in his nature do you believe God can
die God we have three Gods we have
one God we have
three person has one God if one die
the other one generates other God knock out
you be a very bad Christian I love
the nicely stuff on that fantastic that was
hilarious that Freudian slip at the end I
like it we need to do more of
these rounds off and on camera as well
you notice that the game changed completely when
you started asking more questions there's a lot
of little tricks like that when you start
doing more and more of this stuff it's
good to learn the arguments the arguments were
really good doing more and more of those
arguments that we've already gone through and trying
it in a debate setting has been interesting
today and I hope you guys have found
it amusing and enjoyable as we have here
with that we're going to conclude this episode
and this series and the next series that
we're going to do is with Hamza and
we'll be joining him it will be an
interesting series related to his PhD thesis in
fact science in the Quran and then we're
going to try and get Abdul Andalusi to
come down and talk about Palestine it's very
topical and he's an expert on this topic
and then we'll come back and do another
one of my series on eschatology and the
science of the hour and so we're going
to have an interesting, diverse set of topics
that we're going to cover and I hope
you guys will be there to watch it
too wasalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh