Hey everybody, tonight we're debating whether or not Islam is violent and we are starting right now with the skeptic side, in particular, apostate prophet opening. Thanks very much for being with us, apostate prophet. The floor is all yours. Thank you so much James and thanks everybody for joining. Thanks for all the debaters for agreeing to this. Now the topic is whether Islam is violent or dangerous or not. When you read the Quran, you will very quickly find out that the Quran has a very hostile language. For example, in Quran chapter 2 verse 171 and many other places, the Quran refers to the disbelievers as deaf, dumb and blind. This is something that you can find repeated in the Quran many times. In Quran chapter 7 verse 179, for example, we find that the Quran even says that the disbelievers are worse than cattle. It says to be specific that Allah created many of the Jinn sent mankind for hell and that they have hearts with which they do not understand. Those are the disbelievers and they are like livestock, but rather they are even more astray. In chapter 8 verse 55 and 98 verse 6, we see twice that the Quran refers to disbelievers, including Christians, Jews and polytheists and disbelievers all together, those who do not believe in Islam as opposed to those who believe in Islam as the worst of creatures. In fact, in chapter 98, the distinction is made very clear where the disbelievers, so those who do not believe are described as the worst of creatures and those who do believe are then described as the best of creatures. This is just the beginning of the very hostile language which we find in the Quran. What does the Quran exactly command Muslims to do on top of just insulting and dehumanizing the disbelievers? We find in chapter 9 verse 29 one of my favorite verses of a very telling Quran verse of the themes of the Quran. It says in chapter 9 verse 29 that the Muslims are supposed to fight those who do not believe in Allah and his messenger and who do not adopt the religion of truth, Islam, and to fight them until they are humiliated and they give the jizya, which is protection money. The Muslims have the mission, the command to go out into the world and to fight and forcibly subjugate those who do not believe in Islam and those who do not want to accept it and Muhammad himself practiced this, Muhammad himself went around declaring war, finding reasons to fight his opponents and basically subjugating them. And he also clearly said, as we can see in a hadith, which is a report about the things that Muhammad did and said in Sahih Muslim book 32 hadith 75, he says that he wants to expel all Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and leave nobody but Muslims. And in Sahih Bukhari later on, he also says that he has been ordered to fight the people until they say that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger. So Muhammad himself, the prophet, the central figure, the authority in Islam declares in, you can find this in Sahih Bukhari book 24 hadith 5, he says, I have been commanded to fight the people until they convert to Islam, basically. This is what Muhammad's mission is and what the Quran also reflects. It says further in the Quran that you should not be friends, the Jews and Christians because they are friends of each other. It says in chapter 9 verse 28 that polytheists are unclean and so on. There is no end to how the Quran not just other rises but also insults, humiliates and dehumanizes the disbelievers or the so-called enemies of Islam. If we look at Muhammad's life, we can also see that he did some very atrocious things such as, for reference, in Sahih Bukhari book 63 verse hadith 48. We find an example in which Muhammad sends his men to a polytheistic temple in Arabia, in the southern part of Arabia in Yemen, called Dhul-Halasa. And according to different reports, we also understand that this temple is apparently quite similar to the Kaaba which Muhammad adopted from the polytheists. He sends his armies and lets them destroy this temple. In the report, we see that Muhammad says, will you relieve me from Dhul-Halasa, this temple? So his men leave with 150 cavalrymen and destroy the temple. And it says, I quote, and we killed whomever we found there. Then we came to the prophet and informed him about it. And he invoked good upon us and upon the tribe of Ahmas, who are the people who did this job for him, going and destroying a temple and killing whomever is there. This is what Muhammad does. This is what Muhammad's armies, what Muhammad's people did. We can also find another report, Sahih Bukhari book 24 hadith 5, in which we see again repeated the idea that Muhammad said, I have been ordered to fight the people till they say none has the right to be worshiped but Allah. But in this report, we also find something else. Here we find that Muhammad's successors, the people after him, did not just go out and fight those who don't believe. They also fought all the Muslims within who separated themselves from the Islamic leadership and tried to practice Islam differently. So the Caliph Abu Bakr, after Muhammad died, actually used this pretense and fought fellow Muslims because they weren't good enough, not traditionalist enough. This is what Islam is. There is more to it.  But I think I want to kick it over to David here and let him handle the rest and let him show how Islam is played out in real life today. All right, you hear me, James? All right, so AP there at the end was mentioning Abu Bakr and Muslims actually fighting Muslims. And notice it was that first generation of Muslims that almost annihilated itself with violence. I mean, Aisha, the mother of the faithful, marched an army against Ali, the commander of the faithful. And approximately 10,000 Muslims, if I recall correctly, died in battle. These were Muslims who fought alongside of Muhammad at battles like Badr and Uhud and so on and they're slaughtering each other over a disagreement. And what's sad about that is Muhammad said that the best generation of Muslims was that first generation. And the first generation was so overcome by violence that they almost annihilated themselves with violence. And Muhammad said, again, that's the best generation. And so we can see from the Muslim sources. I mean, in Islam, we're asking if it's violent. The solution for almost everything in Islam is violence. The solution for unbelief is violence. The solution for apostasy is violence. If your wife gets out of line, you can warn her first, but if that doesn't work, the solution is violence, various kinds of crimes or sins. Stealing, for instance, the solution is violence. It's violence, violence, violence, violence, violence. If we ask whether Islam is violent, if you wanna say no, you either have to change the meaning of the word violence or you have to change the meaning of Islam. But various polls in recent years have shown just how prevalent some of these views are. So just to be clear in advance, there are plenty of Muslims in the world who sincerely believe that Islam is peaceful and who don't wanna kill us and so on. Nevertheless, some of these statistics are fairly disturbing. In a 2004 poll, 65% of Muslims in Pakistan, 55% of Muslims in Jordan and 45% of Muslims in Morocco said they had a favorable view of Osama bin Laden. 44% of Pakistani Muslims in 2011 said they viewed Osama bin Laden as a martyr. So you're talking almost half. 34% of Muslims in Jordan, 49% of Muslims in Nigeria, 23% of Muslims in Indonesia and 20% of Muslims in Egypt said they have a favorable view of Al Qaeda. 31% of Muslims in Turkey say that suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable. One third of Palestinian Muslims said they support the massacre of the Fogel family which included a three month old baby. 78% of Pakistani Muslims say they support the death penalty for leaving Islam. And so even if you're dealing with lower percentages like 21 or 25 or something like that, you're still talking about a lot of people. When you're talking about 1.6 billion Muslims and you're looking at countries and you're seeing statistics like 65% favor this or 78% of them, you're talking about millions of people who want violence. And so if you're saying Islam isn't violent, then the only conclusion we could draw is that you're claiming that this many people are misunderstanding Islam in exactly the same way. So that would be the question. Why are so many Muslims, if it's not violent, misunderstanding it in exactly the same way? And it's not just Muslim countries, it's not just Muslim majority countries. You can come to the West. In 2009, nearly one in four British Muslims said that the 77 bombings were justified.  Notice that's me and AP, 68% over half of British Muslims said they support our arrest and prosecution for insulting Islam. 18% of British Muslim students said they would not inform police if a fellow Muslim was planning a terrorist attack.  And so we see these kinds of statistics and then we see very, very popular Muslims today. People like Ali Dawah, warning that if he ever gets control of society, people like AP are going to be executed. He says that and his followers are very happy about that. We have Sheikh Asim al-Hakim who laid out the overall plan. He said Muslims are too weak right now to conquer the world. But he said, if Muslims keep preparing right now, then in a few decades, they may get to the stage where they're able to go door to door, knocking at the door, giving people three options. And the options are, not according to me, according to Sheikh Asim al-Hakim and the Muslim sources he's getting it from, you either convert to Islam or you pay the jizya or in his words, and he meant that you should be killed. And if that's your idea of a peaceful religion, again, you're gonna have to change the meaning of the words violence or peace or Islam to get something peaceful out of this. You got it. Thank you very much for that opening. And what to say, folks, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we are a neutral channel hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from, whether you be Christian, atheist, Muslim, you name it. We're glad that you are here.  King Krakaduk, old school YouTube debater, coming out of retirement for this huge debate against David McQueen. It's going to be a big one. You don't want to miss it. It's on creation of illusion. So hit that subscribe button so you don't miss it. And with that, we're gonna kick it over to our Muslim guests as well. Thanks so much for being with us. Perfect Dawah and Nadir, the floor is all yours. Did you want to go first, Michi? Yeah, if it's okay. Sure, go ahead. All right, thank you. Sorry, I've been a little bit sick now. I'm better. So it's Islam violent. There are many ways to answer it. It depends on who you ask this question from. If you ask this question from those who have zero knowledge of Koran, then you believe that Islam is violent because for them, kafirs are disbelievers. And killing them is allowed according ISIS and Islamists who read Koran like ISIS. Despite kafirs are not disbelievers, but oppressors like ISIS, Ayatollah Fashist Romani, Hitler, Chinggis Khan, and all other oppressors, no matter what they believed in or they believed in or believed in. Koran chapter 16, verse 83, they recognize the favor of Allah, then they deny it and most of them are kafirs. In this verse, Allah S.P.H. says most of disbelievers are kafirs, not all. So if kafir is disbelieved then all of them should be kafir.  In this verse, Satan didn't become disbeliever but he rejected Allah's command. Rejecting any of his commands is a kafir and I believe we all commit kafir but in the day of judgment, Allah S.P.H. measures your scale of good and bad deeds. Koran chapter 23, verse 102, and those whose scales are heavy with good deeds, it is they who are successful entering heaven. Koran chapter 16, verse 90, indeed Allah orders justice and doing good deeds and giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad deeds and oppression. He admonishes you that perhaps you will be reminded. So rejecting these commands, which is doing good deeds and giving to relatives, needy and taking care of orphans is kafir, whether you believe in Allah S.P.H. or not. Koran chapter 107, verse one through verse seven. Have you seen the one who denies the religion? That is the one who repulse the orphan and does not encourage the feeding of the poor. So true to those who pray, yet are not mindful of their prayers. Those who only show off and refuse to give even the simplest aid. So those who pray and repulse the orphans and don't feed the poor are the same as the disbelievers who do the same. Their prayers are just showing up. So it doesn't matter what you believe in but what you do matters in the day of judgment. Koran chapter 42, verse 43, and whoever is patient and forgives indeed, that is of the matters requiring determination. Chapter 23, verse 96, O Muhammad repel evil in the best manner. We are well aware of all that they say about you. Allah S.P.H. even encourages us to forgive those who do evil. Koran chapter four, verse 135. O believers, stand firm for justice and witness, as witness for Allah, even if it is against yourself, your parents or close relatives, be they rich or poor. Allah is best to ensure their interest, refrain from following your own desires so that you do not act unjustly. If you conceal the truth, Allah is fully aware of what you do. Islam is not a passive religion and has a guidance for every situation. So when people are attacked by enemies, Islam gives them the right to fight back, but that permission is only in self-defense and only as the last option. Koran chapter eight, verse 61. And if they incline to peace, then incline to it also and rely upon Allah. Indeed, it is He who is hearing the knowing. Koran chapter two, verse 190, fight in the cause of Allah, only against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors. There are many more verses to read which teaches the same meaning of being merciful and forgiving and peaceful. So a true Muslim is just the one who is merciful, forgiving, being peaceful, giving to relatives, needy, being just and taking care of orphans and doing all good deeds. Thank you, brother. Yes, brother, another. Wonder, okay, can you guys hear me? Awesome, okay, thanks, Muji. And this is gonna be very easy debate. Let me first, but before I begin, I just wanna first debunk some of these statistics David Wood has presented trying to show Muslim to be more violent than other people. And then he tried to say, well, this is just because of the Islamic teachings. Islam teaches them to be this way. Well, you do know, let me first start off by bringing some statistics of my own, showing you that the real problem in this world that we're having today is Christian jihad. I'm talking about what's going on in Ukraine. Let me go ahead and present to you the following articles from the Pope.  Did that sound familiar? Well, that sounds like jihadism 101. That's the same stuff. Bin Laden and all the terrorists were teaching there, all right? And not only that, but we saw the Russian Orthodox Church sent missionaries and I'm sorry, fighters, or we call them mercenaries to Syria. And they committed horrible acts of murder against the Syrian people. And this was all blessed by the rock, the Russian Orthodox Church. But the murderous jihad of the Russian Orthodox Church, actually this is, I would be here all day long if I were to just tell you about all the murder scene. But I wanna talk about another terrorist here and that is the terrorist known as Billy Graham's son. What's his name? Franklin Graham. Bashar Assad, one of the worst mass murderers of our time. He gasses on people, barrel bombs, murdering innocent civilians. Look at this statistic over here. Let's see what David would have to say about this here. He says, the reason, let me read this article and I'm getting it from DW, or I'm sorry, the conservative conversation. Okay, the conversation, here we go. The reason, this is one of the reasons I believe that Putin's war against the Chechen militia, militants in 1990s and more recent interview on behalf of Assad's government in Syria made him popular with Christian conservatives. Who? The mass murderer Assad. They believe Putin was protecting Christians while waging war against the Islamic terror. Now, ask Osama bin Laden.  