ready. Today we're debating whether or not Islam is dangerous to the world and we are starting right now with apostate prophets opening statement. Thanks so much for being with us apostate prophet. The floor is all yours. Thank you so much James and thanks to the Muslim apologists for this debate and hello everybody. Just recently an incident happened. A renowned author Salman Rushdie was brutally attacked by a religious Muslim who had the intention to kill Salman Rushdie. I want to put the share my screen here. I'm sorry. I'm going to share my screen over here. Right. That's right. Okay. I guess you can see this. Now they can. Yes. Okay. So author Salman Rushdie was recently attacked by a religious Muslim with the intention to kill Salman Rushdie. And when Salman Rushdie did not die it was in fact the attacker did in fact point out that that he's very surprised that Salman Rushdie did not die. So he had the clear intention to kill them. This devout Muslim who intended to kill Salman Rushdie did this for his religion.  This has to do with the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran who ordered this attack on Salman Rushdie. He wanted Salman Rushdie killed. But the issue is that this is of course not just about Iran and about Shia Muslims which is the case here.  We have many more examples. Just recently a woman was brutally attacked, brutally lynched and killed for allegedly disrespecting Muhammad in Nigeria. A woman called Farhunde Malikzada was in recent times brutally lynched. The footage is horrible. It can't be shown here for similar honor related things. Mashal Khan was a student in Pakistan was lynched and brutally killed because he allegedly committed blasphemy and said some things about Islam. Everyone remembers the Charlie Hebdo attacks. People were brutally murdered simply for drawing cartoons. In recent times even a teacher Samuel Patti was brutally killed in front of the school where he taught not even for supporting anything but simply for showing cartoons in order to discuss the subject of freedom of speech. For that act Samuel Patti in France was brutally beheaded in public for offending Islam. This is a reality. And the issue is that this is not something that is simply that is just happening today. It is something that leads back to Muhammad himself.  Islam has something unique which is that Islam has a book which is supposedly authored by the Almighty Allah who knows everything and the commands in that book are valid for all times. And Muhammad is supposed to be the perfect messenger for all times. Everyone is supposed to imitate him and follow him and glorify him, do whatever he does, do whatever he says and abstain from whatever he tells you to abstain. Muhammad was a prophet who had a mob with him and who commanded the killing of people who hurt him. In this quote he says, who is willing to kill Kaaba bin Ashraf who has hurt Allah and his apostle. Don't ask me how you can hurt the Almighty Allah. What is being said here is obviously that offence was caused, which is why Muhammad asks for that person to be killed, which was of course done later on. When it comes to more incidents, more examples of Muhammad ordering such killings, not sure if you can, do you see this right now, the website? Oh yeah, okay. So Muhammad was very explicit in his mission. He said, for example, I have been commanded to fight against the people till they testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's slave and messenger. He had the very clear mission to not be peaceful, not spread peace, not say, hey, let's not fight, let's stop fighting, let's spread a beautiful belief, a beautiful new system. No, he came with the explicit intention to fight and to convert people. He was somebody who prophesied, in fact, this is a prophecy that is very well known throughout the Muslim world. He said that the hour will not be established until you fight the Jews and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, oh, Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, so kill him. Muslims globally know this. This is Muhammad's prophecy. He says that the hour will not be established until this happens. So this must happen.  And even the rocks and stones will say there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. People tell that to each other throughout the Muslim world. Muhammad also famously said that whoever changes his Islamic religion should be killed. Islam has an apostasy law that is very widely known, which Muslim scholars across the Islamic schools have established and followed. People like me who leave Islam are supposed to be killed according to the Islamic religion and jurisprudence. Now, of course, Muhammad's words are not the only problem here. When it comes to the Quran, we can also find in Quran chapter 9, verse 29, which is one of my favorite Quran verses, to be honest, that the Quran commands the following, fight against 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 Islam from those who were given the scripture. So those who don't believe in Allah in the last day in Muhammad and those among the people of the scripture, meaning the Christians and Jews who don't adopt Islam are supposed to be fought according to the Quran until they give the jizya, which is an Islamic concept, which is basically protection money.  And if they don't pay that, then they are basically fair game. And it says until they give the jizya, while they are humbled, it was always known in Islamic history that this is not merely a tax but protection money imposed on the disbelievers in order to humiliate them and make use of them as subjects because they are not equal to Muslims who just pay taxes. The Quran further very often describes disbelievers in extremely dehumanizing and insulting ways. For example, of course, a Muslim apologist would come and say, oh, this is just descriptive, but it says that Allah created for hell many of the humans and the jinn, which are mythical beings that don't exist. And it further says that they are like livestock, rather they are more astray.  Those are the worst of creatures. It says the similar things in other verses as well. It repeatedly describes the disbelievers, those who don't believe in Islam as basically lowly creatures, which deserve no dignification. This is what Islam is. Now we talked about the recent incident with Salman Rushdie, where a religious Muslim tried to kill him and did not succeed. This is not something that happens across the religious globe. It is something that is unique to Islam. It is only Islam which constantly and repeatedly sends shockwaves throughout the world by taking lives and attacking people in public. For example, a very simple challenge. I know some people will come and say, but what about the, I don't know, what happened in Spain in the 15th century? Well, here's a very simple challenge. Give me one example in today's time of somebody being attacked brutally with the intention to kill or somebody being killed because they offended a different religion other than Islam and Muslims throughout the most and those people throughout their religious group actually celebrated it. You cannot find a single example in the case of Salman Rushdie. For example, Salman Rushdie was attacked with the intention of killing him. And this is justified and celebrated or excused by Muslims across the world. If you want to pull up the public opinion on this, you will see that Muslims justify it, refuse to condemn it and most Muslims on social media will end up celebrating it. You cannot find an example of such a thing anywhere across religions. It simply does not exist. Yes, you may find some oppression that happened 500 years ago in Europe. You might find other things that happened 2000 years ago, human sacrifice, whatever it is. But we're talking about right now. Is Islam dangerous right now? Islam is the only religion which causes these problems over and over and over again. Other religions simply don't.  No, Muslims directly take these motivations to kill and to harm from their religion, which dehumanizes the disbelievers and which commands to fight the disbelievers until they are humiliated, until they are subjugated. There are so many more examples that we can go into, such as that Muhammad asked his loyal followers to go and destroy temples. Durkhalas was a temple, for example. Muhammad famously said, who will rid me of this temple? And then one of his loyal minions went and destroyed it and killed whoever was there. Muhammad actually applauded that and said, may Allah bless you and your tribe.  He simply said, there is no reason to do it right now. So this is Islam. Islam is clear as day. Dangerous. I'm an apostate. I have a death sentence. I'm supposed to die under the Muslim apologists. Perfect worldview in his Islamic nation. So I don't know that if there's anything else more to say to this. Thank you. You got to thank you very much for that opening statement. And folks want to let you know, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we are a live debate channel, neutral, hosting debates on science, religion and politics. So we don't take any stances ourselves as a channel. We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from. Christian, atheist, Muslim, you name it. We're glad you're here. And with that, we're going to kick it over to Muslim apologists for his opening statement as well. Thanks for being with us, Muslim apologists. The floor is all yours. All right. Thank you, James, for the opening. So by the way, just to be clear, how many minutes do I have? You have 12 minutes and I forgot to mention, I did want to mention thanks for tuning in on this as it's somewhat early in the morning there as Muslim apologists is actually in Malaysia tuning in. So we appreciate you making that work with your morning schedule. And like I said, 12 minutes, the clock is set for your opening. Muslim apologists. All right. Thank you, James. I begin his opening statement with all absolute praise be due to the one true God of Abraham and his last messenger, Muhammad. So the topic today is Islam dangerous to the world. We must first understand what the word dangerous entails.  This, however, does not mean that it is bad or immoral. Violence and dangerous actions can be used to establish the greater good with a vice purpose or Hikmah. To also imply that 1.6 billion people around the world are dangerous, or have the tendency to be dangerous. It's a gross misrepresentation of the faith redundant. And it's clearly Islamophobia. We must also be clear that the goal of Islam is to lead all of mankind towards Islamic peace or tax Islam. Muslims are taught to always adhere to the middle path or what's up here. This is characterized neither by liberal nor radical we've just thought, but through the promotion of tolerance, balance, equality, consensus, reformism, and in short, the summum bottom of all things that take the middle path to materialize as the high room up for the best of people. In order for these things to be achieved, it is recognized that the Islamic ethos or the wet and short womb, the primary objective of the implementation of Islam is the realization of his benefit of muscle up to mankind, which concerns their affairs both in this world, and in the year after. So this framework of objectives, which are based on benefit muscle up, or the vice purpose Hikmah is known as the macaw seat, Australia, or the objectives of Islamic law after his implementation in French is known as finality in German swag in Greek tillers. So the fulfillment of Islamic law covers the protection and preservation of these five fundamental objectives, which are faith, life, intellect, lineage and wealth. Now these values are universally transcended and are seen as absolute requirements to an individual survival and spiritual well being to the extent that the destruction or collapse of any of these objectives will precipitate chaos and the demise of the standard order in society. Now about faith, the first objective, Islam values the maintenance of faith with God and the societal way of life based on this principle. Okay, to achieve this, Islam ensures that any threat to this value is nullified before it causes a danger to the Muslim community as a whole. This would include freedom of religion, a safe and secure environment, which would allow Muslims to practice their faith without any threat, getting rid of Islamophobia, as it is currently rampant in Western nations, and all these things are done while ensuring that other religions are also allowed to practice their respective faiths in peace and harmony in the Muslim dominated society. And as any other self-respecting nation would do, Islam also takes pre-empty steps as a countermeasure to ensure that this way of life is not undermined. This legislation is no different from how the United States, for example, treated at what's northern, Joseph Ahmed, Jonathan Pollard, Julian Assange, when they pose a threat to the integrity of the government. In light of achieving the greater good in this context, how then is Islam a danger to the world? Now the next objective, life. Islam values the protection and value of human life. Islam ensures that peace prevails throughout the world via enemies that can achieve this aim. Islam is most certainly not a danger to the world if it values human life because according to the words of the Quran itself, to kill one human is as though you have killed all of mankind. The purpose of justice in Islam, which includes the hard laws, is to ensure that crime is controlled and that the person involved can be reformed or otherwise be taken out of society so that he or she will no longer be a threat to anyone else. Criminologists Edwin Sutherland published the principles of criminology in 1939. Sutherland argued that the criminal behavior was learned, not an inherited trait. So exposure to crime, either through relatives or peers, gave a youth frustrated with his or her social status a choice to pursue crime. These bad influences could be lessened by good relationships with parents, teachers and employer or the community values which Islam promotes. How then does this prove that Islam is a danger to the world? Now the next objective, intellect. Islam cherishes and deserves the intellect, which is why throughout Islamic history, we see various advances, advancements and achievements in the development of science and technology in the Muslim world right up until the beginnings of western colonialism and the fall of the caliphate. At the same time, Islam also preserves and protects the intellect by forbidding alcoholism. On average, roughly 40% of inmates who are incarcerated for violent offenses were under the influence of alcohol during the time of the crime. True, alcohol may give people happiness, but that happiness is temporary. Not only does it lead to criminal activities, but it also leads to other vices which ipso facto jeopardize or badly affect the other values that I've mentioned earlier. So tell me again how Islam is a danger to the world. Now the next objective, lineage. Marriage is deeply rooted in natural human instincts. We crave romantic affection. This is a natural human inclination. So sociologists call this pair bonding and studies have proven that couples who are married are happier than non-married couples. Islam advocates the family unit and ensures that the lineage of mankind continues throughout the centuries.  