ne minute segments. So the way I figure out chronology is to look what the scholars said. There's a traditional Islamic chronology as well as multiple chronologies by Western scholars. Sinai's is the most accurate. And that is the one that shows that the verses came before. And you can look at the other chronologies as well. So the verse that I show you came after those verses. So even if you were going to take it that those were legalizing it, they came before. And so wouldn't be applicable here. Okay. This is all your speculation. We're going to give Daniel a full one minute. Then we're going to come back to you Javad for a full one minute as well. For as all yours Daniel. All right. So I don't know why you're talking about slavery. That's not the point of this part of the debate. We're talking about patriarchy. You say that you agree with benign patriarchy. I'd ask you to define it. You won't define it. Patriarchy means authority of men over women. This is what patriarchy means. So if you agree with that and you think that that represents the Quran and the beliefs and norms of the Prophet's Islam then we're agreed. Like debate conceded. No problem. We'll go to the next section. We also are supposed to talk about sexual restrictions.  So you're not a progressivist.  So do you believe in lashing the punishment for fornication as mentioned in the Quran? Acknowledge, like give us a better sense of what your modernism actually amounts to. Do you believe in lashing? That's in the Quran. Having women be secluded for engaging in lewd behavior. That's in the Quran. So acknowledge that those sexual restrictions acknowledge the difference when it comes to inheritance. Acknowledge the difference when it comes to witnessing all of those gender roles are in the Quran. So where is the acknowledgement of that? Javad. Javad? Thank you. So I did not say that I agree with patriarchy. What I said is that I'm okay with the possibility of benign patriarchy. And I'm not here to debate patriarchy. You tried to jam that in in the initial, when you were trying to use your clout and wait to like decide how the debate would go because you were scared to debate me. You were the one who was insistent. Yeah, you were. So this is how you insisted on that. Now what I'm arguing is I'm, and I showed you and I tweeted back and I said this is what I will be arguing. My argument is that the pre-modern Islamic tradition violates the Quranic ethic and goes against what the Prophet Muhammad taught. And it goes against women's rights from that perspective. So I'm not here to say whether about gender roles and all that kind of stuff. What I am here to say is that when it comes to sexuality the pre-modern Islamic tradition was all based on sex slavery. Okay, that was how marriage was also aligned with man and the woman. Now you asked me about fornication and what I say is I do not support marriage, sex outside of marriage. And I do think that there should be laws against that in a society. Now that doesn't mean lashing because we don't need to, just like when you go to war, you don't need to have a book. Time. Yeah, so look at you running. Like you won't even answer simple questions. Like tell us about the gender roles. Tell us about patriarchy. What does benign patriarchy actually amount to?  That's a separate part of the debate. Why are you running Javad? Why can't you answer simple questions? Tell us what you mean by benign patriarchy. I defined patriarchy by referring to the Quran, by referring to Hadith, by referring to all of these historical sources, all of these late antique religions.  All of them had this permission of masters to have sex with slaves.  What do you say about homosexuality, Javad?  Stop trying to change the topic of the debate. This is the problem with you. Stay on the topic, stop gish-galloping. That's all I'm asking. It's very, very simple. All right, my turn now. So I'm not gish-galloping. I'm staying right on point, which is about sexuality. And what I'm saying is that the pre-modern sexual ethic that you are trying to defend is not this family-oriented marriage, have kids kind of, that's exactly wrong.  And this is based on your interpretation of the Quran because you insist that the medieval exigites had to get it right. But I'm showing you the clear verse, which I'm gonna show again, which clearly shows that you have to marry them. And you cannot answer that because you know that concubines, if you're having sex with them, that's your lover, and that's exactly what the Quran is saying against, this is not textual acrobatics.  Now, and so that's actually you who's guilty of that. I'm not running away from anything.  So that's what I'm saying. Now as far as laws against adultery, I actually do think that that should be illegal. However, I don't think that you should lash people. I certainly don't believe in stoning. Just like when you go to war today, you don't use horses and arrows, right? Those were punishments at that time. Now we have different punishments and different laws. So if they had like a penalty, especially if you get divorced, these are things that you can talk about. But again, I'm being very clear, I'm not dodging anything.  That verse you just can't get. Thank you for that, that is over a minute. Sorry about that. Yeah, it's way over a minute. So okay, again, dodging the issue, you didn't tell us what benign patriarchy means. Do you believe in criminalizing homosexuality? Do you believe that there are mandatory dress codes in Islam? These are the verses that I cited. You didn't address any of those verses. Any of the verses on gender roles, mandating gender roles, is that something that you believe in? Those are the specific debate topics. You're gish-galloping by talking about other issues. You wanna talk about that one verse. And it's again, it's based on your radical subjective interpretation. Mohsenat in that verse is, you're saying that this means slave women. No, there's different interpretations from the Tephaseer. No one had that interpretation that you have. So this is exactly the problem because you are not actually grounding the discussion or grounding the interpretation in the Quran in the historical practice of the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. That's what I'm doing. You're avoiding that. So tell me, should the adult, so also you're saying that it doesn't even matter what the Quran says, because now we're in different times. So everyone who's listening, remember the three part strategy, the three steps for these liberal bots. So he couldn't answer the question with step one deauthentication because it's in the Quran. He couldn't reinterpret lashing. So that's step two. So then he goes to step three and he says that, oh, it's not applicable to our times. So this is exactly as I predicted, you're a liberal bot. Time, I give you the same extra 20 seconds as I gave Javad and the last one to make up for it. All right, Javad, now we're gonna go back to one minute again. Javad, Thor is all yours. So we're talking about bots. Remember bots is how the medieval exegetes interpret verses, and that's how Daniel interprets this verse. He looked at it, he was stunned. He was like, oh, it said believers, lovers, and he didn't, he paused, he didn't know how to respond to that. So actually they look at the Quranic verses and then they say, oh, we have to interpret this away. In fact, it's the medieval exegetes who would say that this verse is abrogated if it goes against my view. You haven't dealt with that at all. They would reinterpret it, they would reject it. But this verse is clear. Now you say you needed to ground it in historical practice, which you're actually grounding it is in the medieval tradition, the exegetical tradition, which I've already questioned. That's the entire debate that we're having. So you can't just presuppose that the exegetical tradition is correct. You have to prove that the exegetical tradition is correct. And I'm showing you that it's clearly not because of these obvious verses in the Quran. So this is the problem. You can't deal with the obvious verses of the Quran that repeatedly say that you have to marry them. And so this is a problem. You just presuppose that that's correct. Now as far as the prophet's practice, after the battle of Hunayn, he forbade enslaving anyone after that. And that's what I'm showing you that there was a progression in the ethic, okay? And you don't appreciate that because you just presuppose that what the medieval exegetes said was correct. And that's just a traditionalist argument to fall on 1400 years, quote unquote. And then I say, oh, actually this other scholar said something different. Oh, well ignore him, he's just a more tesli. What does he know?  I don't know, he didn't show anything. So you still don't have an answer. Should homosexuality be criminalized? Did the prophet, Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, have the belief that homosexuality should be criminalized? How about promiscuity, fornication? Should it be criminalized? Did the prophet, Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam have those beliefs? Did the prophet, Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam have the belief in gender roles? Did he have the belief in mandatory bailing for women? These are the things that you can't answer. So you just avoid it. You wanna talk about one verse and then get into this theory of abrogation. I don't have to defend everything in the exegetical tradition. I don't have to defend like that ridiculous gish-galloping opening where you're trying to straw man every single traditional position. I don't have to defend that. The whole point of my opening and the whole strategy that I presented in the first two sections is I'm looking at historical tradition as with historical critical method approved sources like late antique religions, like the contemporaneous non-Muslim sources, like the archeology. You're not addressing any of those historical sources. Time. So actually what you've done by talking about the late antique practice, which is what you point to, the Romans and the Sassanids, you actually proved my point for me. That was exactly the prevalent. Can you please mute? Cause I don't need to hear your story. All right. So this is the practice that was in the milieu at that time. And that's of course what the medieval exigites adopted. That's a point in my favor. You're presupposing that the Quran can't have a higher ethical belief. That's a very secular belief. I am a believer.  So you are actually proving my point as far as late antique practice. As far as mandatory veiling, I'm sorry to say Daniel, but it was only free women that were veiled, not the slave girls who would walk around in the markets uncovered. Even the breasts could be exposed and you can touch their breasts and take a test of them to see how they feel. That is the tradition that you need to defend and argue about it. And then say, oh, well, they did it for 1,400 years so it must be okay. That is the traditionalist dogmatic mindset that I'm opposed to. Now you want me to talk about homosexuality because I know, okay fine. Time, that's great. Yeah, so again, I bring up mandatory veiling. You quickly switched to slavery. Why can't you address the actual issue? Do you agree with mandatory veiling for women? What does the Quran say on that? If you want to just look at the Quran, show us your textual gymnastics with the Quran. I'm grounding it in history. I'm looking at what the actual Prophet Salli Sallam practiced, what all of these other religions at that time period and the late antique time period practiced. This is all proof, okay, for the traditional understanding because it's something ubiquitous. What about the biological evidence? What about make guarding biologically? Why do we see the same kind of veiling practices, the punishments against homosexuality, against fornication? All of these are found throughout pre-modern societies, not just Muslim, not even just late antique. These are things that are universal. Your whole thesis is that these fundamentalist Muslims in the Umayyad period just invented these kinds of punishments but that thesis is completely debunked by the fact that you have all of these independent cultures and religions who have very analogous punishments for these kinds of sexual behaviors, the same kind of patriarchal gender roles, the same kind of patriarchal forms of dress, you're not addressing these. So your entire argument is that you're doing the glee of past peoples that the Quran is actually reforming because you presuppose that the Quran cannot have a higher ethical intent. So you're actually a very secular atheist in that approach that you have toward the Quran. You're saying the Byzantines do it, the Persians do it, all these ancient societies do it so it must be the way it was. Now again, you cannot deal with the Quranic evidence. You have to say that I'm dealing with the historical evidence, the biological evidence. I'm showing you the Quranic verse and then you have to go to the exegetical tradition so you can't really deal with that at all.  You claim that this is what Quran does and so the society is much better. This is your whole career is made out of this but in reality it was just the free women who were jailed at home and meanwhile you can have these slave girls walking around. It's not irrelevant, it's totally irrelevant. So what I believe and that verse doesn't even say to completely veil by the way, that's your interpretation with exegetes who used to argue if you can have one eye or two eye showing. That's the exegetical tradition that you're talking about. Yes, I do believe that Muslim women on their own accord should dress modestly. That's a part of our religion. We should all dress modestly. I don't agree with half of the things that you act right bros do when you propagate and try to use sex to sell your YouTube videos. So like you just contradict yourself with every single response.  Because if I establish that this is what the Quran means all you'll do is say that, oh well what about the higher ethical intent? So this is why are you even pretending to care about what the Quran says?  Because anything that contradicts your liberalism you'll say, oh well we have higher ethical principles.  Again, I repeat, what about the criminalization of homosexuality and fornication? Did the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam endorse that? Did the Quran endorse that? You concede, say yes or no and then okay fine, higher ethical intent engage in your theological hermeneutics, whatever, no one cares about that. And also your whole approach has nothing to do with historical critical method. The historical critical method doesn't care about higher ethical principles, it cares about what did the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam actually believe? What did he do? You're not addressing that. Time. So Daniel has this imaginary thing of modern liberalism but in reality this is the approach of the Islamic rationalists of old who believe that you need to use your ethical reasoning when interpreting a text because you'll have interpretive choices before you. We saw that with the verse that we looked at. The verse, at least if Daniel was honest, he would say, you know what? You could take the verse in the wage of Allah saying it. He won't admit that but that's the reality. So you have an interpretive choice to make and when you have an interpretive choice to make you should use your ethical reasoning to make the right decision. You should stop and look and say, hey, why am I mullah saying that you can't masturbate and look at pornography which I don't agree with by the way but then you can go and have sex with a billion slaves. That doesn't compute. You should expect that the Quran as an ethical text has an ethical import and I'm saying that yes as an Islamic modernist, not as a historical critical scholar. I use my historical critical scholarship in conjunction with my views as a believer. So you do historical scholarship first and then you base your theology on the findings but there is still theological work that goes in afterward and I'm coming to you as a believer today. I believe that the Quran has an ethical intent and we need to discover that and follow that. So you're acknowledging that what you're saying has nothing to do with the historical critical method. None of these rationalists that you cite had anything to do with the historical critical method. That wasn't even their approach. They didn't even care what the Prophet SAW said or believed these rationalists and also you conveniently skip the point where are these rationalists or these even Martazi lights?  