Islam is Incompatible with Western Society (Michael Jones vs Sulaiman Ahmed) DSH #1831

Summary

Podcast Summary: Digital Social Hour - "Islam is Incompatible with Western Society" (Michael Jones vs. Sulaiman Ahmed)

Host: Sean Kelly
Guests: Michael Jones (A), Sulaiman Ahmed (B)
Date: February 18, 2026
Episode: DSH #1831

---

Episode Overview

Theme:
This episode features a spirited debate between Michael Jones and Sulaiman Ahmed on whether Islam is compatible with Western society. Host Sean Kelly facilitates the discussion, which ranges from scriptural interpretation and religious history to the sociopolitical realities of Muslim-majority societies versus the West. The debaters explore issues like blasphemy, apostasy, polygamy, violence, data bias, societal values, and the influence of historical and modern interpretations.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Debate Setup and Opening Positions

[00:41-02:34]

• Host Sean Kelly introduces the topic – "Is Islam Compatible with the West?"
• Michael Jones' Position: Islam, as historically practiced and interpreted by the majority, is fundamentally incompatible with Western values. Cites examples like child marriage, polygamy, apostasy laws, and religious violence.
• Sulaiman Ahmed's Position: Many negative claims are overgeneralizations or misunderstandings. Distinguishes scriptural authority between Quran and Hadith, highlights diverse interpretations, and stresses that mainstream Islamic belief/practice can harmonize with Western constitutional frameworks.

Notable Quote

"The way Islam has functioned over the past 1400 years, the majority of Muslims do think it's compatible with the West... But we see this, the Quran says... fight those who do not believe... We see this perpetual war."
— Michael Jones [01:12]

---

2. Scripture, Interpretation, and Child Marriage

[02:34-08:03]

• Child Marriage: Jones argues Islamic sources and majority Muslim opinion support child marriage; Sulaiman challenges the reliability of the main Hadith sources, providing alternative interpretations and scholarly disputes.
• Hadith vs. Quran: Sulaiman repeatedly emphasizes the difference between the unquestionable authority of the Quran and the probabilistic, variable reliability of Hadith.
• Defensive vs. Offensive War: Sulaiman asserts contextual verses pertain to defensive warfare, not aggression.

Notable Quote

"There is no Muslim who would say that Hadith is certain knowledge. Hadith is probabilistic knowledge. It could be right, it could be wrong."
— Sulaiman Ahmed [02:49]

---

3. Polygyny, Social Structures, and Violence

[08:05-14:34]

• Jones asserts polygyny in Islamic societies produces surplus single, poor men, leading to terrorism and violence, referencing "The Evils of Polygamy."
• Sulaiman refutes this with US data, pointing to high celibacy rates among young men without corresponding spikes in violence, disputes causative claims linking polygyny and violence.
• Discussion on structural differences between Islamic and Christian societies regarding marriage and sexual ethics.

Notable Exchange

"The more polygyny, the more you're going to have an increase in violence."
— Michael Jones [14:09]

"In the US... a huge number of people are not having sex... therefore, based on your argument, the US... should be extremely violent. And that's not happening."
— Sulaiman Ahmed [14:12]

---

4. Blasphemy, Apostasy, and Freedom of Religion

[16:33-28:03]

• Jones claims Islamic law and mainstream opinion affirm the death penalty for apostasy and blasphemy, incompatible with the West.
• Sulaiman counters: The Quran ensures "no compulsion in religion"—death for apostasy derives from questionable hadith and varies by legal school and context (e.g., treason, not belief per se).
• On free speech, Sulaiman maintains scriptural restrictions are common in all Abrahamic faiths, but the U.S. Constitution supersedes these laws in practice.

Notable Quotes

"If you want to throw out the Hadith... it's everywhere. And what do the majority of Muslims think? They think child marriage is okay, that is incompatible with the West. Game over, end of story."
— Michael Jones [08:22]

"The Quran is quite clear there is no compulsion in religion… Probabilistic knowledge can never overtake the word of God."
— Sulaiman Ahmed [07:54]

---

5. The Role of Polling and Data Bias

[15:32-43:37]

• Jones references sociological studies and polls (e.g., Pew, Davis Brown, Jonathan Fox) showing Islam correlates with higher violence and discrimination.
• Sulaiman questions the methodology, intent, and funding of many such polls; points to "Zionist" influence seeking to demonize Islam, and the danger of confirmation bias.
• Spirited debate over the reliability and interpretation of research and polling.

Notable Exchange

"Vast majority of these polls, they're conducted by rich, Jewish Zionist billionaires."
— Sulaiman Ahmed [00:15; 42:42]

"That's a genetic fallacy."
— Michael Jones [41:20]

---

6. Comparing Abrahamic Faiths: Consistency and Double Standards

[26:36-39:11]

• Sulaiman presses that if Islam is incompatible on scriptural grounds (due to death for apostasy, blasphemy, etc.), then Christianity and Judaism must be as well, since similar laws exist or have existed in their texts/traditions.
• Jones distinguishes between scripture, interpretation, and actual societal application, arguing Christianity's trajectory gave rise to the separation of church and state and progressive reforms.
• Sulaiman accuses Jones of inconsistency, applying different standards to Muslims than Christians or Jews.

Notable Moments

"If you believe in the Old Testament, ... is your position that they are not compatible with the West?"
— Sulaiman Ahmed [27:40]

"Stop moving the debate away from the debate topic. You're running from the debate topic."
— Michael Jones [34:35]

---

7. Political Structures, Secularism, and Democratic Ideals

[46:38-56:28]

• Jones claims Islam is inherently political (lacking 'separation of mosque and state'), thus cultures shaped by it struggle to accept Western democratic, secular norms.
• Sulaiman insists that in Western settings, constitutional law overrides religious injunctions for all faiths—including Islam.
• Both discuss secularization, authority, and whether Islam could, or has, produced societies with Western-style freedoms (e.g., Turkey, Malaysia).

Notable Quote

"Islam is a political religion...when Muslims migrate to the West, they practice their religion in ways that are incompatible..."
— Michael Jones [47:08]

---

8. Freedom of Speech & Blasphemy in Practice

[53:36-58:37]

• Jones presses: Could a Muslim state ever have true freedom of speech, particularly regarding criticism of Muhammad?
• Sulaiman admits classical Islam restricts blasphemy (as do Christianity and Judaism), but reiterates that Western constitutional law, not religion, is what governs actual practice in immigrant societies.
• Both revisit Christian blasphemy laws historically and in scripture.

---

9. Data, Studies, and "Violence" in Religion

[77:22-88:14]

• Jones argues a consensus of sociological studies supports his thesis: Islam correlates with increased violence and authoritarianism; Christianity, the opposite.
• Sulaiman objects: studies are flawed, ignore the violence of Western (primarily Christian-majority) states like the US.
• They disagree over inference, variable selection, and historical causality.

Notable Quote

"If you can give me an example where Muslims killed millions upon millions of people in the last 20 years, I'd like to hear it."
— Sulaiman Ahmed [86:13]

"Islam produces more violence. It produces blasphemy laws...These are all incompatible with the West."
— Michael Jones [79:25]

---

10. Final Statements

[88:17-97:35]

Michael Jones

• Reiterates: All major markers—research, religious texts, actual practices, majority beliefs—indicate Islam produces cultures both legally and socially incompatible with the West.
• Emphasizes the practical impact: polygyny, child marriage, blasphemy/apostasy, and reduced freedom of speech.
• "Islam is completely incompatible with the West... I wish it could assimilate, but it can't." [92:09]

Sulaiman Ahmed

• Argues: Any criticisms of Islam based on scriptural or historical issues also apply to Christianity and Judaism, thus inconsistency in barring Muslims but not others.
• Stresses: In the West, the constitution/ secular legal system overrides all religious law, allowing peaceful coexistence.
• Points to studies' bias and dismisses "expert" consensus as colored by sociopolitical interests.
• "Islam, Christianity, and Judaism...are all compatible with the West because the constitution takes precedent." [92:44]

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• "There is no Muslim who would say that Hadith is certain knowledge. Hadith is probabilistic knowledge…" — Sulaiman Ahmed [02:49]
• "The more polygyny, the more you're going to have an increase in violence..." — Michael Jones [14:09]
• "Stop moving the debate away from the debate topic. You're running from the debate topic." — Michael Jones [34:35]
• "Vast majority of these polls, they're conducted by rich, Jewish Zionist billionaires." — Sulaiman Ahmed [00:15, 42:42]
• "Islam has laws that it says you cannot insult the prophet. That is incompatible with the west..." — Michael Jones [62:38]
• "My position is... Islam, Christianity, and Judaism...are all compatible with the west because the constitution takes precedent." — Sulaiman Ahmed [92:44]

---

Segment Timestamps for Key Topics

| Topic | Timestamp | |----------------------------------------|-----------------------| | Introduction to Debate | 00:41–02:34 | | Child Marriage & Hadith | 02:34–08:03 | | Polygyny & Violence | 08:05–14:34 | | Apostasy & Blasphemy Laws | 16:33–28:03 | | Polling, Data Bias, Zionist Claims | 15:32–43:37 | | Abrahamic Religions Comparison | 26:36–39:11 | | Political Structure, Democracy, Secularism | 46:38–56:28 | | Free Speech/Blasphemy in Practice | 53:36–58:37 | | Religion and "Violence" Studies/Data | 77:22–88:14 | | Final Statements & Closing | 88:17–97:35 |

---

Tone and Dynamics

• The debate is heated, direct, often confrontational, with both guests accusing each other of bias or inconsistency.
• Both retain core convictions and stick closely to their main arguments, making ample use of rhetorical flourishes and intellectual one-upmanship.
• The tone is "unfiltered" and occasionally personal, with both debaters striving to have the final word on core contentions.

---

Conclusion: Main Takeaways

• Jones: Islam, as practiced and defined by majority scholarship and social data, is incompatible with the foundational tenets of Western society—particularly regarding violence, gender roles, apostasy/blasphemy, and pluralism.
• Sulaiman: Criticisms of Islam on these grounds are either based on selective, biased evidence or equally applicable to Christianity/Judaism; in the modern West, the constitution ensures peaceful coexistence for all religions regardless.
• Moderator (Sean Kelly): Allows both guests to expand fully, keeping the discussion focused mostly on the central theme, despite periodic detours.

---

This summary is a faithful, detailed rendition of the conversation as it unfolded, aiming to be engaging and suitable for listeners seeking to understand the crux and breadth of the debate without hearing the full two-hour episode.

Transcript

[A]

The majority of Muslims are pushing a culture today that is incompatible with the.

[B]

West in terms of also killing the apostate. You know this. It's in Christianity.

[A]

You know why there's more terrorism in the Islamic world? One of the reasons has a lot to do with polygyny. All those young, poor men, what do they do? They join terrorist organizations. So it's actually worse.

[B]

Vast majority of these polls, they're conducted by rich, Jewish Zionist billionaires.

[A]

If you're right, then yes, it just means Judaism is incompatible with the west. But that doesn't make Islam magically compatible with the West. Stop moving the debate away from the debate topic. You're running from the debate topic.

[C]

All right, guys, here at Amfest, we're gonna have a friendly little conversation slash debate. We got Suleiman here all the way from the uk, and we got Michael Jones back on the show. Thanks for joining us, gentlemen.

[A]

Yeah, thanks.

[B]

Yeah, thanks for having me.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

The topic will be, is Islam compatible in the West? So let's start off with some positions and get it going.

[A]

Yeah, you want to start? I can.

[B]

No, no, you go. You.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. I mean, I think for the most part, the way Islam is, the way it's historically been, it just isn't compatible with the West. The west was built by Christians, Christian societies, Christian values. And the way Islam has sort of functioned over the past 1400 years, the way the majority of the Muslims do think, would say that Islam is compatible with the West. And I give a number of reasons. So, for one reason, for example, the majority of Muslims, as you have said, when you were having your debate with destiny, do you actually think that Muhammad married Aisha and consummated the marriage when she was nine? So we see this often in Islamic societies, the promotion of child marriage. We also see polygyny, that is, where one man marries multiple women. That is incompatible with the way the west has of all has progressed in terms of our values. And now we have outlawed polygyny. This is a strong Christian value. They started outlawed in about the 500s, and that has been something that's come out of our ecclesiology as well as, of course, just power and struggle and war. So, for example, the Quran says in Surah 9 29, fight those who do not believe in Allah in the last day, nor comply with Allah and what his messenger have forbidden. So we see this perpetual war. Islamic scholars, like Ibn Kathir, for example, divided all of the world into two houses, the House of Islam and the Dar al Harb, the House of War. So we See this. And of course, this manifests in studies like what Davis Brown has published. Islam is associated with more conflict and violence. Jonathan Fox found Islam is associated with more discrimination, in fact, five times the level discrimination. So ultimately, there was many reasons why Islam is incompatible with the West. And one final reason is just simply we don't kill apostates. But Sahih Al Baqari 6922 commands that apostates if Islam be killed. So that value is just simply incompatible. So this is what we see in Islamic sources is what we see coming out of sociology. And at the end of the day, I just don't think Islam is compatible with the West.