Marriage requires sacrifices from both sides. Liberals are not interested in sacrificing their individual freedom. In the West, the concept of marriage is dying. People are barely getting married and according to pale research, 70% of people will not choose to get married. Now you contrast this with Islamic law which preserves marriage and the family. Islam does recognize individual freedom and other values, but it doesn't focus on them alone because there are more important values for our society and family to function. So again, how does this make Islam a danger to the world? The last objective, wealth. Islam encourages the preservation and maintenance of wealth. Islam does not frown upon capitalism. At the same time, Islam also encourages elements of socialism and welfare in the form of Islamic thief of Zakat and Sadaqah of charity. Islam also implements tax sessions which are just and fair to run an administration of a state. Islam also recognizes that being poor and needy leads to instability and chaos in society and tries to remove this by banning gambling and interest. This is consistent with what has been attested to by Western criminologists today that a general disorder in the neighborhood leads to increased anti-social behavior and eventually to serious crime. So Islam does this without the need to rely upon secularist humanistic values which are contrary to the Islamic economic and finance system. The implementation of an Islamic economic system has ensured success for Muslim nations even until today. We have Islamic bonds of Sukkot and the Islamic banking system which have existed in Malaysia and in many parts of the Muslim world for over 30 years. So again, how does this support the position that Islam is a danger to the world? Now to summarize all this, Islam is basically a realistic and a religion of pragmatism. It does not see the world purely from dystopian or utopian lenses because the real world that we live in is neither this nor that but could be both in various situations. So in light of this, Islam does this force wherever and whenever is necessary in order to achieve a wise purpose or hikmah behind every action and in the context of events. Now it cannot be stressed enough that context is important in order to evaluate the every action of any Islamic ruling or values as recorded in the hadiths or in Islamic history. Muslims are always taught to always strive for the middle path and are never taught to be extremist on either the left or the right of the political spectrum of things. Islam is a holistic way of life which is the end result from the devalues derived from Makosid as I've mentioned before and this is one of the goals of Islam as well to build a relationship between man and god hablumina war and a relationship between man and man hablumina nas in order to eventually move towards to and achieve tax islamica. So I cherish these values that Islam clearly promotes therefore in conclusion and in my opinion Islam is a danger to the world only if you are degenerate a carrier criminal a selfish or a lawless person without care for society or a very very mentally disturbed interview and with that I end my opening statement thank you James for the opportunity to participate. Thank you very much for that opening statement and want to let you know folks we have a juicy debate that has been rescheduled it didn't happen last weekend but it is happening tomorrow it is a tag team flat earth debate it's going to be a great one and we have many more debates in addition to that one coming out hit that subscribe button if you haven't already so that you don't miss any future debates that do come out here at modern day debate with that thank you very much gentlemen we're going to kick it into the rebuttal section in particular the rebuttals are six minutes long and apostate prophet the floor is all yours for your rebuttal thanks very much for being with us. So all I heard was Islam is not dangerous because because you know dangerous is defined differently according to Islam yes Islam applies force and discriminates and oppresses people but it's for your for the for the greater good it's for your own good it's like you know when when an abusive partner in marriage or whatever it is is severely abusive but says hey you know don't complain this is for your own good that's basically what Islam does Islam oppresses as the Muslim apologists just pointed out Islam suppresses people who are Islamophobic meaning they just don't like Islam or they criticize Islam it for it it executes apostates executes people who do all kinds of things but that is not dangerous at all that's just for your own good because Islam knows best what's good for you you don't know you are an idiot so that's how Islam treats you basically now one thing I find very funny which is one thing that I had to catch he says that Islam doesn't encourage extremism Islam is extremist and by our standards Islam everybody will look at Islam as extremism but what's funny is actually that this is not a line that he just made up this is something that Muhammad said he said he talked about don't be extreme be moderate and this is common among Muslims of all kinds to say we are moderate we are not extreme and what's funny is the reformist the most peaceful Muslims say the same thing and Al-Qaeda Taliban ISIS also say the same thing I'm not joking they actually ISIS actually says in their publications that we should abstain from being extremists and that ISIS is the most moderate path so when he says that that doesn't mean anything because it's completely relative I would really like Menj to comment on the Salman Rushdie issue for example what does he think does he think it is wrong to kill people or to attack or harm people who have offended Islam or does he think that deserves no condemnation would he for example do the honor of condemning this recent incident I'm really curious about that because I can show a bunch of you know screenshots where most of his fellow believers are quite happy about what happened he basically says Islam provides religion of freedom of religion and thereby only means freedom of religion for Islam because all the others will be suppressed he's basically telling me here that I shouldn't be complaining because Islam provides freedom of religion and if I am against Islam then I endanger Islam and it's okay for me to be you know killed as an apostate but I shouldn't be complaining about this complaining about that would be Islamophobic can you believe this of course the cult like presentation of stuff that nobody understood at the beginning of your speech did not help at all what else is there he said he talked about the common benefits the greater good of humanity thereby pointed out that Islam cares very much about preserving faith he did not really explain why though which is very interesting I can make the same case for any value without explaining why exactly we need that value he said that Islam values life and said that Islam actually says whoever takes a life it is as if he had killed all mankind the actual quote is in Quran chapter five verse 32 and says this is what we said to the children of Israel which by the way is wrong the Quran just plagiarizes something from the Talmud and it then says in the following verse after that that those who wage war against Allah and his messenger and spread corruption in the land that they should be crucified their hands and feet cut off from opposite sides killed or exiled this is how Islam is supposed to deal with people who hurt Islam but of course he can say well that's not bad because that's necessary you know for the greater good but still Islam is totally against violence and totally values life yeah well you also value fighting these believers and correcting them and then still say but Islam values life that's not really how it works he spoke of intellect which I find very funny I don't even know what to say about that talked about lineage which he proudly says that Islam values marriage and coming together and in the west people do not marry what's funny is if you actually look at the divorce rates you will find that muslim countries are very high in terms of numbers of divorce per marriage for example Saudi Arabia has higher numbers of divorce in many european countries and the same goes for many other muslim countries Islam also is not about a man and a woman and children it's about a man possibly four wives sex slaves and multiple children Islam also allows for you to marry a little child for example I'm sure men here will have no issue with the fact that Muhammad himself married a six-year-old child when he was 55 years old and had sex with her I'm sorry James I know you don't like when this is brought up here I had sex with her but you only have about 10 more seconds when she was nine years old and so that is the family value of Islam I don't think anybody wants this anybody needs this it is harmful that is dangerous thank you and time we'll kick it over to muslim apologists for his rebuttal as well same thing for you muslim apologists got the clock set for six minutes the floor is all yours okay thank you James um yeah by the way uh Mr. Aydamiya my name is not pronounced man she's pronounced me and j please get that correct right they are my initials okay so um anyway uh what I've listened to okay all that rubbish that I've listened to from Mr. Aydamiya is basically things that I've been listening to or refuted since 2003 okay because I have this website called uh Bismikha Uhumaa and you know most of this anti-islam claims uh you know uh exists like way back okay so what he proposes here is very nothing new okay so um let me see now the notes that yeah he gave examples of people being killed in the name of Islam okay so uh if people are killing you know other people in the name of Islam that doesn't mean that that other person represent Islam because uh Mr. Aydamiya seems to have this impression that you know whatever happens in one remote part of the world somehow it presents me some you know in a remote uh peninsula in in Southeast Asia so why am I being held accountable for something that happens in the US in Nigeria in the Middle East I'm not an Arab I'm a I'm a well I'm a Malay okay I'm a Malaysian okay and of course we profess the same religion Islam but I mean whatever actions that you know a Muslim that or someone who claims to be a Muslim does in some remote part of the world doesn't necessarily represent me okay and of course I mean I don't of course uh you know agree to this sort of violence okay being commented against you know other people in the name of Islam but you know um he's conflicts he's conflating things he's just you know uh mixing up things he's confusing things the Islamic law for example you know he talks about a lot about the issue of apostasy not surprising because he claims to be an apostate himself but the law of apostasy is only applicable in the Muslim state okay if you apostasize in the Muslim state and you declare basically you're declaring war against the Muslims so of course the law will be applied to you okay so I will actually suggest Mr. Aydemir actually take a look at this book and you know try to read the contents of this book and you know we educate himself regarding the apostasy laws in Islam is written by Taha Jabir al-Alawni so there's a lot of information there which he should you know we educate and we think about this so-called you know or what he thinks are apostasy laws because if an apostate claims you know I mean if someone decides to apostasize in a foreign land which has no which or Muslim which the Muslim state does not have control over uh the Muslim state does not have any right to you know go to that foreign land and just kill that person I mean uh no we're just going to shrug our shoulders and say so what you want apostate go ahead okay we're not going to be bothered with you which is exactly the reason why Mr. Aydemir is still alive today because if we were really violent if we were really you know uh you know uh going after every single apostate in the world I don't think Mr. Aydemir will escape from the list okay I mean we are 1.6 billion people right around the world okay and then uh he talks about surah al-Tawbah I actually have this article on my website okay so um the passage the whole surah is actually about a specific context for a specific time okay I'll be most I'll be very very happy to educate him on this but um it's going to take too long right and then he talks about jizya okay so about the jizya I will also again recommend him to read this book all right by Abdul Rahman Aydoy okay it's about non-Muslims under the sharia so he has a chapter on the jizya and the jizya is not supposed to be uh punishment it's not supposed to be uh you know uh the meaning it's not supposed to be humiliating it's just a text okay it's a text meant for non- muslims living in the muslim state and in fact those who pay the jizya are given several benefits in the islamic state okay um unfortunately today we don't actually have any practical examples of the jizya being implemented in the muslim world because most of this most of the governments in the muslim world today are not being ruled by sharia anyway so I mean the the these discussions about the jizya is actually quite moot because the jizya as practice during the time of the caliphate okay it's not being implemented today even okay but I would say the analogous it will be analogous to uh maybe the context so everyone pays to become tax anyway okay um what else I hope I haven't missed out anything oh yeah I think he talked about carb you know ashraf uh the so-called assassination of carb and being ashraf so the context again you know if you listen to my opening statement I did mention something about you know referring to context and understanding the historical the historicity behind it so regarding the issue of carb in ashraf I actually have an article on this so the context is simple okay because this guy this carb in ashraf he was inciting hatred against the muslims and therefore the prophet solowain was salam was you know telling the muslims to do something about it so we don't have any you know that there wasn't any international law or you know GDMW conventions during the time so the prophet is the head of state for madina at the time so whatever he says definitely goes okay because he's the king okay he's the ruler of the state so it's not different from you know the roman empire ordering someone to kill someone else okay in those times in those days I mean today in the modern world even the even the president of the head of the head of state of a government would have the power to you know uh go ahead with the execution of prisoners or to you know instruct certain things okay like for example the assassination of yeah bin ladi itself okay right so yeah I mean I guess um yeah so here's the example that he gave are all emotional they are not based on reality and they are sometimes even too idealistic and with that thank you very much thank you very much for that rebuttal we're going to jump into open conversation folks things are going to get wild wanna say we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you were from don't forget to hit that subscribe button as we have many more juicy debates coming up and with that thank you very much gentlemen who by the way are linked in the description box including at the modern day debate podcast you put our guest links there as well if you want to hear more thank you very much Muslim apologists and apostate prophet the floor is all yours so I want to quickly say I find it very ironic that um m e n g is actually so offended by me not just calling his name in the the right way considering that he considering that he referred to me in very insulting ways and even said let me quote I would like to punch him he has such an I quote fuckable face which I find very flattering unfortunately I can't say the same thing about him but I just have very simple questions here like do you condemn killing or attacking people who offend your Islamic religion and values you want the short answer but the long answer is the thing very simple do you do you condemn any attack or killing of people who offend Islam of course