Another great verse is surah 2:41 "And believe in what I have sent down confirming that which is [already] with you, and be not the first to disbelieve in it. And do not exchange My signs for a small price, and fear [only] Me. " I think this seals it all.
Shadee was representing the Null. The alternative hypothesis was Hashimi's. The latter had to present the case that is significant enough to deny the null..... A null which has been established for millennia. Hashimi's argument rests upon first creating doubt about this "establishment" so as to further solidify the potentiality of their being an alternative hypothesis to begin with. I.e., for people to question the very "established fact." Relying upon this, he pushes his case forward to provide, what is in his mind, the "right way"... as opposed to the "wrong" and "traditional" way of nearly every single reputable scholar leading up to today since the time of Muhammad ﷺ . Throughout the debate, "traditional" and "orthodoxy" which are inherently orientalist terms, are used by Hashimi in a derogatory manner. And this isn't necessarily his fault. These terms by their essence emerged so as to be derogatory and pejorative terms. They are colloquially synonymous with those who are "backwards." You will often find such words used in narratives that contain odium-drenched vituperations against groups that are demonized in the media. (Of course they're going to be derogatory seeing as this is the 21st century, he's a liberal, the debate is taking place in a post-modern and secular/liberal country, and "orthodoxy" is seen as something regressive.) Truly, it's not "orthodoxy." We don't need liberal, secular, scholars to define Islam. One is either Muslim or is not Muslim. Simple as that. But of course, the usage of such terms will remain because it delineates the difference between those that follow the "backwards, traditional" way and those that are the "enlightened" ones who are upon the "liberal, open-minded, all-accepting" way. The "otherizing" of a group and/ or groups, happens in all domains. What we merely saw here is this very concept. One that establishes a line and an "us vs them" dynamic. What it is however, is Islam vs "neo-Islam" or, at least the attempt at solidifying this "neo-Islam." Similarly with Christianity we saw the cheap liberal revisions they have done with their books, you best believe people will try the same with Islamic books. Ultimately this is Islam vs. non-Islam. Haqq vs falsehood. With all due respect, wa alikom al salam.
Exactly what I've observed and it was blatantly obvious as the comments mentioned this. By trying to prove his feeble proposition, he initiates the indoctrination campaign by maligning and rejecting and discrediting the sources of proof, which are the most credible sources in the field. I'm glad Shadee exposed this hypocrisy where the hadith of the prophet salallahu alayhi wa sallam and the salaf is rejected..but some looney liberal islalophobe white man in the west from recent times..is cited as "credible proof". Tafisr of scholars rejected. But his own self proclaimed tafsir and tafsir of his zionist liberals is "validated". The reality of the debate was to try to cut off shadee from proof which Muslims use, so he can corner shadee with his misquoted, mistranslated and cherry picked ayaat which are taken heavily out of context while shadee isn't allowed to use tafsir. It is the equivelent of proving a car can't drive..then telling the opponent that "you can't use the engine. Can't use the wheels. Can't use the start engine function".
@@mt000mp Dang, the youtube bot must have removed it. It always does so when it picks out a word or it thinks the user is spamming. His comment was not spam and was respectful and gave his observation. UA-cam removes comments a lot it's honestly ridiculous.