Okay, you found some random citation that we haven't confirmed. Show me the official position of the Martazi school, the rationalist, show me what the Martazi last said about mandatory veiling for women. Show me what the Martazi last said about a spousal discipline or quote unquote wife beating. Show me anything, show me anything but it's ultimately irrelevant because all you're doing is avoiding the main topic of the debate. You're not showing us what the Prophet SAW you're bringing no historical evidence. You keep appealing to higher ethics as your get out of jail free cart and these textual gymnastics that are laughable. No one is able to follow them. So this is, you only use historical critical method when it suits you to get rid of hadith and then you go to your higher ethical principles. You're not an academic. You're not a historian.  You're this kind of agent morta. Time. All right, when all else fails then you just call your opponent a morta and think that that's a reasonable way to debate. But I know that you're getting upset Daniel so that tells me where you are in this debate. This is the verse. There's no textual acrobatics. You can't deal with this verse. I'm not doing higher ethical reasoning here. I'm looking at the verse and saying this is what the verse says. Now if you do have another interpretive possibility then you use your ethical reasoning but this verse is pretty clear.  What the Prophet SAW brought was the Quran. I deeply care what the Prophet SAW brought and I think what the Prophet SAW brought was deeply ethical and that's what I wanna follow. Not what the Roman and the Sasanians and all these other cultures that you're bringing in pre-modernity, all of them believe that's not what I wanna follow. I wanna follow what the Quran says because that's what the Prophet brought. Yes, it's the historical critical method that lets me know that that's what goes back to the Prophet Muhammad and that's a good thing. But, and it also tells me that the Hadith comes from a later period but you can just base it on a Quran-centric approach and look at the Quran and it's crystal clear. Right here, you can't deal with it. Your entire pre-modern view is based on concubinage. Yeah, again, not telling us anything about sexual restrictions, not telling us anything about gender roles, not telling us anything that's relevant to the topic of the debate. It's just, you wanna make the entire debate about your goofy interpretation of one verse. It's not, we're not even in the slavery section. Like what are you even doing? What about all of these other patriarchal issues? Like why can't you address a single question that I'm putting towards you? So, you know, this is a very disappointing, Javad. I expected you to have some actual respect for history, some of these other historical sources. Like it's very sad, like that the debate is not even on the topic because I guess you didn't understand the topic. Like that's, it's a very simple question. Does Islam, the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam and the Quran endorse restrictions on sexuality, criminalizing homosexuality, criminalizing fornication, mandatory dress for women, answer those questions. Why can't you answer them? Where, show me these rationalists. Okay, fine, rationalists. Where did they say anything contrary to what I'm saying? Did Ibn Sina say anything contrary with these specific issues? Okay, so Daniel is all over the place. He continues the claims that I'm not dealing with the topic, but the topic was sexuality. And what I'm saying is, your pre-modern sexuality was all based on this institution, so you can't deny it. You're the one who insisted on the format because you wanted to make it advantageous to you. But in any case, as far as your question about homosexuality, I don't know if you even know the literature at all. There's not an example in the time of the Prophet of him punishing homosexuals or people engaged in Liwat. It doesn't exist in the literature. This is even according to traditional scholars. It was at a later point in time and it was probably in Isdihad of the early companions. Now as far as punishments for Zina, yes, the societies had those. And we have to decide, as modern people, how we implement that's another step. But what I'm trying to tell you is that your interpretation, the thing that you sell is completely bogus because you're not, you're talking about be historical, you be historical. Your entire thing is about family values.  That has to do with sexuality. That's the basis of your sexuality. So defend that. And yeah, I mean, family values, like do you think my understanding of family values is like leave it to Beaver and like 21st century family values? This is a straw man on your part. I think that having female concubines is part of family values because you have a commitment to the concubine. If she gets pregnant and she has a child, you have responsibilities towards that concubine. You have responsibilities towards that child. You have to keep and maintain those concubines. That is consistent with my understanding of family values, but your entire argument is so bizarre. It's like a straw manning. I don't have this Christian, conservative Christian understanding of family values. It's pure straw manning. And again, gish caliphine because this is not what the debate is about. Also the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, it's not about whether he actually had any had punishment against homosexuals. It's about what he endorsed. What did he endorse and what was his view? And this is represented in the Quran in the verses that I cited along with all of these other religions that are on that time that have the same exact perspective. That is not correct at all. The Quran, you didn't bring any verse that shows to punish homosexuals and the proof that you would have is actually reports. And the reports would say, they didn't even be clear about what the punishment was. They disagreed on it. You had that funny quote where you were the terrible quote where you're talking about bungee jumping. They either said that you should be thrown off a cliff or that you should have a building smashed on you and they disagreed. This was not the Prophet and doesn't go back to the Quran. So that's a bunch of nonsense. And then you mentioned the rights of slave women having a child. That's the Um Walad rule that was instituted by Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph. So you can see that there was a development in the ethic. So that's okay to do, to develop the ethic. That's what the modernist says, the rationalist says that you follow the Quranic ethical trajectory. So if you all want to defend Um Walad rule, then you have to defend the idea that you can have a progressive ethic when it comes to that and better things and fulfill the Quranic ethic in the correct direction. But we'll of course debate slavery itself in the final part of this. Daniel. If verse 4, 16, if two men commit a lewd act, punish them both. There it is in the Quran. So you don't understand the Quran. You don't even understand what the Quran says. But you want to have a Quran-centric view of the Quran.  So yeah, I mean, I don't know what more to say. Like you don't care about the history. Like the actual historical critical method, actual historians, not propagandists like Javad, they will look at Christianity. They will look at the Byzantines, the Sasanians. They will look at the pre-Islamic Arabs. They will look at their practices as evidence for what the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam likely believed and what the early Muslims actually believed. This is what your idol Fred Donner does all the time. He looks at these other religions, like Christianity and Judaism, and he sees what they believe in that particular historical context as evidence of what the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam believed. But you don't want to address that fact because it speaks against your position. If we do that kind of analysis, all of those religions were patriarchal in the way that I am. We're gonna jump into the Q&A. We have just run out of time for the open discussion. We're gonna read through these fast. I wanna let you know, folks, here's how this is gonna work. We have 10 minutes of Q&A at the end of each of these three parts of the debate. We are basically at the end of part one, except this last 10 minutes of Q&A regarding point or part one content. We're gonna do two parts after this, each with 10 minutes of Q&A. We may not have a chance to read all of your questions. I do wanna let you know, we're gonna move fast. Based on how this 10 minutes goes, I'll have a better idea of how many we can get in. First, Muhammad, thanks so much. As in the Quran, God said that the messenger will say, quote, my people took this Quran forsaken, unquote. What do you think this means? Daniel first, then Javad second. I need really short and pithy ones if you're broke. Yeah, it's referring to deviant mortads like Javad. Javad, what are your thoughts? It's actually talking about the community, if we look at that verse, and that's exactly what Daniel has done. He's abandoned the Quran, and unfortunately that's exactly what happened. Like he quoted that verse right now about, and claimed that, oh, that's definitely about homosexuality, even the exegetes didn't say that, but this is the shoddy Islamic scholarship of Daniel, who knows nothing about Islam. This one from Muhammad says, Daniel, just like how people worship money without calling it a deity, where do you draw the line between following the prophet or idolizing slash worship? Well, the prophet, S.A.W., is not a God. He's not omniscient, he's not all merciful. He doesn't have the attributes of God. He's not the creator. So we make a very clear distinction between the creator and the created. And we direct all of our worship and obedience to the creator, Allah. And Muhammad, S.A.W., is a prophet, just like many of the other prophets that were sent to humanity, such as Moses, Abraham, Jesus, peace be upon them all. These are all human beings that are meant to be living guides that we follow. And that's why it's so important to understand what did they actually believe, what did they actually do, as opposed to referring to your intellect and these higher ethical values and trajectory. This is all worship of the self, what Javad is engaged in. This one from Muhammad says, Daniel, Surah 36, Amecca, Surah, God said, the words have been fulfilled on them, so the majority, they say, will not believe. And then it says, Sunnis claim the majority of Mecca believed in the end. Did God not say the truth? No, I think it's referring to, I don't know the verse off the top of my head, but I think it's referring to the majority of humanity and also could be referring to Jinn kind as well. So Jinn is another category that they can choose to believe or not believe. So this is not necessarily referring to people in Mecca. This one comes from Muhammad. Do I get to answer any of these questions? Or not for you? We're not for you. That's okay. So not for you. I do have a challenge. We're trying to fit all these questions in just 30 minutes of Q&A. No problem. This one from Muhammad says eat meat because there's a hadith that says so. But God saying legal to you is the meat of animals in the Quran. And then says quote, goofy gymnastics. I don't think I like a counter example to my point. I think it was targeting you Daniel, but it's hard for me to tell. It's hard to understand. Yeah, we're not debating eating meat, but I did use the example of interpreting the language of the Quran. Like the Quran says do not kill. So assuming that there wasn't any other verse in the Quran about slaughtering meat and eating meat. Assume that there is no other verse. The verse just says do not kill. How would we interpret that verse?  Is that what it means? Or does it mean do not kill humans? You have to have those beliefs and norms of the speaker of the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam to understand the meaning of the verse. Otherwise you cannot properly understand it. You can get some meaning, but you have this radical subjectivism that can creep in. This one from Yahshua to King says, will Daniel debate Javad on the topic of child marriage alone? We can talk about other debates. Look at how this debate is going. The guy is all over the place. This one coming in from, they had no username, they say Javad. I don't know what all these words mean. So if this is an insult, forgive me. They say, I know you're a... Probably is. Munafik? M-U-N-A-F-I. It's one of...  This is what Daniel preaches and teaches, and so you call people munafik and murthud, but yeah, that's what it is. Okay, so they say that and then they say, and Allah has exposed y'all in surah al taba. So clearly it's funny watching you move and setting off all the red flags of the munafikin. They say, I just wanna say no matter how much the Washington think tanks pay you, it won't help you in the end. Ad-ham and M-attacks as is standard of this type of people. I mean, we're in a debate of intellect, like even whatever we may have had before, this is the time to be decent. This is the time to talk to your interlocutor with a decent level of minimal decency. And I think we can continue to do that. We don't have to go down this. We don't have to go down this. This one coming in from Thunderstorm says... I didn't accuse you of supporting pedorasty. They say great dessert, dessert, let's see. Like the food? I'm just confused. They say, this one says, yeah, no problem. Just please don't forget to read it out. So another calling you a zindik. Is this bad? Yeah, this is all bad. These are his fans in cells who love to use these kind of words. Oh, respect in cell. That's an insult. This is a respectful debate, Javad. I agree tonight, but we're gonna say so the... You're right, Daniel. So that Javad can hear it. They say much appreciated. Okay, then XXWLZXX says, I see James wearing a good suit. So thanks for your kind words. Legos says, James, you're the goat of moderators. That's kind. I wanna say the debaters are the lifeblood of the channel. Check out Javad's and Daniel's links right now, folks. And if you're listening to the other Modern Native Ape podcast, because a lot of people listen to the podcast instead of the YouTube, you can find our guest links in the description box there. You can find their Twitter, for example, for Javad and his YouTube. And then Daniel, you can find his YouTube. Muhammad says, Daniel, you call Javad an apostate. Daniel, you associate things to God. You associate the accounts of Abu Hurayyar and others to revelation. And then they say shirk. Everything that I'm citing is from the Quran. I actually care about the beliefs and the norms of the Prophet SAW and the actual history of the early Muslims. I actually care about that. I wish I could say the same about my opponent, but I can't. So how is this shirk? I care about the Quran. Do you place the hadith over the Quran? Do you believe that the Sunnah abrogates the Quran? I just follow what the Quran says. And the Quran says, follow the Quran and follow the Prophet SAW. Obey the messenger. Obey the, Obey Allah and obey the messenger. That's what I'm holding on.  