I do I mean I already said it in the uh reporter I mean what else is there to say so you are a you are you are against you are you're absolutely against for example the Salman Rushdie attack do you think it's completely wrong to attack Salman Rushdie well well to specifically to Salman Rushdie I don't actually have an opinion on the incident because I frankly I don't care about him to me he's a personal non-gatha he has no influence on me on my life so why would I have an opinion how about a different hypothetical how about a different hypothetical what if somebody draws Muhammad cartoons like very obscene Muhammad cartoons and makes fun of them and makes them like a cartoon character that then out and all that I think well in the Muslim in the Muslim world sorry in the Muslim world I think he'll be dealt with accordingly but if he's done in the West I can't do anything about it and well of course I would condemn that action I'm not going to I'm not going to accept that I never am going to accept that that's good I appreciate that that's good so you think it is totally wrong to harm those people that's very no one has the right to harm that person unless if he's in the Islamic state right so then there's a different story okay so what you're saying is I'm totally distorting things because I'm making it look like Islam is very violent and offensive and oppressive because yes you are because Islam is not right like that at all because only in an Islamic state would we all be slaughtered for offending Islam outside of an Islamic state that wouldn't I wouldn't use the word slaughtered I think that's very biased and very prejudgmental of you to say slaughtered okay because you know there are laws and processes court processes okay I mean you're not going to be dragged to some forest and be beheaded right there's a judge there's a jury there's witnesses the whole process there's a whole court process so I think it's quite disingenuous for you to say slaughtered okay I mean your your choice of words clearly tells me that you know you have this prejudice and biased opinion of Islam I'm sorry okay that I would I guess I apologize for the offence that I crossed if an Islamic state executes a bunch of people who offend Islam including me for my apostasy and my outspoken opposition to Islam then I will be respectful and abstain from calling it slaughtering while I'm being killed no no you see the thing is you see the thing is I demand no one can you know no Muslim state in this you know if you don't commit the crime in the Muslim state no one can come and hunt you down and kill you because the offence was not permitted in the Muslim state like for example if I were go to if I were to go to the US and I were to rape and kill anyone in the US you know would you know would my government come and drag me to to the to the courts here in Malaysia and you know trial me for that because the offence was committed in the US so of course the US government will come and and you know come after me okay and you know put me to trial for those crimes so it's the same thing for you if you commit the crime in a Muslim state obviously the state is going to come after you but if you are going to commit the crime in another country in a sovereign nation which has nothing to do whatsoever it's I think we established that so what you're basically saying is I would so I would be killed others would be killed and executed and judged and all that but it's not bad because I'm not saying that I'm not saying that I'm saying that if the crime is done in the Muslim state you have you been that that's I know that's what I'm saying so that's what I'm saying so let's get the logic straight here you are a Muslim apologist who has the intention of defending Islam and spreading Islam in your ideal world people would convert to Islam if most people convert to Islam then we would live in a Muslim country if we live in a Muslim country the Muslim country should adopt Islamic laws if we are in an Islamic country then people like me who leave Islam and openly talk about it would be executed because we are criminals did I get that right so far no I don't think so because that's very far off and it's not happening now so you're saying if okay okay but I'm speaking of a hypothetical so you want to spread Islam what if people convert to Islam and people then because they have converted to Islam and become a minority majority as you want it they then adopt Islam in that Islamic environment people like me would be killed of course I mean that that is I think that is something which Muslims would love to see but we're not going to force anyone to come to Islam okay so so but that is basically your mission here as as we see it I mean it's very long I'm not forcing anyone to come to Islam I'm I never said I never said you were forcing me I didn't mean excuse me let me speak first of all there's a reason why I call myself the Muslim apologies I don't cause myself the Muslim dying or the Muslim you know color to Islam okay the reason why I call myself the Muslim apologies is because I personally do not have any intention whatsoever convert anyone to Islam I only come here to defend Islam to present Islam as it is and to present you know and to refute people like you who are spreading lies that's it okay did I ever say that you want to convert that you want to force people to convert to Islam I never said that but you seem to imply so you seem to lump me to those who want I never I never said I never said that you want to force people to convert to Islam but I'm saying that's why you are implying you're Muslim apologists are out here defending Islam or preaching Islam yes no I'm not preaching Islam I'm defending some there's a difference there's a difference I mean you are basically doing the same thing if you go out here and try to explain if you want if you want to if you want to put if you want to put your spit hairs and yeah I mean whatever okay whatever I don't care what you personally do but Muslims have the mission to spread Islam and I guess I mean you are definitely aware of the fact that it is a Muslim mission as Muslim scholars have acknowledged and as Mohammed himself said don't forget to say As-salaam to spread Islam and to make everybody convert to Islam if everybody converted to Islam then we would get to such a state in which people like me would be executed I mean this is the basic logical conclusion this is what that entails so what we are if you live in the Islamic state then yeah maybe wonderful so do you do you think it's wrong do you think it's right for states to oppress Muslims do you think it's okay for a country to put Muslims in concentration camps because it perceives Muslims as a harmful people who you know corrupt or endanger the culture and the system of the nation do you think that's okay because it's happening now it's happening now so do you think it's right of course I don't think it's right because it's a Muslim I feel the pain of I feel the pain of my brothers but it's the law it's their law so they can do whatever they want yes exactly so that's why so I can't do anything about it but can I do about it so people say or there are many reports that Uygur Muslims an ethnic minority including and also other other ethnic groups and religious groups by the way but but mainly the Uyghur Muslims are apparently brutally oppressed in China and taken to what you could call concentration camps and forcibly reeducated and so on but if we want to go by your logic that you know it's not wrong because you know a country has laws and all that then we should also accept that China oppressing Muslims and forcibly reeducating them and making them loyal minions of the Chinese totalitarian state is also not wrong and not bad because they are just doing what's best for them it's just the law right well the issue of the Uyghur I think that's a very complicated complicated issue it's not as straightforward as you think it is of course now now it's now it's complicated because I know the no please don't cut me off right basically the issue of China and Uyghur is a political matter right so it's not really because of persecution of their religion it's because of other nationalistic issues right so these Uyghurs they were sent to concentration camps because you know the China is basically an artistic nation you're actually condemning your own your own fellow believers it's non-religious okay I don't have anything to do with that that's that's that's why you you know that's that's your that's your definition of religion but you know for me it is a form of religion in a way I mean everyone has a religion this is a very nice deflection but you're completely going astray from the actual topic it doesn't matter if it's uh let me let me go back okay all right whatever it is it is about laws you're cutting me off because you're changing the topic you're cutting me off again I have to go again in a second so I can't be just to be sure there's no speaking over each other yeah okay sorry about that but anyway the thing is Uyghur the Uyghur issue for me is something which doesn't really relate to religion and of course I disagree with what China has done but you know there are specific contexts and you know ethnic considerations there okay there are you know a Muslim population in China which is not which is not Uyghur by the way they are not being sent to concentration camps okay and you know the Hui Muslims for example they have been there for centuries okay Islam is a recognized religion in China okay by the way and other religions are actually bad okay so the the issue of Uyghur is much more complex than you may think it's not about you know oppression of Muslims okay here's here's the thing it doesn't really matter whether it's uh on a religious basis an ethnic basis a political basis whatever it is you see that many of your fellow Muslim Muslims and Muslim apologists go out there protesting and condemning China for example at accusing them of horrible crimes say this is wrong when will the world step in and so on well we all do respect to them we all do respect to them I don't think they understand the the situation in China do you think they're do you think they're xenophobes do you think they're uh they are anti-Chinese propaganda people no I don't I don't they spread hate no but no I don't here's the issue though uh when I oppose Islam because of Islamic laws and uh the policies that Islam presents you say that I am an islamo for opu you know yes you are things and whatever it is but because you say uh those things are not bad because it's just the law you know but when your fellow Muslims uh protest against China and condemn China for their mistreatment of minorities then you refuse to apply the same standard to them if you did apply the same standard to them you should you should also turn around and say hey you guys you fellow Muslim brothers you are actually spreading uh anti-Chinese hate you are xenophobes this is totally unacceptable please stop it it's the same logic exactly I'm not going to stop them I'm not going to stop them because they're right just as I can I can't stop you from speaking against Islam even though I disagree with you see I'm not going to go and hunt you down and you know cut off your head I can't do that well you're being very hypocritical let's test the issue here no I'm not being inconsistent with your own logic I'm being very I'm very I'm very I'm being very consistent here okay so for me the issue of the Uighur as something was able to do it Islam but you know these Muslim apologists that you say the other Muslims my fellow brothers who think that you know this issue affects them if they go out and protest it's their right I mean it's their freedom of speech until the one who you know promoting so-called freedom of speech and you know you're blaming Islam for not promoting freedom of speech so it's kind of you know disingenuous I would say for you to say that they can't do this but just because you know and I think that the issue of you know apostasy in Islam is much more larger than your narrow mindedness I would say it's actually very complicated it's not very complicated Islam is very clear on this if somebody leaves Islam and leaves the Muslims and speaks on it this is the scholarly consensus in Islam then the person is to be executed there are no differences in how to deal with this if it's a man or a woman I read many books on this matter including I don't see you I don't think you have read this I don't think you have read this I read many books of thick so I don't believe you honestly I don't think you do I don't care if you believe me not really let me speak in Islam I go into Islamic law I go into the Islamic consensus apostates people who leave Islam and openly say that they left Islam are to be executed the only differences are regarding how long you should wait to execute them if it's a man or a woman some say a woman can't be executed others say a woman could be executed or if somebody is a born Muslim or a convert to Islam and there's also a difference of opinion on whether the person after leaving Islam was hostile toward Islam or not if the person was not hostile then there is a possibility of forgiveness while if the person was hostile like me for example then forgiveness is impossible we should be executed and so on this is basically the universe of apostasy laws in Islam and what we can say is that apostasy penalty apostasy punishment clearly exists in Islam there is no reason to deny this people who leave Islam and don't deny it why are you saying that I'm denying the apostasy laws because I'm not denying it because you're beating around the bush and saying I'm twisting things just let's just say it apostates are to be executed in Islam and that yes they are but yes they are but but there are conditions for it there are conditions on you know why the crime is committed how the crime is committed and the reasons behind it okay that's what I just said yeah but you're generalising and you're making this assumption somehow that wherever the apostate is whether he's in whether he's in the Islamic state or whether he's outside of the Islamic state he is to be killed but this is not the case you see I never said such a thing nor did I imply this you definitely imply this you definitely imply this and you seem to think that you're going to be killed at any second opportunity no I don't I don't fear for my life I'm completely fine and I'm in America I have the means to defend myself I mean come here I will show you I will so show you we are speaking come over me but but here is the issue here's the issue you are deflecting from the actual problem by bringing up things that I never ever said I'm not saying all Muslims are out there to kill me they can kill whatever they want and so on I never said these things very very simple Islam commands the killing of apostates of people who leave the religion stop stop for a moment see this leave the religion what is this man? yeah see this so what is this I have an American passport so so what? if you're thinking Muslims are violent and evil and you know they're going to hunt down and kill every single apostate in this in this world I never said that I never said this I never said this stop being me from the U.S and come and hunt you down if I want to do that I mean I never said that I never said that I still never said that somehow your life is in danger no I didn't the apostates are going kill anywhere they are going you know anywhere they live I mean that's really I said just now that my life is not in danger I'm not I'm not I don't fear for my life you just entered on talking about your life no about apostates being hunted down and killed okay just did that for like few seconds right I said that I said that people are killed repeatedly in the name of Islam