[B]

Yeah, thanks. I'll go into those. And first of all, I appreciate you coming on the debate. I don't debate Christians, but I think this was more of a debate about Islam. Isn't Islam's compatibility with the west as opposed to Muslim Christian debate? I never liked those. So I'll just cover some of the points you said. So the first one is the age of Aisha. Obviously you mentioned that a large number of Muslims do believe she's nine. Now, what's important to note here is that the humanutical framework on this. So the Muslim position on this is that Quran is certain knowledge. That means it's certainly from God, right? Hadith. There's no Muslim who would say that Hadith is certain knowledge. Hadith is probabilistic knowledge. It could be right, it could be wrong. And you need to put it through a system in order to validate its authenticity or its weakness. Now, when it comes to the age of Aisha, it's in Sahih al Bahari. And therefore many people do believe that it's authentic. That being said, there are still people who didn't believe it was authentic. That specific narration, for example, that narration in itself was narrated by Hisham IBN Urwah. Hisham bin Urwa, when he narrated that narration, was 80 years old and he went to Iraq when he narrated it. There's two things. First of all, Imam Malik. Thank you. Imam Malik was the student of Hisham bin Urwa. And despite that being the case, never ever narrated a Hadith from him. The second thing is, in terms of Hisham bin Urwah, the Hadith scholars also said that his memory was weak when he went to Iraq. And so you need to consider those things. As well as in Sahih al Bahari yourself, there are other Hadith that basically demonstrate that she was actually older. So for example, they take the age of Asma and his sister and she said there was a 10 year difference between them and therefore roughly 10 years because they didn't used to have this kind of exact working out of the exact age. And based on that they said that she's not. So my position is that Aisha was 18. In terms of polygamy, okay, I understand that in Christianity they don't believe in polygamy. That being said, in terms of polygamy, if you look at society itself from a social perspective, actually it does gear towards polygamy. And what I mean by that is the data quite clearly shows that the top 20% of men actually end up getting with 80% of the women. And there is this huge disparity. This is why in the United States of America, I believe the data is 30 to 35% of men actually in celibate means they're not having intimacy. And so socially it's quite clear that the top men do end up having a large number of women. And you see that for example now and through history, for example, genetics showed that the genetic data is that actually when you look at a person's genetics it's 1 16th. So for every 16, 15 women it's one man. So it shows that's actually the genetic output is specifically more geared towards women. And so society quite clearly shows that when that happens and therefore polygamy is an important construct based on that. And what I mean by that is when people are doing this out of sex marriage, top 20% having 80% of the women, it's causing degeneracy, it's causing people to have sex aside marriage, it's causing pornography, it's causing a lot of these ails. And therefore polygamy actually is a legal construct where this can be done in a legal marital basis as opposed to doing it with sex outside of marriage. Where if you speak to the top 20% of men or you look at the data, they speak having sex outside of marriage. You mentioned verse 929. In terms of 929, it's actually quite clear if you look at the verses before it, it's quite clearly speaking about defensive war. It's speaking about a situation where people are attacking and what should you do in that situation? And therefore it does say that you need to defend and fight against them. Obviously Islam isn't a pacifist religion, it does believe in defensive war. So 929 is talking about defensive war. In terms of Ibn Gathir, it's not a scholar that I follow. Right. That being Said in terms of his specification where he says Darul Harb and Darul Islam. This is actually found in Christian writings as well. For example, Pope Nicholas V, I believe he mentioned that in terms of society is actually split into two different spots. It's Christendom and non Christians and the infidels. And the infidels should be, for example, subjugated. They should be fought against. And even Pope Innocent IV who also held the same position in terms of the Christian nations and then the infidel nations, he also said the same thing. And actually he said for sexual deviance, the shame thing should happen. You mentioned about Dave Brown. Dave Brown also the problem with his data is Dave asked Brown. Davis Brown. Sorry, you mentioned Davis Brown. Yeah, yeah, Davis Brown. What he mentioned in his study was he actually said religion as well is actually more prone to violence as opposed to non religion. And so you could see that in his paper, not in his book, but in his paper from 2016, Religion in Total and then his book about Islam, he does say the same thing in terms of killing the apostate. The Quran is quite clear that you can't claim the apostate, the hadith. And I've written an article on this and written a number of things on this. The Quran is quite clear that there is no compulsion in religion. And Sahih Al Buhari does say it, but I don't. But basically when you've got certain knowledge which is from the Quran and then you've got probabilistic knowledge which is in Hadith, the hadith can never ever overcome the Quran. I'm not rejecting hadith, of course I accept Hadith. But they need to go through that procedure of authentication. But one of the procedure, one of the mechanisms to do so is to compare it to Quran. And the Quran is quite clear is freedom of religion. And therefore that hadith directly conflicts with the Quran. Probabilistic knowledge can never overtake the word of God. Thank you.

[C]

Let's let him respond to all that.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let's go through this. So if you want to throw out the hadith, as Muhammad Ajab has pointed out, that actually makes it worse because you have Surah 65, four where Muhammad allows people, or allows people, men to marry girls who have not had a period.

[B]

Sorry, what surah was again, what was it? What surah did you say?

[A]

65, 4. And if you look at all the classical tafsirs on this, they all agree that it refers to young girls who have not menstruated yet. So that actually makes it worse and that. So now the hadith is not just in Salia Baqari, it's also in Sunnah Abadud, it's also in Sunnah Anasai, it's also in Sunnah Ibn Majah, it's also in Sahih Muslim 1422 c, I believe. So it's all over the place. If you want to throw out the Aisha hadith about her Muhammad consummating marriage at 9, you got to throw out all the hadith because your entire is not chain narration, correct stuff that doesn't work anymore because this hadith is everywhere. It's in all of it. And I don't know of any classical Tafsir scholar that said in Ayat, is it in Tabari, is it in Kabathir, is it in court to be. No, it's not there at all. So that's a problem as well. And again, so again so again the other Hadith, you know, that apparently contradict it. That's not going to actually overrule explicit narrations that say that she was 9 when the marriage was consummated. And again, what do the majority of Muslims think? They think child marriage is okay, that is incompatible with the West. Game over, end of story. As for polygony, there's a great book called the Evils of Polygony. I think you should read it. It actually shows polygony leads to more conflicts and violence because when those top men take more wives, the bottom men are not getting them. What happens? They join terrorist organizations, they join gangs. You know why there's more terrorism in the Islamic world? One of the reasons has a lot to do with polygyny.

[C]

There's this new technology floating around that people cannot stop talking about. It's called the light system. Before you roll your eyes, it's not some gadget you strap on or supplement the world. Every once in a while I come across something that actually stops me in my tracks. And the light system is one of those things. This isn't a supplement, it's not a biohack. It's a full on energy environment built to help your mind and body synchronize, recharge and operate at a higher level. It uses light patterns, color frequencies and coherent energy fields. All the stuff that your body naturally responds to to create a coherent, energetic field around you. People are saying they feel more clear, more centered, more alive in their environment. And honestly the science behind it is fascinating as I've seen a lot of wellness tech, but the numbers coming out on this new study of the light system are actually insane. Researchers measured human chic cells before and after sitting in front of the system. And get this, a 30 minute session boosted cellular conductivity by 61%. The study even showed increased conductivity in isolated DNA which is associated with stronger structure and better repair pathways. The result? More clarity, more balance and more alignment. You could save $500 now if you go to the lightsystems.com and use discount code.

[A]

Sean, all those young poor men, what do they do? They join terrorist organizations. So it's actually worse. And research shows we have produced on average 5050 men for women throughout society. So there's just one man one minute on average to go around. There's some variation in that but that tends to be what it is in terms of the issues in terms of the west like celibate young men's and pornography. That's coming from secularism. I think we should get rid of secularism. I don't think that's what. I don't think that's what the west is for. Secularism is a bastard child of what the west produced. Should get rid of it. 921 sur 929 is not defensive war. The prior context doesn't show that. What actually shows you the prior verse is through 9:30 tells you the reason why you should fight the people of the book. The prior verses are mostly talking about the polytheist. 929 it says you're gonna start attacking people the book because the Jews say Ezra is the son of Allah and the Christians say the Messiah is the son of Allah. That's the justification for perpetual war and making us be subjugated in terms of that. In terms of Christianity you could talk about different scholars dividing it. But we don't say there's perpetual war. Davis Brown's study is not just on religion. He actually split up Christianity, Buddhism and Islam. Christianity was negatively associated with war. Buddhism was non significant. And then Islam was positively associated with war. So that's an issue there. You said the Quran does not mention killing apostates. Sewer 49 talks about those who turn away from STR. Find them where they are, strike them and kill them. All right. 256 you talk about no compulsion in religion. That wasn't the last sewer that was revealed as most scholars say it was nine And Ibn Kathir talked about most scholars would say that was abrogated the fighting verses of nine had abrogated and no compulsion verses.

[B]

Okay, thanks for that. Okay, so let's go through the things that you mentioned the first One is about Surah 65:4 that's talking about. It actually never says in terms of what you mentioned. This is you imposing your opinion on that. It actually says and I know you mentioned how Muhammad Hijab.

[C]

I'll look it up.

[B]

Yeah, I know you mentioned Muhammad Hijab, but Muhammad hijab isn't like an authority. Right. He's someone who's interpreting. That being said, it's actually talking about people who have. Who basically who don't. Women who don't menstruate and so women who are basically 40, 50 whose menstruation. Stop. That's what it's referring to. It's not referring to child marriage in terms of what you mentioned in terms of scholars not mentioning it. So first of all the problem you've got is you mentioned a lot of collection of Hadith, but actually when you look at all of these narrations, they go back to the same narrator. So the first source narrator for the vast majority of these narrations about Aisha being age of 9 is Hisham bin Urwa. That's why I mentioned him. So he's actually the source of it. Now then basically Hadith scholars taken his narration and put in it different collections. Doesn't mean that there's different narrators. The first source of that narration is Ishaan bin Urwah and I demonstrated his weakness in Hadith. For example, Abu Ni Hanifa holds a position, and this is mentioned in Al Fasool bin Usul that the age of marriage is 17 and or 18. And this is the reason why if they believed that the prophet was marrying a nine year old, they wouldn't have had that in the Hadith narration in terms of conflict and violence. You said that polygamy or polygamy in a society basically causes people who are not having sex.

[A]

Let me clarify. It's a variable that does lead to more conflict and violence.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

This is shown in the book the evils of polygony studies were an important.

[B]

Variable because anything could be a variable. But is it a primary variable?

[A]

Is it a primary variable? Yeah, in various societies it is. Yeah.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

The more polygyny, the more you're going to have an increase in violence. Okay.

[B]

Okay, so I'm just going to go debunk that position because in the US we've got a scenario where actually a huge number of people are not having sex. I believe any under the is 35% for people under the age of 30. Therefore, based on your argument, the US 30% of it should be extremely violent. And therefore we should have a scenario where there's terrorism, the civil war, but that's not happening.

[C]

We talk a lot on this show about taking risks and trying to get ahead. But let's be real. The world feels shaky right now. AI is changing jobs, markets are all over the place. Nothing feels guaranteed. And at some point you realize no one's coming to save you. You've got to protect yourself. And one thing people forget about is life insurance. If you're new to it, you're not alone. That's why I checked out select CL quote they've been around for over 40 years and helped more than 2 million Americans find coverage that actually fits their life and budget. They compare policies from top rated insurance companies and do the work for you for free. You can even get same day coverage up to $2 million with no medical exam. Life insurance is never cheaper than it is today. Get the right life insurance for you for less and Save more than 50% at selectquote.comDSH Save more than 50% on term life insurance at selectquote.comDSH today to get started at selectquote.comD.

[B]

The SEC. The other point you mentioned is about Surah 929. Actually we can get it up, but it's. If you look at 928 and 929, it quite clearly says that it's in defensive war. And actually all the verses in Quran, when you look at them and interconnect them, especially when it comes to war, is specifically speaking about defensive war in terms of the verse 30 that's talking about whether you take, you know, whether you basically give your dutaqlid, which is basically you give your belief up to somebody else, which means that you're basically not believing yourself based on your intellectual ideas and intellectual thought. Because the Quran mentions about using your rational thought, using your mind, using your analysis more than 50 times in the Quran. And so what that's talking about is basically being subservient to the rabbis and the priests.

[A]

You hear about 929.

[B]

No, you mentioned 9:30. Right?

[C]

I have it pulled up.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And then also you mentioned in terms of Christians, Buddhist and Islam, the problem with this data is that what they do is they manufacture the information. And what I mean by that is, for example, one of the things you cited was the terrorism study from 2024, right?

[A]

No, I didn't. Not yet.

[B]

I've seen you cite it in your debate in one of your recent debates.

[A]

Yeah, I talked about It. In my debate.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. In your recent debates. The problem with that is they mentioned this, for example, Islam had more terrorism attacks than anybody else. But then what does that mean? So as an example, in that study, they take October 7th into consideration, which everyone knows is ridiculous, because, for example, Hamas didn't kill 1100 people, nor did they do it based on Islamic ideology. They did it based on resistance because of they believe that that land is their own land. In addition to that, it doesn't take into consideration, for example, wars and terrorism that's perpetuated by states, for example, the Israeli government. That's not included in that. Who's killed more than 600,000 people in 2024. It doesn't also take into consideration state violence, for example, by the United States of America, where you've seen over the last 20 years, and specifically over the last year and even the last century, the most amount of number of people who've been killed. If you look at the Middle east, millions of Iraqis who have been killed. So of course you can manufacture the word and then apply it specifically to Muslims in specific context and then create this variable. But it's just ridiculous. You also mentioned Surah 49, and you mentioned. What was it about?

[A]

Surah 489.

[B]

489. What was it about?

[A]

Again, sorry, so again, that. That does. Is what is. A lot of Tafsirs have used to argue that apostates of Islam should be killed. Well, it matches.

[B]

Yeah, it doesn't. That's talking about. No, it doesn't. So it's 489 is talking about specifically in war. And it's talking about, for example, that you need to stay resolute in war because what will happen in them times was inside war. There were people who didn't want to fight. There were people who wanted to be pacifists and actually saying, stay resolute and fight. So that's what 4889 was.