Well, yes I am. An identical reasoning. Osama bin Laden and all the terrorists, they walk and talk the same way. So there you go. I hope now let's get some stats in front of us to debunk some of the things David Wood was saying. So Christians are the peaceful ones, right? Let us look over here. Pew research over here. Compared with a general public, Muslims are more likely to say targeting and killing civilians is never justifiable. Now, be consistent now, David. When Muslims said something bad, he said Islam is a problem. That's because of Islam. Well, now you have to now be consistent and say, okay, because of the religion of Islam, killing innocent civilians is wrong. Muslims, lead on that there. And again, please pause on your YouTube video to get all my references. I'm gonna go through this very quickly here. But it's worse, let me quote you another statistic over here. Public policy in polling, 49% of Republicans think the religion of Islam should not be made legal in the United States. Let me open up this link over here. That's 49% of these people, if given the opportunity, they would engage in the same religious persecution against Muslims that their forefathers did. The only thing which is protecting us is the United States Constitution, which because there are many attempts to shut down our mosques and attacks against our mosque by these peaceful Christians. Okay, so I think I said enough on that. So here's how this debate's gonna go down. All of these arguments, he threw a lot of stuff at us tonight, but all these arguments about this idea that the Quran promotes violence and attacks against the non-believers, it can all be refuted by one simple argument, one simple argument, which can destroy all of these arguments. And that is very simple, as Muji alluded to. The Quran, when it talks about in chapter 929, fight the disbelievers, it excludes peaceful people, not peaceful people, not innocent people at all. So let us go and let us show you that one verse over here, I don't know how much time I have over here. This is Surah 9, chapter 4, verse 9, 91, I'm sorry. Let me go there real quick. If I go, oh, wrong one, got one. So over here, it says fight the non-believers, but look at what it says over here. It says over here that when you find other people who want security from you and security from their own people, but whatever they are tempted into, sit on the score, they plunge into it. So if they withdraw not from you, now look at the criteria over here. If they withdraw not from you, nor offer you peace, nor restrain their hands, seize them and execute them wherever you find them. So yeah, the Quran says, okay, go out and wage war against non-believers, but this is really a defensive verse. Why? 491 forces it to be a defensive verse, because if you apply this and say, listen, now it's the peaceful people. So here's how this debate is going to go down. We're going to chase apostate prophet out of the Quran and David would. Then they're going to try to go to the hadith. But this hadith says this over here and believe me, they're going to have no refuge. We're going to chase him out of the hadith as well. And then they're going to try to get some opinions of scholars and that's also not going to work for them. So why is Islam a religion of peace? Because number one, because even though you find more verses, it's excluding peaceful people. So here's my challenge for apostate prophet and David, prove me wrong, from all of the wars and battles that we find inside our texts, inside our scriptures, show me one group of people who were peaceful people and they were fought on the account of just because of their religion, okay? And you will never find it. In fact, we actually see from the Quran, it actually condemns us. So this is one argument that will destroy everything they produced. Now, I do want to refer, I think apostate prophet brought about this hadith about Dulk Halasah. So let me give you the hadith, what it actually says over here, okay? What, so he went out and asked people, okay, go and tear down their temple. Why? Moses did the same thing, right? Muhammad is a prophet like Moses. Just as Moses smashed the golden calf, Muhammad did the same. But he said, okay, but everybody was killed. The text actually said, and then came the prophet, and they actually came to the prophet and said, and Allah's messenger, I have not come to you till I left it like a camel with skin disease. And the prophet simply invoked good upon Ahmads and the caliphate. Now, here's my point here. We should not get into an interpretation. It will look at Muhammad did said, didn't say anything about it or we should find a clear explicit teaching just like I did. When I quoted 491, that was a clear explicit teaching from the Quran rather than getting into some kind of interpretation gains. So all throughout the hadith, all throughout the Quran, you will find this recurring theme that if there are people who are peaceful, they're not fighting anybody. There's no war to be waged against them. Now they raised a lot of things and one by one, it will be debunked. So why Islam? So when we talk about, okay, well, why is it violent? There is good violence and then there's bad violence. Like for example, fighting to protect oppressed people. Well, that's considered to be a very good type of violence. So I think we need to be clearer. We're talking about unjustifiable violence, violence like what's happening in Ukraine, which is what Putin is doing. So let me repeat my challenge. Let's start with the Quran. Don't run to the hadiths. Don't run. Let's start with the Quran and show me anything in there which teaches to fight against peaceful people or to kill innocent people. And if you can't find it from the Quran, then say so. Just be honest and then we'll go to the hadith. With that, we're gonna jump into open conversation folks and do wanna say, as mentioned before, we hope you're welcome no matter what walk of life you are from. This should be a juicy one. We're going to have Q and A afterwards. If you wanna submit a question for the Q and A since we're live, you can do that by tagging me in the live chat with at modern day debate. Otherwise, super chats work as well as we read those first and then we try to work through the standard questions as well with that. Thank you very much to all of our guests for being with us. The floor is all yours. I wanna quickly jump in and say that it is very strange that this whole debate on the Islamic side consists of deflecting from the actual point. For example, Nader Ahmad, when challenged about all the violence and all the hate that Islam presents, jumps to what about Ukraine? What about Russia? What about the Bible? What about this? What about that? Instead of focusing on the point, half of his speech was about that. We talked very clearly about the Quran and about how the Quran was practiced by Mohammed, how it is practiced today. And we see in Quran chapter nine, verse 29, that it clearly says, and I want to read this in order to have some context here. Let me do that. Quran chapter nine, verse 29, it doesn't say fight only those who fight you. It says very literally this, fight those who do not believe in Allah. Look, fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the last day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and his messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the scripture. Fight until they give the jizya willingly while they are humbled.  No, it says very clearly, explicitly, I'm reading it from here. It says fight those who don't believe and who don't adopt Islam. That's it. Can I answer you real quick? Let me answer. Okay, please. This is exactly what ISIS does. Okay, they take one verse of Quran and chapter three verse seven, let me bring it for you. Explain how to read Quran, okay? Let me three, seven, I read for you that. Can we just stay on the topic and focus on if we're talking about? No, no, it is topic, yeah? You are reading Quranic verses and you have to know how to read Quran. Okay, go ahead. Allah Sultana explain how to read Quran. He says in chapter three verse seven, it is he who has said down to you, O Muhammad, the book, in it are verses that are precise. They are the foundation of the book and others are unspecifics.  And no one knows that it's true interpretation, except Allah and those fear in knowledge. And they say, we believe in it, all of it is from our Lord. Thank you. And no one will remind, okay. Thank you, let me ask you a question. Look, the verse, let me ask you a question about the verse. We want to focus on that, right? So what does the verse say? In the verse, whom does it want the Muslims to fight? What exactly does it say? Who is the target? Can you tell me that? In chapter nine, verse 29. Okay. That's what I was trying to tell you that. When you take one, how those fear in knowledge understand the true meaning of chapter? Can you answer my question? Yes. In Quran chapter nine, verse 29, it tells the Muslims to fight certain people. Who does it tell Muslims to fight? Okay, let me tell you, let me, okay.  Can you please answer my question? Who does it tell Muslims to fight in Quran chapter nine, verse 29? None of the verses. If you take just that verse, I'll say chapter 60, verse eight, says Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of your religion and do not expel you from your homes from being righteous towards them and acting justly towards them. Indeed Allah loves those who are acting justly. Does it say, does it say do not fight? I do want to quick, why don't we jump to David for two minutes or one minute if you guys want to shorten it because I know in Nadir that you wanted to jump it a little bit early in the last one, which is okay, I understand because two minutes is a long time. And then we'll go to you, Nadir, I promise, right after David. Okay. So, I said- Like we're gonna jump to David now. Okay, David. Instead of AP. David. All ready for you, David. Oh, I'm starting? Okay. So yeah, we have basically the same strategy going on from Muji and Nadir, which is to take a very clear verse and then say it's actually not clear because of this earlier verse or this other verse. And that other verse is where Allah says what he really means. And so if Allah in one place in the Quran earlier in the revelations says, fight people who are attacking you, then later when he says, fight those who do not believe, he must mean those who do not believe and who are attacking you, even though that's not what he said. Now, what's the problem there? Well, for 14 centuries, Islam has had a very simple methodology for reading Quran verses when it looks like, hey, these two things are commanding us different things. And the message is from the Quran itself surah two, the doctrine of abrogation. Allah abrogates earlier revelations and gives new things depending on the circumstances. And so we see this in the life of Muhammad when Muhammad's a persecuted prophet, its peace and tolerance, when he can only fight defensively but isn't in a position to subjugate people, the revelations change to one of defensive jihad. Then when Muhammad has the most powerful force in Arabia, the message changes once again to fight those who do not believe. Now, when Allah says fight those who do not believe, he really means fight people who are attacking you. He had already said fight people who are attacking you. Why did he need to say this new thing that sounds like he's commanding you to fight someone completely different, especially when you read 929 in context because the verses that come immediately after explain why you're fighting Jews and Christians. The Jews say Ezra is the son of Allah and the Christians say the Messiah is the son of Allah. There's not one word there about, oh, and they're attacking you as well. And so, okay, good. How long do I have? Two minutes as well. Okay, let me, yeah, let's. So, I asked a very simple question. Now, let me first, there's a lot of information being given out, I'm gonna address one by one now. You see, Apostate, the reason why I brought up those statistics was to show that if you look at Muslims in comparison with other people, there's really not a whole lot of difference. We are fighting Christian jihad right now in Ukraine. Okay, so I'm showing you that those statistics really don't mean anything and actually the Muslims fare very well. Now, let's get back to 929. You see, now look, what you are doing, you're taking the verse, you're cutting it out and say, okay, let's just look at 929 to fight the disbelievers, fight the disbelievers. Okay, AP, that's what it says, okay. But I'm asking you, let's perform proper exegesis and let's look at other verses which are also related to fighting non-believers. Let's go to 4291. And you're saying, no, I don't wanna go there. No, let's go there. Because when you read it in light of 491, the 491 spot check, it's so that if they do not restrain their hands from you, nor offer you peace, then you can take a hold of them and slay them. For them, you have a clear warrant. So 491 tells us you gotta get a warrant first to fight. Okay, so that's all I was asking you to do is read it in light of other passages. This is just basic exegesis. Now, responding to David Wood with this canard that you see when Islam is weak, then they're defensive. This is his malicious, nefarious, spin interpretation he's placing upon the text. There's no evidence for any of them, okay. So, and of course he should really show no evidence for that anyway. So the issue now, and then David tried to say, okay, well, you see the reason why you're supposed to fight the non-believers is because they weren't something like Uzair or something like that. Read the text carefully. Once again, another spin upon the text. It doesn't say because. And I asked him, what, show me where it says it. This is the reason you fight them. Where is that? Just so you can hear me. We'll kick it over to Apostate Prophet or David. So I want to be very, very good here and go to Quran chapter 4, verse 91, which not around me to frequently sides in order to explain that the Quran is actually a very peaceful book.  And every time they return to disbelief, they will back into it and so on. It of course doubts them again. If they ask for peace, give it to them, but then they will turn away and then seize them and kill them and so on. It goes to that place again. Now here is an issue.  