There are so many verses. Obey God and obey the messenger and obey those in authority amongst you. Again, so does that Q&A? You're not interrogating me. This one, I do have to be sure that we get to this. Zaid Barakat says, Javad, can you read the Quran in Arabic? Of course I can. I've studied Arabic for the last decade.  No, Bruce Rind, first of all, you can cite an academic source without saying that everything in that source is correct. You know, in this debate, I'm going to cite Fred Donner. I don't think everything that Fred Donner has said is correct. I think most of it is trashed. But Bruce Rind didn't cite any kind of data, any kind of statistics, any kind of actual evidence that pedorasty was normalized. When you say normalized, it means that it's being practiced everywhere and no one has a problem with it. In reality, you have the Islamic orthodox scholars constantly denouncing that kind of behavior and that kind of practice. The only historical evidence that people cite are these love poets poetry. That's not correct. And that love poetry, Donner, love poetry. Have you read? Have you read? Don't interrupt. We're not interested in your answer. Yes, I have. Yes, I have. Don't interrupt. That's not correct. Yes, it is true. Don't interrupt. Don't interrupt. Yeah, so it's like citing Tupac wrapping about murder and drug dealing and thinking that that represents American ideals. Like this is nonsense. Oh, I'm in murdering and selling drugs is normalized because look, Tupac and Biggie are rapping about it. Like that's basically the argument from Bruce Rind and others. This one coming in from Muhammad says Daniel. We got that one. This one from JN. Thanks for your kind words. This thanks, James, for giving Muslims a platform. Of course, you hope you feel welcome, folks. Whether you be Atheist, Muslim, Christian, you name it, we're glad you're here. Holy humanist, Narayakan, Daniel's old friend, says his name is Ridvan slash apostate prophet. At least have enough decorum to say it right. Your names aren't immune to mockery.  Did both of you make fun of apostate prophet? I thought it was just Daniel it. Did you do them all for a apostate prophet? I don't think I did, but if I did, it was accidental. I didn't, I would never call them. I think they call them A-posts or something. I don't believe in doing that at all. So if that was the case, I apologize. I meant to call them AP. That's what I thought I called them. He's got thick skin. Because using nicknames like that is un-choronic. So I apologize if that was the case. This one from JN. What about Abu Lahab? What about Abu Lahab? The nickname for the uncle of the prophet. That's a nickname to mock him for going into the fire. How about that, Javad? Have you memorized that surah of the Quran? Or you're not done with this surah? Have you memorized that surah of the Quran? So you think that... Let's keep moving. Yeah, sure. Daniel, Daniel, Daniel, this is coming in front.  Wait, is 30 minute Q&A for each section? It's a 10 minute. Yeah, so we're basically at the end of this one right now. I hate to do that. But so let me just be sure I've got all the ones in a row, at least. Okay, we got that one. Okay, so folks, I am going to read more questions. So we didn't get to all the questions for this particular topic. So I gotta give you a heads up, folks. From here on, caution, if you send in a question, we may not get to read it. And that includes super chats. I just want to let you know that we're gonna try to, but we do have limited Q&A, because we want to get the, we want to make sure the speakers get enough time for their dialogue and speeches. We're gonna jump into the next section of the debate. Oh, are we already... Sorry, I wasn't... Or now you're mute. Are you on mute? Oh, sorry about that. No problem. So what are we doing next? I apologize. Next up is part two. So the way this is planned as of right now, just to give you guys a heads up. So folks, you've seen the first third of the debate. How have we been here for three hours? Was it really just that tech meltdown? We started a little bit late too, but I know that I've stuck to the format. We maybe went like two minutes over for the Q&A, but I am gonna let you know, folks. We're gonna jump into the second part. Are you guys okay with doing the second part, running through the entire second part, and then taking a break before the final part? Which by that I mean a 10 minute break. Okay, you guys got a lot of endurance. This is going to be, oh, it's good. This is actually, so we don't have the 20 minute openings. That's right. This is just 10 minute openings. So 10 minute opening from Javad, then wanna let you know, folks, for part two, we're of course gonna have the same 10 minute opening from Daniel, then five minute rebuttals from each, then 45, maybe even 40 minutes of open dialogue, then 10 minutes of Q&A, then we'll take a short break and go to our final part three. So Javad, thanks very much. The floor is all yours for that 10 minute opening. And if I could get everyone on mute, please, thank you. Sure. All right, I'm just gonna share my screen. Please don't start my time until I begin. Thank you. All right, so the idea is very simple. In the, oh, sorry, just one second. This screen is showing, okay. All right, now please, thank you. All right, so the idea is very simple. The Quran endorses free will. God does not force humans to believe, so you should not force them to believe either. Unfortunately, the Sunni tradition went in the other direction and went into complete fatalism and denied free will. And it also denied secondary causality, which is honestly very silly. But we Islamic rationalists argue that it is our unique gift of intellect from which our free will stems that differentiates us from the animals. It is what makes us humans. Since this world is a place of trial and affliction for humankind, any forceful imposition or oppression for the sake of faith annulles the meaning of this divine test. Daniel believes in spreading Islam, the Islamic system through jihad. And he does not think that Islam respects freedom of religion. And he asks this really weird question. He says, if we demand as a matter of principle that worldly rulers tolerate every and all beliefs equally, then why wouldn't we demand that of God as well? In fact, he's arguing directly against the Quran, which says that God granted human beings respite until the day of judgment and that then he will judge them at that time, but until then they are free to disbelieve. The Quran says it is the truth from your Lord. So whosoever will let him believe and whosoever will let him disbelieve. Verily, we God, not Daniel, we God have prepared for the wrongdoers of fire. So God will deal with the disbelievers. Your duty is only to convey. If they turn away, then your duty is only to convey and ours is the reckoning. Yours is only to proclaim and ours is the reckoning. Bear them patiently and take leave of them in a beautiful manner. Leave to me the deniers, be gentle with them. Truly with us are the fetters and hellfire. There are approximately 200 verses that talk about this kind of religious freedom that your job is only to convey the message.  Would you then compel men till they become believers? The Quran says that God himself could have made you all one religious community, but he willed otherwise. You are not their guardian. You are not a dictator over them. What whosoever wishes, let him pursue the way unto his Lord and whoever is astray cannot harm you. This is very important. It's whoever is astray, say verily, I am but a warner. Whosoever is astray is only astray to his own loss. He won't hurt anyone else. And this is repeated in the Quran. Daniel doesn't agree with this. Daniel, he says, because he's talking about those pre-modern cultures that the Quran is trying to reform, he's saying religion is a source of order and cohesion. And those who leave the religion, they pose a major threat to that social order and that social cohesion. Every society punishes defectors, often with death. This is actually arguing against the Quran. It's agreeing with the Quraishi idolater pagans who believe and accuse the prophet of upsetting social cohesion and daring to apostatize from the pagan faith.  So that's the kind of ethic that Daniel agrees with. In fact, the Quran goes against this and criticizes the Quraish pagans and justifies jihad in defense of religious freedom. Permission to fight is granted to those who were fought who were expelled from their homes without right only for saying our Lord is God. The next verse says, were it not for God's repelling people, some by means of others, then monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques wherein God's name is mentioned much would have been destroyed. The Quran is saying to defend religious freedom and worship.  That's because religious persecution is greater than killing. And it says they will not cease to fight you until they make you renounce your religion. It's criticizing them for not allowing them to leave the religion of the idolaters. And the Quran says fight them until there is no religious persecution and your religion is for God. And it repeats this. In fact, the Quran says unto you, your religion and unto me, my religion. Daniel, if I said this and he didn't see this in the Quran, he said, oh, this is something very modern and liberal. In fact, the Quran says, let there be no compulsion in religion. The truth stands out clear from error. Here's a historical critical scholar, Professor Patricia Krona, who has a great article on this. She says, here it is explicitly ikrah or coercion by humans as distinct from God which is being rejected. This is the seemingly obvious reading of the verse. No textual acrobatics. No goofy stuff that Daniel is talking about. In fact, religious liberty, she argues, is not a modern liberal invention. In fact, church fathers such as Tertullian and Lactantius agreed with this idea that you can't force religion. It was only after Constantine converted and then Theodosius the first came and they had power. Then they started compelling people to believe. And interestingly enough, the medieval exigents, where did they borrow from? They borrowed the same ideas to justify force conversion. In fact, the jurists were well aware of Patricia Krona writes that the verse could be read as a universal grant of tolerance incompatible with the duty to execute apostates and wage jihad against non-Muslims. So what did they do? They do what they always do. Remember those bots that Daniel was talking about? They just said it was abrogated and canceled it out because this was their guiding principle. The principle is that every chronic verse that opposes the opinion of our scholars, then it is taken to be abrogated or reinterpreted.  It's not anything as a sex slave, but anyways. So in the Quran, religion is a set of beliefs about a single universal God freely chosen by the individual. Of course, now initially both Christianity and Islam began as freely chosen systems of belief. But once Christianity and Islam became the official state religion of empire, religion now performed the function of nationality. Under those circumstances, religious freedom became undesirable. Patricia Krona writes, in short, there cannot be religious freedom where the political empire is based on religion. This was why the medieval agitites had to interpret the no compulsion verse by recourse to far-fetched interpretations. This is the people who are doing acrobatics. And what did they do? They used their battering ram of abrogation. They said that the verse was abrogated and that the prophet was commanded to use another verse to abrogate it. In fact, those who said, they said either it's abrogated or we reinterpret it. We neutralize it, but that's the strategy that they used. And they of course superimpose this hadith, which is a hadith that says to go fight people until they become Muslim, which effectively inverts the Quran. It says that you actually fight people to coerce them, which is the opposite of what the Quran is saying. As far as apostasy is concerned, leaving believers going back to paganism to actually eight verses on this, and none of them say any temporal punishments are mentioned. In fact, it just says the same thing that God will punish them supernaturally, not human beings. Whosoever turns back on his heels will not harm God in the least. It's the same thing that you disbelieving does not harm anyone, but yourself. It will not harm God in the least. This is repeated repeatedly in all of these verses. Upon them shall be the wrath of God, but no legal punishment. There is no doubt that in the hereafter, they are the losers.  Whosoever among you renounces his religion and dies as a disbeliever. Their deeds will come to naught. So this verse points to an apostate's natural death as opposed to his or her execution or killing. And in fact, the Quran says that repentance is better. It's very mild. If they repent, it would be better for them. But if they turn away, God will punish them in the next life. The Quran leaves open, except those who repent after that, that apostasy and make amends for truly God is forgiving, merciful. This wouldn't make sense if you had to execute apostates. In fact, there are verses that talk about people who repeatedly apostatized, and the Quran mentions no legal punishment against them. Again, simply just repent and make amends. There are multiple instances of apostasy, even in the traditional sources, and it shows that the prophet did not punish them. In fact, here's a medieval Islamic scholar who says it is not mentioned in any of the well-known writings that the prophet ever killed an apostate. In fact, Imam Shafa, he said, some people believed then committed apostasy, then professed belief again, however, the messenger of God did not put them to death. So then, if the prophet did never punish people for apostasy, when did the apostasy law emerge? It was during the reign of Caliph Abu Bakr in which the wars of apostasy took place, and these weren't really technically apostates. They were convicted of what was called political treason, and that's when this first precedent was set. And Professor Christian Sauner agrees with it that this is the first precedent for this during the apostasy wars. Nonetheless, there still wasn't a fixed legal punishment. Professor Michael Penn, who he selectively quotes, actually shows that there was no fixed capital punishment at this time for apostasy in the first century of Islam. And it was actually the laws of apostasy and blasphemy were actually produced during the Abbasid period and later back projected onto the distant past. And in fact, blasphemy came with the so-called historically spurious pact of rumor. And I wonder if Daniel will agree with any of these conditions that non-Muslims are supposed to deal with. No new churches forbidden to publicly display their religion, wear distinctive clothing, like Jews wearing yellow turbans. I wonder if he's gonna defend all of this. As far as blasphemy, the Quran says that all messengers were mocked before you, so be patient. God will deal with the blasphemers. You don't need to deal with them. Instead, believers are told to take to pardoning, turn away from the ignorant, and should temptation from Satan provoke you to respond aggressively, seek refuge in God and respond to people with peace, forbear them and say peace, pardon them and forbear, forgive. So we, our job is just to invite to God's way with wisdom and beautiful preaching and to be patient. So Islamic modernists revere the Quran more because we follow it as clear scripture whereas traditionalists abrogate or change its meaning using their sects hadith, which talk about apostasy laws. And these were obviously coming from a later period. So my religion is the pious and ethical Islam of the Quran and the