[A]

Yeah, so. So it's 6654. Let's talk about that. The classical scholars all disagree. It's not just talking about women with a genetic issue. It's talking. They say, you know, you go to Imikathir, Jalal, Alain, even Tafsir is going back to that site, Ibn Abbas. It's all talking about girls who have not yet reach the age of puberty. So if you want to throw out the Hadith, that makes it even worse because all of the classical scholars up until recently, within the past hundred years, all agree that it was Always young girls, young who had not reached the age of puberty. None of that. So yet again, if he wants to throw out the Hadith and say that, yeah, all these Hadith talk about Aisha's age at nine, I'm fine with that. Let's do that. But that just means the entire Sunnah is gone. We can't trust it anymore. If you cannot trust this, the Hadith science, all that, fine. But that, that's. That, that, that uses standard Hadith science. It uses the standard chains of narration. You can't trust that. What can you trust in the Sunnah? A lot of critical scholars like Joshua Lido, Sean Anthony have said, yeah, yeah, the Sunnah is untrustworthy, the Hadith science is untrustworthy. I'm perfectly happy if you want to do that. I'm. I will walk down that road with you for sure. That's not going to eat around Surah 65, 4 at the end of the day. And again, it doesn't matter if my opponent here takes that specific interpretation. What did the majority of Muslims believe? The majority of Muslims are pushing a culture today that is incompatible with the West. I wish more Muslims were like you. They are not, though. They are definitely not. They're more like Daniel Kikachu. They're more like Ali Dawa, they're more like Muhammad Job. They're more like Sheikh Uthman. They're going to want child marriage. They're going to promote it, they're going to push for it. It's a debate. Daniel kikachu in 2023, because he said, yes, we should be allowing child marriage. I'm not going to have that. In terms of not having sex in the west, there's other variables that do lower our violence. Like there's going to be increased wealth, religiosity, for example. Christianity has been shown to decrease violence through multiple meta analyses. But also we have seen a rise in violence over the past 20 years. We definitely have. There's more school shootings now, so absolutely we're seeing more violence because there's more. There's not marriages that are happening. We need more Christianity in the west, then I'll make it better.

[B]

We move.

[A]

The more secularism we get. I hope, I hope my opponent agrees. The more secularism, the worst off we will be, for sure. So he talked about Islam and terrorist attacks. Yeah, Israel. That's not what they're looking at in the studies. Looking at is religion a variable? And if you look at Davis Brown's research, if you look at Jonathan Foxreach, Grim And Finke, they wrote a book called the Price of Freedom Denied. And they went through the data, they said, at the end of the day, no, we have to say Islam is still a variable that does allow for violence. They controlled for all sorts of things like poverty, like economic development, like wealth, like influence from the West. Davis Brown controlled for. In control. Controlled for influence from the West. So there's that. If he. And as for killing of apostates, I'd like to see the context because, for example, he says it's only about people leaving in war. If that's the case, again, a lot of classical tafsirs have said we're always in war with anyone outside of Islam. So that's always going to apply. And again, you may think apostates should not be killed. I applaud you for that. What do the majority of Muslims think? The majority actually think apostates should be killed. Poles coming out of Egypt, the Middle east have shown that as well. So this is a problem. This is why Islam is incompatible with the west, because most Muslims that are Sunni, which is the majority of Muslims, are going to look at the Hadith in Sahih al Bukhari, like 69, 22, like 6930, and they're going to be like, yeah, we should kill apostates. That's why I know of so many underground churches in places like Iran, Egypt. They can't come to the service because they know they'll be executed. And these laws are still on the book. These are values that are incompatible with the West. And I've not really seen anything that shows Islam is compatible with the west because there's clearly. The culture that Islam has built is clearly incompatible with the West. Hopefully my opponent can reform it and then maybe I'll change my mind. But as Islam is right now, it is not compatible with the West.

[B]

Yeah, I'm not for reformation. That's not my argument. In terms of what you mentioned about Hadith, you actually, I mean, sorry, tafsir, we do have early Tafsir who hold the same position as me. You can look at, for example, the Tafsir of the Mutazila. You can look at the Tafsir of Imam Maturidi and they don't hold the same opinion. And this is the problem. Like a lot of the tafsir that you're citing are basically translated tafsirs, and vast majority of them have been done so because of the Saudi impact on society, where they were able to get the ideological positions translated into the west in order to Propagate their position.

[A]

Can I ask you a question about that?

[B]

Yeah, of course you can. Yeah.

[A]

So think about that though. Yeah, that's just proving my point. What's dominating Islam right now is a culture that is pushing that child marriage stuff. That's a problem.

[B]

No, no, I disagree with that. I disagree with that. I'm saying that's what your access is. Actually, if you were to speak to the vast majority of Muslims, and I'm not saying based on polls, because we know. I know as somebody who does research polls from a political perspective, the vast majority of polls are conducted by Zionist organizations, very much anti Islam organizations. And the aim is to demonize Muslims. If you look at the vast majority of these polls, they're conducted by rich Jewish Zionist billionaires. That's the first thing in terms of polling. And that just demonstrates your point in terms of when you were talking about Iran. This is again propaganda against Iran because in reality, Iran does have freedom of religion. You have a large Jewish community in Iran. You have a large Christian community in Iran.

[A]

But obviously that's not what I'm saying. I totally agree. Muslims and Jews are allowed under Islam. The problem is no apostasy.

[B]

Like I know you said people are underground. I'm saying that's not the case. No, no.

[A]

In this Muslims, not, not, not. If you're born a Christian in Iran, I get it, you're not going to be killed.

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

But what I'm talking about is actual ex Muslims. I know a girl that lives in Arizona. She was converted to Christianity in Iran.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

They wouldn't baptize her. They said they're going to kill her. They get her out of the. Out of Iran.

[B]

Yeah. This is fake. This is literally not a lie. Not. I mean, I believe so. Because I'll explain to you what happens with the many people from the diaspora of Iran. They had a lot of people who left Iran. They left due to a political reason. They had allegiance to the ex king, which was the Shah. And what they did was they looted the country and they ran out. And so what a lot of these people have done is they've been funded, they've been supported, they've been promoted. People like PBD is a big example of this. And then they basically spew this hatred against Iran.

[A]

You're saying in Iran right now.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

That it would be legal for a Muslim to. To leave Islam and become a Christian tomorrow?

[B]

Yeah, I'm saying that.

[A]

Are you sure?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So my. Look that up later.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

You're. That's going to be that's going to be true.

[B]

There's going to be articles that claim otherwise. But of course, Zionist rule propaganda, they've propagated the entire media. For example, if you look at Iran, they claim that there's no women's rights. If you were to check on Google, they'll be like, oh yeah, the women don't have rights in Iran. And yet if you look within Iran, women have a huge amount of rights. They are basically professors in university, they have high positions, they're in the government. But if you were looking at the Zionist controlled media, they will propagate something totally different. And this is important why? For example, people who are in apologetics, they need to understand the political paradigm which is related to this issue. Now, another thing you mentioned, so I mentioned about the Hadith, the other thing you mentioned is you wish more Muslims are like me. Actually my position, actually I disagree with that and I say if you were to speak to the vast majority of Muslims, if we were to have a legitimate poll that wasn't biased, the vast majority of people, if you said, look, you should kill someone because they change their religion, they would find that reprehensible. It's only when basically dawah guys or people who promote religion present their specific position that they then think, oh, you know what, I have to believe this. But in reality, the vast majority of a normal Muslim would not agree with that in terms of also killing the apostate. You know this. It's in Christianity. In Christianity. And you're not someone who wants to throw away Christianity. Right?

[C]

Shout out to today's sponsor, Quince. As the weather cools, I'm swapping in the pieces that actually gets the job done, that are warm, durable and built to last. Quince delivers every time with wardrobe staple. They'll carry you through the season. They have fall staples that you'll actually want to wear, like the 100% Mongolian cashmere for just $60. They also got classic fit denim and real leather and wool outerwear that looks sharp and holds up. By partnering directly with ethical factories and top artisans, Quince cuts out the middleman to deliver premium quality at half the cost of similar brands. They've really become a go to across the board. You guys know how I love linen and how I've talked about it on previous episodes. I picked up some linen pants and they feel incredible. The quality is definitely noticeable compared to other brands. Layer up this fall with pieces that feel as good as they look. Go to quince.comdsh for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. They're also available in Canada too.

[B]

In Christianity, they have basically if someone leaves the religion to kill them. Right. It's. They do. They say it's about stoning the infidels. I can find the verse, but it talks about how if someone leaves the religion. If someone.

[A]

I think about a verse from Deuteronomy. Yeah. And the way the church has always understood that.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Is that. That is the covenant for Israel that was broken. We are under the new covenant now. Okay. No, that's not a command for.

[B]

Okay, so God. God commanded it in the past, but it's no longer a command.

[A]

What about the right specifically for Israelites? And also there's debate about even if the Torah is judicial prudence or if it's a treatise on judicial wisdom, most scholars today look at it as more as like a treatise on judicial wisdom. So this laid out like minimal law.

[B]

You agree that it's in the Old Testament. And remember many. Chris, some Christians, for example, do believe that the Old Testament law still stand. Right. For example, the.

[A]

There's a small minority. They're called theonomists and they're very small minority. No, there's also the teachings.

[B]

There's also what Bryson is. What's it called again? Bryson Gray is Judeo.

[A]

I don't know.

[B]

But the Catholics, and there were large.

[A]

Amount of them, most of the Protestants.

[B]

So you said they're not very popular with the west as well.

[A]

What was that?

[B]

So your position is they're not compatible with the west as well?

[A]

No, that's not what I'm saying.

[B]

If you believe in the Old Testament, if you believe in the law of the Old Testament, for example, some Christians follow the Sabbath on the Saturday. Based on that, I believe Charlie Kirk was one of those people who followed the Sabbath on the Saturday. Is your position that they are not compatible with the West?

[A]

Here's my question. Where are these Christians you're talking about that are lining up who want to kill ex Christians?

[B]

Ah, so now your position isn't based on scripture, but it's based on sociological output.

[A]

My opening statement was based on sociology and scripture.

[B]

So with scripture, you concede, is your position. Not concede. I want to ask you, is your position people like Charlie Kirk or people like Bryson who held the position that basically Jewish law should be certain aspects of the Old Testament?

[A]

Certain aspects, yeah. That's compatible.

[B]

Actually, some believe certain aspects. For example, Bryson, Gray and I forgot the name of the specific sect that they are, Believe that all the Old Testament law is still applicable. And also, what's the writings of the church?

[A]

I think Bryson Gray thinks that if you leave Christianity you should be stoned.

[B]

Yeah, it's the Christian position.

[A]

He does not think that it's the position.

[B]

The Old Testament, not the Christian. And also, do you believe then the Jews are not compatible with the west as well?

[A]

No, because they go through, they filter stuff through the Talmud. They don't even take it literally.

[B]

The Talmud is even more stricter. What are you talking about?

[A]

No, so here's the problem. I got to explain this.

[B]

Now the Jews hold this position.

[A]

It's not something like the hadith or the Quran.

[B]

It's more.

[A]

It's a conversation between different rabbis and modern rabbis. Do not look at it. And by the way, you said like that is ridiculous.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, this is ridiculous. So the Torah and the Talmud hero does think Torah and the Talmud are actually more worse than that. No, they're not. The Talmud, according to the Jewish people, is actually considered certain knowledge. Hadith. And I didn't say throw all hadith out. Hadith in itself. Everybody knows. It's probably Muslims know. Anyone who studied it knows it's probabilistic knowledge. What that means is it could be right.

[A]

The Salafis don't say that.

[B]

Yes, they do. Everyone does.

[A]

I've debated them.

[B]

They don't understand. They don't understand hermeneutics.

[A]

So if they don't, Islam is still producing a culture.

[B]

That's the hadith. No, no, no. Do Salafis believe that there's such thing as a fabricated hadith?

[A]

Of course they do.

[B]

And therefore you've not in the major.

[A]

Hadith collection.

[B]

That if you believe that there's fabricated hadith, then you believe that hadith isn't certain knowledge because the whole. How do you find out something's a fabricated hadith? What happens is you get these.

[A]

You have a sound chain in narration. Sorry, you don't have a sound chain in narration.

[B]

But how do you find. How do you know that?

[A]

So what you do is different methods between different styles.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So what?

[A]

Exactly, you're not going to take anything in Sahih al Baqari.

[B]

So actually that's not true. That's not true. For example, Albani, who is a very.

[A]

Famous Sahih al Baqari. That's why it's called sahih.

[B]

I know why it's called sahih. For example, Al Bani, who is a famous Salafi scholar, said that there are 150 narrations in Sahih al Bahari. That are not sahih. So. And because the reason for that is what he determined whether a hadith is sahih or not is the mode or the mechanism that.

[A]

When was he writing?

[B]

Just about 34 years ago.

[A]

Okay, yeah, that's what I mean. It's a modern skull. Your classical scholar is never going to say that.

[B]

I'm talking about Salafi. You said Salafis.

[A]

Yeah, the overwhelmed majority of them. I can agree with that.

[B]

Salafi ism is a modern ideology.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, modern. It's a couple hundred years old.

[B]

Well, from Ibn Abdul Wahhab, it's not even 100 years old. Right. But the point is. So of course I'm going to. If I'm going to use this as Salafi scholar, it's going to be from the last hundred years. And he is saying now does he.

[A]

Say the Aisha ones are not sahih?