I tell them, go and fight whoever does not believe in what we are preaching. But then I also tell them, hey, if somebody asks for peace, for security granted to them, okay, make peace with them, but you know they will turn away and then you will seize them and kill them again. This is what I tell people. Do I hereby tell my followers that they should only fight those who are aggressive? No, not at all. I am clearly telling people that they should fight all those who don't accept what I preach. And I also add that if they come and want to make peace, you can make peace. Why in the world does the Quran to begin with? In chapter nine, which is a chapter revealed toward the end of Mohammed's life, at the very end of the Quran's life, why does it command Muslims to fight those who do not believe? I simply have a very simple question. Quran chapter nine verse 29 is only one verse. In this verse, we can analyze this whole sentence. It's usually written out as a whole sentence. In that sentence, please show me the object. It says, fight those who do not believe. Yara, yara, yara. What exactly is the object in this verse? Who does Allah tell you to fight in this verse? How does Allah describe those whom you should fight? Can you please answer this question? Absolutely, I'd love to do that if I can go to James. So the Quran, first of all, let me first back up and go back to nine and 29. It's, I'm sorry, a 491. The text specifically excludes people who are peaceful. It seems like you have glossed over that apostate prophet. So because, and you put some bizarre interpretation spin on the verse so that you can get out of that, not people who are peaceful, but there's no way out for you, remember?  So let's go there because Muhammad actually explains how this verse is to be interpreted. This is from Sira Ibn-Ishaq. And there's so many references like what I'm gonna show you. Muhammad said, I will war against them who that war against you and be at peace with those who are at peace with you. Here we see a clear statement that we are at peace with people who are peaceful. Okay, so now here's what I love. Here's the battle, this is called the caravan raids, okay? And because these polytheists were attacking the Muslims and so the Muslims responded back. And so what's interesting here, and this is again, please look at my references on the screen, you just gotta hit pause to get them. So what's interesting over here is Muhammad set siege to them, but one of the pagans said, hey, go send somebody out to Muhammad and let's just talk peace on this thing. As soon as they offered it, they said, let's just send this person to Muhammad and now read the text which I have underlined over here. Then Muhammad returned back to Medida without meeting war. Why? Because the Quran said 491, that if the disbelievers, as they're peaceful, you have no warrant against them. Now I've just shown you two references. Guys, excuse me, I asked a very simple question. I'm still not getting an answer. I asked a very simple question. Another 10 seconds. I'm showing you how the Quran is to be interpreted. I'm showing you from the life of Muhammad. Now there's many, now in this book, Sira Ibn Ashaq, there's many battles taking place. Can you show me anybody in that book who was fought who are peaceful people, who were fought just on account of their religion? And time. AP, before you respond, let me just point out what's on the screen right there. The raid on Wadan, which was his first raid. So this is right after Muhammad and his followers leave Mecca. They flee Mecca and they go to Medina and then they start raiding. And notice, that's in the phase where defensive jihad starts. And the deer is taking this, a passage that says, in the passage he put on the screen, this is his first raid and pretending that nothing ever changed. And notice all it says, that he returned to Medina without meeting war. What happened? Nothing happened. He tried to go out and fight, it didn't work. That's what happened for several of his early raids. It was a total bust. And the deer is taking a quote from there. And you see, this is Islam. In fact, the Sira itself clearly explains to us that Muhammad upon establishing a little group in Medina of Muslims repeatedly tried to raid the disbelievers and it clearly explains to us, you should notice if you read the Sira, that the disbelievers finally sent their army and the first battle took place because the Meccan polytheists responded to Muhammad's provocations and raids and decided to attack the Muslims in order to put an end to this threat. So it's very funny, you tell us about how we would escape to the Hadith and the Sira, apparently you have not read the Sira ever because I mean, that's how the history in there goes. Yeah, and just one second, I just wanted to give a quick note for Evan who's watching because some people have no clue what we're talking about. So I'm not responding to anything right now, just when Muhammad and his followers left Mecca before Medina, Muhammad started launching raids against them and he launched a raid and it didn't work out, launched a raid, launched a raid. I think he launched seven raids before one of them actually worked out and then as AP pointed out, then they respond by sending out an army just to protect their supplies. So notice who was fighting defensively here. The Muslims kept attacking, the polytheists kept defending. That's all I wanted to point out. Well, let me respond to all that. Okay, so pretty much you can ignore everything, apostate prophet and David Wood are saying because these are nothing more than nefarious, malicious interpretations that they're spinning upon the text. Okay, there's many passages here, which clearly Muhammad is saying, okay, like I quoted over here, I will be at war against those that war against you and I will be at peace. Now, can we please end the screen sharing? You shouldn't dominate the screen with that, please. Okay, well, I actually have another reference. Okay, but you should keep that for your opening statements. You shouldn't dominate today's discussion with screen sharing. Let me give you another one since it's still not clear to these guys, okay? Now, let us look, I will just quote this last, like I said, there's so many passages about being at peace with non-believers who are not fighting you. I mean, these are just some of the many, but the issue about the caravan raids, which I just want to correct you, Sira Ibn Ashaq made it very clear that the caravan raids was only a response to the persecution and the threats made and the attacks made by the Meccans. So that was, and what were the purpose of the caravan raids? It was to put a embargo against the city of Mecca, complete lockdown. The purpose of the caravan raids was to send a message to them, hey, listen, back off, we don't want war. That was the message of the caravan raids. Then we can go through Sira Ibn Ashaq, I got the reference and we can look at all of that. Now I want to quote one more hadith just to light these guys up here, okay? Okay, so it says over here, the pagans were of two kinds, and the relationship to the prophet and the disbelievers. Some of them were those with whom the prophet was at war with, and the prophet used to fight against them, and then they used to fight against him. And the others was those with whom the prophet made treaties with, neither did the prophet fight them, nor did he fight them. So chapter nine, verse 29, fight against the disbelievers, that's clearly not all disbelievers. Okay, let's hit the screen sharing, please. I need to clearly explain that. Okay, so go ahead, please. So I just want to clarify what's happening here. Nader Ahmad is saying, ignore everything that David would and the opposite prophet are saying. Listen to us, the Muslims were just making sure that to put an embargo on the disbelievers, they were just trying to protect themselves. Well, what is happening here exactly in that time that we are describing is that Muhammad and his people are supposedly persecuted in Mecca where their home is. They go to Medina, settle there as Muslims, and after settling there and being far away from Mecca where they were not wanted because they were very offensive toward the local polytheistic religion, there, the first thing that they do is to establish a force and then to immediately send out raiders in order to raid caravans, which the Meccan polytheists have riding from Mecca throughout the Middle East. Muhammad is here not sending a warning out, not defending himself from a threat. No, he's sending people out in order to harass caravans that belong to the Meccan polytheists. This is not self-defense. This is Muhammad choosing to continue a conflict in a hostile way, which eventually because of his own provocations turns into a war and is nowadays by Muslims called a defensive war. It was not called so by the Muslims themselves in the very beginning. Now I want to go back and repeat my question, which is apparently extremely hard. Quran chapter nine, verse 29, tells Muslims to fight certain people. Whom does it tell Muslims to fight? Can you please answer the question without this? Yes, maybe I also can talk, please. I have said, AP, you are exactly like ISIS. You take one verse of Quran, okay? One verse of Quran and you say, all these verses are trash. That verse you say is the entire Quran.  Quran chapter 29 verse 46 says, and do not argue with the people of the scripture, except in the way that is the best, except for those who commit injustice among them and say, we believe in, okay, I don't read the rest. Chapter two, verse 62, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians and civilians, whoever believes in Allah and the last day and do righteous and good deeds, shall have their rewards with their Lord. On them shall be no fear, no shall they grieve. Quran chapter three, verse 113, not all of them are alike. Of the people of the book are a person that stand for the right. They rehearse the verses of God all night long and they frustrate themselves in abortion. So you just take one, there are many, many verses of Quran. You just take one verse of Quran and you say, this is the whole picture, okay? And the whole picture says this, but there are so many verses of Quran that says, fight against those who fight. You have given me many verses. None of these verses contradict chapter nine, verse 29. In fact, I can add a second question to my actual question, which is, can you give me one single Quran verse in which it says that Muslims are not allowed to fight those who do not attack them first? Can you find me one Quran verse which says Muslims are forbidden from fighting, from fighting people who are, you know, peaceful or who are, you know. Yeah, I gave you a chapter. Can you give me one? Can you give me one? Yeah, chapter 60, verse eight. Okay, well, let's look at it. Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because you don't need it. Yeah, one second along these lines because I just wanted to add on the issue of methodology because when we quote a Quran verse that says something very clearly in a verse that Allah says is perfectly clear. We're saying, we're hearing, ah, you're ignoring the rest of what the Quran says but notice, so Muji brings up sort of 60 verse eight and he thinks that this is saying some, you know be peaceful, if you just go a few verses earlier to sort of 60 verse four, so same passage but this is why there needs to be some methodology to conclude what Allah is actually saying because Muji is right about this. You can take one verse and rip it out of context and completely distort the meaning but you could do that with a peaceful verse as well. So just go four verses earlier, surah 60 verse four. Indeed, there has been an excellent example for you in Abraham and those within when they said to their people, verily we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allah we have rejected you and there has started between us and you hostility and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone. So this is the Quran, this is Allah in the Quran saying here is Abraham an example to you in this passage. Here's Abraham, he's an example and Abraham it's made up but Abraham is saying to the unbelievers there's hatred between us and you forever until you all only believe in Allah. And so we have to take these kinds of things into account when we're reading the same passage but then we have to look at the Quran as a whole and say why is it that the final marching orders are called sound like they're calling for violence against people just for being unbelievers. And then when you say, ah, but you can't read it that way because of these earlier verses but according to the Quran itself when these verses contradict, abrogation occurred. And so the question is which one came later that's the one that applies. Yeah, okay, so let me just answer some of that. First of all, you guys, I think apostate prophet and David they have a misunderstanding that, okay, well, why did the Quran even say fighting against the non-believers? It should never say that, that's wrong. Fighting against the non-believers during the life of Muhammad was the right thing to do and I'm gonna prove it to you and I'm gonna show you why it is still a peaceful thing. Think about the historical context of 929. You've got the Roman Empire on the left. You've got the Persian Empire on the right. They have been locked in war for now 600 years. History tells us there's the longest war in history. Okay, so, and this was a never-ending war. All kinds of horrible persecution were taking place, you know, in both these lands. And so when you see this type of, you know, never-ending war, Allah says this. He said, go and fight against the non-believers and subdue them. And that's exactly what 929 did. It conquered the Roman Empire. It conquered the Persian Empire and it ended a 600-year war. I will also show you a historical reference where historians point to this verse, 929, and say, hey, listen, it is because of 929, this same verse, David Wood and Apostate Prophet are complaining about is what saved the Jews from the genocide of the Christians. And I will show you that. But having said that, I want to just go back to 491 because 491, you know, what the verse basically states over there is that, you know, if people are not peaceful, then for them you can slay them. And what the text says for them, you have a clear warrant. You have a clear authorization against those people. So me as a sincere Muslim believer, not someone spinning nefarious malicious interpretations, we gotta pause and we gotta think, hey, you've got these peaceful tribe of people over here. Allah said, if they're peaceful, if they're not peaceful, okay, then you've got a clear warrant against them. So I'm gonna pause, I'm gonna stop. I'm like, wait a second. The 491 spot check is making me think twice before I attack a peaceful people who are restraining their hands, they're peaceful. How can I attack these people in light of the 491 spot check? So this is why we say that Islam is a religion of peace because of 491 and also offensive words, the misunderstanding David has and possibly having, like you wanna kick it over, it's bad. Oh, I'm sorry, I talked a lot. It's just a warrant argument. Go ahead. Listen to what Nader is saying. He's saying it was completely justified for the Muslims to have the command to fight these believers, but hey, also Muslims are not allowed or not supposed to fight those who do not fight. How exactly does that work? How exactly does that work? I will tell you how it works. The Quran commands Muslims to fight those who don't accept Islam and who do not adopt Islam from the Muslims. Muhammad further explains this in the hadiths. We have many of those hadiths. Muhammad explains in the hadiths that he has come to fight the disbelievers until they testify that Allah is the only God and that Muhammad is his messenger. He further instructs his followers to go and to give certain options to the disbelievers. To say to them, you have several options. You can accept Islam, number one, and we will leave you in peace and move on. We will, you will become our subjects and you will pay protection money, jizya, and you will be completely in our control and do whatever we say, but we will let you live.  You know that this is a new resources.  