My talking points from the debate: 1. Javad is a respectful and nice guy despite the fact hes a zindeeq but on a human level, he atleast has manners so we gotta give him that. 2. But the first point doesnt change the fact that hes dishonest, and I will describe that in the following points: a. He voilated the format of debate on several occassions and Dr. Shadee (May Allah reward him ) correctly pointed out when saying Javad is quoting Tafsir from western scholars. Javad also brought in Ahadith that were to support his point on prima facie, to deceive the public, however it was against the format to bring forward Hadith. b. He knitpicked verses after thorough research and deliberately omitted those verses which were against his cause. Then he set the format ( No Tafsir, No Hadith) to set up Dr. Shadee because he knew that Tafsir alone would debunk his whole theory. But still he shamelessly quoted Hadith whenever he was in trouble. c. He didnt set a no Tafsir format because he doesnt believe in Tafsir or classical Mufassiroon.This is a misunderstanding. In his previous debate with apostate atheist Haris Sultan, he mentioned classical scholarship with great respect for three hours. He mentioned Ar- Raazi, and Ghazzali alot. Do Fakhar udin Ar Razi not have done Tafsir? Or Javad doesnt know about that? Obv hes dishonest Also, in that debate, Haris quoted some ahadith which are brought forward in debates by atheists frequently. Javad seemed to defend those ahadith albeit not too openly but he didnt refute those hadiths there. and my next point is related. d. He defended those ahadith saying its an allegory. But, in debate with Dr. Shadee, he didnt even mention allegory because he knew that he would lose the debate. Similarly, He quoted Ibn e Sina alot previously and Dr. Shadee is hundred percent right, that we expected Javad to bring in Ibne Sina. But he didnt which is another example of his dishonesty. Overall, a great debate and I wish it was longer as many things were left untouched because of time. There are some things where Dr. Shadee can improve in my humble opinion: 1. Against someone who speaks faster than you like Javad, you should debate for long time period where you can discus your ideas wholly at your own speed. 2. Always ask for an open discussion after rebuttal where both speakers talk to each other and correct when theres misinformation. Open discussion is the part where debate is really decided. 3. Never go to a debate with a restricted format where the sources are not allowed like was the case in this debate ( no tafsir, no hadith). You did a great job nonetheless and won the debate clearly ,but it was like going to war as a soldier with a knife in front of a sniper. 4. When the other party voilates the format like Javad did, you should protest to moderator in the same instance. Dont wait for your turn to register protest. Interrupt the person right then and there. BarakAllahu feek brother Shadee. I started following you recently and Im really proud of your work. May Allah grant you Barakah in wisdom and knowledge, and reward you in this life and afterlife. Aameen
Delete the opening point about him being nice, respectful and having manners. Or change it to say "on the surface, while addressing yo thr masses..he appears to be...X Y and Z". Bec it is more accurate
@@ertugrulbae46 I hate that guy but he has manners. You cant take that away. If you follow the regular mainstream debators, you would know how arrogant they are. Haris Sultan etc start shouting when you debunk their argument. Javad is not like that.
@@AwaisAhmedPodcast and there's reasons for that, all of which are highly superficial projections of a fasle persona. Think 'politicians'...its a trademark PR campaign of apple polishers. These liberal sly tactics only exist to entice the audience into believing the individual is a good example with ethics and morals. Reality underneath beneath the surface is poisonous. Really adab, akhlaq and mannerisms come from the heart. Anyone can put up, what I call a "customer service" persona/projection.
Interestingly enough, he mentions in the debate that "let's let the people of other faiths define their religion" when he was referring to the whole "Messiah/God and Christians" topic... Yet he doesn't afford Muslims that very same honor and respect? He feels the need that modernists, orientalists,and liberal, secular "PhDs" have to define our MILLENNIA old religion for us? He wants to deny the right of Islam to tell people the nature of reality whilst saying he is inclusive and pluarlistic? MashaaAllah, the hypocrisy and irony just writes itself folks. Wa alikom al salaam.
This debate made me want to bang my head against the wall. This is the problem with Phd's, they don't understand that their expertise in a specific subject, has no bearing, or association with the reality of the whole subject. Case in point, Hashimi kept pointing out the textual evidence that scholars found disputing the shahada. Ok.., in the time of the sahahab, it was oral transmission that was prized higher and considered better for preserving or transmitting knowledge. Yet, we are supposed to take that as the gold standard, after more than a 1000 years? What?! Pure nonsense, I do not have the patience to debate such stupidity. May Allah reward Dr. Shadee for his patience.