[B]

No, but that's not the point. I'm trying to. Because you're. Whoa, hold on. No, no, but you keep changing the points. So initially, let me just explain to you, initially, your point was everything in Buhari is 100% certain knowledge. And actually no Muslim believes that because certain knowledge is based on mutawatir hadith. Mutawatir hadith is where there's multiple chains of narration, actually a huge number of chains of narration which gives you certain knowledge. For example, a mutawatir narration is anyone who lies on behalf of me, let him be ready for the hellfire is an example of a mutawatr narration. A had the narration, a single solitary chain of narration, even though it's in multiple collections, is probabilistic knowledge. You then take those narrations and you put it through a mode or mechanism to find out why they're authentic. That's how you get the word saeey, that's how you get the word hasan, and that's how you get the word da'. If, and that's how you get the like fabricated narrations. And so when you're saying a certain knowledge. Not now with the Talmud, the Talmud, the actually Jews believe that it is certain knowledge. They believe it's from God. The Talmud and the Torah do believe in corporate punishment for apostasy. And therefore my question to you is, with something that you're dodging, if there's a Jews, which Jews do believe, that that positionality, Judaism in itself, do you believe it's not compatible with the west.

[A]

Then if there was a major Jewish group going around saying, yes, we want to kill apostates, if they leave Judaism, yes, that is incomplete.

[B]

No one's going around saying, I'm talking about from a scripture. I'm talking about from a scriptural sense.

[A]

Listen, my friend.

[B]

Okay, let's take it one time.

[A]

You're not being on a turkey.

[B]

You're not being.

[A]

Because they put him dead.

[B]

Look, you're not being honest.

[A]

That is not happening in major Jewish or Christian.

[B]

Yeah, of course. They're just. They're just murdering 600,000 people. But anyway, let me just come to the. Let's take it one at a time because you're not answering the question. From a scriptural perspective, do you believe Scriptural. I'm not talking about. We'll talk about the sociological aspect first. In terms of the Torah and the Talmud, do you believe it's not compatible with the West?

[A]

Which one?

[B]

So the Quran, the Torah and the.

[A]

Talmud, The Torah is compatible with the West.

[B]

So when they're talking about stone, basically stone in the apostle, you think that's compatible?

[A]

No, because you didn't listen to what I said earlier. I pointed out that most scholars will say that is not, for example, commands to modern Christians. It's actually a treatise on judicial wisdom. Hold on, let me finish. For example, okay, so the way you're actually interpreting is just incorrect. We don't interpret it like the Quran. We don't interpret it like, for example, the Hadith.

[B]

So your interpretation is to basically reject.

[A]

It, the majority of Jews. That's a false dichotomy.

[B]

No, but you reject it.

[A]

That's a false psychology.

[B]

And Jews are rejecting it.

[A]

They're rejecting the way you interpret it.

[B]

Yeah. So Jews do not believe in the legalistic position, which is wrong. I know you're wrong, by the way, because I know the Orthodox Jews hold.

[A]

This position that it is a major. Orthodox Jews going around saying.

[B]

So now you're talking about sociological. I'm going to come down in a second. Scripturally.

[A]

Are we talking about the effects?

[B]

No, I'm talking about script. So from a scriptural perspective, you agree or do you not? I think you're a bit worried that you don't lose your following. It might get chucked out of Amfest. But do you agree that from a scriptural perspective that Judaism is not compatible with the West?

[A]

Again, let me go back to what I was saying because you're actually listening.

[B]

To what I'm saying. This is weak, bro. Like, you got to have an honest conversation. I know you're going to win the debate.

[A]

Are you actually going to actually let me talk and keep it you're worried about what I'm going to say here?

[B]

No, no, I want you to say it.

[C]

Okay, let's give him the floor.

[B]

But thank you.

[A]

Appreciate that. Finally I can actually talk now. Again, you keep taking things out of context. What is the actual culture's teaching and manifesting? There are direct hadith that majority of Muslims say, yes, this means we should kill apostates. The overwhelming Jews have assimilated into the west. And if you're right, then yes, it just means Judaism is incompatible with the West. But that doesn't make Islam magically compatible with the West. Stop moving the debate away from the debate topic. You're running from the debate topic. The debate topic is Islam. You're running to Judaism because you know you can't defend Islam and I know you don't want you to lose your following. So actually defend Islam. Is Islam compatible with the West? No. And the majority of Muslims have produced a culture where you stone and kill apostates that is incompatible with our values. And if Judaism does the same thing, then yes, it would be incompatible.

[B]

Okay, so let me answer because first of all, I'm not running from the debate because I debunked all the points you've been making. Right. So I'm not. I would just demonstrating your lack of consistency. And I can see your brain having a breakdown because you don't want to hold that position. And actually sociologically, they do believe in that position because they do believe in this idea of Jew.

[A]

It's not compatible.

[B]

If you're. I'm going to explain. They do believe in this idea of Jew and gentile. For example, you look at Netanyahu's statement where he basically said that they are the Amalek providing biblicality.

[A]

That's right. If that's correct, it's not compatible. Can we get back to Islam now?

[B]

Okay, so brilliant. So Judaism, you're correct on that point.

[A]

Okay, if you're right, then yeah, it would not be incompatible.

[B]

Well, I am right.

[A]

Killing people who change their religion is incompatible with the West. Okay, cool.

[B]

So now we'll come back to Islam. Right. So I'm glad you said about Judaism. So now with Islam, like I said, the difference between Islam and Judaism, the Quran is quite clear. The Quran says do not kill the apostate. The Quran says there is freedom in religion. In terms of hadith. I already mentioned it. You said you need to throw the entire corpus of hadith out. I already explained to you how it's not the case. What happens is when a hadith and this is one of the modes of testing Hadith. This is the early Hanafis used to basically look at the narration and see whether it conflicts with the Quran. If it conflicts with the Quran, it was considered a non acceptable hadith. And this is why, for example, the mode that is used by Ibn Salah a thousand years later is a more weaker mode then in my view the than the early position which is by the Hanafis. And by the way, I'm not a reformist. I believe in the early classical positions. And that's why I said look at the early traditions of the Maturidis, the Mutazilah and in terms of killing the apostate, it has that. Also on top of that, your position may be. Well what about. That's fine, you're saying it from a scriptural perspective, you're doing it from an analytical perspective. But what about from a social perspective historically? So let's look at the Sharia law. So within Sharia law, as you know, because you're a Christian apologist, right, there are many different schools of thought within Sharia, right? You have the Hanafi school, you have the Maliki school, you have Shafi school and the Hani school. I know, you're right. I'm not trying to demean you. That's not my style. Right, so the largest school as you know, is the Hanafi school.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Right. So even within Islamic law, right, within the Hanafi school, what their position is is that actually it's not that you kill the apostate because he's apostated, not because he's disbelieved. Actually it's a specific context. It's based on treason. Because in those times wars were fought based on religious identity. Right? And therefore if you had someone within your basically group who basically changed the religion, then you would have a scenario where he would be then a defector and it was for that reason. Whereas if that situation is no longer present, then it wouldn't apply. And therefore right now in that situation, according to the Hanafi school, it wouldn't apply that if someone in the west, if someone was to change their religion and there isn't this Islamic army or whatever it may be, then you don't even hold that position. And that is the position held by the large number of Muslims. In addition to that, if you did a poll, and I'm very confident in saying this, and it wasn't a Jewish Zionist poll, which is a vast majority of the polls are the vast majority of Muslims, if you ask them, guess what, there's a person, they want to change their religion. Do you want to kill them? The vast majority of Muslims would say no. In terms of. You mentioned about the. The hour. I think I covered most of it. In terms of that guy, his study. First of all, he said about Buddhism, he didn't take into consideration the people in Manama. He also. I told you, he didn't take.

[A]

In his book. He did.

[B]

Oh, did he? Okay. In terms of Israel, he didn't take into consideration Israel based on.

[A]

Did though.

[B]

He didn't though.

[A]

Because in his book, though, he said there was just not enough Jewish states to actually study Israel. Significant.

[B]

It's Israel. And they've killed. And they've killed about 600,000 people. Yeah.

[A]

Which is enough for a meaningful result.

[B]

Actually, it shows a huge amount. It shows one country, 600,000 people killed based on Jewish identity. And therefore it's a huge number. Actually, if you look at it from a numerical perspective, 15. If you have an entire world population of 15 million people and the one state they have, they killed 600,000 people according to some studies. That's huge.

[A]

I know you're obsessed with Israel, but we're not talking about Israel.

[B]

I'm not talking about. I'm not obsessed with Israel.

[A]

You literally brought up Israel and debate about Israel.

[B]

Because you brought up a study where you compared a number of different religions are demonstrating through you. Yeah, and they ignored. For example, they don't have to. This is simply speaking again. But it doesn't. That's a flaw. I'm demonstrating the flaw in your study. And also, it doesn't take into consideration states. So for example, as you said, America is a Christian country. It doesn't take into consideration the millions upon millions of people killed by America.

[A]

It doesn't matter because that's not the point.

[B]

Of course it does. No, the point is I'm demonstrating the flown yesterday.

[A]

Let me finish. The point is, can these religions, what do they associate with when we control for things like poverty, education, land, governments, what do we find? We still find Islam as a variable that leads to more violence. We still find Christianity as a variable that decreases violence. They'd be ridiculous, silly. Well, we didn't bring up Hinduism because he didn't study that. When you look at certain variables, you can still get results regardless of what Israel's doing. The debate isn't about Israel. Israel is incompatible with the West. Fine, but so is Islam. Doesn't change the actual result of the debate. Islam is still incompatible with the West. At the end of the day, and you keep saying well, we got to dismiss these polls because they're Zionist polls. I've seen no evidence. These polls are not reliable scientific aspects. If they're all Zionist polls go into the polls, show they're wrong because there's pills down by Pew. There's polls done outside.

[B]

Who runs Pew as an example?

[A]

That's a genetic fallacy.

[B]

That's not a genetic fallacy.

[A]

Definitely.

[B]

It definitely isn't because I'm explaining.

[A]

Why isn't.

[B]

Explain to you why isn't. So, for example, when you have a Jewish Zionist billionaire like Robert Shulman who funds. Let me explain to you how it works because you probably don't have. You don't understand politics. So when you have a Jewish Zionist billionaire who basically his goal is two he funds the state of Israel and he also funds anti Islam propaganda. And so what his aim is to push anti Islam hatred. He will then get his polling. He will fund polling agencies to conduct polls, to ask questions in a biased manner, to get results in the manner they want.

[A]

How do you know that?

[B]

How do I know that? Robert Shulman is a. So for example, you see London operation.

[A]

No, it's still a genetic policy. You've not actually demonstrated.

[B]

It's not a genealogies or an error. It's about demonstrating sociologically what a person's conduct is. So when you look at. It's not saying all Jews, because that would be a genetic fallacy. No, no, I'm saying you don't understand.

[A]

Genetic fallacy is.

[B]

I know what a genetic fallacy is.

[A]

What is a genetic.

[B]

Can you explain to me what a genetic fallacy is?

[A]

No, no, I know what it is. I use it. What is it?

[B]

So a genetic fallacy is when you basically, you look at someone's specific genetics in order to clip somebody.

[A]

Genetic fallacy is you debunk something or you try to by going to its origin. So you, for example, if I were to say, like, hey, did you hear that? You know, for example, the Holocaust happened. You can't trust that guy. That guy's biased. That's a genetic fallacy. You're dismissing a claim. Why is it based on the person and where it comes from?

[B]

Which is.

[A]

You don't know what a genetic fallacy is.

[B]

Which is? Which is. Which is based on genetics, what you're talking about. That's why it's called genetic fallacy. Because you're basing it on the specific.

[A]

Specifics of the person, basing it on the origin. Though regardless, you're saying the people behind the studies are biased.

[B]

That's how polls work. That's how polls work. Yeah.

[A]

That's still a genetic fallacy.

[B]

What are you talking about? How is that a genetic fallacy? If someone is biased, you can't trust their poll. This is a basic logic.

[A]

No, that doesn't mean. If I say two plus two is four, you just can't say, oh no, you can't trust them. That's not the same thing from the person.

[B]

No, it's not. Yes, it is, because what you're doing is you're basing it on a poll, you're not basing it on a mathematical collusion. When you do a poll, of course biases make a huge impact. So for example, this is basics, like a parameter you're going to demonstrate. Let me explain to you. Let me explain to you what a basic primary school student knows. So as a basic primary school knows, for example, if you went to a CD shop and then you said, guess what? Do you like music? That would be a bias poll. This is basics, which even 9 year old, 5 year olds learn. So the problem is that you don't understand how biases work from a mathematical perspective and maybe you should learn that and then you wouldn't be on the same level as a primary student. That primary school student, that's the first thing.

[A]

So he's insulting me now. Let's just put that out. He's insulting me.

[B]

Well, you started it because you basically claimed that I didn't know what genetic fancy was when I tried. I know I did, I explained it to you. It's just that you didn't understand how the mechanism used. So it is based on who in terms of genetics. What I mean is in terms of who is the origin of the poll? Because the origin is based on the person, the person who's the determinant.

[A]

You can have things that are based on genetics.

[B]

Now, in terms of what you said, you mentioned also in terms of biases. So polls do matter in that way and so therefore you do need to look at the origin of the polls. And actually the vast majority of these polls that I've looked at, especially when they spew these claims about Muslims, generally speaking, they are by Zionists in order to propagate hatred. For example, there was a study two months ago done which said that what's the best way? And you would say, oh no, no, it's random. But they did a poll and they said what's the best way to stop hatred against Israel? They said to promote and push anti Islam hatred. Now then you basically see the promotion of it. And you'll see Paul saying certain things about Muslims as you've seen it. You will be like, oh guess what, there's no connection. It doesn't matter. Biases don't matter. And I'm saying of course they do. Any logical sane person would understand that when a poll is done by a biased person, that poll has to then have question marks over it. This is why we want polls done by non biased people. In terms.

[A]

So on that point, I mean, yeah, biases can affect. But you can't assume it is my point. You just can't assume bias. You have to demonstrate it in the study and that happens at times. But you just can't say, oh well, this guy was a Zionist behind the funding, therefore it's bi. That's the fallacy there. If it's happening in the study, you would be correct, but you're not demonstrating it.