Muhammad himself explains this. This has been practiced throughout Islamic history. If you want to appeal to history, I can give you a wonderful source. Robert Hoylein wrote a book called In God's Path, the Arab Conquest and the Creation of an Islamic Empire. This is a book without agenda and it puts down very clearly the early history of the Islamic expansion. It explains how the Muslims relentlessly, violently, went out and fought and conquered and slaughtered whatever they could. They didn't even bother about spreading Islam at first. They just wanted to conquer as much as possible and then in whatever they conquered, they spread Islam. This is how Islam established itself. The sources are given right here and I'm asking you one very simple question without deflecting from the point, without going to things that in no way contradict this command. Tell me in Quran chapter 9 verse 29, it says, fight those who do not believe in Allah and His messenger, right? What exactly is the subject? Since I know you will not answer the question and you have taken a great liberty at sharing your screen and putting it in our faces here, I would like to do that as well here on my part. Let's go ahead and do that. I would like to share my screen here and see exactly what it says here and we can together analyze the structure of the sentences. Let's see. Do you see my? No. Okay, wonderful. So here is Quran chapter 9 verse 29. Apparently this is an extremely difficult Quran verse which nobody seems to understand because I have been asking about it forever now. Before this Quran verse, we find that it instructs Muslims to keep polytheists who are unclean out of the sacred area which belongs to Muslims. Then in chapter 9 verse 29, it says the following. Let's take this translation, Sahih International. Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the last day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from among those who were given the scripture. Fight until they give the jizya protection money willingly while they are humbled. Since the Muslims refuse to answer this question, let's do this very simply here. It says fight. It commands Muslims to fight and whom does it command them to fight? Here is the object. Those who do not believe in Allah, one. Those who don't believe in the last day, two. Those who don't consider unlawful what Allah and His messenger have made unlawful, three. Those who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the scripture, Christians and Jews.  So it clearly tells people to attack and fight the disbelievers who reject Islam and to humiliate them. And if you want the reason for that in the next verse, it says that the Jews and Christians are disbelievers who are corrupt and so on, which is why you are supposed to fight them. You are. This was a very hard. So the issue I think which you guys ran away from both David and apostate prophet is 929 did end 600 years of never ending war. 929 ended. And I did promise you a historical reference about how 929 only did it end the 600 years war. But I want to quote to you the Jewish virtual library. One of the point here is fighting the non-believers at the time of Muhammad was the right thing to do. That's what the historians say. Here it talks about that the Christians declared that all the Jews must be killed in Jerusalem. But look what the text over here says and what the historian says from the Jewish virtual library. It looked like the end of Judaism in Judea. However, things are going on in the Arabian desert which within seven years would change the picture of the Near East and of the whole world. And what is that Surah 9, verse 29, the very same verse that apostate prophet is complaining about and David would is complaining about what? So the point here is at the time of Muhammad's life that was the right thing to do. Non-believers had a lot of problems and that's why Allah actually said in that verse to do them for God's sake. They've been fighting for so much evil. And what 929 did, it made the Romans, it made the Persian and the Jews who they were trying to massacre here. They made them all citizens under one nation. That's the beauty of the Quran. That's why even if we were to interpret 929 in an offensive way, what we must understand is offensive war doesn't make the Quran not peaceful. And I will quote for you one more reference from a Roman, a fourth century Roman writer. And I'll give that to you in a second. He said, See this pack of parabellum. Let me translate that for you. If you want peace, prepare for war. Sitting in a defensive posture, you will get conquered. You want peace, prepare for war. This is the way the world is. But like I said, the 491 spot check which you ran away from clearly states you need a warrant. Allah said for those people who are not peaceful, you got a clear warrant to fight against them. So me as a Muslim, when I read that, I'm like, whoa, you really got to think, hey, are these people should I fight and wage war against it in light of the 491 spot check? Okay, so we'll answer your point about where Muhammad said, I have been ordered to fight until there's none, I'll answer that in my next time, go ahead. Yeah, can we get this off the screen here? Sure. All right, so a couple of things here. One, notice everyone, Nadeer's claim is that Allah ordered, so in 9 verse 29, fight those who do not believe in Allah to protect the Jews from the Christians and to end war. And of course, this led to 14 centuries of war. Islam spread west, Islam spread east, Islam fought its way across Northern Africa, up into Europe, Islam fought east, out towards India and China.  But notice what Nadeer's saying, Allah sends Muhammad with this revelation to protect the Jews. So he's the same guy he sent who said, the end will not come until you fight the Jews until the point where even if the Jews are hiding behind a tree or a rock, the tree or the rock will scream, there's a Jew hiding behind it, come kill him. That's the guy Allah sent to protect the Jews. And you can see how well that relationship is turning out to this day. As for 491, my goodness, let's just read that. Notice how the verse starts, others you will find that they wish to gain your competence as well as that of their people, as well as that of their people. Read the historical background. This is talking about people who come to Muhammad and say, ah, there's no God but Allah, Allah, Allah, Allah. And then they go back to their own people and then they immediately turn back to unbelief. They're playing both sides of the field here. And so is this sort of some command that puts a check on all future revelations? No, read Tafsir Jalalayn, read Ibn Abbas. It tells you the troops that these were talking about. This is not, here's the command for all future commands so that when Muhammad says, I've been commanded to fight people until they say there's no God but Allah. And when Allah says 929, fight those who do not believe in Allah, he's really saying, oh, but make sure you go back to Surah 4, verse 91, where there were those people who were trying to claim that they're part of both groups.  You can't make up your religion as you go along, Nadir. I mean, who says this? You guys keep saying, we're making this up. The greatest Islamic scholars today, they agree with us. They're not saying, oh, you have to go to Surah 4, verse 91. No one says that. It's too good. But does Muji want to say anything before we? Yeah, yeah, because I would like to say first of all, not all Muslims believe in the same things, like especially, for example, I have some disagreement with Nadir here, of course. And there are many Muslims who disagree with each other.  Because, for example, when you had this discussion with young Daum, you managed to make him an Islamophobe, a Muslim hater within just one hour or something. I have clipped. I'm going to share for everybody to see that how you change, if I'm allowed, how you change him. Let me see if I can find it. Anyway, I will try to share it my next time because I have to see how do I share that clip. Anyway, so you manage, because I don't believe in anything of what you say, and ISIS and Taliban, because you both have the same beliefs. You just reject those beliefs and they follow it. Both of you believe in a terrible barbaric Islam and there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who do not agree with you and do not believe in what you believe and you just follow one verse of Quran and say, this is the entire picture. And I have so many beautiful verses of Quran that says, fight only those who fight you. And be righteous towards those who do not fight you, those who do not expel you from your home and so on. So I will, on my next speech, I want to share that clip, that how you manage to demonize entire Muslims. And if, unfortunately, if my neighbor, my non-Muslim neighbors see you and they know that I'm a Muslim, what they think about me is I hope that they don't see what you preach, because you really spread hate against an entire Muslim. I really do not care about what kind of a Muslim you are and what you believe in and you're playing the victim. I understand that you might be peaceful, but what you have to understand is that I am an ex-Muslim. There are your fellow Muslim YouTubers out there who make YouTube videos in which they clearly say that people like me are little weaklings and we should be executed, killed.  Because we are Islam and spread corruption.  In some of them, it is punishable by death.  Let me tell you, wait, wait, wait, wait. I actually, I don't know. But hey, but hey, but hey, let's, let's, let's, not too much speaking over each other, otherwise we can't hear either side. Let me come to my part and let me share my screen if we talk about Jews, since I think I don't admit a huge blunder here. I gotta, just to, I give you about, just a bit over two minutes. Yeah, I'm just going to say. I'm going to bring you perfect hour. So I gotta give a, I promise you can come back to you, but I want to give a positive profit chance to make his two minutes.  I just, yeah, okay. And he's the victim. You need to give him more time. So, not an argument he had talked about, it's how peaceful Islam isn't how it protected the Jews. I think nobody in their right mind would try to spread the notion that Islam is peaceful and then bring up Jews. I mean, are you kidding me? Let me share this here. Muhammad made many prophecies. Muslims around the world believe in Muhammad's prophecies which are bound to come true. Let's see one of those prophecies which is extremely famous in the Muslim world. Let's see what that prophecy says. This one is very well known. It is very well backed up, extremely authentic by Islamic standards. It says Abu Hurrah reported Allah's messenger as saying, the last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree. And a stone or a tree would say, Muslim servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. But the tree gargant would not say for it is the tree of the Jews. This is in many Muslim sources, in Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, Riyadh-e-Stahliheen, which is a book which compiles all the authentic reports of Muhammad.  Let this sink in everybody. Everybody who doesn't know about this, who has heard about this for the first time, look at what this says and let this go through your mind. Does this sound like peace? Does this sound like it teaches Muslims to be peaceful? Let me tell you what it teaches. I was a Muslim. I come from a very religious Muslim family. I grew up with Muslims and Muslim families who believed in the most apocalyptic nonsense who believed in the imminent coming of the end. I remember times where I would sit down and I was told that the Jews will soon fight us and we should slaughter them and even trees would protect them. Can I respond to some of that real quick? Okay, so basically the Hadith you are quoting, this is only talking about the Jews who were following the Antichrist. Okay, so this is not talking about all Jews and this is an end time prophecy over here. Okay, so this is clearly no teaching that we should kill Jews or anything like that. You're reading that into the text. Once again, another malicious nefarious spin upon our scripture. But I think both Sam, I'm sorry, David and apocalyptic prophet, they are not able to refute the historical fact that yes, 929 saved the Jews from the genocide of Christianity. They are not able to refute the fact that it ended 600 years of war. So they basically started bringing up other issue, but what about this? What about this? Why did the wars continue? I'll try to address all these points one at a time. Listen, if you don't hear me addressing some argument, it's not because I don't have an answer, it's because they're throwing a lot at me and I'm an old man now, so I'm trying to address all their points. So I think it would put some ridiculous spin, again, on the 929, 4.91 spot check, this is just not for all people. Okay, it's just for some people. I didn't get it at all, wherever he was going with that. But anyway, I want to just respond very quickly to the misquoted, what said, okay, wait a second, where did the Koran says to, this is that we're here to save Jews? Chapter four, verse 75. What, this is the reason why you fight against non-believers, not because of their unbelief as apostate prophet misquoted the Koran, he said it's because they're unbelievers. That's not what the Koran says. The Koran said in 4.75, and why don't you fight in the way of Allah against the disbelievers?  That's the reason why we fight against non-believers. So now he misquoted the Hadith, he said, I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify, none has a right to be worshiped against Allah. Can I also say something? Sure. All right, so first of all, I said that not everybody agree with each other. There are, for example, I disagree, I have said it from beginning, I disagree with the meaning of Quf that is disbelief, I said chapter 16 verse 83, they recognize the favor of Allah, then deny it, then most of, it says Allah says, and most of them are kafir. And then AP said that, yes, they say, Muslims say that he should be killed. And I have to say that, yes, he will help them by quoting this all the time that Koran, Islam says that, what is it, the apostate should get killed, despite this is absolutely a big lie. And then he said this, about this prophecy of the prophet, Muhammad peace be upon him, Koran chapter 46 verse 9 says, I'm no different from the others messengers, other messengers, nor do I know what will happen to me or to you, I only follow what is inspired to me. I am no more than a clear warner, chapter seven verse 187, they ask you, oh Muhammad about the hour, when it's arrival, say it's knowledge is only with my Lord, none will reveal it's time except him, it lays heavily upon the heavens and the earth, it will not come to you open, except unspectedly, they ask you as if you are familiar with it, say it is, it's knowledge is only with Allah, but most of the people do not know, there are many, many other verses that Allah says that prophet Muhammad doesn't know when the hour come and doesn't know the future, and these hadiths they go against Koran and apostate prophet take these hadiths and I was trying to play that, you know, that video clips that I have taken from his, you know, his talk, you know, speech with young Don that he made in just that one hour to hate all Muslims, okay? And I want to please, because I have recorded that, I want to play that one if it is possible somehow. Let me see if I can video, okay? I want to share video. You want to actually play the clip right now? It's a very, very short clip, okay? It doesn't, I don't know why it doesn't allow. If it works, I'm okay because Muji's been pretty patient with the... Yeah, yes, but I click on share, it says... By the way, Muji, it's very impressive how you made it appear, made it appear as if it is my fault that Muslims tell me that I should be killed. Yes, I know. Because I gave...    