ISLAM has NOTHING to do with PERENNIALISM. My comment to someone from Javad's vid: No one is making the argument that belonging to some sort of "saved-sect" is the answer to all of life's questions. This is actually a common trope and a misconception presented particularly by those who have an attraction to thinking that is in tandem with perennialism. This would be particularly by those who are repelled by, what they deem to be, modern exclusivism and fundamentalism. This attraction is in the idea that somehow all religions are pointing to a transcendence, a core, some shared universality if you will. This is cute and all, to the new-age goons who want to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya," even though it has no grounding in reality. The difficulty in such a notion is that religions are naturally mutually exclusive in some of their fundamental truth claims. Buddhists and Christians cannot BOTH be right, Christians have a personal God. Islam and Judaism will assert that God is One, Unique, and that there is no internal differential in the Divine Nature.... whereas the Christian would say that to be INCORRECT, and that the Divine Nature is characterized by a Triune deity. Christianity and Judaism cannot both be right. .........Anyways I digress, and probably no one cares and no one is even reading this. My closing remark would be to reiterate that Islam, since it's onset holds that it is the final and true religion as ordained by the last and final, holy Prophet of God. One who is indeed God's true prophet to the world and this time....and that his way is an all embracing, inclusive, and diverse way. The Quran and the Prophet is at the heart of all scholars past and present, who have done their due-diligence. Whether they were Sufis like Rumi and Ibn Arabi, all the way to any most recent extensions of the Islamic tradition, all hold these notions to be true and that Islam is the correct way...as is detailed in the Holy Quran. Ibn Arabi even himself has sometimes harsh words to say about Christian doctrines, like the doctrine of the Trinity. He would have been the LAST person to say that all the metaphysics of the worlds religions are simultaneously true, he believed his system was right. Period. (Anything beneficial in my comment is from The Most High, and any mistakes are from myself wa alikom salam)
what i didnt understand was that Javad was arguing that the Torah and Gospel were fully intact scriptures, but if you apply the HCM that he loves so much to apply onto Islam onto the modern day Torah and Gospel, it certainly wouldn't say that the Torah as we have it today came to Musa (AS) 3400 years ago, but rather evolved over time. Same with the Gospel. Maybe Allah's teachings remain in places, who's to say, but we're told to not believe or disbelieve in these scriptures in the Hadith for this reason.
May Allah Almighty bless you Shaykh. Javad will not be able to see the truth even if it slapped him in the face. May Allah Almighty protect the Ummah from such individuals like Javad.
So Javed's argument essentially boils down to: "It is ok to recognize the prophet Mohammed and still be jewish /christian" Imagine God telling you "the scriptures have been corrupted, here is my final messenger, follow him" and your reply is "no thanks God, I'm good, what I have right here is enough to please you" what unbelievable arrogance.
Shaykh I think you need to give a talk about the general validity of Hadith, i.e. how did Muslims record the sayings of rasulAllah ﷺ, why did Muslims record the sayings of rasulAllah ﷺ, the formation of the Hadith corpus, and arguments that Hadith rejectors use So many issues brought about by liberal/secularist Muslims come down to Hadith rejection
I don't have a dog in the race, it's a new subject to me. The main take away I got from it was that the traditionalist has one talking point to hold up and the modernist had a ton of scripture that wasn't addressed or answered. It would have made a better case to bystanders to counter his scriptural references during the actual debate.
The neutral ones neither from your part nor his party...subhanallah...The enemy plots and plans. But Allah also plots and plans. Even in his own debate speech..he uses the ayah of quran. Means the public was exposed to it and the ayah moved them. A seed was planted in them. A light came to them...some sort of tajali or manifestation dressed them. And if they follow this light..they'll be guided to the right way. Allah can even use the enemies to help islam and Muslims. The least he did, was expose the masses to quran.
Its ironic Javad really shot himself in the foot on the "Christ isn't the Christian God" claim because understanding the messianic views of Jews and Christians destroys his defense for them in the Qur'an. The entire essence of the Qur'an is that it argues Muhammad is the final prophet prophecized by Jews and Christians to usher in the messianic age. It tells them to study their own scripture to learn this but I doubt Javad has. Jews and Christians acknowledge the God of Abraham but CAN NOT follow Allah if they are still waiting for prophets i.e. rejecting Muhammad. Javad says some People of the Book accepted Muhammad as a prophet. Thats nonsense because both groups are waiting for their final prophet. To acceot Muhammad as a prophet = becoming a Muslim and admitting their religions are completed by Islam.