[B]

Okay, so for example. No, no, it is because you actually know the reasons for why someone's doing a poll. So for example, let's say there was a random Jewish person doing a poll. I would have question marks, but then I would look at the poll, look at who they asked, which they don't normally tell you how they were conducted, the poll, which they normally don't ask, what was the mode by it, how they chose the specific people they're going to ask about. Specifically though, I'm just, for example, the Pew Research poll or the recent poll where they basically tried to say that most Muslims want Sharia law because your claim was, your claim was that most Muslims this was your claim. So you need to demonstrate the proof your claim was that they were polls that when you ask Muslims they want to kill the apostate. So actually you need to demonstrate what the poll was.

[A]

I'm talking about polls that were done for Pew, for example. But also the other part of my is the fact that the countries still have apostasy laws on the books. Again, we talk to all undergrad times.

[B]

Do they apply it?

[A]

Yes, they do. We talk to underground churches all the time. They have ex Muslims try to get that.

[B]

You talk to brothers.

[A]

That's definitely a scientific heroism place like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, it's Iran. It's illegal to leave Islam in these countries. Regardless, these are the cultures Islam has produced. These are incompatible with the West. If Islam reforms, which you said, you know, if Islam reforms, which you said you don't want. Yeah, that's still going to. That's bad. That means you're admitting Islam is not compatible with the west because the Type of cultures that my position is, have made cultures incompatible with the west at the end of the day.

[B]

So my position is quite similar to this. Right. So first of all, in terms of the countries you mentioned, I did look into this and there hasn't been recent. There hasn't been recent situations where these countries have actually applied apostasy laws and killed apostate. Yes. That being said. That being said, for example, Saudi Arabia, I don't even hold their belief system. I don't even believe when they basically are conducting their legal system based on, for example, Salafist ideology, which I do, from my understanding, they become liberalized a lot more now anyway, that's. That I don't believe that's one of the four main schools of thought. Anyway, that being said. But separate to that in terms of.

[A]

You give me more. Thanks, man.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. And what was the other point you made again?

[A]

I forgot the point to see laws.

[B]

Yeah, I mentioned that. So, yeah, I don't think that is. But my main point about this is there's nothing that you find in Islam from a scriptural perspective that isn't found in Judaism and Christianity. And therefore that's why I'm saying that actually those religions are compatible with the west, as is Islam. So I'm saying all the religions are compatible in the west because in America, for example, you have a separation of church and state. And therefore people are able to practice their religion how they want. And when Muslims practice their religion, it's not diff. It's no different to a Jew practicing the religion. It's not that much different to a Christian practicing the religion. And they're very similar. And that's my argument for why they are compatible with the West.

[A]

So you're pushing separation of church and state.

[B]

America does have a separation, but does Islam have that? Yeah, because it's America. One second. Because America isn't a Muslim country.

[A]

No.

[B]

And actually. And so therefore, because we're talking about. See, what your confusion is, is whether in a Muslim country has Sharia law and whether that Sharia law is appropriate or not, and whether there is Sharia law in the United States of America. There isn't any Sharia law in the United States of America. And therefore we're looking at, from a scriptural perspective whether a Muslim is compatible with the United States of America.

[A]

No, the debate is not is a Muslim compatible with the West. The debate is Islam.

[B]

Yeah. A Muslim is a practicer of Islam.

[A]

Islam is a political religion. It's not just like Christianity. It did not develop the Separation of church and state, like the Christian tradition does, it has those political aspects. It adds to the state. This is why we see in research done by, like for example, the book the Price of Freedom Denied. This is why there's all this discrimination throughout the Islamic world, all this persecution. They don't have a separation of church and state that is incompatible. We see that the countries that Muslims have produced lead to things like child marriage, apostasy laws. These are all incompatible. So you can say that, oh well, you have this separation of church and state. Therefore we Muslims who come over and practice our religion. The problem is when Muslims in mass majority migrate to the west, they practice their religion in ways that are incompatible with the west, where they start pushing apostasy laws, they start pushing child marriage, they start practicing polygyny. These are evil things that are incompatible with our values and the way we do things. And again, we see in Muslim countries there's an increase of authoritarianism, like M. Stephen Fisher's book has shown that it leads to more authoritarianism that is incompatible with democratic values. These are all things that we see in the Muslim sources that then start manifesting in society that sociological research finds and that shows that it is incompatible with the west in multiple ways. It just doesn't work at the end of the day with. And again, what is going to be, what is the West? The west is a Christian society built on Christian values. That is what we produce. Islam doesn't produce that. Islam produces societies where you don't have those kinds of distinctions. You have apostasy laws, child marriage. These are all values that come out of the Islamic world. Even if you personally don't hold to them, your society is producing them en masse and that creates. That means Islam is incompatible with the West.

[B]

Okay, so let me just cover some of the points. So first of all, you made the claim about Islam and how they view non Muslims. So first of all, as I mentioned in the past, for example, Pope Nicholas, Pope Innocent Pope quite clearly said that anyone who's not a Christian, anyone who's an infidel, you need to basically fight with them, you need to basically subjugate them and you need to put them into perpetual servitude. So quite clearly this has happened within the Christianity. It's not anecdotal, it's demonstrating what happened in Christian society. I literally mentioned two popes. Two basically popes within Christian society. What are you talking about? The second thing is in terms of. For the two popes. Yes, exactly. But I've just demonstrated two popes who actually held the position and actually said that you need to basically subjugate anyone who's an infidel. The second thing is in terms of your claim about Muslims pushing this, these things in the west, this is literal fake news. This is just propaganda. Or guess what, Muslims come to the west and then they push these things. Actually, they don't push these things. If you look at Muslims, and again, I'm going to give you the example because it shows you a lack of understanding of politics, that actually what happens is when Muslims come into the west, they don't basically push Muslim Sharia law, they don't push Muslim values. Actually, in the United States of America, there's never been a case where the Sharia law has superseded the American Constitution or the American legal system. There's only one time that's happened. Do you know when that was? Do you know when that was the one time a legal case where a legal case of a religion overcame the legal structure of the United States of America?

[A]

No, I don't do politics.

[B]

It's Avictus versus Avictus, which was a Jewish couple who basically what the court ruled was that they own Jewish law over superseded American law. This has never happened when it comes to Sharia law. And why politics is important is because we're talking about whether Islam or Muslims, because Muslims, the practice of Islam are compatible with the West. One of the aspects of that or one of the claims of that is that Sharia law is coming into the West. And I'm demonstrating that actually that's not the case. Someone practicing as an individual, whatever the practices may be, whether they pray, whether they worship, whether they eat halal, isn't the same as implementing or forcing Sharia law into the West. As you mentioned quite clearly that there is this separation. You mentioned that you're against authoritarianism, which is a secularist. Secularism.

[A]

Right, because they get that from us secularism.

[B]

So first of all, first of all, I don't fully agree with your position about authoritarianism. Because if you look at what you claim to be democratic societies, we know that actually these democrats democratic societies aren't really democratic. First of all, I'm going to.

[A]

Is your shit about that?

[B]

Yeah, okay. Yeah, go ahead. Let me explain to you about the democratic society.

[A]

So you reject democratic societies as we have them.

[B]

It's not that I'd reject it. In an ideal world, in an ideal situation, if we really had democracy, it'd be a different situation. Actually, I.

[A]

Do you reject the character size we have now?

[B]

No, because we don't have a democratic society in the current society, if, you know, politics is. It's completely not democratic. What happens is they choose the people who are going to be in power and then they choose who's going to be the President of the United States. If you look at the funding within the election elections, whoever gets the largest amount of funding becomes the President of the United States and then he is subservient to those people who put him in power. So there is a form of literal. There is no democracy. But in terms of. And actually within. I'll explain to you. Whereas within Islam as an example, they have multiple models as an example. So if you look at the early period within Islam, there is scholars who have said that when it, when there was a decision to be made about who was going to be the ruler after the Prophet Muhammad, one of the modes that was basically put or presented forward was a vote based on votes which would be democratic. So I'm not against. Once again, I'm not against democratic votes. That's not what I'm saying. But also, let's say we had an authoritarian leader, right? An authoritarian leader. Am I saying that that is definitely worse than having a democratic situation? I'm saying, let's see, we don't know, because at the moment, what we've got, where democracy can be manipulated, where democracy can be controlled by external powers, and that's why the United States of America is occupied by a foreign nation and we don't have democracy. Where the working class can't choose who the President of the United States of America is. That's clearly a system that doesn't work.

[A]

All right, let's go back to that because there's a lot you said there I need to get to. So. So are you saying that Islam would increase authoritarianism?

[B]

I didn't say that.

[A]

That's why I'm asking.

[B]

I just gave you the example of where in Islam you would have both the modes of democracy and the modes of authoritarianism.

[A]

Would there be more authoritarian? That's all I'm asking. Simple question. What do you mean, would there be more authoritarianism?

[B]

Yeah. There could be a situation where if there was a slight within freedom of speech. So this is a very good question. So freedom of speech. Do you have freedom of speech? In Christianity? Yes. No, you don't. So in Christianity there is. In the Old Testament and the New Testament, blasphemy is not something that's accepted. It's a.

[A]

It's punishable by the state.

[B]

It is punishable.

[A]

No, it isn't. And Again, you admitted we have separation of church and state.

[B]

No, no.

[A]

Now you're bringing up a religious document to think that applies.

[B]

Okay, okay, okay, okay. So what you're saying is the good thing about the United States of America is it doesn't apply Christian or Judaic doctrine and. Yeah. It doesn't supply Islamic doctrine as well. That's fine. Okay.

[A]

But no, I'm asking you a simple question.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Would there be freedom of speech in Islam? Could I insult the prophet?

[B]

So this is one.

[A]

If the majority is being ruled by Muslims, could I insult Muhammad?

[B]

So let me explain to you. So I'm someone who does believe in freedom of speech. Right. But, and, but let me, let me.

[A]

You do.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. But let me. Individually.

[A]

But no, for the majority, not.

[B]

But this is the point. So people who are practitioners of Christianity, Islam and Judaism do not believe. They believe in blasphemy laws? No, they do.

[A]

We don't have them. What are you talking about?

[B]

In a. That's, that's because of Jesus.

[A]

All they want. They're not going to be thrown in prison.

[B]

No, you're not understanding.

[A]

Why not understand Pakistan, Afghanistan. I'm going to get thrown in prison.

[B]

For insulting my lack of understanding of two points. And it's this political aspect. You don't understand that. For example, the state, which is the United States of America, although it's being built by Christians.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Right. It doesn't hold Christian. It doesn't have Christian law because if it did, blasphemy wouldn't be allowed. The First Amendment is an example of something. Yes, yes, it does. And you can look at that, for example, in the New Testament and in the right of the church fathers in terms of blasphemy. But in terms of specifically the United States of America, in the Constitution, it has the First Amendment, which is the, is the idea of free speech. And so, yeah, if you're in the west, if you're a, if you're a Muslim. Christian. No, because they have a. You keep, you keep repeating the same things, even though we both agree that in the United States of America there's a separation of church and state. And so therefore, even if the church or the mosque or the synagogue hold a specific opinion about blasphemy, it's irrelevant because the state supersedes it and the Constitution supersedes it, and the Constitution allows for free speech.

[A]

So your point isn't earlier that Christian societies produce separation of church and state?

[B]

I didn't say that. I said United States of America has a separation of church and state.

[A]

Are we a Christian society that was built by Christians as you said? So did you say we was built by Christians?

[B]

Did every Christian society have a separation of church and state?

[A]

The overwhelming majority have produced some form of it.

[B]

Yeah, no, that happened. So they were Christian societies in the past that didn't have a separation of church produced it. Yeah.

[A]

So it didn't come right away.

[B]

Yeah, it was a processing. Yeah, yeah. Society.

[A]

It moves through Augustine, City of God and then it moves into the Reformation.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

And then it becomes progress. We have progress in Christian societies.

[B]

Yeah. So as society secularized, for example, if you know the founding, for example, the founding fathers, not all of them were Christian, for example, they were deistic.

[A]

They were all Christian.

[B]

So. And that's the reason why they did a separation of church and state. And so the reason why the United States of America isn't a Christian rule based society, there is a separation is because it's separated church and state. And so it secularized the society. So. And that's the reason for it. There is a separation.

[A]

Islam produced something similar.

[B]

What do you mean?

[A]

To have the Islamic culture as it.

[B]

Produced something similar, for example in Turkey, which I'm not saying it's a good thing. So Turkey is an example, was the option. I'm going to answer. I'm answering it. So was a Muslim country, it was the Ottoman Empire, it became secularized and now it's becoming more towards religion. But it's a secularized society.

[A]

It's reverting back to more Islamic though. Right.

[B]

It's becoming more religious. But again, they don't have Islamic law in there.

[A]

Okay, so again, has the Islamic culture produced a similar culture to what we see in the west right now in terms of separation freedom? That an anecdotal evidence is not an answer.

[B]

You just said have there and I gave you an example.

[A]

Culture as a whole, the general culture.

[B]

And also, and also, by the way, there's a fallacy in your argument because the debate's about whether Islam's compatible with the West. But that being said, I still give you an example of Turkey and I can give you many more examples. There's many. Malaysia is another example. There's many more examples of nations that are largely Muslim.

[A]

Does Islam produce freedom of speech like what we have in the West?

[B]

I've just explained to you that in Islam specifically, although there is this idea of blasphemy, I want to clearance. I've explained to you that in Islam, of course there is this idea that you can't, for example, insult the prophet, they do have.

[A]

There it is.

[B]

No, no, but listen.

[A]

There it is.

[B]

No, but they have that in Christianity as well. And this is what. This is your lack of understanding of how things work.