No, I didn't say it. No, don't change again my words.  I say you are helping them as well, okay? Despite it is not what all Muslims believe in that, okay? And it is not what Islam says. I know that that is... What about Nader?  So basically, do you agree with the majority opinion within the Islamic scholarly consensus about the killing of apostates? Yeah, I don't think that's the majority opinion, but no, I don't think apostates should be killed and there's evidence from the Quran and Hadith on that. In fact, I have no problem with you, Ridwan. You have a problem with me. You don't wanna talk to me or see me. I mean, we're both from Puree, Illinois, I guess, while you're from Bloomington. So I'm not the one who has a problem with apostates. The apostates, they have a problem with me. I like them. So, but we'll get to the discussion of apostates at another time. Hold up. Did he just dox the apostate prophet in the middle of a discussion about killing apostates? Well, it was a very inaccurate doxing, but still it's all right. All right, anyway, yes, anyway. Back to Moji. Yeah, so it is not you and I asked once, what is it? Because what I'm saying and many Muslims say also is not out of context, okay? It is Quran, Quran says many, many verses explain and there are scholars, but you just always go to that what ISIS and Taliban, the extreme says that you see, oh, Quran say Islam say this, Islam say this.    Would you support me at that time and say no, what Moji says is Islam. Would you do that? I asked this, Harry Sultan, this question, he said, yeah, in that moment to save my life, I will lie, okay? Despite, first of all, it's not that.  Yeah, so you would lie.  Okay, so you would ask that. I wish you would also refrain from lying and to actually read the Quran and the Hadith as they are, as the violent. No, no, no, I said, okay, so you said Quran and Hadith. How about Quran, okay? Is there anything in Quran that says that I have to kill apostates? Can you give me a single? No, no, no, there is not, there is not. There is a Hadith which explains that which is why. Well, yeah, to be clear, the Quran does say that Muslims have to obey all of Muhammad's decisions and Muhammad declared that apostates had to be killed. Even in Shia, it's not. Okay, can I jump in real quick here? I just, yeah, so I just wanted to just quickly address there's so many points over here. You know, a Hadith was quoted where Muhammad, Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam said that I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped. And so this is a commonly used Hadith by these guys, but it is taken out of context. So when Muhammad said, listen, I've been ordered to fight them until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped. So they are trying to infer that if they say no, well, you kill them, let's find out if that's true.   He says, testify that I am the messenger of Allah. And now look what this guy says. He's got the sword right above his head. Now normally most people would be like, okay, yeah, sure. But this guy says, no, but I promise that I will never fight against you nor support anybody against you. The prophet let him go. Why? Because God said in chapter 491, if they restrained their hands from fighting nor offer you peace, well, those people, then you can kill them. So here we see Muhammad is a best interpreter of chapter four, verse 91, not David or apostate prophet. And so when you quote that Hadith, you need to quote this one here. So what we see here is just this profound misunderstanding ignorance of the Islamic texts. Okay, you just can't take that statement and run with it. You need to read it. So let's de-conceptualize this and talk about this. I just wanted to give a quick response here. So my overarching theory and the theory of various Muslim scholars over the centuries and what I regard as the only plausible method of interpreting the Quran is that the revelations changed over time, depending on the circumstances of the Muslim population so that when Muhammad was a persecuted prophet, peace and tolerance, when they could fight defensively, then it's, hey, let's raid caravans and so on because we have to get back at these guys. And then when he's the most powerful force in Arabia, then it's violently subjugate everyone. And we keep hearing these passages from these, this defensive stage and then using that to reinterpret the commands of the offensive stage. And then Nadir in response quotes a passage from the expedition of Dot Al-Rika, which is 625 AD. In other words, smack dab in the middle of the defensive Jihad stage that doesn't refute anything. He says, we're misquoting this hadith. Let me just, let me just read it. Sahih Muslim, number 33. It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah Ibn Umar that the messenger of Allah said, I've been commanded to fight against people. Notice that's pretty general, right? It's not people who are attacking you. I've been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no God but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah and they established prayer and pays the cotton. If they do it, if they do it, if they do what? If they say Muhammad is a true prophet, then their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf. So Nadir, that was what Nadir, the passage that Nadir quoted, if we just put them side by side with this, it would be a contradiction. But we don't want to say that Muhammad is just contradicting himself. So what happens? You put these things in context and as Islam expands, it becomes increasingly more violent and tends to fight people before being unbelievers. I can give you a quick two minute response, Nadir. And then we've got to go into this. We have got one short section before we go into the Q&A that I want to get to and then the closings, then the Q&A. So it's short. Look at all the multiple points of failure. Number one, the text says, I have been commanded, if I didn't say you have been commanded to fight, that's the first point of failure. Second, is it fight the people? Why doesn't it say the disbelievers? Who are the people? Even till today, scholars don't even know who the people are. That's number two. He said, okay, but it's not refuting my point. It's contradicting. There's no contradiction between the text which I quoted and what you quoted. When, I said, I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify. But what I'm quoting you is, what if they say, no, I will not be a Muslim. So, but you know what?  And when Muhammad heard those words, he put down the sword and the guy walked away. And he said, I came from the best of mankind. So one good thing I did like about David, he walked back that nonsense about, this is the defensive stage. It's my theory. He said, it's a theory. And I'm glad you said that. But this in reality is his nefarious, malicious interpretation of our text. There are no stages, okay? I have read this, I've been looking, I've been reading the Quran and Hadith and I'm looking for these stages. It's not. He's got this malicious interpretation of our books. So he was reading all that into it, okay? So I think that the main point here, there's no getting around the 491 spot check, okay? The 491 spot check says, you need a warrant to go out and kill people. And it tells you the list. Are they people? Are they restraining their hands? Okay, well, if they're not doing that, then you can clear them. You got a warrant in that case. And somehow they're trying to weasel their way around the 491 spot check. It doesn't work. But I think that, I wasn't able to address all the points, there's so many points flying left and right, but the most important thing I think over here is, the reasons for work here. The Quran lists the reasons of why you go quite on non-believers. And when you read the list, they're all really noble. They're all really good reasons. Like for example, you see these people persecuted. They're crying out, who will rescue me? That's a very good reason. And so one of the things I love about Islam, when you do look at the reasons behind warfare, they're all noble and good. You gotta jump into what we're going to do now is we did this new, you could say feature on modern day debate where we ask the audience, we pull them on what subtopic under the broader topic of the debate question for the night, they'd like to have talked about by each of our guests.  So that was actually, namely is ISIS Islamic was the most popular topic, or I should say subtopic of tonight's debate that people wanted to hear all four of our guests weigh in on. So we're gonna give each of you a chance, wanna start with a positive profit, then we'll go over to perfect Dawah, then we'll go to David, and then we'll go to Nadir, and then we'll go into those closing statements. We'll give you each about a minute. Thanks very much, Pate Prophet, the floor is all yours. Well, thank you so much. I wanna say, wait a second, I just wanna keep track of my time in order to not go over it. So whether ISIS are Muslims or not, well, I wanna quickly say, I think the debate today is very much, it's done, it's over. We have presented everything that the Quran says, everything that the Hadith say, the Quran clearly ordered the Muslims to fight the disbelievers. At first, I heard for many minutes from the Muslim side. We're still opposing the after this, though. Oh, okay, yeah, sure. You do, so, okay. So now you want me to for three minutes talk about that? Just for about a minute or so. Okay, sure. Whether or not ISIS is Islamic. Okay. Is ISIS Islamic? I would say they are Islamic in the sense that they certainly are Muslims. Their leadership, the people who were in high ranks within ISIS and the people who joined ISIS were truly under the assumption that they are Muslims and that they follow Islam and that this is what Islam requires from them. They had all the sources, all the backing from religious history and scholarly authorities from the last 1,400 years, which told them that they have to establish a caliphate and fight for Islam, fight the disbelievers and also fight those within who refuse to obey Islam. In that sense, they certainly were Muslims. Does that mean all Muslims are supposed to be like ISIS? No, I don't think so. I think ISIS are actually, I can say very extreme within the Muslim community and most Muslims do not agree with ISIS, but that doesn't make them non-Muslims. They certainly were Muslims. You got it, and then for Vigdala? Yeah, I would like to say, if ISIS had oil like Iranian ISIS regime, then the West wouldn't highlight them so much because Iranian regime has killed, massacred millions of people that ISIS didn't reach to do. But unfortunately, the West doesn't talk about Iranian ISIS regime because Iranian regime has oil and gas and they even try to help them, to save them, despite people on the street are, and Iranian regime is not, they don't believe in anything but money, okay? So they abuse religion to oppress people so that they can rob people and the West support them because they inflame the Middle East and they can sell their weapons to the Middle East and they can buy cheap oil. And then Iranian regime, those oil money that they take, they bring them to USA, to Canada mostly, and they put them in their bank so that there are so many reasons that why the West support the ISIS regime of Iran. So ISIS is not just that organization. Iranian regime is much worse than that ISIS organization. And but unfortunately, the West doesn't talk about this regime and doesn't say what they are doing because they need them, unfortunately. So these are not religion, these are just business and politics. You got it. And we'll go over to David. Well, we had ground something. Iran is pretty terrible. As for ISIS, I mean, you're gonna have to really break down why they would not be Muslims. Are they reciting the Shahada? Yes, do they believe in the five pillars? Yes, do they believe in the Articles of Faith? Yes, but that doesn't mean they're Islamically correct on anything. But if you're gonna say you have to be Islamically correct on everything in order to be Islamic, then you're gonna rule out lots and lots and lots of Muslims.  And so, I mean, if you look at what they're fighting for, they're fighting to revive the caliphate, to bring about the prophecies of Islam so that Islam can start expanding again. They were trying to crack down on apostasy and hypocrisy because they didn't believe that Allah is going to bless the Muslim community to take over the world until they deal with these problems in society. And that's why the leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, gave himself that name, the Abu Bakr of Baghdad. He's taking on the role of Abu Bakr as AP pointed out earlier, went on a killing spree of people who had declared themselves Muslims but were not living appropriately in order to cleanse the Islamic community and the eyes of ISIS, that is what prepared the Muslim community to go on its conquering spree. And so they were trying to do the same thing. If you wanna say they're wrong about this or that, you could say that, but to say that they're not Muslims or not Islamic would be a huge stretch that I think would rule out pretty much all Muslims. Yeah, so, should I go real quick on? Yeah, so let me give you a better source of this information than apostate prophet and David Wooden, the US military, they've researched this topic and not only that, but many different organizations like the Rand Corporation, and from their findings that you will never hear any expert from the military calling ISIS Islamic. I just wanna quote one guy. Now, I'm not cherry picking here. I can give you many references from the military who is basically denying this claim. I wanna quote Carter Maltesian. He's the author of the American War in Afghanistan. He served as a civilian advisor in Iraq and Afghanistan and was a senior advisor to General Joseph Dunford and it goes on. Look what he says on his research of this topic. He says Islam is a source of unity and inspiration, not of terrorism or an atrocity. That's his quote. I'm not cherry picking here. Oh, maybe this guy said something nice about Islam. I can give you many references like this. I wanna give you another source from the military, David Petraeus. Now listen, I've been following him for over 10 years now. He spoke a lot on this topic. Guess what you don't hear him saying? Oh, they're just being real good Muslims. They're just following Islam. The people who are experts on this topic, you will never hear them say that nonsense. Don't listen to me. Don't listen to these guys. Follow the experts. You got it. We'll jump into these closing statements as well. Want to say thank you very much to our guests. It's been a tremendous one. And stick around, folks. We still have the Q and A as we'll zip through those questions. We're going to start with, as we started with, at the very beginning of Positive Profit and David Wood, we're gonna start with them as well for a six minute closing split between the two of them for three minutes from each. Thank you very much, Positive Profit. The four is all yours. Thank you so much. I think the topic is very clear. The result of it is very clear. We have demonstrated many sources in which Muslims are clearly instructed to fight those who do not believe in Islam and who do not accept Islam. Muslims are also told that if their enemies, whom they are supposed to fight to begin with, do not want to fight and want to make peace, then Muslims are supposed to make an arrangement and find peace. Does that change the initial command of fighting those who do not accept Islam? No, of course it doesn't. It's very clear. Nader himself even agreed eventually that the Quran does indeed command Muslims to fight the disbelievers, but then he turned it around and said that this is actually a good thing because it solved all the problems in the world, which is very ironic because all those people who were slaughtered would probably disagree with that. Islam did not spread to the whole geography that where Islam is spread today by spreading flowers and roses. Islam spread to most of where it is today through wars. I want to in fact take a quote from a very respected, very famous, very respectable individual whom the Muslim world and Muslim academics know. His name is Ibn Khaldun. He's considered even in the West as a major forerunner of sociology and he is a big historian and very well respected within Islamic history. This is what he has to say in his great masterpiece, Mukaddimah. In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, the Caliphate and royal authority are united in Islam so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same time. This is not what I am saying or what some bigot Islamophobes says. This is what one of the greatest historians in Islamic history, Ibn Khaldun says, who Muslims and non-Muslims still respect for his contributions and his deep understanding of Islamic culture and society and religion. Islam is not merely meant to take over the world until everybody believes in Islam. It is also meant to establish societies in which Islam is the ruling force and all the others, if they do not convert to Islam, are second class citizens known as Dimmah or Dimmis who live under Islam and who don't have the same rights as Muslims who can't build their own places of worship, who can't make noise and so on and in which apostates are executed. Now, some people like these gentlemen here might not entirely agree with that part but the Islamic consensus is that this is pretty clear. Apostates are to be executed. There is a lot more to that. Slavery is part of Islam. Raping slaves is part of Islam. And so on. Hating Jews is part of Islam. It's all pretty clear.  