prophet, which is affirmed voluntarily by the heart and conscious of the true believer, spread by beautiful preaching and good example. Whereas Daniel's religion agrees with the Quraishi idolaters who forbade freedom of religion and persecuted the prophet. Daniel's view agrees with the imperial religion which favors authoritarianism and utility over godliness and piety, thus favoring caliphate dictatorships, slaving empires, concubinage, sex harems, aggressive imperial warfare and state enforced belief. My specific claim for Daniel to refute is on religious freedom, the Quran allows the freedom to choose or leave a religion and apostasy laws are therefore anti-choronic. And Daniel will reply, we follow that what you found our forefathers doing. Can you find anyone in the 1400s, blah, blah, blah. Tradition, tradition, tradition. The Quran says, follow what God has sent down. Thank you. Thank you very much for that opening. We are going to kick it over to Daniel for his opening as well for this second- I can't hear anything. James, we can't hear you. I forgot to unmute myself on Zoom. Do want to say, folks, couple of things housekeeping wise, if you haven't already, consider checking out our podcast at Modern Day Debate. Look us up on your favorite podcast app right now. You can find Modern Day Debate whether it be on Spotify, Apple Podcast, you name it. With that, we're going to kick it over to Daniel for his opening. Thanks very much, Daniel. The floor is all yours. Do the Quran and the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam endorse legal restrictions on the religious practice of non-Muslims? Do we actually think that the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam instituted religious freedom when he came to power? This is obviously absurd. Religious freedom is defined in the US Constitution as, quote, government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Obviously the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam established Islam as the law of the land. No Western academic has ever denied this. Establishing Islam as the law of the land in and of itself is discriminatory against other religions. So case closed, the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam was clearly discriminatory and violated religious freedom simply by establishing Islam as the law of the land. Debate over. But let's steelman the liberal position and say, well, maybe truly violating religious freedom is not about establishment, but it's about prohibiting the free exercise thereof by putting discriminatory restrictions on non-Muslims or by punishing apostasy and blasphemy. Liberal reformists claim the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam did not endorse these things. So let's check the evidence. Consider Muslim treatment of the Mushriqeen, i.e. the polytheist Arabs. The Quran denounces the Mushriqeen and commands the Muslims to fight and subjugate them. The starkest example of this subjugation is in verses 9, 17 and 18, which prohibit the idolaters from managing Mecca and Kaaba and the Kaaba. This is a major restriction on the religious freedom of the Mushriqeen because Mecca was their holy city and the Kaaba was their holiest shrine. The Quran and the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam command the forceful seizure of these polytheistic shrines and destruction of their idols. We know this happened because the Quran mentions it and the hadith elaborate, but we also have no record of polytheistic religions being practiced in Mecca or the Arabian Peninsula more broadly after the Islamic conquest in the time of the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam. Polytheism abruptly stopped right after Muslims took over. Why would this be the case if the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam was a pluralist who respected religious freedom? Now let's add biology and quantitative social science. Cognitive science says that humans intuitively believe in in-groups and out-groups. From childhood, we all instinctively divide the world into groups defined by shared blood, culture or religion. This biologically rooted in-group loyalty explains why groups tend to subjugate out-groups whether through warfare, discriminatory laws, slavery, et cetera. Since hunter-gatherer times up to the present, humans have banded together along lines of race or religion or bloodlines or culture and this biologically rooted in-group loyalty explains why groups tend to subjugate out-groups through warfare, discriminatory laws, slavery, et cetera. Since hunter-gatherer times up to the present, humans have banded together along lines of race or religion in order to fight out-groups for power and resources. In hunter-gatherer societies, the conquerors just killed the defeated group but in pastoral and agricultural societies, they have much larger populations and thus fight larger scale wars. Rather than just kill the defeated, the conquerors extract economic benefits from the defeated usually through tribute payments but sometimes through slavery and concubinage. These policies are obviously discriminatory and are meant to prevent the defeated group from gaining power and eventually becoming strong enough to overthrow the conquerors. This is a universal pattern in human civilization which is why the discrimination against religious out-groups that we find in Islam is not the novel invention of intolerant Muslims a hundred years after the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam. It's a biologically rooted instinct that the Quran and the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam endorse. In the Quran, verse 929, Fight against those who do not believe in Allah or the last day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the scripture. Fight until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. Here, the Quran endorses the in-group fighting the out-group until the out-group is subjected to discriminatory laws that force them to pay the jizyah tribute and assume a subjugated demi-status. This is the biological basis for religious discrimination against non-Muslims what about punishing apostasy and blasphemy? These practices in traditional Islam also have a biological basis. Part of the in-group loyalty that we have already discussed is the intuition that we should protect our in-group from destruction. This means protecting our in-group from physical attacks but also protecting our shared way of life. This has been studied in psychological research on conformity. From childhood, humans intuitively believe that they and other group members should conform to the group's distinctive way of life. Humans naturally get angry and shun or attack those who violate the group's shared lifestyle and rebel. In-group conformity is an extremely powerful biological instinct that has been manifested throughout human societies in the form of blasphemy and apostasy laws. When people blaspheme or apostatize this poses a serious threat to the in-group. The biological instinct is to deter such threats by instituting legal punishments. Now let's look at these legal punishments in late antique religions. In the Bible, Leviticus 24-16 prescribes the death penalty for blasphemy. Daniel 3-29 also declares universal prohibition against blasphemy with severe consequences. Rabbinic Judaism imposes the death penalty for blasphemers but if the Jewish authorities cannot impose the death penalty then the blasphemer is expelled from the community. The Greco-Roman religion was polytheistic yet still had blasphemy laws. This is why the Greeks executed Socrates because he was discouraging people from worshiping their gods. The Romans subordinated the Jews and destroyed the second temple forcing them to pay the tribute tax. They also executed Christians for refusing to worship their gods. Christianity is also famous for punishing blasphemy and apostasy as well as discriminating against non-Christians. This is found in early Byzantine Christian law codes such as the Code of Theodoses and Justinian which barred heretics and pagans from having any places of worship and barred Jews from public worship proselytization and holding positions of high status. Though they were allowed to have their own places of worship. Even Zoroastrians persecuted non-Zoroastrians in order to maintain political dominance. This is reflected in the famous execution of Mani, the founder of Manichean religion. They also persecuted Jews and Christians. What about the pre-Islamic Arabs? They tortured and killed Muslims for renouncing their gods. The Quran mentions the persecution polytheists inflicted on Muslims such as verse 2, 2, 1, 7 and 2240. The religious persecution was so severe that the Muslims had to flee to Abyssinia and eventually to Medina. Now contemporaneous non-Muslim accounts. Christians writing in the mid-7th century described Muslims as invading, plundering, imposing jizya and even implementing the death penalty. In a 687 text, John Barr Pankiah says the Arabs quote inflicted the death penalty on anyone who acted brazenly against Islamic law. Thomas the Presbyter wrote in 640 about the Arabs ravaging entire regions in Syria where Jews and Christians resided. Zebios the bishop mentioned similar things in a text from 660. The Huzestan chronicles describe how the Muslims invading Persia killed bishops, priests and deacons in church. But not all the non-Muslim accounts mentioned bloodshed. Some of the accounts say that the Muslims supported the churches. In the letters of Bishop Isha'yad from the year 650, the author mentions how the Muslims did not force the Christians to abandon their faith. Now liberal reformists will point to this and say, see, that's religious pluralism. But if you read the rest of the text, it says that the Muslims gave the Christians a choice. They could remain Christian but pay the Muslims half their possessions as tribute or they could keep all their possessions but convert to Islam. Another text is attributed to Isaac of Ricodi written in 689 says that the Muslim governor of Egypt restored churches and even allowed one new church to be built. So this is evidence of religious pluralism, right? Well, the same text mentions that the governor also ordered the breaking of all the crosses in Egypt and putting notices on all the church doors, denying the Trinity and declaring that Muhammad soy sim is the great messenger. Another chronicle from as early as 650 from a Coptic Christian describes how the yoke laid on Egyptians by the Muslims was heavier than what the Pharaoh laid upon Israel. The chronicle mentions how Amr Ibn al-Ass the Sahabis actually preserved the churches but he also exacted taxes and many Christians either fled or apostatized and became Muslims. There are many early non-Muslim accounts and they all have similar message. Muslims are conquering lands, they're levying tribute taxes, they're breaking crosses, they're attacking houses of worship and treating non-Muslims as a second class out group. Now, the Christians may have greatly exaggerated details for polemical purposes, I grant that, but it would be bizarre to read all these accounts and think that they somehow represent religious pluralism. What they actually represent is the reality of one religious group in competition with other religious groups and engaging in warfare to seize power seize power and resources while keeping the conquered people subjugated. Finally, let's consider archaeology after the Islamic conquest of the Arabian Peninsula. We see no more rock inscriptions with polytheistic names or even Jewish or Christian names. If early Islam was this bastion of pluralism, why do we find only Muslims carving religiously inscriptions from that time period but no pagans, Jews or Christians? Also significant is the Dome of the Rock built in 692. The Muslims deliberately built it on the Temple Mount which was considered holy by Jews and Christians to add insult to injury. The Muslims added a Quranic inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock that denounced the Trinity. Not exactly a gesture of good interfaith goodwill. A final example of religious intolerance were the apostasy wars of the first Caliph Abu Bakh. These wars are verified authentic by historians including Fred Donner. The fact that apostates were attacked and killed in these wars is a major historical evidence against the religious freedom claim from reformists. So do I get my five minute rebuttal now, James? Yes, one minute I was just unmuting myself because I got myself unmuted on both OBS and then Zoom now. Want to say folks, we're gonna kick it over to five or four or five minutes for Javad's rebuttal as well as if you haven't yet, we appreciate it. Hit that like button. Thanks so much for your support, folks. Javad, the floor is all yours. And can you give me a one minute warning please? Sure. Okay, thank you so much. So Daniel tries to stack the cards in debate by trying to give me as extreme a position as possible whereas my, so he wanted me to defend, be feminist and say completely that patriarchy is always bad all the time. And now he wants me to say that I need to endorse full religious liberty, modern liberal as modern liberals would have. Obviously that would be a historical to do that. But what I am doing is I'm criticizing the medieval traditional Islamic view which Daniel holds and saying that that doesn't match up with the Quranic ethic that the Prophet Muhammad brought. And I'm being extremely specific on that. And that's about religious freedom when it comes to wanting to convert to another faith. What I'm saying is that there is no apostasy law in the Quran and in fact, it shows that you can even die as an apostate because it says that you should repent. So Daniel cannot prove that apostasy is punished in the Quran because it says the exact opposite and that's what he's trying to go away from. Instead what Daniel does is he relies on, this is what the Romans did, this is what the Sassanids did, oh, be historical as if the Quran can't elevate the ethic. That's a very secular, atheistic kind of idea. The Prophet want, even from a historian's perspective, the Prophet wanted religious freedom because he was denied religious freedom. Once Muslims came into power, just like Constantine came to power, all of a sudden the discourse shifted. So because Muslims had empire, they suddenly shifted when it came to that and that's unfortunate. Now, he's being a historical again by claiming that the Prophet established Islam as the law of the land. No historian, serious historian would say that. Instead, as Nikolai Sinai has said in his article very recently as many other in Juan Colas and many scholars have said this, the idea that the Prophet was some sort of Supreme King or Emperor is a later back projection. Instead, he was considered, he had like a Senator-like status. He was the leader of his Banu Hashim tribe and they had to listen to him. But the other tribes did not have to listen to him and we know that because when he wanted people to free slaves, he had to actually negotiate with them and tell them and bribe them to free the slaves and we'll talk about that in the next section. So the fact is that this is a historical. Now, the other thing is, so what I am arguing specifically is that the Quran does not punish apostasy and he needs to prove that. Now he used the verse 929 which is actually what Islamophobes always do and the reason why Islamophobes use this is because literally every single other verse when it comes to religious freedom and warfare always has mitigating verses right next to it. And in fact, Patricia Cona noticed this and said, quote, only the jizya verse 929 seems to endorse war of aggression at first sight. But if read as a continuation of the rest of this run, 9-1 through 23, however, it would be concerned with the same oath breaking polytheists as the sword verse. In other words, you have to read the Quran collectively. Now, if you read the Quran