At the 27 minute mark you misquoted Surah 5:72. You said the verse says, those who say the Messiah is God; but it says, “those who say God is the Messiah”. Perhaps, listen to the lecture by Dr. Klaus von Stosch, so you can understand what the argument is: ua-cam.com/video/flvLH6BkaNo/v-deo.html
What kind of crap are you spouting??? You're basically saying 1+2 is =3 but 2+1 isn't = 3? The definition of Christian Messiah in the Bible literally says: Matthew 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. Man didn't even read the Bible and get the actual definitions of their beliefs. Get your head out of your backside and stop defending Kafir Murtads like Javad.
@@idebates7752 What has misquoting a Quranic ayah got to do with 1:1 equals 2. I’m not defending Dr Jawad, who also, in my view misinterpreted a verse. I’m interested in defending the Quran. Maybe, if you didn’t have you head so high up you will be able to see. Stop following people blindly and only give blind allegiance to God and His Messenger (s). Accept, that even Shiekhs that we love can be wrong sometimes.
Another great verse is surah 2:41 "And believe in what I have sent down confirming that which is [already] with you, and be not the first to disbelieve in it. And do not exchange My signs for a small price, and fear [only] Me. " I think this seals it all.
Shadee was representing the Null. The alternative hypothesis was Hashimi's. The latter had to present the case that is significant enough to deny the null..... A null which has been established for millennia.
Hashimi's argument rests upon first creating doubt about this "establishment" so as to further solidify the potentiality of their being an alternative hypothesis to begin with. I.e., for people to question the very "established fact."
Relying upon this, he pushes his case forward to provide, what is in his mind, the "right way"... as opposed to the "wrong" and "traditional" way of nearly every single reputable scholar leading up to today since the time of Muhammad ﷺ .
Throughout the debate, "traditional" and "orthodoxy" which are inherently orientalist terms, are used by Hashimi in a derogatory manner. And this isn't necessarily his fault. These terms by their essence emerged so as to be derogatory and pejorative terms. They are colloquially synonymous with those who are "backwards." You will often find such words used in narratives that contain odium-drenched vituperations against groups that are demonized in the media.
(Of course they're going to be derogatory seeing as this is the 21st century, he's a liberal, the debate is taking place in a post-modern and secular/liberal country, and "orthodoxy" is seen as something regressive.)
Truly, it's not "orthodoxy." We don't need liberal, secular, scholars to define Islam. One is either Muslim or is not Muslim. Simple as that.
But of course, the usage of such terms will remain because it delineates the difference between those that follow the "backwards, traditional" way and those that are the "enlightened" ones who are upon the "liberal, open-minded, all-accepting" way.
The "otherizing" of a group and/ or groups, happens in all domains. What we merely saw here is this very concept. One that establishes a line and an "us vs them" dynamic.
What it is however, is Islam vs "neo-Islam" or, at least the attempt at solidifying this "neo-Islam." Similarly with Christianity we saw the cheap liberal revisions they have done with their books, you best believe people will try the same with Islamic books.
Ultimately this is Islam vs. non-Islam. Haqq vs falsehood.
With all due respect, wa alikom al salam.
Very brilliantly summer up brother. Jazak Allahu khairan
Exactly what I've observed and it was blatantly obvious as the comments mentioned this.
By trying to prove his feeble proposition, he initiates the indoctrination campaign by maligning and rejecting and discrediting the sources of proof, which are the most credible sources in the field.
I'm glad Shadee exposed this hypocrisy where the hadith of the prophet salallahu alayhi wa sallam and the salaf is rejected..but some looney liberal islalophobe white man in the west from recent times..is cited as "credible proof". Tafisr of scholars rejected. But his own self proclaimed tafsir and tafsir of his zionist liberals is "validated".