Thank you. You got it? We'll kick it over to David Wood. Thank you very much. Yeah, so AP quoted, had been called Dune. Abu Bakr said something very similar. When he's talking to people who had declared themselves Muslims but who were not paying the zakat properly and so on, he talked about Allah sending Muhammad with his truth to creation. And then he said, so God guided with the truth. This is I'll tell you volume 10.  Struck whoever turned his back to him until he came to Islam willingly or grudgingly.  So that's Abu Bakr. And of course, I'm sure the deer can respond with General David Petraeus as an authority on Islam. Notice who we're quoting. But the problem is whenever, no matter who we're quoting, we can quote the most trusted hadiths, we can quote the Quran and Muslims today in our world believe that they're just free to add words. So Allah says, fight those who do not believe. They add the words out of their own heads. Ah, it's fight those who do not believe and who are attacking you, even though totally contradicts the historical context and the passage itself. Allah, Muhammad says, you're gonna fight the Jews until the rocks and trees are calling out. And the deer says, ah, it's the Jews who are following the Antichrist. Muhammad said, I've been commanded to fight people until they say there's no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger. And the deer says, ah, but you know, if I go to this other passage from earlier, then if you try to kill Muhammad then you're free to leave. So what you find is that you can basically justify anything you want if you're willing to adopt this methodology. Allah claims in the Quran over and over and over again to be clear in his revelations. Three seven, of course, of the Quran contradicts that Muslim scholars reconcile this by claiming that Allah is clear in his commands. And if Allah is clear in his commands and he commands all these different things and he says that the method to use is one of abrogation, then everything falls into place. So the traditional Islamic method is you've got these different revelations at different times commanding different things. There's the doctrine of abrogation. That's how you navigate that Muslims today say, no, the real method is we pick whichever teaching we like and then we use that to reinterpret all the clear commands that come later that completely contradict our interpretation. And so I'll just say, given the interpretations we've heard from Nadir and Muji, if these are the correct interpretations, 14 centuries of Muslims miss this, the four rightly guided Caliphs missed it. Again, 14 centuries of Muslim scholars miss these interpretations. And so if that was Allah's intent, Allah is the worst communicator in the entire history of forever because no one is getting the truth about Islam except for these two. We'll kick it over to Muji or a perfect Dawah and then we'll kick it over to Nadir for that final three minutes. Three minutes is all yours, perfect Dawah. Yes, there are a lot of different subject that we can talk and talk and talk but I have to say, especially to AP that not everybody believe in those trash that you have been told like your parents you were saying in your video or teaching you that at the end we go and kill all Jews and not everybody believe in Islam. You believe David Wood and ISIS and Taliban believe in. So there are hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world that are peaceful and they don't believe in all these interpretations, wrong interpretation of the Quran and then those fabricated Caliphs that you bring up and share.  Doesn't mean that I have to go to my Christian neighbors and say I love you and I mock their religion and say your religion is terrible and so on. So Jesus, peace be upon him, has told you these beautiful words so please follow them correctly, okay? So yeah, thank you and stay away. I say to everybody, I say stay away from ISIS and Taliban and these two gentlemen, I would say. You got it. We'll kick it over to Nadir. Thank you very much. Sivas Peckham, Parabellum, if you want peace, prepare for war. The misunderstanding of Hussein Prophet and David Wood have is that you gotta be in a complete defensive posture but we know historically that has never worked. That's why that fourth century writer wrote that and it has played out true time and time again. Every peaceful nation engages in some kind of offensive war. Why? Because you gotta fight them over there so you don't have to fight them over here. It was really funny to see David Wood an apostate prophet run from the historical facts. The very burst they are complaining about, chapter nine verse 29, it ended 600 years of never ending war and all the atrocities which were taking place between the Roman Empire and the Persian Empire, they conquered both and it made them as nation, citizens under one nation. But not only that, we saw from the Jewish Virtual Library, 929 had a wonderful impact on humanity. It also saved the Jews from the genocide of Christianity and I loved how the writer of the Jewish Virtual Library says things were going on in the Arabian desert. The end of Judah, the end of Jews and Judaism was eminence but something was going on in the Arabian desert that would change the course of the world and save them from the genocide of Christianity and that is a very same verse that these guys are complaining about. So that is why I say Islam is a religion of peace. We also saw some cheap shots in their closing where they're trying to show that Islam was or something about forced conversions but remember my prophecy in the beginning of this debate. I said, we're gonna chase them out of the Quran. We're gonna chase them out of the Hadith and then they're gonna go to commentaries and try to quote people's commentary like Ibn Khaldun and that prophecy came true. That prophecy, they were quoting commentaries and when in their closing statements, we're like, okay, Nadir can't touch me now and point out that I'm just quoting commentaries because they couldn't argue their case from the Quran. They couldn't argue their case from the Hadith because of the Hadith which I quoted which explains Muhammad's statement where he put down the sword when he said, hey, listen, I'm not gonna accept Islam but hey, I'm not gonna fight against you. Muhammad put down the sword and he told him to go ahead and he went back to his people and said, I have just come from the best of mankind. I believe this is an airtight case for why Islam is a peaceful religion because even though there is war passages, this excludes peaceful people and we've seen this played out in the caravan race, they put some nasty interpretation spin on the caravan race to try to make it Muhammad with the aggressor but they showed no evidence to back up their claims. So we saw that, okay, it's on for them, it's on. With that, we'll kick into the Q&A. I wanna say thank you very much for your questions folks. All of our guests are linked in the description so if you'd like to hear more, you certainly can by clicking on those links below. You can even have more than one tab open. You can have five tabs. You can click on each of our guest links in the description box. That includes if you're listening via the podcast. All of our debates end up on the modern day debate podcast within 24 hours of the debate and our guest AP, David Wood, Nadir and Purvik Dawa are all linked in the description box there too. With that, this first question coming in from, do you appreciate it? Zagros Azkand says, according to Purvik Dawa are smurfs, I think he means like the blue cartoon characters, Muslims. I don't know what he means like Purvik Dawa is what it means. What?  Okay, sunflower, this is, they said, Nadir and Purvik Dawa right now in Iran, school girls and women are removing their hijabs to protest the death of a woman who is killed by cops for refusing to wear a hijab. Does Islam permit protests of this nature? All right.  Yes, yes. That's absolutely, I said that this regime is oppressive, a mafia regime, and they don't believe in anything. Even if you had the minimum knowledge about Iran, you would know that Khomeini's deputy, whose name was Ayatollah Montazeri, he went against him because he saw that despite he was for me, he was an extremist himself, but because he really believed in Islam. So he went against Ayatollah Khomeini and said that, no, what you do is not Islamic, okay? And you massacring people, all these things you do is not Islamic. That's why he lost his place and he didn't become leader and another corrupted liar mafia man, he became the leader. So this regime is a mafia regime and has nothing to do with Islam.  So they don't believe in anything and whatever they do is not Islamic. Of course, protesting, but I just say fast, the biggest enemy of this regime is a Muslim organization, by the way. You got it. This one from Messiah says Quran 812, it says, Allah will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all of their fingertips off of them. Why cut all their fingertips off? Yeah, I could answer that very quickly. So basically this is something which a punishment from Allah. It doesn't tell Muslims to punish your enemies in this way. Now one thing which actually wasn't raised in this debate is where in the Quran do you find passages where it teaches you to go into a child's bedroom and stab him to death like inside David Woods Bible? You know that there's verses that teaches you to murder innocent women and children. And what we found in tonight's debate, you don't find that in the Quran. And that's the difference between the Bible and the Quran. And actually one of the things which we've seen of Islam actually corrects the terror, the 491 spot checks forbids people to walk into children's bedroom and stab them to death like David Woods Bible teaches. And I will actually put out a challenge. Show me in the Quran where it explicitly teaches to kill children or anything like that. You'll never find that. That's terror. That's what you find in the Bible. This one coming in from Kurt Hanneman says, if the Quran is the perfect word of Allah for all time and easy to understand why do so many Muslims and Imams interpret it violently? I can answer that very quickly. If you look at what Muslims say today about what I told you, Islam is peaceful with those people are peaceful. If you go to just type Islam is peaceful with those who are peaceful dash Islam QA. Islam QA is one of the biggest or most reputable Islamic scholarly websites and you will get the religious edict on that. That's what they all agree. It is the Islamic lands which was attacked and invaded by Russia, Israel and other than them. So a lot of this is defending the homeland. So it was only after the invasions is when you saw this type of reaction coming. So because, so that is a real source of why we see terrorism. This one coming in from Deej says pure research in 2015 found that 60 million Muslims in the Middle East supported ISIS. Over 250 million Muslims answered undecided regarding ISIS. How are that many people quote unquote misinterpreting Islam if it's peaceful? I have never seen any statistic like that. I have already shown you statistics where it was showing that the people the sources very clearly given there. I mean, if you want to contest the source I would suggest going there and analyzing that. But here's the thing. It's not just about supporting ISIS. Half or more than half of Muslims agree that Sharia should be the law. Half of Muslims agree that apostates should be. Yeah, I also, yes. Most Muslims agree that adulterers should be stoned to death. That criticizing Islam should be illegal. Yes, most actually 80% or so believe that. All right, where did you get that? And these are pure research. And these are very, very common numbers. Most Muslims believe that Islam actually orders these things that we talk about. By the way, if you want to look at actual Islamic history I would suggest this book in God's path by Robert Hoiland. You can see a very clear history of how Islam actually spread. Don't believe me. Don't believe these guys. Read this book. Look for yourselves. Okay, believe in that book. Okay. You got it. I want to give you a chance to respond though. So let's say for the sake of argument, Nadir and Purvidawa, granting that the statistic is true. What would you say? Yeah. So this has already been explained by the military experts. And I think the one I will quote is Chuck Schumer. You know, he said, the reason why people supported ISIS was this was a response to the barbarity of Bashar Assad. The father of ISIS is Bashar Assad. When they witnessed the atrocities committed and how the whole world just turned their backs to what was going on in Syria. This is what fueled ISIS. This is what fueled people from coming all over the world to fight into ISIS. Because in the beginning of ISIS, they didn't really know the ideology. They rushed into this. Then they found out, oh my God, this is what they're doing. ISIS was actually killing more Muslim people than the Syrian regime. So it's the politicals. What all the experts agree on, you know, they all agree that the reason of what created ISIS, it was number one, the religious persecution at the hand of the Shias inside Iraq. It was a barbarity of what took place in Syria. This is what fueled ISIS and the support for it. But if you take that same poll today, now that we know what ISIS is all about, nobody supports them. It's the Muslims who fought and defeated them. You got it. This has been coming in from, do appreciate it. Radar Apologetics says, love this. Big shout out to Abbas Teh Prophet and David Wood from Rabbi Eduardo at Radar Apologetics. Thanks for that. And Anton Gomez says, question for AP and David Wood. What is your opinion about Muhammad-e-Jab? Muhammad-e-Jab? Correct. AP, you can vouch because we talk behind the scenes. Do I love this guy or do I love this guy? You absolutely, I absolutely love Muhammad-e-Jab. I know that. I'm serious. Whenever I bring up Muhammad-e-Jab to David Wood in private, he's like, when I say Muhammad-e-Jab actually went on this show or he talked to Jordan Peterson, David is like, fantastic, you know? Yeah, and I'll just say why then. You can include Ali Dawah and what's his name? The guy, what's his name? Man, what's that other guy's name? Daniel Hikikachu. Yeah, Hikikachu. Yeah, it's basically when I started debating Islam and so on, this was in the, you know, 2005, 2006. I don't remember, sometime back then. And almost every Muslim apology she talked to, there's no death penalty for apostasy. Islam is all about peace. Islam is all about freedom and all these things. And you know, we're reading the Muslim sources and thinking that that's not what these sources say. And yet it's what their popular apologists were saying. And then you get this sort of new generation of Muslims and they're saying basically what a lot of the Muslim sources say. And it's just refreshing, right? It's just cool.  