[A]

There are YouTube channels right now that insult Jesus on a daily basis. You just admitted it.

[B]

You don't understand. You don't understand. You don't understand. No, no. Again, it's your lack of understanding because I've already explained to you that the United States of America has a separation of church and state.

[A]

That's the west, though, isn't it? That's the west, yeah.

[B]

So they are.

[A]

So then Islam is incompatible, then Christianity is not compatible. No, that's not. You admitted. Because Christian.

[B]

Because Christian.

[A]

These countries.

[B]

Because you're not understanding that Christianity has. Let me explain to you the logical fallacy of your argument. Christianity has blasphemy laws. The United States of America allows free speech. Your thing is this. Islam has blasphemy laws. You're saying Islam has blasphemy laws. Judaism has blasphemy laws. Christianity has blasphemy laws. But guess what? The United States of America allows freedom of speech. But I'm going to ignore the fact that Christianity has it. But now Islam is in conflict. And then your basis is that it was built by Christian Christians, which it was.

[A]

That. That's the. I'm using language.

[B]

But you also. No, no, you. You said that and I agreed with you.

[A]

Simple questions. Okay. Yeah. Where in the Bible does it command Christians to set up states that pass and push blasphemy laws in the New Testament? All you're going to see is excommunication. This is why the west developed separation of church and state. Yeah, you're admitting that in Islamic culture. You're admitting in Islamic culture you cannot insult the prophet. Therefore, by your own admission, what Islam produces is incompatible with the West. Thank you. Islam is incompatible with the West. You produce value.

[B]

Christianity is not compatible with the rest. Based on your argument.

[A]

Doesn't matter. You can see the debate, even if.

[B]

You haven't considered the way of debate. Because. Because my whole basis of the debate is that Islam, Christianity and Judaism as religions are very similar. And therefore they are all basically able to be practiced in the west. Because the overarching thing in the west is the Constitution. Your position is this, that basically what you're saying is Islam, Christianity and Judaism isn't compatible with the west, which is ridiculous. Okay, you can hold that position, but at least you're consistent. So you're saying Christianity is not compatible with the west and Islam is not compatible with the West.

[A]

Your interpretation. So now you're Christianity. You're not compatible with the West. It's just an incorrect interpretation.

[B]

So it shows a lack of consistency in your position because even you said Christianity doesn't have. Just now you said. Even you said Christianity has blasphemy laws and the person does have. And you said the person should be excommunicated. You just said record the tear back, like literally. You'll see.

[A]

You think that's a blasphemy law?

[B]

Yeah. If someone's excommunicated from a land, that is a punishment. And therefore if someone's excommunicated, that's a religious decree. Yes.

[A]

Laws are things governments pass. I know that we don't have blasphemy laws.

[B]

So then we don't have. And we don't have blasphemy laws in the west that apply to Islam. I think you don't understand the difference between religious law and the legal. The American legal system. And this is your fallacy. Like, I just want you to open your mind and try and understand it. Right? Because I'll explain to you what you're doing. I'm like, guess what? You're like, Islam isn't compatible with the west because they have blasphemy laws. And then I say to you, but Christianity has blasphemy laws. And then you're like, yeah, but the Constitution has free speech. And I'm like, you're right. And then I'm like, but Islam has blasphemy laws. Christianity has Bafillahs, Judaism, blasphemous. And then you're like, oh, guess what? The good thing about America is a separation of church and state. And I'm like, yeah, you're right. And then you're like, oh, but guess what? If Christianity has blasphemy laws, we're going to ignore that because the United States of America was created by a Christian country. And I'm like, yes, America was created by Christians, but they didn't base the base the constitution of free speech based on Christian doctrine. And therefore it demonstrates that Christianity isn't compatible with the Western. Yeah, I agree with that. They both incompatible. And then I'm like, okay, that's fine. So it shows you. Anyone who's got logic will understand the fallacy of your argument.

[A]

The simple problem you're making is you keep equating Christianity with your specific interpretation of Christianity. I'm talking about the cultures generally.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And that is the problem you keep making. Again, Christianity does not have blasphemy law.

[B]

It does have it.

[A]

There are religious decrees that say you can excommunicate someone from a church, but that's not a law that the government's going to pass where someone's going to be executed.

[B]

If there was a Christian nation, if there was a nation, hold up the writings of the church, Father, say opposite. Because if there was a Christian system, which there was in the past, and someone committed balas for me, they were punished in the past. And so, yes, if America ignored, threw away the constitution and for example, some of my friends actually won a Christian monarchy. Right. If they had that position, they would then have the specific Christian doctrine that allows, doesn't allow anecdotal cases. It's not anecdotal cases. It's about understanding how doctrine works. You do not understand how religion and the state work. You don't understand it. This is the, this is basically the problem with apologetic apologists who don't understand how politics works and then religion. And therefore, I'm trying to demonstrate to you the link between the two.

[A]

So let's go back to your main point. You said in Islam you can't assault the prophet. You said that, right?

[B]

That is the position.

[A]

Okay, okay. In the west as it's set up now, whether you think, whether you interpret it to be Christian or not, I disagree with your interpretation. But which bit?

[B]

Or disagree.

[A]

Whether you interpret it or not.

[B]

Which do you disagree? I don't get it.

[A]

Back up. Okay, Once again, the way you. Islam has laws that it says you cannot insult the prophet. That is incompatible with the west, regardless of how you view the west, whether it being Christian or not. That is you conceding the debate because you're admitting Islam produces things and has values and laws that are incompatible with what we have in the West.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

We are not going to allow cultures to come in that will get rid of free speech that is incompatible with the West. Whether you say we're Christian or not, whether you say we're secular or not, whether you interpret Christianity to have those same blasphemy laws, that doesn't defeat the point. The point still stands. You have admitted Islam produces things that are incompatible with the West. That is why we will not allow Islam to grow in mass numbers because it produces cultures that are incompatible with the West.

[B]

Okay, so again, it shows the fallacy of your argument. Because when I, when you, your argument is this, and let me just repeat it back to you, you're not fallacy, you're not fault. And I explain to you, name it, name it. I'm going to explain to you. So. And try and follow. Right. So the first thing is your claim now is that America, sorry, Islam, isn't compatible with the west because of blasphemy laws. And by laws you mean that within Islam there is edicts that say that you should not blaspheme the Prophet because you don't have Sharia law in the United States of America. So it's not a law. Right. So you have an edict within Islam that says you're not allowed to conduct blasphemy, which, as you said, goes against free speech. Therefore, when a Muslim comes to the United States of America, the Constitution supersedes, just like in Christianity, in Christianity, they have blasphemy laws. And those blasphemy laws, irrespective, if you're a Christian and you don't agree with the blaspheming of the Prophet because of an edict in Christianity, which would be a law if this was a Christian nation based on a Christian laws, you're also then holding the position that Christianity is not compatible. But then when I say that, you're like, no, no, no, I'm saying about Muslims but not about Christians, it shows how illogical you are. And there's a lack of consistency in your position that. What my position is, isn't about whether my position is this, that Islam, Christianity and Judaism, these religions are compatible with the West. And the reason is because when you come to the west, the overarching thing in the west is the Constitution. And therefore these religions, their edicts basically take a backseat and they're not followed. What fallacy did I commit? And that's the same for Islam, Christianity and Judaism. So do you understand the point?

[A]

What fallacy? You don't answer my question about the fallacy that I commit.

[B]

It's irrelevant about the fallacy I'm telling you. Do you understand the point about.

[A]

So I didn't commit a fallacy.

[B]

No, but. Okay, you demonstrate your lack of consistency. Right. And your contradiction. That was the thing. Yes, it was. No, the reason why it showed your contradiction.

[A]

I pointed out the way you're defining Christianity is inaccurate. That is why I'm being consistent.

[B]

It's not. It's not accurate. I'm sorry. It is accurate because was there blasphemy laws when Christianity was in power? When a religion, when the state was based on Christianity, did they have blasphemy laws?

[A]

Depends on what you're talking about.

[B]

So, for example, during Pope Nicholas or Pope Innocent.

[A]

No, because they didn't have that kind of statehood power. The idea that Rome had This vast power over the European is a huge cultural myth that's been put forward. In the 1800s, Rome did not have the power that people think it did. But this is irrelevant to the main point.

[B]

It is relevant because my point is.

[A]

Not what the cultures were 1500 years ago. The west is the cultures that Christianity has progressed and produced. Now there was basically the west is Christians based in Christianity of church and state a thousand years ago, but Christians over time, working with what we have been working with, progressing, progressing morality, we did eventually produce separation of church and state. It starts with Jesus's line, right?

[B]

So the good thing about America is.

[A]

Hold on, let me finish. It moves through Augustine's City of God and then moves into the Augsburg Confession and the Reformation, and then it produces the cultures that we have now that are predominantly Christian. So these cultures are incompatible with Islam because you're saying things like blasphemy laws, apostasy laws. These are what things Islam produces. We're not going to allow satellite cultures in the west that are going to push that kind of stuff.

[B]

So again, this is your lack of understanding because you're saying the satellite cultures. But then you also. I know you're not conceding it, but anyone can check this out. You have blasphemy laws in Christianity, you have blasphemy laws in Judaism, and therefore. And therefore for that reason. And you have apostasy laws in those religions. What a blasphemy lies.

[A]

Tell me where the it is in the Bible. Where it commands Christians to set up governments to pass laws.

[B]

Why does it say not punish, walk away. Does it say in the Quran or.

[A]

Is it in the Quran? Yeah, you can't insult the prophet.

[B]

What do you say in the Quran?

[A]

The Quran is not your only book. The sun is also your book.

[B]

So, so, and, and then, then, then the Bible is not your only book. You got the writings of the church fathers and the positions like that.

[A]

The same authority as the Sunnah is and.

[B]

No. And the Sunnah isn't the same authority as the Quran.

[A]

So wait a minute. So, okay, so if the Quran says something.

[B]

Yeah. Therefore, Sunnah.

[A]

Yeah. Okay, so then, all right, so then the Quran says, clearly fight those who do not believe in Allah on the last day. Therefore, you're commanded to fight me.

[B]

That's not what the Quran says. That's specifically what it says. No, that's you taking it out of context because you're an apologist and in reality. Yeah, you show me. Yeah.

[A]

Surah 9, 29 and 30. Yeah, show me. Yep. Surah 9, 29, 30. If we're just going what the Quran says. Muslims are commanded perpetual war against people who reject Islam. Yep, that's it. Fight those who do not believe in Allah in the last day, nor comply with what Allah and his messenger are forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth among those who were given the scripture until they.

[B]

What's the verses before?

[A]

The verse before. Let me.

[B]

The verses before. From 21 to 29, let me do a full surah.

[A]

Which one you want me to start in?

[B]

Let me. Let me see myself.

[A]

I can read you of 28.

[B]

Let me. Let me. Let me see myself.

[A]

It talk for the prior verse talks about polytheists, not Christians.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

What's that? That's John. John.

[C]

John.

[A]

The prior context is about polytheists, pagans. And then in 29 it switches to Christians and Jews and commands us. You to fight them. It's not about self defense.

[B]

Okay, yeah. So you can see here. He said that indeed Allah is giving you. Okay, so from 25 that only says that. Oh, sorry. Okay, so 25. Right. Let me, let me read it.

[A]

Okay, yeah, just read it like that. Yeah, yeah.

[B]

Okay. Okay, so 25 according to this translation says indeed Allah has given. Given you victory on many battlefields. Yeah, so battlefields. Right. So do you agree that a battlefield is during. Happens during war?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Okay, thank you. Okay. Even at the battle of Hunan, when you took pride in our great numbers, but they proved of no advantage to you, the earth, despite. Despite its vastness seems to close in on you. Then you turn back in retreat. So basically it's saying it's talking about war. It's talking about. The context is there. So that's why when you look at. And then.

[A]

Keep reading, keep reading.

[B]

You can continue. You can keep reading.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You want to carry on reading.

[A]

Yeah. Then Allah sent down his reassurance upon his messenger. So now we're changing context.

[B]

No, it's not changing context. And the believer you want to change the context upon. Because you are an apologist. You want to take things out. Context.

[A]

What is that word? What's that word?

[B]

Then Allah.

[A]

Then. Okay. Then Allah said down in reassurance. Then Allah upon his messengers and his believers and sent down forces.

[B]

Where would this end?

[A]

Unfortunately. And punish those who disbelieve, such as a war for disbelief.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Then afterwards. So again, moving on.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Allah trying to grace whoever he wills. And Allah is all forgiving and merciful.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Oh, believers indeed. The polytheists are spiritually.

[B]

Who are the polytheists?

[A]

The pagans.

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

So they should not approach the sacred mosque after this year. If you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you out of his bounty.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

If he will. Surely Allah is all knowing and all wise. Then again, continue.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Fight those who do not believe in Allah in the last day, nor comply with Allah because you're forbidden, nor embraced.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

Truth. So again, it's a command. This prior context doesn't change.

[B]

Yeah, of course it does. It literally tells you the contract is bao.

[A]

Where does it change very much?

[B]

I literally just said 925 that in battle. Battle.

[A]

That does not say defensive war.

[B]

It says it's in battle. I said to you it's in context of battle.

[A]

So, okay, it can be offensive battlefields though, right?

[B]

Well, it depends.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

No, no, no, no. One second. It depends. And then you have to take all the verses of fighting into context and you take all the context into consideration. You'll see that the entirety of the Quran is about basically defensive war. That one specifically.

[A]

Entirety of the. So not in this, right?

[B]

No, no. In this it talks about. Oh, sorry. In this it talks about. In warfare. Yeah, because that's. But I said this right at the beginning, that Islam isn't a pacifist religion.

[A]

I totally agree. It's about warfare.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

It's offensive war, though.

[B]

No, but where's. Where does it offensive war?