The reality of the debate was to try to cut off shadee from proof which Muslims use, so he can corner shadee with his misquoted, mistranslated and cherry picked ayaat which are taken heavily out of context while shadee isn't allowed to use tafsir. It is the equivelent of proving a car can't drive..then telling the opponent that "you can't use the engine. Can't use the wheels. Can't use the start engine function".
@@ertugrulbae46 Spot-on.
@@snakejuce his comment seems to be deleted
@@mt000mp Dang, the youtube bot must have removed it. It always does so when it picks out a word or it thinks the user is spamming.
His comment was not spam and was respectful and gave his observation.
UA-cam removes comments a lot it's honestly ridiculous.
I think you guys should have streamed it yourself. You are giving him free publicity by directing people to his UA-cam channel
true i tried hard to watch from his channel
My talking points from the debate:
1. Javad is a respectful and nice guy despite the fact hes a zindeeq but on a human level, he atleast has manners so we gotta give him that.
2. But the first point doesnt change the fact that hes dishonest, and I will describe that in the following points:
a. He voilated the format of debate on several occassions and Dr. Shadee (May Allah reward him ) correctly pointed out when saying Javad is quoting Tafsir from western scholars. Javad also brought in Ahadith that were to support his point on prima facie, to deceive the public, however it was against the format to bring forward Hadith.
b. He knitpicked verses after thorough research and deliberately omitted those verses which were against his cause. Then he set the format ( No Tafsir, No Hadith) to set up Dr. Shadee because he knew that Tafsir alone would debunk his whole theory. But still he shamelessly quoted Hadith whenever he was in trouble.
c. He didnt set a no Tafsir format because he doesnt believe in Tafsir or classical Mufassiroon.This is a misunderstanding. In his previous debate with apostate atheist Haris Sultan, he mentioned classical scholarship with great respect for three hours. He mentioned Ar- Raazi, and Ghazzali alot. Do Fakhar udin Ar Razi not have done Tafsir? Or Javad doesnt know about that? Obv hes dishonest
Also, in that debate, Haris quoted some ahadith which are brought forward in debates by atheists frequently. Javad seemed to defend those ahadith albeit not too openly but he didnt refute those hadiths there. and my next point is related.
d. He defended those ahadith saying its an allegory. But, in debate with Dr. Shadee, he didnt even mention allegory because he knew that he would lose the debate. Similarly, He quoted Ibn e Sina alot previously and Dr. Shadee is hundred percent right, that we expected Javad to bring in Ibne Sina. But he didnt which is another example of his dishonesty.
Overall, a great debate and I wish it was longer as many things were left untouched because of time. There are some things where Dr. Shadee can improve in my humble opinion:
1. Against someone who speaks faster than you like Javad, you should debate for long time period where you can discus your ideas wholly at your own speed.
2. Always ask for an open discussion after rebuttal where both speakers talk to each other and correct when theres misinformation. Open discussion is the part where debate is really decided.
3. Never go to a debate with a restricted format where the sources are not allowed like was the case in this debate ( no tafsir, no hadith). You did a great job nonetheless and won the debate clearly ,but it was like going to war as a soldier with a knife in front of a sniper.
4. When the other party voilates the format like Javad did, you should protest to moderator in the same instance. Dont wait for your turn to register protest. Interrupt the person right then and there.
BarakAllahu feek brother Shadee. I started following you recently and Im really proud of your work. May Allah grant you Barakah in wisdom and knowledge, and reward you in this life and afterlife. Aameen
Delete the opening point about him being nice, respectful and having manners. Or change it to say "on the surface, while addressing yo thr masses..he appears to be...X Y and Z". Bec it is more accurate
@@ertugrulbae46 I hate that guy but he has manners. You cant take that away. If you follow the regular mainstream debators, you would know how arrogant they are. Haris Sultan etc start shouting when you debunk their argument. Javad is not like that.
@@AwaisAhmedPodcast and there's reasons for that, all of which are highly superficial projections of a fasle persona. Think 'politicians'...its a trademark PR campaign of apple polishers.