David, you know, what we're saying is that when we open up the Quran, we don't see verses to stab babies to death like what is in the Bible. And that is why Christians run away. I would say my opinion on... Oh, I just wanted to say, if Nadir is claiming that and we're debating now, the Quran orders Jews and Christians to judge by the gospel and to obey the Torah and the gospel. So if you're saying that's in the Torah, you're saying that's in the Torah and Allah commands to obey the Torah, then that would mean that Allah is commanding it. And so you've just refuted your own God and show that it's far more violence. Look, he can't defend it. He cannot defend it. Yeah, just to quickly answer that. He can't defend it. It's impossible to follow this. You notice how you... It's a very, it's a very nice distraction. The Jews, the Jews... I don't teach to follow that stuff, okay? The Jews came to Muhammad and they asked the Senate will dispute. We'll add another panel. Okay, let's talk about Muhammad's job. Let's talk about Muhammad's job. So I would say, in my opinion, I just want to say clearly, if you want to learn about true Islam fall, listen to those Muslim apologists who are actually popular with Muslims, not Nadir Ahmed and Muji here. Listen to Muhammad's job. Daniel, he kick it to Alidawa. They will show you very clearly without us needing to do anything. What real Islam is? Find out about those guys. But by the way, because this is similar to the point about ISIS, why did so many people follow ISIS and so on? It's, hey, if Islam doesn't really teach any of this, why when you have someone like, let's say, Alidawa, say, yeah, we're gonna kill you and that, you know, we're proud of that. And he becomes one of the most popular people around. And so it's why are people drawn to these guys rather than to, let's say, Muji? Hey, I like Muji's version of Islam way better than I like these other guys. So why aren't more people following Muji rather than, you know, Alidawa and Hakee Kuchu and Muhammad Jisawi? Yeah, I just quick what to say that that's one thing that I would like to say, those who really want to fight these extremists, please go and subscribe because many times they say that, oh, nobody follow you, nobody just, you know, believe in what you say, you are just, you know, few. So please go and subscribe and support my work against these, you know, extremists. And yes, I myself say that they are really, you know, harming Islam, these people like Daniel HaGarachu and Alidawa and many Muslims have also problem with their version of Islam and the way they, you know, they do that unfortunately. Would you say they are not true Muslims? I hate to say this, but we've got to move. We've got so many questions. This one from Coffee Mom says, what is the Iranian government wrong to subjugate women? Yes, I think so. Let me tell you, yes, definitely they abuse such a things as oppressive, you know, to oppress people, to say that we are in control. Yeah, they don't believe themselves.  They do all kinds of things that is forbidden inside Iran. First of all, they are robbers. They have billions of dollars, millions of dollars outside the country. And we share such things on the, you know, on media that look, their children, just 5,400, you know, Iranian leaders, children are in the West and they are citizens there. And you cannot imagine how they dress when they go in Iran and how they dress when they go outside.  It is just for, you know, oppressing people and keeping control and robbing the people. That's all. You got it. Thank you very much for this question. The Helper of Man says, would AP and David be considered peaceful under Sharia law or according to Muhammad? No, we would be considered people who spread corruption in the land in Surah 5, verse 33 of the Quran. And matter of fact, that's exactly what Alidawa said about AP. He said, those of you who reject your religion and cause corruption in the land, he was appealing to Surah 5, verse 33, which if you guys were talking, if you guys were asking, where's the Quran talk about killing apostates and so on? I would say because Surah 4, verse 65 commands Muslims to follow the decisions of Muhammad. And Muhammad clearly said, if anyone leaves his Islamic religion, kill him, there you have it. But Surah 5, verse 33 refers to the vague crime of causing corruption in the land. And even very popular Muslims like Alidawa say that this would include exactly what AP does by publicly being an unbeliever and vocalizing his unbelief. And me, because I'm a critic, I'm not an apostate, but I'm a critic of Islam. And so, yeah, we would not be considered fine under Islamic law, we'd be killed. I would like to also say something. I just want to say something like that real quickly. So, we're kind of introducing a new can of, open up a new can of worms of apostasy, Islamic law, all in the question and answers time. So we're really not going to do justice to the topic. So I'll just make one statement very quickly. I would say, no, because Islam is very flexible in its laws to accommodate the needs of the people. So I would say, no, I would not see them as people who would be killed as David Wood is saying, but that's going to be another topic. But I think it is funny, I think it is really funny how the fact that the Bible teaches to murder innocent babies. Okay, I had a feeling you were going to take it off. Stop, stop, let me. Yeah, can I, can I ask David? Go ahead for Akdawa. Yeah, can I respond to that? First of all, David with that chapter five verse 33 has nothing to order Muslims to do anything. That's a, you know, passive, you know, verbs that it says that this is what happens to them.  And if they do not follow a lot of commands, a lot of laws, then one day it is exactly like you live by sword, you die by sword. So there is nothing in that verse that's command Muslims to do such a things against others. And in the Sharia law, I believe in, no, you are not going to be persecuted at all as long as you are not taking weapon and fighting us. Okay, that's all. Just one question, because I'm not familiar with that interpretation there, but when that verse says, so the recompense of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on opposite sides or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world and great torment is there. That's saying that because you oppose Allah and his messenger, then unbelievers are gonna do these things too. They're gonna exile you from the land and so on. Yeah, let me tell you. Chapter seven verse 124 says, Oh, I was just looking for a yes. I was wondering if I misunderstood you. Yes, I will certainly cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides, then crucify you all. Chapter 20 verse 71, he for our said, have you believed in him before taking my permission? He is surely your great one who has thought you magic. So I will cut off your hands and feet from alternate sides and I will certainly, sorry, I will crucify you on the trunks of palm trees. So this is what pagans were doing to each other. So Allah said, this is not a, you know, command. So wait a minute, you're not answering the question though. The Quran clearly says there that those who oppose or fight Allah and his messenger, their punishment is that you exile them or kill them or crucify them or cut off their hands and feet from opposite sides. How in the world is that what the Pharaoh or what others did when the Quran itself says? I'll give you a chance to answer it really quick. And then this is actually a two part question. So we're still on the same question. Go ahead, perfect Allah or then we're gonna go.  So there is no any command in that verse that says, and I told you, I read for you. That doesn't make any sense at all. It makes sense. That doesn't make any sense at all. Yes. This one, the helper of man also asked, they said, given that AP and David would be considered peaceful or not under Sharia law, they said, would it under Sharia law be lawful for David and AP to be persecuted or killed according to Islam? Not according my, you know, Sharia law. Not mine. Of course, those who believe the same and we are definitely millions and maybe hundreds of millions, but we will grow. We are growing and if definitely in the Sharia law we believe no, definitely they are not going to be. Everybody are, you know, there is no compulsion in religion. As long as as long as you don't take good luck, we have to be honest to that. What about another? What do you think? Nadir, are you going to bite the bullet? Yeah, so basically I told you, Islamic law is very flexible and it's very accommodating. And so I don't see any need or basically to make a long story short, David and apostate would basically be denied visas to come to the Islamic world. I think that's the most we are going to find. That was not the question. Oh, what was the question? By the way, Zacher Nikes says that we should be invited to Muslim countries and they should be locked up when we get there. Yeah, but that was not the question. The question was, can you repeat the question, James? Yeah, what basically whether or not AP and David should be persecuted or put to death given that they might not be considered peaceful under Sharia law? No, they shouldn't be. They shouldn't be. Wasn't the question whether if that is done to us would that be okay under Sharia law? No, it shouldn't be okay. Absolutely okay. Okay, we must move on. Dush Kanu says question for Muslim guests. Explain the Rashidun Caliphate and the conquest of North Africa, Middle East and Arab Peninsula. Entire tribes were deemed apostate and slaughtered.  All right, let me answer that. I think so maybe I can ask. Oh, go ahead. Go ahead if you want. Okay, first of all, as I said, we have different opinion, okay? According me and those who believe the same as I believe.  And as long as they fight you, okay? So Muslims after Prophet Muhammad, there, you know, we know their caliphs and they also had different opinions and they even had fight against each other. So everything they did wasn't according Islam and some of things they did was according Islam. So it doesn't mean that everything they did was according Quran and Quranic teaching. So this is my opinion. And if they did, you know, killed innocent people and if they even attack and occupied other countries and so on. So according our beliefs, and I said once again, I know that Ali radiolah was against it, okay? Against going and occupying other countries, all right? You got it? Yeah, can I say one thing real quick about that? So the, you know, the false premise here of this, and this is the misunderstanding David had, the misunderstanding of positive profit here is that if you engage in offensive warfare, therefore you can never be deemed as peaceful, wrong. Every peaceful nation has engaged in offensive warfare. One of the reasons why is so that they could give the opportunity to the North Africans to hear a message which would otherwise be denied to them. But that should not be your sole reason. If you're all, there should be other legitimate reasons for conquering that land. For example, improve the quality of life, remove the misery of Judeo-Christianity and bring about happiness. And that's exactly what they did. Look, the efforts which the early Muslims that I'll disagree with Muji, but they made the right political decisions to expand and there's many good reasons, as I stated, why? Because they ushered in an era of scientific technology which a scholar's called the golden age of Islam and they improved the quality of life of those people as well as giving them the opportunity to hear the message of Islam, which would otherwise be denied to them. Not only is engaging in such double speak, it's incredible. He's saying on one hand that Islam is absolutely, you know, flexible and good for society and peaceful and this and that. On the other hand, he's justifying the Rashidun Caliphate and the Islamic empires in Caliphate, which went out there and fought and killed and massacred those Muslims who said, we don't want to be part of this empire anymore, simply because they deviated from the central authority of Islam and who also went out and conquered nations in order to convert them to Islam and who also executed apostates left and right as it was commanded. So here is, it was the Rashidun Caliphate. So here is the issue. Here is the issue. He on one hand says, it's totally peaceful, totally flexible, totally nice, nothing to fear. On the other hand, when it comes to the actual history of Islam, which was brutally bloody, he's like, well, it was for a good reason. This is double speak. Well, let's see what's going on over here. You have a quick response, then we gotta go to the next one. Yeah, so what's happening here is a retreat. They're running away from the Quran, the Hadith and the Seerah because they're not able to make the case from our scriptures. So they said, okay, well, let's talk about what the Caliphs did who came after Muhammad. And so this is very interesting to see where they think they can score some point. This is a Hail Mary attempt into the end zone to try to salvage this debate for them because they're seeing that you can't make the case from the Islamic scriptures. The decisions which the Caliph made, a lot of that was political. Some of that was based on religious, but in the end, they made the right decision because they improved the quality of life for the whole world. One second, James, because that was an accusation to get such a very quick here. So we quote the Quran and the Hadith and then our Muslim friends here say, ah, you're interpreting it wrong. So we quote Muslim scholars and so on and the Tafseer and the Seerah and so on to show that, hey, we're not inventing this. Muslims interpreted it that way. Ah, then it's because we can't show that we're right from the plain statements of the scriptures which we quoted. And so we showed that Muslim scholars down through the ages have agreed with us. And we're bad for that. We're bad for quoting what Islam's greatest scholars have said and even rightly guided Caliphs have said and yet Nadeer is quoting Chuck Schumer and General David Petraeus and those are authorities on Islam according to Nadeer. So we quote Abu Bakr, we quote Abu Bakr and he quotes Chuck Schumer and- Abu Bakr is a trans homophobe man. Now I quoted them about ISIS. Let me, I quoted them about ISIS but you gotta understand the military and experts have already looked into this subject and they do not come to the same conclusion that you guys do. Now General Petraeus, other than being a general, he's also a scholar and he has looked into this subject and I think he's a better resource than you- Then Abu Bakr, then Abu Bakr, we agree, we agree. Muhammad is also- Muhammad is an Islamophobe. From now you see that I'm just quoting your Caliphs. No, what you're doing, you misquoted- The Quran is Islamophobe. You misquoted all these people. Yeah. The Nadeh- Allahu Petraeus, Petraeus who? This one coming in from Bad Nadeh- Hitu says, hi David, good to see you. Petraeus 929, 973 and 9123 are the most peaceful verses. And then a laughing emoji. I saw you think they're trolling. This one coming in from- Yeah, well, just to be clear, that's definitely trolling. 