holistically, you will see and we'll talk about this in the third part of the debate. The Quran never allows wars of aggression. It always says self-defense only. Are we to presuppose that only one verse we pick out and we dump all the hundreds of other verses or do we reconcile the verse and say this is obviously talking about people that you were at war with and even the exegesis says it's about the Byzantines and it was talking about, and the Byzantines, we know attacked and we're intent on attacking the believers and that's what that verse is talking about. So you can't just take one verse and that's the textual acrobatics that we see that the medieval exeges do. They allow even half a little bit of a verse to abrogate dozens and dozens and dozens of verses. And so it's actually the other side that is doing the textual acrobatics because again, he cannot prove that apostasy law is in the Quran. One minute warning, one minute warning. Oh, okay. So wow, I ended up early on time. Now, he did mention, so the Arabian pagans, he says that they suddenly converted to Islam. That is not correct. Historians now say that's a later back projection and in fact, this is similar to in the Bible how it shows that all of the Canaanites were wiped out. It's a similar thing that's going on in the Islamic tradition, but suddenly we don't apply the same standard, right? But in any case, it was actually a very gradual shift from paganism to Islam and that's what the tradition was trying to paste plaster over, which is why it portrayed it that way. But if you look at the sources, it doesn't make any sense. Then he also cited all of these sources very inconsistently. He's looking at like Michael Penn's work and all this kind of stuff and he's just quoting it selectively. I'd rather take Michael Penn's own assessment of the sources, which actually shows a very much more balanced assessment of the sources and shows that actually there's a lot to show that the tradition actually got it wrong and there was ecumenical stuff going on, but that's not the debate we're having today. That was the debate I had with Shadi El-Masri. We'll kick it over to Daniel for his five minute rebuttal as well. Thanks very much, Daniel. The floor is all yours. Okay. So conveniently Javad ignores the verse that I cited about Allah saying that the idolaters cannot manage the Kaaba, they cannot manage the Mecca. So this is a major violation of religious freedom. He needs to answer like, did the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam endorse establishing Islam as the law of the land, as the official religion of the state? Javad, I'm asking you this question specifically. Let's see if you can answer a very clear question. Do you think that any state can establish Islam as the law of the land, as the official religion? If you do think that that's a violation of religious freedom, that's a violation of secularism. Do you believe in secularism, this absolute secularism? And are you really claiming that the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam 1400 years ago advocated the secularism that we find in the constitution?  Okay. And then do you also endorse, like do you think that the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam endorse laws favoring Islam at the expense of others? Explain that, explain all of these historical sources that say that the Muslims were taking Jizya, that they were exacting taxes, that the Sahaba in the time of the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam and immediately after are taking Jizya, explain these. Now, yeah, I agree. It's not a contradiction to the traditional narrative that Muslims can cooperate with Christians and actually help them in certain cases and ally with them in certain cases. That's not against the traditional perspective. So if you wanna cite Michael Penn for example, yeah, I agree. There are those examples in the historical record as well, but that does not contradict, that's not a problem for the traditional perspective. What is a problem for your liberal perspective are these Muslims from the earliest period right in the time of the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam and thereafter who are taking over the Kaaba, taking over Mecca, who are imposing Jizya, that is a problem for your interpretation. So you're citing Hadith very selectively, as usual, you wanna cite Hadith about apostasy, your cherry picking. What about the Hadith that say to kill the person who changes his religion? That is a Sahih Hadith. Why do you, so again, this is the cherry picking that you have been engaged in. And then, I mean, how hilarious, like this is a real meme-able moment. You think the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam was like a senator? Like you are really a morta.  Like you really, I mean, you're so far away from Islam, maybe you need to think about like what you really think, what you understand about the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam. Because if you think that the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam was a senator or who is akin to a senator, like people have to go and ask, he has to go and ask people's permission, like a senator would. Like this is such a blasphemous view and it's so insulting. Like this is, I haven't even seen some Islamophobes say make a comment like this. And maybe it has something to do with your advisor, Juan Cole, that you always like to praise and brown nose. Juan Cole says in his book that the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam was like Martin Luther King. That the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam was like this, you know, proponent of multicultural diversity and gender diversity and religious pluralism. This is like what your advisor says, also completely devoid of any historical knowledge. Look at what the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam did in Mecca. What is Fet Mecca all about? Like explain that or do you deny it? Do you deny the Quran? Because the Quran is explicitly referring to taking over the holy shrine and the holy precincts of the polytheists, of the Mushriki. So explain that. Like how is that conformant with religious freedom? How is that like being a senator or like being like Martin Luther King? Like this is a joke. This is all revisionism. You shouldn't call yourself an academic. You shouldn't call yourself a historian. You're a propagandist and you only use historical critical method for your very limited goal of denying these texts. Okay, fine, but in this debate, have I rested my entire argument on Hadith or on Tafsir or of these other texts? I haven't. So why do you keep bringing them up? Why do you keep making that the point of the debate? I'm looking at the history. I'm looking at the sources that you supposedly should be looking at as an academic historian.  I'm debating you with the historical critical method. I'm debating you with the historical resources and you just want to avoid that and start talking about this ridiculous, gish galloping, mental gymnastics. You go on and on and on about like these verses with your interpretation that I can't follow and I doubt anyone else is following what you're saying about, you know, these chronic verses. Like such a bizarre argument. So I am not impressed, unfortunately, with your performance, Javad. James, do I get my one minutes now or how are we doing this? I'm muting myself. What was the question? One minute? Why do you get one minute? That was a rebuttal, so we get open discussion or do you want to break? Oh, I was saying that we go to open discussion, but I don't think that we can do that without doing how we did last time with a minute each. I see. Oh yeah. So that we don't talk over each other. I'm okay with doing it two minutes each, but it's up to you, Daniel. Do you want one minute or two minutes? One minute. Let's split it. Let's do a minute and a half. One minute, come on, it's open discussion. Why can't you discuss? Two minutes is a lecture hour. We don't need this. Just respond, respond to the points. It's fine. I'll let James decide. That's fine, I'll go with what James. Why don't we split the difference? We'll do, I think it was it. Javad wanted two minutes, Daniel. You want one minute. We'll do one and a half minutes. Go ahead. Is it making me work really hard tonight? All right, here we go. Okay, so are we going now or are we breaking? I didn't know. We're going right now and I've got the timer. I'm going to have one timer that's got the 45 minutes and then I'm using my phone for the one and a half minute limits. Okay, great, thank you so much. So it's unfortunate that Daniel continuously does ad hominem attacks and that's what you do when you run out of intellectual argument. He also tries to mis-portray me as if I'm trying to be disrespectful to the prophet. When I was saying that he was like a senator, I didn't mean that he was literally a senator. In fact, what I actually meant to say, he was like an episcopal figure. That was the word that just wasn't coming to my tongue. That's the word that Nicolai Sinai writes. So he was a religious holy figure who had control over his Banu Hashem tribe and he had to use, he was a prophet of persuasion and a prophet of love. That's how he convinced people to follow him. So he wasn't an emperor as it was later portrayed. They back projected him as a caliph, which he was not. Now Daniel is coming to the wrong debate because he's trying to make it out. Again, I told him I'm not a philosophical liberal. I'm actually a post liberal. So I don't need to show that secularism existed in the time of the prophet. All I have to show is that the pre-modern tradition got it wrong and that the pre-modern tradition didn't acknowledge that the Quran acknowledges freedom of religious belief and doesn't have an apostasy wall. That's the part that Daniel has to rebut and he can't do that so he has to go to all these other things and then claim Gish Gallup. As far as the public space, you're actually right. That, sorry, the part about the Kaaba, that is correct. The prophet did clear out, it did bar them from that because that was considered a public space and you're right, that does create attention for somebody who's trying to advocate for pure secularism. But what I am arguing is that the Quran endorses religious freedom to convert out of your faith and that is the argument. So he has to show that because I'm trying to criticize the pre-modern tradition. I'm not trying to defend secular liberalism. I'm a post liberal. The other thing is, I would point to the constitution of Medina. The constitution of Medina shows a bilateral relationship that the prophet enacted between people and so between people of different religions. All right, it is time. Go ahead, Daniel.  Like is this like Martin Luther King marching as Juan Cole, your advisor puts it like, please answer this question. Are you even familiar with your advisor's work where he compares the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam to MLK and he compares the conquest of Mecca to like an MLK march? Like please, tell me if you agree with that because I wanna see what kind of historian you really are, Javad. Also, the Kaaba is a public place. He cleared the idols because he's trying to make a public place. The Kaaba is not a public place, dude. Do you even know what the Kaaba is? You know what happens in Mashal Haram? You think that's a public place that anyone can go and do whatever? Like this is a joke. Yeah, I mean, I don't know what else to say. This is embarrassing. Could you get over to Javad? All right, so again, these are not arguments when you call a joke, question your, this kind of had hominem attacks. But in any case, first of all, what I would say is the historians actually questioned the picture that the traditional narrative portrays about the Arabian pagans being these crass idolaters. And they even questioned whether there were idols present in that time. So that's the first point. We need to understand that. The second point is that what Juan Cole said is he used the word peaceful cavalcade is what he used. And that is correct that there wasn't bloodshed and fighting and he didn't enslave the population of Mecca like Daniel would want. He didn't rape the girls as Daniel would want and said he granted a blanket amnesty to the people of Mecca, which showed the mercy of our prophet. And also, again, there's no proof in the Quran which I would repeat that you could force your belief onto anybody. And as far as he didn't actually, Juan Cole said it more resembling. He didn't actually say that it is exactly that, okay? And Professor Juan Cole is a well-established historian, tenured, respected, unlike you who has no specialty, but actually that's a personal attack I brought. I take that back. Okay, so in any case, I don't know what else I need to rebut. Okay, that's fine. I just would just say that where is your Quranic evidence for apostasy law? You can't find it, so you need to go to something else. We'll kick it over to Daniel. Once I just want to remind you folks in the chat, I don't think we're going to have time for any more questions. I'm sorry about that. So please just keep in mind that if you submitted a question, whether it be as a normal chat or a super chat, I don't think we're going to have enough time. We just have limited Q and A tonight. Go ahead, Daniel. Yeah, there is proof of imposing your religion on others. I cited it when Allah is saying that when Mecca and the Kaaba is restricted only to believers and not idolaters, that is imposing your religion on others. That is the proof of it in the Quran. Amongst many other things, you have completely avoided mentioning whether or answering the question that I posed to you. Can the Prophet, Salah alayhi salam, did he endorse imposing Islam as the law of the land, the official religion of the land in the Arabian Peninsula? Did he endorse that? You're not answering that question because you can't answer it. The answer is obvious. Of course he did. And that's a clear violation of religious freedom. That's the imposition of religious value. So that's, I'm answering exactly the point that you're making to me, but you're avoiding answering my question. And you wanted to say that, oh, I'm engaged in ad hominem attack. You're constantly attacking me and saying I support rape. Like how, what kind of worse ad hominem is there than that? So tell me, is there an endorsement by the Prophet, Salah alayhi salam on discriminatory laws, on the jizya, the concept of jizya and having a tribute tax, address all of these historical sources from Christians that say the jizya was imposed, address all the historical sources that say the Muslims took over religious sites. Explain the dome of the rock. Explain the dome of the rock. These aren't later developments a hundred years after the Prophet, Salah alayhi salam. These are within 50 years, within even two years. Explain the Haruba Redda. Explain the wars of apostasy. Like how is that not a clear proof? And your idol, Fred Donner, has the archeological evidence establishing that. And a half. Go ahead, Juat. Okay, thank you so much. So you just asked, what about the wars of apostasy? That's a great example. So just because the fact that Abu Bakr did that doesn't mean that that is what the Prophet would do. In fact, we know that's the case because other companions severely disagreed. So you can't use that as proof of that is what the Quran or the Prophet would want. In fact, their scholars have said that he went in a different direction, he had a different sunnah than the Prophet when it came to that. So you can't just use the example of the early Muslims like that to prove your point. What I am arguing is that what the Quran says, which is what the Prophet Muhammad brought does not punish apostasy. Again, you're trying to pin me to the claim, which is a ridiculous claim, that the, I'm not saying, I'm not this naive liberal who's trying to say that all modern liberalism is in the Prophet. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is, is that the Prophet endorsed religious freedom, the right to change your religion. This is in recurring discourse in the Quran and that's why there's no law against apostasy. That is what you need to show. And as far as I was talking about the constitution of Medina, which shows that there was this relationship of bilateral mutual rights and not this imposing Islam like you say. And this kind of imposing Islam kind of mentality that you have is completely ahistorical. That is imposing this Islamist mentality onto the early period. The Prophet Muhammad didn't operate that way. It took some time for the Khaliful establishment to become in that imperial kind of sense. It's certainly not in the Prophet's time. And we know that from the Quran itself in Surah 5, it's around verse 40, around there, 45, 48, around there. It shows how the Prophet actually was an arbiter, religious arbiter between different sides. He couldn't just dictate his terms. Yeah, so this is nonsense. Like you're speaking at both sides of your mouth. You're saying the Prophet Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam endorsed religious freedom. Okay, do you mean like this religious freedom that only exists in your mind? Because when people understand the term religious freedom, they understand secularism. They understand having the freedom to worship however you want without any kind of discrimination. All religions are of equal status. But this is clearly not the case. But you refuse to acknowledge it. You're running away. Did the Prophet Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam impose Islam as the law of the land? Yes or no? That's what I've asked you multiple times. You run away from this question because it completely defeats your entire perspective. If you wanna have this kind of bizarre understanding of what religious freedom is where you can impose Islam as the law of the land, but as long as you don't kill apostates, that's religious freedom, then your understanding of religious freedom is the same as, you know, Ikhwan al-Muslimin, like the Muslim Brotherhood. They also don't believe in implementing the apostasy punishment. So your understanding of religious freedom is like Ikhwan al-Muslimin or Khomeini, or Khamenei, like the Islamic Republic of Iran. Like you have that kind of understanding of religious freedom, or maybe not the Islamic Republic of Iran, but many of these Islamist arguments. So when Apus calls you a Islamist, he's right. If this is your definition of religious freedom, it's just nonsense. And time. Provide? All right, thank you so much. So I am not saying that the Prophet imposed Islam. This is completely ahistorical the Islam that you have in mind took time to develop as this reified institution. I debated Shadi al-Mustri on this, so you can go look at that and see what that debate showed. So I don't agree with the idea of imposing Islam, like there was this top-down imposition of a Sharia Islamic state, like Daniel Haqqa Choo thinks. Now, what I am saying is that, now, and he's right. For example, like when it comes to the Qaba, there was the verses nine, 17 to 18 that you have to look at. So no, was it exactly what modern liberal secularism says? No, of course not. But nonetheless, the key point that I keep getting to and Daniel runs away from this. He's the one who's running away. I'm just being honest. The key point is that the medieval tradition, Daniel has videos when he's this defending apostasy. He has arguments that he comes up with that, oh, I showed you the quote where he says that you need to have apostasy because you're flouting the social order, the social cohesion. That's what I'm saying does not exist in the Quran, does not go back to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a later development. It happened, the first precedent was during the Caliph Abu Bakr's time due to the wars of apostasy, which Omar and other companions disagreed with. So this is the reality. Daniel cannot defend this point. So he has to try to get this bigger argument, which I'm not even arguing in the first place. He tried to stack the deck in his favor before this debate, and people saw it, by the way, when you were trying to stack the deck and have this and you were like, you didn't even let me pick my own kind of points, but I told you that I'm gonna defend my own points, not go by your dictate. Time. Yeah, so you're saying that the companions disagreed with Abu Bakr, radiallahu anhu, like Omar. None of the companions said that Abu Bakr was violating the Quran or he had committed something, agreed just against the Sunnah of the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. No one said that. Companions can disagree. That doesn't mean that there's a violation of the Sunnah of the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. Again, you want to say that, okay, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam established religious freedom. Answer the question, did he impose jizya? Did he agree with imposing jizya? Jizya is in the Quran. I cited you the verse. Why aren't you able to address those kinds of things? This is something that I'm, my whole argument was on the basis of these Quranic verses, but you have not addressed any of these Quranic verses.  Like this is really laughable. Yeah, so just answer. Like was there jizya imposed on non-Muslims, right? Was that the case?   Name me any of these kinds of rationalists throughout history that said, oh, we shouldn't kill the apostates. Sight me some sources, sight me some history.  So let's see it. Time. All right, let's go point by point here. You mentioned jizya in 929.  However, contrast that with the people who didn't fight in the constitution of Medina, which didn't have jizya and they were on equal footing and it was a bilateral relationship. So Daniel needs to understand that point. Now, again, I'm not arguing for modern, secular, liberal religious freedom. That is a historical to do that. What I am saying is that we have many things in that early period that we can use for inspiration and know that the pre-modern Islamic tradition went in a different direction and that specific thing is the prophet not punishing apostates. You claimed I used a hadith in my opening here. I did not use a hadith. Instead, what I used was the words of Imam Shafi who said that some people believed, then committed apostasy, then professed belief again. However, the messenger of God did not put them to death. And meanwhile, I also posted to another scholar in the fifth century who said it is not mentioned in any of the well-known writings that the prophet killed an apostate. So if you think that that is what the case was, why can't you find, how can you reconcile the fact that these scholars are saying that apostates were not killed, okay? And that is why there was actually Iqtilaaf in the early period about whether that punishment is to be implemented as a had punishment or not. And that it could have, and there were scholars who said that it was a later Ijtihad of companions and they were actually right, it was. And that's why they disagreed with Abu Bakr. I don't know, this is all nonsense. Yeah, the prophet, so I said that he might himself not have implemented the had. He might himself not have killed an apostate. That doesn't mean that's the norm that he endorsed or the law that he endorsed. He explicitly says, if someone changes his religion, meaning apostatized, then kill him. That is the hadith that, and again, your bizarre interpretation is through word games, whatever. Like the point is the history, you are not able to address it. I think that's clear now to everyone. You wanna talk about, yeah, there are agreements with Christians or with other religious groups. That's called a surah, that's called a treaty. You think the traditional Islamic position is that we don't accept treaties? Like we don't, that's not part of like acceptable Islamic tradition. Of course you can have a treaty with any other religious group, even with polytheists. Like that's not upper debates. Like no one is disagreeing with that. That's not a counter example to traditionalism. The counteract, the counter example to your reformism and this bizarre claim of religious freedom are the verses that I cited, taking over Mecca, taking over the Kaaba, destroying the idols, imposing Islam as the law of the land. Tell me one society that did not impose a religion as the law of the land. Give me one example of that.  This is very selective of you. Okay, my turn? Yep. It is indeed selective of me because Daniel has videos and he defends the law of apostasy. That's what the main point is. That's what I said that I was going to debate today. So that's not being selective, that's being selective, but that's being strategically selective to show that the pre-model tradition could get things terribly wrong. So the point number one is I showed multiple verses that show that you can change your religion. Multiple verses that show that apostates can change their religion and God simply, the Quran simply says to make amends, repent and come back to the fold. Daniel has failed to show any single verse that says to punish apostates. Point number two, I've shown you how Imam Shafi, no less than Imam Shafi said no apostate was killed and the classical scholars agreed that they had to deal with this inconsistency and so they had to explain that away. Number three, I have shown that the companions, sorry, that the early scholars disagreed about whether this was an HDHOD of the companions or a ruling from the prophet and there was a debate about whether it was HUD or not. The point I'm trying to show is that it doesn't go back to the prophet Muhammad. It was as Patricia Corona has said that she's not some crazy Islamic liberal modernist trying to reconcile anything. In fact, she was very critical and even had some harsh words to say but she says that this was obviously a viewpoint and makes sense that was adopted once Muslims became an imperial power and modeled themselves after Rome and Persia. So all that evidence that Daniel brings that every other imperial society did it, yes, that is proof of why they decided that it has to be the case and then they read that back into the Quran but they can't find a single verse that says that you kill apostates. It says the opposite. Make a man's repent. Want to let you know, folks, just put a poll in the live chat on who you agree with more on religious freedom, Daniel or Javad. So if you're watching live at another channel, this is your chance, come on over to modern day debate, put your vote in the poll. We're gonna kick it over to Daniel for the next minute and a half. Yeah, so this is just, everyone go to the description of the video on my channel. What is the debate topic? Please check this everyone for me because am I like debating someone else? Like did I fall asleep and now I'm debating someone else? Because I thought the debate was about religious freedom in general. Like that's what I thought the debate is about. Javad, like why are you avoiding these questions that I'm giving you? Do you believe in imposition of the jizya? Do you agree with that? Why are you avoiding? Do you believe in the imposition of an official religion like Islam as the law of the land? Do you believe in that? Are you avoiding answering this because you're worried about your boss? Because M-PAC like is this liberal progressive group of deviants. And if you put statements like that on record, they'll boot you out. Like why don't you answer these questions? Why can't you stick on the topic? You have to narrow the scope to something that you imagine the debate to be instead of actually addressing the debate topic, religious freedom. If you didn't wanna debate that, why did you agree to the debate? Okay, you could have said, no, Daniel, you've limited the debate or you've talked about religious freedom. I just wanna debate apostasy. Why didn't you say that, Javad? So this is embarrassing. Like address the questions. Like can we impose a religion, official state religion as Muslims? Would the Prophet so I say, oh no, do not impose Islam as the state religion. I don't believe in that. You should just be a senator like me or Martin Luther King. Could you get over it, Javad? Sorry, okay. So I clearly said to you, tweet, ad hakekechu, despite my reservations about the way the points are articulated, I wish to move forward with this and will therefore accept your conditions as stated. This is when you were trying to strong arm and that's why who cares about what description you put in your box. You put such a, everybody laughed at how you advertised the thing and in a slanted way and what description you put. I said as long as you know that my own explicit positions are as stated here and that's where I defended exactly what I'm saying which when I said religious freedom, I'm talking about the law of apostasy in specific, okay? And the fact is that if the tradition got that wrong, then that's a major blow against traditionalism and we're debating modernism versus traditionalism and this is a key plank of modernism. You've said it yourself. This is a key plank. It's in your book. You actually have videos on this. The problem is that you're struggling right now to defend your view in the Quran and the Prophet's example.  I'm literally on point as can possibly be and you can't defend it. You could just admit it and look, I don't have the proof. I don't have the evidence of that and just admit that. But this is completely on point. Again, the Quran endorses the freedom to change your religion. That's called religious freedom, okay? I'm not talking about in the modern liberal secular sense of, we're talking about court cases and all that. No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the decision to leave your religion which you deny and you've had videos where you deny it. The Quran endorses it. The Quran even talks about apostates who leave the religion. Does modernism, your modernism, accept Jizya? Does it accept a state religion? Answer the question. Why can't you answer the question? Does modernism accept discriminatory laws against non-Muslims? Except, answer that question. It's very simple, Javad. So you said that you'll move forward with the debate as defined with those questions. Okay, so that means you consented to the debate topics that we agreed to. Like why are you trying to renege on that now in the middle of the debate when you're getting embarrassed like this? So when we were talking about, here's another question for you. So you say that you assume that the Muslims adopted the ideas and practices of Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians well after the Prophet Salli Sallam, right? So you say that after the Prophet Salli Sallam, after a hundred years, then the Muslims started adopting Jewish blasphemy, the idea of blasphemy punishment, killing apostates from Christians, from Jews, from the Byzantines, from the Sasanians, from whoever. Why didn't the Prophet Salli Sallam adopt those values or those norms? Why weren't that influence that you're describing, why wasn't that the influence of the time of the Prophet Salli Sallam and the time of the earliest Muslims? When we look at the Quran, it seems to be in line with those values. When we look at the Quran, it seems to be in, or the practice of the early Muslims, it's in line with punishing apostasy, punishing blasphemy, Jizya, discriminatory laws against non-Muslims. That's all consistent. My narrative is, the traditional narrative is consistent with the actual historical sources. Your narrative is opposed to that. So this is the point that I'm trying to make. But again, answer the question, does modernism accept Jizya state religion discriminatory laws? Time. Okay. So first of all, I would ask, as far as discriminatory laws, Daniel, do you support the pact of Omar's restrictions where Jews and Christians have to wear yellow turbans and do all these distinctions they can't ride on horses, they have to ride on donkeys? Let me ask you that question. We'll see how extremist you really are. As far as Jizya, modernists say that Jizya is a historical construct at the time. And you can clearly see that as you yourself say, was prevalent at that time and was considered just at that time. Now it is no longer in the culture. Just like, are you gonna defend slavery? No, you're gonna say that slavery we don't do anymore because there's bilateral agreements, correct? So therefore if they're bilateral, don't interrupt me. I don't agree. So if you say, okay, then we'll see how extreme you are if you wanna bring back slavery. But if you can say that slavery, we don't bring back anymore because of bilateral agreements that we no longer do Jizya either. As far as state religion, I already told you that the prophet didn't impose Islam in the way that you think it does. Now, as far as you say Jews and Christians, you also don't understand nuance at all. Nowhere did I say that a hundred years afterward that that happened. Rather it was a gradual transition as you see that initially the precedent was set by Abu Bakr, but it wasn't a fixed law at that time. It took some time for it to develop.  