no other religion has yeah so and I already repeated that I said I said I did say that anyone who you know who's killed in the name of Islam doesn't necessarily mean that they are being killed in the name of Islam right okay there are criminals in society okay if someone were to you know kill you of anyone else in the name of Islam does that mean that person represents Islam no it does not that's simple the topic of our debate is not let me Islam for that and and and you keep saying you know Islam does this Islam does that I'm denouncing this type of people I mean you know if this is happening in the name of Islam yeah yeah so what's the issue here here's the issue and it's different the topic is not and it's totally different from the laws of apostasy okay so yeah yeah I mean it's related I'm a bit different it's related you seem to think that whatever is brought up in a debate must be connected 100% to the other thing and must be a cause of course it's connected a cause of the other no it doesn't no it's not yes of course of course of course of course of course here here is the issue the topic the topic here is not that Islam explicitly allows hunting people around the war that's not the topic and I never implied that the topic is clearly is Islam yeah people see that okay I will not deny that anymore people the topic is is Islam dangerous and in order to make the case that Islam is dangerous I said that Islam is the only religion I challenge everybody prove me wrong which repeatedly in dangerous harms and kills people and where many mostly where many people among in the religion are happy about it and approve of it and they are inspired yeah they are inspired inspired just a second just a second let me finish my point and they are inspired by the hatred and the violence that comes from Muhammad and from the Quran which repeatedly dehumanizes people that was the entire point Islam is dangerous because of this influence which leads to the violence I didn't say Islam actually does this or commands this I mean I mean that's a total joke yeah you know I was laughing in my heart when I heard that okay I mean history I mean you see wars committed in a name of religions apart from Islam I mean and there are wars committed against Islam okay like the Crusades the inquisition okay and we have we I mean I mean you can you can do your fake laugh but you know basically throughout history that is that and and World War I and World War II I mean this all these things you know are inspired by other ideologies okay was World War I and II fought against mostly so big existence but I mean I mean seriously I mean for example the the New Zealand incident where this mad man comes into the mosque and kills all them do you do you agree to that I'm pretty sure you are laughing right now everybody everybody condemned it I was there on the day you only say that with your lips but you never made a video you never made I did I did I condemned it right on that day I've never seen it I've never seen it well if you don't if you don't see that's not my fault I mean if you do honor it on all the history I mean you can talk just also look the issue here is everybody some man who's the some man who's the but you never talk about the New Zealand incident you never talk about Anders Brevet killing the Muslims you never talk about you know Anders Brevet didn't kill Muslims you know you know you never talk about Anders Brevet going to Iraq Anders Brevet killing Muslims you never talk about you know Afghanistan Thousands and millions of Afghanis were killed by American soldiers. How many Muslims did Andres Bravik kill? And don't forget the Bosnian war. Let's not forget the Bosnian war. How many Muslims did Andres Bravik kill? To kill Muslims, okay? Yeah, okay, let's not forget. Are you going to have a conversation with me or do you just want to rant? I already made my point. I think I already made my point. How many Muslims did Andres Bravik kill? Sorry, I misspoke, not Andres Bravik. Sorry, I wasn't... He didn't kill any Muslims. You are talking... Not that I know of. Not that I know of. But he did kill a lot of people, right? Can you please let me speak?  So let me speak, all right? You are speaking forever. I'm waiting for you to stop. So I can speak and whenever I sound speaking, you jump in again. Okay, go ahead, go ahead. All right, sorry about that. Sorry if I interrupted too, okay? It's hard to pay attention to that sometimes during a debate.  He was inspired by Christianity. He was inspired by Christianity. No, it was not. Did you read the Christchurch Manifesto? Yes, he was. I read the Manifesto. I read the Manifesto. Does he say in there that he did it because of Christianity? Yeah, he did. That's simply factually wrong. You can't deny it.  Can you prove it? Can you quote it? Because I had read it and he clearly even says, upon the question, are you a Christian or do you believe in Christianity? Do you believe in God? I have a copy of it. He says it is complicated. He says it is complicated. And he clearly says that his intention is not to kill Muslims because he hates them or to be inspired by Christianity. His intention is to combat this whole replacement of white people by non-white people, which is why he did this act. That's what he says. It has no connection at all to Christianity. It is about white nationalism and the comparison here Remember the challenge that I made earlier. I don't know a single person who approves of that massacre. Everybody condemns it. Not the same thing when a Muslim kills non-Muslims who offend Islam. People rejoice over it. Do you want me to share my screen? I can share with you hundreds of comments where people, where Muslims online, celebrate the attack on Salman Rushdie, for example. Or people excuse the attack on the Charlie Hebdo cartoon organization. People excuse all kinds of things. I don't care if you agree with it or not. What I'm saying here is... Why are you assuming? Why are you lumping me together? I'm not saying this is about you. I'm saying Islam is dangerous and inspires such things. And Islam is the only, only religion which in today's time repeatedly kills people and people rejoice over it. No other religion does this. You bring up the Crusades, which happened almost a thousand years ago as if they were comparable, whereas Muslims waged global jihad the entire time. I don't even know what your point is.  I mean, there's tons of it, okay? Okay, there's tons of it, okay?  I mean, you go to any channel, any channel which has anti-Islam content and you just read the comments and you tell me whether you agree with those, whether you agree with that hate, because if you agree with those hate, then you're an Islamophobic, it's really that simple. I don't hear you condemning those. I even made a video at which, I made a video in which I said, I don't hate Muslims and I don't think it's right to hate Muslims. Do you, do you think any of your Muslim apologists or you yourself ever made an effort to say, hey, we should not hate people who leave Islam, we should not hate apostates, we should actually understand them and so on? Did you make such an effort? Why should I love apostates? See the hypocrisy, see the hypocrisy, you're crying about hate against Muslims, because some people say some mean things about Muslims.   I'm not complaining and it's their right to make that comment.  Show me one comment. I don't have two, you just go to your comment section. I have never seen such a comment in my comment section. I've seen it for many times. Can you actually find somebody going and killing Muslims and then most people rejoice over it? No, it's never happens. Never, ever. Come on, come on. Can you give me an example? Just because you don't do it, probably it doesn't mean that you don't enjoy watching a Muslim kill. I give you multiple examples of people being killed and lynched by Muslims in masses and people rejoice over it. And you cannot give me one example of a Muslim being- Yes, I can. People rejoice over it. I can give you two examples. Can you make up things?  No, I'm not making up. This is back in Nazi Germany. Okay, so these two individuals Ernst van Roef and Reinhard Kedrich. Okay, so these two Nazi officials were killed by Jews. Okay, they were assassinated and the Jews celebrated. Okay, they openly celebrated the killing of these people. So, I mean, why are you laughing? I mean, you gave me an example so I did. I just did. So, I think this is actually a natural reaction of any human anyway. So, why are you making a big issue? It's nothing to be shameful about. Okay, I'm pretty sure you were celebrating when bin Laden was killed anyway. So, I challenge you to give me an example of one religion which does the same thing of killing people who offend the religion and people celebrated across the religious group.  Are you kidding me? That's actually a perfect example, right? It's a perfect example. An amazing example. What do you think would be okay by your logic if we established policies in non-Muslim countries where we said, hey, you know, what Islam is a dangerous and harmful religion? It causes degeneracies and so on. So, we should therefore ban Islam and execute whoever preaches and converts to Islam by your logic that should be completely acceptable because we are just looking out for the betterment of our own civilization and establishing laws. So, you shouldn't be complaining about this. You shouldn't call it Islamophobia. You should put out your neck or get out. Isn't that right?  So, please keep quiet for a moment, right? Sure, yeah. If a prophet or one who foretells by dreams appears among you and announces a sign of wonder and if the sign of wonder spoken of takes place, the prophet says, let us follow other gods. You must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you.  Is the Lord your God you must follow and him you must reveal. Keep his commandments and obey him, serve him and hold fast to him. The prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, okay? That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you away from the way the Lord the God commanded you to follow.  Do not yield to them. Do not listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death, see? The apostasy law is in the Bible. I don't see you complaining about it.   Why not denouncing it? Why are you focusing on the Slam only? First of all, I find it very funny that you actually quoted a Bible passage under which Muhammad would be executed because he was a false prophet who claims to preach in the name of God. According to the Jewish law, Muhammad would be executed. That's what the logic entails. Coming to your assertion of hypocrisy, can you show me an example of people today killing false prophets and people rejoicing over it? Go ahead. I demand you made a false statement about the prophet. So I'm going to deal with that first. So you said that according to the Jewish law, the prophet Solomon was going to be killed. But the answer is no. He did not tell people to worship false gods. He tells people to worship the one true God of Abraham. And even Jews under today acknowledge that the prophet Muhammad is a Noahite prophet. Do you even know what the Noahite law is? Yes, I know what the Noahite law is. The Noahite law is a law that is presented by the Jewish rabbis according to which Noah was instructed to give people the command to abstain from certain things, to worship one God, to have some basic human laws aside from the Jewish laws, which are more extensive, because there are certain things that all humans, whether they are Jewish or not, must abide by including worshipping one God and not worshipping idols. Here is the issue, though. It also says that you are supposed to kill a prophet who presumes to speak in God's name but doesn't, but says false things. If you evaluate Islam by biblical standards, you could quickly come to the conclusion that Muhammad clearly speaks in the name of, claims to speak in the name of God but doesn't even know the biblical God's name, doesn't do anything the biblical God does, has no witnesses for his prophethood, completely bends the law as he wills, abolishes all kinds of Jewish law.  I mean, this is, under these standards, he would be executed. I'm merely bringing this up because you are bringing up this passage. But here is the issue.  Does it happen? No, it doesn't. When did it last happen? Can you tell me? Well, if it doesn't happen or happen, that's up to the Jewish Christians to decide. You are living in a society which claims to follow Judeo-Christian traditions, but they don't follow Judeo-Christian traditions. I mean, that's why- We're living in a secular society. We're not. Yeah, exactly, exactly. So, of course, you're not going to see Jews and Christians applying their own laws. They're not following their own religion. That's the whole point. And another thing- That's the entire point of secularism. Stop, stop, stop. You made a lie about Islam. So I have to refute it. Go ahead. You are saying that the prophet doesn't know the name but the one through God.  I mean, we have 99 names in the Qur'an for God. Is that the topic? Tell me. What? Okay. It's not a topic but I need to refute you. So you keep saying- I know what your video is. Okay, you keep saying that Yehwah is the name of God. But it's not. It's a pagan entity. And, of course, we Muslims will not recognize this entity. And I- Wait, wait, wait. Can you repeat that? Can you say that Yehwah is actually a pagan entity's name? Yes. And this is the pagan God here. Right here. Right? Okay. If you can look at- Okay. So why would I want to worship this being? I don't believe in this being as God. Okay. So you're lying.  I know you got it from David. All right. So you don't have- David never talked about this. I'm actually the first person whoever extensively talked about this. I'm pretty- No, you're not the first person. That's the thing. You're not the first person to come up with this issue of Yehwah being the name of God. Okay, okay. Okay. Tell me. Tell me what does the name of God. Do you know why? And do you know why I said this? Because back in 2004 or 2005, I was confronted with this issue. A Christian guy actually asked me or tried to challenge Islam by accusing Islam of saying that Yehwah is the name of the one true God, the divine name. And therefore, Muslims are not on the true path because Muslims do not know this Yehwah. And I recreated him. Okay. So what you're presenting here is nothing new. Okay. I'm just taking- If you want to- If you want to have a debate about about the name of God or about whether Islam is true or not, we can gladly have that. I would love it. And I would love to show to you everybody how ridiculous Islam is. But I just want to- Since you brought it up, since you brought it up, I just want to ask you a question here about- A few more minutes, and then we'll go to the closing statements in Q&A. I want to ask you a simple question here. The Prophet Ilyas. What is the Prophet Ilyas' actual name? Yeah, it's not Ezekiel, that's for sure. Okay. What is his Hebrew name? Yeah. I think it's Eliyahu. I'm not mistaken. Yes, Eliyahu. What does Eliyahu mean? I don't care. I don't care because the Quran collected that mistake by calling him Ilyas. And Il is from Ilah. Okay.    I have these books here. I have these books here. Okay, will you let me speak about this? Look, Eliyahu is not a correction made by the Quran. Eliyahu is an adoption from Greek, which is the Hellenized version of the name Eliyahu. In Greek, it is Eliyahu or Elias, which Arabic people, Arabic-speaking people adopted, which is why it came into Islam as Eliyahu. The guy's name in Hebrew is Eliyahu. Do you know what Eliyahu means? Eliyahu means my God is Yahweh. Yahweh repeatedly refers to the God Yahweh throughout the Bible, throughout Hebrew tradition. Another name, Yisra. Yisra, which Islam distorts as well, is Yahoshua. Also is about Yahweh. Another Yahya is also about Yahweh. Zakaria is also about Yahweh. And the Quran even says that Allah gave the names of Yahya and of Yisra to them. And promised those names. So Allah, your true God allegedly, gave people names which praise the false God Yahweh, as you claim.  