These liberal sly tactics only exist to entice the audience into believing the individual is a good example with ethics and morals. Reality underneath beneath the surface is poisonous.
Really adab, akhlaq and mannerisms come from the heart. Anyone can put up, what I call a "customer service" persona/projection.
@@ertugrulbae46 I totally agree with that. My stance is about the outside appearance and I made it clear. I know liberals are wretched scums
Interestingly enough, he mentions in the debate that "let's let the people of other faiths define their religion" when he was referring to the whole "Messiah/God and Christians" topic...
Yet he doesn't afford Muslims that very same honor and respect? He feels the need that modernists, orientalists,and liberal, secular "PhDs" have to define our MILLENNIA old religion for us?
He wants to deny the right of Islam to tell people the nature of reality whilst saying he is inclusive and pluarlistic?
MashaaAllah, the hypocrisy and irony just writes itself folks.
Wa alikom al salaam.
Watched it. Excellent work.
This debate made me want to bang my head against the wall. This is the problem with Phd's, they don't understand that their expertise in a specific subject, has no bearing, or association with the reality of the whole subject. Case in point, Hashimi kept pointing out the textual evidence that scholars found disputing the shahada. Ok.., in the time of the sahahab, it was oral transmission that was prized higher and considered better for preserving or transmitting knowledge. Yet, we are supposed to take that as the gold standard, after more than a 1000 years? What?! Pure nonsense, I do not have the patience to debate such stupidity. May Allah reward Dr. Shadee for his patience.
ISLAM has NOTHING to do with PERENNIALISM.
My comment to someone from Javad's vid: No one is making the argument that belonging to some sort of "saved-sect" is the answer to all of life's questions.
This is actually a common trope and a misconception presented particularly by those who have an attraction to thinking that is in tandem with perennialism.
This would be particularly by those who are repelled by, what they deem to be, modern exclusivism and fundamentalism.
This attraction is in the idea that somehow all religions are pointing to a transcendence, a core, some shared universality if you will.
This is cute and all, to the new-age goons who want to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya," even though it has no grounding in reality.
The difficulty in such a notion is that religions are naturally mutually exclusive in some of their fundamental truth claims.
Buddhists and Christians cannot BOTH be right, Christians have a personal God.
Islam and Judaism will assert that God is One, Unique, and that there is no internal differential in the Divine Nature.... whereas the Christian would say that to be INCORRECT, and that the Divine Nature is characterized by a Triune deity.
Christianity and Judaism cannot both be right.
.........Anyways I digress, and probably no one cares and no one is even reading this.
My closing remark would be to reiterate that Islam, since it's onset holds that it is the final and true religion as ordained by the last and final, holy Prophet of God.
One who is indeed God's true prophet to the world and this time....and that his way is an all embracing, inclusive, and diverse way. The Quran and the Prophet is at the heart of all scholars past and present, who have done their due-diligence.
Whether they were Sufis like Rumi and Ibn Arabi, all the way to any most recent extensions of the Islamic tradition, all hold these notions to be true and that Islam is the correct way...as is detailed in the Holy Quran.
Ibn Arabi even himself has sometimes harsh words to say about Christian doctrines, like the doctrine of the Trinity. He would have been the LAST person to say that all the metaphysics of the worlds religions are simultaneously true, he believed his system was right.
Period.
(Anything beneficial in my comment is from The Most High, and any mistakes are from myself wa alikom salam)
what i didnt understand was that Javad was arguing that the Torah and Gospel were fully intact scriptures, but if you apply the HCM that he loves so much to apply onto Islam onto the modern day Torah and Gospel, it certainly wouldn't say that the Torah as we have it today came to Musa (AS) 3400 years ago, but rather evolved over time. Same with the Gospel. Maybe Allah's teachings remain in places, who's to say, but we're told to not believe or disbelieve in these scriptures in the Hadith for this reason.
May Allah Almighty bless you Shaykh. Javad will not be able to see the truth even if it slapped him in the face. May Allah Almighty protect the Ummah from such individuals like Javad.