[A]

It says fight those who do not believe in Allah.

[B]

But where does the offensive war.

[A]

It does. It's unqualified.

[B]

That's my point exactly.

[A]

Yeah, exactly. It could be offensive or defensive.

[B]

Exactly. And so then what you do is that. No, no, no. Let me explain to you. So, because it doesn't give the context in this specific verse. Right. And this. And the reason you give this verse is because this one specifically doesn't give the context, you can basically now take all. Thank you so much. You can then take all the verses into consideration, bring them together, and all of them quite clearly. Talk about.

[A]

Tell me a verse where it says you can only fight if it's defensive.

[B]

You pull out a verse about Warfax since though you're an apologist and I'll show you what it means.

[A]

Yeah, there is one. This verse is unqualified and it's. Scholars show this is the last surah that was produced.

[B]

Show me your.

[A]

Show me.

[B]

No, it doesn't. So show me another verse of the Quran what talks about warfare and I'll show you it's defensive.

[A]

I don't need to. I showed you one.

[B]

No, I just need to. No, but you made. Listen, I said it's during warfare. You said it was offensive war. It's not offensive war. It basically doesn't qualify. I agree with you. And I'm saying then you take the rest of the verses in the Quran because the Quran is contextual and they all say defensive war.

[A]

They show me.

[B]

Well, find a verse.

[A]

Okay, so I mean if you're admitting this one is unqualified.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Then that, that's a problem.

[B]

But it's talking about in battlefield. And the reason it's talking about that is because the pagans broke the agreement. Because what happened was the pagans broke the actual agreement about having a treaty.

[A]

Who were the who who were mentioned in 9:30 though? Who's mentioned in 9:30?

[B]

It said the pagans.

[A]

No, 930 is about Jews and Christians. And Christians in verse 9:30.

[B]

No, 930 is talking about how Jews and Christians have basically done taqlid that they basically have given their belief away to those people in power. And by the way, Muslims do that as well. So I'm an attack on.

[A]

It says, it says. It says. It says the Jews say Ezra is the son of Allah. And then it says the Christians say the Messiah is the son of Allah. That's the reason we have to be fought in verse 9:29, the prior verse, fight them. And then it gives you the reason as to why they must be fought. So it doesn't say it 9:30.

[B]

In 9:30. It doesn't say about fighting them.

[A]

No, no, I'm telling you that's the reason for the fighting in 9:29. They go together. 9:29 and 9:30 go together. That's why they're back to back. That's my point.

[B]

Okay, so please. Yeah, so I showed you the context here. For example, Quran, Surah, Baqarah 2:190. Buy in the cause of Allah against those who wage war against you.

[A]

Yeah. Where does it say only? Where does it say only?

[B]

Do you understand the English language?

[A]

It doesn't say omg.

[B]

Do you understand the English language?

[A]

Yeah, it doesn't say omg.

[B]

So someone wages war on you to fight them. Yeah, that's defensive.

[A]

That's fine.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I never said.

[B]

That's English language. I can't teach you English language.

[A]

I never said Islam was against defensive war.

[B]

Okay, so you should ask me for a verse of defensive war. I've now given you a verse of defensive war. And actually all the verses.

[A]

That's not what you said. No, no, you said only defensive war. It doesn't say only.

[B]

Oh my God. Okay, I can't teach you language. Right. So you understand how language works. It says, fight in the cause of Allah only against those who wage war against you. So someone wages only. I don't see.

[A]

Only it says. That's added in there. Okay.

[B]

To fight in the cause of Allah against those who wage war against.

[A]

They added the word only. That's not.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. It's because that's how Arabic language works. Right, but.

[A]

So you can add words in there that aren't there.

[B]

Yeah, because, for example, there'll be. It's based on context. But that being said, I could take the word onlyah. It's not big deal for me. Fighting the cause of Allah against those who wage war against you. That's defensive. So someone wages war against you, fight against them.

[A]

Sure. Yeah.

[B]

That is defensive.

[A]

Totally agree.

[B]

You need the word. Oh, you agree. So then why be arguing?

[A]

Because 9:30 or. Sorry, 9:29 and 9:30 is unqualified. It includes offensive. As you. I already.

[B]

I. No, I didn't admit that. I said it's unqualified. You then need to take all of the verses about war together, and they quite clearly are defensive. Your argument is. And your argument was there was no verses that were defensive. And now. And I'll prove it to you.

[A]

No, no.

[B]

I said only no.

[A]

If I did, I misspoke. I'm only defensive. You were wrong.

[B]

You got debunked.

[A]

No, because again, it didn't say only. That's all I had in.

[B]

Okay, guys, for the listener, you'll understand the context because I'm sure you passed your GCSE exams or whatever the necessities are. It quite clearly is there.

[A]

So there's no offensive war allowed in Islam.

[B]

I'm saying the Quran doesn't have offensive war.

[A]

Doesn't at all.

[B]

No.

[A]

Now what, y', all, 9:30 is unqualified. That would include offensive.

[B]

9:30 is 929. Yeah. 929 should be taken contextually with the rest of the Quran. This is the problem. Like, of course I can take. Oh, shit.

[A]

That's all right.

[B]

That's all right. I can take. You can take anything out of context and misappropriate. And actually, people who are extreme within Judaism, Christianity and Islam will take certain verses out of context to try and push whatever their positions are. But Quran and the Bible and the Talmud, which you'll agree with me and the Torah are holistic texts. And therefore you have to take all the verses that talk about the same issue together in order to determine what the position is on that. This is a. This is like, this is how academia works.

[A]

But that's not what you were doing earlier when you were studying Deuteronomy and trying to say that we have blasphemy laws.

[B]

Yeah. So you need to show me other verses that talk about blasphemy, and maybe they'll have, like, you know, love them if they're blasphemous. Allow them. Allow them. Allow.

[A]

Hebrews 8 says that the. The Old law is obsolete and is passing away.

[B]

Ah, but this is different. So what you're basically saying is not that there's other verses. So if there was another verse in the Bible. Let's say there was a verse in the Bible that said, okay, we don't like blasphemy. And then there was another verse in the Bible that said, oh, those guys who do blasphemy, Sorry, they're really evil guys, you know, God hates them, whatever it may be. And then there was another verse in the Bible that said, guess what? Even though they're blasphemers, you know, leave them alone. You would take both of them in context if you were to take one of them and say, oh, guess what? God's aggressive towards them. Now we need to apply punishment. That would be taken out of context. What you're saying is that basically the Old Testament has a position where it rejects everything. Sorry, the New Testament has a position that it rejects everything in the Old Testament, which is fine. That's your position, that you reject all of the legal edicts in the Old Testament. But there are Christians who take all of it holistically and do accept it.

[A]

True. So now we're again moving back to anecdotal issues here.

[B]

Again, that's not adding.

[A]

When I go to Hebrews 8, for example, you're not understanding the point. The point is that was an old covenant for a people in the land of Canaan and Palestine. And again, I already pointed out it was a treatise on judicial wisdom. They didn't apply jurisprudence with it in that sense. So this is it, misinterpreting it. And again, finding anecdotal cases of fringe people who want to apply that does not show the same.

[B]

But you're saying they're not compatible with the west as well.

[A]

What Islam has produced is a culture that does increase war and lead to more violence. And that's another point I'm trying to get out here.

[B]

What was the war on violence point? Okay, so let's go to the war on violence point. Right. Okay, so the United States of America has produced more war and violence than Anyone in the last hundred years, in the last 20 years, they've killed more people than anyone else.

[A]

Study shows that.

[B]

It's called data.

[A]

What study? Show me. Tell me the name of study.

[B]

The data shows that. How many. Okay, let me.

[A]

Data.

[B]

I'm telling you it. So how many people are killing Iraq? I'm not.

[A]

My head. No.

[B]

Millions of people are killed in Iraq. Billions. Millions. Millions. Not billions. Billions. Billions will be like percent of the typhoon is a lot. Yeah, yeah. How many people have killed or in the last 20 years of the war in the Middle East?

[A]

I don't know.

[B]

Okay, so you're talking millions upon millions. Show me Muslims or Muslim majority countries that have killed millions upon millions of people.

[A]

I don't need to. That's not the debate.

[B]

You just said that Islam wages war. That's what you're arguing to us. And I'm saying the Christian nation of the United States of America has not only waged more, they've murdered brutally more than anyone else in the last 20 years. I'm a study that.

[A]

That's linked to Christianity.

[B]

We are both agree that your argument was that America was a Christian nation. So this Christian nation has now killed in the last 20 years.

[A]

You already rejected that, by the way.

[B]

I didn't reject that.

[A]

So now. So now it is a Christian nation.

[B]

No, no, I said America was a nation built by Christians. Okay, but then they have a separation of church and state.

[A]

So then Christianity didn't cause all that war then. By your life.

[B]

Yeah, but it was built by Christians. So Christian majority nation. Oh, so now it's. Your argument is based. Not based on whether the country applies the law, but whether it's majority Christian or not. I'm not. I'm demonstrating to you that the United States of America being a majority Christian country, so therefore majority Christian countries are a problem because they've committed more murder than anyone else, especially over the last 20 years.

[A]

And the data shows Christianity is linked to that and as a variable.

[B]

Your argument was. It was. You said that America was a natural progression of Christianity into their alignment into what we have now. So your position. Your position is. Your position is that you Let me finish now.

[A]

Yeah, no, the argument.

[B]

Let me finish. Why do you keep saying that? We're both letting each other finish. Whenever you interrupt, I allow it. No, but whenever you interrupt, I allow it. I don't complain.

[A]

The argument was, is that Christianity produces the West. Now the Christianity produced the West. Okay. Okay. Yeah. That does not mean everything in the west is the result of Christianity. And I would say the same thing about the Islamic world. Not everything in the Islamic world is the result of Islam. I would never make that claim. What we need is actual studies to show links. And that's why I brought up people like Davis Brown, M. Stephen Fish, Jonathan Fox to show there actually is a link. When you control for the other variables. Doesn't work for Christianity, so you can't make that kind of link there. The variables are not there. So again, we can sit here and do these anecdotal cases all day. You can try to count numbers. Doesn't change the fact that Islam produces more violence. It produces blasphemy laws, as you even acknowledge, and it produces the apostasy laws, more child marriage. These are all incompatible with the west. At the end of the day, yeah, Islam is incompatible with the West. Maybe you can reform it. But you say you don't want to do that. So I don't know what to tell you.

[B]

Okay, so first of all, I debunked that study and showed you the fallacy in it. So I know you're like, it sounds like you're basically someone who has. Who basically loves studies. But what you don't understand is for someone who basically has come from academia that you need to look at the study and then debunk it and demonstrate to you how the weakness of that study and what the problems with that study were. The one about. Is it Davis Brown?

[A]

I said two from him.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. So I just, I demonstrate that in terms of. By the way, by the way again. By the way, by the way, you're interrupting me, which I don't mind. It's just that you kept on complaining. So I just want to demonstrate to you that you're doing it. The difference between me and you is I didn't cry about it. Now, in terms of your question. No, I don't mind it. I don't mind it. I don't mind you interrupting. I just don't cry about it. I just demonstrate. I'm just demonstrating your democracy because you were crying about it.

[A]

Clarify.

[B]

Yes, yes, yes, I don't mind it. I don't mind.

[A]

You, you please debunk the study again because I don't remember you doing.

[B]

Okay, let's go through it all again then. So the problem with the study was, first of all, it didn't take into consideration because your argument was according to the study, it took Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. And the claim was, and I said that there's two flaws in the study quickly, without even looking into the study. Right. You didn't read it. No, I haven't read the study. You brought it up. You brought the study up. I just. But you conceded these points. You conceded these points. For example, as an example, it didn't consider Jewish terrorism into there. Right. And you conceded that. I didn't because they didn't have the 600,000 people in there. The second. How can I read a study? I don't know what study you're going to cite. And the second thing is it also didn't consider. It didn't include the United States of America as a, as a Christian nation. And therefore what they're doing is if they did, you would have. And I believe. What years was the study?

[A]

I don't remember the years I wrote my head, but I know his book is within the past five years, I believe.

[B]

So does the study include the last, like from 2001 to the data is.

[A]

Now what was in the past century or so?

[B]

So it includes the last like 15, 20 years?

[A]

More than that, yeah.

[B]

Okay, so cool. So then it proves my point because if it did include that, you would have overwhelming numbers in terms of the number of people who've been killed by Christians because it's. The United States of America has conducted more massacres in the last, for example, 20 years than any other nation. You said it's anecdotal. Like how is that, how is that, how is that anecdotal? It's impossible. They would conclude in the United States of America. Show me what included in the United States of America. Yeah, it's as hideous.

[A]

I'll look it up. War, Religion in a Secular Age.

[B]

United States of America and Religion Study.

[A]

The book is called War and Religion in a Secular Age by Davis Brown.

[B]

And does it include United States of America as a Christian nation and then applying that murder as towards Christians?

[A]

I believe it does. Again, Christianity is not the variable that leads to that. And again.

[B]

Yeah, and then. And so you said it's anecdotal. It's not anecdotal that millions upon millions of people. This is the problem. When Christians are killing people, then it's anecdotal. You can kill millions upon millions upon millions of people. It's anecdotal. But for example, when you talk about Muslims, then it's not anecdotal. It's just completely ridiculous. Actually, the most brutal violence that we've seen in recent times has been overwhelmingly done by Christians.

[C]

He does say it includes the US but I don't know to what degree.

[A]

Yeah, he does. As I pointed out, he does engage.

[B]

With the U.S. the U.S. context.

[A]

Yes. Context.

[B]

No, no, but does it. One second. Yeah, it's talking about internally, about the. Because it says high religiosity and how religion shapes American foreign policy. But in terms of. Does it include, as a data point.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

The number of people killed by the United States of America.