You have to accept, if you want to accept these figures and these names as true, that your God's name, at least known to them, was Yahweh. If you want to openly assert that Yahweh is a pagan name of a pagan entity, then you are directly denying and refuting your own religion without even understanding it and knowing it. You're welcome.  Because I've bought this book here. I have several books on the subject. Since you want to talk about the issue of Yahweh, I'm going to give you a chance to actually read the passage from this. So basically no one knows how Yahweh is pronounced. It's your head, where Vav and Hat. Nobody knows the pronunciation of this tractor-german tone. And to say that it's Yahweh, it's wrong. The pronunciation is incorrect. I mean, some scholars actually say that it could be Yahu or Yahuwah. And how is it relevant to the discussion that we are having now? No, basically you don't have the right pronunciation of your so-called God by the name of Yahweh. And how is it relevant to the discussion that we are having right now? It's not. But since you want to talk about it, I'm going to talk about it. Fantastic. It's not relevant to what I said at all right now. What I'm saying is that your Qur'an, your God himself, claims to have sent people and have given them names which praise Yahweh. But you're telling me right now that Yahweh is actually a pagan entity's name. You have no clue what you're talking about. You're not listening to anything I said. I just said that the name Yahweh doesn't exist. No, you didn't. You didn't seem to understand what I'm saying. I think it's a bit above your level. It's all on my fault.  I don't understand all these things. Good for you to omit it. Yeah. For you to omit it. Okay. Fantastic. So basically, so basically, this is what Yahweh, nobody knows its pronunciation. Nobody knows how it's pronounced. And of course- Very, very nice changes to what topics there is nothing to do with this. The Qur'an is going to avoid this. Sorry, please let me speak. So basically, the name Yahweh is a pagan God which existed in Canaanite times. Okay. And of course, Islam is going to avoid using this name because this name is an idol. Okay. And therefore, it's a pagan God. Okay. So the so-called claims that you made about the prophets allegedly using the name Yahweh, they don't know how it's pronounced. Okay. You don't know how it's pronounced. Jews did not care about how it is pronounced. What they cared about is to preserve the letters, which is why it is- Even I say today, Okay. Yah or yahoo is a short form which praises the God Yahweh and has been known so forever. I don't believe that's a God Yahweh. It is impossible that such a change happened. It is throughout Hebrew tradition and throughout the Hebrew Bible, it repeatedly refers to Yah or Yahoo as the God's name. I am clearly listening and I'm telling you that you have not heard what you're talking about. Yahoo is the name of the Hebrew God, of the biblical God. And your Islamic scripture contains names like Jesus, Yahya, John, or Elijah, or Zechariah, which- The name of Jesus in the Quran is not Yahweh. Wow, okay. It is Isah. It is Isah. Yes, Isah. Yes, nothing was ever to do with Yahweh. It's nothing to do with anything in Hebrew. Okay. And what is the Hebrew? It's a name which was taken from the Elamite. Okay. And what is the Hebrew? The name in Elamite, in Elamite, not Hebrew. It's original name in Elamite is Esho. Okay. Nothing to do with Yahweh. Yahweh. And what do you think Esho is? What do you think that is? It is Hebrew origin. It is Hebrew origin. No, it's not Hebrew. It's Elamite. Oh, my God. You're confusing. You confuse things again. I'm going to let you finish. I'm going to let you finish in 30 seconds. M-E-N-J. And then we're going to go into closing statements starting with the positive prophets. So you've got 30 seconds and then we'll go into closing. It is a well-known fact that the name of Jesus- For M-E-N-J. M-E-N-J was starting his response. So I want to give a chance to you. Go ahead. Go ahead. Sure. Okay. Yeah. So basically the name of Jesus, the original name of Jesus and it's Esho. Okay. Nothing whatsoever to do with whatever it is that you're trying to spew here. Okay. So I mean, if you want to have a debate on this, I'm more than happy to oblige. Okay. But since you brought it up, I had to talk about this. Okay. So this false god Yahweh, okay. It's a pagan god that existed way before the the Moses religion. Okay. And it came from Nubia. Okay. And scholars, okay, don't even know how Yahweh is pronounced. Okay. And frankly, I don't have any problems or so with the the method, but it's just that you seem to think that it's pronounced as Yahweh, which is wrong. And the Jews themselves, they don't even know how it's pronounced and they replace it with Adonai. And Jews accept that Muslims worship the same God. Yeah. So I don't know what the issue is. Okay. So yeah. We're going to jump into the closing statement. So don't worry. Muslim apologists, you'll get a chance to finish up on that point. But first, we're going to go over to Apostate Prophet for his closing statement. These are five minutes. Four is all yours, Apostate Prophet. So just to finalize that final point and to show that MENG likes to talk about things he has absolutely no clue about. I just want to quickly point out that it is a step. You can go on a page as simple as Wikipedia and look at the origins of the name Jesus. And it will tell you that it is an Aramaic version and shortening of the Hebrew original Yahoshua, which became Yeshua, which means Yahweh saves or Yahweh is salvation becomes becomes Yeshua. And then is turned in Greek into Jesus or in Latin and is somehow adopted by the Arabic speaking Muslims as Issa, which has nothing to do with the actual name. And even the letters, the R sound and the E sound are reversed, which looks like the Islamic authors of the Quran had no clue what they were doing. And as said, it is clearly a Hebrew origin name, which means Yah is salvation. It doesn't matter how it is pronounced. What matters is that the name is there. The pronunciation is entirely irrelevant. Now, coming to the actual topic, everybody has seen, as it has been established, that Islam is a dangerous religion.  There's so much more. Of course, I didn't even go into the whole child marriage and pillaging and taking slaves and sex slaves, waging war against the world and all that. I'm sure he would love to talk about that himself personally. Islam dehumanizes people in its scripture and in the words of the holy prophet who is supposed to be the most perfect human being to ever walk the face of the earth, whom every Muslim should emulate because he's so amazing, which is why Muslims around the world are inspired by this and often have a very hostile view of people of different religions, especially of Jews, whom Muhammad demonized to know and and the Quran demonizes as well. One thing actually that he said, which is that the Quran chapter 9, verse 29 in which it says that you should fight those who don't believe in Allah or in Islam, until they are humiliated and pay the jizya. He said this was about a specific incident that's complete nonsense. It was revealed by the Islamic belief during a specific incident, but the verse clearly says, fight those who don't believe in Allah and his messenger and the day of judgment and who don't adopt the true religion among the Christians and Jews. It clearly speaks about people who don't believe in Islam and it says, fight them, humiliate them, take protection money from them. Islamic scholars have consensually agreed since the beginnings of Islam, as you can see in the most famous exegesis of the Quran, Tafsir Ibn Kathir, that this is a general statement, a general command for all times to Muslims to go out and to convert people to Islam. If they refuse to convert to Islam, tend to declare war on them unless they can come to some sort of different agreement and to take protection money from them and make them your subjects, where they have very limited rights, can't build their own places of worship, new ones, and so on, have to give their places to Muslims, and so on. And if they refuse that, then they're supposed to be slaughtered and enslaved as Muhammad himself did and also instructed his Muslim followers to do. If men wants to somehow deny this, I really challenge him to go into the Muslim history and to tell me that Muslims actually didn't do such a thing and didn't approve of such a thing and that this was just one incident in the Muslim time. That's complete nonsense. He knows that that's not true. Muslim scholars have ruled that this is a general command and they've fought that way forever.  Islam is dangerous because it dehumanizes entire groups of people and commands to fight and to subjugate them.  There is nothing else to say.  Thank you. You got it with that. Well, kick it over to Muslim apologist for his closing as well. And folks, we are so close to 300 likes. Appreciate all of your support, which by the way is fantastic. So people have really enjoyed this debate. I've got to tell you, apostate prophet and Muslim apologists, people have been all in when it comes to this debate. So Muslim apologists, the floor is all yours. All right. Thank you, James. And I mean, I don't mean I appreciate you come here.  And again, I need to remind you that I know my name is not Manj, but it's MENJ. Okay. No, I give you due respect, you know, like what you Mr. Idemir, so I expect you to, you know, accord the same respect as well.  Okay. So going back to what I said earlier before, James had coming off, the Jews themselves don't have any problems if not Muslims.  No, I'm sorry, because Jews don't have any problems with Muslims calling upon God as over, okay. And if you were to ask a Jew on the street regarding, you know, whether they believe that Muslims worship the same God as they do, they say, yes, they have no problems with it, okay. The proof of this can, you can actually see this on a channel, a YouTube channel where I forgot his name, I think it's Gil Sharon, something like this. He is an American Jew who goes on the streets of Jerusalem and, you know, interviews the Jews on the streets and, you know, ask them random questions, okay. So you can actually check that out. Okay, I've seen some of the videos that he has done. So basically, he asked Jews on the street whether they believe that Muslims worship the same God as they do and they say, yes, okay.  So your polemic is really, it's just based on lies, okay, that people like David would give you, okay. And I bought the name of Aisha, okay. I think it's too long, which I would talk about it, so I'll leave it for another time. But I'm going to go back to the topic of the day, which is basically some dangerous to the world. The answer is no, it's not.   Well, it depends on the context, right. I mean, everything is based on context, okay.   So I'm going to read a passage from this book, you put me, James, and then we can end this conclusion. So it says here, jizya means a reasonable tax that non-Muslim citizens is required to pay, okay. If a Muslim ruler fails to protect the life and property of non-Muslim citizens, he has to return the jizya. They will pay jizya just as the Muslims will give an obligatory zakat, okay. The payment of jizya would absorb a non-Muslim from the payment of zakat, okay. Although he will still enjoy the rights to share the zakat money, if it happens to be poor and needy like any other Muslim. And you see there, it just shows that you know, a non-Muslim in the Muslim state will also receive money from zakat as well, okay. Moreover, he will be absorbed from any compulsory military service, meaning he doesn't need to serve in the army. His hazard, a Muslim citizen cannot escape, okay. And the amount of jizya must be reasonable, okay. And then there are people who are actually exempted from payment, okay. Women and children are exempted from payment. The amount of jizya was to be paid once a year and could also be paid by value instead of cash if they wish to, okay. And then the Prophet said, the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam said, whoever oppresses a non-Muslim subject or taxes him beyond his capacity, then I shall be the opposite party or I shall be against him in the litigation. So the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam is actually condemning Muslims who will try to oppress non-Muslims in Islamic state. So there you go, your lies are so thank you very much Chiefs. I just end this here. Do you got it? We're going to jump into the question and answer. Folks, if you haven't had questions, feel free to fire them into the old live chat if you tag me or at me with modern day debate. That's one way to ask a question and even quicker as you put them at the top of the list, you can use the super chat. We're going to jump into those right now. Thanks very much for your question. Chris Claus says, for the Muslim Apologist, when was the last time Sharia was implemented correctly? I guess before the caliphate or common caliphate, I think everything just went down the drain. So yeah, there you go.   So that's it. This one coming in from Stop Scamming Man says, I've got a question for the Muslim gentlemen. Slavery wasn't abolished by the caliphate until the secularists took over in the 1920s. In your estimation, when, if ever, should it have been abolished? Well, to have a long discussion about slavery, there's actually nothing moral or immoral about it because it's a system. So the thing is, Islam doesn't say that slavery is to be abolished explicitly. But that being said, Islam also encourages the freeing of safe, the manumission of slaves. So whenever a Muslim does something which goes against the Sharia, like for example, he doesn't fast properly. So he's allowed to not fast by releasing his slaves. So this is something unique to Islam. And I personally believe in my studies of studying religion because you can see the evidence here behind me compared to my opponent. So basically, I believe that Islam has always had in mind the eventual evolution of slavery. But let's say the world one day were to come back to slavery for some reason or another, we don't know if it's the future. So if that happens, then Islam has the laws governing the issue of slavery. So it's not a moral or immoral issue. You've got to thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Nemesis says, Me and Jay, Sharia triumphs the Quran, be honest. I think they're saying that Sharia comes before the Quran. It takes precedence or? I really cannot, that's the logic of the Sharia. It's derived from the Quran. It's like putting the egg before the, it's like putting the egg before the chicken or the chicken before the egg. Doesn't make any sense to me. You got it. Nikki, thank you. Wish come first, you know? Yeah. You got it. Nikki, thanks for your super sticker and Yeshua the king says, everyone watch Lloyd De Jong on Sharia. It's illegal for Muslims to teach us Sharia. It's legal to lie and spread by force. Islam doesn't just lying that is basically forbidden. It's haram.  So this concept called Takia is a Shia doctrine, which has absolutely nothing to do with, you know, the Sunni Muslim. I'm a Sunni Muslim. We are taught, you know, from small that Takia is a diva and this ingenious concept practiced by the Shia. And of course, I as a Muslim will denounce and disavow anything concerning Takia.  