Now I'm not taking those as historical to make this argument. I'm saying that there were hadith reports that you yourself have used that say that we will, this Oma will follow the Jews and the Christians and even fall into the lizard hole. That actually is an argument in favor of what I'm saying but there's no reason to presuppose that the Muslim Oma will remain on track like you wanted to. In fact, the Quran itself as we showed shows that my people will abandon the Quran and that's indeed what happened. As far as why I'm not insisting that the Quran. Daniel. Like what does even keeping on track with the Quran mean? Like if you have this idea of, well, there are higher ethics and we can just use our individual reason. Guess what? Individual reason can be very subjective if you're influenced by the culture. The fitra that you reference can be corrupted. So what does even keeping on track with the Quran and Sunna mean? That's what tradition is. Tradition is keeping track. So you're on the one hand criticizing tradition but then you're invoking the concept of tradition as people as staying on track from the other side of your mouth. So this is really speaking at both sides of your mouth. But as for the pact of Omar, like this is not the topic of the debate. That those kinds of restrictions in the pact of Omar, it's consistent with the Quran. It's consistent with the Quranic verse that says, make them sahirun, make them humble. His actions were consistent with that verse of the Quran. You haven't addressed that verse of the Quran. So I mean, the tradition is consistent. Your bizarre liberal interpretation of religious freedom is not consistent with the Quran. It's not consistent with the actual historical evidence. You still haven't addressed the non-Christian or the Christian sources that are describing the Muslims as taking jizya. You haven't addressed the state imposition of law. Is Pakistan, like is this the Prophet's lifetime would have a problem with Pakistan being an Islamic Republic? Answer that. All right, I don't know where to begin here because the argument is going off track. Daniel says that I can't bring in the pact of Omar because it's not the topic of the debate. But wait a second, Daniel, I thought the topic of the debate was religious freedom understood in the most expansive and grandiose way possible. Well, if that's the case, then that's directly relevant. Then you should be talking about Jews having to wear yellow turbans because that's what you would believe if you wanna hold onto the pre-modern tradition. Thankfully, the juristic discourse wasn't the only one that the pre-modern Muslims followed and there were other better discourses. In any case, as far as jizya, I've already answered your question. It was a historically contingent thing. So no, I don't think that it would be implemented today. As far as verse 929, I already told you that's for societies, it was talking about the Byzantines and it was a bilateral thing. But you have to look at all the other dozens and dozens and dozens of verses on warfare would say that you can't initiate attack, you can't aggress, and you certainly can't force your religion onto other people. So I don't know what else to say, really. Again, the Quran, I'm looking at the Quran. And as far as you asking, why isn't that the Quran took up the Roman and the Persian influences? That's a really secular, atheistic question. The Quran has a divine intent behind it, does it not? So it can rise above the ethic. This is a recurring theme that we've seen today. So and even Patricia Krona says that, now she takes a historical approach and says that it actually imbibed the early Christian view of religious freedom. And then once Islam became an empire, like post-Castanian Christianity, it then moved in the imperial direction and instituted a ban on apostasy. So there's an explanation either way, Daniel, but this is not mental gymnastics. This is clear Quranic verses. Go Daniel. Yeah, so this is the bot, the liberal bot saying, oh well just yeah, we don't apply it today because we have multilateral agreements. The debate topic is about the Quran and what the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam endorsed. It's a historical question. You do this liberal bot move, step three of oh it was a temporary issue and now we're in a different time. This is the bot. So if we can remove this requirement of jizya and subjugation of these other religious groups, then why not remove the laws against fornication? Why not remove the laws against homosexuality? Like why can't we, we're in different times. Now we have paternity tests. So we can determine paternity through paternity tests. So fornicate with whoever you want. That was the, do not approach zinnah is only a restriction for that time when there is no paternity test. But now we have paternity tests. So go wild, do zinnah all you want. This is, isn't this the trajectory that you're talking about? Isn't this the higher ethics that you're talking about? We're rational, many rational people today think that should be no problem. Two consenting adults, love is love. That's the higher ethic and the rational view that so many rationalists today support. So why don't you have the same kind of argument for zinnah, for fornication, for adultery? Why not adultery for homosexuality? Let's remove all of these laws, Javad. Let's remove all of these restrictions because we're in a different time. All right, so let's talk about how the tradition implemented this apostasy law. Number one, they decided that the Quran, as I've argued in my first argument, is ambiguous and impartial and incomplete. So that was the first point I made against traditionalism Daniel has not addressed. Then the hadith canon comes along and supplements the Quran. But I've already said that the hadith canon is problematic because their first narrator, the first chain level in the chain, there's no narrator criticism done on that and so that collapses. So you can't use those hadiths that you quote about changing your religion for that fact because your hadith canon collapses because of that. Number three is then they said, oh, well, there's Ijma, there's consensus upon executing the apostates. But in fact, you can't ground Ijma on anything because it's circular logic. There's nothing and you haven't dealt with that argument either. As far as, you know, why would we accept taking away jizya now and not doing the other things? Well, that's obvious. You have to take a look at the text and decide what are universal principles that are timeless and what is historically contingent just like you do. I don't think that you advocate that jihad is waged by horses, right? When it says, prepare your seeds for war, you don't do that, right? So similarly, modernists have always said that you're not gonna lash people today.  So as far as the bot is concerned, actually the classical exigites are the ones who use the bot. If you just look at the verse, let there be no compulsion in religion and read Patricia Cona's article on this, she shows the exegetical tools that they did. First they said, oh, this verse is abrogated, canceled out. That's the bot again. But if it's not abrogated, then they said it's only to people of the book or they restricted it or they reinterpreted it. That's the bot. Yeah. So again, like, well, Ramadan, why do we need Ramadan? You know, what if the economy can really benefit if people are eating and drinking during Ramadan so they'll be more productive? This is what the dictator Burkiba argued that his entire country, Muslim country should not fast Ramadan because we're in a different time. We're in a different time period and we have to raise the GDP. Everyone needs to eat and drink so they'll be good workers and improve the state of the economy. Why wasn't he this brilliant reformer and rationalist like you, Javad? Or do you actually agree with Burkiba? Should we think that, oh, well, no fasting in Ramadan, this is something, this was something from the past. Just like there are horses in the past mentioned and fighting with swords and spears and arrows, that's from the past, right? Now we're in a different time, we're in a different context, times change, so we don't actually need, we don't need fasting in Ramadan. That was just for those times when people wanted to focus on God. Now we can focus on God through meditation, through different kind of self care techniques. We don't need Ramadan. Like, why can't you, what blocks that kind of argument, Javad? Like, this is the problem.  This is why your methodology results in the complete destruction of Islam. Because every single rule within Islam, Ramadan, fasting in Ramadan, prayer, hajj, even belief in Allah, belief in the Quran, belief in heaven and hell, they can all be portrayed as some relic of the past. Now we're in different times, we're in different contexts, we have to adapt. So Daniel is now showing his fideistic nature, which is not Muslim skeptic at all, which is fideism, which is just follow hadith, textual reports, and then you have to accept that God has a face, curly hair, was a young boy. You have to accept all this like Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyyah did. But the fact is that all people have to make interpretive choices. And even Daniel does this. I wanna, so you're asking me questions, I'd like to ask you, yes or no? Do you support Jews in your Islamic state having to wear yellow turbans? Yes or no? If the answer is no, then we show that even you take interpretive choices and decide what is universal, what is, for all time and what is historically contingent. All people need to make these interpretive choices. And the classical legends made tons of interpretive choices. They abrogated 200 plus verses to justify Imperial warfare. So everybody makes exegetical choices. What the modernist does as a rationalist, we believe we have ethical reasoning. So the reason why we don't abolish worship is because we don't touch worship. Worship is between us and God. So we keep that the same. But when it comes to change circumstances in our relations with human beings, that's something that we evaluate. But we maintain the Quranic spirit and the ethic of the Quran. So I'll give you an example. You guys in your podcast talk about how you can screw women by divorcing them and keeping all the wealth and not, and making sure to get the bare minimum that you can give to them in divorce. This is the Dawab Rose who do this. You've had no strings, nikah guy on your channel very supportively. And I would say that this goes against the Quranic ethic. The Quranic ethic is about taking care of divorced women. I'll give you another example. Al-Rahman brings up this example. I'll give it up in the next one, the example that I want to give. Yeah, so you're not following the Quran. Like, okay, fine. Any issue that has to do with mu'malat, like interaction with other people, this can be up to reform. So what is all this bluster, like hot air from you about, oh, we have a Quran-centric approach. As soon as the Quran, like the issue, the jizya, as soon as that contradicts your modernism, you want to eject it. You didn't answer the, or you didn't explain how that same logic doesn't apply to zinna. It doesn't apply, the Quran mentions zinna, it mentions, you know, not approaching zinna. Why should that not be considered a relic of the past? Explain it, like why is that so special that we preserve that, but we can dispense with the jizya? So yeah, this is all just galloping. You know, what about the ethical reasoning that people use about gender transition? Like, oh, we have these trans kids. You know, this is our modern time, so we have to support trans kids. Do you support trans kids? Javad, are you a rationalist? Like is the Quran is preaching mercy and rahmah? So is that a part of the evolved trajectory of the Quran that we have to accept trans kids? Give me a principled rejection of that, if that is not your position, and explain. And also, you're building up me with a strawman. You're saying my argument has to do with ijma and hadith. Did I cite ijma in my opening and anywhere in this debate? You just projected that onto me. You're debating something else. Like we're talking, we're debating religious freedom, not these other issues. All right, notice, Daniel said, I didn't quote hadith or ijma. Then what did you quote, Daniel? Did you quote any Quran? Oh, wait a second, no, you didn't. Why? Because the Quran goes completely against your view and has no rule of apostasy law. So great job on that, defending that viewpoint. Now, as far as your question, I wanted to finish with the example I was giving. So in the early period, the zakat that you gave was 2.5%. But Fazr Rahman says that's clearly not enough in our today's day and age to take care of all the groups that are meant to be taken care of for zakat. So that means that the zakat should be much higher today. That's how you apply the ethical trajectory of the Quran. That's what makes the difference between people who are rationalist believers and use their brain, and the Fideas who say debate, logic, theology, philosophy, all of these are haram, science, anti-science, let's believe in flat earth, let's deny the moon landing. Now, as far as how we deal with new situations, this is very easy. We use our, it's not easy, actually, nothing is easy. You have to do deep ethical reasoning. But this is the model that we use. So this is the fundamentalist paradigm. I hope you can see my image here. But the fundamentalist paradigm is, anytime you get an outside- It's not what you were doing earlier. Oh, okay. So anytime- Is there a way to make it any bigger, otherwise I can. So we don't have time for another presentation, Javad. Finish your point. You have like five seconds. I am finishing my point. You're not my boss. All right. We can't see your screen. We can't just automatically show your screen whenever you want. Like we have to technically go back and change the settings. Did you not get that? It's not a big deal. No, I didn't get that, Daniel. I didn't know that. It's a little bit blurry yet. Content creator. Okay. Is it better now or not? It is definitely better. Now it's a little bit too zoomed in. Okay. Here is, is that good? Maybe a little bit more zoomed in. Just slightly. Just like- Okay, right there. I just need one minute for this. That's it. You already had a minute and a half. Like, are we just extending your time? No, no, I need 20 seconds. At your decree? I need 20 seconds. Because I was setting this up. I need 20 seconds. Can we give them 20 seconds, Daniel, just because the setup- That's okay. I can do it on my next if you want. 20 seconds. Go ahead. Okay, so the outside critique is just reflexively rejected by the fundamentalist. But when the modernist gets a critique, they ask first, is it critically, is the critique scripturally valid? If yes, we change our position. If no, then we ask, is the critique philosophically valid? If yes, then we change our position. Sorry, if yes, we re-evaluate the scriptural data and then go in the circle again. If it's not philosophically valid, then we say no and we keep our original position. So there is a sensible paradigm that we follow. It's not just fideism like you follow. Yeah, so you're talking about like- This is our last one. I don't know how you talk about- We'll go to Daniel for this last one and a half minutes. Okay, so, I mean, I'm just, I'm a broken record at this point. Like you haven't talked about imposing a state religion, is Pakistan with the Prophet's Islam and approve of Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or any of these governments that have Islam as the law of the land? Would he approve of those? You can't answer that question. You've avoided it. That's pretty obvious. You also have all of this stuff about a rationalist speculation and deep ethical reasoning. You've never defined this. You've never actually explained from first principles. Like what is this deep ethical reasoning, this rationalism that everyone supposedly knows? Like you've just presupposed that this is obvious. It's from my perspective, your rationalism is just liberalism. It is just this kind of script, this liberal bot that you rehash.  