[A]

It includes the US As a nation does.

[B]

Right. In that. Does it include the number of people killed by the United States of America?

[A]

Again, you can just read his book, War Religion in a Secular Age. Now, let me just ask you a simple question. If I ran a study and I said, I have found in my study that oranges and apples have a good source of vitamin C. Yeah. Would you debunk my study by saying, yeah, but you didn't think about strawberries.

[B]

No, that would have made.

[A]

Exactly. That's why bringing up Jewish terrorism doesn't debunk his study just because he didn't look at that variable. That doesn't mean the Islamic variable is still one that leads to violence. So that does not. That doesn't debunk his study. You should actually read it.

[B]

Okay, you're admitted.

[A]

You've not read it.

[B]

I don't read it because I didn't know what you were going to bring up.

[A]

The book's from 2007 when I started William Cavanaugh. That's different. William Cavanaugh wrote a book called the Myth of Religious Violence. This is why AI doesn't work, man. This is crap. This is the.

[B]

By the way, I need some water. But this is the problem with your argument. So let me give you apple and oranges example, right? Was it apple and oranges you said? Yeah. So if I said, guess what? Apple and oranges, I've tested them and actually apples have the most vitamin C compared to anyone. Any other fruit. Right. Then I would say, guess what the problem with your study is. You didn't take into consideration other foods like a pineapple, Right. And because the pineapple actually has the most vitamin C. And this is the problem, because what you've said is, guess what? There's a study by this guy, and guess what? Apples have the most vitamins out of all fruits. And I'm saying no, because first of all, you didn't take this other fruit into consideration. The second thing is, one of the fruits that you're talking about didn't take into consideration the mass murder. It did. Therefore, it didn't take into consideration, for example, an important element that basically produces violence.

[A]

One problem. Davis Brown did not say Islam is the most violent religion.

[B]

I took that from you. You said it.

[A]

No, I did not say it's the most violent. I never said. His research showed that.

[B]

What you just said that it's.

[A]

It's linked. It's linked. So all he said, even if you're right, that Judaism is more violent, that doesn't. Islam is not. Is not violent.

[B]

Christianity. Oh, okay, so your point is. So if your point is so. And that is my point, by the way, I do believe that there is some violence in Islam. I'm not saying it's a pacifist religion, but I'm saying that Christianity and Judaism is much more violent.

[A]

What's your data that shows.

[B]

I've just explained it to you.

[A]

You've not shown any data, though.

[B]

I've just explained it to you. The number of people you. The problem you've got is you are basically someone. And by the way, there is a lot of books in it. I just can't remember the top of my mind. But the thing is, there is, for example, you just need to look at the figures. The number of people who've been killed by the United States of America over the last 20 years is overwhelmingly higher than anyone else. And if you can give me an example of where people are, millions upon millions of people have been killed by Muslims in the last 20 years. I'd like to hear it.

[A]

And what I will do is I will cite the actual books. War and Religion in the Secular Age by Davis Brown. The Price of Freedom Denied by Grim Infi Are Muslims Distinctive by M. Stephen Fish. What do they have to look up papers? Islam. What do they say there? Jonathan Fox. Is Islam more violent Prone is a paper he wrote. So you can sit here and throw these numbers out, but the actual research, the numbers.

[B]

Oh my God. We are addicted to numbers.

[A]

Actual research leads to more violence. Yeah, it's linked to it.

[B]

Yeah. And that's an academic.

[A]

Decreases. It's linked to decreasing Christianity.

[B]

Decreased it. Even though they killed millions upon millions of people in the last 20 years. Now that is a shocking number of numbers. And then he's like, guess what? Let me name you some authors that ignore this fact, therefore they are. Yeah. Scholars, authors, wherever it may be. Yeah, yeah. Whatever it may be.

[A]

Experts, you know, I mean.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

People that actually have run the models.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And controlled for variables like poverty, economic development, influence from other nations. And then they control those variables. Listen. They find Islamically Christian, by the way.

[B]

By the way, if we have a debate where I prep for. I can show you hundreds of books which actually basically present my position and I'VE read them. I just remember the top of my mind because I've came to this debate without any prep. That being said, even then, when you narrated the author and you explained a study, I showed you the flaws in it. So now the other guys you've cited, if you want to give their study, and I'll show you the flaws in them, because this is what a logical, analytical person does. I know maybe you don't like logic and rational thought. It's probably against your religion or whatever, but actually with logic and analytical and rational thought, you produce that. For example, I gave him numbers. I said, look, in the last 20 years, this number of people are being by Christianity. He's like, oh, I don't like numbers. I don't like numbers. Numbers. I'm allergic to them. It doesn't matter. I'm like, then cite me another example of Muslims being a killing in the same level and the same numbers. He's like, oh, no, no. Davis Brown. Davis Brown. Like, what are you doing?

[A]

Multivariable. That I had actually read.

[B]

Yeah, which I did. Yeah, which I did.

[A]

Ladies. Yeah, it is new day and age, guys, where if.

[B]

Yeah, we don't.

[A]

Psych.

[B]

Yeah, we don't. We don't. We're not subservient to the experts. CO was a good example of that.

[C]

Two final statements. We got 10 minutes. So three to five minutes each.

[B]

Final statements. Oh, yeah, sorry, go ahead.

[A]

You want to go first?

[B]

No, no, you go first.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, I went first. I'll go first. Yeah, so you said five minutes.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

Yeah, I just want to. Okay, yeah, I'll just do that on that. Okay, so, yeah, so let's talk about this. Yeah, so we're not subservient to the experts for the same reason we. We follow the experts, because they present the research, they run the models, they actually do all this stuff and they show. Hey, actually, no. This link is here with Islam. It's not there with Christianity. Christianity is associated with decreasing violence. This is a problem. We talked earlier about blasphemy laws. Again, this is something that comes out of Islamic culture. This is why we see it throughout the Islamic world. What do we see in the Islamic world? Christians are being killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan for apparently insulting the prophet and all sorts of. You're saying nonsense like that. It's not happening here in the West. There are atheists. If you become an ex Christian here, you can set up your own channel, do what you want. We may not agree with it, but there's no blasphemy laws. There are Decrees that churches can put out saying, hey, you're excommunicated from this church for what you said. That's not a law that a government's going to pass. Islam produces those kinds of laws. That's why it's incompatible with the West. We talked about. He tried to debunk the studies by citing Jewish terrorism. That's a different variable altogether. That doesn't show Islam does not lead to more violence. So that's going to be a problem there. We talked about polygyny. He didn't really respond to that. Polygyny is incompatible with the West. We didn't really have time to get into that, as much as I would like to. But still, at the end of the day, we're not going to allow in Western societies cultures that allow men to have multiple wives. That's just against our values. Islam allows for that. It's in the Quran, Surah 4, for example. That's incompatible with the West. So even if he thinks polygyny is okay and good, it's still incompatible with the West. So if he tries to defend polygony, doesn't matter. He's admitting Islam is incompatible with the West. With that. Talked a little about child marriage. He's against child marriage. Great. I'm glad that he is against child marriage. The problem is most Muslims are not. And it's because the hadith overwhelmingly show that Islam is in favor of child marriage. At the end of the day, that's going to be a problem. We're not going to allow that. There's a way the society is to progress in the West. We've done the science. We know that's harmful. We reject it now. So now we have to reject that. Because of all the data that shows how harmful it is. Islam is still promoting child marriage. That's. That's still problematic for us. So we have issues there. Talked about freedom of speech. Islam does not have freedom of speech like it is in the West. This is another problem. And he has admitted that. He's admitted that you cannot insult the prophet in Islam. So if they come over here and they try to set up satellite cultures where they have laws that prevent people from insulting the prophet in their communities, that is incompatible with the West. We cannot have that. They're trying to do that kind of stuff in Britain right now. That's incompatible with Western values. This is why Britain is moving away from the west and into whatever nonsense they're moving into. The authoritarian nut.

[B]

Sorry. I'm sorry.

[A]

He lives there despite the Western culture that we've actually produced. These are the changes that have happened in the past couple years. So at the end of the day, yeah, Islam is completely incompatible with the west. And I've seen no evidence that it actually is compatible with the West. So at the end of the day, no, all of this stuff we've gone over today, you can go back and roll the tape. So much evidence showing that Islam is incompatible with the west, no matter what about ism talking about how he interprets Christianity, what he thinks Christianity is going to change that because at the end of the day, he's still admitting there are certain values that Islam produces that are incompatible with what the Christian west has given us. So I wish Islam could assimilate with the West. It can't. And this is what we see manifesting in culture. And the data bears us out. I'm not just arguing from what the Quran teaches or just the Hadith teaches. I'm not just arguing from what the studies are. I'm arguing from a collection. So, for example, when you look at the. What the religious teachings are combined with what most Muslims believe combined with what the sociological research shows, you get a consistent pattern. Islam produces cultures that are incompatible with the west. And my opponent has not presented any research to combat that. So at the end of the day, I'm going to follow the research, not going to follow anecdotal cases, baseless arguments, which I expect we'll hear a lot of in its closing statement. However, I appreciate the debate. I think he's a good opponent. I don't think he's as dumb as people claim he is. He's definitely a lot smarter than I think he is, but I just don't think he has presented the data here to actually back up his case. I don't think he's going to be able to at the end of the day. So appreciate the debate, sir.

[B]

Yeah, I just want to thank Michael for the debate. I think it was a very good debate. I appreciate it. So where my point of disagreement is, is Islam, Christianity and Judaism. In the claims that he's made about why Islam is incompatible, you find those exact same things in Christianity and Judaism. And so in those religions, those religions take a back seat when it comes to the United States of America because the Constitution takes precedent. If he's claiming that Islam has something in its religion that is not compatible, you also find that in Christianity and Judaism. So either his argument has to be, which he said Islam, Christianity and Judaism is not compatible with America, or you have to say all of them are compatible and Actually, the Constitution supersedes. So that is the point. In terms of following the experts. Listen, this is an example of a situation where someone probably hasn't done the research themselves because experts have biases. Institutes promote certain experts based on certain ideas and thoughts. This is why we had the experts telling us about COVID and now all of that's been debunked. This is why we have experts making certain claims based on who funds them and therefore that's been debunked. That being said, there are experts who do also talk about the American imperialism and how that's killed more people than anyone else. And obviously. But I didn't cite them because I was just doing the debate ad hoc. In terms of. And so that's one thing in terms of. He mentioned about blasphemy laws, blasphemy laws, apostasy laws, all of these things are found in Christianity, in Judaism and Islam. And as I mentioned in my opening point, it doesn't matter because the Constitution takes precedent either. He believes all those religions are not compatible, which is ridiculous because America was found by Christians. And therefore, if Christianity is compatible, even though they have apostasy and blasphemy laws, then so is the Judaism and Islam. In addition to that, he mentioned about what you call, again, a uk uk, you're right, UK is failing, but it isn't because of Islam. Yeah. The reason UK is failing is because actually Zionists control the United States of uk and they've basically done it where they're removing freedom of speech in order for their own interest. So it's not because of Muslims, it's because of Zionists in terms of polygamy. So I've already explained it and he didn't debunk my position. I said that when it comes to polygamy, polygamy, all they'll do is legalize the current situation we have in the west where the top 20% of men are having sexual relations with 80% of people outside of marriage, which I think is a problem because when you have sex outside of marriage, you have a culture of basically women having relations outside of marriage. It causes degeneracy and this increases pornography and various other things. In terms of. And so I think it's a good thing because of the prevalence of pornography and all these things in the UK in terms of violence. He said it's anecdotal. How can data and numbers be anecdotal? I said, in the last 20 years, the United States of America has killed millions upon millions of people, injured tens of millions of people. I then asked give me an example of when a Muslim country is runna. He couldn't give an example. He just kept mentioning dear Brown. Dear Brown. The problem with someone like Dave Brown is I demonstrate the fallacy of his argument because first of all they didn't take Jewish terrorism into consideration, which shows it's more violent. And it also didn't take into consideration American violence over the last 20 years. If it did, it would show that yes, America Muslims has violence, but Christianity and Judaism is exponentially more violent. Furthermore, he mentioned in terms of satellite cultures and I demonstrated to you that actually when Muslims come into the uk United States of America, they understand that despite, for example, within Islamic culture edicts there being blasphemy laws, the Constitution takes precedent and the only time it hasn't is for Jewish law. So this guy should really be debating whether Judaism is compatible with the United States of America because that was actually a scenario where the Constitution was overtaken by a specific law in terms of. Yeah, so and in terms of the studies asset this is I've already break down. So the whole idea of a study is you take it, you demonstrate the fallacy of it and you break it down. So to summarize, and I don't debate Christians normally and this wasn't a plan to do so. And I'm glad we didn't end up falling into too much because I never liked to demonize Christianity. I think Islam and Christianity are important religions. They should work together. They have very similar views and ideas and thoughts. The Muslim position from an eschatological perspective is that Muslims and Christians are going to be working together, fighting together against some evil third enemy. And I do believe that that is the case. Whereas obviously Judaism, they don't believe the same thing. They believe that actually Ashkenazi Jews believe in their texts that during the end of times there's going to be two things happening. Muslims, because they were nice to them, they're going to get to be their slaves. Whereas Christians, because they were horrible to them, they're going to be completely annihilated and wiped out. So I do think that there needs to be this bringing together of Muslims and Christians and I do believe the religions are very similar and hence why I'm saying that they are both compatible with Western sight. Well said.

[C]

Let's end on a positive note.

[B]

If you guys want to check out.

[C]

Their work, check out their links in the video. Thanks for coming out and join my video. I hope you guys are enjoying the show. Please don't forget to like and subscribe. It helps the show a lot with the algorithm.

[A]

Thank you.