May I respond to that too quickly? James? Sure. First of all, I've never talked about Takia and I have even said that the concept of Takia is often exaggerated by people who don't understand Islam. It is mainly a Shia thing. But it's not exclusively Shia. But the issue is here, I have a hadith and I will quickly read a very small part to you. We talked about it earlier.  His companion then says, would you like me to kill him? Prophet says yes.  Muhammad says, you may say it. Then he goes and lures the guy out and then kills him. Here, Muhammad explicitly allows the guy to lie in order to kill his opponent. This one coming in from do appreciate your question. Yeshua the king says, study Sharia. Don't waste your time with the Quran and Sunnah. The Islamic scholars already did the legwork and the final rulings are in the Sharia. Is this true, Muslim apologists? There is gibberish because the Sharia are derived from the Quran and the Sunnah. So it doesn't make any sense to me. Like I said, it's putting the, it's basically which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Okay, so Sharia is part of the Quran and Sunnah. So if you study the Quran and Sunnah, it means you are studying the Sharia. Sharia means Sami law. It's all Islamic way of life. So I mean, it doesn't make any sense to me. Did I say it right? Is it Sunnah or Sunnah? Sunnah. Sunnah, thank you. Sunnah, Sunnah. Cameron Hall says, the killing of, let me know if I have a mispronounce. Ashraf. Thank you. And other critics was justified in the Sunnah. How is this not a violent doctrine? Then I should ask the questioner, is it legal for a country to go to another nation and kill that person because that person is deemed to be a threat to the state? I mean, this is something that has been practiced throughout the ages and it's pretty much, I mean, I already gave examples in my speech, in my opening statement. I talked about Jonathan Pollard. I talked about, you know, how America treated Edward Snowden, how the assassination of bin Laden happened and most recently, Aiman Azawa, is it legal for the U.S. to go to Afghanistan and drone strike a person just because that person attacks you? Very beautiful. What about it? I mean, that's fine for you. That's fine for you. What about the people who are killed who are fined? It's not fine for me to do that. I mean, it's very nice. What about it? It's acceptable. Bring up other people's things to justify your prophet killing people because they offended him. Brilliant. I'm trying to show you the context. That's why you're taking things out of context. That's why you think that the prophet cannot do these certain things, but other people are doing exactly the same things into this world. So, yeah, that shows your hypocrisy. I demand. Yeah, the prophet can screw himself. This one coming in from? Yeah, so do you. Coming in from, Stop Scamming Man says, Hello again to the Muslim apologist, gentlemen. I'd be interested to know what you think of Malaysia's apostasy laws and the recently removed law against non-Muslim publications using words like Allah. I think the question is two-folded. So in Malaysia, we don't actually have an apostasy law, but say we have laws governing insults towards Islam. So let's say if I domain here, we'll do something like what he did and what he's doing now with his channel in Malaysia. Then he's going to have to face very severe consequences. But we don't really have an apostasy law. I mean, there are people who actually apply to be apostates in the Islamic cause and some of them actually been approved. So there's no real law governing about apostates. And also in Malaysia, we have like 14 states in Malaysia. So each state have different laws governing apostasy according to whichever preference they choose. So in Malaysia, of course, if you insult Islam, then you're going to face a lot of problems. So I'll just leave it at that. So the second question is, sorry, I need to answer this. Sorry, James. So the second question was, second part of the question was about the usage of the word over in non-Muslim publications. I personally do not agree with this. But the reasons by the government is that it will cause instability and disharmony to Muslims. I don't agree with it, but I'm not in power so I can't do anything about it. You got it, Anne. Thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from Nemesis says, AP would Islam win a medal in the victim Olympics? Well, I think it does a good job. From the very beginning, the whole idea is we are oppressed. The others are oppressing us because they are not letting us oppress them. And in this example, in today's debate, you have seen the very same thing. MENG says we can oppress you, but that is okay. It's not oppression when we do it.  And then I'm accused of being disrespectful. This one coming in from Franco Trujillo says, what does Islam say about the... James, I think he wanted to respond to that. Yeah, so, yeah, I mean, okay, so where do I begin?  I mean, how many apostates are actually being killed in the world today? Probably close to zero, right? So, if you look at history, I would say from the end of the caliphate, like until now, okay, or the Ottoman caliphate, there were many, many Muslims who were being killed. Even now, I mean, it's strange that you think that Muslims are not victims at the moment when we were talking about the Uyghurs.  Because on one hand, we try to abuse or try to misuse the issue, the situation of the Uyghurs as some sort of yardstick to prop up your position. But at the same time, you also try to deny that Muslims are also victims, okay? So, let's get this straight. Islam establishes itself as an empire and declares war on the world from the very beginning, but we are supposed to care about the victims who die as a result of that war against the world, okay?  See, that's why you're trying to tell people too, right?  We should be killed. We should we cannot be killed because we are for freedom of expression. So why are you not helping us? Why are you not helping us? It's not us who declare war against the world and try to confront them. It's not us who convert the world by the use of the sword. When you comment, apostasy, you're commenting against the same state. It's really that simple. I don't care what you're saying. I don't care about your way of life either. So that's not the point. Okay, funny. Okay. There's no one coming in. From, you guessed it, Franco Trullo says, what does Islam say about the LGBTQ plus community and how they should be treated? It's the question for me, sorry. I think so. I can answer too if you want to. If you want AP to answer this. Sure, I'll let you answer first.  There's also another reference about driving out of your house those who are effeminate.  So homosexuals are to be executed under Islam, according to Muhammad. And that was the law. So if they practice it, excuse me, that's what he will probably say. That was the law in Islam forever. So what should I answer? Yeah, if you want, I think it was right for you. Yeah, okay. So basically, the LGBTQ thing, well, I can't speak for other nations, but in Malaysia especially, we kind of tolerate them. I mean, we were talking earlier about the term Papua, right? So it's something that is tolerated in societies, but we don't accept it. I mean, there's no particular law in Malaysia, especially against LGBTQ, if they practice it quietly and everything. But of course, if they do it publicly and they openly show off whatever it is, then there are laws governing it. So yeah, I can't speak for other Muslim nations. I think other Muslim countries have different laws and traditions and ethics regarding this. But as the mayor, again, he lumps Muslims into one monolithic thing. And he seems to think that the laws are priced across the board. So each country is different, as the mayor. The question was not Malaysia, the question was Islam. And I quoted what Muhammad said and what Islamic scholars rule. Yes, the problem is we are not practicing it now. So it's mode. Okay, it's academic. Well, that was the question. It was about Islam, not about what you practice now. Yeah, yeah. Okay. This one coming up.  Okay. No, it's okay. Okay. This one from Bilal Ali says, Islam beat me up and took my lunch money. So confirm it's dangerous. I can confirm it's dangerous. I think they were just joking. This one from Samir Farsain says, AP, do you think people like yourself provoke hate? Absolutely not. If there is a side effect of people hating me and people like me as a result of what I'm doing, then that's entirely natural. If some hate comes out of the criticism that I do and all that, even if it comes out from people who listen to me and who end up hating Islam or end up hating Muslim sentiments, that is part of the issue. I do my part and always say that I don't hate Muslims. I don't think they are evil. I don't think they should be hated. I don't recommend it. I am against it. I think you shouldn't do this. I don't hate people based on their beliefs and ideas. People are simply misguided and wrong and have corrupt worldviews. That's what the issue is. But it's quite obvious that I get much more hate from the Islamic camp than there is hate from me or others toward Muslims. You got to this one coming in from Yeshua the king says Imam Ghazali, I think they're quoting them, says quote, It is legal to lie if attaining the goal is legal and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. Is spreading Islam obligatory? Yes, they say. I think they're saying that it's justified to lie in order to spread Islam. I think men just frozen. It might be that he's just standing really still. Muslim Apologist, can you hear us? We'll give him a second. In the meantime, I'm sure it'll catch up. It's just the connection. Our guests are linked in the description folks. Both MENJ, Muslim Apologist and AP have their links in the description. That includes if you're listening via the podcast. Want to encourage you, you can learn more about their views. He just entered the waiting room. So I think he's coming in with a different device. Let me see here. Can you hear us, Muslim Apologist? Yeah. Hello again. Sorry, I have my laptop kind of floats on me here. No problemo. Glad to have you back. And the question, I'll read it again real quick. This is from There it is. Yeshua the king says, I think they're quoting Imam Ghazali, says, quote, it is legal to lie if attaining the goal is legal and obligatory. They're saying it's legal to lie if attaining the goal is legal. And it's obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. Is spreading Islam obligatory? Yes, they say. So I think they're saying that it's according to Islam, it would be ethical and okay to lie to spread Islam. What do you think, Ameen J? The answer is no, of course not. We don't believe in this. I think the person was quoting Imam Ghazali, but I've never heard of Imam Ghazali. Rahim Mahmoud was saying such a thing. So he needs to give me the reference if there's any. But in Islam, we don't believe in lying. We don't believe in lying to achieve a certain goal. And we certainly don't believe in lying as a practice.  Except for certain circumstances such as war, for example, then yes, but there are really very rare exceptions to lying. And definitely spreading of Islam is not one of them.  That is a sinful act to do. And I find that disgusting actually to even think about it. You got it, Ann. Thank you very much for this question. Appreciate it. Yesho de King says reliance of the traveler, page 744, quote, permissible lying. I think there is a follow-up to that one. Yeah, that's the book quotes Imam Ghazali. That's not a book of Imam Ghazali, but it probably quotes him saying that you can look it up. That's what Imam Ghazali says. So I don't accept the reliance of the traveler because I don't have, I don't, we don't, in this part of the Muslim world, in fact.  But we have never, we don't even have the translation of the reliance of the traveler in our national language even. So the reliance of the traveler is, you know, something very archive and, you know, we Muslims, generally speaking, Muslims don't even follow the texts. We don't even accept it. The reliance of the traveler is a very widely accepted Muslim Islamic book of jurisprudence, which is why it has big priority in being the first jurisprudence book, which was translated into English. It's not the first theory for them, but it's not the first. Which was translated fully into English because of its importance. And it is by saying that lying is absolutely not allowed, you are basically contradicting. Listen to me, this is the first jurisprudence book, okay. You are contradicting. You don't even hear what I'm saying. You don't even hear what I'm saying. Because you are saying a lie, you are saying reliance of the traveler is the first Muslim juristic book in the world.  Did I say that? If you listened to me instead of jumping into it all the time, you would hear that I said it is the first jurisprudential book, which was translated fully into English. That's what I said. It's not even the first book written in English, okay. This is the first book, one of the first that I know of. I don't think that's good. That's considered a Hadith book, it's not considered a folk book. No, no. Muwata Iman Malik is pretty much the same thing as Reliance, okay. And it's published in 1981. I mean, Reliance of the Traveler was translated in the 90s of Khmer. Yeah, because it's the first actual.   Okay, whatever man. I mean, you are contradicting Islamic scholars, but I'm lying, sure. Yeah, let's go ahead. Please name me the Islamic scholars that I contradict. Okay. Already have. Let's move on. No, you didn't. You just made an assumption. You just made a claim. Okay. You didn't name anyone, right? Yeah. You got it. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Mercedes F1 fan says, invite me on, James. I want to debate apostate prophet from mango tea. The very mango tea under a sock account. I don't know if we could do that. Yeshua Daking says, Quran and Suna, rookie move, use Sharia. But men, I mean, MJ, I think you already addressed that. Not a verse. It says, oh, AP, why do you only look at the bad stuff? Muhammad was nice to a cat. Thus, Muslims actually like cats. Islam doesn't prescribe executing the cats. That's good, right?  I think she's using a satirical argument. I'm sure you know, Muslim apologists. We'll give you a chance to respond. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I mean, yeah. That's one of those examples of islamophobia. Okay, so this is how islamophobes behave. They take something out of isolation and then they twist it to mean something else. And this is how we Muslims are being derided, humiliated by the likes of this carrier islamophob, for example. And it's not strange to me. You know what's actually very interesting as a fact to mention since we are talking about delivering information here correctly or incorrectly? Muhammad used to receive revelations, supposedly from the angel Gabriel in the Arabic form. In form of seizures, by the way, seizure attacks. And one day the angel Gabriel did not come to him and he was very upset, very sad about this and was like, why is he not coming? I'm so upset. I don't know what to do. So the entire day he spent like that, he went home and then he realized at some point that there was a dog inside his house. He said, who brought this dog here and had that dog removed? And then in the evening or the next day, the angel Gabriel, his imaginary friend, actually did come to him. And Muhammad said, why did you not come? I was waiting for you all day. And the angel Gabriel said to him, angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture of a being. And Muhammad, after this, this is recorded in authentic hadiths. Muhammad, after this, became angry at the dogs and commanded his people to exterminate, to kill all dogs in the city so that all dogs were killed. After which he said, from now on, don't kill the dogs except the black ones. But this is actually something that Muhammad did, speaking of animals. Go ahead. Thank you. So again, this carrier Islamophobic is taking things out of context again. I mean, the killing of the dogs, the culling in the city of the dogs is actually due to a plague carried by the dogs.  