Like that's all you are. Like what is this deep rationalism? A deep rationalism that just happens to coincide with everything that 21st century liberals approve of. Wow, that is so deep and ethical. Like this is just a joke.  That's why I said in the opening you've been very well trained to... This is a great opportunity to go into the Q and A as well as wanna let you know folks, we don't mention it often. We do have channel memberships at Modern Databate. You can see at the bottom right of your screen we have both Patreon, which you can find linked in the description and channel membership. So you can click that join button. It's right under this video. Check out the perks. We just updated them and we're gonna jump into the Q and A. Wanna say thanks so much for your questions. This one first coming in from. I do appreciate it. And like I said, folks, we're a little bit behind in the sense that... Let me just pull this page up here. I think I'm trying to find it here. We do have limited time, nearly 10 minutes for each part. And so I'm gonna move as fast as I can. Wanna give you a heads up. If you put it in a super chat now, it's like a near zero chance we're gonna be able to read it just because we have so many. And so thanks for your patience. Coming in from, Mohammed, thanks very much says in 425, a slave wife has half the punishment of a free wife. That distinguishment is the difference between wife and what your right hands possess. Not sure who it was for though. I think that was for me. So yes, that's the exact point that you could have a... That's why they differentiated in the verses that Daniel talks about. Either that or it's because it's before those verses were revealed, but that shows that there is a distinction between a free wife and a slave wife. The later tradition, unfortunately, understood that if you married someone, you couldn't have... There still weren't your slave. And so that's why they disallowed marriage to your own slave. And that was a exegetical mistake, or an interpretive mistake. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question.  Josh says, Daniel's idea of Islam is doom scrolling 4chan and watching Manusphere videos and throwing some Arabic words in the mix. They say he's the Islamic. Alex Menassian? I don't know who that is. But go ahead, Daniel. Is this true, Daniel? Are these things true? I mean, Ibn Taymiah, Rahmiullah, the great scholar has to be like a 4chan guy.  Like you can't address... These people can't address all of these citations. Like we're looking at the Quran. We're looking at Hadith. We're looking at all of these other religions. All of these pre-modern religions were 4chan basically, like incels and whatever. What about Christianity? What about the Byzantine Empire? What about the Sasanians? Were they doom scrolling 4chan?  Yeah, go ahead. This one from Yahya Asman says, was there a harem culture, Enoch's, et cetera, among the Sahaba? Or did it come later? Can Surah Muminan, verse five through seven also be addressed? I think, should I address Surah Muminan? That's the point I brought against Javad. And he said, oh, it's been abrogated. How convenient. Like everything that goes against his Oranic narrative, or his sexual gymnastics is abrogated. It came earlier. It came earlier and then there were later verses. Yeah, that's called abrogation, buddy. So this is... Buddy, buddy, let's stay courteous. We're talking on an intellectual level. There's no reason to do that. Excuse me, I've raped a few more times. I didn't accuse you of rape. Call me an in-cell, call me an in-cell a few more times. And then we'll be courteous. I never called you, that kind of joke. I never called you an in-cell. I hate to do this, but we do it more than X-Files. But now with me, there's no more time, more time, all this kind of words that you... Yeah, I'm just calling you that. Because you have no argument. You have no argument. We do have to move this one. Can we both respond to that, by the way, please? I do, like I hate to do this, but I do just because I have so many questions That's okay, that's okay, James. For each part, I should say. This one from Muhammad says, Quran 46-12 says, God said, quote, and before the Book of Moses, unquote, God called the Torah, God's word, the Book of Moses. Is the Quran the Book of Muhammad? I don't understand. Like, it's not a relevant question. Yeah, it's not relevant, like... Okay, this one from Dr. Omar. Hey, we have something, Daniel. This is Dr. Omar Muslim Theist. Says, Daniel still can't read 425, or answer about chronology. Daniel keeps Gish galloping about Ibn Sina, Greco-Romans, et cetera. Dr. Javad is on topic. No, like, it's Dr. Javad that's bringing up the rationalist throughout history, and he's saying that that's how he defined his modernism. So I just question him on that. Point me to some other rationalist within history who has the same views as you do regarding religious freedom, regarding patriarchy. You haven't been able to meet that challenge. So that's a declaring difficult, that's a declaring gap in your position. You don't need to, you can use the tools of rationalism to come to different opinions on the specific topics.  You can use the same methodology to arrive at different conclusions. The rationalist's tools. The tool of Ibn Sina was just great philosophy. Like, that's not true. We've got one for you, Javad. We haven't studied Ibn Sina. Yeah, yeah, you haven't. He says, Javad, everything you're arguing for, the good parts, quote unquote, of Islam, why not Judaism or Christianity or atheism?  I don't really understand the question, but I have never condemned Judaism or Christianity. I believe they are virtuous religions. And so I don't understand the question, to be honest. This one coming in from Anan Yamus says, Javad, the prophet, peace be upon him, had a concubine named Miriam al-Qubtiah, and she bore him a son. He eventually freed her. Your whole argument crumbles. Okay, so that argument, and I wish Daniel had actually brought this up because this was the obvious argument to bring up. But in any case, it doesn't crumble anything. In fact, she's listed by Tabari and others in the list of his wives. And there was this debate about whether she's a wife or if she's a concubine. The confusion is, and there's even places that say that she was married. The reason for the confusion is that the classical scholars had forbidden you to marry your own slave. And so they didn't have that category. You were either a free person and married or you were a concubine. But she was likely a slave wife. And then like you said, she was freed. So all, so number one point, you had to have a marital contract. Number two, all of his slaves were freed. So what's the argument here? And then after the Battle of Hunayn, no one was enslaved after that. My arguments all check out. This one coming in from Suda Nim says, Daniel, do we, did I read this? They say, is your version of traditionalist some same as radical where the Quran is below Hadith even? Which takes priority? Why not modernist? I don't know, they say. I don't know what that means. Like I said, the Quran and Hadith, the Quran and the example, the Sunnah of the Messenger, Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, they go together. So much of Islam is what the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam practiced, you know, his lived example. You have to have that lived example to understand the Quran. So you can't say, oh, we just have a Quran centric and we get rid of Hadith. We get rid of Sira, we get rid of all this because then how can you understand the example of the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam? How can you understand the Quran without that Sunnah, without that example? The whole argument that I'm making, there's a reason why I'm not getting into the depth of Hadith because this is not a debate on Hadith. That's what Javad wants. That's why he's gish-galloping.  I can just use sources that he accepts. So show that we're in the traditional view. The debate is religious freedom. The debate is religious freedom. The opposite law is against religious freedom. Yeah, so what about the rest of religious freedom? Can you address that? I'm asking, I have already told you that I'm not expecting that modern liberal idea. I'm telling you that the tradition got this wrong. You can't defend that. So can you? I'm not debating that. I'm not debating with you on that topic. That's literally what I tweeted. But you want to debate, you want to debate like the very granular details of all this, the entire Islamic tradition. You want to debate all those details. We don't have time. We don't have time. This is a five-hour debate. This is a five-hour debate. This is a five-hour debate. And we can't even talk about it. 200 verses. You make up such a limited Q&A, we do have to go. Al Eirante says, question to Daniel. What school of feak, F-I-Q-H, do you follow? Why in your website there is no Islamic reference in reading list? Yeah, so I follow the Hanbali School of Thought. I'm also studying the Hanafi School of Thought. I studied Hanbali School of the Fiqh for many years and I'm studying the Hanafi School. As for the reading list, it's meant for challenging liberalism and challenging these liberal adults like we have here. So that's what the book list is based on that. This one coming in from Raj Wudud said, believing slave woman versus non-believing slave Dan. Do you know what that means? This one coming in from Al Eirante says, question for Daniel. What school of thought do you follow? Do you use al-Fuqh? Is that how it's pronounced? Yeah, so that's a part of Islamic traditionalism. They say, why don't you have any Islamic sources on your site reading list again? I explained that, so the site is not about teaching Fiqh. It's not about teaching these traditional sciences. That's not what muslimskeptic.com is about. Al Eirante says, no, this is the real question. They say, question for Daniel. What school of thought do you follow? Wait, okay, that's the same question. They said, Daniel Allah is compassionate. They emphasize, our prophet saw, in parentheses, was compasiment. Don't you dare mock and turn into sarcasm. Every surah in Quran starts with, in the name of Allah, al-Rahman, al-Rahim, except one. Compassionate Imam, quote unquote, term rejected as bid ah. Sorry if I'm mispronouncing. I know I've got to be mispronouncing some of these. You did a good job. Yeah, worry about spelling. This guy seems to have a problem spelling, compassionate. So worry about spelling, and then figure out what sarcasm means, and then maybe you can understand what compassionate in my usage of compassionate Imam actually means. This one from Dr. Omar Muslimtheist. We might actually, for the last section of Q&A folks, we might actually be able to take some questions, because we're actually catching up here. Dr. Omar Muslimtheist says, Daniel was not able to discuss 425 in last section. Here, he cannot establish apostasy from Quran. The word of God is too difficult for him. Yeah, yeah, that's sure the case. How about Javad is not able to discuss religious freedom? He's not able to address all of the verses that I cited about jizya, about, I was already honest, I said to you. Okay, now you're interpreting my answer. You're not getting questions because no one cares what you think. Let me actually explain what I'm saying. Well, this person is actually critical of you, who's giving the question. Yeah, so let me address it. And popularly, by the way, huge, he's interrupting me during Q&A. Should I interrupt him? Let's give Daniel a chance to respond. I'm giving that a reason. So 425 about slavery. The first section is about patriarchy and gender roles and restrictions on sexual liberty. That's the first topic that we debated. Javad wanted to jump the gun and talk about female slavery because he can't address the actual topics. Like, are you noticing the pattern here? Hold on, I didn't wanna, I just, I can't help but sympathize with Javad for wanting to jump in when you sometimes jab him while answering with the audience. Well, the question is jabbing me. The question is jabbing me. I know, but I get why Javad wants to jump in, because occasionally you'll slip in a jab while you're answering. And so I do, to be fair, Zudanim says, if Hashmi says freedom is apostasy, why are you Muslim? That is an extremely strange question, but I guess they're asking me, am I reducing freedom of religion to simply the law of apostasy as Daniel is trying to portray it? What I'm saying is that there, the entire chronic discourse on this issue revolves around the idea of being freely able to decide to leave the religion. This is what Jihad was mandated in the Quran for. So it's not just a minor throwaway issue. It's not just one verse here, one verse there. It's almost 200 verses or so, and that's why the classical exeggits, they had to use their bots, and as their bots, they said all of these verses are abrogated. Now the ones who didn't say that, they were bots as well. What did they go? They went to the next step and they said, actually gonna reinterpret them, but they somehow magically came to the same interpretation as those who claimed that all 200 verses were abrogated. So the scripture didn't change the law. The law dictated the scripture and they used hermeneutical tools to back project that on. And Benam Sadiqi has an excellent book on that for the logic of lawmaking in Islam where he shows that this is all just interpretive strategies. It's the law that drives the interpretation of the text, not the text, the law. Eloronte says the first Hadith taught in Hadith studies is quote, the merciful will be shown mercy by the most merciful. Be merciful to those on the earth. When I emphasize the word, it means they put it in caps. And the one in the heavens will have mercy upon you. Then it says Sinan al-Tirmidhi, 1924, Sahih. Is that a question or? That was all they put. I'm not sure who that was for. I don't know, do you have an idea? Well, I mean, do you accept that Hadith, Javad? Or is it probably something that someone made up? I wasn't listening. What Hadith was it? About have mercy. I believe that you can use Hadiths religiously as long as they don't contradict the Quran. Do I have historical certainty that the Prophet Muhammad said it? No. This one coming in, actua