So Javed's argument essentially boils down to: "It is ok to recognize the prophet Mohammed and still be jewish /christian"
Imagine God telling you "the scriptures have been corrupted, here is my final messenger, follow him"
and your reply is "no thanks God, I'm good, what I have right here is enough to please you"
what unbelievable arrogance.
You did a fantastic job. Allahu Akbar
Shaykh I think you need to give a talk about the general validity of Hadith, i.e. how did Muslims record the sayings of rasulAllah ﷺ, why did Muslims record the sayings of rasulAllah ﷺ, the formation of the Hadith corpus, and arguments that Hadith rejectors use
So many issues brought about by liberal/secularist Muslims come down to Hadith rejection
Alhamdulillah
I don't have a dog in the race, it's a new subject to me. The main take away I got from it was that the traditionalist has one talking point to hold up and the modernist had a ton of scripture that wasn't addressed or answered. It would have made a better case to bystanders to counter his scriptural references during the actual debate.
How was that topic even a debate? Ikhlas and the Shahada clarify everything ._.
U should have converted ur powerpoint to pdf and then it works fine everywhere
Did the PowerPoint take the Shahadah? He should've converted the PowerPoint to Islam.
❤️❤️❤️🌹🌹🌹
22:09
Assalamu’alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh
السَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَةُ اللهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ
Oh my days, I missed it.
Where can it be found? If it's on video.
ua-cam.com/video/ITyI2hSIeIY/v-deo.html
There’s the link^
@@somalipirate20 Awesome thanks habibi. Jzk.
@@snakejuce Dr Shadee is great .. hope to meet him someday
for those that are wondering
this is the debate :
ua-cam.com/users/liveHsjsUz-uz_8?feature=share
thanks.
too many NFL reference.... good thing i used to play 2K5
The neutral ones neither from your part nor his party...subhanallah...The enemy plots and plans. But Allah also plots and plans. Even in his own debate speech..he uses the ayah of quran. Means the public was exposed to it and the ayah moved them. A seed was planted in them. A light came to them...some sort of tajali or manifestation dressed them. And if they follow this light..they'll be guided to the right way. Allah can even use the enemies to help islam and Muslims.
The least he did, was expose the masses to quran.
Its ironic Javad really shot himself in the foot on the "Christ isn't the Christian God" claim because understanding the messianic views of Jews and Christians destroys his defense for them in the Qur'an. The entire essence of the Qur'an is that it argues Muhammad is the final prophet prophecized by Jews and Christians to usher in the messianic age. It tells them to study their own scripture to learn this but I doubt Javad has. Jews and Christians acknowledge the God of Abraham but CAN NOT follow Allah if they are still waiting for prophets i.e. rejecting Muhammad. Javad says some People of the Book accepted Muhammad as a prophet. Thats nonsense because both groups are waiting for their final prophet. To acceot Muhammad as a prophet = becoming a Muslim and admitting their religions are completed by Islam.
At the 27 minute mark you misquoted Surah 5:72.
You said the verse says, those who say the Messiah is God; but it says, “those who say God is the Messiah”.
Perhaps, listen to the lecture by Dr. Klaus von Stosch, so you can understand what the argument is:
ua-cam.com/video/flvLH6BkaNo/v-deo.html
What kind of crap are you spouting??? You're basically saying 1+2 is =3 but 2+1 isn't = 3? The definition of Christian Messiah in the Bible literally says: Matthew 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
Man didn't even read the Bible and get the actual definitions of their beliefs. Get your head out of your backside and stop defending Kafir Murtads like Javad.
@@idebates7752 What has misquoting a Quranic ayah got to do with 1:1 equals 2.
I’m not defending Dr Jawad, who also, in my view misinterpreted a verse. I’m interested in defending the Quran.
Maybe, if you didn’t have you head so high up you will be able to see.
Stop following people blindly and only give blind allegiance to God and His Messenger (s). Accept, that even Shiekhs that we love can be wrong sometimes.
@@Nazam44 well said 👏🏼
Why do you hate lattes?