The context is exactly as I said it. Excuse me, let me speak. So basically, the culling of the dog is a separate incident from the dog being found in the prophet's house. So the dog being in the house, yes, it denies revelation because angels will not enter the place where there's a dog. I mean, you can disagree with me, but that's basically what he said. It is as it is. And it's a different incident from the culling of the dog, the culling of dogs in the city of Medina because at the time there was a huge plague and the dogs were found to be carrying their plague. So the prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam ordered these dogs to be killed. It's pretty simple as that. So he's conflating two different incidents and putting it together in S1 as though dogs are something evil and something to be derided or something to be killed. See, this is how carrier Islamophobes do. They try to plant these seeds of evil into your mind and know what your impression of Islam is. That's pretty much it. Yeah, pretty sure that's wrong, but let's go ahead. Yeah. That's what I'm coming in from. Do appreciate your question. Rob Sanders says, how can Islam be interpreted so many ways if an all-knowing God revealed it? Teleban equals violence. You say it's not violent, though. I think they're maybe getting it. James, James, I just, so he just accused me of basically lying or connecting things the wrong way. I think it will be very nice if I could quickly set the record straight here by saying, if you look at Sahih Muslim 2105, you will see a lost messenger did not receive revelations from Gabriel. It was evening.  The angel said, yes, but we do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture. Then on that very morning, he commanded the killing of the dogs until he announced that the dog kept for the orchards should also be killed, but he spared the dog meant for the protection of extensive fields. Sahih Muslim 2105, exactly as I said it. This one from Rob Sanders. They're saying, if it is an all-powerful God, why are there disagreements in this holy book? If this God is all-powerful, who wrote it? Well, humans are not safe. If you look at how Islam is practiced throughout the ages, the first three generations, the Salaf were the pure form of Islam.  So of course, different ethnicities, different cultures, different traditions, they adopt Islam. Like for example, my country, my region, Islam came to the region in the 12th century. So back then we were Hindu Buddhists. So we received Islam wherever any war, wherever any army coming into this region. Islam was spread by traders. So the king of this region accepted Islam and then it was followed by his peoples. So we have been Muslim for over, like, I don't know, 600 to 700 years. So how we practice Islam in this region is going to be different from how Islam is practiced in Arabia. It's going to be different from how Islam is practiced in North Africa. It's going to be different from how Islam is even practiced in Europe and America today. So we're not a monolithic group. We are of various ethnicities and traditions and cultures and world views. So the only thing that unites us is Islam. So you see carrier Islamophobes, when something happens in the end of another part of the world, he immediately he blames the other Muslim world. I mean, it's a huge, huge space. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Yeshua the king strikes again. We got that one. The lady says, every debate Muslim apologist does, once he starts losing, he starts making personal jabs at his opponents. Is this true, Muslim apologist? I'm just human. Okay, I'm just a Muslim apologist. I'm not sick. Everyone just, it's just natural. You know, you experience apostate, Prophet, you get this urge to just needle them. I'm teasing. We appreciate you folks. It's understandable. I mean, I do a lot of mockery and stuff too. During the debate, it gets heated. It's normal. This one coming in from Samir Farsain. Do you apostate, Prophet, know the punishment for deserting the army in the United States? For deserting the army, I don't know. Probably some disciplinary punishment and dishonorable, what's it called, discharge. I'm sure if there is a state of war going on, different standards would apply. But I guess the implication here is that if you leave Islam in an Islamic state, then you are basically a traitor, which is why it's okay for you to be killed, just like it's okay for you to be punished in America to desert the army, which is a ludicrous comparison and not even accurate. I don't get executed if I renounce my American citizenship or say bad things about America. You got it. Apostate, or I should say Muslim apologist. This is for both of you. But first, Chris G. asks AP. Around half of the people on the planet identify as female. What do you think about how women are treated under Islam? And then after AP responds, would I like to hear Muslim apologist as well? Go ahead, AP. Islam is obviously very discriminatory and very oppressive towards women. This is a universally known fact. I mean, everybody knows that Islam is definitely not the ideal religion for a woman.  Some people do become Muslims and they often end up regretting it. Others maybe like it because they have such tendencies. Maybe they are happy, I don't know. Islam is very clear. The Quran says in chapter 4, verse 34, that men are in charge of women and that women must obey. That if they fail to be obedient, men can discipline their wives, including reprimanding them, separating beds, and finally beating them. Islam allows this. The Quran allows this. And it's one set that we're going to see it's one set that women are deficient in intelligence. He said that they come in the shape of a devil because he couldn't resist the sight of a woman walking outside had to relieve his sexual pressure at home with one of his many wives. Muhammad had 11 wives at one point, married a child, and so on. And of course we have the hijab, which is supposed to be a tool that keeps Muslim women in check at home hidden from the public behind the scenes. Men are in the front. Women are in the back. There is no equality. There is no chance for equality. Women are a subdued and that is completely archaic. This one coming in from... Oh, ME&J didn't give you a response. Go ahead, ME&J. Sorry, it's supposed to give you an answer. So I was actually half expecting this topic to come up. So I think I've already talked about it at length in my debate discussion with Randolph. So that was a very... I think that was very clear actually on why, on how Muslim women are treated in Islam. So all whatever said that Mr. Aydemir said just now was rubbish. It's just absurd. So in Islam, we honour and respect women. Of course, I mean the Prophet himself said the heavens is at the feet of mothers.  So women are given a position in Islam, a role in Islam. You say in Islam, we have gender roles. A man is supposed to do this, certain things, and they're not supposed to do that. Whereas a woman is supposed to do certain things and they're not supposed to do that. So I mean, this is natural. This is a natural order of things in any human society. But it's just that Western liberal secularism, they seem to think that women should be given roles which are supposed to be for men. And it affects the family unit. So men, as I've said before in my debate discussion with Randolph, men is basically the leader of the household. Sorry, leader of the family. Whereas women are the role leaders and the lead person in the household. And this is a role that we have been assigned with. So I mean, Western secular liberalism, of course, they would disagree with this, but have you ever seen a woman walking bare-chested on the streets? Compare that to a man walking bare-chested on the streets. So what do you think would happen? So even in Western societies, women are not given equal rights because if a man can walk bare-chested on the streets, why can a woman walk bare-chested on the streets? So there's gender roles. I mean, this is acceptable. And regarding 434, Surah al-Nisaq, verse 434 about the so-called beating, basically there are three steps towards that. The so-called beating is used as a last resort. And the beating is conducted with a miswap, which I have here. Is this little stick here?  I mean, this isn't the hard days. I mean, you like to search for hard days, right? Why don't you look for the hard days where the prophet said that you're not supposed to hurt the women, your wife, and you are supposed to beat her with only a miswap? Why don't you look it up right now? Find me that hard days. Find me that hard days. Which one is it? I can't do that, but my laptop is not working. I mean, it's not working properly right now. You will not be able to tell me the source because it's not there. It is there. Just look for it. Right now, I'm just using this black stretcher. That is an interpretation.  This is what you are afraid of. This is what we use. According to Surah al-Nisaq, verse 4, this is what you use to beat the wife. No, the Quran doesn't say any such thing. The Quran only says... It is in the hadith. I'm not saying that it's in the Quran. It's in the hadith. You just said that.  The prophet Solomon was salam. The prophet Solomon was salam tells us to use this. You can check on this.  Ha, ha, ha, ha.  This one coming in front. I do appreciate your question. La Panto says, where does the sun set? Not sure what they're getting at. I have a feeling one of you guys does. So according to Muhammad's hadith, the sun sets, the sun goes to a place at night, and according to one version, including in the Quran, it sets in a muddy spring. According to Muhammad's extensive explanation, it goes to the prostrate itself under the throne of Allah that asks for permission, and Allah gives it permission to rise again so it comes again in the morning from the other side, and one day Allah will say, no, this time you will not come. This time go back where you came from so that the sun will turn around and come from the other side. That's what Muhammad described with his primitive understanding of the world, but I'm really curious what MENG thinks about that. Yeah, basically, the sun goes on part, it's orbit, I mean sorry, the earth and the sun goes as its own orbit and they move, they rotate around themselves. What you were describing is basically a metaphysical hadith, it's not supposed to be scientific, and you're interpreting it scientifically.  And you are actually cooperating or co-habiting with a person who believes that- How is that metaphysical? Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish. You are actually cooperating and co-habiting with a person who believes that the sea is split into two, and he believes that a man, a first century man, is God walking on earth. I mean, these are things which are metaphysical, right? I mean, according to their religion. I don't know what you're talking about. You can accept that, but you cannot accept the idea that the hadith is talking about something metaphysical which is beyond your realm of understanding.  Congratulations. I don't live together with somebody who believes in these things. I have no idea what you're talking about. You just did. You had a road trip with him. You had a road trip with him. With David Wood? Yeah, with David Wood. Are you guys roommates? Because I mean, no, I was just hanging around and driving around with him. We spent a few days together to record stuff and all that, and he describes this as basically living together, which is very funny, very nice deflection from the actual issue here. What in the world is metaphysical? I'm not defending it. I just answered your question. What in the world is metaphysical about Muhammad saying, do you know where the sun goes? The guy says, no, Allah knows best. Allah is the messenger of the best. He says, it goes to the prostrate itself on the throne of Allah. He clearly asks you where it goes. Yes, it's metaphysical. It's not supposed to be scientific.  There are Quranic verses which say that the sun and the earth has its own orbit. No, there are not. It says the sun and the moon follow each other. It never says that they... Thank you very much. You just proved my point. Congratulations. Does the sun follow the moon? No. In its orbit. In its orbit. Brum. Yeshua the king strikes again. Says unsheathed sword, page 73. Ibn Taymaya said the scholarly consensus is, quote, anyone who insults Muhammad is to be killed. No repentance is... And no repentance is sought. Is that question for me? I think so. Yeah, Ibn Taymiah. I think... I'm Ibn Taymiah Rahim. Oh, I think he's talking in the context of an Islamic state. So yeah, I have no problems with it. I mean, that's what I've basically been touching on for the past one hour or so. So yeah. Pointing cares as long as they interest. No, it's not. It's not. You're just being... You're just being reflective. Okay. This one from Rob Sanders says, when asked for an example by AP, why are you bringing up Nazi Germany? What did that... I remember that came up. What was the reason why it came up? I brought it up. I brought it up because I was giving an example of two Nazi officials who were assassinated by the Jews of the day. And it was celebrated by the Jewish population.  So I did. I did show an example. Okay, so let me... But Ida Meir is not responding to that. Okay. Let me reiterate and clarify what happened. I asked him to show me one example of somebody being attacked or killed for offending a religion other than Islam and the people of that religion then celebrating it, like in Islam, like in the Salman Rushdie case, and what he brought up as an example to that is Jews killing Nazis in Nazi Germany. No, it's because it was before the war. Okay, come on. Why are you laughing or fake laugh? I mean, I'll give you an example already. I answered your question this week, right? This one coming in from... Do appreciate it. Samir Farsane strikes again. Says, AP, I was invited to a boring comedy show and I need to laugh for no reason like do. I think they maybe mean like you. Can I please borrow your ticklish underwear? What is that? Story behind you of ticklish underwear? What does this mean? I wish I did, but no. I have no idea what this is talking about. Interesting. This one coming out, I'm sure you don't. And this is actually from Milal Ali. Says, Islam beat me up and took my... Oh, we got that one. The Orthodox Apologetics Channel says, for AP, I missed a lot of the debate. Did MENJ have any grapes? For MENJ, are you advocating for Westerners to destroy local Islam? He didn't bring in the grapes, but go ahead.  No, no, it's okay, go ahead. No, you can answer. The question is for you, isn't it?  