929 says, fight those who do not believe. 973 is where Muhammad is commanded to say that he's been commanded to fight not only unbelievers but also against hypocrites. And 123 says, fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you. And so yes, all these commands, it really sound like you're just talking about unbelievers. But our Muslim friends can add words to them and what Allah really means in his perfectly clear verses, his perfectly clear commands. What he really means is only fight people who are attacking you. He just said it in a really, really weird way. He meant 491, then he said all this other stuff. Then he said all this other stuff. If they're not peaceful with you. So every verse he quotes can be silenced by 491 spot. There's no abrogation and just ignore the historical context of 491. But if you now you want to talk about abrogation, what you've talked about by David, 491 blow it all away. Why did Allah reveal Surah 9, verse 73, Surah 9, verse 29, Surah 9, verse 123? If all he meant was Surah 4, verse 91 and it really sounds like he's saying something completely different. I mean, this would be like, imagine a political leader, imagine David, General David Petraeus saying, hey, we're going to go fight ISIS or something like that. It would have been earlier. But let's say he's saying, hey, we got to go fight the Taliban. And then later on he says, we're going to fight anyone who believes in Allah. I don't think you'd be saying, oh, well, clearly he meant just the Taliban because years later he said, we're going to fight anyone who believes in Allah. No one would accept that. There is not a Muslim on this planet who would accept that methodology and say, oh, it's okay for him to say we're going to fight anyone who believes in Allah. Because years earlier he said, we're going to fight the Taliban. No Muslim in the history of humanity would accept that. And yet when we get to Allah and the Quran, he says, fight those who do not believe in Allah. When we get to Muhammad, I've been commanded to fight people until they say there's no God but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger. Then suddenly, well, as long as he said something earlier that's abrogated, we can apply that later. And it's all fine. I've got to move. That's all fine. I didn't answer that. I didn't answer that. I didn't answer that. That it excludes peaceful people. And then we've got to go. There's no getting around the fact that the Quran and the Hadith and the Seerah excludes peaceful people. We saw that with a caravan raid, which you misquoted. We saw that from the very statements in Seerah Ibn Ishaq, where Muhammad said, I wage war against those who wage war against me, but not against those who want peace on peace with them. So many quotations, it's a motif that's going all throughout our scriptures. So you could quote all these verses you want all night. It excludes peaceful people and it excludes innocent people. You exclude it. We've got to go through it. Let's see this one. Anton Gomez's question for the Muslims, do you think secular societies are more violent than Islamic ones? Well, absolutely.  Look at North Korea, you know? And the secular societies have done far more, engage in far more wars than what we have.  This will come in from Kurt Henneman, says, if the Quran is the perfect word of Allah, why does it require your interpretation? I think they're referring to such as the last one that you and David were just talking about. Yeah, it's David who's spinning ridiculous interpretations of the Quran because the Quran explicitly excludes peaceful people. But not only that, but the Hadith also- Let's address this question, this new question. What was the question, please? They say, if the Quran is the perfect word of Allah, why does it require your interpretation? I think there's- We're not interpreting. We are giving you- Yes, yes, yes, yes, you are. Yes, you are. I give you Quran Chapter 9, Verse 29. And you reinterpret that. Or now the one has- If you read it, okay, that's what I mean. Look, that's what it's meant here. If you read Quran Chapter 9, Verse 29, it clearly tells you explicitly nothing else except fight those who do not believe in Islam. And you come in here and says, No, don't read that verse. We have to interpret that by looking at other things. Can I answer this, please? Okay, please. Quran Chapter 3, Verse 7 clearly says that- You're doing it right now. Okay, yes, answer. Yes, I say that. Okay, let me answer you. Okay, please don't laugh. Okay, I'm talking. All right. So Quran Chapter 3, Verse 7 says that there are unspecific verses of Quran that needs interpretation. And the true interpretation of those verses is known only by Allah and those firm in knowledge. Yes, definitely it needs interpretation. And why it is that? So there are many questions. Why Allah doesn't send- You can ask even David, why God doesn't send a prophet today and explain, give us the biggest miracle and explain everything for us. This is the way God has decided to create humanity and this is the way he decided to send his message. Okay, so if you disagree with that, you don't like that, then you can talk to God or Allah. You can even ask David why God doesn't send. You know, David, there is an atheist, former Christian, what is it, Christian, YouTuber, okay? His name is Anchorik. His only, you know, request is that his wet napkins, if God light up his wet napkin, he will believe why God doesn't do that. It is the same question, okay? Why God doesn't split the moon today and show everybody the miracle?  So this is how he has decided. I just wanted a quick follow-up to what he was saying because Muji keeps quoting 3, verse 7, which sounds like they're clear verses and unclear verses and bad people mess around with the unclear verses. But we also look at the Quran, Sir 11, verse 1. This is a book whose verses have been made firm and free from imperfection. And then they have been expounded in detail. 12, 1, these are verses of the clear book. 15, 1, these are the verses of the book and a Quran that makes things clear. 24, 46, certainly we have revealed clear communications. 26, 2, these are the verses of the book that makes things clear. 27, 1, these are verses of the Quran, a book that makes things clear. 28, 2, these are verses of the book that makes things clear. 57, 9, he had us who sends down clear communications upon his servant that he may bring you forth from utter darkness into light. So the problem here is you've got all these verses. This book is so clear, it's perfectly clear. It's perfectly clear. But then you've got 3, 7, and it says it's unclear. And so even the issue of the clarity, the Quran is not clear. You need interpreters. You need interpreters to even understand what the Quran is saying. And the way they've interpreted it is that Allah is clear in his commands, but there are theological claims that might be confusing because human beings can't get their minds around them. If he means something else and commands like fight those who do not believe in Allah or just not clear, well, if fight those who do not believe in Allah, doesn't mean fight those who do not believe in Allah, you can reinterpret anything. You can reinterpret a command to do anything. So just believe in one God. Well, maybe he means believe in 10 gods. You can just make it whatever you want. Yeah, you can do that. You can do that. Let me say something here. What it means is the Quran is clear. I just want to say one thing, please. 20 seconds from a perfect Dawah because we haven't heard a lot from him. And then we've got to go to the next question because there's just so many questions we've got to go through still. Okay. Yeah, I just say that you can do whatever you want. That's up to you. And it's between you and God, all right? You can do whatever you want. This is the book and it's explained. And that's why we have tafsir. That's because it needs to be interpreted. It cannot be Quran says itself clearly that it needs to be interpreted, some verses of Quran, okay? Yes. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. The red box says, can disbelief or criticizing in Islam be seen as attacking Islam that's resulting in retaliation? No, I don't think that during the life of Muhammad, there were many people who criticize them. There was Abu-A'la, there was Sohail bin Amr. And the list goes on. There were many people who did criticize Muhammad and Muhammad didn't do anything with them. I think, going back, as far as fighting the non-believers, the Hadith I quoted was very clear and explicit, no interpretation needed. There's two kinds of idolaters, two types of non-believers. They're the ones who fought against Muhammad and then they're the ones who Muhammad with that peace had against them. Muhammad fought against those who fought him but he was peaceful with those who were at peace with him. Game over, tap out. This destroys all of you who would an apology for them. No, no, no, it destroys Allah. Because if you're saying only what he means in these early revelations and then his final revelations, his final marching orders, he says something that sounds completely different. Fight those who do not believe. No, no, no, no, no, you're rambling. Fight those who do not believe is my interpretation. I'm literally quoting the verse. You're just misinterpreting it when you read it. He's really mean to fight people who are attacking you. He's putting some spin.  Early, later, early, later. Who do the interpretation spin? You are. You can't understand it exactly as it says. In a book that declares abrogation as the fundamental teaching. If Allah says this, Allah says, hey, fight people who are attacking you. Later, he says, fight those who do not believe. How do you reconcile this? He gives you the method. He says abrogation. Later versus abrogate or cancel earlier revelations. We can address that. We've already addressed it. Oh, you mean the hadith? You mean the hadith? I've been commanded to fight people until they say there's no God but Allah and Muhammad as a messenger, or the one about killing the Jews, even if they're hiding behind trees. Which one? Which one do we? It's said there's two kinds of the defensive stage. It's read the title. Read the title of that hadith. OK, chapter, marrying al-Mushrikat, who had embraced Islam, then they're dead. What does that have to do with anything? Give the historical reference. OK, David. OK. Zajroz Afkan says, Muji and Nidir, you approve Hamas, bombing in Israel, yes or no? No, absolutely not. This is terrorism and killing of innocent civilians. This is an imitation of the people of the book. As we have seen, I mean, we haven't really talked about it, but the killing of innocent women and children, this is something which the Christians have practiced all throughout the ages. It is something which is actually taught inside the Bible. And that is what we're talking about. Is that really your response every single time when Islam is questioned? What about the Bible? What about the communists? It's not a Hamas. Hamas was questioned. They're imitators of the people of the book. There's the answer. OK, no, it is not, you know, Quran is clear that we have no right to kill innocent people, right? Listen, Rob, do you understand? Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I did want to point out that's incorrect because Muslims would want, would launch night raids during the time of Muhammad. And then it came to them, yeah, yeah. And then they came to them and they said, hey, kids are getting killed during the night raids because we can't see who are hacking up. They said, hey, they're from them, meaning they're from the unbelievers, meaning, meaning a lot, meaning a lot doesn't, meaning a lot doesn't care. Yeah, Muhammad himself said they are from them. Yeah, that's Muhammad.  That's word for word, Muhammad. That is exactly what he said. No, I just wanted to point out. So when it comes to that's not Quran, that's not Quran. That's true. That's true. That is that is a deep, but the same reasoning was applied later when they're talking, they have to figure out, hey, if we're using catapults against cities and so on, we're gonna hit all kinds of people and so on. And that's, hey, that's fine.  May I answer? May I answer? Okay, it's a very simple answer. So now we see who's playing the silly interpretation game. The text of what Muhammad said when they said, hey listen, they're asking that there's some possibility that there's some, there might be some women and children over there. So he said, whom in whom? Now that has many different interpretations. Notice it does not explicitly say to kill innocent women and children like the Bible does. Many people will say, look, that's because there are many people who are among the women and children who are fighting alongside with the pagans. Like, and that wasn't happened in a battle of Hunay. There's many people, because a child with a poison dart or a sword can be just as dangerous. There's many people, another scholars have also pointed out, well, this could be that because it was so long ago as not your intention that these people, so they're these dead bodies there, that was not your intention. Okay, that's fine. So the point here is, look how he took this one statement which is vastly open for interpretation and David would put his own nasty spin on it. But did you know in that same book, just a couple of Hadith above it, Muhammad explicitly stated, do not kill women and children. So now use this as your guide to interpret this Hadith. But like I said, the 491 spot check makes it very clear from the Koran that you are supposed to do the spot check if their hands are withdrawn from you, if they're not offering you peace and they're restrained from fighting you, you do not kill them. So the Koran and Hadith are inconsistent.  This one coming in from news to news says, question of the Muslims. If Islam is the religion of peace, please explain why the second fitna happened. I don't know which one is that, second fitna. Gotcha. You're talking about, you're talking about the Rida awards, that's what I'm guessing. That's all they put is second fitna. Yeah, I think we're talking about the apostasy awards. So this is my point. Look, I think the audience is convinced and I love it. They're not able to make the case from the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira because it all talks about not fighting peaceful people. So that's great, wonderful, I love it there. They're going now into the history and to the actions of the Caliphs and I love it because now they get the picture. So yeah, there were wars which took place. Again, they made political decisions. And one of the reasons why was to keep this unity in the Islamic empire. These were their political decisions and we'll just leave it at that. But I'm very happy to see that you're not really buying into David Woods and apostate prophets arguments. The second fitna is a conflict between the Islamic Caliphate, between the Umayyad Caliphate and those who contest their rule, which is more than just po