I mean, the first part, just answer the first part. Okay, so yeah, I guess the first part was about grapes because I debated with another Muslim apologist who thought it was a very great idea to make a show of power by eating grapes while debating me while I'm talking. Unfortunately, MENJ did not do the same thing, although it would have been very entertaining. But that's my part. Go ahead. Wait, are you saying that as a power move, you started eating grapes? No, not me, not me. Not me, yeah. A different Muslim apologist. No, he's referring to Brother Ali Dawa. Oh, okay, I thought that was the Ali Dawa that says earlier. Okay, Ali Dawa as a power move? Yeah, yeah. While I'm talking, he had somebody feed him grapes. Yeah, I mean, well, I probably think that, I would think that he has his reasons, but I guess I did something similar by showing him the miswap. So yeah, I, the MENJ is afraid of the miswap. Yeah, totally. Okay, so yeah. You got just what? So yeah, so can you, sorry James, can you repeat the question for me? Yeah, I didn't remember. Oh, they said for MENJ, are you advocating for Westerners to destroy local Islam? Of course not. I wouldn't want to wish that my Muslim religion wouldn't make any sense for me to want Islam to be destroyed in the West. Why would I want to do that? Yeah, why would I? But it's okay if we do that, right? It's not bad if we do that. It's not dangerous. It's okay, right? Why would it be okay?  This one from Nada.  But you say it's okay for Islam to basically do all kinds of terrible things to us. Because if you are in the Islamic state, then yes, it's fine. Because what if we establish laws which also oppress Islam and say, hey, Islam is actually bad for society, so we should go ahead and kill them?  Why is that not acceptable? I'm interested to see Western secular liberalism do that. I would be very interested to see that happen. I'm not advocating for it. I'm just saying by your own logic that it should also be okay and you shouldn't be... Yes, I mean consistent. Go ahead, do it. Go ahead and do it. I want to see what happens. Yeah, I want to see what happens. You got to this one coming in from to appreciate your question. Nadaverse strikes again, says, what or why does the Muslim apologist wear the red feezy? Let me know if I pronounced it right. Which originated in Southern Europe. Warned traditionally by the Christians, it was appropriated by the Ottoman military replacing the turban. Okay, so this is the fast, okay, Turkish fast. I bought it from eBay from Istanbul itself, so yeah, it's Turkish in origin. There are Egyptian phasers, okay. So in Malaysia, we call this the Talbus and in the Middle East is known as the Talbus. So I don't claim to know where its origins are, but I wear it in respect of the Ottoman Empire and because I'm facing someone who claims to be Turkish in origin, so I thought it would be a good idea to wear something of... Which reminds him of his culture. And I always do this in... Even in my videos, you will be seeing me wearing different hats. So sometimes I wear the song called the Malaysian headgear. Sometimes I wear something from Oman Africa, so it's all over the world. So I try to... I have this hobby of collecting hats from all over the Muslim world and I wear them on my shows. Claiming to be of Turkish origin, I don't even... This one coming in from... Do want to remind you folks, if you haven't yet shared this video, if you have a friend who likes controversial debates, I'm sure you do. Maybe you have a group thread on Twitter or on Reddit. Maybe you like to share about debates Discord, you name it.  This one from Yeshua de King says, told you he's allowed to lie. Hashtag killing dogs. I don't understand what they mean by killing dogs. I remember that... Sounds like that came up before, but I'm trying to... I already explained it, so yeah. I mean, it's just... Yeah, I presented the correct context until he alleged that I was presenting the wrong context, which I then read in which the report clearly agrees with my... Yeah, it happened after. It happened way after. Okay, you just... It says, it clearly says there explicitly, that morning he commanded that all dogs should be killed. I just read it to you. No, you didn't read another update which says that the dogs had plagues at the time. Do you want me to repeat it? No, don't waste my time. I thought so. This one from Franco true hello says if Allah is omniscient, does he know what it's like to be the experience of a submissive woman? I think they're saying like, if Allah is all-knowing, then Allah would have to have the experiential knowledge, like know what it feels like to be a submissive woman as well. Sorry, James, could you repeat the question because my airports just died, so you were cutting off, so I had to switch to... No problem. They had said that if Allah is omniscient, does he know what it's like to be a submissive woman, or, I mean, theoretically you could also say, well, go for it, I'll give you a chance to respond yourself. Sorry, the question is, is Islam submissive to women? I don't understand. They're saying if Allah is all-knowing, then he must know what it's like, he must like have the knowledge of what it's like to be a submissive woman, like he must have that like experiential knowledge of being a submissive woman if he has all knowledge. That's what they're saying. It doesn't really make sense to me, but I guess he would because he's the all-knowing, all-powerful being, so he would know. That is why God has given us, or God in the Quran has given us laws governing the affairs of men and women. So, yeah, I think I answered that. You got it. And with that, I want to say, folks, thanks so much. Well, let me just... Let me get at least one standard question, as forgive me, guys, I know we've had you here a long time already, but I do want to... Brother Ben said, can you comment... This is for you, apostate prophet. Can you comment on Ali Dawah's accusation that you create Islamophobia and that you even create violence against Muslims? Yeah, so I am here always explicitly saying that violence is wrong, that we shouldn't counter Islamic aggression and hate with violence and with hate. I say that these things are wrong for a reason and we oppose Islam because it is violent and hateful if we respond with violent and hate and blood was the point of opposing Islam. I clearly and openly say these things all the time.   While he and Muslim apologists openly say that people like me should be executed and that they are proud of that under an Islamic state. So they actually openly support oppression and violence against apostates and so-called Islamophobes and whatever it is. Whereas I oppose it, but allegedly it is me who creates hate. That's how that works is a real mystery to me. This one from Caden... Sorry, can I respond today? Sure. Today, yeah. Okay, so yeah. So of course, you know, yeah, I know of the clip where, you know, they made a musical out of Ali Dawah's statement, right? So yeah. Yeah, I don't mind if you think the same thing.  Then yeah, so be it. But you know, we are the muslims.   Yes, in an Islamic state, man. Because you are not in an Islamic state. That is why you are, you know, pretty much running around. Your religion is a dark, dark thing in this world.  Great comeback. This one from Caden Puckett says, thanks Caden for pointing out. For real, if there's anybody else who's super chat I miss, we're getting to this one right now. Caden says, AP, doesn't the Christ Church manifesto say on page 35, quote, Christians let our lives be stronger than death to fight against the enemies of the Christian people? Ask yourself, what would Pope Urban II do? I believe it does say that. The issue is it also says that is only one section in where he also addresses other people. He says two conservatives, two Christians, two Antifa and communists and some other group to this. So he has a separate message for each one of them in which he basically says, let's do this, let's do this, let's do this. He even says two Muslims. I believe he, there's even a section below that where he says two Muslims. Why don't you do this and this and this, let us listen to this. Does that mean he was inspired by? No, they were not does that mean he's inspired? I'm talking, I am talking. Does that mean he's inspired by conservatives, by conservatism, Christianity, Antifa and communism and Islam at the same time because he addresses all these different factions? No, the guy is just talking to different people. The book clearly explains that he's inspired by political racial motives. And to the question, are you a Christian? He clearly says that is complicated. I will let you know when I know. Is that something that a religious Christian would say? Definitely not. So it's absurd to say that this was inspired by Christianity. And also we have to come to the following challenge there. Even if that guy were inspired by Christianity, which is certainly not true, do you find Christians approving of this or celebrating it? No. Do you find Muslims approving and celebrating attacks against people who offend Islam? Yes, abundantly. Can I respond to that? Go for it. Okay, so yeah, as usual, you know, sometimes I wonder whether you are close to a Christian or not because you seem to be an apologist for Christianity most of the time. I'm just barely correct your facts, that's it. I don't think so. So I think the commenter made a good point. So there is a section in that manifesto where he talks about Christianity and the Crusades and that he's doing it for the glory and the honour of Christianity. So yeah, that's not true. You can shake away all you want but you can beat the manifesto for yourself. And there's no sections about Muslims, okay? But you know, his actions pretty much speak for itself. So it doesn't matter.  Okay, fine. Just open the manifesto and you can beat it. That's all right, all right, all right. Yeah, so yeah, so his actions actually speak for itself. So yeah, I mean, he bothered, you know, if he wanted it or I didn't. Yeah. Let me find the manifesto and quickly see what it says. Okay. See if I made that up and lied about it or not. Let's see. The manifesto of the Christchurch shooter of the terrorist is called The Great Replacement. It is all about racial matters and inspired by racial matters which is what the manifesto is about. The title is right there. He talks about replacement in the entire time and about how he doesn't have anything against Muslims but he chose Muslims as target, as first target because that would cause the widest attention and outrage. Next would be different racial groups. That's explicitly what he says. Now let me see if what he says, two Christians, you just accused me of making something up again. Do you want me to share my screen here? I have it. It says section one, two conservatives. He talks to conservatives. Section two, two Christians. He talks to Christians. He doesn't say I do this for the glory of Christianity. He says, Christians, remember this and this and this. Third section to Antifa, Marxists, communists. Fourth section, okay, I'm correction. It doesn't say Muslims, it says Turks. And by Turks, he's referring to Muslims, basically, in the text. You can live in peace in your own lands. No harm may come to you on the east side of the Bosporus and so on. That's basically what it says. Four sections, conservatives, Christians, Antifa and communists, and Turks. Does that mean he's inspired by all of these people? No. This one coming in. I mean, there's a section of Christianity, so I mean, it's pretty much clear. Mathis Lazat says, do they take Bitcoin for my jizya payment? And this one coming in from... This one from Caden Puckett says, apostate prophet. Are Christianity and Judaism more one coherent than Islam and two, encouraging of peace, education, and fairness compared to Islam? So one, are they more coherent? One, are they more, you could say ethical? Coherent, peace, education, and what? They are definitely more coherent. They have a much more coherent, much more extensive collection of...  Those are very thin pages compared to the Quran. The Quran is a very tiny in comparison to the Bible. Do you really want to compare the pages into a number of words? I'm sure you wouldn't want to do that. The Quran is not coherent at all. It is the Quran itself. And its written text is very repetitive and incoherent. Its beliefs make no sense in our self-contradictory. That said, I would say that from my point of view, I would think that Christianity and Judaism are in a sense incoherent too. If I didn't find them incoherent, I wouldn't refuse to believe in them. But when it comes to peace, I would say out of the three, Christianity is probably the most peace advocating one. I would say that Judaism within its own loss is not quite as peaceful as the latter. Islam is the least peaceful. When it comes to advocating, when it comes to encouraging education, I don't think I can really say anything about that. I've never really thought about that aspect. This one from Mr. Monster. Who do you think won the debate? I would hold it back. Sorry, James. Can I respond to that earlier question? Go for it. Yeah, okay. Thank you, James. So, yeah. So again, you know, I don't know if he's rubbish. No, he's anti-Islam rubbish. And Judaism and Christianity, since I've studied it for over 20 years, so I should be the expert on the subject matter. And I mean, regarding whether the context of the Bible itself, well, the Bible is a collection of books which was written over the ages. Whereas the Quran has only one author and was revealed over 23 years. So, the Bible is actually written in chronological order. It's supposed to be like a historical, chronological thing. Whereas the Quran is thematic. So, of course, things are like what Eid al-Meir said, misrepresented as jumbled and covered, but it's not. It's thematic. It's based on certain themes. Okay. You need to actually study it a bit more than just simply reading off a page from an Islamophobic website. So, regarding whether Judaism, Christianity, Islam are peaceful or not, which is the more peaceful, I would say, I think the violence is across the board. And I think Daniel, so he touched on this many, many times, Daniel Haqqaju. So, I actually agree with Daniel's position in that violence is something which cannot escape its part of life. There's no utopia where nobody commits violence and everyone is holding hands and singing kumbaya. There's no such thing. So, if you want to say that Christianity is more peaceful than the other, no, it's not true because we have the impositions, we have the two sets, we have World War I, World War II. All this was started by Christian. Daniel Haqqaju says the Christianity is more peaceful. There's no such thing as Judaism being more peaceful than the other or Islam being more stop, please let me finish. I didn't interrupt you. So, I hope you don't interrupt me. Sure. Sorry. So, in Islam, I mean, in Islam, of course there is violence, but it's controlled and there are reasons for it. Okay. And Christianity also believes in a just war concept. So, yeah, I mean, there are violence in the community as well.  Wow. Wow. Wow. Did you guys hear that? Did you guys, did everybody hear that? What did you just say? Mange, what did you just say? Can you repeat that? It's true blood sports tonight. This one coming in from Mr. Monk. Can you repeat what you just said? What would happen if somebody came here and said the same thing about Muslims? What would happen if people said similar things about Muslims? What would happen if people name called Muslims in such a way, which I do not even do?  I mean, really man, this is the true face of Muslim apologetics. Here we have it. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Mr. Monster says, who do you think won the debate? I would put my money on a posse. Prophet, you have a fan out there, AP. Me too. Mollavia. Thanks for your support. For the first time. Appreciate it. And Helper of Man says, are concubines allowed in Islam?  On this subject, I mean, I'm not too learned on it. So I'm not too learned on it. So I don't think I can answer it. You aren't learning anything.  He's not learning. He attacks the entire, the entire conversation.  James, can you please let me answer the question?      So let me answer the question, right? I have zero respect for you anyway for space. I don't care if you have respect for me or not.    Sorry, James. Can you stand for stupidity?  That's what you are. And that's what you stand for. I wan